escobar
Brigadier
Agree. I think this HGV is CN version of HTV-2, and it actually worked.
China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread
- Thread starter peace_lover
- Start date
- Status
This is the most exciting part for me, we knew there had to be some sort of exotic thermal management trick involved, if not this air skin cooling then something else. This is also the part where some US experts were all "physically impossible!" about it, well there you go, China solved it.
@Bltizo
I'm gaming out the scenarios, and I actually see an ICBM launched HGV with conventional strike as more useful than for a nuclear strike role.
If China is launching HGVs at the continental USA with nuclear warheads, then we've already passed the trigger for MAD.
China is already building hundreds of new ICBM silos, and there is no way the US can effectively defend against these. The cost of terminal ballistic missile defence (THAAD) is already vastly greater than the cost of ICBMs with MIRVs. ICBM launched HGVs may make it cheaper for China to expand its nuclear forces, but China can afford an expansion solely with ICBMs anyway
From the US perspective, even if China did build up massive HGV forces to could conduct a successful first strike on the US land-based nuclear deterrent, that still leaves the US SSBN fleet with enough missiles for retaliation against China
In comparison, a Chinese conventional strike capability (with the global reach provided by an ICBM launched HGV) can change the calculation for a conventional war substantially.
Key conventional targets which were previously out of range can now be hit, such as carriers in US drydocks or the stealth bomber base in Missouri. Then you also have the psychological impact where the US has to accept its homeland is vulnerable.
I actually see China keeping a stock of ICBM HGVs in reserve, which would only be used if attacks were conducted against the Chinese mainland. Thus they could deter the US from attacking targets in the Chinese homeland
And that these HGVs would be launched as single missiles or in small salvoes, to avoid being construed as a nuclear attack
I'm gaming out the scenarios, and I actually see an ICBM launched HGV with conventional strike as more useful than for a nuclear strike role.
If China is launching HGVs at the continental USA with nuclear warheads, then we've already passed the trigger for MAD.
China is already building hundreds of new ICBM silos, and there is no way the US can effectively defend against these. The cost of terminal ballistic missile defence (THAAD) is already vastly greater than the cost of ICBMs with MIRVs. ICBM launched HGVs may make it cheaper for China to expand its nuclear forces, but China can afford an expansion solely with ICBMs anyway
From the US perspective, even if China did build up massive HGV forces to could conduct a successful first strike on the US land-based nuclear deterrent, that still leaves the US SSBN fleet with enough missiles for retaliation against China
In comparison, a Chinese conventional strike capability (with the global reach provided by an ICBM launched HGV) can change the calculation for a conventional war substantially.
Key conventional targets which were previously out of range can now be hit, such as carriers in US drydocks or the stealth bomber base in Missouri. Then you also have the psychological impact where the US has to accept its homeland is vulnerable.
I actually see China keeping a stock of ICBM HGVs in reserve, which would only be used if attacks were conducted against the Chinese mainland. Thus they could deter the US from attacking targets in the Chinese homeland
And that these HGVs would be launched as single missiles or in small salvoes, to avoid being construed as a nuclear attack
Last edited:
This is what the piece says after the FT news on China’s hypersonic missile test:
Yep government has made clear this is a strategic asset, not tactical, with all ramifications thereof.
Quoting myself here
An HGV could be equivalent to a 3 kiloton tactical nuclear warhead
So HGVs could replace tactical nukes as the first rung of the Chinese escalation ladder
I think these HGVs will be able to carry a nuclear warhead
But I also think they will be used for conventional strike as well, in limited numbers
So, my impression is that developing the ICBM ranged HGV in context of China's increase in its overall nuclear arsenal size+credibility, is why I think the IC-HGV system is likely to be nuclear oriented.
The increase of China's ICBMs, new silos and DF-41s, upcoming new SSBNs and stealth bombers, imo all suggests to a desire to develop a more credible and capable nuclear deterrent and one which is more difficult to defend against.
An IC-HGV system would be entirely consistent with the pursuit of a more credible and capable nuclear deterrent system, in light of US BMD pursuits at all levels of the spectrum (including against ICBMs).
Putting it another way, an IC-HGV system is being pursued to ensure that if the effectiveness of China's conventional ICBM force is diminished due to an emerging BMD capability, that a resilient nuclear delivery method will be retained to ensure vulnerability.
If you are suggesting that the IC-HGV would have a conventional role and would be used against CONTUS as a conventional strike weapon... That is a very, very niche capability and frankly for it to be viable, it would require both China and the US to fully understand that launches of such a weapon cannot be interpreted as a nuclear attack.
It is not impossible, but I think that the integration of an ICBM ranged HGV as a conventional strike weapon against the US would be such a massive reorientation of PLA of assessments of risk and strategy, that we need some kind of significant hints to consider it to be a likely use of the weapon.
That is to say, at this stage I think the most reasonable null hypothesis for this IC-HGV weapon is that it is intended primarily as a nuclear delivery system.
I am certainly open to the idea of it having a conventional role, or even it being exclusively conventional in relation to nations like the US, but I think it would be a significant enough departure against existing PLA strategy (seeking the capability to conduct conventional strikes against CONTUS, and with intercontinental ranged weapons no less), that we need some level of hint or some allusions to suggest that is what they are pursuing.
I think this is where our positions (mine and yours and Plawolf's) diverge -- which is that I think the prospect of a US BMD system being capable of diminishing the effectiveness of PLA ICBMs to be very much a plausible prospect in the medium term future.
When I say diminishing the effectiveness, I do not mean to say that ICBMs are obsolete or "countered" -- but rather that the extent of the ICBMs that are able to make it through the BMD, is reduced to a degree that the US believes it will not be "MAD" but where the US can come out ahead in the rubble. That belief of "non equal MAD" would be very destabilising, and is something I believe could be very realistic.
Therefore, the purpose of IC-HGVs would be to ensure MAD in the face of a BMD system, and to ensure the confidence of deterrence.
- Status