China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

Lion

Senior Member
China do have enough. It just US playing around with its media and report to create the impression China is nuclear weak and US had the upper hand in a doomday scenario. So that they can encourage anti - china sentiment or give the public assurances that USA is safe if enter war with China.

I will not say the more its better. But at least 1000 nuke warhead with enough ICBM launcher is enough to render any missile shield useless or make the missile shield too expensive/difficult to maintain or have it.
 

rhino123

Pencil Pusher
VIP Professional
Isn't what you explain precisely what this distorted report try to create the effect? China neighbour are unsafe while US continent need not fear from China retaliation if USA enter war with China.....

All falls into US planning if people believe what US report about China nuke. Precisely, why US needs to come up with this crook report. Shall I thank you instead?

And your meaning? Instead on pissing on whatever I have mentioned in all the threads, come up with something useful... like your OWN analysis and stuff like that, like what everyone else is doing. At least I have an opinion and a theory, you have nothing... just Chairman xi visiting a submarine, means JL2 is operational, the US playing stuff down (but never give good explanation - whether accurate or otherwise, just that they do not want to cause widespread panic?)

Also I never say that US continent need not fear from CHina retaliation... I maintained that there are hundreds (200) nuclear war head that could reach US continent, and it is you who have not say why US had no fear for that. Jeez.

Plus until now we do not know if that report is crook or what.
 

rhino123

Pencil Pusher
VIP Professional
China do have enough. It just US playing around with its media and report to create the impression China is nuclear weak and US had the upper hand in a doomday scenario. So that they can encourage anti - china sentiment or give the public assurances that USA is safe if enter war with China.

I will not say the more its better. But at least 1000 nuke warhead with enough ICBM launcher is enough to render any missile shield useless or make the missile shield too expensive/difficult to maintain or have it.

Like I say before... where you get the data that 1000 nuke warhead is enough to render any missile shield useless? seriously, show some useful data rather than plugging numbers out of thin air.

Secondly... I mean... come on, to encourage anti-china sentiment... you do not need to play down on china nuclear weakness. I mean it is easier to play up the threat. Also no one would believes that USA will be safe if enter war with China, because of the nuclear warhead that is pointing their way (I mean come on, unless you can give credible information) 200 nuclear warhead is as good as having 1000 nukes, as long as you are only aiming all of them at 1 single country.

Oh... one more thing... it is really silly to think that US would need to play down the capability of China. I mean... come on... whoever who is not living under the rock, know that US nuclear weapons numbered more than a couple of tens to hundreds of times more than China. So... you get the picture?
 
Last edited:

Lion

Senior Member
Like I say before... where you get the data that 1000 nuke warhead is enough to render any missile shield useless? seriously, show some useful data rather than plugging numbers out of thin air.

Secondly... I mean... come on, to encourage anti-china sentiment... you do not need to play down on china nuclear weakness. I mean it is easier to play up the threat. Also no one would believes that USA will be safe if enter war with China, because of the nuclear warhead that is pointing their way (I mean come on, unless you can give credible information) 200 nuclear warhead is as good as having 1000 nukes, as long as you are only aiming all of them at 1 single country.

Oh... one more thing... it is really silly to think that US would need to play down the capability of China. I mean... come on... whoever who is not living under the rock, know that US nuclear weapons numbered more than a couple of tens to hundreds of times more than China. So... you get the picture?

Play down the threat of china nuclear stockpile is too gather US public support for US involvement of pivotal in Asia strategy. There is a section of US public worry that US pivotal strategy in asia may trigger World War III.

Even without nuclear warhead. China conventional military is already intimidating enough to handle most neighbouring. Why would they care about China nuke stockpile?

While most of China SRBM , MRBM are used for precision strike rather than nuclear delivery.

Pacify US public fear of China retaliation. Convince China neighbour and US public to fully endorse their containment of China. Convince neighbouring countries China is a real threat to them while China is no threat to US continent.
 

Broccoli

Senior Member
If China has produced thousands of warheads in past, that would mean those are the heavy warheads (weight more than 1000kg's) meant for liquid-fueled missiles what are being removed from service right now, and are too large for new generation solid-fueled missiles.

Of course there is always possibility that their new warheads use HEU instead of Pu, but if they do then you can forget 10 RV DF-41 ICBM because HEU weapons are bigger than their plutonium counterparts. HEU production is also much more difficult to detect especially if manufacturing happens in underground factory, and we know that Chinese bought new centrifuge technology in 1990's. Chinese first thermonuclear weapons used HEU instead of Pu, so it's not unknown bomb making material for them.






Here is few reason why Chinese may have gone back to HEU in 1990's.
-The half-life of uranium 235, due to radioactive decay, is 700 million years versus 25,000 years for plutonium 239. Therefore, the radioactive hazards associated with uranium pit fabrication would be reduced.

The radioactive hazards of weapon handling by DOE and military custodians could be reduced.

-Plutonium is pyrophoric. Uranium is not.

With a 700 million year half-life, there should be no pit aging problems.

-Given an accident and a uranium spill, decontamination could be less demanding.

-The larger critical mass required by the use of uranium will result in thicker pit shells, thereby reducing machining problems during fabrication and resulting in higher yields and lower fabrication costs.

And here are the problems if there is a need to stuff as many MIRVs in missile as possible, but i'd assume that large ICBM like rumored DF-41 would not have any problems to carry three HEU warheads.
Bob Peurifoy, a retired Sandia National Laboratories scientist, thinks that now that fewer weapons are needed aboard each missile, uranium offers a viable alternative to plutonium.

According to a calculation Peurifoy provided to the Journal, as much as six times as much uranium and high explosives would be needed for his uranium bomb. With other changes to the weapon, he calculated a 13-inch diameter plutonium primary could be replaced by a uranium alternative about 20 inches in diameter. That would allow three uranium warheads to be carried by a Trident II submarine missile, according to Peurifoy. The missiles now carry eight plutonium warheads.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!






According to a story in Global Times, on June 21, 2013 China successfully produced the first batch of enriched uranium using its own centrifuges. The existence of the centrifuge facility in Lanzhou, Gansu Province that uses a technology developed in China, was first reported in 2010. The enrichment plant, which is owned by the China National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC) is estimated to have the enrichment capacity of about 0.5 million SWU/year. It appears that the plant will be producing low-enriched uranium for power reactors.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!




I'm just entertaining myself, no need to take my writings too seriously.
 
Last edited:

Broccoli

Senior Member
Interesting how they didn't put picture of DF-31A on this chart, but chose to use DF-31 like they have done always before. Yet Russian SS-27 variants are shown twice even when there is no difference between the drawings, at least there is some differences between DF-31 models and yet they chose not to show DF-31A... hmm. DF-31A must be very advanced missile (more so than DF-31) since it's length is less than 16m but range is more than 11,200 km.
6dNqyeq.jpg
 
Last edited:

Broccoli

Senior Member
Really? what makes you say so?

Because DF-31 and DF-31A use same 16m canister. There is some slight differences in canister and TEL designs, but size wise they are same.

DF-31 seen in 1999 Parade
rK5h7MC.jpg

5LojQys.jpg



DF-31A 2009 Parade.
ENYrYWt.jpg

SmgFPyv.jpg
 
Last edited:

kroko

Senior Member
Because DF-31 and DF-31A use same 16m canister.

I wouldnt be so sure. They could have pretended that what we saw in 2009 parade was dF-31A. Fact is that we are seeing a new TEL with a enlongated cannister. That could be the true DF-31A

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


I find it hard to believe that two missiles of the same size can have such diferente ranges (7000 km vs 11200 km)
 

Lion

Senior Member
I wouldnt be so sure. They could have pretended that what we saw in 2009 parade was dF-31A. Fact is that we are seeing a new TEL with a enlongated cannister. That could be the true DF-31A

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


I find it hard to believe that two missiles of the same size can have such diferente ranges (7000 km vs 11200 km)

From past gather source. DF-31(JL-2) is a ICBM designed with size to fit into SLBN. While DF-31A has no such restriction, it can packed a longer solid fuel boaster to further increase the range.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top