China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread

[gelgoog]

A lot of that equipment is not required. Mi-26, Mi-26 are replaced in practice with Ka-52 which is mostly equivalent to the Z-10. The Tu-95 would be replaced by the H-20 when that becomes available. The MiG-35 would be replaced the the FC-31 when that becomes available. The T-14 is the one exception but PLA doesn't seem to be investing that much on the ground forces. Plus none of that is nuclear related.

I think it gets ridiculous when you look at the number claimed by FAS which hasn't changed in decades and compare that with the amount of launchers for ICBMs and SLBMs alone. Even if they only had one missile per launcher (which they won't) and one warhead per missile (which they won't) it easily surpasses than 300 number. 6x Type 094 with 12x JL-2 launchers is 72 missiles. That's not counting the amount of DF-41, DF-31 missiles, or even the IRBMs which should have some nuclear warheads like DF-21 and DF-26. Notice I don't even bother with missiles like the DF-4 which I consider obsolete. Quite likely each ICBM or SLBM will have 6-8 warheads.

The fact is China had a limited nuclear arsenal to keep the costs down. But with modern technologies not only is enriching U235 orders of magnitude cheaper with gas centrifuges, so is Pu239 as a result of that. China has much more compact state of the art solid rocket missiles which are stable for decades. So it makes no sense to keep the arsenal confined to previous numbers especially with new threats like the improved SM6 Block IIA. At a bare minimum they would use multiple warheads in existing missiles to increase the damage even if some of the missiles get intercepted. Another fact is that the prior range of the DF-4 missile in the 1980s limited the amount of viable targets in the USA the Chinese could hit. Now with modern missiles they have a much greater range which opens up a whole load of new targets which can be hit. So an increase of the number of missiles and warheads is, I think, inevitable.

Also, what some ignore, is that modern nukes are typically smaller and use MIRVs to spread out the damage to achieve the same effect, like blowing up with a city. That means each warhead requires less nuclear material and it is highly likely the older larger warheads are being recycled into (more) smaller new warheads.

 

[vincent]

For anyone who advocates China to keep a tiny arsenal (200 warheads), please answer two simple questions: how many of them will survive a surprise first strike, and of those that survive, how many will actually hit the US in a retaliatory strike considering interceptions by missile defences, duds, misfires, CEP problems, etc?

 

[quantumlight]

For anyone who advocates China to keep a tiny arsenal (200 warheads), please answer two simple questions: how many of them will survive a surprise first strike, and of those that survive, how many will actually hit the US in a retaliatory strike considering interceptions by missile defences, duds, misfires, CEP problems, etc?

Only two would make it threw... this is why I advocate China get to 1000 and build up to 10000... that ways in above situation she can counterstrike 10 and 100 US cities, respectively

 

[totenchan]

For anyone who advocates China to keep a tiny arsenal (200 warheads), please answer two simple questions: how many of them will survive a surprise first strike, and of those that survive, how many will actually hit the US in a retaliatory strike considering interceptions by missile defences, duds, misfires, CEP problems, etc?

The premise of this question seems odd, as I think the restricting factor in hitting the US is the number of ICBMs China has, as opposed to the number of warheads. But I'll try answering.
Most of China's mobile ICBM forces will likely survive, nobody currently has the ability to track that many TELs moving around, especially when they move underground a lot of the time. If a TEL gets caught in the open, it could be possible to destroy is with a barrage of nuclear missiles, but this assumes that the pre-launch time of the Chinese ICBM forces is very long, which is probably incorrect. This is disregarding the siloed DF-5s, which would get destroyed in a first strike, unless they've moved to launch on warning, which is possible, but risky. Also disregarding sub launched stuff, as as far as I know, deterrence patrols with nuke armed subs hasn't happened yet.
As for how many will hit the US in a retaliatory strike, as I mentioned before, there's no point in discussing missile defense when no American system has been tested against missiles with sophisticated countermeasures. However, we don't actually know how effective these defenses are, but worst case scenario, lets say out of 80 missiles, half gets intercepted. As for duds and failures, lets say another half fails to launch. In this case, nuclear armed missiles will hit the continental US. That, alone, is enough to cripple the US economy, and make sure it is never relevant again. It will also kill maybe 20 percent of the US population, taking into account larger yields and increased urbanization since the Cold War. My question to you is: Do you think the US government would risk even a couple warheads landing on the US? If, for example, New York is destroyed - which is almost guaranteed- do you think that is acceptable?

 

[Nobonita Barua]

However, we don't actually know how effective these defenses are

They are not very effective against houthi missiles, that's for sure. What I am not sure is what kind of super advanced countermeasures houthis have.

I have been advocate of China increasing its arsenal substantially. I don't agree that investment in nuclear arsenal is waste if a country can afford it without straining economy. It's more like security money.
However I don't advocate this because of Americans having some utopian moon based star ship defence system. I do it because overwhelming show of strength, specially regarding nuclear arsenal , makes it a lot easier to get words through trouble maker's skull. To deter Americans you don't need thousand nukes. 100 is enough. 200 is overkill.
It is required to secure present & future interest without needing to go into a conflict to begin with.

 

[vincent]

The premise of this question seems odd, as I think the restricting factor in hitting the US is the number of ICBMs China has, as opposed to the number of warheads. But I'll try answering.

ICBM's are MIRV

Most of China's mobile ICBM forces will likely survive, nobody currently has the ability to track that many TELs moving around, especially when they move underground a lot of the time.

TELs have storage areas and staging areas, underground tunnels have openings. All of which can be nuked.
The premise of the question is surprise first strike.

My question to you is: Do you think the US government would risk even a couple warheads landing on the US? If, for example, New York is destroyed - which is almost guaranteed- do you think that is acceptable?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Yes, the U.S. has botched its response to Covid-19. At the same time, its experience shows that America as a nation can in fact tolerate casualties, too many in fact. It had long been standard Chinese doctrine that Americans are “soft” and unwilling to take on much risk. If you were a Chinese war game planner, might you now reconsider that assumption?

 

[totenchan]

ICBM's are MIRV



TELs have storage areas and staging areas, underground tunnels have openings. All of which can be nuked.
The premise of the question is surprise first strike.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Yes, the U.S. has botched its response to Covid-19. At the same time, its experience shows that America as a nation can in fact tolerate casualties, too many in fact. It had long been standard Chinese doctrine that Americans are “soft” and unwilling to take on much risk. If you were a Chinese war game planner, might you now reconsider that assumption?

Latest Chinese mobile ICBMs can carry an estimated three MIRVs. It would be foolish to fill each of those with a warhead, more likely each missile has one warhead and the other vehicles are decoys.

TELs have storage areas, but if a nuclear attack is likely, they would be dispersed and mobile. That is how TELs are supposed to be used. Staging areas make pre-launch times faster, but are unlikely to be required to launch, Chinese sources make this very clear. Underground tunnel openings are easily hidden, see US difficulties with underground systems in Iraq, where they had complete air superiority. It is also very easy to make fake tunnel openings.

The very premise of the Bloomberg piece is a joke. Please. Don't cite garbage.

 

[vincent]

Latest Chinese mobile ICBMs can carry an estimated three MIRVs. It would be foolish to fill each of those with a warhead, more likely each missile has one warhead and the other vehicles are decoys.

Watch this video, start at 17:00

10 warheads in the animation. Decoys can be balloons which doesn't take up much space.

TELs have storage areas, but if a nuclear attack is likely, they would be dispersed and mobile. That is how TELs are supposed to be used. Staging areas make pre-launch times faster, but are unlikely to be required to launch, Chinese sources make this very clear. Underground tunnel openings are easily hidden, see US difficulties with underground systems in Iraq, where they had complete air superiority. It is also very easy to make fake tunnel openings.

The premis is SURPRISE first strike, probably by Ohio SSBN parked outside of Chinese waters and intermediate range ballistic/cruise missiles stationed in Korea and Japan. Command and Control will be hit as well. US has thousands of nukes, they can afford to nuke any suspected tunnels.

The very premise of the Bloomberg piece is a joke. Please. Don't cite garbage.

Chinese leaders would be very foolish to assume the Hegemon will not go all out to maintain its hegemony. China's survival is at stake. If China's nuke arsenal is taken out, the Hegemon can dictate terms. Any objections will be answered with more nukes.

 

[totenchan]

Watch this video, start at 17:00

10 warheads in the animation. Decoys can be balloons which doesn't take up much space.



The premis is SURPRISE first strike, probably by Ohio SSBN parked outside of Chinese waters and intermediate range ballistic/cruise missiles stationed in Korea and Japan. Command and Control will be hit as well. US has thousands of nukes, they can afford to nuke any suspected tunnels.



Chinese leaders would be very foolish to assume the Hegemon will not go all out to maintain its hegemony. China's survival is at stake. If China's nuke arsenal is taken out, the Hegemon can dictate terms. Any objections will be answered with more nukes.

1. 10 is in the animation but basic measurements make it extremely obvious that ten is completely unrealistic, at least for the DF-41. The measurements for the DF-5 could probably fit that many. Decoy balloons are inferior to decoy reentry vehicles, and are easier to discriminate. That said, why can it only be one or the other? Why not both?

2. If it's a surprise first strike with only SLBM? That's not nearly enough for counter-value. Intermediate range ballistic missiles in Korea and Japan? THE USA DOES NOT HAVE ANY. Cruise missiles? How close do you think Japan and Korea are? Do the math. You think you're gonna ensure counter-value with Tomahawks? This isn't even taking into consideration that the US does not station nukes in either Korea or Japan. The US may have thousands of nukes, but they do not in fact have perfect intelligence. If you assume that the US can nuke every single tunnel with no failures and perfect accuracy, no number of extra warheads saves China.

3. Do you think the fucking "hegemon" stays a "hegemon" without an economy? It takes ten nukes to take out a third of the US's economic potential, likely for good. If China is nuked, the US will never be relevant ever again, even if it doesn't expand it's stockpile to stupid numbers. Do you want China to arms race with the US? Do you think it's a good thing that the US's defense budget is swollen and drains the entire national budget? Do you think spending all of China's treasury on pursing pointless nukes is smart? China can become a great country where people are happy, things are convenient, and people feel safe. If China spends so much money and human capital trying to arms race with the US, being any of these things becomes extremely difficult. Let the Russians and Americans play with their nuclear toys. China can avoid the pitfalls they've fallen into.

 

[Temstar]

Here's an interesting piece:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

This bit I find pretty interesting:

“In the past, I’ve said that in 2019 China launched 225 ballistic missiles. That is a huge number, more than the rest of the world combined,” said Mr. Billingslea, the arms envoy. “The same was true in 2018,” he said. “As of October of this year, even with COVID-19, China has shot off 180 ballistic missiles.”

My understanding is DF-11 and DF-15 are approaching end of life and PLARF is letting them loose in exercises like fireworks to use up the stockpile. This yearly number should also give you some idea on the minimum numbers of new missiles being added to PLARF stockpile.