China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread

[Hendrik_2000]

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.

Jilin is part of larger surveillance system it is not a stand alone system. There is such thing as SAR. And I don't know why China has to watch every single one of the airfield in US possession does not make sense. They were used to confirm target not to find target! These days you just can't hide china has all sort of satellite and they fed into centralized command system with AI etc

 

[davidau]

Jilin is part of larger surveillance system it is not a stand alone system. There is such thing as SAR. And I don't know why China has to watch every single one of the airfield in US possession does not make sense. They were used to confirm target not to find target! These days you just can't hide china has all sort of satellite and they fed into centralized command system with AI etc

Making sure what the antagonists are up to. They have no wherte to hide. I watched some clips that the satellites can identify the cars running and planes taking off.

 

[SEAD]

Jilin is part of larger surveillance system it is not a stand alone system. There is such thing as SAR. And I don't know why China has to watch every single one of the airfield in US possession does not make sense. They were used to confirm target not to find target! These days you just can't hide china has all sort of satellite and they fed into centralized command system with AI etc

Exactly they are used for identification and tracking, not consistent monitoring. However any AEW need consistent monitoring.

 

[gelgoog]

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.

The idea of using tactical nuclear weapons to achieve battlefield effects predates those administrations. At one point there was a nuclear warhead mania when miniaturization advanced and you had weapon systems like Atomic Annie and the David Crockett recoilless rifle.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The idea was to have a spectrum of possible responses from tactical, to theater, to strategic by the late Cold War. Eventually this was deemed too expensive and it led to a series of arms reduction treaties.

 

[SEAD]

The idea of using tactical nuclear weapons to achieve battlefield effects predates those administrations. At one point there was a nuclear warhead mania when miniaturization advanced and you had weapon systems like Atomic Annie and the David Crockett recoilless rifle.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Atomic Annie and LRSO are symbols of two irrelevant form of war/policy, you cannot deny the latter one by simply claiming the first one is out of date.

The fact that US refuses to accept the idea of mutual vulnerability with China clearly shows first striking to the whole Chinese nuclear arsenal was, is and will always be a practical plan for every US president in Taiwan or SCS or any potential scenario. In contrast, US accept mutual vulnerability with Russia.

 

[gelgoog]

Atomic Annie and LRSO are symbols of two irrelevant form of war/policy, you cannot deny the latter one by simply claiming the first one is out of date.

The fact that US refuses to accept the idea of mutual vulnerability with China clearly shows first striking to the whole Chinese nuclear arsenal was, is and will always be a practical plan for every US president in Taiwan or SCS or any potential scenario. In contrast, US accept mutual vulnerability with Russia.

They did at one point. But by pulling out of several treaties it is clear the US also seeks to erode Russia's deterrence. It is just that they know it will take longer to do it than in the Chinese case. Why do you think Russia started their crash program to develop their latest generation nuclear weapons like the moment after the US dropped out of the ABM Treaty? First thing the Russians did was add MIRVs back to their missiles. And now you have like a paraphernalia of all the weapons systems the Soviets proposed to combat ABM in the late 1980s entering service one after the other. About the only thing missing right now is the orbital anti-satellite combat platforms like Polyus. If the US decides to use Starship and reusable heavy lift to put orbital ABM in service you will see that show up again as well.

With regards to China, US military planners probably think the US would have an advantage on first strike because the US can forward position their nuclear weapons closer to the Chinese mainland while China can't do this to them. And for a long time the amount of nuclear weapons China had was small. I think I remember reading the estimate was 80 warheads in the 1990s. They will likely only change posture once Chinese SSBNs become a bigger threat.

 

[SEAD]

They did at one point. But by pulling out of several treaties it is clear the US also seeks to erode Russia's deterrence. It is just that they know it will take longer to do it than in the Chinese case. Why do you think Russia started their crash program to develop their latest generation nuclear weapons like the moment after the US dropped out of the ABM Treaty? First thing the Russians did was add MIRVs back to their missiles. And now you have like a paraphernalia of all the weapons systems the Soviets proposed to combat ABM in the late 1980s entering service one after the other. About the only thing missing right now is the orbital anti-satellite combat platforms like Polyus. If the US decides to use Starship and reusable heavy lift to put orbital ABM in service you will see that show up again as well.

With regards to China, US military planners probably think the US would have an advantage on first strike because the US can forward position their nuclear weapons closer to the Chinese mainland. And for a long time the amount of nuclear weapons China had was small. I think I remember reading the estimate was 80 warheads in the 1990s.

I don’t know what’s your point because if they are seeking to erode Russia's deterrence, obviously they will have much less hesitation to erode a ‘no mutual vulnerability country’.

The denying is not about fact(obviously China has had the ability to kill dozens or hundreds of millions of Americans) but a kind of political claiming, which means ‘I can endure the hurt and I plan to take the advantage of it’.

 

[SEAD]

I don’t know what’s your point because if they are seeking to erode Russia's deterrence, obviously they will have much less hesitation to erode a ‘no mutual vulnerability country’.

The denying is not about fact(obviously China has had the ability to kill dozens or hundreds of millions of Americans) but a kind of political claiming, which means ‘I can endure the hurt and I plan to take the advantage of it’.

As a result, Chinese silos(SSBN, TEL) must convince everyone that they are survivability against any US first strike to preserve strategic stability. Any vulnerability will make the world very dangerous.

Unfortunately all of these three deployments have vulnerabilities. TEL tunnels can be closed, silos can be bombed by B-21 and LRSO, SSBN can be sunk by SSN, and any possible counterattack is ‘impossible because they are smart enemies’, even though a single warhead can kill millions of Americans and China absolutely has the ability to deliver hundreds of warheads to US after the first strike.

LOOoOOL.

 

[by78]

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.

Gorbachev? Ukraine? What thread is this? Could you please get off your soapbox and take your long-winded soliloquies about your latest hobbyhorse to the appropriate thread?

Thank you.

 

[Hendrik_2000]

As a result, Chinese silos(SSBN, TEL) must convince everyone that they are survivability against any US first strike to preserve strategic stability. Any vulnerability will make the world very dangerous.

Unfortunately all of these three deployments have vulnerabilities. TEL tunnels can be closed, silos can be bombed by B-21 and LRSO, SSBN can be sunk by SSN, and any possible counterattack is ‘impossible because they are smart enemies’, even though a single warhead can kill millions of Americans and China absolutely has the ability to deliver hundreds of warheads to US after the first strike.

LOOoOOL.

Not so simple This is not your mom amd pop Tunnel. They have built in consideration that they will be attacked so they built zig zagging tunnel and pressure blast vent and many other feature exactly to counter any enemy attack. The designer for this tunnel is awarded national award first class by none other than Prez Xi 2 years ago. So