Comments on: United States vs China - Consequences of a Nuclear War

By: best america

best america — Sun, 27 May 2007 13:07:00 +0000

america is awesome and Chinese Government is just plain evil. lol we could blow chinese missiles out of the sky.

By: Jake

Jake — Sun, 27 May 2007 13:34:59 +0000

Evil Chinese…depends on who you ask, at least they never invade nobody and rape 12 year old girls and kill her whole family in the next room. Then burn their bodies. Ya gotta love American military huh. Go China, defend peace!

By: Aby

Aby — Tue, 29 May 2007 10:40:27 +0000

@ best america - It is impossible for US to shoot hypersonic ballistic missiles out of sky, at least in the present world. Moscow is the only city in the world to have working and capable Anti-Ballistic Missile defence systems.

For your talk on how Chinese are evil, I think Jake makes a good point.

By: Mayank

Mayank — Tue, 29 May 2007 17:41:49 +0000

lol @ bestamerica

By: CWJ

CWJ — Sat, 23 Jun 2007 06:27:55 +0000

Interesting article! And let’s hope it never happens.
However, China has about a grand total of 32 warheads capable of hitting the USA. While the USA has well over 5,000 that can reach around the globe. A complete mismatch. Especially since America’s Trident II D-5 (submarine launched) missiles, with an accuracy of about 90 meters, can take out all of them in a first strike (by placing each Chinese silo well within the crater of a 100-475 kiloton ground burst).
Minuteman IIIs, as fixed silo weapons, would not likely be used in an exchange. No need for them in this conflict (”use them or lose them” as they say, only applies in conflicts where the opponent has enough offensive weapons to conduct a first strike).
China could only do damage, as massive as it would be, in a first strike against American cities. Which would of course result in thousands of American nukes being launched against military, industrial AND civilian targets throughout China. A dreadful day for humanity…But America would be the decisive victor.
Obviously this could change within 20 years or so, as China continues to research and develop better delivery systems and warhead design.
Take care,
CWJ

By: Aby

Aby — Sat, 23 Jun 2007 07:16:41 +0000

China’s nuclear stockpile, as claimed by the PLA is 350 - 400. And as we know, the CPC government of China, often tries to unquote its military budget, military developments and nuclear warheads unlike Russia. http://cns.miis.edu/research/china/nuc/nstock.htm

As for the damages caused, China’s military is based as a defensive countermeasure against US and Russian attacks. If US were to target Chinese fixed SILOs, it would be able to cause damage in the first wave of strike. But as is evident, the mobile launcher and the JL series of SLBMs will be free for the Chinese counter attack which could then have disastrous consequences.

A Chinese strikeback against US would target primarily on the 20 highly populated US cities, taking out 50 - 100 million of population, after which US might be a victor in the long run but not a winner as the loss of its population would weigh too heavily. This act of deterrance that China’s is capable of, prevent such a nuclear holocaust from happening.

If it comes to a nuclear war, Russia will join the fray as attacks and US capture of China would be against Russia’s strategic interests and national security. And we know what Russia is capable of on a nuclear front….

By: CWJ

CWJ — Sat, 23 Jun 2007 09:48:44 +0000

It is very true that China has 300-400 nuclear weapons. However, like I said only about 32 are capable of striking the United States: the DF-5 ICBM (max total of 20) and the JL-1 SLBM (max total of 12) . None of the other weapons have the range. http://cns.miis.edu/research/china/nuc/nstock.htm
And there is only one single submarine capable of carrying the JL-1.
In reality neither country would ever initiate a war, conventional or nuclear, with the other. But it’s interesting to discuss over a nice cup of tea

By: Aby

Aby — Sat, 23 Jun 2007 10:15:38 +0000

32 DF-5A and 12 JL-1 missiles have been deployed so far. That would not mean that China cannot manufacture and deploy more if a war like situation arises given that the time required to successfully manufacture and deploy an ICBM is less than 5 days. Even if we take the current available and deployed Chinese strategic ballistic missiles into count the the maximum yield of their nuclear warhead, the strike could cause significant loss for USA.

A single 3 MT thermonuclear warhead launched on a DF - 5 detonated a minimum of 300 metres above ground in urban New York or Los Angeles would have a blast radius of 9 km killing 1.2 million on spot. Then the radiation fire and nuclear storm would add about another 0.5 million to the casualties. The 32 available strategic nuclear missiles of China are capable of eliminating 50 million in the first wave as a retaliatory strike. And that is a conservative minimal estimate, it could be as much as 100 million which accounts for 33% of US population.

The losses would be drastic and serious for USA even if it eventually ends up victorious, that such a possibility would prevent US from attempting a war against China as evident from the change of stance since 1964 on the Taiwan issue. Yes, a war scenario is a risky proposition but the deterrence works well to prevent the risky situation. A country can get ahead only after it is militarily secure.

By: CWJ

CWJ — Sat, 23 Jun 2007 13:03:44 +0000

And let us not forget that America’s 5,000+ nukes is a strong deterrent against China ever moving against Japan, South Korea, or even Taiwan.
This is a very unlikely scenario, but weirder things have happened.

Good night Aby,
-CWJ

By: TMJ

TMJ — Mon, 25 Jun 2007 02:54:46 +0000

on cjw’s comments even though the united states has said it will defend taiwan at all cost i highly doubt we would risk launching nuclear weapons at china over taiwan a military battle is likley over the country but after it has been over taken the us would most likley try a diplomatic solution to the war and if that dosent work well hello world war 3

By: Dmitri

Dmitri — Sat, 30 Jun 2007 15:03:46 +0000

@CWJ - I would like to mention that according to US DoD report to Congress that PRC’s DF-5A is capable of being MIRVed with upto 4-6 warheads. At a minimum estimate gives a warhead payload of 20 X 4 = 80. A Xia class submarine can carry upto 12 nuclear tipped JL1 SLBM missiles so no issues here. The DF4 series ICBMs are also capable of reaching the west coast of continental US if launched from East Coast of PRC and there are at least 12 of them.

This adds up to 80+12+12=104 nuclear warheads which China can strike US with, quite lethal and not a bad deterrance.

By: Abraxor

Abraxor — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 07:04:25 +0000

“And let us not forget that America’s 5,000+ nukes is a strong deterrent against China ever moving against Japan, South Korea, or even Taiwan.”
Not likely that one. US wouldn’t risk a nuclear devastation for Taiwan, Japan or South Korea and even for China these territories are too trival to risk a full war. No one wins a decisive victory in a nuclear war as the devastation on infrastructure and economy will set back a country centuries behind.

By: Kaushal

Kaushal — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 10:26:51 +0000

Good points given by Abraxor………….. Nuclear War is not a simple matter…… if US tries to make nuclear war, it would be worriying for that dreadful mistake………………………..

By: michel

michel — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 21:06:59 +0000

the united states already has laser weaponry that is mounted inside modified b 52 bombers and because of are satilites and radar we would be able to see any missiles comeing at us and blow them out of the sky at the speed of light none of chinas missiles would hit us. as a result of this the united states can make any demand they want and if china refuses we can turn china into the solar systems second sun

By: joki

joki — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 07:22:32 +0000

doubtful michel… your calculation has some rather large holes in it.
Russia wouldn’t remain neutral if the USA tries the genocide of 1.3 billion people, they would intervene… forcefully. Both the satellites and the radar wouldn’t work for very long because Russia would start with several high altitude bursts. After the EMP, no more missile interception by USA, and you’d be just as toast as the Chinese.
Just believe it… any missile defense system can be circumvented with enough warheads and a good strategy. Russia is still capable of destroying the USA and likely to remain so for a long time.

By: 13 aces

13 aces — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 20:58:44 +0000

While it can be debated who would “win” a nuclear war out of the big three, I think the real threat is not from there, but from the small and less stable countries who would see using a nuclear weapon as a must against one of the world powers. If a smaller country were to use such action, the retalitory action from China/USA/Russia would have to be extremely thought out as to not trigger responses from other countries. When one country starts throwing nukes, everyone will get very concerned. An ugly day for humanity, no matter who is initially involved.

By: Ethan

Ethan — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 22:28:46 +0000

Where did you hear about U.S. soldiers raping people?

By: Sasha

Sasha — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 07:41:37 +0000

@ Ethan - If you have been living in caves all along and never heard of repeated rapes by US forces in Iraq, read these incidents, which (unfortunately for Americans) came into light because of a guilty consicence who videotaped them -

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/08/07/iraq.familyslain/index.html
http://www.aztlan.net/iraqi_women_raped.htm
http://www.radicalleft.net/blog/_archives/2006/7/1/2078205.html
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=5653

Rapes by American soldiers is barbaric and systematic, not very unlike Japanese rapes of Chinese during the World War 2. Unfortunately, the American media that reports on Iraq is tightly controlled by US government. Moreover the few rapes that come into light are those which got videotaped AND the videotape was leaked to non-American media houses like Al Jazeera. Just a tip of the iceberg, for every videotaped and reported rapes, there are at least 20+ rapes and murders that go unreported and unknown. There won’t be much initiative to report this seeing what happened to the Al Jazeera journalists and headquarters after they dared to report Abu Gharib incidents - their journalists were abuducted, tortured by US forces in Guantanamo without trial and their headquarters bombed. It is Americans who bring the problems on them, it is time for some self introspection and look for their own faults before pointing fingers at others. As we say, the pot shouldn’t be calling the kettle black.

@ michel - This is the stupidest thing I have heard in quite a long while. If its a video game fantasy, I will congratulate on your vivid imagination. If you are serious then I’d impress on you that laser weapons which the US government spent over 51 billion dollars on, turned to be smoke and mirrors. So much so that the Congress cut off the budget as they have not shown to be credible against any missile that travels faster than 3 km/sec (even a 3rd generation ICBM travels @11 km/sec). We have seen from the recent US cold foot in China’s aggression and military policies that the United States cannot make any demand on Chinese. All they have been doing is submit mammoth reports to Congress for members to read during coffee time. I think you’d better update youself on facts before making ignorant remarks that makes Americans look immature and stupid.

By: nofal

nofal — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 15:08:18 +0000

@Sasha

great work this is true wars may cause rape or in Americas case, I don’t think they should have the spunk to turn up here again or comment about this rape topic

By: Dave

Dave — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 22:38:12 +0000

All the techno babble aside the United States may well end up in a Nuclear war one of these days soon (most likely of all nations to be involved first strike imo) but we could never win it any more than anyone else can. Ask yourself this, if the Romans had such a weapon in the waning day’s of their empire and they were declared villians by those who once sought their protection or favor - would they have used it?

I think the answer is yes, not because they were Villans or because the average Roman cared about the Glory of Rome but because they were afraid and would do anything to protect their way of life.
And in the end I think thats most likely, America is stretched thin both in terms of our economy and our Military trying to protect our interest and borders (literal and virtual) as were the Romans in the end.
We cant understand how the world blames us when genocide happens in places like rwanda and we dont intervene but condems us when we do like in the balklands. No one seems angry at the French for whats going on in the Congo? Or the Chinese for Tibet? Cant remeber them going in to stop ethnic cleansing or rioting in some poor nation like somalia?

It seems we are surrounded by enemies both declared and not and allies that wont help us save a few. We know that no one can win a Nuclear war in the end, the Global economy would be destroyed, disease, famine and radiation would kill billions regardless of who starts it or ends it.
I think most Americans would support it to protect our way of life in the end - go figure.

And as for the comments about Rape by US Troops I’m not saying it does not happen but I suggest you read some history books about War and get back to us on that. In fact google what the Russians did when they took Berlin at the end of WW2 or what the Serbs did in Croatia recently.
It’s deplorable and it pains all Americans to think we are capable of such a horror but it happens god forgive us. I ask you this - do you think your Country’s Military so pious as to not have individuals who would visit this evil on helpless civilians if they thought the could get away with it?
It’s not an excuse just the truth about about our ugly human condition American or otherwise.

Nuclear War?

By: farmer-general

farmer-general — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 06:36:59 +0000

I must say, that all the conjecture and rhetoric is mind blowing, however facts are facts. The chinese military is and has always been based on sheer numbers for it’s projected strength. It has long been known that there technical prowess is greatly mocked and much inflated to their actual capabilities of any type of first strike. furthermore, the technology they do portray is stolen, and antiquated from the former soviet union, the united states and france. Albeit it has improved in the last decade, greatly impart to some very disturbing,and short sighted trading of technologies under the clinton administration. But, I must stick on point that America’s strength is due, to a near global superority in advanced technical systems i.e ground based gps targeting, incredibly effective satelite targeting with submarine launched ballistic missles which are a MIRV system, and a tactical first strike weapon soley designed for just such a mission. However, the targets at that time were solemnly more formidable in the Soviet union. In addition there are now 3 highly accurate ABM systems deployed throughout the northern atlantic theater, the northeastern-asian pacific theater and the 3rd is to be deployed late ‘08 early 09′ in the polish-czech regions of eastern europe. Which in large part is why we are seeing the russian military begin to flex and portray a stronger shadow, Unfortunately with this extremely advanced ABM technology breakthrough it does open the possibility of hard times with Russia, which is not entirely it’s design strategy. Russia knowing this systems capabilities,know this puts it in an extremely vulnerable position. However due to the increased revenue from it’s energy resources as of late, it has began to now spend huge amounts on a very simular system to feel protected from what it belives is a american/ E.U dominance. But, that being said, any conflict with China regarding the release of nuclear weapon systems would be the almost certain destruction of the paper dragon as we know it. And any thought that a substantial chinese infliction of damage on American soil or it’s population centers is at best a huge roll of the dice. Being a military officer, and scholar i do realize that no system is perfect especially advanced electronic warfare systems, but redundancy is a major part of the design in ALL ADVANCED U.S WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY. China would be better suited to amass it’s 795 million troops and take us on in a conventional assault. All points being, a very dark day in Mankinds history. I usually stand on the sidelines and look through the window on such subjects, but when i read all of your incredibly bluazey, uniformed opinons, I felt the need to grab a few of you by your knickers and try to instill the premise to go to your respective regions of the globe, and shout out on high, loud and clear that this madness is not acceptable. That we as human beings, people, mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, cousins, nieghbors, farmers, teachers, students cannot, mind you, will not allow such an act, no a hanious crime to take place. I take my oath to defend my country against all enemies, foriegn and DOMESTIC seriously. But if I was to allow such action to occur, I ask you…. What good is my country at that point, what good is this gorgouse gift, Earth. To any of us ever again.

By: Canuck

Canuck — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 07:11:35 +0000

Alright farmer-general, give it to me straight: Your ABMs in Alaska, do they work by shooting down the nukes over the Pacific/Arctic? Or are they pointed the other way and take them down over northern Canada?

By: David

David — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 06:53:10 +0000

UUUUmmmmmm are we all forgetting something here. In Nuclear war there will be NO victors for the ecosystem of the planet (the only one we have and the one both sides depend on) will be so severely damaged by the war that most countries will be destroyed maybe not by nuclear fire but by starvation and society’s breakdown on both sides of the conflict. If you think the current economic crisis is bad you “ain’t seen nothing yet” if nuclear war occurs. If the big nuclear players use their weapons we are all stuffed even if we weren’t involved. Its likely down here in the South Pacific we have the best chance of surviving how big that chance is who knows but it won’t be pretty for anyone. The global ecology will be so damaged even if you won the war you would be destroyed by the peace afterwards. Both sides need to eat.