China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread

[W20]

"What is Underground Great Wall?"

A NetWork of tunnels

 

[W20]

"China's "Underground Steel Great Wall" could "guarantee the security of the country's strategic arsenal" against potential attacks, including those from future hypersonic weapons, Qian Qihu, recipient of the country's highest science and technology award, told the Global Times."

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[OppositeDay]

I don't understand what you are arguing for. Gross and almost disqualifying misunderstanding of how GDP is measured aside, are you trying to argue that China will not enter an arms race just by expanding it's stockpile? As long as the stockpile remains as small as can be justified to any other party, I'd agree with that. Are you arguing that there is no risk in expanding the stockpile, because there is no risk of an arms race? This is on it's face absurd, and you have provided no argument justifying that perspective. Or are you arguing that China can take an arms race and survive? It probably can. But in participating in an arms race, you are literally flushing resources into the drain. The military is supposed to serve the country, and should be proportional to that mission. Pushing for China to expand it's stockpile, without giving an actual argument as to why China's deterrent is not sufficient will get us nowhere. I think I've made it very clear why I believe that China's current stockpile is survivable and enough to serve as a deterrent, and the fact that there's people in this thread saying that China should expand it's stockpile to be enough to completely incinerate the planet is worrying, to say the least.

The arms race worry is overblown. It is impossible for the U.S. to maintain its current 5x/20x nuclear advantage over China given its economy is only 40% larger and the gap is closing. Once the U.S. recognizes China as a nuclear peer, then there can be a proper U.S.-Russia-China arms control treaty.

On a personal note, I for one feel unsafe for my family and friends in Beijing without China having credible deterrence to stop U.S. from ever seriously considering a nuclear exchange over non core interests under any sensible definition of core interests (i.e. not Taiwan or Diaoyu island), since Beijing will always be among first targets and the only way we can survive is through deterrence.

 

[LawLeadsToPeace]

...

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?

I am a bit late to the party, but this one needs to be cleared up. The issue with that article is that it is based on the assumption that Americans all believe that Covid 19 is real and a threat to the well-being of the US. Well, clearly that assumption is false due to a multitude of reasons that can be found on the Coronavirus thread. The US leadership can dupe people into thinking covid 19 is fake and not a threat; however, nukes are different. I agree with you in that the Chinese need 1000+ nukes (assuming they don't already have 1000 nukes) or even more than that in order to show that they have a four digit number of nukes but not for the reason that Americans are willing to take losses.

 

[Anlsvrthng]

The US leadership can dupe people into thinking covid 19 is fake and not a threat; however, nukes are different. I agree with you in that the Chinese need 1000+ nukes (assuming they don't already have 1000 nukes) or even more than that in order to show that they have a four digit number of nukes but not for the reason that Americans are willing to take losses.

USA citizens doesn't know how a war looks like.
They sent over enormous distances the ships and airplanes, to bomb foreign cities. They have no clue how it looks like to live in a city carpet bombed by Liberators , or living in a city nuked by Superfortress, or burning alive due in the raid of Tokyo .

Check the policy of germany/japan/italy even france regards of war.

The freedom of the USA political / military elite is due to the uninterest of the population about the wars and other foreign military adventures.
They can't see risk, and no foreign nuke will change it, only first hand experience.

 

[LawLeadsToPeace]

USA citizens doesn't know how a war looks like.
They sent over enormous distances the ships and airplanes, to bomb foreign cities. They have no clue how it looks like to live in a city carpet bombed by Liberators , or living in a city nuked by Superfortress, or burning alive due in the raid of Tokyo .

Check the policy of germany/japan/italy even france regards of war.

The freedom of the USA political / military elite is due to the uninterest of the population about the wars and other foreign military adventures.
They can't see risk, and no foreign nuke will change it, only first hand experience.

For pure non-nuclear warfare, they’ll be unaware of the risk till the reality quickly settles in, especially now. In the future that may change. However nukes are different. For example, during the 1964 election between Goldwater and LBJ, LBJ’s campaign launched an ad at the last minute that showed the aftermath of Goldwater’s “nuke em first” policy and that ad is considered to be an important reason why Goldwater lost by a landslide. BTW, Goldwater was a right-winger. In short, Americans are blind, but only to a certain degree.

 

[quantumlight]

In the end China will do what it will do but when you got the editor calling for at least 1000 nukes and 100 DF-41 as a minimum that really sets a base floor right there...

Everyone agrees hypothetically China having just one (1) single nuke is not enough for minimum deterrence and on opposite end of spectrum a number like 100,000 is probably overkill...

Given Americans intentions, its history, and the current unfortunate trajectory, its beyond clear to me 1000 should be the base minimum with 3000 to 10000 being the ideal comfortable zone and the upper end giving China a good cushion even considering an "arms race"... the math and physics of nukes are such that no matter how an arms race escalates, if China had 10000 nukes and even no other defenses, it would be enough

 

[totenchan]

The arms race worry is overblown. It is impossible for the U.S. to maintain its current 5x/20x nuclear advantage over China given its economy is only 40% larger and the gap is closing. Once the U.S. recognizes China as a nuclear peer, then there can be a proper U.S.-Russia-China arms control treaty.

On a personal note, I for one feel unsafe for my family and friends in Beijing without China having credible deterrence to stop U.S. from ever seriously considering a nuclear exchange over non core interests under any sensible definition of core interests (i.e. not Taiwan or Diaoyu island), since Beijing will always be among first targets and the only way we can survive is through deterrence.

The arms race worry is not overblown. The US military industrial-complex is not proportional to it's economy, it's a monster that will produce regardless. It will always try and capitalize on an arms race. The advantage will be maintained as long as there is political will for it, which there likely is.

For your second point: Why the fuck would China want to join an arms control treaty? Why would China expand it's arsenal, only to have all investment in that arsenal cucked by adhering to arms control, like what happened with the US and Russia? Why would China want to reach that point? Another benefit of China's minimum deterrence policy is not needing to join bilateral arms control between the US and Russia.

Your feelings about feeling insecure about your family in Beijing because China does not have enough nukes of all things, is one of the most absurd things I have heard. Does existential dread wrack your family every day? Does your family spend their days clutching onto their loved ones because they fear being nuked? Of course not. They likely have more grounded concerns, the same as my family in China, or anyone else in this forum. If the government spends all their money on an arms race, my family will suffer, and so will yours. If leadership has not decided a massive increase in the stockpile is necessary, they know more then you or me. Asserting that China does not have credible deterrence is something needs proving. The fact that the US has not attempted nuclear blackmail even in this period of high tensions should put that notion to rest.

 

[quantumlight]

The fact that the US has not attempted nuclear blackmail even in this period of high tensions should put that notion to rest.

Any attempt would be secret back channel stuff not privy to the likes of CNN, Fox, or Epoch Times

All one can surmise is there are a lot of unknown unknowns

But 300 is not enough, period. full stop

FWIW I dont actually believe China only has 300 and I think the US gov doesnt believe that either

 

[OppositeDay]

The arms race worry is not overblown. The US military industrial-complex is not proportional to it's economy, it's a monster that will produce regardless. It will always try and capitalize on an arms race. The advantage will be maintained as long as there is political will for it, which there likely is.

For your second point: Why the fuck would China want to join an arms control treaty? Why would China expand it's arsenal, only to have all investment in that arsenal cucked by adhering to arms control, like what happened with the US and Russia? Why would China want to reach that point? Another benefit of China's minimum deterrence policy is not needing to join bilateral arms control between the US and Russia.

Your feelings about feeling insecure about your family in Beijing because China does not have enough nukes of all things, is one of the most absurd things I have heard. Does existential dread wrack your family every day? Does your family spend their days clutching onto their loved ones because they fear being nuked? Of course not. They likely have more grounded concerns, the same as my family in China, or anyone else in this forum. If the government spends all their money on an arms race, my family will suffer, and so will yours. If leadership has not decided a massive increase in the stockpile is necessary, they know more then you or me. Asserting that China does not have credible deterrence is something needs proving. The fact that the US has not attempted nuclear blackmail even in this period of high tensions should put that notion to rest.

China is not going to reach 1,000 warheads overnight. It would be speedy progress if China can deploy 1,000 warheads before it reaches GDP parity with the U.S. Having a more substantial nuclear arsenal doesn't mean complete parity with the U.S. Right now according to open source estimations U.S have at least 5 times deployed warheads and 20x total warheads compared to China. That's the extent of the American advantage. Does the U.S. have the political will to maintain 5x deployed and 20x total numbers of warheads with an economic peer? I doubt even the U.S. military-industry complex is that crazy. Indeed, historically once the Soviet Union overtook the U.S., U.S. never tried to maintain the initial advantage it held over the Soviet Union. So your idea of a nuclear arms race is without historical evidence.

Look at this Wikipedia graph


The 'racing' is almost entirely done by the Soviet Union.

For arms control treaty, China basically has two options, either have a order-of-magnitude smaller arsenal and no arms control treaty or have roughly comparable arsenal and an arms control treaty. The latter is preferable.

The idea that the Chinese government needs to spend 'all their money' on a nuclear arms race is just absurd. The U.S. spent $35 billion on nuclear weapons in 2019, Russia spent less than $10 billion. China can easily afford spending $15-20 billion each year on its nuclear arsenal.