US INF withdraw and possible new land-based missiles deployed in Asia.

Hyperwarp said:

It is laughable how China with less than 300 active nuclear warheads is considered the bad guy by the US

Click to expand...

280 is the low estimate, estimates have gone as high as 600. The US and Russia have a published count of there weapons The PRC doesn’t post such we have estimates which are all questionable. Some say to low some are clearly to high.
Some say low now but to double before the middle of the Coming decade.

TerraN_EmpirE said:

280 is the low estimate, estimates have gone as high as 600. The US and Russia have a published count of there weapons The PRC doesn’t post such we have estimates which are all questionable. Some say to low some are clearly to high.
Some say low now but to double before the middle of the Coming decade.

Click to expand...

Highest ever total for Chinese warhead count is 434 (active + reserve). You can estimate the theoretical number of warheads by China's HEU and plutonium output. No matter how you slice it, the Chinese nuclear arsenal is pittance compared to what the US and Russia have. Credit to the Chinese for not escalating. Not to mention US missile defense plans (land and sea). Even at this moment, US should have 40 Ground-based interceptors and future sea-based interceptors (Standard missile) that would have put tremendous pressure on China's ballistic missiles. It is quite natural that China is investing heavily on hypersonic glide vehicles that could give their warheads a fighing chance of reaching their target. HGV would not be that important if a nation has a large number of warheads. It is a reaction to the US's growing missile defense systems. US also has over 10 aircraft carriers to be be deployed for an invasion. Even if you combine the rest of the worlds carriers you still won't come close to the US. This why China invests heavily in ASBM. It is a reaction to the US. The US is probably the most powerful nation since the Ancient Roman empire. China is merely reacting to a potential US threat.

However you want to pose it Nuclear tips We’re only part of the Restricted class of the INF.
The DF21D the so called “Carrier Killer” what is the warhead type? Conventional. The vast majority of Chinese IRBM are conventional.
The US was forbade any ground based missiles in the class Nuclear or otherwise.

The PRC view you have already voiced. “We won’t restrict unless the US gives up a lot of ground. Ambitious yes practical not really.
So now they have some push back.

Brumby said:

However that can easily change should China move say the DF-26 to one of the artificial island.

Click to expand...

It won't make tactical sense for China to place an IRBM on a small island. It renders the mobile aspect of the missile useless.

ZeEa5KPul said:

Heh, heh. Yes, the Philippines is the centre of gravity, but not in the way you think. It'll be China establishing military bases in the Philippines. Before you protest that the Philippines is a US ally, understand that things change. China's power will is changing the equation significantly.

Click to expand...

Mate,

The last time I checked, the Philippines have a mutual defense treaty with the US - not China. I suggest you go easy on whatever you are inhaling. Lol.

Hyperwarp said:

It is laughable how China with less than 300 active nuclear warheads is considered the bad guy by the US.

Click to expand...

The winner of the new cold war will get to decide who was the bad guy afterwards. For now US (the super-power) will label China (the rising-power) a bad guy to rally the citizens and allies on its side. One can almost witness the fear they see in China, rightly so I might add since this is an economic and militarily competition now.

Pika said:

It won't make tactical sense for China to place an IRBM on a small island. It renders the mobile aspect of the missile useless.

Click to expand...

The Df-26 is as much a strategic asset and not just tactical. Reach vs mobility is a trade off. .

Brumby said:

The Df-26 is as much a strategic asset and not just tactical. Reach vs mobility is a trade off. .

Click to expand...

Unless most states in the region (including Australia) somehow acknowledge China's defacto claims on those islands (not the body of the water necessarily), putting any sort of ballistic missiles on those islands will in flame the tensions in that region tremendously. One that won't benefit China.

The best use for them should be refueling/replenish posts to expand PLAN and PLAAF reach. (I'm saying this without any knowledge of China's goals for those islands)

Pika said:

Unless most states in the region (including Australia) somehow acknowledge China's defacto claims on those islands (not the body of the water necessarily), putting any sort of ballistic missiles on those islands will in flame the tensions in that region tremendously. One that won't benefit China.

The best use for them should be refueling/replenish posts to expand PLAN and PLAAF reach. (I'm saying this without any knowledge of China's goals for those islands)

Click to expand...

I did not say that China will necessarily place DF-26 on those islands. I am saying in the event that China did then Australia's current position on US land based missiles basing will probably change as well.

Hyperwarp said:

You can estimate the theoretical number of warheads by China's HEU and plutonium output.

Click to expand...

How could anyone tell if China increased its fissile material stockpile?

Brumby said:

The last time I checked, the Philippines have a mutual defense treaty with the US - not China.

Click to expand...

1. LOL at calling these "mutual" defense treaties. 2. I wouldn't count on the Philippines staying in America's camp for very long.