US INF withdraw and possible new land-based missiles deployed in Asia.

Discussion in 'World Armed Forces' started by Pika, Aug 3, 2019.

  1. TerraN_EmpirE
    Offline

    TerraN_EmpirE Tyrant King

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2005
    Messages:
    12,355
    Likes Received:
    10,687
    280 is the low estimate, estimates have gone as high as 600. The US and Russia have a published count of there weapons The PRC doesn’t post such we have estimates which are all questionable. Some say to low some are clearly to high.
    Some say low now but to double before the middle of the Coming decade.
     
  2. Hyperwarp
    Offline

    Hyperwarp Captain

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2007
    Messages:
    2,587
    Likes Received:
    4,725
    Highest ever total for Chinese warhead count is 434 (active + reserve). You can estimate the theoretical number of warheads by China's HEU and plutonium output. No matter how you slice it, the Chinese nuclear arsenal is pittance compared to what the US and Russia have. Credit to the Chinese for not escalating. Not to mention US missile defense plans (land and sea). Even at this moment, US should have 40 Ground-based interceptors and future sea-based interceptors (Standard missile) that would have put tremendous pressure on China's ballistic missiles. It is quite natural that China is investing heavily on hypersonic glide vehicles that could give their warheads a fighing chance of reaching their target. HGV would not be that important if a nation has a large number of warheads. It is a reaction to the US's growing missile defense systems. US also has over 10 aircraft carriers to be be deployed for an invasion. Even if you combine the rest of the worlds carriers you still won't come close to the US. This why China invests heavily in ASBM. It is a reaction to the US. The US is probably the most powerful nation since the Ancient Roman empire. China is merely reacting to a potential US threat.
     
  3. TerraN_EmpirE
    Offline

    TerraN_EmpirE Tyrant King

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2005
    Messages:
    12,355
    Likes Received:
    10,687
    However you want to pose it Nuclear tips We’re only part of the Restricted class of the INF.
    The DF21D the so called “Carrier Killer” what is the warhead type? Conventional. The vast majority of Chinese IRBM are conventional.
    The US was forbade any ground based missiles in the class Nuclear or otherwise.

    The PRC view you have already voiced. “We won’t restrict unless the US gives up a lot of ground. Ambitious yes practical not really.
    So now they have some push back.
     
  4. Pika
    Offline

    Pika New Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2019
    Messages:
    75
    Likes Received:
    45
    It won't make tactical sense for China to place an IRBM on a small island. It renders the mobile aspect of the missile useless.
     
    taxiya likes this.
  5. Brumby
    Offline

    Brumby Major

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    3,579
    Likes Received:
    3,692
    Mate,

    The last time I checked, the Philippines have a mutual defense treaty with the US - not China. I suggest you go easy on whatever you are inhaling. Lol.
     
  6. Pika
    Offline

    Pika New Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2019
    Messages:
    75
    Likes Received:
    45
    The winner of the new cold war will get to decide who was the bad guy afterwards. For now US (the super-power) will label China (the rising-power) a bad guy to rally the citizens and allies on its side. One can almost witness the fear they see in China, rightly so I might add since this is an economic and militarily competition now.
     
  7. Brumby
    Offline

    Brumby Major

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    3,579
    Likes Received:
    3,692
    The Df-26 is as much a strategic asset and not just tactical. Reach vs mobility is a trade off. .
     
    TerraN_EmpirE likes this.
  8. Pika
    Offline

    Pika New Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2019
    Messages:
    75
    Likes Received:
    45
    Unless most states in the region (including Australia) somehow acknowledge China's defacto claims on those islands (not the body of the water necessarily), putting any sort of ballistic missiles on those islands will in flame the tensions in that region tremendously. One that won't benefit China.

    The best use for them should be refueling/replenish posts to expand PLAN and PLAAF reach. (I'm saying this without any knowledge of China's goals for those islands)
     
  9. Brumby
    Offline

    Brumby Major

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    3,579
    Likes Received:
    3,692
    I did not say that China will necessarily place DF-26 on those islands. I am saying in the event that China did then Australia's current position on US land based missiles basing will probably change as well.
     
  10. ZeEa5KPul
    Offline

    ZeEa5KPul Junior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2017
    Messages:
    336
    Likes Received:
    740
    How could anyone tell if China increased its fissile material stockpile?

    1. LOL at calling these "mutual" defense treaties. 2. I wouldn't count on the Philippines staying in America's camp for very long.
     
Loading...

Share This Page