@Panda Express Brother an advise whether Japan, SK and even TW wishes to have a nuclear weapon, the question should be asked if they can handle the consequences it brings, a few nuclear weapon you're a target! a bigger arsenal you will be bankrupted. Even if the Americans allow it they will have control, so again the question why would you allow yourself to the targeted. I may not be a policy maker but as a citizen WAR IS NOT AN OPTION, especially if it not threaten my country interest.
China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread
- Thread starter peace_lover
- Start date
- Status
I don't think China would care about Japanese and South Korean nukes at all unless they field thousands of them or give the US control of their arsenal. China already borders 4 nuclear states. Despite everything, China has no reason to go to war with South Korea or Japan. That is unlikely.
But Taiwanese nukes are a completely different matter. It is one of the official redlines. I think China would launch an invasion at the first credible glimpse of Taiwanese WMD proliferation.
But I think the US wouldn't want nukes in Japan or South Korea and historically it really didn't.
Unless Japan feels unsafe with America’s Nuclear umbrella and have huge amount of money to spend. Would the hypothetical use of nukes by these Allies require US permission? I doubt US would not want to be in control of the situation.
Also Please stop lying, Victor Gao mentioned Australia being targeted by nuclear weapons. It does not mean a first strike never did he say China would strike first with nuclear weapons. Australians have not committed to intervention in Taiwan. They do what they are told by the US, if US doesn’t intervene they won’t either.
If even the US is unwilling to start a nuclear war with China over Taiwan you think this hypothetical nuclear Japan, Australia or Korea will? If there is going to be a nuclear war anyways it won’t take much to destroy these Allies, whether it is the US or it’s Allies that posses the nukes it won’t matter much.
Also US can forget about the START treaty if there is serious movements toward nuclear arms race.
Last edited:
manqiangrexue
Brigadier
No, the response is there. Technology only proliferates; it does not regress. The number of nuclear countries only grows. This does not change the calculus that nobody wants to go to nuclear war with China or anyone else. There is no feasible way to overcome it because it is not a problem to be overcome. One can only make oneself stronger, not others weaker. China can improve its detection and interception technologies as well as the destructiveness of its own nukes but other than that, not much is possible.
Then forgo the ultimatum and strike it directly destroying its nukes before talking. It's not a big place and Chinese spies should have any easy time finding out where they are. Aside from this, once the ROC realizes that no country will come to its aid, China can still issue the ultimatum, nukes or not, because while the ROC may at best get a few shots at the PRC, the PRC can guarantee annihilation and still holds the upper hand in negotiating.
Quite frankly, this whole conversation about all of Asia getting nukes is fanciful and a waste of time as things are now. When one Asian adversary to China seriously gets close, that would be the time when this conversation has a little meaning.
It is not impossible, but it is very improbable to such a degree that it is difficult to entertain such an action occurring without being discovered by strategic intelligence services providing forewarning -- and this is all not considering whether the US would find it in their geopolitical interest to proliferate nuclear weapons to those nations you described.
As for recent US actions -- so far they have certainly been toeing the red line, however they have yet to be definitively crossed.
The presence of US troops on Taiwan in a training and advisory role has long been an open secret, and the involvement of US politicians on Taiwan are similarly publicly exaggerated but materially and politically minor.
I understand your desire to ask questions in a manner that can speculate about what XYZ nation can choose to do, and how ABC nation might respond, and in terms of geopolitical and military discussion, I understand that a degree of speculation has to be entertained.
But what you are raising is a significant, arguably seismic, globe tilting degree of secret strategic long term moves in a counterfactual manner that cannot really be adequately answered by people here, and the degree of speculation is magnitudes greater than what is entertained, not least because your questions will lead to a whole variety of counterfactual responses by others, leading to a result of criss-crossing arguments without mutually recognizable foundations for discussion.
Perhaps if in the future such a circumstance emerges, then some discussion like this can be constructively held, but at this stage it is impossible to hold in a realistic manner.
I will not intervene in a moderator fashion yet, but you and others should be advised to wrap things up shortly, and to avoid becoming too excessively speculative.
Remember this is a thread about Chinese ballistic missile and nuclear forces.
Then why don't they??
Have you considered that China spends less on military than Taiwan, and South Korea? The fact is China spends next to nothing on its military compared to many other big spenders. The reason why Taiwan and Japan do not pursue militarisation to the level you're hoping is because if they did, China would simply follow suit.
Since you're clearly new to military affairs and relatively ignorant, I'll explain how this works.
Group A understands how much its "adversary" Group B spends on militarisation. Group B understands how much Group A spends. They both have an unspoken "status quo" with regards to militarisation. Whenever either starts spending more, the response is an increase - arms race.
If Japan militarises, it would be the best thing ever for us here since that's exactly what we want to see. China actually militarising. Right now, China is not even trying at all and this is the level of progress we're seeing. Imagine if they actually wanted to militarise. China would overtake the US overall military capability within 10 years. This is my opinion but one I am extremely confident in. Why? Because I know what Chinese are capable of and it is beyond what even China bulls think. Trust me, China would need no time at all to dominate if they truly saw a need in it. But Chinese leaders know the more they spend on military, the more it invites negative attention and the more it loses out on in developing its people and nation - more important than having military power beyond a certain point of diminishing returns. China wants a military that is absolutely capable of deterring US from military action and any point beyond that yields diminishing returns at the opportunity cost of further development.
Now guess why despite having a ultra right wing government for 20 off years, Japan dares not militarise? Answer (I'll give it to you since you are clearly a newbie to geopol and military) is because Japan is deathly afraid of opening Pandora's box and giving China a reason to militarise and eventually use military. It does not want China to actually start militarising to a point where China's main tool in its toolbox is its ridiculously overpowered military. In such a scenario, China may not stop at simply eroding Japanese influence in the region and actually consider military action on Japan. China is currently 2 Japans and on the path to becoming 10 Japans.
Now is it wise for Japan to pursue an arms race? Which side does an arms race truly benefit?
Now do you know why Japan doesn't and hasn't militarised in the last 20 years despite having the technical abilities and political will to do so?
As for nukes, well China already has between 300 and 1000 high yield warheads and launches hundreds of ballistic missiles for training every year. China is not only at a much higher starting position wrt nukes but also accelerating at a pace Japan cannot hope to even try and match even if the political choice is made for that. It's basic maths.
Well any nation that gets nukes or military nuclear tech such as SSN is automatically a nuclear target if it uses nuclear weapons on another nation? Perhaps you didn't know but this is how it has worked since the 1960s across the world.
Example.
If Iran developed and built a SSN and armed that with conventional weapons only but used that SSN to launch conventional attacks on the US, the US may be justified in responding with nuclear weapons. Why? Because nuclear technology is involved in a military conflict.
China state mouthpieces indeed hinted that Australia pursuing nuclear weapons technologies (which an SSN is) would of course invite like with like responses. This like response may not be limited to Chinese SSN using conventional weapons. That's not how any of this works.
You should read my statement carefully. This is what was written.
"At the moment, in the hypothetical of PRC reunifying militarily with Taiwan, no one is getting nuked or launching nukes BUT if Japan is dumb enough to pursue that program, Japan is not only getting attacked and invaded but nuked, many, many times by China."
Again this is in the case of Japan developing and fielding nukes. If China doesn't actively stop that from happening in the first place, a nuclear armed Japan could only expect to be potentially targeted by Chinese nukes IF a war breaks out between the two. If Japan doesn't have nukes, they certainly would not be nuked. If they had nukes, it's not impossible for China to consider a first strike. The difference between those situations is really Japan having nukes = potentially being nuked vs Japan not having nukes = Japan not being nuked. Very simple stuff.
For more than a year now? Well no. They've been doing this since PRC began. It's just that Taiwan tensions have gone up a lot since DPP tried forcing hands from both US and PRC with increased flirting with declaring independence through tactics that blur the line. This has resulted in increased attention from all three parties and increased action and media focus.
Your idea that US would encourage Taiwan and Japan to develop and field nukes is absolutely right. It is and would be what US desires. You simply forgot to think about the calculus in Japan and Taiwan, both their civilians and their leadership. Japanese civilians and leaders do not want to become potential nuclear targets for no reason. They have zero risk of being nuked by China if they don't field nukes. They have non-zero risk of being nuked by China if they develop nukes. Surely you can comprehend this simple concept. This is why Japan will not field nukes.
In fact Japan fielding nukes is so impossible that Japan hasn't even discussed militarising yet amongst itself! The escalation ladder in that regard goes like this.
Level 1. Japanese leaders consider militarising Japan
Level 2. Japanese citizens decide whether it is appropriate to militarise Japan
Level 3. The decision is made to militarise Japan
Level 4. Japanese leaders consider developing and fielding nukes
Level 5. Japanese citizens decide whether it is appropriate to have a nuclear armed Japan (hence being a nuclear target by the world's second most militarily powerful nation which happens to be next door and one soon to have over a thousand nuclear warheads).
Level 6. The decision is made to have a nuclear armed Japan
Level 7. Nuclear buildup.
At the moment we are at Level 0... while Japan already has a deeply right wing and anti-China government for the last 20 odd years and depending how to define it, anti-China governments for the last 70 odd years.
So why have they never left Level 0? Honestly ask yourself.
Could it be because they know they are not only militarily WELL behind China now but also that they have no hope of out-accelerating China while China is only running at 30% potential and Japan running at 90% potential? They know if they militarise and go at 100%, China could simply run at 50% and dominate even further.
The nuclear analogy is like this. China is the group in a gun store with 5 machine gun armed guys with their weapons hovering around Japan, 2 guys armed with some child proof scissors. And you are saying these two guys could and should start very slowly and obvious go reaching for some pump action shotguns and load those weapons all the while shouting loudly about a desire to kill the 5 guys. Not very smart is it even if they are encouraged to.
Japanese leaders and people are not perfectly willing to become nuclear targets for no reason at all.
Here you have not even considered the big picture.
Why would Japan go from a state of being totally sure it will not be nuked by China to a state where it is considering how to perform second strike on China while the entirety of Japan has become uninhabitable. Do you think Japanese leaders, civilians, and political structure would allow Japan to go from state 1 to state 2?
Again, all you're thinking about is from purely and only the American perspective. You have not even considered the fact that it is utterly and absolutely 100% impossible for Japan's government, civilians, and political structure to allow the country to go from 100% safe from being nuked by China, to potentially being nuked by China in a first strike or get annihilated by China in a Chinese second strike if Japan OR the US fire nukes first. All that and Japan only being able to perform a very limited second strike which Chinese BMD (proliferating like crazy since 2000s) can easily take care of all Japanese ballistic missile attacks on China.
Until Japan develops and fields many hundreds if not thousands of HGV delivered high yield nukes, it has very little, in fact no capability to perform any secondary strike that would truly cripple China. By that time, China would have thousands of high yield warheads (in an environment of intense militarisation and nuclear build up everywhere) and even more advanced delivery weapons not to mention ability to intercept HGVs which China is already testing as we speak.
China is a marathon runner that averages 10km/hour sustained over longer distance than all other runners. Japan is a sprinter with top speed 10km/hour and average speed 2km/hour sustained over a shorter distance. China is 5km ahead of Japan in a 20km race. Is it wise for Japan to openly declare it wants to catch up to China and challenge its position while China is running at a very leisurely speed that is not even a fraction of what it is capable of? Or is it better for Japan to develop good relations if whoever reaches that line first gets to destroy the other?? How moronic to even entertain the idea in public - hence why Japan doesn't.
We can be sure that the moment Japan publicly and officially talked about developing nuclear weapons, that would be the moment China goes from spending around 1.5% to 2% of GDP (as estimated by western organisations that are hyping up China's spending) to spending 3% or more. This would be nightmare fuel for the USA which is running on fumes and at peak possible performance.
All this stuff I've heard from Indian morons.
Indians have always been chattering stupidly about arming Vietnam and Philippines with India small nukes (only nukes India has been able to make).
They have all failed to ask the question why the Indian gov doesn't and why Vietnam and Philippines won't even listen or consider the idea. It is pompous stupidity on the usual anti-China level - children/ underdeveloped adults or emotionally charged low IQs.
Answer:
Vietnam and Philippines buying Indian KT yield nukes and extremely low reliability delivery systems that india itself has only a handful of, would only paint nuclear crosshairs on their countries where there previously were no nuclear crosshairs. So why would they do that?
India transferring nukes in such a fashion would be like China transferring nukes to certain Kashmiris, giving Pakistan HGV technology (for Pakistan to finance and build themselves) and megaton yield nuclear warhead tech (or Chinese third gen warhead technology) free of charge, and giving dirty bombs to every single Indian separatist group.
Harebrained ideas guys. I can't believe we're talking about India forum level discussion points where even great chauvinists see through and debunk easily.
Indians have always been chattering stupidly about arming Vietnam and Philippines with India small nukes (only nukes India has been able to make).
They have all failed to ask the question why the Indian gov doesn't and why Vietnam and Philippines won't even listen or consider the idea. It is pompous stupidity on the usual anti-China level - children/ underdeveloped adults or emotionally charged low IQs.
Answer:
Vietnam and Philippines buying Indian KT yield nukes and extremely low reliability delivery systems that india itself has only a handful of, would only paint nuclear crosshairs on their countries where there previously were no nuclear crosshairs. So why would they do that?
India transferring nukes in such a fashion would be like China transferring nukes to certain Kashmiris, giving Pakistan HGV technology (for Pakistan to finance and build themselves) and megaton yield nuclear warhead tech (or Chinese third gen warhead technology) free of charge, and giving dirty bombs to every single Indian separatist group.
Harebrained ideas guys. I can't believe we're talking about India forum level discussion points where even great chauvinists see through and debunk easily.
OK, I'll try to wind this down and not speculate further, I did not intend to derail this forum thread. I wanted to raise questions to this forum because I really do think it is more likely than not that this scenario occurs in the next ten years. Unfortunately I have not seen any definitive answers from the forum members here like I was hoping for, or any creative strategies China could pursue to mitigate potential risks or deal with them as they arise. Everyone seems to jump to first strikes or MAD scenarios as a response, which is unsettling in my opinion. The inability of forum members here to propose solutions to this potential threat validates my fear that the scenario I described in my posts (US proliferating to allies) is indeed a no-win scenario for both China and the world as a whole, which is why it is frightening and offensive to talk about.
This only works if the nukes are on Taiwan or any of the territories under control by Taiwan. If Taiwan had SSBNs in the deep pacific, or even fast attack subs with nuclear tomahawks or equivalent, it would mean that China has no reliable way to prevent a retaliatory strike (except air defense, which is risky when nukes are involved). This concept has been the basis of deterrence for both the US and USSR/Russia for half a century. Unless China can manage a synchronized, simultaneous strike to eliminate all nuclear threats in the region, those threats act as a strong deterrent to China using force to reunify Taiwan. It may very well be the preferred strategy by the US to engage in nuclear brinkmanship when the US and its allies realize their conventional forces cannot defeat the PLA, especially as the PLA continues to grow more powerful in both conventional and nuclear forces. Such a strategy by the US would mirror exactly what the US did to the USSR half a century ago; they realized they could never defeat the red army in conventional warfare, so they went all in on nuclear deterrence in Europe. Being the fossilized remains of cold war ideology, Biden may set the US and its allies on this same course in Asia.
The DF-15 and similar ballistic missiles that the PLARF currently has would take about 5 minutes from Fujian to Taiwan. I believe that PLAN sub launched cruise missiles off the coast of Taiwan could hit any part of Taiwan in less than 3 minutes. This is too fast to be reliably countered by a launch on warning posture in Taiwan, unless the button pushers are free to fire without obtaining explicit permission by the chain of command. As such, Taiwan can never have a survivable land based deterrent.
So you think Japan and Taiwan, being the geographic size they are, want to go from a war situation where it is only conventional to a war situation where China is forced to use their (soon to be) thousands of advanced nukes and delivery systems while Japan and Taiwan use their newly acquired three or four newly developed nuclear warheads?
Do you honestly not see the pure stupidity behind this?
I mean the evidence and proof is already there and has been for at least 10 years. Japan and Taiwan both have the technological ability to develop and field nukes if they desired many decades ago. The general political situation has not changed. China hasn't threatened to use nukes on anyone and China won't use nukes unless attacked. Japan and Taiwan would only go down that path if and only if China publicly threatens to use nukes on either. That's when it begins to make sense to bring themselves from state 1 to state 2. The problem is China doesn't want to use nukes in war and also happens to not need to use nukes at all if it is somehow at war with Japan or Taiwan. China could easily conventionally take Taiwan with or without US interference (although potential escalation to who knows what level in that case). China could also very easily conventionally defeat Japan BUT Japan is under US mutual protection treaty and nuclear umbrella. Meaning China would not consider nuclear war even if China removes no first use policy and considers the option for half a second before realising Japan is under US nuclear protection. Conventional war makes no sense for China even if no US interference against a conventional Chinese invasion of Japan... why? because why on earth would China do that? What has it to gain? How could China possibly hold onto Japan even if it conventionally defeated Japanese military. It could be like US occupation of ten Afghanistans if Afghanistan was industrially and technologically on the level of Japan.
- Status