China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread
- Thread starter peace_lover
- Start date
- Status
plawolf
Lieutenant General
Re: Does China need more Nuclear Weapons ?
China does not need more nuclear warheads, but it might still be in China's interest to manufacture more of them.
For one thing, doing so will keep the knowledge and expertise alive, for another, nuclear warheads have expiry dates just like any other weapon. The older the warheads are, the less reliable and more expensive it is to maintain them.
In addition, as China's SSBN fleet improves and enlarges, and new cruise missiles coming on line, we may well see a need for a shift in the balance of nuclear weapons held. So we might see air dropped nuclear weapons being phased out in favor of more smaller, newer warheads that will fit in SLBM MRVs. With the new DF31 coming online, the second art will probably want new generation warheads on them as well.
China does not need more nuclear warheads, but it might still be in China's interest to manufacture more of them.
For one thing, doing so will keep the knowledge and expertise alive, for another, nuclear warheads have expiry dates just like any other weapon. The older the warheads are, the less reliable and more expensive it is to maintain them.
In addition, as China's SSBN fleet improves and enlarges, and new cruise missiles coming on line, we may well see a need for a shift in the balance of nuclear weapons held. So we might see air dropped nuclear weapons being phased out in favor of more smaller, newer warheads that will fit in SLBM MRVs. With the new DF31 coming online, the second art will probably want new generation warheads on them as well.
solarz
Brigadier
Re: Does China need more Nuclear Weapons ?
Yes, that should be the real goal. Instead of asking why China only has 200 nukes, we should be asking why the US and Russia has thousands of nukes.
Yes, that should be the real goal. Instead of asking why China only has 200 nukes, we should be asking why the US and Russia has thousands of nukes.
bladerunner
Banned Idiot
Re: Does China need more Nuclear Weapons ?
Israel Pakistan India France giving up their nukes would be close to impossible and why should an exception be made for China?
Israel Pakistan India France giving up their nukes would be close to impossible and why should an exception be made for China?
Re: Does China need more Nuclear Weapons ?
IMO the current level of nuclear arsenal of 200-300 warheads are enough. there is a changing in US police of reducing the no. of nuclear weapons in the world. They have realized, why produce a weapon that you can never use and spent all that money maintain them. Instead the US is focusing on conventional strike capabilities (e.g. X-51 etc).
As they start to stand on moral high ground, they will seek to wipe out the only credible deterrence capability in countries like Russia, China and any other hostile countries towards the west by asking them to reduce the no. of nuclear weapons.
China can avoid this situation by maintain the current level of WMD, and spent the money on other theologies such as rocketry, nuclear reactors and flue rod production capability. This way the civilian can benefit for them also China can have an up to date nuclear weapon manufacturing capability.
Although I have to agree increase in the number of warheads is a very tempting way to deter not just US but also all the other hostile countries around China, but I believe it will not be a very good long term solution. Because it will escalate other countries to produce more weapons (China is bordered with 3 nuclear capable countries, can you name any other countries face such treat?) and worse still it may drive countries to seek help for US, which would be the last thing China want to see.
IMO the current level of nuclear arsenal of 200-300 warheads are enough. there is a changing in US police of reducing the no. of nuclear weapons in the world. They have realized, why produce a weapon that you can never use and spent all that money maintain them. Instead the US is focusing on conventional strike capabilities (e.g. X-51 etc).
As they start to stand on moral high ground, they will seek to wipe out the only credible deterrence capability in countries like Russia, China and any other hostile countries towards the west by asking them to reduce the no. of nuclear weapons.
China can avoid this situation by maintain the current level of WMD, and spent the money on other theologies such as rocketry, nuclear reactors and flue rod production capability. This way the civilian can benefit for them also China can have an up to date nuclear weapon manufacturing capability.
Although I have to agree increase in the number of warheads is a very tempting way to deter not just US but also all the other hostile countries around China, but I believe it will not be a very good long term solution. Because it will escalate other countries to produce more weapons (China is bordered with 3 nuclear capable countries, can you name any other countries face such treat?) and worse still it may drive countries to seek help for US, which would be the last thing China want to see.
AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
Re: Does China need more Nuclear Weapons ?
The US will never give up it's nuclear arsenal. In any war with China that will be the first thing they use. It's the same logic of why they used the bomb on Japan. Key US allies will be in the fallout of a nuclear strike on China. Someone's going to have to use a lot of nukes to disable China and all that fallout will hit US allies in the region. While the other way around, all China needs is a limited nuclear strike to cripple most US allies in the region. Americans tend to be myopic thinking every ally will support military actions anywhere. US allies near China will suffer the most with any venturism against China. That's what they have to think about.
There's no such thing as high moral ground here. It's like pollution. The US made no big deal about it until China surpassed the US as No. 1 polluter. Or the whole debate on landmines. The US isn't going to sign any treaty until they have something else to replace it. Nothing moral about it. Weapons like Prompt Global Strike is not going to encourage other countries to disarm. It wouldn't be a deterrence if the US can use Prompt Global Strike while no one has the power to counter.
The US will never give up it's nuclear arsenal. In any war with China that will be the first thing they use. It's the same logic of why they used the bomb on Japan. Key US allies will be in the fallout of a nuclear strike on China. Someone's going to have to use a lot of nukes to disable China and all that fallout will hit US allies in the region. While the other way around, all China needs is a limited nuclear strike to cripple most US allies in the region. Americans tend to be myopic thinking every ally will support military actions anywhere. US allies near China will suffer the most with any venturism against China. That's what they have to think about.
There's no such thing as high moral ground here. It's like pollution. The US made no big deal about it until China surpassed the US as No. 1 polluter. Or the whole debate on landmines. The US isn't going to sign any treaty until they have something else to replace it. Nothing moral about it. Weapons like Prompt Global Strike is not going to encourage other countries to disarm. It wouldn't be a deterrence if the US can use Prompt Global Strike while no one has the power to counter.
Re: Does China need more Nuclear Weapons ?
I agree with your assessment AssassinsMace. I think none of the nuclear powers will give up their capability, having said that they also agreed to 'eliminate nuclear weapons from the world' I believe that is just an excuse to stop any other countries to achieve the ability. And What I meant by moral high ground is they can say:" we are reducing the number of nuclear weapon, why don't you do the same, or at least stop developing new ones." this would allow them to 'achieve' the goal of 'eliminate' WMDs.
I agree X-51 don't have the same amount of deterrence ability as nuclear, but because currently there is no effective counter measure against it and you can use it any time you want which you can't do with nuclear weapon, that's what gives this kind of weapon deterrence.
I agree with your assessment AssassinsMace. I think none of the nuclear powers will give up their capability, having said that they also agreed to 'eliminate nuclear weapons from the world' I believe that is just an excuse to stop any other countries to achieve the ability. And What I meant by moral high ground is they can say:" we are reducing the number of nuclear weapon, why don't you do the same, or at least stop developing new ones." this would allow them to 'achieve' the goal of 'eliminate' WMDs.
I agree X-51 don't have the same amount of deterrence ability as nuclear, but because currently there is no effective counter measure against it and you can use it any time you want which you can't do with nuclear weapon, that's what gives this kind of weapon deterrence.
AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
Re: Does China need more Nuclear Weapons ?
Well it's also like the debate on the weaponization of space. The US wants to weaponize space and refuses to sign any treaty that Russia and China advocate to prevent it from happening. So the US now charges China of planning to weaponize space and the whole treaty idea was a lie. No, it's not a lie. It's countering US plans for weaponizing space since there's no treaty to prevent it from happening is going to be signed. They want to pant China as a liar justifying their space weapons program when it can be said it's the other way around since China has to go that route since the US is going forth with their own plans. So because China advocated a treaty, China has to abide by it even though no effort was made let alone signed? That's like the Missile Technology Control Regime treaty. It wasn't international law. All it is is a pac between signitories on rules and not to sell advanced missile technology to countries who didn't sign. Yet when China wasn't a part of the treaty, all they did was charge China was violating the treaty it never signed.
Well it's also like the debate on the weaponization of space. The US wants to weaponize space and refuses to sign any treaty that Russia and China advocate to prevent it from happening. So the US now charges China of planning to weaponize space and the whole treaty idea was a lie. No, it's not a lie. It's countering US plans for weaponizing space since there's no treaty to prevent it from happening is going to be signed. They want to pant China as a liar justifying their space weapons program when it can be said it's the other way around since China has to go that route since the US is going forth with their own plans. So because China advocated a treaty, China has to abide by it even though no effort was made let alone signed? That's like the Missile Technology Control Regime treaty. It wasn't international law. All it is is a pac between signitories on rules and not to sell advanced missile technology to countries who didn't sign. Yet when China wasn't a part of the treaty, all they did was charge China was violating the treaty it never signed.
Last edited:
Re: Does China need more Nuclear Weapons ?
You are right I am to naive to think everyone will just obey international law and do what is best for humanity. After all laws are made by the strong to control the weak, and once you become strong all these rules will be bent to what is best in your interest.
You are right I am to naive to think everyone will just obey international law and do what is best for humanity. After all laws are made by the strong to control the weak, and once you become strong all these rules will be bent to what is best in your interest.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status