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...

That argument doesn't make sense. Americans can't distinguish whether a hypersonic cruise missile fired by an H-20 or a Type 09-V is conventional or nuclear armed either. The reason intercontinental missiles aren't used is because they're a very inefficient way to deliver a relatively small amount of conventional explosive.

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...

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

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...

No one is ever willing to make that gamble, because the fallout (no pun intended) if you gambled wrong is unacceptable.

SunlitZelkova said:

This isn't that bizarre. The US military has always argued for massively attacking China proper whenever there has been a threat of conflict between the two:

1. Korean War (MacArthur and other hawks wanted to use nuclear weapons on targets in Manchuria)
2. Second Taiwan Strait Crisis (JCS informed Eisenhower that if it came to war, there would be no way to defeat China without using nuclear weapons on the mainland)
3. Vietnam War (When considering a potential invasion of North Vietnam, planners believed that if China intervened to defend Vietnam, there would be no way to defeat the intervention without using nuclear weapons)

They are just repeating the same trope, but with conventional weapons, because they are unable to make the mental adjustment needed to realize China no longer has a Soviet-style AD network based on HQ-2s.

They are still right though. Attempting to defend Taiwan without attacking bases on the mainland would akin to Germany invading the USSR without attacking industry east of the Urals. But the US just isn't taking the challenge of striking the mainland seriously.

I don't think it would come to nuclear war because there is no way the CPC and PLA regard strikes on the mainland as something "forbidden" or "unacceptable." The entire point of expanding the PLARF's conventional strike capability was to destroy the bases in the 2IC necessary to launch those kinds of attacks; they know the US is likely to do that kind of thing. Tomahawks or JASSMs appearing over Shanghai isn't going to generate the same effect a Trident II heading for Moscow would.

Click to expand...

there will be bombs in LA , Seatle etc if a single bomb is dropped in Shanghai , i'm pretty sure about that. Not sure if NY will get one, but no later than 30s, NY will also be bombed, with conventional bomb, there will be no possiblity that US could bomb China without sequence, not any more , not any longer, and indeed, I hope that will happen . Or , there is no reason to attack US. Any bomb on China main land will have its consequnces, will turn the whole country into what you wont' hope to recognize.

lych470 said:

No one is ever willing to make that gamble, because the fallout (no pun intended) if you gambled wrong is unacceptable.

Click to expand...

War and international politics are inherently games; gambling is a pattern. Was Kennedy gambling in 1962? The world waited with bated breath for the outcome.

This time, Mr. Trump has chosen to gamble with the entire world, with losers paying. The only country willing to raise the stakes to 145% is China, and the consequences aren't that unacceptable.

There's no need to play by someone else's rules. As long as we have sufficient strength, any rules can be negotiated—after all, strength represents the true "unacceptable consequences."

China can now negotiate with the United States: The open-air launch towers deployed in the desert west of Lanzhou will not have any liquid-fueled rockets equipped with nuclear warheads. This is the new rule of the game.

Essentially, this is a bunch of B2s. Everyone knows they can carry nuclear warheads and were originally designed for strategic strikes. But now, no one "wants to believe" the B2 is capable of carrying nuclear warheads. This is because after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1990, no one launched nuclear retaliation against B2 attacks. This is the American rule, and it could also be the Chinese rule.