300 not being enough is not for you to decide, especially with no threat to the survivable deterrent. I for one think that it is enough, and do believe the Chinese arms control envoy when he says China's stockpile is in the range of France and the UK's.
The reverse is also true. Whether 300 is enough is also not for you to decide either. Furthermore, whether the actual number being 300 is factual or not is also not clear. Being hinted on by diplomats with clear and necessary political motivations means their hints are nothing indicative of the truth. The hint of China's warhead count being in the vicinity of "UK
and France" (whether that means UK or France or UK + France also ambiguous) is still absolutely nothing to go on. These are politicians playing the their usual deception games here in this particular case and OF COURSE IT IS!
The opinions here can generally be separated into the group that for inexplicable reasons think China expanding its warhead count somehow becomes a crazy stupid arms build up and the group that thinks China having fewer than 1000 warheads that can be delivered to the US and Europe is the minimal deterrence and/or minimal amount required for a secondary strike/ retaliatory strike which China is totally destroyed (the ultimate wetdream of
all China haters, racists, neo-nazis, libtards, western propaganda consumer).
Seriously let's have a genuine think. Why are you equating China increasing its warhead count and delivery sophistication to guarantee utter annihilation of the world a bad thing when it is something designed to
respond to actual first strike? Destroying evil after being destroyed by it is not a bad policy. You're talking like China is holding the world as a hostage the EXACT same way the USA
actually terrorises the non-western world. And you want to hate on a policy that can allow China the chance to free itself from the threat of destruction??! Puzzling. In defense of your strange thoughts you use some outrageous assumptions you continue to avoid explaining thoroughly.
These assumptions of yours are - China increasing warhead numbers from 300 to anything reasonable like 1000 to 5000 would be a direct threat to the US which keep over 5000 warheads and this will certainly bring both nations into a fruitless arms race. The implication here is that you prefer China to be in a position where it can be wiped out by the US (the wetdream) while China should NOT have the means to settle the score. Because China deserves death while actual evil deserves to proliferate and continue to poison the mind and soul of the remaining world. How very Chinese and magnanimous of you.
China with 300 warheads or thereabouts are more than enough (yeah trust you on this) to respond to all enemies that benefit from China being destroyed and are actively pursuing such a world. Yeah no way this is true. Surprise first strike may very well (you don't know any better than we do) take out the majority of China's means of secondary strike. Assuming it won't is almost criminally irresponsible for policy makers. Even if they're confident, I would be surprised if they don't still double up on that just to be sure since it costs very very very very very very very very^n little as a price to pay just to ensure it isn't hit or can hit back just as hard. Simply why leave this up to chance? You have failed to prove that expanding nuclear arm will do genuinely significant economic or political harm.
Why will there be a resurgence of USSR vs USA cold war dynamic if China brings warhead count from 300 to say 3000?? Where on earth does this assumption come from? China's task here is simple. Build enough nuclear weapons to cover the earth at least once over and ensure human civilisation cannot go on after China's destruction in a nuclear war brought about by the US or another that's not China. This is extremely fair and morally justified. Remember in these cases no one is saying China should threaten first use or ever actually use nukes unless it is in response. Furthermore, China should increase the number of delivery systems and continue improving their survivability and sophistication to ensure those warheads can all be delivered without being intercepted or countered somehow.
From the looks of China's delivery systems and the hinted quantity, it seems China is serious about preserving a minimal retaliation strike that can erase civilisation on this planet. Those military commentators saying ballistic missile numbers are in the thousands (including shorter ranged ones of course) and the fact that China launches hundreds of various ranged ballistic missiles in training every year is indicative that the actual numbers are far greater than those diplomats like to say when it's necessary to downplay WMD capability in international forums. Consider China's great investments in creating the "underground great war" it's early warning network since the 1960s, and the relative ease of which of this can be achieved and maintained? Yeah it's quite unlikely China has 300 warheads and a few hundred missiles capable of delivery them.
China is in a position to be and is currently threatened militarily by all of NATO plus Japan and Australia. It has no nuclear umbrella and has about 20 targets to hit with nukes if it is hit itself. A nation like UK doesn't need a large stockpile but China does. It simply doesn't make sense to be so criminally irresponsible especially when China has the means (and more importantly the need) to increase its MAD capability to at least where Russia is now.