escobar
Brigadier
It says "HQ-26 appears to be intended to have a capability similar to the Raytheon-built SM-3". So the missile could not be HQ-26.
China tests midcourse interceptor
- Thread starter SinoSoldier
- Start date
It says "HQ-26 appears to be intended to have a capability similar to the Raytheon-built SM-3". So the missile could not be HQ-26.
No chance in hell would China sit on its ass and see a Russian or American neclear strike coming in and not launch something to drag the striker to hell together! Now would that be significant enough for your taste?
India? You think too high of that chaotic semi-feudal republic to see it from China's point of view...
But that's just my and many Chinese military fans' opinion. According to some Chinese analysts: The "Not against any country" statement from the MOD of PRC just means "it''s for all countries" that have been flexing their long range missile muscles around China these days (North Korea, India, South Korea, etc.)
Last edited:
In the end, I do believe that such kind of a-missile-for-a-missile shield is only effective against weak neighbors. To truly discourage someone like Russia or the USA from using nuclear strike on you, you'll pretty much have to have as strong a strike power as they do. That's how balance can be maintained and peace sustained.
So attemptting to stop a nuclear strike from Russia or America with missile-based missile shields would indeed have no chance in hell. But scuh strike can be, and indeed have been, stopped, by the possiblility of a counter nuclear strike.
So attemptting to stop a nuclear strike from Russia or America with missile-based missile shields would indeed have no chance in hell. But scuh strike can be, and indeed have been, stopped, by the possiblility of a counter nuclear strike.
Last edited:
Geographer
Junior Member
Why is there such a pronounced spiral effect in the videos escobar posted?
China already has nuclear parity with the US/Russia, but if she admits it, she would be voluntry herself into the nuclear dis-armament talks, which goes against pretty much everything Sun Tzu said in his epic book. Best keep strategic weapons quantity ambiguous, PRIMARILY because you don't want to get sucked into disarmament talks.
AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
Unless China is hiding large numbers of nukes China doesn't have to be a part of reduction talks because Great Britain and France have just as many. Which says a lot that they're npt even mentioned meaning China should never entertain the thought. Think of it as using their tactic during climate talks. The US won't be involved in any treaty if it doesn't include China and India.
Mysterre
Banned Idiot
I always knew Fisher was a little dense and a lot biased, but this one takes the cake. He's basically saying China is wasting its money on a medium range interceptor because India's entire nuclear arsenal does not need to be defended against. If China can get its theater BMD system working, it would mostly nullify India's nuclear deterrant vis a vis China, but somehow it's a "practically non-existent threat". Srsly?