Nav warning issued for 33 km wide, 2000+ km corridor
China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread
- Thread starter peace_lover
- Start date
- Status
Nav warning issued for 33 km wide, 2000+ km corridor
AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
The only way the US could trust China is by letting the US be able to nuke China and China not being able to do a thing about it. That's what it means when they expect China to reduce it nukes when the US has more and none of its nuclear allies have to get rid of any of theirs. The US taunts it has more allies therefore China needs more nukes to hit those allies. Simple as that.
any ally that participates in aggression against China in any way is a legitimate target.
if they did not want to be targets, they should refrain from participation in aggression.
What would China's targeting policy likely be in the event it were hit by a large-scale nuclear attack? I saw someone say that Russia would strike all its geopolitical rivals (i.e. NATO) if it suffered a nuclear attack from just the US. If China were devastated in a nuclear war with the US, and assuming its arsenal is much larger than today's (e.g. 4 or 5 years from now), would it retaliate only against the US, or all countries that were engaged in hostilities in the conflict with it, or all geopolitical rivals?
Sinking your warheads all on one country's cities has sharply diminishing returns after a certain large number both in terms of population killed and economic damage, so I wonder if China would use a portion instead on bringing certain other rivals on its borders down with it. Technically this would be consistent with NFU, because China was not the "first" to use nuclear weapons and didn't use it against a non-nuclear country, even if that country never attacked China with its own arsenal.
Sinking your warheads all on one country's cities has sharply diminishing returns after a certain large number both in terms of population killed and economic damage, so I wonder if China would use a portion instead on bringing certain other rivals on its borders down with it. Technically this would be consistent with NFU, because China was not the "first" to use nuclear weapons and didn't use it against a non-nuclear country, even if that country never attacked China with its own arsenal.
Last edited:
AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
Well keep in mind that good olde USA wasn't that successful during the Cold War for having nuclear primary either. During the 80s, while Washington had less than 30,000 warheads in service, the USSR had 45,000 despite being poorer and less developed. If USSR could do it, so can China, which is economically more capable, especially in building the infrastructures needed to maintain the nuclear warheads and missiles. In fact, China might need it (yes, 45,000+ bombs) since it needs to deter good olde USA, Russia, Britain, France, and Jai Hinds simultaneously. With advancements in ABM technologies and urban growths, one bomb would no longer be enough to annihilate one super metropolis, not to mention hardened military facilities.
This initiative is part of the American war mode strategy, having an overwhelming superiority to be deterrent enough not to be attacked, and if attacked, guaranteeing victory based on the premise of military supremacy. The entire American military objective is centered on this thinking.
This argument can be extended to the nuclear sphere. In the 70s and 80s, the USAF was already developing a new class of re-entry missiles to overcome the Soviet anti-missile system, one of these developments is the AMaRV (Advanced Manoeuvring Re-entry Vehicle). Throughout the 1980s, they realized that the Soviet anti-missile system was still not dense enough to repel nuclear attacks, let alone accurate, found the Soviet anti-missile defense system deficient, and consequently canceled all new re-entry vehicle designs. They trusted their nuclear deterrent to the amount of warheads available, maintaining the same MIRVs, with the MAD concept prevailing.
I wouldn't say that American nuclear superiority is also based on missile defense. As they themselves saw in the Cold War against the Soviets, a reliable anti-missile system dense enough to repel attacks is too expensive and unreliable. For example, the GMD(GBI) has a success rate of 60%, and that's because the tests that took place, the ballistic missiles were not equipped with baits, which would guarantee an even greater inaccuracy of the GMD system. The SM-3 is also another missile that although it has achieved success in some tests, its reliability is quite questionable in the real point of view of a nuclear attack and that is not considering a saturation attack. These public tests are well known, they need to demonstrate that the missile can shoot down, with this private companies get the orders and the military get their funds and resources and their missiles, all the test is configured for the system in question to present a high rate Of success.
Just a curiosity:
Contrary to the 100 Mt tsunamic torpedoes, the American nuclear weapon with the highest yield is the 475 Kt W88 warhead launched by the Trident II. And warheads' nuclear yields are decreasing as accuracy increases.
The following is a list of all US nuclear weapons in operation or in stock:
–
ICBM Minuteman III Missile
W78: 335 Kt (up to 3)
W87-0: 300 Kt
–
ICBM GBSD Missile (for 2029)
W87: 300 Kt
W87-1: 475 Kt
–
SLBM Trident II Missile
W76-0: 100 Kt (up to 14)
W76-1: 90 Kt (up to 14)
W76-2: 5 Kt
W88: 475 Kt (up to 8)
–
ALCM AGM-86B
W80: 5 to 150 Kt
–
LRSO AGM-181 (from 2030)
W80-4: 5 to 150 Kt
–
W80-0: 5 to 150 Kt (disabled but in stock, used before by Tomahawk-N)
–
Bombs:
B61-3: 0.3 Kt to 170 Kt
B61-4: 0.3 Kt to 45 Kt
B61-7: 10 Kt to 340 Kt
B61-11: 340 Kt
B61-12: 0.3 Kt to 50 Kt
B83: 1.2 Mt (deactivated but in stock)
What we know today is that there are a maximum of 700 deployed strategic launchers (ICBMS, SLBMs and bombers) side by side and a maximum of 1550 operational warheads. Each bomber counts as being a launcher and a warhead.
On the American side there are still something like 1000 “bombs and air-sup missiles” launched by bombers and another 800 tactical bombs, both of which are not regulated by the treaty. There must be an equal amount on the Russian side.
What is absurd about this treaty is that it only regulates the number of warheads launched by so-called strategic missiles (ICBMs and SLBMs) and the number of strategic bombers able to launch nuclear weapons and does not regulate the number of weapons available to bombers, and how said, nor the tactical weapons. This leaves each country with around 3000 operational nuclear weapons and over 4000 in the “freezer”.
This is a fals narrative.
It expecting defense, and the USA nuclear and military strategy cetnered arround the offensive capability.
They developed the nuclear capabilities not to defend, but to be capable to destroy, and control by this way.
You can control that you can destroy.
Check this ,telling more about the USA miltiary strategy than thousand word.
- Status