Some ppl in western governments clearly got spooked by that phrase in Xi's speech, so China had to rush to issue an official "denial" statement. Imo China actually dropped the minimal deterrence strategy.
China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread
- Thread starter peace_lover
- Start date
- Status
Some ppl in western governments clearly got spooked by that phrase in Xi's speech, so China had to rush to issue an official "denial" statement. Imo China actually dropped the minimal deterrence strategy.
Minimal deterrence is a subjective term. If you want to deter an aggressive America, you need a lot more minimal nukes than if you want to deter a rational America
You know, after seeing @Andy1974's comment on the matter:
You guys (@Blitzo and @Untoldpain) are assuming that China is dealing with a sane, rational, can-be-negotiated-with US leadership.
Meanwhile, I am supposing that China is dealing with an insane, irrational, bloodthirsty and ruthless US leadership.
That means unlike you guys who would think that the US leadership would know how and when to stop after launching 1700 of their nuclear warheads and seeing that their cities have been flattened by nuclear hellfire - I do believe that the US leadership would be crazy enough to do whatever it takes to destroy everyone, regardless of how much destruction has been inflicted upon their country, and regardless of how many of their citizens are dead.
But hey, for the sake of this discussion, let's go with your way @Blitzo.
Let me quote this statement of yours:
However, per most credible estimates, China at present only has around 350 nuclear warheads.
But hey, let's make a scenario where everything goes perfectly for China. Let's assume that:
1. All nuclear warheads in China's arsenal are of megaton-scale;
2. Only one nuclear warhead is needed per city;
3. All nuclear warheads can be launched by China at once, without delay;
4. All of the US ABM systems is somehow disfunctional at the time of the attack;
5. None of the ICBMs and warheads launched by China are intercepted;
6. All nuclear warheads hit their targets; and
7. Every single city would not have any survivors after the attack.
Therefore, if you want to go with the "all-out-nuclear-destruction-to-the-US" and "kill-as-many-people-in-the-US" option, @Blitzo, then all US cities must be nuked.
Yes, that means every single one of the cities in the US must be nuked.
No exceptions.
But do you know how many US cities are there with significant enough population?
Here're the stats:
1. There are 9 US cities with population of over 1 million;
2. There are 37 US cities with population of over 500 thousand;
3. There are 90 US cities with population of over 250 thousand; and
4. There are 330 US cities with population of over 100 thousand.
That's 330 warheads spent. That leaves China with only 20 warheads.
Oh, and we haven't talked about other nuclear-armed countries that are openly hostile to China, i.e. France (with 290 warheads), UK (with 225 warheads) and India (estimated 185 warheads). Wouldn't they be taking the opportunity to attack, and if possible, destroy China as well with their own nuclear weapons?
And we haven't even talked about NATO as a whole - because you can be sure to the heavens that the US would certainly drag the asses of her NATO allies into the war with China, simply because the US could just invoke Article 5 on the basis of China is attacking the US in the war. Plus, unless anyone here is living in some remote cave, many NATO countries are looking to worsen their relations with Beijing, if not already.
Oh, and don't forget about Russia as well - They may be allies, but they have completely different roots of civiliation than China. What makes anyone think that Russia wouldn't take the advantage of neutralizing China while she's at it? Hell, why would Russia even tolerate a neighbouring country that could rise with relatively little damage and strength while itself is getting nuked to oblivion? Don't forget that Russia has invaded China not once, not twice, but three times.
Of course, I am not saying that Russia is definitely going to nuke China as well apart from NATO in a doomsday scenario, but such possibilities should never be discounted.
So how are you going to spend the remaining 20 warheads, @Blitzo? How? According to your "all-out-nuclear-destruction-to-the-US" and "kill-as-many-people-in-the-US" option, how?
But hey,
All of us should realize the facts that:
1. Not every single one of China's nuclear warhead are in the megaton-scale;
2. More than one nuclear warhead is necessary for larger, more spread-out cities i.e. New York, London, Paris, Mumbai, Moscow etc;
3. Not all nuclear warheads in China's arsenal can be launched at once, without delay - In fact, chances are there could be nuclear warheads still on the ground by the time enemy nuclear warheads arrive overhead;
4. Most of the enemy ABM systems should be expected to be functional at the time of the attack;
5. Some of the ICBMs and warheads launched by China are expected to be intercepted;
6. Not all nuclear warheads launched can hit their targets; and
7. There will be survivors in every city - which means that the nuclear warheads haven't done their job good enough, and that could require second or third rounds of nuclear warheads.
What does that mean? That means that there is no reasonable way for China to go the "all-out-nuclear-destruction-to-the-US" and "kill-as-many-people-in-the-US" option that you have just proclaimed, @Blitzo, with only limited amount of nuclear warheads in China's arsenal.
That's what I meant.
<<<END>>>
Kinda tells me that we have different mentalities.
You guys (@Blitzo and @Untoldpain) are assuming that China is dealing with a sane, rational, can-be-negotiated-with US leadership.
Meanwhile, I am supposing that China is dealing with an insane, irrational, bloodthirsty and ruthless US leadership.
That means unlike you guys who would think that the US leadership would know how and when to stop after launching 1700 of their nuclear warheads and seeing that their cities have been flattened by nuclear hellfire - I do believe that the US leadership would be crazy enough to do whatever it takes to destroy everyone, regardless of how much destruction has been inflicted upon their country, and regardless of how many of their citizens are dead.
But hey, for the sake of this discussion, let's go with your way @Blitzo.
Let me quote this statement of yours:
According to your statement, you mean that China should nuke and flatten as many US' (or any other country) population centers as possible in order to inflict as much pain and suffering to the US (or any other country) and their people in case they have any ideas on utilizing nukes against China.
However, per most credible estimates, China at present only has around 350 nuclear warheads.
But hey, let's make a scenario where everything goes perfectly for China. Let's assume that:
1. All nuclear warheads in China's arsenal are of megaton-scale;
2. Only one nuclear warhead is needed per city;
3. All nuclear warheads can be launched by China at once, without delay;
4. All of the US ABM systems is somehow disfunctional at the time of the attack;
5. None of the ICBMs and warheads launched by China are intercepted;
6. All nuclear warheads hit their targets; and
7. Every single city would not have any survivors after the attack.
Therefore, if you want to go with the "all-out-nuclear-destruction-to-the-US" and "kill-as-many-people-in-the-US" option, @Blitzo, then all US cities must be nuked.
Yes, that means every single one of the cities in the US must be nuked.
No exceptions.
But do you know how many US cities are there with significant enough population?
Here're the stats:
1. There are 9 US cities with population of over 1 million;
2. There are 37 US cities with population of over 500 thousand;
3. There are 90 US cities with population of over 250 thousand; and
4. There are 330 US cities with population of over 100 thousand.
That's 330 warheads spent. That leaves China with only 20 warheads.
Oh, and we haven't talked about other nuclear-armed countries that are openly hostile to China, i.e. France (with 290 warheads), UK (with 225 warheads) and India (estimated 185 warheads). Wouldn't they be taking the opportunity to attack, and if possible, destroy China as well with their own nuclear weapons?
And we haven't even talked about NATO as a whole - because you can be sure to the heavens that the US would certainly drag the asses of her NATO allies into the war with China, simply because the US could just invoke Article 5 on the basis of China is attacking the US in the war. Plus, unless anyone here is living in some remote cave, many NATO countries are looking to worsen their relations with Beijing, if not already.
Oh, and don't forget about Russia as well - They may be allies, but they have completely different roots of civiliation than China. What makes anyone think that Russia wouldn't take the advantage of neutralizing China while she's at it? Hell, why would Russia even tolerate a neighbouring country that could rise with relatively little damage and strength while itself is getting nuked to oblivion? Don't forget that Russia has invaded China not once, not twice, but three times.
Of course, I am not saying that Russia is definitely going to nuke China as well apart from NATO in a doomsday scenario, but such possibilities should never be discounted.
So how are you going to spend the remaining 20 warheads, @Blitzo? How? According to your "all-out-nuclear-destruction-to-the-US" and "kill-as-many-people-in-the-US" option, how?
But hey,
All of us should realize the facts that:
1. Not every single one of China's nuclear warhead are in the megaton-scale;
2. More than one nuclear warhead is necessary for larger, more spread-out cities i.e. New York, London, Paris, Mumbai, Moscow etc;
3. Not all nuclear warheads in China's arsenal can be launched at once, without delay - In fact, chances are there could be nuclear warheads still on the ground by the time enemy nuclear warheads arrive overhead;
4. Most of the enemy ABM systems should be expected to be functional at the time of the attack;
5. Some of the ICBMs and warheads launched by China are expected to be intercepted;
6. Not all nuclear warheads launched can hit their targets; and
7. There will be survivors in every city - which means that the nuclear warheads haven't done their job good enough, and that could require second or third rounds of nuclear warheads.
What does that mean? That means that there is no reasonable way for China to go the "all-out-nuclear-destruction-to-the-US" and "kill-as-many-people-in-the-US" option that you have just proclaimed, @Blitzo, with only limited amount of nuclear warheads in China's arsenal.
That's what I meant.
<<<END>>>
Last edited:
I think there are some misunderstanding between @Blitzo and @ACuriousPLAFan on counter force plan. @ACuriousPLAFan is talking about future first strike or launch under attack contingency plan as @Blitzo is thinking about the current nuclear stockpile.
IMO his plan is well thought out as he doesn't put the MMIII silos on the list. MMIII could have already been launched out of silos and fundamentally not cost-efficient to destroy these silos in nuke exchange.
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;
This could be a priority list to maximize counter force capability based on the assumption of an in-bound first strike against China, which needs to do counter value strike while destroying US's fixed nuclear stockpile.
According to previous calculation from Haohanfw, China needs about 900 to 1,000 nukes to carry out counter value without suffering serious diminishing returns, it will leave about 500 nukes to do counter-second-round-force strike and maybe persevere hundreds of warheads on survivable TELs to deter post-Armageddon aggression.
maybe persevere hundreds of warheads on survivable TELs to deter post-Armageddon aggression
I remain pessimistic about the idea that the government can maintain control over the population after a massive nuclear attack?
From what we can see now, the peoples have quite an opinion of their governments.
I'm not talking about China nuking the US in a first strike. I'm talking about China nuking the US in general.
But since China has No-First-Use policy, that means the nuke strike that I have mentioned above is meant for retaliatory strikes by China against the US as a response to the first strike launched by the US on China.
But for the rest, thanks a lot for your understanding.
Last edited:
I don't know if anyone has read Kissinger's book, but I personally think it's helpful in our current discussion.
No, I absolutely do not think that the US leadership will "know how to stop after launching 1700 of their nuclear warheads".
If the US enters a strategic nuclear exchange with another great power, I absolutely expect the US to launch as many of their nukes as possible in multiple follow-up attacks after the initial large first wave, even to the point of no good reason for follow-ups.
However, if you are China, it doesn't matter to China whether the US launches 1700 nukes in total or 170,000 nukes in total, because at that point everything is already over and everyone has already been settled. There's no coming back -- they've lost civilization as China knows it.
The only way to not lose, is by deterring a nuclear war from starting in the first place.
As China would not be an instigator in a nuclear war, the goal is thus simply to deter the adversary from launching a nuclear first strike.
And to deter a nuclear first strike, requires you to be able to hold to threat the things that they value with retaliatory capabilities -- that is the basis on which counter-value strategies work.
No. In terms of counter-value strategies, it does not mandate every single city has to be targeted, rather a sufficient number of cities must be targeted to achieve sufficient deterrence effect against the adversary's decision makers to deter them from carrying out a first strike.
Now, absolutely, I agree that at present with China's current/recent past nuclear arsenal, does not meet the threshold for a robust counter-value doctrine.
However, for that same reason, China's current/recent past nuclear arsenal is far far less capable of meeting the threshold for a counter-force doctrine in the way that you describe.
In terms of general nuclear strategy, the relationship between nuclear arsenal size and nuclear strategy versus a given foe, looks something like this:
- Small nuclear arsenal --> Minimally credible counter-value doctrine
- Moderate nuclear arsenal --> Moderately credible counter-value doctrine
- Substantial nuclear arsenal --> Robust and comprehensive counter-value doctrine
For a nation like North Korea, who are trying to achieve deterrence against the US, their small nuclear arsenal is below/bordering the threshold for a "Minimally credible counter-value doctrine" capability. (They are trying to deter the US for their own survival -- can you imagine North Korea trying to do a counter-value strategy first with their current nuclear capabilities? It would be just as insane for them to do that as it would be for China to do so right now)
For a nation like China, who is trying to achieve deterrence against the US, if we assume 350 warheads mated to their current combination of ICBM ranged weapons, I would say at present they meet the low end threshold for a "Moderately credible counter value doctrine" capability.
So, if you are a nation that wants to carry out a counter-force strategy against the same given foe, you must first achieve a "Robust and comprehensive counter-value doctrine" before you can even dream about procuring the weapons to spare to be used in a counter-force manner.
Think of the "Robust and comprehensive counter-value doctrine" as a prerequisite capability that must first be achieved, prior to procuring weapons for a counter-force manner.
So let's talk about China.
Let's say that in the projected next three decades, China needs a deliverable ICBM warhead count of 1500 nuclear warheads mated to ICBM ranged weapons to achieve the "Robust and comprehensive counter-value doctrine" against the US.
If you want to carry out your counter-force doctrine, then China needs to first attain 1500 nuclear warheads mated to ICBM ranged weapons -- and only after that is achieved, can you start thinking about widespread nuclear strikes against the strategic military targets in the counter-value strategy you have described.
Remember -- deterring a first strike, is achieved by holding to risk the things which the adversary values. Their cities, economic, industrial and population and political centers.
You cannot simply bypass the requirement for a "Robust and comprehensive counter-value doctrine" to adopt a "only counter-force first strategy", because by doing that you forfeit the ability to deter the enemy from carrying out a nuclear first strike.
It is putting the cart before the horse.
A "only counter-force first strategy" is only able to help degrade/mitigate/prevent subsequent follow-up nuclear strikes after the enemy has already carried out their large scale first strikes.
Great, it means that you've traded all of your cities and industrial and economic centers, for adversary's strategic military targets, while the adversary's own cities and industrial and economic centers are unmolested.
The enemy would happily take that trade every single day of the year.
(Various edits made)
Last edited:
I will put this as a separate post rather than as an edit, so it can't be missed:
Just to be clear, let me summarize my overall position so that my previous posts can be put into context:
1. I believe China requires a nuclear arsenal that is capable of a "Robust and comprehensive counter-value doctrine" at minimum, vis a vis the US.
2. I have always believed that China's current/recent past nuclear arsenal is insufficient to achieve "Robust and comprehensive counter-value doctrine" (vis a vis the US), and thus China's nuclear arsenal requires expansion to achieve that.
3. If China or any other nation wants to pursue a counter-force strategy, that has to be done after the capability for a "Robust and comprehensive counter-value doctrine" is first met.
4. It does not make sense for China (or indeed, any other nuclear armed nation) to pursue a "counter-force first only strategy" (aka pursuing counter-force without achieving "Robust and comprehensive counter-value doctrine) against an enemy.
The point of my previous posts is thus:
Yes, China's current nuclear arsenal is unable to achieve "Robust and comprehensive counter-value doctrine" capability, and at present (with its 350 nuclear warheads) is only able to meet the needs for a "Moderately credible counter-value doctrine" -- that is not an ideal situation, and the PRC should look to expand their nuclear arsenal to achieve "Robust and comprehensive" capability.
However, at present with 350 nuclear warheads the "Moderately credible counter-value doctrine" is still the best (or rather, least worst) strategy to adopt, until such a point that they have enough nukes for a "Robust and comprehensive" capability to be met.
A "counter-force first only strategy" is a much, much worse and nonsensical strategy for China to pursue, and would be a waste of their precious 350 current nuclear warheads. They may as well just detonate those nuclear warheads in their own cities and commit national suicide, if that is the strategy they adopt.
(Various edits)
Last edited:
Here is a list on a counter value plan based on 334 Type-535 650 kt nukes and 631 Type-575 150kt nukes, totaling 312 megatons yields. Spreadsheet was created by @能吃能睡 in Chinese. I tried to OCR then translate it into English but failed to do so, appreciate if anyone can OCR it into excel or word.
Should note China has more 535 than 575 in reality so it would reduce nukes required for counter-value strike. Type-535 is roughly equivalent to two Type 575 in terms of air burst destruction, so 800 to 900 Type 535 is a safe bet for credible counter-value deterrence against US.
It means silo-based Chinese ICBMs alone can make an unacceptable destruction upon US cities, leaving mobile ICBMs and SLBMs to a more flexible posture to ensure a second strike capability or negotiate bargaining chips after first round exchange.
Should note China has more 535 than 575 in reality so it would reduce nukes required for counter-value strike. Type-535 is roughly equivalent to two Type 575 in terms of air burst destruction, so 800 to 900 Type 535 is a safe bet for credible counter-value deterrence against US.
It means silo-based Chinese ICBMs alone can make an unacceptable destruction upon US cities, leaving mobile ICBMs and SLBMs to a more flexible posture to ensure a second strike capability or negotiate bargaining chips after first round exchange.
- Status