What's new

China's Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) capability

How is that relevant to the fact that this is clearly not a new type of submarine?

The conning tower features a new design akin to the Seawolf class, it is clearly not a Type 093.

Liaoning can cruise in a speed of 30 knots, while this guy can even outrun Liaoning, so it is a bit too powerful to be considered as our 3rd generation Type 093 and 3.5th generation Type 093G.
 
.
The conning tower features a new design akin to the Seawolf class, it is clearly not a Type 093.

Liaoning can cruise in a speed of 30 knots, while this guy can even outrun Liaoning, so it is a bit too powerful to be considered as our 3rd generation Type 093 and 3.5th generation Type 093G.

Photo is too blurry to make any rational observations.
 
.
Photo is too blurry to make any rational observations.

The speed proves this sub is way too powerful to be a Type 093 or any of its improved variant.

Remember even the Seawolf class can only reach 35 knots underwater.

But look at this guy, it can even outrun Liaoning with top speed over 30 knots and cruising speed about 27-28 knots on the surface. So this mysterious new SSN can easily top 35 knots underwater.

It is clearly stated that although the Type 093G has featured a lot of new technologies such as the pump-jet tail and the modified conning tower, but due the limitation of its hull design and nuclear reactor, it can still not match the overall capability of the Seawolf/Virginia class.

So i won't expect a Type 093G to rival the Seawolf class in term of the underwater speed.
 
.
The 3,000 mile Underground Great Wall already guarantees MAD capability. Anyone that thinks China built 3,000 miles of tunnels to hide just a few hundred warheads is delusional. Look up the costs of much smaller tunneling projects like 'Big Dig' in Boston or the Channel Tunnel between UK and France. It wouldn't surprise me if the Underground Great Wall was a multi-TRILLION dollar project. Now ask yourself this question. Why would a country with the political will and financial resources to do a project like this have any trouble building a few thousand nuclear warheads and few hundred ICBMs to deliver them?

w-chinaTunnels30.jpg
 
.
As i said before, to successfully conduct a first strike nuclear attack against the countries such as Russia and China is almost impossible.

Only USA/Russia/China possess the SBIRS, so a fast counter strike can immediately respond if any side fired the first shot.

SBIRS is a US space surveillance system.. How Russia and China possess that system??
 
.
SBIRS is a US space surveillance system.. How Russia and China possess that system??

They do possess the equivalence of the SBIRS, but not exactly the same.

China has already conducted the midcourse interception many times, so how it cannot possess the infrared satellite that can track down the ICBM?

As Russia, i heard that they can also track the ICBM, so a first shot from the enemy, they would be able to detect it in just few minutes.
 
.
Four different ways for China to attain MAD capability against the U.S.

It is important to make a distinction between China's Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) capability against the United States and the actual implementation. The point behind acquiring MAD is to deter the United States and prevent the use of the Doomsday weapons.

China's MAD capability is not about destroying the United States via the destruction of Russian cities to trigger the Russian thermonuclear arsenal. The strategic goal of China's MAD is to force the United States to go home.

The Soviet Union/Russia successfully used its thermonuclear arsenal to force the United States to remove its thermonuclear weapons from Turkey during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. Russia again successfully used its thermonuclear arsenal to deter the United States when Russia invaded and annexed 20% of Georgian territory in 2008.

The idea behind the Chinese threat to use 288 thermonuclear warheads (carried by 36 JL-2 SLBMs on three Type 094 Jin-class SSBNs) to wipe out Russian cities is to piggyback on the Russian thermonuclear arsenal. Since China's response to the U.S. threat of Trident II SLBMs is the same as the Russian response in Georgia, China will be able to "stare down" the United States in Asia.

China's leverage of the Russian thermonuclear arsenal is an indirect MAD. The entire scenario of wiping out all Russian cities and towns is to put the Russians into a box with only one rational choice of counterstriking the Unite States.

However, there are three other ways for China to achieve MAD capability against the United States.

-----

Firstly, as J-20BlackDragon has mentioned, China has the 3,000-mile Underground Great Wall. The problem with the Underground Great Wall is that no one knows how many thermonuclear weapons are down there. Is it hundreds or thousands of thermonuclear warheads on DF-31As? The distinction is crucial. The DF-31A is either 3-MIRVed (according to Jane's Defence) or 6-MIRVed (according to Bill Gertz).

The low MIRV count on the DF-31A is a problem. With 100 DF-31A ICBMs, China only has 300 to 600 thermonuclear warheads. As a military strategist, we like to be conservative and pick the lower number. You cannot deter the United States with 300 thermonuclear warheads.

The Pentagon's latest report on Chinese Military Power acknowledges the existence of "enhanced" DF-5 ICBMs. Since 1999, Richard Fisher has been discussing the DF-5B/"enhanced" 10-MIRV ICBM. China probably has about 20-35 DF-5B ICBMs. Using the lower figure, we are looking at another 200 thermonuclear warheads.

In total, a reasonable estimate is about 500 thermonuclear warheads in the Underground Great Wall. It is possible that China built a lot more DF-31A and DF-5B ICBMs. However, there is no proof. Also, China knew the more capable DF-41 was waiting in the wings. It is logical for China to build a limited number of DF-31A ICBMs and the liquid-fueled DF-5Bs.

Without more information, the Underground Great Wall is not currently sufficient to deter the United States.

-----

Secondly, China can deter the United States with a sufficient number of DF-41 10-MIRVed ICBMs on mobile TELs. It has been 1 1/2 years since the first known successful DF-41 test on July 24, 2012. Assuming China builds 20 DF-41 ICBMs per year (which will probably ramp up to 40 DF-41 ICBMs per year after three to five years due to greater experience), we can conservatively estimate China to have about 30 DF-41 ICBMs. That's 300 thermonuclear warheads.

Once again, 300 thermonuclear warheads will not give China MAD capability and it is insufficient to deter the United States.

Collectively, we are looking at 800 Chinese thermonuclear warheads. There might be more due to reload capability (of a second missile) per mobile TEL. However, the United States clearly has the upper hand.

China can achieve direct MAD capability against the U.S. in about 3.5 years with its mobile DF-41 TELs. When we see pictures of DF-41s being deployed to every Second Artillery battalion then China has achieved MAD against the U.S.

On July 24 2017, it will have been five years since the first DF-41 launch. Assuming an average production of 30 DF-41 ICBMs per year, that's 150 DF-41 ICBMs in total with 1,500 thermonuclear warheads. We're definitely entering MAD territory.

-----

Thirdly, China can achieve MAD with a reasonable number of JL-3 SLBMs. The current JL-2 SLBM doesn't have enough range to threaten the continental United States. The improved JL-2A SLBM with longer range might be able to hit part of the continental United States, but the number of MIRVed warheads will probably go down to allow the JL-2A SLBM to carry more fuel.

As a new missile variant, the JL-2A SLBM will be produced in limited quantities and the reduced MIRV warhead count weakens its total impact.

Thus, we have to wait until the JL-3 SLBMs (which are navalized DF-41 10-MIRVed ICBMs) make its debut. Afterwards, we will have to wait a few years until the JL-3 SLBMs are produced in sufficient quantity to deter the United States.

-----

In conclusion, it should be apparent that China is on the brink of achieving direct MAD capability against the United States. Within the next five to ten years, China will be able to field sufficient thermonuclear warheads against the United States to force an U.S. retreat from Asia.

That is why the U.S. is pressuring China now to agree to a code of conduct and attempt to bind China into a legal agreement on the South China Sea. The U.S. won't have this leverage in five to ten years.

The interesting aspect of China's ability to deter the United States via the Russian thermonuclear arsenal is that it deprives the U.S. of any leverage over China today. Since China can destroy the United States by first destroying Russian cities, China should not give in to American pressure on the South China Sea.
 
Last edited:
.
First time to see an ICBM TEL getting together with a J-10 aircraft.

154123kvtbcllzbb86ycm0.jpg


Four different ways for China to attain MAD capability against the U.S.

It is important to make a distinction between China's Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) capability against the United States and the actual implementation. The point behind acquiring MAD is to deter the United States and prevent the use of the Doomsday weapons.

China's MAD capability is not about destroying the United States via the destruction of Russian cities to trigger the Russian thermonuclear arsenal. The strategic goal of China's MAD is to force the United States to go home.

The Soviet Union/Russia successfully used its thermonuclear arsenal to force the United States to remove its thermonuclear weapons from Turkey during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. Russia again successfully used its thermonuclear arsenal to deter the United States when Russia invaded and annexed 20% of Georgian territory in 2008.

The idea behind the Chinese threat to use 288 thermonuclear warheads (carried by 36 JL-2 SLBMs on three Type 094 Jin-class SSBNs) to wipe out Russian cities is to piggyback on the Russian thermonuclear arsenal. Since China's response to the U.S. threat of Trident II SLBMs is the same as the Russian response in Georgia, China will be able to "stare down" the United States in Asia.

China's leverage of the Russian thermonuclear arsenal is an indirect MAD. The entire scenario of wiping out all Russian cities and towns is to put the Russians into a box with only one rational choice of counterstriking the Unite States.

However, there are three other ways for China to achieve MAD capability against the United States.

-----

Firstly, as J-20BlackDragon has mentioned, China has the 3,000-mile Underground Great Wall. The problem with the Underground Great Wall is that no one knows how many thermonuclear weapons are down there. Is it hundreds or thousands of thermonuclear warheads on DF-31As? The distinction is crucial. The DF-31A is either 3-MIRVed (according to Jane's Defence) or 6-MIRVed (according to Bill Gertz).

The low MIRV count on the DF-31A is a problem. With 100 DF-31A ICBMs, China only has 300 to 600 thermonuclear warheads. As a military strategist, we like to be conservative and pick the lower number. You cannot deter the United States with 300 thermonuclear warheads.

The Pentagon's latest report on Chinese Military Power acknowledges the existence of "enhanced" DF-5 ICBMs. Since 1999, Richard Fisher has been discussing the DF-5B/"enhanced" 10-MIRV ICBM. China probably has about 20-35 DF-5B ICBMs. Using the lower figure, we are looking at another 200 thermonuclear warheads.

In total, a reasonable estimate is about 500 thermonuclear warheads in the Underground Great Wall. It is possible that China built a lot more DF-31A and DF-5B ICBMs. However, there is no proof. Also, China knew the more capable DF-41 was waiting in the wings. It is logical for China to build a limited number of DF-31A ICBMs and the liquid-fueled DF-5Bs.

Without more information, the Underground Great Wall is not currently sufficient to deter the United States.

-----

Secondly, China can deter the United States with a sufficient number of DF-41 10-MIRVed ICBMs on mobile TELs. It has been 1 1/2 years since the first known successful DF-41 test on July 24, 2012. Assuming China builds 20 DF-41 ICBMs per year (which will probably ramp up to 40 DF-41 ICBMs per year after three to five years due to greater experience), we can conservatively estimate China to have about 30 DF-41 ICBMs. That's 300 thermonuclear warheads.

Once again, 300 thermonuclear warheads will not give China MAD capability and it is insufficient to deter the United States.

Collectively, we are looking at 800 Chinese thermonuclear warheads. There might be more due to reload capability (of a second missile) per mobile TEL. However, the United States clearly has the upper hand.

China can achieve direct MAD capability against the U.S. in about 3.5 years with its mobile DF-41 TELs. When we see pictures of DF-41s being deployed to every Second Artillery battalion then China has achieved MAD against the U.S.

On July 24 2017, it will have been five years since the first DF-41 launch. Assuming an average production of 30 DF-41 ICBMs per year, that's 150 DF-41 ICBMs in total with 1,500 thermonuclear warheads. We're definitely entering MAD territory.

-----

Thirdly, China can achieve MAD with a reasonable number of JL-3 SLBMs. The current JL-2 SLBM doesn't have enough range to threaten the continental United States. The improved JL-2A SLBM with longer range might be able to hit part of the continental United States, but the number of MIRVed warheads will probably go down to allow the JL-2A SLBM to carry more fuel.

As a new missile variant, the JL-2A SLBM will be produced in limited quantities and the reduced MIRV warhead count weakens its total impact.

Thus, we have to wait until the JL-3 SLBMs (which are navalized DF-41 10-MIRVed ICBMs) make its debut. Afterwards, we will have to wait a few years until the JL-3 SLBMs are produced in sufficient quantity to deter the United States.

-----

In conclusion, it should be apparent that China is on the brink of achieving direct MAD capability against the United States. Within the next five to ten years, China will be able to field sufficient thermonuclear warheads against the United States to force an U.S. retreat from Asia.

That is why the U.S. is pressuring China now to agree to a code of conduct and attempt to bind China into a legal agreement on the South China Sea. The U.S. won't have this leverage in five to ten years.

The interesting aspect of China's ability to deter the United States via the Russian thermonuclear arsenal is that it deprives the U.S. of any leverage over China today. Since China can destroy the United States by first destroying Russian cities, China should not give in to American pressure on the South China Sea.

Wonder why there is no country yet can produce a SLBM with the performance comparable to the 1990 Trident II?

Since the Trident II is now entering its phase of modernization to improve its missile-defense penetration capability.
 
Last edited:
.
By far, the United States ($16 trillion) had the world's largest economy. The closing of the gap by China's economy ($9 trillion) is a recent phenomenon.

The United States has outspent everyone by a large margin (on research, development, and production) for decades. It is a miracle that China has closed the gap this quickly. No one else in the world is even close to fielding a true fifth-generation stealth fighter (e.g. Chengdu J-20 and Shenyang J-31 stealth fighters), Aegis-class destroyers with AESA radars (e.g. Type 052C/D "Chinese Aegis" destroyers), mid-course GBI interceptors, and direct-ascent kinetic-kill ASAT missiles.

Don't bring up the Russian T-50/Pak Fa fighter. The latest Russian T-50/Pak Fa prototype still has exposed metallic engine pods. That's not stealthy.
 
Last edited:
.
By far, the United States ($16 trillion) had the world's largest economy. The closing of the gap by China's economy ($9 trillion) is a recent phenomenon.

The United States has outspent everyone by a large margin for decades. It is a miracle that China has closed the gap this quickly. No one else in the world is even close to fielding a true fifth generation stealth fighter (e.g. Chengdu J-20 and Shenyang J-31), Aegis-class destroyers with AESA radars (e.g. Type 052D "Chinese Aegis"), mid-course GBI interceptors, and direct kinetic-kill ASAT missiles.

Don't bring up the Russian T-50/Pak Fa fighter. The latest Russian T-50/Pak Fa prototype still has exposed metallic engine pods. That's not stealthy.

I hope that we could have two shipyards to build the nuclear subs.

Right now, we already have two shipyards to build the Aegis DDGs.
 
.
China's and Russia's thermonuclear arsenals are more than enough to deter the United States

According to NTI, Russia has 1,273 megatons of thermonuclear weapons. The United States has 570 megatons and China has at least 294 megatons.

Most of the Russian and American thermonuclear weapons are long-range. Some of the Russian and American thermonuclear weapons are carried by bombers (as cruise missiles), which arguably has limited range depending on where it is based.

For China, only part of its thermonuclear arsenal is currently capable of hitting the United States.

By forcibly borrowing the Russian thermonuclear arsenal (through destroying all Russia cities and towns) and adding China's own DF-5A ICBMs with a five-megaton warhead, DF-5B 10-MIRVed ICBMs, DF-31A 3-MIRVed ICBMs, and growing DF-41 10-MIRVed ICBMs, China can easily deter the United States from any interference in Asia.

----------

Here's how it will play out.

(Behind closed doors)

US: China, I want you to pull back in the East China Sea and the South China Sea.

China: No.

US: If you don't, I will intervene with my full military might. I will send my F-22 fighters to Japan and my B-2 bombers to Guam. I will park all 11 of my carrier battle groups in the Pacific.

China: Go right ahead. I will drop one megaton-class EMP on Japan and you won't have a single functional F-22 left. I will drop another megaton-class EMP on Guam and nothing is flying out of there. Finally, I'll drop a third megaton-class EMP on your carrier battle groups and they'll become floating junk.

For your information, I have plenty of DF-3A IRBMs with a 3.3-megaton warhead.

US: If you drop an EMP on me, I will use my full thermonuclear arsenal and turn you into Swiss cheese.

China: Go right ahead. I'll turn you into Swiss cheese too. I'll launch 288 thermonuclear warheads from my 36 JL-2 SLBMs on the Type 094 Jin-class submarines at Russian cities and towns. In turn, the Russians will launch their entire ICBM/SLBM arsenal at you to turn you into Swiss cheese too.

The Russians won't attack me, because you genius (the United States) had already turned my country into Swiss cheese. I'll turn Russia into Swiss cheese and they'll do the same to you.

US: You raise a good point. My thermonuclear arsenal is off the table. With your Chinese megaton-class EMP weapons, my conventional weapons are useless. I yield to you in Asia.

China: I'm glad you can see reason. Nice doing business with you.
 
Last edited:
.
The number of the Topol/M/Yars is not that much as you think.

While the majority of the Russia ICBMs are made in the Soviet era.

I think China and Russia nuking each other would not be able to deter USA at all. It should Russia + China vs USA.

189 Topol (single warhead)
70 Topol M (single warhead)
42 Yars (3-6 MIRVed warheads)

This is the current modern ICBM units for Russia, while the rests are all Soviet relics.

Keep in mind that USA possesses 336 Trident II SLBMs, with the capability to mount several thousand warheads, which is enough to simultaneously strike both Russia and China.

Considering the reliability & quality of the ICBM/SLBM, it should take Russia + China to maintain a MAD capability with USA.

So China shouldn't waste its ICBM/SLBM for Russia, it should be reserved to deter against USA.
 
Last edited:
. .
Bill Gertz has already conceded that 32 DF-41 ICBMs would be enough to deter America.

A future DF-41 force of some 32 missiles with reloads and multiple warheads would be enough for China to target every U.S. city with a population over 50,000 people, Karber said.

China test fires new long-range missile | Washington Free Beacon

China only needs to rely on its own MAD capability, it doesn't need to borrow Russia's MAD.
 
.
China and Russia receive 285 megatons of damage each. US receives 1,400 megatons of damage.

1. Chinese and Russian warheads are more powerful than the small American Trident II warheads.

A Chinese DF-5A ICBM has a five megaton warhead. A Chinese DF-5B ICBM carries ten half-megaton warheads.

The Trident II carries MIRVed warheads: either a 100-kiloton Mark 4/W76 warhead or a 475-kiloton Mark 5/W88 warhead.

It takes ten W88s to equal one DF-5A warhead. Alternatively, it requires 50 W76 warheads to match a DF-5A.

2. China will call up Russia and give them five minutes to launch all of their ICBMs and SLBMs at the United States or else. Either launch or wait for China to wipe out hundreds of Russian cities and towns.

Put yourself in Russia's position. The U.S. has already devastated China. What happens when Russia nukes the Chinese cities that have already been nuked by the United States? Nothing.

Any Russian attempt to nuke China is a waste of time and thermonuclear warheads. In any case, China will go ahead and nuke Russia into oblivion. This leaves America.

If Russia wants to win the post-nuclear winter war, it must nuke the United States. There is no other choice.

3. Russia has 1,270 megatons. China has 294 megatons. We'll knock off 1/2 for China and estimate only 150 megatons are long-range.

Combined, Russia and China will hit the United States with about 1,400 megatons.

The U.S. has to split its 570 megatons between Russia and China. This means only 285 megatons for each country.

After an all-out thermonuclear war, Russia and China should come out ahead.
 
Last edited:
.
Back
Top Bottom