That's not the main geographic focus point. Lop Nur in west China was the initial test site.an invasion of Manchuria
The focus is not to physically occupy the test sites but to cripple the military and industrial infrastructure of PRCThat's not the main geographic focus point. Lop Nur in west China was the initial test site.
By the 60s the industrial and scientific infrastructure was spread over a lot of regions of the country, not just 'Manchuria'.The focus is not to physically occupy the test sites but to cripple the military and industrial infrastructure of PRC
Can the rest be crippled by US bombing ?By the 60s the industrial and scientific infrastructure was spread over a lot of regions of the country, not just 'Manchuria'.
Possibly Chinese programs could be set back several years by saturation bombing by both US and USSR air forces, maybe *just* using conventional munitions and not WMD. I would expect the Chinese to eventually pull atomic devices together though. The USSR has the range to easily mount ground raids over various other northern and northwestern portions of China. The US and Taiwan have capacity for ground raids along coastal China. Not as much of the back-up industrial infrastructure infrastructure was concentrated in the southwest before the mid 1960s as afterwards with the third-line/third-front program that Mao worked on response to to the possibility of the Vietnam War (and later Sino-Soviet clashes) escalating out of control into WWIII.Can the rest be crippled by US bombing ?
That’s too much work I say better to destroy the industry and ignore the restWould the Soviet Union and USA come to some type of agreement to divide china either into halves, several smaller states or to commit future china to some kind of neutrality?
But proliferation of more nukes esp in the communist bloc is never a good thing for USThe US has no interest in doing so, since a nukeless PRC ultimately helps the Soviets a lot more than it hurts the US.
More communist nukes are a good thing for the US since those nukes are pointed at Moscow and are generations away from posing a threat to the US (in OTL, the PLA Second Artillery couldn't realistically attack the continental US until the mid 1990s (or mid aughts, depending on whether you're referring to a first or second strike capability))But proliferation of more nukes esp in the communist bloc is never a good thing for US
Furthermore US Can hope that a land war between the two communist Giants will further discredit their ideology and weaken them
The PLA SAC could technically strike the U.S. starting 1980 when they first tested their DF-5 in the South Pacific, but majority of Chinese nuclear missiles were aimed at the USSR, though according to a DoD report (can't find the source, word of mouth) as of 1989-1992, the Chinese had 3 DF-5s pointed at the CONUS despite the quasi-alliance with America and the Sino-American ELINT stations in Xinjiang.More communist nukes are a good thing for the US since those nukes are pointed at Moscow and are generations away from posing a threat to the US (in OTL, the PLA Second Artillery couldn't realistically attack the continental US until the mid 1990s (or mid aughts, depending on whether you're referring to a first or second strike capability))
In that case, why bother helping the USSR at all (since the PRC is by far the weaker party)?
"In practice, the designers were told nor supposed to worry about the possible strategic purposes of their missiles. They were simply given the range and payload requirements for striking, sequentially, Japan (DF-2), the Philippines (DF-3), Guam (DF-4), and the continental United States (DF-5). Although their word was essentially technology driven, a strategic retaliatory doctrine was implicit in the target selection, and after Mao's death in 1976, the more adventurous strategists began to make that doctrine explicit and to explore its ramifications for Chinese military and foreign policy."
The DF-5 wasn't really reliable until the mid 1990s, given the absolute backward state of Chinese technology for the first 40 years of the PRC. Even when operational, it'd require a very long fueling process (which the US ISR of the 1980s and later would absolutely pick up).The PLA SAC could technically strike the U.S. starting 1980 when they first tested their DF-5 in the South Pacific, but majority of Chinese nuclear missiles were aimed at the USSR, though according to a DoD report (can't find the source, word of mouth) as of 1989-1992, the Chinese had 3 DF-5s pointed at the CONUS despite the quasi-alliance with America and the Sino-American ELINT stations in Xinjiang.
China's first ICBM test in May 1980. China actually informed the region and the international community about these tests before hand. Li Xinnian also informed his Australian and New Zealander counterparts of the tests week before during a state visit to southern cross countries.
This was actually shadowed by the Royal Australian Navy warships HMAS Jervis Bay and HMAS Vampire.
Actual photo below:
Newspaper from The Canberra Times:
CHINESE TEST SUCCESS Naval ships see missile re-entry - The Canberra Times (ACT : 1926 - 1995) - 19 May 1980
Two Australian warships were among a large fleet of vessels which observed the final phase of China's intercontinental ballistic missile test in the South ...trove.nla.gov.au
According to this archived file (China's ballistic missile programs).
Page 20 (Browser Page 16) mentions: