China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread

[Kabir]

This is pretty nonsensical, hitting American command and control/ major population centers with nuclear weapons, regardless of yield, is an invitation to a massive retaliation. Not to mention US tactical SLBM capability. Once the nuclear step is taken, Shanghai and all the other cities that hold the manufacturing base start looking like a pretty target with all those fancy lights at night, yaknow?

This is pretty deep into hypothesis than reality on ground.
A nuclear power will go nuclear knowing there is going to be retaliation. So taking out second strike capability is not part of equation. When this scenario becomes reality, it means one side has decided time is up for the other and certain line has been crossed.
I have mentioned before, in this scenario, this is not simply a button push. The entire nation will have to make a life/death decision.
Now, in case of China Russia or even India, Pakistan, this decision will be taken by their citizens. Who will do for USA?
USA military capability is part of the cycle that keeps the people of USA happy by keeping their life style and demand afloat. It is not a military in true sense.
If China nukes USA, USA will have to decide, either it can live with whatever of it is left. Or MAD.
But why would China nuke USA? USA as it is now gives China lots of money, so it is more useful to China alive than dead.
Similarly i have been reading the posts above, i disagree with all of these notions/policy of USA's launch on warning,launch on watch, launch on breakfast bullshit.
USA can not fight a nuclear war. Nuclear weapons are insurance of USA's existence like Israel. And it only exists as long as the opposite side does not find it attractive to choose death for both side.
But there are nations that will go to such length, which is why, USA and Israel has no choice but to keep nuclear materials out of those nation's reach.

 

[VioletsForSpring]

This is pretty deep into hypothesis than reality on ground.
A nuclear power will go nuclear knowing there is going to be retaliation. So taking out second strike capability is not part of equation. When this scenario becomes reality, it means one side has decided time is up for the other and certain line has been crossed.
I have mentioned before, in this scenario, this is not simply a button push. The entire nation will have to make a life/death decision.
Now, in case of China Russia or even India, Pakistan, this decision will be taken by their citizens. Who will do for USA?
USA military capability is part of the cycle that keeps the people of USA happy by keeping their life style and demand afloat. It is not a military in true sense.
If China nukes USA, USA will have to decide, either it can live with whatever of it is left. Or MAD.
But why would China nuke USA? USA as it is now gives China lots of money, so it is more useful to China alive than dead.
Similarly i have been reading the posts above, i disagree with all of these notions/policy of USA's launch on warning,launch on watch, launch on breakfast bullshit.
USA can not fight a nuclear war. Nuclear weapons are insurance of USA's existence like Israel. And it only exists as long as the opposite side does not find it attractive to choose death for both side.
But there are nations that will go to such length, which is why, USA and Israel has no choice but to keep nuclear materials out of those nation's reach.

Although I agree with the notion that nuclear war is bad for everyone this post shows a deeply flawed understanding of American and Israeli nuclear policy. US nuclear policy underpins the current alliance system, as the CONTUS is reasonably immune to conventional warfare.

 

[bajingan]

This is pretty nonsensical, hitting American command and control/ major population centers with nuclear weapons, regardless of yield, is an invitation to a massive retaliation. Not to mention US tactical SLBM capability. Once the nuclear step is taken, Shanghai and all the other cities that hold the manufacturing base start looking like a pretty target with all those fancy lights at night, yaknow?

Thats correct, on the other hand, i highly doubt the us will ever conventionally bomb the Chinese mainland once PLARF reached 1000 warheads or more
The exact same reason the us is deterred from bombing russia conventionally despite being surrounded by us bases the same way China is

 

[VioletsForSpring]

Thats correct, on the other hand, i highly doubt the us will ever conventionally bomb the Chinese mainland once PLARF reached 1000 warheads or more
The exact same reason the us is deterred from bombing russia conventionally despite being surrounded by us bases the same way China is

Russia hasn't escalated to the point where such a thing would be necessary, being surrounded by US bases means nothing if the US has no credible reason to initiate a strike.

 

[ougoah]

China using tactical nukes or conducting a first strike on the US for no good reason (sole exception is imminent first strike about to be conducted by the US is certain) is about as likely as US nuking Australia. It has absolutely nothing to gain from it. The American policy and think tank whispering about "first strike capability" is pure narrative spinning and fearmongering from the usual suspects and a non surprising way for those shallow thinkers to respond to what is essentially a technological demonstration rather than there being a definite gesture and policy intention from the revelation.

China's nuclear proliferation and introducing new generations of nuclear weapons and nuclear delivery can also simply be a technological journey where a more noticeable milestone is passed... one that happens to take the lead ahead of Russia and the US. Whatever the conditions, China needed to make more nukes and better ways of delivering nukes, all commensurate with its rising power status and having more to protect than it did back in the 1960s, 70s, 80s ...

Perhaps there isn't more to it than that but Blitzo is right about one thing, nuclear capability is prioritised. That is certain. Tactical nukes are uncomfortable blurred lines where tactics and strategy leave the room. Who knows how any of the three major nuclear powers will actually respond to tactical nukes or losing conventional war. Indeed how they would react if war industries are destroyed. On that topic, if the US can and do destroy Chinese military industrial sites, that would be well after losing all their regional military bases and several carriers if not much more. They do not have the range for those strikes without receiving near total conventional loss and if they did, then only in such a situation would it be remotely possible for PLA to consider conventional warhead HGV strikes on continental US military industrial sites. All this is far from nuclear escalation.

 

[bajingan]

Russia hasn't escalated to the point where such a thing would be necessary, being surrounded by US bases means nothing if the US has no credible reason to initiate a strike.

I would respectfully disagree, russia intervention in syria was absolutely critical in saving assad, and the us and allies was determined to remove assad by any means possible with the main objective of destabilizing iran, now their grand strategy is up in smoke
russian forces in syria was actually so puny that a single raid from uss nimitz was enough to wipe out russian air force in syria, why didn't the us strike russian forces there??
Having nuclear parity/near parity means you don't have to worry your homeland being bombed in conventional conflicts

 

[Kabir]

this post shows a deeply flawed understanding of American and Israeli nuclear policy.

Is it now? It is interesting to learn public perception about nuclear policy, public who has never stood in front of gun.

US nuclear policy underpins the current alliance system, as the CONTUS is reasonably immune to conventional warfare.

Understanding of likely nuclear war scenario and geography study is two different thing.
CONTUS used to be immune from conventional warfare due to it's geography, now it is not so much.And the definition of conventional warfare itself is subjected to debate given chemical,biological,cyber warfare. USA has already said it might need to consider going nuclear in response to cyber warfare. Many people in USA believes covid is a bio weapon released by China.
However, my reply was purely from two nuclear armed country going head to head scenario. Conventional angle was not part of it. The poster seems pretty nuisance about how warfare plays of on ground than policy in paper.
North Korea has almost null conventional capacity compared to USA. Yet USA can not strike North Korea using conventional weapons.
Weapons always kill. It is never going to change. So people can always talk about policies, doctrines all they want, in the end when it comes to life and death,situation becomes much more complicated, this is the utmost reality the poster seems unable to grasp.
Neither USA nor Israel can go into existential conflict in any domain without ensuring the end result can be controlled. This is why USA can not strike North Korea, this is why Israel could not strike Pakistan.
It is like one group of ten people having lots of bullets are in conflict with another group of two people with ten bullets.
On paper people can easily declare the winner, but on ground, someone will have to face those ten bullets. Good luck with that.

 

[Kabir]

Russia hasn't escalated to the point where such a thing would be necessary, being surrounded by US bases means nothing if the US has no credible reason to initiate a strike.

They did, in Crimea.

 

[AndrewS]

Prior to any nuclear attacks on the Continental US, I would expect HGVs to be used on military targets in Australia, Diego Garcia, Pearl Harbour and Elmendorf Airbase in Alaska

These HGV strikes may be conventional or tactical nukes, and would vastly complicate US efforts to project power to the Western Pacific

And with Australia leading the charge on hostile containment policies against China, it would make sense for Australia to be targeted with tactical nukes first. But would such small attacks merit MAD on the part of the US?

If we're talking about China building large numbers of ICBMs and also IC-HGVs, there's so many scenarios to be contemplated

So I think China can credibly state that any attacks on the Chinese mainland will be met with tactical nukes, and for the US to accept this

After all, the US already has this understanding with Russia, where both sides understand that they can't get into a conventional war with each other, otherwise the escalation ladder to nuclear starts

 

[ZeEa5KPul]

I commend you for recognizing that your positions are the maximalist ones, but I truly wonder why you take up those positions.

Because it is my deeply held belief that those are the methods that will bring China victory.

Putting it another way -- I believe that attaining MAD/MV may prove to be challenging in itself and the US will react strongly in a manner to try to maintain their superiority of enforcing greater vulnerability on China, therefore the IC-HGV is part of the way of the PLA's way of ensuring it is achieved. Whereas your position is assuming that MAD/MV has already been attained.

If the nuclear dynamics were strictly bilateral, i.e., if it were just the US and China I would give this point more weight. But as I mentioned previously, Russia has been roped into this whether it likes it or not (and I suspect it's the latter). Russia's response is a significant (I would even say severe) constraining factor in America's reaction to China's buildup. Although Russia isn't exactly rolling in money these days and would be loathe to go on a major buildup of its own, it's perfectly capable of doing so given its vast nuclear industry and massive stockpile of fissile material.

I doubt America wants to play a game where every new warhead it builds is matched by a new Russian and a new Chinese one.

I personally think it will take 10-15 years for true equivalent MAD/MV to be attained.

Seems reasonable, although I would put it closer to 10 than 15. On the subject, have you heard anything recently about the DF-45?

In addition to US countermeasures, shifting or intensifying US alliance systems, evolving US nuclear doctrine in response to China's increased nuclear arsenal (such as more prevalent US willingness to use tactical nuclear weapons in response to conventional strikes on CONTUS), all may place significant pressure on how viable it is for China to conduct conventional strikes against CONTUS.

Writing what I advocate China do to US allies who involve themselves in a war between the US and China would probably violate the rules of the forum. But at this point I'm sure it's not hard to guess.

Given the rapidly escalating costs US allies would pay if they helped the US, I'm dubious of the view that they would intensify their alliance with America. I have the old-fashioned view that the most important factor a country considers when it thinks about going to war is whether or not it's going to win. US allies doubt more with each passing day that they're on the winning side - if I were them I would start looking for the exits.

I am seeing this quaint idea whereby once China has MAD, they can simply procure some conventional IC-HGVs, and then try to deter US conventional strikes against the Chinese homeland by holding a few targets in CONTUS to conventional risk, but this ignores the massive advantages that the US holds in geographical positioning of military forces in the region and the significantly greater ability to deliver quantities of munitions (whether it be conventional or nuclear) to Chinese population/economic/political/industrial centers, than what China is able to deliver to the US, that cannot be remedied short of use of strategic counter value nuclear weapons.

I agree that conventional IC-HGV strikes against the US is a quaint idea, which is why I don't advocate it. I have a 1 kiloton minimum on an IC-HGV - that's just price of admission. A conventionally armed IC-HGV is a pea shooter.