China's 294 megatons of thermonuclear deterrence

[Martian2]

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: NTI: Russia - Nuclear Disarmament
United States: NTI: United States - Nuclear Disarmament
China: NTI: China - Nuclear Disarmament
France: NTI: France - Nuclear Disarmament
Britain: NTI: United Kingdom - Nuclear Disarmament

----------

China's "possible warhead assembly and production facilities" (source: NTI)

NTI: China - Nuclear Disarmament

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, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.
[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, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.
[3] Ballistic and Cruise Missile Threat, National Air Space Intelligence Center, April 2009, Federation of American Scientists.
[4] Military Power of the People's Republic of China 2008, US Department of Defense, The Official Home of the Department of Defense.
[5] Chinese Nuclear Forces, Strategic Security Blog, Federation of American Scientists, Federation of American Scientists.
[6] Eliminating Nuclear Threats, ICNND Report, International Commission on Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament.
[7] International Panel on Fissile Materials, Global Fissile Material Report 2009, IPFM International Panel on Fissile Materials - Mission.
[8] International Panel on Fissile Materials, Global Fissile Material Report 2009, IPFM International Panel on Fissile Materials - Mission.
[9] Inventory of International Nonproliferation Organizations & Regimes, Nuclear Threat Initiative: Home Page.
[10] Statement by Ambassador Jingye Cheng to the Conference on Disarmament, Geneva, 17 May 2006, Reaching Critical Will.
[11] Military Power of the People's Republic of China 2008, US Department of Defense, The Official Home of the Department of Defense.
[12] CTBTO website, Nuclear Testing page, Home: CTBTO Preparatory Commission.
[13] Inventory of International Nonproliferation Organizations & Regimes, Nuclear Threat Initiative: Home Page.
[14] Working Paper Submitted by China to the 2010 NPT Review Conference, 6 May 2010, Reaching Critical Will.
[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, Reaching Critical Will.
[16] NTI Nuclear Weapon Free Zone Tutorial Protocol Chart, Nuclear Threat Initiative: Home Page.
[17] NTI Nuclear Weapon Free Zone Tutorial, Chapter 3, Security Assurances, Nuclear Threat Initiative: Home Page.
[18] Working Paper Submitted by China to the 2010 NPT Review Conference, 6 May 2010, Reaching Critical Will.

 

[Akasa]

That's assuming China has 240 warheads. Numbers range from 200 to 3000. The most commonly Western reported number is 400 while the most commonly Chinese reported number is 2350.

In any case, none of it is ever going to be used due to the No First Use policy and the concept of deterrence.

 

[ao333]

Lol, the Russian and PRC stockpiles are overrated, literally.

 

[below_freezing]

Lol, the Russian and PRC stockpiles are overrated, literally.

Whatever helps you sleep better at night pal.

 

[anon45]

So we have nearly double the nuclear firepower of China even with our disarmament? Think i'll be sleeping well.

 

[Markus]

How does all this matter ?

Russia is at 1273 MT and we all know where it stands as compared to the US, which has half its firepower.

 

[Martian2]

How does all this matter ?

Russia is at 1273 MT and we all know where it stands as compared to the US, which has half its firepower.

Nuclear firepower is very important. Russia annexed 20% of Georgia, an U.N. member, in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The United States did nothing. To the contrary, the United States offered a "reset" to the Russians. This is called appeasement.

Aren't all of you curious to see what happens when The Dragon roars someday? Will the U.S. also do nothing? That is my prediction.

 

[pluto]

U.S is the first country which own nuclear weapon, and now it is the one who mostly want to destroy all nuclear weapons in this world. because their other kinds of weapons are most powerful.
with nuclear weapons, Russia, China and Europe have cards to play when negotiating with U.S.

 

[Markus]

Nuclear firepower is very important. Russia annexed 20% of Georgia, an U.N. member, in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The United States did nothing. To the contrary, the United States offered a "reset" to the Russians. This is called appeasement.

Aren't all of you curious to see what happens when The Dragon roars someday? Will the U.S. also do nothing? That is my prediction.

I read somewhere, China planning to invest 3 trillion dollars abroad and this may result in US loosing clout in the coming years. Now how does nuclear firepower come into the picture or how does it change the balance.

On the contrary, China itself is investing heavily into CBG's as they are the ultimate tools of power projection across the world, the nuke firepower cannot help.

 

[Martian2]

(Range of China's defensive thermonuclear missiles)

http://www.theage.com.au/world/no-nuclear-...0227-1ba0l.html

"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."

 

[Martian2]

The old projections may have to be revised in the face of new information. Well-known analyst Richard Fisher, Jr. states: "While a worst-case estimate, there is good reason to consider that China's warhead numbers could exceed 500 by 2020."

DF-31As camouflaged

FISHER: China and START - Washington Times

"FISHER: China and START
Missile buildup may surpass U.S., Russia as they denuclearize
By Richard D. Fisher Jr. - The Washington Times 5:56 p.m., Wednesday, September 15, 2010

Might China someday have more nuclear warheads than the United States? Than Russia? Inconceivable as it may sound, this could come to pass, because China may just be starting a period of double- or triple-digit annual growth in its warhead numbers as the Obama administration sets its sights on further U.S. warhead reductions, with little hope that China will join a regime of negotiated nuclear stability. But even if it did, would nuclear "parity" with China be in America's interest?

The new START Treaty signed in May commits the United States and Russia to a "parity" that reduces deployed nuclear warheads from 2,200 to 1,550 and reduces to 700 the number of deployed nuclear delivery vehicles. However, President Obama has made clear his intention to seek further reductions; late 2009 leaks to the press suggested further goals of 1,000 warheads or even fewer.

Since it started deploying intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) in the 1980s, China has refused to join in nuclear weapons negotiations. This did not matter as long as China deployed a small number, about 20 liquid-fueled 13,000-kilometer-range DF-5s with single warheads, until early this decade. Furthermore, China had lulled many analysts by regularly suggesting that it adheres to a doctrine of "minimum deterrence" that abjures U.S.- or Russian-level warhead numbers. But China has also rejected U.S. and Soviet levels of nuclear "transparency" as part of its deterrence calculus, with the result that nobody knows its nuclear force goals.

China began modernizing its nuclear missile forces by mid-decade, replacing early DF-5s with a similar number of improved DF-5A missiles based in stationary silos and deploying the new 7,000-to-8,000-kilometer-range, solid-fueled and mobile DF-31 and the larger 11,200-plus-kilometer-range DF-31A. In its latest report to the Congress on China's military released on Aug. 16, the Pentagon says there are less than 10 DF-31 and "10-15" DF-31A ICBMs, up to five more than reported in the previous year's report, covering 2008. However, in the 2010 issue of "Military Balance," Britain's International Institute of Strategic Studies notes there is one brigade of 12 DF-31s and two brigades or 24 DF-31A ICBMs, indicating a possible increase of one new brigade from 2008 to 2009.

In addition, China may be close to fielding two more long-range nuclear missiles. First is the new 7,200-plus-kilometer-range JL-2 submarine-launched ballistic missile. Though reported to be experiencing developmental challenges, when completed, 12 each will go on the new Type 094 nuclear ballistic missile submarine, which the Pentagon estimates will number at least five, for a potential total of 60 missiles. Then there is a new yet-unidentified larger ground-mobile ICBM which has been revealed in Chinese Internet-source images since 2007, but which the Pentagon did not publicly acknowledge until its latest China report. The distinguishing feature of the "DF-XX" is its use of a large 16-wheel Russian-style transporter-erector-launcher (TEL), likely derived from Russian-Belarus technology imported in the late 1990s.

But here is where the real danger begins: The Pentagon also notes this new ICBM is "possibly capable of carrying multiple independently targeted re-entry vehicles (MIRV)." Starting in 2002, the Pentagon's China report noted the People's Liberation Army's (PLA) interest in developing multiple warheads, with more explicit language being used in the 2009 and 2010 reports. Might some PLA ICBMs already have multiple warheads? This analyst has been told by Asian military sources that the DF-31A already carries three warheads and that one deployed DF-5B carries five or six warheads. These sources speculate the new "DF-XX" may carry a similar number of warheads.

While it is not possible to confirm these disclosures from open sources, they point to an alarming possibility: China has crossed the multiple-warhead Rubicon and, with the possibility that it can build one brigade of DF-31A and DF-XX ICBMs a year, could be capable of annual double- or triple-digit increases in its deployed nuclear warheads. Chinese sources also suggest interest in developing longer-range versions of the JL-2, which could also be MIRV-capable. While a worst-case estimate, there is good reason to consider that China's warhead numbers could exceed 500 by 2020.

In addition, China may also be on its way to fielding a national missile-defense system by the 2020s. Its recent, successful Jan. 11 missile warhead interception test marks the culmination of China's second anti-ballistic missile (ABM) program; the first was ordered started by Mao Zedong in 1963 and was pursued until 1980. This stands in contrast with years of howling complaints by Chinese diplomats against American missile-defense programs and their fervent campaigning to ban outer-space weapons. Was this merely deception designed to limit American defensive programs while China gathered the capacity to pursue its own ABM and space-warfare programs?

These potential trends would logically cause one to ask: Why not talk to the Chinese about their nuclear strategic plans? Indeed, the administration's April Nuclear Posture Review calls for "strategic assurance dialogues" with China. However, not only has China traditionally rejected any "negotiations" regarding its nuclear forces, it won't even send its main nuclear missile forces commander on a courtesy visit to the United States. Normal military-to-military dialogue is regularly held hostage to Washington ending arms sales to democratic Taiwan.

But there is a deeper basic conflict: China wants to displace U.S. strategic leadership in Asia and is building military forces capable of defending its global interests, even if that means challenging the United States well beyond Asia. So until China achieves its desired level of global power, which may not include concepts of "parity," China may have no interest in "negotiations" that limit or even inform others about its nuclear weapons plans.

But even if the United States and China could agree on nuclear parity, that may come at the cost of America's Asian alliances. A larger and defended Chinese nuclear arsenal could greatly undermine the U.S. ability to extend its nuclear deterrent, accelerating the process of decoupling the United States from key allies like Japan, South Korea and Australia. America's ability to deter China will decline further when the administration implements its Nuclear Posture Review decision to retire U.S. nuclear-armed TLAM-N cruise missiles carried by secure U.S. submarines, replacing them with tactical nuclear bombs carried by more vulnerable U.S. jet fighters. And then one must consider Russia and its increasing political-military cooperation with China. Might Russia someday "tilt" its nuclear forces with China's to dissuade the United States from defending a future vital interest?

Countries like Taiwan, South Korea, Japan and India are today facing increased Chinese military pressures. They and the United States are also increasingly pressed to fund conventional military forces needed to deter China. It is indeed legitimate to ask if the current START Treaty gives the United States the ability to deter both Russia and a China just starting its strategic nuclear buildup. Furthermore, might START and intended follow-on agreements bring Asia closer to an era of nuclear proliferation and unforeseen instability?

Richard D. Fisher Jr. is a senior fellow with the International Assessment and Strategy Center and author of "China's Military Modernization, Building for Regional and Global Reach" (Praeger, 2008)."

 

[below_freezing]

I read somewhere, China planning to invest 3 trillion dollars abroad and this may result in US loosing clout in the coming years. Now how does nuclear firepower come into the picture or how does it change the balance.

On the contrary, China itself is investing heavily into CBG's as they are the ultimate tools of power projection across the world, the nuke firepower cannot help.

Who says nuclear firepower can't help? It definitely helps. Its far more likely to be helpful in case of war since our country doesn't make money off wars and only fights in defense against aggressive nations with genocidal tendencies, and costs far less than the carrier program especially when taking into account sunk costs. We've invested FAR LESS into our carrier program than our nuclear program. It would be financially and strategically insane to NOT boost our nuclear arsenal.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

Nukes aren't that powerful, no way it can exterminate all human population.

Even 3000 warheads aren't that much, we need some 10000 nukes in order of being fully capable in deterrence.

 

[Obambam]

Nukes aren't that powerful, no way it can exterminate all human population.

Even 3000 warheads aren't that much, we need some 10000 nukes in order of being fully capable in deterrence.

Or we can go green on it like our Russian friends. Make lots of Father of All Bombs instead.

 

[Obambam]

self delete.