China ICBM/SLBM, nuclear arms thread

[Dante80]

I don't think this kind of personal attack is okay. I have made valid points that I already mentioned were made by western analysts when the silo fields first came into public view.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

View attachment 158929


The fact that Chinese missiles are too much packed compared to US silo fields has been noted in several articles I have seen back then. Analysts have questioned its strategy of a shell game being too vulnerable if these silos are this close.


Again, I don't see why there is attempt at trying to find different excuses for silo based Nuclear weapons other than the main reason they are usually produced, which is to initiate first strike. Producing so many silos and filling them with expensive ICBM just to soak up enemy nuclear attack seems like a big waste of resources.

I should point out that just cause China said that they have a no-first-use policy does not mean they are being honest about it. They can be decieving their enemies into a sense of security by saying we have no-first-use policy.

This huge expansion of silo-based Nukes have been noted by many analysts as perhaps an indication that China could have a first use policy.

Please read what a shell game strategy is. The whole idea is for the silos to be far apart so that a single warhead does not put more than one out of action, while at the same time close enough that you can easily move missiles around.

Essentially building a nuclear sponge of sorts.

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

No country is ever launching Armageddon without getting hit first. Its too risky when you dont know if the strike is indeed nuclear or just conventional. Second strike must come after getting hit with the first strike.

That means you clearly don't underatand what LOW posture means, and how it is meant to be employed.

 

[tamsen_ikard]

That means you clearly don't know what LOW posture means, and how it will be employed.

China doesn't even mate its warheads with its missiles, and keep warheads in a different location to prevent accidental nuke strikes. So, I don't think China has a LOW posture at all. It has been noted by nuclear experts that China's strategy is to swallow a first strike by using its vast underground network of tunnels and then launch its own strike.

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

China doesn't even mate its warheads with its missiles, and keep warheads in a different location to prevent accidental nuke strikes. So, I don't think China has a LOW posture at all. It has been noted by nuclear experts that China's strategy is to swallow a first strike by using its vast underground network of tunnels and then launch its own strike.

And what makes you think/believe that China would never change those doctrines, postures and operations in the future, if not already in the process/completed, in view of their nuclear arsenal expansion that only started occuring in recent years?

 

[iewgnem]

I don't think this kind of personal attack is okay. I have made valid points that I already mentioned were made by western analysts when the silo fields first came into public view.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

View attachment 158929


The fact that Chinese missiles are too much packed compared to US silo fields has been noted in several articles I have seen back then. Analysts have questioned its strategy of a shell game being too vulnerable if these silos are this close.


Again, I don't see why there is attempt at trying to find different excuses for silo based Nuclear weapons other than the main reason they are usually produced, which is to initiate first strike. Producing so many silos and filling them with expensive ICBM just to soak up enemy nuclear attack seems like a big waste of resources.

I should point out that just cause China said that they have a no-first-use policy does not mean they are being honest about it. They can be decieving their enemies into a sense of security by saying we have no-first-use policy.

This huge expansion of silo-based Nukes have been noted by many analysts as perhaps an indication that China could have a first use policy.

How far apart US choose to space their silos during the cold war was based on many factors, including insufficient modelling data at that time, projected future bomb yields, and lack of precision targeting technology at the time, its irrelevant to determination of required spacing today. Fact is a 1 megaton air burst causes around 20 psi overpressure at 2 km while the typical silo are built to withstand 2000 psi overpressure, and American W88 warheads are only 500 kilotons, not 1 megaton.

In other words 3 km spacing is already sufficient to require a single warhead per silo.

 

[FriedRiceNSpice]

If China sticks to its no first use policy, I don't think it makes sense to have any silo based ICBM. Cause they will be identified and destroyed in the first strike.

Early warning systems and launch on warning have entered the chat.

 

[FriedRiceNSpice]

Again, if the goal of the silo is soaking up attacks then put each silo 200 miles apart or even in different regions. Having them in a single field in huge numbers is not a good strategy if the goal is to act as attack sponge.

A one megaton warhead would need to impact within 1km of a silo to destroy it. Unless your enemy is tossing Tsar Bombas, 3km spacing is more than sufficient. Underground structures built in soft ground are extremely resistant to shockwave effects.

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

If China sticks to its no first use policy, I don't think it makes sense to have any silo based ICBM. Cause they will be identified and destroyed in the first strike.

Having road mobile icbm and submarines based ones is the way to go.

If China is going for so many silos then they probably have already changed their policy to allow first use.

Having a No-First-Use (NFU) policy absolutely does not conflict with having a Launch-On-Warning (LOW) posture, especially when the enemy's strategic nuclear strikes have been confirmed when those strategic nuclear-tipped missiles are very much still on their way.

Technological achievements of today certainly has come a long way since the nuclear heydays of the Cold War. There are plenty more ways and options available to China today to not just detect and track, but also authenticate and verify incoming enemy strategic nuclear strikes ASAP + Launching procedures to conduct counter-launch nuclear strikes against the enemy before the first enemy's strategic nukes detonate on Chinese soil - Whilst effectively minimizing the risks of false alarms.

Therefore, as soon as PLA CMC in Beijing verifies and confirms that strategic nuclear strikes are heading towards China, they certainly can immediately order the PLARF and strategic elements in the PLAAF and PLAN to conduct retaliatory strategic nuclear strikes against the enemy homeland(s) without having to wait for enemy nukes to detonate on Chinese soil before doing so.

In fact, this is what LOW posture means. And it certainly doesn't mean China needs to discard the NFU policy.

If anything, this is the message of: "Yes, we promise to never fire our nukes first. However, be warned that we certainly have the capability to launch our nukes at you if you attempt to do anything funny first. And we can also guarantee that enough of our nukes will make their way to you before your first-strike nukes could ever neutralize them. So tread carefully."

 

[pesoleati]

If China sticks to its no first use policy, I don't think it makes sense to have any silo based ICBM. Cause they will be identified and destroyed in the first strike.

Having road mobile icbm and submarines based ones is the way to go.

If China is going for so many silos then they probably have already changed their policy to allow first use.

If you have 20 minutes of early warning time, how far away the road mobile icbm can go in about 15 minutes? You can't hide large truck like that. It will be very vulnerable in 10 -15 km away of warhead explosion. Silo have better protection and have better chance of survive.

 

[totenchan]

I don't think this kind of personal attack is okay. I have made valid points that I already mentioned were made by western analysts when the silo fields first came into public view.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

View attachment 158929


The fact that Chinese missiles are too much packed compared to US silo fields has been noted in several articles I have seen back then. Analysts have questioned its strategy of a shell game being too vulnerable if these silos are this close.


Again, I don't see why there is attempt at trying to find different excuses for silo based Nuclear weapons other than the main reason they are usually produced, which is to initiate first strike. Producing so many silos and filling them with expensive ICBM just to soak up enemy nuclear attack seems like a big waste of resources.

I should point out that just cause China said that they have a no-first-use policy does not mean they are being honest about it. They can be decieving their enemies into a sense of security by saying we have no-first-use policy.

This huge expansion of silo-based Nukes have been noted by many analysts as perhaps an indication that China could have a first use policy.

The original concept for Minuteman was silos spaced about 5km apart to avoid multiple silos being destroyed by a single five megaton warhead. Given that 3 miles is roughly 5km, and that no modern nuclear warhead yield even slightly approaches five megatons, I don't think there's much reason to be concerned about the spacing of the silos.