China ICBM/SLBM, nuclear arms thread

[FairAndUnbiased]

Key question here - Will we return to the crazy times of the 1st Cold War, whereby nuclear superpowers pumped out insanely large numbers of nuclear warheads?

For the record, here's the evolution of nuclear stockpiles of the US and the USSR/Russia until the 2010s:
View attachment 120351

The US nuclear stockpile peaked at more than 30 thousand warheads in the 1960s, while the Soviet/Russian nuclear stockpile peaked at just over 40 thousand warheads in the 1980s.

If this craze does return, then how many nuclear warheads should China realistically procure?

Do they want to try Cold War era military spending and conflict frequency, with a decidedly not Cold War era demographics?

 

[james smith esq]

Key question here - Will we return to the crazy times of the 1st Cold War, whereby nuclear superpowers pumped out insanely large numbers of nuclear warheads?

For the record, here's the evolution of nuclear stockpiles of the US and the USSR/Russia until the 2010s:
View attachment 120351

The US nuclear stockpile peaked at more than 30 thousand warheads in the 1960s, while the Soviet/Russian nuclear stockpile peaked at just over 40 thousand warheads in the 1980s.

If this craze does return, then how many nuclear warheads should China realistically procure?

I don’t foresee this. To my understanding, China has always been committed to limiting nuclear proliferation.

I anticipate that one intention of the current build-up (other than to, hopefully, deter irrational American aggression) is to achieve either near-parity, or minor-superiority, in deployed-warheads in order “encourage” the U. S. and Russia to engage in, three-way, nuclear-arms-reduction negotiations in order to reduce both deployed and stockpiled-warheads to historically low levels.

I think that a 20% reduction in deployed-warheads (to ~1250) and a limit on stockpiled-warheads to 200% of deployed-warheads (~2500] would amount to a major breakthrough/accomplishment in nuclear-arms-reduction.

 

[ZeEa5KPul]

They haven't known about the 3rd 200ton/year reprocessing plant yet and didn't mention the expansion of old plant 404.

Do you have a capacity number on 404 since expansion?

It could be changing when it went into 2020s and 2030s. Many unconfirmed sources are claiming China is developing new warheads with new yield/weight by using data acquired from one way or another.

You know, I'm a bit embarrassed this didn't occur to me earlier, but along with obtaining fissile material one of the most useful things from increased cooperation with Russia is access to its weapons test data.

 

[Kalec]

Do you have a capacity number on 404 since expansion?

No one knows tbh. The traditional approach is to estimate the number by using the power limit of on-site reactor, no one ever estimate how many spent fuel they can reprocess, because China couldn't afford dedicated plutonium reactor somewhere else other than the reprocessing plant.

All I know is that they doubled their reprocessing plant area from 2010 to 2020 and perhaps 3 times the capacity compared to the 1980s.
However the production rate might be merely 2 times the designed rate back in 1960s.

 

[coolgod]

As you all may know, the US recently test a nuclear weapon, Russia will definitely soon follow. I thought China would follow soon, but I saw netizens claim China doesn't have anymore nuclear test ranges anymore. Does anyone know if China still have any nuclear test ranges available or any that can be restarted ASAP?

 

[r41]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The Type 096 looks like is going ahead full steam and looks like technological very advanced, very difficult to detect , and will likely replace the Type 094 increasing the strength of one of the nuclear triad that is not only getting bigger but more technologically advanced more and more difficult to intercept...the vision of the Party for China 2049 is taking shape...

 

[Blitzo]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The Type 096 looks like is going ahead full steam and looks like technological very advanced, very difficult to detect , and will likely replace the Type 094 increasing the strength of one of the nuclear triad that is not only getting bigger but more technologically advanced more and more difficult to intercept...the vision of the Party for China 2049 is taking shape...

This is just the same reheated article based on the paper by Carlson on Chinese nuclear submarine development, a paper which was roundly reviewed and derided on the forum.

The article isn't very good.

 

[Broccoli]

I think the 650 kt warhead - called 535 and tested in 1992 - has long been the standard generation warhead for most PLARF's ICBMs, IRBMs, and SLBMs, just like W87 and W88 in USAAF and USN services respectively. It used to weight 470kg for the original DF-31, but reduced to 360kg for DF-31A, partly allowing the DF-31A to have a range of 11,200 km. In fact, following the retirement of DF-3 and DF-4, the only warheads in service with the PLARF are the 535 and 506 (that 1970s massive 4MT warhead on DF-5A).

Of course, there are lots of unconfirmed reports of a W76-like warhead called 575 with a yield of 90-150kt weighing just 120kg or less. The nuclear tests after 1992 all had yields around 90-95kt. Some argue that the tests were simply for primaries (the first-stage fisson pits), whilst others argue that could point to a smaller ICBM warhead for MIRVs. So far we don't have any information whether this new warhead is in service or not.

I've always argued that last tests were full yield weapons because 90kt primary seems odd.

 

[Broccoli]

Thanks for the reply.

I'm still unsure that it's prudent to estimate latest Chinese warheads to be comparable to, say, 1960s US designs. Example: W50 warhead, in production from 1963 to 1965 had in its latest variant a 400 kt yield. While, allegedly, weighing 190 kg. That's a YW ratio of over 2.

And while I concur that if a 650 kt warhead is the only option - there might be issues with cramming in more warheads - my question is the following: Does china not have anything in the 300-400 kt yield range? That seems like a sweet spot, yield and weight wise, something that's useful both for deterrence and counter force attacks. At such yields, with a similar YW ratios, a missile like DF41 should be able to house more warheads.

And if China does not have such class warheads - then the question is - why? And can we even trust sources that talk about what sort of types new Chinese warheads are?

My guess has always been that Chinese developed W76 style weapon whats compact enough and has (80-100kt) destructive power and the weapon was tested multiple times from early to mid 90s. If i'd play safe i'd go and say the weapons isn't as small as W76 but something similar to W88 size.

 

[ChongqingHotPot92]

My guess has always been that Chinese developed W76 style weapon whats compact enough and has (80-100kt) destructive power and the weapon was tested multiple times from early to mid 90s. If i'd play safe i'd go and say the weapons isn't as small as W76 but something similar to W88 size.

Sounds like a horrible yield to weight ratio then.