DF-21D Ant-Aircraft Carrie Missile officially confirmed!

[ao333]

Where are the Indians and Vietnamese?

But that is precisely the problem: How to distinguish a nuclear warhead from a non-nuclear warhead? For all we know, a ballistic warhead can contain plain old rocks. No one can afford to wait until the 'Boom' to find out.

Except Chinese aren't some Vietnamese under American flags who would nuke a carrier group in the Taiwan Straits.

PS: DF-21 is not an ICBM so why would it come with nuclear retaliation?

 

[Firemaster]

Where are the Indians and Vietnamese?

Edit: Oops Gambit the Vietnamese is here.

Indians are finding ways to vcounter df21d

 

[rcrmj]

Indians are finding ways to vcounter df21d

like how`?

 

[Cambodia Spirit]

Indians are finding ways to vcounter df21d

Just like some Viets in the U.S. self-claimed that they had invented a laser weapon that can shoot down the DF21 warheads!!!

Viets in Vietnam hearing that news and applaud very excited!!!

 

[Akasa]

"Not operational yet"? The thing was tested in 2005 and was supposed to enter service in 2009.

 

[Obambam]

Actually, since it will be difficult if not impossible to discriminate between any DF21D and any other ballistic missile launched, or any warheads launched by these missile vehicles, the simple and appropriate US response would be : "any ballistic missile fired at any carrier task group or land target of ours will be considered a nuclear strike onto US and will be met by an appropriate nuclear response in kind"

That would give any shooter second thought, I would think.

Meaning any nuclear armed country can adopt the same principal. "If their task groups or land targets gets fired upon, will be met by an appropriate nuclear response". This way it will result in a standoff. Unless of course, if they want to find out if it is a nuke or not before retaliating.

 

[UKBengali]

There is a principle called proportionality.

There is no way that the US would ever consider even a nuclear strike on a carrier group as the same as one on that of a US city.

The simple reason is that the US would not be prepared it's whole existence over a strike on a carrier group that killed "only" 10,000 or so personel.

Most likely response to a nuclear strike on a carrier group would be a US nuclear strike on a Chinese naval base.

 

[Penguin]

Meaning any nuclear armed country can adopt the same principal. "If their task groups or land targets gets fired upon, will be met by an appropriate nuclear response". This way it will result in a standoff. Unless of course, if they want to find out if it is a nuke or not before retaliating.

No, since attack by multiple warhead ballistic missile is quite specific, not a lot of countries have this capability. The point being: can you - ff a ballistic missile is fired and you are on the receiving end - discern whether you're dealing with a conventional anti-ship warhead or a thermo-nuclear warhead (remember, DF-21 comes in nuclear and non-nuclear variants > same missile)? If you can't then the response is appropriate: we have to assume the worst case scenario of a thermo nuclear warhead. We're not dealing with a situation where one party fires a Scud and the other goes into full nuclear retaliatory mode., we're dealing with a situation where the missile fired might well be a nuclear tipped medium to long range ballistic muclear missile.

 

[Penguin]

There is a principle called proportionality.

There is no way that the US would ever consider even a nuclear strike on a carrier group as the same as one on that of a US city.

The simple reason is that the US would not be prepared it's whole existence over a strike on a carrier group that killed "only" 10,000 or so personel.

Most likely response to a nuclear strike on a carrier group would be a US nuclear strike on a Chinese naval base.

Against China, is the existance of the US really at stake if we're looking at nukes?

Current World Nuclear Arsenals

Country
Suspected Strategic Nuclear Weapons
Suspected Non-Strategic Nuclear Weapons
Suspected Total Nuclear Weapons

China
20
390
410

United States
7,200
~ 3,300
~10,500

Alternatively
The World's Nuclear Arsenals: Updated January 21, 2009

Country
Suspected Strategic Nuclear Weapons
Suspected Non-Strategic Nuclear Weapons
Suspected Total Nuclear Weapons

China
130-200
120
~250-320

United States
5,236
~500
~5,736

 

[Obambam]

No, since attack by multiple warhead ballistic missile is quite specific, not a lot of countries have this capability. The point being: can you - ff a ballistic missile is fired and you are on the receiving end - discern whether you're dealing with a conventional anti-ship warhead or a thermo-nuclear warhead (remember, DF-21 comes in nuclear and non-nuclear variants > same missile)? If you can't then the response is appropriate: we have to assume the worst case scenario of a thermo nuclear warhead.

In that case the retaliatory strike coming from the US would be considered a nuclear attack resulting in a 'real' nuclear retaliatory strike from the nuclear armed powers. There really is a no win situation out of this. Best is to avoid it altogether by staying outside of the DF-21D range. This way it will significantly reduce the risk of being hit by what can be perceived as a 'possible' nuclear attack. Chances are, US will not dare fire off a single nuke in case of being dealt with the same retaliatory response. Unless of course, they want to commit suicide together. It will also give the Russians the green light to making more nukes. Afterall, they are not exactly in good terms with America.

 

[Martian2]

No, since attack by multiple warhead ballistic missile is quite specific, not a lot of countries have this capability. The point being: can you - ff a ballistic missile is fired and you are on the receiving end - discern whether you're dealing with a conventional anti-ship warhead or a thermo-nuclear warhead (remember, DF-21 comes in nuclear and non-nuclear variants > same missile)? If you can't then the response is appropriate: we have to assume the worst case scenario of a thermo nuclear warhead. We're not dealing with a situation where one party fires a Scud and the other goes into full nuclear retaliatory mode., we're dealing with a situation where the missile fired might well be a nuclear tipped medium to long range ballistic muclear missile.

If the United States is looking for an excuse to wage a full-scale thermonuclear war, I am sure China will oblige. Otherwise, the DF-21D will be on its way to targets in an aircraft carrier battle group.

When the U.S. sticks its nose into China's backyard, China will not be deterred by a lame "Oh, we can't tell whether your ASBM is nuclear-armed or not, so we're going nuclear." By the way, China can say the same thing about the U.S. Tomahawk cruise missile. Gee, it might be nuclear-armed, I guess we have to fire every thermonuclear weapon in our arsenal. That's called hogwash.

 

[UKBengali]

Against China, is the existance of the US really at stake if we're looking at nukes?

Current World Nuclear Arsenals

Country
Suspected Strategic Nuclear Weapons
Suspected Non-Strategic Nuclear Weapons
Suspected Total Nuclear Weapons

China
20
390
410

United States
7,200
~ 3,300
~10,500

Alternatively
The World's Nuclear Arsenals: UpdatedJanuary 21, 2009

Country
Suspected Strategic Nuclear Weapons
Suspected Non-Strategic Nuclear Weapons
Suspected Total Nuclear Weapons

China
130-200
120
~250-320

United States
5,236
~500
~5,736

Think China can fire a bit more than 20 missiles at the US.

DF-41, DF-31A, DF-31, JL-2 and DF-5 can literally vaporise every US city with over 1 million population.

 

[Martian2]

20 strategic nuclear weapons? Are you serious? Let me find two pictures and you'll have your 20 strategic weapons. To claim there are no more strategic weapons in China is ridiculous.

----------

Regarding the issue of whether China has an adequate number of nuclear ICBMs, I don't believe that this problem has been overlooked by the competent government of China.

1) China has the 5,000 KM "Underground Great Wall." You can hide a lot of ICBMs in a 5,000 KM underground facility. See http://forum./index.php?showtopic=86413

China's 5,000 KM "Underground Great Wall"

China's "Underground Great Wall" has massive tunnels to accommodate trains carrying nuclear ordnance.

China's "Underground Great Wall" has massive blast doors.

China's "Underground Great Wall" can simultaneously accommodate two trains and can switch tracks.

2) The 20 silo-based "city-buster" ICBMs (i.e. 1 to 4 megatons) alone can destroy 20 American cities. If you annihilate the top 20 American cities, you are talking about roughly 30 million dead plus nuclear fallout. This is called nuclear deterrence.

3) China has road-mobile and rail-mobile ICBM launchers.

China?s Nuclear Option | The Diplomat

"China’s Nuclear Option
April 26, 2010

By Richard Weitz

Chinese policymakers say the country’s rapidly modernizing nuclear force is nothing to fear. They could do more to prove it."

China's road-mobile ICBMs.

Rail-Mobile ICBMs enter Chinese arsenal

"Rail-Mobile ICBMs enter Chinese arsenal
Kanwa Information Center ^

Posted on Wednesday, April 23, 2003 11:19:59 PM by Filibuster_60

Kanwa was informed that the development of train-borne DF31 ICBM is already completed, and the deployment of these missiles has also been prepared. The development of DF31A, a upgraded version of DF31, has also already been completed.

In order to further enhance the mobile nuclear striking power and the capability to survive attacks, China has developed new types of DF31 series ICBMs similar to the former Soviet Union train-borne SS-24. In normal days, these missiles are moved along the railroads, while at time of war, they can be transported to selected sites and then launch nuclear assaults upon the enemy. DF31 is manufactured in Sichuan at Sichuan Areospace Industry Corporation. Reliable sources from China military industry say the major difference between DF31 and DF31A lies in their warheads. The former has single warhead, while the latter has multi-warheads."

4) China has Type 094 submarines carrying JL-2 SLBMs.

China's most-powerful Jin-class SSBN nuclear deterrent.

5) Nuclear-capable DH-10 cruise missiles have been added to the Chinese nuclear arsenal.

6) I'm not trying to beat a dead horse. However, for the sake of completeness, I want to point out that "It is likely that a number of PRC cargo ships carry CSS-9 missiles to act as a sea-based nuclear response/strike force."

http://www.missilethreat.com/missilesofthe...sile_detail.asp

"The CSS-9 is an effective strategic system that has significantly increased the PRC’s nuclear strike capabilities. Though the PRC’s land-based systems are unable to directly threaten much beyond the west coast of the United States, the CSS-9 is a modern ICBM system that threatens Russia and India, two major PRC rivals. However, the CSS-9 missile system can easily reach all of the US with the placement aboard cargo ships disguised as shipping containers. The self-contained launch system could easily be placed on a PRC ship and launched against targets in the US. It is likely that a number of PRC cargo ships carry CSS-9 missiles to act as a sea-based nuclear response/strike force. Similarly, these containers could be smuggled into and stored in PRC controlled warehouses throughout the Americas. The modular nature of these modern missile systems makes them extremely dangerous since they do not need to follow tradition missile tactics. Even with modern satellite systems, the combination of hidden road and cross-country mobile launchers, missile silos, and rail/ship launchers make it impossible to destroy most of these missiles prior to launch."

7) China is developing the HN-2000 stealth cruise missile with a terminal supersonic phase. Just like the DH-10 cruise missile, it is reasonable to expect that the HN-2000 will also be nuclear-capable. See http://project2049.net/documents/assassin_...ise_missile.pdf

"Global Strike and the Chinese Anti-Ship Cruise Missile: HN-2000

China is currently developing its next-generation cruise missile, the Hong Niao-2000 (HN-2000). This missile will reportedly be equipped with millimeter wave radar, infrared image mapping, laser radar, synthetic-aperture radar (SAR) and the Chinese Beidou satellite guidance system, for accuracies of 1-3 meters. This missile will also incorporate the latest stealth technologies and have a supersonic terminal flight phase, with an expected range of 4,000km."

8) Have you ever watched the movie "WarGames"? A nuclear war between Russia and the U.S. will cause both nations to launch an all-out attack on all countries of the world. Russia and the U.S. will not foolishly destroy only each other and let China become the de facto superpower.

Similarly, in a nuclear exchange between the U.S. and China, China has plenty of thermonuclear SRBMs and IRBMs (especially the ones located in Tibet). China will "wipe out" most Russian cities. In retaliation, the Russians will take everyone else with them. Just as it was depicted in WarGames, Russian nuclear missiles will radiate to every major city in the world. Everybody dies, except for the lucky few in underground military facilities built to withstand a nuclear war.

In essence, China can "borrow" the Russian nuclear arsenal in the final exchange against the U.S. The Russians are not going to let the U.S. become the de facto superpower survivor.

http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2008/05/extens...ntral-china.php

"Extensive Nuclear Missile Deployment Area Discovered in Central China

More than 50 launch pads for nuclear ballistic missiles have been identified scattered across a 2,000 square kilometer (772 square miles) area of central China, according to analysis of satellite images.

By Hans M. Kristensen

Analysis of new commercial satellite photos has identified an extensive deployment area with nearly 60 launch pads for medium-range nuclear ballistic missiles in Central China near Delingha and Da Qaidam.

The region has long been rumored to house nuclear missiles and I have previously described some of the facilities in a report and a blog. But the new analysis reveals a significantly larger deployment area than previously known, different types of launch pads, command and control facilities, and missile deployment equipment at a large facility in downtown Delingha.

The U.S. government often highlights China’s deployment of new mobile missiles as a concern but keeps the details secret, so the discovery of the deployment area provides the first opportunity for the public to better understand how China operates its mobile ballistic missiles."

http://rupeenews.com/2009/09/07/beijings-m...china-tensions/

"Beijing’s Missile in Tibet, & Hainan Naval base scare Delhi: Dramatic rise in India-China tensions

Posted on September 7, 2009 by Moin Ansari

The Chinese Red dragon’s reach has scared the pants off the Indian elephant. Many have predicted a war between India and China within the next few years. Some called that prediction alarmist. First there were repeated statements from Delhi that China was their biggest enemy and threat. Then news stories that China has built a huge infrastructure on the undefined and undemarcated Mcmohan line (the de factor border between India and China). Now the escalating tensions are sounding alarm bells around the world. The Federation of American Scientist has just published pictures of Chinese missiles which can target all of India. The incompetent intelligence agencies of India didn’t have a clue about the missiles. Any high school drop out could have paid a commercial satellite a nickel and gotten the pictures of the satellites. The fact that the FAS pictures has so unnerved Delhi that it has decided to form to new intelligence agencies is a subject of much discussion around the world..."

 

[grey boy 2]

Don't bother waiting for apologies. Knowing the habit of our respected professionals here you won't get any.

Dream on bro, "Apologies"? you will be lucky if the old viet is ready to turn off his "denial mode" regarding "DF-21D for once. "anti-Chinese", don't mistaken with "anti-China" though, its in his blood.

 

[Martian2]

Has China "crossed the multiple-warhead Rubicon"?

The old projections may have to be revised in the face of new information. Well-known analyst Richard Fisher, Jr. states: "While a worst-case estimate, there is good reason to consider that China's warhead numbers could exceed 500 by 2020."

DF-31As camouflaged

FISHER: China and START - Washington Times

"FISHER: China and START
Missile buildup may surpass U.S., Russia as they denuclearize
By Richard D. Fisher Jr. - The Washington Times 5:56 p.m., Wednesday, September 15, 2010

Might China someday have more nuclear warheads than the United States? Than Russia? Inconceivable as it may sound, this could come to pass, because China may just be starting a period of double- or triple-digit annual growth in its warhead numbers as the Obama administration sets its sights on further U.S. warhead reductions, with little hope that China will join a regime of negotiated nuclear stability. But even if it did, would nuclear "parity" with China be in America's interest?

The new START Treaty signed in May commits the United States and Russia to a "parity" that reduces deployed nuclear warheads from 2,200 to 1,550 and reduces to 700 the number of deployed nuclear delivery vehicles. However, President Obama has made clear his intention to seek further reductions; late 2009 leaks to the press suggested further goals of 1,000 warheads or even fewer.

Since it started deploying intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) in the 1980s, China has refused to join in nuclear weapons negotiations. This did not matter as long as China deployed a small number, about 20 liquid-fueled 13,000-kilometer-range DF-5s with single warheads, until early this decade. Furthermore, China had lulled many analysts by regularly suggesting that it adheres to a doctrine of "minimum deterrence" that abjures U.S.- or Russian-level warhead numbers. But China has also rejected U.S. and Soviet levels of nuclear "transparency" as part of its deterrence calculus, with the result that nobody knows its nuclear force goals.

China began modernizing its nuclear missile forces by mid-decade, replacing early DF-5s with a similar number of improved DF-5A missiles based in stationary silos and deploying the new 7,000-to-8,000-kilometer-range, solid-fueled and mobile DF-31 and the larger 11,200-plus-kilometer-range DF-31A. In its latest report to the Congress on China's military released on Aug. 16, the Pentagon says there are less than 10 DF-31 and "10-15" DF-31A ICBMs, up to five more than reported in the previous year's report, covering 2008. However, in the 2010 issue of "Military Balance," Britain's International Institute of Strategic Studies notes there is one brigade of 12 DF-31s and two brigades or 24 DF-31A ICBMs, indicating a possible increase of one new brigade from 2008 to 2009.

In addition, China may be close to fielding two more long-range nuclear missiles. First is the new 7,200-plus-kilometer-range JL-2 submarine-launched ballistic missile. Though reported to be experiencing developmental challenges, when completed, 12 each will go on the new Type 094 nuclear ballistic missile submarine, which the Pentagon estimates will number at least five, for a potential total of 60 missiles. Then there is a new yet-unidentified larger ground-mobile ICBM which has been revealed in Chinese Internet-source images since 2007, but which the Pentagon did not publicly acknowledge until its latest China report. The distinguishing feature of the "DF-XX" is its use of a large 16-wheel Russian-style transporter-erector-launcher (TEL), likely derived from Russian-Belarus technology imported in the late 1990s.

But here is where the real danger begins: The Pentagon also notes this new ICBM is "possibly capable of carrying multiple independently targeted re-entry vehicles (MIRV)." Starting in 2002, the Pentagon's China report noted the People's Liberation Army's (PLA) interest in developing multiple warheads, with more explicit language being used in the 2009 and 2010 reports. Might some PLA ICBMs already have multiple warheads? This analyst has been told by Asian military sources that the DF-31A already carries three warheads and that one deployed DF-5B carries five or six warheads. These sources speculate the new "DF-XX" may carry a similar number of warheads.

While it is not possible to confirm these disclosures from open sources, they point to an alarming possibility: China has crossed the multiple-warhead Rubicon and, with the possibility that it can build one brigade of DF-31A and DF-XX ICBMs a year, could be capable of annual double- or triple-digit increases in its deployed nuclear warheads. Chinese sources also suggest interest in developing longer-range versions of the JL-2, which could also be MIRV-capable. While a worst-case estimate, there is good reason to consider that China's warhead numbers could exceed 500 by 2020.

In addition, China may also be on its way to fielding a national missile-defense system by the 2020s. Its recent, successful Jan. 11 missile warhead interception test marks the culmination of China's second anti-ballistic missile (ABM) program; the first was ordered started by Mao Zedong in 1963 and was pursued until 1980. This stands in contrast with years of howling complaints by Chinese diplomats against American missile-defense programs and their fervent campaigning to ban outer-space weapons. Was this merely deception designed to limit American defensive programs while China gathered the capacity to pursue its own ABM and space-warfare programs?

These potential trends would logically cause one to ask: Why not talk to the Chinese about their nuclear strategic plans? Indeed, the administration's April Nuclear Posture Review calls for "strategic assurance dialogues" with China. However, not only has China traditionally rejected any "negotiations" regarding its nuclear forces, it won't even send its main nuclear missile forces commander on a courtesy visit to the United States. Normal military-to-military dialogue is regularly held hostage to Washington ending arms sales to democratic Taiwan.

But there is a deeper basic conflict: China wants to displace U.S. strategic leadership in Asia and is building military forces capable of defending its global interests, even if that means challenging the United States well beyond Asia. So until China achieves its desired level of global power, which may not include concepts of "parity," China may have no interest in "negotiations" that limit or even inform others about its nuclear weapons plans.

But even if the United States and China could agree on nuclear parity, that may come at the cost of America's Asian alliances. A larger and defended Chinese nuclear arsenal could greatly undermine the U.S. ability to extend its nuclear deterrent, accelerating the process of decoupling the United States from key allies like Japan, South Korea and Australia. America's ability to deter China will decline further when the administration implements its Nuclear Posture Review decision to retire U.S. nuclear-armed TLAM-N cruise missiles carried by secure U.S. submarines, replacing them with tactical nuclear bombs carried by more vulnerable U.S. jet fighters. And then one must consider Russia and its increasing political-military cooperation with China. Might Russia someday "tilt" its nuclear forces with China's to dissuade the United States from defending a future vital interest?

Countries like Taiwan, South Korea, Japan and India are today facing increased Chinese military pressures. They and the United States are also increasingly pressed to fund conventional military forces needed to deter China. It is indeed legitimate to ask if the current START Treaty gives the United States the ability to deter both Russia and a China just starting its strategic nuclear buildup. Furthermore, might START and intended follow-on agreements bring Asia closer to an era of nuclear proliferation and unforeseen instability?

Richard D. Fisher Jr. is a senior fellow with the International Assessment and Strategy Center and author of "China's Military Modernization, Building for Regional and Global Reach" (Praeger, 2008)."