China ICBM/SLBM, nuclear arms thread

[FairAndUnbiased]

I know that low yield nukes wouldn't actually be that useful. I mean, they need a <100m CEP to even be a significant threat to tanks, obviously they could only hope to sink a single ship. For practical purposes they would be limited to either expensive standoffs against ships operating outside the range of China's air defense complex, or a torpedo from an SSN that managed to get in close, and would be in enormous danger afterward.

I'm not trying to endorse them as a really useful munition in their own right. I'm trying to make a point about the political elements of escalation.

If China's nuclear capability is exclusively strategic, then the Americans may reason they can use their tactical nuclear arsenal to obtain leverage in the conflict. This is especially true if they were losing. The thinking would be that if the US uses nuclear weapons in a tactical capacity then that imposes an obligation on China to either escalate or capitulate. Its only escalation option is basically MAD, so then maybe, just maybe, tactical nukes could be used to force negotiations on American terms.

Obviously Chinese leaders wouldn't back down. Even if they wanted to, the popular will for nuclear retaliation would be totally overwhelming. They wouldn't have a choice, and so then goes the strikes on Guam or Honolulu. American leaders likewise could not back down, though more from elite than popular pressure, and from there trades of cities would occur that would likely escalate to mutual destruction.

So if the US is losing conventionally and turns to tactical nukes in desperation for leverage, and China lacks tactical nuclear capability of its own, then mutual annihilation would be basically unavoidable. My point here is that having a robust tactical arsenal provides a way out of this death spiral by allowing China to retaliate to nuclear use in a way that both satisfies popular anger and avoids immediate escalation to a strategic exchange. And by making it clear to the US that such brinkmanship would get it nowhere, it makes a first use scenario less likely to happen in the first place.

You can use a strategic weapon tactically but not the reverse. A 150 kT on a DF-17 works just as well for blowing up an airfield as a 150 kT on a DF-31 blowing up a city.

 

[vincent]

If China's nuclear capability is exclusively strategic, then the Americans may reason they can use their tactical nuclear arsenal to obtain leverage in the conflict. This is especially true if they were losing. The thinking would be that if the US uses nuclear weapons in a tactical capacity then that imposes an obligation on China to either escalate or capitulate. Its only escalation option is basically MAD, so then maybe, just maybe, tactical nukes could be used to force negotiations on American terms.

What the US thinks is irrelevant. There is no need for China to follow the US thinking (which is nuts). China can declare what she will do in retaliation if US uses nukes on her and let US rethink her thinking

 

[Deleted member 24525]

What the US thinks is irrelevant. There is no need for China to follow the US thinking (which is nuts). China can declare what she will do in retaliation if US uses nukes on her and let US rethink her thinking

And what if the Americans don't listen? Righteous indignation is not a war strategy. Are you ready to initiate a strategic exchange over one vessel? Do you think that would be a wise course of action to commit to? There isn't going to be a China around to scold the US for its recklessness if they follow that course.

 

[gelgoog]

China's nuclear arsenal is definitely not restricted to strategic nukes. As you can tell by the huge amount of SRBMs and IRBMs.
In fact China has more non-strategic nuclear delivery options than the US. Only Russia has more.
This was allegedly one of the reasons why the US withdrew from INF Treaty with Russia. So they could build intermediate range weapons to counter Chinese ones in the Pacific.

China has the CJ-100, DF-12, DF-15/16/17, DF-21/26, etc.

 

[tankphobia]

And what if the Americans don't listen? Righteous indignation is not a war strategy. Are you ready to initiate a strategic exchange over one vessel? Do you think that would be a wise course of action to commit to? There isn't going to be a China around to scold the US for its recklessness if they follow that course.

The aim of nuclear blinkermanship is you let your opponent think that you are crazier then they are. If China possess the capabilities to use lower yield weapons, it will embolden the US to escalate. If the only option is MAD then they will not even begin to use tactical nukes. Once the missiles start flying strategic nukes can be used as tactical nukes.

 

[vincent]

And what if the Americans don't listen? Righteous indignation is not a war strategy. Are you ready to initiate a strategic exchange over one vessel? Do you think that would be a wise course of action to commit to? There isn't going to be a China around to scold the US for its recklessness if they follow that course.

When you play chess, do you follow your opponent's moves or you take the initiatives and force your opponent to follow your moves?

 

[Kalec]

So if the US is losing conventionally and turns to tactical nukes in desperation for leverage, and China lacks tactical nuclear capability of its own, then mutual annihilation would be basically unavoidable.

Jesus, are we in a world where Dr. Strangelove is in charge?

1. US is not going to fight China or Russia directly and they won't use nuclear mean to warfight even if there was such conflict between nuclear peers.

2. Using a tactical nuke is NOT a leverage but an invitation for further escalation in the battle which the term has already been unfavorable for the losing side, and the use of nuke will NOT make it any better. The whole idea of "Escalate to De-escalate" is so fake that Putin has to start a war to prove it.

3. China doesn't lack tactical nuclear capability. It is so wrong to link "tactical" with low-yield nuke in its entirety. The last time I check DF-26 can't reach CONUS yet some of them had nuclear mission.

4. Even a full nuclear war will not guarantee an annihilation, more like 40% of population will die instantly and the other 55% of them will die of starvation and other side effect yet 5% of them will live on.

When can normie understand nuclear is powerful to make them unpowerful? It doesn't exist a scenario that nuclear weapon is magic wand, you spell Avada Kedavra and everything is over.

Medvedev is mentioning nuclear weapon more frequently than he goes to the loo, yet nothing happens because nuclear doesn't work in that way.

 

[King ZhaoXiang]

You can use a strategic weapon tactically but not the reverse. A 150 kT on a DF-17 works just as well for blowing up an airfield as a 150 kT on a DF-31 blowing up a city.

A 15 KT nuke can blow up any military base in the world !!

Large or small !!

 

[BoraTas]

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.

Responding to a destroyer getting vaporized by flattening Guam is the right choice. There are no ways for tactical nuclear warfare to not involve explosions near or even in the mainland. A visible commitment to tactical nukes by China would only encourage the US to use them. As long as China can't attack CONUS in volume tactical nukes will always be a bad idea for China.

You can use a lot of tactical nukes against assets on Japan but it ultimately does nothing to the USA. And I don't think nuking Japan is beneficial for China in this scenario. Like it or not Japan is a neighbor of China. It will always be there.

 

[HighGround]

Responding to a destroyer getting vaporized by flattening Guam is the right choice. There are no ways for tactical nuclear warfare to not involve explosions near or even in the mainland. A visible commitment to tactical nukes by China would only encourage the US to use them. As long as China can't attack CONUS in volume tactical nukes will always be a bad idea for China.

You can use a lot of tactical nukes against assets on Japan but it ultimately does nothing to the USA. And I don't think nuking Japan is beneficial for China in this scenario. Like it or not Japan is a neighbor of China. It will always be there.

I wholeheartedly agree here.

The way I see it, if China responds with a strategic weapon dropped on Guam, USA could respond with a strategic nuclear strike on an SCS island base. At that point, the ball would be in China's court again. Would they nuke a US base in Japan at that point?