China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread

[tidalwave]

Uranium Mines in Tibet
According to a report published by the Tibetan Government in Exile, the Chinese have discovered some 200 uranium deposits by 1990. (Tibetan Environment and Development issues 1992, Dept. Of Information and International Relations, Central Tibetan Administration of His Holiness the XIV Dalai Lama, Dharamsala, India.). The area around Lhasa contains possibly the world's largest deposits of uranium. (Richard Pascoe, " Uranium rich Tibet still awaits steam ; " South China Morning Post; 24 Aug. 1982 .)

The largest Chinese uranium mine appears to be the Gya Terseda mine in Tuwe (or Thebe) district, Gannan Tibetan Autonomous prefecture, Gansu Province. The Tibetan Govemment report says the processing of the uranium occurs near the town of Tuwe, which is 86 kilometres from the mine site. The report went on to say that 2000 Chinese are employed in the mine, but no Tibetans. Another report (Nuclear Tibet Nuclear Weapons and Nuclear Waste on the Tibetan plateau, International Campaign for Tibet - (ICT), Washington, 1993) claimed that most of the miners were ex-P.L.A. soldiers. The report also claimed that during the Cultural Revolution approximately 40 Tibetans worked at a dump site inside the mountain processing refuse. The refuse consisted of old electrical equipment, clothes and "thousands of boxes filled with dead white rats." Of the 40 Tibetans who worked in the dumping process, 5 were alive at the time the ICT report was produced.

In 1991 the Director of Operations at the Gya Terseda mine was given a Part commendation for the mining operation. there are reportedly 9 uranium mines in Da Qaidam county in north west Qinghai province. Mines in Ngapa (Sichuan province) and Gannan prefecture (Gansu province) were opened in the 1960s and have operated ever since.

 

[janjak desalin]

I think this would no longer be a "minimum deterrence."

I think that we can agree that your and my assessment of what constitutes a "minimum deterrent" are divergent. With this in mind, we might consider that there may be, also, a significant difference between that which past technical limitations constrained China to present as a deterrent and that which may actually deter.

Keep in mind that 5 operational Type 094 each carry 12 JL-2. Therefore, PLAN already has 60 SLBMs in service. The Type 096 is on the way, each of which will carry 24 SLBMs. Do we actually expect that PLAN has invested significant resources into the development of this platform to only deploy the 3 I've suggested? And, do we expect that the 5 Type 094 will be all decommissioned immediately upon deployment of Type 096?

I understand your desire to maintain a kind of party-line regarding a policy of "minimum deterrence". My opinion is that, whether published, or not, recent technical developments offer opportunities for the specifics of that policy to evolve in ways not previously attainable. Being historical materialists, I'd expect the CCPC to be quite adept at observing and exploiting evolution.

 

[SpicySichuan]

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.

Here you go:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[SpicySichuan]

I understand your desire to maintain a kind of party-line regarding a policy of "minimum deterrence". My opinion is that, whether published, or not, recent technical developments offer opportunities for the specifics of that policy to evolve in ways not previously attainable.

Well...I don't maintain a "party line." The term "minimum deterrence" was came up by Dr. Jeffrey Lewis, who I used to worked for for a short period. The thing about China is that if it really wants a nuclear arsenal of more than 1,000 nuclear warhead, it certainly can, but it will take a while (say 10-15 years) to readjust all the nuclear facilities and production units for such rearmament. However, the question should be WHY does China need an arsenal of 1,300 nuclear warheads, when 200-300 could do the job? As an American citizen, the threat of having 30-40 American cities obliterated makes me think twice before I want to start a war. It is also why North Korea wants nukes so desperately. As with the SLBMs you mentioned, not all 4-5 type 094s are out for patrol all the time. Britain and France each has 4 SSBNs, but only two are out for patrol, while the other two are used for training and overhauling. If two are out in the ocean for deterrence patrol, the PLAN only needs to maintain some 20-30 SLBMs, possibly with 3 warheads on each of the SLBM. Also, while the Trident D-5 could carry 8 warheads, the Royal Navy only mount 3, so the missiles could travel farther. Let's say if the JL-2 could carry 6 warheads, the PLAN might only mount 2-3.

 

[janjak desalin]

Your linked articles are conjectures, just like the pundits that said China might have 3,000+ nukes.

Far be it from me to presume, but you might want to check the "Announcement" forum.

 

[janjak desalin]

However, the question should be WHY does China need an arsenal of 1,300 nuclear warheads, when 200-300 could do the job?

Could is not a term of art in war; will is.
Did "minimum deterrence" prevent that parade in the Taiwan Straits in 1996?
But, we haven't seen any US aircraft carriers in the Black Sea (treaties notwithstanding), now have we?

As far as the European "deterrence forces", I simply cannot believe that you don't recognize those as fig leaves covering the once might imperial egos. What does any NATO country need with nuclear weapons when the US has sufficient mega-tonnage to deter any nation? C'mom man? England and France? Those are China's model?

 

[janjak desalin]

However, the question should be WHY does China need an arsenal of 1,300 nuclear warheads, when 200-300 could do the job?

One, 1, that is, a single, US, Ohio class SSBN, carrying 24 Trident II D5, with a reduced payload of 8 warheads (reduced from 14), is armed with 192 warheads. One!
What could a 200-300 warhead arsenal do to deter the other 13?
One, 1, that is, a single, Russian, Borei II class SSBN, carrying

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, with an average payload of 8 warheads (max = 10), is armed with 160 warheads. One!
3 are active, 3 are building, supposedly 10 are planned; what could a 200-300 warhead arsenal do to deter the other 6 - 9?

 

[advill]

I do not think that China or the US will lob nukes at each other, unless the threats to either country are real. The real fear is rogue states like North Korea, the IS terrorists and a few others could use nuclear weapons (including "stolen" small-medium sized ones) to create total fear and destroy their "enemies". Their power crazy (Mad Max) activities must be checked, including the halt of delivery systems etc. that help them in achieving their evil objectives. A Nuclear War this time = Total Destruction of Mankind.

 

[janjak desalin]

I do not think that China or the US will lob nukes at each other, unless the threats to either country are real. [...]

I certainly don't expect that to happen either. My take is simply that actual deterrence derives from the capability to respond effectively to any possible attack. This quote from the Wikipedia entry on the New Start Treaty, to me, says it all:

"The Pentagon's "Report on the Strategic Nuclear Forces of the Russian Federation Pursuant to Section 1240 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012" found that even if Russia did cheat and achieved a total surprise attack with a breakout force, it would have "little to no effect" on U.S. nuclear retaliatory capabilities" (my emphasis).​

Now, that's deterrence!

[...] A Nuclear War this time = Total Destruction of Mankind.

I've actually never given the bomb that much power; doing so, to me, deifies it, and I'm not a worshiper. Folks along the equator and in the tropics would survive, just as they did in the aftermath of the Toba Volcano supereruption.

 

[escobar]

One, 1, that is, a single, US, Ohio class SSBN, carrying 24 Trident II D5, with a reduced payload of 8 warheads (reduced from 14), is armed with 192 warheads. One!
What could a 200-300 warhead arsenal do to deter the other 13?
One, 1, that is, a single, Russian, Borei II class SSBN, carrying

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, with an average payload of 8 warheads (max = 10), is armed with 160 warheads. One!
3 are active, 3 are building, supposedly 10 are planned; what could a 200-300 warhead arsenal do to deter the other 6 - 9?

US and Russia have a counter force arsenal. That is why they need so much warheads.