China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread
- Thread starter peace_lover
- Start date
- Status
I think people are overhyping/overthinking nuclear war a bit too much.
First of all China has multiple times stated the no first use policy, and while it's fair enough for people to doubt this claim, with a much smaller arsenal (currently 'only' 300) compared to the US and Russia I think it's fair to believe in it (and attack on the US would definitely cause retaliation that China wouldn't want, therefore why do it?).
On the other hand there's the fear/chance that the US might be the first to do a big first strike, but will they truly eliminate all chances of being hit back with chinese nuclear weapons? Basically no, not really.
AND there's the fact, what makes people think that Russia won't be throwing nuclear weapons at the US?
Because if the US did attack China first, do they think they can defend nuclear missiles from China? If so, why couldn't they defend ones from Russia? In which case, why not also nuke the hell out of Russia? Also what stops the US nuclear missiles from suddenly changing their trajectory and going for Russia?
And if Russia is gonna launch, is England and France not gonna launch as well? (because Russia would most likely also attack Europe) And in this case, France or England might just attack the US as well (could be because of the US starting it all).
In short, US launching a big nuclear first strike would 99.9% provoke an attack from Russia (not to mention, China is Russia biggest ally, with China down how long would Russia last? Wouldn't Russia fear that one day, the US got high enough tech to protect against russian nukes? Also a big nuclear wasteland it gonna be right besides Russia that will severely affect Russia along with the rest of the world).
First of all China has multiple times stated the no first use policy, and while it's fair enough for people to doubt this claim, with a much smaller arsenal (currently 'only' 300) compared to the US and Russia I think it's fair to believe in it (and attack on the US would definitely cause retaliation that China wouldn't want, therefore why do it?).
On the other hand there's the fear/chance that the US might be the first to do a big first strike, but will they truly eliminate all chances of being hit back with chinese nuclear weapons? Basically no, not really.
AND there's the fact, what makes people think that Russia won't be throwing nuclear weapons at the US?
Because if the US did attack China first, do they think they can defend nuclear missiles from China? If so, why couldn't they defend ones from Russia? In which case, why not also nuke the hell out of Russia? Also what stops the US nuclear missiles from suddenly changing their trajectory and going for Russia?
And if Russia is gonna launch, is England and France not gonna launch as well? (because Russia would most likely also attack Europe) And in this case, France or England might just attack the US as well (could be because of the US starting it all).
In short, US launching a big nuclear first strike would 99.9% provoke an attack from Russia (not to mention, China is Russia biggest ally, with China down how long would Russia last? Wouldn't Russia fear that one day, the US got high enough tech to protect against russian nukes? Also a big nuclear wasteland it gonna be right besides Russia that will severely affect Russia along with the rest of the world).
The entire statement is based on poor understanding of MAD. People has to understand one thing, MAD is in between two legitimate nation being nuclear armed fully aware of the fact a nuclear war can not be won, hence must not be fought. USA is first nation to drop nucealr bomb on non nuclear state and keeps looking for chance to do so.
To say USA will retaliate if China attacks first is massive exaggeration, a potential nuclear war is not simply a push of button. USA completely lacks national strength to sustain such a policy. MAD with USA is essentially a red line to state that, they do not interfere where they should not. A police force and a rebel group can not have MAD because both groups are armed.
China views Taiwan as a integral part of it's territory. USA interfering there will certainly means another world war. If bluff of USA first strike refrains China from taking Taiwan than entire Chinese national rejuvenation and modernization is meaningless.
In my personal opinion, USA never was and never will be able to fight a full scale nuclear war. Even if there was such first strike on USA in a hypothetical scenario by either Russia or China, USA will not do anything. But it brings the question what's the benefit in taking such risk when either nation can deter USA with simple demonstration. This is why i do not believe there can be a nuclear war scenario, But a nuclear war in opinion columns is different thing than actual one where USA will keep churning out articles about decisively they will act.
MAD is in it's basic sense is, i will die and i will take you with me. Who in USA, who have immigrated there to live their american dream is going to do it?
The above statement is my opinion and not endorsement of nucelar war, but a break down of scenarios to point out why it is highly unlikely given Russia or China's lack of interest and USA's inability to deal with such scenario where it's existence is at stake.
how do you know this? from what their media tells you? have you actually examined their claims against the evidence that they themselves claim or is available publically either in document form or as video that you can see with your own eyeballs?
Yes I do not have the full/correct number of nuclear warheads that China have, but from the various stuff I have read/seen (such as from this forum, news, videos etc.) the number is ESTIMATED to be around ~300, but this estimation might be too old (some stuff about China somewhat recently starting to build up some more).
With that said, I'm quite sure they will not go into the 1000+ territory, although would not be surprised if they say reached around 500-600 in the coming years and then stay at that number.
I agree, US, Russia and China is not looking to start any nuclear war.
I was mainly talking about the scenario of [US launching a nuclear first strike] (unlikely to happen, but what if), and in this scenario I believe that even if it was ONLY targeted against China, Russia would still also just launch their nukes (which goes back, and makes it even more unlikely for US to launch nukes).
But there is absolutely no reason for Russia to participate unless Russia is also attacked.
. It uses only munitions photographically counted... including mobile launchers that can park underground or in a structure.
That is, it assumes that for example, 16x DF-41 on parade in October 2019 and 2x more photographed at a parking lot, is definitively the entire inventory of DF-41. Is that a joke? 16x TELs or ~90% of the entire inventory of 18x DF-41s was at a parade? These TELs aren't cheap, they cost $10 million USD or so just for the truck (which has to have all-wheel drive and off road driving for 16x wheels, inertial navigation, satellite communications, etc), so it's highly unlikely they're just extra trucks for show.
Let's go through more stupid assumptions by the report (see Table 1):
It assumes that there's still 6x warheads on DF-4s, which is a obsolete liquid fueled IRBM deployed in 1975 with a number from 1980.
It assumes that there's still 20x dumb bombs dropped by H-6s, that is a number from 1965.
It assumes if the number is nonzero but unknown... it is precisely zero (DF-5C, DF-17).
It assumes 3x warhead per DF-41, but why? They can look inside? Consensus based on throw weight is 6-10x warheads each. Even they admit to 5x being possible so why pick 3x?
It should be regarded as, at best, a politically motivated bare minimum estimate.
Ah thanks for finding a report about it.
And yea, safe to say that the ~300ish number should be regarded as minimum (it was also mostly off of my head, cuz ~300 was something I was seeing quite frequently everywhere.).
With that said, I still don't think China would want something like the 1000+ that the US and Russia have (will cost a lot to maintain), but I would not be surprised if tensions rise and then China were to announce it has 500-600 nukes.
yall know Asia has the largest pool of nukes right? (pakistan+russia+china+north korea)
If China was under nuclear threat from US, do you think the rest will just sit down quietly and watch? USA will risk to have its Asia military bases decimated altogether as part of the counter/revenge from that pro-china circle.
All of this just to stop China reunify with Taiwan?
If China was under nuclear threat from US, do you think the rest will just sit down quietly and watch? USA will risk to have its Asia military bases decimated altogether as part of the counter/revenge from that pro-china circle.
All of this just to stop China reunify with Taiwan?
- Status