PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency

E

Eventine

Junior Member
Registered Member
The US is not as nuclear happy as it might seem from their rhetoric. They did not nuke China during the Korean War, did not nuke Vietnam during the Vietnam War, and mutually backed off in the game of chicken vs. the USSR. There was no guarantee that the USSR would've used nuclear weapons in retaliation for the US nuking China in 1953, but Truman still denied MacArthur use of the weapon.

In other words, the US is much more prone to bluffing than acting. Hence the primary reason for building up a large MAD arsenal is to stop the US from using escalation dominance as leverage in its bluff games, not because you expect the US to actually launch nukes in response to an invasion of Taiwan. At the same time, however, you shouldn't take the US's failure to use nukes as a sign that it doesn't have escalation dominance. Under that logic, we might as well ask why China hasn't invaded Taiwan if it already could do it? The same logic applies to the US.

Fact is, the US uses its superior nuclear arsenal as a form of deterrence to prevent China from check mating its strategic options in Taiwan. So in back room negotiations the US can always say, "are you really going to risk Beijing for Taipei?" even if they have no actual plans to nuke Beijing. To get the US to back off requires you prove to them that they have no effective strategic options. Then they will back off on their own.
 
GZDRefugee

GZDRefugee

Junior Member
Registered Member
Bellum_Romanum said:
You think that the moment the unthinkable ( the use of nuclear weapons) happens Russia would simply sit it out and watch all the fireworks between the U.S. and China? Do you really even envision for one moment that U.S. would not waste time nuking Russia as well since it's not worth getting obliterated with one of your sworn enemy going to possibly the only country to be able to rebuild a nuked planet.
Click to expand...
There's also a pretty good chance that Russia nukes China. No, I do not trust them to prioritize a business relationship over their own interests. We'll see who's right in a few years once more details about the nuclear buildup is revealed.
Index said:
US at least seems to act as if they have. What information did you find that contradicts that?

You need maybe 300-500 (1 on every township or larger) for each actual great power strike, which China needs to do 2 of, and much less for the third world, since they'll be nuked by everyone.

China has more than enough missiles in that terms (especially since many targets are close enough to be hit by IRBM). By peacetime, some have speculated that China may have only enough nukes on high alert to destroy only the US. But China keeps the vast majority of its nukes separated from their warheads, so should the situation worsen, they are only a truck drive and however long it takes to reattach the warheads away from several additional thousands more launch ready nukes.

Mind that even whatever peacetime number should be quite overkill, because it can be assumed that Russia handles Europe. The Russians are so close they can use more primitive delivery methods and not just the 1000 ish long range modern weapons they have, that would likely also be earmarked to US (or maybe south/latin America, since China overkills the US mainland already)

If US can break MAD, they would have used nukes already. They are very far from it, likely even further than China is, because the home air defenses in US are fairly bad, they have no nuclear proof bunkers for the majority of their population, they don't really have well concealed extensive underground military facilities either.
Click to expand...
Firstly, multiple nukes may be needed to sufficiently destroy a single target. Secondly, unless you have inside knowledge of pK rates, you cannot be sure China's current arsenal of ~500 can both survive a first strike, and penetrate BMD. As it stands, both the US and Russia far exceed China's arsenal and thus have leeway for miscalculations. Finally, have you considered the necessity of third strike and post-exchange deterrance? i.e. Nuking the survivors once they emerge from shelters and maintaining a reserve to shut down any invasion?
 
I

Index

Junior Member
Registered Member
GZDRefugee said:
There's also a pretty good chance that Russia nukes China. No, I do not trust them to prioritize a business relationship over their own interests. We'll see who's right in a few years once more details about the nuclear buildup is revealed.
Click to expand...
About the same chance as UK and France nuking US, buddy.
GZDRefugee said:
Firstly, multiple nukes may be needed to sufficiently destroy a single target. Secondly, unless you have inside knowledge of pK rates, you cannot be sure China's current arsenal of ~500 can both survive a first strike, and penetrate BMD. As it stands, both the US and Russia far exceed China's arsenal and thus have leeway for miscalculations. Finally, have you considered the necessity of third strike and post-exchange deterrance? i.e. Nuking the survivors once they emerge from shelters and maintaining a reserve to shut down any invasion?
Click to expand...
The thing is when tensions ramp up, China will put separated warheads back with their missiles, so they have a hell lot more than whatever are used for peacetime deterrence. ~500-1000 whatever is if US attacked now, out of the blue.

US or Russia also doesn't necessarily exceed what China has. The missiles estimated in launch on warning posture are similar for all 3, at around 1000. Russia and US keeps their stockpiles armed in glide bombs, short range missiles etc. while China stores extra stockpiles separated and are much more secretive about how many they have.
 
M

montyp165

Senior Member
Based on the current known deployed ICBM strength and build rate China is already on the same pace as the US 1000 Minuteman buildup of the 1960's, in a situation where the nuclear numerical difference is far more favorable than during that time period. The US itself only has 450 Minuteman ICBMs and 14 SSBNs (far less than the 1000 Minuteman and 41 SSBNs at the height of the Cold War), so if anything China has far more strategic firepower options and capability than the lay observer is able to see.
 
GZDRefugee

GZDRefugee

Junior Member
Registered Member
Index said:
About the same chance as UK and France nuking US, buddy.
Click to expand...
Incomparable. The UK and France do not have certain overkill for their most immediate threats. Meanwhile Russia has so damn many they can nuke the US, Europe, and China simultaneously and still have enough shots to go another two rounds.
Index said:
The thing is when tensions ramp up, China will put separated warheads back with their missiles, so they have a hell lot more than whatever are used for peacetime deterrence. ~500-1000 whatever is if US attacked now, out of the blue.
Click to expand...
Dunno where you're getting these stockpiled and deployed warhead statistics from.

~500-1000 is a very significant interval of uncertainty and suggests little confidence. Previous estimates by Chinese sources put deployed warheads at the <50 range (even that's being generous). Historically, China's posture has been low readiness. A 10x-20x deployed increase is astronomical given that China has not moved beyond low readiness.
 
I

Index

Junior Member
Registered Member
GZDRefugee said:
Incomparable. The UK and France do not have certain overkill for their most immediate threats. Meanwhile Russia has so damn many they can nuke the US, Europe, and China simultaneously and still have enough shots to go another two rounds.

Dunno where you're getting these stockpiled and deployed warhead statistics from.

~500-1000 is a very significant interval of uncertainty and suggests little confidence.
Click to expand...
Because China has never provided much public info at all.
GZDRefugee said:
Previous estimates by Chinese sources put deployed warheads at the <50 range (even that's being generous).
Click to expand...
A single PLAN SSBN has more deployed warheads than that, so I think you need to recheck sources.
GZDRefugee said:
Historically, China's posture has been low readiness. A 10x-20x deployed increase is astronomical given that China has not moved beyond low readiness.
Click to expand...
 
GZDRefugee

GZDRefugee

Junior Member
Registered Member
Index said:
Because China has never provided much public info at all.
Click to expand...
So where are your sources that claim 500-1000 deployed? I'm sincerely curious as to where you got these numbers from. You'd think that the US would be screaming from the rooftops if this source was readily available and credible.
Index said:
A single PLAN SSBN has more deployed warheads than that, so I think you need to recheck sources.
Click to expand...
The 094 isn't deploying with 12x8 warheads. Just because it can carry that many, doesn't mean it will do so due to range requirements and penetration aid tax. Additionally, not all six 094 are going to be deployed simultaneously.
 
G

gelgoog

Brigadier
Registered Member
Eventine said:
The US is not as nuclear happy as it might seem from their rhetoric. They did not nuke China during the Korean War, did not nuke Vietnam during the Vietnam War, and mutually backed off in the game of chicken vs. the USSR. There was no guarantee that the USSR would've used nuclear weapons in retaliation for the US nuking China in 1953, but Truman still denied MacArthur use of the weapon.
Click to expand...
The US was the only country to actually use nuclear weapons. Against Japan in WW2.

Initially in 1945 after the WW2 was won by the Allies the US only had a very limited number of nuclear weapons. Not enough to defeat a major power like the USSR with its vast expanses. Production costs and production rate for nuclear weapons back then was pretty much atrocious. The ramp up in the production of nuclear weapons started in the early 1950s. It hugely increased after the H-bomb was created.

The USSR developed its first plutonium bomb in 1949. The Tu-4 bomber was available in the same year. The two-stage fusion bomb in 1955. The Tu-95 strategic bomber capable of delivering a bomb to the US was available in 1956. The R-7 ICBM was available in 1957.

The US just never had the capability to totally destroy the Soviet Union with nukes before they had nukes of their own. It is as simple as that.

GZDRefugee said:
There's also a pretty good chance that Russia nukes China. No, I do not trust them to prioritize a business relationship over their own interests. We'll see who's right in a few years once more details about the nuclear buildup is revealed.
Click to expand...
I think there is only one case where Russia could nuke China, and that is if China invaded Russian territory.
 
V

votran

New Member
Registered Member
Eventine said:
The US is not as nuclear happy as it might seem from their rhetoric. They did not nuke China during the Korean War, did not nuke Vietnam during the Vietnam War, and mutually backed off in the game of chicken vs. the USSR. There was no guarantee that the USSR would've used nuclear weapons in retaliation for the US nuking China in 1953, but Truman still denied MacArthur use of the weapon.

In other words, the US is much more prone to bluffing than acting. Hence the primary reason for building up a large MAD arsenal is to stop the US from using escalation dominance as leverage in its bluff games, not because you expect the US to actually launch nukes in response to an invasion of Taiwan. At the same time, however, you shouldn't take the US's failure to use nukes as a sign that it doesn't have escalation dominance. Under that logic, we might as well ask why China hasn't invaded Taiwan if it already could do it? The same logic applies to the US.

Fact is, the US uses its superior nuclear arsenal as a form of deterrence to prevent China from check mating its strategic options in Taiwan. So in back room negotiations the US can always say, "are you really going to risk Beijing for Taipei?" even if they have no actual plans to nuke Beijing. To get the US to back off requires you prove to them that they have no effective strategic options. Then they will back off on their own.
Click to expand...
the matter of US and china is not just matter of ideology confict alone like cold war

but it also matter of western civilization world that lead by US world ruling mandate of heaven

if china can overcome US and their gang , take back taiwan without trigger M.A.D or being crippled by the war

then that is the sign of entire western civilization face the chance of losing world ruling mandate of heaven soon and be replace by eastern asian civilization lead by China

nothing dangerous and more crazy than an entire civilization currently rule the world see the end of their reign come closer everyday

so yeah ...in future if china manage to growth and influenced the world to the point economic war , sanctions , information/propagranda war toward china become useless

then chinese grovernment and people better perpare for sudden preemptive strike
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top