China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread

[ZeEa5KPul]

One thing is for certain, the US - at least - knows how big the Chinese arsenal really is.

Given that the US has difficulties determining whether a state even possesses nuclear weapons, I find the proposition that it knows how big the Chinese arsenal really is doubtful to say the least.

Anyone thinking something different should probably re-adjust his views on the matter at hand.

I see no good reason to readjust my views, least of all your baseless assertions.

 

[Dante80]

I thank you kindly for the insight.

 

[ZeEa5KPul]

I thank you kindly for the insight.

You're very welcome.

 

[SpicySichuan]

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.

Maybe the vast infrastructure (and fake silos built in the 80s) were for deceptions, so potential adversaries would struggle to figure where exactly the 320 nukes would be stored. Also, keep in mind that another issue is political control. The CMC would always want the most ideologically committed and loyal troops to access the warheads, not anyone who simply joined the PLA for a stable job, but deep in him or herself ideologically inconsistent (or nonchalant) with the Party. Therefore I could imagine folks who want to access China's nukes would have to go through multiple layers of security/political clearances 政审 that most ordinary PLA members would not be able to pass.

 

[Broccoli]

I dont think and never seen China ever officially saying they have 300 nukes.

China consistently declined to comment on how many nukes that they got or to refute any numbers being bandied about by Western knowledgable experts. Perhaps China decided China too stupid in comparision to those folks and declined to join in on their comments.

Perhaps something I wrote here China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread might shed some light on the numbers.

Then also consider that while China got 200 ++ nukes as so claimed, there is also a strong possibility China got 2000 to 3000 U235/Pu cores AND 2000-3000 assemblies.
Without the cores inserted, no nukes, or just 200++ nukes. But in time of crisis, China can insert those 2 to 3000 cores into the assemblies in a matter of days. That the warheads delivered be sending more than just dim sum or General Tso sweet and sour chicken or cleaned pressed laundry.

I think very evident that you don't know anything about nuclear weapons and think that real life is a computer game where you click a button and few seconds later weapon systems pops up from a factory.

 

[bajingan]

I think no matter how many nukes China actually posses, the fact remains that it has now has decided to double the number of nukes in the next decade, which is a much better investments rather than wasting money building more vulnerable carriers, look at russia no sane american commanders will not even dared of thinking of having a conventional conflict with russia, for fear of its massive nuclear arsenal, the same cannot be said about China i am afraid, unless China can bring the fear of nuclear annihilation in the mind of warmongers in washington

 

[Annihilation98]

China now need more nuke than ever...atleast 5k -10k to deter india, usa, nato and its allies etc...300 is not enough..china is surrounded by usa military base east and west imo...

 

[SimaQian]

China now need more nuke than ever...atleast 5k -10k to deter india, usa, nato and its allies etc...300 is not enough..china is surrounded by usa military base east and west imo...

This is exactly the reason why it bankrupted the former USSR. They spent too much resources on nukes and outspent US on resources. In the end, not even a single one was used except for testing and worse it resulted into the breakup of the Soviet Union.

Maintaining thusands of nukes is expensive. And there is no return of investment. Other that if somebody use them to harass other countries.

Which one is more practical, build 1000 nukes or lift 10 million people out of poverty?

I think current deterent system in China, is more than enough for rogue politicians to think more than twice to launch a nuclear attack against China.

It would be much more better to build more naval warships, precise missiles against surface ships, anti ballistic missile capabilities and enhanced anti submarine capabilities.

 

[Figaro]

This is exactly the reason why it bankrupted the former USSR. They spent too much resources on nukes and outspent US on resources. In the end, not even a single one was used except for testing and worse it resulted into the breakup of the Soviet Union.

Maintaining thusands of nukes is expensive. And there is no return of investment. Other that if somebody use them to harass other countries.

I think current deterent system in China, is more than enough for rogue politicians to think more than twice to launch a nuclear attack against China.

It would be much more better to build more naval warships, precise missiles against surface ships, anti ballistic missile capabilities and enhanced anti submarine capabilities.

I doubt the widely quoted number (around 300) is enough to ensure a credible second strike against a country like the US, which has around 15 to 20 times more nukes. IMO, the Chinese probably have at least 1000 nukes, maybe more, stored up in their vast tunnel systems, which is why the intelligence estimates are very off. Even the US is revising the Chinese nuke count, from about 300 to 600 now. Just looking at the number of nuclear ICBMs in recent years should show 300 is a very far off count.

Which one is more practical, build 1000 nukes or lift 10 million people out of poverty?

I don't really understand this point. Maintenance of nuclear warheads is far cheaper than the new conventional weapons systems China is developing ... look at how Russia with a 60 billion dollar military budget can still maintain thousands of nukes. It's not like China is building tens of thousands of nukes like the former USSR, but a few thousand imo is very plausible.

 

[Bob Smith]

This is exactly the reason why it bankrupted the former USSR. They spent too much resources on nukes and outspent US on resources. In the end, not even a single one was used except for testing and worse it resulted into the breakup of the Soviet Union.

Maintaining thusands of nukes is expensive. And there is no return of investment. Other that if somebody use them to harass other countries.

Which one is more practical, build 1000 nukes or lift 10 million people out of poverty?

I think current deterent system in China, is more than enough for rogue politicians to think more than twice to launch a nuclear attack against China.

It would be much more better to build more naval warships, precise missiles against surface ships, anti ballistic missile capabilities and enhanced anti submarine capabilities.

Why does Russia currently maintain 6,400 nukes with an economy 1/10 of China's if it's so expensive?