So if my son draws a picture of an 11th gen fighter aircraft my house hold is the most advanced location in the world?
US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
So if my son draws a picture of an 11th gen fighter aircraft my house hold is the most advanced location in the world?
China is increasing its nuclear alert posture and modernizing its capabilities. There is no need to expand its arsenal if there were a treaty that encompassed and froze the expansion of the nuclear capabilities of both countries and a new ABM treaty was in force between Russia, China and the US that would not cause a strategic nuclear imbalance. As I said, everything would depend on negotiation and this was not even done when China's resolution was simply to say that "Russia and the US must reduce their nuclear capabilities and until this is done, China will not negotiate any treaty."
The ICBM brigades are being modernized, and a fleet of 6x SSBNs is a minimum nuclear alert posture but would ensure second strike capability. It is a smaller nuclear force, but as I said, it would all depend on what kind of resolution could be negotiated between the countries, China has not even considered opening a negotiating channel to try to limit a nuclear military escalation.
It is far away. However, the American ABM is not a reliable defense system. There is no guarantee that it would work as expected, even the SM-3. They are not reliable even against the DPRK which is limited in nuclear delivery in CONUS and has not yet been attacked. There is still even minimal deterrence.
I would not think it foolish for Beijing to limit its nuclear arsenal, as its own capabilities are modernized, maintain a low-power nuclear posture, maintain its second-strike capability, and limit American ABM development and US nuclear expansion. Everyone would win. Although China would have a disadvantage of having a smaller arsenal, it would still have deterrence and would stop the nuclear escalation that would follow.
There is none. That is why I think that part of the recent American development of disabling a nuclear response from adversary states can be put down to the fact that China is not even willing to enter into discussions about nuclear weapons.
I agree with that. However, I think it would be much more beneficial for global peace if China, even with a nuclear strike capability less than the US, negotiated a deal to halt US ABM development and its own nuclear expansion in order to avoid a nuclear escalation that will only lead the world to an even more dangerous place.
The same does not apply to ICMBs because nuclear weapons are deterrents. They are missiles intentionally built to provoke and dissuade an adversary from using them because of retaliation. A minimal nuclear posture is still deterrent. It works. Achieving nuclear parity with the Americans would only be worth the effort if the Americans were not prevented from expanding their nuclear arsenal and had broad freedom to develop ABM systems, which is what is happening right now as a consequence of China's own posture.
As I said, I believe that sooner or later, the Americans would have found a way to get out of a treaty that limited nuclear expansion and the development of ABM systems because that has in fact happened, because it is in the nature of imperialism to tear up treaties that limit their ability to attack other states, so unless the Americans had an awareness and a sense that a nuclear detente would be acceptable for a safer world in the face of nuclear escalation and their political leadership had this understanding and sought to resolve such issues, they would have torn up any treaty in the future that was signed today, but as I said before, the intransigent Chinese stance may also have aggravated the American escalation today.
read my latest massages on Space thread. you will get your answer..
Last edited:
If we look at the budget proposal and actual hardware, at this stage it is basically an increase in NGI sites and Standard Missiles. So you can divide the project up into two different sections:
- increasing the no. of existing kinetic interceptors
- advanced projects (SBI, SBL, ie. lasers)
I knew the Trump WH was going to push for SBI because Heritage Foundation has a colossal hard-on for it, and of course Musk's company has an advantage in lobbing sats to LEO.
No one is forced. Japan signed it by its own will. And if they do not, they are welcome to continue arm race with US, which would still mean a smaller navy thanks to industrial difference. And in the end Japan unilaterally withdrew from it anyways, so not like it mattered.
In the China vs US scenario, US is the new Japan. US is the one breaking treaties and attempt to arm race a country with better industry. So the issue here is not that China do not want to limit nuclear arsenal, it is US here not wanting to be the junior partner. China is the new US, because they are perfectly happy if both side limit nuclear arsenal to their respective power balance. So the history will repeat itself. The junior partner will push itself to limit and get reminded why unequal restriction existed: because without limit, they would will still get less weapons than the one better industrialized.
Because a negotiation channel is pointless. China pretty much never initiate an arm race unprovoked, and is already less armed than US, so what is there to talk about? The only benefit is to US that want to escalate, but is too cowardly for its consequence, so they want an exact redline they can salami slice for.
If the other guy is not bothering you, the best way to prevent escalation is to not escalate. And if you plan to escalate anyways, you know things will happen. Why pretend to care about escalation when you already intend to escalate? This is why a negotiation channel is pointless. Its very existence already contradict itself. And it would serve no purpose but to make it safer to escalate even more.
There is no point for negotiation. If US want to make ABM, it is their own freedom, and it is Chinese freedom to respond back as they see fit. What do you want China to do? Beg US to not make ABM, give US money? Unequal treaties like this is not a development toward peace. So what else is there? Both sides stop developing ABM? We all know that is pointless to negotiate because for US to start making ABM, they already considered possibility of reciprocal development. So what is there to actually negotiate?
Last edited:
Searching to fund development of something is not introducing something... Adding that most defence projects in the US are cut after a couple of years of development... It look like India somewhat.
IMO, the US's prowess in engines in general is waning by the day. Pretty much the only type of engines they are still ahead in are aeroengines and for military ones the gap is closing by the day while civilian engines might take slightly longer for China to have a full lineup and ecosystem. But in terms of diesel engines and gas turbines China has already closed the gap, latest report on GT25000 now has a similar TBO as LM2500 while CGT30 has similar performance to the LM2500+G4 which is the most powerful variant of the series while the latest Chinese diesel engine(Probably used in the next generation MBT) is in the class of MTU890 which is basically the best there is right now.
IMO we shouldn't underestimate the US, they still have the means of carrying out what they threatened. It's always better to prepare for the worst and find out your enemy was bluffing than assuming they were bluffing, and only later finding out that they were actually serious on the threat.