China's 294 megatons of thermonuclear deterrence

[NiceGuy]

China's 3000-6000km IRBMs all locate in the inland region of China.

Not even US can touch these areas.

Destroy all South China region plus blocking Malacca by Kilos in future is enough to make China economy collapse, and we can buy Russia IRBMs in case of emergency too

Vietnam will not go nuclear.

Vietnam cannot afford to build the nuclear arsenal, she has no precondition to build these.

We have Shaddock, that can mount nuke war head, we have Nuclear plant that No one can check what we're doing, we have the right to enrich uranium too, so just sit and hope we will not go nuclear, dude

 

[IronsightSniper]

PLA's second artillery has quite lot number of ICBM brigades, and each brigade operates about 12 ICBMs.

A standard Chinese ICBM is about 12000km of range which can hit anywhere in US from the North Pole trajectory.

The 99% of the US population don't know the truth, but it doesn't mean that the top 1% have no clue about it.

Those rich lobbyists simply don't want to jeopardize their life and wealth, that's why US could never afford a nuclear exchange with China.

That is, again, not true. There is no statistical study on this as it is a naive and pointless topic to pursue, but because of the climate of this forum, I shall oblige. There are more than 1% of Americans who know of the threat that China poses. China has been one of the key focuses of the United States DoD for a very, long time, and the same holds true with the populace. Thus, the claim that "99% of the populace does not know the truth" is a lie in itself.

The thing is, again, the 2nd Artillery Corp only has about 50-60 missiles that can reach the U.S. Those missiles, like I've stated, carry enough munitions to deter the U.S., which is the point of China's deterrence strategy.

Don't need to argue to much with IronsightSniper, he still living in a stone age era and doesnt know anything around the world. China could not reach USA but can and will reach moon, so USA is far than the Moon so China cannot reach.

Please tell me where I claimed that China cannot reach the U.S. with it's nuclear missiles (which I didn't). Before you proceed with the assumption that space-faring equates to nuclear weapons, let me remind you that the U.S. can always field a Saturn V based ICBM. If you didn't know, the Saturn V is the largest missile every created, and can carry over 100,000 tonnes into space. Translate that into a thermonuclear warhead, and you have a very, very, messed up target.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

That is, again, not true. There is no statistical study on this as it is a naive and pointless topic to pursue, but because of the climate of this forum, I shall oblige. There are more than 1% of Americans who know of the threat that China poses. China has been one of the key focuses of the United States DoD for a very, long time, and the same holds true with the populace. Thus, the claim that "99% of the populace does not know the truth" is a lie in itself.

The thing is, again, the 2nd Artillery Corp only has about 50-60 missiles that can reach the U.S. Those missiles, like I've stated, carry enough munitions to deter the U.S., which is the point of China's deterrence strategy.



Please tell me where I claimed that China cannot reach the U.S. with it's nuclear missiles (which I didn't). Before you proceed with the assumption that space-faring equates to nuclear weapons, let me remind you that the U.S. can always field a Saturn V based ICBM. If you didn't know, the Saturn V is the largest missile every created, and can carry over 100,000 tonnes into space. Translate that into a thermonuclear warhead, and you have a very, very, messed up target.

100000 kg right? Unless US can build the Death Star.

Well, US has limited stockpile as well according to your logic, your modern nuclear arsenal only contains 400 W88 warheads and 500 W87 warheads. Since W76 is too old, which is hardly reliable anymore.

You only have 900 nukes to attack China, but remember you simply can't give all those to China, since after that you would be basically defenceless against Russia, and they can nuke you without considering any consequence.

Thus you can only split those 900 nukes into half for both China and Russia, so you can't win in a nuclear war.

 

[j20blackdragon]

The thing is, again, the 2nd Artillery Corp only has about 50-60 missiles that can reach the U.S. Those missiles, like I've stated, carry enough munitions to deter the U.S., which is the point of China's deterrence strategy.

How much money do you believe a DF-31A cost?

Just answer the question.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2188rank.html

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

How much money do you believe a DF-31A cost?

Just answer the question.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2188rank.html

Forget about DF-31A, now it is the era of DF-41.

 

[IronsightSniper]

100000 kg right? Unless US can build the Death Star.

Well, US has limited stockpile as well according to your logic, your modern nuclear arsenal only contains 400 W88 warheads and 500 W87 warheads. Since W76 is too old, which is hardly reliable anymore.

You only have 900 nukes to attack China, but remember you simply can't give all those to China, since after that you would be basically defenceless against Russia, and they can nuke you without considering any consequence.

Thus you can only split those 900 nukes into half for both China and Russia, so you can't win in a nuclear war.

Oh dear, I'm feeding the U.S. stereotype Yes, I meant 100,000 kg, my bad.

Actually, the stockpile is always maintained, and half of them (2,200 warheads) are always ready. The other half are decaying away.

And again, no. No one realistically plans to "win" a nuclear war, unless it's against Iran or North Korea, at least while they're still developing their nukes. A nuclear exchange between two or more powers (e.g. between the U.S. and China), is only going to result in the death of millions, a crashed world economy, and lots of things going wrong.

And before I come off as too "pro-American", I'll just post a common statement used by people who are arguing the position of the U.S. in a US-PRC nuclear exchange "America would simply nuke the 3 Gorges and kill millions off the bat with the subsequent flooding".

Like I've said, even with China's small stock pile of some 50 to 60 truly ICBMs, they can deter America. Against Russia, China has it better as Russia is obviously closer, and can again, kill plenty of Russians. Russia or America v. China would result in similar fates with China, millions dead, millions dying. Nuclear war is totally not desirable, and neither is war in general, for that matter.

How much money do you believe a DF-31A cost?

Just answer the question.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2188rank.html

It isn't a "what's behind the curtain"-comparison contest, man, that's what I've been trying to tell you guys. The PRC can do fine with what they have already, in fact, I admire the fact that they aren't overdoing it like the US or the USSR and have just enough nukes stockpiled for the purpose of MAD at hand.

 

[gambit]

100000 kg right? Unless US can build the Death Star.

Well, US has limited stockpile as well according to your logic, your modern nuclear arsenal only contains 400 W88 warheads and 500 W87 warheads. Since W76 is too old, which is hardly reliable anymore.

You only have 900 nukes to attack China, but remember you simply can't give all those to China, since after that you would be basically defenceless against Russia, and they can nuke you without considering any consequence.

Thus you can only split those 900 nukes into half for both China and Russia, so you can't win in a nuclear war.

News for you, buddy. I was on the F-111 for 4 yrs. The only models I did not touched was the FB and the Australian C. When the 'Vark was retired, the Russians (not Soviets) sighed a great relief. If there is a shooting war between US and China, you can bet your life that at least 1/4 of China's nuclear delivery capability will be rendered either junk or severely damaged to near junk by US conventional means alone, leaving our nuclear forces for reserves.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

Oh dear, I'm feeding the U.S. stereotype Yes, I meant 100,000 kg, my bad.

Actually, the stockpile is always maintained, and half of them (2,200 warheads) are always ready. The other half are decaying away.

And again, no. No one realistically plans to "win" a nuclear war, unless it's against Iran or North Korea, at least while they're still developing their nukes. A nuclear exchange between two or more powers (e.g. between the U.S. and China), is only going to result in the death of millions, a crashed world economy, and lots of things going wrong.

And before I come off as too "pro-American", I'll just post a common statement used by people who are arguing the position of the U.S. in a US-PRC nuclear exchange "America would simply nuke the 3 Gorges and kill millions off the bat with the subsequent flooding".

Like I've said, even with China's small stock pile of some 50 to 60 truly ICBMs, they can deter America. Against Russia, China has it better as Russia is obviously closer, and can again, kill plenty of Russians. Russia or America v. China would result in similar fates with China, millions dead, millions dying. Nuclear war is totally not desirable, and neither is war in general, for that matter.



It isn't a "what's behind the curtain"-comparison contest, man, that's what I've been trying to tell you guys. The PRC can do fine with what they have already, in fact, I admire the fact that they aren't overdoing it like the US or the USSR and have just enough nukes stockpiled for the purpose of MAD at hand.

Sure, you can nuke the 3 Gorges Dam, but PLA will nuke the Yellowstone Supervolcano.

So don't expect US will survive after the nuclear war without any farmlands left.

 

[gambit]

Sure, you can nuke the 3 Gorges Dam, but PLA will nuke the Yellowstone Supervolcano.

So don't expect US will survive after the nuclear war without any farmlands left.

The US have 4x the arable land than China that spread across the North American continent. China's geography have only 10-12% arable land and that concentrate on the eastern and south-eastern parts. Care to revise your argument?

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

The US have 4x the arable land than China that spread across the North American continent. China's geography have only 10-12% arable land and that concentrate on the eastern and south-eastern parts. Care to revise your argument?

The implosion of Supervolcano will burn off the 18% arable land, so no survivors left after it has been nuked.

And i am sure its implsion will be far more poweful than the world's nuclear stockpile combines together.

 

[gambit]

The implosion of Supervolcano will burn off the 18% arable land, so no survivor after it has been nuked.

Too much B-rated disaster movies, pal.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

Too much B-rated disaster movies, pal.

More disastrous than bombing the 3 Gorges Dam for sure.

 

[IronsightSniper]

Sure, you can nuke the 3 Gorges Dam, but PLA will nuke the Yellowstone Supervolcano.

So don't expect US will survive after the nuclear war without any farmlands left.

Wouldn't that actually just send the world into an Ice Age? I remember watching a documentary about the Yellowstone Supervolcano and apparently it could do that.

But no, I happen to adore agriculture, and I can tell you off the bat that, hectare per hectare, the U.S. grows more tonnes of grains per hectare than China. In fact, I was reading about potatoes yesterday, and we grow about 7800 kg of potatoes per acre-year. The only problem of course is that the majority of our grains isn't consumed directly by humans but is rather used for other tasks, such as feeding livestock or distilling into alcohol or biodiesel, etc. In a Nuclear Apocalypse situation, however unlikely that may be, we could sustain ourselves with potatoes, I hope

 

[gambit]

And China have been losing arable land for decades...

The Ministry of Water Resources the People's Republic of China

Apart from natural, geographic and climate conditions, human activities are also the main causes for soil and water loss, including overlogging, overfarming and overgrazing, neglect of protection during construction and development. Irrational water development and utilization is one of main factors that cause ecological and environmental degradation.

At the current rate of modernization, arable land loss and soil erosion will likely continue, putting feeding China a strategic weakness.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

Wouldn't that actually just send the world into an Ice Age? I remember watching a documentary about the Yellowstone Supervolcano and apparently it could do that.

But no, I happen to adore agriculture, and I can tell you off the bat that, hectare per hectare, the U.S. grows more tonnes of grains per hectare than China. In fact, I was reading about potatoes yesterday, and we grow about 7800 kg of potatoes per acre-year. The only problem of course is that the majority of our grains isn't consumed directly by humans but is rather used for other tasks, such as feeding livestock or distilling into alcohol or biodiesel, etc. In a Nuclear Apocalypse situation, however unlikely that may be, we could sustain ourselves with potatoes, I hope

How you can grow the potatoes without any farmlands left?

USA has 18% of arable lands, while China has 14-15%, since China has 4 times of more population, thus our per capita is much less.

But after an nuclear armageddon, 18% vs 14-15% is not much of difference, so expect both side have few survivors left after the nuclear winter.