China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

Deino

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Guys, STOP it right that moment!

No discussion on arming Taiwan with nukes, no discussion on alleged intention of the West to nuke China and who would/could/should retaliate and even survive such an attack, no replies to such political BS!
 

SpicySichuan

Senior Member
Registered Member
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.
But wouldn't strategic nuke usages be mass suicide for all warring parties?
 
Last edited:

plawolf

Lieutenant General
But wouldn't strategic nuke usages be mass suicide for all warring parties?
Yes, almost certainly. Which is precisely the point. Meaning China’s tolerance for taking nuclear strikes is none, no matter if it’s tactical or strategic. That means no one else should have any delusions about hitting China with even one low yield tactical nuke without at a minimum expecting to be eating a megaton range strategic one in reply. Which should be far more effective deterrence against hostile strategic nuclear use than even thousands of tactical nukes.
 

Jono

Junior Member
Registered Member
America would have no qualms using tactical nukes in European or Asian theatres, its our nukes, your land to the Americans.
tactical nukes are smaller and less destructive, and would not affect far away North America if used in Europe or Asia or Africa.
so I agree with plawolf that China should not fall into such a trap laid by America and should not develop tactical nukes.
Putin has already indicated that any nukes used on Russian soil would be dealt with strategic nukes.
 

SpicySichuan

Senior Member
Registered Member
Yes, almost certainly. Which is precisely the point. Meaning China’s tolerance for taking nuclear strikes is none, no matter if it’s tactical or strategic. That means no one else should have any delusions about hitting China with even one low yield tactical nuke without at a minimum expecting to be eating a megaton range strategic one in reply. Which should be far more effective deterrence against hostile strategic nuclear use than even thousands of tactical nukes.
Well, how do you think the Chinese deal flexibly with hawkish elites like Trump and his advisors then (or Putin, or elites who love brinkmanship without having to directly pay for it themselves)? Keep in mind that should counter-value strategic nuclear exchange occur, these elites all have luxurious bunkers they and their families could hide in. Ultimately, it is ordinary people and soldiers in the warring countries who pay the price of city-busting strategic nuclear exchange, not elites who do not have to take the direct punishment for their decisions. In other words, once this whole hypothetical saga come to an end, it is the very perpetrators who are likely to emerge as winners and continue to rebuild the world (or at least their own countries) according to their own desires. Having said that, I will be surprised if Xi and other Standing Committee did not prepare secret bunkers deep inside China's mountain ranges for their offsprings to live through a nuclear winter. To conclude, what I am trying to argue is that should someone like Trump start a nuclear war, he would have far less to pay compared to his compatriots. Same argument goes to CCP rulers.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Sleepyjam

Junior Member
Registered Member
Well, how do you think the Chinese deal flexibly with hawkish elites like Trump and his advisors then (or Putin, or elites who love brinkmanship without having to directly pay for it themselves)? Keep in mind that should counter-value strategic nuclear exchange occur, these elites all have luxurious bunkers they and their families could hide in. Ultimately, it is ordinary people and soldiers in the warring countries who pay the price of city-busting strategic nuclear exchange, not elites who do not have to take the direct punishment for their decisions. In other words, once this whole hypothetical saga come to an end, it is the very perpetrators who are likely to emerge as winners and continue to rebuild the world (or at least their own countries) according to their own desires. Having said that, I will be surprised if Xi and other Standing Committee did not prepare secret bunkers deep inside China's mountain ranges for their offsprings to live through a nuclear winter. To conclude, what I am trying to argue is that should someone like Trump start a nuclear war, he would have far less to pay compared to his compatriots. Same argument goes to CCP rulers.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Actually these elites in America would be lynched by armed survivors considering the amount of guns, armed militants, racial conflict and conspiracy theories floating around. People like Trump do have a lot to lose considering the amount of real-estate and financial wealth they own. It’s those In extreme poverty that may feel like they have nothing to lose.
 

Broccoli

Senior Member
How suppose they know what DF-41 looks like? We never have pictures of it. And the dimension of DF-41 is also debatable.

Estimations based on it's payload capability and range.

Though i'd make third stage as thick as the other two stages since that seems to be a thing with similar missiles (Peacekeeper & Molodets).
 

Annihilation98

Junior Member
Registered Member
Estimations based on it's payload capability and range.

Though i'd make third stage as thick as the other two stages since that seems to be a thing with similar missiles (Peacekeeper & Molodets).
More similar to RS-24 Yars. RS24 Yars is 17 meters and range of 11000km.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top