China's SCS Strategy Thread

[james smith esq]

Not a nuclear armament expert and this may be OT here.

But if I remember correctly, China conducted 40 individual rocket launches (satellites and space crafts) in 2021 and probably will exceed that by 2022. So is there any reason why China cannot produce 40 ICBMs a year without straining her capacity ?

The most conservative Western estimate is that China possesses 300+ warheads now. Assuming China can add 40 warheads a year, I cannot see how China cannot have at least 275 ICBMs with MIRV warheads by 2030.

SLBM may be more of a challenge as it involves building submarines too.

But with a combination of H-6 launched, silo based, mobile launchers, and a limited SLBM missiles, I do not see how China cannot achieve credible MAD deterrence by 2030. And I am not even talking about HGV equipped ICBMs.

i’m just speculating that China would need ~ 68% of US deployed warheads (~1500), therefore 1020, to achieve MAD.

So, 300 (current) + 40 per year for 8 years (320) only achieves 620 warheads; that’s far short of MAD!

my guesstimate is based on 3 MIRV warheads per missile.

i’m also speculating that, when China nears or achieves the 1000 deployed strategic warhead threshold, it will be able to engage the US and Russia in arms talks to limit deployed warheads to ~ 1100-1200.

 

[Rettam Stacf]

i’m just speculating that China would need ~ 68% of US deployed warheads (~1500), therefore 1020, to achieve MAD.

So, 300 (current) + 40 per year for 8 years (320) only achieves 620 warheads; that’s far short of MAD!

That is why I used "MAD deterrence" and not MAD in my response.

The US is far less tolerant of destruction of her own land than other countries as she has not fought any war on her soil since long before WW I, with the exception of Pearl Harbor. And that was far from continental USA. Just look at the effect of 9/11 on American psyche, and how US's initial reaction when N Korea developed capability to reach the US mainland.

P.S. Don't want to derail this thread any more than we already have. Any further discussion, let's move to the other appropriate thread.

 

[james smith esq]

MODERATORS​

please move the previous posts regarding strategic weapons to the appropriate thread!

 

[reservior dogs]

i’m just speculating that China would need ~ 68% of US deployed warheads (~1500), therefore 1020, to achieve MAD.

So, 300 (current) + 40 per year for 8 years (320) only achieves 620 warheads; that’s far short of MAD!

my guesstimate is based on 3 MIRV warheads per missile.

i’m also speculating that, when China nears or achieves the 1000 deployed strategic warhead threshold, it will be able to engage the US and Russia in arms talks to limit deployed warheads to ~ 1100-1200.

The current 300 number has been there for many years. Given

1. The Chinese has huge industrial base,
2. The costs of creating more warheads is not a major impediment for the Chinese economy,
3. The Chinese, who have always had contingency plans and could at least store enough material to make more warheads,

I don't see how the U.S. government can act on the believe that the Chinese only has 300 warheads. Their ability to deliver these warheads far exceeds the 300 number today. We don't know how many DF-31 and DF-41 they got, but the DF-31B can do 3-5 warheads and DF-41 can have up to 10. They also have the silo based ones that today would be difficult to be knocked out even if we know where they are. We are not even messing with North Korea who does not have the ability to deliver warheads to North America.

At some point, when the Chinese economy far exceeds that of the U.S., I can see the nuclear arms race can be a card that the Chinese will use to bankrupt the U.S. economy.

 

[tphuang]

Given the total power of the PLA, I just don't see how the U.S. will be able to defend Taiwan if the Chinese do decide to invade. The carriers simply cannot reach anywhere close to Taiwan with its planes. Planes or missiles launched from bases will result in that based being bombarded. Even the subs, without the protection of the surface fleet, will be in grave danger unless it just fires missiles from a long standoff distance. China controls the timing of the invasion, if the timing is not right, China can simply wait days or months to invade.

Don't forget that China can always find some pretext to ignore the declaration of independence. As long as the Chinese population understand that this is done strategically to wait for a better time to invade, the CPC will not be in danger of losing power. They also can blockade the island which will also have a devastating impact on Taiwan.

Now the U.S can use this pretext to apply sanctions or pick a fight elsewhere in the world where it is militarily more advantageous to the Chinese military, but if we wanted to do that, we really don't need to use Taiwan as a pretext, we just go and do it. We see that Xinjian becoming an important part of the Belts and Roads link and fabricated the whole Xinjian slave camp and Xinjian genocide out of thin air and imposed sanctions on Xinjian products. Notice there is no cost for fabricating these, just some reporting by the mainstream media who knows to toe the line. We don't need to provoke a war that we are destined to lose, which is a huge cost to the U.S., then use it as pretext for something else.

Regarding the containment of China, it did not start five years ago. Bush Jr. was looking at this and was sidetracked by the War On Terror. Obama had his pivot to Asia. I guess it got more heated over the last five years, but at his anti-China moments, Trump will not push for military actions. There are limits to the power of a nation, even one as militarily strong as the U.S.

You should go check some of the other threads on this like PLA strike strategies in westpac HIC (first wave, sustained, other). The current US threat is real. PLA is not strong enough. You may chose not to believe it, but that doesn't change the reality of current situation. You can complain all you want, but that's the truth. China and PLA needs to plan for a scenario where it needs to defeat Taiwan + US + Japan and also face nuclear blackmail. That's really hard to do even in China's backyard. Things will not be comfortable for China over the next 10 years.

 

[AndrewS]

As I said, very difficult 10 years ahead. When we get to the point where they have a capable 095 and H20 in service + attained MAD (maybe by 2030), things will be a lot easier.

The Russia/Ukraine war could not have come at a better time for China. Western countries weary/exhausted from fallout of this conflict will not want another one for a few years. I don't advise Xi, but if I did, I would tell him to keep things on the low for a few years and do everything silently.


Yet China give up certain claims in settling its borders with Russia and now Russia sees China as its ally. This is despite all the Westerners telling Russia that China will come and take Russia's Far East. Could you imagine a war scenario where China has to fight America/Japan while also dealing with a hostile Russia?

I think China attainment MAD with the US would be by 2027 at the latest

 

[gelgoog]

JMSDF currently has 68 P-3s and 23 P-1s, whereby the P-1s would gradually replace the P-3s in the JMSDF. And what are these maritime patrol aircrafts are for? Simple - they are meant for patrolling the open ocean, searching for enemy warships, engage in S&R operations, and most importantly - hunting for enemy submarines.

I will just make one note here. The way anti-submarine airplanes typically detect and track submarines are by using the magnetic anomaly detector to find there is a submarine in the area and then air dropping sonar buoys to pinpoint its location. When the Russians did their latest upgrade of submarine production facilities at Sevmash, they also added workshops for titanium and composite material construction. One of the rumors about the Husky submarine was that it would use double hull construction with composite outer hull. Well the thing is composite materials won't be tracked with magnetic anomaly detectors. So a submarine built with those will have a much lower magnetic signature. So right now this isn't an issue but might become so in the future.

 

[james smith esq]

I think China attainment MAD with the US would be by 2027 at the latest

How so?

 

[reservior dogs]

You should go check some of the other threads on this like PLA strike strategies in westpac HIC (first wave, sustained, other). The current US threat is real. PLA is not strong enough. You may chose not to believe it, but that doesn't change the reality of current situation. You can complain all you want, but that's the truth. China and PLA needs to plan for a scenario where it needs to defeat Taiwan + US + Japan and also face nuclear blackmail. That's really hard to do even in China's backyard. Things will not be comfortable for China over the next 10 years.

I read through a few of the 40 pages on that thread. Correct me if I am wrong, what I got out of that was that if the U.S. provoke China with the intent of using tactical nukes on Mainland China, the Chinese are at a disadvantage. From a purely military point of view, I agree with that assessment. However, I believe

1. the U.S. is not likely to go down this path given the severity of the potential response from China.

2. If the U.S. were to go down this path, the Chinese would nuke a factory in the U.S. like the Iron & Bath Works as a proportional response and show it is ready to escalate into full nuclear war. When it is their core interests at stake, they have never been afraid to confront the other big powers. We see this in the Korean War(U.S.) and the Sino-Vietnam War(Soviet Union). More recently we see this in the SCS confrontation with the U.S. navy in 2016 after the ruling in the Hague. When faced with the prospect of a full fledged nuclear war, the U.S. would back down, especially if the matter does not involve its core interests. Taiwan is not a core interest for the U.S.

3. Judging from how the U.S. behaved recently in Syria, Afghanistan and now in Ukraine, when someone do thumb us back and ready to fight, we would back away.

4. While some people in the U.S. might want to go to nuclear war with China, it is quite something for the U.S. president to make that decision, carry out the planning and act on this. While some may benefit from such a war, it is very far from certain that a sitting president would gain from such a move. When the risk is enormous and the chances of success is low, there would be areas a president can spend his energy that are better rewarded. We saw this with Trump and Biden so this is a bi-partisan response.

5. If the U.S. was able to push Taiwan to cross the redline, the Chinese could simply ignore it. after all, they would have enough military power to take back Taiwan in a few more years. If the Chinese do nothing, it would be very hard politically for the U.S. to start a war, let alone a nuclear one.

 

[davidau]

I read through a few of the 40 pages on that thread. Correct me if I am wrong, what I got out of that was that if the U.S. provoke China with the intent of using tactical nukes on Mainland China, the Chinese are at a disadvantage. From a purely military point of view, I agree with that assessment. However, I believe

1. the U.S. is not likely to go down this path given the severity of the potential response from China.

2. If the U.S. were to go down this path, the Chinese would nuke a factory in the U.S. like the Iron & Bath Works as a proportional response and show it is ready to escalate into full nuclear war. When it is their core interests at stake, they have never been afraid to confront the other big powers. We see this in the Korean War(U.S.) and the Sino-Vietnam War(Soviet Union). More recently we see this in the SCS confrontation with the U.S. navy in 2016 after the ruling in the Hague. When faced with the prospect of a full fledged nuclear war, the U.S. would back down, especially if the matter does not involve its core interests. Taiwan is not a core interest for the U.S.

3. Judging from how the U.S. behaved recently in Syria, Afghanistan and now in Ukraine, when someone do thumb us back and ready to fight, we would back away.

4. While some people in the U.S. might want to go to nuclear war with China, it is quite something for the U.S. president to make that decision, carry out the planning and act on this. While some may benefit from such a war, it is very far from certain that a sitting president would gain from such a move. When the risk is enormous and the chances of success is low, there would be areas a president can spend his energy that are better rewarded. We saw this with Trump and Biden so this is a bi-partisan response.

5. If the U.S. was able to push Taiwan to cross the redline, the Chinese could simply ignore it. after all, they would have enough military power to take back Taiwan in a few more years. If the Chinese do nothing, it would be very hard politically for the U.S. to start a war, let alone a nuclear one.

Why do you think China is afraid of US when it cross the redline on Taiwan?? I remember a famous China military saying " we don't want wars, but we are not afraid of wars". Got it?? Never unmind China's resolve to protect her own territory.