Reason for China building WMDs

renmin · Nov 22, 2005

chinawhite said:
renmin,

Your chinese and i wouldn't have a conflict with a chinese(unless they are annoying, which i dont find you). i thought i asked you pretty nicely where you got the numbers wrong. maye you interupted it wrong. anyway no problems here

This is my opinion because a SLBM is harder to develop than a mobile ICBM. china at the time was in more dire need for a ICBM than a SLBM thats what i am basing this on. Plus the fact that china at the time didn't have a Ballistic missile submarine to launch the missile.

Now lets look at the numbers.

1964>>Chinas fist A-bomb
Start of DF-4 program

1967>>Start of chinas solid fuel program
First H-bomb test

1970's>>Finish JL-1 test

At the time chian was facing threats from both the soviets and americans with threats to nuke china. China needed something as a deterant and those liquid power rockets wouldn't have lasted.

Regards,

chinawhite

Sorry, no hard feelings chinawhite. I just did not want a conflict to erupt so better stop it before it happens and good guess, I am Chinese, back on topic all your numbers are fairly accuarate.the DF-4 was a misslie specificaly designed to reach the US bases on Guam which is 2,485 miles away but the distance was later changed to reach Moscow which is 2,796 miles away. Russia was the main threat to China ever since Josef Stalin died, Russia and China have broken up. At that time China had to have a nuke that they can use to retaileat if they are hit by a nuclear wepon and the main threats at that time were Russia and the USA.

houzi · Nov 27, 2005

From "The Military Power of the People’s Republic of China 2005" from U.S. DoD (

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

), page 35:

China currently is capable of targeting its nuclear forces throughout the region and most of the world, including the continental United States. Newer systems, such as the DF-31 and DF-31A, will give China a more survivable nuclear force.

China currently deploys approximately twenty silo-based, liquid-propellant CSS-4 ICBMs, which constitute its primary nuclear deterrent. The Second Artillery also maintains approximately twenty liquid-fueled, more limited-range CSS-3 ICBMs to sustain its regional nuclear deterrent. The Second Artillery will likely keep this older missile in service until it is replaced by the more survivable, road-mobile DF-31. China supplements the aged CSS-2s with solid-propellant, road-mobile CSS-5 MRBMs.

MIGleader · Nov 27, 2005

houzi said:
From "The Military Power of the People’s Republic of China 2005" from U.S. DoD (
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
), page 35:

China currently is capable of targeting its nuclear forces throughout the region and most of the world, including the continental United States. Newer systems, such as the DF-31 and DF-31A, will give China a more survivable nuclear force.

China currently deploys approximately twenty silo-based, liquid-propellant CSS-4 ICBMs, which constitute its primary nuclear deterrent. The Second Artillery also maintains approximately twenty liquid-fueled, more limited-range CSS-3 ICBMs to sustain its regional nuclear deterrent. The Second Artillery will likely keep this older missile in service until it is replaced by the more survivable, road-mobile DF-31. China supplements the aged CSS-2s with solid-propellant, road-mobile CSS-5 MRBMs.

yo, monkey boy(thats your name isnt it?)

, never get something about china from the u.s Dod. they constantly point out how china has nuclear missles capable of targeting anywhere, including the u.s. but in reality, china's strategic projection abilities are minimal compared to russias or americas. thats why china's been so busy building longer range, more accurate nuclear weapons. but really, nowadays, nukles are just as outdated as the battle ship. they fuel arms races, but have little use in reality because everyone's too scared to use them. they offer a sense of national pride and security, but not much more.

anyone have information on the great wall project beyond the basics?

renmin · Nov 27, 2005

I agree with MIGleader. while Dong Feng 31 might be China's current most advanced nuclear system, it only has the range of 10,000 km at the most so shot from China, it can only hit a few targets. For example, the USA, targets could be USA MX missile feilds, or the B-2 bomber base. But houzi (monkey in Chinese) could be right as to if the JL-2 or DF-41 systems becomes operational or China can symply arm DF-31 missiles on tankers or supply ships to hide the missile. since DF-31 is solid propelent, it can't be detected as easily as liquid propelent.

jason_chiu888 · Nov 27, 2005

renmin said:
the chinese had never intended to nuke the US! it helps to develop WMDS to scare others, i do not think China would nuke the USAthere is really no reason plus America has done nothing to threaten china and China is a defending country and only attacks when attacked. and the DF-41? uh just wait till the next national day parade, they will present it to you, the parades are for showing the chinese people and and the world the strenght of the PLA.

Are you nuts??? Do you think China spends around billions of dollars to just defend itself??? you think the government have no other work than to spend all this money and keep the ICBMs in their showcase??? Let me tell you something sonny. I don't know where you from but the chinese government are not dumbos. we are the ones who are not so bright posting here and there in each and every forum we come across thinking this is right and that is right. And if the Chinese government are as dumb as we think they are they would also be here sittng in this forum posting like the rest of us.
I really don't know what to tell you but you seem quite naive about politics. let me also add this.... the republicans just can't stand Red China! they hate anything that's RED! and mind you. taiwan is the only cancer between the US and China. tell you the truth we have no friggin idea of what they are planning. can you imagine politics at the highest level??? just dig deeper and probably you'll have an idea of what i am talking about here.

MIGleader · Nov 27, 2005

jason_chiu888 said:
Are you nuts??? Do you think China spends around billions of dollars to just defend itself??? you think the government have no other work than to spend all this money and keep the ICBMs in their showcase??? Let me tell you something sonny. I don't know where you from but the chinese government are not dumbos. we are the ones who are not so bright posting here and there in each and every forum we come across thinking this is right and that is right. And if the Chinese government are as dumb as we think they are they would also be here sittng in this forum posting like the rest of us.
I really don't know what to tell you but you seem quite naive about politics. let me also add this.... the republicans just can't stand Red China! they hate anything that's RED! and mind you. taiwan is the only cancer between the US and China. tell you the truth we have no friggin idea of what they are planning. can you imagine politics at the highest level??? just dig deeper and probably you'll have an idea of what i am talking about here.

well, this is not a politics forum. if u came here to talk about politics, plz leave.

china originally build icbms to give itself a first strike ability on moscow, shoud war with russia ever happen. since the end of the cold war, chinas setting its nuclear projection abilities global, and prides itself in being one of the few nuclear powers in the world. so its half and half.

jason_chiu888 · Nov 27, 2005

MIGleader said:
well, this is not a politics forum. if u came here to talk about politics, plz leave.

china originally build icbms to give itself a first strike ability on moscow, shoud war with russia ever happen. since the end of the cold war, chinas setting its nuclear projection abilities global, and prides itself in being one of the few nuclear powers in the world. so its half and half.

of course this is not politics forum. if you think i came here to preach about politics then think again. oh yeah this is also not a technical forum. how is it that i see you blabbering away at technical details in your posts? please don't try to advice others!

Gollevainen · Nov 27, 2005

Well let me advise you all...cut the temper and back to the topic...leave the personal confrontation elsewhere, cos it will eventually led to personal attacks.

ff

ps. I'm a mod (there seems to have been a few misunderstandment), an angry one indeed so think twice before you start to mourn about it....

renmin · Nov 27, 2005

Gollevainen is right. leave your temper behind jason chiu888. Let me advise you that I do not want any conflicts on this tread so lay off the insults. the PLA is not only for defence, it is also to retaileat against an attack by another country. Look im chinese so I know how China uses its military. Im not going to get off topic or go into politics so Im going to make this short. Defence is not dumb, its a matter of keeping peace. Attaking others for no good reason is dumb something that China will never do. There, end of story! Sorry, Gollevainen I got a bit off topic. Back on topic, like what MIgleader said, China developed nukes because at that time, the PRC and Soviet Union were braking up and at any moment, Russia could nuke or bomb China so the PRC had to have someway to retaileat against this threat.

houzi · Nov 27, 2005

yes you can call me monkey

but didn't the soviets provide the PRC with engineers and nuclear expertise before their split? so it seems then if the soviets later became the main target of the PRC nuke program, this was short-sighted of the soviets

hmm also.. if US DoD overstates PRC capabilities, they do this on purpose or accident? why say that just to be alarmist? for more military funding?

Reason for China building WMDs

renmin

Junior Member

houzi

Just Hatched

MIGleader

Banned Idiot

renmin

Junior Member

jason_chiu888

Just Hatched

MIGleader

Banned Idiot

jason_chiu888

Just Hatched

Gollevainen

Colonel

renmin

Junior Member

houzi

Just Hatched