China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread

[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.

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.

You are the one who first say that Mao bombed taiwan, and nuke strike thought first but fallout would go to Taiwan and whatever. So are you refering to China or US who stopped the decision to use nuke? Seriously man, you need to elaborate on your thoughts, nobody know what you are thinking.

Secondly... there is no different in tactical nuke and strategic nuke. It is nuclear. And whoever used it, will surely receive retaliation in kind... do you think China do not have tactical nuke and strategic nuke? Really?

Plus... you seemed to like to dodge the question that I have for you in response to your FIRST post and keep stirring the discussion to the difference between tactical and strategic nuke. So I post the question here again,

1) What is the different for a carrier fleet being sunk by ASM as oppose to being sunk by ASBM?
2) Do you think if China use normal ASM to sink a carrier, the other nation will be okay with it and will not retaliate?

Answer that two question first before you think of anything else.

Oh... and as to saying that ASM is more independent... therefore opponent doesn't need that... I assume you mean, opponent are okay with it... which is another strange theory. For all I see... being more independent without more support from ground up, make that weapon more dangerous.

Finally... do you think US really care for Taiwan during that time? You really really believe that? I mean... come on! Seriously. If US is that frighten that the fallout will affect Taiwan, why don't they fired the missile deeper into China? Come on? From what I see, why US didn't fire the missile is because of Soviet. US is not clear on what Soviet (another nuclear power) will do when they launch nuclear missile on China, and I believe that at that time, China and Soviet Union are pretty close to each other.

And be clear about this... don't care if the nuclear yield is 1 megaton or 1kt... it doesn't change the fact that it is a nuclear missile, and no one care about environment when it came to war, so if any country fired a small yield nuclear bomb or missile against china... you can be sure that all hell will break lose... and China will release her own arsenal of nuclear, be it tactical or strategic.

 

[broadsword]

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

Can you provide more information?

 

[nicky]

take a closer look at xian-lantian river valley

 

[Broccoli]

China’s military recently carried out a third test of a long-range DF-31A ballistic missile capable of hitting the United States with nuclear warheads.

U.S. officials with access to intelligence reports said the flight test of a DF-31A road-mobile ICBM took place July 24 in China and highlights Beijing’s large-scale nuclear force buildup. The test was carried out in complete secrecy as part of China’s policy of not revealing details of its strategic nuclear forces in public. A Pentagon spokesman had no comment on the flight test. “I recommend you contact the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China,” Lt. Col. Todd Breasseale said. Chinese Embassy spokesmen did not respond to email requests for comment about the ICBM test.

The U.S. officials did not provide further details of the flight test. However, it was the third flight test of a DF-31A within the past year.

By contrast, the Obama administration has put off U.S. ICBM tests several times in recent years in what military officials said were politically motivated delays. A Minuteman III missile test was put off last year until after the presidential election and delayed again until May over concerns an ICBM flight test would be misconstrued by North Korea, which has its own long-range missiles. Missile analysts said the latest DF-31A test probably was carried out from the Wuzhai Space and Missile Test Center, where earlier tests occurred. Until last month, China’s most recent DF-31A test took place Nov. 30 when an ICBM was fired from Wuzhai to an impact range in western China.

An earlier DF-31A test took place Aug. 30, 2012, also from Wuzhai, a missile launch center located in Shanxi province, about 267 miles southwest of Beijing. It could not be learned whether the latest test involved a single dummy warhead or multiple warheads.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[kroko]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Does any chinese source backs these ICBM launch reports?

 

[Broccoli]

Does any chinese source backs these ICBM launch reports?

PLA does not usually report ICBM tests, but yanks are following all of them.

 

[escobar]

Does any chinese source backs these ICBM launch reports?

Nope, but there are released NOTAMs for rocket launch. There were 2 Notams between 18 and 26 July. Could be for the free beacon DF-31A flight test:

A1022/13 - A TEMPORARY RESTRICTED AREA ESTABLISHED BOUNDED BY:N292143E1091008-N292620E1084558- N301912E1085906- N301435E1092327 BACK TO START.VERTICAL LIMITS:SFC-UNL. ALL ACFT ARE PROHIBITED TO FLY INTO THE AREA WITHOUT PERMISSION BY ATC. SFC - UNL, 19 JUL 23:31 2013 UNTIL 19 JUL 23:58 2013. CREATED: 18 JUL 04:14 2013

A1076/13 - THE FLW SEGMENTS OF ATS RTE CLSD: 1. B215: NUKTI-JIAYUGUAN VOR 'CHW'. 2. G470: BIKNO-DUNHUANG VOR'DNH'. FL000 - FL999, 27 JUL 02:10 2013 UNTIL 27 JUL 03:10 2013. CREATED: 26 JUL 15:28 2013

Another Notam for 9 Aug (said to be the new MRBM test):

A1147/13 - A TEMPORARY RESTRICTED AREA ESTABLISHED BOUNDED BY: N400840E0951245-N400501E0962301-N393815E0962031-N394146E0951037 BACK TO START.VERTICAL LIMITS:SFC-UNL. ALL ACFT ARE PROHIBITED TO FLY INTO THE AREA WITHOUT PERMISSION BY ATC. SFC - UNL, 09 AUG 01:55 2013 UNTIL 09 AUG 02:30 2013. CREATED: 07 AUG 06:12 2013

A1151/13 - A TEMPORARY RESTRICTED AREA ESTABLISHED BOUNDED BY: N213400E1122500- N211100E1122500-N211100E1123800-N213400E1123800 BACK TO START.VERTICAL LIMITS:SFC-UNL. ALL ACFT SHALL KEEP 30KM AWAY FROM THE RESTRICTED AREA. SFC - UNL, 09 AUG 01:00 2013 UNTIL 09 AUG 04:00 2013. CREATED: 07 AUG 13:17 2013

 

[escobar]

I could not express how incredible this appears when viewed from a detached position outside china.

From outside of China, it appears what deterred the USSR was the fact that the US at the time had the huge forces deployed in Southeast Asia, and therefore have a large menu of military and political options immediately available to it to take all sorts advantage of any extreme turn in the Russo-Chinese situation. Nuking China would at the very least vastly improve American situation in Vietnam immediately, cost Russia any future position in Southeast Asia, and very likely drive Mao straight into America's arms, and allow America to confront Russia with a vastly larger China threat on its siberian front within a few years.

it is obvious that the refusal of the U.S. to Russian has also contributed

These must vastly outweigh any damage 10 Chinese nukes on questionable medium and intermediate range boosters could possibly do to the USSR.

this why they hadn't mated their nuke to the missiles that could not even reach moscou. by doing this they didn't invited a nuclear strike

This sort of thinking, that a relatively weak china is really likely to achieve favorable results by act tough on its own with just a modest, semi-credible military force is probably far more dangerous for the future welfare of China than it would be for China's main adversaies.

I also want them to throw away the minimun deterrence doctrine

 

[Broccoli]

I just noticed that small size of the DF-31A is never mentioned in any articles. Topol-M has range of 11,000 km with one 550kt RV and it's a rather tall missile (22.7 m) if compared to Minuteman III (18.2 m) or DF-31A (15,5 m), but yet people say that PRC is lagging behind in missile technology if compared to Russians... DF-31A hauls similar RV (250-700kt depending on source) to 11,200+ km despite being much shorter and lighter than Topol-M.

Am I missing something?

 

[Lion]

I just noticed that small size of the DF-31A is never mentioned in any articles. Topol-M has range of 11,000 km with one 550kt RV and it's a rather tall missile (22.7 m) if compared to Minuteman III (18.2 m) or DF-31A (15,5 m), but yet people say that PRC is lagging behind in missile technology if compared to Russians... DF-31A hauls similar RV (250-700kt depending on source) to 11,200+ km despite being much shorter and lighter than Topol-M.

Am I missing something?

Probably for a land based ICBM, size is not very critical.

As long as you hit far, fast and carry massive payload with many evasive move and decoy. This missile will be good.

But of course when comes to submarine based SLBM. It will be different story,size matter. That's why Russian has many difficulties when developing their bulova missile.