China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread

[plawolf]

And why would that be the case, lol? My whole point is that China must be prepared for the virtual inevitability of a US TNW response against its forces after getting smoked conventionally so must decide on targets beforehand. It could destroy most military bases in the US homeland, or I agree with @ZeEa5KPul that other MIC targets are a good choice too. Destroying bases in the US mainland provides no military advantage to China in the in-theater conflict, but that's only because we're predicating this scenario on China having already (conventionally) destroyed all or nearly all US forces regionally and thus left with no meaningful advantage to gain there.

Just how do you actually expect tactical nukes to be used? Because I can assure you it won’t be en mass as that will almost inevitably lead immediately to full MAD. Similarly, responding to a US nuke attack against PLA forces outside of mainland China with an ICBM against CONUS is stupid even if only armed with tactical nukes as that is also almost inevitable to lead to immediate full MAD.

If America psychs itself up to dare to use tactical nukes, it will do so with a single one first to see how China responds, and its target will not be mainland China. Probably targeting a PLAN fleet or its beachhead on Taiwan.

If China response with a meek tactical nuke of its own, then its game on as far as the Americans are concerned. But if China response by erasing Okinawa and/or Guam with a multi-megaton city-killer, you think the Americans are going to double down for full MAD? I don’t think so.

 

[clockwork]

Just how do you actually expect tactical nukes to be used? Because I can assure you it won’t be en mass as that will almost inevitably lead immediately to full MAD

China could easily launch a trickle retaliatory strike to prevent full US launch on warning, if the retaliation is headed to the US mainland (i.e. launch one IC-HGV, wait till it lands on the first base/MIC target, then launch the next one, etc., until however many suffice for the retaliation have been completed). The US would face the same problem as China in deciding whether to launch a full response after the loss of a few military bases (which would cost it all its cities), so China can credibly threaten and do this.

China could indeed also choose to destroy the city on Guam (once again, because Andersen AFB and Naval Base Guam would have hopefully already been annihilated conventionally by that time), but one may argue that isn't sufficient retaliation seeing how little the US gives a shit about its overseas territories like Guam/Puerto Rico. Perhaps low-yield strikes against civilian targets in non-lower 48 states, i.e. Hawaii or Alaska, would also be chosen. Again, this is all a choice the CMC needs to make.

 

[Insignius]

Tactical nukes are still useful, and China's response doesnt need to be proportional in terms of damage whilst still sticking with Tac Nukes. Why not respond to US nuclear strikes on Chinese naval fleets by nuking US military assets outsides of the WestPac areas? Diego Garcia needs to go anyway, so just sink it beneath the waves along with US bases in NATO countries like Germany and Britain. The nuclear arsenals of these countries will be used against China anyway and they have signed themselves up to die alongside their american masters, so who the fuck cares?
China need to see this war as a world war and not as an exclusive Sino-US struggle but a civilizational war for survival. It's literally the white anglo man defending his ill-gotten gains of 500 years colonialism and imperialsm against the non-white civilization that is China who presents the hope of the global south to rid themselves from the yoke of western domination once and forever. The more tools of oppression that the US has around the world China wipes off the map, the better it will be for the world in general and will put pressure on the US hegemony no matter where they are. Not attacking the US mainland but exclusively destroying their world-wide assets serves as a reminder that China doesnt seek to end the US as a nation, but to end them as a global empire, giving them a way out.

After the nuking of US bases in certain NATO countries, you will see eviction warrants and riots breaking out in other countries that hosts US bases, where the locals will seek to expell the US. Bit for bit the US will lose their control over the world, lose their ability to blockade China and project power abroad. This is essentially close to the Mao's thinking of "you fight your war, I fight mine" and "surrounding the cities by controling the villages". Hence, proportional response by means of trading base for base, city for city is not required. Similarily it isnt required to resort to city-busters in response to tactical nuclear strikes. The US has much more to lose around the world that arent their mainland cities.

 

[clockwork]

Diego Garcia needs to go anyway, so just sink it beneath the waves along with US bases in NATO countries like Germany and Britain

Remember, Diego Garcia is within range of the DF-26, so it likely would've been struck already. My entire point is the difficulty of China finding a non-bombed out target to nuke. Maybe if they do decide to stick a DF-ZF HGV on a DF-26 to make this "DF-27" that'll conveniently provide a longer-range option to deliver TNWs to Hawaii and Alaska, and maybe westward to US bases in the mideast.

 

[Insignius]

Remember, Diego Garcia is within range of the DF-26, so it likely would've been struck already. My entire point is the difficulty of China finding a non-bombed out target to nuke. Maybe if they do decide to stick a DF-ZF HGV on a DF-26 to make this "DF-27" that'll conveniently provide a longer-range option to deliver TNWs to Hawaii and Alaska, and maybe westward to US bases in the mideast.

What I mean is actually expand the battlespace. Actively use China's vast satellite network, send out a hundred plus more to enable 24/7 surveillance to hunt down any signs of US military activity in the world. This is a response that will actually help China since without bases everywhere the US cannot project power, help other anti-American powers and is a proportional response that will actually hurt the US worse than losing one of their rat-infested fentanyl zombie cities like LA that the neocons dont give a rat-ass about since its Democrat-ruled.

 

[Insignius]

And yes, I agree that China needs more long range weapons. A notional DF-41D or DF-31D to hunt US carrier groups in the mediterranean or the Atlantic, as well as FOBS and MIRVed tactical nuke HGVs are obligatory for destroying any US assets outside China's near waters or the Indo-Pacific.

China should prioritize big and strategic or symbolic US bases first, preferably in countries where the government has been too deeply infiltrated by transatlantisc scum and the population has been brainwashed into welcoming US hegemony, or like the Polish and the Butthurt Belt (Baltics down to Romania), are quasi-religiously hating on anything that is eastern and communist and volunteer for any US-led crime against non-whites as long as it serves to raise their status within the US-dominated pecking order above their hated Russian foes. Also, they are deeply racist and deserve death anyway but that's another matter completely.

Tactical nuclear strikes on Ramstein AFB in Germany or US run black prisons in Poland and Romania will be the best option, since these slave vassal nations cannot shoot back. German Tornado-based unguided nukes dont have the range to reach China, and these NATO members would have been mobilized for war against China anway, even if only by token force. They should be taught a lesson. The bases in middle eastern countries where the elites have been coopted and bought off by the US but dont feel particular loyalty or ideological allegiance with the US or the anglo-saxon cause will be quick to expell the US presence in their countries, thereby causing a domino effect.

US presence in actual Anglo countries like Australia and UK should be the struck anyway. They WILL be involved in a war with China right off the bat so China shouldnt just target those bases but also their own military infrastructure. They are, by all accounts and purposes, part of the US war-machinery. As for Japan, they have a special place in hell reserved for them, but China should first observe what they do. Japan is historically opportunistic and will join up with the strongest and the winner. China should nuke US bases in Japan anyway, regardless of status and do it with such brutality that it should leave a deep impression upon their people. This is what they respect and this is what they love and maybe China will be getting a finlandized or even friendly Japan sooner than expected.

 

[DarkStar]

Taiwan is Chinese soil, if the anglos were to nuke the PLA expeditionary force making beachhead on Taiwan, it makes sense to obliterate California.

why let the white anglos get away with poisoning sacred Chinese land and not deprive them of a counter value target? Taiwan for California

 

[ZeEa5KPul]

You realise China’s main goal is to not fight nuclear war right? Tactical nukes make sense for America because they only see themselves dropping them on someone else’s homeland and not setting them off on their own doorsteps.

To engage in a tactical nukes arms race is to permanently lock yourself into never being able to break out of western containment around your periphery because as soon as it looks like you are about to break through conventionally, the US will escalate to tactical nukes to erase your conventional military advantage knowing your response is going to be also limited to your own front yard even if it’s nuclear.

China is not going to repeat the mistakes of the Soviets. Their position is, a nuke is a nuke, you drop one on me and I will drop one on you, not my fault if you want to drop a punny little tactical one, I’m still slamming you with a strategic one. The goal is to take nuclear war off the table full stop.

It’s silo fields are to erase western fantasies about it only having 300 nukes and make it absolutely clear that to cross the nuclear threshold against China is to go all the way.

I don't advocate using tactical nuclear weapons in the way you described. The entirety of my position can be summed up in one word: symmetry. If America attacks China with tactical nuclear weapons, China attacks America (as in the American homeland) with tactical nuclear weapons. I've even advocated attacking the US homeland with tactical nuclear weapons in response to conventional strikes on the Chinese homeland. America attacks a Chinese shipyard, China deletes an American shipyard.

Also, the problem with the USSR wasn't that it was sought to match American capabilities, the problem was that it had a crippled economy.

I don't see how China improving its tactical nukes can weaken its position - building up capabilities can never weaken a position, that's just a matter of logic. At worst it's a complete waste. I will never be convinced that China having rungs missing on its escalation ladder is a net positive.

 

[Insignius]

Taiwan is Chinese soil, if the anglos were to nuke the PLA expeditionary force making beachhead on Taiwan, it makes sense to obliterate California.

why let the white anglos get away with poisoning sacred Chinese land and not deprive them of a counter value target? Taiwan for California

The problem is, the anglo elites likely dont give a wet rat-ass about Cali. They are operating on a Feudal/Third World Mindset best described in this article:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

In a recent online exchange, the YouTuber Casey Neistat posted his fury after his car was broken into and the contents stolen. Los Angeles, he railed, was turning into a "3rd-world s-hole of a city."
The multimillionaire actor Seth Rogen chastised Neistat for his anger.
Rogen claimed that a car's contents were minor things to lose. He added that while living in West Hollywood he had his own car broken into 15 times, but thought little of it.
Online bloggers ridiculed Rogen. No wonder - the actor lives in multimillion-dollar homes in the Los Angeles area, guarded by sophisticated security systems and fencing.
Yet both Neistat and Rogen accurately defined Third Worldization: the utter breakdown of the law and the ability of the rich within such a feudal society to find ways to avoid the violent chaos.
After traveling the last 45 years in the Middle East, southern Europe, Mexico, and Asia Minor, I observed some common characteristics of a so-called Third-World society. And all of them might feel increasingly familiar to contemporary Americans.
Whether in Cairo or Naples, theft was commonplace. Yet property crimes were almost never seriously prosecuted.
In a medieval-type society of two rather than three classes, the rich in walled estates rarely worry that much about thievery. Crime is written off as an intramural problem of the poor, especially when the middle class is in decline or nonexistent.

What they do give a crap about is their continued hegemony around the world, since that is what feeds their fat bellies and ensures their privileges. Take away their imperial tools of control and the entire house collapses.

 

[9dashline]

I don't advocate using tactical nuclear weapons in the way you described. The entirety of my position can be summed up in one word: symmetry. If America attacks China with tactical nuclear weapons, China attacks America (as in the American homeland) with tactical nuclear weapons. I've even advocated attacking the US homeland with tactical nuclear weapons in response to conventional strikes on the Chinese homeland. America attacks a Chinese shipyard, China deletes an American shipyard.

Also, the problem with the USSR wasn't that it was sought to match American capabilities, the problem was that it had a crippled economy.

I don't see how China improving its tactical nukes can weaken its position - building up capabilities can never weaken a position, that's just a matter of logic. At worst it's a complete waste. I will never be convinced that China having rungs missing on its escalation ladder is a net positive.

China also needs symettry in numbers.

Better to waste money on 10000 nukes and not use them than to only have 1000 and find out its not enough