China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread


jimmyjames30x30

Junior Member
Registered Member
totenchan


So, when US strike to annihilate China , China only need to cripple US for good?
That is your sentence, are you out of logic? They annihilate us, and what you want is only to cripple them?????

Well, you probably do not know the concept of MAD and nuclear winter. As long as the US is cripple, it will not just sit there. It will make sure to annihilate all other industrialized areas, in order to make sure that the US does not fall victim to a future where she herself is economically crippled, while another industrial nation is entirely intact.

Imagine the scenario where US is crippled and China is annihilated and the rest of the world is untouched. The US will end becoming a prey to those untouched industrial nations: Europe, Russia and Japan. In a way, all China need is the ability to ensure that she can penetrate the US missile defense in a second strike and destroy enough of the US economy to trigger MAD and Nuclear Winter.
 

KYli

Senior Member
Well, you probably do not know the concept of MAD and nuclear winter. As long as the US is cripple, it will not just sit there. It will make sure to annihilate all other industrialized areas, in order to make sure that the US does not fall victim to a future where she herself is economically crippled, while another industrial nation is entirely intact.

Imagine the scenario where US is crippled and China is annihilated and the rest of the world is untouched. The US will end becoming a prey to those untouched industrial nations: Europe, Russia and Japan. In a way, all China need is the ability to ensure that she can penetrate the US missile defense in a second strike and destroy enough of the US economy to trigger MAD and Nuclear Winter.

Both Russia and the US nuclear doctrine are annihilation. China nuclear doctrine is minimal deterrence. The question is what is minimal deterrence. How many US cities needed to destroy before the US would have a second thought about using its nuclear arsenal. Would the BMD embolden the US to think that it could withstand more nuclear missiles and coming out intact. Would China becoming the primary rival to the US making the US more willing to take losses. We simply do not know.

We do know that 300 warheads are no longer adequate deterrence. Otherwise, China would not have invested and expand its nuclear arsenal for the last few years. In addition, it is obvious China is trying to obtain nuclear triad.

Should China consider nuclear winter as a deterrence. The answer is no because the US doesn't really believe in nuclear winter. China couldn't rely on nuclear winter to deter the US. How many nuclear warheads do China need. How many warheads left after the first strike? For every target without considering BMD, you would need at least three nuclear warheads to ensure total destruction. For every major cities, you have multiple targets. For a large country like the US, 300 warheads simply wouldn't be enough of a deterrence.
 

gelgoog

Senior Member
Registered Member
The premise that nuclear winter would happen is kinda flimsy I think.

The premise relies on soil release by the bombs detonating close to the ground clouding the sky. But we have experience with volcano activity and it is unlikely it will happen to a large degree. Even if it did in a couple of years the rain would wash the dirt down.

You would have lots of fatalities and destruction. Many of the fatalities would happen in the first two weeks of exposure.
The first two days are the worst. Don't go outside. You shouldn't consume food or water that is contaminated. If you survived the strike.
If you use cobalt-60 like the Russians might use in the Poseidon torpedo then the irradiated areas would become uninhabitable.

The "cleanest" weapons are fusion bombs with the lowest amount of fission primer possible. But even those will irradiate everything with neutrons provoking low level radiation. The neutrons alone are enough to kill any living being when it detonates.

Anyway not a pretty sight.

In the past when a Chinese General visited the US the US Generals at the conference joking said to him that they could simply nuke China and would have little to fear in return. The Chinese General replied something to the effect that if they didn't mind losing the Eastern Seaboard of the US and have San Francisco, Los Angeles, Seattle, and San Diego "glowing in the dark" then they could do it.

That's why China needs to produce DF-41 and JL-3 and put it into service in numbers. To prevent such reckless thoughts from even being contemplated in US war planners minds.
 

jimmyjames30x30

Junior Member
Registered Member
Both Russia and the US nuclear doctrine are annihilation. China nuclear doctrine is minimal deterrence. The question is what is minimal deterrence. How many US cities needed to destroy before the US would have a second thought about using its nuclear arsenal. Would the BMD embolden the US to think that it could withstand more nuclear missiles and coming out intact. Would China becoming the primary rival to the US making the US more willing to take losses. We simply do not know.

We do know that 300 warheads are no longer adequate deterrence. Otherwise, China would not have invested and expand its nuclear arsenal for the last few years. In addition, it is obvious China is trying to obtain nuclear triad.

Should China consider nuclear winter as a deterrence. The answer is no because the US doesn't really believe in nuclear winter. China couldn't rely on nuclear winter to deter the US. How many nuclear warheads do China need. How many warheads left after the first strike? For every target without considering BMD, you would need at least three nuclear warheads to ensure total destruction. For every major cities, you have multiple targets. For a large country like the US, 300 warheads simply wouldn't be enough of a deterrence.

Deterrence is already established. As for the number of US cities needed to be able to be destroyed, that is up to strategists to considers. BMD might sound like an exciting idea, but it's capability is questionable at best. Even with it's promised capability, it is primarily an anti-ballistic missile system, NOT directly anti-nuclear bombs. China could simply develop MIRV system with dummy warheads that are indistinguishable from real warhead, and that will overwhelm any BMD.

Besides, China never publicly declared how many warheads she has. 300 is just a number came up by US analysts.
 

KYli

Senior Member
Deterrence is already established. As for the number of US cities needed to be able to be destroyed, that is up to strategists to considers. BMD might sound like an exciting idea, but it's capability is questionable at best. Even with it's promised capability, it is primarily an anti-ballistic missile system, NOT directly anti-nuclear bombs. China could simply develop MIRV system with dummy warheads that are indistinguishable from real warhead, and that will overwhelm any BMD.

Besides, China never publicly declared how many warheads she has. 300 is just a number came up by US analysts.

If that's the case, China wouldn't have invested so much into the new nuclear submarines, the new stealth bombers, and new intercontinental ballistic missiles. Deterrence doesn't stay static but evolves by the circumstance and needs.

The debate is not about how many warheads China has but if 300 warheads were adequate. A member believed that 300 warheads are more than enough of a deterrence, that the US first strike can't dismantle Chinese arsenal, and more nukes could start an arms race that could bankrupt China. Other members disagree.
 

zgx09t

Junior Member
Registered Member
A minimum deterrence may be able to guarantee a second or third rate power a somewhat stable nuclear peace. As China evolves into a prime power, it's time to start building a nuclear arsenal that fits the size and stature of her wealth and predominance. China doesn't need to pursue a maximalist proportion in numbers - she just needs an optimum number to ensure a stable nuclear peace where nobody has any doubts whatsoever about their total demise should an event of a full scale nuclear exchange happen between prime powers.
 

FangYuan

Junior Member
Registered Member
Nuclear weapons are overrated. During a nuclear war, many enemy cities are destroyed, but the nation and its people continue to exist. Full recovery can take 20-50 years. The general thinking is that a country with many warheads would not dare to go to war with a country with few warheads because both died. The truth is not so.

By the way, the effect of nuclear weapon is vastly overestimated.

The explosion damage can be vastly contained by modern cemented buildings and underground structures, whilst the radiation damage is nowhere near the damage caused by the accident of a civil nuclear reactors, actually the radiation damage of today's nuclear bomb can only last for 2 weeks, after that it is pretty safe for human to enter the impact region, even without any protection.

Modern day nuclear bomb only contain several kilograms' radiation stuff, comparing to hundreds of tonnes found in nuclear reactors.

So there wont be any long-lasting effect of nuclear explosion
 
Last edited:

gelgoog

Senior Member
Registered Member
Nuclear weapons are overrated. During a nuclear war, many enemy cities are destroyed, but the nation and its people continue to exist. Full recovery can take 20-50 years. The general thinking is that a country with many warheads would not dare to go to war with a country with few warheads because both died. The truth is not so.

With most of the population concentrated in urban cores in major developed nations you would actually have massive population loss.
Even those who do not die from impact could likely die with radiation poisoning. I mean, how many countries have a stockpile of iodine tablets enough for every citizen? None that I know of. There might be some for critical personnel, but not everyone.
Also, most nuclear weapons are developed this way because the intent isn't to make the land unusable. But the truth is the original nuclear bomb designs like the one used in the R-2 Soviet missile used "dirty" bombs to increase the terminal effects. That was prior to the advent of modern H-bombs i.e. fusion bombs which are "cleaner" to a degree but like 1000x more powerful in terms of the terminal blast power.
The idea that a concrete building is protection is kinda overrated. Concrete turns back into powder at high temperatures. Even a couple kms around the blast the temperatures are high enough to liquefy glass and bricks. At the blast site everything is vaporized. It might not work that well on urban sprawl countries like most of the USA but if you use the nukes to hit enough critical infrastructure (like the power plants) good luck.
 

Anlsvrthng

Senior Member
Registered Member
61 mm of concrete halving the gamma radiations, ground floor of a high building could could decrease by magnitude the incoming radiation, normal single floor brick building could halve-quarter it - heat insulation has no effect, you need mass : D


50 % chance lethal dose is 500 rad, after the fallout everyone without protection in open area in 10 km distance from explosion will collect 1000 rad in 48 hours.

Dose coming from deposited radioactive practices, theoretically it possible to identify safest spot in the house, by using a Geiger after the fallout, but it needs post apocalyptic Geiger, and require surveying at the beginning of fallout - not possible prior, unless fancy to make very detailed 3d map of surrounding areas.


So, in 20 km big city after the blast everyone will die in diam. 8 km area, and quarter of the city original residents could die due to accumulated dose , or due untreated radiation sickness. - single 100 kt bomb.

I calculated that our brick house has 20-50% to stand after atmospheric blast at 8.5 km distance, 100 kt bomb exploding at optimal altitude, house more robust than the typical English house, explosion wave arrive from the strong side of house. Uncertainty is the topography , affecting the blastwave .
 

Top