China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread

[Richard Santos]

In the past, China, along with Britain, UK and Israel, can afford a limited second strike capability because none of these countries were in danger of become the primary nuclear attention of a Cold War superpower. So they only needed enough retaliatory capability to be unpalatable to attack for limited gains. They don’t want to be taken en passant by one of the two nuclear superpowers in a all out nuclear war.

Now, this status is changing for China. China may become the primary opponent of the nuclear superpower. This means the whole calculus of second strike capability will change dramatically. A limited retaliation or second strike capability will become increasingly worthless. Instead, the Chinese second strike capability must be:

1). able to deliver a substantial percentage, say 30-50% of the total number of warheads the US and it’s allies can in theory deliver. This is necessary to avoid the appearance that China would not escalate because sheer difference in firepower means China will be destroyed before her opponent in any uncontrolled escalation. Such an appearance encourages the opponent to launch a limited first strike on the conviction that China can’t afford to escalate.

2. diverse enough to be able deliver an array of different types and magnitudes of second strikes, and have enough credible depth to be able deliver several second strikes of different types, awaiting response in between each. This is necessary to avoid the impression that China has no options between doing nothing on the one hand and all out nuclear retaliation on the other. Because if one has not options besides an unsuitable responses, one is more likely not to respond.

 

[james smith esq]

I'd rather 096 carries 16 JL-3 and have more 096 in service

24 JL-3 SLBM in one boat is like putting too many eggs in one basket

Better to have many 096s spread out in vast ocean

With twelve boats, at least, and six on patrol at all times.

 

[james smith esq]

1. According to article by Lewis(2014):

"China’s most modern warhead, for the DF-31 and other solid-fuelled ballistic missiles, probably weighs about 500kg and may have a yield of about 500kt. This warhead is too large for China to place multiple warheads on its solid-fuelled ballistic missiles, but China might place two or three such warheads on its DF-5 ICBMs. China would face difficulty in developing a smaller nuclear warhead without testing. Despite having vastly better computers today, China can draw upon data from only 45 nuclear tests, many of which were conducted before the reform and modernisation of China’s science and technology base started by Deng Xiaoping. Chinese nuclear-weapons designers appear to have been relatively conservative in their designs."

2. China's nuclear warhead design is too heavy. W88 estimated yield of 475 kilotons weight only 175kg.

"China could design smaller warheads, although these would not have the benefit of explosive testing, which China stopped in 1996 after signing the CTBT. Given the limited number of designs in China’s arsenal and the small number of tests to provide benchmark data, China would probably struggle to develop warheads in the challenging design space of a few hundred kilotonnes of yield with a few hundred kilogrammes of RV mass, as the US has done with the thermonuclear W76 warhead. China would sacrifice significant yield, reliability or both."

3. Even China has supercomputers now but still useless without real testing data. Even country advanced like US which at that time has powerful supercomputer and has 1000 nuclear testing data is afraid to make warhead design without real testing.

" US nuclear-weapons designers have been reluctant to rely on designs that were not tested. "

4. US intelligence also supports it.

"The US intelligence community assesses that all of China’s solid-fuelled missiles carry only a single warhead. China would face many challenges in developing smaller warheads without testing, because it is accepted that the greatest design challenge is to create thermonuclear warheads that weigh less than 200kg while retaining an efficient yield-to-weight ratio (in the 0.5–1.5 range)."

" Yield-to-weight ratios for modern US thermonuclear weapons range from about 0.6 to 1.5kt per kilogramme, with favourable yield-to-weight ratios being easier to achieve at higher yields. "

If this is the case, I’d expect the Chinese to do all the computer modeling necessary, and when that’s completed, run tests sufficient to confirm. If it’s a strategic necessity, they’ll just violate the test-ban. So what if the queen has a fit!

 

[Richard Santos]

I would expect China to not emphasize how many missiles each of her SSBNs have, but how big each missiles can be. The progress China has made in the last 20 years does not fundamentally change the fact that Chinese navy will be playing catch-up in ASW, especially the submarine to submarine variety, for at least another 1-2 decades yet. So It would be better for China to fit each SSBN with 10 very large missiles that can hit all of US with its MIRVs from patrol stations in Chinese littoral and south Chinese sea, under Chinese land based ASW and air cover, than for them to fit each SSBN with twice the warheads on twice as many missiles, but the missiles being smaller and shorter legged and requiring Chinese SSBNs to evade hostile SSN screen laying in wait at any choke points to their patrol stations.

Ideally, Chinese SSBNs should be able to fire her missiles at any strategic target while tied up at her pier, or just emerging from the mouth of any submarine pen.

Having a limited SSBN capability is fine for a minor power that doesn’t want to become a collateral casualty in other people’s nuclear Armageddon. But for a power that might become embroiled in nuclear Armageddon itself and is trying to deter others from thinking they can win tha nuclear Armageddon, there must be no doubt in its opponent’s mind that every missile on each one of its subs is almost assuredly going to be targeted at the last minute according developments and successfully launched. If the power is at an ASW disadvantage, then the solution is to make to impossible it’s enemy to bring their more capable ASW assets against its own SSBNs.

 

[siegecrossbow]

Just change the no first use policy and keep everyone guessing. That’s the biggest bang for the buck.

 

[Richard Santos]

Just change the no first use policy and keep everyone guessing. That’s the biggest bang for the buck.

For the foreseeable future, that will be national suicide

 

[jimmyjames30x30]

Just change the no first use policy and keep everyone guessing. That’s the biggest bang for the buck.

I don't think that's how the nuclear doctrine works.
The No-first-use policy is actually a cover for minimal armament doctrine. If no-first-use policy is abandoned, the rationality will dictate that minimal armament will also be abandoned. And thus, Nuclear Arms Race will follow suit.

As long as China still desire minimal armament doctrine, then only no-first-use policy can work with such a doctrine.

 

[jimmyjames30x30]

For the foreseeable future, that will be national suicide

Not necessary. It would simply be a stupid waste of resources. China don't really have liabilities like key allies (in hostile geopolitical situation) or oversea bases that needs nuclear umbrella protection. What's the point of a nuclear arms race with the USA, when China could simply invest in much more important stuff like infrastructure, education, research, conventional military forces, etc.

As long as there is the Russia nuclear arms existing to balance the USA, there are no point for China to have more than 1000 nuclear warheads. As long as China has the necessary effective nuclear deterrence, China would be fine. As long as China has enough missile armed with warheads that will land in the US or Russia, it will be enough.

If US nuked China's nuclear forces, and took out incoming Chinese missiles, China would simply nuke Russia. and Russia will nuke the rest of the world. Russian nuclear forces is already strategically neutralizing the US nuclear advantage.

As long as China has enough nuclear second strike capability to high major centers in either US or Russia, the deterrence is enough.

 

[antiterror13]

Not necessary. It would simply be a stupid waste of resources. China don't really have liabilities like key allies (in hostile geopolitical situation) or oversea bases that needs nuclear umbrella protection. What's the point of a nuclear arms race with the USA, when China could simply invest in much more important stuff like infrastructure, education, research, conventional military forces, etc.

As long as there is the Russia nuclear arms existing to balance the USA, there are no point for China to have more than 1000 nuclear warheads. As long as China has the necessary effective nuclear deterrence, China would be fine. As long as China has enough missile armed with warheads that will land in the US or Russia, it will be enough.

If US nuked China's nuclear forces, and took out incoming Chinese missiles, China would simply nuke Russia. and Russia will nuke the rest of the world. Russian nuclear forces is already strategically neutralizing the US nuclear advantage.

As long as China has enough nuclear second strike capability to high major centers in either US or Russia, the deterrence is enough.

But China now is rich enough to "waste" a few Billion $ to ramp up nuclear warheads to I'd say 2,000 warheads ... how much is the cost to add 1,000 warheads .. I'd say $5M * 1,000 = $5B, very tiny for China (one off). Okay, plus maintenance and operational, generously $1B a year

 

[jimmyjames30x30]

But China now is rich enough to "waste" a few Billion $ to ramp up nuclear warheads to I'd say 2,000 warheads ... how much is the cost to add 1,000 warheads .. I'd say $5M * 1,000 = $5B, very tiny for China (one off). Okay, plus maintenance and operational, generously $1B a year

No.

Your mindset is what common people like us would behave like if we are to win 100,000,000 dollars in a lottery. But for a country, you can never have enough money to solve every problem. Countries will always want to spend every dollar of their money in a wiser and more efficient way. There are no money that can be "wasted" on unnecessary spending.

China's nuclear doctrine and forces will ONLY adjust reactionarily to major changes to nuclear geopolitical situation. Such changes has not happened.