China's Perspective on Nuclear Deterrence

i don't get whats the difference between nuking a city once, and nuking city 10 times. Having too many nukes is a waste of funding and resources, US and Russia have way too many nukes to justify themselves. Sure they will say for their nations security, but you don't need that many. Also you do realize how mountainous China is, plenty of secret nuke silos that possibly could be hiding. I really doubt China nuke force is that small, maybe not huge, but sufficient enough.

Click to expand...

It is not always guaranteed that your warhead will reach its target. That being said, I would agree 10 would be an overkill... but it is not unreasonable to expect that you would need 3-4 warheads aimed at each major city in order to be sure that at least one weapon will strike with enough accuacy to ensure destruction. Furthermore, once your adversaries begin to develop misile defense programs, additional warheads would be necessary to guarantee destruction of the target.

Nuclear redundancy

HKSDU said:

i don't get whats the difference between nuking a city once, and nuking city 10 times. Having too many nukes is a waste of funding and resources, US and Russia have way too many nukes to justify themselves. Sure they will say for their nations security, but you don't need that many. Also you do realize how mountainous China is, plenty of secret nuke silos that possibly could be hiding. I really doubt China nuke force is that small, maybe not huge, but sufficient enough.

Click to expand...

Why does China need to build a huge nuclear force for a counter-strike?

1. There is an expected failure rate. Though China has a very good record in the reliability of their civilian rockets/missile analogs (see ), some of the DF-5 ICBMs were built a long time ago.

2. Part of China's counter-strike missiles is expected to be shot down by U.S. conventional anti-ballistic missile defense.

3. In a surprise U.S. attack (e.g. U.S. has never agreed to a pledge of No First Use), a first strike is expected to destroy a significant portion of China's counter-strike missiles.

4. Some of China's counter-strike missiles will be neutralized by U.S. nuclear-tipped anti-missile missiles.


U.S. Nike Hercules nuclear-tipped anti-missile missile with a 2 to 20 kiloton warhead and a range of 77 miles (or 124 km)

High-altitude nuclear weapon test:
[video=youtube;RKvvrNrCOnw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKvvrNrCOnw&feature=related[/video]

5. MIRVed warheads on the DF-41 ICBMs and Julang-2 SLBMs are expected to be only 150 kilotons each. Therefore, using the standard from the U.S. SIOP plan (see ), five warheads are targeted at each city to ensure its destruction.

6. This is politically incorrect, but I'm going to say it anyway. An all-out nuke war isn't just between two countries. Once a global thermonuclear war is underway, every major and medium-sized city in the world will be targeted. After all, you can't let some minor country become a superpower in a post-nuclear-war world by leaving its cities intact. To accomplish this strategic objective, a massive nuclear arsenal is necessary.

----------

Regarding the issue of the number of Chinese silos, I can assure you that the claim of only 20 Chinese ICBM silos is ludicrous. The length of a DF-21 IRBM is 11m. The length of a DF-31 ICBM is 13m. If a silo is dug a little deeper and wider, it can accommodate an ICBM; instead of an IRBM.

In the following video, which encompasses only a few mountains, I counted at least 30 silos. We know from a Chinese-state television CCTV broadcast on March 24, 2008 that China has built a 5,000km (or 3,000-mile) missile complex under a mountain range. If a few mountains contain 30 silos, imagine how many silos are hidden along 5,000km.

[video=youtube;GTJF3wa12Os]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTJF3wa12Os&feature=player_embedded[/video]

I'm fairly certain the USAF no longer has any active Nike missiles.

Finn McCool said:

I'm fairly certain the USAF no longer has any active Nike missiles.

Click to expand...

Except perhaps for training purposes?

Final Line of Defense

Finn McCool said:

I'm fairly certain the USAF no longer has any active Nike missiles.

Click to expand...

The USAF has more advanced classified nuclear-tipped anti-missile missiles with high-yield compact thermonuclear warheads. It is common sense that more precise and powerful successors to the Nike Hercules exist. If you look at the sophistication of the U.S. SIOP plan against Russia and China, it should be obvious to everyone that no detail has been overlooked. No U.S. general in his right mind would voluntarily relinquish an incredibly powerful and reliable defensive weapon of the Nike Hercules type.

When a swarm of thermonuclear warheads are heading for American cities, only area-effect weapons like Nike Hercules can destroy, damage, disable, or knock them off-course. It defies common sense to believe the military would not use the most powerful weapon devised (e.g. thermonuclear explosion) to attack incoming ICBMs or warheads with radiation, heat, and overpressure.

Re: Final Line of Defense

Martian said:

The USAF has more advanced classified nuclear-tipped anti-missile missiles with smaller thermonuclear warheads. It is common sense that more precise and powerful successors to the Nike Hercules exist.

When a swarm of thermonuclear warheads are heading for American cities, only thermonuclear area-effect weapons like Nike Hercules can destroy, damage, disable, or knock them off-course.

Click to expand...

I agree with finn -- nuclear bmd are probably as effective these days as nuclear air to air missiles.

If a swarm of ICBMs were headed your way the smart thing to do is use your conventional hit to kill SM-3 and patriots rather than nuclear nikes which won't be able hit a "swarm" of enemy warheads with one hit (space and sky is a big volume), and might meanwhile rain down radiation over your own cities.

Nike Ajax, Nike Hercules, Nike Zeus, Nike-X and a probable modern successor

Bltizo said:

I agree with finn -- nuclear bmd are probably as effective these days as nuclear air to air missiles.

If a swarm of ICBMs were headed your way the smart thing to do is use your conventional hit to kill SM-3 and patriots rather than nuclear nikes which won't be able hit a "swarm" of enemy warheads with one hit (space and sky is a big volume), and might meanwhile rain down radiation over your own cities.

Click to expand...

Conventional anti-ballistic missiles have a lousy track record (e.g. one success in the last three attempts) and that was under ideal conditions. In a real war, the trajectories of the incoming ICBMs are not known ahead of time. If you wait until the warheads have been released, it is an absolute nightmare to track and intercept every warhead and decoy.

A nuclear-tipped interceptor has advantages over a conventional interceptor. Obviously a nuclear interceptor, a proximity weapon, only has to get close to its target. In contrast, a conventional interceptor has to physically hit its target with pinpoint accuracy. American X-band radars are placed out in the sea, because they need to continuously track an incoming ICBM or warhead to guide a conventional interceptor.

Once the X-band radars have been destroyed or damaged, the probability of success of a conventional interceptor drops dramatically. A nuclear interceptor does not share this weakness. Depending on its warhead size, a nuclear interceptor may only need to be within a kilometer of its target. It can still neutralize incoming ICBMs or warheads without giant sea-based X-band radars.

One solution is to attack incoming ICBMs in their mid-course phase with an army of thermonuclear-tipped antimissile missiles. I do not pretend to be privy to U.S. defense plans. However, I do believe it is naive to think the U.S. has eliminated the most powerful defensive weapon from its arsenal. There was a compelling reason for the military to build the Nike Ajax in the first place and its successors (i.e. the Nike Hercules, Nike Zeus, and Nike-X).

I am merely asserting there is a successor to the Nike Hercules, Nike Zeus, and Nike-X to fulfill the same defensive function.

Re: Nike Ajax, Nike Hercules, Nike Zeus and a probable modern successor

Martian said:

Conventional anti-ballistic missiles have a lousy track record (e.g. one success in the last three attempts) and that was under ideal conditions. In a real war, the trajectories of the incoming ICBMs are not known ahead of time. If you wait until the warheads have been released, it is an absolute nightmare to track and intercept every warhead and decoy.

One solution is to attack incoming ICBMs in their mid-course phase with an army of thermonuclear-tipped antimissile missiles. I do not pretend to be privy to U.S. defense plans. However, I do believe it is naive to think the U.S. has eliminated the most powerful defensive weapon from its arsenal. There was a compelling reason for the military to build the Nike Hercules in the first place and its successor, the Nike Ajax. I am merely asserting there is a successor to the Nike Ajax to fulfill the same defensive function.

Click to expand...

Again, I respectfully disagree. Nuclear tipped BMD could not be considered the "most powerful defensive weapon" in the US arsenal.

But more to the point, unless the ICBM warheads were within a few kilometers of each other and in a "swarm" chances are a nuclear tipped BMD won't be that more effective than the likes of SM-3.

Re: Nike Ajax, Nike Hercules, Nike Zeus and a probable modern successor

If all nuclear weapons were to be destroyed, who do you think would get the benefit most ... we are only talking of major powers, limited to only USA, Russia, China, UK, France, India, Germany, Japan ... other countries don't matter. Do you think the USA and Russia would be still super power without nukes ?

Without nukes, Russia and China are in trouble

antiterror13 said:

If all nuclear weapons were to be destroyed, who do you think would get the benefit most ... we are only talking of major powers, limited to only USA, Russia, China, UK, France, India, Germany, Japan ... other countries don't matter. Do you think the USA and Russia would be still super power without nukes ?

Click to expand...

Thermonuclear weapons are a godsend to Russia and China. Without nukes, Russia possesses a decrepit conventional military (e.g. T-72s in Russo-Georgian war). The Russians recognize their own weakness and they have publicly threatened to nuke invaders (see citation below).

China is slowly modernizing its conventional forces, but it's at least 15 to 20 years away from seriously rivaling U.S. conventional power (e.g. 182 F-22s vs. 0 J-20s, 62 Arleigh Burkes and 22 Ticonderoga cruisers vs. 2 Type 052Cs plus 4 under construction, etc.).

In a world with minimal thermonuclear weapons, when the U.S. says "jump," Russia and China will ask "how high?"

----------



"Russia Commander: Russia ready to use nuclear weapons if threatened
Global Research, January 19, 2008
RIA Novosti

Russia's top military commander said on Saturday that the country is prepared to use its nuclear weapons to defend itself and allies in the event of a severe external threat.

The Chief of the Russian General Staff, Gen. Yury Baluyevsky, told a conference at the Academy of Military Sciences in Moscow: "We do not intend to attack anyone, but consider it necessary that all our partners clearly understand, and that no one has any doubts, that the Armed Forces will be used to protect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Russia and its allies, including preventative action, and including the use of nuclear weapons."

Baluyevsky's comments come amid growing tensions between Russia and NATO over the alliance's expansion into the former Eastern Bloc, the United States' plans to deploy missile defense elements in Poland and the Czech Republic, and Moscow's increasingly assertive military stance.

Russia resumed strategic bomber patrol flights over the Pacific, Atlantic, and Arctic oceans last August, and on December 12, 2007 imposed a unilateral moratorium on the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty, a key arms reduction pact.

Baluyevsky said that in order to protect Russia's interests, military force "can and must be used" when "all other means prove ineffective."

Programs to develop Russia's military must be closely linked to national fiscal planning, "taking into account the state's economic resources," he said."