America only has 9 cities with a population over 1 million... whereas China has 160 cities with a population over 1 million. In terms of nukes, China just needs one (1) MIRV-ed Hydrogen ICBM with 8 warheads to destroy all of America's major cities !
China is top 3 in everything except...
- Thread starter Phead128
- Start date
The aim of nuke war is not to destroy every city that you can get your nukes to. 10 cities destroyed by nukes in any country will likely cause a humanitarian disaster on a scale no government has handled before, and may even cause breakdown of society.
It is probably more effective to spread 30 nukes out to destroy 50% of 30 cities spread over a wide area than trying to make sure you totally levels 10 cities with 3 nukes each.
It is probably more effective to spread 30 nukes out to destroy 50% of 30 cities spread over a wide area than trying to make sure you totally levels 10 cities with 3 nukes each.
not to mention that large cache of nuclear weapon will be useless without the effective launcher.
so there is China's best bet, improve their technology and industrial base so they can have better chance to launch the nuclear weapon more effectively/stealthy also with better technology, China can track and destroy the incoming nuclear missile as well.
Wasn't a recent report released in regards to pakistan/india, which concluded that if india and pakistan were to have a regional nuclear exchange, despite only about 30-50 million initial deaths directly from the nuclear attacks, a further 1 billion would die planet-wide due to the ensuing multi-month/multi-year nuclear winter which would ruin crop yields around the world?
Now imagine what would happen if two countries with significantly larger and more powerful arsenals went at it. A huge number of warheads is utter stupidity, you sign your own peoples death warrant with your own nukes anyway, setting them all off at once means you blanket the same skies you live under as well with dust and other particles, crippling your own food producing capacity.
It's all about a smart, cost effective detterent. I believe china's leadership is smart. Those 6 ballistic missile subs are all it needs. Have at least 1-2 lurking in the pacific at any one time, it carries up to 12 missiles with multiple multi-hundred kiloton warheads each.
The nuclear triad is overrated. Any 'victor' in a nuclear exchange just faces a longer, more painful death.
Now imagine what would happen if two countries with significantly larger and more powerful arsenals went at it. A huge number of warheads is utter stupidity, you sign your own peoples death warrant with your own nukes anyway, setting them all off at once means you blanket the same skies you live under as well with dust and other particles, crippling your own food producing capacity.
It's all about a smart, cost effective detterent. I believe china's leadership is smart. Those 6 ballistic missile subs are all it needs. Have at least 1-2 lurking in the pacific at any one time, it carries up to 12 missiles with multiple multi-hundred kiloton warheads each.
The nuclear triad is overrated. Any 'victor' in a nuclear exchange just faces a longer, more painful death.
solarz
Brigadier
Actually besides from busting a few key cities for good measure, as someone else mentioned earlier on this thread the point of nuclear weapons is also to destroy or contaminate the infrastructure that supports life and industry, i.e. water sources, farmland, industrial centers, transportation hubs, etc.
solarz
Brigadier
Except those nuclear clouds have the pesky tendency to drift all over the world.
Like you said earlier, when it goes nuclear everybody loses. The point of the nuclear game is to make sure everybody else loses for sure, and be OK if the worst case scenario means losing yourself as well. Otherwise don't go nuclear at all. This is the only way for a nuclear force to be worth the trouble.
Kurt
Junior Member
PanAsian has mentioned the ballistic missile shield. While the has always been sceptic about this shield and SDI, the Russians were right in their analyses to point out that if the system is made to work it can be mass-produced and thus even endanger their nuclear strike capability. For this reason Russia massively invests into their nuclear arsenal.
The idea of missile defense for a whole country is much disputed, but there existed for example a point defence system for Moscow during the Cold War. It was an upgraded air defence that was considered capable of shooting down approaching ballistic missiles (no one knows if it would have worked).
Germany doesn't have nukes, but is considered theoretically nuclear capable and was allowed to train how to reach Moscow with nuclear bombs. These bombs would be provided by their US allies in order to be transported by German fighter aircrafts in case the Moscow protection shield withstood other missile attacks. This shows one characteristic of nuclear warfare, uncertainty whether one delivery method will remain uncountered. For this reason there are always multiple delivery vehicle types and routes, including that can be carried in a backpack on foot.
The current Chinese nuclear delivery capability seems aimed at Russia(the former Soviet Union) with only a minimum available for global strikes. With increasing wealth, China will likely have more of their nuclear bombs on sophisticated global strike missiles with maneuverable MIRV and better submarines with medium range nuclear tipped cruise missile armament.
The global strike MIRV will be redundant with the US developed PGM development. Aircraft carriers and military infrastructure (industry, bases with airports and the arsenal of weapons of mass-destruction) are among the most likely targets of a PGM capability by anyone. That capability demands a whole plethora of technological improvements and inventions. The Second Artillery is developing them on an evolutionary step by step basis (see the much discussed carrier-killers). WWII is still the major peer-competitor lesson and early on, disabling important enemy industry would have saved lots of war effort (Battle for Britain, Bombing of the Reich). In the modern precision munitions age (pioneered during WWII and some small later conflicts) critical enemy capabilities could be rapidly eliminated by PGS without raising the nuclear threshold.
The old concept of a lot of explosive energy per warhead has been über-fulfilled with nukes, now warfare takes a new route by using less energy on better determined spots. It's like a different kung fu school, a softer style versus the previous hard style. was wrong when he thought the destructive power of his dynamite would make future warfare futile, even nuclear weapons didn't achieve that. Mankind is just too clever to take more than some restrictions on the use of available force into account. For humans war is a contest of "solving" problems with violence (and creating a lot more problems plus horrible numbers of dead and disabled humans). Not all kinds of violence are suitable for this task. Expanding bullets have been outlawed in warfare (not police work!) just like poisoned weapons in most countries (excluding ancient China) or eating humans to safe on logistics for food supply(still happens in some wars, but is usually not planned).
The idea of missile defense for a whole country is much disputed, but there existed for example a point defence system for Moscow during the Cold War. It was an upgraded air defence that was considered capable of shooting down approaching ballistic missiles (no one knows if it would have worked).
Germany doesn't have nukes, but is considered theoretically nuclear capable and was allowed to train how to reach Moscow with nuclear bombs. These bombs would be provided by their US allies in order to be transported by German fighter aircrafts in case the Moscow protection shield withstood other missile attacks. This shows one characteristic of nuclear warfare, uncertainty whether one delivery method will remain uncountered. For this reason there are always multiple delivery vehicle types and routes, including that can be carried in a backpack on foot.
The current Chinese nuclear delivery capability seems aimed at Russia(the former Soviet Union) with only a minimum available for global strikes. With increasing wealth, China will likely have more of their nuclear bombs on sophisticated global strike missiles with maneuverable MIRV and better submarines with medium range nuclear tipped cruise missile armament.
The global strike MIRV will be redundant with the US developed PGM development. Aircraft carriers and military infrastructure (industry, bases with airports and the arsenal of weapons of mass-destruction) are among the most likely targets of a PGM capability by anyone. That capability demands a whole plethora of technological improvements and inventions. The Second Artillery is developing them on an evolutionary step by step basis (see the much discussed carrier-killers). WWII is still the major peer-competitor lesson and early on, disabling important enemy industry would have saved lots of war effort (Battle for Britain, Bombing of the Reich). In the modern precision munitions age (pioneered during WWII and some small later conflicts) critical enemy capabilities could be rapidly eliminated by PGS without raising the nuclear threshold.
The old concept of a lot of explosive energy per warhead has been über-fulfilled with nukes, now warfare takes a new route by using less energy on better determined spots. It's like a different kung fu school, a softer style versus the previous hard style. was wrong when he thought the destructive power of his dynamite would make future warfare futile, even nuclear weapons didn't achieve that. Mankind is just too clever to take more than some restrictions on the use of available force into account. For humans war is a contest of "solving" problems with violence (and creating a lot more problems plus horrible numbers of dead and disabled humans). Not all kinds of violence are suitable for this task. Expanding bullets have been outlawed in warfare (not police work!) just like poisoned weapons in most countries (excluding ancient China) or eating humans to safe on logistics for food supply(still happens in some wars, but is usually not planned).
Last edited:
Kurt
Junior Member
Panasian raised the issue of Chinese allies and oversea bases. There is the string of pearls that has incorrectly been hyped as a ring of naval bases.
Let's assume I am to build a string of secure lines for the PLAN to protect Chinese SLoC against as many continguencies as possible. As allies Myanmar and Cambodia would come to my mind as well as Pakistan.
Cambodia might have some qualms because of the support for the Red Khmer, but has overall been an old Chinese ally with an age old conflict with the US-ally Thailand. A connection to Cambodia can be established by land via Laos, that is poor and tries not to be on the wrong side and would like to profit from the proximity to China. There have been some tunnel building experiments along this route and China might show them how to build a safe military grade transport tunnel.
Myanmar wants economic development and certainly prefers Chinese attitudes of non-intervention to Western pressures, plus they share a large river and are reputed to have the most beautiful women (= makes them the natural ally China needs).
Pakistan, being allied to this country has always been a wild card, but India seems not available as Chinese ally as long as they agree to disagree on some border issues and continue negotiations year after year. Pakistan and India have a more beneficial relationship by saber rattling on the border and thus increase internal stability via an external enemy that even threatens with nuclear weapons. Pakistan is a key Muslim country, for Central Asia as well as for the Persian Gulf due to cultural and military influence. Making it a nuclear power with some Chinese help has boosted that alliance and the good price of Chinese arms exports due to PPP have create a pretty solid China fanclub in Pakistan. That's something the so-called Pakistani "ally" USA is totally missing. Pakistan might prove one of the most valuable Chinese allies that has a population equal to Russia and still needs lots of economic growth, a reason to admire China's strides. Pakistan has huge capabilities and while not being the strongest ally available, it is a strong ally that China can help to lift to a higher levels in military, economics and education for mutual benefits.
Other than Pakistan the lessons learned might be well received in former East Pakistan, today Bangladesh, that can be reached by sea over a short distance from Myanmar, has always been very maritime oriented society and is neither far away from China overland, although India with some disputes with China there is in the way.
These three allies can provide secure connections to the landmass of China and would enhance the Chinese position in the South China Sea (Cambodia) as well as the Indian Ocean (Myanmar, Pakistan). A huge advantage of Myanmar is the waterway to China, while the others can be connected by roads, railways and possibly large transport tunnels. Transport tunnels, like the , are a concept China has been experimenting with and that can be highly effective for future transportation (due to predictable conditions and thus constant reliable speed. It's for example enacted in subways to transport people, but can be expanded to freight. Tunnels offer the additional capability to run adjacent serviceable pipelines protected underground.
Pakistan&Afghanistan(a Pakistani backyard called strategic depth where the US currently plays nation building) and the region of Tibet plus adjacent provinces of China all offer a suitable place for experimenting with to overcome the mountains into one of the oldest and major mining regions of the world.
Infrastructure will in my opinion be a major source of alliances with China and China does have a great history of infrastructure and transport innovation to build upon: (a very interesting blog, especially on green and transportation technology).
Other than these three allies, Africa wants a post colonial infrastructure that is not just meant to carry the riches to ports and off to somewhere else, but helps to develop sustained economies. China is in part very modern, in part third world with a high ingenuity in solutions to improve their living standard at low cost. The assembled know-how of all these contributions to raise China out of poverty will likely also have a positive impact on Africa. Chinese willingness to settle and work in Africa, despite the unavoidable tension with native factions, will likely have a deep influence on African outlooks at China if China is capable to create mutual prosperity benefits for all partners. Each of these African nations is small and weak, but they are natives to Africa, a continent known for difficulties for foreign invaders and occupiers.
Excuse me that I again made such a long statement about my point of view.
What are your opinions about future Chinese allies? Will these provide significantly improved security benefits to China?
Let's assume I am to build a string of secure lines for the PLAN to protect Chinese SLoC against as many continguencies as possible. As allies Myanmar and Cambodia would come to my mind as well as Pakistan.
Cambodia might have some qualms because of the support for the Red Khmer, but has overall been an old Chinese ally with an age old conflict with the US-ally Thailand. A connection to Cambodia can be established by land via Laos, that is poor and tries not to be on the wrong side and would like to profit from the proximity to China. There have been some tunnel building experiments along this route and China might show them how to build a safe military grade transport tunnel.
Myanmar wants economic development and certainly prefers Chinese attitudes of non-intervention to Western pressures, plus they share a large river and are reputed to have the most beautiful women (= makes them the natural ally China needs).
Pakistan, being allied to this country has always been a wild card, but India seems not available as Chinese ally as long as they agree to disagree on some border issues and continue negotiations year after year. Pakistan and India have a more beneficial relationship by saber rattling on the border and thus increase internal stability via an external enemy that even threatens with nuclear weapons. Pakistan is a key Muslim country, for Central Asia as well as for the Persian Gulf due to cultural and military influence. Making it a nuclear power with some Chinese help has boosted that alliance and the good price of Chinese arms exports due to PPP have create a pretty solid China fanclub in Pakistan. That's something the so-called Pakistani "ally" USA is totally missing. Pakistan might prove one of the most valuable Chinese allies that has a population equal to Russia and still needs lots of economic growth, a reason to admire China's strides. Pakistan has huge capabilities and while not being the strongest ally available, it is a strong ally that China can help to lift to a higher levels in military, economics and education for mutual benefits.
Other than Pakistan the lessons learned might be well received in former East Pakistan, today Bangladesh, that can be reached by sea over a short distance from Myanmar, has always been very maritime oriented society and is neither far away from China overland, although India with some disputes with China there is in the way.
These three allies can provide secure connections to the landmass of China and would enhance the Chinese position in the South China Sea (Cambodia) as well as the Indian Ocean (Myanmar, Pakistan). A huge advantage of Myanmar is the waterway to China, while the others can be connected by roads, railways and possibly large transport tunnels. Transport tunnels, like the , are a concept China has been experimenting with and that can be highly effective for future transportation (due to predictable conditions and thus constant reliable speed. It's for example enacted in subways to transport people, but can be expanded to freight. Tunnels offer the additional capability to run adjacent serviceable pipelines protected underground.
Pakistan&Afghanistan(a Pakistani backyard called strategic depth where the US currently plays nation building) and the region of Tibet plus adjacent provinces of China all offer a suitable place for experimenting with to overcome the mountains into one of the oldest and major mining regions of the world.
Infrastructure will in my opinion be a major source of alliances with China and China does have a great history of infrastructure and transport innovation to build upon: (a very interesting blog, especially on green and transportation technology).
Other than these three allies, Africa wants a post colonial infrastructure that is not just meant to carry the riches to ports and off to somewhere else, but helps to develop sustained economies. China is in part very modern, in part third world with a high ingenuity in solutions to improve their living standard at low cost. The assembled know-how of all these contributions to raise China out of poverty will likely also have a positive impact on Africa. Chinese willingness to settle and work in Africa, despite the unavoidable tension with native factions, will likely have a deep influence on African outlooks at China if China is capable to create mutual prosperity benefits for all partners. Each of these African nations is small and weak, but they are natives to Africa, a continent known for difficulties for foreign invaders and occupiers.
Excuse me that I again made such a long statement about my point of view.
What are your opinions about future Chinese allies? Will these provide significantly improved security benefits to China?
Last edited: