China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread

[Broccoli]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

. It uses only munitions photographically counted... including mobile launchers that can park underground or in a structure.

That is, it assumes that for example, 16x DF-41 on parade in October 2019 and 2x more photographed at a parking lot, is definitively the entire inventory of DF-41. Is that a joke? 16x TELs or ~90% of the entire inventory of 18x DF-41s was at a parade? These TELs aren't cheap, they cost $10 million USD or so just for the truck (which has to have all-wheel drive and off road driving for 16x wheels, inertial navigation, satellite communications, etc), so it's highly unlikely they're just extra trucks for show.

Let's go through more stupid assumptions by the report (see Table 1):

It assumes that there's still 6x warheads on DF-4s, which is a obsolete liquid fueled IRBM deployed in 1975 with a number from 1980.

It assumes that there's still 20x dumb bombs dropped by H-6s, that is a number from 1965.

It assumes if the number is nonzero but unknown... it is precisely zero (DF-5C, DF-17).

It assumes 3x warhead per DF-41, but why? They can look inside? Consensus based on throw weight is 6-10x warheads each. Even they admit to 5x being possible so why pick 3x?

It should be regarded as, at best, a politically motivated bare minimum estimate.

Pentagon has followed DF-41 tests and biggest number warheads Chinese tested has been two warheads per DF-41. Missiles throw weight doesn't matter if you don't know how much payload weights... we know from leaked reports in 1995 that DF-31 warhead weight is estimated at 470kg. That means DF-41 could haul maybe four DF-31 style warheads.

Chinese govt has announced that DF-41 and DF-5B can carry mirvs but never reported how many so there isn't proper evidence for any bumber of mirvs.

 

[Michaelsinodef]

yall know Asia has the largest pool of nukes right? (pakistan+russia+china+north korea)

If China was under nuclear threat from US, do you think the rest will just sit down quietly and watch? USA will risk to have its Asia military bases decimated altogether as part of the counter/revenge from that pro-china circle.

All of this just to stop China reunify with Taiwan?

Yep, it should be pretty clear that no one wants a nuclear war and MAD, and that all parties (US, China and Russia) don't want to start a first strike since it will very likely provoke the other 2 to also launch nukes.

 

[weig2000]

The US bears no real risk of her own destruction in her interaction with China in the past, or now, and would not bear any such risk for a substantial window of time yet.

It does considerably now and will completely in near future. The speed that China will ensure the degree of completeness depends on China's assessment how deranged and delusional the US ruling class is becoming. All signs in the past, currently and in the near future suggest that they will not risk their own destruction for an unquestionable province off the shore of the mainland of another nuclear power. Meanwhile, China has no "ambiguity" when it comes to what it will do in terms of Taiwan. Never had. Never will.

 

[ougoah]

Yep, it should be pretty clear that no one wants a nuclear war and MAD, and that all parties (US, China and Russia) don't want to start a first strike since it will very likely provoke the other 2 to also launch nukes.

This is inaccurate. US has threatened first strike in the past on more than one nation. It also does not have a no first use policy as silly and worthless as that policy can potentially be, it still doesn't.

Also one nation striking another does not trigger both of the other 2 to also launch nukes. That isn't escalation theory at all and has no reason to be a part of it. It doesn't mean that won't happen but I don't know why you insist. If US were to perform a first strike on India, would Pakistan, Russia, China or anyone else launch nukes? If China were to perform a first strike on Russia, would the US launch nukes?

China and Russia do not have some nuclear umbrella and mutual defence agreement. Even if they did, it still doesn't mean the other would live up to it if it came down to ending everything.

 

[Michaelsinodef]

This is inaccurate. US has threatened first strike in the past on more than one nation. It also does not have a no first use policy as silly and worthless as that policy can potentially be, it still doesn't.

Also one nation striking another does not trigger both of the other 2 to also launch nukes. That isn't escalation theory at all and has no reason to be a part of it. It doesn't mean that won't happen but I don't know why you insist. If US were to perform a first strike on India, would Pakistan, Russia, China or anyone else launch nukes? If China were to perform a first strike on Russia, would the US launch nukes?

China and Russia do not have some nuclear umbrella and mutual defence agreement. Even if they did, it still doesn't mean the other would live up to it if it came down to ending everything.

??? I talked about US, Russia and China and that one of them attacking one of the other 2 (US attack against China as an example) would result in the other 2 also attacking (China in retaliation and Russia would also just launch its nukes).

Now if say the US was to nuke a country with no nukes, I'm not sure what would happen.

 

[longmarch]

United States didn't drop nuclear bombs in Korea, didn't drop nuclear bombs in Vietnam, didn't drop nuclear bombs in Afghanistan.

And for decades they keep ambiguity regarding what they would do if China takes on Taiwan. They don't want to embolden Taiwan separatists and get dragged into a war.

And somehow some people think United States would resort to nuclear war to defend Taiwan?
Yeah right.

 

[AssassinsMace]

Now I saw on TV this morning there's talk about China's hypersonic glide vehicle test in conventional means. Yes this is what Prompt Global Strike was all about. Remember how Americans were bragging and taunting how they could strike anyone in the world in less than thirty minutes when it was only a concept? Yes and they'll eventually cancelled the program because the US failed with its own hypersonic tests. Now the reality of Prompt Global Strike lives in China but of course when they were taunting it for themselves they promoted it using the conventional side because promoting the nuclear angle there would be the very questions they're asking now of China about why would the US need it since they have so many other means at their disposal that other countries don't possess nor can counter to deliver nukes. That's why China does have a reason to have it more than the US can spin for themselves. Before this Chinese development that was exposed, they thought they could counter China's nuclear capability and still be able to nuke China. They thought they could defend themselves from a Chinese attack. The only thing that has changed now is their ability to counter has diminished. They still have the ability to nuke China so advantage China because now the US don't feel as confident and safe as before therefore they'll have to think even more if they should. So what they are really whining about China having this capability they're developing is the loss of confidence they will come out as the survivor in a nuclear exchange. The odds in the US's favor now becomes even. Even before this development Americans were taunting arming their allies in Asia with nukes... and they're making those exact same threats after this development was exposed so nothing had changed on their part because they go full tilt all the time.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

Ah thanks for finding a report about it.

And yea, safe to say that the ~300ish number should be regarded as minimum (it was also mostly off of my head, cuz ~300 was something I was seeing quite frequently everywhere.).

With that said, I still don't think China would want something like the 1000+ that the US and Russia have (will cost a lot to maintain), but I would not be surprised if tensions rise and then China were to announce it has 500-600 nukes.

maintenance is cheap compared to GDP and the cost of not maintaining that arsenal. But let's go with a bare minimum: Assuming their report is somewhat accurate, here's what I'd say the minimum arsenal actually is. This does not counting even a single 'new' 300x silos, and assumes they're all empty:

DF5A: 10x, 1x warhead each. 10x total. No change from their estimate.
DF5B: 10x, 5x warhead each, 50x total. No change from their estimate.
DF5C: 10x, 5x warhead each, 50x total. Replaces and recycles DF4, similar ratio as DF5A to B.
DF21L: 40x, 1x warhead each, 40x total. No change from their estimate.
DF26: 200x, 0.2x warhead each, 40x total. Replaces and recycles dumb bombs.
DF31s: 78x, 1x warhead each, 78x total. No change from their estimate.
DF41 (mobile): 24x, 4x warhead each, 96x total. 24x is from the estimated 2x TEL brigades in the report, pg. 445
DF41 (silo): 16x, 4x warhead each, 64x total.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

JL2: 72x, 1x warhead each, 72x total. No change from their estimate.

Total warheads: 500
Total intercontinental: 420

This is using their own sources as much as possible and is a minimum estimate. Essentially everything is backed by their own sources. I didn't do any guesswork here up except the following reasonable assumptions:

1. DF41 has 4x warheads each. See @Broccoli estimates above. This assumes no advance in design since the 90's.
2. DF41 is being actively deployed solely in the silos and TELs actively photographed and estimated from their sources.
3. DF5C has the exact same warhead numbers as DF5B, recycling DF4 materials at the same ratio as DF5A to DF5B.
4. DF26 uses official count of 200x, not their count of 100x, with same ratio as their estimate of 0.2x being non conventional.
5. DF4 and dumb bombs have been retired/recycled due to high maintenance cost and low capability, which they admit is likely.

 

[antiterror13]

Yes I do not have the full/correct number of nuclear warheads that China have, but from the various stuff I have read/seen (such as from this forum, news, videos etc.) the number is ESTIMATED to be around ~300, but this estimation might be too old (some stuff about China somewhat recently starting to build up some more).

With that said, I'm quite sure they will not go into the 1000+ territory, although would not be surprised if they say reached around 500-600 in the coming years and then stay at that number.

Actually I am quite sure that China already possess ~1,500 nukes. It's not hard and expensive to expand it, and China has all of them, just a matter of political decision and I am pretty sure it was decided in 2000s by Chinese leaderships

the 300 nukes estimates remains the same since 1980s when Chinese GDP and technology advancement is like 100x less than now.

Note that Chinese GDP in 1980 was $190B and now is about 100x bigger, the same case for technology advancement of China

Do you really think Chinese leaders are so dump to keep that number to please the US who have kept threatening China continuously?

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

the 300 estimates remains the same since 1980s when Chinese GDP and technology advancement is like 100x less than now.

yep, my estimate of ~500 is a bare minimum estimate using only their sources. The 300x silos being built? Let's say they're half filled with DF41 at 4x each. That's another 600x plus 500x on existing, photographed assets.

they're using DF4 and dumb bomb estimates they admit are from the 1970s which is insane if you think about it.