China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread

[ougoah]

We have long suggested here that the intuition for minimum effective deterrence is 1000 warheads of x00KT to xMT range (if not even higher yield and yield is not really an issue at all with third gen Chinese nukes), combined mostly with ICBM and SLBM along with any exotic intercontinental delivery mechanisms that may exist - HGVs, HCMs, FOB-like systems etc.

Chinese SRBMs are almost never nuke equipped. There's no need and their whole purpose is for striking key assets in opening phase of any regional war. Chinese MRBMs and IRBMs may be nuke armed because India is the only regional nuclear power that may potentially "go there" but Indians aren't going to be interested in getting nuked by both China and Pakistan. China has hundreds of times more nuclear warheads than India and many thousands higher total yield in nuclear weapons than India's... that is unless India goes crazy with build up which they realistically cannot afford to since that is a luxury for a rich nation ie you don't spend 10% of your combined resources for something that will never happen unless you want it to happen... For India to get to the level of thermonuclear capability and delivery the total cost would at least take up 10% of their economic size. China is many, many times larger economically than India and every year that gap is increasing because 5% of 15 trillion is much more than 5% of 3 trillion. India's current nuclear capability and size is roughly equal to 1970 China. There's a lot of money and time involved to get them to DF-41 level and HGV packed into ICBMs. For now, they have not even managed to develop an actual fusion weapon. Then again they have no need for one either since they have every purpose to avoid nuclear exchange with a smaller nuclear Pakistan and there is nobody else wanting to get into some nuclear tussle with India. Therefore it's very unlikely that China puts many nuclear warheads on China's MRBMs and IRBMs since China and India both have formal no first use policy, both are not interested in nuclear war with each other and even if there is a war between the two, a conventional war where both sides respect demarcated borders is almost certain (so Ladakh and Arunachal Pradesh disagreements not included but that is almost surely conventional and unlikely to escalate too out of hand).

Basically China's 1000 warheads are all on intercontinental ranged delivery vehicles. Doubling this count is smaller than pocket change for China... the maths iirc was roughly estimated less than 0.1% of annual GDP for another thousands warheads and commensurate delivery vehicles estimating an average of 5 warheads per delivery vehicle (MT yield will be 1 to 3 while KT yield is higher count) of newer generations. This achieves guaranteed MAD for not only US but all involved in conflict. The Chinese cannot and certainly have not estimated only 10% destroyed by interceptors and 20% failure or successful disruption. First strike should also be accounted for. SSBNs are lacking in numbers and the 094 is supposedly at least one generation behind in quietness. Underground and hidden launchers cannot be relied on in such small numbers - dozens. China has the money and resources to get to 2000 warheads and it also has the reasons since the Anglo empire has never been so rabidly aggressive ever before.

The conversations and hints in China hint that warheads are up to 1000 nowadays with the commensurate numbers of ICBMs SLBMs etc.

The suggestion has always been that the relative delay in nuclear build up has been due to awaiting for the maturity and readiness of several different new generations of technologies in the field of warhead design itself and delivery systems. This was back in 2018 when those talks and hints were given. The context of which was referring to the early 2010s when tensions were clearly rising and preparations for nuclear expansion was decided upon. The authorities were in fact quite conservative if anything. Choosing to be more cynical than they were optimistic about Anglo behaviour when it comes to the question of security. Of course they were proven right on overall tensions and proven wrong with CCP's optimism in Anglo economic cooperation not leading to trade and tech wars.

 

[ougoah]

It seems with revelations clear enough now, China in the early 2010s delayed nuclear expansion because they were waiting for new generation of warheads. Presumably ones that can be integrated with new generations of delivery systems. After all, China was flying and testing hypersonics in the late 2000s and flights during the 2010s were performed in the hundreds according to American military intelligence.

It makes sense to build up only after newer weapons are proven and matured enough to be relied upon. To further supplement greater numbers of warheads and delivery system (along with the type and sophistication of those systems), China still should pursue strategic stealth bombers since they have a lot more utility than just one way, intercontinental nuclear delivery. There are at least 6 active Type 094 SSBNs with JL-2 and possibly at least one with JL-3, carrying in total roughly 72 SLBMs of intercontinental range and MIRV/MaRVed. Supposedly two more boats to join (or have already joined) to make a total of 8 Type 094/A boats and Type 096 under construction. If every warhead hit, just this is enough to effectively end a nation the size of Russia... that's at least 216 warheads in the KT yield if not lower MT yield... 72 cities and their surrounds. China has much more DF-31A/B, DF-5A and DF-41.

It will be some time before Type 096 and at least JL-3 are serving in good numbers (I'd say good would be over 6) but since China typically aims to spend the optimal amount on nuclear forces (it would seem they like standing right on the point of diminishing returns with 1000 warheads on intercontinental range weapons), it's unlikely China would spend too much resource on going crazy like the Americans. Sophisticated and guaranteed effective delivery beats brute forcing through numbers every day. China sort of already has both domains covered but it should aim to cover it twice over. Type 096 with new missiles would mostly represent a survival improvement which sort of has an advantage in delivery over Type 094 but since 094s are protected well enough in regional waters and away from the direct and immediate attack by USN assets (they can launch all missiles well before detected and sunk since it takes at least hours to even get to those 094s for the USN even if they always know exactly where they are).

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

I thought it was the Soviet's respond of the USA put missiles in Turkey

US had missiles in Turkey all along. Also, as early as 1961, Soviets barely had single digits of ICBMs. US had total overmatch against the USSR. By the time Soviets had a single SSBN (in 1967, Project 667 Yankee class) the US already had 41 SSBNs.

This might show you why the Soviet Union was so frantically pouring money into the military. It was at existential and mortal risk for almost the entire Cold War until the late 1970's, and the massive amounts of money poured into the military was barely just enough to secure its physical existence. It was not because they were crazy aggressive.

 

[antiterror13]

It seems with revelations clear enough now, China in the early 2010s delayed nuclear expansion because they were waiting for new generation of warheads. Presumably ones that can be integrated with new generations of delivery systems. After all, China was flying and testing hypersonics in the late 2000s and flights during the 2010s were performed in the hundreds according to American military intelligence.

It makes sense to build up only after newer weapons are proven and matured enough to be relied upon. To further supplement greater numbers of warheads and delivery system (along with the type and sophistication of those systems), China still should pursue strategic stealth bombers since they have a lot more utility than just one way, intercontinental nuclear delivery. There are at least 6 active Type 094 SSBNs with JL-2 and possibly at least one with JL-3, carrying in total roughly 72 SLBMs of intercontinental range and MIRV/MaRVed. Supposedly two more boats to join (or have already joined) to make a total of 8 Type 094/A boats and Type 096 under construction. If every warhead hit, just this is enough to effectively end a nation the size of Russia... that's at least 216 warheads in the KT yield if not lower MT yield... 72 cities and their surrounds. China has much more DF-31A/B, DF-5A and DF-41.

It will be some time before Type 096 and at least JL-3 are serving in good numbers (I'd say good would be over 6) but since China typically aims to spend the optimal amount on nuclear forces (it would seem they like standing right on the point of diminishing returns with 1000 warheads on intercontinental range weapons), it's unlikely China would spend too much resource on going crazy like the Americans. Sophisticated and guaranteed effective delivery beats brute forcing through numbers every day. China sort of already has both domains covered but it should aim to cover it twice over. Type 096 with new missiles would mostly represent a survival improvement which sort of has an advantage in delivery over Type 094 but since 094s are protected well enough in regional waters and away from the direct and immediate attack by USN assets (they can launch all missiles well before detected and sunk since it takes at least hours to even get to those 094s for the USN even if they always know exactly where they are).

Do you think there is a big challenge for China to get enough fissile materials ?

 

[antiterror13]

US had missiles in Turkey all along. Also, as early as 1961, Soviets barely had single digits of ICBMs. US had total overmatch against the USSR. By the time Soviets had a single SSBN (in 1967, Project 667 Yankee class) the US already had 41 SSBNs.

This might show you why the Soviet Union was so frantically pouring money into the military. It was at existential and mortal risk for almost the entire Cold War until the late 1970's, and the massive amounts of money poured into the military was barely just enough to secure its physical existence. It was not because they were crazy aggressive.

Thanks, I didn't know that ... something new that I learn

Why the US didn't simply nuke the Soviet when the Soviet couldn't retaliate ... perhaps only 2 cities Moscow and St Petersburg would be enough

 

[ougoah]

Do you think there is a big challenge for China to get enough fissile materials ?

Enough for 2000 warheads? I don't know. Enough for at least 1000, almost definitely.

China has uranium ore. It could have some (more than enough for 1000 warheads), it could have almost as much as Australia (in that case enough for tens of thousands of MT warheads). China has been buying Uranium for energy from Australia and possibly from North Korea. North Korea has a fair bit of Uranium ore.

China has had secret enrichment facilities built into underground bases and mountains since the 1960s. They even showed a long decommissioned one on a documentary. Many, many nuclear energy and academic facilities that are capable of refining material. Apparently their operations are tracked but certainly not tracked well enough to log Chinese own ore reserves and material going in to facilities.

There is absolutely no material or facility limit on a minimmum of 1000 warheads China could produce.

There never was a facility limit to how China can refine material. Only China says how much material goes into facility and how much of it is refined for weapons. There never was any reliable and accurate tracing of material because China like the US and Russia, never reported on weapons side.

Fissile material required for 1000 kiloton ranged warheads depends on the warhead design. I don't think anyone here is an expert in those specifics but if we take the fact that there is no fissile material limit for China, not even back in the 1960s, how could there be any limit to building 1000+ warheads if China has for over 60 years, the facilities (and many secretive ones since nearly all the weapon making facilities are secretive!) and all the material it needs within its own borders and supplied from North Korea if not also Australia. It's not hard to import 1000T of Australian ore and then saying 1000T are going towards energy while only 500T went towards energy production.

FYI to everyone, no nuclear power has external organisations cataloging the exact volume of material entering a plant, the exact amount of waste material leaving, AND the exact amount of energy produced.

The most information western nations have as estimates of nuclear energy fuel is material purchased from Australia, amount China says has gone into energy production, the amount China says as been depleted and ended up as waste material, and then the amount of energy China says a public, energy producing nuclear plant has produced. Between all this, it wouldn't be hard to buy 1000T of Australia ore and using only 100T for energy while 900T ended up in warheads. It is so easy to fudge this stuff to keep nuclear weapons estimates off by even many orders of magnitude.

Since the beginning of China buying its first import gram of uranium from Australia and to this day, Australia does not have specifics on how China uses the uranium no more than Australia has on how the US uses imported uranium. They say its for energy and the seller is happy to make his money and believe whatever. You cannot stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons in that way when there is such disparity. China AND Australia both know China has every right to produce nuclear weapons since the US owns the most, continues with aggressive policy, militarily adventurous, AND it is also failing to declare even a no first use policy. The US has shown no real and genuine intention for disarmament and of course not, it has the most warheads in the world. It would be quite an unequal disarmament.

This is only accounting for imported uranium from Australia. Let's keep in mind that China has PLENTY of uranium ore within its own MASSIVE landmass AND North Korea is also home to some significant amount of uranium ore.

These two points have actually always been the weakest points made by the ones who suggest China is capped by fissile material availability (categorically false) and cannot keep enrichment out of the eyes of whoever is supposedly watching... they can and already have since the 1960s.

 

[ougoah]

Despite knowing some of its exported uranium to China is used for weapons, I don't think Australia has yet banned China from buying it. Nor have the US given Australia enough pressure to stop it. They both know China has plenty of its own reserves and can buy uranium from elsewhere. Australia, China, and North Korea are far from the only places on the earth where uranium exists, or indeed even mined. Most of China's nuclear build up was done between 1960s and 2010. Old warheads have their fissile material used on new ones. Once you produce them they're good for many many decades... at least even the warheads themselves are good for decades in the Yu-Min design as it is alleged by some literature even in English.

Australia banning China from buying Australia uranium however would mean China needs to use more of its own uranium and NK uranium for energy production because the country's nuclear energy consumption is increasing... in fact energy consumption overall is increasing due to increasing productivity of an even reducing population. This could limit how much uranium is available for weapons production BUT the US have long ago done the maths and realised that is far far away from worthwhile. It simply doesn't take that much to produce at least 1000 warheads and China's own uranium ore reserves is enough for both a weapons program of 1000+ warheads AND energy. They'd rather Australia just make easy money and plenty of money from exporting uranium. It has zero difference in China's energy production and zero difference on China's weapons production since there is plenty of material around the world and even inside China itself.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

Thanks, I didn't know that ... something new that I learn

Why the US didn't simply nuke the Soviet when the Soviet couldn't retaliate ... perhaps only 2 cities Moscow and St Petersburg would be enough

Not enough time. Before the hydrogen bomb the WW2 style warheads were too heavy to deliver by missile. Dumb bombs were the only way to go. But they'd suffer ridiculous losses against Soviet air defense while Soviet Army would push US forces into the ocean and conquer Europe.

Soviets had conventional superiority because NATO was still rebuilding from WW2 (thanks to Nazi Germany thoroughly devastating everyone) and so US has tons of soldiers in Europe. The US soldiers were essentially trapped there though as the Soviet Army was projected to be able to push them into the ocean through snowballing momentum before reinforcements could arrive.

In 1957 the R-7 ICBM was deployed which changed the deterrence game. That was the first ICBM in the world. However, US followed up with the Atlas in 1958 and the "41 for freedom" SSBNs which deployed 41 SSBNs in 10 years. US was far richer than the Soviets and could literally outbuild them 3 to 1.

Remember this was early 60s. Satellites were very bad and the U-2 just got shot down. There was no way to get accurate reconnaissance on either side so nobody really knew what was happening.

By the time US found out about Soviet inferiority it was too late and the inferiority was only theoretical, since the MAD threshold passed. By 1967 Soviets already had solid fueled RT-2 and hypergolic R-16s ready for launch on warning.

 

[gelgoog]

US had missiles in Turkey all along. Also, as early as 1961, Soviets barely had single digits of ICBMs. US had total overmatch against the USSR. By the time Soviets had a single SSBN (in 1967, Project 667 Yankee class) the US already had 41 SSBNs.

No way. The R-7 was not reliable as a deterrent in later years but back when it came out it was better than using an intercontinental bomber to deliver a weapon. In the early 1960s the Soviets had hundreds of R-16 ICBMs alone. Those were a credible deterrent since it used storable fuel. It was comparable to the US Titan II. The problem the Soviets had was they lagged on solid rocket technology and they lagged in nuclear warhead design. Their warheads were much larger and required larger rockets to deliver them. For example the counter to the US Minuteman-II ICBM was the Soviet RT-2 missile and it only came out 3 years after the US missile.

A lot of people also ignore that the initial US Polaris SLBMs had a pitiful short range. The Polaris did not have intercontinental range. The Soviets did have a gap in number of SSBNs in the early 1960s sure.

This might show you why the Soviet Union was so frantically pouring money into the military. It was at existential and mortal risk for almost the entire Cold War until the late 1970's, and the massive amounts of money poured into the military was barely just enough to secure its physical existence. It was not because they were crazy aggressive.

Yet that is precisely when the Soviet economy started sliding backwards. When they had basically caught up in terms of nuclear buildup.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

No way. The R-7 was not reliable as a deterrent in later years but back when it came out it was better than using an intercontinental bomber to deliver a weapon. In the early 1960s the Soviets had hundreds of R-16 ICBMs alone. Those were a credible deterrent since it used storable fuel. It was comparable to the US Titan II. The problem the Soviets had was they lagged on solid rocket technology and they lagged in nuclear warhead design. Their warheads were much larger and required larger rockets to deliver them. For example the counter to the US Minuteman-II ICBM was the Soviet RT-2 missile and it only came out 3 years after the US missile.

A lot of people also ignore that the initial US Polaris SLBMs had a pitiful short range. The Polaris did not have intercontinental range. The Soviets did have a gap in number of SSBNs in the early 1960s sure.



Yet that is precisely when the Soviet economy started sliding backwards. When they had basically caught up in terms of nuclear buildup.

R-16s weren't ready in large numbers during the Cuban missile crisis. At most 50 were deployed with lower estimates being just a few dozen.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The other advantage of Soviets was that they had a shorter polar path to the US for ground based missiles and had the Arctic for SSBNs so even their medium ranged SLBMs were OK.

Polaris also wasn't that short ranged. 4600 km was sufficient for Russia because distances in Europe are tiny compared to distances in Asia. First Russian SLBM was barely 1500 km.