China ICBM/SLBM, nuclear arms thread

I

Index

Junior Member
Registered Member
plawolf said:
The very definition of a pyrrhic victory which is utterly meaningless and worthless. The Chinese are not interested in such empty symbolic victory at the cost of literally everything.
Click to expand...
It has value because if you put yourself in the role of the strongest country in the world, that has unmatched ability at progressing new weapons and putting them in mass production, why would you not use your abundant resources/industry hedge your bets so you can stay on top in any future?

That is why as far back as China had nukes, China had also begun working on nuclear defenses.
plawolf said:
As such, I think the extent of Chinese nuclear expansion is aimed to achieve nuclear parity or even a slight advantage, to firmly erase all possible delusions the Americans might hold about somehow being able ‘win’ a nuclear war against China to prevent one from ever happening.
Click to expand...
The only purposes of nuclear defenses are not for parity but for winning. I think the only correct choice in dealing with America is to keep preaching denuclearization verbally, while with actions enhancing the full second strike against a tactical first strike option, or the treaty breaking first strike option.
plawolf said:
But there is no real value in seeking to have a dominating nuclear advantage because once a certain minimum threshold is passed, more nukes is just meaningless overkill and a waste of resources.

This is also why I think China will continue to build big megaton yield city busters instead of going heavily into low yield tactical stuff, expect where miniaturisation demands it for MIRV purposes and/or for mounting on hypersonics.
Click to expand...
Tactical nukes are used by weak countries that don't have confidence in conventional capability. 50 accurate conventional missiles carry less than 0 risk of escalation and can match the destructive power of 1 tactical nuke. If you can comfortably out pace in conventional weapons, tactical nukes only end up griefing yourself because you give the other party an excuse to escalate to strategical nukes.
 
sunnymaxi

sunnymaxi

Captain
Registered Member
Maikeru said:
Russia has almost 200 tonnes of Pu, seems likely they'd sell some to China these days.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Click to expand...
there is no doubt, Russia can supply Pu to China.. but seems like Members forgot what @Kalec have post on this thread.. detailed analysis about China's WuPu production , fast breed reactor expansion in 2022 , warhead production.

China's nuke build up .. 2.jpg

@antiterror13 please go through this thread and older one..
 
G

gelgoog

Brigadier
Registered Member
Index said:
Tactical nukes are used by weak countries that don't have confidence in conventional capability. 50 accurate conventional missiles carry less than 0 risk of escalation and can match the destructive power of 1 tactical nuke. If you can comfortably out pace in conventional weapons, tactical nukes only end up griefing yourself because you give the other party an excuse to escalate to strategical nukes.
Click to expand...
Atomic weapons have around a thousand times more destructive power than chemical explosives of the same weight. And that is for fission weapons. Fusion weapons have even more destructive power than fission ones.
 
C

CMP

Senior Member
Registered Member
Tactical nukes are a massive escalation either way and should be responded to by retaliating with tactical nukes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top