China ICBM/SLBM, nuclear arms thread
- Thread starter Blitzo
- Start date
Literally throwing every sh1t on the wall and see whatever sticks to scream "Chyna Bad!!!" and justify their (USA) renewed nuclear expansion efforts to Congress.
Of course, that's could be possible, but the second explanation is more likely. No nuclear state, at least 5 of them, hides that they conduct zero-yield tests. As far as I know, they smash with high speeds tiny plutonium bodies to get data about transition into the supercritical state. There are even videos on YouTube. However, china could have used a little bit larger plutonium bodies that could have resulted a few tons of TNT equivalent explosion. Unlike the USA, china has conducted much fewer real tests, therefore, china lacks the data that the USA have accumulated over more than 1000 tests. What I am saying is china has had incentives to go "a little bit beyond" the treaty limits in a way that china could maintain plausible deniability. I think the article is more likely to be closer to the truth than to a lie.
China has not ratified CTBT.
Until the treaty formally enters into force, its prohibitions do not legally bind states that have not ratified it.
First of all, if you actually read the weasel wording from that idiot ("prepared for" hundreds of tons yield testing, "conducted" non zero yield. Everyone's been "preparing for" higher yield testing.), it's clear this is probably just more empty moaning about the bing bong drum "tests" which got memed about a couple months ago. And more importantly who cares what the US bitches about. In the face of China's persistent, clear stance there will be no negotiating arms limits until its arsenal approaches the US & Russia's in scale (let alone anything remotely resembling the braindead US desire of your & Russia's combined arsenals must remain below ours), the US can throw tantrums, stamp its feet & let New START expire with the Russians all they want. There's nothing else they can practically do besides upload some warheads, which is strategically meaningless (compared to China's current qualitative systems & capability expansion which they have neither the funds nor development capacity to match like for like). All they can do is seethe & blow hot air like this until ultimately accepting China's catch-up (much like in other aspects of the competition) & everyone knows it.
Last edited:
So what does he say?
In short:
Wording of official US statement (not the later trump claims) is such that it insinuates US humint or sigint data on test preparation.
There is zero seisimic data insinuating a test on the specified date.
Apparently anything larger than a few tons (tons, not kilotons) would have been picked up by sensors, especially at lop nur which is closely monitored.
Though with a decoupled test, a 2 ton test signature might still mean the test itself was like a 100 tons, if the test chamber was exotic enough.
Though i get a feeling from their talk there is no precedent for a factor of 100 signature reduction or more, which would be needed for the US claim of "hundreds of tons" to be true.
Also said was that such tiny tests aren't really useful for developing advanced new warheads.
The gist I got was that either there was no test but spies got evidence of preparation for it, or the test was there but it wasn't detected nor confirmed, implying it was either smaller than prepped for, or China managed some new tech/process to greatly dampen it (my conjecture) or both.
Wording of official US statement (not the later trump claims) is such that it insinuates US humint or sigint data on test preparation.
There is zero seisimic data insinuating a test on the specified date.
Apparently anything larger than a few tons (tons, not kilotons) would have been picked up by sensors, especially at lop nur which is closely monitored.
Though with a decoupled test, a 2 ton test signature might still mean the test itself was like a 100 tons, if the test chamber was exotic enough.
Though i get a feeling from their talk there is no precedent for a factor of 100 signature reduction or more, which would be needed for the US claim of "hundreds of tons" to be true.
Also said was that such tiny tests aren't really useful for developing advanced new warheads.
The gist I got was that either there was no test but spies got evidence of preparation for it, or the test was there but it wasn't detected nor confirmed, implying it was either smaller than prepped for, or China managed some new tech/process to greatly dampen it (my conjecture) or both.
Posting this for the update:
In light of today’s remarks from Under Secretary DiNanno, the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization’s (CTBTO) Executive Secretary Robert Floyd has issued a statement.
”The CTBTO’s International Monitoring System (IMS) is capable of detecting nuclear test explosions with a yield equivalent to or greater than approximately 500 tonnes of TNT, including detecting all six tests conducted and declared by the DPRK [North Korea]. Below 500 tonnes is roughly 3 percent of the yield of the explosion that devastated Hiroshima,” Floyd says. “Mechanisms which could address smaller explosions are provided by the Treaty but can only be used once the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty enters into force. That is why it is important that the nuclear arms control framework includes the entry into force of the CTBT. The need is more urgent now than ever.”
“Regarding reports of possible nuclear tests with yields in the hundreds of tonnes, on 22 June 2020, the CTBTO’s IMS did not detect any event consistent with the characteristics of a nuclear weapon test explosion at that time. Subsequent, more detailed analyses have not altered that determination,” he adds. “Any nuclear test explosion, by any state, is of deepest concern.”
So the US accusation was, quelle surprise, BS.
In light of today’s remarks from Under Secretary DiNanno, the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization’s (CTBTO) Executive Secretary Robert Floyd has issued a statement.
”The CTBTO’s International Monitoring System (IMS) is capable of detecting nuclear test explosions with a yield equivalent to or greater than approximately 500 tonnes of TNT, including detecting all six tests conducted and declared by the DPRK [North Korea]. Below 500 tonnes is roughly 3 percent of the yield of the explosion that devastated Hiroshima,” Floyd says. “Mechanisms which could address smaller explosions are provided by the Treaty but can only be used once the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty enters into force. That is why it is important that the nuclear arms control framework includes the entry into force of the CTBT. The need is more urgent now than ever.”
“Regarding reports of possible nuclear tests with yields in the hundreds of tonnes, on 22 June 2020, the CTBTO’s IMS did not detect any event consistent with the characteristics of a nuclear weapon test explosion at that time. Subsequent, more detailed analyses have not altered that determination,” he adds. “Any nuclear test explosion, by any state, is of deepest concern.”
So the US accusation was, quelle surprise, BS.