China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

FairAndUnbiased

Brigadier
Registered Member
The US was plenty able to project further force during the Korean war. McArthur wanted to use nuclear weapons. But the US didn't want to get bogged down in Asia because it's primary opponent back then was the Soviet Union. Now it's primary opponent would be China so it would go all out. The country most similar to Korea today would be Afghanistan.
Not really. They were
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
They were unable to proceed beyond the 38th parallel after the PVA counterattack, thus being unable to project force further and signed the armistice.

Korea was in no way comparable to Afghanistan. You are either grossly misinformed or intellectually dishonest for suggesting that. Korea was a very high intensity conventional conflict that lasted 3 years and physically reshaped the entire Korean peninsula.
 

gadgetcool5

Senior Member
Registered Member
And China today also have nuclear weapons while China of Korean War days did not, thus the calculation is different?
Their calculation will be the same as China's calculation that the other side (the US) has nuclear weapons, at least.

Korea was in no way comparable to Afghanistan.
They are both conflicts in which the US did not go all out and chose to extricate itself because they were considered sideshows to the main opponent the US wanted to focus on. In Korea's case, the USSR. In Afghanistan's case, China. China would be very foolish to try and use Korea as a comforting thought giving a sense of overconfidence that the US would surrender and accept defeat without using nuclear weapons, just as the US would be foolish to overestimate China's willingness to accept defeat.
 

FairAndUnbiased

Brigadier
Registered Member
They are both conflicts in which the US did not go all out and chose to extricate itself because they were considered sideshows to the main opponent the US wanted to focus on. In Korea's case, the USSR. In Afghanistan's case, China. China would be very foolish to try and use Korea as a comforting thought giving a sense of overconfidence that the US would surrender and accept defeat without using nuclear weapons, just as the US would be foolish to overestimate China's willingness to accept defeat.
nope, that is again factually untrue. Your claim is 1. the US did not go all out in a manner comparable to Afghanistan and 2. they thought it was a distraction from more important things elsewhere. Both assertions are provably false.

1. In
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
out of
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
total. In Afghanistan they deployed
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
out of again 1.4 milion total. Korea
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
(see pg. 48). In comparison, no such leap occurred for Afghanistan: in 1999, defense was 16.1% of federal spending and in 2002 it was 17.3% (see pg. 54).

So no, comparing a deployment of 25% of all troops into a single theater and an increase in defense spending by 30% is utterly incomparable to a 10% deployment of troops and 1% increase in defense spending. It is intellectually dishonest to do so.

2. They already received word from the Soviets that they would not commit to Korea (
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
). So no, they were not worried about the Soviet reaction at all and discounted China's reaction.
On 20 August 1950, Premier Zhou Enlai informed the UN that "Korea is China's neighbor... The Chinese people cannot but be concerned about a solution of the Korean question". Thus, through neutral-country diplomats, China warned that in safeguarding Chinese
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, they would intervene against the UN Command in Korea.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
President Truman interpreted the communication as "a bald attempt to blackmail the UN", and dismissed it.
They underestimated China's resolve to their own disadvantage.
 

sinophilia

Junior Member
Registered Member
nope, that is again factually untrue. Your claim is 1. the US did not go all out in a manner comparable to Afghanistan and 2. they thought it was a distraction from more important things elsewhere. Both assertions are provably false.

1. In
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
out of
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
total. In Afghanistan they deployed
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
out of again 1.4 milion total. Korea
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
(see pg. 48). In comparison, no such leap occurred for Afghanistan: in 1999, defense was 16.1% of federal spending and in 2002 it was 17.3% (see pg. 54).

So no, comparing a deployment of 25% of all troops into a single theater and an increase in defense spending by 30% is utterly incomparable to a 10% deployment of troops and 1% increase in defense spending. It is intellectually dishonest to do so.

2. They already received word from the Soviets that they would not commit to Korea (
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
). So no, they were not worried about the Soviet reaction at all and discounted China's reaction.

They underestimated China's resolve to their own disadvantage.

While this is technically true I don't think you should compare to federal spending (since it too increased significantly) and your time periods are cut too short. US spending on defense as a percentage of GDP climbed from somewhere in the range of 1.9-2.1% pre-9/11 to >4% at its height, and I think may have reached 4.6% or something close to that.
 

Hendrik_2000

Lieutenant General
Their calculation will be the same as China's calculation that the other side (the US) has nuclear weapons, at least.


They are both conflicts in which the US did not go all out and chose to extricate itself because they were considered sideshows to the main opponent the US wanted to focus on. In Korea's case, the USSR. In Afghanistan's case, China. China would be very foolish to try and use Korea as a comforting thought giving a sense of overconfidence that the US would surrender and accept defeat without using nuclear weapons, just as the US would be foolish to overestimate China's willingness to accept defeat.
I don't buy the argument that US war effort in Korea is half hearted attempt. They throw everything that they got including the kitchen sink. Something like more than half of their army strength was sent to Korea

Whether US will get involve in Taiwan shootout will depend on their perception of how successful they will be with first strike.
And at the same time how well can they defend the homeland. On both account the prognosis is not good, now that China enlarge their ICBM stock while at the same time changing the doctrine from absorbing first strike to launch on warning
As to defending the homeland from potential foe The ABM is money pit that doesn't not generate satisfactory result. Today timely article from AT highlight the problem of ABM effort across all level of defense systems.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

America is highly vulnerable to a missile attack​

Despite spending billions of dollars, the US still lacks a credible ballistic missile defense to protect its territory from Russia, China or Iran. The US does have some defenses against a possible missile strike from North Korea but even these systems require billions of dollars in new investment for needed improvements.

A good interim solution for the US would be to adopt Israel’s Arrow-3 for homeland security defense, buying time to develop a new and capable ballistic missile defense system.

The US has three land-based missile defense systems and one sea-based system. Of the land-based systems, the Ground Based Midcourse Interceptor (GBI) is potentially the most important to protect US territory from an ICBM launch.

Yet the GBI has performed poorly in tests. So much so, in fact, that the Pentagon decided to drop Boeing, the GBI’s main contractor, and award an “interim” contract to Northrop and Lockheed to build 20 interceptor missiles. The new contracts are valued at US$3.7 billion.
 

gadgetcool5

Senior Member
Registered Member
2. They already received word from the Soviets that they would not commit to Korea (
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
). So no, they were not worried about the Soviet reaction at all and discounted China's reaction.
You missed the point. It isn't that the Americans were worried about the Soviets intervening in Korea. They were worried that if they went all out in Korea/China, their energies would be distracted from the Soviet threat in Europe. They basically wanted to reserve most of their power to counter the Soviets from breaching the iron curtain. Similarly, the reason Biden is pulling out of Afghanistan is because Americans feel Middle Eastern wars take up resources and attention which they would rather spend countering China.

All I'm saying is China shouldn't get into a war with the US, a nuclear power with a powerful alliance system, and a determination not to be defeated in such a way that would really shake their status in the world (which neither losing Korea or Afghanistan did). The US wouldn't surrender unless Washington D.C. were conquered. Such a war could go nuclear and that would be really bad for everyone, except for Hindu nationalists.
 

davidau

Senior Member
Registered Member
Indeed. China's biggest advantage is that it doesn't intend to fight the war that US likely wants with it ( a global war). And I can confidently say that China will lose a Global war with US.

But China will win the war it really intends to fight( a war in its neighbourhood). The chances of winning are increasing year by year.
Does China want to fight a global war? Never!
 

Sleepyjam

Junior Member
Registered Member
You missed the point. It isn't that the Americans were worried about the Soviets intervening in Korea. They were worried that if they went all out in Korea/China, their energies would be distracted from the Soviet threat in Europe. They basically wanted to reserve most of their power to counter the Soviets from breaching the iron curtain. Similarly, the reason Biden is pulling out of Afghanistan is because Americans feel Middle Eastern wars take up resources and attention which they would rather spend countering China.

All I'm saying is China shouldn't get into a war with the US, a nuclear power with a powerful alliance system, and a determination not to be defeated in such a way that would really shake their status in the world (which neither losing Korea or Afghanistan did). The US wouldn't surrender unless Washington D.C. were conquered. Such a war could go nuclear and that would be really bad for everyone, except for Hindu nationalists.
Biden pulled out simply because they couldn’t not win. After spending over 2 trillion dollars the end was nowhere in sight, this is independent of China. Americans do not have the stomach for protracted conflicts that drains blood and treasure endlessly.

More like US shouldn’t get into a war with China if they are so concerned about being defeated. America’s status would be gone regardless whether if it’s a conventional or nuclear conflict. If the Hindu nationalists allied with the US then they might get nuked as well.
 
Last edited:

davidau

Senior Member
Registered Member
Biden pulled out simply because they couldn’t not win. After spending over 2 trillion dollars the end was nowhere in sight, this is independent of China. Americans do not have the stomach for protracted conflicts that drains blood and treasure endlessly.

More like US shouldn’t get into a war with China if they are so concerned about being defeated. America’s status would be gone regardless wether if it’s a conventional or nuclear conflict. If the Hindu nationalists allied with the US then they might get nuked as well.
Interesting to note the US has been defeated soundly in the Korean War [ helped by the Chinese Volutary Army], when they wanted to cross the 38 parallel but were driven back with huge US casualties. Second, the Vietnamese War where China helped the North Vietnamese and the yanks have to retreat out from Vungtao. Now the Afgaistan War at which they scuttled out like rats on a sinking ship! Have the US learnt?

As to trying to attack China whose military is well equiped, highly organised, high morale, professsional and have the will to win a war, the US will suffer a complete annilation if they dare to attack China.
 
Last edited:

escobar

Brigadier
But it appears Kendall was basing his statement on highly classified information. After the speech, one source with knowledge of the issue said “I’m surprised he got clearance to mention it, frankly.” The mention was designed to be a signal to the Chinese, the source believes.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top