What's new

China DN-3 & HQ-19 Anti-Satellite Missile,New ASAT interceptor threatens U.S. spy satellites

To destroy a hardened ICBM silo, you need to drop a 500 kiloton warhead at a distance of only 1,000 feet away (or 0.3 kilometer).

Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists - Google Books

lJkI8K8.jpg


that's honestly pointless.


hardened silos are redundant

mobile ICBM launchers, air launched cruise missiles, SSBN, etc etc

there is no way the U.S could knock out China or Russia before they could hit us back and vice versa

it's all about countervalue IMO and MAD

like some notable French have said about nuclear usage


President de Gaulle

Within ten years, we shall have the means to kill 80 million Russians. I truly believe that one does not light-heartedly attack people who are able to kill 80 million Russians, even if one can kill 800 million French, that is if there were 800 million French.


General Pierre Marie Gallois said "Making the most pessimistic assumptions, the French nuclear bombers could destroy ten Russian cities; and France is not a prize worthy of ten Russian cities."]


Sir, I have no quarrel with you, but I warn you in advance and with all possible clarity that if you invade me, I shall answer at the only credible level for my scale, which is the nuclear level. Whatever your defenses, you shan't prevent at least some of my missiles from reaching your home and causing the devastation that you are familiar with. So, renounce your endeavour and let us remain good friends
 
. .
And hit your targets blind? Go ahead


assuming you could take out enough satellites and INS doesn't work :rofl:


a SSBN could be a few hundred KM off China eastern coastline and unload all it's Trident IIs all 24 of them with 5 to 10 MIRV warheads even if it hitting blind the devasation would be immense

also assuming China leadership is underground when this happens when they come back up they'll have to deal with a nuclear winter and would probably commit suicide :azn:
 
.
shoot down one or more of our spy satellites

that would be an act of war :D

you don't need a spy satellite to launch a Trident II

if anything destroying U.S satellites would pose a threat to all satellites in space

heck I wouldn't be surprised if we sent up satellites that can explode causing so much space junk to deny the enemy as well it's satellites.
MAD option in my opinion

It is a MAD option, but you still need to have it so the other side can't use it. Japanese used chemical weapons against China, but not against the US because the US said it would use it right back.

These weapons are not necessarily for use, in fact after the first Anti test fiasco, we may never hit one again. That doesn't mean we don't need it.
 
.
assuming you could take out enough satellites and INS doesn't work :rofl:


a SSBN could be a few hundred KM off China eastern coastline and unload all it's Trident IIs all 24 of them with 5 to 10 MIRV warheads even if it hitting blind the devasation would be immense

also assuming China leadership is underground when this happens when they come back up they'll have to deal with a nuclear winter and would probably commit suicide :azn:

Why must everything you yanks do have to involve nuclear arsenals? I thought you guys had a no first-use policy? Try to hit a moving target on the waters with your Trident without GPS updates, and rely SOLELY on astro-intertial guidance, let's see if you still got any Trident's left after you deplete them after shooting aimlessly.

Remember, a war doesn't necessitate a nuclear strikes over cities. More likely than not, it's going to be some bloody ocean dispute because that's all you yanks care about. In that case, your margin for error becomes a lot smaller if you're trying to knock out a small airfield on a pile on sand, or a carrier group maneuvering.

Stop fantasizing, and concluding every single conflict to end in a nuclear war over a city. The cold war is over.
 
.
It is an impressive missile with precision and accuracy. However both USA and China must exercise retrain and resolve all problem with mutual discussion and peaceful ways and I understand, being a larger power, the responsibility lies squarely on the shoulders of USA to refrain from any act of aggression against humanity.
 
.
Why must everything you yanks do have to involve nuclear arsenals? I thought you guys had a no first-use policy? Try to hit a moving target on the waters with your Trident without GPS updates, and rely SOLELY on astro-intertial guidance, let's see if you still got any Trident's left after you deplete them after shooting aimlessly.

Remember, a war doesn't necessitate a nuclear strikes over cities. More likely than not, it's going to be some bloody ocean dispute because that's all you yanks care about. In that case, your margin for error becomes a lot smaller if you're trying to knock out a small airfield on a pile on sand, or a carrier group maneuvering.

Stop fantasizing, and concluding every single conflict to end in a nuclear war over a city. The cold war is over.

if China is going to use missiles to knock out our sats effectily making us blind and deaf you would have to use nuclear weapons.

nuclear weapons aren't everything or we would of used them in Korea,Vietnam, and Iraq but we didn't
 
. .
Why??? How is that efficient?


it's a weapon of mass destruction in my eyes.

you mess with our sats well it's def con 1 time

this also applies to China ASBM.

send the nukes if they take out one of our carriers.
 
.
it's a weapon of mass destruction in my eyes.

you mess with our sats well it's def con 1 time

this also applies to China ASBM.

send the nukes if they take out one of our carriers.

It's inefficient for them in two ways:

1. Collateral damage on their own and friendly investments up there.

2. Why would they start a nuclear war? War is strategic, with a purpose; do you think your Yankee government would want to start a war simply for the aim of wiping themselves out along with everyone else in a nuclear deathmatch? Absolutely not, unless you're claiming the US is aligning its foreign policy with that of North Korea's, in which case, I might presume it may be possible...

To be honest, all this Trident talk... pointless. Once your satellites go out, your effective joint command structure collapses. It'll be quite a feat to even coordinate a ballistic missile launch.

Best case scenario, you knock out all the Chinese sats, then it'll be in your advantage where every fighting platform is fought on a tit-for-tat basis, where your trillions of $US investments each year clearly pay off.
 
. .
GPS was invented to solve the problem of inaccurate inertial guidance.

Trying to hit a target that is 10,000 miles away with a Mach 23 missile solely on inertial guidance is not very accurate.

The CEP (circular error probable) would be large with inertial guidance only.

ZD4KMFv.jpg

You can destroy a Chinese DF-5 ICBM silo with a GPS-guided warhead. It is unlikely that you can destroy a Chinese DF-5 ICBM silo with merely inertial guidance. Every DF-5B ICBM carries about 8 half-megaton MIRVs. A Chinese counter-strike would be devastating.

Trident (missile) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"It is an Inertial Guidance System with an additional Star-Sighting system (this combination is known as astro-inertial guidance), which is used to correct small position and velocity errors that result from launch condition uncertainties due to errors in the submarine navigation system and errors that may have accumulated in the guidance system during the flight due to imperfect instrument calibration. GPS has been used on some test flights but is assumed not to be available for a real mission"


It is expected that GPS will be unavailable.
 
. . . .
Back
Top Bottom