Nuclear Forces Thread

[IDonT]

I figure we need to thread to discuss the classical (Coldwar) strategies of nuclear warfare. From Strategic to Tactical to MAD. Perhaps it may teach us the fallacy of "using a nuke to sink a carrier" argument.

let me start

In the US, the missile silos are designed primarily as the first strike of the nuke triad. They are much more accurate than SSBN's due to the fact they are fixed and know exactly where their launch points are. As a result, their primary targets were military facilities not population centers.

SSBN's are still the best way to ensure survival of your nuke assets than just hardening them.

Manned bombers are the third leg of the triad. They offer the leadership "call back" capability in a nuke war. They are usually scrambled once an inbound nuke is detected. At the height of the cold war, the US had nuke armed bombers airborne 24 hours a day. The bombers today no longer have nuke deterrance as their main mission.

For those who don't know the size of the nukes we are talking about here is rough guideline.

20 kilotons - Hiroshima bomb
0.5 kilotons - bomb tested by North Korea
300 kilotons - average yeild size of US nuke MIRV warhead
50,000 kilotons (50 megatons) - largest ever nuke detonated (USSR - the Tsar Bomba)

Estimated Russian Nuke arsenal

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

China

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

USA

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

France

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

UK

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

As for China, it appears that the strategy is minimal deterrance with zero first strike capability vis-a-vis the US. From the above link:

The only true intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) in China's arsenal is the liquid-fueled DF-5, which is capable of targeting the entire continental United States. The exact number of DF-5s is unclear, but Chinese Military Power 2005 states that 20 missiles are deployed in 20 launchers, a number that has remained steady over the past six years or so. The missiles are deployed in silos at two locations, and their nuclear warheads are stored separately nearby.[/I]

So these missiles are not on "push-button" launch readiness. But those warheads are big suckers. 3-5 megatons.

 

[Violet Oboe]

Chinese nuclear forces were discussed in several sinodefence forum threads in the last couple of months and one was specifically about the ´very peculiar assessment´ of the Second Artillery by Norris et Kristensen in the Bulletin.

Interestingly a central point of their analysis regarding the actual non deployment of DF31/31A seems to be convincingly refuted by chinese official sources since Hu Jintao himself held a speech in late september in front of second artillery officers praising their decisive progress and the introduction of new strategic weapons systems in 06. Although as usual details are not mentioned by Xinhua the probabability that he was talking about a new ICBM (DF-31A), a new SLBM (JL-2) and perhaps a new nuclear tipped cruise missile is quite high. Additionally the assertions of Norris/Kristensen that PLA´s IRBM force consists only of a handful (around 20) of DF21/21A have been dismissed by several japanese and french experts who assess their number indeed at between 60 and 100. Even KANWA did not join in the campaign to belittle Second Artillery and her capabilities although Pinkov may have been tempted to do so by his paymasters.

After all China´s nuclear strike force seems to be indeed not half as decrepit as some wonks were hoping for.

 

[BLUEJACKET]

Kanwa was informed that the development of train-borne DF31 ICBM is already completed, and the deployment of these missiles has also been prepared. The development of DF31A, a upgraded version of DF31, has also already been completed.
In order to further enhance the mobile nuclear striking power and the capability to survive attacks, China has developed new types of DF31 series ICBMs similar to the former Soviet Union train-borne SS-24. In normal days, these missiles are moved along the railroads, while at time of war, they can be transported to selected sites and then launch nuclear assaults upon the enemy. DF31 is manufactured in Sichuan at Sichuan Areospace Industry Corporation. Reliable sources from China military industry say the major difference between DF31 and DF31A lies in their warheads. The former has single warhead, while the latter has multi-warheads.
The effect of the vehicle launch version DF31s was not very desirable during the trial service in the forces, since these missiles have very strict requirements for the roads and can only be deployed in very limited areas. It can be expected that in the future, China will focus on the railroad in the deployment of DF31. The sources denied the report that China would possibly use SS-25 launch vehicle to upgrade DF31 with the help of Belarus.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Since 1989, 36 RS-22B ICBM have been deployed at the RSMT. A railway-based missile regiment consists of a train with three diesel engines and 17 carriages, including three railway mobile launching systems with Scalpel missiles. Every railway-based missile system is an equivalent of a nuclear submarine with ballistic missiles on combat duty. Each of 12 systems on combat duty moves constantly in different directions across Russia.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

My question is: if those missile trains will be/are being deployed by the PLA, will they negate the need for PLAN to have costly SSBN force? They could save on it by having more train mounted ICBMs and invest more in SSK/SSN classes instead!

 

[FriedRiceNSpice]

My question is: if those missile trains will be/are being deployed by the PLA, will they negate the need for PLAN to have costly SSBN force? They could save on it by having more train mounted ICBMs and invest more in SSK/SSN classes instead!

Not quite. Only SSBNs have true second and third strike capability. Nations like the US and Russisa have the capability to completely incinerate every single square mile of territory in any nation in the world with their nuclear arsenals. In that case, these trains would be incinerated too. In that respect, these trains are inferior to ICBMs hidden in deep mountain bunkers. However, no nation is going to nuke the entire ocean to try to destroy an enemy SSBN force. SSBNs can survive any nuclear exchange indefinetly as long as they are out at sea, and having a SSBN force will gaurantee a nation the capability to retaliate in any kind of nuclear exchange of any scale.

 

[DarkEminence]

Not quite. Only SSBNs have true second and third strike capability. Nations like the US and Russisa have the capability to completely incinerate every single square mile of territory in any nation in the world with their nuclear arsenals. In that case, these trains would be incinerated too. In that respect, these trains are inferior to ICBMs hidden in deep mountain bunkers. However, no nation is going to nuke the entire ocean to try to destroy an enemy SSBN force. SSBNs can survive any nuclear exchange indefinetly as long as they are out at sea, and having a SSBN force will gaurantee a nation the capability to retaliate in any kind of nuclear exchange of any scale.

What can they use to stop an SSBN? I'm sure that a nuclear war would not be unprovoked...there certainly will be a lot of saber-rattling followed by stealthy actions such as ASW Is there anything that anyone could do to protect it? And how protected is a submarine underwater? Would the shock waves of a nuke/sound waves slaughter/deafen all those in a sub?

 

[BLUEJACKET]

Not quite. Only SSBNs have true second and third strike capability. Nations like the US and Russisa have the capability to completely incinerate every single square mile of territory in any nation in the world with their nuclear arsenals. In that case, these trains would be incinerated too. In that respect, these trains are inferior to ICBMs hidden in deep mountain bunkers. However, no nation is going to nuke the entire ocean to try to destroy an enemy SSBN force. SSBNs can survive any nuclear exchange indefinetly as long as they are out at sea, and having a SSBN force will gaurantee a nation the capability to retaliate in any kind of nuclear exchange of any scale.

No nation will be able to nuke all the landmass of Russia or China. SSBNs are volnurable to USN SSNs and must be deployed near deep water to avoid having to go through bottle necks, or use Okhotsk and/or Yellow sea or Arctic Ocean as bastions, protected by their own Navy/AF. The Soviets had both land based mobile ICBMs and SLBMs, and now Russia has a lot less SSBNs on patrol at any given time- their Topol-M missiles

may be deployed either inside a reinforced missile silo or from a self-propelled mobile launcher, capable of moving through roadless terrain, and launching a missile from any point along its route.

A mobile all-terrain launcher can hide in the Siberian taiga/Northern Russia's forests for weeks without being detected, and communication is no problem.
China is bigger than the US and has extensive railroad network, plus the vast steppes of Inner Mongolia and forests of Manchuria. If they indeed are deploying those trains it's the right move- I wouldn't build a lot more SSBNs if asked about it!

 

[FriedRiceNSpice]

What can they use to stop an SSBN? I'm sure that a nuclear war would not be unprovoked...there certainly will be a lot of saber-rattling followed by stealthy actions such as ASW Is there anything that anyone could do to protect it? And how protected is a submarine underwater? Would the shock waves of a nuke/sound waves slaughter/deafen all those in a sub?

It would be incredibly hard to track a mature SSBN force. Now, I am not saying the USN today couldn't easily track any SSBN force the Chinese may field in the next few years, but after a few generations of SSBN development, I'm sure even the USN will be unable to track the Chinese SSBN force. Just think about it- a SSBN could hide in any part of the any ocean anywhere in the world. It would be more difficult than finding a needle in a hay stack. And the idea of nuclear sound waves damaging nuclear submarines is absurd, unless those nuclear explosions occur within a hundred kilometers of the sub, which is a moot point since the vast majority of a nation's SSBN force will be out at sea during times of nuclear tension. And a fully developed SSBN force will also be able to send SSN escorts to protect its SSBN force.

SSBNs are volnurable to USN

Yes, the first few generations of PLAN SSBNs will be. However, I'm pretty sure that during the Cold War, the USN was unable to track even the majority of Soviet SSBNs on patrol. Popeye, would you be able to provide more definitive facts on the issue?

Topol-Ms are definetly good missiles. Many times harder to track, detect, or destroy than conventional ICBMs. They are very similiar to SSBNs in that respect, but SSBNs just have so much more room to hide. You wouldn't have to put Topol-Ms in trains though, you can just hide them in caves or bunkers and move them along the highway system. Doesn't really make that big of a difference though.

 

[IDonT]

No nation will be able to nuke all the landmass of Russia or China. SSBNs are volnurable to USN SSNs and must be deployed near deep water to avoid having to go through bottle necks, or use Okhotsk and/or Yellow sea or Arctic Ocean as bastions, protected by their own Navy/AF. The Soviets had both land based mobile ICBMs and SLBMs, and now Russia has a lot less SSBNs on patrol at any given time- their Topol-M missiles are
A mobile all-terrain launcher can hide in the Siberian taiga/Northern russia's forests for weeks without being detected, and communication is no problem.
China is bigger than the US and has extensive railroad network, plus the vast steppes of Inner Mongolia and forests of Manchuria. If they indeed are deploying those trains it's the right move- I wouldn't build a lot more SSBNs if asked about it!
[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1b/Topol-M.jpg[/qimg]

The US and RUssia has the capability to destroy the world several times over. Nuking the entirety of China and Russia is not a problem.

The difference between train based Ballistics Missiles and SSBN is that the US has a map the rail road tracks of Russia. Therefore it has a hint of where to look. SSBN has no such problems.

In the Coldwar, US subs lie in wait outside Russian naval bases to do acoustic reconnaissance (recording of the sonar tracks of Russian subs for easier detection and identification) and shadow Soviet Boomers the moment they go into international waters. The old Soviet Navy used a Bastion Defence, easily defendable sea areas where a RUssian SSBN is protected by the a fleet of surface ships and submarines, due to its inferior silencing capability against the US. USN subs just hide in the depths. The Ohio SSBN is nick named the "black hole" in the ocean and not one has ever been track.

CHina unfortunately does not have the capacity for either tactics. Currently, ,it has 1 very loud operational SSBN and one more at trials. I bet that the US already has the 094's sonar signiture recorded and on file with its attack subs .

 

[BLUEJACKET]

The US and RUssia has the capability to destroy the world several times over. Nuking the entirety of China and Russia is not a problem.
The difference between train based Ballistics Missiles and SSBN is that the US has a map the rail road tracks of Russia. Therefore it has a hint of where to look. SSBN has no such problems. In the Coldwar, US subs lie in wait outside Russian naval bases to do acoustic reconnaissance (recording of the sonar tracks of Russian subs for easier detection and identification) and shadow Soviet Boomers the moment they go into international waters. The old Soviet Navy used a Bastion Defence, easily defendable sea areas where a RUssian SSBN is protected by the a fleet of surface ships and submarines, due to its inferior silencing capability against the US. USN subs just hide in the depths. The Ohio SSBN is nick named the "black hole" in the ocean and not one has ever been track.
CHina unfortunately does not have the capacity for either tactics. Currently, ,it has 1 very loud operational SSBN and one more at trials. I bet that the US already has the 094's sonar signiture recorded and on file with its attack subs .

If nuclear warheads are used on all of China's railroads -even if it's possible- whoever does it will be left without any left!
All things you mentioned reinforce my point: SSBNs aren't the best choice for China's nuclear detterent. Aside the cost of building and operating them there is a problem of reliable communication- that alone can compromise their location!
Check this tread-
http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/showthread.php?t=328

 

[IDonT]

If nuclear warheads are used on all of China's railroads -even if it's possible- whoever does it will be left without any left!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The US can nuke all of Russia and China and still have plenty of nukes left over for the rest of the world. The US has 10,000 active warheads.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The Pentagon has custody of approximately 10,000 stockpiled warheads, of which about 5,735 are considered active or operational. The remaining are categorized as reserve or inactive. Details from an Energy Department 2004 stockpile plan indicate that some 4,000 warheads will eventually be retired, returned to Energy's custody, and disassembled at the Pantex Plant near Amarillo, Texas, though that task could take many years to accomplish. Refurbishments and upgrades to existing warheads will take priority over disassembly in terms of man-hours for the foreseeable future.

Of the more than 70,000 warheads produced by the United States since 1945, more than 60,000 have been disassembled by mid-2006. More than 13,000 of these warheads have been taken apart since 1990, but Energy retains more than 12,000 intact plutonium pits from dismantled warheads and stores them at Pantex.