China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread

[PikeCowboy]

I think it would be reasonable to expect that China can establish local superiority in the Taiwan strait in the air, surface, and subsurface right now.

In terms of air power, the Taiwan straight is in close proximity to PLAAF land based air power. This local land based air power in conjunction with IADS should be in all aspect superior to 3+ carriers in addition to whatever the Japanese are going to bring over.

Once local air power is established, the surface can be taken relatively easily...

Once the air and surface are taken, opposition submarines in the shallow waters of the strait populated by the numerous 056, 054, 052 all equipped with VDS/TAS systems, ground based MPA ASW, ship based helicopter ASW, and possibly even undersea hydrophones will find themselves in a very unpleasant scenario...

For sure, these submarines will inflict a number of losses in PLAN shipping but to suggest that a couple of shiryuus will alter the course of the battle by them selves is unrealistic...

Anyway, I don't even know why Japan would even get involved... I don't know if China can hit the US with its nukes but China has no shortage of SRBM and IRBMs for Japan... ... not being bellicose but just presenting the facts...

Also you guys should stop trumpeting USN CVNs as the very hand of God, no matter how big a CVN is there is simply no way it can take as many or deliver as many punches as an air base...
just the facts guys...

 

[SinoSoldier]

2020? No I don't think Taiwan will declare independence in 2020, let alone in 2030. In my opinion, the secessionists have missed their opportunities in the 90s.



What makes you thinking that it will be the US that's going to interfere over Taiwan? I don't want to get into details about hypothetical war between China and US. Even if it comes, you can bet that PLA has prepared for it.

The most pathetic bit in Taiwan secessionism is that they don't have backbones. They only dare to dream free ride at cost of others.

The US and the ROC still has a semi-official defense pact, not to mention the numerous occasions in which US officials have verbally confirmed their support of the island country. It's not a gamble that the PRC is willing to take and Taiwan's de-facto independence is evidence of that.

 

[SanWenYu]

The US and the ROC still has a semi-official defense pact, not to mention the numerous occasions in which US officials have verbally confirmed their support of the island country. It's not a gamble that the PRC is willing to take and Taiwan's de-facto independence is evidence of that.

I am fully aware of the existence of that "defense pact". It's a convenient leverage by the US administrations to bully China for sure. But as an excuse to get into war with China? I don't think so.

 

[SanWenYu]

I think it would be reasonable to expect that China can establish local superiority in the Taiwan strait in the air, surface, and subsurface right now.

In terms of air power, the Taiwan straight is in close proximity to PLAAF land based air power. This local land based air power in conjunction with IADS should be in all aspect superior to 3+ carriers in addition to whatever the Japanese are going to bring over.

Once local air power is established, the surface can be taken relatively easily...

Once the air and surface are taken, opposition submarines in the shallow waters of the strait populated by the numerous 056, 054, 052 all equipped with VDS/TAS systems, ground based MPA ASW, ship based helicopter ASW, and possibly even undersea hydrophones will find themselves in a very unpleasant scenario...

For sure, these submarines will inflict a number of losses in PLAN shipping but to suggest that a couple of shiryuus will alter the course of the battle by them selves is unrealistic...

Anyway, I don't even know why Japan would even get involved... I don't know if China can hit the US with its nukes but China has no shortage of SRBM and IRBMs for Japan... ... not being bellicose but just presenting the facts...

Also you guys should stop trumpeting USN CVNs as the very hand of God, no matter how big a CVN is there is simply no way it can take as many or deliver as many punches as an air base...
just the facts guys...

Agree with you and manqiangrexue. But let's stop it here as discussing war over Taiwan is not only off topic but also forbidden by the forum's rules.

 

[tidalwave]

Yo , SanWonYu
Here's something for you to read. Why China being dissed.
Even the mouthpiece Global Times is calling to change that.
Your thinking is outdated.


美国对中国为何比对俄更傲慢：只因中国核武器太少
特朗普22日再发惊人推特，他写道：“在世界对核武器有清醒认识之前，美国必须大力加强并扩大其核能力。”在他发推几个小时以前，俄罗斯总统普京亦做出表示，俄罗斯需要加强自己的核武能力。

　　根据美国军备控制协会提供的资料，美国目前拥有7100个核弹头，俄罗斯有7300个。俄罗斯的常规军事能力已经远远小于北约，但俄美的核均势继续保障了俄与美国近乎平等的军事超级大国地位。俄敢于在乌克兰、叙利亚等冲突点上与美尖锐对抗，首先来自于核力量的支撑。


　　奥巴马倡导“无核世界”，如今他还没有从白宫卷铺盖走人，“核竞赛”的疑似云团就重新浮现在天边。普京表示，俄罗斯需进一步开发可以穿透现有和未来反导系统的导弹系统，想必美国不会等闲视之。


　　一些国人大概觉得，“核竞赛”是美俄之间的事，中国可以置身事外。然而全球战略竞争的重心正转移到美中之间，核问题的焦点不可能不牵涉中国。而且如果真是那样的话，对中国也未必是好事。


　　常听到一种说法，核武器不能用，有太多了也是浪费，管理还挺麻烦的。必须指出，这样的话很糊涂，如果这种观点在中国战略界流行，必将耽误国家。


　　俄罗斯的核武器没有用吗？我们认为它天天都在用那些核武器。与美国并驾齐驱的核武库维护了俄罗斯对整个西方的战略威慑力，也成为俄经济竞争力不断下滑时代整个国家信心的基石。莫斯科能够在面对美西方压力时毫无惧色，它的外交表现任性而多彩，都是因为手里有核力量。譬如在北约威逼过分时，俄突然拿下克里米亚，它就像把一口痰迎头吐到美国的脸上。


　　中国无需与谁搞“核竞赛”，但对于什么是核武器“够用”，我们必须进行彻底的观念重建。中国已被美国当成头号战略竞争对手，美国的大部分压力正一步步转移到中国身上。形势变了，我们对世界的研判必须跟着变，如果今后中国还试图在其他大国竞争的中间地带喘息，那就是天真幼稚。

 

[Ultra]

Gonna give my take on this. China didn't build 7,000 nukes like the Soviet Union because there's no reason to need to bow up the world 7 times over or some other ridiculous number like that. China's official count is what, 260? And what's the real number? No one knows? I think they should make some 2K, less than 3k and leave it at that. But as it is now, no one wants to go to nuclear war with China unless existentially threatened and that's the nukes getting the job done already.

PLA's conventional forces aren't going to need to match USA+Japan's forces to stop them from intervening in case it needs to invade ROC. This is an assumption that 1. both are willing to fight to the death to defend Taiwan and 2. the geography favors no one, both of which are false assumptions. The geography makes it much easier for China to fight than other countries coming long long ways (China has land-based missiles that can keep carriers away and possibly even destroyer-sized vessels soon) and other countries are going to be far less committed in the fight than China. Even if foreign forces think they can win, they do not want to explain to their citizens how they lost 20,000 sailors/aviators, 50 military vessels trying to defend what turned out to be a smoking rock. The Japanese may, because many there consider China an existential threat, but if the Americans do not go all out, Japan is going to sit on its hands and curse.

So in summary, China's current forces are enough for no one to want to fight to the death for an island that they don't own (in the same sense that no one wants to get stabbed 6 times fighting for a Snickers bar on the ground even if he believes he can ultimately survive and the other guy won't). If not, China would build more nukes, easily (have they?). Currently, they are trying to integrate Taiwan peacefully, but if it doesn't work, even now, I highly highly doubt any country is willing to fight the full power of the Chinese armed forces and possibly eat a few nukes trying to defend an island they don't don't even formally recognize and one that they won't own even if they win.

I disagree, 260 (official figure) is way too low.
When you factor in the fact that out of those 260, only a tiny fraction are used for ICBM (I think 50?) and then you when factor in the number of Aegis Missile frigates (84+ Tico +Arleigh Burke) that America have EACH WITH OVER 60+ MISSILES CAPABLE OF INTERCEPTING IT (I am taking the conservative estimate here) - China's 50 ICBM when launched will face over 5040 missiles intercepting it! Even if you factor in decoys, these missiles will outnumber the ICBMs and the decoys by 10 to 1.

China's nuclear arsenal simply do not serve its purpose - it is NOT a deterrent as it cannot deter a determined opponent like US who fear little repercussion or retaliation. You can see this in US's attitude towards China vs how it treats Russia.

What China need is to have more nukes, at least on par with number US and Russia has.

 

[manqiangrexue]

I disagree, 260 (official figure) is way too low.
When you factor in the fact that out of those 260, only a tiny fraction are used for ICBM (I think 50?) and then you when factor in the number of Aegis Missile frigates (84+ Tico +Arleigh Burke) that America have EACH WITH OVER 60+ MISSILES CAPABLE OF INTERCEPTING IT (I am taking the conservative estimate here) - China's 50 ICBM when launched will face over 5040 missiles intercepting it! Even if you factor in decoys, these missiles will outnumber the ICBMs and the decoys by 10 to 1.

China's nuclear arsenal simply do not serve its purpose - it is NOT a deterrent as it cannot deter a determined opponent like US who fear little repercussion or retaliation. You can see this in US's attitude towards China vs how it treats Russia.

What China need is to have more nukes, at least on par with number US and Russia has.

And from what do you draw the conclusion that Chinese nukes are not a deterrent to the US? Has the US done something extremely war-inciting to China that it has not done to Russia (recent 10 years)? Another way to ask this question is, how differently do you expect the US to behave if it were, in fact deterred? Because right now, I don't see any sort of escalation by the US against China that indicates it wants to play chicken on nuclear escalation. China builds and militarized islands in the SCS, I don't see any substance-backed response. Russia annexes parts of Ukraine, Georgia, I also don't see any substance-backed response either. Russia has boots on the ground in Syria, I see American boots on the ground in Syria as well. So... I don't see anything that indicates a massive nuclear build-up would command more respect. Yes, Trump likes to praise Russia because he obviously has a Slavic fetish. That doesn't count.

I'm sure that if the CCP saw significant benefit from building thousands of nukes, it would do so. And as I said, with Trump in office, I would not disagree with building up to maybe 2,000-2,500 nukes (especially of the DF-ZF/WU-14 variety)? 7,000 is just not needed at all and causes huge upkeep strain.

 

[tidalwave]

And from what do you draw the conclusion that Chinese nukes are not a deterrent to the US? Has the US done something extremely war-inciting to China that it has not done to Russia (recent 10 years)? Another way to ask this question is, how differently do you expect the US to behave if it were, in fact deterred? Because right now, I don't see any sort of escalation by the US against China that indicates it wants to play chicken on nuclear escalation. China builds and militarized islands in the SCS, I don't see any substance-backed response. Russia annexes parts of Ukraine, Georgia, I also don't see any substance-backed response either. Russia has boots on the ground in Syria, I see American boots on the ground in Syria as well. So... I don't see anything that indicates a massive nuclear build-up would command more respect. Yes, Trump likes to praise Russia because he obviously has a Slavic fetish. That doesn't count.

I'm sure that if the CCP saw significant benefit from building thousands of nukes, it would do so. And as I said, with Trump in office, I would not disagree with building up to maybe 2,000-2,500 nukes (especially of the DF-ZF/WU-14 variety)? 7,000 is just not needed at all and causes huge upkeep strain.

Crimea ==Taiwan.
If China try to take taiwan by force, I guarantee you 100% US forces will directly involved in defending taiwan.

Russia can take anybody and US will not directly involved.

 

[manqiangrexue]

Crimea ==Taiwan.
If China try to take taiwan by force, I guarantee you 100% US forces will directly involved in defending taiwan.

Russia can take anybody and US will not directly involved.

First of all, Crimea =/= Taiwan because Crimea can be taken by land forces instead of having a navy/air force fly 100 miles over. Crimea is much simpler for Russia and more difficult for the US to involve itself than Taiwan. If Taiwan were connected to the mainland by land, there wouldn't even be this issue. China would just walk more people over there every year until the problem was solved.

Secondly, your guarantee doesn't mean anything; you should properly phrase it as, "I think 100%..." because you have no power over the situation. Your guarantee is as good as my guaranteeing you 100% that the US would just sit there and throw sanctions. As a matter of fact, that's what I believe they would do, which is why they maintain strategic ambiguity on their level of commitment to "protect" the island. If they were committed militarily, they would say so to absolutely deter any attempts and to stave off possible war from miscalculation. If they were not committed, they could NOT say so because that would be an invite for Beijing to attack. If they were not committed and said that they were, and Beijing called the bluff, then the US would look untrustworthy to all of its allies. So if they were not committed, the best way would be to remain ambiguous so that they would seed uncertainty in ZhongNanHai, possibly enough to deter military action, but they would also not be putting their necks out to do it.

I think Beijing knows this as well but is simply trying to do this in the most economically friendly way. There won't be military action by foreign powers, but it's almost certain that there will be huge economic repercussions, in addition to the cost in money and manpower to take and hold an island (working economy or war-torn junkyard?) by force.

 

[manqiangrexue]

Crimea ==Taiwan.
If China try to take taiwan by force, I guarantee you 100% US forces will directly involved in defending taiwan.

Russia can take anybody and US will not directly involved.

Look, I understand where you're coming from; if Beijing built 10,000 nukes and declared that all of them would be addressed to anyone who dared intervene on the Taiwan issue, then certainly, there's not a country in the world that could bluff with a straight face that they would still even consider the option.

BUT that is a simplistic approach; nukes are expensive to built, expensive to maintain, and expensive to dispose of after they've expired (if they were used instead of expired, then expenses are your least concern at that time). With the resources that would be sunk into some 7K nukes, many ships, airplanes, tanks, conventional weapons can be built. Those things can be used to enforce maritime claims; nukes cannot. The islands in the SCS could only have been taken by ships and planes. No matter how many nukes you have, you can't just sit there and threaten to nuke people until they give is/lands to you. So, for that reason, you want to divy your resources between tools for maritime claim enforcement and tools to prevent Armageddon. The former is a the-more-the-better category where the more ships/planes you have, the better you can enforce your claims. The latter is a yes-or-no category where you want to invest as little as possible while still getting a yes. (Ideally, you would just put 10,000 tin shells in silos/mobile carriers and have the whole wold believe those were ICBMs but that's not an easy trick to pull off.) That is why Beijing wants to build as few nukes as possible (while still preventing other nations from using nukes to threaten China) so they can invest those saved resources into conventional arms.