# Is conventional invasion worth a nuclear war? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 23, 2015, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-conventional-invasion-worth-a-nuclear-war/725924 "2015-07-23T02:46:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 24
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2015, 7:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-conventional-invasion-worth-a-nuclear-war/725924/24 "2015-07-24T07:40:01Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > But this is the assumption being challenged here. China could conquer half of Siberia and the vast majority of the Russian civilization and populace would survive and continue. The only reason the vast majority of the Russian civilization and populace would survive and continue is because China has such a small nuclear arsenal [(~230 warheads, including both deployable and non-deployable](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction)) and only [66 ICBMs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#2010_IISS_Military_Balance) with the range to even reach targets in European Russia. Russia, on the other hand, could end China many times over with [its current stockpile of 8,500 warheads of which 2,500 are strategically operational](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction) if for some bizarre reason China was in a position to take half of Siberia by force, which it is not. --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-conventional-invasion-worth-a-nuclear-war/725924)._