China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread

[AssassinsMace]

I have no idea what you are talking about now.
You are constantly changing premises, and I don't know what you are saying now.

Well I don't really understand why you replied in the first place unless like everyone else assuming this is for only the US so why would China use it conventionally? But the US is not the only country out there. Plenty of countries that don't have nukes that this could be used against for quick responses.

 

[Blitzo]

Well I don't really understand why you replied in the first place unless like everyone else assuming this is for only the US so why would China use it conventionally? But the US is not the only country out there. Plenty of countries that don't have nukes that this could be used against for quick responses.

So, my reply was to point out that the primary benefit of an ICBM ranged HGV versus an ICBM, is that HGVs are more difficult to intercept than ICBMs, meaning the reason you develop ICBM ranged HGVs is against enemies who have the capability to intercept ICBMs in the first place.

There are only 1 or 2 nations in the world that have the ability to intercept ICBMs.
That is why I am saying that the overwhelmingly most likely role of an ICBM ranged HGV like what China is said to have tested, is against high capability/high technology nations, namely the US, in which case if China were ever to use ICBM ranged HGVs (or indeed ICBMs) against the US in the first place, the primary payload of relevance would be nuclear.


I never said that ICBM ranged HGVs cannot be used with conventional warheads or against nations other than the US -- just that such a role is so much lower in priority and so much less important than its strategic nuclear role against nations like the US.

 

[enroger]

So, my reply was to point out that the primary benefit of an ICBM ranged HGV versus an ICBM, is that HGVs are more difficult to intercept than ICBMs, meaning the reason you develop ICBM ranged HGVs is against enemies who have the capability to intercept ICBMs in the first place.

There are only 1 or 2 nations in the world that have the ability to intercept ICBMs.
That is why I am saying that the overwhelmingly most likely role of an ICBM ranged HGV like what China is said to have tested, is against high capability/high technology nations, namely the US, in which case if China were ever to use ICBM ranged HGVs (or indeed ICBMs) against the US in the first place, the primary payload of relevance would be nuclear.


I never said that ICBM ranged HGVs cannot be used with conventional warheads or against nations other than the US -- just that such a role is so much lower in priority and so much less important than its strategic nuclear role against nations like the US.

I'm not so sure if those IC-HGV is necessarily absolutely nuclear. If the US sees a single ICBM launch will they immediately assume it is nuclear and start a full scale retaliation or will they wait and see? There is still a bit ambiguity here. And if China publicly adopt global prompt strike as a possible mean of attack? Furthermore if China continues to expand her nuclear arsenal, all this will make conventional ICBM strike system more viable against the US.

It is a given that current US ABM cannot intercept mass ICBM attack, but they are capable of stopping a small scale attack (a few dozen warheads or so?). There is not so much incentive to further improve penetration of nuclear MIRV because most of them will go through anyway. However a global prompt strike type of system will need to have the best penetration possible because those are supposed to be launched one at a time to stay below MAD response threshold.

There are good reasons China might want such a system, for example if China sink a bunch of US ships in the war and US decide to strike Chinese cities in escalation. China does not have reciprocal escalation against that unless they have operational H-20, they need a conventional strike system that can reach the US.

 

[escobar]

Well it's still FOBS + HGV as we guessed earlier, it's just the HGV part of it has really really long range.

The FOBS part may not be the intention, it's probably more in order for the HGV to achieve it's super long guide range it needs to re-enter at full orbital velocity and not just suborbital, so it just happens to make the launcher into a FOBS.

Exacty what I said here.

I don't think CN will deploy a HGV FOBS. They tested this intercontinental range HGV in FOBS condition because testing in a normal ICBM scenario would require launch and impact sites >10000km apart, which PRC does not possess. They used a fractional orbit so they could test the HGV at full range with large lateral maneuver and recuperate it. PLA want to have a means of threatening the CONUS w/conv weapon but how to get the accuracy needed for conventional weapons at orbital reentry speeds? Maybe a benefit of it being an HGV is it slows enough it can start to see where it's going?

 

[escobar]

I'm not so sure if those IC-HGV is necessarily absolutely nuclear. If the US sees a single ICBM launch will they immediately assume it is nuclear and start a full scale retaliation or will they wait and see? There is still a bit ambiguity here.

Well, US current policy is launch under attack/launch on impact not launch on warning (LOW). So they will probably wait and see....

 

[Xizor]

Btw, if it is a Long March test that launched this then which rocket likely sent it?

I wonder about the size of the payload. It'd be very big.

 

[ZeEa5KPul]

If the US sees a single ICBM launch will they immediately assume it is nuclear and start a full scale retaliation or will they wait and see?

Depends on China's nuclear weapons capacity at the time it launches such an attack. If it's comparable to America's then America can't afford but to wait and see. Launching an overwhelming response to a limited attack means it will be destroyed in turn.

It is a given that current US ABM cannot intercept mass ICBM attack, but they are capable of stopping a small scale attack (a few dozen warheads or so?).

Yes, and that's why this HGV is so useful: It gives China granularity in choosing its attacks. While it's true that an overwhelming nuclear strike can defeat ABM, one might want to employ more limited strikes which an ABM would stop. In fact, one of the most useful targets of such a strike would be the large ABM radars themselves.

I'm not so sure if those IC-HGV is necessarily absolutely nuclear.

they need a conventional strike system that can reach the US.

People have a conventional/nuclear distinction based purely on physics which I've come to believe is deeply misleading. Conventional explosives have yields measured in tons of TNT, while typical modern nuclear warheads have yields in the hundreds of thousands of tons. As you can see, there's a vast empty space between them (5 orders of magnitude). Why not have a very accurate warhead with a yield of hundreds or low thousands of tons?

Low yield, "tactical" nuclear warheads I believe are the most suitable payload for this weapon. Which is why I call it Prompt Global Strike with Chinese Characteristics - it's those "Chinese characteristics" that give it that extra oomph. An intercontinental HGV with a ~1kt warhead and a CEP of ~10m would be a very useful deterrent against any attacks on the Chinese homeland.

 

[enroger]

Depends on China's nuclear weapons capacity at the time it launches such an attack. If it's comparable to America's then America can't afford but to wait and see. Launching an overwhelming response to a limited attack means it will be destroyed in turn.

Yes, and that's why this HGV is so useful: It gives China granularity in choosing its attacks. While it's true that an overwhelming nuclear strike can defeat ABM, one might want to employ more limited strikes which an ABM would stop. In fact, one of the most useful targets of such a strike would be the large ABM radars themselves.


People have a conventional/nuclear distinction based purely on physics which I've come to believe is deeply misleading. Conventional explosives have yields measured in tons of TNT, while typical modern nuclear warheads have yields in the hundreds of thousands of tons. As you can see, there's a vast empty space between them (5 orders of magnitude). Why not have a very accurate warhead with a yield of hundreds or low thousands of tons?

Low yield, "tactical" nuclear warheads I believe are the most suitable payload for this weapon. Which is why I call it Prompt Global Strike with Chinese Characteristics - it's those "Chinese characteristics" that give it that extra oomph. An intercontinental HGV with a ~1kt warhead and a CEP of ~10m would be a very useful deterrent against any attacks on the Chinese homeland.

Yeah we are mostly in agreement on all points... but damn son, I thought we are flirting with MAD already with conventional ICBM strikes, you want to add tactical nukes on top of that?!

 

[ZeEa5KPul]

Yeah we are mostly in agreement on all points... but damn son, I thought we are flirting with MAD already with conventional ICBM strikes, you want to add tactical nukes on top of that?!

This is what I'm talking about when I say people have a knee-jerk reaction to the word "nuclear". Conventional/nuclear is not a helpful distinction. The scale of devastation of a ~1kt explosive is comparable to the Beirut Explosion. Do you know how many people died in the Beirut Explosion? 218. Compare that with how many people would die in a purely conventional strike that destroyed the Three Gorges Dam.

For the record, in my view tactical nuclear weapons in IC-HGVs would ultimately serve the same purpose as MIRVed ICBMs with 6x ~650kt warheads: deterrence. The ICBMs with megatons of yield apiece deter massive nuclear attacks, while the low-yield HGVs deter conventional attacks. The intent is to keep war between the US and China confined to a naval conflict, with the only permissible strikes on island holdings in the Pacific.

 

[enroger]

This is what I'm talking about when I say people have a knee-jerk reaction to the word "nuclear". Conventional/nuclear is not a helpful distinction. The scale of devastation of a ~1kt explosive is comparable to the Beirut Explosion. Do you know how many people died in the Beirut Explosion? 218. Compare that with how many people would die in a purely conventional strike that destroyed the Three Gorges Dam.

For the record, in my view tactical nuclear weapons in IC-HGVs would ultimately serve the same purpose as MIRVed ICBMs with 6x ~650kt warheads: deterrence. The ICBMs with megatons of yield apiece deter massive nuclear attacks, while the low-yield HGVs deter conventional attacks. The intent is to keep war between the US and China confined to a naval conflict, with the only permissible strikes on island holdings in the Pacific.

I can agree that tactical nukes are nice to have, but there needs to be a clear escalation ladder, I'd put tactical nukes pretty high up on that ladder, like right before MAD, definitely not before all conventional options has been exhausted.