PLA ICBM Force in 2016

kroko

Senior Member
Re: China's Nuclear Strike Force

I believe that you are incredibly naive. However, there is nothing that I can do to elevate your level of understanding. The relationships between nations, in both economic and military terms, are complex.

In your response of "I don't get it," you have refuted the maxims of "use them (e.g. thermonuclear weapons) or lose them," "mutually assured destruction," and "nationalism/primacy of my country." There have been endless books written by scholars, military generals, and think-tanks on these subjects.

If you believe that I am in error, I suggest you offer a plausible explanation as to why China has not been in a rush to build a massive ICBM force during the last 44 years. China has possessed the technologies, finances, and manufacturing capability to build as many thermonuclear warheads as she desires.


Whoa martian, your a true forum warrior, lol

But im with ironsightsniper on this. Your theory of china nuking russia is pure fantasy ("wargames" is just a movie you know, not reality), specially if the USA only targets (and destroys) chinas nuclear forces instead of its cities. Then it would wiser for china to not escalate the nuclear confrontation anymore and live for another day. And much of your boasting of china´s nuclear capabilities are wild guesses, not fact, based on souces like kanwa and others.
 

Red___Sword

Junior Member
I assume Martian's explanation has convinced most of the readers by far.

So even there is a "borrowed" MAD capability, China do not HASTE to "close the gap" as soon as possible, while waited so many years that, even today, many of the members in this forum do not believe there is anything "credible enough" for China's own MAD capability. Why?

Allow me to drop this bomb -

Because Deng Xiong Ping has (successfully) predicted the outcome of "China not going for the ICBM built up race".

If Deng CAN NOT predict Sovit's fall, before its fall, he is not deserve to be Deng. Deng may not know the exact time of soviets fall, but he is well aware of the INCOMING end of cold war.

By take the "end of cold war" for granted, superpower of the world is going to be VERY BUSY to collect the "war trophy" - the economically collapsed WHOLE SOCIALISM WORLD (not only soviets) - for a while.

That "a while", is the time China buys for. That "a while", is the while when China do not building up ICBM in a number matchable to USA, but to build up the economy preventing China to vanishing togather with Soviets, WHEN THE TIME COMES.(the end of cold war)

You, as any member of this forum, can call this MINDSET a gamble, but I know too well that the birth of USA, or the birth of constitutional UK, or the birth of Republic France... is also starting from a caculated risk - which any one else would call it a gamble.

I don't know people from all the corners of the world that being the member of this forum - whether you talking of your own founding fathers with proud? that whether you acknowledge their strive of building your very own future, as a strive against all odds? that whether - whatever way (the method) of their strive was, they successfully leave you a bright future?

That I do. That I do consider for the past few decades of simply "not building a creadiable MAD capability", suits China well.
 

s002wjh

Junior Member
Re: China's Nuclear Strike Force

Whoa martian, your a true forum warrior, lol

But im with ironsightsniper on this. Your theory of china nuking russia is pure fantasy ("wargames" is just a movie you know, not reality), specially if the USA only targets (and destroys) chinas nuclear forces instead of its cities. Then it would wiser for china to not escalate the nuclear confrontation anymore and live for another day. And much of your boasting of china´s nuclear capabilities are wild guesses, not fact, based on souces like kanwa and others.

How would you know its targeting nuclear force instead cities. when someone lunch mulitiple nuke at you, no one will just sit around and wait. there is a reason its call MAD. I think i read somewhere the case Martian mention. it did actually consider it by US/soviet forces during cold war. during cold war if soviet detect US nuke, it consider to lunch all its nuke at US/china/europe.
 

Martian

Senior Member
U.S. "urban-industrial" strike option on 300 Russian cities

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


"The Doomsday Dilemma
By John Barry and Evan Thomas | NEWSWEEK
Published Apr 3, 2010
From the magazine issue dated Apr 12, 2010

This Spring, Barack Obama will push toward his goal of a nuclear-free world. But the stiffest resistance may be at home.

For many years, America's master plan for nuclear war with the Soviet Union was called the SIOP—the Single Integrated Operational Plan. Beginning in 1962, the U.S. president was given some options to mull in the few minutes he had to decide before Soviet missiles bore down on Washington. He could, for instance, choose to spare the Soviet satellites, the Warsaw Pact countries in Eastern Europe. Or he could opt for, say, the "urban-industrial" strike option1,500 or so warheads dropped on 300 Russian cities. After a briefing on the SIOP on Sept. 14, 1962, President John F. Kennedy turned to his secretary of state, Dean Rusk, and remarked, "And they call us human beings."

Ever since the dawn of the atomic age at Hiroshima in August 1945, American presidents have been trying to figure out how to climb off the nuclear treadmill. The urgency may have faded in the post–Cold War era, but the weapons are still there. By 2002, President George W. Bush was signing off on a document containing his administration's Nuclear Posture Review, an -analysis of how America's nuclear arms might be used. Bush scribbled on the cover, "But why do we still have to have so many?" According to a knowledgeable source who would not be identified discussing sensitive national-security matters, President Obama wasn't briefed on the U.S. nuclear-strike plan against Russia and China until some months after he had taken office. "He thought it was insane," says the source. (The reason for the delay is unclear; the White House did not respond to repeated inquiries.)

During his presidential campaign, Obama embraced a dream first articulated by President Reagan: the abolition of nuclear weapons. The idea is no longer all that radical. In January 2007, an op-ed piece calling for a nuclear-weapons-free world appeared in The Wall Street Journal, signed by Reagan's secretary of state George Shultz; Nixon's and Ford's secretary of state, Henry Kissinger; Clinton's secretary of defense Bill Perry; and Sam Nunn, the former chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee and longtime wise man of the defense establishment. "The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse," as they were quickly dubbed, had gotten together to give cover to politicians. "We wanted the candidates of both parties to feel they could debate the issue freely," said Nunn.
...
The prospect of nuclear proliferation is anxiety-inducing for all presidents, especially as terrorists try to get their hands on loose nukes. Obama is convinced that nuclear terrorism now poses a greater threat than the remote possibility of a nuclear war. On April 12 and 13, he will host a Washington summit of more than 40 heads of government with the aim of getting tougher measures to secure the fissile material still lying unprotected around the world. He's set a deadline of four years for truly securing the most dangerous materials. His own advisers suspect he is being overambitious but see the summit as a "consciousness-raising exercise." Every five years, the signers of the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty meet to review progress, and in May they will meet again. The Obama team hopes to use the conference to push his no-nukes agenda, but he will be resisted by countries, like Iran, that resent American power. At the same time, Obama can't cut America's arsenal as much as he might like. Countries long under U.S. nuclear protection, like Japan, may decide they need their own nuclear arms as American power declines in the world. Countries choosing to stay under the nuclear umbrella will want reassurances that they can depend on it."
 
Last edited:

kroko

Senior Member
Re: China's Nuclear Strike Force

How would you know its targeting nuclear force instead cities. when someone lunch mulitiple nuke at you, no one will just sit around and wait. there is a reason its call MAD. I think i read somewhere the case Martian mention. it did actually consider it by US/soviet forces during cold war. during cold war if soviet detect US nuke, it consider to lunch all its nuke at US/china/europe.

China is no USSR, and the cold war is not today (or the near future) Its territory is nowhere near (by far) as well defended as USSR was, in terms of air defences/radars. The USAF and cruise missiles can attack china´s limited nuclear arsenal by surprise, and with few nukes left, beijing wont escalate that game any further (neither will the USA. the USA will never exerce "first option" against china in this conditions). After that, better for china to fight (and lose) conventional than nuclear destruction.

Of course, other reasons (economic, political and military) will prevent this, but in a pure military scenario it could happen

But i think this thread is degenerating into China vs USA. Ill end here (unless quoted again)
 

Martian

Senior Member
Re: China's Nuclear Strike Force

China is no USSR, and the cold war is not today (or the near future) Its territory is nowhere near (by far) as well defended as USSR was, in terms of air defences/radars. The USAF and cruise missiles can attack china´s limited nuclear arsenal by surprise, and with few nukes left, beijing wont escalate that game any further (neither will the USA. the USA will never exerce "first option" against china in this conditions). After that, better for china to fight (and lose) conventional than nuclear destruction.

Of course, other reasons (economic, political and military) will prevent this, but in a pure military scenario it could happen

But i think this thread is degenerating into China vs USA. Ill end here (unless quoted again)

Did you not see this sentence in the Newsweek article?

"President Obama wasn't briefed on the U.S. nuclear-strike plan against Russia and China until some months after he had taken office. "He thought it was insane," says the source."

The bottom line is that the Russians and Chinese are correct that the U.S. is out to get both of them. I will reiterate my view. In an U.S. nuclear strike on China, Russia and China will retaliate in tandem. Hence, it is perfectly rational that China is taking her sweet time to build up her nuclear arsenal. The Chinese can always count on the Russians (at least for another nine years or so) until China amasses 500 thermonuclear warheads for a counter-strike against the United States.
 
Last edited:

obama549

Just Hatched
Registered Member
Im not very sure, if the Russian system uses explosives or collision, does anybody know? I belive it is collision not explosives, any way the defesense missile works sorta like a ICBM, all that is left during impact is the warhead.

I also recall hearing what FriedRice stated--that it uses a nuclear explosion high in the atmosphere to destroy incoming warheads. Whether or not that is true, i am almost certain that the Russians do not have an ABM system using kinetic kill vehicles.
 

s002wjh

Junior Member
I also recall hearing what FriedRice stated--that it uses a nuclear explosion high in the atmosphere to destroy incoming warheads. Whether or not that is true, i am almost certain that the Russians do not have an ABM system using kinetic kill vehicles.

high altitude nuke explosion create alot emag field, not really good if its over russia own territory
 
Re: U.S. "urban-industrial" strike option on 300 Russian cities

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


"The Doomsday Dilemma
By John Barry and Evan Thomas | NEWSWEEK
Published Apr 3, 2010
From the magazine issue dated Apr 12, 2010

This Spring, Barack Obama will push toward his goal of a nuclear-free world. But the stiffest resistance may be at home.

For many years, America's master plan for nuclear war with the Soviet Union was called the SIOP—the Single Integrated Operational Plan. Beginning in 1962, the U.S. president was given some options to mull in the few minutes he had to decide before Soviet missiles bore down on Washington. He could, for instance, choose to spare the Soviet satellites, the Warsaw Pact countries in Eastern Europe. Or he could opt for, say, the "urban-industrial" strike option1,500 or so warheads dropped on 300 Russian cities. After a briefing on the SIOP on Sept. 14, 1962, President John F. Kennedy turned to his secretary of state, Dean Rusk, and remarked, "And they call us human beings."

Ever since the dawn of the atomic age at Hiroshima in August 1945, American presidents have been trying to figure out how to climb off the nuclear treadmill. The urgency may have faded in the post–Cold War era, but the weapons are still there. By 2002, President George W. Bush was signing off on a document containing his administration's Nuclear Posture Review, an -analysis of how America's nuclear arms might be used. Bush scribbled on the cover, "But why do we still have to have so many?" According to a knowledgeable source who would not be identified discussing sensitive national-security matters, President Obama wasn't briefed on the U.S. nuclear-strike plan against Russia and China until some months after he had taken office. "He thought it was insane," says the source. (The reason for the delay is unclear; the White House did not respond to repeated inquiries.)

During his presidential campaign, Obama embraced a dream first articulated by President Reagan: the abolition of nuclear weapons. The idea is no longer all that radical. In January 2007, an op-ed piece calling for a nuclear-weapons-free world appeared in The Wall Street Journal, signed by Reagan's secretary of state George Shultz; Nixon's and Ford's secretary of state, Henry Kissinger; Clinton's secretary of defense Bill Perry; and Sam Nunn, the former chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee and longtime wise man of the defense establishment. "The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse," as they were quickly dubbed, had gotten together to give cover to politicians. "We wanted the candidates of both parties to feel they could debate the issue freely," said Nunn.
...
The prospect of nuclear proliferation is anxiety-inducing for all presidents, especially as terrorists try to get their hands on loose nukes. Obama is convinced that nuclear terrorism now poses a greater threat than the remote possibility of a nuclear war. On April 12 and 13, he will host a Washington summit of more than 40 heads of government with the aim of getting tougher measures to secure the fissile material still lying unprotected around the world. He's set a deadline of four years for truly securing the most dangerous materials. His own advisers suspect he is being overambitious but see the summit as a "consciousness-raising exercise." Every five years, the signers of the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty meet to review progress, and in May they will meet again. The Obama team hopes to use the conference to push his no-nukes agenda, but he will be resisted by countries, like Iran, that resent American power. At the same time, Obama can't cut America's arsenal as much as he might like. Countries long under U.S. nuclear protection, like Japan, may decide they need their own nuclear arms as American power declines in the world. Countries choosing to stay under the nuclear umbrella will want reassurances that they can depend on it."

The US plan illustrates how MAD is properly played in the real world, it is not MAD if it is 'indirect' or not as surefire destruction of the other side as you can make it. The main reasons China has delayed building up it's nuclear missile arsenal are 1) cost, 2) minimal deterrence, and 3) not necessarily her fight so laying as low as possible.

At this point, all 3 of these reasons have been negated. 1) China can afford a bigger/better arsenal, and she needs it because 2) minimal deterrence can only be maintained in today's stealth aircraft, satellite surveillance, EW, PGM, and ABM environment by having a bigger/better arsenal than before. And ofcourse 3) China is now spotlighted even more in everyone's crosshairs because of it's growth, status, and end of the Cold War focus between the USA and USSR.

So it's practically suicidal folly for China to not upgrade its nuclear arsenal at this point.
 

Martian

Senior Member
Russia Views U.S., NATO as Top Threats: Document

PanAsian, all of your points are valid. However, an argument can be made that you're a conservative. There is an equally rational view that Russia is sufficiently dependable to function as a supplement to China's ICBM nuclear deterrent. After all, the Russians have consistently viewed the United States and NATO as their most likely military threats.

The Russian view makes sense, because the entire U.S. military is designed to project military power (e.g. 11 aircraft carrier battle groups, F-22 stealth fighters to penetrate enemy air defenses, etc.). Also, the United States has demonstrated a willingness to bomb many countries, such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan via drone strikes, and now Libya. In sharp contrast, China has not fought a war in over 30 years and has proven herself to be a peaceful nation.

Therefore, it makes sense for China to believe that Russian ICBMs are programmed with American targets. This serves as an effective deterrent to American plans to nuke Russia and China (e.g. see Newsweek article in post #64 above). For the last 30 years, China has unofficially relied on the Russians to deter an American nuclear first strike and the policy has worked well.

While allowing the Russians to happily carry the defense burden, China was able to reallocate her scarce resources to develop her economy. This has led to an unprecedented economic boom of 10% annual growth for 30 years. China merely needs the Russians to willingly carry the nuclear deterrence burden for another nine years. By 2020, China will have become sufficiently wealthy that deploying 500 thermonuclear warheads to deter the United States should create little drag on China's economy.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


"Russia Views U.S., NATO as Top Threats: Document
By ALEXANDER OSIPOVICH, AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE
Published: 13 May 2009 07:19

MOSCOW - Russia views the United States and NATO as major threats to global security and potentially to its own military, according to a sweeping new security document unveiled by the Kremlin on May 13.

The document, outlining Russia's national security strategy through 2020, reflected continuing fears of old Cold War foes
but also said Moscow would pursue a "rational and pragmatic" foreign policy and avoid a new arms race.

The 13-page document was posted on the Kremlin Web site on May 13, one day after being approved by President Dmitry Medvedev and following months of discussion among Russia's top security officials.

"The instability of the existing global and regional architecture, oriented, especially in the Euro-Atlantic region, only toward NATO ... is an increasing threat to the guaranteeing of international security," it said.

The document stressed the "unacceptability" of NATO expansion to include countries bordering Russia, an apparent reference to Ukraine and Georgia, former Soviet republics which have sought to join the alliance.

It also criticized a U.S. plan to deploy elements of a global missile shield in Eastern Europe, which has infuriated Russia.

"The opportunity to uphold global and regional security will substantially narrow if elements of the U.S. worldwide missile defense system are deployed in Europe," the document said.

The security strategy did not name the United States in a list of direct military threats to Russia, but the list left little doubt that Moscow's generals were preoccupied with U.S. military might.

"The threats to military security are: the policies of an array of leading foreign countries aimed at achieving overwhelming supremacy in the military sphere, above all in strategic nuclear forces," the document said.

It also described "the unilateral formation of global missile defense" as a military threat, in an apparent reference to the U.S. missile shield.

Washington denies that its plan to deploy anti-missile facilities in Poland and the Czech Republic are directed against Russia, insisting that they are meant to protect against "rogue states" like Iran.

The new security strategy said Moscow would seek "the most cost-effective level for retaining parity with the United States in the field of strategic attack weapons."

At the same time, Moscow will seek to avoid a Cold War-style arms race, the document said.

"Russia ... will pursue a rational and pragmatic foreign policy, refraining from costly confrontation, including a new arms race," it said.

Relations between Moscow and Washington were deeply strained last year amid bitter disputes over the Russia-Georgia war and U.S. missile defense, but ties have warmed somewhat since the inauguration of President Barack Obama.

The wide-ranging document also listed terrorism and nuclear proliferation as potential dangers to Russia, as well as a range of non-military threats like AIDS, alcoholism and the impact of the global economic crisis.

It called for raising Russians' standard of living and diversifying the country's economy away from oil and gas.

"The preservation of a natural resources-export model of development" was one of the "main strategic risks and threats to national security in the economic sphere," the document said.

The criticisms of NATO and the United States in the new strategy are largely a rehash of Moscow's previous positions, said Fyodor Lukyanov, editor of the journal Russia in Global Affairs.

But the emphasis on economic factors reflects a shift in thinking from the traditional military-dominated approach, he told AFP.

"In my view, this is a significant shift toward a more modern understanding of national security - the awareness that socio-economic factors in society can have no less an effect than external factors," Lukyanov said."
 
Last edited:
Top