I've explained my positions I think in a fair bit of detail, but I suppose you can't be blamed for reading everything I write.
1. 300 total warheads is enough because there is no realistic way either the US or Europe can take out that number of nukes because of how China's nuclear forces are organized. You, nor anybody else, has described how the US could track and destroy in real-time thousands of TELs dispersed in Chinese mountains and underground passages. This will be even more difficult once China begins deterrence patrols with nuke subs, which will begin happening in a couple years or less. China does not need to "annihilate" all of the US and Western Europe to ensure deterrence. Such a suggestion is patently absurd. China just needs to be able to cripple the US for good to ensure deterrence, which is could do with ten nukes, and the the 300 are there for assurance. The numbers being thrown out of 1000 and above are not based on any sort of argument, just that "the US and Russia have more so we need more!". The only scenario in which this is the case is if one assumes the US is not a rational actor. In this case, the entire paradigm of MAD goes out the window, and we can happily progress down a logical path that ends in the conclusion that China needs to nuke the US before we are nuked ourselves.
Huh? It's not up to us to prove they can do that. First off, you are already wrong about the need to trace all those TELs etc. Because we're already assuming a scenario where the US or whichever actor throws a surprise first strike. The US probably has more than enough warheads to cover every acre of China. No matter how decent or numerous China's BMD and early warning is, it cannot really hope to survive this strike unless it has substantial numbers of missiles to make use of any half decent early warning.
So already this argument is dead because of the above AND the fact that it's clearly better to be on the safe side. Why you want to assume all's well and good is truly beyond me. Why assume 300 is fine? I don't understand this. Surely since there is no way to know that 300 is enough, it's better to build more? Even if we're going to ignore surprise first strike which is exactly the type of scenario that ought to be planned for regardless of how terrifying the thought is.
Please define what crippling the US for good means. So you think it's acceptable China gets wiped with 5000 nukes while China only manages to "cripple" the US for who knows how long. That's something we disagree on but it's a personal matter I suppose.
2. Why should China maintain a minimum deterrence policy? Why don't you ask Chinese leadership that?? Clearly you aren't willing to listen to my explanations, so do some reading on Chinese nuclear policy white papers. A simple study of any model- game theory or otherwise- suggests that if China does abandon minimum deterrence in favor of a more aggressive nuclear policy, the result is very likely going to be an arms race. Many people on this forum apparently do not realize that an arms race does not stem from a race to parity, but instead a race to superiority, and the defense contractors in the US serve as the political will for an arms race with China. If China begins expanding it's arsenal beyond minimum deterrence, America will force it into an arms race. You'd also quickly realize that a surprise American nuclear strike is by far the dumbest reason to abandon a no first use policy - far more compelling reasons are deterrence of US intervention in a Taiwan contingency, and increased strategic flexibility. As for the fantasy of sneaking up a bunch of Ohio-classes into the Pacific - the submarines are on a scheduled rotation, and ones that are not on patrol are easily tracked.
You failed again here because you assume Chinese leadership has decided 300 nukes is enough and that the country truly has only 300 nukes. These are absurd assumption for this discussion on this thread but yes of course there is a very slight and remote chance it is true.
If China pursues a more aggressive policy with let's say 1000 nukes, why would that incur an arms race? Please stop saying this and explain how. The US has many times more than 1000 nukes. If it spurs on an arms race what has China got to lose? LOL you're not thinking straight at all. So basically an arms race means the difference between China getting absolutely annihilated with nothing to throw back and China getting absolutely equally annihilated and able to annihilate the rest. LOL seriously can you not see this??
The US can build 100000000 warheads and it will make zero difference to China compared to US having 5000 or 10000 warheads. However it matters for China that it has enough to guarantee MAD no matter what reasonable unexpected surprises eventuate in the event of actual exchange. So yeah if your ASSUMPTION of China build up causing an arms race, it is an arms race that only
benefits China because the flip side of that equation is China getting destroyed or China getting destroyed.
Now if you're talking about a conventional arms race, well that's all worthless isn't it? With enough nukes to fall back on, conventional means nothing. You don't seem to understand the military priorities at all like Russians do and I'm sure Chinese do as well. MAD before conventional. Conventional arms race is tricky as the escalation ladder determines if and how nukes get used. But of course it pays to match your adversary if possible. Such an arms race is likely already in unannounced action.
3. Does the increase in policy stem from a change in China's declared nuclear policy? Then the cost is an arms race. Does the increase stem from a fear that the minimum deterrence of China is being eroded? Then the cost is far lower, simply the opportunity cost of the increase in stockpile. This has always been my position. What you don't seem to realize, and what I feel like I need to drill into your head, is that the US and Russia pursue counter-force strategies, whereas China only needs counter-value. The stockpiles cannot be compared. Your worldview is intensely distorted if you genuinely believe in some Manichean worldview of China against the world, where the rest of the world are not rational actors, while China is the only one that believes in deterrence. What a childish view of the world. If you think I have a superior attitude, it's because you are thinking like a child. Dividing the world into power blocks like some sort of game, I find such things hilarious.
Okay ignoring the arms race issue for a second, I used the separation to make the point that US and Russia pursue counter force strategies (your words) for good reason and there is no reason for China not to. If there is, you have failed to explain it and surely it does escape me... because it doesn't exist. What is so unique about China's position that is only needs counter-value? Whatever your choice of words even means - I'm assuming your minimum deterrence theory.
My worldview does not involve China getting nuked by other nuclear powers. My posts only include these possible scenarios as situations to prepare for. If there is ever a moment (and this isn't my worldview just to make it clear because you seem to have trouble understanding the differences) where the US conducts a first strike on China, it will be aiming to reduce to dust not only all of China's retaliatory means but the entire population and every piece of infrastructure. It certainly has the warheads to do it just not the speed and delivery yet. It's entirely possible they involve their allies in this mission. It's of the greatest importance and even unwilling nations may choose to get the job done with their contribution rather than risk possible retaliation from China. I'm only being realistic and you cannot possibly deny this could very likely be how it goes if the case ever gets to that point.
China's stockpile size is not what keeps China from an arms race, it's policies are. If China decides to expand the current stockpile, it would likely not result in an ams race, and I would support it as long as China adheres to it's own declaratory policies on minimum deterrence. What annoys me about people like you is that you seem to see no distinction between expanding the stockpile to what is needed for deterrence, or instead building up enough nukes to completely annihilate "The US and Western Europe". I'll ignore the fact that you've literally conjured arguments out of thin air and attributed them to me, that only assures me of your bad faith, if anything. But at least don't accuse me of wanting China wiped off the Earth. Seriously, fuck off.
You just attributed China's lower declared warhead count is partially responsible for keeping it away from an arms race and now you're saying warhead count isn't. You're wrong because this is a tautology. If China builds up and causes an arms race, then it is only logical that stockpile
is a factor. Now it's policy is it? Very slippery. Lol the rest of your paragraph is drivel and strawman.
Rather than calling me a child and continuing to avoid answering questions and providing detail, please stop embarrassing yourself with your air of superiority, derived entirely from your abysmal understanding and pathetically bad assumptions. See all the first points again. Let go of these assumptions, the CCP certainly have. Also what CCP says about their warheads, may not be the case... just a hint for you. No one is saying for sure China's got x warheads but you are the only one quoting CCP propaganda numbers and placing any faith in them.
