Prove your last sentence, here is sinodefenseforum, not as free as yahoo or google where you can say anything without proof.
Basically what plawolf said in post #1808. Britain and France have established MIRV'ed SLBM capabilities which China is still struggling to put together for itself. The three countries each roughly have nuclear weapons stockpiles numbering in the low hundreds. Britain's and France's SLBM forces are much more survivable and more capable of a surprise attack than China's land based ICBMs.
Here's a nuclear weapon type breakdown for reference:
Whether or not they are MIRV'ed is classified, you cannot confirm that they do not have it. China also has submarine nuclear deterrent capability with the Type 094, although not as devastating as Russian and Western, 12 nuclear missiles are quite disconcerting for any country. China's land-based nuclear arm can be better described as subterranean-based with the Great Underground Wall of China, which greatly enhances the ICBM's survival against a first strike.
Well "regular", "prolonged", and "patrols" are all subject to interpretation, so it's not clear that a USN standard would be used by the PLAN to define what a patrol is. Also, IMO due to being relatively noisy the most likely patrol area for the 094's and 092 would be limited to the Bohai sea, an area which the USN would having great difficulty tracking unless they've got alot of balls or are so quiet they can slip past PLAN's SOSUS-type nets which I believe have been deployed in that area.China's one SSBN doesn't go on regular prolonged patrols, that defeats the purpose right there. As far as we know, China also doesn't have any anti-submarine force which regularly patrols the world or even the wider region to be hunter-killers of others' SSBNs, unlike several of China's potential opponents.
It is likely the US military is not confident it knows all of the entrances or how most of the tunnels are arranged internally. The only thing I don't like about the road-mobile ICBM force is that the TEL's still seem to be paved-surface only vehicles. They need to switch to the MAZ-type TEL's so that they can launch in the middle of the woods if necessary. They are already using them for DF-21/25's and DF-15's, so I don't know what the deal is.The Second Artillery supposedly has a lot of underground tunnels and basing which helps with survivability. However it no longer contributes as much to surprise as imaging and radar satellites can probably detect most of the silos and at least the tunnel entrances. Road mobile launchers also help with survivability but not as much as a robust SSBN force with escorts do.
I don't think any of us on the forum can (or will) confirm or deny any classified information from any country (whether missiles are MIRV'ed, how quiet subs are... etc) so we each have to go with our conclusions based on open source info.
China's one SSBN doesn't go on regular prolonged patrols, that defeats the purpose right there. As far as we know, China also doesn't have any anti-submarine force which regularly patrols the world or even the wider region to be hunter-killers of others' SSBNs, unlike several of China's potential opponents.
The Second Artillery supposedly has a lot of underground tunnels and basing which helps with survivability. However it no longer contributes as much to surprise as imaging and radar satellites can probably detect most of the silos and at least the tunnel entrances. Road mobile launchers also help with survivability but not as much as a robust SSBN force with escorts do.
China's one SSBN doesn't go on regular prolonged patrols, that defeats the purpose right there. As far as we know, China also doesn't have any anti-submarine force which regularly patrols the world or even the wider region to be hunter-killers of others' SSBNs, unlike several of China's potential opponents.
.