Any effective use of Chinese Nuclear weapons during the War.

[kato13]

The thread on "The Ural: Her fate in T2K" led me to think of where the Chinese might have used their nuclear weapons effectively.

I know that canon presents Chinese nuclear response as being for the most part ineffective, but the possibility of a strike on Soviet ports led me to think if there were any cases where Chinese might have been effective.

When trying to think of how the Chinese might be able to handle the ship, my mind went to the possibility demo charges being delivered by naval special forces. Replacing that with a nuke does not seem like a stretch (with the exception of the chaos presented within Chinese command after the nukes start).

Anyone have any thoughts?

[Olefin]

I would think that the Chinese would have been able to make at least battlefiled nuclear strikes - or things like leaving nukes buried and then blowing them up as the Russians advanced - I think the way the timeline is talking is more about the inability of the Chinese to make strategic nuclear strikes

even then - most likely any battlefield or demo charges would have been limited - they just didnt have that many weapons

[mikeo80]

I think Olefin has it right. Local strikes at best.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_a...ss_destruction

According to this article (Yeah, I know it's Wiki, but it's what we got.)

2005 China estimated to have 80 - 2000 warheads. So 1990's scenario, we could guess 40 - 300? Not a huge stockpile. Some went down with the aircraft and rockets shot down by Russian AA or ABM. So what ever is left MUST be local use only.

My $0.02

Mike

[kato13]

Real world this link puts the weapon count in 1995 at 450. With the potential to expand to 3 times that number.

http://www.wisconsinproject.org/coun...a/nuc-amb.html

U.S. officials estimate that China has roughly 450 nuclear warheads, though China has produced enough weapon-grade uranium and plutonium to build an arsenal more than three times that size. In August, China conducted its 43rd nuclear weapon test. U.S. analysts expect that Beijing will test again this year, and maybe two or three times in 1996 before an international treaty to ban nuclear tests comes into effect.

Of course this is only speculation and the source has the incentive to inflate the number (a non proliferation group).


Edit additional (seemingly less partisan) source puts the number at 300 for the beginning of 1995

http://www.sipri.org/yearbook/1995/09

At the beginning of 1995, there were at least 20 000 nuclear warheads in the operational inventories of the declared nuclear weapon states: 7770 strategic and several hundred tactical warheads for the USA; 8527 strategic and 2000-6000 tactical warheads for the CIS; 250-300 warheads for the UK; just over 500 warheads for France; and approximately 300 warheads for China.

Given they have the winter of 95 and half of 96 to build more I expect the number to go at least a bit higher.

[Olefin]

all depends on how heavy the Russians might have hit those facilities during the war before it went nuclear - they could have been priority targets and no new nukes after war start -or they could be building like crazy right up to the first nuke strike

also depends on where they are located - its one thing if Manchuria or northern china - easy strike targets - hitting them in south China is different though

[mikeo80]

So, my "hand wave" of approx. 300 warheads not too far gone??

In that timeframe, China was always thought of as an afterthought in the nuclear war scenarios. I once heard (very un-official) that the basic plan was to empty an Ohio class SSBM at China. 24 Trident II's with 10 - 12 warheads per. Send that firepower at the 240 largest Chinese cities, the population death toll is UNREAL..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ban_population

And this list is the top 40. I could see Hong Kong being spared.

My $0.02

Mike

[kato13]

Originally Posted by mikeo80

So, my "hand wave" of approx. 300 warheads not too far gone??

Not at all. The number only gives a high end though. Even if they had 1000 they could have only used 10 (or even none) effectively given the right circumstances.

When you look at the cold war numbers for the US and USSR the game documents only 322 strikes from well over 20000 warheads. (~1.6%)

Yes these are only for strikes in the UK, USA, Canada, Europe and the USSR and sub 500kt strikes are not fully documented, but it certainly does not indicate that anywhere near a majority of the warheads were used effectively.

[kato13]

Originally Posted by Olefin

all depends on how heavy the Russians might have hit those facilities during the war before it went nuclear - they could have been priority targets and no new nukes after war start -or they could be building like crazy right up to the first nuke strike

also depends on where they are located - its one thing if Manchuria or northern china - easy strike targets - hitting them in south China is different though

Found this



Don't know the timing of this data but they seem to have spread the R&D facilities around.

edit
It actually looks like this map was last updated sometime before 1999. Ironically they feel that reduces it worth but makes it more appropriate for us

http://cns.miis.edu/china/index.htm

[kato13]

http://cns.miis.edu/archive/country_...nuc/nstock.htm

Good numbers here from Nov 1996

[Matt Wiser]

Remember, people, some of the PRC's nuclear forces are inherently survivable. Their IRBMs and MRBMs can be mobile if need be, and some of the latter can be stored in caves instead of silos, and moved to presurveyed launch positions. Though their SSBN force is a far different story: they have the boats, but no workable missile....

[Targan]

This is excellent. How have we never had this discussion before?

[kato13]

Originally Posted by Targan

This is excellent. How have we never had this discussion before?

I was surprised as well.

I just went through the Soviet Vehicle Guide to find how many divisions were subjected to nuclear strikes (with damage meriting a mention) per theater.

13 Europe/Western Asia
3 Middle East
1 Far East (and this one is attributed to Soviet Strikes)

While this might be attributable to the Chinese inability to hit moving targets, they still could hit potentially hit fixed targets like ports.

[mikeo80]

Originally Posted by kato13

Not at all. The number only gives a high end though. Even if they had 1000 they could have only used 10 (or even none) effectively given the right circumstances.

When you look at the cold war numbers for the US and USSR the game documents only 322 strikes from well over 20000 warheads. (~1.6%)

Yes these are only for strikes in the UK, USA, Canada, Europe and the USSR and sub 500kt strikes are not fully documented, but it certainly does not indicate that anywhere near a majority of the warheads were used effectively.

I agree with what you say, Kato.'

There is another side to this. Both the US and the USSR were trying to keep the strategic weapons in the silos, boomers, and on the ground with the aircraft. So, "A strike here and a strike there" was acceptable.

152 Million dead in the USA, probably the same in USSR, 100 - 200 million dead in Europe, who knows how many in China, South America, Africa, Middle East all had strikes.

With out MAD taking over. IIRC, in v4 of Morrow Project, the USA got 500-1000MT.
EDIT: I re read V4 of TMP. USA and Canada ONLY got 500+ MT.

My $0.02

Mike

[mikeo80]

To Targan:

Awwww!!!! Look at the little kitty!!!

My $0.02

Mike