China ICBM/SLBM, nuclear arms thread

Luke Warmwar

Luke Warmwar

New Member
Registered Member
ChongqingHotPot92 said:
It was only under Xi that China changed from a posture of minimum/limited deterrence to pursuing parity
Click to expand...
Has China changed posture, or has the requirement for deterrence increased?

The bigger China is, the bigger the payoff for the US in doing a first strike. A handful might be enough to deter adventurism in the DPRK, or China a few decades ago, but for China now, the US might well decide that taking out its biggest rival is worth losing a few cities over.
 
T

taxiya

Brigadier
Registered Member
ChongqingHotPot92 said:
More likely than water fuel. This is the first time the PRC's MIC is building hardened ICBM silos en masses. There's bound to be lots of quality control and operational issues when 320 of them are being constructed all at once. The previous 18 DF-5 silos in Henan and Hunan weren't that hardened, and they still took more than 10 years to be completed and became operational. Keep in mind that the PRC's nuclear deterrence posture arguably remained in name only until the DF-31A and DF-31AG became operational. It was only under Xi that China changed from a posture of minimum/limited deterrence to pursuing parity.
Click to expand...
So those wind farms are indeed silos? ;) This is a chain of beliefs, if you enjoyed the story first night, you will want to hear what's coming next.
 
Last edited:
G

gelgoog

Brigadier
Registered Member
Luke Warmwar said:
The bigger China is, the bigger the payoff for the US in doing a first strike. A handful might be enough to deter adventurism in the DPRK, or China a few decades ago, but for China now, the US might well decide that taking out its biggest rival is worth losing a few cities over.
Click to expand...
Which is why China is massively increasing its nuclear deterrent and has been for at least a couple decades. At one point, until the late 1990s, China only had the DF-5 as a weapon capable of striking the US. Only limited to being able to hit the US's West Coast. This changed with the DF-31 and DF-41. The latest versions of these missiles can basically hit anywhere in the US. And there are way more of these than there ever were DF-5s. The naval JL-2A can also basically hit anywhere in the US while its still in port.
 
ChongqingHotPot92

ChongqingHotPot92

Junior Member
Registered Member
gelgoog said:
Which is why China is massively increasing its nuclear deterrent and has been for at least a couple decades. At one point, until the late 1990s, China only had the DF-5 as a weapon capable of striking the US. Only limited to being able to hit the US's West Coast. This changed with the DF-31 and DF-41. The latest versions of these missiles can basically hit anywhere in the US. And there are way more of these than there ever were DF-5s. The naval JL-2A can also basically hit anywhere in the US while its still in port.
Click to expand...
I think you mean the JL-3 SLBM, right. It only entered service with 094 boomers around 2021 or 2022. The JL-2 series’ range were no more than 8000km.
 
Blitzo

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
ChongqingHotPot92 said:
I think you mean the JL-3 SLBM, right. It only entered service with 094 boomers around 2021 or 2022. The JL-2 series’ range were no more than 8000km.
Click to expand...

The "JL-3" described by recent US govt/military reports as being equipped aboard 09IV/094 SSBNs, is known by us as JL-2A. Time will tell which one of us are correct, but my money is on us.
 
G

gelgoog

Brigadier
Registered Member
JL-2 is a naval DF-31. DF-31 had 8,000 km range.

JL-2A should be a naval DF-31A. DF-31A has 13,200 km range. And the JL-3 should be a naval DF-41. DF-41 has 15,000 km range.

The DF-41 just won't fit into the same launch tubes as a DF-31. While DF-31 and DF-31A fit into the same launch tubes.

The US Trident II SLBM is supposed to have over 12,000 km range.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top