China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

bajingan

Senior Member
China can do this ONLY WHEN its SBIR satellites are operational. You don't want to have too many false alarms or mis-identifications.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

According to the same author hans kristensen, he said "we think what's going on is they've decided that their current ICBMs are not survivable enough. They wouldn't be able to survive an early attack, a first strike. And so they're trying to expand the number and types of silos they have or will have in the future"

I thought the underground great wall designed exactly to ensure second strike capability
 

Xizor

Captain
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

According to the same author hans kristensen, he said "we think what's going on is they've decided that their current ICBMs are not survivable enough. They wouldn't be able to survive an early attack, a first strike. And so they're trying to expand the number and types of silos they have or will have in the future"

I thought the underground great wall designed exactly to ensure second strike capability
Maybe the underground great tunnel networks aren't big or wide enough for the bigger missiles and TELs?

Silos would also force to shift attention of adversary to other regions, besides just the Underground tunnels.
 

Temstar

Brigadier
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

According to the same author hans kristensen, he said "we think what's going on is they've decided that their current ICBMs are not survivable enough. They wouldn't be able to survive an early attack, a first strike. And so they're trying to expand the number and types of silos they have or will have in the future"

I thought the underground great wall designed exactly to ensure second strike capability
Closely clustered silos are actually very difficult to destroy. The really hardened ones require direct hit by megaton yield warhead to destroy and the next silo a few hundred meter away would still not be damaged enough to prevent a launch. Space them right and you can't even destroy two of them by landing a warhead between them. You also can't hit a whole group of closely clustered silos with MIRV because the silos are much harder than warheads themselves and landing warheads that close to each other would mean some of them are destroyed by the explosion of others before they can explode. You actually have to hit them with missiles one after the other and by then it's pointless.

Silos are also the cheapest way to station ICBMs on alert, much cheaper than SSBN and don't have any dimension restrictions. They are also easy to decoy by just building the silo door on shallow pits and can be used very effectively to waste the enemy's warheads.
 

escobar

Brigadier
Not directly linked to China but this is the drone footage showing impact of Iran Ballistic missiles at Ain Al-Asad AB on 08/01/2020. According to Gen. McKenzie, if they had not evacuated the base, 20 aircraft & 100 US servicemen could have been lost.
 

crash8pilot

Junior Member
Registered Member
Not directly linked to China but this is the drone footage showing impact of Iran Ballistic missiles at Ain Al-Asad AB on 08/01/2020. According to Gen. McKenzie, if they had not evacuated the base, 20 aircraft & 100 US servicemen could have been lost.
For context, the Iranians gave American forces and Iraqis ample warning (nearly 8 hours to be precise) to evacuate before the ballistic missiles hit the air base.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
By midnight, not a single fighter jet or helicopter remained out in the open, said one of the sources, an intelligence officer. Another Iraqi intelligence source said U.S. troops even seemed to know the timing of the attack, saying they seemed “totally aware” the base would be attacked “after midnight.”
After the missiles landed, several major U.S. media outlets quoted U.S. officials saying the attack had been little more than a warning shot, allowing Iran to satisfy calls for revenge at home - after the U.S. air strike on Jan. 3 that killed an Iranian general - without much risk of provoking further U.S. attacks. Others, citing U.S. and Arab sources, reported that Iran warned Iraq before the attacks and that Iraq had passed that information to the United States.

I'd also like to add that General Kenneth McKenzie is a highly political general that has seemingly mastered the bureaucracy of the Pentagon and Capitol Hill - the latest media coverage of the Iranian missile strikes on Al-Asad are proof of that. I used to think Generals Stanley McChrystal (commanded all of US tier one special operation units before taking command of US forces in Afghanistan) and David Petraeus (commanded US forces in Iraq before promotion to all US forces in the Middle East, and subsequently served a brief stint as CIA Director) were masters at playing the media game throughout the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, but what McKenzie has managed to do during his tenure as CENTCOM commander quite frankly make McChrystal and Petraeus look like minor leaguers.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
In a bid for prestige and power within the military, and the influence over policymaking that it guarantees, McKenzie has worked to accumulate military assets. The general’s thirst for influence has been a driving factor in the latest episode of US-Iran tensions. To advance his self-serving agenda, McKenzie has deployed a calculated series of political-bureaucratic moves, combined with a PR push in the media.


I'm not condoning Iran's actions, but I'm most certainly not falling for McKenzie's BS or Western media's selective reporting (covering the damage of the airstrikes without context of what led to the missile launches, or that the Iranians gave warning prior to the strikes)... Nor am I sympathetic for the US imperialistic cause.
 

gelgoog

Brigadier
Registered Member
If you read the recent article about this at thedrive.com it would seem that SBIRS satellites provided the US with the advance warning. Such BS. As if they could evacuate all those people and aircraft with the minutes of advanced notice something like SBIRS infrared satellites would get them. If it wasn't for the Iranians notifying the Iraqi government hours in advance of the attack those people would have been dead and those aircraft destroyed.
 

Hendrik_2000

Lieutenant General
Maybe the underground great tunnel networks aren't big or wide enough for the bigger missiles and TELs?

Silos would also force to shift attention of adversary to other regions, besides just the Underground tunnels.
That is not true I remember seeing TEL inside silo it is big enough all right. The TEL cabin is designed for 2 compartment allowing the rocket head to sit between them so it is low profile. What do you mean by shifting to other region because The UGW is all over China it is not limited to specific region or mountain. It is mostly in central Chinese mountainous area but some of them in the north, west, east and south all over the country. I think the silo complement those UGW basing as they allow speedier deployment specially if it solid rocket like DF 41 and can be launched on warning.
 

mister unknown

Just Hatched
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Here is the Kristensen article being quoted in the AP news article mentioned in previous posts. While Kristensen is obviously a subject matter expert, his conclusions & speculations are so excessively conservative that it makes him appear intellectually dishonest when he's not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top