China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread


Broccoli

Junior Member
China's minimal deterrent strategy was flawed, it's based on rational reasoning. in time of war, irrationality may prevail.

Many people here forget that China only got it's proper solid-fueled ICBM what could reach US with DF-31A and that was roughly 12 years ago, before that it was only small number of DF-5s, and maybe JL-2 but those are very new also. If you don't have anything better than cumbersome DF-5 series to reach US then minimal deterrence is all you got.


It looks like rocket force could be serious about DF-41 silo basing.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

gelgoog

Captain
Registered Member
It never made sense to increase the nuclear deterrent with their old technology.
The DF-5 was hugely expensive and not that survivable. Their older plutonium production facilities were creaky.
Now with the DF-41 they have a credible deterrent which can hit anywhere in the US.
 

bajingan

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

Hmm another article about China nuclear fast breeder capacity, why the us is so worried about China fast breeder nuclear reactors? are they that desperate for funding? someone said plutonium is too heavy to be used for nuclear warheads
 

ougoah

Major
Registered Member
Many people here forget that China only got it's proper solid-fueled ICBM what could reach US with DF-31A and that was roughly 12 years ago, before that it was only small number of DF-5s, and maybe JL-2 but those are very new also. If you don't have anything better than cumbersome DF-5 series to reach US then minimal deterrence is all you got.


It looks like rocket force could be serious about DF-41 silo basing.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

DF-5A and DF-5B are relatively new, long range silo based ICBMs. DF-5 is rather antique.

JL-2 is based on DF-31. It is newer than DF-31. You might be referring to JL-1 missile.

Before DF-31 and JL-2 from over a decade ago, China could only rely on old DF-5 ICBMs and JL-1 SLBMs to reach the US. That's roughly equivalent to North Korea's current day delivery capability although I think even the antiquated Type 092 is still somewhat superior to what North Korea currently operate as their SSBN force and the DF-5 has more reach than their most long ranged missile. On top of this, China's warheads are much higher yield than North Korea's.

If current day North Korea's nuclear delivery and devastation capability on the US is enough for it to think twice about military attacks, China's before HGVs and the newer missiles, was still many times more capable than that of current day NK's - many times more missiles, more Type 092 than NK has now in SSBN, much higher yield warheads, MIRV, and possibly better survivability of missiles and warheads not only because of superior numbers. Not to mention a vast landmass to hide missiles and warheads as opposed to decapitation strike on NK being relatively easy due to smaller landmass and no decent early warning... China had rudimentary early warning since 1970s.

So China didn't only get ability to strike US around 12 years ago. China could do that back in 1980, 40 off years ago with both JL-1 and DF-5.
 

Deino

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Just a question to be sure ... what's the current most accurate designation for the CJ-10/DF-10 Ground Launched Cruise Missile?

You can find everything ranging from DH-10 (very early until about 2011), then CJ-10 (from 2012 on) but also DF-10, which is also clearly visible on the missile itself? But what is official?

DF-10 ground launched 1.jpgDF-10 ground launched 2.jpg
 

windsclouds2030

Junior Member
Registered Member
China's minimal deterrent strategy was flawed, it's based on rational reasoning. in time of war, irrationality may prevail.
I hope China has been investing in resources to make the MAD more credible as Hu had suggested, and instead of just few hundred nuke heads capable of reaching the faraway intercontinental with the related delivery means, it should be few thousands. In time of war, there is no rationality! Adequate deterrence prevents mad man from taking reckless actions, for the sake of ALL CONCERNING PARTIES, not only China!!! For the sake of the globe indeed!

Better make such investment and shed some publicity by some other means to prevent any miscalculation and wrong doing by the adventurer.

I hope those things have been done, or being underway. I don't think that we all have the correct picture, and can only make rough guesses.
 

escobar

Brigadier
China's minimal deterrent strategy was flawed, it's based on rational reasoning. in time of war, irrationality may prevail.
You have a minimal deterrent strategy or the "NFU" when you are "poor". Nuclear Warfighting Policy required lot of ressources
 
Last edited:

SpicySichuan

Senior Member
Registered Member
A minimum deterrence strategy works when the regime has nothing to lose, and the country was poor, which the main adversary was many times more powerful materially and impossible to defeat in a conventional war. North Korea today would be a good fit for adopting a minimum deterrence strategy (which it has achieved since late 2017). In other words, minimum deterrence strategy was equivalent to a nation-wide suicide bombing campaign with the hope that by detonating itself, the much weaker defender could at least cripple the much stronger foe. However, China has much to lose today, and if I were decision makers in Beijing, one of the questions in my mind would be what if my adversary were to use low-yield, radiation-enhanced tactical nuclear weapons first with the hope of "escalating to de-escalate," especially in a scenario when an enemy (think Trump or Putin, practitioners of brinkmanship) were to completely annihilate one single Chinese naval port city (like Qingdao, Dalian, or Zhanjiang) and cause more than a million casualty, completely incinerating all industrial capacities of that city as well. And subsequently warn me not to escalate, or expect nastiers sneak attacks short of all-out nuclear exchange.
 
Last edited:

Top