Have the Chinese Created a Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile?

[UKBengali]

So the US will assume a nuclear attack if China launches a DF-21D at a carrier?


LOL.


The US must be the most stupidest country on the face of the planet if it wants to risk nuclaer war with a country that could destroy hundreds of it's cities, over an attack with a non-nuclear anti-ship ballistic missile.

 

[gambit]

So the US will assume a nuclear attack if China launches a DF-21D at a carrier?


LOL.


The US must be the most stupidest country on the fact of the planet if it wants to risk nuclaer war with a country that could destroy hundreds of it's cities, over an attack with a non-nuclear anti-ship ballistic missile.

I take it you have extensive knowledge and experience with ballistic missiles to know EXACTLY the type of missile that is launched the moment it leave its silo?

 

[amalakas]

I take it you have extensive knowledge and experience with ballistic missiles to know EXACTLY the type of missile that is launched the moment it leave its silo?

precicely my point, how on earth would the early warning systems know if it is an ICBM type launch or an anti-ship missile launch, the proposed range for the DF-21 suggests a large enough carrier to attract said systems attention...

 

[UKBengali]

I take it you have extensive knowledge and experience with ballistic missiles to know EXACTLY the type of missile that is launched the moment it leave its silo?

You miss the point completely.

The US will not start a nuclear conflict over China willy-nilly.

It is irrational for the US to risk it's own destruction over an attack that may not even be nuclear.

End of the day, the US will only risk an all-out nuclear attack on China once China decides to destroy city after city in the US with thermonuclear weapons.

 

[S10]

if my opponent has means of detecting balistic missile launches, would you want to give him the impression you are potentially launching nukes ?

They can give that impression too if they like.

 

[Zabaniyah]

So the US will assume a nuclear attack if China launches a DF-21D at a carrier?


LOL.


The US must be the most stupidest country on the face of the planet if it wants to risk nuclaer war with a country that could destroy hundreds of it's cities, over an attack with a non-nuclear anti-ship ballistic missile.

It'd be impossible to figure out as to just what kind of warhead the DF-21D would be carrying. It could be nuclear or anything. Sometimes, it helps in assuming the worse case scenario.

 

[gambit]

You miss the point completely.

The US will not start a nuclear conflict over China willy-nilly.

It is irrational for the US to risk it's own destruction over an attack that may not even be nuclear.

End of the day, the US will only risk an all-out nuclear attack on China once China decides to destroy city after city in the US with thermonuclear weapons.

May not? Am sure your country is glad that someone of your mentality is not in its defense.

 

[UKBengali]

May not? Am sure your country is glad that someone of your mentality is not in its defense.

LOL. A US nuclear strike on China over the Chinese use of DF-21D missiles?

I am sure that the Chinese will really hesitate to use them in that case.

End of the day, once the US presses the nuclear trigger, it may cease to exist as a cohesive entity within a matter of hours.

Still cannot believe that this argument is being entertained in this forum.

 

[gambit]

LOL. A US nuclear strike on China over the Chinese use of DF-21D missiles?

I am sure that the Chinese will really hesitate to use them in that case.

End of the day, once the US presses the nuclear trigger, it may cease to exist as a cohesive entity within a matter of hours.

Am going to ask you again: How would YOU tell what it is in the first place?

Still cannot believe that this argument is being entertained in this forum.

Why is it so unbelievable? People like you who evade legitimate questions made the issue repeatedly entertaining.

 

[Martian2]

Am going to ask you again: How would YOU tell what it is in the first place?

Why is it so unbelievable? People like you who evade legitimate questions made the issue repeatedly entertaining.

Sane people do not escalate into thermonuclear war until they see a mushroom cloud. You need a better brain and eyes.

What kind of military professional are you? Let me fill you in.

1. China has a No First Use (NFU) policy on nuclear weapons. Whatever China fires at you, it's not a nuclear weapon per NFU policy.

2. If your eyes and satellites don't see a giant mushroom cloud in the visible wavelengths or a super-massive infrared signature, it's not a nuke.

If you don't see this mushroom cloud, it's not thermonuclear war yet.

 

[gambit]

Sane people do not escalate into thermonuclear war, until they see a mushroom cloud. You need a better brain and eyes.

Sane people do not give the impression that a nuclear ballistic missile is on the way. Why not answer this question: How can we tell that a ballistic missile AT LAUNCH is either X or Y?

 

[Martian2]

Sane people do not give the impression that a nuclear ballistic missile is on the way. Why not answer this question: How can we tell that a ballistic missile AT LAUNCH is either X or Y?

I am disappointed in a supposed military professional with no knowledge of military history.

No-First-Use (NFU)

"China's NFU Policy:

Since 1964, China's stated policy has been to “not be the first to use nuclear weapons at any time or under any circumstances." Chinese officials have consistently adhered to this principle and claim that the existence of their NFU pledge is proof that China possesses nuclear weapons for defensive purposes. China expanded on this commitment in 1995 when it publicly issued an unconditional negative security assurance. ["China's National Statement On Security Assurances," 5 April 1995.]"

 

[gambit]

1. China has a No First Use (NFU) policy on nuclear weapons. Whatever China fires at you, it's not a nuclear weapon per NFU policy.

And you expect US to take China on words alone? Please...Give that to the many gullible Chinese, not US.

---------- Post added at 08:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:53 PM ----------

I am disappointed in a supposed military professional with no knowledge of military history.

Most likely better than you. Why are you still avoiding my question: How can we tell that a ballistic missile AT LAUNCH is either X or Y?

 

[Martian2]

And you expect US to take China on words alone? Please...Give that to the many gullible Chinese, not US.

Most likely better than you. Why are you still avoiding my question: How can we tell that a ballistic missile AT LAUNCH is either X or Y?

The answer is simple. China wants to avoid "mutually assured destruction." Duh!

Like me repeat it again. You have no knowledge of military history and it leads you to ridiculous views and opinions.

You don't have to trust China. You only have to trust in China's desire for survival. Ever hear of the Mutual Assured Destruction doctrine? Let me fill you in again.

Mutual assured destruction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Mutual Assured Destruction, or mutually assured destruction (MAD), is a doctrine of military strategy and national security policy in which a full-scale use of high-yield weapons of mass destruction by two opposing sides would effectively result in the complete, utter and irrevocable annihilation of both the attacker and the defender,[1] becoming thus a war that has no victory nor any armistice but only effective reciprocal destruction. It is based on the theory of deterrence according to which the deployment, and implicit menace of use, of strong weapons is essential to threaten the enemy in order to prevent the use by said-enemy of the same weapons against oneself. The strategy is effectively a form of Nash equilibrium in which neither side, once armed, has any incentive to disarm thereafter."

 

[gambit]

Like me repeat it again. You have no knowledge of military history and it leads you to ridiculous views and opinions.

You don't have to trust China. You only have to trust in China's desire for survival. Ever hear of the Mutual Assured Destruction doctrine? Let me fill you in again.

The answer is simple. China wants to avoid "mutually assured destruction." Duh!

Mutual assured destruction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Mutual Assured Destruction, or mutually assured destruction (MAD), is a doctrine of military strategy and national security policy in which a full-scale use of high-yield weapons of mass destruction by two opposing sides would effectively result in the complete, utter and irrevocable annihilation of both the attacker and the defender,[1] becoming thus a war that has no victory nor any armistice but only effective reciprocal destruction. It is based on the theory of deterrence according to which the deployment, and implicit menace of use, of strong weapons is essential to threaten the enemy in order to prevent the use by said-enemy of the same weapons against oneself. The strategy is effectively a form of Nash equilibrium in which neither side, once armed, has any incentive to disarm thereafter."

The many nuclear arms reduction treaties ALL have verification processes. That means regardless of promises, all sides sent their agents to verify if the other side complied with the terms of the treaty. Sorry, but China's word on her 'no first use' is not good enough. Now answer the question: How can we tell that a ballistic missile AT LAUNCH is either X or Y?

---------- Post added at 09:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:03 PM ----------

Like me repeat it again. You have no knowledge of military history and it leads you to ridiculous views and opinions.

I actually worked around nuclear bombs once. What do you have?