What's new

Chinese Quest For Nuclear Superiority: Beijing On-Track To Surpass The US In Land-Based Nuclear Weapons – Top Commander

serenity

FULL MEMBER
Jan 9, 2007
1,766
0
4,233
Country
China
Location
Australia
Think about what the Chinese need to achieve MAD on the US.

I would say if they can reliably even get through 12 DF-41s with 10 thermonuclear wearheads each that will be enough.

Once US has lost New York, Los Angeles, Washington, Chicago, Miami etc and some of their major ports and critical infrastructure like the Hoover dam then that it is pretty much it for them.

MAD does not simply mean wiping the other country totally put of existence - it is doing enough damage that they are a non-functional state for decades to come.

What? No that is nowhere near enough. 120 ICBM more like rather than 12.

US has hundreds of ballistic missile interceptors from western to eastern pacific and in Canada for polar routes. It has GBI and THAAD on the land and whatever else they hide.

Nope for China, best MAD would be roughly equal arsenal to US and Russia. It can afford to do it. Both USA and USSR in the Cold War had over 5000 warheads each and China's current population size and economy is greater than both USA and USSR combined during 1970s. This is chump change to create at least another 2000 warheads (more than already in arsenal) and even another 500 ICBM and SLBM. Ask why both USA and Russia refuse to disarm to less than 2000 warheads. Yes they have missiles aimed at everyone and everywhere but China has a higher population than both combined and 10 times greater economy than Russia's.
 

UKBengali

ELITE MEMBER
May 29, 2011
19,539
7
24,195
Country
Bangladesh
Location
United Kingdom
What? No that is nowhere near enough. 120 ICBM more like rather than 12.

US has hundreds of ballistic missile interceptors from western to eastern pacific and in Canada for polar routes. It has GBI and THAAD on the land and whatever else they hide.

Nope for China, best MAD would be roughly equal arsenal to US and Russia. It can afford to do it. Both USA and USSR in the Cold War had over 5000 warheads each and China's current population size and economy is greater than both USA and USSR combined during 1970s. This is chump change to create at least another 2000 warheads (more than already in arsenal) and even another 500 ICBM and SLBM. Ask why both USA and Russia refuse to disarm to less than 2000 warheads. Yes they have missiles aimed at everyone and everywhere but China has a higher population than both combined and 10 times greater economy than Russia's.


I stated reliably get 12 DF-41s through and so it would need more than that.

Again think what 12 DF-41s could do the US as a functioning state for many decades.
 

Shotgunner51

RETIRED INTL MOD
Jan 6, 2015
7,203
46
23,294
Country
China
Location
China
6 Type 094 and some upgraded ones
I estimate that 8~9 hulls are in service (at least 4 were seen on TV last April), plus at least 1 spotted under construction at Huludao in December 2021. 094's can strike CONUS (partially) with JL-2 from positions covered by an expanding PLAN littoral warfare forces (Y-9ASW + SSK 039 + FFG 056A, also 927, and sats like Guanlan), or from forward positions escorted by surface combatant task groups.

There is no OSINT on 096 yet, but it should be close to induction since SSN 095 is already under sea trial, the two classes belong to same gen of tech. For the time being 094 is the mainstay of sea-based second strike.

3.jpg
4.jpg
5.jpg
6.jpg
 
Last edited:

Shotgunner51

RETIRED INTL MOD
Jan 6, 2015
7,203
46
23,294
Country
China
Location
China
What? No that is nowhere near enough. 120 ICBM more like rather than 12.

US has hundreds of ballistic missile interceptors from western to eastern pacific and in Canada for polar routes. It has GBI and THAAD on the land and whatever else they hide.

Nope for China, best MAD would be roughly equal arsenal to US and Russia. It can afford to do it. Both USA and USSR in the Cold War had over 5000 warheads each and China's current population size and economy is greater than both USA and USSR combined during 1970s. This is chump change to create at least another 2000 warheads (more than already in arsenal) and even another 500 ICBM and SLBM. Ask why both USA and Russia refuse to disarm to less than 2000 warheads. Yes they have missiles aimed at everyone and everywhere but China has a higher population than both combined and 10 times greater economy than Russia's.
We should look beyond MAD.

Other than the mentioned SSBN's under PLAN, there are also hundreds of road-mobile DF-31AG/41 ICBM under PLARF, but all these are second strike weapons aka serving the doctrine of MAD. The presence or even massive expansion of silo-based DF-5B/C only says one thing: NFU may no longer apply. Liquid fuel silo-based rockets are slow to react, but they can deliver massive payloads like bigger HGV's or large warheads (3.3~5 megaton), and can be used as FOBS (Fractional Orbital Bombardment System).

I'm not saying giving up NFU is a natural choice, but there are circumstances that NFU may fail to serve national interests. That's why on top of beefing up PLARF's nukes, it's equally important to expand PLASSF (& PLAN) boosting ISR, EW and BMD/ASAT capability in all domains.

PLASSF.png
 
Last edited:

Communism

FULL MEMBER
Mar 29, 2021
369
0
182
Country
United States
Location
United States
People keep using MAD when they simply mean political deterrence.

The US calculated that they needed at least 30,000 warheads to achieve MAD with the USSR.

The USSR calculated that they needed at least 40,000 warheads to achieve MAD with the US.

No side has anywhere near MAD today.

Do not mistake political deterrence with MAD.
 

retaxis

FULL MEMBER
Nov 16, 2007
1,526
0
1,779
Country
Australia
Location
Australia
China can produce nuclear weapons at a cheaper cost to US. China also have much greater economy than US in the 70s when they had tens of thousands of nukes therefore China should make 6th gen fighter jets, aircraft/drone carriers and expanding nuclear capacity its top 3 objectives and put some real money into it.
 

etylo

FULL MEMBER
Nov 9, 2021
898
-14
1,288
Country
Canada
Location
Canada
USA respects Russia's military just due to nuclear arsenal alone. It is not enough to know you can certainly inflict MAD on your enemy even if half your missiles are gone. But it is to let your opponent know you have inflict MAD on them and all their partners even if 90% of your missiles are gone or intercepted. That is the goal of expansion. Only when it is beyond abundantly clear what your true power is, will the enemy begin to give you even half the respect. Otherwise threats and provocations even if you have MAD and your opponent knows you have a just good enough MAD.

It is about having MAD x10 rather than a simple security of deterrence. Then the opponent might respect you more and not provoke as much and not act out as much. Another benefit would be in negotiations and in disarmament talk. Not just nuclear disarmament but overall military reduction especially in presence.
Exactly,that's why China needs to develop and deploy many more advanced submarine based nuclear weapons that are absolutely capable of surviving enemy's first nuclear strike, and let China 's enemies know that China has the capability and will to strike to destroy its enemies if got hit first. This is the only way to have credible deterrence against hostile war monger countries/entities such as USA and NATO. Not like the decision makers of China think that by having a token of minimum number of few hundred nuclear arsenals is enough to deter any nuclear aggression on China . Tha't not enough, China needs many more credible nuclear arsenals to have credible deterrents against possible USA and NATO nuclear aggression and blackmail in general.
 
Last edited:

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Top Bottom