China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread

[bajingan]

This is a fals narrative.

It expecting defense, and the USA nuclear and military strategy cetnered arround the offensive capability.


They developed the nuclear capabilities not to defend, but to be capable to destroy, and control by this way.


You can control that you can destroy.

Check this ,telling more about the USA miltiary strategy than thousand word.

a senior member here once reasoned and i agree with him that its impossible for a hegemon with a superior nuclear forces to coerce, or even to launch first strike against an enemy with an inferior nuclear forces without destroying themselves and the rest of the world

Let me quote him

That’s the unacknowledged reality with all out nuclear war that makes it stupid and pointless to focus only on the nuclear arsenals of those directly involved - once a certain threshold is reach, ie MAD, nuclear powers like America and Russia will launch against everyone irrespective of whether they are actually involved or not. Basically it’s, the ‘if I’m going down, I’m taking everyone else with me and we can all start again from the Stone Age’ mentality that is ugly but a reality.

As such, this is something all nuclear powers need to bear in mind when forecasting likely outcomes from nuclear exchanges. It’s not just whether you can survive the XXX number of numbers from your direct opponent, it’s whether you can live with the new world order after your top XXX cities and most of your conventional military strength as been erased. Especially since nuclear weapons will be a priority target in any such engagement, so you will be facing a real, use them or loose them dilemma.

So, would the same Americans who couldn’t live with China taking over Taiwan be able to live with their nuclear arsenal depleted, conventional military destroyed, and most major cities erased while Russia remains as it is today and becomes the new default global dominant power with an unassailable lead in everything? Or will be launch against Russia once they feel they haven’t got much left to loose?

That’s the true threshold for global MAD, and it’s much much lower than true MAD against America. So while China might not have the warheads to glass every square inch of American territory, it doesn’t need it because the Americans will launch against the Russians long before it comes to anything close to that, and the Russians&Americans will finish the job and also glass the EU and Indian and pretty much everyone else just so no one comes out of this with a massive unassailable lead in tech, industry or population.

 

[Suetham]

This is a fals narrative.

It expecting defense, and the USA nuclear and military strategy cetnered arround the offensive capability.

Where did you interpret in my comment that the American defense strategy was defense? You are collecting smoke. I did not say that.

I said that the American strategy is always to be superior militarily, because if a nation that proposes to be militarily strong, is militarily on a par with the US, they will interpret that as a threat to their national security, even if they are allies and that has roots in World War II. Therefore, from an American military point of view, there is no strategic ambiguity, there is always a consensus of military supremacy. The AMaRV example was well exemplified in this regard, the Americans just did not complete the development of this advanced re-entry vehicle because they judged that the Soviet anti-missile defense system was deficient and did not need to employ more advanced re-entry vehicles and the Americans were content with MIRVs .

 

[Storm bombardier]

this is really not pertinent to China but yesterday according to Russian press hypersonic technology reached a new precision level with a live test....

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Who reads wion

 

[Suetham]

a senior member here once reasoned and i agree with him that its impossible for a hegemon with a superior nuclear forces to coerce, or even to launch first strike against an enemy with an inferior nuclear forces without destroying themselves and the rest of the world

Let me quote him

That’s the unacknowledged reality with all out nuclear war that makes it stupid and pointless to focus only on the nuclear arsenals of those directly involved - once a certain threshold is reach, ie MAD, nuclear powers like America and Russia will launch against everyone irrespective of whether they are actually involved or not. Basically it’s, the ‘if I’m going down, I’m taking everyone else with me and we can all start again from the Stone Age’ mentality that is ugly but a reality.

As such, this is something all nuclear powers need to bear in mind when forecasting likely outcomes from nuclear exchanges. It’s not just whether you can survive the XXX number of numbers from your direct opponent, it’s whether you can live with the new world order after your top XXX cities and most of your conventional military strength as been erased. Especially since nuclear weapons will be a priority target in any such engagement, so you will be facing a real, use them or loose them dilemma.

So, would the same Americans who couldn’t live with China taking over Taiwan be able to live with their nuclear arsenal depleted, conventional military destroyed, and most major cities erased while Russia remains as it is today and becomes the new default global dominant power with an unassailable lead in everything? Or will be launch against Russia once they feel they haven’t got much left to loose?

That’s the true threshold for global MAD, and it’s much much lower than true MAD against America. So while China might not have the warheads to glass every square inch of American territory, it doesn’t need it because the Americans will launch against the Russians long before it comes to anything close to that, and the Russians&Americans will finish the job and also glass the EU and Indian and pretty much everyone else just so no one comes out of this with a massive unassailable lead in tech, industry or population.

A country with 100 nuclear warheads is already able to establish the MAD. By 2025, it predicts that North Korea will have 100 nuclear warheads, that amount is more than enough for the North Koreans to be able to pierce the American defensive anti-missile bubble, composed of GMD + THAAD + SM-3.

As I said before, the ABM system was developed to deal with missiles with single warheads, obviously its accuracy is confidential, the little information available on the internet gives it a 50% hit rate which implies at least two missiles per target to guaranteeing a hit, this system would be dealing with long-distance fired missiles and when they were engaged they would have already dispensed their warheads along with baits and decoys generating several dozen targets for the system, which would force itself to designate twice as many missiles to ensure a satisfactory defense , as far as one can research this system would not be effective against missiles equipped with MIRVs, your best chance of success is to shoot down the missiles in their boost phase before they dispense your ammunition with ABMs based on ships near enemy territory.

I think China has an advantage that one commentator has already stated here, and I agree: Russia, while not an unconditional ally of China, still offers indirect protection for the Chinese on MAD. The Chinese are right to increase their national security by expanding the nuclear arsenal, depending on other countries for a task that depends solely on their own sacrifices and resources is nonsense, the Chinese even though they are indirectly protected by the Russian nuclear arsenal compared to the American arsenal , Chinese nuclear expansion is needed.

The same applies to North Korea. A decade from now, North Korea can numerically park at 100 nuclear warheads that even if Japan and South Korea become nuclear states, the Chinese nuclear arsenal provides indirect security for North Korea.

 

[Anlsvrthng]

a senior member here once reasoned and i agree with him that its impossible for a hegemon with a superior nuclear forces to coerce, or even to launch first strike against an enemy with an inferior nuclear forces without destroying themselves and the rest of the world

The USA arsenal was developed to win wars and used,not to prevent others to destroy the USA.

The Soviet arsenal was developed to prevent the nuclear destruction of Soviet Union by the USA.


Without the Soviet nuclear weapons in the countless wars of the USA the nuclear bombs should be as common as a B-52.

The narrative about " nuclear weapons needed to prevent wars by the evils abroad " is false, if the USA decrease his weapon stock then Russia/China happy to follow, but we KNOW that if China/ Russia decrease then the USA will not follow suit.

 

[r41]

it looks like the DF17 has another competitor besides Russian Tsirkon

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

​

 

[AssassinsMace]

And they're saying airports on the US West coast were grounded to a halt at the same time.

 

[james smith esq]

I want to see DF-41s coming off the assembly-line like sausages!!! 300, at least. Put them on TELs ‘til the silos are ready.

 

[clockwork]

A guy on haohan methodically used the 5 psi overpressure rings on nukemap on basically every major city in the US to calculate how many warheads China needs for coverage of 50% of urban areas. His results were that 334 650kt and 631 150kt warheads (965 total) are needed to destroy 50% of the urban areas in CONUS. Which he argues implies a requirement of at least 1500 warheads to survive and be launched after a US counterforce first strike (dubious imo). This doesn't even factor in how many are needed to destroy cities in India or any other countries. Anyway China needs a lot, and fast.

Link:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[tygyg1111]

A guy on haohan methodically used the 5 psi overpressure rings on nukemap on basically every major city in the US to calculate how many warheads China needs for coverage of 50% of urban areas. His results were that 334 650kt and 631 150kt warheads (965 total) are needed to destroy 50% of the urban areas in CONUS. Which he argues implies a requirement of at least 1500 warheads to survive and be launched after a US counterforce first strike (dubious imo). This doesn't even factor in how many are needed to destroy cities in India or any other countries. Anyway China needs a lot, and fast.

Link:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Do you have a screenshot / copy paste, as user login is needed to view?