China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

Sardaukar20

Captain
Registered Member
The teller ulam design doesn’t determine the position of the 1st and 2nd stages. It’s state secret how things are really arranged or shaped.

View attachment 62543
View attachment 62544

A fusion weapon can have multiple secondary stages such as in the Tsar Bomba which resulted in 99% clean fusion energy.
I get your point. But I only mentioned that the Chinese warhead design is quite different from the W88. Both are obviously Teller-Ulam designs. And yes, the position of the primary and secondary does not really matter in a T-U. Just that there are many variations and design optimization. The W88 in my opinion is still a well optimized T-U design. Combining compact size for great yield.

I just feel that China could do well to have 475kT W88 equivalent warheads. It'll put so much more punch into their MIRV-capable ICBMs and SLBMs.

I think Soviet thermonuclear bombs follow a different design template as opposed to true T-U. Its speculated to be the 'layer cake design'. This allows for the relative clean but super powerful 3-stage design like the Tsar Bomba. Though I kinda suspect these kinds of warheads are significantly bulkier than US T-U designs.
 

localizer

Colonel
Registered Member
I get your point. But I only mentioned that the Chinese warhead design is quite different from the W88. Both are obviously Teller-Ulam designs. And yes, the position of the primary and secondary does not really matter in a T-U. Just that there are many variations and design optimization. The W88 in my opinion is still a well optimized T-U design. Combining compact size for great yield.

I just feel that China could do well to have 475kT W88 equivalent warheads. It'll put so much more punch into their MIRV-capable ICBMs and SLBMs.

I think Soviet thermonuclear bombs follow a different design template as opposed to true T-U. Its speculated to be the 'layer cake design'. This allows for the relative clean but super powerful 3-stage design like the Tsar Bomba. Though I kinda suspect these kinds of warheads are significantly bulkier than US T-U designs.

I have a feeling all these are just generic pictures and the artists aren't even close to the actual design. Too much secret for an artist to handle lol.

Maybe once Trump starts testing nukes again, China can demonstrate its new warhead yields.
 

antiterror13

Brigadier
The US thermonuclear design is based on Teller–Ulam
I get your point. But I only mentioned that the Chinese warhead design is quite different from the W88. Both are obviously Teller-Ulam designs. And yes, the position of the primary and secondary does not really matter in a T-U. Just that there are many variations and design optimization. The W88 in my opinion is still a well optimized T-U design. Combining compact size for great yield.

I just feel that China could do well to have 475kT W88 equivalent warheads. It'll put so much more punch into their MIRV-capable ICBMs and SLBMs.

I think Soviet thermonuclear bombs follow a different design template as opposed to true T-U. Its speculated to be the 'layer cake design'. This allows for the relative clean but super powerful 3-stage design like the Tsar Bomba. Though I kinda suspect these kinds of warheads are significantly bulkier than US T-U designs.


Chinese H-Bomb design is not based on Teller-Ulam but based on Chinese designer Yu Min H-bomb configuration design which is considered superior because need much less maintenance

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


“China had already struggled with deuterium and tritium to “boost” its weapons, or make more efficient use of fissile material. Yu Min described the process of miniaturizing the primary as “drawing near a precipice,” due to the difficulty of determining how small the primary could be and still drive the secondary. As of 1986, Yu Min reported that despite 10 years of research on miniaturization, the weaponeers still needed to weaponize the designs. According to Yu Min, “By the end of the 1980s they had completed their assignment to break through principles of new types of miniaturized primaries.” Chinese accounts relate that there are two kinds of hydrogen bombs currently in the world, one is Teller-Ulam [TU] configuration from the United States and the other is a "hypersensitive" configuration by Yu Min, an unique original hydrogen bomb configuration. IT is said that the hydrogen bomb design named the "Yu Min configuration", compared with the United States T-U configuration, is a configuration for which the cost and maintenance costs are relatively low, so it can be said that for the hydrogen bomb, Chinese technology is more advanced. It gives China the ability to maintain H-bombs in service.

Although atomic bombs and hydrogen bombs are both nuclear weapons, the two have different storage conditions due to different principles. The atomic bombs can be stored for long periods of time in a dry, constant temperature environment. The hydrogen bombs, due to the use of fusion materials, are very unstable and have a short life expectancy. The hydrogen bombs must be inspected, maintained and maintained regularly throughout their service. China's hydrogen bombs have adopted a more advanced and stable Yu Min configuration, basically eliminating cumbersome maintenance.

Since the 1970s, Yu Min played an important role in advocating and promoting a number of high-tech projects. He won the first prize of National Natural Science Award in 1982, the first prize of National Science and Technology Progress Award in 1985, 1987 and 1989, the "May 1st Labor Medal" in 1985, the "National Model Worker" in 1987, Guanghua Award 1992 Grand Prize.

Yu Min played a crucial role in the design of China's nuclear weapons, and is one of 23 recipients of the Two Bombs, One Satellite Achievement Medal, the country's top award to scientists contributing to China's nuclear and satellite projects. Yu Min won China's top science and technology accolade on 09 January 2015.”


The article is from this site but unfortunately the site has outdated security configuration and is considered not secure
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Last edited:

bajingan

Senior Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

This is an interesting interview with a us political scientist about the danger of nuclear war with China
He explained that the us might use nukes in a naval battle with China because they would be using those nuclear weapons at sea. They would not be hitting the Chinese mainland in all likelihood. And, therefore, it will not escalate to an all out nuclear war so it's possible to think in terms of a "limited nuclear war," with limited nuclear use.

I think this is another case for China to achieve nuclear parity with the us because the us is considering a limited nuclear war and they have an overwhelming advantage in numbers in tactical nukes
 

localizer

Colonel
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

This is an interesting interview with a us political scientist about the danger of nuclear war with China
He explained that the us might use nukes in a naval battle with China because they would be using those nuclear weapons at sea. They would not be hitting the Chinese mainland in all likelihood. And, therefore, it will not escalate to an all out nuclear war so it's possible to think in terms of a "limited nuclear war," with limited nuclear use.

I think this is another case for China to achieve nuclear parity with the us because the us is considering a limited nuclear war and they have an overwhelming advantage in numbers in tactical nukes


If Chinese navy keeps all its forces within Chinese territorial waters then a nuke there is still a nuke on the mainland.
 

AssassinsMace

Lieutenant General
If US allies are worried about a war between the US and China then don't enable the US. It's Americans that like to threaten war for domestic political consumption so who's the trouble maker? It's the US that is bombing some country regularly around the world all year long. It's happening so much that people don't even think about it but the US went crazy when China once considered using a drone to kill a drug warlord. They went crazy after China already decided not to do it. So China just considering it is far worse than the US actually bombing other countries year-round.
 

ougoah

Brigadier
Registered Member
Aye, just the use of nukes alone against China even on the seas would be sufficient grounds for nuclear retaliation regardless of anything else.

Not necessarily. If the PLAN is nuked in territorial waters that isn't recognised by the US, then China can choose to retaliate against the US mainland and its cities or choose to back down and not retaliate. The former means certain destruction, the latter means the entire Chinese mainland is free from nuclear war. If the US goes down the path of nuking the PLAN, escalation is not a sure thing. China may even be the first to nuke the USN because the calculus is true both ways. Nuclear escalation is no longer a simple binary, in fact it has never been. Only Russia says any nuke no matter how "tactical" in yield and placement is going to be retaliated in full. I think it's important for China to also officially declare this in order to discourage US tactical nukes being used on Chinese military targets far from the mainland.

China has publicly announced no such policy and neither has the US. China's nuclear policy actually makes it unclear whether it will retaliate or how it will retaliate if only military targets are nuked. There is a lot of nuance and complexity when it comes to nuclear escalation and exchange.
 

bajingan

Senior Member
I think thats the reason why trump admin is so desperate in bringing China to start treaty, the won't allow China to reach nuclear parity and able to fight limited nuclear war
The question is what can they do to prevent China nuclear build up?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top