China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread
- Thread starter peace_lover
- Start date
- Status
Taobao, search for 大国重器方队
AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
IRBMs are the best!
Unless you’re Kim Jong-un, that is!
The US is so paranoid, leaving a treaty with Russia because of Chinese missiles.
Of course, they claim it’s ‘cause of the ER-Islander (or, is that Iskander-ER).
Last edited:
Well, Milley wasn't bluffing when he said that the US has the capacity to defeat a Chinese invasion of Taiwan through. But what he did not mention is that even without an invasion, the PLA could still punish Taiwan terribly with its firepower. However, while PLARF and PLAAF can flatten Taiwan's military bases and important infrastructures with multiple coordinated strikes, but to mount an amphibious invasion supported by heliborne assault troops would be another issue. I remember back in China in 2016, an "expert" told me that what Beijing really plans to do is to launch massive air and missile attacks with hope to coerce Taiwan away from independence, but to actually invade Taiwan remains risky due to US SSNs. In other words, similar to what Bonnie Glaser has argued, Beijing's goal remains deterring Taiwanese de jure independence (or forming a legal military alliance with the US) instead of achieving unification by force in the short to medium term. And ballistic and cruise missiles are the key to such deterrence. I remember a famous CIA analyst (forgot his name) saying that Beijing's red lines have always been 1.) Taiwanese de jure independence 2.) Taiwan developing nukes 3.) Taiwan forms alliance with and allows third party troops to be stationed en masse in Taiwan
antiterror13
Brigadier
Wondering whether China still producing DF-31AG? Would it be better to focus only on DF-41 variant for long ranged ICBM ? perhaps still produce DF-5B/C for silo base considering it can carry very heavy load (read MIRV)
Hopefully China would produce 12-16 DF-41 and 6 DF-5B/C per year .. and many DF-26, etc
Hopefully China would produce 12-16 DF-41 and 6 DF-5B/C per year .. and many DF-26, etc
Last edited:
plawolf
Lieutenant General
Having no tactical nukes gives better deterrence to such idiotic games.
Any nuclear attack against Chinese interests or territory will demand a nuclear response. If China ain’t got tactical nukes, it means it’s response will be megaton yield strategic ones. Who is the clear looser in such an exchange? It’s a simple and clear cut answer and will easily short-circuit any spin or dishonest analysis.
If China were to invest in tactical nukes, then you will get into situations where the other side will actually entertain you the idea that they can limit the exchange to tactical nukes and ‘win’ due to them having more of them and having more tactical nukes (arms race to waste Chinese resources) and disposable foreign bases in China’s periphery. As such, any tactical nuclear exchange is expected to be geographically limited to China’s neighbourhood, and will be the ace in the hole it’s enemies desperately wants to try to neutralise China’s growing conventional military dominance, so China looses even if it wins.
It’s a game China’s enemies desperately want China to enter, and a trap which China would be foolish to fall into.
I believe DF-31AG can reach all of United States from bases in China, so it seems fully adequate for China’s ICBM coverage needs.
DF-41 can probably hit many more targets with MIRVs for each booster and TEL. But Number of available warheads seems to be a much more serious bottle neck for China than the number of TEL and missile boosters. So advantage in number of MIRVS may remain academic for a considerable time.
DF-41 can also carry many more penetration aids help defeat terminal ballistic missile defense. But it is not totally clear just how effective terminal ballistics missile defense really is, so it is not clear to me exactly what is the true value of many penetration aids. Maybe a few aids is enough to get all the warheads through, in which case the ability to,carry a lot of aids is of limited value. Maybe a lot of aids is required just to give some warheads a moderate chance. In that case DF-41’s ability to carry penetration aids may be a decisive advantage over DF-31AG.
But, I suspect the greatest advantage of DF-41 is it probably has at least the potential for conducting strategically destabilizing fractional orbit bombardment. That could be a huge advantage particularly if terminal ballistic missile defense is actually reasonably effective. Because FOB would effectively double the cost and scope of ballistic missile defense.
DF-41 can probably hit many more targets with MIRVs for each booster and TEL. But Number of available warheads seems to be a much more serious bottle neck for China than the number of TEL and missile boosters. So advantage in number of MIRVS may remain academic for a considerable time.
DF-41 can also carry many more penetration aids help defeat terminal ballistic missile defense. But it is not totally clear just how effective terminal ballistics missile defense really is, so it is not clear to me exactly what is the true value of many penetration aids. Maybe a few aids is enough to get all the warheads through, in which case the ability to,carry a lot of aids is of limited value. Maybe a lot of aids is required just to give some warheads a moderate chance. In that case DF-41’s ability to carry penetration aids may be a decisive advantage over DF-31AG.
But, I suspect the greatest advantage of DF-41 is it probably has at least the potential for conducting strategically destabilizing fractional orbit bombardment. That could be a huge advantage particularly if terminal ballistic missile defense is actually reasonably effective. Because FOB would effectively double the cost and scope of ballistic missile defense.
- Status