Americans afraid of China

[Dayton3]

OMG!

They only have between 2 and 10 of those missiles!

You really do not have any grasp of reality, do you? You simply make things up and spit them out,

Yes, and the US could build 1.5 billion nukes, One for every person in China, and a few left over.

See how this works? You can not simply make up a number that has absolutely no connection with reality and expect it to be believed.

Better to build at least 10 ABMs for every nuclear missile China has and the facilities to support them.

Then if the Chinese did launch a nuclear attack in all likelihood only a handful of nuclear weapons would strike the U.S. Sure those could be very damaging if they struck the right targets but it would still leave the vast majority of the U.S. spared nuclear destruction.

 

[Mushroom]

Better to build at least 10 ABMs for every nuclear missile China has and the facilities to support them.

We already have many times that many.

 

[Flopper]

Nobody has an experience in the modern nuclear war. But seems that Russia+China are better prepared for it than the USA+UK+(may be) France.
And if they are better prepared - they can escalate a conflict.

Where the US out shines Russia or China is our ability to fight wars all over the world. We've been doing it for over 200 years.

Our nuclear submarine fleet is larger than both Russian and China combined. Each of our subs carries 8 missiles with a 5500 mile range and up to 5, 120 kiloton warhead each. That means the US nuclear sub fleet is capable of knocking out 500 targets with 600 kilotons of nuclear warheads and the chance of stopping the launches is very low.

While Russia and China have more nuclear warheads and more ICMBs, what they lack is the ability to get them in air rapidly. This is not because they lack the technology but because their strike capability is built on the assumption that American would not strike first. Also both Russia and China's greatest fears are being attacked from within therefore their approval process to launch is far more complex than the US. In the US, the assumption is Russia or China would strike first therefore the approval process is very rapid compared to either country.

 

[Dayton3]

We already have many times that many.

No we don't. The U.S. has less than 100 dedicated ABMs. You can't count the SAMs deployed aboard U.S. Navy ships as they are neither as capable or in the right positions to be used against ICBMs.

 

[Mushroom]

No we don't. The U.S. has less than 100 dedicated ABMs.

The last time we did anything like that was back during the Nike program. And I can't see the US ever rebuilding a similar program ever again.

That took over 300 of them to cover the most important locations, and required many thousands of people to man them. I do not see the money, or the political will to ever do that again.

Hell, we can't even get them to agree to replace a system that first went live when President Carter was in office (PATRIOT). Or to move THAAD past the provisional test phase that it has been in since 2008.

If anything, we should at least be putting something like AEGIS Ashore in key locations like DC and a few of the major cities. Especially Guam and Hawaii, which have been threatened by North Korea.

I remember a speech by a General in 2008, and it was about "Air Defense of the Future. And at that time the 5-10 year plan was to replace all the PAC-2 launchers with MEADS. Then integrate PAC-3, MEADS, and THAAD along with AVENGER into more diverse and powerful Air Missile Defense Battalions. Each with a battery of THAAD, 2 batteries of PATRIOT, and a battery of AVENGER. And it is now 14 years later, and absolutely none of that has happened yet.

So to be honest, I see no changes on the way, because there is no political will to do so. Hell, we still only have 2 provisional batteries of THAAD, and they are not even at their full strength yet. And the crews are starting to suffer from burnout because they are constantly being sent all over the place when somebody gets uppity with their missiles. Hawaii, Guam, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Japan, Turkey, Romania, Wake, South Korea, those poor crews barely get settled back in at Texas and are sent out again somewhere else. Yet we still have only 2 understrength batteries (3 launchers instead of the full 6) and others "on order" for over a decade without a check being cut to pay for them.

 

[Silver Cat]

OMG!

They only have between 2 and 10 of those missiles!

You really do not have any grasp of reality, do you? You simply make things up and spit them out,

Yes, and the US could build 1.5 billion nukes, One for every person in China, and a few left over.

See how this works? You can not simply make up a number that has absolutely no connection with reality and expect it to be believed.

Just read Nuclear Notebook. China will have 350-400 DF-41 in 2025 (may be - earlier).

https://thebulletin.org/premium/2021-11/nuclear-notebook-chinese-nuclear-forces-2021/

And this is if the Russians won't sell them Topols, Yarses and other stuff in 2022.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Where the US out shines Russia or China is our ability to fight wars all over the world. We've been doing it for over 200 years.

Our nuclear submarine fleet is larger than both Russian and China combined. Each of our subs carries 8 missiles with a 5500 mile range and up to 5, 120 kiloton warhead each. That means the US nuclear sub fleet is capable of knocking out 500 targets with 600 kilotons of nuclear warheads and the chance of stopping the launches is very low.

While Russia and China have more nuclear warheads and more ICMBs, what they lack is the ability to get them in air rapidly. This is not because they lack the technology but because their strike capability is built on the assumption that American would not strike first. Also both Russia and China's greatest fears are being attacked from within therefore their approval process to launch is far more complex than the US. In the US, the assumption is Russia or China would strike first therefore the approval process is very rapid compared to either country.

???

Each Ohio class carries 24 missles with 8 independent targeting nukes each total 112

 

[Silver Cat]

???

Each Ohio class carries 24 missles with 8 independent targeting nukes each total 112

Actually, right now (with New START treaty) they carries twenty missiles, 18 - with up to four normal warheads W76-1 (90kt) or W88 (455 kt) and two - with two W76-2 (8 kt).

 

[Wyatt earp]

Actually, right now (with New START treaty) they carries twenty missiles, 18 - with up to four normal warheads W76-1 (90kt) or W88 (455 kt) and two - with two W76-2 (8 kt).
View attachment 597783

Thanks I was going to post that but exaggerated because I wanted to know where he got his information from

 

[Likkmee]

[/HEADING]
[HEADING=3]Dayton3​

But NOT the way you tend to think they are afraid.

I was reading an old (several years ago) international policy magazine and came upon an interview with a mid ranking officer in the U.S. military. The issue of course U.S./China competition and relations.

He was asked point blank if he (and others) were "afraid" of China. His answer was very interesting.

He said he was NOT afraid the U.S. would lose a war with China.

He said he WAS afraid the U.S. would WIN a war with China.
When asked to explain he said that in order to win a war with China the U.S. might have to kill tens of millions or even hundreds of millions of Chinese. He said he "didn't sign up to commit mass murder on a scale that dwarfs Hitler".

My dog has a justifiable fear of the Chinese.
Her name is Bunny... they call her Yummy

 

[Mac-7]

France was Germany's biggest customer before WWI and WWII. The UK was #2.

The US was Japan's biggest customer before WWII.

Outside of oil, Iraq's biggest trading partner in 1990 was Kuwait.

One has absolutely nothing to do with the other.

Well done!

 

[Mushroom]

Just read Nuclear Notebook. China will have 350-400 DF-41 in 2025 (may be - earlier).

Yet in the chart provided, it lists there are 18 of them. Can you see them building from 330-370+ launch systems and missiles in 3 years?

That would be putting China on par with the US and Russia. And all that would do if they tried is to kick off another nuclear arms race. A race that they would lose, as that country is already in serious trouble.

And once again, you go chasing off after the wrong thing. The number of "warheads" is largely meaningless, it is the delivery systems that matter. As I already said, that is what analysts look at, and what treaties discuss. Because without a delivery system, those warheads are useless.

 

[Mushroom]

Just read Nuclear Notebook.

Oh, and most of us never take "the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientist" too seriously.

They are pretty good for historical research and more or less current issues. But as you go into predictions, it starts skewing more and more to the nightmare fantasy. Of course, it is a far-left scare group that basically lived to frighten people into following their desires. Like with their famous "Doomsday Clock". After the Cold War they moved it way back, and almost went out of existence until they found a new purpose.

Like until a year or so ago they were screaming that Trump was a threat to the world. Now, it is Biden that is a threat to the world. And in reading through the article on "Israeli Nukes", it is obvious that most of it is a single source. A book most consider half-fantasy called "The Samson Options" by Seymour Hersh. Now Hersh has an interesting history, as he is the one that first broke the My Lai Massacre. But almost his entire career since then has been in sensationalizing things, kind of like the New York Post version of a serious story in the New York Times.

And over half the time, they contain a tiny glimmer of truth that is behind a fake clockwork monster that he reports is really snarling behind the closet door.

And no, I am not kidding. That President Bush was about to nuke Iran, that the US was behind all of the sanctions against Iraq and had been working to steal their oil since 1990, that most of the story about the death of bin Laden is a lie. That the Obama and Trump era responses to Syrian chemical attacks were all lies, and it was the actions of rebels all along.

I find the last particularly troubling, as This covers multiple attacks over two very different administrations. This guy really is in deep with the Conspiracy Theorists now, and not all that many take him seriously anymore. Great example of a journalist that had a great early career, but as the years have gone by and he faded to insignificance he needed more "amazing stories" to get back into the spotlight.

Most of his books have been dismissed as a combination of hoax and fantasy. For example, he is the one that was saying in 2004 that the US military was serially raping Iraqi boys, and running rape centers that Iraqi girls were kept in. That caused a huge increase in support for the then forming ISIS, and he was proud that riots broke out in some areas of Iraq. Even saying in a speech that it was alright to lie, so long as you got results.

And that is the man the BAS used as a key reference in an article that is to be taken seriously?

As I warn everybody, vette your sources. The BAS used to be a good one. The SPLC used to be a great one. But over the decades both have become a corrupted fear-mongering organizations that only live to try to show why they are still important by publishing almost constant fear stories.

Case in point, the largest issue the world faces for them the past few years was not nuclear war, but global warming. And the largest culprit in the destruction of the planet to global warming is of course the US. Never mind that the US has nowhere near the largest output of "Greenhouse Gasses", and they have actually been dropping the last few decades. As other nation rise dramatically. But that does not matter, scare groups do not care about such pesky things as facts when they have fear to sell.

 

[Mushroom]

And in reading through the article on "Israeli Nukes", it is obvious that most of it is a single source. A book most consider half-fantasy called "The Samson Options" by Seymour Hersh. Now Hersh has an interesting history, as he is the one that first broke the My Lai Massacre. But almost his entire career since then has been in sensationalizing things, kind of like the New York Post version of a serious story in the New York Times.

And to give an idea, Hersh wrote a book called "The Dark Side of Camelot", that was basically a conspiracy theorists delight. Claims that Kennedy worked directly with and for the mob, that JFK was a bigamist because he was already married, that he was a regular user of amphetamines and used them constantly, and that he was involved in the death of Marilyn Monroe.

And that a lot of this information was based on the Lawrence X. "Lex" Cusack papers that he "found" that covered all this and more. Of course, that was all a big fraud, Lex Cusack would later be convicted of 13 counts of fraud in connection with the "Kennedy Papers", yet he and Hersh still insist they are authentic.

Even though they include things like Zip Codes on envelopes, years before the ZIP system was inaugurated in 1963. This was quite a story in the day, but it is largely forgotten now. But the fact that they based a "serious article" on his writings shows that they are not interested in facts, as much as selling a fear story to gain attention.

United States v. Cusack, 66 F. Supp. 2d 493 (S.D.N.Y. 1999)

United States v. Cusack, 66 F. Supp. 2d 493 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) case opinion from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

law.justia.com

The fact that anybody would take any of his writings serious in the wake of that and a great many more discoveries that most of his work in the last 25 years and more are largely lies is beyond me. It would be like some TV Producer deciding he wants to create a "good wholesome show" based on ideal parents of the 1980's and early 1990s, so bases it on Bill Cosby and OJ Simpson being next door neighbors and staring those two people.

 

[Vrenn]

America creates its enemies. "America" being the rich who control it. Want to invade small oil rich country like Iraq? Well, just make people want to invade.

The death of the USSR was a disaster for the Republicans. They cheered their victory and then got Clinton for eight years. Then they got back into the White House and immediately went after the Muslims, but because of support for the Saudis they can't go full boom again Muslims... but China... now there's an enemy they can like.

This falls under the 14 points of Fascism.

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause​

The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial, ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

 

[Mushroom]

America creates its enemies. "America" being the rich who control it. Want to invade small oil rich country like Iraq? Well, just make people want to invade.

The death of the USSR was a disaster for the Republicans. They cheered their victory and then got Clinton for eight years. Then they got back into the White House and immediately went after the Muslims, but because of support for the Saudis they can't go full boom again Muslims... but China... now there's an enemy they can like.

Right.

Of course, never mind that most of those the US was protecting during the post-Yugoslavia Wars were Muslims. As was Kuwait. As was the Northern Alliance, the leaders of which the US had been supporting for decades.

This is what is known as "cherry picking", and building a false narrative based on selective fact hunting, and ignoring any facts which do not agree with the theory. Most of us who are honest call such things "Conspiracy Theories".

But your own hatred of Muslims is noted.

 

[Silver Cat]

Yet in the chart provided, it lists there are 18 of them. Can you see them building from 330-370+ launch systems and missiles in 3 years?

18 road-mobile DF-41 were more or less often spotted. May be, there are more of them. Building of siloses was started at least in 2018. They build those more or less simultaneously, so yes, I think it is possible to build 350-400 siloses at 2025 or even earlier, especially if they are based on Russian models.
And don't forget about DF-31, DF-5 and other.

That would be putting China on par with the US and Russia. And all that would do if they tried is to kick off another nuclear arms race. A race that they would lose, as that country is already in serious trouble.

Who knows... May be, they will try to convert their military deterrence into a commercial benefits (like annexing Taiwan). What is even more important - nukes are cheap that's why the Russia and China like them.

And once again, you go chasing off after the wrong thing. The number of "warheads" is largely meaningless, it is the delivery systems that matter. As I already said, that is what analysts look at, and what treaties discuss. Because without a delivery system, those warheads are useless.

Treaties discuss both delivery systems and warheads. And the reliability of deterrence depends both on number of delivery systems and RVs. If one side has 400 silo-based missiles with one RV each, and another side has 400 silo-based missiles with 10 RVs each, one side can't destroy all enemy's missiles, (with 90% single shot kill probability first strike will destroy 360 silos), and remaining 40 missiles will deliver 400 warheads to first side targets, causing unacceptable damage.
But another side will be able to launch 120 missiles with 1200 RVs (90% SSKP) in the first counter-force strike which means practically guaranteed elimination of all enemies missiles (and even if one or two missiles survived - they won't cause much damage with their few RVs) and left 280 missiles - 2800 RVs, to coerce enemy to surrender or, if he refused, totally eliminate him.

In practice it means, that the first side don't have Credible First Strike Capability and, therefore - Deterrence Type II, and can't escalate in any tension situation, and another side can escalate, and even can win the war in the case of the deterrence fail. Such possibility will force his adversaries try to avoid even minimally provocatice actions.

To avoid such possibility in 2025-2030 - we must think and act right now.

 

[Mushroom]

Treaties discuss both delivery systems and warheads. And the reliability of deterrence depends both on number of delivery systems and RVs. If one side has 400 silo-based missiles with one RV each, and another side has 400 silo-based missiles with 10 RVs each, one side can't destroy all enemy's missiles, (with 90% single shot kill probability first strike will destroy 360 silos), and remaining 40 missiles will deliver 400 warheads to first side targets, causing unacceptable damage.
But another side will be able to launch 120 missiles with 1200 RVs (90% SSKP) in the first counter-force strike which means practically guaranteed elimination of all enemies missiles (and even if one or two missiles survived - they won't cause much damage with their few RVs) and left 280 missiles - 2800 RVs, to coerce enemy to surrender or, if he refused, totally eliminate him.

In practice it means, that the first side don't have Credible First Strike Capability and, therefore - Deterrence Type II, and can't escalate in any tension situation, and another side can escalate, and even can win the war in the case of the deterrence fail. Such possibility will force his adversaries try to avoid even minimally provocatice actions.

There are no arms limitations treaties with China. The only ones they have signed are the non-proliferation and partial test ban treaties. So even bringing up treaties where there are none is rather pointless.

And you are not grasping the concept of MAD at all. These weapons are not aimed at other weapons, but at major cities as a form of mutual-terror to ensure they are never used. "If you nuke us, we nuke you" is how it goes. And nobody is going to be wasting more than a couple on actual missile sites. The majority will be going to major residential and industrial centers. In the US that would be LA, New York, Seattle, DC, and the like.

There is no point in Russia or anybody nuking largely empty farmland in the Dakotas. Those are all "first use weapons", and are the ones that will be launched first because they can not go anywhere. And missiles are not as easy to "kill" as you think. Especially since the size of warheads has shrunk in the last half century. The missile silos the US has are scattered over almost 10,000 square miles of land. An attacker would literally have to land one on top of each silo to take them out, and no country has that many nukes to throw around, and still have any for more important targets.

Once again, you are simply showing that you do not understand most of these things you are trying to sound authoritative about. MAD does not work on the basis of "First decapitating strike", that line of thought died in the 1960's when ICBMs first came into widespread use. Now, it is all about "If you launch at us, we will launch back at you". Satellites have made it so that nations that have these know within minutes if an attack is inbound, and where it is going to hit. Therefore they can launch any missiles even close to the targets and the inbounds will hit nothing. Meanwhile the return volley will destroy their nation.

 

[Dayton3]

There are no arms limitations treaties with China. The only ones they have signed are the non-proliferation and partial test ban treaties. So even bringing up treaties where there are none is rather pointless.

And you are not grasping the concept of MAD at all. These weapons are not aimed at other weapons, but at major cities as a form of mutual-terror to ensure they are never used. "If you nuke us, we nuke you" is how it goes. And nobody is going to be wasting more than a couple on actual missile sites. The majority will be going to major residential and industrial centers. In the US that would be LA, New York, Seattle, DC, and the like.

There is no point in Russia or anybody nuking largely empty farmland in the Dakotas. Those are all "first use weapons", and are the ones that will be launched first because they can not go anywhere. And missiles are not as easy to "kill" as you think. Especially since the size of warheads has shrunk in the last half century. The missile silos the US has are scattered over almost 10,000 square miles of land. An attacker would literally have to land one on top of each silo to take them out, and no country has that many nukes to throw around, and still have any for more important targets.

Once again, you are simply showing that you do not understand most of these things you are trying to sound authoritative about. MAD does not work on the basis of "First decapitating strike", that line of thought died in the 1960's when ICBMs first came into widespread use. Now, it is all about "If you launch at us, we will launch back at you". Satellites have made it so that nations that have these know within minutes if an attack is inbound, and where it is going to hit. Therefore they can launch any missiles even close to the targets and the inbounds will hit nothing. Meanwhile the return volley will destroy their nation.

Actually most ICBMs are not targeted on cities anymore (unless they are a major nuclear target like Cheyenne, Omaha or Minot).

 

[Mushroom]

Actually most ICBMs are not targeted on cities anymore (unless they are a major nuclear target like Cheyenne, Omaha or Minot).

They are when the city is also a major port, industrial center, or military base.

Seattle because of Boeing and the Navy. LA because a lot of aerospace is still based there (mostly South Bay). San Francisco because of the port. DC because it is a command and control center. New York as a financial center. San Diego, El Paso, Fayetteville, Norfolk, Tucson, Fairfield, Bew Bern - Jacksonville, Honolulu, Pensacola, New Orleans, Anchorage, Fairbanks, and more. Each the site of critical industrial and military importance to the US, and also near large cities.

The targets are not purely "civilian terror" as it was before the 1980's treaties when each side had thousands of the damned things pointed at each other, but the targets they want to take out are still in cities. LA in particular, as within just a few square miles you have over a dozen major military firms. Including Boeing, Raytheon, Northrop-Grumman, Lockheed, Rockedyne, and over a dozen smaller ones. All of those and more are in maybe 1 square mile in El Segundo, primarily on what was once the Hughes campus before it was broken up several decades ago.