Quite reassuring, thanks. 50/yr is healthier, but I'd still prefer it to be more like at least 100/yr, on top of SLBM production. 30 didn't seem right because that would mean they'd take 10 years just to fill the currently known silos with 0 mobile expansion.
Are there any other components unique to ICBMs, especially the DF-41 in particular, that I'm not thinking of which could bottleneck production, besides TELs or guidance?
We really need some of that Khrushchev "cranking missiles out like sausages" energy.
It's in the multiple dozens per year for over 3 decades. That's a lot of missiles, into the thousands including MRBMs and IRBMs. Of course hundreds upon hundreds would have been used in training since we watch them shoot dozens every year in just broadcasted training footage and documentaries.
If we assume 3 warheads per ICBM ranged missile, that's up to and not limited to 1500 missiles made since 1990 assuming they placed priority on production of delivery systems which is a big assumption. 1500 ICBMs with even 1000 over those 30 years either decommissioned or used in training (1500/30 years so about 50 produced per year and phased out older ones and used up in training and regular testing), means 500 missiles or 1500 warheads just for ICBMs. Hardly likely if we assume China currently has between 1000 and 2000 warheads.
The above would have been careful nuclear policy. There's every possibility that CCP considers 500 or so warheads and 100 ICBMs to be more than enough (until more recently with the nuclear force expansion).
We can only estimate the range of production and numbers. Certainly there is no cap or limit at all. China could have 2000 warheads and over 1000 ICBM + SLBM because those achievements between 1990 and 2020 would have been so easily attained it would have demanded next to nothing in terms of China's collective resources and industrial capability.
We know is that China could easily build >50 ICBMs every year (since DF-31 came out in 2000s) and deploy upwards of 2000 warheads IF China chose to take that path. The point of diminishing returns is certainly well under this particularly with more sophisticated delivery systems with higher survival. This doesn't mean China has 2000 warheads and 1000 ICBMs, very unlikely but there has never been any limitations on how many China can produce.
A Soviet or indeed even American approach to this is completely wasteful. Your first car gives you the greatest utility. Your second car is nice and good to have, the third begins to become much less useful, everything after that is just a insane waste. The point is to determine what number you truly should have after accounting for losing half in a first strike (absolute worst case) that somehow manages to avoid Chinese space based, ground based, sea based early warning radars (that number in the hundreds now of different systems and technologies) and then somehow also reaching and destroying many of your hidden missiles, silos, and those hidden deep inside mountain ranges. Then account for another 70% getting intercepted or disrupted somehow. Your remaining missiles must still be enough to totally annihilate all your targets, not just one nation but potentially multiple nations. This I estimate to be roughly a minimum of 1000 warheads delivered by 300 to 500 ICBM and SLBM with new MaRV and HGV. It means you could deliver at an absolute worst case scenario, roughly 150 to 200 warheads onto targets. This basically is enough (since >100KT to 50MT) to end multiple nations even as a worst case.
Pumping them out like sausages like the US and Soviet Union is just going to give you a massive headache a total waste for at least half of that stockpile. These are things to be used to end the world and only in retaliation. It isn't something to be over invested in as necessary as it is! US and USSR both overinvested dramatically because both were engaged in a monkey brained brinksmanship dynamic. China is far more cunning and sensible than that. It has enough to wipe the west clean twice over and three times over in ideal case. That's enough. In the meantime, keep developing better tech and delivery systems because the enemy is constantly deploying new interceptors and not standing still. They work to erode deterrence so they can commit mass murder at any moment they please, it is the duty of others to balance it out and balance it out they have and will continue to do so. This doesn't mean sausage factory for ICBMs. If that is the case, there is a real danger of overspending and then only having one hammer in the toolbox. Conventional military force becomes first priority after deterrence is met two to three times over and technologically secured.
