China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread


ougoah

Brigadier
Registered Member
It is irrelevant who is morally true or wrong.

The point is that no nation will cede their territory peacefully, even if you think it is the evil one.

And Russia would be more difficult to maneuver if Ukraine had kept the nuclear weapon. Nuclear weapon is a deterrent that one probably never uses them but show of resolve during a showdown.

It is just so tiresome that dudes keep popping out random number like “China probably already has 1,000 warheads and you just didn't know, it is a top secret."

The real question should be what is the best, cheapest and way to achieve credible MAD with US.

China may have anywhere between 300 and 3000 nukes. With 3000 being an arbitrarily "high" number to make the point that we don't know. It also isn't that important for the scenario of war with Taiwan. Is your personal position that you feel China may not have enough nukes? Or that you feel any showdown with the US is approved only with a certain minimum?

The nuclear question is so bloody simple you ought to simply ignore new members rambling about that topic, particularly with respect to any real possible war scenarios.

To answer your question, the best and cheapest way to achieve MAD with the US is to ascertain a very accurate estimate of how many warheads and yield ranges would be necessary to satisfy the word "destruction" in MAD, figure out how many interceptors the US likely has, multiply that by 2, assume all those interceptors would hit (whether it's midcourse interception or whatever forms of interception/disruption there are), work out how effective your own early warning systems are to warn of incoming attack, where those point of failures may be, back them up and back them up again with fundamentally different technologies, make sure you can fire on warning "quick enough" (determined by intelligence gathering), make assumptions that a sizeable (you define it why don't you) portion of your own second strike may be negated, assume a portion may have issues or sabotage. Out of what you're left with, is it enough to satisfy the word "destruction". The method doesn't give a number per se but a distribution. Now out of that, manage the risk optimally if possible and decide. I wonder what that number would be. Whatever it is, it is pocket change for the PRC. The USSR, Russia, USA all have been doing at least this for many decades. China has more people than both put together to protect, a greater potential to protect, far more wealth and resources than Russia has to protect. Just stating some facts that would weigh in on that decision from the results of what I'm sure would be complex work.

Now what do you think it is?

As for how many nukes China has... lol this tiring old conversation. China in the 1980s announced that it has nuclear warhead stockpile "roughly equivalent to UK and France". The western estimates for China's 1980-1990s stockpile is around 300 warheads. This is a period of time China was no hegemon displacing threat to the US, had little of the same attention on it as it does now due to being hegemon displacing threat, and was a very keen and effective practitioner of hide your strength bide your time. Nearly 40 years have passed, generations of nuclear delivery systems have come into service and retired. In fact indeed also generation/s of warhead designs. China has enough nuclear material for thousands of warheads. The threat on China is greater than ever before. But it doesn't talk much about nuclear forces and has not updated its statement of its own nuclear strength or corrected any estimates based on the 1980s 1990s figures offered.

We really ought to separate the conversation on war, especially potential wars, with that of nuclear forces and warhead numbers. Ignore some attempts to bring converge those topics elsewhere.
 

ougoah

Brigadier
Registered Member
China has no interest and has never expressed interest to threaten nuclear blackmail. There is no reason to even remove NFU policy. Nuclear is murder-suicide option, everyone dies together option. It isn't an option for the country with the greatest potential on earth and already the greatest economy and largest industrial power on earth. It is moronic to hit the murder-suicide button out of spite or out of loss. Particularly true for a civilisational power with what I'd describe as a deeply seated and stubborn superiority complex. I'd put money on American politicians pushing the murder-suicide button more than CCP. Compared to the CCP, many in US leadership are the equivalents of having faith in a virgin profuse afterlife for being God's good little soldiers on earth. That's not to say there aren't sane and rational actors the other side of the lake but in comparison to the often too coldly rational CCP, I know which one is more at risk of going silly.
 

rambo54

New Member
Registered Member
He's actually been here for years lol. @rambo54 just waiting on your response to my private message :)

What's your figure on the number of DF-5Cs? Someone else put it at 18 new silos discovered.
I will just refer to the things which I have found so far.

Meanwhile I have found two more construction sites in the field of the 662.
That brings the total to 6 (new sites), which btw. would be confirm to the No of silos in each of the traditional DF-5 BGDs (661/631/633):
33.937924° 111.890266° (newly found)
33.910553° 111.902466° (newly found)
AFAIK these sites are not placed at former ROTL sites.

33.910553° 111.902466°.jpg

33.937924° 111.890266°.jpg

Moreover:
33.809843° 111.942346°
33.786277° 112.024078°
33.760146° 112.163708°
33.764675° 112.207763°

So I would expect not only the four new construction sites in the field of the 631 (or more likely in a new 634 BGD) but (at least two more).
26.312825° 109.950207°
26.268429° 109.925050°
26.229409° 109.902404°
26.187509° 109.893501°

So if someone has access to more recent Airbus/CNES images it would be worthwhile to look for two more in this area!
Hope he would share his "insights" by coordinates.

This would make 3 traditionally BGDs (661/631/633) and the former DF-4 662 BGD and the new 634 BGD all with 6 silos -> 30 DF-5 silos.
In the shadow of the 300 silos under construction for (most likely DF-41) I don't think that China needs more than 30 DF-5 silos.
But who knows.
So if you nerds like, join me to sniff around these BGDs for more construction sites - and pls share

Cheers
 

Kalec

New Member
Registered Member
I will just refer to the things which I have found so far.

Meanwhile I have found two more construction sites in the field of the 662.
That brings the total to 6 (new sites), which btw. would be confirm to the No of silos in each of the traditional DF-5 BGDs (661/631/633):
33.937924° 111.890266° (newly found)
33.910553° 111.902466° (newly found)
AFAIK these sites are not placed at former ROTL sites.

View attachment 94897

View attachment 94898

Moreover:
33.809843° 111.942346°
33.786277° 112.024078°
33.760146° 112.163708°
33.764675° 112.207763°

So I would expect not only the four new construction sites in the field of the 631 (or more likely in a new 634 BGD) but (at least two more).
26.312825° 109.950207°
26.268429° 109.925050°
26.229409° 109.902404°
26.187509° 109.893501°

So if someone has access to more recent Airbus/CNES images it would be worthwhile to look for two more in this area!
Hope he would share his "insights" by coordinates.

This would make 3 traditionally BGDs (661/631/633) and the former DF-4 662 BGD and the new 634 BGD all with 6 silos -> 30 DF-5 silos.
In the shadow of the 300 silos under construction for (most likely DF-41) I don't think that China needs more than 30 DF-5 silos.
But who knows.
So if you nerds like, join me to sniff around these BGDs for more construction sites - and pls share

Cheers
So it seems that the rumor is likely to be true at the end of day. But I still we still need more confirmation from official reports on brigades.

Because I think it is very likely PLARF will reconstruct DF-5 organization to be more personnel-effective, will might bring the total DF-5 silos number up to 36, with 18 in each brigades. The same rumor also suggested that 634 BGD wasn't equipped with new silos.

I am wondering why you perceive the solid silos for DF-41. If I remember correctly, the new silo has a 5m internal diameter which is excessively spacious for a 2m diameter DF-41.
 

Kalec

New Member
Registered Member
To answer your question, the best and cheapest way to achieve MAD with the US is to ascertain a very accurate estimate of how many warheads and yield ranges would be necessary to satisfy the word "destruction" in MAD, figure out how many interceptors the US likely has, multiply that by 2.

The latest tally would be 900 warheads to eliminate 30% US population based on simulation of nukemap. Ofc it is a rough estimation made by several military fans in a doctrine that only focuses on soft targets.

And you multiple that number by 2 -- 1,800 warheads -- which is slightly higher than the upper bound of New Start Treaty. Then here comes the arm control/arm race concern. The nuclear armrace is merely a mathematical competition with no real meaning but waste of money.
China has no interest and has never expressed interest to threaten nuclear blackmail. There is no reason to even remove NFU policy. Nuclear is murder-suicide option, everyone dies together option.
The nuclear expansion is to deter US from a Taiwan intervention. China can make the same unacceptable damage to US as what US could do to China in a nuclear war and it makes US 100% sure that China has no real ability to make an aggressive in conventional warfare over westpac.

The new ICBMs will make US calm and think. A nuclear threat over Taiwan is not credible at all since China would also make unacceptable damage to US in a nuclear exchange and Russia is friendlier towards China than US.

That's the whole point of nuclear expansion. Strategic deterrence with A2/AD ability to 100% keep US away from an intervention.
 

tokenanalyst

Senior Member
Registered Member
The latest tally would be 900 warheads to eliminate 30% US population based on simulation of nukemap. Ofc it is a rough estimation made by several military fans in a doctrine that only focuses on soft targets.
Dude, 900 warheads indirectly will kill MUCH MUCH MORE than 30% of the U.S. population.
 

Kalec

New Member
Registered Member
Dude, 900 warheads indirectly will kill MUCH MUCH MORE than 30% of the U.S. population.
Indirectly, Yes. Anarchy, collapse of society, a hostile nuclear-armed and unhurt Russia.

But no one can ensure Russia is always in Team China. China also has more targets to destroy because US cities are more sparse than Chinese.
Are you referring to that guy on haohanfw last yr? That seems a bit low too.
Are you referring to the % of population it kills or the number of warheads? The simulation is from 9ifly and updated further in haohanfw.
 

tokenanalyst

Senior Member
Registered Member
Indirectly, Yes. Anarchy, collapse of society, a hostile nuclear-armed and unhurt Russia.

But no one can ensure Russia is always in Team China. China also has more targets to destroy because US cities are more sparse than Chinese.

Are you referring to the % of population it kills or the number of warheads? The simulation is from 9ifly and updated further in haohanfw
Not only the indirect causalities for anarchy and collapse, but also because of the huge amount of soot that will be distributed in the upper atmosphere, just 100 Hiroshima-sized (20Kt) bombs between India and Pakistan will create a firestorm and enough soot that it would lower the temperatures in South Asia by almost 10 degrees Celsius that will kill many crops and that will kill more people than that war itself. The bombs in the Chinese arsenal range from 100Kt to 5Mt, let's put it at 300Kt each warhead, about 15 times the size of Hiroshima, 900 warheads will cause catastrophic environmental damage that will kill far more people than the firestorm itself.

But not only that, with a massive American retaliation, the Russians will have no way of knowing if any of those missiles will hit them, so in a used or lost scenario, they will likely launch their missiles American and European silos, military bases, industrial centers and cities. The entire northern hemisphere will be completely destroyed and the people of the southern hemisphere will suffer a fate worse than death as supply chains will collapse and winds will spread soot over the upper atmosphere killing crops and bringing famine.​
 

clockwork

Junior Member
Registered Member
Not only the indirect causalities for anarchy and collapse, but also because of the huge amount of soot that will be distributed in the upper atmosphere, just 100 Hiroshima-sized (20Kt) bombs between India and Pakistan will create a firestorm and enough soot that it would lower the temperatures in South Asia by almost 10 degrees Celsius that will kill many crops and that will kill more people than that war itself. The bombs in the Chinese arsenal range from 100Kt to 5Mt, let's put it at 300Kt each warhead, about 15 times the size of Hiroshima, 900 warheads will cause catastrophic environmental damage that will kill far more people than the firestorm itself.

But not only that, with a massive American retaliation, the Russians will have no way of knowing if any of those missiles will hit them, so in a used or lost scenario, they will likely launch their missiles American and European silos, military bases, industrial centers and cities. The entire northern hemisphere will be completely destroyed and the people of the southern hemisphere will suffer a fate worse than death as supply chains will collapse and winds will spread soot over the upper atmosphere killing crops and bringing famine.​
Keep debunked nuclear winter pseudoscience out of the thread.
 

Top