China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

Xizor

Captain
Registered Member
As recent news has reported China has a French nuclear power plant. The only way France would be able to sell to China and China be able to buy it from France is if both are signatories. That's how they control who gets nuclear power technology because one of the rules is allowing outside inspectors in to count how much each country has as in in how much uranium. Yes if a country has a domestic supply it would be harder to track. But for countries that don't have a domestic supply inspectors can and do track accountable supplies. If some is missing from the last inspection, then they know something has been done and are subject to action.
For example it is known that Japan has one of the largest stores of enriched plutonium in Asia BUT these are inspected thoroughly.

Civilian nuclear power and systems are better maintained if under global regulatory networks. The chances of failures are reduced and standards can be shared. France also shared technology that it developed ( directly or indirectly).

China has good uranium reserves. It can take it for military applications and no one will inspect this.
 

AssassinsMace

Lieutenant General
For example it is known that Japan has one of the largest stores of enriched plutonium in Asia BUT these are inspected thoroughly.

Civilian nuclear power and systems are better maintained if under global regulatory networks. The chances of failures are reduced and standards can be shared. France also shared technology that it developed ( directly or indirectly).

China has good uranium reserves. It can take it for military applications and no one will inspect this.

I've mentioned this before that's how inspectors can figure out how many nukes a country could possibly, not exactly, have. Plutonium is a by-product of certain nuclear power plants. One can mathematically figure out how much plutonium has been produced in a given amount of time. When inspectors come in they're suppose to see plutonium stockpiles as well and if the figures match, then they can say no plutonium has been used from "these" plants for other purposes. Of course again if a country has independent nuclear technology, it'll be not exact but you can get a ballpark number on the possible minimum nuclear weapons a country has.
 

ougoah

Brigadier
Registered Member
As recent news has reported China has a French nuclear power plant. The only way France would be able to sell to China and China be able to buy it from France is if both are signatories. That's how they control who gets nuclear power technology because one of the rules is allowing outside inspectors in to count how much each country has i.e. how much uranium. Yes if a country has a domestic supply it would be harder to track. But for countries that don't have a domestic supply, inspectors can and do track accountable supplies. If some is missing from the last inspection, then they know something has been done and are subject to action.

This dates back to the 1980s where programs from the CCP reveal (and in subsequent years, proved) China's wish to study, evaluate and adopt commercial nuclear powerplant technologies (these things include entire sets of safe operation procedures and operating standards) along with the best available commercial powerplant designs that are offered by the Russians and French.

China's domestic design on commercial powerplants were divided into deuterium isotope reactor (heavy water PWR type), thorium reactor research, molten salt reactors, and "conventional" pressurised water reactors. Even Westinghouse design was bought for 3rd gen design. The final result of evaluating and learning Russia, American, and French reactor designs culminated in China's own CPR1000 as it's first step domesticating and combining the best of those technologies as it's own 2nd gen commercial reactor and then the Hualong 1 design as a 3rd gen reactor design. France and Russia have both continued with their own designs and China have continued buying them. It is one way to buy lessons when you are behind in these fields... particularly in the subfield of operating them.

This has little to do with weapons supply chain. Fissile material that are accounted for in energy production are indeed well accounted by international auditors. Like you said, it is common for all signatories of any nuclear energy agreement. What isn't within the scope of treaties is domestic fissile material mining or refinement. China has been able to do that since the 1960s.

Any fissile material that remain off the books in accounting for energy production, stay off the books the entire time it is in the ground, in the shop, in refinement, in a warhead. There is no mechanism for accounting anyone's (that includes the US and Russia) weapons material refinement facilities and the volume of the material itself.

Some commercial and academic reactors may be capable of producing the required material which can be used for weapons after refinement. There may be agreed rules on how much is allowed to be used for weapons and how they are tracked but this is always going to be the tip of the iceberg. It is a minimum of the available material the country has for refining and weaponising. Since we don't know how many facilities in China exist just for producing material suitable for refining and weaponising along with how long they've been operating, there is no accurate way of estimating China's weapons grade material based on commercial energy producing reactors and the accounting of material going to and leaving those facilities.
 

ougoah

Brigadier
Registered Member
I've mentioned this before that's how inspectors can figure out how many nukes a country could possibly, not exactly, have. Plutonium is a by-product of certain nuclear power plants. One can mathematically figure out how much plutonium has been produced in a given amount of time. When inspectors come in they're suppose to see plutonium stockpiles as well and if the figures match, then they can say no plutonium has been used from "these" plants for other purposes. Of course again if a country has independent nuclear technology, it'll be not exact but you can get a ballpark number on the possible minimum nuclear weapons a country has.

But they do not know how many facilities you have and how much of those material you have mined or available in un-mined reserves. Therefore it is impossible accurately determine how many nukes a country could have. The range of possibilities makes it useless.

We don't know how much fissile material China has in the ground. We don't know how much it really mines. We don't know how many enrichment facilities they have in secret that isn't reported or even suspected. Maybe some would have better ideas but again they'll have a minimum estimate based on the numbers calculated from more specific factors like vehicles visiting and leaving facility, frequency, size of facility etc. In reality they wouldn't even be able to gather those details very accurately even if they know about a facility.
 

sinophilia

Junior Member
Registered Member
But they do not know how many facilities you have and how much of those material you have mined or available in un-mined reserves. Therefore it is impossible accurately determine how many nukes a country could have. The range of possibilities makes it useless.

We don't know how much fissile material China has in the ground. We don't know how much it really mines. We don't know how many enrichment facilities they have in secret that isn't reported or even suspected. Maybe some would have better ideas but again they'll have a minimum estimate based on the numbers calculated from more specific factors like vehicles visiting and leaving facility, frequency, size of facility etc. In reality they wouldn't even be able to gather those details very accurately even if they know about a facility.

What would be the point though of having so many warheads without delivery systems for them?

Or are you assuming that these are also being hidden to such an extent that the estimates coming from the US are off by multiple times.
 

FairAndUnbiased

Brigadier
Registered Member
What would be the point though of having so many warheads without delivery systems for them?

Or are you assuming that these are also being hidden to such an extent that the estimates coming from the US are off by multiple times.

1. MIRVs

2. How do you know how many TELs are parked indoors?

3. China launches 100+ rockets per year including 'solid state launch vehicles' which have nearly zero commercial advantage over liquid fueled (but are much better for launching 'payloads' without preparation). Any orbital launch vehicle can deliver even more payload to a sub-orbital trajectory. Lacks delivery mechanisms?
 

ougoah

Brigadier
Registered Member
What would be the point though of having so many warheads without delivery systems for them?

Or are you assuming that these are also being hidden to such an extent that the estimates coming from the US are off by multiple times.

I don't know. How many warheads does China have? How many delivery systems do they have?

The conversation was about material limits and the pitfalls of trying to figure out warheads limits based on how much recorded material there is for the energy sector.

It has become increasingly clear the reality is that there is no way to figure out the upper bounds of Chinese warhead numbers based on available public domain information.

The estimates coming from the US that they are happy to publish, may not be the estimates the US actually work with. In any case these estimates come from China's own admission dating back decades. Do you think they ought to be accurate?

I think you'll making some back handed implications. No one said anything is hidden. We know China has material reserves that can be kept off the books. We know China has the ability to refine material since the 1960s. We know China builds missiles and test them very frequently. No one is saying anything is the case but it seems many miss these simple facts and are unable to put two and two together.
 

Hendrik_2000

Lieutenant General
I've mentioned this before that's how inspectors can figure out how many nukes a country could possibly, not exactly, have. Plutonium is a by-product of certain nuclear power plants. One can mathematically figure out how much plutonium has been produced in a given amount of time. When inspectors come in they're suppose to see plutonium stockpiles as well and if the figures match, then they can say no plutonium has been used from "these" plants for other purposes. Of course again if a country has independent nuclear technology, it'll be not exact but you can get a ballpark number on the possible minimum nuclear weapons a country has.
But that only apply for imported nuclear technology meaning in order to secure export license China must sign nuclear non proliferation treaty. With their attending inspection etc. PWR, Candu, Westinghouse belong to this category of nuclear plant

But that does not apply for reactor to generate plutonium for weapon purpose which most likely a graphite moderated nuclear power plant.

China is the original 5 nuclear power along with US, Britain, French, soviet as such there is no prohibition to built warhead . The restriction only apply to the late comer . So there is no inspector in China weapon production facility!
 

AssassinsMace

Lieutenant General
But that only apply for imported nuclear technology meaning in order to secure export license China must sign nuclear non proliferation treaty. With their attending inspection etc. PWR, Candu, Westinghouse belong to this category of nuclear plant

But that does not apply for reactor to generate plutonium for weapon purpose which most likely a graphite moderated nuclear power plant.

China is the original 5 nuclear power along with US, Britain, French, soviet as such there is no prohibition to built warhead . The restriction only apply to the late comer . So there is no inspector in China weapon production facility!
Like I've said it's not exact but people are speculating how much potential nukes a country has. You at least get a potential minimal number.
 

windsclouds2030

Senior Member
Registered Member
Good things come in threes, baby, you know that!
All of these developments, incl. the 3rd silo fields, reminds of the recent Editorial of Global Times -- and now I know it is not the empty lines!

"China also needs to further enhance its nuclear force and consolidate its ultimate deterrence against the US. This deterrence will strengthen the expectation that the US can only engage in a war of attrition with China that it can never win."

US ‘large-scale’ military exercises cannot scare China, Russia: Global Times editorial (05 August 2021)
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top