The Pentagon's new China war plan

[LeGenD]

Once the first nuke is dropped, economy will be a forethought, we can kiss the age of information technology good bye, the war will be ended in space, not on earth, that is the highest form of MAD, what happens next is anyone's guess, China will not escape it's consequences, but the fact is they do not run an empire so they might be able to better cope with a nuclear fallout and the collapse of their economy, the USA on the other-hand is financed on empire, there is no doubt they have far more to lose in the collapse of their own economy. Human beings will thrive just fine, life on earth will continue just drastically altered.

China will be wiped out by USA in a nuclear exchange. Such is the quantity of its nuclear assets; 5000+ nukes. Any one who believes otherwise is fooling himself. US can nuke every Chinese city and still would have lots of options to deal with its strategic and military installations. This is HARDCORE FACT.

In a worst case scenario for US, some of its cities may also get destroyed assuming that Chinese strategic assets somehow escape total devastation and overwhelm US defensive options which is a big IF. And their is no guarantee that all of the top US cities would be taken out. They might be best protected.

This is why Russia continues to maintain enormous nuclear arsenal. That is the only way to ensure MAD with USA.

Chinese power projection (in its current state) is overhyped as per its own generals. Particularly, some Chinese members themselves do so which is expected due to patriotism. However, reality should not be ignored.

Also, US economy is not just limited to a few cities. Every 'state' contributes to its economy. Some more then others. And being spread-out actually ensures greater survival potential. It means that much of the US military assets would remain intact even after the nuclear exchange. And US can use them to steal resources from other countries to sustain itself.

One thing that actually got overlooked in this debate is the devastating impact on climatic conditions, if US uses large number of its nuclear weapons.

For example: http://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/nuke.asp

 

[below_freezing]

China will be wiped out by USA in a nuclear exchange. Such is the quantity of its nuclear assets; 5000+ nukes. Any one who believes otherwise is fooling himself. US can nuke every Chinese city and still would have lots of options to deal with its strategic and military installations. This is HARDCORE FACT.

In a worst case scenario for US, some of its cities may also get destroyed assuming that Chinese strategic assets somehow escape total devastation and overwhelm US defensive options which is a big IF. And their is no guarantee that all of the top US cities would be taken out. They might be best protected.

This is why Russia continues to maintain enormous nuclear arsenal. That is the only way to ensure MAD with USA.

Chinese power projection (in its current state) is overhyped as per its own generals. Particularly, some Chinese members themselves do so which is expected due to patriotism. However, reality should not be ignored.

Also, US economy is not just limited to a few cities. Every 'state' contributes to its economy. Some more then others. And being spread-out actually ensures greater survival potential. It means that much of the US military assets would remain intact even after the nuclear exchange. And US can use them to steal resources from other countries to sustain itself.

One thing that actually got overlooked in this debate is the devastating impact on climatic conditions, if US uses large number of its nuclear weapons.

For example: The effect of Nuclear War on Climate Change : Weather Underground

I already did the math for this one. The US cannot wipe out even 20% of China's population.

Assuming that Hiroshima's nuke is representative of all nukes and that explosive power scales linearly with tonnage and that blast energy reduces by the cube of distance, a 3 megaton nuke dropped in the middle of New York's Manhattan, one of the most densely populated areas on earth, would only kill 1/3 the population of New York. A 5 MIRV'ed 500 kt per warhead weapon dropped in Shanghai would only have a total destruction area of 343.74 km2, killing 3 million people (out of 23 million) at Shanghai's current population density. The entire US arsenal would only have a total destruction area of 343746.2 km2, 5% of China's total area or 10% of China's urban area.

You are just repeating the same points over and over again, with the only support being 1 sentence from our "general" who was actually begging for money from the Politburo.

 

[Swatwolf]

China will be wiped out by USA in a nuclear exchange. Such is the quantity of its nuclear assets; 5000+ nukes. Any one who believes otherwise is fooling himself. US can nuke every Chinese city and still would have lots of options to deal with its strategic and military installations. This is HARDCORE FACT.

In a worst case scenario for US, some of its cities may also get destroyed assuming that Chinese strategic assets somehow escape total devastation and overwhelm US defensive options which is a big IF. And their is no guarantee that all of the top US cities would be taken out. They might be best protected.

This is why Russia continues to maintain enormous nuclear arsenal. That is the only way to ensure MAD with USA.

Chinese power projection (in its current state) is overhyped as per its own generals. Particularly, some Chinese members themselves do so which is expected due to patriotism. However, reality should not be ignored.

Also, US economy is not just limited to a few cities. Every 'state' contributes to its economy. Some more then others. And being spread-out actually ensures greater survival potential. It means that much of the US military assets would remain intact even after the nuclear exchange. And US can use them to steal resources from other countries to sustain itself.

One thing that actually got overlooked in this debate is the devastating impact on climatic conditions, if US uses large number of its nuclear weapons.

For example: The effect of Nuclear War on Climate Change : Weather Underground

Having 10000 nukes and being able to maintain them is one matter, having enough delivery systems is another matter, maintaining another 1000 ICBMs is another matter, given as i mention the vulnerability and the reliance of these long range missiles on space assets. A nuke exchange no matter how you put it is most effective when launch above the atmosphere, destroying most low orbiting satellite, and creating an environment that would end the space age. Without the use of space surveillance, how are the Americans going to launch their nukes? laser guided missiles from fighter jets? or B2 bombers? We can count submarines out of the equation.
Does the USA have enough delivery systems and promptness to cripple the Chinese ability to take their own countermeasures? Maybe in a science fiction star wars joint global strike weapons system where they have a thousand nukes floating in space ready to be launch with a press of the red button they just might. Ultimately nukes is not going to win wars, it will only destroy all human advancements in the past 40 some years, that is what mutually assured destruction is all about, everyone loses.

 

[below_freezing]

Having 10000 nukes and being able to maintain them is one matter, having enough delivery systems is another matter, maintaining another 1000 ICBMs is another matter, given as i mention the vulnerability and the reliance of these long range missiles on space assets. A nuke exchange no matter how you put it is most effective when launch above the atmosphere, destroying most low orbiting satellite, and creating an environment that would end the space age. Without the use of space surveillance, how are the Americans going to launch their nukes? laser guided missiles from fighter jets? or B2 bombers? We can count submarines out of the equation.
Does the USA have enough delivery systems and promptness to cripple the Chinese ability to take their own countermeasures? Maybe in a science fiction star wars joint global strike weapons system where they have a thousand nukes floating in space ready to be launch with a press of the red button they just might. Ultimately nukes is not going to win wars, it will only destroy all human advancements in the past 40 some years, that is what mutually assured destruction is all about, everyone loses.

The total amount of active US warheads on ICBMs (land and sea) that are deliverable on notice is about 1500. I'm discounting bombers because they're not useful for a surprise first strike and are FAR more vulnerable than ICBMs.

 

[below_freezing]

Having 10000 nukes and being able to maintain them is one matter, having enough delivery systems is another matter, maintaining another 1000 ICBMs is another matter, given as i mention the vulnerability and the reliance of these long range missiles on space assets. A nuke exchange no matter how you put it is most effective when launch above the atmosphere, destroying most low orbiting satellite, and creating an environment that would end the space age. Without the use of space surveillance, how are the Americans going to launch their nukes? laser guided missiles from fighter jets? or B2 bombers? We can count submarines out of the equation.
Does the USA have enough delivery systems and promptness to cripple the Chinese ability to take their own countermeasures? Maybe in a science fiction star wars joint global strike weapons system where they have a thousand nukes floating in space ready to be launch with a press of the red button they just might. Ultimately nukes is not going to win wars, it will only destroy all human advancements in the past 40 some years, that is what mutually assured destruction is all about, everyone loses.

The total amount of active US warheads on ICBMs (land and sea) that are deliverable on notice is about 1500. I'm discounting bombers because they're not useful for a surprise first strike and are FAR more vulnerable than ICBMs.

 

[muse]

I think the article makes for sad reading, actually the most dangerous idea in the article is that it is only the financial crisis that has put some kind of brake on the Us build up against China - I hope Chinese readers will have taken note of that, in as much as there is no reference to any action on the part of China to influence the US to moderate it's urge to confront China militarily.

 

[below_freezing]

I think the article makes for sad reading, actually the most dangerous idea in the article is that it is only the financial crisis that has put some kind of brake on the Us build up against China - I hope Chinese readers will have taken note of that, in as much as there is no reference to any action on the part of China to influence the US to moderate it's urge to confront China militarily.

The US is not "not" attacking because of its a nice country, it is not attacking because it does not have the ability to do so without being crippled itself. It cannot even attack Iran or North Korea without devastating negative consequences, so attacking China is a complete joke.

 

[LeGenD]

I already did the math for this one. The US cannot wipe out even 20% of China's population.

I believe that this assumption is worthy of epic facepalm.

Huge chunk of Chinese population is now urbanized. Most of this population will be destroyed or paralyzed. Much of the Chinese infrastructure will be also destroyed in the process. And US can achieve this feat with its first strike option alone.

Keep in mind that US ICBM and SLBM are MIRV'ed too. A single ICBM or SLBM can carry several warheads in it.

Assuming that Hiroshima's nuke is representative of all nukes and that explosive power scales linearly with tonnage and that blast energy reduces by the cube of distance, a 3 megaton nuke dropped in the middle of New York's Manhattan, one of the most densely populated areas on earth, would only kill 1/3 the population of New York. A 5 MIRV'ed 500 kt per warhead weapon dropped in Shanghai would only have a total destruction area of 343.74 km2, killing 3 million people (out of 23 million) at Shanghai's current population density. The entire US arsenal would only have a total destruction area of 343746.2 km2, 5% of China's total area or 10% of China's urban area.

These calculation based games will only mislead you. It is not about engulfing the entire country in to a gigantic fireball of explosion. Hundreds of nuclear warheads hitting their targets will paralyze your country completely.

In addition, their are so many other factors that you are not considering. To give you a minor glimpse:

Even if we consider only 100 Hiroshima size bombs, they are enough to generate 5 million tons of smoke, which will wreak havoc over much of the atmosphere above China alone.

Now imagine what would hundreds of nuclear warheads would do. And couple this with the huge amount of radioactive fallout and other effects.

Keep in mind that US can hit every population center in your country and it will still have lots of weapons to use.

You are just repeating the same points over and over again, with the only support being 1 sentence from our "general" who was actually begging for money from the Politburo.

That general understands the bigger picture much better then common citizens of China. I would rather believe him.

Having 10000 nukes and being able to maintain them is one matter, having enough delivery systems is another matter, maintaining another 1000 ICBMs is another matter, given as i mention the vulnerability and the reliance of these long range missiles on space assets. A nuke exchange no matter how you put it is most effective when launch above the atmosphere, destroying most low orbiting satellite, and creating an environment that would end the space age. Without the use of space surveillance, how are the Americans going to launch their nukes? laser guided missiles from fighter jets? or B2 bombers? We can count submarines out of the equation.
Does the USA have enough delivery systems and promptness to cripple the Chinese ability to take their own countermeasures? Maybe in a science fiction star wars joint global strike weapons system where they have a thousand nukes floating in space ready to be launch with a press of the red button they just might. Ultimately nukes is not going to win wars, it will only destroy all human advancements in the past 40 some years, that is what mutually assured destruction is all about, everyone loses.

USA maintains the largest quantity of strategic delivery systems in the world:

Check this source: http://www.****************/us-russia-nuclear-arsenal-data-released-34627/

Also, check the various delivery systems of US in place:

USA possesses 3 major strike options:

First strike option: ICBMs (~500)
Second strike option: SLBMs (~500)
Third strike options: USAF and USN (~Thousands of nuclear devices)

In contrast, China currently have very limited nuclear offensive options. I have provided data in this thread already.

The entire arsenal of USA is enough to disturb the entire world. And some Chinese brothren here think that US nuclear arsenal is not sufficient enough to wipe out their country alone. Joke of the century.

The US is not "not" attacking because of its a nice country, it is not attacking because it does not have the ability to do so without being crippled itself. It cannot even attack Iran or North Korea without devastating negative consequences, so attacking China is a complete joke.

Is daydreaming part of Chinese indoctrination?

You guys have simply no idea about how catastrophic US-China all out conflict would be and specially for the Chinese. But they have plans for it as this thread is based on such a report.

 

[Swatwolf]

I believe that this assumption is worthy of epic facepalm.

Huge chunk of Chinese population is now urbanized. Most of this population will be destroyed or paralyzed. Much of the Chinese infrastructure will be also destroyed in the process. And US can achieve this feat with its first strike option alone.

Keep in mind that US ICBM and SLBM are MIRV'ed too. A single ICBM or SLBM can carry several warheads in it.


These calculation based games will only mislead you. It is not about engulfing the entire country in to a gigantic fireball of explosion. Hundreds of nuclear warheads hitting their targets will paralyze your country completely.

In addition, their are so many other factors that you are not considering. To give you a minor glimpse:

Even if we consider only 100 Hiroshima size bombs, they are enough to generate 5 million tons of smoke, which will wreak havoc over much of the atmosphere above China alone.

Now imagine what would hundreds of nuclear warheads would do. And couple this with the huge amount of radioactive fallout and other effects.

Keep in mind that US can hit every population center in your country and it will still have lots of weapons to use.


That general understands the bigger picture much better then common citizens of China. I would rather believe him.


USA maintains the largest quantity of strategic delivery systems in the world:

Check this source: http://www.****************/us-russia-nuclear-arsenal-data-released-34627/

Also, check the various delivery systems of US in place:

USA possesses 3 major strike options:

First strike option: ICBMs (~500)
Second strike option: SLBMs (~500)
Third strike options: USAF and USN (~Thousands of nuclear devices)

In contrast, China currently have very limited nuclear offensive options. I have provided data in this thread already.

The entire arsenal of USA is enough to disturb the entire world. And some Chinese brothren here think that US nuclear arsenal is not sufficient enough to wipe out their country alone. Joke of the century.


Is daydreaming part of Chinese indoctrination?

You guys have simply no idea about how catastrophic US-China all out conflict would be and specially for the Chinese. But they have plans for it as this thread is based on such a report.

Again not going to repeat the scenario of what's within the realm of possibility and what's in the realm of fantasy. Having a stockpile of thousands of warheads is one matter, being able to deliver them effectively in a short amount of time is another matter, Trying to decapitate hidden military installations and mobile missile systems with ICBMs is virtually nill, and besides that the moment the first ICBM is launch it will be instantly detected, and tracked, and countermeasures will already be taken by then, and that means an escalation of the MAD doctrine, as i mentioned before it won't come in the form of tit for that nuking, it will come with the destruction and disruption of space assets, meaning that anymore stockpiles of ICBMs, or SLBMs will be rendered useless and i highly doubt the USA have over a couple of hundred nukes stockpile in Europe, what more to say Asia, and even if they have, there's no way they could promptly deliver all of the nukes at a time using fighter Jets, which are in itself a vulnerable delivery system with very limited range.

 

[gambit]

I believe that this assumption is worthy of epic facepalm.

These calculation based games will only mislead you.

Is daydreaming part of Chinese indoctrination?

You guys have simply no idea about how catastrophic US-China all out conflict would be and specially for the Chinese. But they have plans for it as this thread is based on such a report.

I used to actually touched nuclear free fall B61 bombs during my years on the F-111. It is actually a small and very 'plain Jane' looking weapon. But once the person know what it is he cannot help but stand there for a moment and ponder the potential destructive power he is looking at. The reason why these guys can talk so cavalierly about 'nuking' is because they have no actual military experience, not even basic training, let alone working around 'nukes'. They put on the guise of being 'objective' and 'academic' in lieu of experience and they persist on being in the right despite their own military leadership's more honest assessment. And it is both sad and laughable that their projections, more like dreams, are based upon commercial computer games. So no, daydreaming is not part of Chinese indoctrination, it is self generated and its growth and expression are aided by indoctrination.

 

[LeGenD]

Again not going to repeat the scenario of what's within the realm of possibility and what's in the realm of fantasy. Having a stockpile of thousands of warheads is one matter, being able to deliver them effectively in a short amount of time is another matter, Trying to decapitate hidden military installations and mobile missile systems with ICBMs is virtually nill, and besides that the moment the first ICBM is launch it will be instantly detected, and tracked, and countermeasures will already be taken by then, and that means an escalation of the MAD doctrine, as i mentioned before it won't come in the form of tit for that nuking, it will come with the destruction and disruption of space assets, meaning that anymore stockpiles of ICBMs, or SLBMs will be rendered useless and i highly doubt the USA have over a couple of hundred nukes stockpile in Europe, what more to say Asia, and even if they have, there's no way they could promptly deliver all of the nukes at a time using fighter Jets, which are in itself a vulnerable delivery system with very limited range.

Your comments clearly demonstrate that you have virtually no knowledge of how US delivery systems work and how effective they are.

You think that US can fire one missile at a time? In which world do you live? US can fire all of its missile arsenal in a single go within a moment of notice. The entire system is integrated and centralized.

And Third Strike option will take place after the other strike options will be exhausted.

Also, nuclear weapons can nuetralize even strategic targets on the ground. Those who think otherwise are fooling themselves. This is why some countries are working to develop their second strike capability (through SLBMs).

Again, China does not have sufficient nuclear offensive options to nuetralize American threat. Try to do some reading in this regard and then come and lecture me.

 

[Swatwolf]

Your comments clearly demonstrate that you have virtually no knowledge of how US delivery systems work and how effective they are.

You think that US would fire one missile at a time? In which world do you live. US can fire all of its missile arsenal in a single go. The entire system is intergrated and centralized.

And Third Strike option will take place after the other strike options will be exhausted.

Also, nuclear weapons can nuetralize even strategic targets. Those who think otherwise are fooling themselves. This is why countries have started to develop second strike capability through SLBMs.

Yet just this year alone USA have two failed Minuteman launches out of 2, proving that ICBMs are anything but a reliable first strike option, you will never hear ICBM being mentioned as a first strike doctrine in any military thesis i am willing to bet you on that, just think about the difficulty of getting a space shuttle to space, the boost phase of an ICBM is smaller but the procedure and stages that it takes to ensure it hit the target after is highly complicated and prone to failures, so no it's not about pressing a switch and all 500 ICBMs come flying out of the woodwork, even a single launch failure would demand a reassessment of the entire ICBM fleet.

 

[gambit]

Yet just this year alone USA have two failed Minuteman launches out of 2, proving that ICBMs are anything but a reliable first strike option, you will never hear ICBM being mentioned as a first strike doctrine in any military thesis i am willing to bet you on that, just think about the difficulty of getting a space shuttle to space, the boost phase of an ICBM is smaller but the procedure and stages that it takes to ensure it hit the target after is highly complicated and prone to failures, so no it's not about pressing a switch and all 500 ICBMs come flying out of the woodwork, even a single launch failure would demand a reassessment of the entire ICBM fleet.

Unless you can credibly analyze the details of why some ICBM test maintenance launch fails and why all of a sudden they render the entire launch mechanisms and protocols useless, I suggest you not invest too much emotional capital into those failures. And land based ICBM are not considered viable first strike options? Please give a credible source on that. Finally, keep in mind that EVERYTHING you said about US ICBM forces are applicable to Chinese forces as well. Or unless you subscribe to 'Chinese physics'.

 

[LeGenD]

Yet just this year alone USA have two failed Minuteman launches out of 2, proving that ICBMs are anything but a reliable first strike option, you will never hear ICBM being mentioned as a first strike doctrine in any military thesis i am willing to bet you on that, just think about the difficulty of getting a space shuttle to space, the boost phase of an ICBM is smaller but the procedure and stages that it takes to ensure it hit the target after is highly complicated and prone to failures, so no it's not about pressing a switch and all 500 ICBMs come flying out of the woodwork, even a single launch failure would demand a reassessment of the entire ICBM fleet.

I am aware of one failure. When did the other occurred?

Also, incidents like these prove nothing. Are you suggesting that entire US ICBM fleet is junk? Minuteman platform is very old and mature now.

Also, The Air Force routinely conducts trials of ICBMs minus actual warheads to collect information about missile performance and predictability.

In addition, US SLBM fleet is much more advanced and potent then its ICBM fleet. So?

 

[Swatwolf]

Unless you can credibly analyze the details of why some ICBM test maintenance launch fails and why all of a sudden they render the entire launch mechanisms and protocols useless, I suggest you not invest too much emotional capital into those failures. And land based ICBM are not considered viable first strike options? Please give a credible source on that. Finally, keep in mind that EVERYTHING you said about US ICBM forces are applicable to Chinese forces as well. Or unless you subscribe to 'Chinese physics'.

My logic is that, i have never ever use ICBM in my discussion as a viable nuke option, because it's not, it's just a weapon of mass murder, and an unreliable one. I am not sure about the reliability of Chinese ICBMs, but will just assume that the countermeasures to defeat an ICBM are plenty, because of the many stages of mechanical procedure an ICBM has to go through and it's reliance on satellites, why not just nuclear emp the area across space where the ICBM will have to pass through and disable it even before it's re-entry phase? That is just one possibility to deal with ICBM launches, but again as i mention this process will be a double edge sword in the end, both for the aggressor and the defender.