China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread


Jono

Junior Member
Registered Member
Japan entering the war with China on behalf of Taiwan ?? In the last 150 years, several times when China tried to advance, Japan would come knocking on China's doors with its swords and guns. But this time around, the fight will be on Japanese soils.
Gee, I am wringing my hands and frothing in my mouth in GLEE, bring it on !!
 

j17wang

Junior Member
Registered Member
Japan entering the war with China on behalf of Taiwan ?? In the last 150 years, several times when China tried to advance, Japan would come knocking on China's doors with its swords and guns. But this time around, the fight will be on Japanese soils.
Gee, I am wringing my hands and frothing in my mouth in GLEE, bring it on !!

Japan is not stupid enough to fight China on behalf of Taiwan (maybe try to supply materials) and the PLA is also smart enough to know not to even attempt an invasion of japanese home islands. No country has invaded the japanese home islands successfully, including the Mongol world empire, or the empire that nuked japanese cities into submission.
 

Aniah

Junior Member
Registered Member
Japan is not stupid enough to fight China on behalf of Taiwan (maybe try to supply materials) and the PLA is also smart enough to know not to even attempt an invasion of japanese home islands. No country has invaded the japanese home islands successfully, including the Mongol world empire, or the empire that nuked japanese cities into submission.
I don't see how the PLA won't be able to since to me it seems the opposite but that's a touchy subject that I won't go into. As for Japan saying it would defend Taiwan, I believe it's just lip service.
 

Anlsvrthng

Senior Member
Registered Member
No need to invade Japan. Just take out their airbases along those of the US, as well as their significant air-defense destroyers and carriers. Seriously, Japan's closeness to China is actually a blessing these days. While only 30% of China's missile arsenal can hit Guam and Hawaii, 70% of them can hit any part of Japan.

Japan would be friendly ,and makes alliance with any country that destroy few of its cities with nuclear bomb.

Works like charm : )

I am sure Chine read the history books as well about "how to make alliances".
 

SpicySichuan

Senior Member
Registered Member
Japan is not stupid enough to fight China on behalf of Taiwan (maybe try to supply materials) and the PLA is also smart enough to know not to even attempt an invasion of japanese home islands. No country has invaded the japanese home islands successfully, including the Mongol world empire, or the empire that nuked japanese cities into submission.
There's no need for PLA to invade Japanese main islands. The PLARF and PLAN have more than sufficient conventional firepower to launch sustained precision strikes against JSDF and US military assets and subsequently incapacitate these bases. Keep in mind that the PLARF has more than 200 DF-26 launchers and even more DF-21 launchers. We don't know how many missiles, but it is assumed there are more missiles than launchers. Even at the height of the Cold War, the US only purchased 276 Pershing II missiles and a lesser number of mobile launchers. Then there's the CJ/DF-10, which we no clue how many launchers exist because the PLARF hid them so well.
 

jimmyjames30x30

Junior Member
Registered Member
Japan would be friendly ,and makes alliance with any country that destroy few of its cities with nuclear bomb.

Works like charm : )

I am sure Chine read the history books as well about "how to make alliances".
Well, you also have to keep in mind that allies, in today's world, is NOT necessarily an asset. I depends on your strategic vision and goal.

The USA strives to remain a global hegemony. This is a goal in which it would be worth while to invest in securing Japan as an ally/underling. But for China, it is not necessary.

First because China is NOT stupid enough to have such a goal, because China is neither culturally nor geographically suited to be a Maritime Power/Superpower. A Maritime Power/Superpower's role is best served by an "island" nation that can concentrate their resources in intervening, dividing and feeding-off from the World Island via the sea. China is huge part of the World Island, doing such would be disconcerting and counter productive.

Secondly, because today's world is already globalized. Allies are become more and more a liability than asset. Allies are great during the Cold War and before, because there are no such unified global market beforehand. But since today's world is globalized, you don't need to befriend or conquer an country to make it an ally, in order to form an economic block with them. For example, most of Today's nations could use their own trade relations and volume as a deterrence or a lure to prevent another country from seriously harming their own core national interests.

In today's world, if Japan breaks her alliance with the USA, it would actually be a bad news for China. First because this would mean that Japan would need to re-arm in order to protect herself, thus this would complicate the regional balance of power. Secondly, it is because this would mean that Japan will need to look for new allies to strengthen her own security, and such an ally will need to be close and powerful enough to be relevant to regional power balance in North East Asia. And here is the rub:

1. If Japan pick any major nation other than China as an ally, it would immediately be seen as an encirclement of China by China. Thus this will increase regional confrontation. The worst of such candidate would be Russia. Imagine a Russia-Japanese alliance, this will almost immediately force China and USA (and even the EU) into an temporary alliance, and since the US is far away, Russian-Japanese alliance will almost certainly focus on finishing off China first, before moving on to the USA. This would be very troublesome for China, because China's frontiers would be hot battle grounds. And the USA will simply seize the chance to turn China into a meat grinder to neutralize Russia and Japan. Thus ending up with China, Russia and Japan all spend their resources to destroy each other, and turn into ruins.

2. If Japan decide to be the boss of her own alliance system, she will most likely took small regional challenger nations and rogue nations to be her ally: North Korea, Vietnam, Indonesia, etc. This would mean little to no harm to the USA, EU, and Russia, but it would be a great annoyance to China. China and Japan will enter into a Cold War and competing for regional small nations to join their block against the other. None of these nations are strong enough to challenge China by themselves, they also can not really challenge China in a real war as a group, but if they decide to just walk the thin line between total hot confrontation and warm relations, and use wolf pack guerilla tactic to wear China down, it would be endless trouble for China.

3. if Japan decide to pick China as an ally, this would also be trouble for China. Because this will alarm Russia and the USA. A Russia-USA alliance, will certainly force EU in. And US-EU-Russia alliance will outclass China-Japan alliance. The only way China-Japan alliance can survive is to strike first and capture Siberia, India, SE Asia and Central Asia before the other side are prepared. Such an alliance will racially split up Caucasians and East Asians, and will spell doom for Human civilization.

Therefore, I would only wish that Japan remain within the US sphere of protection for the a few decades more. This would be the best for China and for the world.
 
Last edited:

by78

Brigadier
Rare interior images of the TEL for DF-31AG ICBM.

51073365646_e784cbac53_k.jpg

51073467102_d24d600b7d_k.jpg

51073365661_e83a7b80cc_k.jpg

51073467127_ae716a368f_k.jpg

51073365641_60bc9ad868_k.jpg
 

SpicySichuan

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

China’s push to develop fuel for a new generation of nuclear power reactors will produce large amounts of materials that could be diverted to making nuclear weapons, non-proliferation experts said on Thursday.

China is developing advanced fast reactors and reprocessing facilities as it seeks to reduce dependency on coal, which emits emissions harmful to human health and that worsen climate change. But reprocessing also produces plutonium that could be used to make nuclear weapons.

There is no evidence that China intents to divert its potential plutonium stockpile to weapons use, but concern has grown as Beijing is expected to boost its number of nuclear warheads over the next decade from the low 200s now.

“To reduce international concerns about the potential plutonium diversion issues, China needs to keep its plutonium recycling programs more transparent including timely reporting of its stockpile of civilian plutonium like they did before 2016,” Hui Zhang, a senior research associate at Harvard University’s Project on Managing the Atom, said in an email.

Zhang, a contributor to a Nonproliferation Policy Education Center report called “China’s Civil Nuclear Sector: Plowshares to Swords?”, said China should also offer to have its plutonium recycling facilities monitored by the U.N.’s International Atomic Energy Agency.

China’s embassy in Washington did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
(original report)

The report recommended that Washington urge China to join the United States, South Korea and Japan, in sharing information on current plutonium and enriched uranium holdings and production capacities.

It also recommended that Washington explore with those countries, the possibility of taking a plutonium production timeout. Japan, South Korea, and the United States should offer to delay their plutonium production and fast reactor programs, if China does likewise, it said.

Leaders from those countries should work to “forestall industrial scale reprocessing, which would only make the entire region, and the world, less secure,” Christopher Ford, a nonproliferation official under Donald Trump, and Thomas Countryman, who served the same role under Barack Obama, said in the report’s preface.

The U.S. Departments of State and Energy did not immediately respond to a request for comment. (Reporting by Timothy Gardner Editing by Alistair Bell)
 

Top