April 5, 2025
10 Guests and Online

Please consider Sign Uping
guest

sp_LogInOut Log In sp_Registration Sign Up

Sign Up | Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —




— Match —





— Forum Options —





Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

No permission to create posts
HookUpSpot
Pizza Vending Machine
February 15, 2013
10:04 am
scruffy
Moderator
Members

Moderators
Forum Posts: 11447
Member Since:
May 22, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

after the latest start treaty, russia and the us are supposed to limit their strategic arsenals to around 3500 warheads. 

so far, i havent found any source claiming that china has ever had more than 400 warheads, total.  most say around 250. 

assuming perfect accuracy and zero countermeasures, that means a maximum of 250 targets that china can destroy.  most of those targets would be military or industrial centers, with a smattering of major population centers.  plus, plenty of those warshots would be aimed at south korea, japan, probably russia, too.  the chinese and the russians traditionally dont get along particularly well. 

meanwhile, the american counterforce strike would reduce that by a large margin.  for the birds that actually get aloft, well, the american abm program is pretty damned good. 

china does have up to six ssbs, submarines with icbms.  im really not worried about those, since im sure each of them has at least one attack sub sitting on it at all times.  if they tried to launch, expect them to be sunk before the last missile leaves its silo. 

all in all, the nuclear threat is fairly small, especially considering what it once was.  the only significant nuclear arsenal, other than the us, is russia, and they are even more afraid of m.a.d. than we are.  a nuclear war in the modern age would be messy, sure, but probably survivable.  for most. 

  awfully paranoid, arent you?   

February 15, 2013
10:13 am
Cabal
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2381
Member Since:
September 17, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Just remember that 250 number was before they went underground and shortly after they started making them. Info has leaked and the states don't believe it, yet their only answer to the actual number is we don't know.

 

I wouldn't want to find out if it's survivable 

Claps hands

February 15, 2013
10:13 am
Cabal
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2381
Member Since:
September 17, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

patjoyce said:

They're not nearly as accurate though. They never mastered the art of accuracy.

Even more terrifying 

Claps hands

February 15, 2013
10:48 am
scruffy
Moderator
Members

Moderators
Forum Posts: 11447
Member Since:
May 22, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Just remember that 250 number was before they went underground and shortly after they started making them.

they started making them in the mid 60s. 

mass-manufacturing nuclear weapons is not like building computers, it is difficult, expensive, time consuming, manpower intensive, and severely restricted by the amount of fissile material you can obtain [generally plutonium], which is monitored more closely than anything else on earth.  reasonable estimates from the various professionals who worry about this shit for a living range up to the hundreds.  im talking about today, not fifty years ago.  china itself claims to have the smallest nuclear arsenal of the major nuclear powers. 

since 1992, china has been a signatory to the nonproliferation treaty.  best estimates from just a couple years ago dont even approach a thousand, usually around 250.  i find it unlikely in the extreme that china could increase its inventory more than tenfold, without it being very obvious. 

  awfully paranoid, arent you?   

February 15, 2013
10:58 am
Cabal
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2381
Member Since:
September 17, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I've read all of those reports and they are always different numbers. The States even said this …

 

According to the International Panel on Fissile Materials, China has produced an estimated 2 tons of plutonium for weapons. Some has been consumed in nuclear tests, leaving roughly 1.8 tons. The estimate is consistent with what the U.S. government has stated and theoretically enough for 450-600 warheads.

 

Total production of HEU is thought to have been approximately 20 tons. Some has been spent in nuclear tests and research reactor fuel, leaving a stockpile of some 16 tons. That’s theoretically enough for roughly 640-1,060 warheads.

 

I've posted this video on here before but it's a good one 

 

Claps hands

No permission to create posts
Forum Timezone: America/Chicago

Most Users Ever Online: 620

Currently Online:
18 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

The Warlock: 11727

King Lucem Ferre: 9104

Old Mr Dangerous: 9075

krunk: 8348

OCJ_Brendan: 6148

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 755

Members: 5995

Moderators: 6

Admins: 2

Forum Stats:

Groups: 5

Forums: 28

Topics: 12371

Posts: 246657

Newest Members:

segastamp, Janetpemia, HrushevFew, NormanRox, Davidelott

Moderators: GanjaGoblin: 2891, Psyral: 4297, bozodklown: 394, scruffy: 11447, PunkRockJuggalo: 6559, Pigg: 6492

Administrators: admin: 1, ScottieD: 845