China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread

Discussion in 'Strategic Defense' started by peace_lover, Nov 4, 2005.

  1. gelgoog
    Offline

    gelgoog Senior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2017
    Messages:
    1,230
    Likes Received:
    1,343
    It is important to the degree that it might make the USA develop a symmetrical response to systems like the DF-26 in the Pacific Ocean.
     
  2. Viktor Jav
    Offline

    Viktor Jav Senior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2017
    Messages:
    1,036
    Likes Received:
    731
    Depends what angle you look it from, from a China to Russia perspective the balance of power in Asia would receive a significant lurch when Russia starts to redeploy it's land based cruise missiles and IRBMs. In the past China was the only nation that deploys this kind of weapons. It is pretty much an open secret that Russia resents the INF because it denies it a powerful tool in the balance of power in the area. As a form of asymmetrical warfare, ground base cruise missiles can conduct deep strikes at a very low cost while using Russia's vast geography to elude detection and destruction.
    From a China to US perspective, nothing really would have change. Even if the US deploys ground based cruise missiles in the Pacific there is very little place where it can deploy them effectively. Any small island can potentially be overwhelm in a counter missile barrage, whereas islands like Guam or Okinawa while defensible, limits the direction of where the missile can engage.
     
  3. nicky
    Offline

    nicky Junior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2013
    Messages:
    324
    Likes Received:
    449
    inf treaty aborted deployment of advanced version of ss-20 with extended range and multiple warheads less than 500 miles from alaska
     
    KIENCHIN likes this.
  4. Klon
    Offline

    Klon Junior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2017
    Messages:
    556
    Likes Received:
    942
    From about two months ago.
     
    bluewater2012 and N00813 like this.
  5. Broccoli
    Offline

    Broccoli Junior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2012
    Messages:
    868
    Likes Received:
    542
    Original DF-31 didn't have payload shroud only a huge RV (US estimation 470-500kg in weight) on top the missile while DF-31A has a shroud what suggests that payload inside is much lighter... perhaps 1x90kt warhead + penaids.To me it seems that DF-31A is only an place holder before they get DF-41 in service, something they can use for deterrence before better missiles are ready.

    Indian Agni V is probably best comparison vs DF-31.
     
    #2685 Broccoli, Nov 2, 2018
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2018
  6. gelgoog
    Offline

    gelgoog Senior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2017
    Messages:
    1,230
    Likes Received:
    1,343
    Nuclear armed Tomahawk missiles could be launched from any ship with an Mk-41 VLS system or even a submarine. But if all they wanted was to use naval Tomahawks they would not need to break the INF Treaty. It does make sense to me in the following perspective: in the past when the Saudis needed ballistic missiles the CIA arranged for them to buy Chinese missiles because the USA had no IRBM to sell them. The USA might be interested in arming the Saudis and other nations with IRBMs to counter other nations with major IRBM composition in their arsenal i.e. Iran, North Korea, perhaps also Pakistan, India, and China. Imagine that in addition to selling these to the Saudis they started selling or lending them to the Japanese, South Koreans, Taiwanese, Ukraine, or Vietnam.
     
  7. Viktor Jav
    Offline

    Viktor Jav Senior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2017
    Messages:
    1,036
    Likes Received:
    731
    There is nothing in the INF that forbids the signatories from selling cruise missile technologies to other states, only that they cannot use certain missiles. That one that does is the MTCR, and both Russia and the US have not pull out of that treaty yet. At least know which kind of international treaty you are referring to here. Moreover that the idea that the US would sell cruise missile tech to China's neighbors is a rather irrelevant factor, Vietnam, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan all have cruise missiles in one form or another.
    The US has IRBM in the past like the Pershing, so it is not like they are completely lacking in that department.
     
  8. gelgoog
    Offline

    gelgoog Senior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2017
    Messages:
    1,230
    Likes Received:
    1,343
    The Pershing has gone out of use a long time ago. You would need to develop a new missile if the USA wanted an IRBM right now. They certainly have the technological base for it. Just look at the solid rocket booster engines used in the Atlas V space launcher for example. Still it would take years to develop a new rocket. But the Trident II is still available and that could be used on ground platforms if they wanted a portable ballistic missile quick.
     
    N00813 and antiterror13 like this.
  9. Hyperwarp
    Offline

    Hyperwarp Captain

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2007
    Messages:
    2,592
    Likes Received:
    4,738
  10. Hendrik_2000
    Offline

    Hendrik_2000 Brigadier

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2006
    Messages:
    7,698
    Likes Received:
    26,763
    Now what is this monster
    [​IMG]
     
    #2690 Hendrik_2000, Nov 9, 2018
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2018
Loading...

Share This Page