Voluntary servitude disguised as a "nuclear deal" - Page 10

zraver · 05-23-2008, 01:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Z,

You're over-estimating the Indian nuclear arsenal. The biggest bomb they're claiming is 50kt range. They have not mastered the multi-megaton bombs ... and it seems that they don't want to. You cannot MIRV multi-megaton warheads.

While the Chinese DF-5s did carry multi-megaton warheads, those warheads have long since passed their shelf life and the new warheads are within the 5-150kt range.

2ndly, the Sichian Earthquakes dwarfed both the Chinese and Indian arsenals combined and the Chengdu Military Region remained viable and effective in disaster relief.

I seriously doubt the Indian arsenal even 4 times its current size can collapse Chinese civilization. The American and Russian arsenals can but only with the activation of the component arsenal.

OoE, I will say I disagree. the recent quake was localized so the rest of China could come to the rescue. In a nuclear exchange the result would be quite different. While India's warheads are not much bigger the US WW2 bombs (2-4 times the size) modern Chinese cities are much more densely packed. This of course means more "burned babies" as you put it, but it also means blast damage and disruption will be far more effective.

At the end of WW2 with far less than 50 cities leveled and a much smaller population and geographic area Germany was facing starvation. The principe reason for this was the destruction of the German transportation net works.

50 of China's biggest population centers wipes the ability to move supplies on anythign like a national level impossible. It also blocks immediate aid, and hampers long term efforts even if the International Community decides it wants to send aid. The destruction visited on the port facilities will be immense. Even if the ships already tied up don't sink. The shockwave will almost assuredly knock the cranes off thier tracks. This means supplies are not getting unloaded. trying to feed a nation of a billion souls without a function road/rail grid, ports at 20% or less of capacity, and mass refugee waves will I think be impossible. In 2005, 40% of China's population was urban Globalis - an interactive world map - China - Urban Population Once the food runs out this mob will create dead zones around them as the refugees eat out every living thing. As the DZ circles come into contact with each other the die off and disorder will be highest.

take a look at this map http://acc6.its.brooklyn.cuny.edu/~p...s/chnmapeb.gif Draw 200mi radius circles around each one. The bulk of the Chinese population I estimate around 80% will be swallowed up in this refugee crisis.

**Officer of Engineers** · 05-23-2008, 01:38 AM

Z,

The big difference between WWII Germany and this scenario is that we destroyed those transportation hubs and kept them destroyed. I know the Rhine Bridges were subject to no less than 100 missions.

Indian nukes may very well destroy initially Chinese transportation hubs but they are not going to prevent them from being rebuilt.

There are seven Military Regions in China. Each has the equivalent of a reduced Engineers Division (about 2-2 and 1/2 regts) and that is not counting national assets such as the 2nd Artillery Corps. Lastly, you're talking railways, not paved roads. The Chinese could do 1 km a day.

zraver · 05-23-2008, 02:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Z,

The big difference between WWII Germany and this scenario is that we destroyed those transportation hubs and kept them destroyed. I know the Rhine Bridges were subject to no less than 100 missions.

Indian nukes may very well destroy initially Chinese transportation hubs but they are not going to prevent them from being rebuilt.

There are seven Military Regions in China. Each has the equivalent of a reduced Engineers Division (about 2-2 and 1/2 regts) and that is not counting national assets such as the 2nd Artillery Corps. Lastly, you're talking railways, not paved roads. The Chinese could do 1 km a day.

OoE,your still talking months to reach and feed the non-coastal populations with evena subsistence diet. Most of them will be dead by then. Some of China's trains are still coal fired, but more and more they are electric. It has long been assume that any nuclear exchange would involve FOBS. Even more localized becuase of the smaller Indian warheads thats a lot of dead cars, trucks, transformers and trains that need to be cleared and or repaired. Most bridges will still be up- nukes are not very good anti-bridging weapons. its all the associated carnage that is the problem. if we were talking even 20 years ago I would agree with you. But China's leap into the first world brought with in all the Achilles heels of the modern world.

kuku · 05-23-2008, 02:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Z,

You're over-estimating the Indian nuclear arsenal. The biggest bomb they're claiming is 50kt range. They have not mastered the multi-megaton bombs ... and it seems that they don't want to. You cannot MIRV multi-megaton warheads.

While the Chinese DF-5s did carry multi-megaton warheads, those warheads have long since passed their shelf life and the new warheads are within the 5-150kt range.

2ndly, the Sichian Earthquakes dwarfed both the Chinese and Indian arsenals combined and the Chengdu Military Region remained viable and effective in disaster relief.

I seriously doubt the Indian arsenal even 4 times its current size can collapse Chinese civilization. The American and Russian arsenals can but only with the activation of the component arsenal.

The government has not claimed anything with regards to the warhead that are in service (size, yield etc. etc.)

They have claimed nuclear tests, which are (i think) disputed amongst the different scientists around the world.

One more question, if you dont mind me asking.

Will China trust the Anti Ballistic System role to the variants of S-300 system?
(as you said something configured for SCUD type SRBMs),

As the Indian ABM is targeted mostly at SRBMs at best effective against MRBM targeted at Pakistani missiles, with DRDO claiming in some news reports to be working towards the development of defence systems against longer ranged missiles.

So currently is this capability applicable in the India China Scenario?

Deltacamelately · 05-23-2008, 06:34 AM

Quote:

Turn missile buildup against China

By RichardFisher, Jr

Saturday, Jun 11, 2005, Page 8
Revelations in last Sunday's China Times that Taiwan has tested a 1,000km-range capable land attack cruise missile (LACM) proves an axiom: China's military buildup will not stop an Asian defensive response. Taiwan is merely joining a list of other countries, which so far include India and South Korea, in developing their own capabilities in response to China's deployment or proliferation of missile or nuclear weapon technologies.

Compared to Beijing's mounting ballistic and cruise missile threat, Taipei's missile development programs are miniscule. Taiwan's Ministry of National Defense claims China now targets over 700 DF-15 and DF-11 class short-range ballistic missiles at Taiwan, a number that will exceed 800 next year. By the end of this year, China's new class of LACM could reach 200 deployed. At this rate, by 2010 China could have up to 2,000 ballistic and cruise missiles pointed at Taiwan. And as they are all road or rail mobile, if they are not used against Taiwan, they could be rapidly re-targeted against Korea, Japan, Vietnam, India or Russia.

For Taiwan, China's growing missile threat requires a different calculus to achieve "defense."

Buying ever greater numbers of missile defenses like the US PAC-2 and PAC-3 systems is financially prohibitive, and next-generation energy-based weapons like lasers, which could "fire" thousands of rounds for the cost of electricity, will not be available until later in the next decade. The only affordable near-term alternative is to develop "offensive" systems to target Chinese military capabilities and contribute to deterrence.

For example, if Taiwanese missiles were able to destroy most Chinese forces massing for an invasion, then Taipei could probably survive Beijing's missile and air attacks, meaning Taiwan would "win" the war. As the regime in Beijing would likely not survive such failure, not to mention the global economic embargoes and decades of political ignominy to follow, "offensive" Taiwanese missiles could achieve decisive deterrence.

Taiwan's missile effort remains tightly guarded, but open reports note Taiwan's ability to convert its Sky Bow anti-aircraft missile into a multi-stage ballistic missile, while the Hsiung Feng II-E, a 1,000km-range LACM, is reported to have just completed a successful test. Taiwan has also tested the 300km-range Hsiung Feng III, a supersonic ramjet-powered anti-ship missile.

Of these, only the latter is said to be nearly ready for production. But the reality of China's growing missile, air-strike, naval-blockade and airborne/amphibious invasion capabilities requires that Taiwan intensify its missile programs, especially when considering China's increasing ability to impede or prevent US and Japanese military forces from reaching Taiwan.

Other countries long ago started developing missile and other weapons to defend against Chinese nuclear missiles and their proliferation. India's robust ballistic missile, cruise missile and submarine-launched missile programs are designed to deter Chinese weapons deployed on two fronts: those in China that could be targeted against India, and the Chinese-designed nuclear-armed missiles "manufactured" by Pakistan.

India is also interested in missile defenses, which are being encouraged by Washington. South Korea and Japan face a significant North Korean nuclear weapons threat, which was made possible with discreet Chinese support. Seoul is a reluctant and recent investor in missile defenses, but is also developing ballistic missiles to deter Pyongyang.

Earlier this year former Japanese Defense Agency director Ishiba Shigeru said that in 2003 Japan had considered buying US Tomahawk cruise missiles, mainly to counter North Korea. Japan instead opted to accelerate missile defense development with the US.

Washington has three options to counter China's regional ballistic and cruise-missile threats. The first and preferred US option is to deploy sufficient deterrent capabilities in cooperation with allies. Washington is now in the process of increasing visible forces like the 7th Fleet in Yokosuka, or air and naval forces deployed on Okinawa and Guam. But these are increasingly vulnerable to Chinese missile and air attack.

Invisible deterrent forces thus gain increasing importance, like the four Ohio-class nuclear ballistic-missile submarines now being converted to carry 154 Tomohawk LACMs each. But this number can only support one LACM submarine deployed, when the US needs at least four on continuous duty, meaning that about 12 LACM carriers plus escorting attack subs should be built -- unlikely given the Navy's current budget woes.

A second option would be to vastly increase US investments in the development of energy-based weapons like lasers, high-power microwaves and rail guns. While high-power microwaves may be deployable in bomb form by the end of this decade, laser and rail guns may not be ready until later in the next decade.

Both lasers and rail guns hold the potential to instantly change the strategic balance in the Taiwan Strait to favor defense, with their ability to fire thousands of bursts or rounds capable of intercepting Chinese missiles. With a potential range of 370km, rail guns could also quickly defeat surface naval blockade forces and both naval and air invasion forces.

To accelerate the development of these systems Washington might welcome Taiwanese, Japanese and Indian investments in specific US programs.

A third option would be to follow China's example and assist Taiwan, Japan, India and others to develop better deterrent capabilities, or even to provide technologies that indirectly support their existing national efforts.

Washington should be flexible. Assisting regional allied defensive deterrent capabilities should be an option if Washington cannot afford sufficient new regional deterrent capabilities or if it is not able to field new advanced technology defensive technologies soon enough.

The US should turn Beijing's massive missile buildup against itself by enabling the targets of Beijing's missiles to defend and deter. In the Taiwan Strait, this might severely undermine Beijing's coercive "reunification" strategy, which could also diminish the regime's militarist-nationalist basis for legitimacy and stability. Unless it reverses its missile proliferation and buildup, China should be made to reap what it sows.

Richard Fisher, Jr is the vice president of the International Assessment and Strategy Center, a Washington-based think tank.

More stuff.

**Officer of Engineers** · 05-23-2008, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zraver

OoE,your still talking months to reach and feed the non-coastal populations with evena subsistence diet. Most of them will be dead by then. Some of China's trains are still coal fired, but more and more they are electric. It has long been assume that any nuclear exchange would involve FOBS. Even more localized becuase of the smaller Indian warheads thats a lot of dead cars, trucks, transformers and trains that need to be cleared and or repaired. Most bridges will still be up- nukes are not very good anti-bridging weapons. its all the associated carnage that is the problem. if we were talking even 20 years ago I would agree with you. But China's leap into the first world brought with in all the Achilles heels of the modern world.

Again, the Sichuan earthquakes prove otherwise. Even taking your census to be correct that 60% of China's population is rural, that's 60% survival rate. Farms in China are not dependent on technology (ie, oil) but good old fashion muscle power. Most of China's population are still dependent on the land, ie food to mouth existence.

Secondly, you way over-estimating the damage. Hiroshima was only 10 square city blocks destroyed. The rest of the immediate casualties was the shockwave and firestorm that resulted. Those population centres you mention are concrete; further reducing the damage.

Third, even a one megaton bomb cannot destroy both a rail station hub and the local supermarket at the opposite ends of the city.

Fourth, the most immediate and drastic need is water, clean water. If the Chinese can restore that, then it further reduces any more future casualties. Also, if you can control the water, you have order.

Fifth, the Chengdu Military Region is located within the Earthquake zone. They were the first ones and the biggest ones who responded, not the rest of China. In other words, local authority too responsibility.

Sixth, again, the Sichuan earthquakes dwarf anything both the Indians and Chinese could do. We're not talking 10 city blocks or even 100 city blocks or even an entire city. We're talking whole mountains tossing everything into the air and landing somewhere else and that included the roads.

A whole lot of people died but a whole lot of people survived and the rescue effort was done by foot travel, hand shovels, and bare hands.

**Officer of Engineers** · 05-23-2008, 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deltacamelately

More stuff.

Major,

Read Rick for the raw intel but don't draw too much from his conclusions. They're in fantasy land.

Jay · 05-23-2008, 13:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Fourth, the most immediate and drastic need is water, clean water. If the Chinese can restore that, then it further reduces any more future casualties. Also, if you can control the water, you have order.

Exactly. I dont know how much radiation poisoning will result in the blow up of dams, as water is used to combat radiation. Also, if both are targeting each other's infrastructure, I shudder blowing up 3 Gorges or a similar dam in India. The resulting flood damage will be phenomenal. Thats brings to the point whether these 2 countries would really fight.

**Officer of Engineers** · 05-23-2008, 14:00 PM

It would be one hell of a shot to do so. Damns by the very nature are situated between two mountains. You're more likely to hit the side of the mountains than the damns themselves. You could in theory sink the nuke into the water and create a tidal surge but the 3 Gorges is a gravity damn which most likely get a lot of spillage.

I can see aircrafts doing it but it would be one hell of a rocket shot.

**Officer of Engineers** · 05-23-2008, 14:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kuku

The government has not claimed anything with regards to the warhead that are in service (size, yield etc. etc.)

They have claimed nuclear tests, which are (i think) disputed amongst the different scientists around the world.

What I have gather is all open source materials.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kuku

One more question, if you dont mind me asking.

Will China trust the Anti Ballistic System role to the variants of S-300 system?
(as you said something configured for SCUD type SRBMs),

As the Indian ABM is targeted mostly at SRBMs at best effective against MRBM targeted at Pakistani missiles, with DRDO claiming in some news reports to be working towards the development of defence systems against longer ranged missiles.

So currently is this capability applicable in the India China Scenario?

The thing about PLA watching is that you don't know their programs until they are deployed. Unlike India and the West, the CCP is not in the habbit of announcing vapourware. That doesn't mean that they don't have vapourware but the target audience is not the general public.

So, to answer your question, I don't know. I do know that they've done the work for longer range system including using a nuke to shoot down a nuke (not a good idea if you national command authority to release a nuke).

One of my favourite sayings with the PLA is that I don't have the evidence.

Jay · 05-23-2008, 14:34 PM

Col,
Even if you hit a salvo on the mountains, that would also result in a tidal force that might collapse the dam. Also, I'm not sure of the terrain where 3 gorges is situated but the dam is about 2,335 metres in length, thats almost 2kms, and all we need is one shot. Also I think the catchment area is huge for 3 gorges, so there is always a possibility of tidal spillage.

Quote:

According to earlier reports in the state media, China has deployed military helicopters, patrol boats, armored vehicles and bomb disposal units near the 180-billion-yuan (22.5-billion-dollar) project.

China has conducted several rounds of anti-terrorist exercises in the area, including one that simulated an assault with a boat brimming with explosives.

The dam is robustly built, and officials say it will be able to withstand any conventional attack, whether from terrorists or from hostile foreign powers.

It is also located more than 1,000 kilometers (620 miles) from any coastline, making it a harder target, Cao argued.

The worst-case scenario would be an assault with a nuclear weapon. In that case, China has only one option, according to Cao.

"If there's a nuclear attack, the main procedure will be to draw down the whole reservoir," he said. "The Three Gorges dam is equipped with sufficient flood discharge capacity."

The crucial job to get done before the enemy can strike is to empty the reservoir of the 22 billion cubic meters (770 billion cubic feet) accumulated above the 145-meter mark.

That could be done in as little as two to three days, as the dam is able to release up to 110,000 cubic meters per second, Cao estimated.

It takes a lot less time for a nuclear missile to strike, and if these precautions fail, and the dam takes a direct hit, disaster would be impossible to prevent. The only question would be how much it could be curbed.

But officials claim computer simulations have shown that the damage would not go all the way down to Shanghai where the Yangtze spills into the East China Sea.

"While preparing for the dam, we conducted a lot of studies into what would happen if it were destroyed," said Wang Xiaomao, deputy chief engineer at the Yangtze River Water Resources Committee.

"Even if there is a war and the dam is wracked, there'll be limited damage."

The state-controlled China Daily newspaper reported last year that channels had been dug out downstream to divert excess water released from a wrecked dam.

Officials said probably the best argument for going ahead with the dam was the idea that nothing would ever be built if you were overpowered by anxiety that it might be broken.

"The construction of the Three Gorges dam will be very beneficial to China's economy, and we should not give up this development opportunity just because we fear war," said Cao.
China's mega dam built to defy attacks from terrorists, enemies

Huh, who would give 2-3 days time for China to empty the reservoir, why would they even think that way

But it is Gen.Cao, so there is some sort of sanity there in the thinking.

**Officer of Engineers** · 05-23-2008, 15:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jay

Even if you hit a salvo on the mountains, that would also result in a tidal force that might collapse the dam.

You're absolutely right. I don't know why that thought escaped me. I must have been having a Jurassic moment to quote a certain Major.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jay

Huh, who would give 2-3 days time for China to empty the reservoir, why would they even think that way

But it is Gen.Cao, so there is some sort of sanity there in the thinking.

I think Gen Cao is being overly optimistic. As much as I respect the man, he can be wrong too.

However, the 3 Gorges Damn being a gravity damn would be a damned hard nut to crack. A surface impact or even a light penetration nuke would not do the job. A too deep penetration and the rubble stays where they are and while weakening the damn but not to the point of failure.

Blademaster · 05-23-2008, 16:00 PM

Just so you know, Indian Army testfired Prithvi as part of user trials and it went off successfully. This is like the 20th time that IA has fired a Prithvi missile.

The next step would be a salvo of missiles.

**Officer of Engineers** · 05-23-2008, 16:06 PM

I think that is a mistake on the Indian part. They've got a fantastic AF who can deliver bombs far more accurate than any rocket could.

Blademaster · 05-23-2008, 17:38 PM

This is a cheap way of training for launching BMs without ruffling any feathers. I put this for your viewing because it shows that once the IA gets the Agni in its hands, it will have already trained units who have been practicing with Prithvis under the radar to readily handle and operate the Agni missiles. If the IA starting firing Agnis, it will raise a lot of eyebrows. So instead of launching Agnis, they are using Prithvis.

05-23-2008, 01:38 AM	#137 (permalink)
Officer of Engineers *Military Professional* Moderator Scotch taster Join Date: 08-06-03 Posts: 17,059 Country:	Z, The big difference between WWII Germany and this scenario is that we destroyed those transportation hubs and kept them destroyed. I know the Rhine Bridges were subject to no less than 100 missions. Indian nukes may very well destroy initially Chinese transportation hubs but they are not going to prevent them from being rebuilt. There are seven Military Regions in China. Each has the equivalent of a reduced Engineers Division (about 2-2 and 1/2 regts) and that is not counting national assets such as the 2nd Artillery Corps. Lastly, you're talking railways, not paved roads. The Chinese could do 1 km a day. __________________ Chimo

05-23-2008, 17:38 PM	#150 (permalink)
Blademaster Military Enthusiast *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 08-15-03 Posts: 3,257	This is a cheap way of training for launching BMs without ruffling any feathers. I put this for your viewing because it shows that once the IA gets the Agni in its hands, it will have already trained units who have been practicing with Prithvis under the radar to readily handle and operate the Agni missiles. If the IA starting firing Agnis, it will raise a lot of eyebrows. So instead of launching Agnis, they are using Prithvis. Last edited by Blademaster : 05-23-2008 at 17:40 PM.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

05-23-2008, 14:00 PM	#144 (permalink)
Officer of Engineers *Military Professional* Moderator Scotch taster Join Date: 08-06-03 Posts: 17,059 Country:	It would be one hell of a shot to do so. Damns by the very nature are situated between two mountains. You're more likely to hit the side of the mountains than the damns themselves. You could in theory sink the nuke into the water and create a tidal surge but the 3 Gorges is a gravity damn which most likely get a lot of spillage. I can see aircrafts doing it but it would be one hell of a rocket shot.

05-23-2008, 16:00 PM	#148 (permalink)
Blademaster Military Enthusiast *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 08-15-03 Posts: 3,257	Just so you know, Indian Army testfired Prithvi as part of user trials and it went off successfully. This is like the 20th time that IA has fired a Prithvi missile. The next step would be a salvo of missiles.

05-23-2008, 16:06 PM	#149 (permalink)
Officer of Engineers *Military Professional* Moderator Scotch taster Join Date: 08-06-03 Posts: 17,059 Country:	I think that is a mistake on the Indian part. They've got a fantastic AF who can deliver bombs far more accurate than any rocket could.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)