China ICBM/SLBM, nuclear arms thread

[ZeEa5KPul]

CNN piece on recent nuclear infrastructure expansion in Sichuan.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Completely off the cuff speculation here, but I think this is a plutonium MLIS (molecular laser isotope separation) facility:
1) All other processes in the weapons production chain are accounted for elsewhere - pit production at Pingtong, explosive lenses at other facilities, etc.
2) This is exactly what an MLIS plant would look like - heavy shielding for radioactivity, blast doors for criticality accidents, massive air filtration to handle plutonium in the gas phase.
3) China has a vast latent stockpile of reactor grade plutonium and very little weapons grade. This is exactly the facility needed to clean up the reactor junk.
4) China recently said that Japan has enough material for "5,500" nuclear weapons. Japan has RGPu which is unsuitable for bombs, so such a statement wouldn't be made unless China thought it was technically feasible to upgrade it. I've seen claims you could guerilla up some bombs out of RGPu, so this is my weakest argument.

 

[Sierra]

CNN piece on recent nuclear infrastructure expansion in Sichuan.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

906 is not Chinese Pantex.
They only handle the non-nuclear part.

 

[004_On_EastCoast]

So...enough Chinese nukes to use them like Iran uses drones and missiles? Nice.

Yes, Fifty thousand (50000) nukes coming !

 

[magmunta]

It seems a previously unknown warhead has been made public, or allegations thereof; 110kg/95kt named "5X5". The speaker in the video has been at times just wrong about china, so take it with a pinch of salt.

 

[Maikeru]

It seems a previously unknown warhead has been made public, or allegations thereof; 110kg/95kt named "5X5". The speaker in the video has been at times just wrong about china, so take it with a pinch of salt.

More on this in a NIPP report issued earlier this week:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[004_On_EastCoast]

.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[nativechicken]

If PLARF were said having burned rocket fuels for heating hotpots, it is not inconceivable that they could have burned the UGW blueprints for BBQ.

I hope you have some basic knowledge and refrain from spreading such low-level misinformation. Currently, China’s active missiles fall into two categories: solid-fuel missiles and toxic liquid-fuel missiles. The toxic liquid-fuel missiles are essentially only one type: the DF-5. The propellant used in such rockets is highly toxic, and no one would use it for hotpot. As for solid-fuel missiles, the fuel is akin to explosives and cannot possibly be used for cooking. Solid rockets generally require a detonator to ignite (they have a high ignition temperature and cannot be lit with ordinary fire—think C4). Once ignited, the burn rate is too fast, causing an immediate explosion rather than heating food.
This story is actually quite mundane. When I was very young, I lived near an air force base. The original version of the story actually involved leftover aviation kerosene. During times of material scarcity, people would collect the residual fuel from fighter and bomber training flights for personal use. That was aviation kerosene/fuel, not missile propellant. Of course, in earlier years, some cruise missiles like the "Shangyou" series also used aviation kerosene. But no one would go out of their way to extract it from missiles; it was usually easier and cheaper to obtain fuel from other sources, such as vehicle units, where gasoline was more accessible.

 

[SanWenYu]

I hope you have some basic knowledge and refrain from spreading such low-level misinformation. Currently, China’s active missiles fall into two categories: solid-fuel missiles and toxic liquid-fuel missiles. The toxic liquid-fuel missiles are essentially only one type: the DF-5. The propellant used in such rockets is highly toxic, and no one would use it for hotpot. As for solid-fuel missiles, the fuel is akin to explosives and cannot possibly be used for cooking. Solid rockets generally require a detonator to ignite (they have a high ignition temperature and cannot be lit with ordinary fire—think C4). Once ignited, the burn rate is too fast, causing an immediate explosion rather than heating food.
This story is actually quite mundane. When I was very young, I lived near an air force base. The original version of the story actually involved leftover aviation kerosene. During times of material scarcity, people would collect the residual fuel from fighter and bomber training flights for personal use. That was aviation kerosene/fuel, not missile propellant. Of course, in earlier years, some cruise missiles like the "Shangyou" series also used aviation kerosene. But no one would go out of their way to extract it from missiles; it was usually easier and cheaper to obtain fuel from other sources, such as vehicle units, where gasoline was more accessible.

Have some sense of self awareness bro. Know what I meant and whom I was mocking before yapping.

 

[nativechicken]

Have some sense of self awareness bro. Know what I meant and whom I was mocking before yapping.

Apologies, I haven't read much of the previous discussion. If I've misinterpreted your point, I sincerely apologize.

 

[004_On_EastCoast]

No, TELs won't become less important. TELs are extremely survivable delivery systems because once there is a crisis, TELs start dispersing and a second strike is guaranteed. However, TELs percent number in the overall Chinese nuclear forces will get reduced. But subs won't replace TELs.

Even without crisis.

TELs are on constant patrol just like SSBNs. There are now thousands of TELs in Chinese nuclear forces carry real and decoy missiles on patrol at all time. During crisis thousands more can be surged to further complicate finding and targeting !