China ICBM/SLBM, nuclear arms thread

[Confusionism]

Trust me bro is an insult now?

If you have any questions about what I’ve said, you’re certainly welcome to ask me to elaborate.

But why start off by saying “trust me, bro”? Is that a friendly way to ask a question? When did I ever say that?

Do I really need to explain everything about China’s nuclear weapons from start to finish in a single post?

 

[CMP]

If you have any questions about what I’ve said, you’re certainly welcome to ask me to elaborate.

But why start off by saying “trust me, bro”? Is that a friendly way to ask a question? When did I ever say that?

Do I really need to explain everything about China’s nuclear weapons from start to finish in a single post?

No one asked you to explain China's entire nuclear weapons program from start to finish in a single post. My trust me bro expression was not meant to be unfriendly but just to emphasize that you haven't cited anything in your claims. No one asked you for the EXACT number of x y or z, but if you had provided any links that were at least in the rough ballpark of your own claims, that would be more than enough.

 

[subotai1]

When I say China has over 600 nuclear weapons, that’s a widely accepted figure. As for the composition of China’s nuclear arsenal, if you exclude the number of silo-based and submarine-launched ICBMs, I’m saying the number of road-mobile ICBM TELs is far smaller than that.
Is there a problem with that? What evidence do you need?

The number here is probably pretty accurate. Based on this there are about 28 TELs

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Confusionism]

The number here is probably pretty accurate. Based on this there are about 28 TELs

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

View attachment 174787

thanks, Although I suspect this figure no longer fully reflects the current situation, it probably isn’t too far off.

I certainly expect that people discussing China's strategic capabilities on this forum have a basic understanding of China's nuclear arsenal; if not, he should at least know how to use Google. If he dont know either, I’m happy to explain—but certainly not to someone who knows nothing and lacks manners.

 

[CMP]

thanks, Although I suspect this figure no longer fully reflects the current situation, it probably isn’t too far off.

I certainly expect that people discussing China's strategic capabilities on this forum have a basic understanding of China's nuclear arsenal; if not, he should at least know how to use Google. If he dont know either, I’m happy to explain—but certainly not to someone who knows nothing and lacks manners.

Okay so first "trust me bro" is an insult and now "trust me bro" means no manners? Says the one who literally can't help himself but to be overtly insulting in every other post.

 

[Deino]

Guys ... I actually do not fully understand what's the issue, but honestly, don't you think we can calm down, temper our tone and we should weigh our wording more carefully, as many users here are non-native speakers, and certain terms and turns of phrase should perhaps not be taken too literally! However - particularly in one of the flagship threads - the use of slang expressions is strictly to be avoided.

 

[Confusionism]

Guys ... I actually do not fully understand what's the issue, but honestly, don't you think we can calm down, temper our tone and we should weigh our wording more carefully, as many users here are non-native speakers, and certain terms and turns of phrase should perhaps not be taken too literally! However - particularly in one of the flagship threads - the use of slang expressions is strictly to be avoided.

You know, this is really frustrating.

When I take the time to write a long post, trying to explain a concept that many people might misunderstand from various angles, what I get isn’t any response to the core content of the post; instead, someone gets hung up on a non-essential detail and demands evidence—and he does this solely because my wording accidentally hurt his fragile national pride, since he believes “the country that can manufacture anything like it’s farming cabbages”.

Even after I explained the relationship between ICBM TELs and nuclear warheads, he still insisted on me providing evidence that anyone could verify with a simple Google search.

The result is that I spent way more time on this pointless back-and-forth than I did writing the original post.

It’s really frustrating.

 

[tokenanalyst]

No, this brief statement is riddled with many typical misconceptions about road-mobile ICBMs.

First of all, there aren’t thousands of ICBM TELs; China’s total nuclear arsenal is currently estimated at roughly 600+ warheads, and the number of operational ICBM launchers is far smaller.

Furthermore, China maintains a relatively low-alert nuclear posture, and much of its nuclear force is separated from its warheads during peacetime. If this is still the case today, it makes little sense for TELs to patrol constantly like SSBNs during peacetime.

The key difference between TELs and SSBNs is that SSBN is difficult to locate while submerged, whereas massive TELs traveling on roads will actually increase their chances of being detected through satellite, signals intelligence, and logistics tracking.

More importantly, ICBM TELs roaming around with nuclear warheads during peacetime would create enormous security, command-and-control, and logistical burdens for the PLARF.
View attachment 174774
if you want to patrol roads like SSBN, you’ll need a fairly large convoy to provide security, logistical support, and command and control. This, in turn, makes it a more obvious target.

That is CIA number, I won't put to much faith on it, the real numbers are not really known. Could be way larger than estimates or smaller. I tend to go with the larger arsenal.

China is gigantic country with huge amount of roads, Hitting TELs in such big country will be difficult, Is complicated even in a small country, that is why of all the weapons the West has give to Ukraine Himars are mostly decent ones.
In such big area there is no way you can track every single TEL with satellites, especially camouflage ones. At the point would be better to nuke the entire area to see if something can be hit. Even after tracking them by time you want to hit them they already moved. Also satellites can blinded or destroyed, I mean the world is coming to an end in nuclear war doesn't matter to have an Kessler syndrome.

 

[Confusionism]

That is CIA number, I won't put to much faith on it, the real numbers are not really known. Could be way larger than estimates or smaller. I tend to go with the larger arsenal.

China is gigantic country with huge amount of roads, Hitting TELs in such big country will be difficult, Is complicated even in a small country, that is why of all the weapons the West has give to Ukraine Himars are mostly decent ones.
In such big area there is no way you can track every single TEL with satellites, especially camouflage ones. At the point would be better to nuke the entire area to see if something can be hit. Even after tracking them by time you want to hit them they already moved. Also satellites can blinded or destroyed, I mean the world is coming to an end in nuclear war doesn't matter to have an Kessler syndrome.

It seems you haven’t grasped my main point.

I never said that road-mobile ICBMs have fatal flaws in terms of survivability; what I meant was that “road-mobile ICBMs” do not enhance their survivability by constantly changing their locations during peacetime, as SSBNs do.
The reason is simple: unlike submarine mobility, the cost of constantly changing locations on land during peacetime is disproportionate to the increase in survivability—it can even be counterproductive.

The accuracy of foreign estimates of China’s nuclear arsenal may be open to question, but I don’t think there’s a significant discrepancy in the order of magnitude. In particular, it’s impossible for there to be thousands of ICBM TELs.

 

[TK3600]

It seems you haven’t grasped my main point.

I never said that road-mobile ICBMs have fatal flaws in terms of survivability; what I meant was that “road-mobile ICBMs” do not enhance their survivability by constantly changing their locations during peacetime, as SSBNs do.
The reason is simple: unlike submarine mobility, the cost of constantly changing locations on land during peacetime is disproportionate to the increase in survivability—it can even be counterproductive.

The accuracy of foreign estimates of China’s nuclear arsenal may be open to question, but I don’t think there’s a significant discrepancy in the order of magnitude. In particular, it’s impossible for there to be thousands of ICBM TELs.

Why do you think TEL changing locations on a schedule is a disproportional waste?