The Pentagon's new China war plan

[LeGenD]

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.

Why missile defence shields are being developed then, if the strategy you mentioned is most effective?

Point is that once the ICBMs will be launched, China would have very little time to think about countering the barrage and that too with its limited nuclear assets.

The most probable decision would be ensure that a few of its missiles somehow manage to hit USA mainland.

 

[Swatwolf]

Why missile defence shields are being developed then, if the strategy you mentioned is most effective?

Point is that once the ICBMs will be launched, China would have very little time to think about countering the barrage and that too with its limited nuclear assets.

The most probable decision would be ensure that a few of its missiles somehow manage to hit USA mainland.

Simply put, detonating a nuclear emp in space is a bad option, but the only option.

 

[gambit]

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.

Calling an ICBM a weapon for 'mass murder' is a moral/political statement, not a valid technical descriptor, as in how effective is it in destroying a target or at least rendering it useless in a war.

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.

An EMP attack is not persistent. A damaged silo door that prevent opening is.

 

[below_freezing]

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.

So you looked at a nuke. Great.

I just gave a rough estimate based on the 5 psi rule devised by US and Russian scientists after the Hiroshima bombings and otherwise used the laws of physics - blast energy scales linearly with kilotons, scales to the cube root with the distance. A better estimate would consider radiation both IR and ionizing, time of day, whether it is a surprise first strike or during wartime, dust and smoke, persistent radiation pollution, etc. But the 5 psi rule for structural failure is still a good rule of thumb to go by for who instantly dies and who doesn't.

 

[gambit]

So you looked at a nuke. Great.

I just gave a rough estimate based on the 5 psi rule devised by US and Russian scientists after the Hiroshima bombings and otherwise used the laws of physics - blast energy scales linearly with kilotons, scales to the cube root with the distance. A better estimate would consider radiation both IR and ionizing, time of day, whether it is a surprise first strike or during wartime, dust and smoke, persistent radiation pollution, etc. But the 5 psi rule for structural failure is still a good rule of thumb to go by for who instantly dies and who doesn't.

Sure as the sky is blue it is much better than you playing computer games. I do not speak about nuclear weapons as casually as you Chinese conscript rejects do precisely because I have a much more intellectual and emotional relationship to these weapons than you do and that relationship is based upon actual experience, not several degrees of separation. But from an intellectual perspective, a US nuclear first strike will not destroy all China's nuclear capabilities but will severely cripple China's ability to respond in kind. Yes, we will suffer but it will be China who will suffer the worse. Your delusion is evident for those of us who have relevant experience.

 

[T90TankGuy]

do Chinese members know what happens when a nuke goes off? for one the EMP will destroy all communications . your emergency services will be swamped and will break down . not to mention that the water supply and just about everything in that city will be irradiated. then you have the fallout . its not how many people die with the first bang but the total collapse of the city structure as you know it which follows that should deter you . do not take nukes lightly .

 

[gambit]

do Chinese members know what happens when a nuke goes off? for one the EMP will destroy all communications . your emergency services will be swamped and will break down . not to mention that the water supply and just about everything in that city will be irradiated. then you have the fallout . its not how many people die with the first bang but the total collapse of the city structure as you know it which follows that should deter you . do not take nukes lightly .

That is a gross misconception. Many electronic components are accidentally or unintentionally shielded either fully or sufficiently where the EMP effects are limited. An EMP assault will seriously damage some, disrupt the operations of others, and actually literally destroy very few. What people think of 'destroyed' is more like severe degradation at the system level where once damaged or degraded components are replaced, the equipment will be fully operational again.

 

[imi786]

it would be very dangerous for the U.S to war with China.....