China's Perspective on Nuclear Deterrence
- Thread starter tres
- Start date
Re: 1967: THE FIRST CHINESE HYDROGEN BOMB exploded with 3.3 megatons of destructive p
While your statement is indeed correct - that there is no theoretical limit to the yield of a hydrogen (fusion) bomb, that simple statement is clouded by many facts.
1st - there are definitely practical limits to the size of any weapon, nuclear or otherwise.
2nd - the greatest portion of the yield in modern multistage designs comes from the last fission stage of uranium and not from the fusion stage.
3rd - the thermonuclear reactions that take place in the sun are of a completely different kind to that used in bombs.
The sun derives its energy from fusion of the lightest isotope of hydrogen - protium rather than the fusion of deuterium and tritium used in hydrogen bombs.
This is significant for several reasons - the sun's process requires the intervention of many other materials to catalyze the reaction and the time scale of the solar reaction is in the order of hundreds of thousands to millions of years!
Both the Russians and the Chinese probably considered the creation of a doomsday device and rejected it as too impractical - after all, as a deterrent, how would you know it would work until you tested it - with all that entails.
For me the Russian system of deterrence is the most effective - simply threaten your opponent with annihilation.
While your statement is indeed correct - that there is no theoretical limit to the yield of a hydrogen (fusion) bomb, that simple statement is clouded by many facts.
1st - there are definitely practical limits to the size of any weapon, nuclear or otherwise.
2nd - the greatest portion of the yield in modern multistage designs comes from the last fission stage of uranium and not from the fusion stage.
3rd - the thermonuclear reactions that take place in the sun are of a completely different kind to that used in bombs.
The sun derives its energy from fusion of the lightest isotope of hydrogen - protium rather than the fusion of deuterium and tritium used in hydrogen bombs.
This is significant for several reasons - the sun's process requires the intervention of many other materials to catalyze the reaction and the time scale of the solar reaction is in the order of hundreds of thousands to millions of years!
Both the Russians and the Chinese probably considered the creation of a doomsday device and rejected it as too impractical - after all, as a deterrent, how would you know it would work until you tested it - with all that entails.
For me the Russian system of deterrence is the most effective - simply threaten your opponent with annihilation.
Martian
Senior Member
Re: 1967: THE FIRST CHINESE HYDROGEN BOMB exploded with 3.3 megatons of destructive p
I think the Chinese would rather drop "doomsday" nuclear weapons on the United States in retaliation, instead of creating a giant crater in their own country. The idea is to retaliate against your adversary's population centers. The military should have already built massive underground facilities and cities to survive a global thermonuclear war. After a few years of nuclear winter, the survivors emerge to finish the grudge match.
The Earth is too large to blow up. An unimaginable 10,000,000 megaton weapon would only leave a tiny crater 60 miles across.
"Based on crater formation rates determined from the Earth's closest celestial partner, the Moon, astrogeologists have determined that during the last 600 million years, the Earth has been struck by 60 objects of a diameter of 5 km (3 mi) or more. The smallest of these impactors would release the equivalent of ten million megatons of TNT and leave a crater 95 km (60 mi) across. For comparison, the largest nuclear weapon ever detonated, the Tsar Bomba, had a yield of 50 megatons."
I think the Chinese would rather drop "doomsday" nuclear weapons on the United States in retaliation, instead of creating a giant crater in their own country. The idea is to retaliate against your adversary's population centers. The military should have already built massive underground facilities and cities to survive a global thermonuclear war. After a few years of nuclear winter, the survivors emerge to finish the grudge match.
The Earth is too large to blow up. An unimaginable 10,000,000 megaton weapon would only leave a tiny crater 60 miles across.
"Based on crater formation rates determined from the Earth's closest celestial partner, the Moon, astrogeologists have determined that during the last 600 million years, the Earth has been struck by 60 objects of a diameter of 5 km (3 mi) or more. The smallest of these impactors would release the equivalent of ten million megatons of TNT and leave a crater 95 km (60 mi) across. For comparison, the largest nuclear weapon ever detonated, the Tsar Bomba, had a yield of 50 megatons."
Last edited:
I think there are more than one way to actually destroy Earth and the entire population on Earth than simply blow up Earth.
Yes, 10000000 megaton nuclear bomb could only create a crater and destroying life surrounding it. However you fail to see the final effect of a nuclear explosion and that is radiation, plus massive outlet of ashes that will cover the 'sky'... causing an effective nuclear winter, that will ultimately destroy all life, irregardless of where the nuclear bomb are detonated.
Yes, 10000000 megaton nuclear bomb could only create a crater and destroying life surrounding it. However you fail to see the final effect of a nuclear explosion and that is radiation, plus massive outlet of ashes that will cover the 'sky'... causing an effective nuclear winter, that will ultimately destroy all life, irregardless of where the nuclear bomb are detonated.
Martian
Senior Member
No nuclear limit: China
(Range of China's defensive thermonuclear missiles)
"No nuclear limit: China
Philip Dorling
February 28, 2011
HIGH-RANKING Chinese officials have declared that there can be no limit to the expansion of Beijing's nuclear arsenal, amid growing regional fears that it will eventually equal that of the United States, with profound consequences for the strategic balance in Asia.
Records of secret defence consultations between the US and China reveal that US diplomats have repeatedly failed to persuade the rising superpower to be more transparent about its nuclear forces and that Chinese officials privately admit that a desire for military advantage underpins continuing secrecy.
According to US diplomatic cables obtained by WikiLeaks and provided exclusively to The Age, the deputy chief of China's People's Liberation Army General Staff, Ma Xiaotian, told US Defence and State Department officials in June 2008 that the growth of China's nuclear forces was an ''imperative reality'' and there could be "no limit on technical progress''.
Rejecting American calls for China to reveal the size of its nuclear capabilities, Lieutenant-General Ma bluntly declared: ''It is impossible for [China] to change its decades-old way of doing business to become transparent using the US model.''
While claiming in a further July 2009 discussion that Beijing's nuclear posture has "always been defensive'' and that China would "never enter into a nuclear arms race", General Ma acknowledged that, "frankly speaking, there are areas of China's nuclear program that are not very transparent''.
China's assistant foreign minister He Yafei similarly told US officials in June 2008 that there will be an ''inevitable and natural extension'' of Chinese military power and that China ''cannot accept others setting limits on our capabilities''.
...
The International Institute for Strategic Studies estimates China has up to 90 intercontinental ballistic missiles (66 land-based and 24 submarine-launched) and more than 400 intermediate range missiles targeting Taiwan and Japan. The US intelligence community predicts that by the mid-2020s, China could double the number of warheads on missiles capable of threatening the US."
(Range of China's defensive thermonuclear missiles)
"No nuclear limit: China
Philip Dorling
February 28, 2011
HIGH-RANKING Chinese officials have declared that there can be no limit to the expansion of Beijing's nuclear arsenal, amid growing regional fears that it will eventually equal that of the United States, with profound consequences for the strategic balance in Asia.
Records of secret defence consultations between the US and China reveal that US diplomats have repeatedly failed to persuade the rising superpower to be more transparent about its nuclear forces and that Chinese officials privately admit that a desire for military advantage underpins continuing secrecy.
According to US diplomatic cables obtained by WikiLeaks and provided exclusively to The Age, the deputy chief of China's People's Liberation Army General Staff, Ma Xiaotian, told US Defence and State Department officials in June 2008 that the growth of China's nuclear forces was an ''imperative reality'' and there could be "no limit on technical progress''.
Rejecting American calls for China to reveal the size of its nuclear capabilities, Lieutenant-General Ma bluntly declared: ''It is impossible for [China] to change its decades-old way of doing business to become transparent using the US model.''
While claiming in a further July 2009 discussion that Beijing's nuclear posture has "always been defensive'' and that China would "never enter into a nuclear arms race", General Ma acknowledged that, "frankly speaking, there are areas of China's nuclear program that are not very transparent''.
China's assistant foreign minister He Yafei similarly told US officials in June 2008 that there will be an ''inevitable and natural extension'' of Chinese military power and that China ''cannot accept others setting limits on our capabilities''.
...
The International Institute for Strategic Studies estimates China has up to 90 intercontinental ballistic missiles (66 land-based and 24 submarine-launched) and more than 400 intermediate range missiles targeting Taiwan and Japan. The US intelligence community predicts that by the mid-2020s, China could double the number of warheads on missiles capable of threatening the US."
Red___Sword
Junior Member
I guess talk about "who bombs who" is the thing makes mods nervous, yet talk about "how to wipe out mankind" is not, sigh.
Here's the THING: when the war realy getting to the line of "wipe each other out", the TECHNICAL issue became relatively small. That "can you hit this, can you hit that?" is pointless already.
HIT THE WATER!
Detonate "X" megaton of warhead at 100m below sea level, at 100miles off-caost of your enemy... game over for even a "coast to coast" country. - not even mention if I hit both coast. (and every major city of the country)
And yes, the nuclear winter theroy always stands. You don't need to "blow the planet" to wipe out human. The race who call themself "human" is a rather frail species. Food, Water, Air - even an "unacceptable" degree of mixture of any other stuff (more easy-understanding: pollute) - get rid of them, for good.
So, let's not so eager to finds out "what if?"... shall we?
Martian
Senior Member
China has an estimated 294 megatons of thermonuclear deterrence
Rankings of world thermonuclear powers by megatons of firepower:
1. Russia - 1,273 megatons
2. United States - 570 megatons
3. China - 294 megatons (China has over half the nuclear firepower of the United States)
4. France - 55 megatons
5. Britain - 16 megatons
References:
Russia:
United States:
China:
France:
Britain:
----------
China's "possible warhead assembly and production facilities" (source: NTI)
People's Republic of China (PRC)
NPT Nuclear Weapon State
1. Arsenal Size:
Most opaque of the nuclear weapons state; limited open source information.
Operational strategic warheads: ~176 (Warheads in stockpile: 240)[1]
2. Key Delivery Systems:[2,3,4,5]
* Land-based missiles: Approximately 120.(ICBM: DF-4, DF-5A DF-31, DF-31A; MRBM: DF-3A, DF-21)
* Aircraft: 20 (Hong-6)
* SLBM: 1 Xia-class sub carrying12 JL-1s, never fully deployed; 2 Jin-class subs deployed, 1 under development can each carry 12 JL-2; however the JL-2s have not yet been deployed
* Cruise missiles: DH-10 (nuclear capable) 50-250 deployed
* No credible evidence to confirm that non-strategic weapons still remain in operational force
3. Estimated Destructive Power: 294[6]
4. Military Fissile Material Stockpile: (estimates)
Plutonium: 4 mt (+/- 20 %)[7]
HEU: 20 mt [8]
5. Disarmament and Commitments to Reduce Arsenal Size:
Legal obligation to pursue global disarmament under Article VI of the NPT[9]
Future Commitments:
In support of verifiable FMCT negotiation. The treaty should not cover existing stockpiles[10]
6. Nuclear Weapons Policies
1. Nuclear testing:
* Observed nuclear testing moratorium since July 1996.[12]
* Signed but not ratified CTBT[13]
2. Use of nuclear weapons:
* Adopted no-first use policy[14,15]
* Negative Security Assurances to NWFZ treaty members:
Committed not to use nuclear weapons against members of:
Tlatelolco, Rarotonga, and Pelindaba. Has not signed Bangkok, but reiterates its support.[16]
* Acknowledged the commitments of the NWS to negative security assurances in UN Security Council Resolution 984 (1995).[17]
* Expressed its support for legally binding unconditional negative security assurances.[18]
Sources:
[1] Robert S. Norris and Hans M. Kristensen, "Chinese Nuclear Forces, 2008," Nuclear Notebook, Natural Resources Defense Council, Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, July/August 2008, pp 42-45, .
[2] Robert S. Norris and Hans M. Kristensen, "Chinese Nuclear Forces, 2008," Nuclear Notebook, Natural Resources Defense Council, Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, July/August 2008, pp 42-45, .
[3] Ballistic and Cruise Missile Threat, National Air Space Intelligence Center, April 2009, .
[4] Military Power of the People's Republic of China 2008, US Department of Defense, .
[5] Chinese Nuclear Forces, Strategic Security Blog, Federation of American Scientists, .
[6] Eliminating Nuclear Threats, ICNND Report, .
[7] International Panel on Fissile Materials, Global Fissile Material Report 2009, .
[8] International Panel on Fissile Materials, Global Fissile Material Report 2009, .
[9] Inventory of International Nonproliferation Organizations & Regimes, .
[10] Statement by Ambassador Jingye Cheng to the Conference on Disarmament, Geneva, 17 May 2006, .
[11] Military Power of the People's Republic of China 2008, US Department of Defense, .
[12] CTBTO website, Nuclear Testing page, .
[13] Inventory of International Nonproliferation Organizations & Regimes, .
[14] Working Paper Submitted by China to the 2010 NPT Review Conference, 6 May 2010, .
[15] Statement by the Chinese Delegation on the Issue of Security Assurances at the Third Session of the Preparatory committee for the 2010 NPT Review Conference, 7 May 2009, .
[16] NTI Nuclear Weapon Free Zone Tutorial Protocol Chart, .
[17] NTI Nuclear Weapon Free Zone Tutorial, Chapter 3, Security Assurances, .
[18] Working Paper Submitted by China to the 2010 NPT Review Conference, 6 May 2010, .
Rankings of world thermonuclear powers by megatons of firepower:
1. Russia - 1,273 megatons
2. United States - 570 megatons
3. China - 294 megatons (China has over half the nuclear firepower of the United States)
4. France - 55 megatons
5. Britain - 16 megatons
References:
Russia:
United States:
China:
France:
Britain:
----------
China's "possible warhead assembly and production facilities" (source: NTI)
People's Republic of China (PRC)
NPT Nuclear Weapon State
1. Arsenal Size:
Most opaque of the nuclear weapons state; limited open source information.
Operational strategic warheads: ~176 (Warheads in stockpile: 240)[1]
2. Key Delivery Systems:[2,3,4,5]
* Land-based missiles: Approximately 120.(ICBM: DF-4, DF-5A DF-31, DF-31A; MRBM: DF-3A, DF-21)
* Aircraft: 20 (Hong-6)
* SLBM: 1 Xia-class sub carrying12 JL-1s, never fully deployed; 2 Jin-class subs deployed, 1 under development can each carry 12 JL-2; however the JL-2s have not yet been deployed
* Cruise missiles: DH-10 (nuclear capable) 50-250 deployed
* No credible evidence to confirm that non-strategic weapons still remain in operational force
3. Estimated Destructive Power: 294[6]
4. Military Fissile Material Stockpile: (estimates)
Plutonium: 4 mt (+/- 20 %)[7]
HEU: 20 mt [8]
5. Disarmament and Commitments to Reduce Arsenal Size:
Legal obligation to pursue global disarmament under Article VI of the NPT[9]
Future Commitments:
In support of verifiable FMCT negotiation. The treaty should not cover existing stockpiles[10]
6. Nuclear Weapons Policies
1. Nuclear testing:
* Observed nuclear testing moratorium since July 1996.[12]
* Signed but not ratified CTBT[13]
2. Use of nuclear weapons:
* Adopted no-first use policy[14,15]
* Negative Security Assurances to NWFZ treaty members:
Committed not to use nuclear weapons against members of:
Tlatelolco, Rarotonga, and Pelindaba. Has not signed Bangkok, but reiterates its support.[16]
* Acknowledged the commitments of the NWS to negative security assurances in UN Security Council Resolution 984 (1995).[17]
* Expressed its support for legally binding unconditional negative security assurances.[18]
Sources:
[1] Robert S. Norris and Hans M. Kristensen, "Chinese Nuclear Forces, 2008," Nuclear Notebook, Natural Resources Defense Council, Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, July/August 2008, pp 42-45, .
[2] Robert S. Norris and Hans M. Kristensen, "Chinese Nuclear Forces, 2008," Nuclear Notebook, Natural Resources Defense Council, Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, July/August 2008, pp 42-45, .
[3] Ballistic and Cruise Missile Threat, National Air Space Intelligence Center, April 2009, .
[4] Military Power of the People's Republic of China 2008, US Department of Defense, .
[5] Chinese Nuclear Forces, Strategic Security Blog, Federation of American Scientists, .
[6] Eliminating Nuclear Threats, ICNND Report, .
[7] International Panel on Fissile Materials, Global Fissile Material Report 2009, .
[8] International Panel on Fissile Materials, Global Fissile Material Report 2009, .
[9] Inventory of International Nonproliferation Organizations & Regimes, .
[10] Statement by Ambassador Jingye Cheng to the Conference on Disarmament, Geneva, 17 May 2006, .
[11] Military Power of the People's Republic of China 2008, US Department of Defense, .
[12] CTBTO website, Nuclear Testing page, .
[13] Inventory of International Nonproliferation Organizations & Regimes, .
[14] Working Paper Submitted by China to the 2010 NPT Review Conference, 6 May 2010, .
[15] Statement by the Chinese Delegation on the Issue of Security Assurances at the Third Session of the Preparatory committee for the 2010 NPT Review Conference, 7 May 2009, .
[16] NTI Nuclear Weapon Free Zone Tutorial Protocol Chart, .
[17] NTI Nuclear Weapon Free Zone Tutorial, Chapter 3, Security Assurances, .
[18] Working Paper Submitted by China to the 2010 NPT Review Conference, 6 May 2010, .
Last edited:
Red___Sword
Junior Member
Wow, Martian, IF you are in China, you will be banned from every modulator, for you to BROADCAST this kind of information. (Otherwise the modulators wil be having a warm chat with the NSA, believe or not.)
But since you are HERE, - ME as a common citizen of THERE, thank you. Thank you to clarify some entertaining assumptions that China have had a inferior nuclear strike capability, than UK and France.
Wrong idea kills the cat. Although EVERYBODY do not intend to kill the cat.
But since you are HERE, - ME as a common citizen of THERE, thank you. Thank you to clarify some entertaining assumptions that China have had a inferior nuclear strike capability, than UK and France.
Wrong idea kills the cat. Although EVERYBODY do not intend to kill the cat.
Red___Sword
Junior Member
Today is 11th March 2011, in case you noticed the world's headline of today, 8.9M earthquake hit japan.
Not to emphasis the matter of earthquake, but to make a side-note, to the #16 above. This is somehow a side envidence the effect "what if" nuclear strike scenario conducted like #16 suggested.
Not to emphasis the matter of earthquake, but to make a side-note, to the #16 above. This is somehow a side envidence the effect "what if" nuclear strike scenario conducted like #16 suggested.
AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
Humankind's little toys are no match for the awesome power of nature. If someone calculated the energy of a tsunami you'd probably find out it's just a watse of a nuke and might as well drop it directly instead of creating some indirect effect.