In a nuclear exchange war scenario between the US and China, does it make any difference if China has 400 warhead while the US has 4000?

若中美爆发核战，中国的400枚弹头对阵美国的4000枚，有差别吗？

以下是Quora网友的评论：

Brady Milton

The USA has only 14 cities with over 1 million population. So what would the Chinese targets of the remaining386 nukes be? No doubt all of the 49 US military bases in the pacific Sorry 50 if you count Pearl Harbor. That leaves 336 Nukes for American homeland bases and or NATO bases if they want to join in.

美国只有14个城市人口超过100万。那么中国要用剩下的386枚核弹干什么呢？美国在太平洋上共有49个军事基地，抱歉，如果算上珍珠港的话，那就是50个。这样中国还剩下336枚核武器可以瞄准美国国土内的基地，如果北约也想参战，也可以留一些给北约的基地。

Then there are 11 carrier fleets only 8 of which are fully operational at any one time. But there are still enough to take out all communications and transport and power in the USA. I think the USA would take possibly 100 years to recover if thats all that were dropped.

美国还有11只航母舰队，其中8只舰队可以随时投入战斗。不过也足以摧毁美国所有的通信、交通和电力了。我认为美国被核弹轰炸后可能需要100年才能恢复元气。

Of course 4000 nukes on China would do the same to them but thats not wng a war its just mutual destruction. Probably Russia would join in to take out anything the Chinese missed and with around 7000 nukes as of 2018 the just might finish off the rest of the world. What I am saying is in a nuclear war, DO NOT EXPECT USA TO SURVIVE

当然了，美国向中国发射4000枚核武器也会对中国造成同样的影响，但这不算打赢战争，这是同归于尽。也许俄罗斯也会加入战局，帮助中国确保万无一失，截至2018年俄罗斯拥有大约7000枚核武器，可能足以摧毁整个世界。我想说，如果爆发核战争，别以为美国能幸免于难。

Jeff Jones

Yes, but not a difference which will be important to most of the citizens of both countries.

The USA and USSR built an arsenal intended for a true global thermonuclear war - enough weapons to destroy every enemy or threat, no matter how many were destroyed or intercepted before they could hit their targets. The Mutual Assured Destruction strategy required massive overkill, to deter attack by a Guaranteed annihilation of the attacker.

当然有差别，但这种差别对两国的大多数公民来说并不重要。

美国和苏联两国都为了全球热核战打建了各自的军火库——足以摧毁任何敌人或威胁，不管有多少会在击中目标前就被摧毁或拦截。确保相互毁灭的战略需要大规模的过度杀戮，让进攻一方全军覆没，从而阻止起攻势。

The other major nuclear weapons powers, including China, went with a Deterrent Force strategy. That is enough weapons to wreck the major cities and industries of one attacking nation - even the USSR/Warsaw Pact or USA/NATO.

A few hundred nuclear weapons are more than enough to ruin a country. The Deterrent force user is going to get annihilated in the Big One anyway, so its best defense is to make sure that the attacker is hurt badly enough that they lose the war too.

包括中国在内的主要核武器大国都采取了威慑武器战略。这些武器足以摧毁进攻一方的主要城市和工业——甚至连苏联/华沙条约组织或美国/北约也不在话下。

几百枚核武器足以摧毁一个国家。威慑武器的使用者也注定在大战中被歼灭，所以最好的防御就是给进攻一方沉重的打击。

Steve Jones

Strategically yes it does. It limits what China can achieve in nuclear warfighting terms.

With 400 warheads China has no ability to counterforce the U.S. nuclear arsenal. It cannot even contemplate a disarming first strike. Simply its strike couldn’t prevent enough of the US warhead count surviving and being fired in retaliatory actions.

战略上是这样的。这遏制了中国在核战争方面能取得的成功可能。

拥有400枚核弹头的中国并没有对抗美国核武库的实力。中国连第一次打击都熬不过去。简单地说，中国的进攻无法拦截足够多的美国弹头，美国可以立刻发动反击。

In simple numbers terms, omitting considerations like passive defence and reaction times, the US has the nuclear option of disarming China.

Thats the big difference. It means Chinas nuclear arsenal is countervalue force, aimed at U.S. infrastructure and cities, which sounds scary until you realise it’s never going to be fired without a U.S. first strike. Any launch from China is an act of automatic suicide….no different than if they fired their own weapons at their own cities….in terms of effect on their own society.

简单地从数字来看，不考虑被动防御和反应时间等因素，美国拥有歼灭中国武器装备的核武器。

这就是最大的不同。这意味着中国的核武库针对的是美国的基础设施和城市，虽然听起来很可怕，但如果你明白如果美国没有率先发动进攻，中国绝不会轻举妄动。中国一旦进攻就是自寻死路....这种行为和中国对自己的城市发射武器并没有什么不同....

The scale of Chinas nuclear arsenal then establishes it as a second-strike capability only. This being aligned with the configuration of much of their other military capabilities where little in the way of expeditionary combat power has been developed. It’s an almost entirely defensive posture.

中国核武库的规模使其仅具备核反击能力。他们的其他军事能力的配置也是如此，他们在远征作战能力方面几乎没有进步，几乎完全是一种防御姿态。

Eric Barendrecht

Not really.

Let's say that the US only manages to intercept 90–95%. That's still 20-40 warheads hitting us cities.

Imagine 20–40 cities gone: New York, L.A., Chicago, Houston, Phoenix, DC… (well, China might actually be doing the US a favor If it would take out just DC…) Millions upon millions dead. The economy in ruins. The US as we know it would seize to exst.

It's hard to imagine any conflict, any war, any dispute, where that price is an acceptable trade-off.

其实并没有差别。

假设美国只拦截了90-95%，那么仍会有20-40枚弹头击中美国的城市。

想象一下，美国瞬间就有20-40个城市化为废墟：纽约、洛杉矶、芝加哥、休斯顿、凤凰城、华盛顿……(好吧，如果中国只摧毁了华盛顿，也许其实是在帮美国的忙……)数以百万计的美国人丧命。经济崩溃。正如我们所知，美国会努力生存下去。

不管是任何冲突、任何战争或者任何争端，人们应该都不会愿意承受这种代价。

Thierry Etienne Joseph Rotty

Of course.

Do you think it makes a difference between getting stabbed once or ten times?

A nuclear war is a war like any other war, the less damage you sustain the better.

当然有差别。

你觉得被捅一刀和被捅十刀有什么区别吗？

核战争和其他战争一样，伤害越少越好。

Dale Wykoff

A huge difference. The US has over 5,000 military bases not counting ships at sea. Destroying a small fraction of the fighting force while having most of their fighting force destroyed would leave them in a position from which they could not recover.

差异大了去了。不算海上的军舰，美国在海上有5000多个军事基地。牺牲一小部分战斗力量，同时摧毁他们的大部分战斗力量，令他们永无翻身之日。

Mohammed Tayeb Mohsin

In a nuclear exchange war scenario between the US and China, the number of warheads each country has would certainly make a difference. However, it's important to note that any use of nuclear weapons would be catastrophic and have severe consequences for both countries and the world as a whole.

若爆发中美核战，两国拥有的核弹头数量肯定不同。但需要注意的是，任何核武器的使用都将带来灾难，对两国和整个世界造成严重的后果。

If China has 400 warheads while the US has 4000, the US would have a significantly larger nuclear arsenal and would be able to launch more devastating attacks against China. However, China's 400 warheads could still cause enormous destruction and loss of life, and could potentially target key US cities and military installations.

如果中国拥有400枚弹头而美国拥有4000枚，那么说明美国拥有更大规模的核武库，能够对中国发动破坏性更大的进攻。不过中国的400枚弹头也会给美国带来巨大的破坏和伤亡，可能瞄准美国的重要城市和军事设施。

It's also worth noting that the number of warheads each country has is not the only factor that would determine the outcome of a nuclear exchange. The capabilities of each country's missile defense systems, the effectiveness of their delivery systems, and the strategic decisions made by their leaders would all play a role in determining the outcome of such a scenario.

同样值得注意的是，每个国家拥有的核弹头数量并不是决定核战结果的唯一因素。每个国家的导弹防御系统的能力，其运载系统的有效性，以及其领导人做出的战略决策，都会发挥决定性的作用。

Regardless of the number of warheads each country has, the use of nuclear weapons would have catastrophic consequences and should always be avoided if possible. It's important for countries to work towards disarmament and peaceful resolution of conflicts to prevent the use of such devastating weapons.

无论每个国家拥有多少核弹头，核武器的使用都将造成灾难性的后果，应尽力避免这种局面。重要的是，各国应致力于精简裁军、和平解决冲突，谨防使用这种毁灭性武器。

Max Jones

First, the question is just malformed. The US isn’t going to attack China with nuclear weapons unless China attacks the US.

If China started a war with the US… in minutes the US could have literal 1000s of Tomahawks headed for China. I don’t think the US would do that in the first minutes of an attack. But it could. And China could solicit that reaction if they attacked everyone in the South Pacific that don’t want them taking over.

The question then is would China use nukes? Would they devastate the world? Not would the US use nukes.

首先，这个问题并不合理。除非中国攻击美国，否则美国不会动用核武器攻击中国。

如果中国与美国开战，几分钟内，美国就可以向中国发射1000枚战斧导弹。我认为美国不会在发动袭击的最初几分钟就这么做。但美国是有这个实力的。如果中国攻打了南太平洋上所有不希望被中国接管的国家，那么中国就可能会招致这种打击。

那么问题来了，中国会使用核武器吗？他们会摧毁世界吗？反正美国是不会使用核武器的。

Bill Langston

Well, yes it does. First the PRC wont launch all of their warheads at once

嗯，有差别。首先，中国不会把所有的核弹头一次发射完。

Then you must consider the number of ready missiles. The US has hundreds of missiles under the Pacific aimed at the PRC. The PRC has no such capability. Almost all of their missiles are land based. The US has very good anti missile systems that they’ve been working on for forty years. Many if not most Chinese warheads would be intercepted. Some will get through and that’ll be a very bad day in the US , however it’ll be a far worse day on mainland China.

And yes, the US also has land based missiles as well as air based missiles. Both the Navy and Airforce have thousands of missiles as well as about 5200 warheads.

导弹的数量就值得分析一番了。美国在太平洋下有数百枚瞄准中国的导弹。但中国没有这样的能力。他们的导弹几乎都是陆基导弹。而且美国拥有非常出色的反导弹系统，都已经研究了40年了。大多数中国核弹都会被美方拦截。有些核弹会侥幸逃过拦截，对美国而言那将是非常糟糕的时刻，不过对中国大陆来说绝对就更糟糕了。

是的，出了空基导弹，美国还有陆基导弹。海军和空军都拥有数千枚导弹以及大约5200枚核弹。

David Barry

Related

Will the United States ever go to war with China?

The USA wants a war with China. That is why they are trying to turn as many countries against China. China wants peace and trade.

美国会不会和中国开战？

美国想和中国开战。所以他们千方百计挑唆尽可能多的国家一起反对中国。而中国只想要和平与贸易。

What do you want?

你想要什么？

Are you in favour of world peace, prosperity and trade or do you fit into the category of racist hater who wants to destroy any competitor of the USA?

The USA is in decline economically so it resorts to ganging up and bullying against a more successful country. It plans to resort to violence. It is the evil nation of the world. Ask yourself. Do you support the USA? Are you a malign person?

你是支持世界和平、繁荣和贸易呢，还是希望捣毁美国所有竞争对手的种族主义者？

美国经济正在衰退，所以它会串通其他国家欺负比它更成功的国家。美国想要诉诸暴力。美国就是世界上最邪恶的国家。现在问问你自己。你支持美国吗？你也是个恶人吗？