China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread

[SEAD]

OBS is milky way more expensive than second strike force on land. Silo has the best cost-effective, greatest throweight/cost ratio and safest record.

I think you misunderstand LoW. The beauty of LoW is not about exactly launching ICMBs on warning but making your adversaries believe you will. And there is no 100% assurance China won't launch on warning.

200 of current 350 silos, each with 6-8 around 500 kilotons warheads, can result in total annihilation of civilization, even on a 50% ABM intercepting rate. Why would anyone bet on "My SLBMs is so huge, bigly and they can destroy your silos in 5 minutes."

I would even assume, the more aggressive your LoW is, the less chance US will ever play nuclear stick.

Mostly agree.

 

[SEAD]

1. I am actually in Colin Gray's camp. I believe that nuclear wars can be won. However, that does not mean nuclear warfare is the best solution. The risk still outweighs any benefits in most cases.

“Winning a nuclear war” IMO means “I killed 80% of you but you only killed 40%, so I can occupy your country 5 years later.” I totally agree it’s possible but absolutely don’t hope that happens. However I cannot guarantee no US president would like this idea in the future.

2. Enduring the missile strikes for a few weeks? Do you mind clarifying?

Their belief is “CCCP will admit defeat and go to negotiating table rather than actually launch their missiles once realized their SSBNs cannot survive”. I found they built their whole plan on this foundation.

The current US doctrine of flexible response calls for a prolonged nuclear conflict. However, that is because the US will be trying to control the intensity of the conflict for its own benefit. In other words, the US may decide to escalate a tactical nuclear war into one where major cities are targeted if it feels that the benefits of doing that is tangible and outweighs its own losses. However, in your proposal, the US seems to be going for the adversary's second strike capabilities as its opening move. I presume that it is also accompanied by strikes against silos and TELs as well?

In that case, this is a classical first strike. By launching such a strike, you are asking for a retaliation.

As far as I know, some one suggested that a “smart enemy” will give up and hold more bargaining chips in negotiating table rather than actually launch missiles , once realized they are in a disadvantage position. If that’s the policy, it’s a logical choice to hunt SSBNs/close TEL tunnels/bomb silos (not exactly)simultaneously.

 

[bustead]

Great criticism. For me the main advantage of OBS is that it avoids false alarm so Launch-on-warning(LoW) can reliably work.

If anything, OBS creates more alarm in a crisis. They are very visible and kind of like Strategic bombers. You know they are there. You know they are armed with nukes. You can shoot them down but in doing so there will be a nuclear war. It will be a great tool in peacetime because it exerts pressure to the adversary. It will be a very bad idea to use them in a crisis. Think of it this way, during the Cuban missile crisis, JFK is suddenly ordering hundreds of American bombers to take off and start flying close to the USSR. Do you think it is provacative?

You know neither US nor CCCP actually run LoW doctrines, mainly because of the pressure of decision making.

There are more reasons other than pressure of decision making. To run LoW, you will need very good early warning systems, great command and control systems and most importantly, a nuclear deterrent that is NOT survivable. Think of it this way, if you are sure that your nuclear missiles can survive, why bother firing them in hurry? Let the strike land first, ensure that it is actually nuclear, take your time to update target locations before firing. Keep in mind that if there is an incoming first strike, the adversary has most likely evacuated their population and military assets. They also have a smaller nuclear arsenal now. You may as well take advantage of it and wage nuclear war over a long time span.

Currently, the US is confident that its nuclear deterrent is survivable because its SSBN fleet is spread out and quiet. China is confident about its nuclear deterrent as well because it is difficult to hunt down all TELs in rapid succession. There is no point in running LoW because losing the silos do not translate to losing one's entire nuclear arsenal.

At the same time, without the fear of false alarm triggered war, China can deploy a fully automatic launching system with short range alarm(which should be effective for stealthy targets)and that would ban any B21/LRSO first strike.

Like Perimeter/Dead Hand? I don't think it is necessary. If the short-range warning systems detect incoming stealth bombers, the crew in the silos can launch with proper authorization. As long as the silos are manned 24/7, I don't think there is any issue in that.

 

[bustead]

Their belief is “CCCP will admit defeat and go to negotiating table rather than actually launch their missiles once realized their SSBNs cannot survive”. I found they built their whole plan on this foundation.

I am pretty sure Gray also spoke about evacuating civilians in case of a Soviet counterattack. USSR will not go down that easily. Anyway, keep in mind that in the flexible response doctrine, the ultimate goal is to negotiate for peace because neither side desire total destruction. So the goal will actually be to initiate contact with Soviet leaders regardless.

As far as I know, some one suggested that a “smart enemy” will give up and hold more bargaining chips in negotiating table rather than actually launch missiles , once realized they are in a disadvantage position. If that’s the policy, it’s a logical choice to hunt SSBNs/close TEL tunnels/bomb silos (not exactly)simultaneously.

Which is why flexible response is a thing. Pressure the enemy into talks is always the goal. Not total destruction.

 

[SEAD]

If anything, OBS creates more alarm in a crisis. They are very visible and kind of like Strategic bombers. You know they are there. You know they are armed with nukes. You can shoot them down but in doing so there will be a nuclear war. It will be a great tool in peacetime because it exerts pressure to the adversary. It will be a very bad idea to use them in a crisis. Think of it this way, during the Cuban missile crisis, JFK is suddenly ordering hundreds of American bombers to take off and start flying close to the USSR. Do you think it is provacative?

Don’t you think that silo based ICBM has no difference with OBS except their positions? “You know they are there. You know they are armed with nukes. You can shoot them down but in doing so there will be a nuclear war.”

There are more reasons other than pressure of decision making. To run LoW, you will need very good early warning systems, great command and control systems and most importantly, a nuclear deterrent that is NOT survivable. Think of it this way, if you are sure that your nuclear missiles can survive, why bother firing them in hurry? Let the strike land first, ensure that it is actually nuclear, take your time to update target locations before firing. Keep in mind that if there is an incoming first strike, the adversary has most likely evacuated their population and military assets. They also have a smaller nuclear arsenal now. You may as well take advantage of it and wage nuclear war over a long time span.

Agree.

Currently, the US is confident that its nuclear deterrent is survivable because its SSBN fleet is spread out and quiet. China is confident about its nuclear deterrent as well because it is difficult to hunt down all TELs in rapid succession. There is no point in running LoW because losing the silos do not translate to losing one's entire nuclear arsenal.

It’s almost impossible to hunt down TELs because Chinese deploy them in deep tunnels. However it’s possible to close all the tunnels, they can dig out themselves but it takes several weeks, the war may had ended then.

Like Perimeter/Dead Hand? I don't think it is necessary. If the short-range warning systems detect incoming stealth bombers, the crew in the silos can launch with proper authorization. As long as the silos are manned 24/7, I don't think there is any issue in that.

Agree.

 

[SEAD]

Which is why flexible response is a thing. Pressure the enemy into talks is always the goal. Not total destruction.

All of those ingenious theories depends on a “smart enemy”. I can bet with my head that “smart enough enemy” doesn’t exist in the real world and the only result of those theories is nothing but “I kill 80% of you while you kill 40%” game. Think about the war between Russia and Ukrainian. Think about the Pacific war.

 

[Kalec]

Nevertheless, I think OBS, is something worthy of researching, just in cast for space weapon deployment in the future.

Space-to-ground guided nuclear missile or space-to-space kinematic weapon.

 

[MrCrazyBoyRavi]

What’s the rough cost for maintaining hypothetically 2000 nukes? Lets’s assume it being spread across multile delivery platform. Now China has more than 3T of Foreign currency reserve. Lets say, great war conflict is eminent. These 3T $ of wealth will be frozen & looted. And China will barely have any time to scale up nuclear reserve.
Just look at Russia and former USSR. USSR went broke competing in Arms Race. Now money can come & go but those Soviet nukes has still guarenteed Russian National security and nobody even dares to think twice invading russia.

 

[SEAD]

What’s the rough cost for maintaining hypothetically 2000 nukes? Lets’s assume it being spread across multile delivery platform. Now China has more than 3T of Foreign currency reserve. Lets say, great war conflict is eminent. These 3T $ of wealth will be frozen & looted. And China will barely have any time to scale up nuclear reserve.
Just look at Russia and former USSR. USSR went broke competing in Arms Race. Now money can come & go but those Soviet nukes has still guarenteed Russian National security and nobody even dares to think twice invading russia.

That’s why many politicians and think tanks imply to destroy China in a nuclear war before it actually happens.

 

[SEAD]

That’s why many politicians and think tanks imply to destroy China in a nuclear war before it actually happens.

And a perfect way to kill one third Americans.