China ICBM/SLBM, nuclear arms thread

[vincent]

The reason MAD works is that currently no one possesses absolute first strike capability, so no one strikes first. In any case I feel like China should pursue first strike capability if it wants to become the dominant superpower

Since when China wants to be the dominant superpower? Can you show me a policy paper?

 

[totenchan]

that is the definition of first strike capability though. Hit the enemy so hard, and more importantly accurate, that it makes their retaliation either impossible or greatly reduced to a point where you deem acceptable. It's just a capability that's very hard to achieve, but if theoretically performed, it would be a preemptive surprise counterforce strike towards all of the enemy's nuclear weapons to ensure they cannot retaliate.

The reason MAD works is that currently no one possesses absolute first strike capability, so no one strikes first. In any case I feel like China should pursue first strike capability if it wants to become the dominant superpower

Do you think the no first use policy was declared on a whim? Your fantasies fly in the face of decades of careful nuclear policy and planning. Other countries will not just sit and watch as China pursues a first strike capability, just as China will not sit and watch if it seems like the United States is credibly pursuing the same.

 

[magmunta]

According to the public info , which is kinda not trust worthy, df-61 can carry up to 12 warheads. It doesn't mention warhead yields.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[00CuriousObserver]

Is what we see of JL-3 a launch canister, not the missile itself?

It seems like it's the missile itself? (I didn't know this myself and I've seen several remarks elsewhere saying it's the canister)

 

[wuai486]

Does anyone have other photos of the nuclear warheads that were removed from the school's lab? I think this might be related to some Chinese nuclear warhead models.

 

[Kalec]

Operational ICBM test from Jilantai on Sept 29.




NOTAM:

A3478/25 NOTAMN Q) ZLHW/QRDCA/IV/BO/W/000/999/3949N10531E024 A) ZLHW B) 2509290631 C) 2509290758 E) A TEMPORARY DANGER AREA ESTABLISHED BOUNDED BY: N401057E1054147-N401017E1051659-N392705E1051925-N392744E1054309,BAC K TO START.VERTICAL LIMITS:SFC-UNL. AIRCRAFT ARE FORBIDDEN TO FLY INTO THE AREA. F) SFC G) UNL

A3479/25 NOTAMN Q) ZLHW/QRDCA/IV/BO/W/000/999/3946N10344E032 A) ZLHW B) 2509290631 C) 2509290758 E) A TEMPORARY DANGER AREA ESTABLISHED BOUNDED BY: N400828E1041240-N400618E1031313-N392308E1031609-N392519E1041544,BAC K TO START.VERTICAL LIMITS:SFC-UNL. AIRCRAFT ARE FORBIDDEN TO FLY INTO THE AREA. F) SFC G) UNL

A3480/25 NOTAMN Q) ZWUQ/QRDCA/IV/BO/W/000/999/3714N08346E086 A) ZWUQ B) 2509290631 C) 2509290758 E) A TEMPORARY DANGER AREA ESTABLISHED BOUNDED BY: N375221E0852104-N373739E0840312-N373700E0821000-N363500E0821000-N36 3500E0852500-N370823E0852529-N371035E0853511,BACK TO START. VERTICAL LIMITS:SFC-UNL. AIRCRAFT ARE FORBIDDEN TO FLY INTO THE AREA. F) SFC G) UNL

 

[datastack]

But it seems clearly have the capability of first strike

those silo fields can be used for 1st strike, target sponge, LOW strike and/or bargaining chips. 1st-strike is just one of the potential uses and doesn't mean that's their new doctrine.

 

[datastack]

Question: is it reasonable to compare the DF-61 vs DF-41 difference to that between Topol-M and RS-24 Yars? In both cases, you got two completely different missiles sharing exactly the same launch infrastructure and TEL, meaning you cannot tell the difference by simply looking at the TEL. You have to see the missiles themselves (or even internal layouts) to tell the differences.

Topol-M has a single warhead and its counterpart in Chinese ICBM arsenal is DF-31A or DF-31BJ (Topol-M also has both TEL & silo deployments). DF-41 is like RS-24 (3 warheads) and DF-61 probably features some improvements in rockets/body materials/guidance and/or PBV as well, but likely the same diameter for 1st-stage.

 

[datastack]

The conical housing shown is just a fairing. Underneath these are often MIRV of whatever type - could be smaller conical warheads, dual conical warheads, dual conical MaRV steerable warheads, dual conical hypersonic gliders, wedge shaped hypersonic gliders etc.

It was previously suggested that they are going to show the components inside the main conical fairing. They didn't end up showing it.

In the past few decades there are many fan made speculations wrt DF-5 and that used to associate with 5B, and now they all came back for the 5C. Reality is that the silos for DF5 is too big to be meaningfully resistant to a 1st strike and the PLARF attitude towards them are gradually shifting towards preservation/refurbishment, in order to keep the DF-5 stockpile in the arsenal as long as possible to be used as placeholders for the inevitable arms control negotiation. Single warheads refurbished from old 5A are the most logical payload choice for 5C.

 

[datastack]

Does anyone have other photos of the nuclear warheads that were removed from the school's lab? I think this might be related to some Chinese nuclear warhead models.View attachment 161488View attachment 161489

looks like a cutaway and thus unlikely to contain classified designs. probably a model for W87.