When you started the post with the word “Sorry,..” it’s a way of rejecting outright, a call of ridiculous, and coming from you it feels like a call to end the discussion. That was my impression anyway, and I felt compelled to interject.
China ICBM/SLBM, nuclear arms thread
- Thread starter Blitzo
- Start date
That's funny. Real funny.
You know what? I'll just right stop there (if not before) if I were you.
Aye, cause you sometimes say things like, “I just told you..” if someone disagrees with what you said.
If something like this could happen, it would be really cool.
We have zero indication though of something like this happening. Not only that, but what we do know about the world now in 2025, points to the exact opposite.
I really have trouble understanding how you could find it likely. By 2030 too! But, I think we are getting off-topic here so I won't belabor the point further.
The notion of China enterring an arm control treaty negotiation is a WISH by the US, there is no tinnest indication of China even picked up this talk. Any discussion, analysis and prediction based on this assumption is a wishful thinking and does not worth pages of posts. If China seeing 1000 nukes being a waste of money, China will not make that many in the first place, China don't need anyone to tell her to stop. If China sees the necessity of 2000 nukes, China will make it especially if her enemy asked her to not to do so. For the US, if it can afford to keep up the race, go ahead to make 10000 like Trumps 200% tariff, wiping off the earth for 100 times is no worse than 10 times as far as everybody concerns. If the US can not afford the game, then shut up, stop whining like a baby.
There maybe a limit though, what's the point of having 5k when 2k is more than enough to achieve your goals? That leaves funds for other areas of the military.
Is there any indication that the leadership has an upper threshold for warheads?
Is there any indication that the leadership has an upper threshold for warheads?
The cold war arm race produced nukes that either USSR or USA could wipe the world many times alone. Apparently it was more of a size contest than necessity. But neither side was willing to be seen as "defeated" by voluntarily stoping/reducing without concent from the other, therefor the treaty. It was a childish idiocy followed by a face-saving coverup dressed as peace-loving "achivement", nothing more.
Of course there is a threshold, but we will never know what the leadership think. But one thing is certain, Chinese leadership isn't going to make that many like USA and USSR did, without that rediculous extra there isn't a reason for China to negotiate limiting the necessity.
[add]
To put a current analog, the cold war race was like Trump's tariff. When the tariff from both sides reached 100%, it essentially stopped any trade, beyond that there is no difference between 101% and 200%. China stopped at 100% which is the threshold of necessity. But Trump like his predecessor and old Soviet leaders would go and had gone to 200% or 3000/4000 nukes. That is excessive and stupid which needed a treaty to save faces for both sides. China doesn't play that kind of game as shown now.
Of course there is a threshold, but we will never know what the leadership think. But one thing is certain, Chinese leadership isn't going to make that many like USA and USSR did, without that rediculous extra there isn't a reason for China to negotiate limiting the necessity.
[add]
To put a current analog, the cold war race was like Trump's tariff. When the tariff from both sides reached 100%, it essentially stopped any trade, beyond that there is no difference between 101% and 200%. China stopped at 100% which is the threshold of necessity. But Trump like his predecessor and old Soviet leaders would go and had gone to 200% or 3000/4000 nukes. That is excessive and stupid which needed a treaty to save faces for both sides. China doesn't play that kind of game as shown now.
Last edited:
Just because Chinas keeps its strategy quiet doesn’t mean we can’t discuss possible developments.
A limit suits everyone, imo, because:
If you are the USA your analysts are already telling you that China will have 1k nukes by 2030, so it suits them to make that a limit, it seems they have accepted it. On the other hand you are under time pressure because your arsenal is deteriorating and you can’t afford to replace it fully. You want to reduce.
If you are Russia you have already accepted the multipolar world so an equal amount or nukes among the superpowers is fair and reasonable from that point of view.
If you are China you want a proper and sensible amount which might be the 1000 oft mentioned. You also want to build up this in a cost effective manner so keeping steady production up to 2030 then moving to refurbishing is perfect.
A limit suits everyone, imo, because:
If you are the USA your analysts are already telling you that China will have 1k nukes by 2030, so it suits them to make that a limit, it seems they have accepted it. On the other hand you are under time pressure because your arsenal is deteriorating and you can’t afford to replace it fully. You want to reduce.
If you are Russia you have already accepted the multipolar world so an equal amount or nukes among the superpowers is fair and reasonable from that point of view.
If you are China you want a proper and sensible amount which might be the 1000 oft mentioned. You also want to build up this in a cost effective manner so keeping steady production up to 2030 then moving to refurbishing is perfect.
If China sees X number is enough and sensible, then China will stop there regardless what other thinks. Whether other countries can make/maintain more or less isn't making a difference to China, nor does China have the desire to stop others to have more. It isn't really "keeping quiet" but rather "non of your business".