China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

r41

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

US starts feeling the pressure

A 2020 Pentagon report estimated China's stockpile of nuclear warheads was in the low 200s and projected the figure to at least double over the next decade.

nothing new compared to Pentagon China Report 2020 pag 13

China’s nuclear forces will significantly evolve over the next decade as it modernizes, diversifies, and increases the number of its land-, sea-, and air-based nuclear delivery platforms.
> Over the next decade, China’s nuclear warhead stockpile—currently estimated to be in the low-200s—is projected to at least double in size as China expands and modernizes its nuclear forces.
> China is pursuing a “nuclear triad” with the development of a nuclear capable air-launched ballistic missile (ALBM) and improving its ground and sea-based nuclear capabilities.
> New developments in 2019 further suggest that China intends to increase the peacetime readiness of its nuclear forces by moving to a launch-on-warning (LOW) posture with an expanded silo-based force
 

Hendrik_2000

Lieutenant General
China will develop several type of Hypersonic missile DF 17 is not the only one. The other thing she might equipped the ICBM with hypersonic warhead. There is no defense against Hypersonic warhead

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

China’s Hypersonic Missiles: Methods and Motives​

Publication: China Brief Volume: 21 Issue: 15​

The PLA is now researching and developing two basic types of hypersonic missiles, which can be categorized based on their means of propulsion. The first group, hypersonic cruise missiles (HCM), rely on powered flight with air-breathing engines. The second group, hypersonic glide vehicles (HGV), are launched into the upper atmosphere (50-80 kilometers, or 30-50 miles) and then glide unpowered toward a target. Both types can reach distant targets more rapidly than China’s existing subsonic or even supersonic cruise missiles and warplanes. And although China’s ballistic missiles can fly as fast as these hypersonic systems, HCMs and HGVs have more unpredictable maneuverability, allowing for better circumvention of some aspects of present-day U.S. Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) systems.[2]

The first public demonstration of China’s apparently operational hypersonic capability came when the PLA displayed several DF-17s, a solid-fueled medium-range ballistic missile (MRBM) with a range of 2,000 kilometers (1,243 miles), designed to launch the DF-ZF (also known as the WU-14) HGV during a 2019 National Day parade (
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, October 1, 2019). PRC media sources have also discussed deploying HGVs on longer-range ballistic missiles, including the new DF-41 intercontinental-range ballistic missile (ICBM) that is capable of reaching the U.S. mainland, and noted that HGV technology has become “an integral part of nuclear strategy” (
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, January 3, 2018), and that its “sophisticated trajectory…[makes] penetrating enemy defense networks an easy job” (
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, August 1, 2020).

In February 2020, General Terrence O’Shaughnessy, then-head of U.S. Northern Command, testified that China was already “testing…an intercontinental-range hypersonic glide vehicle—similar to…[Russia’s] Avangard” (
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, February 13, 2020). Having both a traditional reentry vehicle capable of delivering multiple warheads on one ballistic missile and a HGV capable of carrying fewer warheads but better able to maneuver in unpredictable ways will reinforce China’s ability to overcome its adversaries’ missile defenses. The PLA Navy (PLAN) might also seek to emulate Russia’s ship-launched Tsirkon hypersonic capabilities and equip its JL-2 submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) with nuclear-armed HGVs to further improve strategic nuclear deterrenc
e.
 

escobar

Brigadier
Last edited:

Gloire_bb

Captain
Registered Member
The kind of "experts" who talk to people like Tong Zhao are as far away from Chinese policymaking circles as can be. The actual experts are quite well informed, they just don't cavort with the enemy.
There are things that may be written in open sources in english, there are things that may not. It's the rules of the game.
Mr. Zhao is a real expert, with a wast portfolio behind his back.
 

ZeEa5KPul

Colonel
Registered Member
There are things that may be written in open sources in english, there are things that may not. It's the rules of the game.
Mr. Zhao is a real expert, with a wast portfolio behind his back.
I didn't say he wasn't; I don't know about his portfolio and I don't care to know. What I'm saying - which shouldn't be controversial - is that the degree of cooperation a Chinese expert or think tank has with an outfit like the Carnegie Endowment is inversely correlated to that expert or think tank's proximity to Chinese decisionmakers.
 

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
I didn't say he wasn't; I don't know about his portfolio and I don't care to know. What I'm saying - which shouldn't be controversial - is that the degree of cooperation a Chinese expert or think tank has with an outfit like the Carnegie Endowment is inversely correlated to that expert or think tank's proximity to Chinese decisionmakers.

Carnegie was supposedly the official backchannel between the US and Chinese governments.
 

ougoah

Brigadier
Registered Member
Oh man the fear mongering. China has no intention to strike the US unless it is attacked by the US. Somehow no one else is allowed strategic weapons but the US??! Whenever someone else does it is a threat to everything and those baddies are going to use it at any time without provocation? Some of those twitter comments are cringe and so stupid.

China has had the ability to nuke CONUS with DF-5 missile since 1981 and had its first gen SSBN with JL-1 SLBM in early 1980s. It developed HGVs and more modern (along with more) intercontinental ranged delivery in response to increased US belligerence (undeniably true and mostly one sided! at least instigated by the US) and improving along with proliferating US land, sea, and probably also air based BMD. The Americans and their cheerleaders would prefer they have sole monopoly on weapons just like the imperialists centuries ago enjoyed. They can do as they please, take as they please, force as they please and no one could even dare voice opposition. Anyone with even a means to stand in defiance to their standards of "rule based order" is a threat to their rules and their will.

Not only should China double its efforts to eventually meet and surpass conventional and non-conventional military ability but also arm the rest. No one nation should have a monopoly on determining what "rules" the rest of the world must follow and have the violence to enforce it. We are in a post imperialist world with the old imperialist desperately holding onto their eroding power and using their admittedly superior soft power to double down on psychological warfare.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top