China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread

[antiterror13]

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 spend 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.

Okay, we agree to disagree ... I have my opinions and you have yours that a bit different .. I still keep my opinions any day

 

[jimmyjames30x30]

Okay, we agree to disagree ... I have my opinions and you have yours that a bit different .. I still keep my opinions any day

I just don't understand what strategic advantage does 1000~ warhead has over what China has right now?

If you are talking about 10000~ warhead, then sure, that's an option worth talking about. Because 10,000 warhead would simply mean a change in doctrine. And it will trigger a nuclear arms race against the US, and forces the US put down more money. But 1000 warhead gives China no significant deterrent boost, nor any real pressure against the US (because the US warhead numbers will still out-number Chinese by several times). So 1000 warhead means China is spending extra money that gives Her no real strategic capability boost, nor comparative advantage. Why 1000?

If the Chinese government approved the increase to 1000-ish warhead and stopped there, it would only sent the message that technological wise, the current Strategic Rocket Force's assets, force structure and capabilities can NOT guarantee effective deterrence. Well, this would be a highly classified area of topics. Are you guys hinting at this? Well, if you are, you guys are talking about total rubbish, because you are in no position right now to have enough information to come to this kind of conclusion. If the information/intelligence you have can let you come to the conclusion about the state of the strategic capability of China's Strategic Rocket Forces, you will either be hunted down for assassination by the Chinese intelligence and national security agencies. Or you will become a strategically valuable asset to the NSA and CIA of the USA. In either case, you will not be posting comments here.

So everything you guys are coming up with are just groundless and senseless gibberish.

 

[voyager1]

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

I think 1000 delivery systems is the mininum.

Now for how many warheads ....

 

[jimmyjames30x30]

Okay, we agree to disagree ... I have my opinions and you have yours that a bit different .. I still keep my opinions any day

To me, warhead number only reflect two things:
1. doctrine,
2. delivery asset's capability to penetrate missiles defense and delivery warhead to destinations,

China's current doctrine is minimal armament. It's policy is no-first-use. The SRF's goal is to present trustworthy deterrence, via sound and reliable second-strike/retaliatory-strike capability.

This is essentially an optimization problem. And the number of warheads is basically the solution of this optimization problem.

Now you guys just put out a random number 1000. How on earth did you get this number?

 

[jimmyjames30x30]

I think 1000 delivery systems is the mininum.

Now for how many warheads ....

What make you think "1000 delivery system is the minimum"? Show me your calculation.

Guys, the number of warheads is not child's play, it is not a game. It is more like a complicated optimization problem that needs a bunch of highly classified information as its conditional statements. The current number and types of Chinese nuclear arsenal is the mathematical solution of such optimization problem.

 

[voyager1]

What make you think "1000 delivery system is the minimum"? Show me your calculation.

This is complex issue, and as we dont have access to sensitive internal Chinese data we can only make assumptions and hypotheses

I insist on a minimum of 1000 delivery systems because as China insists on a NFU of nuclear weapons we can make some calculations

China needs sufficient numbers to ensure that it has sufficient delivery systems available after it is hit from a First Strike country.

Then we must take into account that with hypersonics development the response time is shortened dramatically which might mean that China needs more delivery systems

Then there is the issue that China's geopolitical environment has gotten more complex

China needs to ensure that its missiles can pass through US defences, so more missiles are needed here

And China need more missiles to be sure against the UK, France, and even Russia (yes, I know they are friends but still..). These countries also have their own defence systems

Then China needs to ensure that its nuclear weapons can 100% hit the major population centres of all these countries.

Especially for the US, China might take into consideration to be able to hit smaller cities as well.

So basically, a bunch of theorycrafting and assumptions. IMO, as I said before, a minimum of 1000 delivery systems, maybe even 1500 is needed. Obviously the nuclear warhead numbers will be higher than that

 

[jimmyjames30x30]

I think 1000 delivery systems is the mininum.

Now for how many warheads ....

Let leave the numbers, because it's meaningless to talk about actual numbers now.

Let's talk about how doctrine and policy would affect numbers. This is what I believe:

1. I believe that if China stick with minimal armament doctrine and non-first-use policy, her warhead and delivery vehicle number will be the minimal numbers that can guarantee an effective, sound and reliable Second-strike/retaliatory-Strike Capability against any enemy nuclear forces.

2. And if China is to abandon minimal armament doctrine and non-first-use policy, She will have to adopt a different kind of doctrine. Well, please spell out what kind of doctrine will it be?

To me, answering the question of doctrine and usage policy will only determine what the rough ranges of the number of warhead would be:
either in several hundreds to 1000-ish, (this is for current minimal armament doctrine and non-first-use policy);
or in more than tens of thousands (this is for a cold war nuclear arms race type of doctrine and policy).

So if you guys think that China should stick with the current doctrine and policy, then the question will be why do you think 1000-ish will better suit China's current doctrine and policy than what China has right now? Is it because the USA (or other potential adversary) has some kind of technological breakthrough that would greatly reduce or even neutralize the effectiveness, soundness and reliability of China's Second-strike/retaliatory-strike capabilities? Well, if you have an answer, show me what that is.

Given that China has made huge strides forward with its ballistic missile and delivery vehicle's capabilities, what kind of answers should I expect from you guys?

 

[jimmyjames30x30]

This is complex issue, and as we dont have access to sensitive internal Chinese data we can only make assumptions and hypotheses

I insist on a minimum of 1000 delivery systems because as China insists on a NFU of nuclear weapons we can make some calculations

China needs sufficient numbers to ensure that it has sufficient delivery systems available after it is hit from a First Strike country.

Then we must take into account that with hypersonics development the response time is shortened dramatically which might mean that China needs more delivery systems

Then there is the issue that China's geopolitical environment has gotten more complex

China needs to ensure that its missiles can pass through US defences, so more missiles are needed here

And China need more missiles to be sure against the UK, France, and even Russia (yes, I know they are friends but still..). These countries also have their own defence systems

Then China needs to ensure that its nuclear weapons can 100% hit the major population centres of all these countries.

Especially for the US, China might take into consideration to be able to hit smaller cities as well.

So basically, a bunch of theorycrafting and assumptions. IMO, as I said before, a minimum of 1000 delivery systems, maybe even 1500 is needed. Obviously the nuclear warhead numbers will be higher than that

Sure, yes, it is complex.

But, NO, I don't see why 1000 delivery system is the magic number. Because you have to take into account the survivability of these delivery systems under every realistic scenario necessitating a second-strike. Let say if these 1000 delivery system has very low survivability rate, what make you think it is necessarily a better choice than 100 delivery systems with very high survivability rate? Therefore, the number is meaningless, because there are too many classified information that is unknown to us.

You talk about "sufficient numbers", which is exactly what I am talking about! We don't know what the sufficient number is. We can only trust the government body who make the decisions which calculated the optimal numbers with classified information we don't have access to. What make you think 1000 is enough? What make you think 200 is not enough? You don't even have classified information to do the calculation!

 

[jimmyjames30x30]

This is complex issue, and as we dont have access to sensitive internal Chinese data we can only make assumptions and hypotheses

I insist on a minimum of 1000 delivery systems because as China insists on a NFU of nuclear weapons we can make some calculations

China needs sufficient numbers to ensure that it has sufficient delivery systems available after it is hit from a First Strike country.

Then we must take into account that with hypersonics development the response time is shortened dramatically which might mean that China needs more delivery systems

Then there is the issue that China's geopolitical environment has gotten more complex

China needs to ensure that its missiles can pass through US defences, so more missiles are needed here

And China need more missiles to be sure against the UK, France, and even Russia (yes, I know they are friends but still..). These countries also have their own defence systems

Then China needs to ensure that its nuclear weapons can 100% hit the major population centres of all these countries.

Especially for the US, China might take into consideration to be able to hit smaller cities as well.

So basically, a bunch of theorycrafting and assumptions. IMO, as I said before, a minimum of 1000 delivery systems, maybe even 1500 is needed. Obviously the nuclear warhead numbers will be higher than that

All I know is that China does NOT lack the money, the material, nor the know-hows to arm her nuclear forces to fulfill her goal of nuclear deterrence. So I believe what ever the Chinese government came up with and equipping herself with right now is the correct number.

 

[james smith esq]

Minimum 250 ICBMs (SW+MIRV), 256 SLBMs (MIRV).
The US SLBM force, ALONE, has the numbers to neutralize an ICBM force of 450, in theory.
You got’ta consider this when planning to survive.