China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread

[rhino123]

There are a lot discussion in the China military circle, that if China uses ASBM against carriers then get them sunk then opponent might consider tactical nuke reprisal against ASBM support system and military targets.

China military is considering putting tactical nukes onboard warships and subs as deterrence against opponent's tactical nuke reprisal against China's ASBM usage.

Confused here.

What is the different of using an ASBM to sink a carrier or using a normal ASM to sink that said carrier? Plus China will not use an ASBM or ASM or even naval cannon against any targets that are not a threat to China, the ASBM can be used to deter opponent from getting into the water near China's shore during certain confrontation.

And with those discussion in the China military circle, if you have access to those, please also ask this question, if a carrier get into the range of a normal ASM and was hit by the Chinese ASM, then sunk... would it be okay for the host nation of that said carrier, or would that country retaliate. And during retaliation, would tactical nuke be one of the attack?

The only reason I could think of, was that if the ASBM was use, no one actually know if that ASBM are surface to surface ballistic missile like the DF-21 or something like that, once lifted off from ground, the other nation would also fire off their own tactical and strategic arsenal in retaliation. But not because ASBM was used against carrier (there is a difference you know.)

 

[luhai]

The only reason I could think of, was that if the ASBM was use, no one actually know if that ASBM are surface to surface ballistic missile like the DF-21 or something like that, once lifted off from ground, the other nation would also fire off their own tactical and strategic arsenal in retaliation. But not because ASBM was used against carrier (there is a difference you know.)

Trajectory of missiles can be calculated with in minutes (and general direction within seconds), ASBM would go towards the ocean, while IRBMs towards land. Thankfully, Pacific ocean is really big. Unless China is going to nuke Guam (such counter-force use of nukes isn't inline with China's arsenal number) there would be no confusion of two.

 

[rhino123]

Trajectory of missiles can be calculated with in minutes (and general direction within seconds), ASBM would go towards the ocean, while IRBMs towards land. Thankfully, Pacific ocean is really big. Unless China is going to nuke Guam (such counter-force use of nukes isn't inline with China's arsenal number) there would be no confusion of two.

If what you say is true, then there will be no reason for other nation to nuke china when they use ASBM... if they wanted to do that, then no matter what missile used against their carrier fleet, China will be nuked, so it really doesn't matter if the killer missile is ballistic missile or conventional anti-shipping missile and that is the point I am trying to bring out.

 

[BigWang]

If what you say is true, then there will be no reason for other nation to nuke china when they use ASBM... if they wanted to do that, then no matter what missile used against their carrier fleet, China will be nuked, so it really doesn't matter if the killer missile is ballistic missile or conventional anti-shipping missile and that is the point I am trying to bring out.

tactical nuke is different than ICBM. they are lesser in scope and destruction.. For example, if ASBM is used, opponent may use tactical nuke to strike PLA's ASBM inland support system or military targets as revenge.

tactical nuke could be nuke tipped cruise missile or torpedo.

 

[rhino123]

tactical nuke is different than ICBM. they are lesser in scope and destruction.. For example, if ASBM is used, opponent may use tactical nuke to strike PLA's ASBM inland support system or military targets as revenge.

tactical nuke could be nuke tipped cruise missile or torpedo.

You miss my point. What is the difference using ASM and ASBM against enemy's carrier force? The main thing is, both weapons are capable of sinking enemy's carrier force. ASBM might be more effective (the word is might), the main thing and end result is still sinking enemy's force.

So you are saying, if China uses ASM to sink enemy's forces, they will not use tactical nuke against China? It make no sense. As soon as China managed to sink enemy carrier force (using whatever means), there is only two things to do, that country with the sunk carrier force can run like hell or they will retaliate. And in retaliation, if conventional warefare bore ill, they will use tactical nuke (don't care if it is a ICBM, cruise missiles, nuclear tipped torpedoes or whatsnot). It is all the same.

 

[BigWang]

You miss my point. What is the difference using ASM and ASBM against enemy's carrier force? The main thing is, both weapons are capable of sinking enemy's carrier force. ASBM might be more effective (the word is might), the main thing and end result is still sinking enemy's force.

So you are saying, if China uses ASM to sink enemy's forces, they will not use tactical nuke against China? It make no sense. As soon as China managed to sink enemy carrier force (using whatever means), there is only two things to do, that country with the sunk carrier force can run like hell or they will retaliate. And in retaliation, if conventional warefare bore ill, they will use tactical nuke (don't care if it is a ICBM, cruise missiles, nuclear tipped torpedoes or whatsnot). It is all the same.

Strategic nuke strike would be too destructive to the environment, And CHina is next to a lot of the countries. Fallout would d no doubt affect those countries.

When Mao bombed Kinmen, nuke strike thought at first but considering fallout would go to Taiwan therefore it was turned down.

Tactical nuke strike wouldn't have such big fallout, limited to much smaller area.

opponents worrying more about ASBM than ASM, if carrier sunk then it give them excuse to use limited nuke strike wipe out ASBM supporting system. High valued target.

ASM is more independent, it doesn't need much support, therefore opponent wouldn't need that.

 

[rhino123]

Strategic nuke strike would be too destructive to the environment, And CHina is next to a lot of the countries. Fallout would d no doubt affect those countries.

When Mao bombed Kinmen, nuke strike thought at first but considering fallout would go to Taiwan therefore it was turned down.

Tactical nuke strike wouldn't have such big fallout, limited to much smaller area.

opponents worrying more about ASBM than ASM, if carrier sunk then it give them excuse to use limited nuke strike wipe out ASBM supporting system. High valued target.

ASM is more independent, it doesn't need much support, therefore opponent wouldn't need that.

Frankly... not sure where you get those ideas from. I mean... come on. Who care for environment when you are at war? Plus when Mao bombed kinmen, I don't think China had nuclear at that moment, second, even if they have they do not want to use it because, they do not want to destroy the entire Taiwan... plus part of Fujian which will if they use nuclear (it is pure common sense here). Don't forget China still think Taiwan as part of China and Taiwanese are essentially Chinese.

Secondly, I am not talking about tactical nuke or what ever. Enemy don't care ASM or ASBM, it made no difference. I mean, a carrier sinking done by an ASM or an ASBM makes no difference, the carrier are sunk... and that is what matters.

The enemy do not need the excuse of whether China use ASBM to sink their carrier or use ASM to sink their carrier, all is the same. Once the carrier fleet or carrier is sunk, then they will retaliate.

And whether they wanted to use tactical nuke or conventional warfare, all is the same, they will declare war.

Finally... China will not use ASBM to sink carrier just for the fun of it, when they deployed and fired the ASBM, it would be an all out war against their enemy.

Finally... it MADE NO DIFFERENT what type of weapon China used to destroy the carrier fleet, the end result is the same.

And btw, I understand the difference between a small yield nuke and a bigger yield nuke. so don't bother bringing up the difference

 

[BigWang]

Frankly... not sure where you get those ideas from. I mean... come on. Who care for environment when you are at war? Plus when Mao bombed kinmen, I don't think China had nuclear at that moment, second, even if they have they do not want to use it because, they do not want to destroy the entire Taiwan... plus part of Fujian which will if they use nuclear (it is pure common sense here). Don't forget China still think Taiwan as part of China and Taiwanese are essentially Chinese.

No, it was eisenhower turned down when it was proposed by some of his men. He considered it might affect Taiwan.
So, with that precedence, you can rule out strategic nuke strike against China from US if China do not use first strike.
else Japan, south korea, taiwan all US allies will be affected by fallouts.

But tactical small nuke strike with small fallout might be possible as retaliation.

 

[Zool]

Make no mistake, any country escalating to the use of nuclear weapons during a conflict (tactical or strategic) against a similarly armed opponent, must expect full scale nuclear war. The nation on the receiving end of the first device will not have the luxury of assuming otherwise after such an attack.

A nation that losses a Carrier to something like DF-21D or any other anti-ship system, will not respond with a nuclear weapon. Regardless of any bluster.

Cheers,
Zool

 

[nicky]

Hello to all!
I'm new here and did find yet any comments on dramatic expansion of the solid motor production facilities near Xian.
Looks like ballistic missile production may double very soon