China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread

[Blitzo]

When the US was bragging about Prompt Global Strike, they warned nuclear adversaries could not assume it was nuclear... The US will assume it's a nuclear attack but who says they will be only used on the US? The US has plenty of other platforms to strike conventionally around the world. China doesn't. This would fill that gap.

An ICBM ranged HGV could certainly have a conventional role -- however, I believe its primary and initial application will be as nuclear delivery vehicle.

If the PLA wanted an ICBM ranged weapon that they wanted to be able to use against global targets in a rapid manner, against enemies that are not the US (and assuming they are thus not concerned about whether the US would interpret it as a nuclear launch or not -- which imo is a dubious assumption, but let's entertain it for the sake of discussion), then why don't they just use ICBMs as delivery vehicles for conventional warheads?
No need to develop hypersonic glide vehicles for that.


IMO, the reason why you develop HGVs is to pursue a weapons system that is more difficult to counter than traditional ballistic missiles (whether it's at SRBM, IRBM or ICBM ranges), and to seek a more varied means of delivering ordnance on target.
Against low technology/low capability enemies, they would generally lack any competent form of ballistic missile defense, so you can simply use ballistic missiles instead of HGVs.

In other words, I cannot see ICBM ranged HGVs being used against anyone but high capability foes at global ranges, and in such a case, I cannot see how such a weapon would not seek to overwhelmingly prioritize nuclear delivery as its primary mission.

 

[AssassinsMace]

An ICBM ranged HGV could certainly have a conventional role -- however, I believe its primary and initial application will be as nuclear delivery vehicle.

If the PLA wanted an ICBM ranged weapon that they wanted to be able to use against global targets in a rapid manner, against enemies that are not the US (and assuming they are thus not concerned about whether the US would interpret it as a nuclear launch or not -- which imo is a dubious assumption, but let's entertain it for the sake of discussion), then why don't they just use ICBMs as delivery vehicles for conventional warheads?
No need to develop hypersonic glide vehicles for that.


IMO, the reason why you develop HGVs is to pursue a weapons system that is more difficult to counter than traditional ballistic missiles (whether it's at SRBM, IRBM or ICBM ranges), and to seek a more varied means of delivering ordnance on target.
Against low technology/low capability enemies, they would generally lack any competent form of ballistic missile defense, so you can simply use ballistic missiles instead of HGVs.

In other words, I cannot see ICBM ranged HGVs being used against anyone but high capability foes at global ranges, and in such a case, I cannot see how such a weapon would not seek to overwhelmingly prioritize nuclear delivery as its primary mission.

The only major country not within range of China's ICBMs I believe is Brazil. Now one would think why would there be any beef between Brazil and China. But then you have right-wing Brazilians who are just envious of China as shown in the last election that brought Bolsonaro to power. China doing better than Brazil is not a crime but attacking China because of it would be a serious offense that the US would need to respond if it happened to them. If right-wingers were in power and they stormed the Chinese embassy and killed Chinese diplomats, a powerful message would be to destroy the Brazilian Presidential palace. No need for nukes. You only need one so it wouldn't look like an attack on the US. Besides it would be all over the news and the US wouldn't have to worry unless they were behind it. Of course China would probably not do that but that would be a perfect example of what this could be used for.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

The only major country not within range of China's ICBMs I believe is Brazil. Now one would think why would there be any beef between Brazil and China. But then you have right-wing Brazilians who are just envious of China as shown in the last election that brought Bolsonaro to power. China doing better than Brazil is not a crime but attacking China because of it would be a serious offense that the US would need to respond if it happened to them. If right-wingers were in power and they stormed the Chinese embassy and killed Chinese diplomats, a powerful message would be to destroy the Brazilian Presidential palace. No need for nukes. You only need one so it wouldn't look like an attack on the US. Besides it would be all over the news and the US wouldn't have to worry unless they were behind it. Of course China would probably not do that but that would be a perfect example of what this could be used for.

That sort of thing can be done far cheaper and at lower risk with a sub launching a volley of CJ-10s.

 

[AssassinsMace]

That sort of thing can be done far cheaper and at lower risk with a sub launching a volley of CJ-10s.

Does China have submarines in that area? That's why I said before the US can do that.

 

[Blitzo]

The only major country not within range of China's ICBMs I believe is Brazil. Now one would think why would there be any beef between Brazil and China. But then you have right-wing Brazilians who are just envious of China as shown in the last election that brought Bolsonaro to power. China doing better than Brazil is not a crime but attacking China because of it would be a serious offense that the US would need to respond if it happened to them. If right-wingers were in power and they stormed the Chinese embassy and killed Chinese diplomats, a powerful message would be to destroy the Brazilian Presidential palace. No need for nukes. You only need one so it wouldn't look like an attack on the US. Besides it would be all over the news and the US wouldn't have to worry unless they were behind it. Of course China would probably not do that but that would be a perfect example of what this could be used for.

I don't understand what you are talking about. A conventional global strike against Brazil's presidential palace due to them hypothetically storming the Chinese embassy?? Why respond with a military strike to begin with instead of any other variety of geopolitical levers? Heck, even if they wanted to launch a conventional global strike against XYZ nation for whatever hypothetical random reason, again, why would they need an HGV to do so instead of simply developing a global range ICBM rather than developing a much more complex ICBM ranged HGV???




... Look, my point is that if China is developing an ICBM ranged HGV, the most likely primary application for it is for the delivery of nuclear warheads, oriented towards high capability high technology opponents such as the US.

I think you are too focused on the "prompt global strike" capability and assuming that:
1. China is pursuing such a capability currently, and,
2. That an ICBM ranged HGV is necessary for a prompt global strike capability to begin with

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

Does China have submarines in that area? That's why I said before the US can do that.

Submarines can move and most countries have nonexistent ASW.

 

[AssassinsMace]

I don't understand what you are talking about. A conventional global strike against Brazil's presidential palace due to them hypothetically storming the Chinese embassy?? Why respond with a military strike to begin with instead of any other variety of geopolitical levers? Heck, even if they wanted to launch a conventional global strike against XYZ nation for whatever hypothetical random reason, again, why would they need an HGV to do so instead of simply developing a global range ICBM rather than developing a much more complex ICBM ranged HGV???




... Look, my point is that if China is developing an ICBM ranged HGV, the most likely primary application for it is for the delivery of nuclear warheads, oriented towards high capability high technology opponents such as the US.

I think you are too focused on the "prompt global strike" capability and assuming that:
1. China is pursuing such a capability currently, and,
2. That an ICBM ranged HGV is necessary for a prompt global strike capability to begin with

I'm just throwing out scenarios of what it can be used for. You said there's no non-nuclear use for this. There is because like I said before China doesn't have conventional platforms that can reach all over the world like the US does already without Prompt Global Strike. People just like to assume it's all about the US. It is exactly Prompt Global Strike as the US envisioned it. Plenty of countries around the world that want to impress the US by acting against China.

 

[AssassinsMace]

Submarines can move and most countries have nonexistent ASW.

How fast does a submarine take to get to the other side of the world? By that time the US will be sending it's navy to protect such countries.

 

[Blitzo]

I'm just throwing out scenarios of what it can be used for. You said there's no non-nuclear use for this. There is because like I said before China doesn't have conventional platforms that can reach all over the world like the US does already without Prompt Global Strike. People just like to assume it's all about the US. It is exactly Prompt Global Strike as the US envisioned it. Plenty of countries around the world that want to impress the US by acting against China.

No, what I wrote, was :
"In other words, I cannot see ICBM ranged HGVs being used against anyone but high capability foes at global ranges, and in such a case, I cannot see how such a weapon would not seek to overwhelmingly prioritize nuclear delivery as its primary mission."

In theory, yes, of course this weapon could have a conventional application. The possibility of such an application is above zero, yes.
But surely you must see that the most likely and most high priority, primary role of it would be as a nuclear delivery vehicle?


If China wanted the capability to conduct conventional global strikes against non-US targets, they do not need an ICBM ranged HGV.

 

[AssassinsMace]

No, what I wrote, was :
"In other words, I cannot see ICBM ranged HGVs being used against anyone but high capability foes at global ranges, and in such a case, I cannot see how such a weapon would not seek to overwhelmingly prioritize nuclear delivery as its primary mission."

In theory, yes, of course this weapon could have a conventional application. The possibility of such an application is above zero, yes.
But surely you must see that the most likely and most high priority, primary role of it would be as a nuclear delivery vehicle?


If China wanted the capability to conduct conventional global strikes against non-US targets, they do not need an ICBM ranged HGV.

All I did was report what I read that the hypersonic speed can do a lot of damage without the use of nukes and apparently China did have this vehicle strike at those speeds. They also say China doesn't need this weapon because US ABM wouldn't be able to intercept it so why would they have it strike at hypersonic speed unless they're also testing how much kinetic energy would be released.