China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

antiterror13

Brigadier
Never heard of it. In fact the USA was one of the countries against the French nuclear test. The French used the test to design their latest nuclear warhead now used in the M51 SLBM and calibrate their scientific models. Around the same time they did the test they also built a new supercomputer (Groupe Bull built it) to do virtual tests of nuclear warheads. The USA was always against the French getting nuclear weapons and tried to push against it all the way since the inception of the program.

Why the USA was against the French getting nukes?
 

bustead

Junior Member
Registered Member
Should China develop/build new tactical nuclear weapons? I mean they are pretty useful in busting bunkers and reinforced structures.
 

Sardaukar20

Captain
Registered Member
Should China develop/build new tactical nuclear weapons? I mean they are pretty useful in busting bunkers and reinforced structures.
No. It's expensive, and it defeats the purpose of China's nuclear doctrine. Which is to prevent getting nuked at all. Tactical nuclear weapons lowers the threshold to use nukes. Its better just stick to zero nukes or all-out nuclear exchange. Makes things simpler and far more peaceful.

It is never wise to have scenarios where the US and China start using tactical nukes to give one side an advantage in any conventional conflict. Generals will itch to use them, when things get desperate.

Besides, if the purpose for having tactical nukes is for bunker busting. Why not just go for large thermobaric bombs tipped with concrete-penetration heads. In confined spaces like a bunker, the effects of any explosives is vastly amplified. Thermobaric explosions in any bunker or tunnel will be far deadlier than in the open. Plus thermobaric bombs are far cheaper in cost and escalation risk than tactical nukes. So China can always drop more of them to compensate the power of tactical nukes.
 

Annihilation98

Junior Member
Registered Member
Chinese nuke warhead technology is already very advanced, close to W88. Remember Chinese Hydrogen bomb design is different than the USA (USA : Teller–Ulam and Chinese : China IP of Yu Min configuration)

Yu Min configuration is said better as it doesn't need as much maintenance as Teller–Ulam
Less maintenance means it probably using more fissile material (plutonium) and less hydrogen fuel( tritium) in first stage. More fissile material will reduce fizzle but it needs to sacrifice weight of the warhead. So, the nuclear warhead will be heavier than other P5 states. That's why China MIRV has fewer warheads compared to the US, Russia, UK, France, and even Israel. It might be too heavy for ICBM to deliver.
 

antiterror13

Brigadier
Less maintenance means it probably using more fissile material (plutonium) and less hydrogen fuel( tritium) in first stage. More fissile material will reduce fizzle but it needs to sacrifice weight of the warhead. So, the nuclear warhead will be heavier than other P5 states. That's why China MIRV has fewer warheads compared to the US, Russia, UK, France, and even Israel. It might be too heavy for ICBM to deliver.

Try read this, it would educate you a bit ;)
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.
 

SimaQian

Junior Member
Registered Member
It is never wise to have scenarios where the US and China start using tactical nukes to give one side an advantage in any conventional conflict. Generals will itch to use them, when things get desperate.

Exactly. In the Korean war, after China entered in the war and beaten US and UN forces in the first phase of Chinese intervention,
they already drew plans when to use atomic weapons against the ill equip, no air force, PVA army.


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

On 6 December 1950, after the Chinese intervention repelled the UN armies from northern North Korea, General
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
(Army Chief of Staff), General MacArthur, Admiral
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, General George E. Stratemeyer and staff officers Major General Doyle Hickey, Major General
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and Major General Edwin K. Wright met in Tokyo to plan strategy countering the Chinese intervention; they considered three potential atomic warfare scenarios encompassing the next weeks and months of warfare.
 

SpicySichuan

Senior Member
Registered Member
No. It's expensive, and it defeats the purpose of China's nuclear doctrine. Which is to prevent getting nuked at all. Tactical nuclear weapons lowers the threshold to use nukes. Its better just stick to zero nukes or all-out nuclear exchange. Makes things simpler and far more peaceful.

It is never wise to have scenarios where the US and China start using tactical nukes to give one side an advantage in any conventional conflict. Generals will itch to use them, when things get desperate.

Besides, if the purpose for having tactical nukes is for bunker busting. Why not just go for large thermobaric bombs tipped with concrete-penetration heads. In confined spaces like a bunker, the effects of any explosives is vastly amplified. Thermobaric explosions in any bunker or tunnel will be far deadlier than in the open. Plus thermobaric bombs are far cheaper in cost and escalation risk than tactical nukes. So China can always drop more of them to compensate the power of tactical nukes.
Well, given the international security environment, I don't think tactical nukes are a bad idea for great powers. Keep in mind that you got countries like France, Russia, and Pakistan (and to a lesser extent, the U.S.) that have active first-use policies (escalate to de-escalate). If the other side uses tactical nukes first, you better have the capacity to play along. If the other side were to use just one tactical nuke with the hope of terrorizing you into backing down, you better have the means of proportional response. That's why the Trump Administration spent so much energy developing low-yield tactical warheads.
 

Ndla2

Junior Member
Registered Member
Does someone know how China's nuclear warhead looks like? How small it is? Like Americans, they show publicly how small is their nuclear warhead especially W88, W80, B83, and B61, etc. Warhead miniaturization is very important for MIRV and can reduce the use of critical fissile material such as plutonium. Does China really need another nuclear test for warhead miniaturization? Even France need American help for their last nuclear test in 1996.
If China really need to run a test to get their nuke up to scratch, just do it. It's China's prerogative.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top