I made a tl;dr on Reddit about my views on the nuclear build-up and its ultimate aims:
I've been thinking about the recent Chinese nuclear weapons build-up and how it fits into China's broader strategic objectives over the coming years when I felt one of my tl;drs coming on. In case you need a refresher, here are a couple of links that document various aspects of that build-up:
Before we begin, I understand that some of you still entertain the idea that these are wind farms. Disabuse yourselves of the notion. While that's a useful piece of disinformation to spread in keeping with Bannonite zone-flooding, these are pictures of actual, real ICBM silos. While I appreciate the disinformation aspect, I follow the ethos of the successful drug dealer: don't get high on your own supply. The only wind farm this shows is the East Wind Farm.
I also want to emphasize that the silos are only one aspect of the recent build-up. We have recent tests of the JL-3 SLBM, the unveiling of the DF-41 ICBM at the 2019 National Day parade (although the missile was in service for years before then), and rumoured development of the heavier silo-launched DF-45 ICBM. The primary enabler of the expansion, and something to always keep in mind, is that China now has the money and technology to do this.
The "debate" (read shit-flinging) among the American "strategic community" (aka the Blob, Think Tankies, etc.) is over what exactly this entails about China's strategic intentions. This is, of course, an exercise in projection given the Quixotic futility of trying to guess intentions from a fragmentary and uncontextualized picture of actions. Predictably, the dovish wing of this community - in the interests of advancing a narrowly-defined "disarmament" agenda - wants to dismiss these developments in any way possible; hence we see people like Jeffrey Lewis proposing a "shell game" where a minuscule number of missiles is shuttled between these silos (with appropriate obfuscation) so that an adversary can't guess which silos are armed and must therefore attack all of them with several warheads to ensure their destruction. Conversely, the hawkish wing - pursuing its own narrow interest in advancing the military-industrial complex grift - shrilly and hoarsely barks that China intends to match, if not exceed, US nuclear capabilities. Sprinkle in the usual Orientalism and Yellow Peril racism and you're up to date on the debate.
The funny thing is that if we were to look at the matter logically, these two positions are not mutually exclusive or even contradictory. In fact, they're simply steps along the same chain. It's certain that the silos will be dug long before the missiles to fill it are ready - so it's perfectly reasonable that the initial basing will be along the lines of the "shell game." However, the more interesting thing is what happens later, once China builds up enough of a stock of warheads, missiles, and fissile material to consider broader basing options. I conclude that China will fill these silos, along with expanding the number of road-mobile DF-41 launchers and JL-3s aboard Type 09-VI SSBN, with the goal of reaching parity with the US and imposing on it the same MAD calculation it takes with Russia. I hope the following example will demonstrate why.
Consider a war in the Pacific breaking out over Taiwan some time in the future. With the way things already are - let alone where they're headed - the US will suffer massive casualties if it decides to intervene. It would certainly lose several aircraft carriers and their escorts - that alone means tens of thousands of US sailors will die - along with its bases in the region being turned into smouldering craters. It would literally and figuratively see the position of dominance it held since WWII go up in flames. I think it's absolutely clear what it would do in revenge if it has nuclear dominance over China, which means it's absolutely clear why China must have nuclear parity.
Still, parity cannot be achieved overnight, which is why the ambiguity of the build-up is necessary. The best help here is, ironically, the nature of the political system in Washington - each side of the debate will want to frustrate and stymie the other and the issue, like every other, will get politicized in a thousand different ways. All that means is that the debate is never going to end and China will be completely peripheral to it because, in a sense, it's exactly that. The goal of the US political class (and their pet Think Tankies) is to get one over on their opposition, not to actually address any issue. In addition to the usual noise, we might see some comedic scenes like when the US delegation to the Russia-US New START talks during the Trump administration tried to "shame" China into attending by putting little PRC flags around an empty table. They ended up putting the flags wrong:
The most useful story China can adopt (far more useful than any windmill story) is that China has 350 warheads. That must be elevated to a catechism - a law of reality - no matter what the actual numbers are, China has 350 nuclear warheads.
Finally, what's a tl;dr without a Sūnzi quote? "The epitome of martial excellence isn't winning every battle, but winning without fighting." To which I add my corollary: Winning without fighting means scaring the ever-living fuck out of your enemy.
I've been thinking about the recent Chinese nuclear weapons build-up and how it fits into China's broader strategic objectives over the coming years when I felt one of my tl;drs coming on. In case you need a refresher, here are a couple of links that document various aspects of that build-up:
Before we begin, I understand that some of you still entertain the idea that these are wind farms. Disabuse yourselves of the notion. While that's a useful piece of disinformation to spread in keeping with Bannonite zone-flooding, these are pictures of actual, real ICBM silos. While I appreciate the disinformation aspect, I follow the ethos of the successful drug dealer: don't get high on your own supply. The only wind farm this shows is the East Wind Farm.
I also want to emphasize that the silos are only one aspect of the recent build-up. We have recent tests of the JL-3 SLBM, the unveiling of the DF-41 ICBM at the 2019 National Day parade (although the missile was in service for years before then), and rumoured development of the heavier silo-launched DF-45 ICBM. The primary enabler of the expansion, and something to always keep in mind, is that China now has the money and technology to do this.
The "debate" (read shit-flinging) among the American "strategic community" (aka the Blob, Think Tankies, etc.) is over what exactly this entails about China's strategic intentions. This is, of course, an exercise in projection given the Quixotic futility of trying to guess intentions from a fragmentary and uncontextualized picture of actions. Predictably, the dovish wing of this community - in the interests of advancing a narrowly-defined "disarmament" agenda - wants to dismiss these developments in any way possible; hence we see people like Jeffrey Lewis proposing a "shell game" where a minuscule number of missiles is shuttled between these silos (with appropriate obfuscation) so that an adversary can't guess which silos are armed and must therefore attack all of them with several warheads to ensure their destruction. Conversely, the hawkish wing - pursuing its own narrow interest in advancing the military-industrial complex grift - shrilly and hoarsely barks that China intends to match, if not exceed, US nuclear capabilities. Sprinkle in the usual Orientalism and Yellow Peril racism and you're up to date on the debate.
The funny thing is that if we were to look at the matter logically, these two positions are not mutually exclusive or even contradictory. In fact, they're simply steps along the same chain. It's certain that the silos will be dug long before the missiles to fill it are ready - so it's perfectly reasonable that the initial basing will be along the lines of the "shell game." However, the more interesting thing is what happens later, once China builds up enough of a stock of warheads, missiles, and fissile material to consider broader basing options. I conclude that China will fill these silos, along with expanding the number of road-mobile DF-41 launchers and JL-3s aboard Type 09-VI SSBN, with the goal of reaching parity with the US and imposing on it the same MAD calculation it takes with Russia. I hope the following example will demonstrate why.
Consider a war in the Pacific breaking out over Taiwan some time in the future. With the way things already are - let alone where they're headed - the US will suffer massive casualties if it decides to intervene. It would certainly lose several aircraft carriers and their escorts - that alone means tens of thousands of US sailors will die - along with its bases in the region being turned into smouldering craters. It would literally and figuratively see the position of dominance it held since WWII go up in flames. I think it's absolutely clear what it would do in revenge if it has nuclear dominance over China, which means it's absolutely clear why China must have nuclear parity.
Still, parity cannot be achieved overnight, which is why the ambiguity of the build-up is necessary. The best help here is, ironically, the nature of the political system in Washington - each side of the debate will want to frustrate and stymie the other and the issue, like every other, will get politicized in a thousand different ways. All that means is that the debate is never going to end and China will be completely peripheral to it because, in a sense, it's exactly that. The goal of the US political class (and their pet Think Tankies) is to get one over on their opposition, not to actually address any issue. In addition to the usual noise, we might see some comedic scenes like when the US delegation to the Russia-US New START talks during the Trump administration tried to "shame" China into attending by putting little PRC flags around an empty table. They ended up putting the flags wrong:
The most useful story China can adopt (far more useful than any windmill story) is that China has 350 warheads. That must be elevated to a catechism - a law of reality - no matter what the actual numbers are, China has 350 nuclear warheads.
Finally, what's a tl;dr without a Sūnzi quote? "The epitome of martial excellence isn't winning every battle, but winning without fighting." To which I add my corollary: Winning without fighting means scaring the ever-living fuck out of your enemy.
