China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread

[TK3600]

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?

Destroying enemy silo sounds like a first strike doctrine to me. Something more suitable for US.

 

[vincent]

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.

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

The reason why Chinese warheads on ICBMs are supposed to be in the megatons range. They are city busters

 

[Blitzo]

The reason why Chinese warheads on ICBMs are supposed to be in the megatons range. They are city busters

Yes.

My question is why ACuriousPLAFan took those random comments seriously and laid out a list of priority potential targets that does not prioritize counter-value.


Those comments did not merit a response, and his response was illogical anyway.

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

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.

Yes.

My question is why ACuriousPLAFan took those random comments seriously and laid out a list of priority potential targets that does not prioritize counter-value.


Those comments did not merit a response, and his response was illogical anyway.

Maybe the idea and concept of counter-value and counter-force roles in my post can be confusing. So allow me to break this down.

But firstly, disclaimer: I do not believe in the "all-out nuclear war would wipe out all of humanity with nuclear winter etc etc" theory. The size and yield of nuclear weapons today are really not enough to cause global nuclear winter. Besides, humans are stong and tough living beings.

So let's continue.

1. Nuclear weapon production facilities where nuclear warheads are manufactured

and

2. Nuclear weapon storage facilities where nuclear warheads are kept and maintained;

As far as I can recall, not all nuclear warheads in the US nuclear arsenal (same goes for Russia) are in active deployment.

According to Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists:


The US at present only has around 1700 nuclear warheads in active deployment, i.e. fitted on Minuteman ICBMs inside their silos, fitted on Trident SLBMs onboard Ohio SSBNs, and stored in military warehouses of air bases where US strategic bombers are stationed.

There are close to 2000 nuclear warheads that are in storage/mothball, with another 1700 being retired and awaiting dismantlement.

Which means that in case of nuclear war, the US would never be able to launch all of their nukes at their disposal at once, since it would take time for those mothballed nuclear warheads to be refurbished, reactivated and fitted onto their respective delivery vehicles.

Therefore, striking US nuclear weapon storage sites would effectively shut the US out of their remaining nuclear stockpiles.

Striking US nuclear weapon manufacturing sites, meanwhile, would further ensure that the US would be left with zero capability to manufacture more nuclear weapons for subsequent nuclear attacks against China, or just anyone still left standing. At least, for the short to medium term.

In fact, China doing as such, despite herself getting decimated in the process, is actually performing a community service for the rest of the Global South.

3. Naval bases and shipyards that build and maintain US SSBNs + load and unload SLBMs;

Majority of the US nuclear arsenal are based on their Ohio SSBNs, which would launch nuclear-tipped Trident ICBMs during a nuclear war. Of course, I would suggest that significant portion, if not all of their onboard nuclear-tipped Tridents would have been launched in the event of nuclear war.

But what comes after that? Relate this to the #1 and #2 above.

If those US naval bases where Ohio SSBNs are designated to refuel, rearm and conduct maintenance at are left untouched, would those Ohios just scuttle themselves and desert, or would they return to their designated naval bases ASAP to rearm with more nuclear-tipped Tridents for more rounds of nuclear attacks?

Furthermore, not all of the Ohios are in active patrol at all times - Some of them could be undergoing long-term maintenance in their designated naval bases, and some others could be refueling their nuclear reactors in those naval shipyards.

Clearly, I don't see how those Ohios can leave their berths/drydocks and go into active war status within 30 minutes.

4. Air bases where US strategic bombers are stationed at;

Largely similar to #3.

Besides, it takes more time to load nuclear bombs and nuclear-tipped missiles onto US strategic bombers, let them taxi to the runway and takeoff before they could proceed to their target cities/sites and drop their payloads.

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

I suppose you have never heard of Continuity of government (COG) and Continuity of Operations (COOP)?

The Pentagon and Washington DC are well-known bullseye locations for very good reasons. Attacking those locations would cripple the military and civilian leadership of the US - That is, only if they are caught unguarded and unable to evacuate Capitol Hill in time.

Of course, since the evacuation of the US government are to be expected in times of nuclear war, the COG and COOP are certainly going to be activated. Therefore, note my above statement:

"plus any known backup locations"

- That means locations where the US government and military leadership are expected to evacuate to in case DC got flattened should also be targetted as well. In fact, there's a whole fr1ck1ng list of those locations on Wikipedia alone.

Without effective central governance, there would only be chaos, destruction and civil war. It would take years or even decades for any new country to take over the place of the former US.

So tell me, possibly apart from #3, is there anything above that is strictly and only counter-force and not counter-value?

Plus, based on your "counter-value versus counter-force" statements, I suppose you missed out on this particular line:

6. Last but not least, although I REALLY HATE TO SAY THIS - Population centers, i.e. cities and towns.

I did mention that American cities should be targetted in a nuclear war, didn't I?

But since this isn't something that I would like to say it out as if I am breathing air or drinking water, that's why I put this at the bottommost line.

Therefore, I hope you can understand that.

Thank you.

 

[Blitzo]

Maybe my idea of counter-value and counter-force roles can be confusing. So allow me to break this down.

But firstly, disclaimer: I do not believe in the "all-out nuclear war would wipe out all of humanity with nuclear winter etc etc" theory. So let's continue.


and

As far as I can recall, not all nuclear warheads in the US nuclear arsenal (same goes for Russia) are in active deployment.

According to Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists:
View attachment 99694

The US at present only has around 1700 nuclear warheads in active deployment, i.e. fitted on Minuteman ICBMs inside their silos, fitted on Trident SLBMs onboard Ohio SSBNs, and stored in military warehouses of air bases where US strategic bombers are stationed.

There are close to 2000 nuclear warheads that are in storage/mothball, with another 1700 being retired and awaiting dismantlement.

Which means that in case of nuclear war, the US would never be able to launch all of their nukes at their disposal at once, since it would take time for those mothballed nuclear warheads to be refurbished, reactivated and fitted onto their respective delivery vehicles.

Therefore, striking US nuclear weapon storage sites would effectively shut the US out of their remaining nuclear stockpiles.

Striking US nuclear weapon manufacturing sites, meanwhile, would further ensure that the US would be left with zero capability to manufacture more nuclear weapons for subsequent nuclear attacks against China, or just anyone still left standing. At least, for the short to medium term.

In fact, China doing as such, despite the possibility of herself getting decimated in the process, is actually performing a community service for the rest of the Global South.


Majority of the US nuclear arsenal are based on their Ohio SSBNs, which would launch nuclear-tipped Trident ICBMs during a nuclear war. Of course, I would suggest that significant portion, if not all of their onboard nuclear-tipped Tridents would have been launched in the event of nuclear war.

But what comes after that? Relate this to the #1 and #2 above.

If those US naval bases where Ohio SSBNs are designated to refuel, rearm and conduct maintenance at are left untouched, would those Ohios just scuttle themselves and desert, or would they return to their designated naval bases ASAP to rearm with more nuclear-tipped Tridents for more rounds of nuclear attacks?

Furthermore, not all of the Ohios are in active patrol at all times - Some of them could be undergoing maintenance in their designated naval bases, and some others could be refueling in those naval shipyards.

Clearly, I don't see how those Ohios can leave their berths/drydocks and go into active war status within 30 minutes.


Largely similar to #3.

Besides, it takes more time to load nuclear bombs and nuclear-tipped missiles onto US strategic bombers, let them taxi to the runway and takeoff before they could proceed to their target cities/sites and drop their payloads.


I suppose you have never heard of Continuity of government (COG) and Continuity of Operations (COOP)?

The Pentagon and Washington DC are well-known bullseye locations for very good reasons. Attacking those locations would cripple the military and civilian leadership of the US - That is, only if they are caught unguarded and unable to evacuate Capitol Hill in time.

Of course, since the evacuation of the US government are to be expected in times of nuclear war, the COG and COOP are certainly going to be activated. Therefore, note my above statement:

- That means locations where the US government and military leadership are expected to evacuate to in case DC got flattened should also be targetted as well. In fact, there's a whole fr1ck1ng list of those locations on Wikipedia alone.

Without effective central governance, there would only be chaos, destruction and civil war. It would take years or even decades for any new country to take over the place of the former US.

Plus, based on your "counter-value versus counter-force" statements, I suppose you missed out on this particular line:

I did mention that American cities should be targetted in a nuclear war, didn't I?

But since this isn't something that I would like to say it out as if I am breathing air or drinking water, that's why I put this at the bottommost line.

Therefore, I hope you can understand that.

Thank you.

Your explanation still doesn't clarify anything.

My question to you, is -- do you believe that the primary target category that China's nuclear arsenal are intended to be used against (in context of China's past, present, and likely forseeable future) nuclear arsenal and nuclear strategy, are population/economic/political centers?


Or to put it another way, I'm confused as to why you list these targets (see below) as relevant at all for China's historical, present and future nuclear deterrence vis a vis the US:
"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; "

Those above targets are all entirely or mostly in the "counter-force" category.



Instead, there is only one category of targets that China's nuclear deterrence is intended to be used against, and it is the one which you describe as "last but not least":
Population centers (which are also economic and political centers).

Population centers are "counter-value" in nature.



I'm asking why you're listing those other five target categories as if they are reasonable targets for China's nuclear arsenal to be oriented towards in the first place, when in reality the only category of target that China's nuclear deterrence is oriented for is against population centers.


China's nuclear deterrence exists for itself -- to be able to inflict such massive catastrophic destruction on any enemy that has the ability to use nuclear weapons against China, such that they would be deterred from using nuclear weapons against China. And that massive catastrophic destruction has to be inflicted against the primary things that the enemy values, i.e.: population centers that also make up their economic, industrial and political centers.

So if China were to suffer a nuclear attack from an adversary, why on earth would China use its nuclear weapons against an enemy's nuclear production/nuclear storage/strategic nuclear air capabilities??
You said "In fact, China doing as such, despite the possibility of herself getting decimated in the process, is actually performing a community service for the rest of the Global South." --- but what on earth are you talking about?
Why would China allow itself to be decimated, and to not inflict as much decimation on its adversary, and instead focus on performing a "community service for the rest of the global south"???

The whole point of nuclear deterrence is to be able to wipe the adversary off the map if they have the gall to do so against yourself.

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

Your explanation still doesn't clarify anything.

My question to you, is -- do you believe that the primary target category that China's nuclear arsenal are intended to be used against (in context of China's past, present, and likely forseeable future) nuclear arsenal and nuclear strategy, are population/economic/political centers?


Or to put it another way, I'm confused as to why you list these targets (see below) as relevant at all for China's historical, present and future nuclear deterrence vis a vis the US:
"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; "

Those above targets are all entirely or mostly in the "counter-force" category.



Instead, there is arguably only one category of targets that China's nuclear deterrence is intended to be used against, and it is the one which you describe as "last but not least":
Population centers (which are also economic and political centers).

Population centers are "counter-value" in nature.



I'm asking why you're listing those other five target categories as if they are reasonable targets for China's nuclear arsenal to be oriented towards in the first place, when in reality the only category of target that China's nuclear deterrence is oriented for is against population centers.


China's nuclear deterrence exists for itself -- to be able to inflict such massive catastrophic destruction on any enemy that has the ability to use nuclear weapons against China, such that they would be deterred from using nuclear weapons against China. And that massive catastrophic destruction has to be inflicted against the primary things that the enemy values, i.e.: population centers that also make up their economic, industrial and political centers.

So if China were to suffer a nuclear attack from an adversary, why on earth would China use its nuclear weapons against an enemy's nuclear production/nuclear storage/strategic nuclear air capabilities??
You said "In fact, China doing as such, despite the possibility of herself getting decimated in the process, is actually performing a community service for the rest of the Global South." --- but what on earth are you talking about?
Why would China allow itself to be decimated, and to not inflict as much decimation on its adversary, and instead focus on performing a "community service for the rest of the global south"???

The whole point of nuclear deterrence is to be able to wipe the adversary off the map if they have the gall to do so against yourself.

.
.
.

 

[Blitzo]

.
.
.
View attachment 99702
View attachment 99703

I'm assuming you have a reasonable explanation to your position.

Reaction images is not an appropriate response, I am sure you understand. Feel free to recant these if you wish.

 

[Untoldpain]

Maybe the idea and concept of counter-value and counter-force roles in my post can be confusing. So allow me to break this down.

But firstly, disclaimer: I do not believe in the "all-out nuclear war would wipe out all of humanity with nuclear winter etc etc" theory. The size and yield of nuclear weapons today are really not enough to cause global nuclear winter. Besides, humans are stong and tough living beings.

So let's continue.


and

As far as I can recall, not all nuclear warheads in the US nuclear arsenal (same goes for Russia) are in active deployment.

According to Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists:
View attachment 99694

The US at present only has around 1700 nuclear warheads in active deployment, i.e. fitted on Minuteman ICBMs inside their silos, fitted on Trident SLBMs onboard Ohio SSBNs, and stored in military warehouses of air bases where US strategic bombers are stationed.

There are close to 2000 nuclear warheads that are in storage/mothball, with another 1700 being retired and awaiting dismantlement.

Which means that in case of nuclear war, the US would never be able to launch all of their nukes at their disposal at once, since it would take time for those mothballed nuclear warheads to be refurbished, reactivated and fitted onto their respective delivery vehicles.

Therefore, striking US nuclear weapon storage sites would effectively shut the US out of their remaining nuclear stockpiles.

Striking US nuclear weapon manufacturing sites, meanwhile, would further ensure that the US would be left with zero capability to manufacture more nuclear weapons for subsequent nuclear attacks against China, or just anyone still left standing. At least, for the short to medium term.

In fact, China doing as such, despite herself getting decimated in the process, is actually performing a community service for the rest of the Global South.


Majority of the US nuclear arsenal are based on their Ohio SSBNs, which would launch nuclear-tipped Trident ICBMs during a nuclear war. Of course, I would suggest that significant portion, if not all of their onboard nuclear-tipped Tridents would have been launched in the event of nuclear war.

But what comes after that? Relate this to the #1 and #2 above.

If those US naval bases where Ohio SSBNs are designated to refuel, rearm and conduct maintenance at are left untouched, would those Ohios just scuttle themselves and desert, or would they return to their designated naval bases ASAP to rearm with more nuclear-tipped Tridents for more rounds of nuclear attacks?

Furthermore, not all of the Ohios are in active patrol at all times - Some of them could be undergoing long-term maintenance in their designated naval bases, and some others could be refueling their nuclear reactors in those naval shipyards.

Clearly, I don't see how those Ohios can leave their berths/drydocks and go into active war status within 30 minutes.


Largely similar to #3.

Besides, it takes more time to load nuclear bombs and nuclear-tipped missiles onto US strategic bombers, let them taxi to the runway and takeoff before they could proceed to their target cities/sites and drop their payloads.


I suppose you have never heard of Continuity of government (COG) and Continuity of Operations (COOP)?

The Pentagon and Washington DC are well-known bullseye locations for very good reasons. Attacking those locations would cripple the military and civilian leadership of the US - That is, only if they are caught unguarded and unable to evacuate Capitol Hill in time.

Of course, since the evacuation of the US government are to be expected in times of nuclear war, the COG and COOP are certainly going to be activated. Therefore, note my above statement:

- That means locations where the US government and military leadership are expected to evacuate to in case DC got flattened should also be targetted as well. In fact, there's a whole fr1ck1ng list of those locations on Wikipedia alone.

Without effective central governance, there would only be chaos, destruction and civil war. It would take years or even decades for any new country to take over the place of the former US.

So tell me, possibly apart from #3, is there anything above that is strictly and only counter-force and not counter-value?

Plus, based on your "counter-value versus counter-force" statements, I suppose you missed out on this particular line:

I did mention that American cities should be targetted in a nuclear war, didn't I?

But since this isn't something that I would like to say it out as if I am breathing air or drinking water, that's why I put this at the bottommost line.

Therefore, I hope you can understand that.

Thank you.

You know, your list of targets would look a lot more rational in a pre-emptive nuclear first strike. The targets are highly counterforce in nature. All you have to add are the 400 Minuteman III silos and you're pretty much there.

Not that there's anything wrong with that line of thinking, but you surely realize the necessary warhead count needed would far outstrip what PLA can deliver today or in the near to medium future.

 

[Blitzo]

You know, your list of targets would look a lot more rational in a pre-emptive nuclear first strike. The targets are highly counterforce in nature.

Not that there's anything wrong with that line of thinking, but you surely realize the necessary warhead count needed would far outstrip what PLA can deliver today or in the near to medium future.

That is why I am so utterly confused.
No nuclear power that is inferior in nuclear arsenal size to its competitors chooses to prioritize counter-force targets over counter-value targets.


@ACuriousPLAFan

Nuclear powers always aim to first ensure that their counter-value capabilities are sufficiently robust against the enemy, before pursuing counter-force capabilities.

It is only after you have the robust capability to wipe out the enemy's population centers, that you have the luxury of adding additional capability to attack their own nuclear/strategic military capabilities as part of your nuclear strategy.

Given China's much smaller nuclear arsenal (in the past and at present) relative to the US and given the sheer number of counter-value targets (population centers), you are not only getting way to ahead of yourself by describing counter-force targets for China's nuclear arsenal, but you are also putting counter-value targets last in priority whereas they should be an overwhelming number one in priority.



If you want to suggest that China eventually acquire counter-force capabilities, that is reasonable -- but that is only reasonable to aim for well after China possesses a very robust counter-value capability.

 

[Andy1974]

All the nuclear games and policies and strategies that were worked out long ago all relied on one thing.. that the US would have rational leadership that would prioritize their peoples lives and health.

As US leadership weakens, perhaps the things they Value may also change.