China ICBM/SLBM, nuclear arms thread

ismellcopium

Junior Member
Registered Member
Lol, for a country that remains in such terror of even a foe like Russia despite it having so thoroughly proven itself an impotent joke in conventional military terms that it does things like ban its proxies from fighting back against it and cancels routine ICBM/hypersonic tests to avoid "escalating tension", for the sole remaining reason of Russian nuclear capability. I'd say the US has at minimum an institutional culture of healthy respect of nukes if not excessive fear. Gone for good are the Cold War days of embracing mixed nuclear-conventional land war in Europe. Now they're meek as a mouse whenever it comes to the "n-word", as Trump calls it.

To postulate that they'd suddenly forget this pervasive crippling fear of nukes & randomly nuke China when angered is completely inconsistent with observed behaviour.
 
Last edited:

CMP

Senior Member
Registered Member
Lol, for a country that remains in such terror of even a foe like Russia despite it having so thoroughly proven itself an impotent joke in conventional military terms that it does things like ban its proxies from fighting back against it and cancels routine ICBM/hypersonic tests to avoid "escalating tension", for the sole remaining reason of Russian nuclear capability. I'd say the US has at minimum an institutional culture of healthy respect of nukes if not excessive fear. Gone for good are the Cold War days of embracing mixed nuclear-conventional land war in Europe. Now they're meek as a mouse whenever it comes to the "n-word", as Trump calls it.
That's only because Russia is white. The West's fundamental racism prevents them from believing that China could possibly defeat or dominate them in either conventional or nuclear terms.
 

bustead

Junior Member
Registered Member
No thanks. I have no interest in reading a bloated propaganda document. If you know the relevant line, just paraphrase them for us.
The United States might choose to use nuclear weapons in the event of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan—especially if a Chinese victory looked imminent or if China engaged in a nonnuclear strategic attack on the US homeland. US declaratory policy does not rule out nuclear first use [...] The likeliest scenarios for US nuclear first use during a Chinese invasion of Taiwan would be an attack directly against the Chinese invasion force in the face of a Taiwanese defeat or as retaliation for a large-scale nonnuclear strategic attack on the US homeland or that of its allies.
Threatening use of nuclear weapons when China is winning.

China could retaliate by striking Andersen AFB on Guam. The United States could strike several airfields on the Chinese mainland. China could retaliate by using an ICBM against US military bases in Alaska. Strategists on both sides would start to seriously contemplate the value of a damage limiting strike as a broader exchange begins to look inevitable. Indeed, given that the number of US nuclear weapons available for theater-based, low-yield strikes is quite low, such pressures might emerge relatively early for the United States
So for some reason, the US feels that they need to escalate first, despite having a nuclear superiority
 

Index

Senior Member
Registered Member
Rather than being a policy document, it sounds like pure theorycrafting by the authors.
This. Why would China nuke bases in Alaska with ICBMs, when they have closer targets like Ryukyu and Guam they can island hop to?

The moment they launch those ICBM, US would have to assume it is some sort of first strike and do counterattack.

US will sue for peace long before Chinese conventional bombers inflict society threatening damage on mainland US. In fact, US will probably sue for peace the moment it's obvious their invasion force has been crushed.
 

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
Repost from the Taiwan thread

===

Exclusive: U.S. and China hold first informal nuclear talks in 5 years, eyeing Taiwan
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

...
The Chinese representatives offered reassurances after their U.S. interlocutors raised concerns that China might use, or threaten to use, nuclear weapons if it faced defeat in a conflict over Taiwan. Beijing views the democratically governed island as its territory, a claim rejected by the government in Taipei.

"They told the U.S. side that they were absolutely convinced that they are able to prevail in a conventional fight over Taiwan without using nuclear weapons," said scholar David Santoro, the U.S. organiser of the Track Two talks, the details of which are being reported by Reuters for the first time.

Participants in Track Two talks are generally former officials and academics who can speak with authority on their government's position, even if they are not directly involved with setting it. Government-to-government negotiations are known as Track One.
...
Read more

reuters.com/world/us-china-hold-first-informal-nuclear-talks-5-years-eyeing-taiwan-2024-06-21/


===

This is how I imagine the conversation went with respect to China "winning" in a Taiwan scenario.

1. Within 1 week, the Taiwanese Air Force will essentially be destroyed. Taiwan's air defences will also have been destroyed or run out of SAMs.

2. China has the ability to impose an indefinite air and sea blockade of Taiwan, even if the US military gets involved. Taiwan is too close to China, and too far away from external support.

3. Given Chinese air superiority over the skies of Taiwan, large numbers of drones, missiles and bombs can be used to turn Taiwan itself into a "hellscape". Imagine all dual-use infrastructure and Taiwanese military targets being under constant surveillance and attack. There's no electricity or fuel for vehicles. Taiwan is a small but densely populated island that relies on imports for fuel and food. So it is a matter of weeks before a complete Taiwan collapse. Note that this scenario does not require an amphibious assault and invasion of Taiwan.

===

And in a longer war which involved the USA? China would build a significantly bigger military than the US within 5 years, even if industrial facilities in China came under attack from the USA. Data points include:

1. China has 232x the shipbuilding capacity of the USA. In terms of naval shipbuilding, the implied disparity is 171x. As per US Navy below

2. China acquires new weapons 5x faster than the USA. China has a 20x cost advantage in hypersonic missiles. As per US Air Force below

3. China has an automated factory capable of producing components up to 1000 cruise missiles per day. As per CCTV7 newsreel on Youtube below.

Sources
1. twz.com/alarming-navy-intel-slide-warns-of-chinas-200-times-greater-shipbuilding-capacity
2. thedrive.com/the-war-zone/china-acquiring-new-weapons-five-times-faster-than-u-s-warns-top-official
3. youtube.com/watch?v=RoObgUTsZ0M

===

The implication is that:

1. the Chinese Navy would be larger and win in a blue-water naval battle against the US Navy in the Pacific. That gives China control of the seas and global trade. At the same time, the Chinese Navy would seek to impose a blockade on the USA.

2. Japan and any other country in the Western Pacific that supports the US military would meet a fate similar to Taiwan.

===

But of course, such a Chinese "win" would come at significant loss of lives and economic cost, potentially derailing China's development.

I don't see this being better than the current Taiwan status quo, which China can live with, particularly since the economic, technological military balances continues to shift in China's favour each year. (At the same time, remember that by 2040, the current generation of Chinese leaders will be gone, and will have been replaced by a softer generation whose formulative experiences were during the 1980s/1990s reforms era)

On the economic front, US growth is around 2% whilst China is still a middle-income country and is aiming for about 4-5%.
So in terms of actual output of goods and services measured on a PPP basis, today China is about 25% larger than the US, but would grow to 2x larger in a 2035-2040 timeframe. Economic heft is ultimately the source of all other forms of power and influence

In terms of technology, China has a commanding overall lead in terms of future technologies. Think solar, wind, nuclear, electric vehicles, batteries and 5G. China lags behind in terms of semiconductors, biotech and AI, but we can see rapid catchup occurring in these fields. Within 10 years, I expect China to have completely caught up. In addition, China is systematically developing domestic technologies to replace unreliable foreign imports which may be subject to US sanctions.

In terms of the military, if you model the "stock" of modern Chinese military weapons and assume an average 30 year service life, China is still growing fast. There's a whole bunch of caveats here, but I got a doubling in a 2021-2030 timeframe. It increases again by another 50% in a 2030-2035 timeframe. In comparison, the equivalent US "stock" of military modern equipment is roughly stagnant.
 

Luke Warmwar

New Member
Registered Member
So for some reason, the US feels that they need to escalate first, despite having a nuclear superiority
This makes sense.

If you’re the US, and you think you have superiority, then it makes sense to advocate for a counterforce first strike. China doesn’t have many nukes, comparably speaking. At the moment it has 500 ish, most in silos, with a handful of subs. The US has 1.7k. It could hit every silo three times over, with another couple hundred comfortably in reserve for afterwards.

Maybe you’ll miss a few. Maybe your hunter-killer submarines won’t get all six of the Chinese ones. But if you’re staring down the barrel of a serious peer competitor in a decade or two, maybe you’d rather roll the dice now?

Not to mention, missing a few doesn’t even guarantee they’ll be used on your cities. Imagine you’re sitting in Zhongnanhai on the day after such an attack. You’ve lost 98% of your stockpile. You have ten nukes left. The US still has 200 left. So far, your major population centres haven’t been hit. Do you order your last ten nukes be used on cities in the USA, knowing that you’ll have every major city of your own hit in response five times over? Do you use them on US bases, leaving you with absolutely no deterrence against population centre nukes? Or do you surrender, lick your wounds, and make peace with US hegemony?

At least, that’s the US hawk school of thought, and why China’s current stockpile is insufficient. For effective deterrence, it needs to have enough that even the most optimistic of hawks will realise that MAD is in play. (As they do with Russia.)
 
Last edited:

montyp165

Senior Member
This makes sense.

If you’re the US, and you think you have superiority, then it makes sense to advocate for a counterforce first strike. China doesn’t have many nukes, comparably speaking. At the moment it has 500 ish, most in silos, with a handful of subs. The US has 1.7k. It could hit every silo three times over, with another couple hundred comfortably in reserve for afterwards.

Maybe you’ll miss a few. Maybe your hunter-killer submarines won’t get all six of the Chinese ones. But if you’re staring down the barrel of a serious peer competitor in a decade or two, maybe you’d rather roll the dice now?

Not to mention, missing a few doesn’t even guarantee they’ll be used on your cities. Imagine you’re sitting in Zhongnanhai on the day after such an attack. You’ve lost 98% of your stockpile. You have ten nukes left. The US still has 200 left. So far, your major population centres haven’t been hit. Do you order your last ten nukes be used on cities in the USA, knowing that you’ll have every major city of your own hit in response five times over? Do you use them on US bases, leaving you with absolutely no deterrence against population centre nukes? Or do you surrender, lick your wounds, and make peace with US hegemony?

At least, that’s the US hawk school of thought, and why China’s current stockpile is insufficient. For effective deterrence, it needs to have enough that even the most optimistic of hawks will realise that MAD is in play. (As they do with Russia.)
The assumptions here are still fundamentally flawed even by the standards of right-wing nuclear warfare theorists (of which I've had a few discussions with in the past), because at that point it becomes a snowball effect of both "use it or lose it" on top of the fact that a US that expends its arsenal in such a fashion also becomes open to full scale nuclear strikes from Russia or anybody else who hasn't utilized their nukes yet and has a casus belli with the US. Even North Korea's 48 strategic nuclear delivery devices would be sufficient to deal critical damage to the US, and China certainly isn't sitting still on the nuclear arms front.
 

vincent

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Moderator - World Affairs
This makes sense.

If you’re the US, and you think you have superiority, then it makes sense to advocate for a counterforce first strike. China doesn’t have many nukes, comparably speaking. At the moment it has 500 ish, most in silos, with a handful of subs. The US has 1.7k. It could hit every silo three times over, with another couple hundred comfortably in reserve for afterwards.
One key feature of silo-based missiles is quick reaction time. If China adopts "launch-on-warning" stance, all the missiles in the silos will be fired before enemy missiles can reach them.
 
Top