Could China use a high-speed ‘doomsday train’ to launch nuclear missiles?

[Maybach]

This is from 'South China Morning Post.' I'm not quite sure what to make of it (and it's just a theoretical study at this stage) but it's chillingly interesting!

High-speed rail is being considered as a potential launch platform for nuclear strikes after a new study by Chinese researchers suggested it was more suitable than previously thought.

In China, these trains travel up to 350km/h (217mph). These trains are slim, with up to 16 carriages each weighing about 60 tonnes.

A modern intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) could fit inside a carriage but when blasting off, its weight generates thrust two to four times the train’s maximum load capacity, according to Yin Zihong, associate professor of civil engineering with Southwest Jiaotong University in Chengdu, Sichuan province. Yin is lead scientist of the national research project funded by the central government.

While a modified high-speed train could withstand a launch, most of the stress caused would pass down to the rail and its foundations, potentially damaging the infrastructure and rendering it unsafe and unusable.

Using data from previous test launches conducted by the Chinese military and computer modelling, Yin and his colleagues simulated the operation of a high-speed rail launch system.

Their findings, published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Southwest Jiaotong University on Thursday, suggested that in some circumstances, a high-speed railway could perform better than a heavy-duty industrial railway, which was generally considered more suitable for the job.

“Compared with heavy-haul railways, high-speed railways operate faster and more smoothly. This means that on high-speed rails, the mobility, safety and concealment of military vehicles would be greater,” said the researchers.

A normal railway uses ballast, such as small rocks and gravel, to absorb shocks. A heavy haul line built to transport ore and coal requires more ballast.

The powerful shock wave produced by an ICBM launch could go as deep as 8 metres (26 feet) underground, far beyond the thickness of most rail lines’ base structure. Even heavy-duty rail would need a better fortified underlying structure to survive a launch, according to a study by Yin’s team in 2020.

But their latest study said it would not be necessary to provide extra strength for high-speed railway which has rails laid and fixed on concrete with no need for ballast as a buffer zone.

Could China use a high-speed ‘doomsday train’ to launch nuclear missiles?

Researchers look at the effects on the rail and foundations if an intercontinental ballistic missile was launched from a high-speed train.

www.scmp.com

 

[gordonthemoron]

sounds like a load of rubbish

 

[507020]

This is from 'South China Morning Post.' I'm not quite sure what to make of it (and it's just a theoretical study at this stage) but it's chillingly interesting!

While a modified high-speed train could withstand a launch, most of the stress caused would pass down to the rail and its foundations, potentially damaging the infrastructure and rendering it unsafe and unusable.

Following the event of a nuclear launch, I don’t think the most pressing issue would be unusable high-speed rail infrastructure!

 

[Trackman]

They have hypersonic missiles now so no need.
Their last test stunned most nations.
Makes a conventional ICBM look like a child's spud-gun, well.. sort of !

 

[Bletchleyite]

Following the event of a nuclear launch, I don’t think the most pressing issue would be unusable high-speed rail infrastructure!

Largely because global thermonuclear war (which is what you will have if only one is fired - others will follow) will result in there being no usable high-speed (or for that matter conventional) railway infrastructure anywhere.

As the old saying goes, WW3 will be fought with nukes, and WW4 with sticks and stones.

 

[High Dyke]

Just checked my calendar. Nope, it's not April 1st yet.

 

[ainsworth74]

Rail based ICBMs aren't new. The USSR deployed them, the US looked into it but didn't deploy any in the end and North Korea tested the technology not so long ago. For instance:

RT-23 Molodets - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[quantinghome]

Largely because global thermonuclear war (which is what you will have if only one is fired - others will follow) will result in there being no usable high-speed (or for that matter conventional) railway infrastructure anywhere.

As the old saying goes, WW3 will be fought with nukes, and WW4 with sticks and stones.

Whilst high speed services may be badly affected by a nuclear war, I would expect there to be at least a skeleton service...

 

[StephenHunter]

Whilst high speed services may be badly affected by a nuclear war, I would expect there to be at least a skeleton service...

How would British Railways survive nuclear attack? - National Railway Museum blog

Archivists normally hate the media describing archives as “lost” and “discovered”. My only excuse for using such tired clichés is that this collection actually was lost and discovered.

blog.railwaymuseum.org.uk

As a side note, a popular post-nuclear-war RPG had a module featuring a steam locomotive and a train.

 

[Simon11]

What about the overhead wires….!

 

[Cowley]

What about the overhead wires….!

Who’s going to be claiming delay repay if the wires come down..?

 

[StephenHunter]

What about the overhead wires….!

I believe the Soviet missiles had a mechanism to move them out the way.

 

[507020]

Largely because global thermonuclear war (which is what you will have if only one is fired - others will follow) will result in there being no usable high-speed (or for that matter conventional) railway infrastructure anywhere.

As the old saying goes, WW3 will be fought with nukes, and WW4 with sticks and stones.

That is only possible if any trees survive the first global thermonuclear war. Otherwise there will be no sticks left to fight WW4 with.

Whilst high speed services may be badly affected by a nuclear war, I would expect there to be at least a skeleton service...

How?! If all life on earth has been wiped out in a matter of days by the radiation exposure from a nuclear war, how exactly do you expect to run a skeleton service, even if some rails have survived? Metal bodied trains might not be the worst places to shelter from the radiation though.

 

[AlbertBeale]

How would British Railways survive nuclear attack? - National Railway Museum blog

Archivists normally hate the media describing archives as “lost” and “discovered”. My only excuse for using such tired clichés is that this collection actually was lost and discovered.

blog.railwaymuseum.org.uk

As a side note, a popular post-nuclear-war RPG had a module featuring a steam locomotive and a train.

RPG?

 

[StephenHunter]

Roleplaying Game. Twilight 2000 to be exact.

 

[stuu]

That is only possible if any trees survive the first global thermonuclear war. Otherwise there will be no sticks left to fight WW4 with.

How?! If all life on earth has been wiped out in a matter of days by the radiation exposure from a nuclear war, how exactly do you expect to run a skeleton service, even if some rails have survived? Metal bodied trains might not be the worst places to shelter from the radiation though.

The clue is in the word "skeleton"

 

[Lucan]

I think the point is that the ICBMs can be moved around rapidly to random launch points so the other side don't know where to aim a counter-strike, as they can with fixed launch silos.

 

[Giugiaro]

I think the point is that the ICBMs can be moved around rapidly to random launch points so the other side don't know where to aim a counter-strike, as they can with fixed launch silos.

Which as been China's strategy for decades. They have way too many launch sites than they have nuclear devices, so it's anyone's guess where the latter might be.

Using HSR will just accelerate the rate at which randomization happens.

 

[507020]

The clue is in the word "skeleton"

If all infrastructure within a 100 mile radius of all locations which are bombed is vapourised instantly and all staff are dead either because they to were vapourised within the aforementioned radii or have since died of fatal radiation exposure, there wouldn’t even be skeletons to speak of, not of a rail network or even any potential for any passengers to have survived.

 

[duesselmartin]

charming. I can sleep much better now.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If all infrastructure within a 100 mile radius of all locations which are bombed is vapourised instantly

Even the biggest current nuke isn't that big. I believe it would vaporise an area roughly the size of London, which is scary enough, but even the radiation wouldn't go 100 miles, it's more like 50, which again is scary enough.

 

[HSTEd]

If all infrastructure within a 100 mile radius of all locations which are bombed is vapourised instantly

No weapon ever built has performance even approaching a fraction of that......

 

[507020]

No weapon ever built has performance even approaching a fraction of that......

How do we know the full extent of weapon performance our enemies possess without having them used on us?

 

[172007]

The whole artical is just some person who probably knows next to nothing about ballistic missiles trying to make some headlines.

The real question is not about how to deploy strategic (as apposed to tactical) nuclear weapons on land but why with the advent of submarines which are by nature mobile and a tad illusive generally not closed the subject decades ago. Why do the US and Russia still have solo's? In other words why has the subject even been raised in China.

Yes, Submarines can be noisy but of you find a noisy enough place to hide them then there are only limited means to detect them, active sonar or magnetic anomaly detection that interestingly seems or appears to have been dropped from the Poseidon aircraft the RAF uses.

 

[ainsworth74]

Even the biggest current nuke isn't that big. I believe it would vaporise an area roughly the size of London, which is scary enough, but even the radiation wouldn't go 100 miles, it's more like 50, which again is scary enough.

Nah that's not true. Depends on what your doing with the weapon. If you wishing to maximise damage to civilian infrastructure then your going to be using an airburst (one in which the fireball doesn't touch the ground). In which case the majority of damage is from the blast wave of overpressure air that can reach out a significant distance. Airburst a Russian 800 kiloton weapon (which is size of warheads on one of their more common types of ICBM) over the Houses of Parliament then your talking blast damage sufficient to collapse most civilian and residential buildings out to Fulham or Hackney, third degree burns as far away as Walthamstow and Wimbledon and broken windows as far away as Harrow and Sidcup. Nothing is getting vaporised in an attack like that. And the radioactive fallout will be fairly limited.

It's a different story if its a surface burst of course (which is what you use to make sure you destroy hardened infrastructure). Then you'll vaporise Westminster, have extremely (i.e. reinforced concrete pulverising) blast damage to Elephant & Castle, anyone who somehow survives that will get a near instant fatal dose of radiation as far away as Nine Elms, third-degree burns again out to Wimbledon though damage gets bit better after that with significant damage and destruction by blast only as far as Clapham and windows getting broken only in Wimbledon. Fallout though is huge. If the wind is blowing the right way Leicester is getting heavy doses of radiation and the plume could stretch all the way to Preston at lower levels of intensity.

But no, London isn't getting vaporised and the radiation depends on whether its an air burst or surface burst as to the severity and extent.

You can play with all of this yourself using the excellent NukeMap website should you so wish. It's quite informative to give an approximation of the sort of damage a nuclear weapon can do.

NUKEMAP by Alex Wellerstein

NUKEMAP is a website for visualizing the effects of nuclear detonations.

nuclearsecrecy.com

 

[172007]

How do we know the full extent of weapon performance our enemies possess without having them used on us?

I immagine given the volume of fissile material for any given size of blast is probably known as it is only a few elements involved in the bang then you have a good idea of the size of that material, you know the aperture of the launch hatch and probably the deph with a submarine, also how many wheels are in vehicles to move the weapons giving a good idea of weight then it can be worked out. You can use all this plus a good knowledge of fuel required for the missile to get to its target then you probably have a good idea of how many kilotons the weapon provably posseses.

 

[HSTEd]

How do we know the full extent of weapon performance our enemies possess without having them used on us?

The laws of physics that govern the design of thermonuclear weapons and rocketry are well understood, so we can make very good estimates of yields of weapons carried on missiles using data that is easily available.

 

[ainsworth74]

How do we know the full extent of weapon performance our enemies possess without having them used on us?

Because its physics and physics is governed by rules and laws. The Russians (or anyone else) hasn't developed an [insert exotic material here] based bomb they all use uranium or plutonium sometimes boosted with tritium depending on exactly what you're doing with your weapons design. Once you know the rough dimensions available you can start to work out to a reasonable degree of confidence what sorts of yields you might be able to get out of a weapon able to fit within those constraints.

 

[ainsworth74]

The real question is not about how to deploy strategic (as apposed to tactical) nuclear weapons on land but why with the advent of submarines which are by nature mobile and a tad illusive generally not closed the subject decades ago. Why do the US and Russia still have solo's? In other words why has the subject even been raised in China.

The US has them because they're wedded to the doctrine of having a "nuclear triad" that is having three distinct delivery methods for their strategic nuclear forces. Submarine based missiles, land based missiles and air dropped bombs/cruise missiles. The idea being the chance of all three legs being destroyed in first strike are extremely remote therefore deterrence is preserved. It's also supposed to be a vague technological hedge on the basis that the chance of something coming along that renders all three legs useless at the same time is also remote. Arguably it's balderdash and the US would be better served by focusing on its submarine based missiles, decommissioning its air based weapons and either ditching or life extending its remaining land based missiles but the nuclear triad is gospel and no-one over there seems willing to ask probing questions about whether it's a good idea or not.

Russia on the other uses them in a slightly different context. They have silo based weapons (and indeed some air dropped weapons as they too claim to have nuclear triad) but a majority of their land based missiles are road mobile. They take advantage of the vast expanse of Russian wilderness and treat it like an ocean. A single launcher slowly moving from location to location deep in the forests where there's no-one around is going to be hard to reliably hit in a first strike using your own nuclear forces and getting close enough to kill it with air power directly overhead is going to be tricky in contested air space. Plus doing so makes Russia far more likely to "use it" rather than "lose it". It a similar reason as to why the Russians used to have some rail borne weapons. Just have a train disguised as a cargo train shuttling around the thousands of kilometres of the Russian rail network. The chance the US can find them all and successfully hit them all is remote.

The US never went down the same road (though they did toy with rail borne ICBMs in the 80s). They're a big country to of course but apart from a few parts of a few states in the west they don't have anything approaching the vast wilderness that Russia does when it comes to slipping away without being noticed.

The answer as to which is the best method of carrying your nuclear deterrent was indeed answered decades ago. It's submarines. It's why we and the French base ours on submarines. But for superpowers they have a slightly different calculations and (in the case of Russia) different geography that means other delivery methods are either seen to be important or potentially as viable as submarines.