China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread

[BoraTas]

no, how would you differentiate between that and nuclear warheads? Whoever you launch it against will assume nuclear warheads are coming.

No need for differentiation. The checklist for a prompt nuclear retaliation is long. During the cold war, the standard approach was waiting until the attack is concluded unless the enemy warheads were heading towards the nuclear arsenal itself. So in this scenario, no mushroom cloud means no nukes were used. The real reason for the lack of existence of conventional ICBMs is the cost-ineffectiveness of such a weapon.

 

[BoraTas]

Does anyone know this guy and does this claim have any credibility? My opinion is a firm no.

 

[Overbom]

Does anyone know this guy and does this claim have any credibility? My opinion is a firm no.
View attachment 97933

Bs. China put hypersonics development at the top of its' must-funded new technologies list some (afaik) 20 years ago

 

[tphuang]

Does anyone know this guy and does this claim have any credibility? My opinion is a firm no.
View attachment 97933

well, I'd have a lot more faith in what Patchwork and Shilao says than some random twitter guy online.

 

[ZeEa5KPul]

well, I'd have a lot more faith in what Patchwork and Shilao says than some random twitter guy online.

Nah, bro. PLAOpsOSINT totally knows what he's talking about. I mean, if a Twitter OSINTard doesn't have the inside track on the detailed thinking of the various PLA service branches, who does?

 

[Kalec]

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

Does anyone know this guy and does this claim have any credibility? My opinion is a firm no.
View attachment 97933

Someone ask this dumbfuck what is the operational difference between a 2000 km missile launched from the ground, the sky above China or the sea near China.

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

The real reason for the lack of existence of conventional ICBMs is the cost-ineffectiveness of such a weapon.

Prompt Global Strike (PGS), using conventional Minuteman ICBM?

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

Does anyone know this guy and does this claim have any credibility? My opinion is a firm no.
View attachment 97933

Also these following replies under @luritie's initial reply:

... What?

Why should a claim by some unknown PLARF personnel against the PLA Navy ALL THE WAY BACK from the late 1960s matters in the PLA today?

The PLARF was still the 2nd Artillery Corps in the 1960s, and will remain so until the PLA reform of 2015. Very few people from the 1960s would have clearly understood the idea, in-and-out, wrt the importance of interservice integration and cooperation between the PLARF, PLAAF and PLAN in a hypothetical 2nd Pacific War scenario as people do today.

Especially when the PLA back then is still essentially ran by the "People's War" concept, and the massive wake-up call from the Persian Gulf War hasn't happened yet?

And these:



Again... what?

How in the world are AAMs supposed to play the same role as ASBMs??!

Even my uninformed a$$es can tell that their targets are different to each other in A LOT of parameters...

Lastly, these:


Is he claiming that the USN shouldn't develop hypersonic missiles because the USAF already did?

Meanwhile, he is also quoting this book:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Has anyone read this quoted book before?

TL; DR - I do understand that interservice rivalry is unavoidable in all militaries across the world, with some less bad and some truly worse - But his whole Tweet just sounds like BS to me.

 

[Temstar]

PLAN once famously gave up on a major warship purchase to save money for PLAAF to buy fighters earlier on in PRC history
More recently, PLAAF famously let PLAN headhunt all their best trainee pilots to establish pilot corp for carrier based fighters after Liaoning went into service.

Shilao and Yankee discussed this at length very recently:

In fact they used this specifically as example that PLA is different compared to other armed forces in regards to inter service rivalry.