China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread

[taxiya]

The problem is that the bombs are needed for retaliatory strike.
Means enough bomb with delivery vehicle has to survive the USA first strike.
And they have to count with the USA missile shield as well.

Means if the USA can destroy 100 Chinese warhead with ABMs, AND china has 500 warhead, AND the USA can destroy 80% of Chinese warheads in first strike then China doesn't has any MAD protection. So, the US can invade North Korea, can declare the independence of Taiwan, can start a war against China mainland, and China can't do anything. For anything less than complete unconditional surrender by China the USA can destroy her in two hours time.


Based on the above I think the next:
1. China increased the number of warheads, the US know it (otherwise what is the point of it? ) , but it was a secret project outside of the known manufacture sites, so nod data in literature.
2. China improved the quality of the warheads by decreasing the required amount of the Pu239, and/or increased the survival ability of them with decoys, or/and hypersonic manoeuvrable weapons.
3. The mixture of above.


Actually, I think it is the no2.

Russia managed it (no2) , hence they are not interested to cancel the START.

So where is the NK and Chinese ground force and air force that numbers hundred thousands or a million on their soil or door-step? Where is the invading hundred thousands? Swim across the Pacific ocean?
Don't just count in your favored preset conclusion, you have to have everything from both side on the table.

Your scenario won't happen in the first place.

P.S. please don't start a "country A nukes country B" war-game scenario, it is going to lead to warning and ban.

 

[Anlsvrthng]

So where is the NK and Chinese ground force and air force that numbers hundred thousands or a million on their soil or door-step? Where is the invading hundred thousands? Swim across the Pacific ocean?
Don't just count in your favored preset conclusion, you have to have everything from both side on the table.

Your scenario won't happen in the first place.

P.S. please don't start a "country A nukes country B" war-game scenario, it is going to lead to warning and ban.

The first rule of international politics is the stronger takes it all.

See the fate of Cuba,Yugoslavia, Ukraine, Panama, Iraq, Libya, Syria and so on. Or just check the difference of handling between Russia and Iran.

These countries never needed invading forces, all that happened is the US weakened the central government by supporting NGOs, putting money into US friendly parties ,or using air force to destroy the civilian infrastructure with bombers, the C&C of military , and/or armed every warlord who was willing to take weapon for power .



IF the US is not capable to force its will to China then China has credible nuclear deterrent.

And the MAD is about the Mutual Assured Destruction.

It works ONLY because one party can destruct the other, and it created the constrain of movement of CCCP and USA.
IT was the reason why the USA never attacked the CCCP, and it was the reason why the USA was forced to agree with START , ABM treaty , INF and so on.

So, China NEEDS credible deterrent, without that her throat is open for the wolves.

 

[taxiya]

The first rule of international politics is the stronger takes it all.

See the fate of Cuba,Yugoslavia, Ukraine, Panama, Iraq, Libya, Syria and so on. Or just check the difference of handling between Russia and Iran.

These countries never needed invading forces, all that happened is the US weakened the central government by supporting NGOs, putting money into US friendly parties ,or using air force to destroy the civilian infrastructure with bombers, the C&C of military , and/or armed every warlord who was willing to take weapon for power .



IF the US is not capable to force its will to China then China has credible nuclear deterrent.

And the MAD is about the Mutual Assured Destruction.

It works ONLY because one party can destruct the other, and it created the constrain of movement of CCCP and USA.
IT was the reason why the USA never attacked the CCCP, and it was the reason why the USA was forced to agree with START , ABM treaty , INF and so on.

So, China NEEDS credible deterrent, without that her throat is open for the wolves.

First of all, nobody says "no NEED" of credible deterrent. Actually, China has credible deterrent already. Neither is anybody saying that China is in good terms with USA. So all your reasonings of the need plays no role because they are not what the disagreement is.

The disagreement is the seemingly proposal of you for an increase of warheads and delivery systems than what China already has which is seemingly too small for your taste. To put it short, What is enough? That is the question.

Since you use CCCP (big number) as a reference, you are suggesting China to match the number by 1 to 1, or close to that effect? Without getting bogged down to numbers, let me ask questions on a simplified higher level. What was the reason that US has never invaded China since 1949? Because China (not) has an equally big nuclear arsenal? China fought a ground war with US in Korea at the time China has zero nuclear weapons, why didn't US use nuclear weapon on China or invade then? US must have invaded China in 1950 according to you, right? P.S. you can skip mentioning CCCP protecting China in 1950 when they did not have a deployable bomb until a year into the Korean war in 1951 or 1953 in the end of the war.

Again I repeat your scenario did NOT happen in 1950, it won't happen 68 years later when China does have credible deterrent. And that deterrent is credible and enough even if you prefer a xxxx contest.

 

[Anlsvrthng]

I

First of all, nobody says "no NEED" of credible deterrent. Actually, China has credible deterrent already. Neither is anybody saying that China is in good terms with USA. So all your reasonings of the need plays no role because they are not what the disagreement is.

The disagreement is the seemingly proposal of you for an increase of warheads and delivery systems than what China already has which is seemingly too small for your taste. To put it short, What is enough? That is the question.

Since you use CCCP (big number) as a reference, you are suggesting China to match the number by 1 to 1, or close to that effect? Without getting bogged down to numbers, let me ask questions on a simplified higher level. What was the reason that US has never invaded China since 1949? Because China (not) has an equally big nuclear arsenal? China fought a ground war with US in Korea at the time China has zero nuclear weapons, why didn't US use nuclear weapon on China or invade then? US must have invaded China in 1950 according to you, right? P.S. you can skip mentioning CCCP protecting China in 1950 when they did not have a deployable bomb until a year into the Korean war in 1951 or 1953 in the end of the war.

Again I repeat your scenario did NOT happen in 1950, it won't happen 68 years later when China does have credible deterrent. And that deterrent is credible and enough even if you prefer a xxxx contest.

I said 1 increase of no OR 2. increase of efficiency OR 3 both above.

US fought wars in the direct interest zone of China, like Vietnam, Korea, supported governments opposing China in the area.

Interesting question WHY China stopped at 38th parallel? She had the momentum.

Now the US powerless to stop China in the island building.

 

[Deleted member 13312]

The problem is that the bombs are needed for retaliatory strike.
Means enough bomb with delivery vehicle has to survive the USA first strike.
And they have to count with the USA missile shield as well.

Means if the USA can destroy 100 Chinese warhead with ABMs, AND china has 500 warhead, AND the USA can destroy 80% of Chinese warheads in first strike then China doesn't has any MAD protection. So, the US can invade North Korea, can declare the independence of Taiwan, can start a war against China mainland, and China can't do anything. For anything less than complete unconditional surrender by China the USA can destroy her in two hours time.


Based on the above I think the next:
1. China increased the number of warheads, the US know it (otherwise what is the point of it? ) , but it was a secret project outside of the known manufacture sites, so nod data in literature.
2. China improved the quality of the warheads by decreasing the required amount of the Pu239, and/or increased the survival ability of them with decoys, or/and hypersonic manoeuvrable weapons.
3. The mixture of above.


Actually, I think it is the no2.

Russia managed it (no2) , hence they are not interested to cancel the START.

Thing is your entire argument can be summed up in a single word found in one of your sentence : "IF"
If is a very fickle thing to put faith on, it assumes that the US can successfully destroy the majority of the estimated 500 warheads that China has, which are scattered across a country of an equal size. Not to mention the SLBMs which are another platform entirely. And they can do it in a single strike before China can launch a counterstrike. Which is at best an extremely difficult task given that China like every other nuclear state would have assuredly taken precautions against a decapitation strike.
Then there is the so called ABM shield, such systems had never been fully tested and even in controlled environments their performances have been merely adequate at best. While some of them might still perform as expected in a real life situation, they are far from the silver bullet many think of them to be.
As for diversifying and improving the delivery systems, that is what China is doing exactly right now. But as for increasing the destructive yield of the warheads that is somewhat unlikely, nuclear weapons have to obey the laws of physics so there is a set amount of energy that one can get from a warhead that has to be small enough to fit on a missile. It is not a matter of simply increasing or decreasing the amount of Pu239.
Russia actually is circumventing START rather that just adhering to it, that is because they currently do not have the conventional might to content with the US, yet at the same time they do not want the US to leave START and redeploy much of its own nuclear arsenal because that will deny Russia its only wild card on the table. So they are doing things like the Iskandar SRBMs or the supposed Kinzhal. Russia still have around 6000 warheads, they are not interested in following START to the very letter, but they don't want the US from doing the same.

 

[Anlsvrthng]

Thing is your entire argument can be summed up in a single word found in one of your sentence : "IF"
If is a very fickle thing to put faith on, it assumes that the US can successfully destroy the majority of the estimated 500 warheads that China has, which are scattered across a country of an equal size. Not to mention the SLBMs which are another platform entirely. And they can do it in a single strike before China can launch a counterstrike. Which is at best an extremely difficult task given that China like every other nuclear state would have assuredly taken precautions against a decapitation strike.

Yes, it is game theory . And the whole life is about IF and chances and game theory.
And all question that you asked is hard to answer, but based on the behaviour of Chian she managed to overcome the missile shield , and first strike issues with tunnels, improved warheads and delivery vehicles.

But as for increasing the destructive yield of the warheads that is somewhat unlikely, nuclear weapons have to obey the laws of physics so there is a set amount of energy that one can get from a warhead that has to be small enough to fit on a missile. It is not a matter of simply increasing or decreasing the amount of Pu239.

China made many implosion testing equipment in the past decade, it showing that they making improvements on the warheads.

As the warhead get better they need less Pu239 for the ignition, and getting more yield from the same mass.

 

[Anlsvrthng]

Thing is your entire argument can be summed up in a single word found in one of your sentence : "IF"
If is a very fickle thing to put faith on, it assumes that the US can successfully destroy the majority of the estimated 500 warheads that China has, which are scattered across a country of an equal size. Not to mention the SLBMs which are another platform entirely. .

As I started to think about that it has other reading.

China nuclear arsenal has been designed in the 80s with the next parameters:

1. no ABM shield
2. Given precision of ICBM warheads for first strike

Changes:
ABM interceptors by USA
Burst height compensation super fuse.

Due to those China has to react, and the size of reaction depend on the effectiveness of above, but from a military planner standpoint the low current effectiveness can be improved in the future, means they have to plan with a capable system in they mind.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Deleted member 13312]

China made many implosion testing equipment in the past decade, it showing that they making improvements on the warheads.

I don't know where you get that from but China has not conducted a nuclear test since 1996.

 

[Hyperwarp]

I don't know where you get that from but China has not conducted a nuclear test since 1996.

Maybe he is referring to simulations. I wagely remember some article stating China carries out 5x more simulated nuke test than the US each year.

 

[Deleted member 13312]

Maybe he is referring to simulations. I wagely remember some article stating China carries out 5x more simulated nuke test than the US each year.

Stimulated tests are just that, stimulated. Even the most advanced computer systems in existence cannot take into account things that have not been programmed into them. That is why I am usually skeptical of people claiming breakthroughs by just relying on stimulations, and with good reasons.