PLA Strike Strategies in Westpac HIC

another505 said:

Cause its extremely dangerous as your enemy cannot distinguish whether it is a nuke or conventional warhead until it impacts. All they see is an projectile with icbm trajectory.

Politicians then only have a few minutes to decide in their response which could lead to a misunderstanding and into nuclear escalation.

All that potential fallout for a measly few hundred kg of explosive warhead isnt worth it.

Click to expand...

Dante80 said:

In your scenario (the one you were recommending the ICBM for, to be exact), you are talking about a limited strike on the contiguous United States, using an ICBM with a conventional warhead.

The United States of America has a Launch On Warning nuclear capability. Their current communicated doctrine says they don't have a LOW posture, but there is enough ambiguity left in. On purpose.

This means, if you launch an ICBM @ the US, you are getting nuked in retaliation, most probably before the missile even lands. They have no way of recognizing what type of warhead your missile uses.

Historically speaking, nuclear countries have thought about this in the past. My reference to PGS was exactly that, as an example.

Hope that helps.

Click to expand...

AndrewS said:

That doesn't make sense.

A single incoming ICBM (even if it is nuclear) does not justify the US launching an full-scale nuclear attack.
Such an action will trigger a full-scale Chinese nuclear retaliation against the US.

Remember that there are over 300 Minuteman silos plus the SSBN warheads.
The US could just wait for that single incoming ICBM to detonate, then decide to launch everything

Click to expand...