China ICBM/SLBM, nuclear arms thread

[Reclaimer]

i'm lolling that you're asking if china has and can drop dumb nuclear bombs when they have already combined FOBS with hypersonic glide vehicles. btw the US still is not a hypersonic power unlike Russia and China (though perhaps will be within a few years). Some have tried to muddy the waters by claiming ballistic missiles count (they don't, despite reaching those speeds). The modern hypersonic weapons do not follow a ballistic trajectory. It's that COMBINED with the speed that makes them so hard to stop. Ballistic trajectories are easy to predict. Intro college physics.
View attachment 113559
View attachment 113560
View attachment 113561

Yes I had a thought that China perhaps prefers missiles since gravity bombs are obsolete. Although being able to launch small-yield nuclear-armed missiles from the internal bay of a J-20 or from relatively light and numerous platforms like the J-10, J-16 etc. would be a good capability to possess.

 

[vincent]

Yes I had a thought that China perhaps prefers missiles since gravity bombs are obsolete. Although being able to launch small-yield nuclear-armed missiles from the internal bay of a J-20 or from relatively light and numerous platforms like the J-10, J-16 etc. would be a good capability to possess.

Use it against whom?

 

[Deleted member 24525]

Use it against whom?

American ships in a post-first-use environment. The point is less their actual utility than to send a message that China is capable of responding symmetrically if the US begins using low yield nukes in a tactical capacity.

 

[BoraTas]

American ships in a post-first-use environment. The point is less their actual utility than to send a message that China is capable of responding symmetrically if the US begins using low yield nukes in a tactical capacity.

I don't agree with this. The policy of fast escalation to strategic strikes in response to tactical nuclear warfare is better because of multiple reasons:

1- It makes the use of tactical weapons by the opposing side much less likely.

2- Tactical nuclear warfare is not something China cash in advantageously. The current military balance and US military presence in Japan, Hawaii and Guam mean the war will happen in the periphery of China and the US will have way better means of delivering tactical nuclear weapons. And there is the fallout risk.

3- Tactical nuclear warfare uses an ungodly amount of diverse nuclear weapons as you are hitting individual military assets rather than dense population centers and industrial centers. It is a very big investment that comes with a huge opportunity cost.

4- Nuclear warfare staying limited is very unlikely anyway. I don't see any nation being in a declaratory mindset after 400 nukes are used. Even in most limited scenarios that is substantial infrastructure destroyed, thousands of civilians dead and a few national leaders taken out.

IMO French model is good here. They have a small arsenal of fighter jet-launched nuclear missiles. It serves as the last warning before SLBMs start getting launched at cities. IMO China already has such last warning weapons in the form of nuclear-capable DF-26, DF-21, DF-15 and DF-10.

 

[Deleted member 24525]

2- Tactical nuclear warfare is not something China cash in advantageously. The current military balance and US military presence in Japan, Hawaii and Guam mean the war will happen in the periphery of China and the US will have way better means of delivering tactical nuclear weapons. And there is the fallout risk.

How do you figure? China's fires advantage is overwhelming in the western Pacific. And I'm talking about using weapons on exclusively military targets, not even dual use ones like air ports or harbors, lethal platforms only. So long as they're not detonated at ground level the fallout is negligible.

Relying on fast escalation to strategic strikes for deterrence is all well and good until the time comes to actually back up that commitment. Responding to a destroyer getting vaporized by flattening Guam or Honolulu is not going to make the Americans back down or buy much of a short term tactical advantage for China. They're just going to respond with strategic level attacks of their own.

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

Yes I had a thought that China perhaps prefers missiles since gravity bombs are obsolete. Although being able to launch small-yield nuclear-armed missiles from the internal bay of a J-20 or from relatively light and numerous platforms like the J-10, J-16 etc. would be a good capability to possess.

Agreed.

Instead of gravity bombs, it would be much better for China to develop LO/VLO nuclear-tipped standoff cruise missiles like the AGM-181 or the Kh-102.

With that, even the non-stealthy H-6K/J/Ns can perform nuclear strikes against key enemy targets from standoff ranges.

 

[vincent]

Relying on fast escalation to strategic strikes for deterrence is all well and good until the time comes to actually back up that commitment. Responding to a destroyer getting vaporized by flattening Guam or Honolulu is not going to make the Americans back down or buy much of a short term tactical advantage for China. They're just going to respond with strategic level attacks of their own.

The most important point of having nukes is to discourage others from using them against you

If China make it clear to the US she will nuke Hawaii and/or Guam with city busters if US ever use nukes (regardless of size) against China, it will make the US weight the risk of MAD against whatever advantage it has on tactical nukes.

The nuclear threshold, once crossed, will cause unknown consequences. China just need to make sure the US know it risks MAD if it ever use nukes.

 

[antiterror13]

The most important point of having nukes is to discourage others from using them against you

If China make it clear to the US she will nuke Hawaii and/or Guam with city busters if US ever use nukes (regardless of size) against China, it will make the US weight the risk of MAD against whatever advantage it has on tactical nukes.

The nuclear threshold, once crossed, will cause unknown consequences. China just need to make sure the US know it risks MAD if it ever use nukes.

Exactly, thats why I am confident that China has enough nukes available (>1k), I don't think less than 1K nukes is enough to deter the big bully

 

[Deleted member 24525]

The most important point of having nukes is to discourage others from using them against you

If China make it clear to the US she will nuke Hawaii and/or Guam with city busters if US ever use nukes (regardless of size) against China, it will make the US weight the risk of MAD against whatever advantage it has on tactical nukes.

The nuclear threshold, once crossed, will cause unknown consequences. China just need to make sure the US know it risks MAD if it ever use nukes.

There's no sense just submitting to the logic of MAD when dealing with an enemy whose doctrine permits first use under nebulous "extreme" conditions. The goal here is to win, not to commit mutual suicide to prove a point. That means being prepared to conduct nuclear warfare at a tactical level if they push it to that. It's not like China lacks the capacity to make tactical and strategic warheads at the same time. Committing to a tactical arsenal doesn't mean compromising second strike capacity.

 

[vincent]

There's no sense just submitting to the logic of MAD when dealing with an enemy whose doctrine permits first use under nebulous "extreme" conditions. The goal here is to win, not to commit mutual suicide to prove a point. That means being prepared to conduct nuclear warfare at a tactical level if they push it to that. It's not like China lacks the capacity to make tactical and strategic warheads at the same time. Committing to a tactical arsenal doesn't mean compromising second strike capacity.

Ever heard of 你打你的，我打我的？or 狭路相逢勇者胜？