What Should China Do If The US Uses Tactical Nukes?


Status
Not open for further replies.

hashtagpls

Junior Member
Registered Member
As of now since PLA at least officially don't have tactical nuclear weapons, its likely that they would just reply with a full sized nuke somewhere on US territory. If its just an island outpost that was nuked, then China probably would hit back on an American military base.
It would be hugely ironic and strategic if the PLARF lobbed a nuke right on Pine Gap as a reply to a US tactical nuke attack on Chinese bases in the SCS.
Ironic because Pine Gap probably has as many people as the Chinese SCS bases but is a massive nerve centre for all US drone and intelligence gathering SIGINT operations.
 

plawolf

Brigadier
America using tactical nukes against China is just about one of the stupidest things they can do short of all out nuclear MAD.

If America nuked a Chinese island, China will nuke an America island back. There are plenty of options to choose from, Guam, midway, Diego Garcia maybe even Hawaii, although the latter would be a massive escalation so will probably be avoided.

Indeed, in the event of an actual limited nuclear exchange, China could potentially wipe all American foreign military bases off the map without needing to fire a single shot with a simple announcement: all US foreign military bases will be considered fair retaliatory targets for nuclear strike should the US fire off any more tactical nukes at Chinese islands. Every country not completely subverted by the US would demand an immediate exit of all US military forces least they end up eating nukes for no good reason.
 

bajingan

Junior Member
China could potentially wipe all American foreign military bases off the map without needing to fire a single shot with a simple announcement: all US foreign military bases will be considered fair retaliatory targets for nuclear strike should the US fire off any more tactical nukes at Chinese islands. Every country not completely subverted by the US would demand an immediate exit of all US military forces least they end up eating nukes for no good reason.

Thats why i have a feeling that despite japan being the most loyal american dog on the face of it, they actually increasingly nervous and uncomfortable having massive us military bases all over their country
If americans start hostilities against China without provocation they will use japanese bases and if they dared to nuke scs, those bases in japan are fair targets for retaliation, i actually feel sorry for japanese people living in okinawa they will be collateral damage
 

AssassinsMace

Brigadier
Ever hear of all's fair in love and war? I'm shocked how there are people who think if one country commits an offensive attack on another country, there's an expectation on the country that was attacked to understand there are limitations in their response? I remember when 9-11 happened, I would hear on radio talk shows how Americans wanted every country not considered an ally of the US, which included China, attacked even though they didn't take part. Does that sound reasonable? Yet somehow if the US attacks China with a tactical nuke, there's an expectation China can only respond with tactical nukes but since China doesn't have them as claimed, China's out of luck and can only respond with lesser conventional means. Their bigger nukes are somehow illegal to use because it's disproportionate.

It's funny how China is portrayed as a belligerent war-monger yet there are people who actually think of weaselly excuses to use nukes on China believing there's some thing that prevents China from retaliating with nukes in general because China doesn't have an equivalent response capability. By that logic does that mean that the US can nuke non-nuclear countries but because they don't have nukes, it legal? That's why they want to prevent China from rising because if China surpasses them, it can make up stupid rules like that against them this time. Think about it this way. Does the US just nuke countries for no good reason? No, they'll always have an excuse. Did China use a nuke for whatever makes the US think it can use a tactical nuke on China? No. They just broke their own rule of a disproportionate response yet China can't use a strategic nuke in response to a tactical nuke used on them... Some people are offended that China in history has referred to them as barbarians. Think like that and you are a barbarian.
 

FangYuan

Junior Member
Registered Member
Remember that the United States have the most advanced missile defense and warning systems in the world. Moreover, the United States also has support from Nato. Even when attacked by thousands of nuclear warheads from China or Russia, leaders and parts of the U.S. and NATO populations can still survive deep underground facilities.

China needs at least 35,000 nuclear warheads. In the first attack, 17,000 warheads were fired at the United States, 2,000 warheads hit US military bases in Asia and 6,000 warheads attacked NATO countries.

The remaining 10,000 nuclear warheads were considered strategic reserves, necessary to continue the second nuclear attack and, if necessary, detonate themselves on the territory.
 

PiSigma

"the engineer"
Remember that the United States have the most advanced missile defense and warning systems in the world. Moreover, the United States also has support from Nato. Even when attacked by thousands of nuclear warheads from China or Russia, leaders and parts of the U.S. and NATO populations can still survive deep underground facilities.

China needs at least 35,000 nuclear warheads. In the first attack, 17,000 warheads were fired at the United States, 2,000 warheads hit US military bases in Asia and 6,000 warheads attacked NATO countries.

The remaining 10,000 nuclear warheads were considered strategic reserves, necessary to continue the second nuclear attack and, if necessary, detonate themselves on the territory.
And kill everyone and everything on the molecular level after the first 1000?

Why is this thread not closed yet? It is against forum rules.
 

FangYuan

Junior Member
Registered Member
And kill everyone and everything on the molecular level after the first 1000?



America and the West want to destroy China. They want to plunder, burn, slaughter, and genocide China like in the late Qing period. If China loses, the era of humiliation will repeat itself again.

"Break the kettles and sink the boats", is part of the Art of War from Sun Tzu. By making retreat impossible, you basically make sure your entire army is fully committed to winning (since it's that or death).

The only way to defeat a stronger enemy is to first go mad, giving up all hope. There is no need to win, just hope we and our enemies both die.
 
Last edited:

Nobonita Barua

Junior Member
Registered Member
America and the West want to destroy China. They want to plunder, burn, slaughter, and genocide China like in the late Qing period. If China loses, the era of humiliation will repeat itself again.

"Break the kettles and sink the boats", is part of the Art of War from Sun Tzu. By making retreat impossible, you basically make sure your entire army is fully committed to winning (since it's that or death).

The only way to defeat a stronger enemy is to first go mad, giving up all hope. There is no need to win, just hope we and our enemies both die.
Totally agree.

But for that you don't need 35000 nukes. It's waste of your own money.
Trust me.
 

Skye_ZTZ_113

New Member
Registered Member
America and the West want to destroy China. They want to plunder, burn, slaughter, and genocide China like in the late Qing period. If China loses, the era of humiliation will repeat itself again.

"Break the kettles and sink the boats", is part of the Art of War from Sun Tzu. By making retreat impossible, you basically make sure your entire army is fully committed to winning (since it's that or death).

The only way to defeat a stronger enemy is to first go mad, giving up all hope. There is no need to win, just hope we and our enemies both die.
They are not stronger, as recent global events have shown pointedly. They are in fact weaker and becoming weaker by the year. The window for them to really do something is shut, it's gone for good. Not even the Soviets were as powerful as China is/becoming. In any case, this whole thread is a storm in a teacup anyway. Drink some Moutai and relax.
 

crash8pilot

Junior Member
Registered Member
The only way to defeat a stronger enemy is to first go mad, giving up all hope. There is no need to win, just hope we and our enemies both die.
We're talking about wiping off billions of people from the face of the planet. This isn't just genocide, you're talking about ending the very fabric of humanity itself - Can we please not? :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top