How many nukes are required to completely destroy US, Europe, japan and india ?
China ICBM/SLBM, nuclear arms thread
- Thread starter Blitzo
- Start date
How many nukes are required to completely destroy US, Europe, japan and india ?
Found an interesting (probably the first public assessment) on US counterforce attack of those silos fields.
The OP definitely rigged the data and made the wind setting unrealistic, here is my rough comparison for about 90 W-88 explosions on Ordos Silo Field.
The wind speed has been the strongest in the setting for about 50 km/h yet the fallout is still far away from major cities and it is 90 of them.
It is true that millions will die, I have no problem with that. But arm control dudes acting like “You better not build silo field close to Beijing, it has fallout risk." and assuming US has a strict plan of counterstrike is plain and silly. US never has a strict plan to counterforce even at the peak of cold war when US had a huge surplus of tactical nukes.
However, my conclusion is rather the same despite disagreement with OP's assessment. Millions will die if not billions and it will be a two way street.
D
Deleted member 24525
Guest
Alright let's takes bets who wants to wager that this guy modeled the fallout on the assumptions that all detonations would be ground level instead of airbursts.
Also unironically what is the point of this study. Do these people not know what a launch on warning posture is? They must think it's still 1998 and Chinese nukes are all held up in storage facilities unarmed. If the US attempts an all-out counterforce strike none of these concerns are going to matter in the slightest.
I did both ground and air blast, literally nothing changed.
More civilian will die of fallout if US strikes DF-5 silos in the southern China but it is not the point either.
I did a more accurate simulation on the maximum wind speed and shear yet the casualty is fewer because the "Yulin“ marker misled me to a wrong ground zero. However US won't target silos only for a matter of fact.
So... what's the point of that simulation?
If/when doomsday comes, Chinese population centers are still going to be bombarded with Minutemans and Tridents. Can't just expect the Muricans to target those silos and PLA bases only.
China certainly won't use her (rather limited) stockpile of nukes to target Murican silos and military bases only, either.
If/when doomsday comes, Chinese population centers are still going to be bombarded with Minutemans and Tridents. Can't just expect the Muricans to target those silos and PLA bases only.
China certainly won't use her (rather limited) stockpile of nukes to target Murican silos and military bases only, either.
Last edited:
It's not that China will only target American silos and military bases, it's that it won't target them at all. Every Chinese warhead has an American city's name written on it.
The Chinese definitely are going to target populated cities, probably as soon they see missiles incoming, that is why Chinese nukes have so much yield and also why China has a non first use policy. China nuclear policy is a policy of retaliation.
It remain to see if they will change those policies in the future as they add more nukes and their arsenal becomes more mobile with more hard to target road mobile TEL launchers and ballistic submarines.
IRBMs eliminating a few key enemy forward operating bases to stop them from targeting survivors, and then eliminating their economy with the ICBM fleet, is the best non-losing move.
It should be known to the enemy that both their field forces and economy will be destroyed. Their conventional forces won't get to conquer forward against battered survivors, they'll be just as dead as everyone else.
Going into tac nuke trades will not be beneficial to China. The whole point of developing next gen missiles and the no first use policy is to neutralize the risk of MAD.
If it comes to destroying a carrier group, an advanced conventional missile like df26 can achieve similar results as a tactical nuke, without any of the political repercussions. Meanwhile, to achieve the same results, US would need to use a tactical nuke, which risks MAD.
By starting to use tactical nukes, China's accuracy, range and speed advantage will be weakened.
US tactical nuke use on military targets can be met with strategic nukes on US military targets. Nuclear attacks on civilian centers would be spotted on launch and countered by a mix of airburst and high yield nukes on every US population center.
If it comes to destroying a carrier group, an advanced conventional missile like df26 can achieve similar results as a tactical nuke, without any of the political repercussions. Meanwhile, to achieve the same results, US would need to use a tactical nuke, which risks MAD.
By starting to use tactical nukes, China's accuracy, range and speed advantage will be weakened.
US tactical nuke use on military targets can be met with strategic nukes on US military targets. Nuclear attacks on civilian centers would be spotted on launch and countered by a mix of airburst and high yield nukes on every US population center.
China has no need to use nukes on American military targets so it is a pointless argument. Conventional force alone is more than adequate. On the contrary, it is currently the US that threatens to use tactical nukes on Chinese military targets in retaliation for losing a conventional military conflict.