China ICBM/SLBM, nuclear arms thread
- Thread starter Blitzo
- Start date
antiterror13
Brigadier
Surely China also have similar simulations of fusion explosion? anybody know?
America will definitely test its new W93 warhead on the new Mk7 RV meant to be deployed on SLBMs within a decade. United Kingdom will get that same warhead later, just as it received the W76-0 (It is the POTUS that has the UK's launch codes and never the British PM as they try to make us believe).
Russia will test as well, for sure. Which ones and how many, no one knows. Probably a scaled down variant of those lunatic UUV super-tsunami causing warheads.
China will need to test as well because it lacks the so-called MIRV sweet-spots (such as a 100kt/100lb or a 400kt/250lb) in terms of powerful yet very light warheads.
India definitely needs to test an H-bomb. It lied about an H-bomb last time when all it tested was a boosted-fission weapon.
France will not test again. Its current warhead is perfect for its doctrine and is meant to serve them well into the 2080s.
Now the question is: who tests first? My money is on America followed by India.
Russia will test as well, for sure. Which ones and how many, no one knows. Probably a scaled down variant of those lunatic UUV super-tsunami causing warheads.
China will need to test as well because it lacks the so-called MIRV sweet-spots (such as a 100kt/100lb or a 400kt/250lb) in terms of powerful yet very light warheads.
India definitely needs to test an H-bomb. It lied about an H-bomb last time when all it tested was a boosted-fission weapon.
France will not test again. Its current warhead is perfect for its doctrine and is meant to serve them well into the 2080s.
Now the question is: who tests first? My money is on America followed by India.
It has. Like everyone who has tested in the past.
However the thing with nuclear weapons is that you can believe in your new weapon created based on simulation from old test data but will your enemy believe in its reliability and be deterred by it? Simulated nuclear weapons are too big a risk. Far better is to test and, at worse, get reversibly sanctioned for a few years (in case no one else tests).
Tbh currently the big 3 nuclear powers exist in a state of equilibrium. There are no real concerns of insufficient deterrence. Only new development is the Russian UUV but it's not like that will cause anything revolutionary.
China is bringing more warheads out of storage because of generally raised global tension, and the missile forces are also undergoing restructuring. I don't see them as pursuing attempts to overcome MAD.
China is bringing more warheads out of storage because of generally raised global tension, and the missile forces are also undergoing restructuring. I don't see them as pursuing attempts to overcome MAD.
I wouldn't be surprised if the new Chinese heavy ICBM carries hypersonic glide vehicles. China is one of the leaders in hypersonics and they already have the DF-17 as it is.
China uses the Tianhe-2 (housed in Guangzhou, at the Higher Education Mega Centre island south of the Huangpu Shipyard) to simulate nuclear tests. It is similar to the Sierra supercomputer used by the US DOE to simulate nuclear tests at Lawrence Livermore lab, but less efficient and older. Also, since the Tianhe-2's completion in 2015, the US DOC has banned the sales of chips to all Chinese supercomputers.
In other words, should Russia and US lift the ban on full yield nuclear tests, China stands to benefit the most since China has the most catch up to do compared to other nuclear powers in terms of warhead design and miniaturisation (moving beyond 535 and 575, which remained at US' 1970s era technology but possibly updated with Beidou navigation since 2020).
Why would a U.S. and Russian ban affect Chinese behavior?
Last edited:
Because if the US or Russia restarts full-yield nuclear tests, China would then have more than enough legal, diplomatic, and other political reasons to restart its own nuclear tests at Lop Nur. And given that China stopped nuclear testing in 1996 before more mature warhead designs could be tested (in order to placate the US, Europe and Japan for FDIs, whilst being optimistic about the future), a US or Russian restarting of nuclear tests would actually benefit China the most given China having the least sophisticated nuclear warhead designs and inventories compared to Russia and the US. I doubt China would like to be the one who restarts full-yield tests, but PLARF scientists must now be begging the Russians and the Americans to restart since Chinese warheads' sophistications likely remain at 1970s to early 1980s US level, if not 1960s level. I even suspect that once the 506 warheads (for DF-5A) retires, the only warhead in service with the PLA would be the 535 (the one tested in 1992), which could be mounted on DF-31(A), DF-41, DF-21(A/E), DF-26, and JL-2/3. The 90-95kt small warhead could also be in service, but it could simply be a more reliable aspherical primary to make the 535 more reliable overall, or be used as a tactical nuke. But regardless, you could roughly compare the 535 and the 90kt warhead (tested between 1993 and 1996) to early production models of W87/88 and W76, but with inferior electronics and guidance. A new nuclear arms race with full yield tests would allow China to catch up close its quality gap with the US and Russia, while better able to compete for future AI-guided warheads or nuclear-tipped hypersonic gliders. For example, if you want to fit multiple 535 onto the FOAB tested in 2021, you would likely have to redesign and test the warhead to ensure its reliability.