China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread

[Kalec]

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.

And I am sure adversary will use thermonuclear bomb to attack cities where everyone has been in the bunker, and refrain from using air bursted dirty bomb.

The problem of "winnable nuclear war" is the false assumption of your enemies being reasonably and playing by "rules."

First strike against hard targets won't bring anyone to the negotiation table but diplomatic catastrophe. "OK we just disarm your silos and we know you guys still have TELs on the road. Could you please come to negotiate with an unconditional surrender?" The idea of surrendering is plain stupid when you still have capability to second strike adversary's soft targets. And the man, who just put entire mankind at risk and thought it is a W not a big fat L, probably should call a psychiatrist first.

And a first strike against soft targets (w/ or w/o hard targets) is even more stupid. Because hard targets are deep inland and will get an early notice to launch on warning with thousands of warheads.

Nuclear war is only winnable when you can disarm at least 80% of fixed delivery systems AND your adversary is rational. Neither of them is true under a nuclear war scenario, especially in 21st century. Disarmament is impossible with a credible LoW posture. Russia can't even disarm Ukrainian Su-27/Mig-29s in several days, how is it possible to disarm nuclear forces in several minutes?

 

[SEAD]

And I am sure adversary will use thermonuclear bomb to attack cities where everyone has been in the bunker, and refrain from using air bursted dirty bomb.

The problem of "winnable nuclear war" is the false assumption of your enemies being reasonably and playing by "rules."

First strike against hard targets won't bring anyone to the negotiation table but diplomatic catastrophe. "OK we just disarm your silos and we know you guys still have TELs on the road. Could you please come to negotiate with an unconditional surrender?" The idea of surrendering is plain stupid when you still have capability to second strike adversary's soft targets. And the man, who just put entire mankind at risk and thought it is a W not a big fat L, probably should call a psychiatrist first.

And a first strike against soft targets (w/ or w/o hard targets) is even more stupid. Because hard targets are deep inland and will get an early notice to launch on warning with thousands of warheads.

Nuclear war is only winnable when you can disarm at least 80% of fixed delivery systems AND your adversary is rational. Neither of them is true under a nuclear war scenario, especially in 21st century. Disarmament is impossible with a credible LoW posture. Russia can't even disarm Ukrainian Su-27/Mig-29s in several days, how is it possible to disarm nuclear forces in several minutes?

“Russia is not a good example because they are stupid” lol

 

[Hendrik_2000]

I never see so much BS in this thread with no proof whatsoever other than hubris. Jilin satellite network progressing fast From Henri K
7 satellites, including 6 x Jilin-1-03D and 1 x Jilin-1-04A, will be launched on April 29 by a CZ-11H from a platform in the East China Sea. The shooting window is from 11:19 a.m. to 12:34 p.m. Beijing time. Another spaceflight will take place the same day at the JSLC center.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1518610573314777091

 

[escobar]

the development of the JL-1 constellitation began in 2015, and the first 4 satellites were launched on 7 October 2015. In 2021, there are 30 satellites in the constellation and the constellation will be expanded to 138 satellites to offer high resolution imagery and a high revisit commercial service.

46 sats in orbit but Jilin constellation is not a space based AMTI system...

 

[Hendrik_2000]

46 sats in orbit but Jilin constellation is not a space based AMTI system...

But most of Chinese satellite are dual use system. I know on paper Jilin constellation is civilian but you never know

 

[Richard Santos]

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.

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

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.

Any war can be won provided the enemy does what you want them to do. The question in case of nuclear war is how delusional are you when you suppose you can force the enemy to do what you want them to do. The only time in post WWII nuclear world when the US successfully manipulated Russia into doing what it wants Russia to do in this context are:

1. Gorbachev prioritizing political liberalization over economic reform, which is just as well because Russia was militarily not doing what the US wanted it to do in response to the force posture the US adopted through the 1980s for the purpose of making Russia so some specific things.

2. Russia invading Ukraine, which is too limited an event so far but which may yet balloon into something the US is unprepared to handle, such as earnest, as opposed to demonstrative, use of tactical nuclear weapons.

 

[SEAD]

But most of Chinese satellite are dual use system. I know on paper Jilin constellation is civilian but you never know

AFAIK, PLASSF run a space intelligence agency in which all(both military and civilian) Chinese satellite data are integrated together. Again and again, the real problem of JL-1 is the absence of data at night/bad weather and the width of scanning, which is only 1/30~1/50 of any satellites designed for serious wide area surveillance task, e.g. Jianbing-9. Thus the whole 138 JL-1 constellation only provides a part of capability of JB-9 for surveillance tasks, leave alone

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

.

 

[SEAD]

But most of Chinese satellite are dual use system. I know on paper Jilin constellation is civilian but you never know

I want to show respect to any comments BUT it's a simple common sense that visible light sensors don't work at night. You don't need an AMTI system blind at night. ‘you never know’ is not a magic to make fantasy to be true.

 

[bustead]

Any war can be won provided the enemy does what you want them to do. The question in case of nuclear war is how delusional are you when you suppose you can force the enemy to do what you want them to do.

The theory is that there is mutual interests in avoiding mutual destruction. Thus, there will still be incentives to conduct talks and negotiate for a ceasefire after nuclear weapons have been used. Think of it this way. Say there is a war between China and the US. China has destroyed US navy fleets on the Pacific and has taken Guam. Now the US wants China to stop but is incapable of doing so conventionally. So it fires a tactical nuclear weapon at some unimportant target (say, a small flotilla of destroyers) to demonstrate that it is willing to use nuclear weapons.

This is called signal with force. Yes, China can ignore such a signal and continue to fight. However, the risk of escalation is now higher than before. This means that China will have to re-think the risks of this war and suddenly negotiating for a ceasefire may not be the worst option. In other words, a red line has been drawn.

Keep in mind that in this instance the US is simply using nuclear weapons to coerce China in an attempt to avoid total defeat. Gray's original idea calls for striking the adversary's tactical forces so that the US can gain an advantage against its adversary in conventional warfare. Needless to say, that is a very dangerous (and honestly insane) alternative to signal with force.

Finally, nuclear warfare against great powers maybe unthinkable. But nuclear warfare against India is definitely worth considering. I have been thinking about first striking India. India's nuclear command and control is still immature so there is a chance to disrupt it. It also lacks space-based early warning capabilities and even if a first strike fails to completely neutralize India's nuclear arsenal, they do not have MIRV technology. So there is a significant chance for a Chinese ABM system to knock out incoming Indian missiles

 

[SEAD]

The theory is that there is mutual interests in avoiding mutual destruction. Thus, there will still be incentives to conduct talks and negotiate for a ceasefire after nuclear weapons have been used. Think of it this way. Say there is a war between China and the US. China has destroyed US navy fleets on the Pacific and has taken Guam. Now the US wants China to stop but is incapable of doing so conventionally. So it fires a tactical nuclear weapon at some unimportant target (say, a small flotilla of destroyers) to demonstrate that it is willing to use nuclear weapons.

This is called signal with force. Yes, China can ignore such a signal and continue to fight. However, the risk of escalation is now higher than before. This means that China will have to re-think the risks of this war and suddenly negotiating for a ceasefire may not be the worst option. In other words, a red line has been drawn.

Keep in mind that in this instance the US is simply using nuclear weapons to coerce China in an attempt to avoid total defeat. Gray's original idea calls for striking the adversary's tactical forces so that the US can gain an advantage against its adversary in conventional warfare. Needless to say, that is a very dangerous (and honestly insane) alternative to signal with force.

Finally, nuclear warfare against great powers maybe unthinkable. But nuclear warfare against India is definitely worth considering. I have been thinking about first striking India. India's nuclear command and control is still immature so there is a chance to disrupt it. It also lacks space-based early warning capabilities and even if a first strike fails to completely neutralize India's nuclear arsenal, they do not have MIRV technology. So there is a significant chance for a Chinese ABM system to knock out incoming Indian missiles

In a sense, ‘striking the adversary's tactical forces so that the US can gain an advantage against its adversary in conventional warfare’ is the formal policy for not only Ronald Reagan but also Bush Junior and Donald Trump. Your thinking is great but it’s not how it works in the real world, let’s be honest, it’s absolutely not ‘an insane idea’ for most US presidents.

Your idea about striking India is same dangerous for the same reason, you can always ‘win’ if you have more warheads and can endure large enough hurt, but most people won’t hope such a victory really comes.