It may be a bit harsh but the point is, they'd experience extreme lack of food and other necessities if the Indian central government was defeated due to low social cohesion and low existing economic development, which may lead to infighting.
China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread
- Thread starter peace_lover
- Start date
- Status
escobar
Brigadier
A counter force nuclear posture should be ideal...
Thanks for the tweets. This shows how AI is transforming satellite imagery. Maybe in 5 years the algorithms and the tech would have progressed so much that they could start doing that thing on smaller targets such as missiles, drones, ground missile launchers, tanks, trucks etc
It is a revolution in this field and as such China needs to update its nuclear (and conventional) weaponry, which is already doing
The technology is already ready.
There isn't that much difference in size between fighter aircraft, missiles and vehicles.
All you need are higher resolution pictures taken from closer to the ground.
It's why I've said the next step for for China is tactical information superiority on a Taiwan scenario - comprising small drones able to locate individual soldiers and vehicles hidden on the battlefield.
Anyway, back on topic
escobar
Brigadier
Years ago we know about CN space based system to automatically detect the "19 big ships"
Hendrik_2000
Lieutenant General
What prevent China from making thousand of fake military target? In WWII the allies create dummy military sector, division complete with armor etc . It is BS for sure
Planning of warheads numbers need to make some really conservative assumptions on adversary BMD, failure rate, first strike losses and so on.
Even 100 MT sized warheads landing around the US is enough to end the country. Imagine your top 100 cities and urban areas gone, fallout everywhere, no healthcare, no emergency services, no work jobs productivity for foreseeable future. No safe food if you can find food, no water at all unless it is imported so coastal regions or border regions might fare better. Now double that and double it two more times and you approach 1000 warheads. Obviously this is planned out with some proper methods but I doubt more than 1000 warheads reserved just for the US is too few. I doubt China is aiming to go nuts with this stuff like the US and Russia have and build >3000 warheads.
Russian warheads have to cover North American, Europe, and China. US warheads just Russia and China. Chinese warheads must be numerous enough to cover US, Europe, and some parts of Russia (last priority for build up). Overall if 1000 reserved just for US, the total number would start approaching 2000 if we account for Europe, Australia, India. None of them have BMD in the league of US, China, and Russia. Japan is relatively small in size.
So long term goal would be similar size to US stockpile but depends on how necessary it is to keep reserves for Russia.
Stockpile should reflect US potentially performing first strike. China needs to improve delivery and early warning with several layers of redundancy. Numbers are being corrected and so is delivery with new 096 being constructed, DF-41, JL-3, upgraded DF-5 and HGVs. Since older generation of Chinese early warning is long phased out, there is no known new land based early warning of considerable size. Just mobile radar units of much smaller capacities and Type 346 variants at sea. That's not enough since it doesn't cover the northern approach through Russia.
There might be some space based early warning since China's been launching dozens of secretive military satellites for decades now. Still would like to see some giant mountain face phased arrays like China had in the past.
Even 100 MT sized warheads landing around the US is enough to end the country. Imagine your top 100 cities and urban areas gone, fallout everywhere, no healthcare, no emergency services, no work jobs productivity for foreseeable future. No safe food if you can find food, no water at all unless it is imported so coastal regions or border regions might fare better. Now double that and double it two more times and you approach 1000 warheads. Obviously this is planned out with some proper methods but I doubt more than 1000 warheads reserved just for the US is too few. I doubt China is aiming to go nuts with this stuff like the US and Russia have and build >3000 warheads.
Russian warheads have to cover North American, Europe, and China. US warheads just Russia and China. Chinese warheads must be numerous enough to cover US, Europe, and some parts of Russia (last priority for build up). Overall if 1000 reserved just for US, the total number would start approaching 2000 if we account for Europe, Australia, India. None of them have BMD in the league of US, China, and Russia. Japan is relatively small in size.
So long term goal would be similar size to US stockpile but depends on how necessary it is to keep reserves for Russia.
Stockpile should reflect US potentially performing first strike. China needs to improve delivery and early warning with several layers of redundancy. Numbers are being corrected and so is delivery with new 096 being constructed, DF-41, JL-3, upgraded DF-5 and HGVs. Since older generation of Chinese early warning is long phased out, there is no known new land based early warning of considerable size. Just mobile radar units of much smaller capacities and Type 346 variants at sea. That's not enough since it doesn't cover the northern approach through Russia.
There might be some space based early warning since China's been launching dozens of secretive military satellites for decades now. Still would like to see some giant mountain face phased arrays like China had in the past.
bajingan
Senior Member
Lol the author is delusional if he thinks that a bunch of NPT signed countries is able or even willing to pressure China to abandon nuclear weapons expansion, there is no room for negotiation unless somehow strategic parity is reached with the us and russia
Then China can negotiate arms control as an equal, any less than that then its qing dynasty unequal treaties all over again
I guess once the Chinese arsenal reached 1550 nukes sometimes in the 2030s, then there could be a chance for a US-CHINA-RUSSIA trilateral START III treaty to cut down to 1000 or less. I can also see reductions in all three countries regarding silo-based launch-on-warning ICBMs since these ones are the most dangerous due to their "use it or lose it" nature. However, China and Russia may not agree to any cuts in land-based mobile ICBMs because they are Beijing and Moscow's trump cards. Nor will Washington agree to cuts on the Columbia Class and Trident D5s because SLBMs are Washington's trump card. Also, bomber-based nukes are easy to cut down since bombers are slow and inefficient compared to ICBMs and SLBMs. By the time bombers (assuming they were not destroyed by initial ICBM exchanges or intercepted by SAMs and enemy fighters) are in positions to launch their ALCMs, civilizations have already been smoked.
- Status