China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread
- Thread starter peace_lover
- Start date
- Status
Hmmmm
This can be useful for WZ-8/DF-17.
The idea I have in mind is that the WZ-8 can be used as a designator of sorts. The drone is launched and immediately searches for targets. Then once a target is found, WZ-8 can guide a number of DF-17s in an joint attack against the same target. That way, the DF-17s do not need expensive sensors and can rely on target solution generated by the drone/ground control.
@ZeEa5KPul
How many weapons are sufficient for deterrence? This can be quantitatively estimated. For that, we need to look back in history. In 1962 during the Cuban Missile Crisis, deployed on and a few hundred MRBMs vs. US arsenal of 3500 warheads deployed on 170 ICBMs, 108 SLBMs and 45 MRBMs (Jupiters), rest on dumb bombs. There were no warheads held in reserve, only deployed.
Yet the Soviet arsenal despite being 7x smaller was still a credible deterrent. That is a larger gap than PLARF vs. US today in deployed warheads even given the lowball public numbers (~4x smaller). This shows that you don't even need numerical parity - you just need enough for absolute MAD.
OK. Now we ask - why was the 7x smaller Soviet arsenal in 1962 a sufficient deterrence, but 4x smaller deployed PRC arsenal today is not? The answer lies in both psychology and economics. I can't quantify psychology but let's talk economics.
while Soviets had and , so 31% total GDP. If both sides were annihilated in MAD the US would be trading 1 for 1.25 in lives and 3 for 1 in GDP. This isn't worth. Even trading 1 for 3 in lives and 1 for 1 in GDP wasn't worth, and the Soviet arsenal was capable of extracting at least that in cost.
However, US sees China as having 4x the population and roughly equal total GDP. If both sides are 90% destroyed the US believes it comes out ahead: it trades 1 for 4 in population, 1 for 1 in GDP, but since China is growing faster it also trades the future potential of Chinese growth, meaning that the US wins. And if the PRC arsenal can only extract a 50% population and GDP cost, then the US is trading 1 for 8 in population and 1 for 2 in GDP - it wins.
Thus, the only way for China to have sufficient deterrence is to have a countervalue arsenal capable of extracting at least a 1 for 3 in lives and at least 1 for 1 in GDP. To achieve this, US+UK+AUS must be held at risk with total population 450 million. UK and AUS add +20% GDP to the US, so it is a 1 for 1 trade in GDP by 2030.
with at least 1x1000 kT warhead, 2x300 kT or 3x150 kT warheads, then , then
This will require 150+360+102+39 = 651 DF-41 equivalents solely for countervalue. Assuming 10% interception rate and 20% destroyed on the ground, this requires ~850 to achieve equal deterrence as the Soviet Union in 1962.
The Soviet Union in 1962, of course, didn't get what it wanted, only barest of survival. This means that 850 represents a minimum.
How many weapons are sufficient for deterrence? This can be quantitatively estimated. For that, we need to look back in history. In 1962 during the Cuban Missile Crisis, deployed on and a few hundred MRBMs vs. US arsenal of 3500 warheads deployed on 170 ICBMs, 108 SLBMs and 45 MRBMs (Jupiters), rest on dumb bombs. There were no warheads held in reserve, only deployed.
Yet the Soviet arsenal despite being 7x smaller was still a credible deterrent. That is a larger gap than PLARF vs. US today in deployed warheads even given the lowball public numbers (~4x smaller). This shows that you don't even need numerical parity - you just need enough for absolute MAD.
OK. Now we ask - why was the 7x smaller Soviet arsenal in 1962 a sufficient deterrence, but 4x smaller deployed PRC arsenal today is not? The answer lies in both psychology and economics. I can't quantify psychology but let's talk economics.
while Soviets had and , so 31% total GDP. If both sides were annihilated in MAD the US would be trading 1 for 1.25 in lives and 3 for 1 in GDP. This isn't worth. Even trading 1 for 3 in lives and 1 for 1 in GDP wasn't worth, and the Soviet arsenal was capable of extracting at least that in cost.
However, US sees China as having 4x the population and roughly equal total GDP. If both sides are 90% destroyed the US believes it comes out ahead: it trades 1 for 4 in population, 1 for 1 in GDP, but since China is growing faster it also trades the future potential of Chinese growth, meaning that the US wins. And if the PRC arsenal can only extract a 50% population and GDP cost, then the US is trading 1 for 8 in population and 1 for 2 in GDP - it wins.
Thus, the only way for China to have sufficient deterrence is to have a countervalue arsenal capable of extracting at least a 1 for 3 in lives and at least 1 for 1 in GDP. To achieve this, US+UK+AUS must be held at risk with total population 450 million. UK and AUS add +20% GDP to the US, so it is a 1 for 1 trade in GDP by 2030.
with at least 1x1000 kT warhead, 2x300 kT or 3x150 kT warheads, then , then
This will require 150+360+102+39 = 651 DF-41 equivalents solely for countervalue. Assuming 10% interception rate and 20% destroyed on the ground, this requires ~850 to achieve equal deterrence as the Soviet Union in 1962.
The Soviet Union in 1962, of course, didn't get what it wanted, only barest of survival. This means that 850 represents a minimum.
antiterror13
Brigadier
@FairAndUnbiased , actually the Soviet got what it wanted, the USA (quietly) withdrew their missiles in Turkey later on ... thats part of secret negotiation
Your calculations are well and good, they might even mirror the ones Chinese military planners made, but they're only applicable while you're planning against a rational opponent. You mentioned yourself that you can't quantify psychology - but you still have to account for it. Given the fundamental madness of America, this kind of analysis is incomplete. They must be threatened at an instinctual level; the fear of nuclear annihilation must enter their popular culture like it has with Russia.
The only way to do this and still not spend past the point of diminishing returns is to have parity. You'll also notice that the USSR didn't stick to a small arsenal and only wrung serious concessions out of America when it could threaten it with at least an equal arsenal. That is what China must strive for.
Of course, China will enjoy some increase in security (and some psychological dividends) from any significant expansion of its arsenal, but I don't think it should stop until it reaches parity. It's an $18 trillion nominal/$30 trillion PPP adjusted economy, it can bear the cost of such an expansion quite comfortably.
I never did the math for this, but your argument seems to be sound.
So, this would mean that 1000 warhead would put China in a fairly good situation.
That wasn't what they wanted. They knew the Jupiter's were obsolete and due to be replaced by Polaris SLBMs. It was a face saving consolation prize. What they really wanted was to turn Cuba into the Soviet Taiwan. They failed.
antiterror13
Brigadier
I thought it was the Soviet's respond of the USA put missiles in Turkey
- Status