China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread

FORBIN · Jul 31, 2017

Even with normaly ... 24 DF-41 and 16 DF-31AG China have much less ICBMs than USA and Russia and the difference is again more importants for SLBMs in mor China don't have Strategic Bombers.

USA

400 Minuteman III
TOTAL 400

41 B-52H
19 B-1
60 nuclear capables on 96 plus 63 B-1B

280 Trident II in fact now 9 Ohio have 20 and 5 others 24

TOTAL GENERAL : 740

RUSSIA

SS-18 mod 6/R-36M2 x 46
SS-19 mod 3/UR-100N x 20
SS-25/RT-2PM Topol mobile x 70
SS-27 Mod 1/RT-2PM2 Topol-M silo x 60
SS-27 Mod 1/RT-2PM2 Topol-M mobile x 18
SS-27 mod 2/RS-24 Yars-M mobiles x 84
SS-27 mod 2/RS-24 silos x 12
TOTAL 310

Tu-95H-MS6 x 25
Tu-95H-MS16 x 23
Tu-95MSM x 12 formers MS16
Tu- 160 x 11
Tu - 160M x 5
A part nuclear capables about 50

SS-N -18/R-29R x 48
SS-N-23 mod/R-29RMU2 Sineva x 96
SS-N-32/RSM-56 Boulava x 48
TOTAL 192

TOTAL GENERAL : about 550

CHINA under reserves

48 JL-2

DF-5A/CSS-4 x 10
DF-5B/CSS-4 x 10
DF-31/CSS-9 x 8
DF-31A/CSS-9 mod2 x 36
DF-31B/CSS-9 mod3 ?
DF-31AG / CSS-9 mod4 x 16
DF-41/CSS-X-10 x 24
TOTAL 104

TOTAL GENERAL : about 150 - 160

Insignius · Jul 31, 2017

manqiangrexue said:
Actually, I think that all the weapons you mentioned that in that analogy (body armor, machine guns, henchmen) are more akin to conventional weapons. A nuclear weapon deterrence would be more like carrying a grenade with you, so no matter how many henchmen or machine guns he's got, if a grenade lets loose, everyone dies.

Minimum deterrence does not mean to have a negligently small weapon force; minimum deterrence means to have the smallest amount of weapons possible that still induces doubt in your enemy as to whether or not he could achieve a meaningful victory over you. So when that gangster sees you come in with six grenades strapped to your chest with their pins tied together to a handle in your hand, he knows he's not gonna be pushing anyone around with his buddies or chopping anyone's fingers off. And he knows he spent a fortune on his weapons but he still can't mess with your grenade vest.

Obviously, if you underestimate the amount needed for minimum deterrence (eg, you come in with 6 cherry bombs strapped to your chest LOL), you could be inviting trouble.

Wildly optimistic.

A nuke isnt a grenade. A nuke is a weapon that first needs to be sent to the enemy to explode there. So, the gun analogy is more correct. And China has both low warhead number and low missile number, which means that for the nuclear arsenal of the US, there is no problem in destroying those pitiful 60+ missiles that can threaten the US soil before they can even launch. Hence the henchmen analogy, who each can and will shoot the "minimum deterrence guy" before he can even lift his hand to pull the trigger. In addition to that, the US also has sophisticated multi-layered ABM which will intercept the few missiles that can survive the first strike - hence the EOD-suit analogy, which makes the Gangster invulnerable to your small caliber plinker - IF you can even survive his henchmen shooting you the moment you try to grab the gun in the first place.

A grenade analogy would best fit with a doomsday device that explodes in China and is powerful enough to destroy the whole world. Because such a device would be a suicide weapon that cannot be intercepted by ABM nor be neutralized by a first strike. But as of now, there is no weapon powerful enough to pull this off. And even the threat of "nuclear winter" by detonating nukes on your own soil is not really a deterrence, since this still leaves your enemy ample time to prepare and evacuate, as well as to take immeditate advantage of the post-apocalyptic world.

Deterrence stems only from the threat of immediate and instantanious genocide. And only "a cartoonishly large" nuclar stockpile in addition to "a cartoonish large" long range missile arsenal can give you that peace of mind.

The USA and USSR didnt embark on a nuclear race because they were dumb. They did it because it was the natural outcome of Game Theory: The One with the larger nuclear and missile arsenal has higher chance be left with enough nukes to take revenge on the enemy after a first disarmament attack.

And China's decision to remain small and vulnerable in this field is not clever at all, but suicidal.

The benefit of minimal deterrence is that you can devote those extra resources saved from manufacturing and maintaining a cartoonishly large nuclear stockpile and put them into the economy (to build an even stronger economic base on which to support your military), into the acquisition of more conventional weapons (to play maritime games with, which sometimes lands you more territory), and into the development of the next generation of weapons to get/stay ahead of your rivals.

To further develop my analogy: China, the "minimum deterrence guy", decides that he doesnt want to spend his money on a better gun, or to hire his own henchmen who have his back while he is playing Poker against the Mafia-boss, but instead uses this money to buy a bunch of cheating cards, like aces in his sleeve, hoping that this gives him advantage in the Poker game itself.

China wins the Poker game because of these tricks. And in the very moment China demands his newly won chips turned into money, he gets shot dead by the Mafia-guy's henchmen, as they feel completely undeterred. As a sour loser he just flips the table and gets violent after losing the game.

China should have spent the money to buy the gun and hire henchmen.

Conventional warfare and economic rivalry is basically the Poker game. Once the Mafia-boss sees that he is about to lose either of that, he will be inclined to use his gun (launch his nukes).

With China's pitiful nuclear arsenal, a conventional victory would immediately invite a nuclear response by a sour loser USA. It is almost guaranteed that the US would escalate the moment their carrier gets sunk, because they feel completely undeterred.
Always remember General Petraeus quote: Better no world at all, than a world without an american superpower.

J16B MRF · Jul 31, 2017

FORBIN said:
Even with normaly ... 24 DF-41 and 16 DF-31AG China have much less ICBMs than USA and Russia and the difference is again more importants for SLBMs in mor China don't have Strategic Bombers.

USA

400 Minuteman III
TOTAL 400

41 B-52H
19 B-1
60 nuclear capables on 96 plus 63 B-1B

280 Trident II in fact now 9 Ohio have 20 and 5 others 24

TOTAL GENERAL : 740

RUSSIA

SS-18 mod 6/R-36M2 x 46
SS-19 mod 3/UR-100N x 20
SS-25/RT-2PM Topol mobile x 70
SS-27 Mod 1/RT-2PM2 Topol-M silo x 60
SS-27 Mod 1/RT-2PM2 Topol-M mobile x 18
SS-27 mod 2/RS-24 Yars-M mobiles x 84
SS-27 mod 2/RS-24 silos x 12
TOTAL 310

Tu-95H-MS6 x 25
Tu-95H-MS16 x 23
Tu-95MSM x 12 formers MS16
Tu- 160 x 11
Tu - 160M x 5
A part nuclear capables about 50

SS-N -18/R-29R x 48
SS-N-23 mod/R-29RMU2 Sineva x 96
SS-N-32/RSM-56 Boulava x 48
TOTAL 192

TOTAL GENERAL : about 550

CHINA under reserves

48 JL-2

DF-5A/CSS-4 x 10
DF-5B/CSS-4 x 10
DF-31/CSS-9 x 8
DF-31A/CSS-9 mod2 x 36
DF-31B/CSS-9 mod3 ?
DF-31AG / CSS-9 mod4 x 16
DF-41/CSS-X-10 x 24
TOTAL 104

TOTAL GENERAL : about 150 - 160

Fantastic work!

WestRiver · Jul 31, 2017

Nice work, but there is at least one more DF-31AG as reserve in Zhurihe.

manqiangrexue · Jul 31, 2017

Insignius said:
Wildly optimistic.

A nuke isnt a grenade. A nuke is a weapon that first needs to be sent to the enemy to explode there. So, the gun analogy is more correct. And China has both low warhead number and low missile number, which means that for the nuclear arsenal of the US, there is no problem in destroying those pitiful 60+ missiles that can threaten the US soil before they can even launch. Hence the henchmen analogy, who each can and will shoot the "minimum deterrence guy" before he can even lift his hand to pull the trigger. In addition to that, the US also has sophisticated multi-layered ABM which will intercept the few missiles that can survive the first strike - hence the EOD-suit analogy, which makes the Gangster invulnerable to your small caliber plinker - IF you can even survive his henchmen shooting you the moment you try to grab the gun in the first place.

A grenade analogy would best fit with a doomsday device that explodes in China and is powerful enough to destroy the whole world. Because such a device would be a suicide weapon that cannot be intercepted by ABM nor be neutralized by a first strike. But as of now, there is no weapon powerful enough to pull this off. And even the threat of "nuclear winter" by detonating nukes on your own soil is not really a deterrence, since this still leaves your enemy ample time to prepare and evacuate, as well as to take immeditate advantage of the post-apocalyptic world.

Deterrence stems only from the threat of immediate and instantanious genocide. And only "a cartoonishly large" nuclar stockpile in addition to "a cartoonish large" long range missile arsenal can give you that peace of mind.

The USA and USSR didnt embark on a nuclear race because they were dumb. They did it because it was the natural outcome of Game Theory: The One with the larger nuclear and missile arsenal has higher chance be left with enough nukes to take revenge on the enemy after a first disarmament attack.

And China's decision to remain small and vulnerable in this field is not clever at all, but suicidal.

To further develop my analogy: China, the "minimum deterrence guy", decides that he doesnt want to spend his money on a better gun, or to hire his own henchmen who have his back while he is playing Poker against the Mafia-boss, but instead uses this money to buy a bunch of cheating cards, like aces in his sleeve, hoping that this gives him advantage in the Poker game itself.

China wins the Poker game because of these tricks. And in the very moment China demands his newly won chips turned into money, he gets shot dead by the Mafia-guy's henchmen, as they feel completely undeterred. As a sour loser he just flips the table and gets violent after losing the game.

China should have spent the money to buy the gun and hire henchmen.

Conventional warfare and economic rivalry is basically the Poker game. Once the Mafia-boss sees that he is about to lose either of that, he will be inclined to use his gun (launch his nukes).

With China's pitiful nuclear arsenal, a conventional victory would immediately invite a nuclear response by a sour loser USA. It is almost guaranteed that the US would escalate the moment their carrier gets sunk, because they feel completely undeterred.
Always remember General Petraeus quote: Better no world at all, than a world without an american superpower.

First of all, if you sit there with a gun playing poker with an armed gangster with 10 henchmen, it's still the same game of who draws first. If you draw first and you put a bullet in his skull, he's dead. This not a video game where you take turns trading shots with each of his henchmen until they all die before you take whatever health you have left to face the boss. But this is only a colorful analogy. Let's go into real world data and observations.

How many nukes does China have? Do you know? Nobody seems to know.

Current events seem to show mutual respect; the US does not shoot at Chinese ships/aircraft just because they're not scared to go nuclear, nor do the Chinese back off for fear when engaging American ship/aircraft. In the SCS, China does as it plans despite US protests. When American spy planes come into China's EEZ, China sends fighters to repel them and the US has never decided to escalate that with fighter escorts or nuclear threats; they turn away, flee, then complain. But the most important piece of real-world evidence is that the US is not more aggressive with China than it is with Russia, which also has a cartoonishly large nuclear stockpile. If what you say is true, that China's minimal deterrence numbers are no deterrence at all, while larger numbers could achieve the effect, then the US should be treating China very aggressively while giving the Russians a lot of clearance. This is not what we see.

If you take Petraeus' comment at surface value, then nothing serves as a deterrence and the US would rather die and take everyone with it than lose its place of respect in the world (the mark of an obviously power-crazed lunatic with no respect for democracy or natural order). I won't discuss whether or not I believe this statement (since people's attitudes often change with the situation) but I would say that it does not convey that a massive increase in Chinese nuclear weapons would change the calculus. Whether or not it would is a different story, but this quote does not suggest that it would.

Now like I said, I advocate an increase in China's nuclear numbers, at least 1,000, up to 2,000 advanced warheads like DF-ZF or DF-41, but I do NOT advocate cartoonishly large stockpiles like 7-10,000, enough to blow up the world 7 times or something pointless like that.

manqiangrexue · Jul 31, 2017

FORBIN said:
Even with normaly ... 24 DF-41 and 16 DF-31AG China have much less ICBMs than USA and Russia and the difference is again more importants for SLBMs in mor China don't have Strategic Bombers.

USA

400 Minuteman III
TOTAL 400

41 B-52H
19 B-1
60 nuclear capables on 96 plus 63 B-1B

280 Trident II in fact now 9 Ohio have 20 and 5 others 24

TOTAL GENERAL : 740

RUSSIA

SS-18 mod 6/R-36M2 x 46
SS-19 mod 3/UR-100N x 20
SS-25/RT-2PM Topol mobile x 70
SS-27 Mod 1/RT-2PM2 Topol-M silo x 60
SS-27 Mod 1/RT-2PM2 Topol-M mobile x 18
SS-27 mod 2/RS-24 Yars-M mobiles x 84
SS-27 mod 2/RS-24 silos x 12
TOTAL 310

Tu-95H-MS6 x 25
Tu-95H-MS16 x 23
Tu-95MSM x 12 formers MS16
Tu- 160 x 11
Tu - 160M x 5
A part nuclear capables about 50

SS-N -18/R-29R x 48
SS-N-23 mod/R-29RMU2 Sineva x 96
SS-N-32/RSM-56 Boulava x 48
TOTAL 192

TOTAL GENERAL : about 550

CHINA under reserves

48 JL-2

DF-5A/CSS-4 x 10
DF-5B/CSS-4 x 10
DF-31/CSS-9 x 8
DF-31A/CSS-9 mod2 x 36
DF-31B/CSS-9 mod3 ?
DF-31AG / CSS-9 mod4 x 16
DF-41/CSS-X-10 x 24
TOTAL 104

TOTAL GENERAL : about 150 - 160

Am I crazy? Why was I under the impression that the US/Russia both had 7-10,000 nukes?

Edit: I found this
Operational American strategic nuclear forces, July 1, 2016

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Delivery Vehicles Warheads

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

/Mk12A ;

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

/Mk21 431 481
ICBM (total) 431 481

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Trident II D-5

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

/Mk4 230 N/A

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Trident II D-5 W76-1/Mk4A N/A

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Trident II D-5

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

/Mk5 N/A
SLBM (total) 230 920

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

12 N/A

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

68 N/A

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

-7 N/A N/A
B61-11 N/A N/A

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

N/A N/A

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

W80-1 N/A N/A
Bomber force (total) 80 *
Strategic forces (total) 741 1481+

* Each heavy bomber is counted as one warhead (The New START Treaty)
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Source was originally the US government but has been removed. I think the START treaty limits that US and Russia both to 1,550 nukes each. If that were true, I'd definitely revise my numbers for China to closer to 1,000 DF-41/DF-ZF, no 2-3,000 craziness.

FORBIN · Aug 1, 2017

Hyperwarp said:
Nope . Definitely not certain but it seems odd why they named it DF-31AG instead of DF-31B if it is specifically MIRV. This is the 1st time i've seen such a designation. Even the DF-21 anti-ship version is designated DF-21D. MIRV version of DF-5A is designated DF-5B. So why is it different this time?

I find it

China Unveils DF-31AG ICBM
Published: July 31, 2017 | By
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

On July 30, Chinese president Xi Jinping presided over a large military parade celebrating the 90th anniversary of the founding of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA). China unveiled its new DF-31AG ICBM. The DF-31AG is an upgrade to the DF-31A missile that was introduced in 2009. The DF-31AG was mounted on an all-terrain vehicle, demonstrating better mobility. The missile possesses a longer range, and carries multiple warheads. The DF-31A only carries a single warhead. While the DF-31AG shows improved survivability and longer range, China has yet to release details of the missile.

Unlike previous displays held in Beijing, this was held at Zhurihe base in Inner Mongolia. More than 100 planes flew overhead, and nearly 600 different types of weaponry were on display, including the J-20 stealth fighter, DF-21D antiship ballistic missiles, and DF-31AG ballistic missile.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Hendrik_2000 · Aug 5, 2017

New Chinese missile DF-31AG a more mobile deterrent: PLA
PUBLISHED
41 MIN AGO

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

BEIJING (China Daily/The Asia News Network) - The Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) Rocket Force has improved its strategic deterrence capability, with the service of a new missile.

The DF-31AG, an enhanced version of the DF-31A intercontinental ballistic missile, is a new type of solid-fuel, road-mobile missile that can be launched from an eight-axle vehicle that also transports the missiles, according to an article published on Thursday (Aug 3) by an online outlet run by PLA Daily, the military's flagship newspaper.

Compared with its predecessors, the DF-31 and DF-31A, the new missile features better mobility and survivability, the article said, without giving further details.

Before the arrival of the DF-31AG, the DF-31A was the PLA's newest intercontinental ballistic missile known to the public.

Get The Straits Times
newsletters in your inbox

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The DF-31AG was first viewed by the public at a field parade on Sunday morning at the PLA's Zhurihe Training Base in the Inner Mongolia autonomous region.

The parade was held to mark the 90th anniversary of the founding of the PLA, which was on Tuesday (Aug 1). The PLA used the occasion to display many new weapons, such as the J-20 stealth fighter jet and HQ-22 air defence missile.

The military said the new ballistic missile and the older DF-31A, which also appeared in Sunday's parade, represent China's status as a world power and the country's defence prowess. It called them "trump cards" in strategic deterrence.

Footage of the DF-31AG in the parade shows it is carried by an integrated missile vehicle known as a transporter-erector-launcher, and the bottom of the launch tube has been equipped with a buffer device. By comparison, the DF-31A is still mounted on an older, two-part vehicle and has no buffer attached to its launch tube.

The upgrades indicate that the DF-31AG is capable of making off-road launch in most kinds of terrain, with a very short preparation time, said Yang Chengjun, a military observer close to China's missile programmes.

Du Wenlong, a senior researcher at the PLA Academy of Military Science, said that judging by the DF-31AG's extrinsic features and earlier information about it, the new model is likely to have a longer range, stronger penetration capability and larger destructive capacity than the DF-31A.

"It is possible that the missile has a global coverage and is able to deliver multiple manoeuvrable re-entry vehicles," he said. "Its service will extensively strengthen the Rocket Force's strategic strike capability."

According to Western weapons analysts, research and development for the DF-31, the first in the series, began in the mid-1980s. In August 1999, the first launch of the missile was conducted, and two months later, it was displayed to the public at the National Day parade.

The PLA Rocket Force now operates at least three types of intercontinental ballistic missiles for its nuclear deterrence system - the DF-31A, DF-31AG and DF-5B.

The DF-5B, which made its debut at a parade in September 2015, is a liquid-propelled model capable of carrying multiple nuclear warheads, according to information from the Chinese military.

In addition to the DF-31AG, another ground-to-ground missile that emerged for the first time was the DF-16G medium-range ballistic missile. Compared with the DF-16, the upgraded variant has higher accuracy and an improved manoeuvrable terminal stage that can better infiltrate missile defence systems, said the PLA Daily article.

Insignius · Aug 5, 2017

No matter what number, China needs nuclear parity.

The US still operates under the assumption of them being able to actually "win" a nuclear war. That's basically the same as the Gangster always assuming that he could just shoot you dead if you have the gall to defend yourself when he mugs you.

If the US had 7k nukes, China needs at least 3k. If the US has 1500 nukes, China needs at least 800 to 1000. It needs to be ensured that the US has to use a considerable portion of their nuclear forces to disarm China which would leave them vulnerable to Russian and North Korean nukes.

james smith esq · Aug 5, 2017

Insignius said:
No matter what number, China needs nuclear parity.

Where the US has the greatest advantage, globally, is in SSBNs/SSBMs. This might be a good place for China to seek actual parity. Although the most expensive component of a nuclear force, SSBNs/SSBNs provide the greatest strategic flexibility and, if well deployed and defended, greater survivability, as well.

Additionally, because of the geographic proximity of Russia and China, a US counterforce first-strike on either using ICBMs is less likely ( I think) as elements of a strike on central or eastern Russia would follow a similar trajectory to a strike on China and vice versa. With neither of the two having sufficient time to determine the actual trajectories/targets of those missiles, the potential of a response from both would be a serious risk. And I'm not certain that the US will ever have the level of trust with either that they would accept US assurances in such a scenario.

Therefore, being that a limited counterforce first-strike against Chinese ICBMs would, most-likely, be launched from SSBNs at central-latitudes of the Pacific, it might be wise for China to prioritize having a substantial, survivable, SSBN/SSBM force that provides a flexible first-strike deterrent.

China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread

FORBIN

Lieutenant General

Insignius

Junior Member

J16B MRF

Junior Member

WestRiver

Junior Member

manqiangrexue

Brigadier

manqiangrexue

Brigadier

FORBIN

Lieutenant General

Hendrik_2000

Lieutenant General

Insignius

Junior Member

james smith esq

Senior Member