China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread

[Lethe]

Trilateral nuclear arms limitation isn't an inherently terrible idea, but it rather runs into the problem that neither the US or Russia have appeared even remotely prepared to draw down their stocks to China's level, and until they are then there is nothing for China to discuss. In its most recent nuclear posture review the US even ruled out getting rid of its land-based missiles, when of the three nations it would have the least to lose by doing so. The US pursuit of ABM capabilities and determination to create and maintain threats near the borders of both Russia and China also make reductions in ballistic missile numbers or capabilities more difficult than in the past. Any real change in the status quo is going to require a significant shift in American mindset and strategic posture. And as eloquently described by AssassinsMace, in the short-medium term that is highly unlikely.

 

[AssassinsMace]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Why would Trump lie saying China wanted to join the US and Russia on an arms reduction treaty when it was news to the Chinese? The tactic really goes back beyond Trump. First they think they can will China into doing what they want. If that doesn't work, it follows their propaganda China breaks its promises. Remember the articles of how China was going to send troops to Iraq to fight ISIS? Or how about when British Prime Minister Gordan Brown said China was going to send troops to Afghanistan. Trump wants to blame China to distract from how he's the one that actually wanted more nuclear weapons built and because evil China is plotting by not agreeing to deal that would give Trump an excuse to build more. Obama did the same things at the UN climate summit at Copenhagen. He knew the US Congress was never going to ratify anything agreed upon by the world thus Obama and the US would eventually be blamed for its failure. So he then proposed that no developed countries had to do anything and the burden would be on developing countries to sacrifice guaranteeing China would not agree to it thus Obama could sabotage the summit and blame it on China and thus he and US would not get the eventual blame.

 

[Franklin]

Does anyone here believe that China only has 280 nuclear warheads. I think it should be higher than that. For China to reach parity with Russia and the US China doesn't need 30000 or 40000 nuclear warheads just about 2000 to 3000 would be enough.

 

[Broccoli]

Does anyone here believe that China only has 280 nuclear warheads. I think it should be higher than that. For China to reach parity with Russia and the US China doesn't need 30000 or 40000 nuclear warheads just about 2000 to 3000 would be enough.

Why would they need a parity? 280-400 is more than enough for deterrence as long you make sure that those warheads can be deliver into their targets. For 2000 or 3000 warheads China's missile budget would need tens or even hundreds of billions extra funding if we take a look what it would requite in equipment, restarting fissile material production, new units, more missiles, more soldiers, more warhead bunkers, training increase, warhead maintaining costs, etc... for example it's estimated that US nuclear weapons modernization could end up costing trillion dollars.

Warhead itself is a weapon system what has batteries and other things what need to be checked regularly so this isn't an computer game where you make a weapon and storage without thinking it ever again until it's needed.

Nuclear weapons probably aren't going to be used but same can't be said about conventional weapons.

 

[tower9]

Does anyone here believe that China only has 280 nuclear warheads. I think it should be higher than that. For China to reach parity with Russia and the US China doesn't need 30000 or 40000 nuclear warheads just about 2000 to 3000 would be enough.

Honestly, 280 warheads is too small of a number for a country of China's stature. I think China should be keeping an arsenal of at least 1000 warheads, with about a third of them deployed, if it wants to be taken seriously.

 

[Lethe]

First you have to generate a list of targets to threaten that you believe would collectively constitute a sufficient deterrent. Computational models will determine how many warheads of a given yield are required to destroy each target.

Then you have to model the effectiveness of ABM systems, both today and on a generational timescale. This is the largest variable in determining the size of the required nuclear force. If ABM systems are projected to destroy half of your outbound warheads (after decoys and penetration aids, etc.) then you need twice as many warheads. This is why Reagan et al. were idiots: their 'Star Wars' polices directly fuel a nuclear arms race.

Then you need to model a possible decapitating first strike by the enemy. If you project that up to half of your warheads could be eliminated by such a strike, then again you need twice as many warheads.

Then you need to model the reliability of the launch systems, launch vehicles, etc. Call it a 10-20% increase in numbers to compensate for system failures.

It's easy to start off with a requirement to deliver 50-60 warheads to a given target set, and end up with a required force of 500 deployed warheads.

China's "minimal deterrence" posture is admirable. I think that 200-300 warheads was probably adequate in the past, but will have to be increased going forward to account for actual and possible ABM systems. Nonetheless, one hopes that the force remains well short of 1000 warheads.

For China, as well as modelling ABM effectiveness, a big decision is whether it believes it needs to deter the United States and Russia at the same time. Maybe, looking a generation ahead, it will be sufficient to be able to deter two of US/Russia/India simultaneously.

 

[PanAsian]

First you have to generate a list of targets to threaten that you believe would collectively constitute a sufficient deterrent. Computational models will determine how many warheads of a given yield are required to destroy each target.

Then you have to model the effectiveness of ABM systems, both today and on a generational timescale. This is the largest variable in determining the size of the required nuclear force. If ABM systems are projected to destroy half of your outbound warheads (after decoys and penetration aids, etc.) then you need twice as many warheads. This is why Reagan et al. were idiots: their 'Star Wars' polices directly fuel a nuclear arms race.

Then you need to model a possible decapitating first strike by the enemy. If you project that up to half of your warheads could be eliminated by such a strike, then again you need twice as many warheads.

Then you need to model the reliability of the launch systems, launch vehicles, etc. Call it a 10-20% increase in numbers to compensate for system failures.

It's easy to start off with a requirement to deliver 50-60 warheads to a given target set, and end up with a required force of 500 deployed warheads.

China's "minimal deterrence" posture is admirable. I think that 200-300 warheads was probably adequate in the past, but will have to be increased going forward to account for actual and possible ABM systems. Nonetheless, one hopes that the force remains well short of 1000 warheads.

For China, as well as modelling ABM effectiveness, a big decision is whether it believes it needs to deter the United States and Russia at the same time. Maybe, looking a generation ahead, it will be sufficient to be able to deter two of US/Russia/India simultaneously.

I am afraid logic dictates that in order to deter nuclear aggression these days one needs a world destroying nuclear arsenal so that any aggressor cannot simply invade and/or migrate to another part of the world if their own country is destroyed, this would also pressure the entire world to be against nuclear aggression by anyone before it happens. Once humans start living beyond earth in a meaningful way then MAD needs to extend into space as well.

 

[Anlsvrthng]

so that any aggressor cannot simply invade and/or migrate to another part of the world if their own country is destroyed,

You made my day : )

USA or Russia as Mongol hordes ? : D

 

[PanAsian]

You made my day : )

USA or Russia as Mongol hordes ? : D

All countries created out of invasion and colonization or societies ruled by invaders and colonizers are hordes, Russia horde expanded eastwards, USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South America, South Africa hordes were born of British, French, Spanish, Portugese, Dutch hordes. Glad I opened your eyes.

 

[Anlsvrthng]

All countries created out of invasion and colonization or societies ruled by invaders and colonizers are hordes, Russia horde expanded eastwards, USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South America, South Africa hordes were born of British, French, Spanish, Portugese, Dutch hordes. Glad I opened your eyes.

Your logic regards the reason of existence of MAD is so faulty and immoral it is difficult to describe.


This graph describing the reason WHY the MAD exist, and who created it :

And it is still happens these days, the Chinese arsenal growing in the front of our eyes, country after country choose the nuclear weapons and ICBMs capable to reach USA (NK / Iran and the list will grow ), the nuclear agreements restricting the size of active warheads and decrease the trigger level of Armageddon voided by the USA.