China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

totenchan

New Member
Registered Member
Sardaukar20 said:
Why is 10 MIRV on the DF-41 not realistic? Do you know the dimensions of each MIRV? The Trident II missile could fit up to 14 x W76 warheads each. And that is a relatively smaller missile than the DF-41.

Decoy balloons are designed to mimic nuclear warheads in space. In the mid-course phase, which is in space, these balloons travel at the same speed as the other warheads. So to the radars and thermal detectors on the ground or in space, this complicates the targeting procedure. They would have to calculate the trajectory of the warheads during this slim window of the mid course phase. So, once the warheads start the terminal phase, and if their trajectory is miscalculated. It will be virtually impossible to stop them anymore. So yeah, the balloons do work. They are called penetration aid by weapons designers far smarter than most of us.

Are there actual decoy warheads? Yes, they are part of the family of penetration aids.

One Ohio-class carries 24 x Trident II SLBMs. Each Trident II can carry 8-14 x warheads. That makes it 192 warheads per Ohio-class boat. The US has 14 x Ohio-class boats for SSBN duty. So lets be conservative and assume the US is still obeying the START treaty. Let it be 20 missiles per Ohio boat with 8 warheads per missile. The USN could spare 2 Ohio boats sitting in the Pacific to put 320 warheads on China (that's a little more than the entire assumed Chinese nuclear stockpile of 300). What if the US fancies to add more Ohio boats to the task?

We cannot be naive to assume that the US never stations nukes on Japan, South Korea, and Guam. The US have never officially confirmed or denied this. And why shouldn't the US put them there? There are 3 nuclear enemies sitting close by: China, North Korea, and Russia. Is nuclear Tomahawk and ALCMs beyond the capabilities of the USA? Especially with their withdrawal from the INF treaty? The nuclear Tomahawks could be launched by Ohio-class SSGNs, and Virginia-class SSNs hiding in the seas near China. The ALCMs could be launched by the assortments of B-52s, B-1s, and B-2s that could deploy at Guam at anytime. Then each air base and aircraft carrier has its own stocks of B61 bombs.



I have to disagree here. A bankrupt hegemon will do very well when its no.1 economic adversary is dead and gone. The next economic competitors, Japan, Germany, UK, India, France, etc. are either vassals or friends. Russia is no economic challenger to the US. Especially not with China gone. A bankrupt USA will continue to be no.1 in a no-China bankrupt world. Crazy you say? I don't think Steve Bannon, Tom Cotton, or Donald Trump would think so. The US could put 1000 warheads on China, and still have plenty to spare for Russia.

I strongly disagree that nukes serves no purpose for China. If China focuses mainly on economic development and ignores pressing defence matters. This is the same mistake that the Qing dynasty made right before the Century of Humiliation. "All is fine in China, let the barbarians play with their superior toys." That is until these barbarians started to use these toys on China. With these toys, they can dictate economic terms with China, push Opium into China, and take territories from China. In the context of the 21st century, the USA could wipe China off the map for the price of some millions of dead Americans and a bankrupt economy. Economies can return, the dead don't. Now that's absolute power.

So no, nukes do matter for China. If China have the ability to wipe the USA and friends of the map like what Russia can do. Then that would help to eliminate any American wet dream of winning a nuke fight with China. Today, we have an increasingly irrational crowd of USA and friends. So nukes are the best guarantor of peace and continued prosperity for China. If the US and friends are too insane and would nuke China anyways, then China shall have its ultimate revenge. To deny them an ultimate victory over China.
Click to expand...
'

1. I might have confused the MIRV carrying capability of the DF-41 with the DF-31. That's my bad, of course. Regardless, I dont expect every single vehicle to be carrying a nuke, especially when China's warheads are so dispersed. Balloons cannot do terminal re-entry, and systems like GBMI and SM-6, are designed for terminal interception. Of course, they've never been tested in this role, and certainly not against countermeasures.

2. It does not matter how many subs they bring, China's TELs will be spread apart, with a significant proportion underground. You'd need to first track every individual TEL, without missing a single one, then feed the submarine real time information to try and hit each with 4-6 warheads. To understand how unrealistic this is, take US Scud-hunting operations in Iraq, where the US, with complete air superiority, failed to track and destroy any of Iraq's 30 launchers over 1000 sorties. If the Iraqis managed to fire off 80 Scud missiles in this time, how many nukes can China fire off, with far better air defenses and practices? Forget SLBMs, even the US's massive silo'd missiles won't be enough if you can't track them.

As for US missiles in SK and Japan, I consider it extremely unlikely. As for nuclear armed tomahawks and ALCM, China's air defenses are robust enough that I highly doubt they can evade detection and destruction.

3. I'm afraid that's not how economies work. It's not a zero-sum game, the US economy will not recover with both a crippled domestic economy and with their largest trading partner gone. In 2008, the US economy would not have survived if China did not basically bail them out. What about now? If your argument is that if the China hawks in the US don't realize this, do you think 1000 more nukes will change their minds? I doubt it.

I never stated nukes don't matter for China. In fact, if certain developments and trajectories in US nuclear policy materialize, I'd support an expansion of the Chinese stockpile. But currently, with no real threats to Chinese survivable deterrent, and with a new administration in Washington? I don't see how more nukes would be a good idea. An arms race would be far more damaging to China then I think people responding to me realize.

Please, before I get more responses, read this
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
interview with the Chinese arms control envoy. He does a lot of explaining on Chinese nuclear policy. It's a bit tiring to respond to so many long posts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: W20
hashtagpls

hashtagpls

Senior Member
Registered Member
Sardaukar20 said:
I have to disagree here. A bankrupt hegemon will do very well when its no.1 economic adversary is dead and gone. The next economic competitors, Japan, Germany, UK, India, France, etc. are either vassals or friends. Russia is no economic challenger to the US. Especially not with China gone. A bankrupt USA will continue to be no.1 in a no-China bankrupt world. Crazy you say? I don't think Steve Bannon, Tom Cotton, or Donald Trump would think so. The US could put 1000 warheads on China, and still have plenty to spare for Russia.
Click to expand...
^this.

Given the behaviour and rhetoric from the Trump admin. these past few years what with advocating for tactical nuke use, withdrawing from nuclear proliferation treaties, the stage is set for the USG to potentially launch an all out nuclear first strike against China. This cannot have been without the tacit acceptance and blessing of the american 1%er oligarchs, even the ones who rely on China for their wealth and profits.

Imagine if the USG did just that, launched a nuclear first strike, does anyone here really think the world will object? Especially when the anglo propaganda machine will be making sure anything from "we had to strike before the chinese were gonna launch!" to "well it's all done now, so deal with it" alongside hyping up so called "human rights abuses" in China. In fact, we have the eg of the iraq 2003 invasion, when the WMDs were not found, the message became how cruel of a dictator Saddam was, and how the US would spread freedom and human rights in the middle east.

Earlier this year, the Pentagon made a big hue and propaganda meal out of an F-35 carrying cold war era tactical nukes, like the B83. Taiwanese news and propaganda certainly made a big deal out of it. China should ensure they have the equivalents of Russia's Poseidon submarine drone, if not the stealth air drone bomber equivalents as well.
 
Sardaukar20

Sardaukar20

Captain
Registered Member
totenchan said:
2. It does not matter how many subs they bring, China's TELs will be spread apart, with a significant proportion underground. You'd need to first track every individual TEL, without missing a single one, then feed the submarine real time information to try and hit each with 4-6 warheads. To understand how unrealistic this is, take US Scud-hunting operations in Iraq, where the US, with complete air superiority, failed to track and destroy any of Iraq's 30 launchers over 1000 sorties. If the Iraqis managed to fire off 80 Scud missiles in this time, how many nukes can China fire off, with far better air defenses and practices? Forget SLBMs, even the US's massive silo'd missiles won't be enough if you can't track them.

As for US missiles in SK and Japan, I consider it extremely unlikely. As for nuclear armed tomahawks and ALCM, China's air defenses are robust enough that I highly doubt they can evade detection and destruction.
Click to expand...
I'll only argue this point since I largely agree with point 1, and arguing on point 3 would require more essay writing.

So for point 2. The problem is not the survivability of China's TELs. The problem is how many are there? Yes, many Chinese TELs can survive the first strike to launch back at the US, but we can be damn sure, it won't be all of them. Then how many exactly of those TELs are carrying the actual ICBMs? What ever that number is, going by the 300 warheads count, definitely not enough. After the US first strike, what remains of China's land-based ICBMs would still have to contend with the vast US BMD network stretching from South Korea to Alaska. Is it worth the shot of putting at least a couple of warheads on major US cities? Yes. Is it enough? No.

No doubt that. China has a formidable air defence network. But in a nuclear war, the US is gonna strike China with its best weapons first, the Trident II SLBMs from their Ohio boats. After, that what remains of China's air defence network would be severely degraded. Perfect for nuclear Tomahawks, ALCMs, and planes carrying B61, B83.

As for stationing US nukes on SK and Japan. I say its not likely, its a certainty. The US has no problem sharing nukes with its NATO allies: Belgium, Turkey, Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands. The US doesn't care about whether these NATO countries end up in the crosshairs of Russian nukes. So why should the US care about the welfare of Japan and SK? Like I said before. Japan and SK sits perfectly at a place for the US to reliably threaten 3 of its nuclear adversaries: China, Russia, and North Korea. So I am sure as hell, the US would station nukes there. Both the cruise missiles, and USN vessels carrying them. Japan and South Korea are in no position to reject US nukes on their soil. Its just the way the US superpower works.
 
F

FangYuan

Junior Member
Registered Member
The truth is that China does not need to fire warheads on American territory. If China has more than 30,000 warheads, it has more options.
10,000 UUV with nuclear warhead scattered over the world's oceans and detonated
10,000 warheads will shoot into the sky.
10 000 warheads fired at all remaining countries (except the US)

Result:
1. 95% of all creatures in the ocean will die.
2. The ozone layer is about 70-90% destroyed
3. Destroying most of the world's forests
4. Causing desertification, polluting soil - water - air.

The next great extinction will begin. China loses to America, but it doesn't matter . America will have to think thousands of times before they attack China because it is the end of the world
 
Last edited:
T

totenchan

New Member
Registered Member
I keep getting the feeling that I'm talking to a wall because people don't seem to understand that the US won't just sit still and keep it's current stockpiles and capabilities if China suddenly gets a thousand or so more nukes. The Cold War era arms races were a few decades ago, have people already forgotten how absurd they were? China intentionally keeps it's stockpile at it's minimum. What part of this is hard to understand? If China does expand it's stockpile, it will be to the minimum that leadership has determined is necessary to avoid an arms race or anything resembling an escalation spiral.

It's genuinely confusing to me, because as a Chinese person, the fact that China's nuclear deterrent policy was so smart was something I was proud of, it shows that the government cares more about improving the livelihood of it's citizens than on weapons that will never be used. The fact that I see so many people here advocating for apocalyptic levels of stockpile inflation is incomprehensible to me. Do you think China should go down the path that made Russia into a wreck, and America into the grotesque military-industrial cancer it is today? Please.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top