China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread


Bob Smith

New Member
Registered Member
This is exactly the reason why it bankrupted the former USSR. They spent too much resources on nukes and outspent US on resources. In the end, not even a single one was used except for testing and worse it resulted into the breakup of the Soviet Union.

Maintaining thusands of nukes is expensive. And there is no return of investment. Other that if somebody use them to harass other countries.

Which one is more practical, build 1000 nukes or lift 10 million people out of poverty?

I think current deterent system in China, is more than enough for rogue politicians to think more than twice to launch a nuclear attack against China.

It would be much more better to build more naval warships, precise missiles against surface ships, anti ballistic missile capabilities and enhanced anti submarine capabilities.
Why does Russia currently maintain 6,400 nukes with an economy 1/10 of China's if it's so expensive?
 

bajingan

Junior Member
This is exactly the reason why it bankrupted the former USSR. They spent too much resources on nukes and outspent US on resources. In the end, not even a single one was used except for testing and worse it resulted into the breakup of the Soviet Union.

Maintaining thusands of nukes is expensive. And there is no return of investment. Other that if somebody use them to harass other countries.

Which one is more practical, build 1000 nukes or lift 10 million people out of poverty?

I think current deterent system in China, is more than enough for rogue politicians to think more than twice to launch a nuclear attack against China.

It would be much more better to build more naval warships, precise missiles against surface ships, anti ballistic missile capabilities and enhanced anti submarine capabilities.
You should not underestimate the strategic advantages of having a lot of nukes

Take russia military presence in syria which is dwarfed and surrounded by far larger us forces, which such a minimal forces russia has ensured the survival of assad regime while the us while having far superior forces are unable to do anything to prevent russia from bombing the rebels into submission, while in fact a single sortie from carl vinson will wipe out 30 odd russian fighter jets at khmeimim air base

In any conventional conflict in middle east the us is guaranteed victory but russia massive nuclear forces has prevented the us from making that miscalculations

Now if it was China bases in syria instead of russia, will the us deterred? I don't think so

Having nuclear parity means you can achieve limited military objectives away from your border with minimal forces free from any interventions from superior hostile forces
 
Last edited:

SimaQian

New Member
Registered Member
Why does Russia currently maintain 6,400 nukes with an economy 1/10 of China's if it's so expensive?
Because after the fall of Soviet Union, NATO was not disbanded. The threat is still there and is increasing. And look what NATO did after USSR collapsed. They put nukes in Turkey, in Germany and who knows where else. They undermine Russia's capability for first strike or second strike by putting ABM systems near Russian borders. And as we can see below, Russia was forced to reduced nuke stockpile because it is just too much to maintain both in money and security. Russia still feel the existential threat because NATO threat was not decreased, it even increased. The balance of power was not there anymore. That is why Putin would say "disbanding USSR was the greatest geopolitical mistake in history".

When nations faced existential threat, they will go in such length to protect themselves. Take for example, North Korea.
They even prepared to eat grass just to make a nuke weapon. Or Pakistan in creating their nuke in the 90's. Or even China in the 60's.
There is not much food to need back then, but the early communist leaders, they prioritize security over food.


russia_nukes.png
 

Bob Smith

New Member
Registered Member
Because after the fall of Soviet Union, NATO was not disbanded. The threat is still there and is increasing. And look what NATO did after USSR collapsed. They put nukes in Turkey, in Germany and who knows where else. They undermine Russia's capability for first strike or second strike by putting ABM systems near Russian borders. And as we can see below, Russia was forced to reduced nuke stockpile because it is just too much to maintain both in money and security. Russia still feel the existential threat because NATO threat was not decreased, it even increased. The balance of power was not there anymore. That is why Putin would say "disbanding USSR was the greatest geopolitical mistake in history".

When nations faced existential threat, they will go in such length to protect themselves. Take for example, North Korea.
They even prepared to eat grass just to make a nuke weapon. Or Pakistan in creating their nuke in the 90's. Or even China in the 60's.
There is not much food to need back then, but the early communist leaders, they prioritize security over food.


View attachment 61803
Why do you argue against China increasing its nuke count when it faces a greater threat today than Russia does from NATO? It's a more credible deterrent and much cheaper than the multiple aircraft carriers China intends to build and maintain.
 

SimaQian

New Member
Registered Member
Because every warmonger knows, when nukes are used, nobody wins. In fact after 1945, no nations use it against anybody, because it will be the end for both sides. Where as all wars after 1945, is based on more modern conventional war.

Im not against China in increasing more nukes, Im expressing where it could make more use of its resources.
 

bajingan

Junior Member
Because every warmonger knows, when nukes are used, nobody wins. In fact after 1945, no nations use it against anybody, because it will be the end for both sides. Where as all wars after 1945, is based on more modern conventional war.

Im not against China in increasing more nukes, Im expressing where it could make more use of its resources.
I would respectfully disagree, the us and russia now is developing low yield nukes to be used in battlefield and fielded into submarines Low-yield nuclear weapons might allow a leader to exert influence in situations where the nation is unable to deploy significant conventional forces or is unwilling to commit the country’s strategic deterrent

So even the us sees the strategic value of developing new generation nukes, now that the new cold war is in full swing the us will use whatever in its disposal to threaten and to coerce China and that including nukes thats why the us is reluctant to extend start treaty and making unreasonable demands for China to be included in arms control

I am not saying that China should go full on and makes 6k nukes but China is not soviet union and can easily afford to develop and maintain 1000 nukes. More cost effective than to maintain 3 carrier battle groups i would say
 

SimaQian

New Member
Registered Member
I am not saying that China should go full on and makes 6k nukes but China is not soviet union and can easily afford to develop and maintain 1000 nukes. More cost effective than to maintain 3 carrier battle groups i would say
Yes it is certainly affordable and doable for China to make and maintain 1000 nukes.

But one of the major goals of Chinese government now is to unite Taiwan.
And it is still very a distant prospect and outsiders are ready and eager to stir trouble into this domestic problem.
China had nukes since 1960's, yet Taiwan was not threatened by them. It didnt have any effect on Taiwan authorities .

If really war will break out between China and Taiwan, what will China get if it nuke Taiwan?
Nothing just radiation fallout and zero value of real state.
What China needs are boats to cross the island - its easy to see the value of war boats.

Its very clear, having nukes or more of it have zero return of investment. That is probably why the China under President Xi focuses in naval modernization.

So better spend resources with with good return of investment.
 

Figaro

Junior Member
Registered Member
Yes it is certainly affordable and doable for China to make and maintain 1000 nukes.

But one of the major goals of Chinese government now is to unite Taiwan.
And it is still very a distant prospect and outsiders are ready and eager to stir trouble into this domestic problem.
China had nukes since 1960's, yet Taiwan was not threatened by them. It didnt have any effect on Taiwan authorities .

If really war will break out between China and Taiwan, what will China get if it nuke Taiwan?
Nothing just radiation fallout and zero value of real state.
What China needs are boats to cross the island - its easy to see the value of war boats.

Its very clear, having nukes or more of it have zero return of investment. That is probably why the China under President Xi focuses in naval modernization.

So better spend resources with with good return of investment.
So you just assume that China has nukes for the sole purpose of intimidating Taiwan? The whole reason China developed nukes is the same as any other nuclear power : to not be threatened by a nuclear power. Chinese nuclear weapons are not aimed at Taiwan at all, they're obviously geared towards the United States. That is why China would make enough nuclear weapons and modernize their delivery systems/warheads so that they can guarantee a second strike against any other nuclear power.
 

Nobonita Barua

Junior Member
Registered Member
I would respectfully disagree, the us and russia now is developing low yield nukes to be used in battlefield and fielded into submarines Low-yield nuclear weapons might allow a leader to exert influence in situations where the nation is unable to deploy significant conventional forces or is unwilling to commit the country’s strategic deterrent

So even the us sees the strategic value of developing new generation nukes, now that the new cold war is in full swing the us will use whatever in its disposal to threaten and to coerce China and that including nukes thats why the us is reluctant to extend start treaty and making unreasonable demands for China to be included in arms control

I am not saying that China should go full on and makes 6k nukes but China is not soviet union and can easily afford to develop and maintain 1000 nukes. More cost effective than to maintain 3 carrier battle groups i would say
I have a question. Both US & USSR had nukes way before China did. Both could use it on China. But they didn't.
So why should China now increase it's nuclear arsenal targeting them? specially US?
 

BMEWS

Junior Member
Registered Member
I have a question. Both US & USSR had nukes way before China did. Both could use it on China. But they didn't.
So why should China now increase it's nuclear arsenal targeting them? specially US?
They both almost did in fact use it on China...
USSR wanted to use nukes for the border dispute
McArcther wanted to nuke China to win Korean war

I mean of course the US has 6000+ nukes at least, China probably only 300 to 900 (upper bound if they are hiding numbers or nukes in tunnels) and the DF-41 rumored to only use one to three warhead each, the 10+ mirv is mostly decoys... if the calculus changes and the CCP realizes the US is going to win and there is no way that long term China can ever get ahead anymore, then why woudln't it use the ultimate equalizer (if it were effective) and send both countries back to stone age, if China has a lot of hardened underground tunnel, a seed vault (of varitey of Chinese DNA to start over with) and blueprints to rebuilt from zero etc then long term as in 1000 years to 5000 years China might very well come out on top again if it can rebuilt faster than US even if it got nuked much harder...
 

Top