And, you know, the fact that it can't really work.
> insanely long kill chain > inadequate surveillance > moving targets > and let's not forget the whole problem with firing one being tantamount to starting a nuclear war
But, sure. If the carrier held perfectly still for about an hour and the Chinese could actually guide the warhead to the thing AND they didn't mind having a fuckton of nuclear weapons heading towards them at the end of the day... sure. It would work.
>>28682451 Even BUSH realized how shit of an idea it was
"The Bush administration ultimately rejected the idea of a PGS system because of fears that an ICBM-launched weapon would trigger the Russian nuclear-launch warning system, potentially provoking a nuclear war"
Doubtful. Once they get past the technical challenges, they're still dealing with the fact that it would take multiple hits to inflict significant damage to a carrier. Anything smaller would be rekt, though. It might present a credible threat to the escorts in a CSG. That might develop as a valid tactic, btw.
>>28686200 You saw the seemingly incurable blood lust that happened after some arabs put two plans through a couple building's in NY?
What do you think what would happen if you attacked an American NAVAL port? Let alone one housing a carrier?
Either A. Nukes on every major city in your country B. The combined fury of the Western world penetrating your airspace, coastal waters, cutting you off from the rest of the world, sanctions, and the essential destruction of the chinks civilization
>>28681746 No. It is basically a dead project threat that not only will get intercepted by SM-6's but also could trigger a global thermonuclear war where China would be nuked by both Russia and the US because they can trace the initial launch which would look like an ICBM, but not the destination immediately.
With the kind of leader America has today, I do not believe America has the guts to start nuclear war. When the missile is launched, the trajectory will be computed and Russia will know where it is headed so there will be no retaliation. Once America knows where it is headed, it will have the option of firing nukes back. But it will not happen because that will be escalation and no one wants MAD. At most, American politicians will allow one or two dead carrier strike forces before going to the negotiation tables. Sacrificing a couple of gay sailors is better than irking the dragon.
>>28686947 m8, you don't understand. We don't know WHERE it's going immediately. Neither do the Russians, but we know the source, and we know that China has launched a ballistic missile, potentially nuclear, and any response is now justified due to the chance that they may nuke a major population center.
There is no other militarily appropriate response but to nuke Bejing and every other major Chinese population center and strategic target to hopefully prevent even more nukes in the air. LA and the east coast would be a write off but the chinese would cease to exist as a functioning country. And the world would shrug and say "Well, they started it."
>>28686947 China doesn't have MAD capabilities. The counterforce retaliation would eliminate their ability to launch additional strikes.
Given the known CEP of the DF-21, there's a 0.3% chance of hitting a carrier at sea. Odds go up to 18-20% if the carrier is sitting still. Given that a single hit won't kill a carrier, China would have to launch their entire inventory at a ship in port to achieve a kill. On the receiving end that's going to look like the opening shot of WW3. The response would be immediate and brutal.
>>28688591 You are not going to drop a carrier with one missile.
It a semi ballistic missile, so SEA-X and hell, even the ship borne aegis radars will pick it up while its still over mainland china, and then the missile will have to contend with uncountable SM-3's, and later, if by some miracle it makes it, SM-6's.
No one is going to launch nukes in response to a ballistic missile attack on carriers. Remember that ballistic missiles (or what were thought to be) were fired at other times and no one launched, though it came close.
>>28681888 >Hell the only reason it gets so much vitriol instead of interest on here is because it's Chinese.
Not really. The Soviets had a far more capable system in the 80s that could also be used against submarines and they abandoned it for the same reasons everyone has been saying for years on /k/. There's also the simple fact that SRBOC and Nulka style countermeasures are vastly more effective when looking down instead of looking at the side like normal AShMs do.
>>28690833 A CBG, and the carrier at the center, is considered a strategic asset. A nuclear-armed ballistic missile attack on it (and the DF-21D's flight trajectory isn't the key issue) will be reacted to as an attack on any other strategic asset or US territory.
>>28690859 SM-6 is apart of the terminal ballstic missle defense.
If they can get through the SM-3's, then they have to deal with the SM-6's.
>>28690855 >If that hit the deck I expect it would punch a few decent holes in the ship.
Assuming it got though the very real and very stout SM defense, yeah, it would do harpoon/lrasm tier damage, but people like to forget that the USN in general has god tier damage control, and repairs to the deck are possible.
>They have a well known policy of no first strike, and the back it up with few decent ICBM's.
Launching about 20 long range ballistic missiles DOES look like a first strike anon, you would have to be delusional to think otherwise.
>Unless a Prez wants to nuke the world
Nukeing china /= nukeing the world. Limited engagements are a thing, and are actually the goal.
>DF-21's don't have the same flight pattern as ICBM's.
They sure as fuck do if they were trying to strike, say, japan or korea.
>We have seen DF-21 test flights.
We have HEARD about one test hitting a static target in the gobi, thats it.
>>28690870 >Launching about 20 long range ballistic missiles DOES look like a first strike anon, you would have to be delusional to think otherwise. Kek this. In addition the Chinese non first strike thing is pure bullshit if you see how they 'keep their word' when doing business transactions.
>>28690870 How the fuck do you know they aren't? Occam's razor says if they build a bunch of weapons they're going to use them for their sole purpose.
Based upon common sense, it does not. You launch all your missiles when it's first strike. Opp would know better than us so this conversation is pointless.
Oh so you think Russia is going to enjoy all the nukes landing right next to its border? They will look like they are headed at least for part of Russia.
Our carriers in this situation would not be near Japan. They would be south of it near the Phillipines, Okinawa, or in the East China Sea.
We have seen the ballistic missile launches via satellite, missile tracking sites in Japan, and our AWACS. Remember how we immediately noticed North Korea's launch and analzyed that it could possibly hit California, but was unlikely? We know what their missile track will look like, and will be able to tell what missile they are pretty quickly.
>>28690942 How? Wouldn't you launch most of your missiles if you are first strike?
Also, we know to a high degree of confidence that China only has a few hundred ICBM's that could reach America. That's what FAS and the Pentagon report each year. Their "no first strike" promise is backed up with the fact their Nuclear attack is pretty shitty.
>>28690908 >Also, wasn't there issue that our carriers would be too far away?
It all depended on what the plan was. If they were on convoy duty or taking on strike roles. What mattered more was EMCOM, there's a particularly fascinating read about a USCG playing cat and mouse with the Soviets off of Kamchatka (? Or was it up north?) where they managed to hide the force for the length of the exercise by using radar horizon and EMCOM effectively while being near a major Soviet installation.
>>28690953 >They will look like they are headed at least for part of Russia.
Not really. It's easy to determine trajectory within the first 5 minutes of detection to within a few hundred km.
I really can't stand this notion that if someone uses a nuclear weapon suddenly everyone is going to launch theirs because 'hurrrr we don't know even though we've spent the better part of a century determining how we'd react to such an event and how to determine where they're going and by whom'
I was addressing your last point, about detection and tracking systems. If you read the Wiki article, you will note the reasons why the RORSATs required nuclear reactors, and if you do further research, you will learn why even a modern battery will not be suitable for use in a RORSAT.
The RORSAT and AShBM combination was tested by the Soviets, but never made operational.
Without the more comprehensive targeting information provided by systems like RORSATs, the task becomes much more difficult.
>>28690991 IIRC our carriers were not meant to launch hundreds of strikes on the Soviets early in a WW3 conflict (assuming no nukes would be used yet) Their main purpose was to kill the Soviet fleet and stop it from harming our transports as we moved troops in for a defensive ground battle in Germany and France.
Maybe later on the carriers would be used for strikes, but just looking at their loadout 1985, that seems unlikely to be their main purpose.
>>28691019 Depends on the fleet. What are now 2nd and 6th fleets were primarily meant to do defensive actions whereas the now 7th and 3rd fleets were meant to be extremely aggressive in the Pacific, even drawing up some particularly ballsy plans of a naval invasion of the eastern USSR and taking Vladivostok.
So you need to be in LEO to effectively guide missiles.
I assume we have come leaps and bounds in detection systems and battery power. Of course a modern battery won't make up for a nuclear reactor, but if we have gotten better at detection and radar tech, wouldn't that mean the satellite wouldn't have to be as big?
The RORSAT needed nuclear power because it needed a lot of power in a satellite that wasn't so big that it would get dragged out of LEO.
If we have miniaturized tech and gotten better at detection, wouldn't the new satellite have far lower power requirement and size requirements?
If so couldn't the Chinese ability to partly guide the DF-21 via satellite be feasible?
>>28691110 You don't seem to understand. This isn't about a missile test, (of course, even those have almost led to nuclear war- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_rocket_incident ).
A ballistic missile strike against a carrier is an attack on a US strategic asset. The US does not play pattycake when a strategic asset is attacked by a nuclear weapon (and you cannot differentiate between a nuke and a non-nuke ballistic missile when in flight).
Or to simplify- if you attack a US CBG, you will get nuked.
>>28691139 Not the anon you replied to, but if someone attacks a Carrier Strike Group with conventional weapons, I don't think the Pentagon would go all out "Unload an Ohio Class hurr 24 Trident D5s with 14 475kt W87s on each missile".
They'd simply send the other 9 Carriers to ruin your military and subject you to foreign conquest.
>>28691036 Russia *might* but by the same extension this could be a ballistic launch aimed at RUSSIAN ICBM's to them. Plus the US and Russia have a hotline regarding nuclear weapons, as soon as they confirm it isn't theirs and it isn't aimed at Russia, the US is going to ask if they can fly missiles over Russian airspace at Chinese targets. And Russia most likely would agree to it - or have already launched their own at China.
>>28690763 If they're using nukes, all it takes is one hit to sink a carrier. No question about it. I was assuming conventional warheads, because starting a nuclear war just to sink a carrier is pants on head retarded.
And don't start with the bullshit about America won't do nuclear war because a carrier got sunk. If it got sunk by a nuke, there will be nuclear retaliation.
>>28690811 If you're using nukes, a single hit would sink a carrier. For that matter, a close enough miss would do the trick.
And now you've just started a nuclear war from the wrong side of the force disparity equation. We lose a carrier, China loses a war. To the point that they'll probably become a client state of North Korea.
>>28692100 A nuclear war is a losing proposition for china. Their nuclear forces are very, very undeveloped compared to US forces in almost every category The US would get fucked up a good bit, but the PRC would cease to exist as a nation.
>>28690833 >DF-21's don't have the same flight pattern as ICBM's
They fly like other DF-21's. The ones that have 500 Kiloton nuclear warheads on them.
>Unless a Prez wants to nuke the world, Or if he wants to deter the Chinese from deploying the weapon in the first place, he might state that any multiple ballistic missile attack fired against US forces will be treated as a nuclear attack, and the US will use their own nuclear arsenal to prevent further use.
So then you put the ball in the Chinese court: Use the DF-21D and hope the US is bluffing
Use the DF-21 and accept the escalation to the place where you can not possibly win
Attempt a preemptive strike on US nuclear forces that is likely to fail.
Use other means.
>>28690996 >But anons are claiming that 20 DG-21 launches is going to warrant MAD retaliation.
Not MAD, but a limited strike on all Chinese ballistic missile forces with the stated goal of eliminating them.
>>28691110 >Except we don't and have not reacted to other ballistic missile tests with nuclear retaliation.... 1) Ballistic missile tests are announced to avoid this exact situation. 2) Ballistic missile tests take place from designated testing ranges to avoid this exact situation.
>China launching 20 medium range ballistic missiles won't look like a first strike. The US can take the position that they can't take the chance. If you don't want to provoke a nuclear response, don't do things that look like they could be a nuclear attack.
>>28681888 Exactly. I have seen a thousand threads going on about hypersonic waveriders and how the USA is going to wreck everyones shit with them any day now. However when the WU-14 get's brought up or this DF-21. It's suddenly all jingoism and bs with thousands of pitfalls that will never be overcome. It's fucking retarded and bullshit. The DF-21 will be a good weapon, it will be reliant on a lot of things, but it will be a game changer and a large leap in capability.
Just how good are the chinese deterrent forces? If they did launch a DF-21 attack on a CSG, and we responded by glassing what remains of their DF-21 force, how serious would the chinese nuclear threat remain?
>>28692421 I don't think the USSR ever reached a point where a preemptive strike would have been likely to succeed, and as far as I know their nuclear forces were far, far more advanced than china's
>>28690805 You are so staggeringly wrong. It will look like a DF-21 and nuclear attacks will look like a DF-21 attack, not the other way around. Why would you ever spend much of youir IRBM arsenal on a CSG ? Those are for land targets that sit still. And it is absolute complete bullshit as well that ANY ballistic missile launch is interpreted as a nuclear launch. >>28690883 Even without a warhead it would do MUCH more than "harpoon" tier damage. It would pass through at least 5 decks and might even go clean through. Also if you think SM-3 and SM-6 can just be readily launched without any real warning and have a 100% intercept rate, you are plain mistaken. This weapon is fast, lethal and very hard to intercept.
>>28692456 >And it is absolute complete bullshit as well that ANY ballistic missile launch is interpreted as a nuclear launch.
He didn't say that though. He said launch of enough to provide enough certainty to destroy or cripple a carrier or carrier group.
Which is perfectly reasonable. Unless you think people are going to be willing to just roll the dice and assume those dozen ballistic missiles that are pretty much indistinguishable from nukes are just conventional.
>>28692386 That's a huge assumption in the same ballpark as "why wasn't the first 1960's sidewinder a gamechanger?" Besides we know little of that weapon, except that evidently the concept was found to be sound. >>28692494 My assumption is based on the following line of reasoning. Fact: Chinese have nuclear IRBM, Chinese have non- nuclear anti ship IRBM. Theory: Chinese developed the DF-21 because they found their other options lacking. Ergo: The assumption that a weapon in transit is the DF-21 can be made. Now before you start on how about this is all about plausible deniability in the 5 mins before it hits. If the standard procedure is to nuke back as soon as you see a IRBM or wave of IRBM incoming, why bother developing this weapon in the first place? To me it just seems really stupid and very "un-chinese" to limit yourself in weapons capabilities and development because of some very empty US threats that are basically nothing but internet warrior folklore.
>>28692456 >And it is absolute complete bullshit as well that ANY ballistic missile launch is interpreted as a nuclear launch. Depends on how you want to interpret it. You are making the mistake that the US would inadvertently classify it as a nuclear attack. The US would intentionally classify it as a nuclear attack. This adds the use of DF-21D into behaviors that the US would see as worthy of a nuclear response and would give China pause when using them.
After all, if you know that the US will treat your DF-21 attack as a nuclear attack, you are less likely to use them.
"It shall be the policy of this nation, to regard any ballistic missile attack on our forces as a nuclear attack, requiring a full retaliatory response upon the People's Republic of China".
>>28692557 Because further developing and refining an air-to-air missile and then using it in combat is the same thing as using a ballistic missile? Firing missiles that look somewhat like nukes is frowned upon.
How is Chinese protocol when it comes to launching nuclear attacks?
Is it pretty safe in the sense that a chance of a rogue launch is mostly negated by procedure?
I've just read a bunch about dysfunction and disunity between Chinese military branches. When I studied this I was using sources from mid-2000's, so I am unsure if it has changed much. I just wonder how good their security, protocols, and security is in strategic strike decisions.
>>28692579 And thus basically set a precedent in which the USA is classified as a rogue state that thinks nuclear retaliation is allowed as long as their lost toy was expensive enough. I can only imagine the consequences when this policy gets published, the Chinese do the same, sail their lianoning right into Norfolk while waving their version of this document with their finger on the nuclear button. IF anyone ever was to publish policy like this, the backlash would be immense and working relationships with that country would be untenable.
>>28692513 >Is the US in a position to reliably eliminate their SSBN force? Yes. The Chinese have major issues machining good shaft bearings for their submarines. They are very noisy.
>>28692557 >Besides we know little of that weapon, except that evidently the concept was found to be sound. Which is why the Soviets, in great need of a system to stop US carrier battle groups, and also in possession of the greatest ocean surveillance system the world has ever known, with a doctrine revolving around sending targeting information directly to tactical units themselves to facilitate OTH attacks, abandoned it?
They looked at it, tried to make it work for a decade plus, and went "Nah. This concept is sound, we should abandon it."
> If the standard procedure is to nuke back as soon as you see a IRBM or wave of IRBM incoming, why bother developing this weapon in the first place? For the same reason the Chinese even have nuclear weapons even though they have no hope of winning a nuclear conflict.
>>28692623 >How is Chinese protocol when it comes to launching nuclear attacks? From what is understood, launch authorization resides with the CMC and the General Staff Directorate. >Is it pretty safe in the sense that a chance of a rogue launch is mostly negated by procedure? Rogue launch by the Chinese is nearly impossible.
>>28692597 Because writing off a good idea on some mediocre experiences is not smart. That was the point. Besides these missiles look a lot like nukes, but so do Scuds, Tochka's and what not. The US doesn't throw a shitfit about those anymore, but it does about Iskanders. Now tell me what the difference is between those three (it's not the flight pattern but the probability of intercept). >>28692603 But not applicable to me and probably 95% of all posters. Chinks don't spend much time on English imageboards. >>28692608 Another big assumption. Look for how long ramjet missiles have been considered. And what is the state of the MBDA meteor again? Technological strides have been made.
>>28692644 >>28692718 There is no point in developing the DF-21D if you already have a nuclear deterrent if your non nuclear weapon is going to warrant the same response ? Quite obvious isn't it ? And yes you do work with assumptions. When SBIRS detects 100 launches from mainland Russia they don't assume they are all conventional. However when 30 launches are detected going straight for the pacific... >>28692665 The polar opposite.
>the Chinese do the same, sail their lianoning right into Norfolk while waving their version of this document with their finger on the nuclear button. The Chinese would first need to develop strategic forces capable of backing it up.
Then they would need the US to develop Anti Ship Ballistic missiles based off an existing nuclear ICBM.
Then they would need treaty allies near the US.
But other than that you are dead on correct.
>IF anyone ever was to publish policy like this, the backlash would be immense and working relationships with that country would be untenable. What if I told you that a policy very close to this has existed for a very long time, and was even broadcast on TV in very explicit terms?
>>28692686 Things change when the Preliminary Attack Conference determines there is a wave of ballistic missiles in the air.
>>28691015 Those have their place, but they don't have the range of ICBMs. Now, making a cruise missile with torpedo delivery capability would be neat. Have it drop a torpedo when it's 10 miles out, then shift to AShM mode and continue the attack.
>>28692743 >There is no point in developing the DF-21D if you already have a nuclear deterrent if your non nuclear weapon is going to warrant the same response ? Exactly. The DF-21D becomes unuseable, doesn't it? I'm glad you understand.
>Quite obvious isn't it ? And yes you do work with assumptions. You are still making the error in assuming that the US is misclassifying by accident. It is quite intentional.
>>28692100 Either trolling or wishful thinking. China doesn't have the nuclear throw weight to do that kind of damage to the US. Especially if they're wasting warheads on CSGs. The counterforce response to their first strike might very well leave them incapable of any more nuclear excursions.
That's probably the best outcome China can hope for. It would keep them from trying to launch countervalue strikes. They're much more vulnerable to that than the US.
>>28692776 >>28692750 You are making very grave assumptions based on hearsay and the concept that the USA somehow has a MacArthur at the helm. EVIDENTLY the DF-21D is not unuseable because it is being developed. Even if the USA think it is unusuable, the Chinese do not and this development shows they are willing to use it. And again it might be an intentional classification, but that does not change anything to the argument why it will be used and only reinforces the argument that policy will need to be updated and no nukes will be fired at China. Can you imagine what happens when they were to sell these missiles to anyone. Then they get fired in anger at the USA and suddenly they nuke a nation that they were in conventional war with. Besides nuclear tipped ASM have been in service for a long time as well. The difference in intention and possible payload between an ASM or IRBM aimed at a marine target is absolutely none.
>>28692890 I HIGHLY doubt China would export nuclear tipped DF-21s. The issue here is that China has conventional AND nuclear DF-21s and if they launch, it's impossible for an outside observer to tell the difference.
>>28692843 That is all correct. However when taking into account Chinese perspective the picture might be a bit different.
China will tell the US that all missile launches at their ships will be conventional because the DF-21D has replaced the nuclear option.
While there might be a nuclear missile inbetween them. China has no actual reason for doing this as they would only field the DF-21D if it was a capable weapon. Terminal guidance shouldn't be a problem anyway, the killchain is.
If the US does not wait to see if the launch is conventional they will risk a nuclear engagement and quite possibly become the madmen of the world.
Knowing these consequences and how little is gained by striking this disproportionally hard only to make a fool out of yourself. The US will not want to be forced into playing this zero-sum game and is forced to stay out of range. Thus effectively confirming the DF-21D as an effective area denial weapon.
>>28692921 They don't need to, the rumor is apparently enough. A normal DF-21 is of little use against a moving carrier group anyway. Even with nuclear warhead.
>>28692890 >EVIDENTLY the DF-21D is not unuseable because it is being developed. In the same way that they have nuclear capabilities that would result in almost certain destruction of their country if they are used.
> Chinese do not and this development shows they are willing to use it. Just as they are willing to use their nuclear weapons, right?
>Can you imagine what happens when they were to sell these missiles to anyone. Are they selling the nuclear weapons with them? No? Then it's not even the same situation.
And again, a very similar policy has existed for a long time, and none of the dire consequences you are predicting have come to pass.
>>28692456 >It would pass through at least 5 decks and might even go clean through
You specified without a warhead, so we'll stick with that. It wouldn't come anywhere near a through and through. It's not a monolithic penetrator so it's going to be losing massive amounts of energy and mass with every deck it penetrates. I would be surprised if it makes it through the deck below the hangar deck.
You would still have a lot of fragmentation damage on the flight and hangar decks to deal with. That's more of a concern for the aircraft than for the ship.
Yeah, it would be about Harpoon-tier damage. Add a conventional warhead to the equation and the damage factor goes way up, all the way to highly probable mission kill. Still not a good probability of sinking a carrier with 1 hit, though.
>>28692959 >China will tell the US that all missile launches at their ships will be conventional because the DF-21D has replaced the nuclear option.
And the US will just take their word for it? A nation that has such a disadvantage when it comes to nuclear parity with the US that any advantage would be valuable to them?
>If the US does not wait to see if the launch is conventional they will risk a nuclear engagement and quite possibly become the madmen of the world.
Thats strange because when the US first voiced this type of policy, the World did not react badly to the US.
>Knowing these consequences and how little is gained by striking this disproportionally hard Except the ability to strike at Chinese ballistic missile forces and remove them as a factor in the conflict. That sounds like quite a bit is gained actually.
>only to make a fool out of yourself. It seems to me that the only fools would be the Chinese who were warned that escalating the conflict into the realm of ballistic missiles would result in the US responding in kind.
>The US will not want to be forced into playing this zero-sum game and is forced to stay out of range. There is no zero sum game. Chinese launch DF-21D sorties against US CSG. CSG is sunk US responds against Chinese ballistic missile forces. No more DF-21D No more SAC US moves more carries into range and conflict continues without threat of ASBM.
>Thus effectively confirming the DF-21D as an effective area denial weapon. Yes, it will result in the effective denial of the areas downwind of radioactive craters that used to be the Chinese ballistic missile forces.
>>28693022 >>28692962 I thought you were a smarter guy Oppenheimer. You and I both know that their nuclear forces would be spread, especially the road mobile DF-21. No reason why they would concentrate them if they were firing DF-21D.
Please stick to the technical side of matters like these man, politics isn't your field, and it shows.
>>28693058 I have a strong suspicion that if a conflict with China seemed likely, and if it had a chance of a DF-21D launch, then the US would be using all manner of assets to determine the location of the various big nukey kaboomy things located in China, and keep that up to date.
>>28693058 >You and I both know that their nuclear forces would be spread, especially the road mobile DF-21. No reason why they would concentrate them if they were firing DF-21D. Mobile systems are problematic. You deal with them using the following ways: 1) Mobile systems depend on pre surveyed launch sites. 2) Not all systems are deployed at once. Hitting their garrisons is effective 3) Hitting command and control infrastructure can prevent even those systems that escape destruction initially from launching. 4) DT shots from SSBNs can provide quick reaction to pop-up threats. 5) DF-21D systems are attached to units different from nuclear units and are easily differentiated.
>Please stick to the technical side of matters like these man, politics isn't your field, and it shows. Noted.
>>28693151 >Wouldn't the use of nukes on Chinese soil trigger a Chinese nuclear response against the CONUS? and not necessarily against military targets? If the Chinese command and control systems remain intact and the missiles themselves are operational, sure. Both of those are not foregone conclusions.
Chinese have 260 warheads, up to 140 Megatons. And like 100 missiles that can deliver them to USA. Americans clearly have a far superior nuclear arm. And while I'm not an expert on US ABM capabilities, I'm pretty sure they can knock out a fair chunk of them.
>>28693164 >>28693211 Yeah I was being optimistic with numbers. Can US intercept 60 missiles? >1) Mobile systems depend on pre surveyed launch sites. Are you sure about that? I mean, I know old ones did.
>>28693276 >>28693278 Really? I thought US had a better ABM system, but like I said I wasn't following. And speaking from memory here, I think that ABM system around Moscow could intercept 20-30 warheads. But I'm not sure if it was ICBM warheads or Pershing II.
>>28693312 These Chinese have gone to great pains to ensure the security of their nuclear weapons. It stems from two issues that arose in the late 1960's that threatened the loss of control of their nuclear weapons.
>>28693301 >Really? Yep >I thought US had a better ABM system, but like I said I wasn't following. Nope. >And speaking from memory here, I think that ABM system around Moscow could intercept 20-30 warheads. But I'm not sure if it was ICBM warheads or Pershing II. It was One or Two ICBM warheads, and 20-30 Pershing RVs.
General Wang En-Mao threatened to seize control of the nuclear weapons in his region during a dispute with Mao, and Mao's own nephew led the Red Guards on a expedition to seize the nuclear weapons at Lop Nor.
These two incidents, while underreported in the West, gave the Chinese a serious case of "What-if-ism" and they took major steps to ensure control of their arsenal would never be lost.
>Doesn't that also make them hard to aim if you're trying to hit a mobile target? It makes it difficult to steer, but its not insurmountable.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.