Inside China: Nuclear submarines capable of widespread attack on U.S.

Part two.....

“Cyber warfare is not limited to military personnel. All personnel with special knowledge and skills on information system may participate in the execution of cyber warfare. Cyber warfare may truly be called a people’s warfare,” the report says.

The study links China’s space warfare development programs with its extensive cyber warfare capabilities. Both programs are considered “trump card” weapons that would allow a weaker China to defeat a militarily stronger United States in a conflict.

“Cyber warfare is an act of war that utilizes space technology; it combines space technology and cyber technology and maintains and seizes the control of cyberspace,” the study says. Because cyberspace relies on satellites, “space will surely be the main battlefield of cyber warfare,” the report said.

Satellites and space vehicles are considered the “outer nodes” of cyber space and “are clear targets for attack and may be approached directly,” the report said, adding that ground-based cyberspace nodes are more concealed and thus more difficult to attack. Additionally, satellites have limited defenses and anti-jamming capabilities, leaving them very vulnerable to attack.

The report reveals that China’s military, which controls the country’s rapidly growing space program, is preparing to conduct space-based cyber warfare—“cyber reconnaissance, jamming, and attack”—from space vehicles.

Space-based cyber warfare will include three categories: space cyber attack, space cyber defense, and space cyber support. The space cyber support involves reconnaissance, targeting, and intelligence gathering.

“A space cyber-attack is carried out using space technology and methods of hard kill and soft kill,” the report said. “It ensures its own control at will while at the same time uses cyberspace to disable, weaken, disrupt, and destroy the enemy’s cyber actions or cyber installations.”

Soft-kill methods are designed to disrupt or damage cyberspace links using jamming, network cyber attacks, and “deceit” in the electromagnetic domain.

The cyber attacks include launching computer viruses, theft and tampering of data, denial of service attacks, and “detonation of [a] network bomb that can instantaneously paralyze or destroy enemy’s information network.”.....snip~

Erod said:

Which wasn't my point at all. Of course, I know this.

It's the nonchalent way they report this as "this is what we have to do to kill most Americans possible" that is disconcerting. The Germans got behind Hitler pretty lockstep, too.

Click to expand...

Talking about what one must do to kill as much of the enemy's citizens as possible is also not new, and I fail to see what Hitler has to do about this. China is not Nazi Germany.

Sherman123 said:

We have the most sophisticated and massive cyber-warfare program on the planet. The only difference is that we have more to lose than China because we are much, much, much more advanced than China. We don't pilfer as much from China because there isn't that much to pilfer. We already know how to make nuclear submarines, turbofans, and satellites.

Click to expand...

Well who is saying we can't handle them? This just shows what they are talking about and gives others an idea as to what the Chinese are thinking of. Which is a bit more than just setting off some nukes now.....isn't it?

So Florida is cool.

Sherman123 said:

Lol. Lol. Lol. I'm not laughing at you, I'm laughing at the incessant China mil-tech fear that keeps getting cultivated.

First of all not a lick of this is new. None of it. We've known exactly how many SSBN's and how many ****ty SLBM's they've had for years. Why? Because they are really, really bad at making them and they only have three and they have a lot of problems. We're pretty sure they've had several on-board explosions, they can barely make their SLBM's work properly (the JL-2 is really bad), and they keep most of them in port for maintenance and testing. This is a country that is still in the adolescent stages of an advanced military industry and mastering this technology has been painfully difficult.

Secondly if it came to it we would crush them. The one or two they sent out are monitored almost immediately by US and allied naval pickets and would be sunk in the first few minutes of the war. We know where all of their land based launch sites and silos are located. In a first strike we could obliterate their nuclear deterrent. If we wanted to sink their submarines and dare them to launch a suicide strike on America (they wouldn't) we could do that too.

Call us back in twenty years. The real concern about China has to do with their development of military capabilities to challenge control of their littoral zones and deny sea control to the US and our allies in their periphery.

Click to expand...

Is that you there Dr. Strangelove?
They did mention deterrent of course and that's what it's all about. There's little doubt that China would get a few big ones through and that guarantees their safety from US aggression.

Which is the wonderful thing about nuclear weapons in the hands of big or even small nations. Even North Korea's nuclear weapons should be thought of as keeping the world safe from nuclear war.

The only wild card is the Israelis who are aggressors on a small scale so far and who would pre-emptively attack other small nations to guarantee they can continue their expansion into other people's lands. Illustrating the obvious need for at least one M.E. Muslim nation to have the nuclear deterrent.

We should all sleep better tonight, knowing China is prepared to defend itself.

Michael66 said:

Is that you there Dr. Strangelove?
They did mention deterrent of course and that's what it's all about. There's little doubt that China would get a few big ones through and that guarantees their safety from US aggression.

Which is the wonderful thing about nuclear weapons in the hands of big or even small nations. Even North Korea's nuclear weapons should be thought of as keeping the world safe from nuclear war.

The only wild card is the Israelis who are aggressors on a small scale so far and who would pre-emptively attack other small nations to guarantee they can continue their expansion into other people's lands. Illustrating the obvious need for at least one M.E. Muslim nation to have the nuclear deterrent.

We should all sleep better tonight, knowing China is prepared to defend itself.

Click to expand...

There is a very, very good chance we could launch a first strike on China without a single Chinese response getting through to the United States. Again the risk from China is conventional, not nuclear and revolve around their periphery and our allies.

Sherman123 said:

There is a very, very good chance we could launch a first strike on China without a single Chinese response getting through to the United States. Again the risk from China is conventional, not nuclear and revolve around their periphery and our allies.

Click to expand...

That's just silly false bravado that's likely due to brainwashing and too much flagwaving patriotism. The US missile defence doesn't even work 9/10's of the time it's tested and even if it worked 9/10's of the time the Chinese would still get a few dozens through. Cowardice never takes chances at being hit back and so even if there was a 90% of stopping them all the deterrent effect would still be there to save us from US led nuclear war.

What a strange conversation! Arguing with an American about how nuclear war is being avoided in the world since 1945, and the American arguing that his country could do it without suffereing revenge.

Is that Dr. Strangelove or is it evil incarnate?

CRUE CAB said:

So Florida is cool.

Click to expand...

Nah.....the East Coast is a given. :2razz:

Course China wants to do some smack talkin and try to get the Cameras off of them since they had a terrorist attack in their Beloved Capitol.

Michael66 said:

That's just silly false bravado that's likely due to brainwashing and too much flagwaving patriotism. The US missile defence doesn't even work 9/10's of the time it's tested and even if it worked 9/10's of the time the Chinese would still get a few dozens through. Cowardice never takes chances at being hit back and so even if there was a 90% of stopping them all the deterrent effect would still be there to save us from US led nuclear war.

What a strange conversation! Arguing with an American about how nuclear war is being avoided in the world since 1945, and the American arguing that his country could do it without suffereing revenge.

Is that Dr. Strangelove or is it evil incarnate?

Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with missile defense, it has to do with the paucity of the Chinese nuclear arsenal and the extensive knowledge we have of their locations. The weakness of their SSBN arm is directly related to this and why people pay attention to these sorts of articles at all. You are simply not as informed about this subject.

What is it that the USofA does that makes the citizens of the USofA fear that the rest of the world is out to get us????

Dragonfly said:

What is it that the USofA does that makes the citizens of the USofA fear that the rest of the world is out to get us????

Click to expand...

The reality of global power politics, the nature of differing forms of government, and the importance of ideology on statecraft are all you need to inform yourself of the threat posed by other powers.

Sherman123 said:

It has nothing to do with missile defense, it has to do with the paucity of the Chinese nuclear arsenal and the extensive knowledge we have of their locations. The weakness of their SSBN arm is directly related to this and why people pay attention to these sorts of articles at all. You are simply not as informed about this subject.

Click to expand...

And you are pretending to be informed. Suffice to say that the US would get some of them with a first strike but anybody in their right mind would acknowledge that wouldn't be accomplished fast enough to get them all. Then you would be relying on missile defence and nothing else.

There's little doubt that the US could land a lot more on China's soil than the other way around but that's not the issue. The issue is that there's little doubt that China would do millions of Americans.

Not something that I find a good topic for discussion but when somebody starts throwing around their false bravado and rhetoric while posing as an expert, it just needs to be questioned.

A little strange don't you think when the US claims to be afraid of N.Korea or Iran getting one through and onto N.Y. don't you think?

Sherman123 said:

The reality of global power politics, the nature of differing forms of government, and the importance of ideology on statecraft are all you need to inform yourself of the threat posed by other powers.

Click to expand...

In the last 200 years, how many countries have actually attacked the USofA?


In that same time period, how many countries has the USofA attacked?

Dragonfly said:

In the last 200 years, how many countries have actually attacked the USofA?


In that same time period, how many countries has the USofA attacked?

Click to expand...

You do not have to be physically attacked for your interests, and the greater interests of civilization to be threatened. This is a childish perspective on the world. Were France and Britain not imperiled by the German agglomeration of power in Europe before the war? Were democratic rule and liberalism not threatened by a Soviet Union and her allies that stood on the periphery of Europe, Asia, and much of the world? A narrow definition of our interests that is limited to actually being attacked is tantamount to isolationism in our interconnected world and should be instantly dismissed.

Michael66 said:

And you are pretending to be informed. Suffice to say that the US would get some of them with a first strike but anybody in their right mind would acknowledge that wouldn't be accomplished fast enough to get them all. Then you would be relying on missile defence and nothing else.

There's little doubt that the US could land a lot more on China's soil than the other way around but that's not the issue. The issue is that there's little doubt that China would do millions of Americans.

Not something that I find a good topic for discussion but when somebody starts throwing around their false bravado and rhetoric while posing as an expert, it just needs to be questioned.

A little strange don't you think when the US claims to be afraid of N.Korea or Iran getting one through and onto N.Y. don't you think?

Click to expand...

That isn't true in the slightest. We have overwhelming nuclear superiority, the possibility of China being able to ride out a US first strike with the capacity to respond in kind is seriously in question. Missile defense or lack thereof is not a factor in analyzing that scenario. http://www.nukestrat.com/china/Book-173-196.pdf

We fear Iranian and North Korean nuclear weapons because of the enormous danger of a first strike from a rogue actor and the possibility of nuclear technology being transferred to other countries.

Erod said:

Here's the nuclear target map that was broadcast to Chinese citizens.



Enlarge Photo
Image for Yu column Inside China Source: Global Times



Here's a chilling look at a world power and government that has no respect for political correctness and has no concerns about being voted out of power. China is the dangerously toxic combination of being extreme socialist inside its borders, but full-scale capitalist to the outside world.

You wonder how this was receivers from the Chinese viewers in their homes, and if this is a mere eventuality that is only a matter of time.

Want to cut military spending and development? Think there's a real interest from China (and Russia) for real nuclear disarmament? And what trigger from the Middle East could perhaps set all this in motion?

Click to expand...

So one of your main concerns was they were not being politically correct? Are you some sort of closet liberal focused on everything being politically correct? (joke)

As for what happens inside China. It is very capitalist in China as well, within the cities you would never be able to tell China is a supposedly a communist country. The poor elderly are outside selling water bottles, or collecting empty cans and bottles. Nearly every one wants to start their own business, you can find booths that sell the cheapest clothing, and you can find luxury goods/stores that don't exist in smaller cities in the US or Canada

I always imagine Australia being chill as **** watching these hypothetical nuclear scenario's.

Sherman123 said:

There is a very, very good chance we could launch a first strike on China without a single Chinese response getting through to the United States. Again the risk from China is conventional, not nuclear and revolve around their periphery and our allies.

Click to expand...

Another aspect of a submarine-based nuclear arsenal is that it provides a second- strike capability. Even in your fantasy world where we can completely wipe out a land-based nuclear force without a single return shot being launched, you can't do that with a submarine fleet. The retaliation will happen.

And shooting down a doomsday volley of ICBMs is pure fantasy. Modern US anti-missile capabilities are pretty good, we can hit short and intermediate range missiles with decent reliability. But when it comes to a nuclear missile, "decent reliability" isn't anywhere near good enough. And the intercontinental weapons really would better be described as suborbital weapons, they're a whole different animal. Their re-entry velocity is just so ungodly high that it makes interception unlikely even under ideal circumstances.

Dismissing the nuclear arsenal of a nation as large as China is just... bonkers.

Sherman123 said:

That isn't true in the slightest. We have overwhelming nuclear superiority, the possibility of China being able to ride out a US first strike with the capacity to respond in kind is seriously in question. Missile defense or lack thereof is not a factor in analyzing that scenario. http://www.nukestrat.com/china/Book-173-196.pdf

We fear Iranian and North Korean nuclear weapons because of the enormous danger of a first strike from a rogue actor and the possibility of nuclear technology being transferred to other countries.

Click to expand...

I'll tell the Chinese you said so.

Deuce said:

Another aspect of a submarine-based nuclear arsenal is that it provides a second- strike capability. Even in your fantasy world where we can completely wipe out a land-based nuclear force without a single return shot being launched, you can't do that with a submarine fleet. The retaliation will happen.

And shooting down a doomsday volley of ICBMs is pure fantasy. Modern US anti-missile capabilities are pretty good, we can hit short and intermediate range missiles with decent reliability. But when it comes to a nuclear missile, "decent reliability" isn't anywhere near good enough. And the intercontinental weapons really would better be described as suborbital weapons, they're a whole different animal. Their re-entry velocity is just so ungodly high that it makes interception unlikely even under ideal circumstances.

Dismissing the nuclear arsenal of a nation as large as China is just... bonkers.

Click to expand...

Some people have to make up their own fantasies and then live them. there's little use trying to convince those living in that other dimension. It's just unthinkable to believe that China would get a couple of dozen through from not only submarines but also land based. Making the US the big winner with a few tens of millions less people.

Which makes it a sure thing that the US bully will only pick on small countries that don't have the nuclear deterrent to aggression.

Deuce said:

Another aspect of a submarine-based nuclear arsenal is that it provides a second- strike capability. Even in your fantasy world where we can completely wipe out a land-based nuclear force without a single return shot being launched, you can't do that with a submarine fleet. The retaliation will happen.

And shooting down a doomsday volley of ICBMs is pure fantasy. Modern US anti-missile capabilities are pretty good, we can hit short and intermediate range missiles with decent reliability. But when it comes to a nuclear missile, "decent reliability" isn't anywhere near good enough. And the intercontinental weapons really would better be described as suborbital weapons, they're a whole different animal. Their re-entry velocity is just so ungodly high that it makes interception unlikely even under ideal circumstances.

Dismissing the nuclear arsenal of a nation as large as China is just... bonkers.

Click to expand...

That isn't true at all. This is why you track submarines and monitor them. With a country that has dozens of launch platforms like Russia this is very difficult, with a country like China which has precisely three of which only one is usually patrolling at any one time is much easier. Nothing is fool proof, but the idea that we should be dazzlingly concerned with what the OP's link discusses is untrue. We maintain an overwhelming nuclear advantage. Once again no one has mentioned anti-missile capabilities, but you are incorrect in saying we cannot shoot down an ICBM this is the entire premise of the ABM program. It certainly is not advanced enough to be fully reliable or capable of activity in parallel but it is what it does. That includes terminal phase intercept capabilities, which while not the optimal intercept point is a capability we have prepared in the form of THAAD, SM-2, etc. This is why the focus has been on GMD.

Michael66 said:

I'll tell the Chinese you said so.

Click to expand...

It's alright. You obviously stumbled onto a topic that you are less than familiar with.

Fisher said:

Well if they do attack the US with nukes, I hope that is the side of the country they do it on.

Click to expand...

Really disgusting comment. So you are totally OK with those people being killed? GTFO.

Mr. Invisible said:

Really disgusting comment. So you are totally OK with those people being killed? GTFO.

Click to expand...

If they do attack the US with nukes, better them than me.

Sherman123 said:

That isn't true at all. This is why you track submarines and monitor them. With a country that has dozens of launch platforms like Russia this is very difficult, with a country like China which has precisely three of which only one is usually patrolling at any one time is much easier. Nothing is fool proof, but the idea that we should be dazzlingly concerned with what the OP's link discusses is untrue. We maintain an overwhelming nuclear advantage. Once again no one has mentioned anti-missile capabilities, but you are incorrect in saying we cannot shoot down an ICBM this is the entire premise of the ABM program. It certainly is not advanced enough to be fully reliable or capable of activity in parallel but it is what it does. That includes terminal phase intercept capabilities, which while not the optimal intercept point is a capability we have prepared in the form of THAAD, SM-2, etc. This is why the focus has been on GMD.

Click to expand...

Short of having all three simultaneously in firing range of our own submarines, they're going to be able to launch before you can stop them. And you also have to simultaneously take their land-based forces completely by surprise, and destroy 100% of them before they launch. A single missile firing off is a complete failure that places millions of Americans in mortal danger. ABM systems are nowhere near reliable enough to make this a reasonable thing to attempt, and that's leaving aside the whole part about it being mass murder on an unprecedented scale to do this.

Starting a nuclear war with China is suicide. Just like starting a nuclear war with the United States. That's kindof the idea of a nuclear arsenal.