China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread

[Topazchen]

It comes with question like "How much is enough for a strong strategic deterrence?"

I would say 3,000 is preferable limit, guaranteed destruction of U.S. main military facilities and 30% of its city. It will 100% deter US from any open hostility. Also persuasive to other nuclear power a.k.a India from nuclear catch up.

That is not credible deterrence. The US would not hesitate to launch a war if it knew that it could survive with 100 million people and China completely destroyed .
You are forgetting that the Blob has an ISIS like conviction that the US must remain the sole hegemon at all costs .These are not rational people you are dealing with but Anglo-Saxon jihadists who are even nowadays entertaining the idea of a winnable nuclear war .
The deterrence that will put them in their place is an overwhelming nuclear capability and plans to nuke the country beyond existence. Have 5,000 ready to launch nukes and perhaps, in the future, interoperate with Russia for force multiplication.

 

[j17wang]

It comes with question like "How much is enough for a strong strategic deterrence?"

I would say 3,000 is preferable limit, guaranteed destruction of U.S. main military facilities and 30% of its city. It will 100% deter US from any open hostility. Also persuasive to other nuclear power a.k.a India from nuclear catch up.

3,000 or roughly 80% US arsenal should be sufficient, whichever number is lower. It should be able to initiate removal of more than 30% US urban population. Harder challenge is creating the right mix of the triad. Reasonable to assume 10 SSBNs with 1000 warheads, and 500-600 launch vehicles with the remainder. I am not sure air launched weapons have any role to play in deterring the US, though would welcome other thoughts.

 

[Kalec]

That is not credible deterrence. The US would not hesitate to launch a war if it knew that it could survive with 100 million people and China completely destroyed .
You are forgetting that the Blob has an ISIS like conviction that the US must remain the sole hegemon at all costs .These are not rational people you are dealing with but Anglo-Saxon jihadists who are even nowadays entertaining the idea of a winnable nuclear war .
The deterrence that will put them in their place is an overwhelming nuclear capability and plans to nuke the country beyond existence. Have 5,000 ready to launch nukes and perhaps, in the future, interoperate with Russia for force multiplication.

Dude, US itself only has 1,550 nuclear warheads deployed. 3,000 is based on the assumption of a mild arm race.

A three way deterrence between China, Russia and US sounds fair to me given that Russia will be more inclined towards cooperation with China for at least two decades after Ukraine war. A coordinated but undeclared Sino-Russo nuclear deterrence will definitely hold off American aggression by any meaningful way.

American elites may have accepted that a three body problem in nuclear deterrence and working on it to deliver a solution to the congress.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

China could also produce enough warheads and launch capability of 3,750 warheads while maintain a 1,550 deployed limit within treaty. Tbh I would be disappointed if Xi goes with "1,550 is enough so we stop right there."

3,000 or roughly 80% US arsenal should be sufficient, whichever number is lower. It should be able to initiate removal of more than 30% US urban population. Harder challenge is creating the right mix of the triad. Reasonable to assume 10 SSBNs with 1000 warheads, and 500-600 launch vehicles with the remainder. I am not sure air launched weapons have any role to play in deterring the US, though would welcome other thoughts.

SSBNs is more of a symbolic triad for the navy, not really credible deterrence against US.

 

[sunnymaxi]

Tbh I would be disappointed if Xi goes with "1,550 is enough so we stop right there."

you will not be disappointed. this time, Western world will see the real industrial capability of China.

3000 would be more than enough.

 

[Overbom]

now its almost official, China is building strong strategic deterrence force.

your analysis on this. how do you see this development.

Very positive. Minimum goal should be 3000 warheads deployed 7000 in reserve.

If you are going to do something, do it big. No need to be stingy with money

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

3,000 or roughly 80% US arsenal should be sufficient, whichever number is lower. It should be able to initiate removal of more than 30% US urban population. Harder challenge is creating the right mix of the triad. Reasonable to assume 10 SSBNs with 1000 warheads, and 500-600 launch vehicles with the remainder. I am not sure air launched weapons have any role to play in deterring the US, though would welcome other thoughts.

SSBNs may be less survivable than TELs. SSBNs can be followed by SSNs then surprise sunk day 1, especially since Chinese MPAs can't be on permanent patrol, while the Yellow Sea and SCS are only weak bastions with South Korea, Japan and Philippines with MPA bases nearby. TELs are highly dispersed (1 missile per truck vs 12 per SSBN), cost far less, have much higher readiness due to communication and situational awareness advantages, and can be deployed deep inland in forest, mountain and tunnel.

 

[Minm]

The US has 331 cities with 100,000 or more people. China needs at least 10 bombs per city to completely annihilate the enemy after suffering a first strike that destroys 90% of Chinese bombs. The same number again for other NATO members. So 6000-7000 strategic nukes plus some tactical ones. The US president needs to realise that if he starts a nuclear war with China there won't be a US left afterwards

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

SSBNs may be less survivable than TELs. SSBNs can be followed by SSNs then surprise sunk day 1, especially since Chinese MPAs can't be on permanent patrol, while the Yellow Sea and SCS are only weak bastions with South Korea, Japan and Philippines with MPA bases nearby. TELs are highly dispersed (1 missile per truck vs 12 per SSBN), cost far less, have much higher readiness due to communication and situational awareness advantages, and can be deployed deep inland in forest, mountain and tunnel.

As long as:
1. The PLAN isn't the one rulling the Western Pacific; and/or
2. More advanced and quieter 096 SSBNs aren't being put into service in sufficient numbers -
Then this case is true.

Despite this, I am banking on the fact where 094 SSBNs are gradually being fitted with the newer JL-3 SLBMs instead of the older JL-2 SLBMs. As a matter of fact, JL-3 has an estimated maximum range of 12000 kilometers, compared to JL-2's 7000-8000 kilometers.

That means as soon as nuclear war breaks out with the US, those 094s armed with JL-3s would only need to be stationed in/make a mad dash towards the Yellow Sea (preferably somewhere close to the Shandong Peninsula) before launching all of their JL-3s. Those JL-3-armed 094s can also make a dash to the East China Sea for launching JL-3s as well, but the chances of the JL-3s getting intercepted by ABM systems stationed in South Korea and Japan would be higher compared to that from the Yellow Sea.

Those 094s armed with JL-2s, however, would be pretty much useless in conducting nuclear strikes against the US unless they are sailing somewhere around the Aleutian Islands, which is well outside the range where PLAN and PLAAF could reliably operate and provide protection. Therefore, those JL-2-armed 094s would be better off staying in the South China Sea - There are plenty of targets within JL-2's strike range from there anyways.

In both cases, all of the 094s don't need to cross the First Island Chain, and can be reliably covered by the PLAN and PLAAF based from the mainland. That means less threat from SSNs and SSKs, and greater survivability for the PLAN SSBNs to conduct their duties in a doomsday scenario.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

As long as:
1. The PLAN isn't the one rulling the Western Pacific; and/or
2. More advanced and quieter 096 SSBNs aren't being put into service in sufficient numbers -
Then this case is true.

Despite this, I am banking on the fact where 094 SSBNs are gradually being fitted with the newer JL-3 SLBMs instead of the older JL-2 SLBMs. As a matter of fact, JL-3 has an estimated maximum range of 12000 kilometers, compared to JL-2's 7000-8000 kilometers.

That means as soon as nuclear war breaks out with the US, those 094s armed with JL-3s would only need to be stationed in/make a mad dash towards the Yellow Sea (preferably somewhere close to the Shandong Peninsula) before launching all of their JL-3s. Those JL-3-armed 094s can also make a dash to the East China Sea for launching JL-3s as well, but the chances of the JL-3s getting intercepted by ABM systems stationed in South Korea and Japan would be higher compared to that from the Yellow Sea.

Those 094s armed with JL-2s, however, would be pretty much useless in conducting nuclear strikes against the US unless they are sailing somewhere around the Aleutian Islands, which is well outside the range where PLAN and PLAAF could reliably operate and provide protection. Therefore, those JL-2-armed 094s would be better off staying in the South China Sea - There are plenty of targets within JL-2's strike range from there anyways.

In both cases, all of the 094s don't need to cross the First Island Chain, and can be reliably covered by the PLAN and PLAAF based from the mainland. That means less threat from SSNs and SSKs, and greater survivability for the PLAN SSBNs to conduct their duties in a doomsday scenario.

Note that I already assumed that the subs can fire from the SCS and Yellow Sea. even with JL-3, it is STILL possible for foreign subs to camp chokepoints in the yellow and SCS sea during peacetime and stage a surprise attack since all the water near China is shallow and the total area of China's coastal waters is something like ~4 million km2, which is far lower than the 9 million km2 of Chinese land territory, has foreign subs prowling at all times (even peacetime and there's nothing you can legally do about it). It doesn't mean totally ignore subs, it just means that you can't depend on them as much.

The other reason is that TELs have high readiness. They can be parked inside climate controlled bunkers and ready to drive within 5 minutes when they're not on patrol, while subs require lengthy overhauls at base, typically with ~50% readiness only. TELs require the same maintenance as any other heavy duty vehicle, subs require the same maintenance as any other sub - heavy. The other thing is communication and situational awareness. TELs can receive complex orders immediately upon receiving early warning data because they can receive satellite radio on patrol and wire data in base. They can communicate back to base to ask questions. subs must rely on VLF signals that are bandwidth limited and can only receive relatively simple orders. They cannot talk back. TELs know where they are at all times due to navigation data, maps and landmarks, so they can generate very accurate firing solutions. Subs do not really know where they are, they cannot receive any external signals except sound and VLF, and sound does not give ranging.

Some certain major power doesn't use TELs due to political reasons - for that country, a sense of normality among the populace is absolutely key to maintaining popular support for wars of aggression, because war is something that happens 'over there'. If they see TELs, tanks, SAMs, etc. driving around and hear jets roaring overhead, they won't support wars anymore because it reminds them that war is 'here', even without material changes.

 

[Blitzo]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1582355898042707968

Just want to mention about these:
View attachment 99675
View attachment 99676

Makes me think that why would any strategic war planners of China still believe that in case of nuclear doomsday, those nuclear warheads in their arsenal should be targetting those US ICBM silos - if any with that thinking is still present.

Doomsday weapons are known for doomsday weapons for very obvious reasons - If you really have gone crazy and intend to wipe me out completely, then you must suffer from the same fate as (or worse fate than) I do.

Therefore, why should China even bother targetting individual Minuteman ICBM silos, which would mostly be empty by the time Chinese nuclear warheads arrive at those ICBM silos? In fact, it would only take 5 minutes from receiving launch command from the US President to the Minuteman ICBMs leaving their silos. 15-20 minutes from first detection of ICBM to the launch command being given, that takes around 20-25 minutes in total. Meanwhile, Chinese ICBMs would take around 30 minutes to reach the US from China - most likely after .

If anything, those nuclear warheads should be aimed at American strategic military facilities and infrastructures at the very least:
1. Nuclear weapon production facilities where nuclear warheads are manufactured;
2. Nuclear weapon storage facilities where nuclear warheads are kept and maintained;
3. Naval bases and shipyards that build and maintain US SSBNs + load and unload SLBMs;
4. Air bases where US strategic bombers are stationed at;
5. Command centers of the US military and the US government (plus any known backup locations) such as the Pentagon, White House, Mount Weather, Cheyenne Mountain Complex, etc; and
6. Last but not least, although I REALLY HATE TO SAY THIS - Population centers, i.e. cities and towns.

Those individual Minuteman ICBM silos would be, if anything, single use - Once the ICBM left those silos, it would take a few days at least for those silos to be ready for firing ICBMs again. And what else is going to be left intact for them to launch 2nd round of nuclear strikes against in a doomsday?

Don't believe what random people on social media and youtube say.

Jesus, if those people think that China's ICBMs in the past have been intended for a counter-force role (targeting enemy nuclear and conventional military forces), role rather than a counter-value role (targeting population and economic and political centers), then they're idiots.

All of your recommendations as well, have reversed the priority.


China's ICBM force -- even after an expansion of nuclear arsenal -- will primarily be oriented around a counter-value role.