China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

SpicySichuan

Senior Member
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

In this video, it is said that the DF-5A/Bs are the only missile capable to covering the Continental U.S. entirely, so they remain in service. The original DF-5 entered service in 1986. The DF-5A is a upgraded version with an improved range of 13,000-15,000km. The DF-5B was first successfully tested in 2006 and incorporated MIRV technology.
I used Google Earth to measure the range of the 11,200km DF-31A. It seems like if the DF-31A is launched from Xinjiang or Manchuria, it is still capable of barely reaching Washington DC, so if China's nuclear doctrine is based on "minimal deterrence," the DF-31As and future DF-41s are credible enough. Also, since the DF-5s are deployed in Silos, they would be the first ones to be knocked out during a enemy counter-force strike (think about how accurate the Trident D-5s are). Therefore, I really don't see why the PLA needs to waste money on preserving and upgrading these DF-5s. Some 30-40 mobile ICBMs (maybe including roughly 15 DF-41s with MIRVs) would be enough to deter anyone fro waging a nuclear war against China.
 
janjak desalin

janjak desalin

Junior Member
Josh Luo said:
Some 30-40 mobile ICBMs (maybe including roughly 15 DF-41s with MIRVs) would be enough to deter anyone fro waging a nuclear war against China.
Click to expand...
I think you seriously underestimate the psychopathy of some that consider a nuclear war winnable, i. e., a viable option, and have first-strike policies.

Additionally, the potential dynamics of a nuclear war in the contemporary, multi-nuclear states and Machiavellian, context might not simply be one nation against one nation, but a multi-national conflict with multi-directional attacks. Consequently, I'd recommend a build-up to a level at 67% of the average of the total of the two leading nuclear powers. This would require ~1065 warheads. How those would be deployed would be the strategic consideration. Should China choose the MIRV option, the strategic consideration would be to find the balance between the number of warheads to place on each missile and the number of missiles required to provide a sufficient, and survivable, deterrence. Would 100 missiles with 10 - 11 warheads, 175 missiles with 6 - 7 warheads, or 250 missiles with 4 - 5 warheads be optimal, etc.

So, it seems you might bump that 30-40 ICBMs up to ~175 ICBMs and SLBMs. And, yes, the wise strategist would place all ICBMs on mobile TELs, despite the increased cost.

Which model do you think is most survivable, the Russian which has a ~2.35:1 ratio ICBM to SLBM, or the US which has a ~2.10:1 ratio of SLBM to ICBM? Or, would you go 1:1?
 
Last edited:
S

SpicySichuan

Senior Member
Registered Member
janjak desalin said:
Which model do you think is most survivable, the Russian which has a ~2.35:1 ratio ICBM to SLBM, or the US which has a ~2.10:1 ratio of SLBM to ICBM? Or, would you go 1:1?
Click to expand...
Unfortunately since you know more than I do, so I don't have a straightforward answer to this question. However, I will say that given China has lots of mountain ranges, while its SSBNs are still relatively loud, China's comparative nuclear advantage remains in hiding mobile ICBMs in these mountain caves. Roll them out and launch them after surviving the initial strike. The type 094s are sitting ducks for U.S. and Japanese hunter subs, while the H-6Ks do not have intercontinental strike range. Nevertheless, the H-6K could be used deliver tactical nukes (cruise missiles) against enemy fleets and the U.S. bases in Guam and Japan. At the same time, however, there's no evidence that China has mounted nuclear warheads on the CJ-10/20 cruise missiles.
 
janjak desalin

janjak desalin

Junior Member
Josh Luo said:
However, I will say that given China has lots of mountain ranges, while its SSBNs are still relatively loud, China's comparative nuclear advantage remains in hiding mobile ICBMs in these mountain caves. Roll them out and launch them after surviving the initial strike.
Click to expand...

I agree that the mobile ICBM-mountain cave approach is a wise one, particularly as there are several ranges proximal to China's geographic extremes. Also, as I understand it, the primary launch area for Chinese SSBNs would be the Bohai Sea. This would make targeting them much more predictable and bring exploding warheads dangerously close to Beijing. And, yes, venturing out into the northern Pacific would entail great risk.

I'd think that the Chinese might take a 1:1 ratio approach. Using a 264 platform model, such an deployment would comprise 132 ICBMs and SLBMs (5 Type 094 and 3 Type 096). Arming each with 4 - 5 warheads would result in a total of between 1056 and 1320 warheads. Of course, it would be wise to have the capacity to load as many as 10 MIRVs to each missile.
 
Last edited:
S

SpicySichuan

Senior Member
Registered Member
janjak desalin said:
132 ICBMs and SLBMs (5 Type 094 and 3 Type 096). Arming each with 4 - 5 warheads would result in a total of between 1056 and 1320 warheads.
Click to expand...
I think this would no longer be a "minimum deterrence." China only has around 2 tons of plutonium, allowing them produce some 300-400 warheads in addition to the current 240-250. I guess if China were to re-arm, it would probably have 500-650 warheads in the medium term (I am talking about a massive rearmament here, not just growing defense budget by 10% each year). However, to achieve 1,320 warheads or higher (like the U.S. and Russia), China would have to re-convert the Jiuquan and Mianyang facilities to produce weapons-grade plutonium. That would take some time as both sites now only produce low-enriched Uranium for nuclear power plants. Having said that, I think the core of China's nuclear deterrence would remain 30-50 mobile ICBMs. If the U.S. and Japan improve their ABM capabilities, China could increase the number of mobile ICBMs to over a hundred. By 2020, the DF-41s would be assisted by Beidou Navigation System's global coverage, most likely allowing these mobile ICBMs (and their MIRVs) to achieve the same precision as the Trident D-5. However, putting too many warheads on SLBMs risk getting them all wasted (sunk before being launched). It is simply too easy for U.S. and Japanese navies to track down and sunk the 4 type 094s in the PLAN.
 
Blackstone

Blackstone

Brigadier
Josh Luo said:
I think this would no longer be a "minimum deterrence." China only has around 2 tons of plutonium, allowing them produce some 300-400 warheads in addition to the current 240-250...
Click to expand...
Is the 2-tons of plutonium claim true? There were US experts a year or so ago that claimed China could have thousands of nuclear weapons hidden in their thousands of kilometer tunnels. "Thousands" of nukes sounds far fetched, but the unvarnished fact is we in the public arena simply don't know either way. China's official policy has been obfuscation for deterrence, so just how much weapons grade material China has is anyone's guess.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top