China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread

[Broccoli]

Doesn't China have ABM interceptors already? IIRC, the HQ-19 is one of them.

There is no evidence that India even has the technology to make MIRVs today. Note China already possessed MIRVs or the technology to make them since the 1980s. Saying the current Indian arsenal is comparable to the 90s Chinese arsenal is too generous imho

China didn't deploy MIRVs until DF-5B so not too many years ago. Indias problem is that only weaponized test they have done was the improved Smiling Buddha design what is 12-15kt but size of their latest warheads suggests they have gone old French route and use a lot plutonium to get bigger explosion. Their manufacturing capability is also limited as so far less than 15 Agni-3 are deployed per US estimations.

First French +100kt fission warheads used nearly 100kg plutonium so yield-to-weight ratio was extremely poor but it probably explains why Agni V warhead is so large and heavy.

 

[Broccoli]

Alternatively, China can breakdown its existing stockpile into smaller warheads and be able to deliver each with high probability and accuracy.

More efficient thermonuclear warheads can be made.

Few American weaponeers believed in 1980s that as accuracy improved future US warheads would have yields around 20-50kt but clearly that didn't happen due cold war ending.

 

[SpicySichuan]

Doesn't China have ABM interceptors already? IIRC, the HQ-19 is one of them.

There is no evidence that India even has the technology to make MIRVs today. Note China already possessed MIRVs or the technology to make them since the 1980s. Saying the current Indian arsenal is comparable to the 90s Chinese arsenal is too generous imho

I don't think the HQ-19 are deployed in large numbers. They are still undergoing tests. China's ABMs are still centered around HQ-9B and S-400, as well as HHQ-9 of the Navy. In other words, should India choose to escalate to a nuclear war, China could defend Beijing and Shanghai, along with some strategic targets, at best. Nevertheless, since India does not have that many ballistic missiles (<50) to start with, a nuclear war with China would pretty much be a win for Beijing (80 old DF-21, dozens of DF-26 and more, some old DF-3/4, etc.). Still, you probably need many more HQ-19 to shoot down the Agni series IRBMs. The HQ-9s and S-400s could only counter tactical ballistic missiles.

 

[Figaro]

China didn't deploy MIRVs until DF-5B so not too many years ago. Indias problem is that only weaponized test they have done was the improved Smiling Buddha design what is 12-15kt but size of their latest warheads suggests they have gone old French route and use a lot plutonium to get bigger explosion. Their manufacturing capability is also limited as so far less than 15 Agni-3 are deployed per US estimations.

First French +100kt fission warheads used nearly 100kg plutonium so yield-to-weight ratio was extremely poor but it probably explains why Agni V warhead is so large and heavy.

China already had the technology for MIRVs in the 80. IIRC, their first MIRVs were deployed on the DF-31As (3x150 kt warheads), around 10 years before the DF-5B.

 

[Broccoli]

China already had the technology for MIRVs in the 80. IIRC, their first MIRVs were deployed on the DF-31As (3x150 kt warheads), around 10 years before the DF-5B.

Is there any credible info that DF-31A has MIRV capability?

 

[antiterror13]

Actually I would argue India's current capabilities are similar to those of China in the 1990s instead of 1970s. Keep in mind that most of the Agni series missiles are solid-fuel ballistic missiles. China only started fielding solid-fuel ballistic missiles in late 1980s.

I agree for the delivery system, but probably mid 80s instead of 90s. But for the warhead itself, China had made a hydrogen bomb since 1967 (53 years ago!), while India haven't been able to do that until now, I know they claimed they had in 2000s, but the fact is they haven't, and as @ougoah mentioned above, the largest Indian warhead is merely 40KT (~2x Hiroshima). The first Chinese hydrogen bomb in 1967 had the yield of 3.3MT ! ... in fact China managed to make a hydrogen bomb over 1 year earlier than France ( August 24, 1968 ) when China was so technologically backward

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Xizor]

I agree for the delivery system, but probably mid 80s instead of 90s. But for the warhead itself, China had made a hydrogen bomb since 1967 (53 years ago!), while India haven't been able to do that until now, I know they claimed they had in 2000s, but the fact is they haven't, and as @ougoah mentioned above, the largest Indian warhead is merely 40KT (~2x Hiroshima). The first Chinese hydrogen bomb in 1967 had the yield of 3.3MT ! ... in fact China managed to make a hydrogen bomb over 1 year earlier than France ( August 24, 1968 ) when China was so technologically backward

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

There is fat chances that India has acquired nuclear know-how ( regarding the configurations and mechanisms) from other sources. Israel and North Korea are two such sources. What about Japan ? Or Ukraine? Anything is possible in these day and age.

I am pretty sure such a know-how gained would be transactional. I can't imagine it to be on something like goodwill. But whatever it may, it'd be worth to ponder over what India gave in return.

Ballistic Technology and Knowhow ? Intelligence sharing ? Contributions in cash ?
Contributions in Kind?

My point being - When the thing finally goes pop! and when the world is pushed into a WW3 crisis, we will see many countries big and small announce a crash nuclear bomb making course and I'm very sure there'd be a lot of surprises regarding which countries manage to do it and I'm sure some will manage to do it rather quickly.

 

[ougoah]

Yeah some like Japan and Germany. They have the tech and theoretical knowledge, just a few gaps which I'm sure their nuclear armed buddies may feel obliged to assist if somehow Japan and Germany can't figure it out with their mountains of talent and available funding. Charles De Gaulle lamented at the fact China managed to build and detonate a thermonuclear hydrogen bomb before France did.

India's largest yield test was 45KT scaled down from 200KT. India has never demonstrated ability for fusion/thermonuclear weapon. Their announcement of having one was proven to be fake (lol India's typical fake news brigade) and they've even admitted decade later that their fusion attempt was a failure. Still, a theoretical 200KT if they can design that in the 1990s, they probably get get higher yields now. Teller Ullam design may be pretty universal but Yu Min design is unique. It at least allows China to stockpile over decades with far less waste. On warhead count, India's isn't impressive at all and may even trail North Korea's by now. Delivery is even less impressive than North Korea's. India's nuclear weapons are mostly geared towards Pakistan in case of some exchange. They've had less reason to extend the range of their missiles and stockpile, such an endeavor would also be living well above their means. Since there is no serious nuclear threat to India from any major nuclear power, it would actually be pointless for India to pursue these things and their development will parallel Pakistan's but not further. China will not use nuclear weapons on India, at least no first strike that's for sure. Even an escalated war will be kept conventional and either side losing the conventional war understands not to carve too deep into the other. We're talking some barren stretches of low value land. At most, the loser of the conventional war will just cede that stretch and the winner will not ask for more.

There's no doubt to me that India can develop a serious nuclear stockpile of advanced high yield warheads, even thermonuclear nowadays, and have the delivery numbers to back them up. But as things stand, they have a token nuclear force because they don't need anything more, they'd be better off spending that money elsewhere and it seems Indian leaders understand this too.

 

[Biscuits]

India's current stockpile is comparable to China's from the early 1970s, in delivery too. Chinese warheads are >100KT and <10MT (that's 10,000KT for the illiterate out there) but can probably make them as destructive as they please these days. Indian warheads reportedly have largest achieved yield of roughly 40KT (a whopping 0.4% of 10MT LOL!). At most India can take out a few Chinese cities even if Chinese BMD aren't used. BTW Chinese BMD exist and have been around for a while even if HQ-9 and S-400 BMD abilities are ignored, there are HQ-19 and HQ-26. ASAT missiles are actually pretty good mid course interceptors and ASAT missiles have been produced since 2007. If kinetic kill of faster flying LEO satellites were perfected by 2007, Chinese BMD is probably now world leading or at least as good as whatever hard kill missiles the US is using wrt THAAD, SM-3. The laser project was beyond stupid and a giant waste of time and money for anyone with even a high school knowledge of physics. Well maybe the Americans thought they could fly those bumbling giant boeings within 100km of boosting ICBMs LOL morons. No wonder they cancelled it.

So in balance, India's nuclear option is non-existent. At best if they actually go through with any threat of going nuclear, they can maybe take out a few tier 2 or 3 Chinese cities but in exchange all of India will all be taking baths hotter than the surface of the sun because Chinese warhead yield, numbers, and delivery weapons pretty much cover very square kilometer and the US this month has been very busy demanding China to stop mass producing nukes. They clearly know China's real count isn't 300 warheads. FFS Chinese missiles exceed 300! How is it possible that all the DF series count about 10 times the number of alleged Chinese warheads? The warheads are not much more expensive than the missiles and the threats around are real and dangerous. Is PLA and CCP daft enough to be putting conventional warheads on the majority of those expensive DF-x?

Nuclear program is one of the few things the government will lie about because its core to the national defense mission and also because PLA's actual nuclear policy might not be politically justifiable to the population.

China officially saying they have 300 nukes is bullshit not just because they have much more ICBM alone than that, more importantly they also have a vast nuclear war infrastructure that's many times more expensive to maintain and upgrade than maintaining warheads. It's like someone filling his house with expensive designer aquariums then claiming he only has 1 goldfish.

Building 100 kms of nuke proof tunnels, pioneering missile defense tech and finding new stealthy/fast ways of delivery isn't the behavior of a reluctant minor nuclear power who would never attack first...

In words China doesn't admit it but in actions they're seeking some form of nuclear superiority, maybe not necessarily planning to preemptively strike US but a small nuclear power like India, or the missile defense buildup is to win a limited nuclear exchange. If such a strategy was publicly known, it would be a huge scandal for the military who would lose public support.

Very few people in China compared to say America or India would find it justifiable to lose several cities and/or go into nuclear bunkers in exchange for annihilating the enemy country, yet this might be one of the scenarios that the Chinese government is planning.

 

[antiterror13]

Nuclear program is one of the few things the government will lie about because its core to the national defense mission and also because PLA's actual nuclear policy might not be politically justifiable to the population.

China officially saying they have 300 nukes is bullshit not just because they have much more ICBM alone than that, more importantly they also have a vast nuclear war infrastructure that's many times more expensive to maintain and upgrade than maintaining warheads. It's like someone filling his house with expensive designer aquariums then claiming he only has 1 goldfish.

Building 100 kms of nuke proof tunnels, pioneering missile defense tech and finding new stealthy/fast ways of delivery isn't the behavior of a reluctant minor nuclear power who would never attack first...

In words China doesn't admit it but in actions they're seeking some form of nuclear superiority, maybe not necessarily planning to preemptively strike US but a small nuclear power like India, or the missile defense buildup is to win a limited nuclear exchange. If such a strategy was publicly known, it would be a huge scandal for the military who would lose public support.

Very few people in China compared to say America or India would find it justifiable to lose several cities and/or go into nuclear bunkers in exchange for annihilating the enemy country, yet this might be one of the scenarios that the Chinese government is planning.

China never said that she had 300 nukes, only western medias or think tanks said that or what they claimed China "experts"

In fact China never disclose how many nukes they have, my guess is 700 to 1,000