China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread


clockwork

Junior Member
Registered Member
As usual, let's repeat the facts:
All US assets inside the 1st island chain, are sitting ducks (also known as "doomed")

All US assets inside the 2nd island chain are at in an increasing danger of getting annihilated. They will reach "sitting ducks" status by 2025
How are they not already? There are more than enough DF-26s for all of those assets and then some. Anything within 5000km of China including Diego Garcia is completely doomed...
Btw, has anyone heard anything about the DF-27 (26 booster with 17 HGV) mentioned in CMPR 21?
 

clockwork

Junior Member
Registered Member
260525968_265601492214444_7832343026286193349_n.jpg
Lmao Americans. They weren't so concerned about stability when they were the ones doing the destabilizing, with SDI, the most destabilizing thing you could possibly conceive. But now that they face a new enemy that can actually gain the upper hand in this game they've suddenly developed such a queer newfound obsession with strategic stability, what a coincidence.
American behaviour in a nutshell really: When you can't win by force, play the victim and appeal to all sorts of moral sophistry.

(from
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
)
 

Ringsword

New Member
Registered Member
View attachment 79524
Lmao Americans. They weren't so concerned about stability when they were the ones doing the destabilizing, with SDI, the most destabilizing thing you could possibly conceive. But now that they face a new enemy that can actually gain the upper hand in this game they've suddenly developed such a queer newfound obsession with strategic stability, what a coincidence.
American behaviour in a nutshell really: When you can't win by force, play the victim and appeal to all sorts of moral sophistry.

(from
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
)
I pray and hope fully that China NEVER enters into an idiotic self-defeating arms treaty like the 1922 Washington Naval Treaty which can cripple China's power and give our opponents time to catch up and we lose our strategic edge.BTW Strangelove I love your models of DF26 etc-I live in Toronto Canada 'I wonder if I can buy them from a dealer like AliExpress(few little feel good toys for me at Xmas)
 

JSL

Junior Member
Registered Member
.
.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

"For the first time, the United States is trying to nudge China’s leadership into a conversation about its nuclear capability. U.S. officials, describing the American strategy, say Mr. Biden and his top aides plan to move slowly — focusing the talks first on avoiding accidental conflict, then on each nation’s nuclear strategy and the related instability that could come from attacks in cyberspace and outer space.

Finally — maybe years from now — the two nations could begin discussing arms control, perhaps a treaty or something politically less complex, such as an agreement on common norms of behavior."
 

Ringsword

New Member
Registered Member
.
.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

"For the first time, the United States is trying to nudge China’s leadership into a conversation about its nuclear capability. U.S. officials, describing the American strategy, say Mr. Biden and his top aides plan to move slowly — focusing the talks first on avoiding accidental conflict, then on each nation’s nuclear strategy and the related instability that could come from attacks in cyberspace and outer space.

Finally — maybe years from now — the two nations could begin discussing arms control, perhaps a treaty or something politically less complex, such as an agreement on common norms of behavior."
A civilized talk between US and China?-not likely soon and if Trump gets reelected in 2024-all bets are off and maybe China is building at least 900 silos loaded with very modern mirv/marv,hgvs etc for that fateful day.BTW China is NOT engaged in a foolish numbers-for numbers arms race just "sufficient" for strategic security and defensive security.
 

weig2000

Senior Member
View attachment 79524
Lmao Americans. They weren't so concerned about stability when they were the ones doing the destabilizing, with SDI, the most destabilizing thing you could possibly conceive. But now that they face a new enemy that can actually gain the upper hand in this game they've suddenly developed such a queer newfound obsession with strategic stability, what a coincidence.
American behaviour in a nutshell really: When you can't win by force, play the victim and appeal to all sorts of moral sophistry.

(from
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
)

"And Chinese officials have consistently rejected the idea of entering arms control talks, shutting down such suggestions by noting — accurately — that the United States and Russia each have deployed five times more nuclear warheads than Beijing possesses."

Even when they pretend to concede the "fact" that the US has much more nuclear warheads than China, they still try to manipulate the words and numbers. In fact, the US has more than twenty times more nuclear warheads than China. Period. The choice of word "deployed" is deceiving and manipulative. The distinction between warheads deployed and warheads in possession is meaningless here. This is before one even considers that American experts believe that China separates its nuclear warheads and missiles normally.

This playing innocence and moral high-ground is sickening.
 
Last edited:

ChongqingHotPot92

Junior Member
Registered Member
View attachment 79524
Lmao Americans. They weren't so concerned about stability when they were the ones doing the destabilizing, with SDI, the most destabilizing thing you could possibly conceive. But now that they face a new enemy that can actually gain the upper hand in this game they've suddenly developed such a queer newfound obsession with strategic stability, what a coincidence.
American behaviour in a nutshell really: When you can't win by force, play the victim and appeal to all sorts of moral sophistry.

(from
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
)
Well Washington should ask itself why it 1.) withdrew in 2002 from the ABM Treaty 2.) allowed NATO expansion to include the Baltic States (former Soviet territories) 3.) support India's nuclear power program in starting in 2005 despite the fact that New Delhi is an illegal nuclear state under international law (so US supporting nuclear proliferation to the NPT violating state of India while criticizing NK and Iran for trying to adopt nukes) 4.) with drew from the INF Treaty during Trump Administration, and 5.) use Taiwan as a pawn to try to obtain more concessions from China, knowing that elevating Taiwan's international status could at some point touch the tripwire for the PLA to launch an attack. In fact, by publicly pledging to defend Taiwan, Washington is engaging is similar (thought far less institutionalized) bahaviour as NATO expansion into former Soviet territories. In conclusion, it was Washington during its unipolar moment from 1991 to 2008 that tried to squeeze the last breaths out of its potential competitors that led to Russia and China (historical enemies dating back to Tsarist era) to form a marriage of convenience. Now with Moscow on Ukraine's doorstep and PLA on Taiwan's doorstep, maybe the Anglos should reflect on what they have done to create such hostile quasi-alliance and China's abandonment of minimum deterrence (not mention the likelihood of building the most powerful hypersonic arsenal). Should a nuclear war occur, the 500+ US satellites would be able to monitor all incoming regular ICBM and hypersonic warheads, but they would not be able to intercept them. Just imagine the helplessness of being able to watch but unable to do anything (like someone slowly disemboweling you alive but you are powerless to stop the execution).
 

Top