China's SCS Strategy Thread

[solarz]

Chinese nukes not proportionate to its GDP compared to other countries. everybody knows its too small maybe except you.

So since you know it so well, please explain what benefits a larger nuclear stockpile would offer, compared to China's current inventory?

 

[tidalwave]

So since you know it so well, please explain what benefits a larger nuclear stockpile would offer, compared to China's current inventory?

1)first of all,job creations.
2)Further minimturization requries scientifc improvement & advancenment
3)no more strategic blackmail by others. (yes, China is being blackmailed currently.)
4) More confidence
5)More nukes means less reliance on conventional weapons , cutting cost.

So many benefits. I can't possibly name them all.

 

[Insignius]

china's nuclear stockpile is so small that a first strike by the USA would wipe it out. The few delivery vehicles (20 DF5, 30 DF31A) that would survive such a disarmament strike would be intercepted by the multi-layered ABM surrounding China and on continental US.

Luckily the current Chinese leadership isnt as laid back and delusional about their state of nuclear deterrence as some here. The deployment of MIRVed DF5B and future DF41, as well as protests against the THAAD deployment in South Korea speaks volume of China's concern about her small and ever erroding nuclear deterrence.

 

[solarz]

1)first of all,job creations.
2)Further minimturization requries scientifc improvement & advancenment
3)no more strategic blackmail by others. (yes, China is being blackmailed currently.)
4) More confidence
5)More nukes means less reliance on conventional weapons , cutting cost.

So many benefits. I can't possibly name them all.

1- You can create more jobs using the money to build a new highway.

2- What makes you think China isn't doing R&D right now? More stockpile isn't necessary to improve nuclear technology, and would only add to the cost in maintenance.

3- Can you offer any evidence that China is being strategically (I assume you mean of a nuclear nature?) blackmailed?

4- China is plenty confident, thank you very much. Maybe it's just you?

5- No, just no. Nuclear weapons are not a replacement for conventional weapons.

Seriously, I would suggest you educate yourself on the topic instead of relying on wechat posts.

 

[solarz]

china's nuclear stockpile is so small that a first strike by the USA would wipe it out.

Do you have any source to back up this claim?

The few delivery vehicles (20 DF5, 30 DF31A) that would survive such a disarmament strike would be intercepted by the multi-layered ABM surrounding China and on continental US.

This has nothing to do with the nuclear stockpile. Delivery technology absolutely does need to be improved, especially against the backdrop of American development of anti-missile technology.

That is a completely different issue from simply stockpiling more nukes.

 

[tidalwave]

1- You can create more jobs using the money to build a new highway.

2- What makes you think China isn't doing R&D right now? More stockpile isn't necessary to improve nuclear technology, and would only add to the cost in maintenance.

3- Can you offer any evidence that China is being strategically (I assume you mean of a nuclear nature?) blackmailed?

4- China is plenty confident, thank you very much. Maybe it's just you?

5- No, just no. Nuclear weapons are not a replacement for conventional weapons.

Seriously, I would suggest you educate yourself on the topic instead of relying on wechat posts.

3) I make an analogy. someone think you are weak so that person come real close to you and breathe down and blow bad breathe down at your face
what do you call that? yet that guy said he hasn't touch you yet and you impeding his way. You deprived his freedom.

Sad, some people being blackmailed, still not fully awared think he's fine and dandy, and still believing living at large.
self-denial, Ah-Q Spirit. pretty Sad

 

[Insignius]

@solarz
I hope you are satisfied with Hans M Kristensen , as well as every single RAND report in the last decade. China's 260 nukes (at least 20 more than a decade ago) , are absolutely bottom barrel in terms of deterrence effect vis a vis the USA. Not to mention the quantity of the delivery vehicles. Even with every of those 260 nukes being armed on ICBMs, China still would be disarmed by the US with not a single nuke reaching its target.

 

[solarz]

3) I make an analogy. someone think you are weak so that person come real close to you and breathe down and blow bad breathe down at your face
what do you call that? yet that guy said he hasn't touch you yet and you impeding his way. You deprived his freedom.

Sad, some people being blackmailed, still not fully awared think he's fine and dandy, and still believing living at large.
self-denial, Ah-Q Spirit. pretty Sad

So what do you call NATO massing troops near Russian borders? Maybe Russia doesn't have enough nukes?

 

[solarz]

@solarz
I hope you are satisfied with Hans M Kristensen , as well as every single RAND report in the last decade. China's 260 nukes (at least 20 more than a decade ago) , are absolutely bottom barrel in terms of deterrence effect vis a vis the USA. Not to mention the quantity of the delivery vehicles. Even with every of those 260 nukes being armed on ICBMs, China still would be disarmed by the US with not a single nuke reaching its target.

How about a link?

 

[PanAsian]

strategically China is gravely under armed, it puts the nation under grave danger. how come China has so few nukes? it's strange and bizarre, some people are so angry, they want those who are responsible be excuted.

$$$ but I agree that China is underarmed in terms of nukes especially with the proliferation of ABM assets just beyond its borders.

That said there has been numerous illogical recent posts on all sides of the issue in this thread. Come on folks!