SLBM - a credible/reliable MAD?

it is apparent that the chinese is trying to secure a MAD with the US, the JL2 (DF31) SLBM, and the coming JL3 (DF41) SLBM are considered crucial in archieving MAD by the chinese and the US war planner

the world military news (to be found on various military forums... LOL!!! ) are centered on the US, Russia, China + some rough states

little is known about the rest of the world

questions:-

1) seriuosly, beside Russia, who else has MAD with the US?

2) is SLBM a credible/reliable forms of MAD

3) who else, beside US has credible/reliable SLBM force?

why is the chinese not following the Russian route, you know... just built thousands of land based ICBM instead of the expensive SLBM that need a even more expensive and complicated submarine to launch them?

[edit on 16-7-2005 by betaiso]

Ok first of all could someone please enlighten me on what a 'MAD', 'JL2', 'DF31', 'JL3' and 'DF41' are?

Its better to have more than just land based ICBM’s SLBM’s offer you different options if you don't want to spend billions or more developing, building and maintaining tens of thousands of ICBM’s then subs are ok even the soviets had boomers with 25K+ land based nukes.

MAD= Mutually Assured Destruction
The others are all missile types IIRC.

The basic theory of MAD is "We're going to be blown off the face of the planet, but we're taking you with us."

M.A.D. stands for Mutually Assured Destruction it basically means that if you shoot at me with nukes I will shoot back and we will both destroy each other.

JL2 is type of SLBM missile launched from a Chinese sub the 094 class.
JL3 is newer type of SLBM under development by the Chinese also a SLBM.

The DF31 and DF41 are missiles that the JL2 and JL3 where based on or derived from.

Someone beat me to the post

[edit on 16-7-2005 by WestPoint23]

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Its better to have more than just land based ICBM’s SLBM’s offer you different options if you don't want to spend billions or more developing, building and maintaining tens of thousands of ICBM’s then subs are ok even the soviets had boomers with 25K+ land based nukes.

yes, but.. the Chinese don't even have a credible land based ICBM, which, reported to be around 20? or so...

why bother with the expensive and complicated SLBM?

hey.. who else has operatoinal SLBM forces beside US? curious ya...

britain france russia and china.

there is no JL-3.

and according to my sources the DF-41 was cancelled in favour of a improved DF-31 aka DF-31A

Originally posted by chinawhite
britain france russia and china.

there is no JL-3.

and according to my sources the DF-41 was cancelled in favour of a improved DF-31 aka DF-31A

no.. no.. no..

the chinese does not have credible SLBM forces at the moment and they won't have several years down the road

they all have now is a SINGLE (1) boat that "may" fire some inaccurate short range SLBM that might hit Japan

the JL2+094 is in testing stage, they won't be inducted and have enough numbers for years to come...

can someone provide some details of credible SLBM forces (if any) besides US

Originally posted by betaiso

the chinese does not have credible SLBM forces at the moment and they won't have several years down the road

they all have now is a SINGLE (1) boat that "may" fire some inaccurate short range SLBM that might hit Japan

the JL-1 is reliable the problem is its short range

according to some reports the JL-2 was tested in 1999.

[edit on 16-7-2005 by chinawhite]

The JL-2 was just recently tested on a nuclear sub (not sure what). It has a range more than 8000km, which is similar to the range of a ICBM. SLBMs are there because SSBNs can survive first strikes and then launch back their missles. Even if the JL-2 missed Los Angeles and hit Texas (VERY far away, besides, it prolly has an accuracy of 200m at lest), people would still die anyway.

1 SSBN not enough? How many do you need then? Assuming 20 land based ICBMs (China probably has ~30 now) and 2 SLBMs, that is already 22 nukes going off in the US or any other country, meaning complete destruction.

22 nukes is not enough for total destruction for the US but its would in the long term cripple us.

Even if China got destroyed, the USA would be in a state similar to Germany when WWII was over. That would be enough deterrent.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
22 nukes is not enough for total destruction for the US but its would in the long term cripple us.

it would containte your water and food growing areas. give you cancer

SLBM are the ultimate in survivability. THats is why they were created. However technical advances have changed the nature of the SLBM. Now they are as accurate as land based ICBM's and can be used for counterforce strikes (hit the enemy's missile fields before they launch.) Thier cep is in tens of feet. Also the Tridents are the only MIRV's in the inventory right now due to treaty reductions.

If the US did a first strike from the Pacific, unless China has its missiles on alert, they may not have enough time to launch.

Seems that our Chinese friends do not understand how seriously the United States Navy take submarines that launch nuclear missiles. During the Cold War the US Navy had every Soviet missile sub targeted. If they may the wrong move they were destroyed. They would not have the chance to fire. That is why the United States Navy has the largest number of modern nuclear submarines in the world. If any Chinese ballistic missile sub makes the wrong move it will be destroyed. The US Navy has much more experience than the Chinese in submarine warfare.

Submarine launched nukes are some of the most reliable and most versatile kinds of nuclear delivery systems in existance (that we know of). However I figure it's best to diversify. Not everybody plans on taking on ICBM's, some nations specifically pay more attention to anti-sub defenses. Some nations spend lot's of time locating and pre-targetting ICBM silos. Others like doing the same for airfields.

Having one kind of delivery system is never a good idea. I find it's best to variate between aircraft based, ICBM's and SLBM's.

China is utterly desperate for a reliable/credible ICBM & SLBM force because it doesn't have the capability to deliver nuclear bombs and cruise missiles against CONUS (continental US).

Does china have the technology at the moment to make its SLBM force credible, most likely its being shadowed by a US hunter from the word go!

It would be wiser for them to focus on detection and ICBMs. It would give them a better chance at hitting back in the event of a first strike by the US, as opposed to a few noisy, one torpedo and your gone SLBM fleet.

Originally posted by NWguy83
China is utterly desperate for a reliable/credible ICBM & SLBM force because it doesn't have the capability to deliver nuclear bombs and cruise missiles against CONUS (continental US).

yes! very desperate indeed

I don't understand why don't they follow the Russian, go for quantity instead of quality, as far as I know the Russian don't have any credible SLBM forces either, but... they have so many nukes... their MAD is such that those nukes has no need of delivery system you know... as long as da nukes is capable of exploding, they (the Russian) will take the world down with them

Originally posted by NWguy83
China is utterly desperate for a reliable/credible ICBM & SLBM force because it doesn't have the capability to deliver nuclear bombs and cruise missiles against CONUS (continental US).

What? Lets say 30 ICBMs with an accuracy of 200m (that is extremely poor), all launched at CONUS. How would you call that no capability? There are nuclear silos deep inside the mountain regions in western China which are mostly uninhibited, and the population in concentrated on the eastern side, while for America, their population is evenly spread out.