China is top 3 in everything except...

Phead128

Phead128

Captain
Staff member
Moderator - World Affairs
China's nuclear megaton yield of it's warheads are probably top 3... I'd expect nothing less. :p

Warhead numbers is different from overall total nuclear megaton yield...and China isn't probably outclassed by tiny countries like UK and France, which are like the size (population/territorial size) of a medium Chinese province, so China is using deception to shroud the true number of warheads, which is smart I suppose, since it doesn't put China under the nuclear reduction supervision spot light.

I have never really understood why Russia or USA would actually truly state their real number of nuclear arsenal. It just makes the enemy know your secret, and gives them a TARGET to rivall... derp.
 
Last edited:
B

blacklist

Junior Member
Phead128 said:
I have never really understood why Russia or USA would actually truly state their real number of nuclear arsenal. It just makes the enemy know your secret, and gives them a TARGET to rivall... derp.
Click to expand...

are you saying that they were just bluffing each other ?
 
L

Lion

Senior Member
I seriously don't believe China has only 400 nuclear warhead. Flushed with money and increase of its technology.

China has long considered total war if a nuclear free fall happen. China need to have enough nuke warhead for all continent on the earth.

400 nuclear warhead is definitely not enough for such scenario. I take around 1200 nuclear warhead will be enough to act as deterent.
 
solarz

solarz

Brigadier
Lion said:
I seriously don't believe China has only 400 nuclear warhead. Flushed with money and increase of its technology.

China has long considered total war if a nuclear free fall happen. China need to have enough nuke warhead for all continent on the earth.

400 nuclear warhead is definitely not enough for such scenario. I take around 1200 nuclear warhead will be enough to act as deterent.
Click to expand...

Why the hell would China want to nuke the entire world???

China maintains a nuclear arsenal for *deterrence*. That means only enough nukes to scare your biggest opponent, not conduct exterminatus!
 
L

Lion

Senior Member
solarz said:
Why the hell would China want to nuke the entire world???

China maintains a nuclear arsenal for *deterrence*. That means only enough nukes to scare your biggest opponent, not conduct exterminatus!
Click to expand...

You need the real number to scare yr opponent. If US want to nuke Russia. Do you think they will just nuke Russia alone?

If the western world is against China. You need to take in USA, France and UK..

Another great example is the 1969Sino-Russia border crisis. Russia want to nuke China but USA steps in.
 
Kurt

Kurt

Junior Member
Seems like the Chinese are the only people with netizens arguing for a nuclear armageddon while the rest of the world is happy the Cold War ended without such an event. I posted about nuclear technology and it's military applications above.
400 nukes are enough to salt the earth and exterminate most lifeforms. That's really very useful because afterwards you can be dead sure that there will be no opposition to China claiming all the tiny islands in the South China Sea.
This scientific article discusses the US development of nuclear overkill
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.

How expensive is it to maintain such a large nuclear arsenal?
Total Military and Nuclear Weapons Spending 2010-2011 .jpg
Here's the answer
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, as you can see countries like Pakistan and Russia have serious lack of money for conventional armament because of their overblown nuclear arsenals. While these pose a credible defense against territorial invasion, would they risk mutually assured destruction/death over petty disputes in proxy wars and conflicts over maritime transport rights? The Cold War answers to both are no in Korea, Vietnam, Cuba and so on.

In the modern multipolar world, conflict will likely be between similar equipped naval powers and it's doubtful anyone would pull the strategic nuclear card with all consequences in such a scenario. Even the great non-nuclear powers are capable of quickly assembling a nuclear counterstrike (called theoretical nuclear capability of Japan or Germany) in accordance with the non-proliferation treaty after an attack. They don't need a powerful bomb array, but a device powerful enough to enable radionuclear poisoning. That's the meanest kind of warfare, because it turns continents into deserts with longterm suffering.
Iran strives for theoretical nuclear capability that would offset the Israeli nuclear arsenal threat for Iran and her allies (stretching the outer limits of non-proliferation), but they are no way capable of assembling anything like the hundreds of Israeli nukes.

To make it short, Mao is 100% right, mankind had similar abilities for warfare in different variations for a long time and always learned to abstain from these because they don't help to solve the dispute. These tools raise the costs to exorbitant heights that are in no relation any more to the value that is contested. Thus war gets even more messed up and worthless for problem solutions (for this reason the Cold War). In order to convince the other side from abstaining from these tools, you must credibly threaten them with the same effects on a scale that is unacceptable for them.
 
Last edited:
L

Lion

Senior Member
Kurt said:
Seems like the Chinese are the only people with netizens arguing for a nuclear armageddon while the rest of the world is happy the Cold War ended without such an event. I posted about nuclear technology and it's military applications above.
400 nukes are enough to salt the earth and exterminate most lifeforms. That's really very useful because afterwards you can be dead sure that there will be no opposition to China claiming all the tiny islands in the South China Sea.
This scientific article discusses the US development of nuclear overkill
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.

How expensive is it to maintain such a large nuclear arsenal?
View attachment 6535
Here's the answer
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, as you can see countries like Pakistan and Russia have serious lack of money for conventional armament because of their overblown nuclear arsenals. While these pose a credible defense against territorial invasion, would they risk mutually assured destruction/death over petty disputes in proxy wars and conflicts over maritime transport rights? The Cold War answers to both are no in Korea, Vietnam, Cuba and so on.

In the modern multipolar world, conflict will likely be between similar equipped naval powers and it's doubtful anyone would pull the strategic nuclear card with all consequences in such a scenario. Even the great non-nuclear powers are capable of quickly assembling a nuclear counterstrike (called theoretical nuclear capability of Japan or Germany) in accordance with the non-proliferation treaty after an attack. They don't need a powerful bomb array, but a device powerful enough to enable radionuclear poisoning. That's the meanest kind of warfare, because it turns continents into deserts with longterm suffering.
Iran strives for theoretical nuclear capability that would offset the Israeli nuclear arsenal threat for Iran and her allies (stretching the outer limits of non-proliferation), but they are no way capable of assembling anything like the hundreds of Israeli nukes.

To make it short, Mao is 100% right, mankind had similar abilities for warfare in different variations for a long time and always learned to abstain from these because they don't help to solve the dispute. These tools raise the costs to exorbitanrt heights that are in no relation any more to the value that is contested. Thus war gets even more messed up and a worthless for problem solution (for this reason the Cold War). In order to convince the other side from abstaining from these tools, you must credibly threaten them with the same effects on a scale that is unacceptable for them.
Click to expand...

The way you put it is like China is the bad guy trying to nuke the whole world? Remember, USA and Russia stockpile are insanely too much compare to my estimate of 1200 nuclear warhead for China.

USA and Russia definitely has enough harden defense to allow 2nd strike or retaliate strike. Not to mention US has a missile shield defense on hand. Plus US has many number of overseas base station near China.

All this means US is able to take out a number of China nuke before it launches. Then you still need to extract a number that launched but will be knock out by US defense shield before they reaches US mainland. Finally, you need to factor in the possible threat from other countries like France and UK who may attack China.

For example, Russia maybe China allies for the next ten years but you cannot gurantee that for the next 20 yrs. Today friends can be tommorrow enemies in a everchanging violatile world.

Seriously, if I am top brass of China, 400 nuke warhead can never scare off yr enemies for a top 3 world superpower status if you take in my scenario.

You can never know some madman manage to take over the top post and do some unthinkable. China need to prepare a real armageddon. All this is about real deterence and never to used it unless the above scenario.
 
Kurt

Kurt

Junior Member
In all nuclear scenarios China is the "good" guy because they try to exercise mutual restraint with these weapons. That is the most important military contribution of China to end a situation that all NATO and Warsaw Pact soldiers and officers regarded as an insane warfare. India follows the Chinese route and Germany wants to convince NATO to do the same (extending across very different kinds of elected governments).

Sorry, but the "madman" doing nuclear armageddon is a fictuous bogeyman and the preparation to exterminate life is already a given with 100 nukes, Russia and the US still have overkill.
Would you kill your family because someone killed 100 Chinese in a terror attack? That's what you in effect suggest by destroying the whole world with nukes.
 
Last edited:
Equation

Equation

Lieutenant General
Lion said:
The way you put it is like China is the bad guy trying to nuke the whole world? Remember, USA and Russia stockpile are insanely too much compare to my estimate of 1200 nuclear warhead for China.

USA and Russia definitely has enough harden defense to allow 2nd strike or retaliate strike. Not to mention US has a missile shield defense on hand. Plus US has many number of overseas base station near China.

All this means US is able to take out a number of China nuke before it launches. Then you still need to extract a number that launched but will be knock out by US defense shield before they reaches US mainland. Finally, you need to factor in the possible threat from other countries like France and UK who may attack China.

For example, Russia maybe China allies for the next ten years but you cannot gurantee that for the next 20 yrs. Today friends can be tommorrow enemies in a everchanging violatile world.

Seriously, if I am top brass of China, 400 nuke warhead can never scare off yr enemies for a top 3 world superpower status if you take in my scenario.

You can never know some madman manage to take over the top post and do some unthinkable. China need to prepare a real armageddon. All this is about real deterence and never to used it unless the above scenario.
Click to expand...

Okay bro, go see how much of your tax dollars will be used to maintain all those nuclear warheads in the thousands. Believe me it's not cheap. In order for China to prepare for any nuclear armageddon, the only sure fire way for now is a missile shield program in space and atmospheric weapons that can track and destroy an incoming ICBM.
 
A

alte

Just Hatched
Registered Member
IL believe 3 a least 3 things could explain why China officially has the lowest deterrent nuclear power.
1) The stock of uranium China has is the lowest.
2) Occident is China’s customers of Chinese goods and China don’t kill customers.
3) To destroy a country you don’t have to directly kill their habitants, only destroy their water supply, petrol, electricity, the civil war that follow will make more death.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top