China to past UK, France by 2020

[Mighty Caty]

Dude, even if all 500 nuclear warheads got through, which they won't as the Chinese would have shot down some of them, they still could kill only 10% of the Chinese population.

French SLBM nuclear warheads are only of 100kt in size. To destroy a city the size of beijing or Shanghai would require around 20 warheads and that would be 3 missiles. Each French submarine can launch 16 missiles and so they can in theory kill 100 million Chinese. In the real world maybe 50% or more of the French warheads would be intercepted by the Chinese anti-missile systems.

China can destroy major EU countries and still live to fight another day if the US does not get involved.

So the 10%, 50% and 90% is not a supported figure but just a random number from you.

Even then you made a few serious mistake

1.) French sub launch SLBM (TNO) have a yield of 150Kt, not 100 as you suggested. And it was only a part of the nuclear weapon family, they also have TN-81, air launch war head capable of delivering 300kt payload and TNA which have a reported payload of up to 800kt

Them same case with the British so as I said, 300 kt is the average payload, but I just use the average point (which have smaller actual total yield as there are more land base missile than sub launch or air launch missle)

2.) Judging by the actual damage assessment by the 2 host epic nuclear device, a 20kt plutonium bomb can effective destroy a medium city of Nagasaki, which area is about 750 sq km

Shanghai have an area of about 7000 sq km, a French SLBM have an actual payload of 150 kiloton, more than 7 times the destruction power on the explosion alone, not to mention the trigger mechanism and quality of WEPT or WEU would improve the destruction result, 1TNO is more than enough to destroy a big city like Shanghai

3.) you claim damage may be 50% or less by interception, that would suggest a > 50% interception rate on Chinese BMD system

According to US defence review, US own BMD have a more or less interception rate of less than 30% 2 interception with any 7 threats, so you are saying Chinese system is significantly better than the American one?

Although there are no actual figure to support either way, but I found it hard to believe.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

So the 10%, 50% and 90% is not a supported figure but just a random number from you.

Even then you made a few serious mistake

1.) French sub launch SLBM (TNO) have a yield of 150Kt, not 100 as you suggested. And it was only a part of the nuclear weapon family, they also have TN-81, air launch war head capable of delivering 300kt payload and TNA which have a reported payload of up to 800kt

Them same case with the British so as I said, 300 kt is the average payload, but I just use the average point (which have smaller actual total yield as there are more land base missile than sub launch or air launch missle)

2.) Judging by the actual damage assessment by the 2 host epic nuclear device, a 20kt plutonium bomb can effective destroy a medium city of Nagasaki, which area is about 750 sq km

Shanghai have an area of about 7000 sq km, a French SLBM have an actual payload of 150 kiloton, more than 7 times the destruction power on the explosion alone, not to mention the trigger mechanism and quality of WEPT or WEU would improve the destruction result, 1TNO is more than enough to destroy a big city like Shanghai

3.) you claim damage may be 50% or less by interception, that would suggest a > 50% interception rate on Chinese BMD system

According to US defence review, US own BMD have a more or less interception rate of less than 30% 2 interception with any 7 threats, so you are saying Chinese system is significantly better than the American one?

Although there are no actual figure to support either way, but I found it hard to believe.

Of course, China is pulling ahead of US in this field just like the HGV, China did several tests in the last couple years, it was all successful so far.

BTW, Nagasaki was not completely destroyed and not all the citizens dying during the nuclear attack.

It will need 30 minutes to reach Shanghai, while most of the citizens would probably be evacuated.

 

[Mighty Caty]

Of course, China is pulling ahead of US in this field just like the HGV, China did several tests in the last couple years, it was all successful so far.

BTW, Nagasaki was not completely destroyed and not all the citizens dying during the nuclear attack.

It will need 30 minutes to reach Shanghai, while most of the citizens would probably evacuated.

I never say completely destroy, I said destroyed, each nuclear weapon can only damage a certain percentage of a city, even if china nuke Big City like London or Paris like 10 to 20 times, the city would still not completely destroy and there would still be survivor, especially in France because of the extensive catacomb network

And how you purpose to evacuate 20 millions people outside blast radius of 7000 sq kilometres in 30 or so minutes? That I would like to know

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

I never say completely destroy, I said destroyed, each nuclear weapon can only damage a certain percentage of a city, even if china nuke Big City like London or Paris like 10 to 20 times, the city would still not completely destroy and there would still be survivor, especially in France because of the extensive catacomb network

And how you purpose to evacuate 20 millions people outside blast radius of 7000 sq kilometres in 30 or so minutes? That I would like to know

You use this to test by yourself.

A 150kt nuclear warhead will destroy a fraction of Shanghai.

HYDESim: High-Yield Detonation Effects Simulator

 

[Mighty Caty]

You use this to test by yourself.

A 150kt nuclear warhead will destroy a fraction of Shanghai.

HYDESim: High-Yield Detonation Effects Simulator

Well you cannot make an estimation of explosion just by putting a circle and expect that is where the destruction ends

Nuclear damage is based upon many different factors, you have your initial blast, then fall out and finally environmental factor on the ground

Blast radius does not calculate on actual explosion, but rather the fire storm that create after the explosion, the more air and debris to feed the fire storm will make a different damage within the same payload, also the trigger mechanism played a role too, that is why country need supercomputer to calculate the theoretical damage assessment but not some website with a circle on it saying this is where it ends.

Then come fallout, fall out is not something anyone can predict, it very much depend on astrological factor, in other word, a game of luck

If it rains within 24 hours of the fall out, it will done more damage to the surviving population as they have less chance to prevent the damaging effect of the fall out, if it rain later than a week, the nuclear cloud would dissipated by wind and instead of a concentrated hit on the ground, the cloud diluted to several pieces

Then come the environment factor, namely water pollution and nuclear winter, while most rain water was designed to divert back to the water table for consumption, when rain mixed with radioactive material, the contaminated rain will bring over to drinking water table, a concentrate dose will make a large scale radioactive poison amongst the survival population, unless they don't drink, which will died of dehydration in the end. Even if 90% of shanghai resident survived the blast, many of them are affected by fall out and the remaining population will be affected by non-hospitable environment. That is even before nuclear winter set in

All these were not covered by a simple map with a circle starting this is where the damage end, infact this is where the damage begin. If I were one of the shanghai resident when they were hit by a 150kt Nuclear device? I would much rather to have died with the blast then to survive with 19 millions survivor all trying to survive what's left

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

Well you cannot make an estimation of explosion just by putting a circle and expect that is where the destruction ends

Nuclear damage is based upon many different factors, you have your initial blast, then fall out and finally environmental factor on the ground

Blast radius does not calculate on actual explosion, but rather the fire storm that create after the explosion, the more air and debris to feed the fire storm will make a different damage within the same payload, also the trigger mechanism played a role too, that is why country need supercomputer to calculate the theoretical damage assessment but not some website with a circle on it saying this is where it ends.

Then come fallout, fall out is not something anyone can predict, it very much depend on astrological factor, in other word, a game of luck

If it rains within 24 hours of the fall out, it will done more damage to the surviving population as they have less chance to prevent the damaging effect of the fall out, if it rain later than a week, the nuclear cloud would dissipated by wind and instead of a concentrated hit on the ground, the cloud diluted to several pieces

Then come the environment factor, namely water pollution and nuclear winter, while most rain water was designed to divert back to the water table for consumption, when rain mixed with radioactive material, the contaminated rain will bring over to drinking water table, a concentrate dose will make a large scale radioactive poison amongst the survival population, unless they don't drink, which will died of dehydration in the end. Even if 90% of shanghai resident survived the blast, many of them are affected by fall out and the remaining population will be affected by non-hospitable environment. That is even before nuclear winter set in

All these were not covered by a simple map with a circle starting this is where the damage end, infact this is where the damage begin. If I were one of the shanghai resident when they were hit by a 150kt Nuclear device? I would much rather to have died with the blast then to survive with 19 millions survivor all trying to survive what's left

It has been already tested, just look at Tsar Bomba, the radius of its fireball is about 10000 feet or 2.3 km.

 

[Mighty Caty]

It has been already tested, just look at Tsar Bomba, the radius of its fireball is about 10000 feet or 2.3 km.

You do realise you are talking about blast radius while I am talking about damage dobe, right?

What I said damage and destruction is not merely from the initial blast, but also the fallout damage and damage from fire strom

bOtH Nagasaki and hiroshima, the initial damage done is about 10-15 block, but does that mean neighborhood outside those 10-15 block come out undamaged?

You should do is look up the pyrposed fall out and damage map produced by the US DOD during 1970 to have a better picture

WiLl be an air det if the missile is detonated in 10,000 AGL, the damage is not as much as a ground det at 1500 to 3000 AGL

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

You do realise you are talking about blast radius while I am talking about damage dobe, right?

What I said damage and destruction is not merely from the initial blast, but also the fallout damage and damage from fire strom

bOtH Nagasaki and hiroshima, the initial damage done is about 10-15 block, but does that mean neighborhood outside those 10-15 block come out undamaged?

You should do is look up the pyrposed fall out and damage map produced by the US DOD during 1970 to have a better picture

WiLl be an air det if the missile is detonated in 10,000 AGL, the damage is not as much as a ground det at 1500 to 3000 AGL

Then the chart was pretty accurate, the blast radius of the Tsar Bomba was around 43km.

 

[Mighty Caty]

Then the chart was pretty accurate, the blast radius of the Tsar Bomba was around 43km.

I did not say the estimation is not accurate, I am not talking about initial blast radius at all, I am talking about damage done by nuclear device, initial blast is only one part of the equation

Also the Tsar bomb is an air burst, which is not as destructive as ground det

 

[UKBengali]

So the 10%, 50% and 90% is not a supported figure but just a random number from you.

Even then you made a few serious mistake

1.) French sub launch SLBM (TNO) have a yield of 150Kt, not 100 as you suggested. And it was only a part of the nuclear weapon family, they also have TN-81, air launch war head capable of delivering 300kt payload and TNA which have a reported payload of up to 800kt

Them same case with the British so as I said, 300 kt is the average payload, but I just use the average point (which have smaller actual total yield as there are more land base missile than sub launch or air launch missle)

2.) Judging by the actual damage assessment by the 2 host epic nuclear device, a 20kt plutonium bomb can effective destroy a medium city of Nagasaki, which area is about 750 sq km

Shanghai have an area of about 7000 sq km, a French SLBM have an actual payload of 150 kiloton, more than 7 times the destruction power on the explosion alone, not to mention the trigger mechanism and quality of WEPT or WEU would improve the destruction result, 1TNO is more than enough to destroy a big city like Shanghai

3.) you claim damage may be 50% or less by interception, that would suggest a > 50% interception rate on Chinese BMD system

According to US defence review, US own BMD have a more or less interception rate of less than 30% 2 interception with any 7 threats, so you are saying Chinese system is significantly better than the American one?

Although there are no actual figure to support either way, but I found it hard to believe.

Dude, there is not much extra damage from 100 to 150KT in a huge city like Shanghai.
It will require around 12 0.5 MT weapons to destroy a city of that size.
We will not agree on this, so let us move on.

As far as the TN-81 is concerned the chances of France being able to launch this and strike China is very low. So we should stick to SLBMs for France.

Unless France and the UK would like to be wiped out from the history books permanently, then they will not be fighting China.

 

[Mighty Caty]

Dude, there is not much extra damage from 100 to 150KT in a huge city like Shanghai.
It will require around 12 0.5 MT weapons to destroy a city of that size.
We will not agree on this, so let us move on.

As far as the TN-81 is concerned the chances of France being able to launch this and strike China is very low. So we should stick to SLBMs for France.

Unless France and the UK would like to be wiped out from the history books permanently, then they will not be fighting China.

Something I do not really understand.

Why you and that Chinese member only keep focus on the initial blast and only count them as a total destruction?

Actualoy I would agree with you, if you try to literally complete destroy big city like shanghai via initial blast, you actually would have need more than 20 mt payload to do the job, I would doubt actually could 20 mt do the job

When I say destroy, I do not just mean the destruction bought by the initial blast, I mean the total sum of all destruction bought on by the same bomb, maybe English is not my primary language, so my word confused you

The initial destruction is only one part of the destruction bring on a given city, in the traditional sense of calculation, it would more or less contributed to about 30% of total destruction, the other is the sonic damage, fire storm and fallout

Just imagine this, a 300 kiloton nuclear device detonated 2000 ft over Shanghai, the initial blast may kill 50,000 to 100,000 people, so 20,000,000 or more shanghai resident survived the initial blast, does that mean their ordeal is over?

First the fire storm created by the nuclear explosion will sweep through neighborhood, firefighter cannot battle the fire as the fire is burning highly radioactive waste, the only thing they can do is back burn the city so that they can contain the fire by taking away the fuel, how strong and how fast the fire can move on depend largely on atmospheric condition

Then you got EMP, high altitude detonation will create an devasting EMP effect and burn all the electronic with LOS, that mean Hospital cannot function and Government cannot function, which would lead to riot and the injured died as a result of Power failure

Finally to top it all up, you have to deal with nasty fallout at your hand, fallout is anything that was touch or ionised by the nuclear explosion, when the warhead explode, it brought radioactive debris up in the air, and preveiling wind will scatter these highly toxic material in a wide range of area, literally everywhere. The only hope is rain, when it rain, the radioactive substance will then brought back down to earth, where er they fell. So then it will be safe or anyone to go outside

But then there are just one major problem. When the rain brought the radioactive substance back down, they either fall in farmland, and render the land useless for growing crop, if they dont land on the farmland, they will land on the street, it would not be a problem until most modern drainage designed to funnel rainwater into catchman, and then on to drinking water table. A highly concentration dose of rain will contaminate the drinking water table and render the water undrinkable.

So, you have 20 million people survived the blast, living in a place where no electronic works, no functioning government and no functioning hospital, above all, no editable food source and no drinkable water, I dont know what it called that beside destruction, dont forget, this is not going to just happen in shanghai, but also beijian, tinjian and any large medium and small Chinese city.

If I have to choose to live throught all that or perished in the first day, I would choose the latter everytime, so if China indeed involve in a nuclear exchange with the EU, I would consider a blessing to got wipe off the map the first day. Actually China will be doing a favor to us by wiping all of us out

 

[Nike]

The US has the luxury of building these expensive white elephant ships like the Zumwalt-class and Ford-class because of their unique geographical position. The US is surrounded by two large oceans and friendly nations like Canada and Mexico. Moreover, there is currently no nation on the planet capable of launching a serious conventional strike on the west or east coast of the US. So this creates a unique logistics situation for the US. The only way for the US to reach Europe, Asia, or Africa is to build these large ships. The US Army can't possibly drive across the Pacific or Atlantic Ocean can they? In other words, the US has no choice but to build these ships if they want to project power outside of North America.

China is not in the same geographical situation. We have a coastline surrounded by two island chains. We have an unfriendly Japan right off our coast. We have the US military all over the Western Pacific. We are stuck behind a chokepoint called the Strait of Malacca.

Here's a picture of the Liaoning docked at its home port.

Now let me set up a worst case scenario for China.

Let's say the US launches a preemptive strike and sinks the Liaoning with Tomahawks. They can use the Harpoon. They can use the B-2 and launch a dozen JASSM. They can torpedo the ship with a Virginia class submarine. It wouldn't make a difference if China had several more carriers because they can do the same thing to each of them. You can try your best to keep the ships moving, but the US has plenty of satellites, aircraft, and ships to keep track of your surface ships. The US can sink the vast majority of the PLAN's surface ships if it really wanted to.

It's not over. The worst case scenario continues. Next, the US will conduct a global naval blockade against China. They will shut down the Strait of Hormuz. They will shut down Bab-el-Mandeb. That means no more Middle Eastern oil for China. They will shut down the Strait of Malacca. They will shut down the Panama Canal.

How would you like China to counter this?

Lastly, I'm not saying China should ignore the navy. I'm just saying having a couple of extra ships (especially large expensive surface ships) won't make a difference in the big picture. If the US decides to implement their Air-Sea Battle concept, they will succeed. Which is why I keep saying the only counter to it is to use the PLA and PLAAF and move through Central Asia. We need to go where they can't go -- on land. The US has no ability to counter several million mechanized and motorized infantry moving through Central Asia.

sorry, US must subdue their so called "friendly" neighbor in several bitter war in the past and after that they can control as much as they want their "friendly" neighbor. China, i think will follow the same path as US, you must subdue or conquer your so called "friendly" neighbor either it will be Japan, India, Vietnam or Philippine and after that you can made your own hemisphere. You can use your overwhelming land forces to fight against Vietnam and India but how to fight against Japan? Taiwan or even Philippine?

In modern day, Naval Forces is talking more than Land Forces. You can easily to dispatch them to any potential conflict in which involve your country and protect your interest overseas. China's evacuation operations in Egypt and Libya has told us how a better Naval Forces can do to protect their interest and citizen, and recent spat with several countries in SCS is telling us more about a better Naval Forces can do. It is not about to competing with US Navy or the like, but it will be purely a decisive advantage to have a more better Naval Forces for your National Interest in the future in which most of them will lie overseas as your country economics forces has been driven by exporting your goods and service by sea lane more than continental trade way.

 

[AUz]

Calm down guys.

don't act like bhartis and dream about we'll have this and that blah blah..

Just keep your heads down and keep working hard..like Chinese are known for. Such rants are for lower people..example delusional indians.

 

[Viet]

Trust me, no European country would fight with US against China.

Just the warheads from one Chinese submarine can obliterate an European state.

bs...many countries in Europe are members of the NATO. should the US be attacked by China, you will face full retaliation from the military bloc.

don´t forget UK and France have nuclear subs firing nukes, too.

sorry, US must subdue their so called "friendly" neighbor in several bitter war in the past and after that they can control as much as they want their "friendly" neighbor. China, i think will follow the same path as US, you must subdue or conquer your so called "friendly" neighbor either it will be Japan, India, Vietnam or Philippine and after that you can made your own hemisphere. You can use your overwhelming land forces to fight against Vietnam and India but how to fight against Japan? Taiwan or even Philippine?

In modern day, Naval Forces is talking more than Land Forces. You can easily to dispatch them to any potential conflict in which involve your country and protect your interest overseas. China's evacuation operations in Egypt and Libya has told us how a better Naval Forces can do to protect their interest and citizen, and recent spat with several countries in SCS is telling us more about a better Naval Forces can do. It is not about to competing with US Navy or the like, but it will be purely a decisive advantage to have a more better Naval Forces for your National Interest in the future in which most of them will lie overseas as your country economics forces has been driven by exporting your goods and service by sea lane more than continental trade way.

I think you should know China is a Sino centric country, it has no history of conquests.

Chinese members can correct me if I am wrong.
China world view is quite different. It is not interested in conquering other countries. As far as I know China has never started a war against its neighbors to subdue the foreigners and seize the territories. Moreover China expands territory merely by internal conquests and assimilation.

Vietnam is an exception as China considers the Viet people and the land as a part of its territory and history. That explains the 17 times Chinese and Vietnamese went to war.

 

[Nike]

bs...many countries in Europe are members of the NATO. should the US be attacked by China, you will face full retaliation from the military bloc.

don´t forget UK and France have nuclear subs firing nukes, too.


I think you should know China is a Sino centric country, it has no history of conquests.

Chinese members can correct me if I am wrong.
China world view is quite different. It is not interested in conquering other countries. As far as I know China has never started a war against its neighbors to subdue the foreigners and seize the territories. Moreover China expands territory merely by internal conquests and assimilation.

Vietnam is an exception as China considers the Viet people and the land as a part of its territory and history. That explains the 17 times Chinese and Vietnamese went to war.

What i mean to subdue or conquer is as not literally to make one country to becoming one of their parts (like colonization), but it is will be more like show of force in one of a brutal showdown to show other countries who is the big boss in the region. US doing that several times in American hemisphere, against Canada, against Mexico, Against Panama, against several of Spanish possessions in Carib, against Panama and so on

Continental country or not, an aspiring global power need a powerful Navy to back up her ambitions and interest abroad