What's new

US admiral would ‘nuke China next week’ if Trump ordered it

US DOD 2013 report says 5-75 ICBMs.
How many do they think now in 2017?

No-one really knows for sure. We do know that China has the means(technological and financial) to have produced many hundreds of ICBMs by now.

The most mysterious nuclear number in the [2017] Pentagon report is this: “75-100 ICBMs.”
According to the report, “China’s nuclear arsenal currently consists of approximately 75-100 ICBMs, including the silo-based CSS-4 Mod 2 (DF-5A) and Mod 3(DF-5B); the solid-fueled, road-mobile CSS-10 Mod 1 and Mod 2 (DF-31 and DF-31A); and the more-limited-range CSS-3 (DF-4).”
The “75-100 ICBMs” estimate was also made in the 2016 report, but in the 2015 and earlier reports, the estimate was: “China’s ICBM arsenal currently consists of 50-60 ICBMs” of the same five types. For the “75-100 ICBM” estimate to be true, China would have had to add 15-40 ICBMs between 2015 and 2016, which probably did not happen.
The confusion appears to be caused by a change in terminology: the “75-100” is the number of missiles available for the ICBM launchers, some of which have reloads. There are only 50-75 ICBM launchers, the same number listed in the previous six reports. In fact, the ICBM force structure appears to have been relatively stable since 2011.
Of those 50-75 ICBM launchers, only about 45 (DF-5 and DF-31A) can target the continental United States.
Development continues of the road-mobile DF-41 ICBM, which the report says is “MIRV capable” like the existing silo-based DF-5B. The rumored DF-5C that some news media reported earlier this year is not mentioned in the Pentagon report, even though the Chinese Ministry of Defense appeared to acknowledge the existence of a DF-5C version in a response to the rumors.
https://fas.org/blogs/security/2017/06/china-report-2017/
See 2016 http://www.nti.org/learn/countries/china/nuclear/

This is the 2017 report itself
https://www.defense.gov/Portals/1/D...ry_Power_Report.PDF?ver=2017-06-06-141328-770
upload_2017-7-28_0-4-46.png
 
.
The DF-41 pics are everywhere around different locations in China.
I found this: https://sputniknews.com/military/201701241049956101-china-us-df41/

According to unconfirmed reports.

No mention of exact number of missiles deployed in those regions and confirmation of the fact that they are actually armed with multiple warheads or not.

And you have already been proved to be ignorant when it comes to China's midcourse test.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/t...ilot-snaps-launch-anti-ballistic-missile.html
Check my remark: https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/chin...asitc-missile-test-successfully.508619/page-2

I did not deny that China had tested an interceptor (posted video was telling as much). My argument was that I did not see any evidence of live intercept of a target in this test, and I could not find any news of this test on the web at the time.

You have provided some news and I appreciate it.

I am aware of the fact that China is developing and testing ABM systems; a step in the right direction IMO.

However, China tends to disclose a lot less about its defense-related projects and this can make it difficult for non-Chinese to assess Chinese defense-related developments.

Proof please.

And we can clearly see the "homework" you do as well.
Does it ever occur to you that Chinese are people like us? That they can exaggerate, misreport and be wrong about issues they are commenting on? Being a well-wisher of a country is one thing; doing your homework is another.

We come here to debate, not to patronize each other blindly. I am a well-wisher of China [also] but I do not need to highlight this fact in every thread of this forum. I am mostly interested in learning and disclosing facts.

I do not comment on any matter blindly; I do my homework in most cases. I highlight relevant sources in support of my comments. This is the maximum I can do.

If I am wrong about anything or my homework is inadequate, you can correct me with relevant information that you have at your disposal. What I do not appreciate is the need to troll and frame me for something that is not true.
 
Last edited:
.
By 2013, the DF-41 was not deployed, but China still got many variants from the DF-5 and DF-31 families, also the newly deployed JL-2.

So I doubt the 75 ICBMs figure was even true for 2013.


All that matters is that both Russia and US think that the Chinese may destroy them if they launch a serious nuclear attack on China.

The actual numbers are irrelevant.
 
. .
Typical cowboy reply by American admiral. Guess he doesn't know the consequences of such bravado which will fall on his nation. There are questions which doesn't warrant answers, he should have kept his gob shut.
 
. .
As if China is not going to return the favor, sometimes I wonder which one is dumber, american or indian military officials.

And i was being told that americans are scared of brahmos
 
. .
Professionalism aside, he could have worded it less provocatively. Not nice to say that about another country.


China has not developed them in large numbers and American defenses have considerably improved at strategic level in recent years. Therefore, MAD aspect between these two states may not be.

Nonetheless, nuclear strikes are a terrifying prospect and such talks should not happen in press.
You are delusion. Even DF-31A has enough range to hit USA continent with minimal 3 MIRV. Not to mention DF-5A with ready store liquid fuel that last 3 months before replaced by new fuel. They can be ready and fire in 10mins unlike old liquid fuel. Not to mention SSBN Type094 on strategic patrol that can hit USA anywhere.

Finally, China is the only country with most successful tested of HGV W-14 strategic missile. Even US admit it's very difficult to defend against this weapon as it do not have predicted path.

Ignorant people will think US nuke has edge against China and think annihilation will not happen to US if a nuke war started.
 
.
You are delusion. Even DF-31A has enough range to hit USA continent with minimal 3 MIRV. Not to mention DF-5A with ready store liquid fuel that last 3 months before replaced by new fuel. They can be ready and fire in 10mins unlike old liquid fuel. Not to mention SSBN Type094 on strategic patrol that can hit USA anywhere.

Finally, China is the only country with most successful tested of HGV W-14 strategic missile. Even US admit it's very difficult to defend against this weapon as it do not have predicted path.

Ignorant people will think US nuke has edge against China and think annihilation will not happen to US if a nuke war started.
My friend, your problem is that you do not pay attention to professional reports or take them at face value. It is not possible for me to have a meaningful discussion with you due to your mindset. However, in good faith, I will give you another chance and elaborate my point.

I am completely aware of the fact that China has developed ICBMs and is modernizing this fleet with passage of time. There is no need to educate me in this regard.

However, you need to understand that China and US have a different [perspective] of "nuclear war." Elaboration below.

Chinese strategic planners believe that a nuclear war is (absolutely) unwinnable and there is no need to develop a huge nuclear arsenal (much like US and/or Russia during the course of COLD WAR). Nonetheless, sufficient deterrence should exist which may discourage any adversary from using nuclear weapons against China. In lieu of this perspective, China believes in nuking cities "only" and is expanding its nuclear arsenal very slowly.

Conversely, American military planners believe that a nuclear war [is] winnable with sufficient preparation (good knowledge of strategic options of an adversary on the ground and appropriate [offensive and defensive] arrangements to counter them), technological capability and a massive strike package at disposal that can be unleashed on a moment's notice - they don't admit this openly but some declassified reports suggest otherwise. In lieu of this perspective, US believes in disabling strategic assets of an adversary (i.e. ICBM, military bases, storage compounds and submarines) in an overwhelming and well-coordinated 1st strike move comprising of both nuclear and conventional assets at its disposal. Such a decapitating strike is likely to diminish nuclear capability of an adversary to great extent - if that adversary is still capable of unleashing a volley of nuclear-armed missiles towards US mainland, those will be neutralized via appropriate defenses at home (systems like GMD, THAAD and others).

Do you know that American ICBM, SLBM and nuclear warheads are technologically configured to achieve precision-strikes? Intent is to take out military (and strategic) targets and not just cities. Learn more from this special report: https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/how-...ability-the-burst-height-compensating.481707/

At present, 45 Chinese ICBM are capable of threatening US mainland (directly) as noted in several professional reports but MiRV capability will increase the number of warheads pointed towards US mainland with passage of time. However, China does not keeps them armed on 24/7 basis [like US] and Chinese ICBMs are typically fielded in its Eastern lands for increased safety. This isn't to say that China needs much time to arm them, should it be necessary.

Yes, Chinese SSBN can hit US mainland from anywhere and are a formidable threat. However, submarines can also be detected and neutralized in open waters with appropriate measures and preparations beforehand.

---

My argument is that Cold War style MAD with US is becoming less and less likely (for all states) due to considerable advances in American defenses, technological capability in general and its massive nuclear strike package that is in active mode [and configured for precision strikes on top] and US will continue on this course in coming years non-stop. Not just China but Russia also risks loosing existing form of MAD with US at some point in the future. However, technological advances are likely to produce new forms of threats and the need to counter them. So this is a virtually non-stop cycle.

Most importantly;

Theoretical possibilities and realities aside (MAD in the picture or not), a full-scale armed conflict with a powerful (and technologically advanced) nuclear-weapons state is very dangerous and a deterrence in itself because no state finds loss of cities as acceptable (even a single). Therefore, you can relax and enjoy your life. And if this make you feel more comfortable - China is also building defenses against ballistic missiles of all sorts. :)
 
Last edited:
.
Rankings of world thermonuclear powers by megatons of firepower: From 2011

1. Russia - 1,273 megatons

2. United States - 570 megatons

3. China - 294 megatons (China has over half the nuclear firepower of the United States)

4. France - 55 megatons

5. Britain - 16 megatons

References:

Russia: NTI: Russia - Nuclear Disarmament
United States: NTI: United States - Nuclear Disarmament
China: NTI: China - Nuclear Disarmament
France: NTI: France - Nuclear Disarmament
Britain: NTI: United Kingdom - Nuclear Disarmament

----------

BoLpN.gif
 
Last edited:
.
the only country I support nuking without warning is North Korea. if the radiation cloud hits China so be it!! they should have stopped Kimmy from getting nukes in the first place. NK are playing the big leagues now and should expect nothing less but a dozen nukes to the face
 
.
US ase lickers can't face some facts , they are still dreaming right now! W14 MIRVs HGV, JL2 SLBM, DF31A ICBM and 8-12 MIRV DF41+DF5B ICBM

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/chin...i-ballasitc-missile-test-successfully.508619/

China just conduct another midcourse anti-ballasitc missile test successfully
  1. dc0c9d791917105bfc1d6a1ee8f56ace.jpg

    a3e19ec3e78027f0ff6fd8ec6ad6b27c.jpg
    Taken by airline pilot
    d58da0065ae2ecef28cc86201a678c7a.jpg

    49b5ad0cc84d466c86d45fd1cd07688b_th.jpg



Talking about nuke threat

df-41-jpg.413870


The 4th DF-41 brigade, conveniently deployed to launch strike at what you know.
 
Last edited:
.
No admiral, you didn't take an oath to Trump. You took an oath to defend the country and its constitution and follow legal orders through the chain of command. If Trump decided one day to go off his rocker and start WW3 outside of constitutional boundaries or order you to murder someone, that order is not a legal one. Finally, even if such an insane order did arrive, you have to ask yourself if you are willing to serve in that capacity.

How about Trump gets insane? He should know the cause first. He can't resist order but he can resign immediately if the cause is unjustified. China is no Iraq and many US main cities - NY, Washington, Chicago - are on Chinese list.

i hate to see the person in this position who does not have sense to talk infront of world's audience without knowing the consequence

An intelligent Person once said that think before you speak, Some one provoked you by asking the retarded Question and you simply lost your sense & many people around the world are Amazed that you are the Admiral of world's top Army, your this behavior shows your personal strength & mentality (A word is enough to the wise)
 
Last edited:
.
When in doubt, nuke China


A situation in which the US military feels 'unhampered' has precedent – and, as General MacArthur's endeavors in Korea prove, it's something to be afraid of


By Pepe Escobar July 28, 2017 5:21 PM

2017-07-25T054718Z_1578847076_RC13C6279EC0_RTRMADP_3_AUSTRALIA-USA-MILITARY-960x576-1501233397.jpg

Commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet Admiral Scott Swift aboard the USS Ronald Reagan in Brisbane, Australia, July 25, 2017. Photo via Reuters
The current collapse of the unipolar world, with the inexorable emergence of a multipolar framework, has enabled a terrifying subplot to run amok – the normalization of the idea of nuclear war.

The latest exhibit comes in the form of a US admiral assuring everyone he’s ready to follow President Trump’s orders to launch a nuclear missile against China.

The DailyBrief
Must-reads from across Asia - directly to your inbox
Forget about the fact that a 21st century nuclear war involving great powers will be The Last War. Our admiral – admirably named Swift – is simply preoccupied by democratic minutiae, as in “every member of the US military has sworn an oath to defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic and to obey the officers and the president of the United States as commander and chief appointed over us.”


So it’s all about loyalty to the President, and civilian control over the military – irrespective of the risk of incinerating untold masses of said civilians, Americans included (as there would be an inevitable Chinese response).

Swift, once again, to the rescue: “This is core to the American democracy and any time you have a military that is moving away from a focus and an allegiance to civilian control, then we really have a significant problem.”

It doesn’t matter that the proverbial spokesman on behalf of the US Pacific Fleet – in this case, Charlie Brown (an apt name?) – swiftly engaged in damage control, deriding the premise of the (nuclear) question as “ridiculous.” Both the question and the answer are in fact quite revealing.

MacArthur’s park is melting in the dark
To shed extra nuances on “civilian control of the military,” a flashback to September 1950 and the Korean War, with some help from Bruce Cumings and John Halliday’s Korea: The Unknown War, may be far from “ridiculous.” Especially now that factions of the War Party in Washington have been pressing the case for nuking not China but North Korea itself.

It’s key to remember that by 1950 President Truman had already issued a “civilian control of the military” order to drop two atomic bombs over Japan in 1945 – a historical first.

Truman had become Vice-President in January 1945. FDR treated him with the utmost disdain. He was clueless about the Manhattan Project. When FDR died he had been Vice-President for only 82 days, and became POTUS knowing absolutely nothing about foreign policy or the new military/nuclear equation.

Truman_and_MacArthur_on_Wake_Island_1950-580x471.jpeg

Truman and MacArthur on Wake Island, 1950. Photo: Wikimedia Commons
Truman had five years after bombing Japan to learn all about it, on the job. Now the action was on the Korean front. Even before an amphibious landing in Inchon, led by General MacArthur – the greatest since D-Day in Normandy, in 1944 – Truman had authorized MacArthur to advance beyond the 38th parallel. There’s substantial historical debate that MacArthur was not told exactly what to do in detail – as long as he was winning. Fine for a man who was fond of quoting Montgomery: “Generals are never given adequate directives”.

Still, MacArthur did receive a top secret memorandum from Truman stressing that any operations north of the 38th parallel were authorized only if “there was no entry into North Korea by major Soviet or Chinese Communist forces, no announcements of intended entry, nor a threat to counter our operations militarily”.

And then, MacArthur received an eyes-only message from Pentagon head George Marshall: “We want you to feel unhampered tactically and strategically to proceed north of the 38th parallel.”

MacArthur kept going. He was sure China would not intervene in Korea: “If the Chinese tried to get down to Pyongyang there would be the greatest slaughter.” Well, he was wrong. US forces captured Pyongyang on October 19, 1950. Exactly the same day, no fewer than 250,000 soldiers of the 13th Army Group of the Chinese People’s Volunteer Army crossed the Yalu river and entered Korean territory. US intel was clueless about what military historian S.L.A. Marshall described as “a phantom which cast no shadow”.

The North’s industry and infrastructure was totally destroyed. It’s impossible to understand the actions of the leadership in Pyongyang over these past decades without considering how this human and physical destruction is still very much alive in their minds

MacArthur progressively ran amok, including calling for nukes to be used on North Korea. He had to go. The question was how. The civilians – Dean Acheson, Averell Harriman – were for it. The Generals – Marshall, Bradly – were against it. But they were also worried that “if MacArthur were not relieved, a large segment of our people would charge that civil authorities no longer controlled the military”.

Truman had already made up his mind. MacArthur was replaced by Lt. Gen. Ridgway. But the war folly still raged, hostage to the Sino-Soviet “threat” of “communist world domination”. Over two million North Korean civilians were killed. And what General Curtis LeMay – a real- life Dr. Strangelove – later said about bombing Vietnam “back to the stone age” actually was inflicted by the US on North Korea.

The North’s industry and infrastructure was totally destroyed. It’s impossible to understand the actions of the leadership in Pyongyang over these past decades without considering how this human and physical destruction is still very much alive in their minds.

So what Admiral Swift actually said, in code, is, if a civilian order comes, the US military will start WWIII (or WWIV, if one counts the Cold War), duly applying the Pentagon’s first-strike doctrine. What Swift did not say is that President Trump also has the power to pull a Truman and fire any run-amok, aspiring MacArthur clone.

http://www.atimes.com/article/doubt-nuke-china/
 
.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom