China's Perspective on Nuclear Deterrence

HKSDU

Junior Member
It is not always guaranteed that your warhead will reach its target. That being said, I would agree 10 would be an overkill... but it is not unreasonable to expect that you would need 3-4 warheads aimed at each major city in order to be sure that at least one weapon will strike with enough accuacy to ensure destruction. Furthermore, once your adversaries begin to develop misile defense programs, additional warheads would be necessary to guarantee destruction of the target.

Yep true I agree. Though I was actually saying the ones that actually penetrated through the defenses and survived the attack, and hit the cities. Whats the difference between being hit 10 times vs 1 time. I see zero difference.
 
Last edited:

Red___Sword

Junior Member
Yep true I agree. Though I was actually saying the ones that actually penetrated through the defenses and survived the attack, and hit the cities. Whats the difference between being hit 10 times vs 1 time. I see zero difference.

Emotionally I agree with you, but nuclear deterrence do not exist if people do not "count" the warhead and making decisions accordingly.

It is cold yet true that people making body counts to consider how serious damage your opponent can make. IF (a BIG if) the deterrence do not stands, it would naturally comes to a situation that some country might have an upper hand at the post-nuclear-exchange. That POSSIBILITY gives the decision makers some room for the POSSIBILITY of wilder demands (more meaner demands) during any kind of threatning to his conterpart.

This somewhat do not interfere with the MAD strategy, for most of time, decision makers from any side, are sane (vs. insane) people, they do not intent to make MAD happens - they just trying to play words and demand more in OTHER political dealings - warhead counts adds to the weight of those words.

At least the current world is still as "sane" as this.

PS: i.e, Iran surly have no crediable "nuclear deterrence" to America when if the situation gose to toe to toe... but Iran surly having some heavier weights carried in their warning words, compare to some "banana country", right?

China at least make MAD effects on her own, otherwise don't bother to talk some certain sensitive topics with US (or anyother primary player), for they don't bother to talk to you, as of the way they are talking now (smooth talk).

A not suitable but helps understanding example: When MAD stands, US won't sacrifice herself for "saving" Taiwan, or Tibat, or South China Sea ally nation... or whatever makes MAD actually happens. (of course vice verse)
 

luhai

Banned Idiot
Re: DF-41: China's answer to American NMD

Is it DF-41 or DF-31A ? if it is DF-41, what is the actual specs ?

DF-41 is supposedly a DF-31 based missile with one extra stage for added range, but smaller capacity. (Also there are many rumors that this is canceled) Anyways, since DF-31A can hit pretty much anywhere except South America. Unless China really want to be able to nuke Brazil, I don't think it would factor into MAD too much.
 

Thesisus

New Member
Re: DF-41: China's answer to American NMD

Sorry to ask a very basic (and even silly to some) question, but how would China (and any other countries for that matter) know that her nuclear missiles actually work without actual tesing? Are computer tests really that reliable?
 

bladerunner

Banned Idiot
Re: Nike Ajax, Nike Hercules, Nike Zeus and a probable modern successor

If all nuclear weapons were to be destroyed, who do you think would get the benefit most ... we are only talking of major powers, limited to only USA, Russia, China, UK, France, India, Germany, Japan ... other countries don't matter. Do you think the USA and Russia would be still super power without nukes ?

Russia hasnt been regarded as a super power since the Soviet days.From a military standpoint I would venture to say that China's military today has more clout what the Soviet Union had during the cold war.(discarding nukes that is)
 

Red___Sword

Junior Member
Re: DF-41: China's answer to American NMD

Sorry to ask a very basic (and even silly to some) question, but how would China (and any other countries for that matter) know that her nuclear missiles actually work without actual tesing? Are computer tests really that reliable?

Among many creditable members here, I am not a professional one, here are things I know:

- China voluntarly declared in sometime 1996, that officially ends her LIVE FIRE nuclear weapon test, although not in any form of treaty, this self-restrain has been honored.

- The other nuclear power (which, I didn't count India and anyone even "smaller") has made such self-restrain or even made treaty about the live-test, as well.

So yes, good or bad, nuclear power countries (or in another word, those who can make MAD effect), do not do "actual testing" nowadays - so computer (supercomputer, in a matter of speaking) simulation shall be suffice.

Missile alone, power houses like France and Russia, has just made live fire test last year for their own new ICBMs (without warhead), I think in the eyes of matured power houses, that's enough to show some deterrent capability.

Hey, the deterrent is in effect, so with or without the demostration of "bang" matters little.

I hope other more professional members here agree with me.
 

Red___Sword

Junior Member
Re: Nike Ajax, Nike Hercules, Nike Zeus and a probable modern successor

Russia hasnt been regarded as a super power since the Soviet days.From a military standpoint I would venture to say that China's military today has more clout what the Soviet Union had during the cold war.(discarding nukes that is)

Hehe, blade, nuke is one thing you can not ignore when calculating "military might".

Say France (no bash intent here) with a sizable allies, trying to invade Russia again (see my point here?), and Russian govt declare (they actually did in real life) that they would use any means to defend themselves and strike their enemies, including nukes... The invasion never took place later - that's still using russia's "might" to deterrent any other hostile "might".

Besides, antiterror is trying to state the cold fact of MAD that "there would be NO last man standing", and you are exaggerating China's current non-nuke military capability than reasonable amount of Sinophobia.

Come on, it may works at mp.net but not here!
 

bladerunner

Banned Idiot
Re: Nike Ajax, Nike Hercules, Nike Zeus and a probable modern successor

Hehe, blade, nuke is one thing you can not ignore when calculating "military might".

Say France (no bash intent here) with a sizable allies, trying to invade Russia again (see my point here?), and Russian govt declare (they actually did in real life) that they would use any means to defend themselves and strike their enemies, including nukes... The invasion never took place later - that's still using russia's "might" to deterrent any other hostile "might".

Besides, antiterror is trying to state the cold fact of MAD that "there would be NO last man standing", and you are exaggerating China's current non-nuke military capability than reasonable amount of Sinophobia.

Come on, it may works at mp.net but not here!

Actually Red, I wasn't trying the phobia thingy, more one of respect. Look around, her military capability has a greater geo political infulence then Soviet Russia ever had.and i reckon Nato and USA pretended to take her navy seriously.
 

Martian

Senior Member
China successfully tested its version of the W-88 warhead between 1992 and 1995

Sorry to ask a very basic (and even silly to some) question, but how would China (and any other countries for that matter) know that her nuclear missiles actually work without actual tesing? Are computer tests really that reliable?

China tested a series of advanced thermonuclear warheads from 1992 to 1996 (see
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
). In 1995, "American experts analyzing [seismic data of] Chinese nuclear test results found similarities to America's most advanced miniature warhead, the W-88."

After the 1992 to 1996 thermonuclear tests, China knows with certainty that its version of the W-88 warhead is fully functional. China is not relying on computer simulations. China's most-advanced thermonuclear weapon designs were tested for four years to their satisfaction.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


"China...Nuclear Secrets...
By JAMES RISEN and JEFF GERTH
March 6, 1999

WASHINGTON -- Working with nuclear secrets stolen from a U.S. government laboratory, China has made a leap in the development of nuclear weapons: the miniaturization of its bombs, according to administration officials.

Until recently, China's nuclear weapons designs were a generation behind those of the United States, largely because Beijing was unable to produce small warheads that could be launched from a single missile at multiple targets and form the backbone of a modern nuclear force.

But by the mid-1990s, China had built and tested such small bombs, a breakthrough that officials say was accelerated by the theft of U.S. nuclear secrets from Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico.

The espionage is believed to have occurred in the mid-1980s, officials said. But it was not detected until 1995, when American experts analyzing Chinese nuclear test results found similarities to America's most advanced miniature warhead, the W-88. (article continues)"

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


"The W88 is a United States thermonuclear warhead, with an estimated yield of 475 kiloton (kt), and is small enough to fit on MIRVed missiles. The W88 was designed at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in the 1970s. In 1999 the director of Los Alamos who had presided over its design described it as "The most advanced U.S. nuclear warhead."[1]

The Trident II SLBM can be armed with up to 8 W88 (475 kt) warheads (Mark 5) or 8 W76 (100 kt) warheads (Mark 4), but it is limited to 4 warheads under SORT."
 
Last edited:

i.e.

Senior Member
Re: DF-41: China's answer to American NMD

Sorry to ask a very basic (and even silly to some) question, but how would China (and any other countries for that matter) know that her nuclear missiles actually work without actual tesing? Are computer tests really that reliable?

subscale and subcritical tests validates and correct their computer models.
so in future their weapon design can rely on computer simulation to determine
1) "best use before" date. stockpile reliability program and
2) new designs and tweaks to old ones

also places like national ignition facility and "Shenguang" in china can nail some of the physics with out going to a subcritical test in range.
 
Top