China MAD option

Hi this is my first thread here
as you all have realized that China possess only mininum nuclear deterrece force
of only 100 - 400 nuclear warhead with only a dozen currently capable of striking continental USA
while the US and russia has more than 1500 nukes, those small arsenal is highly vulnerable to

massive nuclear first strike, not to mention US missile shield that is constantly getting better
threatening to neutralize China small nuclear retaliation.

So my question what is China plan in ensuring MAD?
is it possible for China to unleash armageddon by striking non US targets in the unlikely case of

US first strike?
For example by striking US neighbour of mexico, and let the radioactive wind does it job to ensure

texas is no longer habitable
or by striking world rainforests for example amazon rainforest that produces 25% or world oxygen

or perhaps by striking russia in which some experts thinks will unleash its massive nuclear

missiles not only to China but to the all of the nuclear armed states in retalation
what is your opinion on this? because for the life of me I cannot think of any logical reasoning
why China insist on minimum deterrence doctrine

China policy until 1990's was primarily to deter Soviet Union which was seen as a biggest threat . Therefore , you had development of mostly medium range ballistic missiles (MRBMs ) with enough range to reach Soviet targets (with added benefit of targeting India) . Nuclear war against US was deemed improbable , or at least improbable that China would go alone . Since Nixon meet Mao Zedong in 1972. relationship between China (PRC) and US were reasonably good . Bear in mind that at that time China was pretty much reclusive country , not seen as a major opponent by any of the world superpowers , especially not by US .

Now , with dissolution of Soviet Union and major Chinese economic boom in last 20-30 years , things have definitely changed . China still doesn't want to portray itself as military superpower challenging US like Soviets did , but economically things are what they are . From all the information we have , China has at least 100 , possibly more , warheads sitting on ICBMs capable of reaching US . Even if the take in the account BMD , this means that at least 5 major cities in US would be destroyed (China has counter value policy ) . That would be enough to deter any sane US president from attacking China in a hypothetical first strike ( China has no first use policy) .

In the future , China may increase its nuclear arsenal , but I don't think they would spend money and go for Soviet style thousands of weapons . It is more likely they would instead focus research on more capable and harder to intercept weapons like quasi-ballistic missiles , hypersonic weapons traveling in low orbit etc ..

Russia and US need that many warheads because they are targeting each others nuclear weapons (empty silos), but China is only targeting "soft targets" like large cities. Realistically building more than 400 weapons would be waste of money, and for China deploying more mobile TEL's for ICBM force (like they are doing now) is more cheaper than building hundreds of ICBM's.



Colonel B. Chance Saltzman calculated that US would need "only" 311 nukes to deter any possible enemies.

In fact, the United States could address military utility concerns with only 311 nuclear weapons in its nuclear force structure while maintaining a stable deterrence. These 311 weapons should include missiles that are inte*gral to a stable deterrence because they cannot be moved, are easily detected, and can hold enemy forces at bay with pinpoint accuracy. One hundred single-warhead ICBMs, such as the Minuteman III systems currently in service, provide a disbursed, ready force that may be more politically palat*able than more severe reductions.

In short, America’s nuclear security can rest easily on a relatively small number of counterforce and countervalue weapons totaling just over 300. Moreover, it does not matter if Russia, who is America’s biggest competitor in this arena, follows suit. The relative advantage the Russians might gain in theory does not exist in reality. Even if one were to assume the worst—a bolt from the blue that took out all of America’s ICBMs—the Russians would leave their cities at risk and therefore remain deterred from undertaking the first move.

Click to expand...

Broccoli said:

Russia and US need that many warheads because they are targeting each others nuclear weapons (empty silos), but China is only targeting "soft targets" like large cities. Realistically building more than 400 weapons would be waste of money, and for China deploying more mobile TEL's for ICBM force (like they are doing now) is more cheaper than building hundreds of ICBM's.



Colonel B. Chance Saltzman calculated that US would need "only" 311 nukes to deter any possible enemies.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

that's about right... in the current security enviornment the game is really to "justify" the current level of strategic forces. find a rationale for their existence rather than any explicit external threat.

extremist groups in Syria getting hold of loose N-B-C weapons is more of a threat then nuclear weapons by Russia or China would ever be to US. Pyongyang is not nuclear-deterred into not building a weapon, actually the exact opposite is driving most of up-and-comer's programs.
so actually a force reduction to the level of may be 2x UK+FRance would actually result in a Improvement in security enviornment... you just took more nukes ... and rationale... out of the market!


for china though,... its previous posture is really one of absolute minimum deterrent. right now its on its way towards a really credible 2nd strike capability... for the first time with its still limited mobile ICBM + adolescent SSBN force. china would never come anywhere near the amount of nukes US and Soviet Union has right now. its pointless and a giant waste of resources.

They call it MAD for a reason. China's limited nuclear capability alarms the West. I've heard radio talk shows talk about how China has to obey START treaties while France and Great Britain, who each have more nukes than China, don't need to. Fair to some is they want to be able to destroy you without fear of retaliation and you have to accept it.

AssassinsMace said:

They call it MAD for a reason. China's limited nuclear capability alarms the West. I've heard radio talk shows talk about how China has to obey START treaties while France and Great Britain, who each have more nukes than China, don't need to. Fair to some is they want to be able to destroy you without fear of retaliation and you have to accept it.

Click to expand...

It's hard to tell because we don't know if Chinese have PAL type system or not in use, but if they don't it will make nuclear weapon deployment difficult because anyone can use them without authorization to do so, and that's a huge risk during the peace time if someone goes nuts or there is a military coup. Pakistani's claim to have developed PAL's so i'd assume that China's latest weapons have it too... if not then i'm not surprised if they really keep warheads separated from missiles in peace time.

In the early 1990s the People's Republic of China requested information to develop its own PALs.[18] The Clinton administration believed that to do so would give too much information to the Chinese about American weapon design, and therefore, refused the request.


Whether it’s India or Pakistan or China or Iran, the most important thing is that you want to make sure there is no unauthorized use. You want to make sure that the guys who have their hands on the weapons can’t use them without proper authorization.

—Harold M. Agnew, former director, Los Alamos National Laboratory

Click to expand...

Well again that's why they call it MAD. It's beyond reason. So if China has some system that secures its nukes, it's pretty moot. They don't want China having nukes at all. Western countries have shown they want to control even the possibility of another country having the technological capability through dual-use. It's mad to think that everyone has to recognize one group has the right to have nukes while no one else can. If there are those that think China has to be included in START while France and Great Britain don't, that's mad.

Broccoli said:

It's hard to tell because we don't know if Chinese have PAL type system or not in use, but if they don't it will make nuclear weapon deployment difficult because anyone can use them without authorization to do so, and that's a huge risk during the peace time if someone goes nuts or there is a military coup...

Click to expand...

Anyway, the nuke are not under 2arty control...

AssassinsMace said:

They call it MAD for a reason. China's limited nuclear capability alarms the West...

Click to expand...

huh, I do not see how 200-200 nukes could alarm the US...

2nd arty logistics exercise

[video=youtube;ENxwYtJ0bh0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENxwYtJ0bh0[/video]

[video=youtube;vDgZ8CsVm5A]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDgZ8CsVm5A[/video]