China ICBM/SLBM, nuclear arms thread

[ashnole]

The American W76-0 and W76-1 warheads with a yield of 100 kt weigh only 100 lb and not 100 kg. The W76 is the culmination of the "100 kt, 100 lb weapon" program started immediately after Operation Nougat and which took roughly a decade to achieve its goal.

 

[Biscuits]

I think it is almost wholly unproductive to guess what size/weight the warheads are? Has there even ever been any literature or references to it, besides the initial bomb tests?

 

[antiterror13]

The American W76-0 and W76-1 warheads with a yield of 100 kt weigh only 100 lb and not 100 kg. The W76 is the culmination of the "100 kt, 100 lb weapon" program started immediately after Operation Nougat and which took roughly a decade to achieve its goal.

Actually really amazing that W76 could get 100 kt with only 100 lb (~45kg), more amazing considering it was designed in 1970s

I think eventually the US, Russia and China will do nuke test again in a few years .. and it will follow by India, UK and France

 

[SinoAmericanCW]

i guess my question is, under what condition will nuclear capability deter conventional war?

I'd say having a nuclear deterrent is good at deterring a war of conquest and annihilation, i.e. something akin to Operation Barbarossa or the Japanese invasion of China.

Otherwise, I don't think it's that useful at deterring conventional war. Perhaps the best example of its limited deterrence potential is the 1973 Yom Kippur War, in which Egypt and Syria both attacked Israel, at a time when the latter already had a (admittedly limited) nuclear arsenal.

 

[Wrought]

I'd say having a nuclear deterrent is good at deterring a war of conquest and annihilation, i.e. something akin to Operation Barbarossa or the Japanese invasion of China.

Otherwise, I don't think it's that useful at deterring conventional war. Perhaps the best example of its limited deterrence potential is the 1973 Yom Kippur War, in which Egypt and Syria both attacked Israel, at a time when the latter already had a (admittedly limited) nuclear arsenal.

Deterrence may not be the right word, but nuclear weapons can be used to restrain escalation. Russia has not been successful in deterring NATO support for Ukraine entirely, but that support has been limited and slowed because of the nuclear factor. Maybe signalling would be a better term? They are a bargaining chip which the opponent must always keep in mind.

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

I'd say having a nuclear deterrent is good at deterring a war of conquest and annihilation, i.e. something akin to Operation Barbarossa or the Japanese invasion of China.

Otherwise, I don't think it's that useful at deterring conventional war. Perhaps the best example of its limited deterrence potential is the 1973 Yom Kippur War, in which Egypt and Syria both attacked Israel, at a time when the latter already had a (admittedly limited) nuclear arsenal.

Deterrence may not be the right word, but nuclear weapons can be used to restrain escalation. Russia has not been successful in deterring NATO support for Ukraine entirely, but that support has been limited and slowed because of the nuclear factor. Maybe signalling would be a better term? They are a bargaining chip which the opponent must always keep in mind.

Indeed. Having a formidable nuclear arsenal alone isn't enough. Can't just always fall back to the nuclear option whenever some skirmishes/wars breaking out between our side and the enemy (and/or the skirmish/war not going in our favor).

Having powerful conventional forces that can fight and win wars without involving the direct use of nuclear warheads is definitely a must. The ongoing Russo-Ukrainian war is a great textbook example of this.

And as it is evident right now, China is strengthening both the conventional and nuclear arsenals of the PLA, which is exactly the right thing to do.

 

[Minm]

I think eventually the US, Russia and China will do nuke test again in a few years .. and it will follow by India, UK and France

China has little to gain and much to lose from restarting tests. We wouldn't want an Indian H bomb test. My impression is that Chinese weapons are good enough. MIRV ICBMs is good enough

 

[CMP]

China has little to gain and much to lose from restarting tests. We wouldn't want an Indian H bomb test. My impression is that Chinese weapons are good enough. MIRV ICBMs is good enough

India will further develop their nuclear arsenal regardless of what China does. If there is a sound technical and scientific basis for why China's simulations are eventually insufficient and real testing is necessary, China should do it rather than let their nuclear capabilities be held back. There's no end game for weapons development. Nobody ever knows for certain where the next summit is. The Americans thought they knew, and that's why they fell behind in many key areas. Now you are advising China adopt the same hubris.

 

[Maikeru]

India will further develop their nuclear arsenal regardless of what China does. If there is a sound technical and scientific basis for why China's simulations are eventually insufficient and real testing is necessary, China should do it rather than let their nuclear capabilities be held back. There's no end game for weapons development. Nobody ever knows for certain where the next summit is. The Americans thought they knew, and that's why they fell behind in many key areas. Now you are advising China adopt the same hubris.

There are definite disadvantages to being the first country to resume nuclear testing as opposed to the 3rd or 4th.

 

[antiterror13]

There are definite disadvantages to being the first country to resume nuclear testing as opposed to the 3rd or 4th.

Chine definitely wouldn't want to be the first country ...... but if the US and Russia doing it, China will follow for sure. I think the US will do the nuke test within 5 years. However I think the big 5 have enough nuke test data to have nuclear test simulation within supercomputer .. and supercomputer now in 2023 is like 1 millions time more powerful than in early 1990s ...... especially for China which didn't have a supercomputer in early 1990s

So perhaps the test is not needed, but really you never know, the test is the real thing