solarz
Brigadier
A nuclear arms race in Asia is more of a threat to China than to the US, who is on the other side of the world. For this precise reason, I do not see China abandoning its minimal deterrance policy.
China's SCS Strategy Thread
- Thread starter lilzz
- Start date
A nuclear arms race in Asia is more of a threat to China than to the US, who is on the other side of the world. For this precise reason, I do not see China abandoning its minimal deterrance policy.
Blackstone
Brigadier
I agree with that, except ballistic missile defense improvements would force reevaluation of capacity for deterrence, minimal or otherwise.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
Japan and South Korea developing nuclear weapons and be a red line for China, but I don't really see India as anywhere near enough of a threat to be worth considering for China when considering whether or not to expand its nuclear forces.
If anything, getting India to go on a nuclear arms building frenzy now could very well be in China's best interests.
Indian warhead and missile technology is primitive in comparison to China's. But they are improving all the time. Getting India to double down on building masses of inefficient (heavy) nukes and short ranged missiles would not only deplete India's limited materials stockpile (which would be hard to replenish with China torpedoing American strong arming attempts to get an India sized and shaped exemption applied to the nuclear suppliers' group rules); but also saddle the Indian economy with the big burden of paying for the initial purchase, and subsequent maintainance, security and ultimately decommissioning costs of all those missiles and warheads.
It was for similar pragmatic reasons (but reversed) that China settled on its minimal deterrence strategy in the first place.
However, with China's current economic and technological standing in the world, that is no longer a position China needs to restrain itself to if it chooses.
With modern, MIRV warhead technology and DF31/41 and JL2 missiles coming online, Chinese warhead and ICBM technology is very much at long last in the same league as the best the US or Russians have to offer.
China would not need to or want to build anything like the thousands of missiles America and Russia currently fields, but it could very easily and comfortably double or vein triple its current nuclear forces to allow it to attain true MAD with both Russia and America without worrying about the costs or accept significantly inferior performing missiles and warheads.
I think the main thing stopping China is that China seems to be largely optimistic/pragmatic about the future, and don't think all out nuclear war will break out, and/or reason that if it does happen we are all toast irrespective of how many nukes China has. So would rather spend its money on weapons it might actually need to use in a war it can walk away from the victor.
However, I agree that the relentless American moves to counter ballistic missiles is seen as a real, clear and pressing threat to China's minimalistic approach to nuclear deterrence.
China's leaders will not forget the fact that America is the only country to have ever used nuclear weapons in combat, and against a foe without nuclear weapons to boot. So there can be no rose tainted sunglasses view about the willingness of America to use nukes if they think they can get away with it without taking nuclear hits in reply.
That will force China to take a real hard look at whether it's current nuclear force levels would be sufficient to withstand a hostile first strike and still be able to overwhelm enemy multi-layer missile defences, now being deployed right on China's doorstep.
in my view, we can expect China to quietly significantly raise its nuclear stockpile in the coming years.
antiterror13
Brigadier
@plawolf ... astute analysis, thanks.
I thought 700 to 1,000 modern warheads (equivalent to W-88) should be a target for China, I dont think financially would be abig burden for current Chinese economy ... looks Russia with only 11% of Chinese economy could maintain thousands of nukes quite comfortably. Remember Chine would need to consider its nukes not only for US, but also EU, Russia, Japan, etc
I totally agree that other than big 5, the nukes technology and delivery are primitive (including India).
The big question is whether China has enough plutonium .. as I understand China has stop producing it since 1990s
I thought 700 to 1,000 modern warheads (equivalent to W-88) should be a target for China, I dont think financially would be abig burden for current Chinese economy ... looks Russia with only 11% of Chinese economy could maintain thousands of nukes quite comfortably. Remember Chine would need to consider its nukes not only for US, but also EU, Russia, Japan, etc
I totally agree that other than big 5, the nukes technology and delivery are primitive (including India).
The big question is whether China has enough plutonium .. as I understand China has stop producing it since 1990s
I think 700-1000 W-88 type warheads is somewhat on the high side. Remember that the USA and Russia are both at 1600 deployed warheads each as per START.
Personally I think 300 warheads with intercontinental range would be sufficient, as we could expect at least 100 to get through in a retaliatory second strike and through ABM.
Then there are another 200-300 warheads for regional contingencies, which should be sufficient.
They can always build more if circumstances change.
On plutonium requirements, it looks like anything from 3kg-25kg required for a warhead.
That compares to the current stockpile of an estimated 1.8 tonnes of plutonium in China.
That compares to the current stockpile of an estimated 1.8 tonnes of plutonium in China.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
Any civilian nuclear reactors China gets from America will have zero national security implications (or else the Americans would not sell them), and access to them will not have any meaningful impact on Chinese nuclear weapons policy.
If anything, I view Chinese nuclear reactor deals with America as China doing America a favour, similar to large Boeing buys. It's a way to easy the trade imbalance and help reduce some trade tensions. But in reality, America needs the sale way more than China needs the reactors.
As for weapons grade nuclear material.
Well firstly I would be extremely sceptical about just how accurate western intelligence is on that.
Most of it seems like circular reasoning projecting backwards based on existing Chinese warhead numbers.
Secondly, it is easily within China's ability to restart enrichment to weapons grade pretty much any time it wants. There are reports and suggestions that China has already been doing that for years, although again, I am skeptical of the accuracy of western intelligence regarding that.
China and Russia, two nations are facing the consequences for refusing to accept America's primacy.
the NATO meeting is all about Russia, the deployment will go ahead, and the sanction is going to stay, Putin may up his game;
the SCS is boilling, and THAAD will be deployed to SK, how will China respond?
my guess is the "strategic goal" may prevail, that is to maintain the Sino-US relation not to break. it's interesting to see two waiting games here: NATO is waiting for its sanction bite to take effect, and China is playing for time.
the NATO meeting is all about Russia, the deployment will go ahead, and the sanction is going to stay, Putin may up his game;
the SCS is boilling, and THAAD will be deployed to SK, how will China respond?
my guess is the "strategic goal" may prevail, that is to maintain the Sino-US relation not to break. it's interesting to see two waiting games here: NATO is waiting for its sanction bite to take effect, and China is playing for time.