China ICBM/SLBM, nuclear arms thread

ChongqingHotPot92

Junior Member
Registered Member
Wiki put DF-31A with range of 13,200 kms and its based from annual report to congress report. I think likely that no DF-31 anymore, all been upgraded to 31A or 31B/31AG
Whoa when on earth did that change occur? 13,200 km range would allow the DF-31A to go all the way to Key West in Florida when launched from Northern China. But 11,200 km range would barely reach Manhattan.
 

ChongqingHotPot92

Junior Member
Registered Member
Wiki put DF-31A with range of 13,200 kms and its based from annual report to congress report. I think likely that no DF-31 anymore, all been upgraded to 31A or 31B/31AG
On wiki, the cited source for the 13,200 range was from the 2008 Pentagon Report, which was dated. FAS stated the range as 11,200, I believe. However, I can totally DF-31A going well being the 13,000 km range when armed with a single or only two miniaturised warhead, such as the 120kg 575 warhead.
 

Duke Xiao of Qin

New Member
Registered Member
Some concerns:

1. Lack of nuclear doctrine

Chinese official nuclear doctrine didn't change much between 1960s and 2020s. Come on, they are pretending business still as usual while approaching parity with US/RU in early 2030s. It is not nuclear posture works and they should change it.

2. Lack of survivable NC3

For example, airborne nuclear command is essential to flexibility and credibility of nuclear deterrence, I see no such plane yet. You can't rely on ground-based radio station in a nuclear war. And they should upgrade their strategic comms satellites soon.

3. No show of strength

Can you believe that PLARF never shows a real DF-41 apart from 2019 parade. Yeah it is what happens right now. Nuclear deterrence is to show your adversary that they have to take unacceptable loss in a nuclear war therefore you have to show they how. PLARF is hiding every advanced missiles from spotlight and roll outs old DF-11, DF-15 every time. Jesus, can someone imagine that PLAAF release J-7G and J-8F only all day long in 2024

4. No nationwide exercise

PLARF operates at a rather local stance compared to NATO/Russia who has annual nuclear exercise to practice coordinated strike/counter-strike. Meanwhile PLARF exercise is all about "I am the fastest kid in launching" or "mom I live in a tunnel for 3 weeks long" and I am not even kidding, anti-fatigue exercise in a tunnel is an essential part of their training.

In case if someone is asking "how do you know have all these stuffs, what if they have but don't show us." They should, it is their job to showcase their readiness to achieve deterrence.

1. China will change its posture to lunch on warning. A first strike option is actually not good for China, giving its overwhelming conventional military power !

2. There are already 9 IR satellites as well as many ground based radars using the latest AESA technology. A nuclear command post using Y-20 is totally doable but it is already in the development will be shown soon; remember China did not start building and upgrading its early warning until 2018 with Russia's help ! (My guess is the 2025 WWII victory parade, China's nuclear command post as well as airbone warning radars will be shown !! )

3. DF-41, JL-2, DF-5B as well as H-6N were all shown in 2019 parade, the next grand parade in 2025 will certainly show new nuclear weapons as a show of force !

4. There is no need for nationwide exercise at this moment since war is not immanent yet !! (No need to panic !)
 

Luke Warmwar

New Member
Registered Member
Any thoughts on the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
?

The key takeaways in my view are:
  1. They favour US first use on invasion forces, either on TW or in the water, but not on the mainland
  2. They favour striking mainland military targets in retaliation for Chinese first use
  3. They consider a counter force strike a risky, but potentially viable, option
 

Duke Xiao of Qin

New Member
Registered Member
Any thoughts on the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
?

The key takeaways in my view are:
  1. They favour US first use on invasion forces, either on TW or in the water, but not on the mainland
  2. They favour striking mainland military targets in retaliation for Chinese first use
  3. They consider a counter force strike a risky, but potentially viable, option

1. US use nuclear weapons on invasion will prompt a Chinese retaliation on US bases or China simply use tactical nukes to destroy all of Taiwan's military bases and forces. This will result in a Chinese take over of Taiwan anyway !

3. If their counter force strike fail, then entire US will get WIPED OUT !! (For example, China lunched on warning !!)
 
Last edited:

Duke Xiao of Qin

New Member
Registered Member
Any thoughts on the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
?

The key takeaways in my view are:
  1. They favour US first use on invasion forces, either on TW or in the water, but not on the mainland
  2. They favour striking mainland military targets in retaliation for Chinese first use
  3. They consider a counter force strike a risky, but potentially viable, option

This once again showed that how important China's nuclear build up is !!

China need 3000 650KT warheads ASAP !!
 

FairAndUnbiased

Brigadier
Registered Member
Any thoughts on the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
?

The key takeaways in my view are:
  1. They favour US first use on invasion forces, either on TW or in the water, but not on the mainland
  2. They favour striking mainland military targets in retaliation for Chinese first use
  3. They consider a counter force strike a risky, but potentially viable, option
They say they'll need to signal to North Korea or Russia that they'll gain nothing from nuclear use and to continue deterring North Korea and Russia. How? They never describe this. Because it's impossible. Russia will quickly realize that it is going to be in a use it or lose it situation because if China gets conquered or destroyed, they are next. North Korea is even more incentivized to retaliate, since China is a treaty ally and the reality is, if China cannot provide economic aid anymore, North Korea collapses.

They also don't have the capability to target Chinese ships from strategic distances since they don't have the capability to hit moving targets. Tactical use is going to be just as hard as conventional warfare, since cruise missiles get shot down like everything else and they probably won't have the capability of dropping a dumb bomb.
 

Duke Xiao of Qin

New Member
Registered Member
Any thoughts on the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
?

The key takeaways in my view are:
  1. They favour US first use on invasion forces, either on TW or in the water, but not on the mainland
  2. They favour striking mainland military targets in retaliation for Chinese first use
  3. They consider a counter force strike a risky, but potentially viable, option

lol,

Also you can see that the author of this article Matthew Kroenig.

He only showed old Chinese nuclear weapons like DF-31A and older 094 SSBN.

He is scared of China's ultra deadly DF-41 with 10 MIRV !! :eek:

That is why he did not show it in his report !! :rolleyes: :D
 

Duke Xiao of Qin

New Member
Registered Member
Any thoughts on the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
?

The key takeaways in my view are:
  1. They favour US first use on invasion forces, either on TW or in the water, but not on the mainland
  2. They favour striking mainland military targets in retaliation for Chinese first use
  3. They consider a counter force strike a risky, but potentially viable, option

Matthew Kroenig, he is also scared of the three new silos fields that China has just finished building !

Silos 1.jpgSilos 2.jpg

Silos 3.jpg

Which he also intentionally omitted in his stupid report !

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Top