China ICBM/SLBM, nuclear arms thread

[ChongqingHotPot92]

Yes, and thankfully (for the common people in China of course) China did not steer itself towards becoming a larger N. Korea.

No, because both the CCP and non-Party PRC citizens are too pragmatic to become something like N. Korea (or USSR/Nazi Germany). While most PRC citizens understand that China needs an effective nuclear arsenal and strong PLA, they still strongly prefer trade and peaceful coexistence (through commerce and exchange of material goods) even with adversaries. China's history shows exactly that. That's why it is important to know that Chinese nation (with the possible exception of ethnic Manchus and Mongols) is not a typical 战斗民族, or expansionist/predatory warrior nation, akin to the Russians, Mongols, Anglo-Saxons, Germans, etc. In fact, while most Chinese are patriotic toward China, they are far less ideological in a political sense compared to Westerners (possibly due to Christianity and Westerners' sense of messianic goal of spreading the Lord's values). Chinese just want to do business to improve the living standards of their families and avoid unnecessary political polarisations. We have also learned a painful lesson from the Cultural Revolution.

 

[CrazyHorse]

No, because both the CCP and non-Party PRC citizens are too pragmatic to become something like N. Korea (or USSR/Nazi Germany). While most PRC citizens understand that China needs an effective nuclear arsenal and strong PLA, they still strongly prefer trade and peaceful coexistence (through commerce and exchange of material goods) even with adversaries. China's history shows exactly that. That's why it is important to know that Chinese nation (with the possible exception of ethnic Manchus and Mongols) is not a typical 战斗民族, or expansionist/predatory warrior nation, akin to the Russians, Mongols, Anglo-Saxons, Germans, etc. In fact, while most Chinese are patriotic toward China, they are far less ideological in a political sense compared to Westerners (possibly due to Christianity and Westerners' sense of messianic goal of spreading the Lord's values). Chinese just want to do business to improve the living standards of their families and avoid unnecessary political polarisations. We have also learned a painful lesson from the Cultural Revolution.

This is a very idealistic analysis.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

No, because both the CCP and non-Party PRC citizens are too pragmatic to become something like N. Korea (or USSR/Nazi Germany). While most PRC citizens understand that China needs an effective nuclear arsenal and strong PLA, they still strongly prefer trade and peaceful coexistence (through commerce and exchange of material goods) even with adversaries. China's history shows exactly that. That's why it is important to know that Chinese nation (with the possible exception of ethnic Manchus and Mongols) is not a typical 战斗民族, or expansionist/predatory warrior nation, akin to the Russians, Mongols, Anglo-Saxons, Germans, etc. In fact, while most Chinese are patriotic toward China, they are far less ideological in a political sense compared to Westerners (possibly due to Christianity and Westerners' sense of messianic goal of spreading the Lord's values). Chinese just want to do business to improve the living standards of their families and avoid unnecessary political polarisations. We have also learned a painful lesson from the Cultural Revolution.

China are only as aggressive as Persians and Romans. Yes we have to admit that Chinese were conquerors, otherwise we couldn't have gone from a few bronze age tribes on the Yellow River to spanning half a continent. But Chinese, especially post-Han era, were relatively merciful conquerors who refrained from the norm at the time, which was looting and slavery.

Just like Persians and Romans, after an area got conquered they were mostly left alone as long as they paid taxes. The minorities conquered by China 1000+ years ago like Miao, Zhuang etc are still here today.

In contrast there are no Native Americans left after the Anglos were done with them.

 

[Kalec]

I don't think there is anything to do with culture or historical misjudgement.

Nuclear war didn't break out, sky didn't fall down. Minimal deterrence is more cost efficient when one is in defensive mode geopolitically and not to mention there is Russia to balance the nuclear equation.

However things change rapidly and no one has foreseen the economic growth of China in the past three decades, making it insufficient to deter against the elephant in the room. Consequently nuclear expansion was carried out in 2017 and probably took 10 years to materialize.

And nuclear deterrence is a two-way street about deterring and being deterred. It is also why I don't believe nuclear war is winnable although spending quite a lot time on doing nuke self research. The only winnable way is to get the best bang for your buck, spending the least money to achieve the best deterrence in the town.

 

[ChongqingHotPot92]

I don't think there is anything to do with culture or historical misjudgement.

Nuclear war didn't break out, sky didn't fall down. Minimal deterrence is more cost efficient when one is in defensive mode geopolitically and not to mention there is Russia to balance the nuclear equation.

However things change rapidly and no one has foreseen the economic growth of China in the past three decades, making it insufficient to deter against the elephant in the room. Consequently nuclear expansion was carried out in 2017 and probably took 10 years to materialize.

And nuclear deterrence is a two-way street about deterring and being deterred. It is also why I don't believe nuclear war is winnable although spending quite a lot time on doing nuke self research. The only winnable way is to get the best bang for your buck, spending the least money to achieve the best deterrence in the town.

Based on the Pentagon's estimate, the PLARF's size would reach 1,500 only by 2035. Not sure if it would not too late by then, not to mention that skills, personnel, and experience needed to train the crews needed to manage such expanding arsenal. Only fools would expect Washington not to further increase its arsenal size and effectiveness in the face of PLARF "breakout". Therefore, if the Pentagon's estimate were correct, I wonder if the PLA nuclear arsenal's increase in size were too little, too late based on the current trajectory?

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

Just to chip in a little.

Not ICBM/SLBM-related, but nuclear arms (and UUV)-related.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1661192863592398851

With both her neighbors to the north and northeast already playing with working examples, of course China is looking deeply into this.

Personal comment:

However (and to be honest), I'm not exactly a fan of the Poseidon:
1. Considerable energy from the warhead detonation of the Poseidon would be wasted, as significant portions of the tsunami waves generated will travel elsewhere instead of being focused solely against the targeted coastal city;
2. Unlike Russia, China isn't known to have enough WgPu to spare for making many nuclear-tipped torpedoes that can create such massive radioactive tsunami waves, either; and
3. China is not known to be operating platforms that can carry and launch Poseiden-type nuclear-tipped nuclear-powered torpedoes like the Belgorod and Khabarovsk-class SS(T)Ns.

Therefore, a better idea for China could be a nuke-tipped torpedo of similar design, but not as massive as the Poseidon:
1. Instead of the purported 1, 2 or 10s of megatons (or even 100-200 megatons claimed by Russia), these nuke-tipped torpedoes only needs to carry warheads in the 10s or 100s of kilotons-range;
2. Instead of detonating the warheads some distances away from the targeted coastal cities, these nuke-tipped torpedoes will swim right up to the targeted coastal city itself, sail into the large rivers and/or bay areas which criss-cross the target city itself and/or are located right next to the target city itself, position themselves along the large rivers and/or bay areas within the vicinity of the target city before detonating the warheads;
3. The nuke-tipped torpedoes can be built in larger quantities, each unit requiring fewer materials, lower cost and manpower & effort; and
4. The nuke-tipped torpedoes can be deployed in larger numbers, perhaps even fired from the normal-sized torpedo tubes of present and upcoming SSNs (093B & 095) and SSBNs (094A & 096) of the PLAN.

 

[montyp165]

Based on the Pentagon's estimate, the PLARF's size would reach 1,500 only by 2035. Not sure if it would not too late by then, not to mention that skills, personnel, and experience needed to train the crews needed to manage such expanding arsenal. Only fools would expect Washington not to further increase its arsenal size and effectiveness in the face of PLARF "breakout". Therefore, if the Pentagon's estimate were correct, I wonder if the PLA nuclear arsenal's increase in size were too little, too late based on the current trajectory?

Based on the industrial capacity available to the PLARF and historical examples shown by the USAF SAC force missile force expansion in the 1960's, I'd consider that count to be an underestimate of the achievable level for the PLARF in the given timeframe.

 

[ChongqingHotPot92]

Just to chip in a little.

Not ICBM/SLBM-related, but nuclear arms (and UUV)-related.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1661192863592398851

With both her neighbors to the north and northeast already playing with working examples, of course China is looking deeply into this.

Personal comment:

However (and to be honest), I'm not exactly a fan of the Poseidon:
1. Considerable energy from the warhead detonation of the Poseidon would be wasted, as significant portions of the tsunami waves generated will travel elsewhere instead of being focused solely against the targeted coastal city;
2. Unlike Russia, China isn't known to have enough WgPu to spare for making many nuclear-tipped torpedoes that can create such massive radioactive tsunami waves, either; and
3. China is not known to be operating platforms that can carry and launch Poseiden-type nuclear-tipped nuclear-powered torpedoes like the Belgorod and Khabarovsk-class SS(T)Ns.

Therefore, a better idea for China could be a nuke-tipped torpedo of similar design, but not as massive as the Poseidon:
1. Instead of the purported 1, 2 or 10s of megatons (or even 100-200 megatons claimed by Russia), these nuke-tipped torpedoes only needs to carry warheads in the 10s or 100s of kilotons-range;
2. Instead of detonating the warheads some distances away from the targeted coastal cities, these nuke-tipped torpedoes will swim right up to the targeted coastal city itself, sail into the large rivers and/or bay areas which criss-cross the target city itself and/or are located right next to the target city itself, position themselves along the large rivers and/or bay areas within the vicinity of the target city before detonating the warheads;
3. The nuke-tipped torpedoes can be built in larger quantities, each unit requiring fewer materials, lower cost and manpower & effort; and
4. The nuke-tipped torpedoes can be deployed in larger numbers, perhaps even fired from the normal-sized torpedo tubes of present and upcoming SSNs (093B & 095) and SSBNs (094A & 096) of the PLAN.

Just like subsonic non-stealthy cruise missiles, contemporary submarine-launched torpedos (unless they are the air bubble-power ones that travel above 100 knots, (sorry I forgot the professional English term for 超空泡鱼雷)) that travel under 50 knots are extremely vulnerable to interception. That's why I think the PLAN's 055/052Ds' land attack missions would be carried out using YJ-21s instead of CJ-10s, while it is actively trying to copy and reverse engineer those Soviet-era air bubble-powered (somebody please help me with the professional name here) with more advanced electronics. The Ukraine War has shown how cruise missiles like Tomahawk and CJ-10 are becoming outdated in the face of highly-maneuverable SAMs. Thus, in order for nuclear deterrence to be effective, speed remains the key, so nuclear-tipped MARVs and hypersonic weapons would be the future based on my guess. In fact, even the non-MARV reentry vehicles (those that strictly follow a pre-determined ballistic track) on Minutemen-III, Trident II, DF-31s, RS-24 Yars, DF-41s will likely become obsolete as ABM technologies become smarter and more effective.

Also, is it realistic to put an AESA radar paired with plasma-ion engines on the warhead to enhance the warhead ability during mid and terminal phases?

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

Just like subsonic non-stealthy cruise missiles, contemporary submarine-launched torpedos (unless they are the air bubble-power ones that travel above 100 knots, (sorry I forgot the professional English term for 超空泡鱼雷)) that travel under 50 knots are extremely vulnerable to interception. That's why I think the PLAN's 055/052Ds' land attack missions would be carried out using YJ-21s instead of CJ-10s, while it is actively trying to copy and reverse engineer those Soviet-era air bubble-powered (somebody please help me with the professional name here) with more advanced electronics. The Ukraine War has shown how cruise missiles like Tomahawk and CJ-10 are becoming outdated in the face of highly-maneuverable SAMs. Thus, in order for nuclear deterrence to be effective, speed remains the key, so nuclear-tipped MARVs and hypersonic weapons would be the future based on my guess. In fact, even the non-MARV reentry vehicles (those that strictly follow a pre-determined ballistic track) on Minutemen-III, Trident II, DF-31s, RS-24 Yars, DF-41s will likely become obsolete as ABM technologies become smarter and more effective.

Also, is it realistic to put an AESA radar paired with plasma-ion engines on the warhead to enhance the warhead ability during mid and terminal phases?

torpedos are actually very hard to intercept because they're very stealthy and the first warning of them is often your ship exploding.

 

[tokenanalyst]

Just like subsonic non-stealthy cruise missiles, contemporary submarine-launched torpedos (unless they are the air bubble-power ones that travel above 100 knots, (sorry I forgot the professional English term for 超空泡鱼雷)) that travel under 50 knots are extremely vulnerable to interception. That's why I think the PLAN's 055/052Ds' land attack missions would be carried out using YJ-21s instead of CJ-10s, while it is actively trying to copy and reverse engineer those Soviet-era air bubble-powered (somebody please help me with the professional name here) with more advanced electronics. The Ukraine War has shown how cruise missiles like Tomahawk and CJ-10 are becoming outdated in the face of highly-maneuverable SAMs. Thus, in order for nuclear deterrence to be effective, speed remains the key, so nuclear-tipped MARVs and hypersonic weapons would be the future based on my guess. In fact, even the non-MARV reentry vehicles (those that strictly follow a pre-determined ballistic track) on Minutemen-III, Trident II, DF-31s, RS-24 Yars, DF-41s will likely become obsolete as ABM technologies become smarter and more effective.

Also, is it realistic to put an AESA radar paired with plasma-ion engines on the warhead to enhance the warhead ability during mid and terminal phases?

Things in the water are WAY different than things in the air. Radar doesn't work in water and water drag makes difficult maneuverability that two things that give SAMs their effectiveness.
And no, missiles are not outdated, there is no perfect SAM systems, if that was the case Ukrainian arm depots would be intact but that is not the case.