China ICBM/SLBM, nuclear arms thread

[james smith esq]

USA/Russia have 1350-1450 deployed warheads..

so by 2027, China will hit 1000-1200 ..

But, of course, with the New Start Treaty expiring on 5 Feb 2026, we should expect that the U. S. is already planning to triple the number of warheads deployed on its ICBMs and double, at-least, those deployed on its SLBMs.

So, 400-450 x 3 = 1200-1350 ICBM warheads + 2688-4032 SLBM warheads = a potential to deploy 3888-5382 total warheads.

I guess we see, now, why the New Start Treaty didn’t address the issue of stockpiled warheads!

 

[sunnymaxi]

But, of course, with the New Start Treaty expiring on 5 Feb 2026, we should expect that the U. S. is already planning to triple the number of warheads deployed on its ICBMs and double, at-least, those deployed on its SLBMs.
So, 400-450 x 3 = 1200-1350 ICBM warheads + 2688-4032 SLBM warheads = a potential to deploy 3888-5382 total warheads.

US already have 5000+ warheads if we count all. so doesn't matter much.

i have taken minimum production capacity for China. look at the chart of @Kalec .. by 2030, China could have minimum 1900+ warheads and if include upcoming super heavy silo based ICBM then numbers likely to be more.

i m expecting one unit of type 096 SSBN fully operational by 2030. and some units of H-20 bomber.

 

[tamsen_ikard]

But, of course, with the New Start Treaty expiring on 5 Feb 2026, we should expect that the U. S. is already planning to triple the number of warheads deployed on its ICBMs and double, at-least, those deployed on its SLBMs.
So, 400-450 x 3 = 1200-1350 ICBM warheads + 2688-4032 SLBM warheads = a potential to deploy 3888-5382 total warheads.

Shows you why China getting to just 1000 or even 1500 warheads doesn't make sense. China is still playing hide your power game with the US.

If China really cared about Nuclear parity with the US. They would be building several thousand warheads by now. But they are deliberately not trying to provoke the US and keeping a low nuclear profile.

This is probably why Tech cold war and decoupling is still going on at a low level. If China was openly going for nuclear parity, US will be doing full on Tech and economic containment

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

Shows you why China getting to just 1000 or even 1500 warheads doesn't make sense. China is still playing hide your power game with the US.

If China really cared about Nuclear parity with the US. They would be building several thousand warheads by now. But they are deliberately not trying to provoke the US and keeping a low nuclear profile.

This is probably why Tech cold war and decoupling is still going on at a low level. If China was openly going for nuclear parity, US will be doing full on Tech and economic containment

If they had the power to escalate they would. There is no functional difference between 1.5k warheads and 5k warheads defensively. Both are crippling countervalue strikes. The only difference is offensively, but offensively US will have to consider Russian launch on warning as well because it's not a 1v1, it's a 1v2.

Tech and economic containment can't get much worse because much of the containment hinges on cooperation from China i.e. companies submitting information. BIS is like a few hundred lawyers. They don't have an audit team capable of tracking everything and even if they did how are they gonna get visas to China to carry out a total blockade against China? If it does get worse at the policy level, then they can't even implement it as even attempting to cooperate with the bans will become impossible.

 

[james smith esq]

US already have 5000+ warheads if we count all. so doesn't matter much.

i have taken minimum production capacity for China. look at the chart of @Kalec .. by 2030, China could have minimum 1900+ warheads and if include upcoming super heavy silo based ICBM then numbers likely to be more.

i m expecting one unit of type 096 SSBN fully operational by 2030. and some units of H-20 bomber.

I do believe that China reaching parity, or near parity, with U. S., and Russian, deployed-warheads levels will be a significant development. At that point China could push for a three (or more)-party treaty negotiating the reduction of both deployed and stockpiled warheads.

I simply raised the probability of a U. S. escalating-deployment as this would be most consistent with past behavior. And, yes, such an escalation would, in-fact, would imply the threat of offensive/first-strike intentions.

 

[tamsen_ikard]

If they had the power to escalate they would. There is no functional difference between 1.5k warheads and 5k warheads defensively. Both are crippling countervalue strikes. The only difference is offensively, but offensively US will have to consider Russian launch on warning as well because it's not a 1v1, it's a 1v2.

Tech and economic containment can't get much worse because much of the containment hinges on cooperation from China i.e. companies submitting information. BIS is like a few hundred lawyers. They don't have an audit team capable of tracking everything and even if they did how are they gonna get visas to China to carry out a total blockade against China? If it does get worse at the policy level, then they can't even implement it as even attempting to cooperate with the bans will become impossible.

How is 1.5K warheads crippling compared to 5k? Ukraine war has shown ballistic missiles are not that difficult to intercept. Detection and guidence technologies are only getting better. So, there could be a situation where most of China's warheads could be intercepted by US and it becomes a game of who can shoot more than the other with saturation strikes.

Moreover, the goal of deterrence has changed. In the past China was seen as a threat but not the biggest threat. But nowadays, a huge portion of americans, especially right wing white supremacist crowd consider China to be the incarnation of Satan and existential threat that must be eradicated with everything. You see alot of comments coming out of this crowd how US can fight a nuclear war against China and survive due to CHina's small nuclear arsenal.

You see a lot of comments coming from even so called China experts that maybe US should use nukes to defend Taiwan if conventional deterrence is failing. They would never think about this if China had overwhelming nuclear arsenal superiority.

So, China's ability to deter US has eroded due to increased US threat perception. Now China will have to be ready to fight a full on nuclear war of attrition just to deter americans from thinking it might be possible.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

How is 1.5K warheads crippling compared to 5k? Ukraine war has shown ballistic missiles are not that difficult to intercept. Detection and guidence technologies are only getting better. So, there could be a situation where most of China's warheads could be intercepted by US and it becomes a game of who can shoot more than the other with saturation strikes.

Moreover, the goal of deterrence has changed. In the past China was seen as a threat but not the biggest threat. But nowadays, a huge portion of americans, especially right wing white supremacist crowd consider China to be the incarnation of Satan and existential threat that must be eradicated with everything. You see alot of comments coming out of this crowd how US can fight a nuclear war against China and survive due to CHina's small nuclear arsenal.

You see a lot of comments coming from even so called China experts that maybe US should use nukes to defend Taiwan if conventional deterrence is failing. They would never think about this if China had overwhelming nuclear arsenal superiority.

So, China's ability to deter US has eroded due to increased US threat perception. Now China will have to be ready to fight a full on nuclear war of attrition just to deter americans from thinking it might be possible.

I wasn't aware that Russia deployed nukes in Ukraine.

If even 1% of the the 5000 proven missile hits on Ukraine were nukes, Ukraine would look very different than it does today.

You also don't seem to understand the difference between SRBMs and ICBMs. There's a very complicated concept called "potential energy ", "kinetic energy" and "speed". They are different between different munitions.

And you also seem to take Ukrainian word for it that their claimed intercept rate is the actual intercept rate. If it were, aircraft and guided rockets are slower than even SRBMs yet FAB-500s and Grads are falling on Ukraine daily within their own borders while the volume of fire that Ukraine can inflict on Russia has been a few 50 kg payload drones.

 

[Blitzo]

2023 Report comes sooner than I thought. Some interesting interpretation from DoD:



"Told you so" to FAS report of 420 warheads.
View attachment 120309



I don't know how they concluded that DF-5C will be a megaton bunkerbuster because DF-5B has been MIRV'ed since 2005. And the "JL-3" (which is still JL-2A/B in my interpretation) is operational as expected.

It really makes me wonder how the DoD comes up with their numbers, though I suppose it is better late than never that they are bringing them up to par.

At this stage it is appearing to me that the current nuclear warheads growth for "existing/developmentally complete" missile types is about part way done. I suspect we will see some more TEL DF-41 or DF-5C missiles be built and commissioned going forwards, and some more JL-2As (but they only carry one warhead per missile anyway).

But the next big round of nuclear warhead count expansion I think will be dependent on the 300ish solid fuel ICBM silos; specifically if it is indeed the anticipated DF-XY/45, and how many warheads they can carry to a CONTUS relevant range. I recall Peacekeeper could do up to 12 warheads maximum with a range of under 10,000km; I imagine DF-45 would need a greater range of some 13,000km to cover CONTUS but may be able to make do with carrying fewer warheads. If a single DF-45 carries 6 warheads (or even 3-4 warheads only), and if each silo ends up actually being filled with an operational missile (i.e.: not doing the shell game narrative), then that's some 900-1200 warheads in demand to be added.

JL-3 eventually with 09VI will also contribute a meaningful addition in the more distant future but in terms of sheer warhead numbers it won't rival the 300 plus silos for heavy ICBMs can offer, and SSBNs have certain disadvantages to silos as well for the PLA perspective.

 

[ChongqingHotPot92]

Also, given that (your) prior estimation of ~526 warheads by (the end of) 2023 and ~1914 warheads by (the end of) 2030 - That's ~198 warheads being produced per year within the 2024-2030 period, or 1 warhead every 1.84 days.

So where does China get enough Pu and HEU for the production of 198 warheads per year? The fast breeder reactors have only become operational this year, whilst the reprocessing the new 404 won’t reach criticality for a while.

 

[Maikeru]

So where does China get enough Pu and HEU for the production of 198 warheads per year? The fast breeder reactors have only become operational this year, whilst the reprocessing the new 404 won’t reach criticality for a while.

Russia has VAST plutonium stockpiles. Just saying.

Incidentally the 2nd biggest Pu stockpile? No, not the US but jolly old England! Huzzah!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Well we had to have a bit more than the French. They might start getting uppity again soon what with this new Napoleon movie.