China ICBM/SLBM, nuclear arms thread

[vincent]

So you think China will not build Tactical nukes? They must if they want to deal with US tactical nukes.

Nope, not gonna play that game. Any use of nuke on China, regardless of yield, will be responded with city busters.

 

[taxiya]

So you think China will not build Tactical nukes?

China has successfully tested tactical nuke designs many decades ago but decided not to stockpile/deploy.

They must if they want to deal with US tactical nukes.

I suggest using expression like "I think the best way to deal with tactical nukes is deploying tactical nukes". You certainly can not order CPC leadership to do anything that you think is right for China.

 

[bsdnf]

So you think China will not build Tactical nukes? They must if they want to deal with US tactical nukes.

PLA has not shown any willingness to develop and deploy any tactical nuclear weapons. If the PLA need to use nuclear weapons, it will be strategic nuclear weapons, no other way around.

 

[tamsen_ikard]

PLA has not shown any willingness to develop and deploy any tactical nuclear weapons. If the PLA need to use nuclear weapons, it will be strategic nuclear weapons, no other way around.

Again, I will play the Oracle and say that whatever the PLA has or hasn't done in the past simply doesn't apply anymore. That's because China is no longer a poor, $1 trillion economy. It's a $20 trillion behemoth that will soon surpass the U.S. in GDP.

The more powerful China gets economically, the stronger the U.S.'s desire to pressure China with military power, as it thinks it has the upper hand there. Hence, China needs to significantly increase its conventional strength.

However, the more powerful China gets conventionally, the more incentive the U.S. has to use nuclear power to prevent China from changing the status quo in East Asia—which is U.S. dominance with all countries in the First Island Chain under the U.S.'s thumb.

That's why there is talk among many U.S. experts that the U.S. needs to use a nuclear threat to deter China from attacking Taiwan. They talk about using tactical nukes on the PLA Navy, since they can claim this is not a strategic use of nuclear weapons. Again, the more desperate the U.S. gets in terms of conventional power, the greater the incentive to use nukes in a manner the PLA cannot counter.

If the PLA only has strategic nukes, it's like having a suicide vest but not a stick. The U.S. can hit you with tactical nukes, and the only thing you can do is say, "Don't hit me with a stick, or I'll trigger the suicide bomb." This is a very weak strategy and means the PLA has significantly less leverage.

That is why I think China will eventually pursue tactical nukes—because it needs to prevent the U.S. from using the lack of tactical nukes in the PLA as leverage.

That's why I said China will achieve parity in all spheres of nuclear weapons. Anything where it doesn't have parity, the U.S. will consider that a pressure point and try to use it because they are desperate.

 

[bsdnf]

Again, I will play the Oracle and say that whatever the PLA has or hasn't done in the past simply doesn't apply anymore. That's because China is no longer a poor, $1 trillion economy. It's a $20 trillion behemoth that will soon surpass the U.S. in GDP.

The more powerful China gets economically, the stronger the U.S.'s desire to pressure China with military power, as it thinks it has the upper hand there. Hence, China needs to significantly increase its conventional strength.

However, the more powerful China gets conventionally, the more incentive the U.S. has to use nuclear power to prevent China from changing the status quo in East Asia—which is U.S. dominance with all countries in the First Island Chain under the U.S.'s thumb.

That's why there is talk among many U.S. experts that the U.S. needs to use a nuclear threat to deter China from attacking Taiwan. They talk about using tactical nukes on the PLA Navy, since they can claim this is not a strategic use of nuclear weapons. Again, the more desperate the U.S. gets in terms of conventional power, the greater the incentive to use nukes in a manner the PLA cannot counter.

If the PLA only has strategic nukes, it's like having a suicide vest but not a stick. The U.S. can hit you with tactical nukes, and the only thing you can do is say, "Don't hit me with a stick, or I'll trigger the suicide bomb." This is a very weak strategy and means the PLA has significantly less leverage.

That is why I think China will eventually pursue tactical nukes—because it needs to prevent the U.S. from using the lack of tactical nukes in the PLA as leverage.

That's why I said China will achieve parity in all spheres of nuclear weapons. Anything where it doesn't have parity, the U.S. will consider that a pressure point and try to use it because they are desperate.

This is not a question of ability, but a question of willingness. Tactical nuclear weapons will actually greatly increase the possibility of thermonuclear war.

No, the ambiguity surrounding the use of tactical nuclear weapons as a threat is untenable.

When the US military employs tactical nuclear weapons, the PLA can also employ limited strategic nuclear warheads (such as the JL-1), bombing Guam and other key nodes. It's just a matter of equivalence and you could also argue that the US military wouldn't dare retaliate with a full-scale nuclear war, but such speculation will lead to escalation.

The best way to curb tactical nuclear weapons from scratch is to go back to square one—Don't play with the definition of nuclear weapons, I don't have tactical nuclear weapons, and you shouldn't speculate about whether I'll retaliate, I will.

 

[tamsen_ikard]

This is not a question of ability, but a question of willingness. Tactical nuclear weapons will actually greatly increase the possibility of thermonuclear war.

No, the ambiguity surrounding the use of tactical nuclear weapons as a threat is untenable.

When the US military employs tactical nuclear weapons, the PLA can also employ limited strategic nuclear warheads (such as the JL-1). You could also argue that the US military wouldn't dare retaliate with a full-scale nuclear war, but such speculation is lead to escalation.

The best way to curb tactical nuclear weapons from scratch is to go back to square one—I don't have tactical nuclear weapons, and you shouldn't speculate about whether I'll retaliate

Sure, it increases Nuclear tensions. But nuclear tension actually helps the weaker power, not the stronger power. If you are weaker conventionally, you use nuclear threat with the hope that nuclear threat will also deter your opponent from escalating in the conventional level.

Look at how Russia keeps using the Nuclear war threat to deter Europe and US from entering the Ukraine war with its conventional force. And the threat is working.

Nuclear power is the great equalizer. Even the biggest most wealthiest country can be completely destroyed by a basket-case like North Korea with 500 nukes. And it doesn't require that much money to build 500 nukes compared to building up a carrier fleet or 1000 stealth fighter air force.

So, if US is losing to China conventionally, it has great incentive to increase nuclear tension with the hope of using it prevent defeat and achieve a favorable ceasefire.

Also, the way you suggested that using strategic weapons in the battlefield has problems too. If US uses a small 1 KT nuke on a PLA navy fleet, and PLA responds by using 500 KT strategic warhead on a US military base, there could be much greater collateral damage and then US might say, okay then I will use 500 KT nuke on your military base.

If Nukes are used in the battlefield, China might lose its conventional advantage since whatever sophisticated weaponry it has gets neutralized by battlefield use of nukes.

Tactical nukes are also cheaper, and likely can be deployed in greater numbers and to more units. So, China cannot counter much more numeraous tactical nukes by its smaller number of strategic nukes. It needs to keep those strategic nukes in reserve for any future eventuality.

Anyways, my point is, if your enemy is bring tactical nuke into the fight, you must bring it too, or you are in great dis-advantage. and I don't think China will take that Chance.

 

[bsdnf]

Sure, it increases Nuclear tensions. But nuclear tension actually helps the weaker power, not the stronger power. If you are weaker conventionally, you use nuclear threat with the hope that nuclear threat will also deter your opponent from escalating in the conventional level.

Look at how Russia keeps using the Nuclear war threat to deter Europe and US from entering the Ukraine war with its conventional force. And the threat is working.

Nuclear power is the great equalizer. Even the biggest most wealthiest country can be completely destroyed by a basket-case like North Korea with 500 nukes. And it doesn't require that much money to build 500 nukes compared to building up a carrier fleet or 1000 stealth fighter air force.

So, if US is losing to China conventionally, it has great incentive to increase nuclear tension with the hope of using it prevent defeat and achieve a favorable ceasefire.

Also, the way you suggested that using strategic weapons in the battlefield has problems too. If US uses a small 1 KT nuke on a PLA navy fleet, and PLA responds by using 500 KT strategic warhead on a US military base, there could be much greater collateral damage and then US might say, okay then I will use 500 KT nuke on your military base.

If Nukes are used in the battlefield, China might lose its conventional advantage since whatever sophisticated weaponry it has gets neutralized by battlefield use of nukes.

Tactical nukes are also cheaper, and likely can be deployed in greater numbers and to more units. So, China cannot counter much more numeraous tactical nukes by its smaller number of strategic nukes. It needs to keep those strategic nukes in reserve for any future eventuality.

Anyways, my point is, if your enemy is bring tactical nuke into the fight, you must bring it too, or you are in great dis-advantage. and I don't think China will take that Chance.

No, Russia used its unlimited nuclear deterrence to prevent NATO from even intervening with conventional forces.

Then NATO did not fall into the concept of "sticks and suicide vests", but TACO. This just shows the power of maximum retaliation, not the tactical nuclear weapon

Seriously, is it worth it to trigger the escalation ladder of nuclear war for the sake of the Western Pacific? This question is much easier to answer than whether the PLA will retaliate

 

[bsdnf]

Returning to the topic of nuclear weapons, why does China expand its nuclear arsenal, and why does it emphasize the display of nuclear strength in military parades? It's to send a clear signal to the other side, when they're clearly discussing the use of tactical nuclear weapons to initiate nuclear escalation: You won't benefit from escalation, even a full-scale nuclear war, so don't start it

And Is the H-6N + JL-1 combination really more expensive and easier to intercept than the B-2 + B61? If nuclear Tomahawk bombings on beaches inflict thousands of casualties on the PLA, and JL-1 bombings on Diego Garcia and Guam inflict similar casualties on the US military, will this retaliation lead to a more protracted nuclear escalation?

 

[TK3600]

Loading up on gigantic amounts of warheads is not the rational way to do things. Developing advanced and appropriate launch platforms is even more important. The Americans and the Soviets both produced huge number of warheads and yet many of them are airdropped/launched by SRBM/in stockpile or whatever quack method the nuclear enthusiasts dreamed upon (in artillery shells for example). Ballastic missile count was never very abundant. I would expect that almost all current warheads already have their designated launch vehicle if not already prepared.

Isn't it other way around? China has abundant amount of ballistic missiles but questionable amount of nuclear warhead.

 

[manqiangrexue]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Otter implies that nuclear warhead count will reach parity with U.S./Russia.

This is unfortunately necessary because that's how stupid Anglos are. If it takes 1K nukes to blow up the world, they think they can bully you as long as they have 3K and you have 2K. When you have 3K as well, they understand not to mess with you. 4-5K+, they're on D sucking mode.