# 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.

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
2 | Like Like:
18


----------



## 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.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## ao333

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


----------



## below_freezing

ao333 said:


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


 
Whatever helps you sleep better at night pal.

Reactions: Like Like:
15


----------



## anon45

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

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## 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.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Martian2

Markus said:


> 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.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## 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.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Markus

Martian2 said:


> 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."

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## 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)."

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## below_freezing

Markus said:


> 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.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## 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.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Obambam

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> 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.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Obambam

self delete.


----------



## beijing consensus

with close to 3000 warheads, china has alot more megatons of firepower.


----------



## Martian2

I have just uploaded a video on the launch and impact of an American thermonuclear missile. My brother spent days producing the video by using base footage from the United States Air Force and Northrop Grumman.

Excluding Hollywood movie trailers, I think it is the most entertaining video on YouTube. I hope you enjoy it.

You might be wondering what a video on an American thermonuclear missile is doing in a thread on China's thermonuclear weaponry. The flight stages of a Chinese DF-31A intercontinental ballistic missile are identical to those of an American Minuteman III missile traveling in the opposite direction.

This video is intended to be both highly entertaining and instructive.

[*The video above works.* I re-uploaded the video to address a minor technical issue.]

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## scholseys

Martian2 said:


> I have just uploaded a video on the launch and impact of an American thermonuclear missile. My brother spent days producing the video by using base footage from the United States Air Force and Northrop Grumman.
> 
> Excluding Hollywood movie trailers, I think it is the most entertaining video on YouTube. I hope you enjoy it.
> 
> You might be wondering what a video on an American thermonuclear missile is doing in a thread on China's thermonuclear weaponry. The flight stages of a Chinese DF-31A intercontinental ballistic missile are identical to those of an American Minuteman III missile traveling in the opposite direction.
> 
> This video is intended to be both highly entertaining and instructive.



Now this is badass, i wouldnt want to be an enemy of the USA!


----------



## marshall

pluto said:


> 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.


Do you honestly believe the Americans are trying to destroy ALL nuclear weapons? Americans attempts to limit weapons proliferation is strictly to preserve their military advantage. It has very little to do with saving the world or whatever other flowery language is being used at the time.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## marshall

beijing consensus said:


> with close to 3000 warheads, china has alot more megatons of firepower.


Repeating an unproven thesis by an American professor and his students will not make this guesstimate 3000 number reality. However, I am sure that this will be repeated a few thousand times by the American anti-China crowd to the point that it will convince the American military industrial complex to plunk down a few hundred billion more dollars to maintain and perhaps expand their existing thousands of nuke ICBMs to counter this supposed Chinese nuclear arsenal. Btw, isn't the real number actually 6000 Chinese nukes, or was it 8000, I've lost count.


----------



## regular

marshall said:


> Repeating an unproven thesis by an American professor and his students will not make this guesstimate 3000 number reality. However, I am sure that this will be repeated a few thousand times by the American anti-China crowd to the point that it will convince the American military industrial complex to plunk down a few hundred billion more dollars to maintain and perhaps expand their existing thousands of nuke ICBMs to counter this supposed Chinese nuclear arsenal.  Btw, isn't the real number actually 6000 Chinese nukes, or was it 8000, I've lost count.


I guess it shold be more than 10,000 by now.......


----------



## FairAndUnbiased

marshall said:


> Repeating an unproven thesis by an American professor and his students will not make this guesstimate 3000 number reality. However, I am sure that this will be repeated a few thousand times by the American anti-China crowd to the point that it will convince the American military industrial complex to plunk down a few hundred billion more dollars to maintain and perhaps expand their existing thousands of nuke ICBMs to counter this supposed Chinese nuclear arsenal. Btw, isn't the real number actually 6000 Chinese nukes, or was it 8000, I've lost count.



US in the past always said China only has 10 nukes that can strike US, so US can attack China with impunity.


----------



## lem34

ao333 said:


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



Yep according to those same western sources Pakistan will overtake China that's if they haven't already lol


----------



## Martian2

1. From the DF-31As alone, there should be 144 ICBM thermonuclear warheads (see first post below).

2. From the DF-5s, there are another 20 warheads with 4 to 5 megatons. Richard Fisher has reported on the deployment of a DF-5B with 5 or 6 MIRVs. We do not know whether the DF-5B is a new missile or a retrofitted and upgraded DF-5.

Since we're trying to make a reasonable minimum estimate, we will just assume the DF-5Bs are upgrades of the existing DF-5s. The sum of 20 upgraded DF-5s is 100 warheads.

However, we should note *there is a report that China has 120 to 150 DF-5s that can be MIRVed with six one-megaton warheads (see citations in the second post below). This means that China may have 900 DF-5B one-megaton warheads in total.*

3. There is at least a dozen DF-31, which can reach Alaska, Hawaii, or the northwestern United States. This is another 12 ICBM warheads. Since the DF-31As are reportedly MIRVed, we will assume the DF-31s are also MIRVed with 3 warheads each. The total is 36 DF-31 warheads.

Partial conclusion: A reasonable minimum estimate of the preliminary total of Chinese thermonuclear ICBM warheads that can counterstrike the United States is 280 warheads (e.g. 144 from DF-31As, 100 from DF-5Bs, and 36 from DF-31). A reasonable preliminary maximum estimate is 1,080 warheads (e.g. 144 from DF-31As, 900 from DF-5Bs, and 36 from DF-31).

Now, let's discuss the wildcards in China's ICBM nuclear arsenal.

4. According to Jane's Defence (see third post below), the "Chinese are believed to have started the design and development of the Dong Feng-41 (DF-41) in 1986." It's been over 15 years. China has shown us an operational and deployed DF-31A. There is no reason to believe that the DF-41 has not been fully developed and become operational. It's just a longer and slightly wider missile.

The DF-41 could easily vault China into eventual parity with the United States in the total number of warheads. Ten DF-41s result in 100 150-kiloton warheads. 100 hundred DF-41s would increase China's nuclear arsenal by 1,000 ICBM warheads.

5. No one knows how many ICBMs China is hiding in its 5,000km Underground Great Wall. I think a sensible person would not claim that China spent ten years building the Underground Great Wall to only place an ICBM every 100km. Similarly, most reasonable people would not claim that China is hiding one ICBM every 1km.

*As a rough estimate, a reasonable person would most likely assume that China is hiding one ICBM every 10km. 5,000km / 10km per hidden ICBM = 500 ICBMs hidden in China's Underground Great Wall. Assuming each ICBM is MIRVed with three warheads, I estimate China is hiding 1,500 ICBM warheads in its Underground Great Wall.*

6. China has four Type 094 Jin-class ballistic missile submarines (SSBN). Each Type 094 SSBN carries 12 JL-2 SLBMs (submarine-launched ballistic missiles). Since the Julang-2 is based on DF-31 technology, we will follow Jane Defence's report that the JL-2 is MIRVed with 3 or 4 warheads. Using our standard 3 MIRVs for a DF-31A or JL-2 missile, we arrive at 144 warheads (e.g. 4 Type 094 SSBNs x 12 JL-2s per SSBN x 3 MIRVs per JL-2).

Therefore, China's four Type 094 SSBNs carry a total of 144 JL-2 warheads that can strike portions of the United States.

Conclusion: *What is the total number of Chinese ICBM warheads?*

The lowest reasonable estimate is 144 ICBM warheads from DF-31As, 100 warheads from DF-5Bs, 36 from DF-31s, 1,500 warheads from Underground Great Wall, 144 from JL-2s, and an unknown number from top-secret DF-41s. The most-reasonable minimum estimate of China's ICBM thermonuclear warheads is 1,924 plus possible warheads from DF-41s.

The maximum reasonable estimate is 144 ICBM warheads from DF-31As, 900 warheads from DF-5Bs, 36 from DF-31s, 1,500 warheads from Underground Great Wall, 144 from JL-2s, and an unknown number from DF-41s. The most-reasonable maximum estimate of China's ICBM thermonuclear warheads is 2,724 plus additional warheads from DF-41s.

*My best estimate of China's total ICBM nuclear arsenal is 1,924 to 2,724 thermonuclear warheads plus an unknown number of DF-41 warheads.*

----------

*China's DF-31As deter 144 cities*






China's DF-31A launch

Let's do the math to see if China's DF-31A mobile ICBM retaliatory force is sufficient to provide a nuclear deterrent.

"Britain`s International Institute of Strategic Studies notes" there are "24 DF-31A ICBMs, indicating a possible increase of one new brigade from 2008 to 2009." China is increasing her DF-31A ICBM force by approximately 12 missiles/one brigade a year.

We will add 12 more missiles from 2009 to 2010 and another dozen missiles from 2010 to 2011. A reasonable estimate of China's DF-31A force is 48 ICBMs (e.g. 24 at end of 2009; 36 at end of 2010; and 48 at end of 2011).

If Richard Fisher's information is correct and China's DF-31A is MIRVed with three warheads then that means the 48 DF-31As are armed with a total of 144 warheads (e.g. 48 DF-31As x 3 MIRVed warheads = 144 warheads).

We know China possesses the technology for a W-88 class warhead with a yield of 475 kilotons. The conclusion is that China's DF-31A nuclear force is capable of retaliating against 144 cities. That does seem to be a formidable second-strike capability.

----------

China and START. Missile buildup may surpass U.S., Russia as they denuclearize

"China and START
By Richard D. Fisher Jr.,
The Washington Times,
20 September 2010
...
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.*
...
*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."

----------

The most interesting and controversial debate regarding China's reverse-engineering was the development of China's W-88 class miniaturized thermonuclear warhead. The U.S. claims China appropriated the designs and reverse-engineered the W-88 warhead. China says that isn't true.

China says this is a case of convergent engineering. For example, an airplane must have two wings to provide lift and an engine to provide thrust in the rear. Another example of convergent engineering is all rockets are long and thin. In other words, form must follow function. There is only a very limited way to create a massive thermonuclear explosion using a compact warhead.

Here is the crux of the problem. "U.S. government realized that information derived from Chinese tests in 1992-1996 were similar to U.S. nuclear designs." The Chinese nuclear tests data are "similar," but *not identical* to U.S. nuclear tests on the W-88.





W88 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"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."

NTI: Research Library: Country Profiles: China

"...According to the Cox Committee Report, suspicion of China's nuclear espionage started after the *U.S. government realized that information derived from Chinese tests in 1992-1996 were similar to U.S. nuclear designs.* This similarity, combined with other information derived from classified sources, led the Cox Committee to claim that China had stolen several bomb designs, including the U.S.' most advanced W-88 design and a design for an enhanced radiation weapon (neutron bomb). Yet, the *Cox Report has been severely criticized by both experts and officials in the United States as a political document that has several technical inaccuracies.*"

----------

*Did General Zhu Chenghu blurt out China's nuclear secret in 2005? Analysis.*





A launch silo for China's DF-5 ICBM

I doubt that China will ever disclose the size of its nuclear arsenal. China wants to have it both ways. It wants to appear non-threatening. This is good for its corporate image.

On the other hand, it wants to keep the United States guessing and reap the benefit of deterrence. Also, China cannot reveal the actual size of its nuclear arsenal. Otherwise, it would have just volunteered to join U.S.-Russian disarmament talks.

However, it is possible to reach reasonable conclusions based on an analysis of open-source materials and obtain a sense of the size of China's nuclear arsenal. Let's take a close look at General Zhu Chenghu's outburst. Did he reveal China's nuclear secret in a moment of anger?

In July 2005, "a Chinese general has threatened to launch nuclear missiles at the United States, warning that hundreds of American cities could be destroyed." (See Chinese general threatens nuclear attack on US in war of words - Telegraph) Is it plausible that China had the capability to destroy hundreds of American cities in 2005 or was General Zhu completely nuts?

In 1998, Richard D. Fisher Jr. (see International Assessment and Strategy Center > Scholars > Richard Fisher, Jr.) was working "as Asian Studies Director at the Heritage Foundation" and he reported:

"Congress should question the confidence that the Clinton Administration and the defense intelligence community place on their own assessments of China's current missile force. *Some reports that appeared in 1996 suggest the United States may be underestimating China's missile force. For example, during the 30th anniversary celebration of China's Second Artillery (its specialized missile force) in 1996, China's military press reported the completion of a decade-long project to build what is speculated to be a large missile base inside a mountain range.[27] A curious report that also appeared in 1996 estimates that China may have over 120 to 150 DF-5 missiles, which could be modified to carry as many as six one-megaton nuclear warheads.[28] If China is concealing ICBMs in a mountain base*, then even marginal improvements to its ICBMs derived from U.S. technical know-how would contribute to a greater potential missile threat." (See Commercial Space Cooperation | The Heritage Foundation)

If Richard Fisher is correct about the 1996 reports, China had approximately 150 DF-5 ICBMs hidden in the 5,000 km Underground Great Wall. This makes sense. No one would spend a fortune and ten years to build a massive 3,000-mile ICBM complex under a mountain range to hide only a small handful of ICBMs. (See The Jamestown Foundation: single[tt_news]=35846&tx_ttnews[backPid]=459&no_cache=1 or China&#8217;s nuclear missiles hidden &#8220;underground maze&#8221; | WAREYE)

Nine years elapsed between Richard Fisher's reference to the 1996 estimate of 150 DF-5s and General Zhu's 2005 warning. Let's use a conservative estimate and say China built one new brigade each year, which is twelve DF-5 missiles. After nine years, China would have accumulated another 108 DF-5s by 2005.

General Zhu may have been referring to a total of 258 DF-5s hidden under thousands of miles of a Chinese mountain range. General Zhu may have been accurate in "warning that hundreds of American cities could be destroyed." While General Zhu's July 2005 outburst is useful for open-source analysis, he was unprofessional and deserved his public demotion in December 2005 (for possibly revealing a state secret). (See Shakeup of Top Chinese Military Command)

Anyway, it's now 2011 and the DF-5 ICBM story has taken another unexpected turn. In 1998, Richard Fisher wrote: "A curious report that also appeared in 1996 estimates that China may have over 120 to 150 *DF-5 missiles, which could be modified to carry as many as six one-megaton nuclear warheads.*" (See Commercial Space Cooperation | The Heritage Foundation)

In September 2010, Richard Fisher reported: "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.*" (See China and START. Missile buildup may surpass U.S., Russia as they denuclearize)

From 2005 to 2011, China probably built another 66 DF-5 ICBMs. China's current total inventory of DF-5s is probably around 324 (e.g. 258 + 66 = 324). 324 DF-5s with each missile carrying "six one-megaton nuclear warheads" provide a nuclear deterrent of 1,944 one-megaton warheads.

In conclusion, it doesn't really matter how many more DF-31As (with 3 MIRVs) or DF-41s (with up to 10 MIRVs) that China builds. The Chinese most likely have had a substantial nuclear deterrent by 1996 or 2005.

----------

*DF-41 ICBM: China's answer to American NMD*

Aside from building more road- and rail-mobile DF-31As, what's next for China's ICBM program? The obvious answer is the DF-41 with 10 MIRVs.

China's ICBM nuclear forces were quiescent for 20 years until "President George W. Bush formally announced December 13 [2001] that the United States will unilaterally withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty." (See Withdrawal from ABM treaty signals escalation of US militarism)

The formal withdrawal occurred six months after notification, when "the United States withdrew from the landmark 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty on June 13 [2002]." (See U.S. Withdraws From ABM Treaty; Global Response Muted | Arms Control Association)

The Chinese response was swift. China had possessed the basic technology for MIRVs in 1981, but only tested it after the United States withdrew from the ABM treaty in 2002. China's first known successful MIRV test occurred in December 2002, six months after the U.S. withdrawal from the ABM treaty.

To preserve China's security through mutually-assured-destruction, China must maintain a capability to inflict sufficient damage in a counter-strike. Towards that strategic objective, China is building the DF-41 with 10 MIRVs to overwhelm any American National Missile Defense (NMD) shield.

In a counter-strike, for every DF-41 with 10 warheads, the United States must build 10 interceptors. There is also the question of how many interceptors will succeed (e.g. the success rate). I am leaving aside the question of whether the NMD is viable at all. For example, if China attacked the sea-based X-band radar sites then the NMD will be significantly impaired.

Anyway, it will always be far cheaper for China to build DF-41 ICBMs and much more expensive to defend against them. Ten DF-41s with 10 MIRVs each will require 100 interceptors. 100 DF-41s with 10 MIRVs each will require 1,000 interceptors. It is pointless to build a NMD against a near-peer opponent. The other side can easily overwhelm a NMD system.

I will leave it to you to decide whether America was safer prior to President Bush's withdrawal from the ABM treaty. Prior to 2002, China only had 20 DF-5s capable of a counter-strike against the United States. Forced to counter President Bush's NMD initiative, China is on its way to becoming armed with an ever-increasing number of MIRVs.





China's DF-41 ICBM is capable of carrying 10 MIRVs.





Closer look at DF-41





DF-41 undergoing tests.





DF-41 spotted on public road in 2007.

*Jane's June 21, 2011 article on DF-41 ICBM*

DF-41 (CSS-X-10) (China) - Jane's Strategic Weapon Systems

"*DF-41 (CSS-X-10) (China)...*

*Type*

Inter-continental range, road/rail mobile, solid propellant, single warhead or MIRV-capable ballistic missile.

*Development*

The Chinese are believed to have started the design and development of the Dong Feng-41 (DF-41) in 1986, with the operational requirement to have a solid-propellant, road mobile, ballistic missile with a *range of 12,000 km* to replace the CSS-4 (DF-5 and DF-5A) liquid-propellant missiles. The development for DF-41 is believed to be managed by the China Aerospace Sciences and Industry Corporation (CASIC), Beijing (it was the First Academy of the Ministry of Aerospace Industries). The flight test programme is managed by the 2nd Artillery Corps, based at the Wuzhai test centre in Shanxi province. There has been one reported ground test and a simulated cold launch in October 1999, but no test flights to date, although a test was reported to have been in preparation in September 2001. Original reports stated that DF-41 used the first two stages of the DF-31, with a lengthened third stage, but it is now believed that this description referred to the DF-31A, and that the DF-41 is a new design. It is believed that the NATO designator is CSS-X-10. Reports in 1996 suggested that DF-41 would have between two and nine Multiple Independently Targeted Re-entry Vehicle (MIRV) warheads, but it is possible that the initial build missiles will have provision for either a single warhead or *up to 10 MIRV*. In 2001 both rail-car and cross-country Transporter-Erector-Launcher (TEL) projects were noted for DF-31, and it is presumed that these might also be adapted later for DF-41. These launchers appeared to use a rail-car."

----------

*MIRVed Julang-2 being launched*

China Shows Seaborne Muscle | The Right Guy on The Left Coast at Hypocrisy.com

"China Shows Seaborne Muscle
May 11th, *2009* &#8226; Richard Cochrane






China&#8217;s state-run television has broadcast the first images of the new JL-2 long-range submarine-launched ballistic missile to be deployed aboard the new Type 094 ballistic missile submarine.

The JL-2 photos were broadcast on CCTV in connection with the PLA Navy&#8217;s anniversary, which included a massive show of naval forces including new submarines near Hainan Island in the South China Sea.

*According to photo analyses, the JL-2 appeared to be launched from a Type 094 submarine based on its cold launch from an underwater tube.* The distance from the missile and what appears to be periscope and antennae suggest that it is not what had previously been used for JL-2 test launches, a PLAN Golf class conventional missile submarine obtained from the former Soviet Union.

*&#8220;What is interesting about this missile shape is the very blunt nose structure,&#8221; said Richard Fisher, a China military analyst at the International Strategy and Assessment Center.*

*&#8220;This would be consistent with the carriage of multiple warheads. Previously, Asian military sources have commented that the JL-2 could carry three or four warheads. To extend its range, this missile likely uses an aerospike, as does the U.S. Trident SLBM,&#8221; he said. The aerospike engine maintains its efficiency across a wide range of altitudes through the use of an altitude compensating nozzle.*

Fisher said that so far there have been no reports indicating the JL-2 has been successfully launched to its full range, which may be between 7,000 and 8,000 kilometers.

&#8220;However, it appears that the PLA may seek to divide its early enlarged &#8216;minimum&#8217; deterrent of about 120 missiles between the Navy and the Second Artillery. This will serve to focus even greater Chinese and U.S. attentions on the new PLAN SSBN base on Hainan Island, which may host most of the estimated five 094 SSBNs,&#8221; he said."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2005/j...1-102521-5027r/

"China advances missile program
By Bill Gertz
10:25 p.m., Tuesday, June 21, *2005*

*China has successfully flight-tested a submarine-launched missile that U.S. officials say marks a major advance in Beijing's long-range nuclear program.*

"This is a significant milestone in their effort to develop strategic weapons," said a U.S. official familiar with reports of the test.

*U.S. intelligence agencies monitored the flight test of a JL-2 missile about 10 days ago, officials said.*

*The missile was launched from a Chinese submarine near the port of Qingdao and was tracked to a desert impact point in western China several thousand miles away, the officials said.*

*The Air Force's National Air Intelligence Center reported that the JL-2 "will, for the first time, allow Chinese [missile submarines] to target portions of the United States from operating areas located near the Chinese coast."*

The JL-2 is estimated to have a range of up to 6,000 miles, enough to hit targets in the United States.

*A defense official said the missile test was a major step forward in China's strategic nuclear missile program and shows an improved capability to produce and launch submarine-launched missiles. "It was a successful test," this official said.
*
The JL-2 is a submarine version of the DF-31 land-based missile."

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## marshall

FairAndUnbiased said:


> US in the past always said China only has 10 nukes that can strike US, so US can attack China with impunity.


Russia has over 5000 strategic nukes of which over 1000 are on ICBMs or loadable on long range bombers. The US has been overtly trying to weaken and encircle Russia for over 20 years. China had been estimated to have around ~20 ICBMs for the last 20 odd years and they have received similar treatment over the same time period. As long as China has enough nukes to prevent an American 1st strike, it is enough. The US won't even attack North Korea who have ZERO ICBMs so what does that tell you? I'm not saying China shouldn't have enough nukes to kill off at least 75% of the American population if America is insane enough to launch a 1st strike. What I'm saying is, it will never come to that so why waste resources on it? Let the Americans bleed themselves further while China gains more and more power, relatively speaking, so that it will hopefully someday be able to help pull those subjugated countries from under America's thumb.


----------



## Sasquatch

beijing consensus said:


> with close to 3000 warheads, china has alot more megatons of firepower.



The 240-400 claimed by the west is lie, it's much higher not 3000 maybe between 1000-1500.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## marshall

Martian2 said:


> 2. From the DF-5s, there are another 20 warheads with 4 to 5 megatons. *Richard Fisher* has reported on the deployment of a DF-5B with 5 or 6 MIRVs. We do not know whether the DF-5B is a new missile or a retrofitted and upgraded DF-5.
> ...
> "...According to the *Cox Committee Report*, suspicion of China's nuclear espionage started after the *U.S. government realized that information derived from Chinese tests in 1992-1996 were similar to U.S. nuclear designs.* This similarity, combined with other information derived from classified sources, led the Cox Committee to claim that China had stolen several bomb designs, including the U.S.' most advanced W-88 design and a design for an enhanced radiation weapon (neutron bomb). Yet, the *Cox Report has been severely criticized by both experts and officials in the United States as a political document that has several technical inaccuracies.*"
> ...
> Commercial Space Cooperation | The Heritage Foundation)
> ...
> (See The Jamestown Foundation: single
> ...
> (See Shakeup of Top Chinese Military Command)
> ...
> (See Commercial Space Cooperation | The Heritage Foundation)
> ...
> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2005/j...1-102521-5027r/


I applaud the amount of research you put into your analysis. Having said that, I will point out a fatal weakness with your argument here. The majority of your sources are from well known American right-wing neocon think tanks and related individuals, some of whom are on the same payroll as such ideological news sources as Fox News.

- Richard Fisher
- Cox Report
- Heritage Foundation
- Jamestown
- NewsMax
- Washington Times

...this is a veritable list of the who's who of biased neo-conservative anti-China hawks in America. As they say, garbage-in garbage-out. I'm not saying everything they say is garbage but you have to take everything they say with a huge salt dome of salt. They are afterall not much more than glorified analysts working with mostly publicly available information. Bottom line is, they are wishful thinkers parading their wishful thinking as facts, something that I absolutely detest. Does that mean I have ever believed China only had ~20 ICBMs the last 20 years? No, but that also does not mean we go to the opposite extreme and suddenly place China on par with Russia & America because American strategists decided this year that China is now becoming a peer competitor deserving of even more demonization and that it's time to turn up the China fear factor another notch.


----------



## FairAndUnbiased

marshall said:


> Russia has over 5000 strategic nukes of which over 1000 are on ICBMs or loadable on long range bombers. The US has been overtly trying to weaken and encircle Russia for over 20 years. China had been estimated to have around ~20 ICBMs for the last 20 odd years and they have received similar treatment over the same time period. As long as China has enough nukes to prevent an American 1st strike, it is enough. The US won't even attack North Korea who have ZERO ICBMs so what does that tell you? I'm not saying China shouldn't have enough nukes to kill off at least 75% of the American population if America is insane enough to launch a 1st strike. What I'm saying is, it will never come to that so why waste resources on it? Let the Americans bleed themselves further while China gains more and more power, relatively speaking, so that it will hopefully someday be able to help pull those subjugated countries from under America's thumb.



Lower bounds for number of SLBMs China owns is 48; this is public knowledge with 4 nuclear missile subs with 12 missiles per sub. For land based ICBMs, the lower bound is 75 (assuming there is exactly 1 DF-41 missile). That is 123 ICBMs.

Second Artillery Corps (China) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The true number is perhaps double or triple due to detection failures of TELs, intelligence underestimates from the past decade and of course, tunnels with rail or road mobile ICBMs that do not come to the surface. Let's say double.

There are also 80 DF-21 IRBMs publically. Let's just say double, with the same accounting used before.

That would be 160 IRBMs and 246 ICBMs. With just 3 warheads per missile on average, a reasonable estimate, that would be 1200 warheads.


----------



## feilong

Guys, there is a rumour about China is building a multi ICBM with to have 20 MIRV nuclear head. If this is true please confirm.

---------- Post added at 11:51 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:50 AM ----------

China is planning to build submarine that will have 20~30 missile in it submarine, dont know if they will build it or not.


----------



## feilong

Hu Songshan said:


> The 240-400 claimed by the west is lie, it's much higher not 3000 maybe between 1000-1500.


 
1000~ 1500 could wiped off the whole world for sure, but 1000~1500 I doubt china would have more not 3000. Time will tell when START come in place with china.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Martian2

Martian2 said:


> I have just uploaded a video on the launch and impact of an American thermonuclear missile. My brother spent days producing the video by using base footage from the United States Air Force and Northrop Grumman.
> 
> Excluding Hollywood movie trailers, I think it is the most entertaining video on YouTube. I hope you enjoy it.
> 
> You might be wondering what a video on an American thermonuclear missile is doing in a thread on China's thermonuclear weaponry. The flight stages of a Chinese DF-31A intercontinental ballistic missile are identical to those of an American Minuteman III missile traveling in the opposite direction.
> 
> This video is intended to be both highly entertaining and instructive.
> 
> [*The video above works.* I re-uploaded the video to address a minor technical issue.]



I hope all of you had a chance to watch my brother's video on "America's Thermonuclear Strike." There are three important facts you should have learned from Northrop Grumman's explanation of ICBM flight stages.

At "T+19" (or 19 seconds after ignition), the ICBM is traveling at supersonic speed. At "T+39," the ICBM is traveling at three times the speed of sound. When an ICBM is launched from America's heartland in the Midwest or China's heartland in Tibet or Xinjiang, no known technology can stop a Chinese DF-31A or American Minuteman III.

Furthermore, watch carefully during the "post boost flight" as the warhead is maneuvered into position at a "pre-determined window in space." The flight of an ICBM is not a mere parabola. The "post boost flight" shows that we have no idea where the thermonuclear warhead is located or the trajectory it will assume upon reentry.

To make things even more complicated, a modern warhead design (not shown in this video) has its own course-altering navigation "jets." The point is that after you watch my brother's video on "America's Thermonuclear Strike," you should conclude that no current or foreseeable technology can realistically defend against Chinese DF-31A or American Minuteman III MIRVed warheads.

Also, my previous claim of a Mach 10 terminal phase for a modern ICBM warhead is too low. Here's a citation from the Federation of American Scientists for a Mach 23 terminal phase for a Minuteman III warhead during reentry.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/icbm/lgm-30_3.htm

"Speed:	Approximately 15,000 mph (Mach 23 or 24,000 kph) at burnout"

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## feilong

Martian2 you forgot to mention that all Indian fans here claim India have the technology to defeat multi MIRV warhead, it is right all my friends india? Lol kidding

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Martian2

Marshall thinks Richard Fisher, Jane's Defence, and most western publications are engaged in a conspiracy against China by inflating China's thermonuclear arsenal. Let's see for ourselves whether my minimum estimate of 1,924 Chinese thermonuclear warheads makes sense.

1. From the DF-31As alone, there should be 144 ICBM thermonuclear warheads.






China showed us 12 DF-31A TELs at the 2009 Chinese military parade.

We know China launches satellites on 15 to 20 Long March/DF-31A rockets each year. Britain`s International Institute of Strategic Studies' claim that China is adding a brigade or 12 DF-31As to its arsenal each year looks reasonable. Since China manufactures 15 to 20 Long March rockets each year, China can easily produce 12 DF-31A missiles each year.

2. From the DF-5s, there are another 20 ICBMs with 4 to 5 megatons each. Richard Fisher has reported on the deployment of a DF-5B with 5 or 6 MIRVs. We do not know whether the DF-5B is a new missile or a retrofitted and upgraded DF-5.

Since we're trying to make a reasonable minimum estimate, we will just assume the DF-5Bs are upgrades of the existing DF-5s. The sum of 20 upgraded DF-5s is 100 warheads.





DF-5 had its first flight in 1971 and has been in service since 1981.

The Pentagon claims China built 20 DF-5s and then just stopped. Essentially, the Pentagon is claiming China never built a single additional DF-5 for 30 years from 1981 to 2011. Who believes that China has been an angel and did not build another DF-5 for thirty years?!

3. There is at least a dozen DF-31, which can reach Alaska, Hawaii, or the northwestern United States. This is another 12 ICBM warheads. Since the DF-31As are reportedly MIRVed, we will assume the DF-31s are also MIRVed with 3 warheads each. The total is 36 DF-31 warheads.





Here, we see nine DF-31s; which were first seen at China's 1999 military parade.

The Pentagon claims China only built 12 DF-31s by 1999 and just stopped. Let me get this straight. China spent billions of dollars to develop its most advanced solid-fueled ICBM by 1999 and only built 12?! Are you going to believe the Pentagon propaganda?

An U.S. general testified in front of Congress that China was at least 10 years away from building a conventional ASAT missile in 2007. That very afternoon, China successfully destroyed a weather satellite with an ASAT weapon. So much for military intelligence at the Pentagon.

4. According to Jane's Defence, the "Chinese are believed to have started the design and development of the Dong Feng-41 (DF-41) in 1986." It's been over 15 years. China has shown us an operational and deployed DF-31A. There is no reason to believe that the DF-41 has not been fully developed and become operational. It's just a longer and slightly wider missile.

The DF-41 could easily vault China into eventual parity with the United States in the total number of warheads. Ten DF-41s result in 100 150-kiloton warheads. One hundred DF-41s would increase China's nuclear arsenal by 1,000 ICBM warheads.





Since 1986, according to Jane's Defence, China has been developing the DF-41 ICBM (which is capable of carrying 12 MIRVs).

According to GlobalSecurity, "it is anticipated that the DF-41 will be delivered to the 2d Artillery around the year 2010." In other words, the DF-41 has probably already been deployed.

Why should we believe GlobalSecurity? Let's use our common sense. The DF-41 has been in development for over 15 years. It can't stay in development for perpetuity. Given China's previous mastery of the DF-31 and DF-31A, fifteen years should be plenty of time to build a longer-range DF-41.

5. No one knows how many ICBMs China is hiding in its 5,000km Underground Great Wall. I think a sensible person would not claim that China spent ten years building the Underground Great Wall to only place an ICBM every 100km. Similarly, most reasonable people would not claim that China is hiding one ICBM every 1km.

As a rough estimate, a reasonable person would most likely assume that China is hiding one ICBM every 10km. 5,000km / 10km per hidden ICBM = 500 ICBMs hidden in China's Underground Great Wall. Assuming each ICBM is MIRVed with three warheads, I estimate China is hiding 1,500 ICBM warheads in its Underground Great Wall.





China spent ten years building its "'Underground Great Wall' that stretches for more than 5,000km in the Hebei region of northern China."

The Pentagon currently assigns ZERO ICBMs to China's Underground Great Wall. As best as I can understand, their logic is "well, we can't see it...so we're going to say there are no ICBMs there." Seriously, what kind of military assessment is that? It's just as bad as the Pentagon's ASAT assessment.

*The 5,000km underground complex was specifically built for a Chinese thermonuclear counterstrike.*

I estimate there are probably 500 ICBMs hidden in the 5,000km facility in Hebei, China. I want to mention that China doesn't need 500 launch silos. A missile can be fired from a silo and another missile can be reloaded in its place. Let's assume China plans to reload five missiles for each silo. This means China would only need 100 silos over a 5,000km distance.

I can assure you the claim of only 20 Chinese ICBM silos is ludicrous. The length of a DF-21 IRBM is 11m. The length of a DF-31 ICBM is 13m. If a silo is dug a little deeper and wider, it can accommodate an ICBM; instead of an IRBM.

In the following video, which encompasses only a few mountains, I counted at least 30 silos. We know from a Chinese-state television CCTV broadcast on March 24, 2008 that China has built a 5,000km (or 3,000-mile) missile complex under a mountain range. If a few mountains contain 30 silos, imagine how many silos are hidden along 5,000km.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTJF3wa12Os

6. China has four Type 094 Jin-class ballistic missile submarines (SSBN). Each Type 094 SSBN carries 12 JL-2 SLBMs (submarine-launched ballistic missiles). Since the Julang-2 is based on DF-31 technology, we will follow Jane Defence's report that the JL-2 is MIRVed with 3 or 4 warheads. Using our standard 3 MIRVs for a DF-31A or JL-2 missile, we arrive at 144 warheads (e.g. 4 Type 094 SSBNs x 12 JL-2s per SSBN x 3 MIRVs per JL-2).

Therefore, China's four Type 094 SSBNs carry a total of 144 JL-2 warheads that can strike portions of the United States.





Here, we see two Type 094 Jin-class ballistic missile submarines (SSBN). Two more SSBNs for a total of four Type 094 Jin-class SSBNs seem perfectly reasonable.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## feilong

Martian2 gave a great estimate of 1,924 nukes china now, but in future I believe China will have technology to build more advance nukes which 1 missile can carry 100 MIRV(this only my guessed) warhead to cut down the number nukes.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Martian2

Federation of American Scientists states that an ICBM warhead in its terminal phase travels at Mach 23. (Source: LGM-30 Minuteman III ICBM - United States Nuclear Forces)

When I first saw the Mach 23 speed of a terminal-phase ICBM warhead, I asked myself whether it made sense. I went through a series of calculations to determine whether I agreed with the Mach 23 citation.

The Earth has a radius of 4,000 miles. The circumference of a circle is 2*pi*radius = 6.28 * 4,000 miles = 25,000 miles. The United States, China, and Russia/Soviet Union are all in the Northern Hemisphere. Therefore the distance from the United States to China is less than half of the circumference, which means 12,500 miles.

During the Cold War or even today, it is common knowledge that an ICBM requires half-an-hour (or thirty minutes) to strike its target on the other side of the world. The old Soviet Union was closer to the United States than China and we'll shorten the 12,500 miles to roughly 10,000 miles (e.g. approximate distance from Iowa to Moscow).

To traverse 10,000 miles in roughly half-an-hour, an American ICBM would have to travel approximately 20,000 miles per hour. Mach 23 is 15,000 miles per hour. I had independently concluded that the Federation of American Scientists' citation was correct.

Like myself, many of you probably made the same calculation in your head fifteen seconds after seeing the Federation of American Scientists' citation of a Mach 23 terminal phase. I went to the trouble of typing up this post for the readers who aren't mathematically inclined.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Martian2

*Three clear pictures of DF-41 canister*





According to Jane's Defense, China's DF-41 ICBM is capable of carrying 10 MIRVs. (See http://articles.janes.com/articles/Janes-S...-X10-China.html)





Closer look at DF-41





DF-41 seen on a public road. *Look carefully at the unique double-ring with multiple horizontal bars on the end of the DF-41 canister. It is the same design in both the top and bottom pictures.*

[Note: There are two distinctive pictures and three total.]

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## marshall

Martian2 said:


> Marshall thinks Richard Fisher, Jane's Defence, and most western publications are engaged in a conspiracy against China by inflating China's thermonuclear arsenal. Let's see for ourselves whether my minimum estimate of 1,924 Chinese thermonuclear warheads makes sense.


I did not say, nor did I suggest that "most" western publications are engaged in a conspiracy against China. What I "*specifically*" said was that you unknowingly or perhaps purposely quoted well known right-wing American neocon think tanks and analysts who have a right-wing neocon anti-China agenda. Pretty much you're entire list of sources is a who's who of American right-wing conservative neocons which calls into doubt every conclusion you make because a large fraction of this information is exaggerated, some completely incorrect and some outright anti-China propaganda. I'm speaking about your quoted sources.




Martian2 said:


> We know China launches satellites on 15 to 20 Long March/DF-31A rockets each year. Britain`s International Institute of Strategic Studies' claim that China is adding a brigade or 12 DF-31As to its arsenal each year looks reasonable. Since China manufactures 15 to 20 Long March rockets each year, China can easily produce 12 DF-31A missiles each year.
> 
> 2. From the DF-5s, there are another 20 ICBMs with 4 to 5 megatons each. Richard Fisher has reported on the deployment of a DF-5B with 5 or 6 MIRVs. We do not know whether the DF-5B is a new missile or a retrofitted and upgraded DF-5.


First of all, Long March rockets are not DF-31s. LOL That's like saying American Titan rockets are the same as a Minuteman missile. I do not know the reputation of this British source but I find these hard numbers of 15-20 DF-31 series annual production highly suspect and most probably a guess on their part. How would this private think tank be able to gain such highly confidential strategic information without access to China's military industrial complex, military satellite surveillance, Mi6, CIA, etc? Sources are critical when making assessments and the quality of an analysis is directly dependent on this. Not every person has the requisite rational mind to make common sense assessments which is why biased ideological sources like Fox News are considered a joke by serious analysts. I'm not saying Britain's "International Institute of Strategic Studies" is another Fox News but you have to question how a private think tank can come up with this sort of information which is a Chinese government secret when actual Western government intelligence sources with access to billion dollar budgets say otherwise. That also does not mean government intelligence sources are always correct. We must rationally discern what seems rational and what does not and this estimate of 15-20 produced DF-31s per year does not considering the nature and probability of how it was ascertained. There is a 2nd equally important reason concerning the DF-5s that I will address below.




Martian2 said:


> Since we're trying to make a reasonable minimum estimate, we will just assume the DF-5Bs are upgrades of the existing DF-5s. The sum of 20 upgraded DF-5s is 100 warheads.
> 
> DF-5 had its first flight in 1971 and has been in service since 1981.
> 
> The Pentagon claims China built 20 DF-5s and then just stopped. Essentially, the Pentagon is claiming China never built a single additional DF-5 for 30 years from 1981 to 2011. Who believes that China has been an angel and did not build another DF-5 for thirty years?!


The DF-5 was not actually ready for deployment until after 1981 so series production didn't begin until that time. The 20 odd DF-5 series missiles are said to have ended in the late 1990s with the upgraded DF-5As having a probable 3 warhead MIRV. The end of the DF-5 production is very probable because it is a liquid fueled missile that requires up to an hour for launch. Considering China's 2nd strike posture, this would make this missile vulnerable to a 1st strike which is why the DF-41 solid-fueled ICBM has been emphasized as the DF-5 series replacement ever since. Aside from this, American and Soviet relations improved dramatically by the late 1980s and by the early 1990s, the strategic imperative to stockpile nuclear weapons was mostly gone with the end of the Cold War. This does not mean there was no need for them, but the immediacy was gone and there was already enough to serve as a deterrent. China's stance has always been to never launch a preemptive 1st strike unlike the US and the Soviets. Besides, mass producing a highly vulnerable platform (DF-5s) that was not immediately necessary when a vastly more capable road mobile solid fueled alternative (DF-41s) was on the clear horizon made mass producing the DF-5 illogical.




Martian2 said:


> 3. There is at least a dozen DF-31, which can reach Alaska, Hawaii, or the northwestern United States. This is another 12 ICBM warheads. Since the DF-31As are reportedly MIRVed, we will assume the DF-31s are also MIRVed with 3 warheads each. The total is 36 DF-31 warheads.
> 
> The Pentagon claims China only built 12 DF-31s by 1999 and just stopped. Let me get this straight. China spent billions of dollars to develop its most advanced solid-fueled ICBM by 1999 and only built 12?! Are you going to believe the Pentagon propaganda


It's not propaganda, this is a rational analysis by the Pentagon backed up by sub-meter military satellite intelligence. The US has had sub-meter resolution military satellites in orbit for decades now. The Gambit series satellites are said to have resolution in the centimeters. Besides, the DF-31 was not operational until the early 2000s and its range is only suitable for targeting Eurasian targets, specifically European targets. What is the strategic necessity to target nominally non-threatening European powers? I'd say it's close to nil, except in the case of Russia where it is practically nil. The fact that the DF-31s range overlaps to fringe American territory does not mean it was designed to target the US. For that job, the JL-2 and DF-41 are more suitable and we should stick to what is reality and not what is hypothetical but improbable.




Martian2 said:


> 4. According to Jane's Defence, the "Chinese are believed to have started the design and development of the Dong Feng-41 (DF-41) in 1986." It's been over 15 years. China has shown us an operational and deployed DF-31A. There is no reason to believe that the DF-41 has not been fully developed and become operational. It's just a longer and slightly wider missile.
> 
> The DF-41 could easily vault China into eventual parity with the United States in the total number of warheads. Ten DF-41s result in 100 150-kiloton warheads. One hundred DF-41s would increase China's nuclear arsenal by 1,000 ICBM warheads.
> 
> Since 1986, according to Jane's Defence, China has been developing the DF-41 ICBM (which is capable of carrying 12 MIRVs).
> 
> According to GlobalSecurity, "it is anticipated that the DF-41 will be delivered to the 2d Artillery around the year 2010." In other words, the DF-41 has probably already been deployed.


Agreed, but we are only at the beginning of 2012 so this hypothetical mass production of ICBMs could not be possible even with the successful development of the DF-41 because there simply hasn't been enough time. Considering the actual completion timelines of China's various nuclear missile platforms, the supposed thousands of deployed warheads makes no sense.




Martian2 said:


> 5. No one knows how many ICBMs China is hiding in its 5,000km Underground Great Wall. I think a sensible person would not claim that China spent ten years building the Underground Great Wall to only place an ICBM every 100km. Similarly, most reasonable people would not claim that China is hiding one ICBM every 1km.


As I have previously pointed out, I dispute the extent, not existence, of these 5000km of tunnels. To serve as underground shelter from nuclear bombardment, they would have to absolutely be constructed at the very least at least 400 feet, at the minimum, below ground within granite bedrock if they expected to serve their purpose of surviving a preemptive 1st strike. The size of these sorts of tunnels would need to be comparable to 2-lane highway tunnels in order to allow TELs large enough to launch DF-41 ICBMs. The time to tunnel through granite mountains for highways measures in the years, sometimes over 10 years for tunnels of 10kms or more. Now, consider that they claimed that these large tunnels used for the purpose I just mentioned only began in the early 1990s and it's OBVIOUS that it is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE to have 5000km of tunnel built to the required standard that is needed to serve as underground nuclear bunkers for mobile ICBMs. Maybe they have some dirt covered tunnels 40 feet deep good enough for infantry troops but for road mobile ICBMs and 5000km of it? I call BS on this one and it's an easy call.




Martian2 said:


> As a rough estimate, a reasonable person would most likely assume that China is hiding one ICBM every 10km. 5,000km / 10km per hidden ICBM = 500 ICBMs hidden in China's Underground Great Wall. Assuming each ICBM is MIRVed with three warheads, I estimate China is hiding 1,500 ICBM warheads in its Underground Great Wall.


First, assuming the extent of these 5000kms of tunnel existed at the quality level required to house mobile TELs. Which opponents would this be designed for? I'd say it is either the Soviets/Russians or the USA. This would suggest TELs with either the DF-31A or DF-41. The DF-31 was only completed in the early 2000s and the DF-41 is yet to be confirmed as operational as of 2010. Considering the short time frame, your estimate is WAAAAYYYY off base even if assuming these missile platforms were in full production.




Martian2 said:


> The Pentagon currently assigns ZERO ICBMs to China's Underground Great Wall. As best as I can understand, their logic is "well, we can't see it...so we're going to say there are no ICBMs there." Seriously, what kind of military assessment is that? It's just as bad as the Pentagon's ASAT assessment.


As far as I know, there was no Pentagon ASAT assessment when it comes to China because China never overtly declared its intention to pursue one until the feat was already successful. In any case, that is beside the point because in the case of the Underground Great Wall, the missile platforms at China's disposal make the guesstimated number of deployed underground warheads extremely improbable unless there is some sort of extensive underground military industrial complex producing Long March size rockets en masse, something I think is....unlikely.




Martian2 said:


> I estimate there are probably 500 ICBMs hidden in the 5,000km facility in Hebei, China. I want to mention that China doesn't need 500 launch silos. A missile can be fired from a silo and another missile can be reloaded in its place. Let's assume China plans to reload five missiles for each silo. This means China would only need 100 silos over a 5,000km distance.


Fixed silos are perfect targets to be destroyed by American nukes. Why would China concentrate it's strategic assets in fixed locations to be destroyed in 1 go because they stockpiled their missiles at the same silo locations? That does not make sense. The whole purpose of mobile ICBM platforms is to disperse them so they are more survivable and can serve their purpose as the retaliation against a hostile preemptive nuclear strike by the Americans.




Martian2 said:


> In the following video, which encompasses only a few mountains, I counted at least 30 silos. We know from a Chinese-state television CCTV broadcast on March 24, 2008 that China has built a 5,000km (or 3,000-mile) missile complex under a mountain range. If a few mountains contain 30 silos, imagine how many silos are hidden along 5,000km.


I can assure you that sub-meter resolution military satellites can see the same silos that you see with Google Map. Hasn't it occurred to you that those silos might not actually contain any missiles? There's a reason why MIRVed missiles contain decoys. It is far more likely that there are alot of empty silos out in the open without camouflage along with alot of camouflaged silos with missiles hidden in forests that you will never see. Besides this, the reported reason for the Underground Great Wall is to house mobile ICBMs, so the point about silos around mountain ranges has nothing to do with the supposed 5000kms of tunnel.




Martian2 said:


> 6. China has four Type 094 Jin-class ballistic missile submarines (SSBN). Each Type 094 SSBN carries 12 JL-2 SLBMs (submarine-launched ballistic missiles). Since the Julang-2 is based on DF-31 technology, we will follow Jane Defence's report that the JL-2 is MIRVed with 3 or 4 warheads. Using our standard 3 MIRVs for a DF-31A or JL-2 missile, we arrive at 144 warheads (e.g. 4 Type 094 SSBNs x 12 JL-2s per SSBN x 3 MIRVs per JL-2).


You're on to something here. This is the most probable and the most significant part of China's nuclear deterrent. Whether the JL-2s are MIRVed is a subject for debate. Rumour has it that these have between 3-12 warheads of varying yield. I find the 12 warheads estimate to be a guesstimate but I agree it is most likely MIRVed.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## below_freezing

Marshall, I read FnB's analysis. Do you dispute the estimate of 160 IRBMs and 246 ICBMs?

I disagree with averaging it out to 3 warheads per missile. For IRBMs I'll go with an average of 0.5 per missile and for ICBMs, 2 per missile. That's still 572 warheads, with average yield of 0.5 megatons, which is quite reasonable and actually lower than the 294 megaton yield given by the source.


----------



## marshall

FairAndUnbiased said:


> Lower bounds for number of SLBMs China owns is 48; this is public knowledge with 4 nuclear missile subs with 12 missiles per sub. For land based ICBMs, the lower bound is 75 (assuming there is exactly 1 DF-41 missile). That is 123 ICBMs.
> 
> The true number is perhaps double or triple due to detection failures of TELs, intelligence underestimates from the past decade and of course, tunnels with rail or road mobile ICBMs that do not come to the surface. Let's say double.
> 
> There are also 80 DF-21 IRBMs publically. Let's just say double, with the same accounting used before.
> 
> That would be 160 IRBMs and 246 ICBMs. With just 3 warheads per missile on average, a reasonable estimate, that would be 1200 warheads.





below_freezing said:


> Marshall, I read FnB's analysis. Do you dispute the estimate of 160 IRBMs and 246 ICBMs?
> 
> I disagree with averaging it out to 3 warheads per missile. For IRBMs I'll go with an average of 0.5 per missile and for ICBMs, 2 per missile. That's still 572 warheads, with average yield of 0.5 megatons, which is quite reasonable and actually lower than the 294 megaton yield given by the source.


FnB's analysis is more reasonable but at the end of the day, most estimates by the public concerning China's strategic nuclear forces are guesstimates including my own. Having said that, there are some things that can be speculated with great certainty. Specifically, when it comes to the estimated number of DF-31/JL-2 and DF-41 series ICBMs, it is extremely unlikely that these would number in the hundreds given the short time since they became operational. In the case of the DF-31s, it went operational in 2003. The DF-41 hasn't even been confirmed as operationally active yet even though it was speculated to be so by 2010. Concerning the JL-2 sub based DF-31A based variant, it is well known that the JL-2 is still not mature. Only last week they test launched yet another batch of JL-2s. Just from the operational timeline of the DF-31s and DF-41s, we know there cannot possibly be a large number of these, especially in the case of the DF-41s. As I said in my previous message, the DF-31s range would make these the ideal strategic deterrence against distant Eurasian opponents, most likely in Europe. The fact that potential nuclear threats from those countries are next to nil, China does not need many DF-31s, especially given that they do have enough range to target anything other than the fringe areas of the US, who are the only realistic threat that China might need to defend against at such long distances. In that case, the DF-41 would be the strategic deterrence for this case, *NOT* the DF-5, which is vulnerable and easily destroyed with a 1st strike. The DF-41 as I said hasn't had enough time to be produced in significant numbers, assuming it is even operational. In terms of China's land based ICBMs, I doubt China has more than 50 missiles, which would be mostly DF-31s and a few legacy DF-5s, probably all MIRVed with 3 or more warheads.

Concerning China's sub-based ICBMs, there is a claim of four operational 094 Jins. However, when you look at the so-called proof, there really are only a handful of sightings of the 094 of which only 2 are confirmed. All other sightings have been speculations of being different 094s when they are probably just the same boats. I question the existence of more than 2 094s at this time for this reason. Aside from this, the JL-2 sub launched ICBM is speculated to have entered service in 2009 at the earliest. This hasn't been confirmed and only last week China did another round of launch tests of the JL-2. I suspect the 094s are undergoing sea trials while awaiting the successful certification of the JL-2s. It is possible that the JL-2 and 094s were fully operational as of 2011 but without any reasonable proof, it's a guess and poor speculation. At best, I would place this at 24 JL-2s, at worst 0 JL-2s. The only confirmed SLBMs are the JL-1s on the 092s which are usually moored in harbor. Given this information, I would place the ICBMs at somewhere between 50-74 missiles with somewhere between 150-222 warheads.

Concerning IRBMs and MRBMs, there are no CONFIRMED numbers of these missiles. There was a quote that it was public knowledge that China had at least 80 of these? I don't know where that information came from but I doubt the Chinese government would release any such information. In any case, I doubt China has ONLY 80 IRBMs and MRBMs because these missiles have been operational for a long time now and there is a minor threat to China from a 1st strike by India eventually. Unlike the United States, although it is a distant possibility, it is very unlikely the US would ever launch a 1st strike despite having made several such threats against China in the past. At the end of the day, Americans are rational people with a reasonably rational leadership despite the large number of religious fundamentalist Christians, war mongering right-wing neocons and tarot card reading leaders it may have. I believe China understands this. However, when it comes to India, that is a whole other story. India is full of self-hating low-self esteem jealous racists who have something to prove, to themselves and the world. Although this sort of Indian psychology is mostly restricted to the English educated elites, the fact is, those English educated elites dominate almost all of the top leadership of India. Every single strategic nuclear platform that India develops is usually accompanied with an obligatory public statement about its intended use against China. I'm sure this sort of hostile flippant attitude regarding the use of nuclear weapons hasn't gone unnoticed by China's leadership. My guess is, China is mounting a buildup of MIRV IRBMs to break India and dismember it in the case that a future Indian political leader and/or military commander launches a preemptive nuclear strike against China. The danger in this scenario is that China would be blamed for an Indian preemptive first strike, just as China was blamed for India's hostile "Forward Policy" that caused the 1962 Sino-Indian War, and threaten retaliation against China if it proceeded to dismember India into independent states. However, nuclear retaliation on America's part would be unthinkable for an ally of convenience such as India which is basically a stooge to contain China. The honor of unconditional protection is only afforded to American allies such as Israel, UK, Canada, Australia, etc, so ICBMs would never enter into this equation.

If I were to guesstimate the number of IRBM/MRBMs, I would place this anywhere between 150-240 with the bulk of those having a single warhead payload, I'll just say 1/3 are MIRVed with 3 warheads...

ICBM: 50-74 _(3 warhead MIRV)_ - (35 DF-31s, 15 DF-5s, 0 DF-41s, 0-24 JL-2)
IRBM/MRBM: 150-240 _(1/3rd 3 warhead MIRV)_ - (mixed DF-3/DF-4/DF-21)

...That adds up to anywhere between 200-314 missiles and 400-622 warheads for total IRBM/MRBM/ICBMs. Again I give the disclaimer that this is an educated guess with limited confirmed information, aside from the details concerning the ICBMs.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Martian2

China has been building deep underground tunnels to protect its second-strike thermonuclear capability for 45 years. For your information, 1967 is the year in which China detonated its first hydrogen bomb with a 3.3 megaton warhead. It makes sense for Chinese leaders to start building underground tunnels soon thereafter to protect China's thermonuclear weaponry.





In this photograph, we see two Chinese ballistic missiles on military trains being transported in an underground tunnel. The Pentagon claims there are no Chinese ballistic missiles in the 5,000km Underground Great Wall. Do your eyes agree?

China has labored for 45 years to create the world's most complex and extensive underground facilities to protect its strategic missiles. How many ICBMs do you think China's leaders are hiding in the Underground Great Wall? Are you willing to believe the Pentagon propaganda of no Chinese ICBMs in those tunnels?

I don't believe the Pentagon estimate of zero. An estimate of 1,000 ICBMs is probably on the high side. Why not split the difference and make a rough estimate of 500 ICBMs? Put three MIRVs on each ICBM and you arrive at a reasonable estimate of 1,500 thermonuclear warheads. That would justify 45 years of hard work and the money spent.

[Note: Thank you to Richard Fisher for the second picture via Chinese Internet.]

----------

Regarding the exact identity of the two ballistic missiles in the underground tunnel, I would venture they are DF-5 ICBMs with 12,000 to 15,000km range, which can counterstrike anywhere in the United States.





China's DF-5 ICBM with a 4 to 5 megaton warhead or 6 MIRVs.

Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DF-5 with footnotes to primary sources

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## marshall

Martian2 said:


> China has been building deep underground tunnels to protect its second-strike thermonuclear capability for 45 years. For your information, 1967 is the year in which China detonated its first hydrogen bomb with a 3.3 megaton warhead. It makes sense for Chinese leaders to start building underground tunnels soon thereafter to protect China's thermonuclear weaponry.


As I've said many times, it's IMPOSSIBLE that China was able to build 5000kms of tunnels of the kind that could be used to house and reasonably protect ICBM sized mobile missiles. China didn't have mobile TELs for ICBMs until the 1990s and only recently could be speculated to have completed development of a true solid-fuel ICBM, the DF-41. It is a public fact that China did not begin constructing the sorts of tunnels that you have pictured...the deep, dry, granite walled, road linked tunnels until the early 1990s. These sorts of tunnels use the same kind of tunneling equipment used for highway tunnels and underground mining. In other words, this claim of *5000kms of tunnel of THIS KIND....is B*LLSHeeT!* As I said, if there are 5000kms of tunnels, they can only be the shallow dirt covered variety with narrow walls unsuitable for protection from nuclear 1st strike and too small to allow underground transit of ICBM capable TELs, which are bigger than the biggest 18 wheeler and requiring reinforced roadbed for such heavy vehicle traffic.

As far as I know, the Chinese sources never claimed the 5000kms are all suitable for underground mobile ICBM TEL transit. It specifically says tunneling began in the 1960s and that ONLY in the 1990s did they begin to construct tunnels that were of the kind they suggested can be used for hiding mobile missiles. Constructing those sorts of tunnels would proceed at approximately the same speed as creating a 2-lane highway tunnel. That means it would take forever. It's very likely that of these 5000kms of tunnel, something like 4750kms would be shallow dirt covered tunnels for sheltering infantry and some mechanized units while another 250kms would be of the type constructed from the 1990s onward capable of holding mobile ICBMs.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## TruthSeeker

No state power is going to attack China (or the USA). It's ridiculous to even worry about it. The only use of nuclear weapons we will see is by non-state terrorists who hold no territory, and by insane nations (like Iran). And, as far as terrorist go, the only question is whether or not the state-sponsors of terrorist groups, like Iran, can hide their transfer of nuclear materials or weapons sufficiently well to escape retaliation. If the US is attacked by a dirty nuclear weapon, we should just annihilate Iran first and ask questions later.....

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## marshall

TruthSeeker said:


> No state power is going to attack China (or the USA). It's ridiculous to even worry about it. The only use of nuclear weapons we will see is by non-state terrorists who hold no territory, and by insane nations (like Iran). And, as far as terrorist go, the only question is whether or not the state-sponsors of terrorist groups, like Iran, can hide their transfer of nuclear materials or weapons sufficiently well to escape retaliation. If the US is attacked by a dirty nuclear weapon, we should just annihilate Iran first and ask questions later.....


The United States needs a leader like Ron Paul so badly. I am truly saddened by the state of affairs there.


----------



## TruthSeeker

marshall said:


> The United States needs a leader like Ron Paul so badly. I am truly saddened by the state of affairs there.



I appreciate Ron Paul's "isolationism" a great deal. It would greatly benefit the American people to declare a two generation holiday from being the world's policeman. That's about how long it would take for the "world" to screw itself up so bad that it needed a policeman to bring order again. BUT, maybe the PRC could do that instead of us. I'm sure the PRC's methods would be highly effective in bring about a "new world of order".

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Martian2

Martian2 said:


> China has been building deep underground tunnels to protect its second-strike thermonuclear capability for 45 years. For your information, 1967 is the year in which China detonated its first hydrogen bomb with a 3.3 megaton warhead. It makes sense for Chinese leaders to start building underground tunnels soon thereafter to protect China's thermonuclear weaponry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In this photograph, we see two Chinese ballistic missiles on military trains being transported in an underground tunnel. The Pentagon claims there are no Chinese ballistic missiles in the 5,000km Underground Great Wall. Do your eyes agree?
> 
> China has labored for 45 years to create the world's most complex and extensive underground facilities to protect its strategic missiles. How many ICBMs do you think China's leaders are hiding in the Underground Great Wall? Are you willing to believe the Pentagon propaganda of no Chinese ICBMs in those tunnels?
> 
> I don't believe the Pentagon estimate of zero. An estimate of 1,000 ICBMs is probably on the high side. Why not split the difference and make a rough estimate of 500 ICBMs? Put three MIRVs on each ICBM and you arrive at a reasonable estimate of 1,500 thermonuclear warheads. That would justify 45 years of hard work and the money spent.
> 
> [Note: Thank you to Richard Fisher for the second picture via Chinese Internet.]
> 
> ----------
> 
> Regarding the exact identity of the two ballistic missiles in the underground tunnel, I would venture they are DF-5 ICBMs with 12,000 to 15,000km range, which can counterstrike anywhere in the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> China's DF-5 ICBM with a 4 to 5 megaton warhead or 6 MIRVs.
> 
> Reference: DF-5 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia with footnotes to primary sources



http://news.yahoo.com/digging-china-nuclear-tunnels-013008319.html

"In December 2009,...the Chinese military admitted for the first time that the Second Artillery had indeed been building a network of tunnels. According to a report by state-run CCTV, China had more than 3,000 miles of tunnels &#8212; roughly the distance between Boston and San Francisco &#8212; *including deep underground bases that could withstand multiple nuclear attacks.*"

----------

There seems to be some dispute over China's tunneling technology and ability. Watch the entire following video to understand China's 45-year-long history of constructing massive underground complexes and judge for yourself.

Pay particular attention at 7:00 in the video. Note that the 2,500km Underground Great Wall (e.g. complete network is 5,000km) was only built recently between 1999 and 2009. The video highlights the specification of "larger tunnels" and the use of "advanced technology" to build it.

At 12:42 in the video, we see "large TELs moving thru Tunnels."

Chinese Nuclear Tunnels:The Underground Great Wall:The DongFeng 21D - YouTube

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Luftwaffe

TruthSeeker said:


> No state power is going to attack China (or the USA). It's ridiculous to even worry about it. The only use of nuclear weapons we will see is by non-state terrorists who hold no territory, and by insane nations (like Iran). And, as far as terrorist go, the only question is whether or not the state-sponsors of terrorist groups, like Iran, can hide their transfer of nuclear materials or weapons sufficiently well to escape retaliation. If the US is attacked by a dirty nuclear weapon, we should just annihilate Iran first and ask questions later.....



Why do you assume that an XYZ would attack US, do you have sufficient proof-intelligence-Iranian secret dossiers to backup your claims. IF makes your complete post rubbish. 

This Maybe-IF US destroyed Iraq without any evidence. You should rather say "We should forceably remove Iranian government" Not annihilate by using IRAN you mean killing innocent population in its entirety coming from an opinionator just ridiculous below average post.


----------



## Martian2

China is currently replacing its old liquid-fueled DF-4 IRBMs (7,000km range) with new solid-fueled DF-31A ICBMs (12,000km range).

New ICBM Brigade in Hunan? | Flashpoints

"*New ICBM Brigade in Hunan?*
By Mark Stokes & L.C. Russell Hsiao
October 12, 2011







An amateur photographer recently posted a video on China&#8217;s Youku website capturing a probable Dongfeng-31A (DF-31A) convoy transiting downtown Shaoyang, a prefecture-level city in Hunan Province. The video showed a single DF-31 transporter, erector, launcher (TEL) moving north accompanied by six camouflaged support vehicles and a Public Security escort.

The DF-31(A) TEL may have been on its way to a new Second Artillery brigade headquarters facility located in the far western suburbs of the city. Formerly based in Hunan&#8217;s Tongdao County, the 805 Brigade initiated construction of new facilities in Shaoyang in 2008 and completed its relocation last year. Older facilities in Tongdao County were being dismantled in 2010.

The DF-31 and DF-31A are assumed to carry only a single nuclear warhead, which don't appear to be mated with missiles during peacetime. The 55 Base&#8217;s 905 Regiment&#8212; euphemistically referred to as an Equipment Inspection Regiment&#8212;maintains the 55 Base&#8217;s inventory of ballistic missiles and a limited number of nuclear warheads in underground facilities. The 55 Base Technical Service Regiment has responsibility for transporting warheads and missile sections from 905 Regiment depot facilities to launch brigades when ordered to do so. The brigade&#8217;s technical battalion assembles missile sections and mates them with warheads in underground facilities maintained by the brigade&#8217;s site management battalion. The missile is subsequently hoisted and loaded into the brigade&#8217;s TELs, which are rolled out to pre-surveyed launch sites. The brigade&#8217;s communications battalion is tasked with ensuring the brigade commander and political commissar maintain constant communication links internally within the brigade and externally with upper echelons.

*Moving toward DF-31(A)?*

The 805 Brigade is said to have previously been equipped with the liquid fueled, two staged DF-4 intermediate range ballistic missile (IRBM). With a range of at least 5,500 kilometres, the DF-4 is capable of reaching targets throughout the Asia-Pacific region, including US facilities on Guam. State media reporting indicates that the 805 Brigade began planning for the conversion to a new missile system at least as early as 2007. The conversion reflects a broader trend in the shift from liquid- to solid-fueled missiles that are road/rail-mobile, and capable of being launched more rapidly. A submarine launched variant of the DF-31, the JL-2, is still being flight-tested.

Since integrating the new missile system, the 805 Brigade has implemented an aggressive training programme. In July 2010, the brigade conducted an exercise involving rapid response, mobility, and survivability. During the second week of March 2011, the brigade carried out tactical mobility training involving night time operations under communications jamming conditions. In April this year, another exercise tested the unit&#8217;s ability to counter enemy space surveillance assets. The brigade appears to have been involved in acceptance testing in 2009, which likely involved live fire exercises, and formally introduced the new missile variant into its inventory in 2010.

Chinese government publications indicate the possible establishment of a test and evaluation unit under the 54 Base, headquartered in Luoyang, Henan Province. Located within Xinyang City in southeastern Henan, the test and evaluation unit may be introducing a new missile variant into the Second Artillery Force&#8217;s operational inventory. The US Defence Department has reported in the Military and Security Developments Involving the People&#8217;s Republic of China 2011 that China is currently developing a new road-mobile ICBM, possibly capable of carrying a multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicle (MIRV).

So what does the latest sighting suggest? The presence of the DF-31(A) convoy in Shaoyang augments reporting of the 805 Brigade&#8217;s conversion to a new missile variant, and appears to confirm the retirement of the DF-4 and initial introduction of the DF-31(A) to Hunan&#8217;s 55 Base. Beyond improved survivability, replacement of the DF-4 increases the number of nuclear warheads and delivery vehicles that could be dedicated to a regional scenario, and possibly the United States, in a crisis situation.

According to the Defence Department report, the Second Artillery had approximately 10-15 DF-31 and 10-15 DF-31A missiles in the active inventory. Each brigade is presumably equipped with 12 launchers (six launch battalions, two subordinate companies each, and with each company assigned one launcher). Estimates of China&#8217;s ICBM inventory appear to be based upon the assumption of roughly one missile per launcher (or silo). The Shaoyang brigade is likely equipped along similar lines as the first two DF-31 units.

Mark Stokes is the executive director and L.C. Russell Hsiao is a senior research fellow at The Project 2049 Institute.

Image credit: Asia Eye"


----------



## Chogy

With the exception of a few jingoistic comments, this is an excellent thread with some good analysis.

In the end, strategic deterrence comes down to this - does a nation retain the ability to inflict crippling and catastrophic damage AFTER being attacked? If the answer is yes, then the need for thousands and thousands of warheads simply goes away. All that is needed are "adequate" reserves, especially of the SLBM variety.

At the height of the cold war, both the USSR and the USA had far more warheads than needed to retain strategic deterrence. Decades of treaties have gone into reducing these expensive and unnecessary stockpiles. Our current warhead count is a fraction of what it was in the 1960's and 1970's. Yet we are not less secure than we were then. One modern nuclear missile submarine packs more firepower than all of WW2.

China, the USA, and Russia, all retain the ability to strike back. Further, all three countries are rational players. Only when irrationality is injected into the nuclear equation is there a significant danger.

My point - no country needs a giant stockpile of strategic weapons. They don't add to the stability of international relationships at all.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Martian2

*Chinas first real sea-based deterrent: successful tests of the JL-2 SLBM*

Year of The Water Dragon: 12 Chinese Maritime Developments to Look for in 2012 - China Real Time Report - WSJ

"*Year of The Water Dragon: 12 Chinese Maritime Developments to Look for in 2012*
_By Andrew Erickson and Gabe Collins_
January 23, 2012, 8:40 PM HKT





Type 092 Xia-class nuclear ballistic missile submarine (Photo credit: Associated Press)
...
* Chinas first real sea-based nuclear deterrent is approaching.* Chinas Jin-class ballistic missile submarines remain too noisy to patrol confident that they wont be detected by other navies anti-submarine platforms. However, apparently successful tests of the JL-2 submarine launched ballistic missile in December 2011 suggest Chinas seaborne nuclear deterrent program is making meaningful progress."

----------

Chinese fisherman catches ballistic missile fragment: Voice of Russia

"*Chinese fisherman catches ballistic missile fragment*
Jan 11, 2012 08:41 Moscow Time





Photo: RIA Novosti

A fisherman from Chinas Shandong province caught a cylinder four meters long and two meters across while fishing in the east of the province on Wednesday.

Police experts who arrived on the scene shortly after transported the cylinder to the nearby military base.

The cylinder was later identified as a fragment of a JL-2 submarine-launched intercontinental ballistic missile."

----------

MND closely monitoring Chinese missile tests - Taipei Times

"*MND closely monitoring Chinese missile tests*
By J. Michael Cole / Staff Reporter
Tue, Jan 10, 2012 - Page 3

EVIDENCE? Chinese state media have reported that a fisherman in Shandong had accidentally retrieved wreckage from what may have been a missile booster

The Ministry of National Defense yesterday said it was closely monitoring the situation amid reports that China had test-fired Julang-2 (JL-2) submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBM) before the New Year.

Chinese military bulletin boards recently lit up with reports that the Peoples Liberation Army (PLA) Navy might have test fired as many as six JL-2 SLBMs near Dalian in Liaoning Province, China.

At least two Type 094, or Jin-class, submarines in Chinas Northern Fleet are known to operate out of Xiaopingdao Submarine Base close to Dalian.

China plans to introduce up to five Type 094 second-generation nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine (SSBN) armed with JL-2 missiles. Each Type 094 submarine can carry as many as 12 missiles.

The JL-2, designed by China Aerospace Science and Industry Corps 4th Academy, is a solid-propellant derivative of the Dong Feng 31 (DF-31) intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM).

The JL-2, one of Chinas three long-range strategic missiles, has a maximum range estimated at 8,000km and can carry a thermonuclear warhead with a yield ranging from 25 kilotons to 1,000 kilotons, or about 80 times the force of the nuclear device dropped on Hiroshima in 1945.

Contacted for comment yesterday, Ministry of National Defense spokesman Colonel David Lo (&#32645;&#32057;&#21644 said the military was aware of the reports that China had tested the JL-2 and would pay close attention to further development of the missile. However, he would not confirm nor deny that the tests had actually taken place.

Los comments were the closest to official confirmation by Taiwans military that the PLA Navy may have carried out the missile test, less than three weeks before Taiwanese head for the polls on Saturday.

So far official Chinese media and the Chinese military have not confirmed rumors of the exercise. Missile tests carried out by the PLA in March 1996 to pressure Taiwanese as they headed into their first direct presidential election in the nations history are generally believed to have backfired on China and boosted support for then-president Lee Teng-hui (&#26446;&#30331;&#36637.

However, the state-owned Chinese-language Global Times reported yesterday that a Chinese fisherman in Shandong Province had retrieved cylindrical wreckage from what appeared to be a missile booster, which could provide confirmation of the SLBM test.

Rick Fisher, a senior fellow at the International Assessment and Strategy Center in Washington, told the Washington Times last week that the tests would clearly demonstrate that after several years of development and delays, the PLA Navy is now able to launch submarine-based ballistic missiles at a near wartime frequency.

If these reports are true, then the [Type] 094 submarine is ready for the PLA version of deterrence patrols, which could commence this year, he said.

This number of successful tests would also indicate that the PLA has, at long last, resolved whatever issues were preventing this missile from achieving operational status, the paper quoted him as saying.

The US Department of Defenses annual report on the PLA stated that once it is deployed, the Type 094/JL-2 combination would constitute Chinas first real sea-based deterrent, a capability that could give Beijing the means to discourage the US from intervening on behalf of Taiwan.

Additional reporting by Rich Chang"

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Martian2

On another forum, I have been asked to explain why China is modernizing its thermonuclear forces. I had assumed everyone knew the reason. China is modernizing its ICBM thermonuclear forces to deter a hostile foreign power.

----------

China protests against U.S. spy flights near its coast | Reuters

"Jul 26, 2011 &#8211; BEIJING (Reuters) - China warned that recent U.S. surveillance flights near the Chinese coast have severely harmed strategic mutual trust and ..."

Assessing China

"Sep 5, 2011 &#8211; U.S. reconnaissance flights occur along China's entire coast. As the Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael G. Mullen, noted ..."

Encounters Routine for U.S. Patrol Missions - Los Angeles Times

"Apr 2, 2001 &#8211; For five decades, American planes have been flying patrol missions off the Chinese coast, U.S. military experts say--and China's air force has been regularly sending ... 'It's not just against China--we do this around the world.' ..."

Untitled Document

"The Eight-Nation Alliance. Due to the Boxers Rebellion (Yihetuan) , Japan joined forces with the other 7 nations (Britain, AMERICA, Germany, France, Russia, ...) [to invade China]"

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## marshall

Chogy said:


> China, the USA, and Russia, all retain the ability to strike back. Further, all three countries are rational players. Only when irrationality is injected into the nuclear equation is there a significant danger.


No nuclear country should ever have the ability to completely destroy any of its opponent(s) because given enough time, any such country will sooner or later get a complete moron into power who will consider launching an unprovoked, 1st strike nuclear attack. Only the absolute guarantee of nuclear retribution would convincingly dissuade such a moronic leader from doing the unthinkable. That's why nuclear disarmament should only apply to the United States and Russia because they are the only nuclear weapon states with enough nukes to annihilate their opponents.


----------



## gambit

marshall said:


> No nuclear country should ever have the ability to completely destroy any of its opponent(s) because given enough time, any such country will sooner or later get a complete moron into power who will consider launching an unprovoked, 1st strike nuclear attack. Only the absolute guarantee of nuclear retribution would convincingly dissuade such a moronic leader from doing the unthinkable. *That's why nuclear disarmament should only apply to the United States* and Russia because they are the only nuclear weapon states with enough nukes to annihilate their opponents.


And we have been reducing our nuclear weapons stockpiles. But while we are in that process and progress, does that mean others must proliferate via increasing their own nuclear weapons stockpiles and/or assist others in the same? If yes, then what is the point of reduction in the first place?


----------



## S10

gambit said:


> And we have been reducing our nuclear weapons stockpiles. But while we are in that process and progress, does that mean others must proliferate via increasing their own nuclear weapons stockpiles and/or assist others in the same? If yes, then what is the point of reduction in the first place?


It saves US the money from having to keep the stockpile. While for China, with fraction of the number of nuclear warheads/delivery system, reducing its small arsenal is silly. MAD requires a credible deterrence, one which US exceeded while China is lacking.


----------



## gambit

S10 said:


> It saves US the money from having to keep the stockpile. While for China, with fraction of the number of nuclear warheads/delivery system, reducing its small arsenal is silly. MAD requires a credible deterrence, one which US exceeded while China is lacking.


So you advocate nuclear weapons proliferation. Do not be shy. Say so.


----------



## Chogy

marshall said:


> No nuclear country should ever have the ability to completely destroy any of its opponent(s) because given enough time, any such country will sooner or later get a complete moron into power who will consider launching an unprovoked, 1st strike nuclear attack. Only the absolute guarantee of nuclear retribution would convincingly dissuade such a moronic leader from doing the unthinkable. That's why nuclear disarmament should only apply to the United States and Russia because they are the only nuclear weapon states with enough nukes to annihilate their opponents.



A rational nation does not allow any single person, regardless of posting or position, to turn the nuclear key.

If some rogue U.S. President decided to nuke Russia with no provocation, no logical reason, just because he's nuts, the order would not be obeyed.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## truthseeker2010

Any idea how much will be Pakistan's firepower?


----------



## feilong

truthseeker2010 said:


> Any idea how much will be Pakistan's firepower?


deleted....


----------



## S10

gambit said:


> So you advocate nuclear weapons proliferation. Do not be shy. Say so.


Mighty hilarious since American stockpile is at least several times greater than that of China. Why don't you just admit you want other nations to be disarmed so you can rob them whenever you wish.


----------



## user1

I hope that nobody should ever be able to make an effective nuclear missile shield.

This looks like the only solution to keep the world peace. 

In the mean time, proxy wars will continue screwing the non-developed nations.


----------



## Armstrong

Holy Crap...a 294 megaton nuke (thats even more than the Tsar Bomba, me thinks). 

Someone is preparing for a big barbeque...I hope I'm invited.


----------



## rubyjackass

Markus said:


> 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.


The TsarBomba(<<1273MT) is useless for deployment. It was just tested like a flower pot for political reasons and has no know delivery system capable of handling it.


----------



## gambit

S10 said:


> Mighty hilarious since American stockpile is at least several times greater than that of China. Why don't you just admit you want other nations to be disarmed so *you can rob them whenever you wish.*


Mighty hilarious is your argument. We can do that now.

But answer the questions...

- Why does China not help others, like North Korea and others in Asia, to become nuclear weapons states?

- Who is forcing China to remain in the NPT?

- Although NPT signatories receive assistance from other nuclear states to become nuclear states themselves, China does not need such assistance, so why does China *CHOSE* to remain in the NPT? Unless it benefit China to a great degree to use the organization to pressure others from becoming nuclear weapons states themselves?

Looks like China is not that different from US, after all. But it is telling that *YOU* are too much of a coward to answer my question on whether you advocate nuclear weapons proliferation or not.


----------



## S10

gambit said:


> Mighty hilarious is your argument. We can do that now.
> 
> But answer the questions...
> 
> - Why does China not help others, like North Korea and others in Asia, to become nuclear weapons states?
> 
> - Who is forcing China to remain in the NPT?
> 
> - Although NPT signatories receive assistance from other nuclear states to become nuclear states themselves, China does not need such assistance, so why does China *CHOSE* to remain in the NPT? Unless it benefit China to a great degree to use the organization to pressure others from becoming nuclear weapons states themselves?
> 
> Looks like China is not that different from US, after all. But it is telling that *YOU* are too much of a coward to answer my question on whether you advocate nuclear weapons proliferation or not.


China has the right to develop nuclear weapons as it see fit, as as United States. We're not the ones going around threatening to invade people over some false WMD claims.

Found any evidence of WMD in Iraq yet? Of course you did, probably kept the receipt when you sold it to them.


----------



## gambit

S10 said:


> China has the right to develop nuclear weapons as it see fit, as as United States.


This does not mean anything. Both the US and China are NPT signatories. And if you argue that we use the NPT to keep our nuclear weapons advantage, so does China.



S10 said:


> We're not the ones going around threatening to invade people over some false WMD claims.
> 
> Found any evidence of WMD in Iraq yet? Of course you did, probably kept the receipt when you sold it to them.


This has nothing to do with your cowardice in not answering if you support nuclear weapons proliferation or not. Or that China should support nuclear weapons proliferation or not. I dare say that China, a member of the exclusive nuclear weapons states club, silently thanked US, a fellow member of same club, for making sure that there is now one less ME potential nuclear weapons aspirant.


----------



## S10

gambit said:


> This does not mean anything. Both the US and China are NPT signatories. And if you argue that we use the NPT to keep our nuclear weapons advantage, so does China.
> 
> This has nothing to do with your cowardice in not answering if you support nuclear weapons proliferation or not. Or that China should support nuclear weapons proliferation or not. I dare say that China, a member of the exclusive nuclear weapons states club, silently thanked US, a fellow member of same club, for making sure that there is now one less ME potential nuclear weapons aspirant.


Sure, China uses treaties to its advantage, like all countries do. Before screaming about us proliferating, take a look at the sizes of your arsenal first. You're like an idiot driving a Ford F350 berating a guy driving a hybrid about polluting the air.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## truthseeker2010

feilong said:


> deleted....



why deleted? not authentic?


----------



## Indus Falcon

HongWu said:


> No worries, pretending to love USA makes it easier for them to steal USA's technology, intelligence and "secret sauce."



Don't forget uncle sanders secret recipe, known in pakistan as Kaka Fazloo Cholae wala


----------



## marshall

gambit said:


> And we have been reducing our nuclear weapons stockpiles. But while we are in that process and progress, does that mean others must proliferate via increasing their own nuclear weapons stockpiles and/or assist others in the same? If yes, then what is the point of reduction in the first place?


You can play a game of What-If? which is a clear path to irrational thinking, whereas I prefer to look at reality. The reality is, in the face of overwhelming force that can totally and utterly annihilate you from a hostile and belligerent country _(United States)_, it is the Human Right of the victims to protect themselves. This sort of argument about why the US should disarm, *some of their THOUSANDS of nukes*, at all when opponents like Iran "might" have a secret underground weapons program based on assumptions, speculation, dubious asylum seekers and non-existent ICBM delivery systems are the rantings of the sort of irrational minds that I am talking about that have the potential to launch unprovoked, 1st strike nuclear Armageddon on these defenseless countries. These sorts of ideologues are produced in droves today in the Western world, aka. Anglo-American alliance, and they spout the same sort of chicken little threat theories you repeat ad nauseum here while simultaneously promoting the subjugation of countries self-determination and self-defense in the name of Human Rights. LOL Until the Anglo-American alliance stops threatening and regime changing various countries, I can assure you that there will be a perpetual list of "threats" that the Western world will be demonizing.


----------



## gpit

gambit said:


> And we have been reducing our nuclear weapons stockpiles. But while we are in that process and progress, does that mean others must proliferate via increasing their own nuclear weapons stockpiles and/or assist others in the same? If yes, then what is the point of reduction in the first place?


 
Right that we reduce the number of stockpile. Wrong that we reduced the capability of nuclear weapon. Instead, our capability of nuclear deterrence is perhaps on the rise. 

More worrisome, crusader mentality is on the rise as well, as weapons are controlled by human.

Morally we don&#8217;t have rights to point fingers to the others: we are the only country in human history to use nuclear weapon to kill human beings. Those fingers are pretty feeble.

Nonetheless, for the sake of our national interest, who cares? So wouldn&#8217;t China if China calculates it right.

BTW, evidence shows that US nuclear was proliferated into Soviet. Read "descent into slavery" by des griffin.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gpit

gambit said:


> Mighty hilarious is your argument. We can do that now.
> 
> But answer the questions...
> 
> - Why does China not help others, like North Korea and others in Asia, to become nuclear weapons states?


Why should China? 

Same question, why doesnt US help Japan and S. Korea get nuke?


> - Who is forcing China to remain in the NPT?


No body.



> - Although NPT signatories receive assistance from other nuclear states to become nuclear states themselves, China does not need such assistance, so why does China *CHOSE* to remain in the NPT? Unless it benefit China to a great degree to use the organization to pressure others from becoming nuclear weapons states themselves?



China decided not to proliferate anymore.
Chinas nuke tech is perhaps still lagging behind in some fields, so it can hope to get help.



> Looks like China is not that different from US, after all. ...



Perhaps you are right. And finally you get enlightened that US is at the same level of evilness as China, if not more. 

Keep remembering this

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## marshall

Chogy said:


> A rational nation does not allow any single person, regardless of posting or position, to turn the nuclear key.
> 
> If some rogue U.S. President decided to nuke Russia with no provocation, no logical reason, just because he's nuts, the order would not be obeyed.


Who said it has to be the President? There is a long history of splinter groups and rogue elements within pretty much every government in history. Many ideologues within supposedly rational governments feed fake intelligence to guide the thinking of the leadership. Look at the repeated gross mistakes made by the American government over the past 10 years? Is this on purpose or are these the result of fake information ultimately leading to irrational decisions? The bottom line is, Human history is full of needless wars and conflicts caused by stupid so-called "mistakes" that at the time were purposeful acts caused by people with either an axe to grind or plain ignorant stupidity. How many times have we heard about accidents or Human error that could have started a nuclear war during the Cold War? Those are the unintended consequences but there are alot of INTENTIONAL problems created by those who perceive that their opponent cannot strike back. If you understand how that mentality works, then you should understand how dangerous it can be to have one side "BELIEVE" they are omnipotent when they are not and they go on to do stupid things that escalate and escalate and escalate.

At the end of the day, we are all Human Beings, not 100% rational robots.


----------



## Chogy

> Who said it has to be the President? There is a long history of splinter groups and rogue elements within pretty much every government in history. Many ideologues within supposedly rational governments feed fake intelligence to guide the thinking of the leadership.



The nuclear keys and codes are extensive and designed to prevent exactly what you describe.

Assume for a moment a nuclear weapon appeared in my garage like magic. I couldn't make it explode. No way. The act of taking it apart to remove the safeguards would also render it inoperative. I'd have to re-build it using the core from the ground up.

Do a bit of internet search on nuclear safeguards and the like. The chances of a rogue commander being able to employ a nuke is near zero. Besides, such people are extensively vetted, investigated, and assessed for mental stability. You don't enlist and then get the keys to a minuteman III missile.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ARSENAL6

anon45 said:


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


 
Not when its blown inside your country due to fail safety measure, due to your corrupt and broken down economy. USA a fail state of the world.


----------



## anonymus

user1 said:


> I hope that nobody should ever be able to make an effective nuclear missile shield.
> 
> This looks like the only solution to keep the world peace.
> 
> In the mean time, proxy wars will continue screwing the non-developed nations.



There would never be an effective missile defence shield.

Currently all the missile defence shields are effective enough that if a country with missile defence wants to invade a nuclear armed countries of India ,Pakistan and north korea (Others have MIRV'd ICBM),they could easily do it with guarantee that most(not all) of the nukes would be Intercepted.

But the bigger question remains,What if something get's through?So unless an invader is content with a couple of Nukes getting through,Missile defence would only be of defensive uses


----------



## gambit

S10 said:


> Sure, China uses treaties to its advantage, like all countries do. *Before screaming about us proliferating*, take a look at the sizes of your arsenal first.


Who is? The American nuclear weapons stockpile is the result of the Cold War and now we are working to reduce it. The question is that if you do not support China as a nuclear weapons proliferant, as in export of knowledge and weapons, then do you support China as a nuclear weapons proliferant by an increase in stockpile to match US?



S10 said:


> You're like an idiot driving a Ford F350 berating a guy driving a hybrid about polluting the air.


Given China's current environmental problems, including the Three Gorges Dam and its own environmental disaster, you might not want to use this analogy.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

gpit said:


> Why should China?


To have nuclear weapons states who are friendly to China to challenge US? There are two ways to achieve nuclear parity:

- Matching with own stockpile.
- Matching with many stockpiles from allies.

Of course, the second option is less guaranteed of influence than the first. Which do you advocate for China?



gpit said:


> Same question, why doesn&#8217;t US help Japan and S. Korea get nuke?


Because we want to reduce the numbers of nuclear weapons in the world.



gpit said:


> No body.


So if no one can force China to remain in the NPT, who forced China into the NPT in the first place?



gpit said:


> China decided not to proliferate anymore.


The argument is this: '_MAD requires a credible deterrence, one which US exceeded while China is lacking._'

The commentator is too much of a coward to come out and advocate nuclear parity via an increase of own stockpile, another avenue of proliferation. Tacit in this is the argument that the US uses the NPT as some sort of a 'moral' club to beat nuclear weapons aspirants into retreat from that goal. My question is how is China differs from US since China belongs to the same exclusionary group?



gpit said:


> China&#8217;s nuke tech is perhaps still lagging behind in some fields, so it can hope to get help.


No one believes this.



gpit said:


> Perhaps you are right. And finally you get enlightened that *US is at the same level of evilness as China*, if not more.
> 
> Keep remembering this&#8230;


 This is from the son of Chinese immigrants to the US? The readers can savor the delicious irony.


----------



## gambit

marshall said:


> You can play a game of What-If? which is a clear path to irrational thinking, whereas I prefer to look at reality. The reality is, in the face of overwhelming force that can totally and utterly annihilate you from a hostile and belligerent country _(United States)_, it is the Human Right of the victims to protect themselves. This sort of argument about why the US should disarm, *some of their THOUSANDS of nukes*, at all when opponents like Iran "might" have a secret underground weapons program based on assumptions, speculation, dubious asylum seekers and non-existent ICBM delivery systems are the rantings of the sort of irrational minds that I am talking about that have the potential to launch unprovoked, 1st strike nuclear Armageddon on these defenseless countries. These sorts of ideologues are produced in droves today in the Western world, aka. Anglo-American alliance, and they spout the same sort of chicken little threat theories you repeat ad nauseum here while simultaneously promoting the subjugation of countries self-determination and self-defense in the name of Human Rights. LOL Until the Anglo-American alliance stops threatening and regime changing various countries, I can assure you that there will be a perpetual list of "threats" that the Western world will be demonizing.


And this shows how out of touch you are of the same reality. Disarmament can come from either enforced or self motivated.

First of all, the US is the last country on Earth that anyone can enforce any will upon US. Deal with it.

Second, we are in the process of self nuclear disarmament.

Third, if you want to talk about gross disparity of military forces, nuclear or non, and if you want to talk about the ability to utterly defeat any opponent, then you might as well advocate the *FORCIBLE* disarmament of US non-nuclear forces as well, because we have more than adequately demonstrated we can defeat any opponent in the conventional arena. Might not be as rapid as Iraq ala Desert Storm, but if the PLA's (alleged) red faced withdrawal of a report/commentary to the Politburo that predicted horrendous US casualties as a price of victory over Iraq as indicator of the PLA's acumen regarding the US military, then you can count China among that 'any' that we can defeat.

That leave an increase in one's own forces, nuclear and non, as the only avenue left for China to present a credible deterrent to US. So for you to say that it is incumbent upon US and Russia to self nuclear disarm simply because of said gross disparity is to be intellectually dishonest since there are many in Asia who feel the same argument towards China and who counts on US to provide them with at least the threat of an alliance against China because just as we can militarily run over any adversary, including China, China can militarily run over any adversary in Asia without the need to resort to nuclear weapons. How about they say that China should disarm, nuclear and non?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## j20blackdragon

gambit said:


> China can militarily run over any adversary in Asia without the need to resort to nuclear weapons.



I agree with this part.

Vietnam will become a Chinese province *again* within this century.

How many times in history did China slap Vietnam silly like a little ******? I lost count. 

First Chinese domination of Vietnam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Second Chinese domination of Vietnam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Third Chinese domination of Vietnam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fourth Chinese domination of Vietnam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## amalakas

Chogy said:


> The nuclear keys and codes are extensive and designed to prevent exactly what you describe.
> 
> Assume for a moment a nuclear weapon appeared in my garage like magic. I couldn't make it explode. No way. The act of taking it apart to remove the safeguards would also render it inoperative. I'd have to re-build it using the core from the ground up.
> 
> Do a bit of internet search on nuclear safeguards and the like. The chances of a rogue commander being able to employ a nuke is near zero. Besides, such people are extensively vetted, investigated, and assessed for mental stability. *You don't enlist and then get the keys to a minuteman III missile*.



you don't ???? damn ..there goes my plan for world domination !!!


----------



## S10

gambit said:


> Who is? The American nuclear weapons stockpile is the result of the Cold War and now we are working to reduce it. The question is that if you do not support China as a nuclear weapons proliferant, as in export of knowledge and weapons, then do you support China as a nuclear weapons proliferant by an increase in stockpile to match US?


I support the increasing of China's nuclear capability to ensure MAD, minimum standard of deterrence, in a nuclear war against United States. Right now, we're not there yet.



> Given China's current environmental problems, including the Three Gorges Dam and its own environmental disaster, you might not want to use this analogy.


You are right. We should pollute others by spray some Agent Orange. Some of which clearly leaked into your head.


----------



## marshall

Chogy said:


> The nuclear keys and codes are extensive and designed to prevent exactly what you describe.
> 
> Assume for a moment a nuclear weapon appeared in my garage like magic. I couldn't make it explode. No way. The act of taking it apart to remove the safeguards would also render it inoperative. I'd have to re-build it using the core from the ground up.
> 
> Do a bit of internet search on nuclear safeguards and the like. The chances of a rogue commander being able to employ a nuke is near zero. Besides, such people are extensively vetted, investigated, and assessed for mental stability. You don't enlist and then get the keys to a minuteman III missile.


Who said there would be any need to remove safeguards? The people who are vetted, etc, have the *potential* to launch the sort of unprovoked 1st strike that I am talking about. Like I said, at the end of the day, we are all Human Beings who make mistakes with different beliefs and priorities. It would not be hard to feed fake intelligence to decision makers to make them think and do what you want them to do, which is what I said to begin with if you re-read my message and comprehend it. I believe that's what happened during the Bush II presidency and a similar such movement is now underway against Iran. As I said, splinter groups and subversive elements have existed in almost every government throughout history. If you have a nuclear arsenal large enough to annihilate civilizations, it is way way too much, way way overboard and way way too dangerous.


----------



## marshall

gambit said:


> First of all, the US is the last country on Earth that anyone can enforce any will upon US. Deal with it.


You are way too defensive for whatever reason. Nobody is trying to take America's "right" to do regime changes and assassinate Iranian civilian nuclear scientists. Most people just don't want the world to end in a nuclear holocaust because of America's tendency to periodically threaten the annihilation of countries with unprovoked 1st strike nuclear attacks.




gambit said:


> Second, we are in the process of self nuclear disarmament.


You're finally learning, keep it up and you'll end up on the right side of history.




gambit said:


> Third, if you want to talk about gross disparity of military forces, nuclear or non, and if you want to talk about the ability to utterly defeat any opponent, then you might as well advocate the *FORCIBLE* disarmament of US non-nuclear forces as well, because we have more than adequately demonstrated we can defeat any opponent in the conventional arena.


What are you rambling on about? The US has many thousands of nuclear weapons both strategic and tactical. People just don't want some neocon Christian fundamentalist Americans to totally lose their minds someday and cause a nuclear war large enough to wipe out half the world's population with the survivors enduring various radiation mutations.




gambit said:


> That leave an increase in one's own forces, nuclear and non, as the only avenue left for China to present a credible deterrent to US. So for you to say that it is incumbent upon US and Russia to self nuclear disarm simply because of said gross disparity is to be intellectually dishonest since there are many in Asia who feel the same argument towards China and who counts on US to provide them with at least the threat of an alliance against China because just as we can militarily run over any adversary, including China, China can militarily run over any adversary in Asia without the need to resort to nuclear weapons. How about they say that China should disarm, nuclear and non?


Your jingoism knows no bounds. I'm talking about keeping a lid on the total nuclear weapons so the world has no chance to be destroyed and setting back Humanity many many generations, while you're talking about who's schwang is bigger. Unbelievable!


----------



## Chogy

j20blackdragon said:


> *Vietnam will become a Chinese province again within this century.*
> 
> How many times in history did China slap Vietnam silly like a little ******? I lost count.



Hmmm.... I've read here on PDF hundreds of times that China is a peaceful nation without territorial ambitions, and simply wants to live in peace with neighbors.

So which is it?


----------



## j20blackdragon

> In the last decade, Beijing has made nuclear power a central component in its energy strategy. China has 13 operating nuclear reactors producing nearly 2 percent of its total power output, but there are another 27 reactors under construction, 50 more planned and more than 100 proposed. With new reactors coming every year, China is aiming for a tenfold increase in its nuclear generating capacity by 2020, with rapid growth projected to continue until 2050.



China


----------



## FairAndUnbiased

Chogy said:


> Hmmm.... I've read here on PDF hundreds of times that China is a peaceful nation without territorial ambitions, and simply wants to live in peace with neighbors.
> 
> So which is it?



there are crazy people everywhere, 40% of US population don't believe in evolution and think earth is 6000 years old.


----------



## j20blackdragon

Chogy said:


> Hmmm.... I've read here on PDF hundreds of times that China is a peaceful nation without territorial ambitions, and simply wants to live in peace with neighbors.
> 
> So which is it?



Southeast Asia has both arable land and fresh water. 

China has 1.3 billion people (and growing).

Do I really need to spell it out for you? 

The 2050 version of China should be able to take whatever it wants.


----------



## below_freezing

NiceGuy said:


> 1. Hehe, and ASEAN will cut your oil route in malacca if you block the water flow
> 2. ASEAN(like Laos-Camb) chops down fresh forests and exports to VietNam first , and we sell to China in higher price after that
> 3. Hehe, but at least our water, our land is not seriously polluted like you



we have 50 days of strategic oil reserves.

can you survive 50 days without water?


----------



## NiceGuy

below_freezing said:


> we have 50 days of strategic oil reserves.
> 
> can you survive 50 days without water?


Oh dude, we can buy salt water filter, and we can survive at least one year , when poor Chinese will die in 50 days


----------



## IronsightSniper

Megatonnage is a bad measure of a nation's nuclear power. Anything more than x (I haven't gotten around to doing the research) is enough to ruin a nation (or the world for that matter) for decades. Russia and the US can each destroy the world some odd times over. China probably doesn't have that capability, but they do have the capability to say, kill half, if not more, of the US or Russian populations with their nukes, which is enough, really.


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

IronsightSniper said:


> Megatonnage is a bad measure of a nation's nuclear power. Anything more than x (I haven't gotten around to doing the research) is enough to ruin a nation (or the world for that matter) for decades. Russia and the US can each destroy the world some odd times over. China probably doesn't have that capability, but they do have the capability to say, kill half, if not more, of the US or Russian populations with their nukes, which is enough, really.



The nukes aren't that powerful, even with the peak stockpile during the Cold War can't destroy Earth's entire living population.

Today's nukes are primarily used to bomb its opponent back into the stone age.


----------



## IronsightSniper

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> The nukes aren't that powerful, even with the peak stockpile during the Cold War can't destroy Earth's entire living population.
> 
> Today's nukes are primarily used to bomb its opponent back into the stone age.



It's more on the terms of sheer quantity of quality, methinks. Russia and China are really the only nations that field high megatonnage nukes, and even they are starting to phase them out. In the future, yes, the only purpose for nuclear weapons would not be for MAD, but rather a small, precise tool to deliver high damage to specific targets, at minimal risk to everything else.


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

IronsightSniper said:


> It's more on the terms of sheer quantity of quality, methinks. Russia and China are really the only nations that field high megatonnage nukes, and even they are starting to phase them out. In the future, yes, the only purpose for nuclear weapons would not be for MAD, but rather a small, precise tool to deliver high damage to specific targets, at minimal risk to everything else.


 
I think the US professor has just nailed it, China got around 3000 nukes, more preciously 3600.

Since China's nuclear policy always follows in between the maximum deterrence of USA/USSR and the minimum deterrence of UK/France.

And with conducting 20-30 flight tests of ICBMs/SLBMs per year, China most likely has around 350-450 ICBMs/SLBMs in its inventory.


----------



## feilong

IronsightSniper said:


> Megatonnage is a bad measure of a nation's nuclear power. Anything more than x (I haven't gotten around to doing the research) is enough to ruin a nation (or the world for that matter) for decades. Russia and the US can each destroy the world some odd times over. China probably doesn't have that capability, but they do have the capability to say, kill half, if not more, of the US or Russian populations with their nukes, which is enough, really.



Hi IronsightSniper,
China has more than 3000 nukes to take care of US if they crazy enough to go ahead with Nukes war today and or tomorrow.

---------- Post added at 08:02 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:00 AM ----------




NiceGuy said:


> Oh dude, we can buy salt water filter, and we can survive at least one year , when poor Chinese will die in 50 days



can you survived more than a year if we dump oil to the ocean?


----------



## IronsightSniper

feilong said:


> Hi IronsightSniper,
> China has more than 3000 nukes to take care of US if they crazy enough to go ahead with Nukes war today and or tomorrow.
> 
> ---------- Post added at 08:02 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:00 AM ----------
> 
> 
> 
> can you survived more than a year if we dump oil to the ocean?



Not much of them could reach the U.S., though, which again, is not relevant as what they have that could reach the U.S. is more than enough to 'discourage' a war.


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

IronsightSniper said:


> Not much of them could reach the U.S., though, which again, is not relevant as what they have that could reach the U.S. is more than enough to 'discourage' a war.



PLA's second artillery has quite lot number of ICBM brigades, and each brigade operates about 12 ICBMs.

A standard Chinese ICBM is about 12000km of range which can hit anywhere in US from the North Pole trajectory.

The 99% of the US population don't know the truth, but it doesn't mean that the top 1% have no clue about it.

Those rich lobbyists simply don't want to jeopardize their life and wealth, that's why US could never afford a nuclear exchange with China.


----------



## feilong

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> PLA's second artillery has quite lot number of ICBM brigades, and each brigade operates about 12 ICBMs.
> 
> A standard Chinese ICBM is about 12000km of range which can hit anywhere in US from the North Pole trajectory.
> 
> The 99% of the US population don't know the truth, but it doesn't mean that the top 1% have no clue about it.
> Those rich lobbyists simply don't want to jeopardize their life and wealth, that's why US could never afford a nuclear exchange with China.



Don't need to argue to much with IronsightSniper, he still living in a stone age era and doesnt know anything around the world. China could not reach USA but can and will reach moon, so USA is far than the Moon so China cannot reach.


----------



## feilong

NiceGuy said:


> US doen't need to do that, US just simply capture all of your merchan ships in Malacca, and China will die bcz of oil shortage after that
> 
> Hehe, but your govt. love to dump poor Chinese peasants like you to the ocean than to dump oil bcz your leaders are so rich, they don't wanna die in battle with VN
> 
> That oil route only can support to Nanning, not Beijing-HK-Macau and another coastal cities, and Myanmar just snub you too.
> 
> New Military Chief Snubs China with Vietnam Visit
> All sub-Mekong nations is happy with VietNam's plan to kick China out od ASEAN



I think your government will sacrafice you viets and begging money from china to keep your economic alive.


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

feilong said:


> Don't need to argue to much with IronsightSniper, he still living in a stone age era and doesnt know anything around the world. China could not reach USA but can and will reach moon, so USA is far than the Moon so China cannot reach.



We have a strong spear right now, but we also need a indestructible shield, which is our national missile defence.

I think by 2015-2020, China's own NMD will be 100% ready with the MKV and the anti-missile laser.

Right now, China's anti-missile laser can shoot down any object above 2000km of altitude.


----------



## NiceGuy

feilong said:


> I think your government will sacrafice you viets and begging money from china to keep your economic alive.


As I remember, we "beg" for 200 $ form China by ramming your surveillance ship


----------



## j20blackdragon

That's right ASEAN, please cut off the Strait of Malacca and see what happens. 

Seriously, do it.


----------



## NiceGuy

j20blackdragon said:


> That's right ASEAN, please cut off the Strait of Malacca and see what happens.
> 
> Seriously, do it.
> 
> ]


Hehe, we have Nuclear ballistic missile Shaddock with the range of 600km too





Don't mess up with VN and ASEAN , or your supper rich leaders will die too (and of course they don;t wanna die)


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

NiceGuy said:


> Hehe, we have Nuclear ballistic missile Shaddock with the range of 600km too
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't mess up with VN and ASEAN , or your supper rich leaders will die too (and of course they don;t wanna die)



China's 3000-6000km IRBMs all locate in the inland region of China.

Not even US can touch these areas.


----------



## j20blackdragon

NiceGuy said:


> Hehe, we have Nuclear ballistic missile Shaddock with the range of 600km too
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't mess up with VN and ASEAN , or your supper rich leaders will die too (and of course they don;t wanna die)


 
China has that covered. 

2010 Chinese anti-ballistic missile test - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## below_freezing

Vietnam will not go nuclear.


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

below_freezing said:


> Vietnam will not go nuclear.



Vietnam cannot afford to build the nuclear arsenal, she has no precondition to build these.


----------



## NiceGuy

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> China's 3000-6000km IRBMs all locate in the inland region of China.
> 
> Not even US can touch these areas.


Destroy all South China region plus blocking Malacca by Kilos in future is enough to make China economy collapse, and we can buy Russia IRBMs in case of emergency too 


below_freezing said:


> Vietnam will not go nuclear.





ChineseTiger1986 said:


> Vietnam cannot afford to build the nuclear arsenal, she has no precondition to build these.


We have Shaddock, that can mount nuke war head, we have Nuclear plant that No one can check what we're doing, we have the right to enrich uranium too, so just sit and hope we will not go nuclear, dude


----------



## IronsightSniper

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> PLA's second artillery has quite lot number of ICBM brigades, and each brigade operates about 12 ICBMs.
> 
> A standard Chinese ICBM is about 12000km of range which can hit anywhere in US from the North Pole trajectory.
> 
> The 99% of the US population don't know the truth, but it doesn't mean that the top 1% have no clue about it.
> 
> Those rich lobbyists simply don't want to jeopardize their life and wealth, that's why US could never afford a nuclear exchange with China.



That is, again, not true. There is no statistical study on this as it is a naive and pointless topic to pursue, but because of the climate of this forum, I shall oblige. There are more than 1% of Americans who know of the threat that China poses. China has been one of the key focuses of the United States DoD for a very, long time, and the same holds true with the populace. Thus, the claim that "99% of the populace does not know the truth" is a lie in itself. 

The thing is, again, the 2nd Artillery Corp only has about 50-60 missiles that can reach the U.S. Those missiles, like I've stated, carry enough munitions to deter the U.S., which is the point of China's deterrence strategy.



feilong said:


> Don't need to argue to much with IronsightSniper, he still living in a stone age era and doesnt know anything around the world. China could not reach USA but can and will reach moon, so USA is far than the Moon so China cannot reach.



Please tell me where I claimed that China cannot reach the U.S. with it's nuclear missiles (which I didn't). Before you proceed with the assumption that space-faring equates to nuclear weapons, let me remind you that the U.S. can always field a Saturn V based ICBM. If you didn't know, the Saturn V is the largest missile every created, and can carry over 100,000 tonnes into space. Translate that into a thermonuclear warhead, and you have a very, very, messed up target.


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

IronsightSniper said:


> That is, again, not true. There is no statistical study on this as it is a naive and pointless topic to pursue, but because of the climate of this forum, I shall oblige. There are more than 1% of Americans who know of the threat that China poses. China has been one of the key focuses of the United States DoD for a very, long time, and the same holds true with the populace. Thus, the claim that "99% of the populace does not know the truth" is a lie in itself.
> 
> The thing is, again, the 2nd Artillery Corp only has about 50-60 missiles that can reach the U.S. Those missiles, like I've stated, carry enough munitions to deter the U.S., which is the point of China's deterrence strategy.
> 
> 
> 
> Please tell me where I claimed that China cannot reach the U.S. with it's nuclear missiles (which I didn't). Before you proceed with the assumption that space-faring equates to nuclear weapons, let me remind you that the U.S. can always field a Saturn V based ICBM.* If you didn't know, the Saturn V is the largest missile every created, and can carry over 100,000 tonnes into space. Translate that into a thermonuclear warhead, and you have a very, very, messed up target.*



100000 kg right? Unless US can build the Death Star. 

Well, US has limited stockpile as well according to your logic, your modern nuclear arsenal only contains 400 W88 warheads and 500 W87 warheads. Since W76 is too old, which is hardly reliable anymore.

You only have 900 nukes to attack China, but remember you simply can't give all those to China, since after that you would be basically defenceless against Russia, and they can nuke you without considering any consequence.

Thus you can only split those 900 nukes into half for both China and Russia, so you can't win in a nuclear war.


----------



## j20blackdragon

IronsightSniper said:


> The thing is, again, the 2nd Artillery Corp only has about 50-60 missiles that can reach the U.S. Those missiles, like I've stated, carry enough munitions to deter the U.S., which is the point of China's deterrence strategy.



How much money do you believe a DF-31A cost?

Just answer the question. 

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2188rank.html

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

j20blackdragon said:


> How much money do you believe a DF-31A cost?
> 
> Just answer the question.
> 
> https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2188rank.html



Forget about DF-31A, now it is the era of DF-41.


----------



## IronsightSniper

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> 100000 kg right? Unless US can build the Death Star.
> 
> Well, US has limited stockpile as well according to your logic, your modern nuclear arsenal only contains 400 W88 warheads and 500 W87 warheads. Since W76 is too old, which is hardly reliable anymore.
> 
> You only have 900 nukes to attack China, but remember you simply can't give all those to China, since after that you would be basically defenceless against Russia, and they can nuke you without considering any consequence.
> 
> Thus you can only split those 900 nukes into half for both China and Russia, so you can't win in a nuclear war.



Oh dear, I'm feeding the U.S. stereotype  Yes, I meant 100,000 kg, my bad. 

Actually, the stockpile is always maintained, and half of them (2,200 warheads) are always ready. The other half are decaying away. 

And again, no. No one realistically plans to "win" a nuclear war, unless it's against Iran or North Korea, at least while they're still developing their nukes. A nuclear exchange between two or more powers (e.g. between the U.S. and China), is only going to result in the death of millions, a crashed world economy, and lots of things going wrong. 

And before I come off as too "pro-American", I'll just post a common statement used by people who are arguing the position of the U.S. in a US-PRC nuclear exchange "America would simply nuke the 3 Gorges and kill millions off the bat with the subsequent flooding". 

Like I've said, even with China's small stock pile of some 50 to 60 truly ICBMs, they can deter America. Against Russia, China has it better as Russia is obviously closer, and can again, kill plenty of Russians. Russia or America v. China would result in similar fates with China, millions dead, millions dying. Nuclear war is totally not desirable, and neither is war in general, for that matter.



j20blackdragon said:


> How much money do you believe a DF-31A cost?
> 
> Just answer the question.
> 
> https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2188rank.html



It isn't a "what's behind the curtain"-comparison contest, man, that's what I've been trying to tell you guys. The PRC can do fine with what they have already, in fact, I admire the fact that they aren't overdoing it like the US or the USSR and have just enough nukes stockpiled for the purpose of MAD at hand.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> 100000 kg right? Unless US can build the Death Star.
> 
> Well, US has limited stockpile as well according to your logic, your modern nuclear arsenal only contains 400 W88 warheads and 500 W87 warheads. Since W76 is too old, which is hardly reliable anymore.
> 
> You only have 900 nukes to attack China, but remember you simply can't give all those to China, since after that you would be basically defenceless against Russia, and they can nuke you without considering any consequence.
> 
> Thus you can only split those 900 nukes into half for both China and Russia, so you can't win in a nuclear war.


News for you, buddy. I was on the F-111 for 4 yrs. The only models I did not touched was the FB and the Australian C. When the 'Vark was retired, the Russians (not Soviets) sighed a great relief. If there is a shooting war between US and China, you can bet your life that at least 1/4 of China's nuclear delivery capability will be rendered either junk or severely damaged to near junk by US conventional means alone, leaving our nuclear forces for reserves.


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

IronsightSniper said:


> Oh dear, I'm feeding the U.S. stereotype  Yes, I meant 100,000 kg, my bad.
> 
> Actually, the stockpile is always maintained, and half of them (2,200 warheads) are always ready. The other half are decaying away.
> 
> And again, no. No one realistically plans to "win" a nuclear war, unless it's against Iran or North Korea, at least while they're still developing their nukes. A nuclear exchange between two or more powers (e.g. between the U.S. and China), is only going to result in the death of millions, a crashed world economy, and lots of things going wrong.
> 
> And before I come off as too "pro-American", I'll just post a common statement used by people who are arguing the position of the U.S. in a US-PRC nuclear exchange "America would simply nuke the 3 Gorges and kill millions off the bat with the subsequent flooding".
> 
> Like I've said, even with China's small stock pile of some 50 to 60 truly ICBMs, they can deter America. Against Russia, China has it better as Russia is obviously closer, and can again, kill plenty of Russians. Russia or America v. China would result in similar fates with China, millions dead, millions dying. Nuclear war is totally not desirable, and neither is war in general, for that matter.
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't a "what's behind the curtain"-comparison contest, man, that's what I've been trying to tell you guys. The PRC can do fine with what they have already, in fact, I admire the fact that they aren't overdoing it like the US or the USSR and have just enough nukes stockpiled for the purpose of MAD at hand.



Sure, you can nuke the 3 Gorges Dam, but PLA will nuke the Yellowstone Supervolcano.

So don't expect US will survive after the nuclear war without any farmlands left.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> Sure, you can nuke the 3 Gorges Dam, but PLA will nuke the Yellowstone Supervolcano.
> 
> *So don't expect US will survive after the nuclear war without any farmlands left.*


The US have 4x the arable land than China that spread across the North American continent. China's geography have only 10-12% arable land and that concentrate on the eastern and south-eastern parts. Care to revise your argument?


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

gambit said:


> The US have 4x the arable land than China that spread across the North American continent. China's geography have only 10-12% arable land and that concentrate on the eastern and south-eastern parts. Care to revise your argument?



The implosion of Supervolcano will burn off the 18% arable land, so no survivors left after it has been nuked.

And i am sure its implsion will be far more poweful than the world's nuclear stockpile combines together.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> The implosion of *Supervolcano* will burn off the 18% arable land, so no survivor after it has been nuked.


Too much B-rated disaster movies, pal.


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

gambit said:


> Too much B-rated disaster movies, pal.



More disastrous than bombing the 3 Gorges Dam for sure.


----------



## IronsightSniper

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> Sure, you can nuke the 3 Gorges Dam, but PLA will nuke the Yellowstone Supervolcano.
> 
> So don't expect US will survive after the nuclear war without any farmlands left.



Wouldn't that actually just send the world into an Ice Age? I remember watching a documentary about the Yellowstone Supervolcano and apparently it could do that.

But no, I happen to adore agriculture, and I can tell you off the bat that, hectare per hectare, the U.S. grows more tonnes of grains per hectare than China. In fact, I was reading about potatoes yesterday, and we grow about 7800 kg of potatoes per acre-year. The only problem of course is that the majority of our grains isn't consumed directly by humans but is rather used for other tasks, such as feeding livestock or distilling into alcohol or biodiesel, etc. In a Nuclear Apocalypse situation, however unlikely that may be, we could sustain ourselves with potatoes, I hope


----------



## gambit

And China have been losing arable land for decades...

The Ministry of Water Resources the People's Republic of China


> Apart from natural, geographic and climate conditions, human activities are also the main causes for soil and water loss, including overlogging, overfarming and overgrazing, neglect of protection during construction and development. Irrational water development and utilization is one of main factors that cause ecological and environmental degradation.


At the current rate of modernization, arable land loss and soil erosion will likely continue, putting feeding China a strategic weakness.


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

IronsightSniper said:


> Wouldn't that actually just send the world into an Ice Age? I remember watching a documentary about the Yellowstone Supervolcano and apparently it could do that.
> 
> But no, I happen to adore agriculture, and I can tell you off the bat that, hectare per hectare, the U.S. grows more tonnes of grains per hectare than China. In fact, I was reading about potatoes yesterday, and we grow about 7800 kg of potatoes per acre-year. The only problem of course is that the majority of our grains isn't consumed directly by humans but is rather used for other tasks, such as feeding livestock or distilling into alcohol or biodiesel, etc. In a Nuclear Apocalypse situation, however unlikely that may be, we could sustain ourselves with potatoes, I hope



How you can grow the potatoes without any farmlands left?

USA has 18% of arable lands, while China has 14-15%, since China has 4 times of more population, thus our per capita is much less.

But after an nuclear armageddon, 18% vs 14-15% is not much of difference, so expect both side have few survivors left after the nuclear winter.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> How you can grow the potatoes without any farmlands left?
> 
> *USA has 18% of arable lands*, while China has 14-15%, since China has 4 times of more population, thus our per capita is much less.
> 
> But after an nuclear armageddon, 18% vs 14-15% is not much of difference, so expect both side have few survivors after the nuclear winter.


No. Cultivated land is not the same as arable land...

Chinese Geography: Readings and Maps | Asia for Educators | Columbia University


> Viewing the map showing the U.S. and China superimposed, it can be seen that China has only a slightly larger land area, 3.69 million square miles compared to the 3.68 million square miles of the United States. However, while *approximately 40% of the U.S. land can be cultivated, only 11% of China's land is arable.* Much of the arable land in the United States, of course, is actually not used for farming but instead is used for pasture or has been developed for other uses.


----------



## IronsightSniper

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> How you can grow the potatoes without any farmlands left?
> 
> USA has 18% of arable lands, while China has 14-15%, since China has 4 times of more population, thus our per capita is much less.
> 
> But after an nuclear armageddon, 18% vs 14-15% is not much of difference, so expect both side have few survivors after the nuclear winter.



Hydroponics, aeroponics, etc. There's also plenty of arable land outside of the midwest, which is, admittedly, where most of it is, but not all of it. In Northern California, for example, some of the most fertile land in the entire world (it seriously is), can grow potatoes, grapes, oranges, etc. Without knowing exactly how much damage the Yellowstone Supervolcano would do (in my defense, all I know about it is that if it erupts, the whole world is a goner), I'd say Northern California would be a major supplier of foods.


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

gambit said:


> No. Cultivated land is not the same as arable land...
> 
> Chinese Geography: Readings and Maps | Asia for Educators | Columbia University



It doesn't matter, the implosion of the Supervolcano is expected to be hundred times more powerful than 10000 nukes, you won't have any farmlands left anyway.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

IronsightSniper said:


> Hydroponics, aeroponics, etc. There's also plenty of arable land outside of the midwest, which is, admittedly, where most of it is, but not all of it. In Northern California, for example, some of the most fertile land in the entire world (it seriously is), can grow potatoes, grapes, oranges, etc. Without knowing exactly how much damage the Yellowstone Supervolcano would do (in my defense, all I know about it is that if it erupts, the whole world is a goner), I'd say Northern California would be a major supplier of foods.



US and China have some very different geographic areas, US has more plain which is better for farming, while China's land has far more mountainous area, while it is not good for farming, but more resistant against the nuclear attack, you need more nukes to destroy a city from the mountainous area than a city from the plain/steppe area.

Thus in a nuclear exchange, US probably requires several times more of nukes to destroy China's infrastructure than China to destroy US.

With more mountainous areas, China has used this geographic advantage to build its 3000 miles underground nuclear tunnel to protect its land based nukes from any preemptive strike.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## IronsightSniper

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> It doesn't matter, the implosion of the Supervolcano is expected to be hundred times more powerful than 10000 nukes, you won't have any farmlands left.



The ironic thing is that the best soil for agriculture comes from volcanoes!

But yes, after double checking, an eruption of Yellowstone would cause an ice age that would last for years on end. The much smaller volcano, Mount Tambora in Sumatra, erupted in 1816, which caused "A Year without a Summer". Ash of the eruption was found in Southern China and India. 

Yellowstone on the other hand, is obviously a much larger volcano, and there's no doubt in my mind that:

1. The U.S. nuking the 3 Gorges is committing a massacre 
2. China nuking Yellowstone is committing a genocide

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## below_freezing

gambit said:


> News for you, buddy. I was on the F-111 for 4 yrs. The only models I did not touched was the FB and the Australian C. When the 'Vark was retired, the Russians (not Soviets) sighed a great relief. If there is a shooting war between US and China, you can bet your life that at least 1/4 of China's nuclear delivery capability will be rendered either junk or severely damaged to near junk by US conventional means alone, leaving our nuclear forces for reserves.



Unlikely, you couldn't even catch Saddam's stone age Scuds in a flat desert, good luck trying to catch modern ICBM TELs that can go underground in the most heavily forested and mountained terrain on earth and alternatively, in the biggest continuous urban areas in the world.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## j20blackdragon

H-6K for "round the clock" bombing of Vietnam.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## marshall

IronsightSniper said:


> Not much of them could reach the U.S., though, which again, is not relevant as what they have that could reach the U.S. is more than enough to 'discourage' a war.


My advice is, don't believe every unverified claim you read. That 3000 nukes fantasy has its roots in an American study done by an American professor and his students. That is the same sort of ridiculous study as what Colin Powell presented at the UN when he used a university paper by some random student to justify non-existent Iraqi WMDs. It's all speculation and wishful guesstimates. You might as well speculate that India has around 3000 nukes because it needs that to counter China's supposed 3000 nukes. I find it to be retarded logic.


----------



## marshall

Martian2 said:


> There seems to be some dispute over China's tunneling technology and ability. Watch the entire following video to understand China's 45-year-long history of constructing massive underground complexes and judge for yourself.
> 
> Pay particular attention at 7:00 in the video. Note that the 2,500km Underground Great Wall (e.g. complete network is 5,000km) was only built recently between 1999 and 2009. The video highlights the specification of "larger tunnels" and the use of "advanced technology" to build it.
> 
> At 12:42 in the video, we see "large TELs moving thru Tunnels."
> 
> Chinese Nuclear Tunnels:The Underground Great Wall:The DongFeng 21D - YouTube


This film is a patchwork of videos that describe the 5000km Underground Great Wall. As I have said repeatedly, I have never disputed the EXISTENCE of this underground network. I dispute the *EXTENT* of the type of tunnel required to house and transport mobile ICBM TELs that are larger than the largest 18-wheeler truck. To serve their purpose as underground shelter against unprovoked nuclear 1st strike, such tunnels would need to be at least 400 feet underground within granite rock, be largely waterproofed, have reinforced gravel roadbed and as large as a 2-lane highway tunnel. China takes upwards of 10 years to construct highway tunnels of less than 15km and here you are claiming they can construct many thousands of such tunnel on a schedule that is 100 times faster.

First of all, the video is full of UNVERIFIED claims that insinuate their source to be from official sources when they are not. For example, the bit about 2350 "verified" warheads. That source was not official and was a quote from some self-proclaimed insider blogged by a Hong Kong paper in the 1990s. Claims of a plan to double the nuclear stockpile in 10 years, another unverified claim by some self-described insider. About the claim of 2500km of tunnel constructed between 1999-2009 to the quality that is needed, no official source was given for this claim and I'm sure it is the same superfluous unverified nonsense posing as fact.

China's South-to-North Water diversion project has received some attention recently with the completion of the underground tunnel constructed beneath the Yellow River for the Eastern branch of that project. The Western branch hasn't begun construction yet for a critical reason. That would require construction of tunnel through nearly 100kms of mountain that would take over 20 years to build. How do you explain this when China can supposedly build thousands of kilometers of the same sort of tunnel with whatever advanced tunneling technology described? See what I mean? It doesn't make sense. The Western route water diversion is a critical strategic national asset that would benefit most of northwestern China and yet the government has been putting it off? As I've already said, I call BS on this one...yet again. *Until China's so-called advanced tunneling technology can perform the same sort of miracles on its civilian tunnel construction*, the claims of thousands of kilometers of tunnel built to the required quality standard needed to survive preemptive nuclear 1st strike and serve as underground transport conduits for huge mobile TELs will remain in the realm of fantasy and American right-wing neocon propaganda.

The video was produced by Zachary Karber of Georgetown University, the same university that began this theory that China has thousands of nukes. Here is an interesting link about how these Georgetown "analysts" used Internet sources and military blogs like this one to come to their conclusions. In other words, guys like you who want to hammer ridiculous ideas as fact are simultaneously the sources for the same nonsense. It doesn't help that China doesn't have enough weapons grade uranium and plutonium to begin with to produce more than 700 warheads as confirmed by official sources.

http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/features/the-defensive-nature-of-chinas-underground-great-wall


----------



## AZADPAKISTAN2009

Go China Best country in world

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Martian2

*United States gives up on intercepting Chinese ICBMs*

There were two important components of U.S. ballistic missile defense against China. Now, they have both been canceled. The United States has given up on neutralizing incoming Chinese thermonuclear warheads.

The Boeing Airborne Laser (ABL) was canceled last year, because it required two minutes to shoot down an unprotected (e.g. non-spinning and non-ablative armored) ballistic missile at an effective range of only 50-100km.

There is a problem in bringing Chinese ICBMs during the boost phase within the ABL's puny 50-100km range. It is impossible to fly a large aircraft near the Chinese coastline without being shot down. Never mind the idea of flying a large aircraft into the interior of the Chinese mainland.

Reference: Lights Out For The Airborne Laser | AVIATION WEEK

Now, the SBX has also been canceled. In the past, I have criticized the SBX as a fantasy and that it would never work in practice. In theory, if your opponent does nothing then the SBX might work. However, Chinese ballistic missiles, sea-skimming anti-ship missiles, and torpedoes will quickly destroy the large SBX target.





The concept of the SBX looks good on paper if China doesn't attack the SBX. However, in a real war, China would destroy the SBX in the opening minutes. A barrage of 50 ballistic missiles with MARV (maneuverable reentry vehicle) warheads alone would virtually guarantee the destruction of the SBX.

Without the SBX, the United States cannot track incoming Chinese DF-31A and DF-41 ICBMs. Being blind, the United States would lack the information to direct its ground-based interceptors (GBI) to their targets.

Let's assume that China does not attack the SBX (which is obviously ridiculous), U.S. missile defense against incoming Chinese thermonuclear warheads still would not work. According to the diagram, the kill vehicle on the GBI will attempt an intercept near the end of the mid-course phase.

By that time, the MIRVed warheads on the Chinese ICBMs would have separated. It is mathematically impossible for the United States to build three GBI missiles for every 3-MIRVed DF-31A and ten GBI missiles for every 10-MIRVed DF-41 Chinese ICBM.

Also, the U.S. GBI missiles are not reliable. Under ideal test conditions (e.g. clear weather, single target, prepositioned sensors, no decoys, lack of multiple multi-angled flight trajectories, special pre-launch preparation for high-profile test, etc.), half of the intercept tests have failed.

Reference: Ground-Based Midcourse Defense

Apparently, common sense has finally sunk in at the Pentagon and they canceled the SBX.





SBX-1 at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii

MDA Slashes $1B from Budget; SBX Shelved

"*MDA Slashes $1B from Budget; SBX Shelved*
Feb 13, 2012
By Amy Butler abutler@aviationweek.com
THE PENTAGON

The U.S. Missile Defense Agency&#8217;s funding request of $7.75 billion includes a major departure for the agency&#8217;s testing regime: shelving the massive Raytheon Sea-Based X-Band (SBX) radar.

MDA has long used the radar, which is mounted on a large, floating platform, for providing targeting and discrimination data during flight tests in the Pacific region.

Officials will now use the AN/TYP-2 radars, also made by Raytheon, to support this testing as well as future deployments there, one MDA official says. Additionally, the agency has Upgraded Early Warning Radars and the Cobra Dane system to aid in sensor support for testing. The early warning radar in Clear, Alaska, is being upgraded to a more advanced configuration with completion slated for 2016.

SBX funding, which was at $176.8 million in fiscal 2012, sharply decreases to a steady $9.7 million annually through fiscal 2017.

The White House in budget documents suggests that the SBX will be maintained in a &#8220;limited test support&#8221; role, saving &#8220;at least $500 million over five years while also retaining the ability to recall it to an active, operational status if and when it is needed.&#8221;

MDA officials are not providing a press briefing on their budget Feb. 13 along with the rest of the Pentagon; instead, a five-page summary of its budget was released.

In it, the agency says it will complete preliminary designs for the Precision Tracking Space System (PTSS), a satellite constellation designed to provide midcourse tracking of warheads as they travel through cold space toward their targets. PTSS is also optimized to help interceptors destroy targets earlier in flight.

Based on MDA&#8217;s request, funding should increase from $80.7 million in fiscal 2012 to $297.3 million in fiscal 2013, with another roughly $1.2 billion through 2017.

One sensor effort that appears stalled, however, is the Airborne Infrared (ABIR) project, which aims to use a UAV-mounted infrared system to provide early tracking data of ballistic missiles after they are fired. No funding is provided for this project through 2017.

Another account, dubbed &#8220;advanced remote sensor technology,&#8221; however, is slated to receive roughly $150.5 million through 2017. MDA&#8217;s documents do not outline what technologies are included in this account.

The agency appears to still be committed to development of the SM-3 IIB interceptor, which is slated for fielding around 2020. This yet-to-be-designed missile is intended to enable earlier interception of medium-range and intermediate-range ballistic missiles. Funded at $13.4 million in fiscal 2012, the agency is proposing to raise spending to $224.1 million in fiscal 2013, with another $1.7 billion to follow through 2017.

MDA&#8217;s classified &#8220;special programs&#8221; are listed as requiring $1.6 billion through fiscal 2017.

MDA plans to maintain 30 Ground-Based Midcourse Defense Interceptors (GBIs) in Alaska and California and continue upgrading the missiles. Additionally, five more GBIs are slated to be built for &#8220;enhanced testing, stockpile reliability and spares&#8221; for a total of 57 in the entire fleet.

Also in the request is funding for 29 Raytheon SM-3 Block 1B missiles as well as 36 Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense weapons."

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Martian2

*Jane's: "China is developing and testing a multi-MIRVed DF-41 ICBM"*





Since 1986, according to Jane's Defence, China has been developing the DF-41 ICBM (which is capable of carrying 10 MIRVs).





DF-41 seen on a public road. Look carefully at the unique double-ring with multiple horizontal bars on the end of the DF-41 canister. It is the same design in both the top and bottom pictures.

In the latest update from Jane's Defence, we learn that China has been busy in "developing and testing" a 10-MIRVed DF-41. Also, Jane's is reporting two ABM (anti-ballistic missile) tests (probably the mid-course GBI interceptor) in 2010 and a new ABM test in September of 2011.

At some point, China will finish testing its DF-41 ICBM and it will completely change the strategic picture between China and the United States. Once the DF-41 is deployed, any American attempt to protect its cities will be pointless.

With only 100 DF-41 ICBMs, China can target 1,000 cities. The population of the targeted country will be reduced to zero when you include the nuclear fallout. If China chooses to build 200 DF-41 ICBMs then it can target 2,000 cities.

The deployment of 100 DF-41 ICBMs will force America to stop interjecting itself in China's core interests (e.g. Taiwan reunification, South Tibet, and South China Sea) or risk annihilation.

Russia successfully used its thermonuclear weapons to deter the United States and annexed 20% of Georgia with impunity. When China acquires a credible Russian-caliber threat to obliterate the United States, we will probably see an American withdrawal from Asia.

China's continued development of its ABM (or mid-course ground-based interceptors) capability demonstrates the intent to neutralize any Indian missile threat to China's eastern cities. Geographically, any Indian ICBM must pass over Tibet in its trajectory toward eastern China. China will simply shoot down the Indian ICBM(s) and completely annihilate all Indian cities with Chinese thermonuclear weapons.

I don't think any Indian leader is crazy enough to actually shoot an atomic warhead at a Chinese city. However, China is clearly hedging its bets. Better safe than sorry.

One additional factor is that even if an Indian atomic warhead reaches a Chinese city, the casualties may be pretty low. China has built nuclear bunkers under its major cities, such as Beijing.

Reference: Underground City (Beijing) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"While the [nuclear-bunker] complex has never been used for its intended purpose, it has been maintained by city officials...."

Executive Overview: IHS Jane's Weapons: Strategic

"*Executive Overview: IHS Jane's Weapons: Strategic*
*1/24/2012*

*Recent strategic events*

It seems inevitable that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the Russian Federation (RF) will remain locked in disagreement over the questions surrounding Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD) for some months to come. The United States (US) have continued with their bilateral agreements with Poland, Romania and Turkey, and are believed to be discussing possible BMD options with Japan and South Korea (ROK).

*Nuclear weapons*

The present nine nuclear states, China, France, India, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan, RF, UK and US, need to consider making public the size of their nuclear weapon stocks. These figures should include what each may call strategic, tactical or theatre, as well as partially assembled warhead components. Whilst the RF and US provided some figures for the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) agreement in 2011, these still only provide an outline rather than a complete declaration.

*Missile developments*

The last six months has seen more missile developments around the world. There have been further reports that China is developing and testing a DF-41 ICBM, and that this missile will have several warheads and sufficient range to reach the east coast of the US. China is also developing a DF-16 as a replacement for the DF-15. The new DF-16 missile is believed to have a maximum range of around 1,500 km, but may be developed in the future with a longer range to replace the DF-21.

*Ballistic missile defence*

The increasing role to be played by China in BMD has started to be seen. Following on from the Anti-Satellite (ASAT) test in 2007, China tested what were believed to be two Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) interceptors during 2010, and this was followed by a further test in September 2011.

*Arms control treaties*

The role of arms control treaties is extremely difficult to define, as there tend to be two equally valid interpretations of the process. There is the view that arms control treaties improve communication and understanding between nations, reducing the risk of war and reducing the cost of any preparations in case war should break out. The contrary view is that treaties provide a false sense of security, and that individual governments will provoke a crisis or war whenever they think that they can gain a significant advantage.

382 of 5,760 words"

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Martian2

*A small window to neutralize India*

*The Indian Threat*

At some point in the future, India will successfully detonate a crude hydrogen bomb. Once India crosses that red line, China must take immediate action to stop India from deploying hundreds of thermonuclear warheads and holding Chinese cities hostage.

The past cannot be used as a guide to estimate the length of time required for India to miniaturize its future hydrogen bombs. Though it required 25 years between China's first 3.3 megaton blast in 1967 and the development of a W-88 class warhead, this timeline cannot be applied to India. India has access to incredibly powerful modern supercomputers, which can greatly shorten the time to test a new design.

China and India are on a collision course. At some point in the future, China will free the Chinese Tibetan mongoloids living in Sikkim and South Tibet (see below). However, Indians are aggressive and nasty imperialists. They will desire to reclaim their colonies in Sikkim and South Tibet.

China must not permit imperialist India the opportunity to develop a thermonuclear arsenal to threaten Chinese civilization and to enslave our fellow Chinese brothers and sisters in Sikkim and South Tibet.

There are two necessary components for an ICBM with a thermonuclear warhead. There is the rocket/missile delivery vehicle and the fusion warhead. China cannot stop India from building missiles. However, China can stop India from building thermonuclear warheads.
*
Order of Battle*

India has a million-man army. It'll take all day to kill or capture all of them. Therefore, China's opening move should be a neutron bomb detonation (see below) above all major Indian military bases. The fireball and destruction from a neutron bomb are relatively small, but it is powerful enough to eliminate the Indian Army.

Just like the United States takeover of Panama, Chinese paratroopers will land and assume control of all major Indian military bases. Now, China has effective control of India. Like the United States in Afghanistan, Chinese military convoys can drive out on patrols.

*The search and removal of all uranium, plutonium, and thorium from India*

Without uranium, plutonium, or thorium, it is impossible to build a thermonuclear warhead. China should send in multiple teams of expert geologists to survey every square mile of India. Every deposit of uranium must be mined and transferred to China.

Thorium can be transmuted in a nuclear reactor into uranium. Thus, all thorium deposits must also be mined and removed. China must also search and remove all existing Indian stockpiles of plutonium.

China will compensate the Indians and pay market prices for the removed uranium, thorium, and plutonium.

To reduce Indian resentment, China should build roads, hospitals, and dams while the Chinese geologists are surveying and mining fissile material in India under the protection of military convoys.

*Politics*

The application of neutron bombs to Indian military targets is not a violation of China's NFU (no first use) pledge. China's NFU pledge does not apply to nuclear weapon states like India. Also, China only attacked legitimate military targets. No civilians were harmed.

China can invoke George Bush and recite the American policy of pre-emptive strikes against grave threats to China. Specifically, there are three justifications.

1. For decades, India has harbored the terrorist leader Dalai Lama. India and the Dalai Lama are responsible for the terrorist deaths of innocent Chinese men, women, and children during the Tibetan riots of 2008. Paraphrasing George Bush again, "any country that harbors a terrorist is a legitimate target of Chinese military power."

2. For decades, India has colonized and imposed its imperialist rule over Chinese people in Sikkim and South Tibet. Such action is intolerable. Today's military action is necessary to liberate Chinese citizens from the yoke of alien Indian repression.

3. It is in the interest of all countries of the world that a rogue state is not permitted to develop weapons of mass destruction. India has repeatedly refused to sign the NPT, which virtually all nations in the world has done. Therefore, to safeguard all countries in the world, China is in the process of neutralizing India's ability to threaten everyone with thermonuclear weapons.

*Conclusion*

When India detonates a thermonuclear bomb and crosses the Chinese red line, there is very limited time to permanently defang India. China cannot afford to take the risk of another Nehru. It is unacceptable for India to develop a full-fledged thermonuclear arsenal and possess the capability to annihilate all Chinese cities with the push of a button. If another Nehru were in charge, he would probably push the button to spite China.

Once China has removed all uranium, plutonium and thorium from India, the Indians will never pose a mortal threat to all Chinese. The PLA can withdraw to China and the liberated territories of Sikkim and South Tibet.

Everyone will live in peace.

----------





Sikkim is populated by Chinese people. Take a close look at the picture. Do they look like Chinese or Indians to you? China will eventually free the Chinese people in Sikkim from Indian tyranny. (Source: TRAVEL 2 SIKKIM: Sikkimese people and its culture and tradition.)





South Tibet/Arunachal Pradesh is also populated by Chinese people. Once again, I ask you to take a close look at the photograph. Do they look Indian at all to you? China must liberate our fellow brothers and sisters from alien Indian despotic rule. (Source: Chinese Media Call for integration of Northeastern States of India with China | NagaJournal - Breaking News | NE India News | Naga News | Photos | Articles | Folktales)

----------

Freedom Network - williambova.net

"*China Test-detonates Kiloton Neutron Bomb*
U.S. likely knew about surface explosion
By David M. Bresnahan
WorldNetDaily.com

China has detonated at least one neutron bomb above ground with the knowledge and perhaps even the co-operation of the U.S. 

Photographs of the secret test in late 1995 or 1996 have been provided to WorldNetDaily through a U.S. intelligence source who cannot be identified. The photographs have been tested and evaluated by several sources who have concluded they are genuine.

The pictures show what is alleged to be the detonation of a neutron bomb above what appears to be an orchard, somewhere in China. The photos were most likely taken from an airplane, although some sources believe they could have been taken by satellite. The possibility that they were taken by a U.S. spy satellite was not ruled out. 

The disclosure of the secret test, made possible through U.S. technology, comes at a sensitive time because China Premier Zhu Rongji is currently visiting the U.S. in efforts to ease concerns about the U.S. relationship with communist China. 

"Attached are two deliberately degraded, but still very good imagery of a possible/probable atmospheric or open air, above ground, test of an Enhanced Radiation Device (neutron bomb) (EHRD) in the PRC (People's Republic of China), supposedly in the late 1995 or 1996 time frame," detailed the description that came with the photos. The source has access to satellite high resolution, multi-spectral imagery and other intelligence photos.

The source who provided the pictures is known to WorldNetDaily and has proven to be reliable. His background has been checked independently and has been verified. He is who he claims to be. To protect him and his viability as a continual source for information, his name and location cannot be revealed. 

The first photograph was taken less than a microsecond after the detonation, and the second was taken within a millisecond or two of the first. 

"These images are very rich in the IR (infrared) spectrum, both reflected and absorbed, so some things appear very dark and some seem very light -- both unnaturally so in the normal visible spectra. Please note also that to have taken these images one must have had considerable foreknowledge, or intelligence, of the planned event well beforehand," commented the source. 

He believes there is a likelihood that the pictures were taken by a U.S. spy satellite of the KH type. This would mean that the U.S. knew in advance that the test would take place and the location of that test. 

WorldNetDaily sent copies of the pictures to the man who originated the idea of the neutron bomb, retired nuclear physicist Sam Cohen. He confirmed that he believes the photographs to be genuine.

Cohen said the photographs appear just as they should, and that it would take someone with very sophisticated knowledge of nuclear physics to fake such a photograph. Other military experts were also consulted and they too confirmed that there is no reason to suspect that the photos are not real. 

Additional copies were also sent to high-ranking members of the intelligence community with requests for comments. Absolutely no comment has been received. The request was made by the intelligence source who provided the pictures. 

Cohen said it is likely that the device was a low yield neutron bomb of approximately one-kiloton in size. It would have been dropped from a plane at an altitude of approximately 10,000 feet. The explosion should have taken place in the area of 3,000 feet above the ground to have the optimum effect of destroying life without damaging property. 

"There would have been zero effect on the pilot or crew," Cohen told WorldNetDaily. "I don't even think the airplane would have felt a shudder at that low yield and at that especially low yield regarding blast that comes out of a neutron bomb." 

Cohen, and a different military source familiar with such tests both agreed that one test above ground is not enough. It is expected that this was one of at least two tests. A previous underground test by China was dismissed by U.S. officials as improperly conducted. 

Cohen and others agreed that U.S. technology has enabled China to develop their nuclear capabilities, and that technology was not stolen from the U.S. It was cooperatively provided they all agreed. 

What appears to be a defect in the fireball in the pictures is actually purposely created to tailor the effect of the bomb. Cohen said he first proposed this very technology 35 years ago. 

Cohen put together a study group of other nuclear physicists working with him for the government and determined that a neutron bomb could be tailored to produce a pattern. His group found that advanced, discriminate, tailored effects of battlefield nuclear warheads with a very low yield could be designed. 

Because of lingering requirements related to top secret information, Cohen was unable to provide the details of how such bombs can be tailor-made, but he said it is possible. He said the photographs show just such a possibility. 

"What you're seeing in this picture [Photo 1] is a fireball. It's pretty hot," Cohen told WorldNetDaily. "Initially when the fireball is formed it is white hot. It is not in the infrared region. It's at the far end of the visible region approaching ultraviolet. I say this having witnessed many a test, and, boy, are things bright.

"If you were to look at it with the naked eye from the very beginning, you would be flash blinded, but good. You'd be out of commission for a long time, and you would suffer a little bit of eye damage, but not enough to blind you.

"The area around a nuclear shock turns extremely white. It's like a thousand suns were beaming down. The whole landscape become eerie (as seen in the second photo It lasts a number of seconds and fades in intensity as time goes on. That fireball just glows and glows. At the beginning it's the hottest, then it gradually begins to cool down. Then it starts rising and we get the mushroom cloud and all that sort of stuff," explained Cohen. 





This photo was taken within a few hundredths of a microsecond of the detonation of the device. It was most likely taken from an airplane, but it could have been shot from a satellite. The fireball can be seen at its brightest, and a uniquely designed pattern is also very easily seen.





This second photograph was taken approximately a millisecond after the first. The dome of the fireball can be seen, along with the specially created pattern of neutrons impacting the ground.

Above ground tests of neutron bombs are not only useful but necessary. Without such tests, military leaders will not know exactly what to expect from such a weapon until it is used. The size of the bomb and the ideal height for detonation can only be determined from a test. 

Cohen said he estimates the size of the fireball in the pictures to be about 200 to 300 feet across. He believes it is a good example of what to expect from a one-kiloton, low yield neutron bomb. The photos came without technical information, so Cohen and others who evaluated the pictures were unable to provide conclusive details. 

"We have the fireball and off to one side we have this haze," Cohen continued to describe. "There's very little doubt in my mind that this haze was caused by radiation escaping from the bomb. Neutron bombs emphasize radiation, prompt radiation." He said it would take a specially designed bomb to direct radiation more to one side than to another. 

"You've got to think multi-spectral across the entire spectrum, so you're looking at everything from UV, visible, to infrared as you look at these pictures," explained one military source who declined to be named. 

"What we're seeing here (in the second photo) as the fireball is rapidly cooling down, we're seeing secondary atmospheric effects that just haven't been observed before," the source suggested. 

"The first photograph is probably in the hundreds of microseconds region of the event. Therefore you're seeing it before the actual effects have hit the ground. That may be a stretch, I don't know," he added to explain the dark shadow area in the first photograph, which then becomes extremely white in the second picture. 

"We understand how they work, but we've never had a good understanding of their effect," commented Cohen about the frustration of the U.S. scientific community. "We were never allowed to test these things in the atmosphere. All the neutron bomb tests that we did were underground. The military was dying to know just exactly what these effects might be. I think that's exactly what happened over in France, that the military wanted to know what these effects were, so they snuck off to the south Indian Ocean and detonated this thing. 

The military source believes the U.S. has full knowledge of the above ground test conducted by France in 1979, and that the U.S. cooperated in that test. Cohen was in France at the time and suggested that French scientists find a way to conduct an open air test. 

The U.S. government has known about the Chinese test and most likely has the data from that test. All sources agreed that is why no mention has been made."

----------

Tech-Ex: Neutron bomb inventor Samuel Cohen dead at 89

"Neutron bomb inventor Samuel Cohen dead at 89
Friday, December 03, 2010






Samuel Cohen, the inventor of the neutron bomb, which he called "the only nuclear weapon in history that makes sense in waging war," has died. He died on Nov. 28, two weeks after a cancerous tumor was removed from his stomach, at the age of 89.

Before inventing the neutron bomb, Samuel Cohen was also involved in the development of one of the two atomic bombs the U.S. dropped on Japan during WWII, "Fat Man," the more complex plutonium weapon dropped on Nagasaki. While those atomic bombs and later nuclear bombs did substantial damage over a wide area, as well as irradiating people and structures, while dropping considerable radiative fallout in its wake, the neutron bomb was different.

The neutron bomb was designed to produce neutrons pass through objects, leaving them pretty much undamaged. People and animals were not so lucky. The neutrons would cause lethal damage to the nuclei of cells, killing combatants. However, the range of the device was limited, so that neighboring civilians could escape unscathed. There would also be little or no residual radiation.

Cohen recently told the New York Times that "It's the most sane and moral weapon ever devised. It's the only nuclear weapon in history that makes sense in waging war. When the war is over, the world is still intact."

As true as that was, concern over the neutron bomb perhaps validating nuclear weapons was widespread. President Ronald Reagan eventually ordered 700 such devices, as a way of deterring any Soviet attack across Western Europe, but those were eventually dismantled when the Soviet Union disintegrated. Other countries were thought to have built neutron bombs, as well, but it is unclear if they have any operational ones left.

In his memoir, Cohen said the inspiration for the neutron bomb came from a visit to Seoul, South Korea, in 1951. The city had been devastated during the Korean War. He later said, in his memoir, "If we are going to go on fighting these damned fool wars in the future, shelling and bombing cities to smithereens and wrecking the lives of their inhabitants, might there be some kind of nuclear weapon that could avoid all this?"

Samuel Cohen is survived by his wife Margaret; three children, sons Paul and Thomas and daughter Carla Nagler; as well as three grandchildren."

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## HongWu

^ First point, those people are not Chinese. They are just Mongoloid. Not all Mongoloids are Chinese. Except for the Tibetan Buddhists in Tawang, I think people living in present-day northeast india are closer to Burmese.

Secondly, we don't need to wait until india detonates a hydrogen bomb to deal with them. As soon as india comes to South China Sea and starts drilling in disputed waters, we bomb New Delhi into rubble. Meanwhile, we forge an alliance with the Maoists and NE separatists. The domestic unrest forces in india should take care fo the rest.

A re-partitioned hindustan is the only safe outcome to secure China's position as undisputed #1 Asian superpower. Two tigers cannot share the same mountain.

An additional benefit of a major subcontinent war is afterwards China can forcibly implant Chinese companies into india to extract wealth in the form of privately-held gold hordes.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DARKY

Martian2 said:


> *A small window to neutralize India*
> 
> *The Indian Threat*
> 
> At some point in the future, India will successfully detonate a crude hydrogen bomb. Once India crosses that red line, China must take immediate action to stop India from deploying hundreds of thermonuclear warheads and holding Chinese cities hostage.
> 
> The past cannot be used as a guide to estimate the length of time required for India to miniaturize its future hydrogen bombs. Though it required 25 years between China's first 3.3 megaton blast in 1967 and the development of a W-88 class warhead, this timeline cannot be applied to India. India has access to incredibly powerful modern supercomputers, which can greatly shorten the time to test a new design.
> 
> China and India are on a collision course. At some point in the future, China will free the Chinese Tibetan mongoloids living in Sikkim and South Tibet (see below). However, Indians are aggressive and nasty imperialists. They will desire to reclaim their colonies in Sikkim and South Tibet.
> 
> China must not permit imperialist India the opportunity to develop a thermonuclear arsenal to threaten Chinese civilization and to enslave our fellow Chinese brothers and sisters in Sikkim and South Tibet.
> 
> There are two necessary components for an ICBM with a thermonuclear warhead. There is the rocket/missile delivery vehicle and the fusion warhead. China cannot stop India from building missiles. However, China can stop India from building thermonuclear warheads.
> *
> Order of Battle*
> 
> India has a million-man army. It'll take all day to kill or capture all of them. Therefore, China's opening move should be a neutron bomb detonation (see below) above all major Indian military bases. The fireball and destruction from a neutron bomb are relatively small, but it is powerful enough to eliminate the Indian Army.
> 
> Just like the United States takeover of Panama, Chinese paratroopers will land and assume control of all major Indian military bases. Now, China has effective control of India. Like the United States in Afghanistan, Chinese military convoys can drive out on patrols.
> 
> *The search and removal of all uranium, plutonium, and thorium from India*
> 
> Without uranium, plutonium, or thorium, it is impossible to build a thermonuclear warhead. China should send in multiple teams of expert geologists to survey every square mile of India. Every deposit of uranium must be mined and transferred to China.
> 
> Thorium can be transmuted in a nuclear reactor into uranium. Thus, all thorium deposits must also be mined and removed. China must also search and remove all existing Indian stockpiles of plutonium.
> 
> China will compensate the Indians and pay market prices for the removed uranium, thorium, and plutonium.
> 
> To reduce Indian resentment, China should build roads, hospitals, and dams while the Chinese geologists are surveying and mining fissile material in India under the protection of military convoys.
> 
> *Politics*
> 
> The application of neutron bombs to Indian military targets is not a violation of China's NFU (no first use) pledge. China's NFU pledge does not apply to nuclear weapon states like India. Also, China only attacked legitimate military targets. No civilians were harmed.
> 
> China can invoke George Bush and recite the American policy of pre-emptive strikes against grave threats to China. Specifically, there are three justifications.
> 
> 1. For decades, India has harbored the terrorist leader Dalai Lama. India and the Dalai Lama are responsible for the terrorist deaths of innocent Chinese men, women, and children during the Tibetan riots of 2008. Paraphrasing George Bush again, "any country that harbors a terrorist is a legitimate target of Chinese military power."
> 
> 2. For decades, India has colonized and imposed its imperialist rule over Chinese people in Sikkim and South Tibet. Such action is intolerable. Today's military action is necessary to liberate Chinese citizens from the yoke of alien Indian repression.
> 
> 3. It is in the interest of all countries of the world that a rogue state is not permitted to develop weapons of mass destruction. India has repeatedly refused to sign the NPT, which virtually all nations in the world has done. Therefore, to safeguard all countries in the world, China is in the process of neutralizing India's ability to threaten everyone with thermonuclear weapons.
> 
> *Conclusion*
> 
> When India detonates a thermonuclear bomb and crosses the Chinese red line, there is very limited time to permanently defang India. China cannot afford to take the risk of another Nehru. It is unacceptable for India to develop a full-fledged thermonuclear arsenal and possess the capability to annihilate all Chinese cities with the push of a button. If another Nehru were in charge, he would probably push the button to spite China.
> 
> Once China has removed all uranium, plutonium and thorium from India, the Indians will never pose a mortal threat to all Chinese. The PLA can withdraw to China and the liberated territories of Sikkim and South Tibet.
> 
> Everyone will live in peace.
> 
> ----------
> 
> Sikkim is populated by Chinese people. Take a close look at the picture. Do they look like Chinese or Indians to you? China will eventually free the Chinese people in Sikkim from Indian tyranny. (Source: TRAVEL 2 SIKKIM: Sikkimese people and its culture and tradition.)
> 
> South Tibet/Arunachal Pradesh is also populated by Chinese people. Once again, I ask you to take a close look at the photograph. Do they look Indian at all to you? China must liberate our fellow brothers and sisters from alien Indian despotic rule. (Source: Chinese Media Call for integration of Northeastern States of India with China | NagaJournal - Breaking News | NE India News | Naga News | Photos | Articles | Folktales)
> 
> ----------
> 
> Freedom Network - williambova.net
> 
> "*China Test-detonates Kiloton Neutron Bomb*
> U.S. likely knew about surface explosion
> By David M. Bresnahan
> WorldNetDaily.com
> 
> China has detonated at least one neutron bomb above ground with the knowledge and perhaps even the co-operation of the U.S.
> 
> Photographs of the secret test in late 1995 or 1996 have been provided to WorldNetDaily through a U.S. intelligence source who cannot be identified. The photographs have been tested and evaluated by several sources who have concluded they are genuine.
> 
> The pictures show what is alleged to be the detonation of a neutron bomb above what appears to be an orchard, somewhere in China. The photos were most likely taken from an airplane, although some sources believe they could have been taken by satellite. The possibility that they were taken by a U.S. spy satellite was not ruled out.
> 
> The disclosure of the secret test, made possible through U.S. technology, comes at a sensitive time because China Premier Zhu Rongji is currently visiting the U.S. in efforts to ease concerns about the U.S. relationship with communist China.
> 
> "Attached are two deliberately degraded, but still very good imagery of a possible/probable atmospheric or open air, above ground, test of an Enhanced Radiation Device (neutron bomb) (EHRD) in the PRC (People's Republic of China), supposedly in the late 1995 or 1996 time frame," detailed the description that came with the photos. The source has access to satellite high resolution, multi-spectral imagery and other intelligence photos.
> 
> The source who provided the pictures is known to WorldNetDaily and has proven to be reliable. His background has been checked independently and has been verified. He is who he claims to be. To protect him and his viability as a continual source for information, his name and location cannot be revealed.
> 
> The first photograph was taken less than a microsecond after the detonation, and the second was taken within a millisecond or two of the first.
> 
> "These images are very rich in the IR (infrared) spectrum, both reflected and absorbed, so some things appear very dark and some seem very light -- both unnaturally so in the normal visible spectra. Please note also that to have taken these images one must have had considerable foreknowledge, or intelligence, of the planned event well beforehand," commented the source.
> 
> He believes there is a likelihood that the pictures were taken by a U.S. spy satellite of the KH type. This would mean that the U.S. knew in advance that the test would take place and the location of that test.
> 
> WorldNetDaily sent copies of the pictures to the man who originated the idea of the neutron bomb, retired nuclear physicist Sam Cohen. He confirmed that he believes the photographs to be genuine.
> 
> Cohen said the photographs appear just as they should, and that it would take someone with very sophisticated knowledge of nuclear physics to fake such a photograph. Other military experts were also consulted and they too confirmed that there is no reason to suspect that the photos are not real.
> 
> Additional copies were also sent to high-ranking members of the intelligence community with requests for comments. Absolutely no comment has been received. The request was made by the intelligence source who provided the pictures.
> 
> Cohen said it is likely that the device was a low yield neutron bomb of approximately one-kiloton in size. It would have been dropped from a plane at an altitude of approximately 10,000 feet. The explosion should have taken place in the area of 3,000 feet above the ground to have the optimum effect of destroying life without damaging property.
> 
> "There would have been zero effect on the pilot or crew," Cohen told WorldNetDaily. "I don't even think the airplane would have felt a shudder at that low yield and at that especially low yield regarding blast that comes out of a neutron bomb."
> 
> Cohen, and a different military source familiar with such tests both agreed that one test above ground is not enough. It is expected that this was one of at least two tests. A previous underground test by China was dismissed by U.S. officials as improperly conducted.
> 
> Cohen and others agreed that U.S. technology has enabled China to develop their nuclear capabilities, and that technology was not stolen from the U.S. It was cooperatively provided they all agreed.
> 
> What appears to be a defect in the fireball in the pictures is actually purposely created to tailor the effect of the bomb. Cohen said he first proposed this very technology 35 years ago.
> 
> Cohen put together a study group of other nuclear physicists working with him for the government and determined that a neutron bomb could be tailored to produce a pattern. His group found that advanced, discriminate, tailored effects of battlefield nuclear warheads with a very low yield could be designed.
> 
> Because of lingering requirements related to top secret information, Cohen was unable to provide the details of how such bombs can be tailor-made, but he said it is possible. He said the photographs show just such a possibility.
> 
> "What you're seeing in this picture [Photo 1] is a fireball. It's pretty hot," Cohen told WorldNetDaily. "Initially when the fireball is formed it is white hot. It is not in the infrared region. It's at the far end of the visible region approaching ultraviolet. I say this having witnessed many a test, and, boy, are things bright.
> 
> "If you were to look at it with the naked eye from the very beginning, you would be flash blinded, but good. You'd be out of commission for a long time, and you would suffer a little bit of eye damage, but not enough to blind you.
> 
> "The area around a nuclear shock turns extremely white. It's like a thousand suns were beaming down. The whole landscape become eerie (as seen in the second photo It lasts a number of seconds and fades in intensity as time goes on. That fireball just glows and glows. At the beginning it's the hottest, then it gradually begins to cool down. Then it starts rising and we get the mushroom cloud and all that sort of stuff," explained Cohen.
> 
> This photo was taken within a few hundredths of a microsecond of the detonation of the device. It was most likely taken from an airplane, but it could have been shot from a satellite. The fireball can be seen at its brightest, and a uniquely designed pattern is also very easily seen.
> 
> This second photograph was taken approximately a millisecond after the first. The dome of the fireball can be seen, along with the specially created pattern of neutrons impacting the ground.
> 
> Above ground tests of neutron bombs are not only useful but necessary. Without such tests, military leaders will not know exactly what to expect from such a weapon until it is used. The size of the bomb and the ideal height for detonation can only be determined from a test.
> 
> Cohen said he estimates the size of the fireball in the pictures to be about 200 to 300 feet across. He believes it is a good example of what to expect from a one-kiloton, low yield neutron bomb. The photos came without technical information, so Cohen and others who evaluated the pictures were unable to provide conclusive details.
> 
> "We have the fireball and off to one side we have this haze," Cohen continued to describe. "There's very little doubt in my mind that this haze was caused by radiation escaping from the bomb. Neutron bombs emphasize radiation, prompt radiation." He said it would take a specially designed bomb to direct radiation more to one side than to another.
> 
> "You've got to think multi-spectral across the entire spectrum, so you're looking at everything from UV, visible, to infrared as you look at these pictures," explained one military source who declined to be named.
> 
> "What we're seeing here (in the second photo) as the fireball is rapidly cooling down, we're seeing secondary atmospheric effects that just haven't been observed before," the source suggested.
> 
> "The first photograph is probably in the hundreds of microseconds region of the event. Therefore you're seeing it before the actual effects have hit the ground. That may be a stretch, I don't know," he added to explain the dark shadow area in the first photograph, which then becomes extremely white in the second picture.
> 
> "We understand how they work, but we've never had a good understanding of their effect," commented Cohen about the frustration of the U.S. scientific community. "We were never allowed to test these things in the atmosphere. All the neutron bomb tests that we did were underground. The military was dying to know just exactly what these effects might be. I think that's exactly what happened over in France, that the military wanted to know what these effects were, so they snuck off to the south Indian Ocean and detonated this thing.
> 
> The military source believes the U.S. has full knowledge of the above ground test conducted by France in 1979, and that the U.S. cooperated in that test. Cohen was in France at the time and suggested that French scientists find a way to conduct an open air test.
> 
> The U.S. government has known about the Chinese test and most likely has the data from that test. All sources agreed that is why no mention has been made."
> 
> ----------
> 
> Tech-Ex: Neutron bomb inventor Samuel Cohen dead at 89
> 
> "Neutron bomb inventor Samuel Cohen dead at 89
> Friday, December 03, 2010
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samuel Cohen, the inventor of the neutron bomb, which he called "the only nuclear weapon in history that makes sense in waging war," has died. He died on Nov. 28, two weeks after a cancerous tumor was removed from his stomach, at the age of 89.
> 
> Before inventing the neutron bomb, Samuel Cohen was also involved in the development of one of the two atomic bombs the U.S. dropped on Japan during WWII, "Fat Man," the more complex plutonium weapon dropped on Nagasaki. While those atomic bombs and later nuclear bombs did substantial damage over a wide area, as well as irradiating people and structures, while dropping considerable radiative fallout in its wake, the neutron bomb was different.
> 
> The neutron bomb was designed to produce neutrons pass through objects, leaving them pretty much undamaged. People and animals were not so lucky. The neutrons would cause lethal damage to the nuclei of cells, killing combatants. However, the range of the device was limited, so that neighboring civilians could escape unscathed. There would also be little or no residual radiation.
> 
> Cohen recently told the New York Times that "It's the most sane and moral weapon ever devised. It's the only nuclear weapon in history that makes sense in waging war. When the war is over, the world is still intact."
> 
> As true as that was, concern over the neutron bomb perhaps validating nuclear weapons was widespread. President Ronald Reagan eventually ordered 700 such devices, as a way of deterring any Soviet attack across Western Europe, but those were eventually dismantled when the Soviet Union disintegrated. Other countries were thought to have built neutron bombs, as well, but it is unclear if they have any operational ones left.
> 
> In his memoir, Cohen said the inspiration for the neutron bomb came from a visit to Seoul, South Korea, in 1951. The city had been devastated during the Korean War. He later said, in his memoir, "If we are going to go on fighting these damned fool wars in the future, shelling and bombing cities to smithereens and wrecking the lives of their inhabitants, might there be some kind of nuclear weapon that could avoid all this?"
> 
> Samuel Cohen is survived by his wife Margaret; three children, sons Paul and Thomas and daughter Carla Nagler; as well as three grandchildren."


 
Pokhran-II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

India's Nuclear Weapons Program - Operation Shakti: 1998






About Thorium reserves...

Press Information Bureau English Releases































http://www.defence.pk/forums/indian-defence/25594-indias-little-known-super-weapon-kali.html

You Mad... they they Hit you extra hard today in basement... such a pity..

Need some treatment Boy.. you seriously do..


----------



## Martian2

*India only has low-yield atomic weapons. China can do what it likes.*

China must never allow expansionist and imperialist India to develop thermonuclear weapons. It was only decades after independence that India annexed Sikkim (in 1975) and South Tibet (in 1986). The British have gone home and left their former Hong Kong colony. The Portuguese have also gone home and left their former colony in Macau.

We will eventually kick Indian imperialists out of Sikkim and South Tibet and send you packing.

Currently, India only possesses pathetically weak 4 to 25 kiloton atomic weapons. In comparison to a single Chinese 3.3 megaton thermonuclear weapon (which is over 100 times more powerful), Indian atomic weapons are like little firecrackers. However, at an unknown point in the future, I believe India will eventually develop a crude thermonuclear device. It could be 25, 50, or 75 years in the future.

Regardless of the exact time of India's development of a crude thermonuclear bomb, I have already formulated China's strategic neutron-bomb response, military control of Indian airfields, and survey and collection of the raw ores (e.g. uranium, thorium, and existing plutonium) to produce Indian fissile material.

A future Indian Nehru must never possess the capability to truly threaten China.






U.S. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory concluded the Indian thermonuclear device was a failure.

Reference (from Federation of American Scientists): Nuclear Weapons - India Nuclear Forces


----------



## j20blackdragon

Nice. 



> China, the world&#8217;s biggest energy user, is seeking to secure uranium supplies as it builds additional reactors. There are 434 operable reactors around the world and 61 under construction, according to the World Nuclear Association. China is building 26, plans to construct another 51 and has proposed 120 others, according to the association.



Harper

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Martian2 said:


> *India only has low-yield atomic weapons. China can do what it likes.*
> 
> China must never allow expansionist and imperialist India to develop thermonuclear weapons. It was only decades after independence that India annexed Sikkim (in 1975) and South Tibet (in 1986). The British have gone home and left their former Hong Kong colony. The Portuguese have also gone home and left their former colony in Macau.
> 
> We will eventually kick Indian imperialists out of Sikkim and South Tibet and send you packing.
> 
> Currently, India only possesses pathetically weak 4 to 25 kiloton atomic weapons. In comparison to a single Chinese 3.3 megaton thermonuclear weapon (which is over 100 times more powerful), Indian atomic weapons are like little firecrackers. However, at an unknown point in the future, I believe India will eventually develop a crude thermonuclear device. It could be 25, 50, or 75 years in the future.
> 
> Regardless of the exact time of India's development of a crude thermonuclear bomb, I have already formulated China's strategic neutron-bomb response, military control of Indian airfields, and survey and collection of the raw ores (e.g. uranium, thorium, and existing plutonium) to produce Indian fissile material.
> 
> A future Indian Nehru must never possess the capability to truly threaten China.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory concluded the Indian thermonuclear device was a failure.
> 
> Reference (from Federation of American Scientists): Nuclear Weapons - India Nuclear Forces



China's largest nuke is around 5mt, but most of China's modern nukes are between 1-1000kt from tactic to strategic.

The most reliable modern nuclear arsenal is not about the biggest yield of a single H-bomb, but it is about the reliability of the nuclear deterrence against enemy's pre-emptive strike.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## DARKY

Martian2 said:


> *India only has low-yield atomic weapons. China can do what it likes.*
> 
> China must never allow expansionist and imperialist India to develop thermonuclear weapons. It was only decades after independence that India annexed Sikkim (in 1975) and South Tibet (in 1986). The British have gone home and left their former Hong Kong colony. The Portuguese have also gone home and left their former colony in Macau.
> 
> We will eventually kick Indian imperialists out of Sikkim and South Tibet and send you packing.
> 
> Currently, India only possesses pathetically weak 4 to 25 kiloton atomic weapons. In comparison to a single Chinese 3.3 megaton thermonuclear weapon (which is over 100 times more powerful), Indian atomic weapons are like little firecrackers. However, at an unknown point in the future, I believe India will eventually develop a crude thermonuclear device. It could be 25, 50, or 75 years in the future.
> 
> Regardless of the exact time of India's development of a crude thermonuclear bomb, I have already formulated China's strategic neutron-bomb response, military control of Indian airfields, and survey and collection of the raw ores (e.g. uranium, thorium, and existing plutonium) to produce Indian fissile material.
> 
> A future Indian Nehru must never possess the capability to truly threaten China.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory concluded the Indian thermonuclear device was a failure.
> 
> Reference (from Federation of American Scientists): Nuclear Weapons - India Nuclear Forces



How come the some US blogs know more about Indian weapons than India.. If you go by the same blog then.. all the nuclear sub which China has made and will be making is 20 years behind the old Russian subs of the 70s era.

China&#8217;s Noisy Nuclear Submarines » FAS Strategic Security Blog

About the Nuclear program of India... here a good read...

Tritium from Power Plants gives India an H-bomb capability

And you CCP government has become so incompetent and weak that they surrendered Sikkim to India... yes boy... they did it and now they'll surrender Southern Tibet and then Tibet and then whole of China as per your logics...whole China will be gone in 75 years... What will happen to all those bombs and megaton nukes then... may be we can use it for celebrating the new year in China.

Sikkim is part of India, concedes Chinese envoy - Times Of India


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

DARKY said:


> How come the some US blogs know more about Indian weapons than India.. If you go by the same blog then.. all the nuclear sub which China has made and will be making is 20 years behind the old Russian subs of the 70s era.
> 
> China&#8217;s Noisy Nuclear Submarines » FAS Strategic Security Blog
> 
> About the Nuclear program of India... here a good read...
> 
> Tritium from Power Plants gives India an H-bomb capability
> 
> And you CCP government has become so incompetent and weak that they surrendered Sikkim to India... yes boy... they did it and now they'll surrender Southern Tibet and then Tibet and then whole of China as per your logics...whole China will be gone in 75 years... What will happen to all those bombs and megaton nukes then... may be we can use it for celebrating the new year in China.
> 
> Sikkim is part of India, concedes Chinese envoy - Times Of India



Too much senses from you, aren't it?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DARKY

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> Too much senses from you, aren't it?



Talk about this from your Martin boy... he needs it...


----------



## Martian2

*Only Clever Chinese can build atomic and thermonuclear weapons with abacus calculations*

Any other country besides China would have been stopped cold in its nuclear weapons program due to a lack of computing power. Not so with China. An abacus is sufficient to calculate the data needed to design and successfully explode a 22-kiloton atomic bomb in 1964 and a 3.3-megaton thermonuclear bomb in 1967.

IQ Abacus Math and Language School - News

"The ancient calculator has also played an important role in China's scientific research. *When China developed its first nuclear bomb more than 30 years ago, thousands of data were calculated with the abacus.*"

Here is a video of the 22-kiloton Chinese atomic explosion in 1964.

[HD 1080P] CHINA&#39;S FIRST NUCLEAR WEAPONS TEST @ THE "596" TEST - YouTube

--------------------

Here is a video of the 3.3-megaton Chinese thermonuclear explosion in 1967.

3.3-MEGATON HYDROGEN BOMB - YouTube

[Note: Thank you to TheMiddlePath for the abacus citation.]


----------



## Martian2

*China has almost as much proven recoverable uranium as the U.S.*

China has practically the same amount of uranium as the U.S.

This means China can build as many thermonuclear weapons as the U.S (e.g. fission trigger and plutonium transmuted from uranium).

With Nuclear Energy, China Chooses Dependence Over Independence (Part II of II) « Energy in Asia






----------

By the way, the first Chinese thermonuclear bomb (with 3.3-megaton yield) had a different design than the American and Russian (layer cake) hydrogen bombs.

Thermonuclear weapon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The People's Republic of China detonated its first H-Bomb using a YuDeng design June 17, 1967 ("Test No. 6"), a mere 32 months after detonating its first fission weapon (the shortest fission-to-fusion development in history), with a yield of 3.31 Mt.

*The YuDeng design is different from the TellerUlam design. It doesn't use X-ray reflector, but refraction lens to achieve similar effect.*"

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## j20blackdragon

Martian2 said:


> *China has almost as much proven recoverable uranium as the U.S.*
> 
> China has practically the same amount of uranium as the U.S.
> 
> This means China can build as many thermonuclear weapons as the U.S (e.g. fission trigger and plutonium transmuted from uranium).
> 
> With Nuclear Energy, China Chooses Dependence Over Independence (Part II of II) « Energy in Asia



There's one more important piece of information that we should take away from this.

*Kazakhstan* is a landlocked country that is located right next to China.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## WS-10 Engine

I'm not worried about India's tiny nuclear arsenal hitting china, I'm worried these clowns will detonate their warheads on themselves because of severe corruption.

Indian military is such a 2nd rate rag tag military as is common with all 3rd world countries, I won't be surprised if they nuke themselves through sheer incompetence.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Speeder 2

WS-10 Engine said:


> I'm not worried about India's tiny nuclear arsenal hitting china, I'm worried these clowns will detonate their warheads on themselves because of severe corruption.
> 
> Indian military is such a 2nd rate rag tag military as is common with all 3rd world countries,
> 
> *I won't be surprised if they nuke themselves through sheer incompetence.*



First of all, I must admit that I LOVE the word "Megaton". It sounds like some fancy nicknames from Transformers II. awesome! 

Kudos to Martians 2 for his discovery for this magic word.  I&#8217;d advice Chinese Defence Ministry Spokesman take "Megaton" as his middle name, for it's the only music that India would love to hear surely.

Secondly, on your scenario that India would probably nuke itself out of sheer incompetence, it&#8217;s not a speculation though, because DRTROLL (in diplomatic language some call it DRDO) has announced to the world that they would only test Agni V 4 or 5 times more before putting it into service. So on top of world renouned Hindu Efficiency or the lack thereof the question here is not WILL India nuke itself but HOW India nuke itself more appropriately. 

While only God knows what standard of "Hindu accuracy & reliability " these 4 or 5 additional tests suppose to prove, or disapprove, in comparison to 100s to 1000s tests Big Boys have done in similar scenarios, one thing is certain though that India&#8217;s primitive nuke warhead tech alone would indicate that India&#8217;s nuking itself be pretty much akin to the way those suicide bombers would have done by bundling several suitcases of dubious quality on top of the museum piece they callAgni V, &#8220;remote&#8221; controlled by a third-rate 80 Rupee mobile phone. This is how India would do it.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Broccoli

Article from 2009. 

*Subcritical Testing at Lop Nor*


> I am off to Cambridge for less than 24 hours to participate in a workshop entitled, &#8220;Getting to Zero: US and Chinese Perspectives on Near Term Cooperative Steps to a World Free of Nuclear Weapons.&#8221;
> 
> I&#8217;ve been spending a lot of time thinking about China&#8217;s efforts in terms of stockpile stewardship, remanufacture, modernization, what-have-you.
> 
> The United States and Russia are the only two countries that admit to conducting so-called &#8220;subcritical&#8221; nuclear tests &#8212; tests that &#8220;involve chemical high explosives and fissile materials in configurations and quantities such that no self-sustaining nuclear fission chain reaction can result. In these experiments, the chemical high explosives are used to generate high pressures that are applied to the fissile materials.&#8221;
> 
> China probably does, too.



Rest of the article is here.
Jeffrey Lewis &bull; Subcritical Testing at Lop Nor

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Broccoli

qwerrty said:


> every time india tests their missile they always mentioning blowing beijing and other chinese cities. their new super duper missile is nickname 'china-killer'..
> stupid people are unpredictable and you can't understand why they do what they do. chinese should very be afraid. not kidding.



Indian media is not very mature when it comes to these matters, they should be less warmongering when they talk about nuclear weapons. Even during the cold war no one called ICBM's "Soviet killer" or "America killer".

Agni V's warhead is said to weight 1500kg's (Indian media claim) and it's yield is 200-250kt... not very advanced. Certainly not something to brag about.

DF-31's warhead weights under 500kg's and has a yield of 300-800kt.
http://cryptome.org/jya/cndocs-gertz.htm

Needless to say that Rus and US warheads have even better yield-to-weight ratios.


----------



## DARKY

Broccoli said:


> Indian media is not very mature when it comes to these matters, they should be less warmongering when they talk about nuclear weapons. Even during the cold war no one called ICBM's "Soviet killer" or "America killer".
> 
> Agni V's *warhead is said to weight 1500kg's* (Indian media claim) and it's yield is 200-250kt... not very advanced. Certainly not something to brag about.
> 
> DF-31's warhead weights under 500kg's and has a yield of 300-800kt.
> Secret Reports on Chinese Ballistic Missiles
> 
> Needless to say that Rus and US warheads have even better yield-to-weight ratios.




1500Kg is the weight of payload used in the test.

There is no 1500Kg warhead in Indian arsenal... Agni V have capability to reach 1000+ Km If its payload were to be reduced upto 500-800kg as is the case with DF-31A. 

Warheads to be used on Agni V weights 270kg and there would be atleast 5 such warheads(more depending on target deployment area) having a yield of 200KT each... along with decoys.

Currently a new warhead with a yeild of 450KT has been designed to be used on SLBM version of Agni V which would have a range of over 6000km and would carry 3 such warheads.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## UKBengali

DARKY said:


> 1500Kg is the weight of payload used in the test.
> 
> There is no 1500Kg warhead in Indian arsenal... Agni V have capability to reach 1000+ Km If its payload were to be reduced upto 500-800kg as is the case with DF-31A.
> 
> *Warheads to be used on Agni V weights 270kg and there would be atleast 5 such warheads(more depending on target deployment area) having a yield of 200KT each... along with decoys*.
> 
> Currently a new warhead with a yeild of 450KT has been designed to be used on SLBM version of Agni V which would have a range of over 6000km and would carry 3 such warheads.




Any proof these warheads exist?


----------



## Broccoli

UKBengali said:


> Any proof these warheads exist?



Nope, and look how large Agni V's warhead is. How can Indians stuff FIVE of those in to one Agni V? That's not going to happen. It was once claimed (there was lot of fan art) that Agni III would have MIRV capability... that didn't happen. 


Here is what Hans Kristensen from FAS replied to questions about Agni V and MIRV's. 


> Reply: A lot of people are very hooked on MIRV, assuming almost automatically that if a country develops and ICBM it will also deploy MIRV on it. But for smaller nuclear weapon states that doesn&#8217;t necessarily follow (some of the larger nuclear states are reducing their reliance on MIRV). China has had MIRV capability for many years but not deployed it. *For India to add MIRV to Agni-V (assuming India has the technological skills to do so) would significantly decrease its range &#8211; especially with India&#8217;s relatively heavy warheads.* Since range is the main motivation for Agni-V and India has no intention (that I&#8217;m aware of) to develop a nuclear doctrine that requires their missiles to destroy a lot of different targets in a single strike, I fail to see why it would be necessary to spend a lot of money and effort to develop MIRV for the Agni-V. HK



We don't even know if this is 200kt or 20kt warhead.


----------



## KingMamba

TruthSeeker said:


> I appreciate Ron Paul's "isolationism" a great deal. It would greatly benefit the American people to declare a two generation holiday from being the world's policeman. That's about how long it would take for the "world" to screw itself up so bad that it needed a policeman to bring order again. BUT, maybe the PRC could do that instead of us. I'm sure the PRC's methods would be highly effective in bring about a "new world of order".



Imagine what two decades of non policing the world can do for the United States economy, we need to worry about ourselves right now it would do us a lot of good in the long run.


----------



## UKBengali

KingMamba93 said:


> Imagine what two decades of non policing the world can do for the United States economy, we need to worry about ourselves right now it would do us a lot of good in the long run.



But you lose the benefits of being the world's superpower then.

No more US dollar as world's reserve currency and actually having to pay something real
for all your imports, rather than just printing paper dollars.

The US is the world' number one extortion racket and it uses the US military to enforce that.


----------



## Broccoli

There is no evidence that India would have over 50kt warheads, and since their thermonuclear test "fizzled" Agni V's warhead is most likely untested "pure fission" weapon like the famous "Little Boy". 

Here is what Chinese did when they wanted to know if their warhead design actually works.


> 22 May 1992**
> China confirms that it tested a one megaton nuclear bomb. The test, equivalent to one&#8208;million tonnes of TNT, took place underground in the desert of north&#8208;west China. It is the most powerful test the world has seen in more than
> 20 years. The huge underground nuclear blast set off by the Chinese military was the test of a warhead for a new
> intercontinental ballistic missile that is under development, U.S. officials said. A Chinese ICBM with a one&#8208;megaton
> warhead would carry about the same explosive power as the SS&#8208;18 Mod 5, the most advanced missile in the
> nuclear arsenal of the former Soviet Union that carries numerous warheads capable of delivering up to 900
> kilotons of explosive power. Department of Mines and Energy seismologist David Love said that the department's
> equipment showed the earth tremor caused by the test was equal to that of an earthquake measuring about seven
> on the Richter scale


http://www.nti.org/media/pdfs/china_missile_1.pdf?_=1339023443


Where was Indian high yield warhead design tested? I don't remember reading about it.


----------



## KRAIT

Indian nuclear missiles and weapons are duds. Don't waste time on it. We are so backward in every field especially defense.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## KingMamba

UKBengali said:


> But you lose the benefits of being the world's superpower then.
> 
> No more US dollar as world's reserve currency and actually having to pay something real
> for all your imports, rather than just printing paper dollars.
> 
> The US is the world' number one extortion racket and it uses the US military to enforce that.



Not policing the world does not mean removing all of our influence. We can maintain all our influence and much more without interfering in any country militarily and keeping a neutral foreign policy with no alliances. That is what George Washington wanted anyway. Besides it is in the best interest of all countries worldwide to want to deal with the US of A at least economically.


----------



## DARKY

UKBengali said:


> Any proof these warheads exist?



They exist and are deployed.
Their scaled down versions were tested in 1998 tests.


----------



## DARKY

Broccoli said:


> Nope, and look how large Agni V's warhead is. How can Indians stuff FIVE of those in to one Agni V? That's not going to happen. It was once claimed (there was lot of fan art) that Agni III would have MIRV capability... that didn't happen.
> 
> 
> Here is what Hans Kristensen from FAS replied to questions about Agni V and MIRV's.
> 
> 
> We don't even know if this is 200kt or 20kt warhead.


 
Have you seen a live deployed Agni 3 ?
Or the K-4 SLBM ?

Once again thats a dummy payload on that missile... which is under testing phase... Its not a warhead.
Some times I wonder does the chicom has brain to reason properly ?... but then I see how stupid I am.

The Blog you quoted speaks lengths about chines military equipment... and missile programs too.



KRAIT said:


> Indian nuclear missiles and weapons are duds. Don't waste time on it. We are so backward in every field especially defense.



Such things only apply against China and Pakistan.. even imported military equipment all of a sudden right from world class and world's best become junk and garbage material and plastic toys once deployed against China.


----------



## Broccoli

DARKY said:


> Have you seen a live deployed Agni 3 ?
> 
> Once again thats a dummy payload on that missile... which is under testing phase... Its not a warhead.
> Some times I wonder does the chicom has brain to reason properly ?... but then I see how stupid I am.
> 
> The Blog you quoted speaks lengths about chines military equipment... and missile programs too.



Dummy payload? That same warhead can be seen in all Agni III and Agni V pictures, and if those missiles have 200kt warhead.... then that is it. There is no evidence at all that India would have 450kt thermonuclear warheads. 

Here is more Agni III fan-art. 
Livefist: EXCLUSIVE: Artist's Impression Of MIRV Warhead On Agni-III

This thread has pictures of real Agni III. 
http://www.defence.pk/forums/indian...-has-already-been-inducted-into-armed-fo.html


----------



## UKBengali

When India tests a 200kT hydrogen bomb, then we can believe it can make hydrogen bombs.

I am awaiting that test.


----------



## Broccoli

UKBengali said:


> When India tests a 200kT hydrogen bomb, then we can believe it can make hydrogen bombs.
> 
> I am awaiting that test.



Correct, people should be less patriotic about these things and accept reality.


----------



## Diamond_Gold

UKBengali said:


> When India tests a 200kT hydrogen bomb, then we can believe it can make hydrogen bombs.
> 
> I am awaiting that test.



Accordingly to some indians told me back in the 90s, they have already successfully tested such H-bomb under the ground, even the US nor the soviets were able to detect them. LOLOL... and it did really happen (my story but not theirs).


----------



## DARKY

Broccoli said:


> Dummy payload? That same warhead can be seen in all Agni III and Agni V pictures, and if those missiles have 200kt warhead.... then that is it. There is no evidence at all that India would have 450kt thermonuclear warheads.
> 
> Here is more Agni III fan-art.
> Livefist: EXCLUSIVE: Artist's Impression Of MIRV Warhead On Agni-III
> 
> This thread has pictures of real Agni III.
> http://www.defence.pk/forums/indian...-has-already-been-inducted-into-armed-fo.html



Still have doubts.... or do you have any news or links about a 50 or whatever KT Nuclear explosion near Antarctica the day Agni V was fire ?

Agni III doesn't not have MIRV... Yet... the MIRV would be tested in next couple of tests of Agni V(which would have 8x8 axis TEL aswell as sealed launch tube).. one of which would occur later this year or early next year... once they are tested the deployments would be made by 2014.

The Warheads on Agni III are possibly MRV.



UKBengali said:


> When India tests a 200kT hydrogen bomb, then we can believe it can make hydrogen bombs.
> 
> I am awaiting that test.



India tested a scaled downed version of 200KT hydrogen bomb.
The test was successful and design parameters were verified.. India cannot detonate heavy KT warheads on its soil... since it would have adverse climatic impact on the region and Himalayas which would In turn wash away countries like Bangladesh into Bay of Bengal.



Diamond_Gold said:


> Accordingly to some indians told me back in the 90s, they have already successfully tested such H-bomb under the ground, even the US nor the soviets were able to detect them. LOLOL... and it did really happen (my story but not theirs).



There is a 1980 based design of a Boosted Fission Bomb... weather it was test or not is not known.
It is of 200KT yield and weights 800Kg.

1998 Tests were made to verify a new design which was supposed to be 4 times lighter and as powerful... a few sub Kiloton and Plutonium devices were also verified in process.


----------



## UKBengali

DARKY said:


> India tested a scaled downed version of 200KT hydrogen bomb.
> The test was successful and design parameters were verified.. India cannot detonate heavy KT warheads on its soil... since it would have adverse climatic impact on the region and Himalayas which would In turn wash away countries like Bangladesh into Bay of Bengal.


----------



## mDumb

Stop it. Don't argue with the Indians about anything.

They like to think they are the best, especially, when they live in a foreign land, then reality hits them when they go back to India.

Once, I was on a plane going to Singapore flying SIA (aka Singapore Airlines) and 80%-90% of the passengers were Indians.

To kill boredom and being friendly, I decided to have a conversation with a passenger next to me (who happened to be Indian).

Somewhere along the conversation, I asked him why he didn't fly Air India (aka AIL) and his response was surprising. He said, "Oh no, they will treat you as Indian."


----------



## Broccoli

DARKY said:


> Still have doubts.... or do you have any news or links about a 50 or whatever KT Nuclear explosion near Antarctica the day Agni V was fire ?.



What is meaning of this? You made a claim that India has a 450kt thermonuclear warhead, but you don't have evidence back it up. Now you are mumbling something about Antarctica.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Markus

India only has DESIGN for a 200 kt device, not an actual one.

Such a device will be manufactured once Indian govt. removes self-imposed moratorium on testing.


----------



## DARKY

Broccoli said:


> What is meaning of this? You made a claim that India has a 450kt thermonuclear warhead, but you don't have evidence back it up. Now you are mumbling something about Antarctica.



Since you being as dumb as you are... read again what I said about the 450kt warhead.... Its a new design which would be used in the SLBM version of Agni V.

The Nuclear program of India is a closely guarded one and little is know... that too without any links or sources... same about the Indian SSBN/SSN/SLBM programs.


----------



## Broccoli

DARKY said:


> Since you being as dumb as you are... read again what I said about the 450kt warhead.... Its a new design which would be used in the SLBM version of Agni V.



Where is the evidence for this new 450kt thermonuclear warhead? I'm still waiting for it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Patriot

Broccoli said:


> Where is the evidence for this new 450kt thermonuclear warhead? I'm still waiting for it.


 There isn't any.He just made it up.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## bln89

WS-10 Engine said:


> I'm not worried about India's tiny nuclear arsenal hitting china, I'm worried these clowns will detonate their warheads on themselves because of severe corruption.
> 
> Indian military is such a 2nd rate rag tag military as is common with all 3rd world countries, I won't be surprised if they nuke themselves through sheer incompetence.



i remember that they call china 3rd world country also 
and for your sake no one know how many nuke china have as they always bark more then they have.


----------



## The SC

> i would not be surprised by your comments. you chiks think like a bull. i am engineer from mit so let me give you some hint. baby megaton boms were 1970s story when accuracy of missile were low so to have desired result large bombs were made. with high accuracy missiles you need small sophesticated nukes and with you could have mirv to increse potency. and i know india has 200kt bomb only but their missile accuracy is finest in world - agni 3 has circular error probability of 40 meter. it is like it can hit you even in your toilet accuratly if then want. agni mk 2 re-entry vehicle is only of its kind that can maneuver as it is tailor made for 1000 kg bomb but indian bomb is only 250 kg. and rest is filled with 200 kg of liquid fuel and a motor. it has high accuracy because re entry vehicle can maneuver to target, while other countries has to put their rv in exact trajectory to reach target.






Other countries have stealthy cruise missiles of 3000 km range that can manoeuvre to any place in India including your family's bedrooms, where you dream too much. 200 kt nuclear device is what India calls a thermonuclear device, since it does not have one.
Other nations have ballistic missiles technologies India only dreams of having.
you have lowered the MIT engineering programs to such a level that if the deans of the programs hear about it, they will expel you at ounce; if you are a genuine engineer from MIT of course!!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## The SC

Actually it will manoeuver insde your*** and blow it off till your dirty brain.
Everyone knows how big is your ***, so please do hide it somewhere along your primitive brain and missiles.
Everyone also knows that your technologies if they can be called that are an amalgam of "rests" or leftovers from all over the world.
What a liar stating he is an MIT Engineer. Where did you buy your diplomas, is it the same place where you get your jobs in the US, I mean Indian heroin mobs?
You are not different from most Indians on most forums, you are boosting about missile technology while you are having problems feeding yourselves, it just doesn't sound congruent nor logical, but to a troubled mind like yours it might feed your twisted ego.


----------



## marshall

marshall said:


> My advice is, don't believe every unverified claim you read. That 3000 nukes fantasy has its roots in an American study done by an American professor and his students. That is the same sort of ridiculous study as what Colin Powell presented at the UN when he used a university paper by some random student to justify non-existent Iraqi WMDs. It's all speculation and wishful guesstimates. You might as well speculate that India has around 3000 nukes because it needs that to counter China's supposed 3000 nukes. I find it to be retarded logic.



I just found actual PROOF that those so-called secret Chinese nukes that claimed China had upwards of 3000 nuclear warheads, is a hoax just as I've always suspected. Here is the link...

Jeffrey Lewis &bull; Collected Thoughts on Phil Karber

...Military analyst Jeffrey Lewis, disputed those claims the same way I did here but performed actual scholarly research, along with others, into these claims. Essentially, he traced the entire chain of communication that led to the belief that China has thousands of nukes and its supporting infrastructure. He demonstrated that it is all based on absolutely NOTHING...as in NADAAA. In fact, the source of the so-called leak of China's nuclear secrets was traced back to an American military analyst from the 1980s named Bradley Hahn who had 1 of his reports on China's nuclear weapons status plagiarized by an Internet troll who created his own report to include you guessed it...2350 nuke warheads and non-existent nuclear materials processing centers. These now proven to be made up lies were then published by "The Trend" magazine, which is an anti-China dissident magazine. This myth created by this Internet troll then went on to spread around the world that the China Threat Theory propagandists are so eager to use as justification for yet more anti-China propaganda.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## anarchy 99

We have 6000 nukes.


----------



## feilong

anarchy 99 said:


> We have 6000 nukes.



Are you kidding right? China must have at least 14000 nukes same as Russia. Now US will see china stock piles is still less. Lol


----------



## Broccoli

It's more likely that Chinese are playing the "shell game" (that's why all the tunnels) instead of manufacturing thousands of expensive missiles and warheads.



> The Shell Game was a proposed MX missile deployment mode. Each of the 200 missiles would have its own oval "racetrack," ten to 15 miles long. Along every track would be 23 underground shelters. A monstrous, 180-ft.-long TEL (transporter-erector-launcher) would move the MX from one shelter to another. Alternatively, the TEL might leave the MX missile in place for a while and carry a dummy MX to another shelter or around the course. Soviet spy satellites could never be sure exactly where the missile was and thus would have to knock out all 23 shelters on each of the 200 tracks.


The MX ICBM Shell Game - YouTube


----------



## Broccoli

DF-31 launch from early 90's.


----------



## Broccoli

How many Chinese weapon designs used uranium pit? Infamous CHIC-4 design is only what comes to my mind. I remember reading years ago from a science blog (can't find it anymore) what suggested that DF-31 warhead was using uranium pit instead of plutonium. 

Uranium would have some advances over plutonium, but of course there would be some cons too. 
Jeffrey Lewis &bull; Uranium Reliable Replacement Warhead (URRW)


----------



## Broccoli

Claimed to be DF-31 470kg RV (500-700kt).


----------



## Sanchez

It doesn't matter that how many nukes we have! We should give up no first use policy!

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Ayush

ao333 said:


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



no man,it is not overrated.russia has the largest stock of nuclear weapons.far greater than USA.


----------



## Broccoli

Sanchez said:


> It doesn't matter that how many nukes we have! We should give up no first use policy!



Why China should give up NFU?


----------



## ashok321

Broccoli said:


> Why China should give up NFU?



So would others...like ripple effect.
And then, in the process, one fine morning, my doggy would not be able to have his breakfast....
Planet earth, which belongs to Allah, wont belong to nobody.
everybody toasted, charcoaled.
lol baba


----------



## Johny D

Sanchez said:


> It doesn't matter that how many nukes we have! *We should give up no first use policy*!



why not....and Japan, Viet,Taiwan should go for Nukes with option to use it first!!! dont wonder if uncle SAM makes it happen!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Martian2

*Jane's Defense claims China's DF-21A, JL-1A, and DF-25 have EMP warhead capability*

The following three MissileThreat.com articles on China's DF-21A, JL-1A, and DF-25 ballistic missiles cite Jane's Defense as their primary source of information.

DF-21/-21A/-21B/-21C/-21D (CSS-5) | Missile Threat






"JL-1 submarine-launched ballistic missile. The DF-21 is very similar in appearance.
Jane&#8217;s Strategic Weapon Systems"






----------

JL-1/-1A (CSS-N-3) | Missile Threat





"JL-1 displayed in parade.
Jane&#8217;s Strategic Weapon Systems"






----------

DF-25 | Missile Threat






----------

*Jane's Defense claims China's SY-400 SRBM also has EMP capability*

SY-400 | Missile Threat






----------

Nuclear EMP: Examples






----------

*Simple deduction of China's DF-5 ICBM carrying a 16.5 megaton EMP warhead*

1. China has the world's largest deployed thermonuclear warhead at five megatons on the DF-5 ICBM.

R-36 (missile) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"With the retirement of the 20 megaton SS-18 Mod 6 warheads, *the highest yield weapon in service with any nation is the estimated 5 MT Chinese Dong Feng 5 (DF-5) ICBM (CSS-4) warhead.*"

2. In 1988, China proved it can build an enhanced radiation weapon by detonating a neutron bomb that emphasizes neutron emissions. Twenty-five years have passed. It is reasonable to believe China can build another type of enhanced radiation weapon; an EMP (ie. electromagnetic pulse) warhead that emphasizes gamma ray radiation.

Report: China building electromagnetic pulse weapons for use against U.S. carriers - Washington Times

"Report: China building electromagnetic pulse weapons for use against U.S. carriers
By Bill Gertz - The Washington Times
Thursday, July 21, 2011 
...
Peter Pry, a former congressional aide who helped direct a commission on EMP several years ago, said the commission found that China plans for nuclear EMP strikes against the United States, as well as Taiwan and carrier forces, are part of its military doctrine and exercises.

'*There is also evidence that China is developing, or has already developed, super-EMP nuclear weapons that generate extraordinarily powerful EMP fields*...,' Mr. Pry, president of the group EMPact America, said in an email."

3. The yield for a nuclear weapon can be magnified by 3.3-fold for an enhanced radiation weapon.

Nuclear Weapon Design

"*Enhanced Radiation Weapons*

An enhanced radiation (ER) weapon, by special design techniques, has an output in which neutrons and x-rays are made to constitute a substantial portion of the total energy released. For example, a standard fission weapon's total energy output would be partitioned as follows: 50% as blast; 35% as thermal energy; and *15% as nuclear radiation*. An ER weapon's total energy would be partitioned as follows: 30% as blast; 20% as thermal; and *50% as nuclear radiation*. Thus, a 3-kiloton ER weapon will produce the nuclear radiation of a 10-kiloton fission weapon and the blast and thermal radiation of a 1-kiloton fission device. However, the energy distribution percentages of nuclear weapons are a function of yield."

Calculation:

A standard nuclear weapon produces 15% nuclear radiation. An Enhanced Radiation weapon produces 50% nuclear radiation. The multiplicative factor is 3.3 (e.g. 50%/15% = 3.3) for the yield of an Enhanced Radiation weapon over a standard nuclear weapon.

4. Putting it all together.

A Chinese DF-5 ICBM typically carries a five megaton thermonuclear warhead. This is overkill for destroying a city. You only need one to three megatons. Therefore, there is a strong likelihood that Chinese DF-5 ICBMs are meant to deliver an EMP over enemy countries.

Five megaton warhead x 3.3 enhanced radiation design = 16.5 megatons of gamma rays

*In conclusion, I have shown China's DF-5 ICBM can deliver a 16.5 megaton EMP warhead.*

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Viet

@Martian2

Welcome back. Where have you been all the time?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Akasa

bln89 said:


> i remember that they call china 3rd world country also
> and for your sake no one know how many nuke china have as they always bark more then they have.



They certainly "bark more than they have". Especially how they revealed that they have a 3000 km tunnel that can store up to 3000 nuclear warheads when the official report is 400. Seriously, what year do you live in?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Akasa

NiceGuy said:


> Hehe, we have Nuclear ballistic missile Shaddock with the range of 600km too
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't mess up with VN and ASEAN , or your supper rich leaders will die too (and of course they don;t wanna die)



Saddam had much more potent missiles than you and yet he couldn't even threaten his neighbors. You really think Vietnam can?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Genesis

This is stupid, I can be beaten up by a failed mixed martial artist, how is bring in George St pierre going to change the out come one bit?

China has enough to destroy the US can we leave it at that? I'm ok with not destroying Mexico or Peru with America IF it ever really came to it. Does America feel the need to destroy Japan or South Korea if a nuclear war happens? Chinese people are not magic, we die once than that's it. We don't need to be nuked twice for the nuke to take effect.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Martian2

*China is ready for a modern EMP war. The U.S. and Japan are not.*

China has at least 40 super-hardened underground air bases (see citation below and the plethora of pictures in the link) to protect its aircraft and other military assets from an EMP strike. Chinese underground air bases are located under mountains or hills of granite.

On the other hand, Kadena Air Force Base is completely above ground. Similarly, Guam is also fully above ground without any deep underground bases.

A fleet of F-22s at Kadena or B-2 bombers (which the U.S. only has 20 and they're subsonic) at Guam is just asking to be crippled by a Chinese 16.5 megaton EMP warhead. All of the electrical wiring and electronics will be fused with 50,000 volts per meter. This electrical damage also applies to all tanker refueling trucks and pumps. Also, all missiles will have their electronic seekers fused.

An EMP warhead in excess of one megaton has a radius of 1,500 miles. This means the area affected by an EMP is a circle with a diameter of 3,000 miles. Aircraft carriers and their naval aircraft are also sitting ducks waiting to have all of their electrical systems and electronics fused at 50,000 volts per meter.

In the worst-case scenario, even if you assume China did not specifically design an EMP warhead, Japan and the U.S. still have to face a five megaton Chinese DF-5 thermonuclear and EMP warhead.

----------

Assessing PLA Underground Air Basing Capability





_China's Underground Airbases, Geographical Placement (red - PLAAF, blue - PLANAF, green - unidentified tenant afiliation)_





_This chart shows the pronounced asymmetry between the PLA's robust basing infrastructure, in comparison with that of the United States, and its principal WestPac allies, Japan and Australia. The chart excludes civil airfields, dual use airfields and PLA military airfields in the two Western MRs. The PLA has available around 150 military airfields, divided not quite evenly between superhardened bases with underground hangars, bases equipped with revetments or HAS, and unhardened bases. In a &#8220;PGM-centric&#8221; warfighting environment, bases with revetments qualify as unhardened. With around seven times the number of military airbases available, the PLA has a major advantage over the US and its allies, in terms of its ability to rapidly relocate combat units, or redeploy if a base is severely damaged. The number of superhardened bases with underground hangars alone is around twice the total number of operational bases used by the United States, and its principal WestPac allies, Japan and Australia. Whether we consider scenarios involving pre-emptive attacks, or sustained air wars of attrition, China has an enormous advantage over the United States, and its allies, as the asymmetry in basing infrastructure produces a strong asymmetry in military effort required to degrade airbase operational capability, attrit aircraft on the ground, or render basing unusable. An excellent analysis of this problem was produced by Stillion[9]._

"Conclusions
...
*While China's underground airbase infrastructure may well be an artefact of the early Cold War period, it will clearly have an enduring long term impact as one of China's invaluable national strategic assets.*"

[Note: At the end of the Australia Air Power article, there is a list of all known 41 Chinese super-hardened bases (including pictures and geographical coordinates). See "Annex A - PLA Underground Air Base Survey"]


----------



## Great China

Martian2 said:


> *China is ready for a modern EMP war. The U.S. and Japan are not.*
> 
> China has at least 40 super-hardened underground air bases (see citation below and the plethora of pictures in the link) to protect its aircraft and other military assets from an EMP strike. Chinese underground air bases are located under mountains or hills of granite.
> 
> On the other hand, Kadena Air Force Base is completely above ground. Similarly, Guam is also fully above ground without any deep underground bases.
> 
> A fleet of F-22s at Kadena or B-2 bombers (which the U.S. only has 20 and they're subsonic) at Guam is just asking to be crippled by a Chinese 16.5 megaton EMP warhead. All of the electrical wiring and electronics will be fused with 50,000 volts per meter. This electrical damage also applies to all tanker refueling trucks and pumps. Also, all missiles will have their electronic seekers fused.
> 
> An EMP warhead in excess of one megaton has a radius of 1,500 miles. This means the area affected by an EMP is a circle with a diameter of 3,000 miles. Aircraft carriers and their naval aircraft are also sitting ducks waiting to have all of their electrical systems and electronics fused at 50,000 volts per meter.
> 
> In the worst-case scenario, even if you assume China did not specifically design an EMP warhead, Japan and the U.S. still have to face a five megaton Chinese DF-5 thermonuclear and EMP warhead.




Remaining hidden underground is only a temporary solution in the case EMP weapons are used against China. We also need to get outside in order to strike back! So we should find solutions to protect our strategic weapons (mainly mobile ICBMs) against EMP. At present, all of our mobile TELs are totally vulnerable. Only the cancelled US SICBM Midgetman was EMP shielded. 
Otherwise we should deploy more SSBNs. EMP doesn't affect underwater submarines.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## silver_dragon

Martian2 said:


> 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.



The dragon will roar in American cities very soon after US lets exhausted in coming Korean war. thats our plan of action.


----------



## tranquilium

It is interesting to note that while China has over the half of the nuclear power of US in term of megatons. It has significantly less in the number of total nuclear warheads. This is consistent with the no-first use policy. The Chinese nukes tends to be big and with the intention of destroying cities and population centers (aka deterrent). Many US nukes has smaller yield so they can be used as tactical devices.
Also, nukes don't destroy country via extermination of the people. As it is stated, there is simply no way for a few gigaton of explosion to level the entire country. What it does, is causing the target's economy and social structure to collapse. For example, if New York city is destroyed, then US financial system will take a crippling blow, along with many production and research facilities. Similarly, if Chengdu is destroyed, then Chinese fighter production would have take a huge blow and decades of research will be lost. This kind of loss take decades to recover and by the end of recovery, the country would have dropped to a third rate nation.

Personally I think the Chinese nuclear stockpile looks about right. 294 megaton is sufficient deterrent to any major nation and extra is not really needed. Remember, Nukes are not cheap to build and they are also very costly to maintain and dispose.


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

tranquilium said:


> It is interesting to note that while China has over the half of the nuclear power of US in term of megatons. It has significantly less in the number of total nuclear warheads. This is consistent with the no-first use policy. The Chinese nukes tends to be big and with the intention of destroying cities and population centers (aka deterrent). Many US nukes has smaller yield so they can be used as tactical devices.
> Also, nukes don't destroy country via extermination of the people. As it is stated, there is simply no way for a few gigaton of explosion to level the entire country. What it does, is causing the target's economy and social structure to collapse. For example, if New York city is destroyed, then US financial system will take a crippling blow, along with many production and research facilities. Similarly, if Chengdu is destroyed, then Chinese fighter production would have take a huge blow and decades of research will be lost. This kind of loss take decades to recover and by the end of recovery, the country would have dropped to a third rate nation.
> 
> Personally I think the Chinese nuclear stockpile looks about right. 294 megaton is sufficient deterrent to any major nation and extra is not really needed. Remember, Nukes are not cheap to build and they are also very costly to maintain and dispose.



In fact, the 294 megatons figure is from the late 1990s.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Fsjal

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> In fact, the 294 megatons figure is from the late 1990s.



This would mean China has more (or less)


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Fsjal said:


> This would mean China has more (or less)



Well, China isn't part of the START treaty, and with more new MIRVed ICBMs/SLBMs, of course we have more nukes right now. 

And a significantly part of the obsolete nukes have been retired.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Broccoli

Fsjal said:


> This would mean China has more (or less)



It's probably a lot less now because older 1-5MT weapons are being removed from service and replaced with 100-700kt weapons. Last Chinese test series (94-96) gives a hint that their latest warhead design has a yield of 100kt.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## asad71

Any update please? Any other nation likely to join the club of 5?


----------



## Broccoli

asad71 said:


> Any update please? Any other nation likely to join the club of 5?



Unlikely since it seems that you need thermonuclear weapons to be part of that "elite club", and other nuclear armed states do not have them.


----------



## Broccoli

Most numerous US warhead is the 100kt W76. 

New Russian SLBM's are armed with 90-150kt warheads. 

French have 100-120kt TN 75. 

UK warhead is based on the 100kt W76. 

PRC followed suite with their 100kt warhead.


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Broccoli said:


> It's probably a lot less now because older 1-5MT weapons are being removed from service and replaced with 100-700kt weapons. *Last Chinese test series (94-96) gives a hint that their latest warhead design has a yield of 100kt. *



You are making your own words, Mr. Finland.

*The blast, which took place about 1 A.M. Eastern daylight time, had 70 times the explosive power of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima, and exceeded the 150-kiloton limit observed by Washington and Moscow under a 1990 treaty, scientists said.*

Chinese Set Off Their Biggest Nuclear Explosion - NYTimes.com

Do you really believe that US is the only one that possesses the W-88 nuclear miniaturization technology?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Broccoli

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> You are making your own words, Mr. Finland.
> 
> *The blast, which took place about 1 A.M. Eastern daylight time, had 70 times the explosive power of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima, and exceeded the 150-kiloton limit observed by Washington and Moscow under a 1990 treaty, scientists said.*
> 
> Chinese Set Off Their Biggest Nuclear Explosion - NYTimes.com
> 
> Do you really believe that US is the only one that possesses the W-88 nuclear miniaturization technology?




Most reliable sources put that 1992 test yield at 660-700kt and not 1MT... no one knows were those lasts test DF-31 RV tests or were they testing new warhead. NASIC reports that DF-31 RV weights 470kg and is too big for the DF-31 ICBM to carry more than one, and that would mean only Chinese ICBM (in service currently) what could carry MIRVs is the DF-5. Back in the 1990's (before DF-31A appeared) it was rumored that DF-41 was able to carry three DF-31 RV's but without any penaids. 

I don't remember writing that only US can manufacture "watermelon" primaries, but even the US made W88 (length 170cm+ and weight almost 400kg) is large when compared to something like the W76. Most people do not realize that W88 is far from being a small nuclear weapon.

Look at page 109.
http://www.cissm.umd.edu/papers/files/the_minimum_means_of_reprisal.pdf



> Following the resumption of testing in 1987, an analysis of Chinese test yields
> suggests at least two additional designs: Two tests in the 200&#8208;300 KT range probably
> involved the warhead for the DF&#8208;21/JL&#8208;1 proposed in 1986 by Deng Jiaxian and Yu
> Min.
> 
> Then, in September 1992, China conducted a low yield test that was reported to
> validate an aspherical primary for a miniaturized nuclear warhead that could arm
> the DF&#8208;31/JL&#8208;2. This development probably obviated the DF&#8208;21/JL&#8208;1 warhead.
> 
> China announced its intention to complete negotiations on a CTBT &#8220;no later than
> 1996&#8221; following the first full scale test of the warhead for the DF&#8208;31 in October
> 1993 Six tests in the 50&#8208;150 KT range probably completed validation for the
> design.


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Broccoli said:


> Most reliable sources put that 1992 test yield at 660-700kt and not 1MT... no one knows were those lasts test DF-31 RV tests or were they testing new warhead. NASIC reports that DF-31 RV weights 470kg and is too big for the DF-31 ICBM to carry more than one, and that would mean only Chinese ICBM (in service currently) what could carry MIRVs is the DF-5. Back in the 1990's (before DF-31A appeared) it was rumored that DF-41 was able to carry three DF-31 RV's but without any penaids.
> 
> I don't remember writing that only US can manufacture "watermelon" primaries, but even the US made W88 (length 170cm+ and weight almost 400kg) is large when compared to something like the W76. Most people do not realize that W88 is far from being a small nuclear weapon.
> 
> Look at page 109.
> http://www.cissm.umd.edu/papers/files/the_minimum_means_of_reprisal.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look at the size of DF-31 dummy RV (simulating the real rv) in this pic. Are you saying that DF-31 is going to carry three of those?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compare that to DF-31A what has payload shroud covering the RV so we cannot see it.



Gosh, you are full of it.

You are on my ignored list right now, goodbye.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Fsjal

Broccoli said:


> Most numerous US warhead is the 100kt W76.
> 
> New Russian SLBM's are armed with 90-150kt warheads.
> 
> French have 100-120kt TN 75.
> 
> UK warhead is based on the 100kt W76.
> 
> PRC followed suite with their 100kt warhead.



Are they thermonuclear warheads or basic nuclear atomic warheads, because, for thermonuclear, 100kt is weak. Thermonuclear warheads can be as powerful up to 50mt. For an atomic warhead 100kt is powerful.


----------



## Martian2

Viet said:


> @Martian2
> 
> Welcome back. Where have you been all the time?



I've been busy raising awareness on China's EMP megaton weapon capability in the mainstream media, such as TIME, Bloomberg, etc.

When I posted my comment on TIME, 1019 people were "listening"/watching my comment. I reached a lot of new people with my viewpoint. I'm guessing many thousands of people read my viewpoint during the first 24 hours. Possibly tens of thousands of people read my comment by the end of the week.

Anyway, my viewpoint was posted on a total of approximately 40 mainstream publications. The links below are only a partial listing. I got tired of recording my activities.

At times, I leave the forums and focus my effort on the mainstream media. One or two years ago, I spent 14 days posting China's historical claims to the South China Sea in the mainstream media. Someone has to speak up for Chinese people, right? We're the good guys.

----------

*I raise the issue of China's 16.5 megaton EMP warhead in TIME's comment section*

US Boosts Troops, Ships, Exercises In Asia-Pacific | TIME.com

"China To Find A Target-Rich Environment
By Kirk SpitzerFeb. 08, 2013"

*My reply in the comment section:*

"ChinaLee
4 minutes ago

If China detonates a 16.5 megaton EMP (electromagnetic pulse) warhead over Japan, there will be a lot of sitting ducks.

Normally, China's DF-5 ICBM carries a 5 megaton thermonuclear warhead. According to the Federation of American Scientists, an enhanced radiation weapon (such as an EMP warhead) has a multiplicative factor of 3.3 when a normal nuclear warhead is specifically tuned to emit gamma rays."

----------

*China holds the ultimate high ground with a 16.5 megaton EMP warhead*

When China and the United States both put their best military cards on the table, China should be the winner.

What is more powerful? China's 16.5 megaton EMP warhead or America's 182 F-22 fighters?

In my view, the clear winner is 50,000 volts surging through all electrical wiring and electronics. Radar stealth is useless against 50,000 volts per meter (see citation below).

In furtherance of raising awareness on the showdown between China's 16.5 megaton EMP warhead versus America's radar-evading stealth fighter, I have posted my TIME comment on other websites.

Think of this post as my way of keeping track.

Comments left at:

Chinese ship patrol Diaoyu Islands waters, South China Sea - China.org.cn

Obama Should Woo Japan to Join Pacific Trade Pact | Bloomberg

Japan, China island dispute heats up | UPI

Jets roar as US, Japan, Australia drill in Pacific - Indian Express

Japan wants military hotline to China | Big News Network

Tiny Islands, Big Worries: What's Really Driving The China-Japan Showdown | World Crunch

The Rising East: China-Japan Clash Dangerously Ripe for Miscalculation | Honolulu Civil Beat

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2013/02/ap-america-backs-japan-radar-incident-china-021113/

China and Japan Dispute Over Islands Escalates

Japan GSDF Members Board Osprey Aircraft for 1st Time | Avionics Intelligence

Philippines &#8211; China territorial rights standoff at flash point | Hill Post

US Arms Fuel Asian Tension by Richard Javad Heydarian -- Antiwar.com

Huge military exercise highlights 'rebalancing of US policy toward Asia' - World News

Robin Lustig: Is a North Korean Nuclear Bomb a Direct Threat to the US?

Fallout | The Economist

Chinese patrol vessels enter disputed waters | The Voice of Russia (Radio)

Businessweek - Business News, Stock market & Financial Advice

The United States Heads to the South China Sea | Foreign Affairs

Obama hosting new Japan PM amid tensions in Asia

Obama Meets Abe Amid China And Japan Tension

China Looms as Main Concern in Meeting Between Obama, Japan's Abe | PBS NewsHour | Feb. 22, 2013 | PBS

----------

Nuclear EMP: Examples






----------

Another Post on EMP Attack

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Viet

Martian2 said:


> I've been busy raising awareness on China's EMP megaton weapon capability in the mainstream media, such as TIME, Bloomberg, etc.


I agree with one´s response to your retard comments on the media:
"I think you should seek professional help. *You are a psychopath."*


----------



## Martian2

Viet said:


> I agree with one´s response to your retard comments on the media:
> "I think you should seek professional help. *You are a psychopath."*



*Don't be a sore loser*

You sound distraught. You only joined PDF in June 2012. I've been affecting the American national discussion on important China-related issues for years.

For example, a year ago, there was intense debate in the United States about alleged Chinese currency manipulation. I countered that myth with my comments on CBSNews (see below), UPI, USAToday, CNNMoney, Nasdaq, CNBCNews, and many other major news publications that I have forgotten.

After the widespread posting of my comments regarding China's 30% yuan appreciation, Reuters and The Guardian newspaper published new articles within 12 hours acknowledging that China's currency had indeed appreciated 30% during the past six years against the U.S. dollar. I was challenging their credibility and they wisely chose to publish the truth.

I've been scoring these kind of victories for the past few years. You shouldn't be surprised that I'm spreading awareness on China's 16.5 megaton EMP warhead. When Westerners learn about China's modern EMP capabilities, they suddenly lack interest in helping Japan over the Diaoyu Islands. Of course, this means the Western public also has no interest in helping Vietnam over the Spratlys.

In conclusion, don't be a sore loser. As an armchair general, I have outmaneuvered all of you Viets on this forum. You're in here talking trash against China. I'm out there on practically every major news publication to influence American public opinion on important China-related issues.

By the way, I have made many posts to inform the American public that UNCLOS is not international law. Hence, there is no legal basis for American intervention in the South China Sea. You Viets are on your own in facing the PLA Navy.

----------

My comment on CBSNews: Senate to vote on China currency sanctions - CBS News






----------

Link to my comment on United Press International: China reacts to U.S. Senate vote on yuan - UPI.com

I can't find the link to my comment on USAToday. However, mine was prominently displayed right under the main article as the second comment. It was up there for months. I think many people in the United States saw it and realized that China was not manipulating its currency.

My comment on China's 30% yuan currency appreciation was also posted on many influential political magazines like The Hill and many others. I have no idea where the links are anymore.

The important thing is that the American public understood that China's currency had been APPRECIATING BY 30% and the media wasn't telling them the truth.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Viet

Martian2 said:


> *Don't be a sore loser*
> .


You are just a clown. Nothing more.


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> You sound distraught. You only joined PDF in June 2012. I've been affecting the American national discussion on important China-related issues for years.


And I have been affecting PLA doctrines for years based upon my participation on the Internet.

Talk about a childish ego...

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Broccoli

Fsjal said:


> Are they thermonuclear warheads or basic nuclear atomic warheads, because, for thermonuclear, 100kt is weak. Thermonuclear warheads can be as powerful up to 50mt. For an atomic warhead 100kt is powerful.



How is 100kt weak? Yes, all those 100kt warheads I listed are thermonuclear. Megaton weapons are heavy and since accuracy is improved they have become pretty much useless... 100kt dropped to a big city enough to make a big dent.



ChineseTiger1986 said:


> Gosh, you are full of it.
> 
> You are on my ignored list right now, goodbye.



lol, nice counter argument.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Viet

Some Chinese love nukes so much as if they sleep with them every night.


----------



## j20blackdragon

gambit said:


> And as far as detonating a nuclear EMP over Japan and expect the Japanese and the US to do nothing...



It won't be a nuclear EMP.

Report: China building electromagnetic pulse weapons for use against U.S. carriers - Washington Times

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Martian2

*New Chinese DF-41 10-MIRV ICBM picture!*






Latest Chinese DF-41 10-MIRV ICBM picture. The truck tail-lights and wheel configuration are identical to a known DF-41 picture (see below). Also, the truck cabin has the exact same profile.





Known DF-41 ICBM picture due to double rings on canister. Wheels on a DF-41 TEL are all grouped together.

The only difference between the two pictures is the extra panels in the top picture. Otherwise, the wheel configuration (e.g. separation distance), four vertical yellow/red brake lights (including a bottom-most rectangular fifth white light in both pictures), and cabin shape are all identical. The protrusion of the DF-41 ICBM beyond the back of the truck is also about the same.





Wheel pattern/separation is very different on a DF-31A TEL (transporter erector launcher) compared to a DF-41 TEL.

[Note: Thank you to ChineseTiger1986 for the new top DF-41 ICBM picture. I flipped the picture horizontally to enable a direct comparison with the known DF-41 ICBM picture. Since I can't remember the source of the middle picture, I'll use the most likely probability and thank Greyboy2 for the known DF-41 ICBM picture.]

----------

*A mere 32 DF-41 ICBMs can target EVERY American city with a population of 50,000 people*

PLA test-fired multiple warhead ICBM in July: Jane's Defence Weekly

"*PLA test-fired multiple warhead ICBM in July: Jane's Defence Week*
Staff Reporter | 2012-08-22

An anonymous US official says a Chinese DF-41 ICBM with the range to strike any city in the United States was test-fired by the PLA's Second Artillery Corps for the first time on Jul. 24, according to Jane's Defence Weekly.

With many American observers believing the missile can carry multiple independently targetable warheads, the DF-41 is considered a serious threat to US national security. An analyst told Jane's Defence Weekly that the ICBM can carry around 10 nuclear warheads to strike at multiple targets in the continental United States.

An article by Bill Gertz published in the Washington Free Beacon on Aug. 15 said the test of the DF-41 was conducted by the Second Artillery Corps of the People's Liberation Army at Wuzhai missile and space test center in the eastern province of Shandong nearly a month ago. "The new missile bolsters China's strategic forces," Gertz said, "making them among the most diverse in the world, with a variety of short-, medium-, intermediate- and intercontinental-range missiles."

The United States is currently unable to intercept missiles which employ a MIRV system. "The DF-41's multiple warheads are expected to include special simulated warheads called 'penetration aids' that are designed to counter US missile defense sensors," said Larry Wortzel, a member of the congressional US-China Economic and Security Review Commission.

"The Chinese military's Second Artillery Corps, which is in charge of both strategic and non-nuclear missiles, is working to integrate the DF-41 into its operational inventory," said Mark Stokes, executive director of the Project 2049 Institute. "The system appears to incorporate a new, larger solid rocket motor than that used on the DF-31 series of delivery vehicles. Ground tests on the motor have been underway for a couple of years."

*Phillip Karber from Georgetown University said that China will be able to target every US city with a population over 50,000 people by just putting 32 DF-41 MIRV missiles into service.*"

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Martian2

*China's "no-first-use" pledge on thermonuclear weapons looks like it's dead*

Over the past few years, I have called for the retraction on China's "no-first-use" pledge. The reason is simple. China derives no benefit by removing an important military option. The United States and Russia have not pledged "no-first-use" of nuclear weapons. Why should China?

China should continue to build as many DF-41 10-MIRVed ICBMs as necessary to deter the United States. Also, if necessary, China should use its thermonuclear IRBMs or SRBMs whenever it is expedient. Furthermore, thermonuclear-powered EMP weapons should be the first choice to disable stealth fighters or aircraft carriers.

I say hallelujah. It's about time for China to rescind its "no-first-use" pledge to match the realities of modern warfare.

You never give up an important strategic military option for nothing. If the U.S. wants a Chinese "no-first-use" pledge then it should be prepared to trade for the equivalent value of no U.S. naval warships and stealth fighters in Asia.

Otherwise, China should fight with thermonuclear weapons however it sees fit. The U.S. pivot to Asia (to implicitly threaten China) was a terrible idea. China's cancellation of its "no-first-use" pledge of thermonuclear weapons is the first blowback. The stationing of Chinese ASBMs across from Taiwan was the second reaction. I'm sure there is more to come (e.g. deployment of megaton EMP warheads on enlarged Shenlong Space Planes).

Annoying China is never a good strategy. They will push back.

----------

Is China Changing Its Position on Nuclear Weapons? | The New York Times






----------

*Try it*

Chinese nuclear strike policy is starting to resemble Russian policy.

ANY conventional strike on the Chinese homeland will result in a Chinese thermonuclear strike on an equal countervailing target on the aggressor's homeland.

Russia was able to annex 20% of Georgia without third-party intervention. The new Chinese thermonuclear reprisal policy will finally force trash-talkers to stay out of China's foreign relations.

You want to drop a conventional bomb on Beijing or Shanghai? Try it. You want a five-megaton thermonuclear warhead dropped on your city in retaliation?

For the three major thermonuclear powers to exist in peace, there exists three spheres of influence. The United States has a free hand in the Western Hemisphere and Europe. China has a free hand in Asia. Russia has a free hand in the former Soviet Republics.

Adherence to this reasonable demarcation of spheres of influence will minimize the threat of global thermonuclear war among the Big Three.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Luftwaffe

Martian2 said:


> ANY conventional strike on the Chinese homeland will result in a Chinese thermonuclear strike on an equal countervailing target on the aggressor's homeland.
> 
> You want to drop a conventional bomb on Beijing or Shanghai? Try it. You want a five-megaton thermonuclear warhead dropped on your city in retaliation?
> 
> Adherence to this reasonable demarcation of spheres of influence will minimize the threat of global thermonuclear war among the Big Three.



It is about time to push US out of Asia or restrict them, I would like to see in Future Chinese Naval Armada covering Areas and blocking Access to US Naval Fleet near Taiwan and Areas of Interest.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Viper0011.

Luftwaffe said:


> It is about time to push US out of Asia or restrict them, I would like to see in Future Chinese Naval Armada covering Areas and blocking Access to US Naval Fleet near Taiwan and Areas of Interest.



Again, another silly, anti American post with a total lack of proper knowledge and no reality check of course. Re-read your statement, you think anyone can REALLY push the US out of Asia or anywhere for that matter? 
Just because some countries have started to progress in the field of military technology, doesn't mean that the worlds strongest military and the economy is at risk or wants to 'leave' or can be 'forced' to leave. The reality of the matter is, if the US hadn't given the Chinese and the Indians a portion of its economic pie, where would these countries be, probably thirty years back from where they are today!!! And for ANYONE to think that the US didn't think this through.....you are sadly mistaken!!! (US is probably the ONLY country who's been a master of strategic planning across the globe, both, economic wise and military wise and to protect her interests). Any believe opposite to my statement is silly and out of touch with reality. 

Just a hint, while China and India start working on aircraft carriers......the US may be getting away from them and using hypersonic attack planes or even drones that can hit anything across the planet within an hour of taking off. The US Navy and other platforms can fry a can of Pepsi with laser weapons from a very long distance. The point is, the US military is really in the year 2033 TODAY!!....but for the rest of the world.. the current year is: 2013. Hope you guys got the point. So let's not 'imagine' that the US will leave Asia because some anti-American fanboy had a wet dream or a nightmare. Let's wake up and grasp the reality !!


----------



## applesauce

100kt nuclear warhead arnt bad.

having 10 100kt warhead against..say a city, is actually more effective than a single 2 mt warhead

total nuclear firepower isnt the whole story, whats more important is, how many warheads, how miniaturized are they, and what the delivery systems are.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Luftwaffe

orangzaib said:


> Just a hint, while China and India start working on aircraft carriers......the US may be getting away from them and using hypersonic attack planes or even drones that can hit anything across the planet within an hour of taking off. The US Navy and other platforms can fry a can of Pepsi with laser weapons from a very long distance. The point is, the US military is really in the year 2033 TODAY!!....but for the rest of the world.. the current year is: 2013. Hope you guys got the point. So let's not 'imagine' that the US will leave Asia because some anti-American fanboy had a wet dream or a nightmare. Let's wake up and grasp the reality !!



Typical fanboi post, Yes China can effectively execute Plans to restrict [the term is restrict and control] US in its backyard. With Increasing PLA Navy development and deployment of its Navy/Naval Assets they can and they will implement Plans for others in Areas of Interest. There is no rocket science in it once Chinese Navy has couple of more ACs and capable increasing number of Destroyers they will effectively have their own Carrier battle Groups when that happens be assured a Control would be imposed in Chinese backyard. 

You Think US will hit China and China would be sitting ducks. It does not matter if US is in 2033 technologically whatever Chinese got they will fight with and use it effectively you can fetch the list of their weapons. If something hits China be assured They will hit back hard.

If you want to discuss Economy well my friend US economy is doing not so good get over it swallow it, its all of the News for the past 4 Years.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Shenzhou

orangzaib said:


> Again, another silly, anti American post with a total lack of proper knowledge and no reality check of course. Re-read your statement, you think anyone can REALLY push the US out of Asia or anywhere for that matter?
> Just because some countries have started to progress in the field of military technology, doesn't mean that the worlds strongest military and the economy is at risk or wants to 'leave' or can be 'forced' to leave. The reality of the matter is, if the US hadn't given the Chinese and the Indians a portion of its economic pie, where would these countries be, probably thirty years back from where they are today!!! And for ANYONE to think that the US didn't think this through.....you are sadly mistaken!!! (US is probably the ONLY country who's been a master of strategic planning across the globe, both, economic wise and military wise and to protect her interests). Any believe opposite to my statement is silly and out of touch with reality.
> 
> Just a hint, while China and India start working on aircraft carriers......the US may be getting away from them and using hypersonic attack planes or even drones that can hit anything across the planet within an hour of taking off. The US Navy and other platforms can fry a can of Pepsi with laser weapons from a very long distance. The point is, the US military is really in the year 2033 TODAY!!....but for the rest of the world.. the current year is: 2013. Hope you guys got the point. So let's not 'imagine' that the US will leave Asia because some anti-American fanboy had a wet dream or a nightmare. Let's wake up and grasp the reality !!



China is working on laser weapons and hypersonic weapons. Try harder.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## UKBengali

@Martian2 :

While China would not take kindly to anyone dropping a conventional bomb on one of it's cities, don't you think that it is disproportionate to reply with a nuclear bomb that could kill millions?


----------



## j20blackdragon

UKBengali said:


> @Martian2 :
> 
> While China would not take kindly to anyone dropping a conventional bomb on one of it's cities, don't you think that it is disproportionate to reply with a nuclear bomb that could kill millions?



If a serial killer stabbed you in the gut with a knife, do you think it is disproportionate to defend yourself with a gun?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## UKBengali

j20blackdragon said:


> If a serial killer stabbed you in the gut with a knife, do you think it is disproportionate to defend yourself with a gun?



That is such a wrong analogy you used there.


----------



## gambit

UKBengali said:


> @Martian2 :
> 
> While China would not take kindly to anyone dropping a conventional bomb on one of it's cities, don't you think that it is disproportionate to reply with a nuclear bomb that could kill millions?


What this mean is that it will give China the (perceived) license to act militarily aggressive towards others with the full knowledge that the victim is aware of the nuclear retaliation if they respond to the China in kind. With this fear and uncertainty, militarily weaker countries will be forced to either concede to China's aggression or risk nuclear annihilation.

For example...

China can conventionally hit Tokyo, but if Japan respond in kind to one of China's major cities, China will retaliate with full nuclear assault. This leave Japan only the option to meet China's military outside of China's borders, essentially making a siege out of the Japanese islands.


----------



## UKBengali

gambit said:


> China can conventionally hit Tokyo, but if Japan respond in kind to one of China's major cities, China will retaliate with full nuclear assault. This leave Japan only the option to meet China's military outside of China's borders, essentially making a siege out of the Japanese islands.



I think this was meant in a context where China does not act first.

But even in retaliation it would be so grossly disproportionate no Chinese leader(as long as they are sane) would even consider the option.


----------



## Viper0011.

Luftwaffe said:


> Typical fanboi post, Yes China can effectively execute Plans to restrict [the term is restrict and control] US in its backyard.
> You Think US will hit China and China would be sitting ducks. It does not matter if US is in 2033 technologically whatever Chinese got they will fight with and use it effectively you can fetch the list of their weapons. If something hits China be assured They will hit back hard.
> If you want to discuss Economy well my friend US economy is doing not so good get over it swallow it, its all of the News for the past 4 Years.



Ok, MY post is "typical fanboy" post? Or your post sounds so illogical that I am going to probably refrain from answering as its a waste of time. If you read my other posts on different topics, you'll probably get a feeling that I don't do fanboy talk and I'll write an honest opinion about stuff. 
You can only argue with someone who has got a good grasp of reality. No offense. I don't think I ever implied that the Chinese are or will be sitting ducks. But, the fact of the matter is, with all of its growth, etc, China isn't and will not be 1:1 the US. Nor will it get to a point that it can "restrict" the US military's movement. Imagine a scenario where five battle groups are deployed against the Chinese oceans due to whatever tensions. Each of the carrier battle group has over 30 ships I think. Out of which, 20+ are combat ships, not to mention about 80-100 jets. I fail to understand how you can stop a blue water navy's movement. 
China is growing and growing fast, I am not declining that or the fact that China will have more fore projection over the years. BUT....I am also being realistic here. China can't and will not afford to stop the US or "restrict" its military's movement. It will definitely play a role in the equation from a military plannings standpoint but it's not a blue water navy and it won't get there for the next 20 years (when the US has technologically moved much ahead from the carrier based battle groups.
Next, the economy, if you know or understand the American economy and its system, it ALWAYS goes through cycles. Always remember, every high time has a correction to it and then a depression. Sometimes, its bigger than expected, sometimes its not that hard core. But the US economy is pretty much back. Frankly speaking even if the economy was still doing bad, you can't stop the US from spending on major issues or wars. That's a reality. The US is NOT the Russia in the 80's. I've heard and read a lot of fun stuff from people how they compare the US vs. the Russia in Afghanistan. There is no comparison. So PLEASE, be realistic with the stuff you post. Posts after some research will make you look more credible and a debate will actually make sense. Here, I feel like I am responding to a high school kid who just has a strong opinion backed by......0 facts.


----------



## Luftwaffe

orangzaib said:


> Ok, MY post is "typical fanboy" post? Or your post sounds so illogical.



Mate you are wasting your time you keep glorifying US of A that it will do this and it will do that like collage kids not knowing a logical conclusion that China no longer is a backward Nation although much is to be achieved. For example lets say if US decides to go with a preemptive strike on China, it is assured neither S. Korea or Japan would allow their land/Air to be used that could potentially put their homeland in danger after all they are neighbors. Any preemptive strike or aggression by US would prompt China to use Force that could possibly be ICBMs not every Nation spares for the first time russians were dumb and they suffered they never taught US any lesson. We do not know what would be Chinese Reaction so relax US is not that fool to fiddle with China. 20 Years is a long time remember what China was like in 1988 and now see where China stands at...by next decade Chinese Navy will be second to US. Like technology would only be available/restricted to US? "sigh". Again You are only glorifying US be neutral and you'll know there are enough Threads with information on weapons that can only cause disaster China is not Pakistan or somalia it will hit hard they are hard working and dead serious. I just want you to come to that level so I can make you understand but it seems you are only fanboi and declaring US as might is right which is completely biased you missed the aspect US economy is dependent on China and Chinese economy on US one of the biggest trade partners internationally non wants to ruin their economy. End Notes when China has an even larger Navy with its own Carrier Battle Groups/Naval Armada then it would be able to block key Areas "sufficient enough". Now if you are going to glorify US alone then don't reply to me unless you go neutral.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Martian2

UKBengali said:


> @Martian2 :
> 
> While China would not take kindly to anyone dropping a conventional bomb on one of it's cities, don't you think that it is disproportionate to reply with a nuclear bomb that could kill millions?



*Proven Russian success in Georgia*

It is the logic of deterrence. The Russians were successful in using this counter-threat to deter U.S. military intervention in Georgia.

It worked. Didn't it?

What happens when you see a successful military strategy? You adopt it.

----------

China should follow Russia's nuclear posture.

Russia Would Use Nukes to Stave Off Threats - General Staff

"Russia Would Use Nukes to Stave Off Threats - General Staff






Chief of the Russian General Staff Gen. Nikolai Makarov (© RIA Novosti. Vladimir Vyatkin)

16:12 15/02/2012
MOSCOW, February 15 (RIA Novosti)

*Russia would use nuclear weapons in response to any imminent threat to its national security, Chief of the Russian General Staff Gen. Nikolai Makarov said on Wednesday.

&#8220;We are certainly not planning to fight against the whole of NATO,&#8221; Makarov said in an interview with the Ekho Moskvy radio, &#8220;but if there is a threat to the integrity of the Russian Federation, we have the right to use nuclear weapons, and we will.&#8221;*

The general said Russia&#8217;s nuclear deterrent is the cornerstone of strategic stability and serious efforts are being taken by the Russian government to modernize the country&#8217;s nuclear triad.

The Russian Defense ministry is planning to acquire at least 10 Borey class strategic nuclear submarines, thoroughly modernize its fleet of Tu-160 Blackjack and Tu-95 Bear strategic bombers, and equip its Strategic Missile Forces with formidable Yars mobile ballistic missile systems.

Makarov also stressed the importance of maintaining highly-efficient, mobile conventional forces.

&#8220;Unfortunately, we are facing threats from a number of unstable states, where no nuclear weapons but well-trained, strong and mobile Armed Forces are required to resolve any conflict situation," Makarov said."

----------

*PEACE through STRENGTH*

Chinese general who threatened US with nuclear strike is Pentagon's guest of honor

"Chinese general who threatened US with nuclear strike is Pentagon's guest of honor
Published time: March 05, 2013 21:39






A Chinese general who once threatened to nuke the US is visiting Washington this week as part of a military exchange program with the Pentagon.

The Pentagon&#8217;s collaboration with Major Gen. Zhu Chenghu, head of China&#8217;s National Defense University, is surprising considering the threats the general made against the US in 2005.

*&#8220;If the Americans draw their missiles and position-guided ammunition on the target zone on China&#8217;s territory, I think we will have to respond with nuclear weapons,&#8221; Zhu told a Financial Times reporter in 2005*, describing his country&#8217;s predicted reaction if the US were to conflict with China over Taiwan.

A State Department official called the comment &#8220;highly irresponsible&#8221;. The comment closely reiterated similar statements Zhu had made in the past, describing his intentions to nuke the US if the US were to defend Taiwan in a conflict.

_&#8220;We Chinese will prepare ourselves for the destruction of all of the cities east of Xian,&#8221; he said in 1995. &#8220;Of course, the Americans will have to be prepared that hundreds of cities will be destroyed by the Chinese.&#8221;_

But despite the Chinese general&#8217;s repeated threats to destroy the US, he has been invited by the Pentagon to visit the US this week as part of a military exchange program. Zhu and his delegation of 10 senior colonels from the Chinese military will visit Hawaii and Washington, DC. Later this year, US officials will visit China for a reciprocal exchange, according to the Free Beacon.

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, told the Free Beacon that Zhu&#8217;s visit will allow the Pentagon to learn more about China&#8217;s nuclear weapons intentions, which the US has long struggled to understand.

_&#8220;We do know, as the congressionally mandated US-China Economic and Security Review Commission reported last year, that &#8216;China has assumed a more muscular nuclear posture, which ongoing improvements will continue to enhance,&#8217;&#8221; he said. &#8220;Before the president reaches out to Russia for yet another round of US nuclear reductions, we should know more about how such reductions will affect the nuclear balance with China.&#8221;_

Zhu&#8217;s comments about China&#8217;s willingness to nuke the US may hold more truth than some would be inclined to believe: China specialists told the Beacon that no Chinese general would make such inflammatory statements unless they reflected official military policy, since inaccurate statements could get someone fired or reprimanded. *Shortly after making the 2005 statement, Zhu was promoted.*

_&#8220;[This] should be a clear signal to American policymakers that Chinese state policy is to use nuclear weapons as an instrument of intimidation,&#8221;_ said State Department official John Tkacik, who specializes in China affairs."

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Fsjal

Martian2 said:


> *Proven Russian success in Georgia*
> 
> It is the logic of deterrence. The Russians were successful in using this counter-threat to deter U.S. military intervention in Georgia.
> 
> It worked. Didn't it?
> 
> What happens when you see a successful military strategy? You adopt it.
> 
> ----------
> 
> China should follow Russia's nuclear posture.
> 
> Russia Would Use Nukes to Stave Off Threats - General Staff
> 
> "Russia Would Use Nukes to Stave Off Threats - General Staff
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chief of the Russian General Staff Gen. Nikolai Makarov (© RIA Novosti. Vladimir Vyatkin)
> 
> 16:12 15/02/2012
> MOSCOW, February 15 (RIA Novosti)
> 
> *Russia would use nuclear weapons in response to any imminent threat to its national security, Chief of the Russian General Staff Gen. Nikolai Makarov said on Wednesday.
> 
> &#8220;We are certainly not planning to fight against the whole of NATO,&#8221; Makarov said in an interview with the Ekho Moskvy radio, &#8220;but if there is a threat to the integrity of the Russian Federation, we have the right to use nuclear weapons, and we will.&#8221;*
> 
> The general said Russia&#8217;s nuclear deterrent is the cornerstone of strategic stability and serious efforts are being taken by the Russian government to modernize the country&#8217;s nuclear triad.
> 
> The Russian Defense ministry is planning to acquire at least 10 Borey class strategic nuclear submarines, thoroughly modernize its fleet of Tu-160 Blackjack and Tu-95 Bear strategic bombers, and equip its Strategic Missile Forces with formidable Yars mobile ballistic missile systems.
> 
> Makarov also stressed the importance of maintaining highly-efficient, mobile conventional forces.
> 
> &#8220;Unfortunately, we are facing threats from a number of unstable states, where no nuclear weapons but well-trained, strong and mobile Armed Forces are required to resolve any conflict situation," Makarov said."
> 
> ----------
> 
> *PEACE through STRENGTH*
> 
> Chinese general who threatened US with nuclear strike is Pentagon's guest of honor
> 
> "Chinese general who threatened US with nuclear strike is Pentagon's guest of honor
> Published time: March 05, 2013 21:39
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Chinese general who once threatened to nuke the US is visiting Washington this week as part of a military exchange program with the Pentagon.
> 
> The Pentagon&#8217;s collaboration with Major Gen. Zhu Chenghu, head of China&#8217;s National Defense University, is surprising considering the threats the general made against the US in 2005.
> 
> *&#8220;If the Americans draw their missiles and position-guided ammunition on the target zone on China&#8217;s territory, I think we will have to respond with nuclear weapons,&#8221; Zhu told a Financial Times reporter in 2005*, describing his country&#8217;s predicted reaction if the US were to conflict with China over Taiwan.
> 
> A State Department official called the comment &#8220;highly irresponsible&#8221;. The comment closely reiterated similar statements Zhu had made in the past, describing his intentions to nuke the US if the US were to defend Taiwan in a conflict.
> 
> _&#8220;We Chinese will prepare ourselves for the destruction of all of the cities east of Xian,&#8221; he said in 1995. &#8220;Of course, the Americans will have to be prepared that hundreds of cities will be destroyed by the Chinese.&#8221;_
> 
> But despite the Chinese general&#8217;s repeated threats to destroy the US, he has been invited by the Pentagon to visit the US this week as part of a military exchange program. Zhu and his delegation of 10 senior colonels from the Chinese military will visit Hawaii and Washington, DC. Later this year, US officials will visit China for a reciprocal exchange, according to the Free Beacon.
> 
> Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, told the Free Beacon that Zhu&#8217;s visit will allow the Pentagon to learn more about China&#8217;s nuclear weapons intentions, which the US has long struggled to understand.
> 
> _&#8220;We do know, as the congressionally mandated US-China Economic and Security Review Commission reported last year, that &#8216;China has assumed a more muscular nuclear posture, which ongoing improvements will continue to enhance,&#8217;&#8221; he said. &#8220;Before the president reaches out to Russia for yet another round of US nuclear reductions, we should know more about how such reductions will affect the nuclear balance with China.&#8221;_
> 
> Zhu&#8217;s comments about China&#8217;s willingness to nuke the US may hold more truth than some would be inclined to believe: China specialists told the Beacon that no Chinese general would make such inflammatory statements unless they reflected official military policy, since inaccurate statements could get someone fired or reprimanded. *Shortly after making the 2005 statement, Zhu was promoted.*
> 
> _&#8220;[This] should be a clear signal to American policymakers that Chinese state policy is to use nuclear weapons as an instrument of intimidation,&#8221;_ said State Department official John Tkacik, who specializes in China affairs."



Well it's good to see a brave general, but, not to be mean, I find him a bit crazy. Anyway, if Russia can do it, so can China


----------



## gambit

UKBengali said:


> I think this was meant in a context where China does not act first.
> 
> But even in retaliation it would be so grossly disproportionate no Chinese leader(as long as they are sane) would even consider the option.


It is irrelevant if China act first or not. The knowledge that China will respond, in a 'first use' context, with nuclear weapons will create uncertainty in the typical 'tit-for-tat' chain of events typical of inter-state relations. Virtually anything can be interpreted by China to be a threat to national security and warrants the 'right' to act first.


----------



## Viper0011.

Luftwaffe said:


> Mate you are wasting your time you keep glorifying US of A that it will do this and it will do that like collage kids not knowing a logical conclusion that China no longer is a backward Nation although much is to be achieved. For example lets say if US decides to go with a preemptive strike on China, it is assured neither S. Korea or Japan would allow their land/Air to be used that could potentially put their homeland in danger after all they are neighbors. Any preemptive strike or aggression by US would prompt China to use Force that could possibly be ICBMs not every Nation spares for the first time russians were dumb and they suffered they never taught US any lesson. We do not know what would be Chinese Reaction so relax US is not that fool to fiddle with China. 20 Years is a long time remember what China was like in 1988 and now see where China stands at...by next decade Chinese Navy will be second to US. Like technology would only be available/restricted to US? "sigh". Again You are only glorifying US be neutral and you'll know there are enough Threads with information on weapons that can only cause disaster China is not Pakistan or somalia it will hit hard they are hard working and dead serious. I just want you to come to that level so I can make you understand but it seems you are only fanboi and declaring US as might is right which is completely biased you missed the aspect US economy is dependent on China and Chinese economy on US one of the biggest trade partners internationally non wants to ruin their economy. End Notes when China has an even larger Navy with its own Carrier Battle Groups/Naval Armada then it would be able to block key Areas "sufficient enough". Now if you are going to glorify US alone then don't reply to me unless you go neutral.




I don't think I usually start the US can do this or that. I think your posts are very naive to say the least. There are so many flaws in what you write. If you don't like the US, its your right to do so. But, personal preferences don't have to show the world a silly picture of reality. Just a few corrections to your post and I am done with this silly talk. I feel like I am dealing with an 18 year old.
1) If the US wanted to do a 'pre-emptive' strike on China, it DOESN'T NEED Japan or South Korea (unless it is doing it to save them. The US enjoys total air dominance through stealth technology. TRUST me on that. It can send planes in, take pictures of a park in Beijing and come back.
2) The whole notion about the Chinese navy being the second to the US.....this exists in unpublished books. The day China fields 7, 8 or more air craft carrier battle groups, I'll then talk to you. It'll never happen. Write this and I'll sign it with my money on it. Period. Second, when China builds a few aircraft carriers or a larger navy, it'll be focused on India (which will have the SAME number of carriers and battle groups), then Japan, South Korea, Philippines, etc. There are ENOUGH trouble spots within a few hundred of the Chinese coast that it can't and won't act like a global navy. Unless it wants to get beat up by having a gap in the concerned areas I mentioned before.
3) The US doesn't and will not want a conflict with China. A country that it's businessmen help develop through manufacturing outsourcing, shouldn't be put into a war in my opinion as it'll drive the world towards a recession and a serious one and a third world war may be. BUT...if the US has to defend Taiwan, SK, Japan.......it WILL act. 
4) You won't be dealing with the US alone.......it'll be NATO (and India may join to take its land on the other end too).....so imagine what you are putting your Chinese friends against!!
5) You very recklessly and casually mentioned the ICBM's as if this was a joke or a video game and we were running scenarios......if a nation did that or tried it on the US....can you imagine the response???? The Chinese may be able to slip a few missiles through the MDS. But you realized that there is nothing to stop the US stealth jets and the first, the second and the third strike options to unleash hell as the US pleases and where it pleases to win the war or to neutralize the threat?? So, before you talk about nuclear war, get a grasp of conventional military conflicts, military strategy and PLEASE, do some research before posting utter crap. Thank you


----------



## Luftwaffe

orangzaib; There is no flaws in what I say I maintain what I explained I don't want to derail the Thread that is why I did not explain in detail, I do have an answer but you usually are in glorifying western mode, come neutral and we shall talk. 

PS. pray tell us why would US attack China in the first place...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## xhw1986

Should be enough for deterrence...


----------



## armchairPrivate

I don't see any problem with using nuke. Nuke basically is a big bomb. Instead of dropping tens of thousands of bomb, you drop a big one.

People often talk about blue water navy and how sophisticated a carrier group is, with all these bells and whistles.

I tell you what, if China feels threatened, it will drop a nuke on the carrier group. The nuke does't have to be precision-guided. I don't care how many radars, lasers, anti-missiles, fighter jets you have, all will be caput.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS LIMITED WAR.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

armchairPrivate said:


> I don't see any problem with using nuke. Nuke basically is a big bomb. Instead of dropping tens of thousands of bomb, you drop a big one.
> 
> People often talk about blue water navy and how sophisticated a carrier group is, with all these bells and whistles.
> 
> I tell you what, if China feels threatened, it will drop a nuke on the carrier group. *The nuke does't have to be precision-guided. I don't care how many radars, lasers, anti-missiles, fighter jets you have, all will be caput.*
> 
> THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS LIMITED WAR.


Wow...I have no idea...


----------



## Great China

7 MIRV missile test?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## applesauce

gambit said:


> Wow...I have no idea...



well, with nukes, close enough is good enough, if the blast damage dont do the job, the radiation will, that said, nuclear atks on whole naval formations are less effective than people think

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Martian2

*Tkacik: "The new submarines mean China is adding at least 180 new thermonuclear warheads"*

Excerpt (former State Department intelligence official John Tkacik): "The new submarines mean the Chinese are adding at least 180 new nuclear warheads to their arsenal."

Red China Power | Washington Free Beacon

"Red China Power
*China expanding submarine, missile forces with advanced systems, Pentagon annual report says*
BY: Bill Gertz
_May 6, 2013 4:29 pm_






China is building two new classes of missile submarines in addition to the eight nuclear missile submarines and six attack submarines being deployed as part of an arms buildup that analysts say appears to put Beijing on a war footing.

&#8220;In terms of China&#8217;s submarines, they&#8217;re investing heavily in a robust program for undersea warfare, developing submarines that are both conventional, diesel-electric powered, air- independent propulsion and nuclear-powered attack submarines,&#8221; David Helvey, deputy assistant defense secretary for East Asia, told reporters at a briefing on release of the Pentagon&#8217;s annual assessment of Chinese military power.
...
Fisher, the IASC military analyst, said the latest report is far more useful than the truncated 43-page report from 2012.

&#8220;The first ever report disclosure of development of the Type 096 SSBN raises the prospect of a new submarine launched missile that also may be multiple warhead capable,&#8221; Fisher said. &#8220;As the Administration presses for additional reductions in U.S. nuclear warhead levels and shows reluctance to fund U.S. nuclear arsenal modernization, it is doubly important that Congress be informed about the size and growth of China&#8217;s nuclear forces.&#8221;
...
Former State Department intelligence official John Tkacik said the report&#8217;s most important revelations are on the Chinese navy and especially its submarine forces.

&#8220;Last year&#8217;s report disclosed that two Jin-class ballistic missile submarines were already operational, and now the 2013 report counts three, so I take the DIA bean-counters&#8217; word for it, China is launching one new boomer each year,&#8221; Tkacik said.

Each of the missile submarines will be equipped with 12 JL-2 missile that likely will have multiple warheads. *The new submarines mean the Chinese are adding at least 180 new nuclear warheads to their arsenal*, a sharp increase from the U.S. intelligence estimate of 240 warheads, Tkacik said.

In addition to the new missile submarine planned as a following on to the Jin submarines, China is planning at least one more advanced Typ 096 missile submarine a year indefinitely, Tkacik added.

&#8220;The real news is the construction of a new special-purpose class of guided-missile submarine, the Type-095 SSGN,&#8221; he said. "A Chinese SSGN [cruise missile-firing submarine] is not only a new threat for the U.S. Navy to worry about, but it will deeply unsettle China&#8217;s neighbors in East and Southeast Asia.'"

----------

http://www.defense.gov/pubs/2013_China_Report_FINAL.pdf

(pp. 14-15 of Pentagon 2013 Report on Chinese Military Power. Ostensibly labeled pages 6 and 7.)

"The PLA Navy places a high priority on the modernization of its submarine force. China continues the production of JIN-class nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines (SSBN). Three JIN-class SSBNs (Type 094) are currently operational, and up to five may enter service before China proceeds to its next generation SSBN (Type 096) over the next decade. The JIN-class SSBN will carry the new JL-2 submarine launched ballistic missile with an estimated range of more than 4,000nm. The JIN-class and the JL-2 will give the PLA Navy its first credible sea-based nuclear deterrent.

China also has expanded its force of nuclear-powered attack submarines (SSN). Two SHANG-class SSNs (Type 093) are already in service, and China is building four improved variants of the SHANG-class SSN, which will replace the aging HAN-class SSNs (Type 091). In the next decade, China will likely construct the Type 095 guided-missile attack submarine (SSGN), which may enable a submarine-based land-attack capability. In addition to likely incorporating better quieting technologies, the Type 095 will fulfill traditional anti-ship roles with the incorporation of torpedoes and anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCMs).

The current mainstay of the Chinese submarine force is modern diesel powered attack submarines (SS). In addition to 12 KILO-class submarines acquired from Russia in the 1990s and 2000s (eight of which are equipped with the SS-N-27 ASCM), the PLA Navy possesses 13 SONG-class SS (Type 039) and eight YUAN-class SSP (Type 039A). The YUAN-class SSP is armed similarly to the SONG-class SS, but also includes an air-independent power system. China may plan to construct up to 20 YUAN-class SSPs."


----------



## Martian2

*China's Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) against the United States*

The pictures below show three Chinese Type 094 Jin-class SSBNs.

Each Jin-class SSBN carries 12 JL-2 SLBMs.

According to Jane's Defence, one JL-2 SLBM can carry 8 MIRVed thermonuclear warheads. (Source: Jane’s Strategic Weapon Systems (Offensive Weapons). September 30, 2012.)

3 Chinese Jin-class SSBNs x 12 JL-2 SLBMs per SSBN x 8 MIRVs per SLBM = 288 thermonuclear warheads

This is counter-intuitive, but China can deter the United States by aiming 288 thermonuclear warheads at Russian cities. In an all-out thermonuclear war with the United States, China already knows that American nukes are headed for China. This means China is finished.

In retaliation, China wipes out 288 Russian cities and towns. Basically, Russia is finished.

*China will leave all Russian nuclear forces untouched.* The Russians have a choice to launch all of their ICBMs against the United States. This is important for the war after the nuclear winter. If Russia does not launch all of its ICBMs against the U.S. then the handful of Russians who survive in underground cities will have to face 310 million Americans in an undamaged America.

The only logical choice is for Russia to launch all of its MIRVed thermonuclear warheads against the U.S. to level the playing field after the nuclear winter. *Any launch of Russian nuclear missiles against China is redundant and pointless.*

Since China has mutually assured destruction capability against the United States (by leveraging the Russian thermonuclear arsenal), this means the U.S. cannot pressure China in Asia or the South China Sea.

From the Bohai Sea or South China Sea, China's three Type 094 Jin-class SSBNs can maintain China's MAD capability against the United States.





Three Chinese Type 094 Jin-class SSBNs seen at dock.















By counting the launch tubes, it is obvious the Type 094 Jin-class SSBN carries 12 SLBMs.

[Note: Thank you to ChineseTiger1986 for the pictures.]


----------



## Martian2

I don't think the old link to NTI works. Here's the new link.

----------

Link to NTI: Nuclear Disarmament China | Articles | NTI Analysis | NTI






----------

Megatonnage is important, because it is the total firepower that is critical.

For example, China's DF-5A has the world's largest deployed thermonuclear warhead at five megatons. It can destroy metropolitan Tokyo (ie. Tokyo and all surrrounding suburbs) with one hit. To accomplish the same level of destruction, the United States would have to launch about 10 warheads with 475 kilotons (e.g. 10 x .475 megatons = 4.75 megatons).

The focus of the United States is to destroy enemy military installations. Hence, the U.S. has a lot of small thermonuclear warheads.

In China's case, they intend to obliterate their enemies by destroying the population centers. This is the principle behind total war. Once you destroy the enemy civilian population, the other side can no longer recruit new soldiers or produce new weapons.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Martian2

My comment on TIME under my pseudonym as ChinaLee.

Link:  China’s Restriction on Airspace Over Disputed Islets Could Lead to War | TIME.com

----------

The United States should stay out of a Sino-Japanese War.

The U.S. signed a defense treaty with Japan in 1952. The United States had no idea that China would detonate a 3.3-megaton hydrogen bomb in 1967. China has spent 47 years to prepare for the next war. In 2009, China announced the completion of the 5,000km (or 3,000 mile) Underground Great Wall. No one has any idea how many Chinese thermonuclear warheads are hidden down there.

It's time for the United States to extricate itself from an archaic defense treaty with troublesome saber-rattling Japan. After all, what can the U.S. do if China decides to detonate a megaton-EMP over Japan? The answer is not much unless you want to engage in an all-out thermonuclear war with China.

According to NTI, China has at least 294 megatons of thermonuclear warheads and they've been busy building more in the last decade. The U.S. has 570 megatons, France 55, and Britain 16 megatons.

Current list of China's thermonuclear/fusion warheads:

DF-5A ICBM: World's largest deployed warhead at five megatons
DF-5B ICBM: Carries 10 MIRVs with half a megaton per MIRV
DF-31A ICBM: Carries 3 MIRVs
DF-41 ICBM: Carries 10 MIRVs
JL-2 SLBM: Carries 8 MIRVs






Picture of DF-31A ICBM





Picture of DF-41 ICBM





Picture of two DF-5 ICBMs in China's Underground Great Wall

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## seven7seven

_"We Chinese will prepare ourselves for the destruction of all of the cities east of Xian, he said in 1995. Of course, the *Americans will have to be prepared that hundreds of cities will be destroyed by the Chinese.*_"

"Zhu's comments about China's willingness to nuke the US may hold more truth than some would be inclined to believe: China specialists told the Beacon that no Chinese general would make such inflammatory statements unless they reflected official military policy, since inaccurate statements could get someone fired or reprimanded. *Shortly after making the 2005 statement, Zhu was promoted."*

For a Chinese General to go on record, with the full support of the Chinese Government, that they will destroy hundreds of American cities is maybe an intentional slip of the tongue to hint at China's true nuclear arsenal. The official guess of about 240 nuclear warheads has always seemed absurdly low, for me. China has had the nuclear bomb since 1964 and to think a country as diligent and cautious as China is about its national safety only producing 240 nuke warheads is a bit implausible. Yes, back then China was a poor agrarian country but protecting itself from being invaded again must have been high in Chinese policy makers' thoughts and I believe they would have made at least 240 warheads by the 70's or 80's, at the latest. With China now flush with cash, I believe they would have been pumping out new and more advanced warheads at breakneck speed. There's no point making all these new jet fighters and warships to assert power in the East and South China seas if there wasn't a substantial nuclear option to back it up with. I believe the stories about China's underground tunnel systems and the estimates of about 3000 warheads is probably much closer to China's true nuclear strength and they also possess far more ICBMs capable of hitting the US than anybody, including the Chinese, will admit. Even at 3000 warheads, it's still only a fraction of the USA's stockpile but given that China has sped up development of hypersonic glide vehicles, I'm thinking China is happy with a smaller stockpile that is more survivable and can easily penetrate defense shields. I think General Zhu's warnings to the US about striking hundreds of their cities are not without substance. Either way, a nuclear exchange between the US and China would be total insanity.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## UKBengali

Martian2 said:


> I don't think the old link to NTI works. Here's the new link.
> 
> 
> For example, China's DF-5A has the world's largest deployed thermonuclear warhead at five megatons. It can destroy metropolitan Tokyo (ie. Tokyo and all surrrounding suburbs) with one hit. To accomplish the same level of destruction, the United States would have to launch about 10 warheads with 475 kilotons (e.g. 10 x .475 megatons = 4.75 megatons).



This not quite correct as a lot of the energy of the warhead goes in heating the air above the explosion and not destroying the surface.

Destruction of 2-3 times the surface area would be more to the mark.

It is far better to use 10 .5MT warheads than one 5MT warhead for two reasons:

1. You can attack many more targets.

2. The smaller warheads would cause more damage.

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
1 | Like Like:
2


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

seven7seven said:


> _"We Chinese will prepare ourselves for the destruction of all of the cities east of Xian, he said in 1995. Of course, the *Americans will have to be prepared that hundreds of cities will be destroyed by the Chinese.*_"
> 
> "Zhu's comments about China's willingness to nuke the US may hold more truth than some would be inclined to believe: China specialists told the Beacon that no Chinese general would make such inflammatory statements unless they reflected official military policy, since inaccurate statements could get someone fired or reprimanded. *Shortly after making the 2005 statement, Zhu was promoted."*
> 
> For a Chinese General to go on record, with the full support of the Chinese Government, that they will destroy hundreds of American cities is maybe an intentional slip of the tongue to hint at China's true nuclear arsenal. The official guess of about 240 nuclear warheads has always seemed absurdly low, for me. China has had the nuclear bomb since 1964 and to think a country as diligent and cautious as China is about its national safety only producing 240 nuke warheads is a bit implausible. Yes, back then China was a poor agrarian country but protecting itself from being invaded again must have been high in Chinese policy makers' thoughts and I believe they would have made at least 240 warheads by the 70's or 80's, at the latest. With China now flush with cash, I believe they would have been pumping out new and more advanced warheads at breakneck speed. There's no point making all these new jet fighters and warships to assert power in the East and South China seas if there wasn't a substantial nuclear option to back it up with. I believe the stories about China's underground tunnel systems and the estimates of about 3000 warheads is probably much closer to China's true nuclear strength and they also possess far more ICBMs capable of hitting the US than anybody, including the Chinese, will admit. Even at 3000 warheads, it's still only a fraction of the USA's stockpile but given that China has sped up development of hypersonic glide vehicles, I'm thinking China is happy with a smaller stockpile that is more survivable and can easily penetrate defense shields. I think General Zhu's warnings to the US about striking hundreds of their cities are not without substance. Either way, a nuclear exchange between the US and China would be total insanity.



Check an interesting story that i posted before.



> There was an interesting scenario in the mid 90s, remember the Taiwan Crisis.
> 
> Lee Teng-Hui was the troublemaker who pushed a referendum for independence at the time. China decided to directly intervene through a military action against the separatism in Taiwan. While US had sent two supercarrier battlegroups to prepare to handle against any contingent situation.
> 
> Frankly, China had never tried to borrow Russia's MAD to deter against USA. The liquid fuel was injected into DF-5A (to target the east coast of USA), not DF-4A (to target Russia or Europe). And the newly deployed DF-31 (to target the west coast of USA) was in standby.
> 
> If the situation went out of control, China was ready to launch approximately 60-100 megaton nukes on the US soil.
> 
> Back then, China was poor and had nothing to lose, while USA was already a sole hyperpower after winning the Cold War. USA would inevitably win the nuclear war, but at what cost? Was it worthy to have its hyperpower status being perished together with the poor China?
> 
> If this was happening, then China would be totally annihilated, while the major of USA would be devastated and turn into many 3rd world nations. Russia was a mess back then, while Japan was in much better shape and would undoubtedly become the biggest winner in this nuclear confrontation between China and USA.
> 
> Maybe we would see the reborn of the Japanese Militarism as early as the 1990s, perhaps they would seek the revenge against the already devastated USA?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Martian2

*A megaton-class EMP is not a weapon of mass destruction (WMD)*

A year ago, in the comment section of The Economist, I explained that a megaton-class EMP (ie. electromagnetic pulse) is not a weapon of mass destruction (ie. WMD).

Today, in the comment section of the Global Times, I had to explain it again.

It seems to be a common misconception that an EMP is a WMD. It most certainly is not.

An EMP is a very clinical device that kills no one.

----------

Vietnam dancing between US alliance and Chinese brotherhood | Global Times

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> *A megaton-class EMP is not a weapon of mass destruction (WMD)*
> 
> A year ago, in the comment section of The Economist, I explained that a megaton-class EMP (ie. electromagnetic pulse) is not a weapon of mass destruction (ie. WMD).
> 
> Today, in the comment section of the Global Times, I had to explain it again.
> 
> It seems to be a common misconception that an EMP is a WMD. It most certainly is not.
> 
> An EMP is a very clinical device that kills no one.


You think name dropping of a magazine is going to make what you say is true? No, it does not.

A nuclear bomb's by product is an EMP. However, there is no way to tell if a launch of a nuclear ICBM or the air delivery of a nuclear bomb is intended to produce damages from an EMP alone or from the nuclear blast itself. You think that any country is going to wait until detonation over its capital city and say: _'Whew...What a relief...Thank God the Chinese was interested in only producing an EMP.'_ ?

So what you say is a 'common misconception' is nothing but a deliberate attempt to mislead the people -- by you. Some people reading at _The Economist_ will buy it, some will not. But name dropping is not going to help you here.


----------



## Martian2

Your logic is flawed.

Let's say China launches a DF-3A IRBM with a 3.3-megaton warhead for detonation at 120 miles above Vietnam. It is no business of the United States. Thus, Vietnam can be easily annexed via a Chinese megaton-class EMP.

Same reasoning applies to a Chinese EMP detonation above Japan. No large American civilian population is at risk.

The reasoning is applicable to a Chinese EMP detonation above Guam. The United States will not start a global thermonuclear war over the loss of its planes on Guam.

Most importantly, the United States has nothing to lose to wait and see if a ballistic missile launch is an EMP detonation. Firstly, one thermonuclear warhead will not deprive the United States of a retaliatory strike. Secondly, the United States has nothing to lose by taking a wait-and-see posture.

If it's an EMP strike then everyone stays with conventional weapons. If it's a single thermonuclear strike, there is nothing lost by waiting for verification.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> Your logic is flawed.
> 
> Let's say China launches a DF-3A IRBM with a 3.3-megaton warhead for detonation at 120 miles above Vietnam. It is no business of the United States. Thus, Vietnam can be easily annexed via a Chinese megaton-class EMP.
> 
> Same reasoning applies to a Chinese EMP detonation above Japan. No large American civilian population is at risk.
> 
> The reasoning is applicable to a Chinese EMP detonation above Guam. The United States will not start a global thermonuclear war over the loss of its planes on Guam.
> 
> Most importantly, the United States has nothing to lose to wait and see if a ballistic missile launch is an EMP detonation. Firstly, one thermonuclear warhead will not deprive the United States of a retaliatory strike. Secondly, the United States has nothing to lose by taking a wait-and-see posture.
> 
> If it's an EMP strike then everyone stays with conventional weapons. If it's a single thermonuclear strike, there is nothing lost by waiting for verification.


Sheer bullshit.

First...Look at Iraq and Kuwait. If your reasoning is sound, which we know it often is not, then the US had no business that resulted in Desert Storm. So what if Viet Nam does not have any oil? The conquest of any country for any reason, especially if the reason is atrocious as what you would like China to do -- annexation, is a threat to the rest. We put down Saddam Hussein, like a rabid dog that needs it. We will have no problems uniting the rest of Asia to put down whoever that occupies the Chinese throne.

Second...You are still limited in your thinking and you know it. You consistently refuses to answer the question: 'How is anyone to know the purpose of a nuclear ICBM launch?' You consistently refuses to acknowledge the fact that an EMP is a by product, not the main product, of a nuclear detonation.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Alpha1

Martian2 said:


> It seems to be a common misconception that an EMP is a WMD. It most certainly is not.
> An EMP is a very clinical device that kills no one.


 It may not kill people directly, but imaginr a country with all it's communication mechanism disabled, no cars , no ambulances, no cell phones, every piece of electronic destroyed, imagine how much panic and chaos it will cause? 
the damage will still be unacceptable., 
It certainly is a weapon of mass disruption

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## j20blackdragon

gambit said:


> So what if Viet Nam does not have any oil? The conquest of any country for any reason, especially if the reason is atrocious as what you would like China to do -- annexation, is a threat to the rest.



Why would the annexation of Vietnam be atrocious? Once Vietnam becomes a Chinese province, China will build infrastructure, create jobs, and Vietnam would be better off economically than ever before. Vietnam is currently a third world country with a standard of living comparable to some African countries. Any change would be an improvement for them.



gambit said:


> We put down Saddam Hussein, like a rabid dog that needs it. We will have no problems uniting the rest of Asia to put down whoever that occupies the Chinese throne.



Logistics.

How exactly is the "rest of Asia" going to stop a Chinese ground invasion of Southeast Asia? South Korea is stuck on a peninsula. Japan is an archipelago. Are they going to teleport their forces to Southeast Asia?



gambit said:


> You consistently refuses to answer the question: 'How is anyone to know the purpose of a nuclear ICBM launch?'



You don't know. A ballistic missile doesn't have to be nuclear. If you want to launch every single Trident II in response to a single IRBM headed towards Guam, go ahead. We will respond in kind.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## anonymus

Alpha1 said:


> It may not kill people directly, but imaginr a country with all it's communication mechanism disabled, no cars , no ambulances, no cell phones, every piece of electronic destroyed, imagine how much panic and chaos it will cause?
> the damage will still be unacceptable.,
> It certainly is a weapon of mass disruption




Dude,

Damage will not be limited to one country only. An EMP device would Knock down all LEO satellites.


----------



## j20blackdragon

Viet said:


> just replace the word "Vietnam" by "China"...Japan can invade China again and improve your living standard.
> I am waiting...



That may have been true 60+ years ago. However, today China is the epicenter for global economic growth and wealth creation. Japan has now experienced two lost decades and has an aging and declining population. What has Japan done recently that would be considered impressive? I stand by my comment that a Chinese invasion of Southeast Asia would raise the standard of living across the entire region. It would be the best thing to happen to Southeast Asia in centuries.

I'll provide some examples of what China can do for you economically.

----------------------------------------------------------------

China's real estate market has surpassed the US. New home sales hit $1.1 trillion -- yes, these are NEWLY built homes.



> China’s 2013 New Home Sales Hit $1.1 Trillion, Record High - Bloomberg
> By Bloomberg News
> Jan 20, 2014
> 
> China’s new home sales last year exceeded $1 trillion for the first time as property prices in cities the government considers first tier surged in the absence of more nationwide property curbs.
> 
> The value of new homes sold in 2013 rose 27 percent from 2012 to 6.8 trillion yuan ($1.1 trillion), National Bureau of Statistics said in a statement today.





> New and existing home sales in the U.S. were about $1.1 trillion last year, including $149 billion of new homes sold, broker Cushman & Wakefield Inc. estimated, based on U.S. Bureau of Census data.
> 
> China’s existing-homes market is about one-third of new homes by sales, according to Centaline Property Agency Ltd., because the nation only allowed private home ownership in 1998. The government doesn’t release data on existing-home sales.



----------------------------------------------------------------

China became the first country in world history to sell 20 million cars a year.



> By Bruce Kennedy/MoneyWatch/January 31, 2014, 2:30 PM
> 
> China breaks world record for car sales in 2013 - CBS News
> 
> Car sales surged in the U.S. last year, as the automotive industry came roaring back from the dark days of the recession. But the 15.6 million vehicles sold in America last year still lags behind China, which in 2013 reportedly became the first country to sell more than 20 million.



----------------------------------------------------------------

Infrastructure: China Might Overtake The US By 2014 [Infographic]

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Viet

j20blackdragon said:


> That may have been true 60+ years ago. However, today China is the epicenter for global economic growth and wealth creation. Japan has now experienced two lost decades and has an aging and declining population. What has Japan done recently that would be considered impressive? I stand by my comment that a Chinese invasion of Southeast Asia would raise the standard of living across the entire region. It would be the best thing to happen to Southeast Asia in centuries.
> 
> I'll provide some examples of what China can do for you economically.
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> China's real estate market has surpassed the US. New home sales hit $1.1 trillion -- yes, these are NEWLY built homes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> China became the first country in world history to sell 20 million cars a year.
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Infrastructure: China Might Overtake The US By 2014 [Infographic]


I like your avatar, because the girl is nice.


----------



## j20blackdragon

I want to talk logistics again because I want to reiterate just how easy it is for China to invade Southeast Asia.

Three maps.
















First, do you see any major geographical features that would prevent the PLA from simply driving the entire army into Southeast Asia? I sure don't. In fact, the highway map would suggest that it is astonishingly easy for the PLA to drive in because the road network already exists.

Could the USAF respond to such an invasion?






The answer is yes, but not easily, and only with a LOT of tanker support. What kind of sortie rates should we be expecting for distances like these? What if China shoots down the tankers? Something like the J-20 could do that quite easily.

China always has the option of hitting the airbases directly. Then what?






That leaves the US Navy against the DF-21D.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Martian2

*How to distinguish between a Chinese DF-31A 3-MIRVed ICBM and a DF-41 10-MIRVed ICBM*

A common question is: "How do you distinguish between a DF-31A ICBM carried on a mobile TEL from a DF-41 ICBM?"

The answer is actually pretty simple. It is very hard to tell the difference by looking at the missile canister. You have to focus on the mobile TEL.

The mobile TEL for the DF-31A has a group of four wheels in the back with two groups of two wheels in the front. In contrast, the mobile TEL for the DF-41 has all eight wheels clustered together with even spacing between the wheels.





Look at the white-wall tires on the DF-31A ICBM mobile TEL. There is a distinctive pattern of two groups of two wheels in the front half of the truck and a group of four wheels in the back of the truck.

----------





The wheels on the DF-41 ICBM mobile TEL are tightly clustered together with even spacing.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Great China

Martian2 said:


> *How to distinguish between a Chinese DF-31A 3-MIRVed ICBM and a DF-41 10-MIRVed ICBM*
> 
> A common question is: "How do you distinguish between a DF-31A ICBM carried on a mobile TEL from a DF-41 ICBM?"
> 
> The answer is actually pretty simple. It is very hard to tell the difference by looking at the missile canister. You have to focus on the mobile TEL..




I think everyone bigger than a 2 years old child can tell you the differences between the TELs. They're so OBVIOUSLY different!

Or maybe you thought everyone here is a 1 year old baby?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Martian2

Great China said:


> I think everyone bigger than a 2 years old child can tell you the differences between the TELs. They're so OBVIOUSLY different!
> 
> Or maybe you thought everyone here is a 1 year old baby?




There are many casual guest readers.

Don't read my threads or posts if it bothers you.

By the way, Broccoli can't tell the difference. He's on SDF claiming the DF-41 TEL is a DF-31A.

Broccoli has been around for a few years. If he can't tell the difference, perhaps other people also can't tell the difference.

Later (probably tomorrow since I've already written posts today and I'm working too hard for this hobby), I will write a more comprehensive post on the DF-41 TEL to clearly explain the reason that Broccoli is confused. He's looking at the same DF-41 TEL, but he thinks it's a DF-31A.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Great China

Martian2 said:


> By the way, Broccoli can't tell the difference. He's on SDF claiming the DF-41 TEL is a DF-31A.
> 
> Broccoli has been around for a few years. If he can't tell the difference, perhaps other people also can't tell the difference.
> 
> Later (probably tomorrow since I've already written posts today and I'm working too hard for this hobby), I will write a more comprehensive post on the DF-41 TEL to clearly explain the reason that Broccoli is confused. He's looking at the same DF-41 TEL, but he thinks it's a DF-31A.



Hahahahaha... I totally agree with you on mr Broccoli. But I would advice you not to waste your time trying to explain or convince him, he's hopeless... (personal experience)

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Martian2

*Comprehensive guide to identifying a Chinese DF-41 10-MIRVed ICBM*





This is a Chinese DF-31A 3-MIRVed ICBM mobile TEL from the 2009 Chinese Military Parade. Everyone agrees on this. Notice the canister is short and is placed entirely behind the truck cabin.

____________________





This is a Chinese DF-41 10-MIRVed ICBM. On the left side of the picture, it sticks out beyond the truck like a DF-31A. However, on the right side of the picture, the missile canister extends beyond the truck bed. Since it is *much longer* and can carry more fuel, the DF-41 is clearly a larger missile.

____________________





This is a picture of the DF-41 ICBM, because the wheel pattern is the same as the DF-41 picture above. You can't see it from this angle, but the missile extends beyond the middle of the truck cabin in the front.

____________________





DF-41 seen on a public road. Look carefully at the unique double-ring with multiple horizontal bars near the end of the DF-41 canister. It is the same design in this picture and the first DF-41 picture above.

---------------

Now, things get tricky. Some people get confused from this point forward.





DF-41 undergoing tests. Notice the missile canister extends beyond the front of the truck cabin. You can see the bright rectangular headlight on the front right-side of the truck.

____________________





DF-41 spotted on a public road in 2007. You are looking at the front of the truck, NOT the back. The DF-41 missile canister extends beyond the FRONT of the truck cabin. The distinctive rectangular headlights can be easily seen.

If I remember correctly, Hans Kristensen got confused and thought both of the pictures above showed the DF-31A. He said the canister resembled the DF-31A and not the DF-41, which has a double-ring.

In my opinion, Hans didn't realize he was looking at the wrong end of the DF-41 ICBM canister. Both pictures above show the FRONT of the DF-41 and not the back. The superficial resemblance between the front of the DF-41 canister and the back of the DF-31A canister is mere coincidence and has caused confusion. It only means China hired the same company to build the end-cover for its ICBM canisters.

We know both pictures above show the DF-41 ICBM, because the very first DF-41 ICBM picture showed a very long canister that splits the front cabin into two. The superlong DF-41 can only be carried by a truck with the DF-41 canister slung over the middle part of the cabin.

Look carefully at both pictures. The rectangular headlights are in the front. We are looking at the FRONT of the DF-41 ICBM mobile TEL.

---------------

Now, I will explain why Broccoli was confused.





This is a picture of China's DF-41 ICBM, because the superlong missile canister is slung over the middle part of the truck's cabin.

Broccoli didn't realize that every time you see a split cabin, it is a DF-41 ICBM (which is superlong and must extend over the front part of the mobile TEL). Broccoli took a wild guess, because he wasn't focused on the split cabin.

In conclusion, the three unique identifying characteristics of a Chinese DF-41 10-MIRVed ICBM mobile TEL canister are a split-cabin in front of the truck to accommodate the superlong front of the missile, a double-ring pattern in the back of the canister, and the tightly-grouped evenly-spaced eight truck tires.





I want to add this final picture of China's DF-41 10-MIRVed ICBM to complete the collection of pictures. Obviously, we know it's a DF-41 because of the split-cabin in the front of the truck.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Beidou2020

Never try to convince an anti-China troll (Broccoli)

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Viet

Martian2 said:


> My comment on TIME under my pseudonym as ChinaLee.
> 
> Link: China’s Restriction on Airspace Over Disputed Islets Could Lead to War | TIME.com
> 
> ----------
> 
> The United States should stay out of a Sino-Japanese War.
> 
> The U.S. signed a defense treaty with Japan in 1952. The United States had no idea that China would detonate a 3.3-megaton hydrogen bomb in 1967. China has spent 47 years to prepare for the next war. In 2009, China announced the completion of the 5,000km (or 3,000 mile) Underground Great Wall. No one has any idea how many Chinese thermonuclear warheads are hidden down there.
> 
> It's time for the United States to extricate itself from an archaic defense treaty with troublesome saber-rattling Japan. After all, what can the U.S. do if China decides to detonate a megaton-EMP over Japan? The answer is not much unless you want to engage in an all-out thermonuclear war with China.
> 
> According to NTI, China has at least 294 megatons of thermonuclear warheads and they've been busy building more in the last decade. The U.S. has 570 megatons, France 55, and Britain 16 megatons.
> 
> Current list of China's thermonuclear/fusion warheads:
> 
> DF-5A ICBM: World's largest deployed warhead at five megatons
> DF-5B ICBM: Carries 10 MIRVs with half a megaton per MIRV
> DF-31A ICBM: Carries 3 MIRVs
> DF-41 ICBM: Carries 10 MIRVs
> JL-2 SLBM: Carries 8 MIRVs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picture of DF-31A ICBM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picture of DF-41 ICBM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picture of two DF-5 ICBMs in China's Underground Great Wall


what do you think how many US nuclear submarines carrying nuclear weapons cruise in the East and South China Sea day and night?
but anyway discussing with a madman like you is waste of time..


----------



## Martian2

*My reasonable estimate that China has at least 100 DF-31A 3-MIRVed ICBMs (and 300 thermonuclear warheads)*

On another forum, Broccoli recently asked for the basis of my estimate that China has at least 100 DF-31A ICBMs. I provided him with two reasons. I will now add a third reason. It is official Chinese government policy (see last citation below *"No nuclear limit: China"*) to close the thermonuclear gap with the United States. Thus, we can expect China to work relentlessly to build more hydrogen bombs, ICBMs, and SLBMs.

The existence of 100 Chinese DF-31A ICBMs means 300 MIRVed thermonuclear warheads. It is a good deterrent and buys time for China to build more DF-31A and DF-41 ICBMs.

Many analysts, like Richard Fisher, believe China has one reload missile per ICBM TEL. This makes sense, because it maximizes the use of a mobile ICBM TEL. If this is true, we could actually be looking at 200 Chinese DF-31A ICBMs with 600 MIRVed thermonuclear warheads.


Broccoli said:


> I would also like to see source for claim that China has 100 DF-31A ICBM's, so far only thing what I have seen is Martians personal opinion.




Two reasons.

1. China launches 20 Long March rockets each year. Assuming the Chinese military builds an equivalent number of military Dong Feng/Long March ICBMs each year, we're looking at about 100 DF-31A ICBMs.

Since the DF-31A ICBM was in service in 2007, we can calculate the approximate total number of DF-31As.

20 DF-31As built per year (to match the number of Long March rockets launched each year and to safeguard China) * 7 years (from 2007 to 2014) = 140 DF-31As

2. From my January 7, 2012 post (see below) where I cited Britain`s International Institute of Strategic Studies.

Using the more conservative estimate of one new brigade or 12 additional DF-31A missiles per year:

12 DF-31A ICBMs * 7 years = 84 DF-31As (which is close enough to 100 DF-31A ICBMs)

----------

*China's DF-31As deter 144 cities*





China's DF-31A launch

Let's do the math to see if China's DF-31A mobile ICBM retaliatory force is sufficient to provide a nuclear deterrent.

"Britain`s International Institute of Strategic Studies notes" there are "24 DF-31A ICBMs, indicating a possible increase of one new brigade from 2008 to 2009." China is increasing her DF-31A ICBM force by approximately 12 missiles/one brigade a year.

We will add 12 more missiles from 2009 to 2010 and another dozen missiles from 2010 to 2011. A reasonable estimate of China's DF-31A force is 48 ICBMs (e.g. 24 at end of 2009; 36 at end of 2010; and 48 at end of 2011).

If Richard Fisher's information is correct and China's DF-31A is MIRVed with three warheads then that means the 48 DF-31As are armed with a total of 144 warheads (e.g. 48 DF-31As x 3 MIRVed warheads = 144 warheads).

We know China possesses the technology for a W-88 class warhead with a yield of 475 kilotons. The conclusion is that China's DF-31A nuclear force is capable of retaliating against 144 cities. That does seem to be a formidable second-strike capability.

----------

China and START. Missile buildup may surpass U.S., Russia as they denuclearize

"China and START
By Richard D. Fisher Jr.,
The Washington Times,
20 September 2010
...
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.*
...
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."

----------





Range of China's defensive thermonuclear missiles

No nuclear limit: China

"*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."

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Viet said:


> what do you think how many US nuclear submarines carrying nuclear weapons cruise in the East and South China Sea day and night?
> but anyway discussing with a madman like you is waste of time..



Still, they won't dare to use it against China unless PLA made the first nuclear strike against the US soil.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Viet said:


> what do you think how many *US nuclear submarines* carrying nuclear weapons cruise in the East and South China Sea day and night?
> but anyway discussing with a madman like you is waste of time..



Anyway, US won't operate any SSBN in the East/South China Sea.

The East China Sea is mostly made of littoral zone, which is unsuitable for the SSN to sail., while they don't have any sub base in the South China Sea.

In conclusion, you are making this assumption out of your mind, since any military amateur with a slight decent knowledge could assume that USN won't operate any SSBN or SSN in the East/South China Sea.

US is not your sugar daddy, while they won't become your sugar daddy. If Vietnam ever wants to face China, then you will have to do it alone.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Martian2

*Mechanical computer used for calculations to build China's atomic and hydrogen bombs*

China's mechanical computer looks like a "slide rule" integrated with a keypad. It's essentially a specialized hard-coded machine with built-in equations or functions.

The mechanical computer is the mechanical equivalent of an ASIC (ie. application-specific integrated circuit). China probably had thousands or tens of thousands of these units for use by engineers.





Here is a picture of the said "abacus." Also, I would call it a mechanical computer. I took the picture while I was in the China National History Museum for the Road to Renaissance Exhibit. They apparently calculated nine simulated detonations with this thing before they lit the fuse on the big one. (Photo and caption credit: Luhai)

[Note: Thank you to Luhai for taking the picture of the extraordinary Chinese mechanical computer and describing it in the caption.]
----------

China's Military Technological Milestones - includes China's first flight test of its WS-20 large turbofan high-bypass engine

210 B.C. (2,200 years ago): China invents chrome-plating technology during Qin Dynasty under emperor Qin Shihuang.

1964: China detonated a *22-kiloton atomic bomb* on October 16, 1964.

Video of the 22-kiloton Chinese atomic explosion in 1964





---------------

1967: China detonated a *3.3-megaton thermonuclear bomb* on June 17, 1967.

Video of the 3.3-megaton Chinese thermonuclear explosion in 1967





1970: China successfully sends its first satellite into space - the Dong Fang Hong I

1971: China successfully launched its first DF-5 ICBM with 12,000-15,000km range and capable of carrying a five-megaton "city buster" thermonuclear warhead.

1972: China builds its first atomic clock at Shanghai Astronomical Observatory (SHAO).

1984: China built its first cryogenic YF-73 rocket engine.

1986: China built an indigenous DD3 nickel-based single-crystal superalloy. (Earliest English article citation is year 1995. However, the first published Chinese research paper on DD3 discovery was in 1986.)

1988: China test-detonates a 1- to 20-kiloton Neutron Bomb on September 29, 1988.
1988: Julang 1 (JL-1) SLBM is fully operational with the successful test firing from a submerged Xia SSBN in September 1988.

1998: Chinese J-10 Vigorous Dragon had its first flight. Officially unveiled in 2007.
1998: "At the 1998 Zhuhai Air Show, the [Chinese] Seek Optics Company displayed information of its stealth coating and software for stealth shaping.[63]"

1999: Chinese JSTARS Tu-154M/D Electronic Intelligence Aircraft in service (e.g. Careless B-4138).

2000: China successfully sends its first GPS satellite (Beidou) into space.

2001: Chinese Type 99 Main Battle Tank in service.

2002: China's Type 093 Shang-class nuclear attack submarine (SSN) is launched.

2003: China sends its first taikonaut Yang Liwei into space.
2003: China's KJ-2000 AWACS with domestic AESA radar has its first flight.
2003*: DD6 is China's indigenous second-generation nickel-based single-crystal superalloy (Earliest English article citation is year 2003. However, actual DD6 discovery was probably closer to year 2000.)

2005: China's Type 052C Lanzhou-class AESA-equipped destroyer entered service.

2006: China's WS-10A turbofan engine certified for production.
2006: First static test of the WS-13 turbofan engine with single-crystal turbine blades.

2007: China clones world's first rabbit.
2007: Chinese direct-ascent ASAT shoots down orbiting satellite.
2007: Chinese DF-31A MIRVed ICBM in service.

2008: China conducts its first spacewalk with taikonaut Zhai Zhigang.
2008: China orbits its first data tracking and relay communications satellite - Tianlian I

2009: Public disclosure of China's 5,000km "Underground Great Wall"

2010: China builds world's-fastest supercomputer Tianhe-1A.
2010: Chinese GBI (i.e. ground based interceptor) shoots down a ballistic missile during mid-course phase.
2010: Chinese WZ-10 Attack Helicopter in service.
2010: Chinese Type 094 Jin-class nuclear missile ballistic submarine (SSBN) in service.
2010: Chinese Yaogan 9 NOSS (Naval Ocean Surveillance System) satellite trio in orbit.

2011: Chengdu J-20 stealth superfighter has first flight on January 11, 2011.

2012: China sends its first woman taikonaut Liu Yang into space on a 10-day mission.
2012: Chinese Jialong manned submersible completes world record-breaking 7,000 meter dive.
2012: First sighting of next-generation AESA radar for Type 052C destroyer.
2012: DF-41 10-MIRV-capable ICBM with 12,000-15,000km range had first flight on July 24, 2012.
2012: Chinese Type 056 corvette enters service.
2012: New Chinese thermonuclear-capable IRBM with 4,000km range (to potentially strike Guam).
2012: China's Beidou System successfully covers all of China and the surrounding region.
2012: Shenyang J-31 medium-range stealth fighter has first flight on October 31, 2012.
2012: China builds its first optical clock (which is more precise than an atomic clock).

2013: China's Y-20 heavy-lift military transport conducts first flight on January 26, 2013.
2013: "The Chinese military has deployed its new anti-ship ballistic missile [ASBM or "carrier killer"] along its southern coast facing Taiwan, the Pentagon’s top military intelligence officer said today."
2013: "After a round of successful testing in 2012, the JL-2 appears ready to reach initial operational capability in 2013." (Source [p. 39, Pentagon 2013 report on Chinese Military Power]: http://www.defense.gov/pubs/2013_China_Report_FINAL.pdf)
2013: China has deployed H-6K "God of War" bomber that is capable of carrying thermonuclear-capable CJ-10 cruise missiles.
2013: Bill Gertz reports China is building 1,240 miles of special tracks for rail-mobile ICBMs.
2013: China deploys advanced SRBM with MARV (maneuverable reentry vehicle) thermonuclear-capable warhead
2013: China's "Lijian stealth UAV from Hongdu has made its first flight on Nov. 21 at 13:00 local time. The flight was 20 minutes."
2013: China's Yutu rover separates from Chang'e-3 Moon Lander on December 14, 2013.
2013: China's Z-20 military medium-lift 10-ton utility helicopter has its first flight on December 23, 2013

2014: China conducts its first HGV (hypersonic glide vehicle) flight on January 9, 2014.
*2014: China conducts first flight test of its WS-20 large turbofan high-bypass engine.*

----------





China's WS-20 turbofan high-bypass engine is on the left with the larger diameter. (Photo Credit: Sina)





China's WS-20 high-bypass engine is more fuel efficient than a low-bypass engine. The WS-20 is suitable for transport aircraft where range is important. (Photo Credit: EasyDay)

[Note: Thank you to Shuttler for the photograph credits.]

----------

China Flies First Large Turbofan | AIN Online

"China Flies First Large Turbofan
by David Donald
AIN Defense Perspective » January 17, 2014





The first flight test example of the WS-20 turbofan is seen on the port inboard pylon of an Il-76 testbed. (Photo: via Chinese Internet)

Photos have appeared on Chinese websites of an Ilyushin Il-76 testbed fitted with a large high-bypass-ratio turbofan under the port inner pylon. The engine is believed to be the WS-20 (also reported as WS-118), which is under development as a possible powerplant for the Xian Y-20 airlifter. The prototype Y-20s, the first of which flew on January 26 last year, are powered by the NPO Saturn D-30KP-2 imported from Russia. This engine is also used by the Il-76 itself, and by China’s H-6K missile-carrying bomber.

While the performance of the 26,500-pound-thrust D-30KP-2 is adequate for initial flight-testing of the Y-20, and perhaps limited initial operational use, it is not powerful enough for ultimate requirements set for the Y-20. To meet those needs, at least three powerplant programs have been mentioned as potential engines for the production airlifter, which is scheduled to enter service in 2017.

Shenyang-Liming has been developing the WS-20, using the core of the WS-10A fighter engine as a basis. This engine, though it has gone through many troubles, is now in production for the J-11B, a Chinese development of the Sukhoi Su-27 “Flanker.” The relative maturity of the WS-10A core has given the WS-20 a lead in terms of development of a large fan engine, although it may still not deliver the desired power levels.

Two other programs that may be applicable to the Y-20 are the 30,000-pound-thrust ACAE CJ-1000A, primarily intended to power the Comac C919 regional airliner, and the SF-A engine. The latter is under development at Xian and is based on the WS-15 fighter engine core.

*In any case, flight testing of the WS-20 represents a major milestone for Chinese industry, as it is the first indigenous high-bypass-ratio powerplant to take to the air.* China’s aero engine industry has been struggling to match the technological achievements of other areas of the country’s aerospace sector. The advanced metallurgy required to fabricate efficient high-temperature blades has reportedly been lacking, and help has been sought from outside."

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## j20blackdragon

Martian2 said:


> If I remember correctly, Hans Kristensen got confused and thought both of the pictures above showed the DF-31A. He said the canister resembled the DF-31A and not the DF-41, which has a double-ring.



Hans M. Kristensen didn't get confused. He might be playing stupid, but he's not confused. As a 'talking head' within the US arms-control community, it's his job to diminish the capabilities of virtually all states with nuclear weapons in order to pursue his own agenda.

So according to the arms-control community...

1. China has 2,000 missiles aimed at Taiwan, but can only manufacture a few dozen ICBMs...

China on track to aim 2,000 missiles at Taiwan: report| Reuters

2. China spent several trillion dollars and several decades building the 3,000 mile Underground Great Wall, but left it completely empty...

3. Any pictures of the DF-41 you might see is actually the DF-31 with a new TEL...

4. China has produced plutonium at these two sites and *ONLY* these two sites in its entire history:






Nevermind about the now declassified existence of Project 816 -- an actual example of an underground plutonium production reactor and its coincidental similarities to the Underground Great Wall...

5. Since US recon satellites can't spot any ICBMs, China doesn't have any ICBMs -- because China is dumb enough to leave the DF-41s above ground waiting for the Tomahawk and B-2 strikes...

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Viet said:


> bla bla bla...just keep masturbating. congrat to your new role as hooligan and nazi of Asia.



I am talking with the logic.

Each Ohio class SSBN can carry up to 24 SLBMs with a range of 11000km, so USN can safely deploy in its west coast or Hawaii, why deployed it in the littoral water which is too close to China's sub-hunting troop?

The only sub base in Asia-Pacific for USN is Guam, it is the most logical supplement base.

BTW, do you truly believe that if China nukes Vietnam, USA will nuke China as a response?

If you believe so, then it is a waste of time to talk with you.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## j20blackdragon

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> I am talking with the logic.
> 
> Each Ohio class SSBN can carry up to 24 SLBMs with a range of 11000km, so USN can safely deploy in its west coast or Hawaii, why deployed it in the littoral water which is too close to China's sub-hunting troop?
> 
> The only sub base in Asia-Pacific for USN is Guam, it is the most logical supplement base.
> 
> BTW, do you truly believe that if China nukes Vietnam, USA will nuke China as a response?
> 
> If you believe so, then it is a waste of time to talk with you.



There's no need to have a logical conversation with Viets because their IQ is about the same as Indians.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Viet

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> I am talking with the logic.
> 
> Each Ohio class SSBN can carry up to 24 SLBMs with a range of 11000km, so USN can safely deploy in its west coast or Hawaii, why deployed it in the littoral water which is too close to China's sub-hunting troop?
> 
> The only sub base in Asia-Pacific for USN is Guam, it is the most logical supplement base.
> 
> BTW, do you truly believe that if China nukes Vietnam, USA will nuke China as a response?
> 
> If you believe so, then it is a waste of time to talk with you.


normally I am not interested to post here in this section. too many warmongers. just because some Chinese clowns here threaten to invade or nuke Vietnam, so I open my mouth.

Vietnam is a non-nuclear state, so for me it is not understandable why some posters here think it is necessary to resort to nuclear weapons. Everbody knows Vietnam has never been a threat for China existence. Moreover, nuclear weapons are weapons of last resort for instance if the fate of China is at risk. China has 1.4b people, while Vietnam 90m. China spends $160b a year for the army, while Vietnam can only afford a fraction of it. so why nukes? makes no sense.

actually Vietnam is one of your least concerns.

From the strategic perspective, China is very vulnerable from others. Look at the map.
You have an unpredictable N Korea regime with nuclear arms Kim dynasty.
More than two US elite devisions station in S Korea. We can assume that America has tactical nuclear weapons to deter North Korea.
Same goes for Japan as America promises nuclear umbrella.
Not much difference for Taiwan
and of course same applies to the Philippines.

I am not a miliary expert. I only make assumption what would America do to deter a nuclear attack from China and North Korea to its allies? most of the deadly weapons is of course nuclear powered submarines, deploying them to the possible war zones: East and South China Sea.

Correct me if I am wrong.

America has 18 Ohio class subs: 14 SSBNs (each with 24 xTrident II) and 4 SSGNs (each with 154 xTomahawk). Each Tomahawk cruise missile can be fitted with either conventional or nuclear warheads. Let assume, America deploys half of them closer to China, means 7 SSBNs and 2 SSGNs. Barrack Obama has said he will deploy 60% of naval assets to the region by 2020. Following the range of the two different missiles, so the US would place the SSBNs in the West Pacific and one SSGN in the East and one in the South China Sea. That makes my assumption that two subs patrol the Seas day and night.

The closer the US subs get to China shore, the lesser the time China has to react. the cruise missiles need less time to reach the target. very simple. the waters are deep enough to operate the Subs. It makes sense to place the subs at strategic points and deter the enemy.

How advanced is China subhunting capapility? are you able to detect the subs?


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Viet said:


> normally I am not interested to post here in this section. too many warmongers. just because some Chinese clowns here threaten to invade or nuke Vietnam, so I open my mouth.
> 
> Vietnam is a non-nuclear state, so for me it is not understandable why some posters here think it is necessary to resort to nuclear weapons. Everbody knows Vietnam has never been a threat for China existence. Moreover, nuclear weapons are weapons of last resort for instance if the fate of China is at risk. China has 1.4b people, while Vietnam 90m. China spends $160b a year for the army, while Vietnam can only afford a fraction of it. so why nukes? makes no sense.
> 
> actually Vietnam is one of your least concerns.
> 
> From the strategic perspective, China is very vulnerable from others. Look at the map.
> You have an unpredictable N Korea regime with nuclear arms Kim dynasty.
> More than two US elite devisions station in S Korea. We can assume that America has tactical nuclear weapons to deter North Korea.
> Same goes for Japan as America promises nuclear umbrella.
> Not much difference for Taiwan
> and of course same applies to the Philippines.
> 
> I am not a miliary expert. I only make assumption what would America do to deter a nuclear attack from China and North Korea to its allies? most of the deadly weapons is of course nuclear powered submarines, deploying them to the possible war zones: East and South China Sea.
> 
> Correct me if I am wrong.
> 
> America has 18 Ohio class subs: 14 SSBNs (each with 24 xTrident II) and 4 SSGNs (each with 154 xTomahawk). Each Tomahawk cruise missile can be fitted with either conventional or nuclear warheads. Let assume, America deploys half of them closer to China, means 7 SSBNs and 2 SSGNs. Barrack Obama has said he will deploy 60% of naval assets to the region by 2020. Following the range of the two different missiles, so the US would place the SSBNs in the West Pacific and one SSGN in the East and one in the South China Sea. That makes my assumption that two subs patrol the Seas day and night.
> 
> *The closer the US subs get to China shore, the lesser the time China has to react. the cruise missiles need less time to reach the target. very simple. the waters are deep enough to operate the Subs. It makes sense to place the subs at strategic points and deter the enemy.*
> 
> How advanced is China subhunting capapility? are you able to detect the subs?



The SSBN with SLBM isn't going to be better to be too close China's shore.

The boost phase of the ICBM/SLBM is slow and vulnerable if it is getting too close to enemy's range.

The SSBN with SLCM is another case, but the SLCM is mostly at the subsonic speed, which will give enemy too much time to react.

China has the HGV, so the US soil is not 100% safe when it is contempting to attack China's soil.


----------



## j20blackdragon

Viet said:


> normally I am not interested to post here in this section. too many warmongers. just because some Chinese clowns here threaten to invade or nuke Vietnam, so I open my mouth.
> 
> Vietnam is a non-nuclear state, so for me it is not understandable why some posters here think it is necessary to resort to nuclear weapons. Everbody knows Vietnam has never been a threat for China existence. Moreover, nuclear weapons are weapons of last resort for instance if the fate of China is at risk. China has 1.4b people, while Vietnam 90m. China spends $160b a year for the army, while Vietnam can only afford a fraction of it. so why nukes? makes no sense.
> 
> actually Vietnam is one of your least concerns.
> 
> From the strategic perspective, China is very vulnerable from others. Look at the map.
> You have an unpredictable N Korea regime with nuclear arms Kim dynasty.
> More than two US elite devisions station in S Korea. We can assume that America has tactical nuclear weapons to deter North Korea.
> Same goes for Japan as America promises nuclear umbrella.
> Not much difference for Taiwan
> and of course same applies to the Philippines.



A Chinese invasion of Southeast Asia is less about Vietnam and more about bypassing the Strait of Malacca and gaining a coastline along the Indian Ocean.

For example, why do you think we built this pipeline through Myanmar?







We did it to bypass the Strait of Malacca.






Now imagine a PLA ground invasion straight through Southeast Asia all the way down to Peninsular Malaysia. China would then control the Strait of Malacca itself and we can proceed to choke off all of East Asia with our own blockade. Thus Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and Vietnam would be defeated all at once.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## UKBengali

j20blackdragon said:


> Now imagine a PLA ground invasion straight through Southeast Asia all the way down to Peninsular Malaysia. China would then control the Strait of Malacca itself and we can proceed to choke off all of East Asia with our own blockade. Thus Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and Vietnam would be defeated all at once.



Ships would have the option to use the waters between Indonesia and Australia.

In a worse case scenario they could use the route in-between Australia and Antarctica.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

UKBengali said:


> Ships would have the option to use the waters between Indonesia and Australia.
> 
> In a worse case scenario they could use the route in-between Australia and Antarctica.



China will use DF-21D and HGV as a countermeasure against someone who attempts to block the strait against China.

To militarily occupy the strait is not China's style.


----------



## UKBengali

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> China will use DF-21D and HGV as a countermeasure against someone who attempts to block the strait against China.
> 
> To militarily occupy the strait is not China's style.




I think the idea itself just goes to show how China will totally dominate Asia by circa 2030.

Even if the US has military parity with China, it still it an ocean away and China can bring overwhelming force to bear in any part of Asia that would just steamroller the US and anyone else stupid enough to get in the way.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Viet

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> The SSBN with SLBM isn't going to be better to be too close China's shore.
> 
> The boost phase of the ICBM/SLBM is slow and vulnerable if it is getting too close to enemy's range.
> 
> The SSBN with SLCM is another case, but the SLCM is mostly at the subsonic speed, which will give enemy too much time to react.
> 
> China has the HGV, so the US soil is not 100% safe when it is contempting to attack China's soil.


Does China have sophisticated air defence shield, covering the entire East and South China Sea?

No, as far as I know. China still lacks of modern air missile defence and capitility of detect US submarines. You would lose the war.

In general, it is very difficult to detect submarines. in contrast, detecting surface warships is a piece of cake.

that is correct the Tomahawk is a subsonic cruise missile, but it is one of best weapons America has. To say you have more time to detect and destroy it is very optimistic assumption. The missile can fly 30m over the surface and reach the target accurately thanks to onboard modern navigation.

I wonder about how some Chinese members here brag about nukes. they can nuke here and there to win the war. nuclear weapons are for deterrence. to deter a nuclear attack. to avoid a war. once you resort to nukes, you must make sure you can kill the enemy, if not you will die as second. that means if you decide to launch nukes, then it is recommended you fire all of the stock piles on the first strike.

for instance, during the cold war, the Soviets planned to launch 5,000 nukes (Hiroshima equivalent) just on the Northern part of Germany.

pic of a Tomahawk missile launch from a sub (wiki)


----------



## Aegis DDG

Damn, Nukes are scary. I wish it will never be used in conflict...


----------



## Viet

j20blackdragon said:


> A Chinese invasion of Southeast Asia is less about Vietnam and more about bypassing the Strait of Malacca and gaining a coastline along the Indian Ocean.
> 
> For example, why do you think we built this pipeline through Myanmar?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We did it to bypass the Strait of Malacca.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now imagine a PLA ground invasion straight through Southeast Asia all the way down to Peninsular Malaysia. China would then control the Strait of Malacca itself and we can proceed to choke off all of East Asia with our own blockade. Thus Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and Vietnam would be defeated all at once.


how would the PLA carry out the invasion?

I guess if you just want to control the Strait of Malacca, then you just send the Navy there and take it from Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore. if the South China Sea, then the PLA ground force into Vietnam, then the PLA navy to the South China Sea.
That alone would be a huge task for China, assuming the other great powers remain neutral.



ChineseTiger1986 said:


> China will use DF-21D and HGV as a countermeasure against someone who attempts to block the strait against China.
> 
> To militarily occupy the strait is not China's style.


to block the Strait of Malacca is easy. Vietnam can secretly send Kilos there and lay sea mines. Nobody knows.


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Viet said:


> to block the Strait of Malacca is easy. Vietnam can secretly send Kilos there and lay sea mines. Nobody knows.



Do you wanna a full scale war with China? Meanwhile getting sanctioned by the whole world?


----------



## j20blackdragon

UKBengali said:


> Ships would have the option to use the waters between Indonesia and Australia.
> 
> In a worse case scenario they could use the route in-between Australia and Antarctica.



With enough helicopters, the PLA could island-hop across a huge chunk of Indonesia from Peninsular Malaysia if it wanted to. But you're right. If merchant vessels wanted to take the long way around Australia, they can certainly do that. Nevertheless, China would have much to gain from having a huge coastline on the Indian Ocean and effective control of the Strait of Malacca. The extra food security from Southeast Asia's arable land and fresh water wouldn't hurt either.



Viet said:


> *how would the PLA carry out the invasion?*
> 
> I guess if you just want to control the Strait of Malacca, then you just send the Navy there and take it from Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore. if the South China Sea, then the PLA ground force into Vietnam, then the PLA navy to the South China Sea.
> That alone would be a huge task for China, assuming the other great powers remain neutral.



I already explained how it could be done in a previous post. Talking to Viets is like talking to a chimp.



j20blackdragon said:


> I want to talk logistics again because I want to reiterate just how easy it is for China to invade Southeast Asia.
> 
> Three maps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, do you see any major geographical features that would prevent the PLA from simply driving the entire army into Southeast Asia? I sure don't. In fact, the highway map would suggest that it is astonishingly easy for the PLA to drive in because the road network already exists.
> 
> Could the USAF respond to such an invasion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The answer is yes, but not easily, and only with a LOT of tanker support. What kind of sortie rates should we be expecting for distances like these? What if China shoots down the tankers? Something like the J-20 could do that quite easily.
> 
> China always has the option of hitting the airbases directly. Then what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That leaves the US Navy against the DF-21D.


----------



## Viet

j20blackdragon said:


> With enough helicopters, the PLA could island-hop across a huge chunk of *Indonesia* from Peninsular *Malaysia* if it wanted to. But you're right. If merchant vessels wanted to take the long way around Australia, they can certainly do that. Nevertheless, China would have much to gain from having a huge coastline on the Indian Ocean and effective control of the Strait of Malacca. The extra food security from Southeast Asia's arable land and fresh water wouldn't hurt either.
> 
> I already explained how it could be done in a previous post. Talking to Viets is like talking to a chimp.


...and you assume Indonesia and Malaysia do not do anything against your invasion? 

yes, I like your avatar, but you are a chimp, not me.

You want to invade South East Asia, including Vietnam. I look for how exactly the PLA wants to carry out the plan, aka invasion plan. Just showing me some road maps do not count. In the 1979 war, you mobilized 600,000 men and 400 tanks and just achieved 40km at the farthest point. I guess, this time you must put more on the table in order to reach Hanoi, for instance 1,000,000 men, 1,000 tanks and 1,000 jets, etc...

numbers...numbers...dude


----------



## j20blackdragon

Viet said:


> You want to invade South East Asia, including Vietnam. I look for how exactly the PLA wants to carry out the plan, aka invasion plan. Just showing me some road maps do not count. In the 1979 war, you mobilized 600,000 men and 400 tanks and just achieved 40km at the farthest point. I guess, this time you must put more on the table in order to reach Hanoi, for instance 1,000,000 men, 1,000 tanks and 1,000 jets, etc...
> 
> numbers...numbers...dude



This isn't 1979 anymore. The Chinese auto industry produced over 19 million vehicles in 2012.

List of countries by motor vehicle production - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Driving the entire army into Southeast Asia would be the easiest thing in the world.


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

j20blackdragon said:


> This isn't 1979 anymore. The Chinese auto industry produced over 19 million vehicles in 2012.
> 
> List of countries by motor vehicle production - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Driving the entire army into Southeast Asia would be the easiest thing in the world.



It was 22 million cars by 2013.


----------



## Viet

j20blackdragon said:


> This isn't 1979 anymore. The Chinese auto industry produced over 19 million vehicles in 2012.
> 
> List of countries by motor vehicle production - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Driving the entire army into Southeast Asia would be the easiest thing in the world.


I like you because you have humor.
do you want to invade Vietnam by passenger cars?


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Viet said:


> I like you because you have humor.
> do you want to invade Vietnam by passenger cars?



It is just a mere indication of China's production capability.


----------



## j20blackdragon

Viet said:


> I like you because you have humor.
> do you want to invade Vietnam by passenger cars?



Why not? Are soldiers unable to sit inside passenger cars? What's the big difference between a SUV and a US Army Humvee?


----------



## showlex

OH MY GOD guys, what's the point arguing this with someone from Vietnam? Let's make our country stronger and richer, while they stagnate and have day dream, the more the better.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Martian2

*China's DF-5, DF-5A, and DF-5B ICBMs*

1. China's DF-5 ICBM was the original thermonuclear deterrent. The DF-5 first flew in 1971 and entered service in 1981. You can watch the May 18, 1980 DF-5 ICBM test for yourself in the video below. The DF-5 has been superseded by the DF-5A and DF-5B ICBMs.






2. China's upgraded DF-5A ICBM has an effective range of 13,000km to 15,000km.

"When the DF-5 was first tested in September 1971, it had a range of 10,000 to 12,000 km which allowed it to threaten the western portions of the United States. Beginning in 1983 the Chinese inaugurated the improved DF-5A, with range increased to over 15,000 km and a more accurate guidance system. The DF-5A upgrade increased the throw-weight of the system from 3,000 kg to 3,200 kg."

*There are five ways to increase the range of a missile.*

*a. Improve the nuclear warhead design and decrease the weight.* Seismic tests have proven that China possesses the most advanced W88-equivalent thermonuclear warhead design. China has already optimized its thermonuclear warhead design.

China tested a series of advanced thermonuclear warheads from 1992 to 1996 (see China's Nuclear Testing Program). In 1995, "American experts analyzing [seismic data of] Chinese nuclear test results found similarities to America's most advanced miniature warhead, the W-88."

*b. Use the latest generation of semiconductor chips and electronics to reduce the weight of the electronic guidance and control systems.* For example, use lightweight fiber optic cables to replace heavier copper cables for data transmission. Given the small size of modern semiconductors and electronics, this avenue of weight reduction has probably run its course for China.

*c. Increase the size of the missile.* For example, the JL-1 SLBM has a launch weight of 14,700kg and a range of 2,150km. By increasing the size of the JL-2 SLBM to a launch weight of 42,000kg, the JL-2 SLBM has a range of at least 7,200km.

*d. Reduce the weight of the ICBM by increasing the use of composite materials.* The missile casing is a large part of the overall weight of the ICBM. By replacing as many metal casing parts with lightweight composites, the ICBM will fly further.

*e. Improve the specific impulse of the rocket propellant.* By researching and developing new rocket fuels with greater energy density, the ICBM can fly further on the same volume of rocket fuel.

3. China's latest DF-5B ICBM carries 10 MIRVed warheads with a half-megaton per warhead.

Since 1999, Richard Fisher has been discussing the Chinese DF-5B MIRVed ICBM. In the latest Pentagon report on Chinese Military Power, the Pentagon acknowledges the existence of the DF-5B/"enhanced DF-5" ICBM (see citation below).

There is a misconception that DF-5B ICBMs are not as useful during a time of war, because it requires two hours to fuel the liquid-fueled DF-5B ICBM. However, during times of increasing conflict, a DF-5B ICBM can be fueled ahead of time and put on stand-by for immediate launch.

----------

http://www.strategycenter.net/docLib/20121125_FisherLessisNotEnough112512.pdf (page 12 of 28)

"*The 2012 China Report does mention an 'enhanced silo-based DF-5,' that could be a reference to the 'DF-5B,' which in 2010 an Asian military source told the author was a new MIRV version of the DF-5. This missile may also be capable of lofting 8 to 10 warheads.* A large, detailed order of battle for the PLA that was posted on Chinese web pages in early 2012 indicates that there may already be two brigades, or up to 24 deployed DF-5B missiles.[44]"

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## bolo

@Martian2 

Given America's beligerent stance on the SCS, would it better if China came out and told the world that they actualy possess enough thermonuclear weapons to annihilate the US if they dare to send troops to aid Japan, Phillipines or Taiwan? It appears China is very secretive about the size of its nukes.

Right now it appears the US does not believe China has enough nukes to destroy US land unlike Russia. That is why American is poking their nose in China's affairs.

What is your take?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Martian2

bolo said:


> @Martian2
> 
> Given America's beligerent stance on the SCS, would it better if China came out and told the world that they actualy possess enough thermonuclear weapons to annihilate the US if they dare to send troops to aid Japan, Phillipines or Taiwan? It appears China is very secretive about the size of its nukes.
> 
> Right now it appears the US does not believe China has enough nukes to destroy US land unlike Russia. That is why American is poking their nose in China's affairs.
> 
> What is your take?




You are asking one of the most important questions in modern military affairs. I have been intentionally staying away from this complex question. However, since you asked it, I will give you my best answer.

Firstly, I believe the United States has a very good classified estimate of China's nuclear forces (through spy satellites, electronic intercepts, spies, counting ICBMs as they leave the factory, etc.). That is why the U.S. government always refuses to officially comment on Chinese ICBM launches. The U.S. government knows what's going on, but won't tell the public.

Secondly, unless a person is an idiot, it should be obvious that China has a lot more than the 200-400 warheads that the Pentagon has been claiming since 1985 (which was 30 years ago).

A quick estimate shows the ridiculousness of the Pentagon's low-ball estimate.

China has at least three brigades of DF-5 missiles. Assuming all three brigades have been modernized, that's 360 thermonuclear warheads with a half-megaton on each warhead.

3 brigades DF-5B ICBM x 12 missiles per brigade x 10 MIRVs per missile = 360 thermonuclear warheads carried on DF-5B ICBMs

7 brigades DF-31A ICBM (since 2007 introduction and adding one brigade per year) x 12 missiles per brigade x 3 MIRVs = 252 thermonuclear warheads carried on DF-31A ICBMs (assuming NO RELOAD missile per TEL; if you assume ONE reload missile per TEL then you double the number of warheads to 504 thermonuclear warheads)

The first known/reported DF-41 ICBM launch was on July 24, 2012. It has been 17 months since the first known launch. Assuming a production rate of two DF-41 ICBMs per month (which roughly matches the 20 annual Long March rocket launches), China should have 34 DF-41 ICBMs.

34 DF-41 ICBMs x 10 MIRVs per missile = 340 thermonuclear warheads carried on DF-41 ICBMs

There are three important caveats. It is more effective to build one reload missile per TEL. This means the number of DF-41 ICBMs could be 68. Also, the military in every country is usually very well funded compared to the civilian sector. Thus, we would not be surprised at a DF-41 production rate that is double or triple the production of Long March rockets.

Finally, there is a huge uncertainty over the initial date of production of DF-41 ICBMs. I started my estimate on July 24, 2012. However, the earliest picture of the DF-41 ICBM is dated March 21, 2007. If China started production of DF-41 ICBMs years earlier then the Chinese DF-41 ICBM force is considerably larger.

----------

Now, I will answer your question directly.

The best guess is that the United States is trying to force China to announce/confirm the massive size of the Chinese thermonuclear arsenal. The strategic goal of the United States is to use worldwide public pressure to force China into the strategic arms reduction negotiations and sign a treaty.

There is no way China will ever permit foreign inspectors to examine every Chinese nuclear facility and count the ICBMs. That's not going to happen.

Thus, we live in the strange limbo of today. The United States pretends China's massive thermonuclear arsenal doesn't exist and is at the level of 1985. China won't agree to foreign verification of the Chinese thermonuclear arsenal. China will not permit a foreign expert to examine the secret 3,000-mile Underground Great Wall. This leaves China with leaks by its generals to wipe out the United States in a thermonuclear strike/retaliation.

Another important reason that China can't announce the real size of its thermonuclear arsenal is it would scare everyone around the world. This is a problem for China's business reputation. First and foremost, China is a business-oriented country and exports over $2 trillion of goods each year. Customers worldwide might be scared if they learn the true size of the Chinese thermonuclear arsenal.

In conclusion, China knows the United States is aware of China's real thermonuclear arsenal size. However, due to business considerations and to protect its secret facilities, China cannot reveal the size of its thermonuclear arsenal. Having the freedom to build as many warheads as it likes is in China's strategic interest and a good reason to stay out of arms reduction talks.

The islands in the East and South China Sea are small potatoes. They have historic and emotional interest to China, but they are not important. China is doing the right thing by staying secretive and protecting its strategic interests in a closely-guarded Chinese thermonuclear capability.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## bolo

Martian2 said:


> You are asking one of the most important questions in modern military affairs. I have been intentionally staying away from this complex question. However, since you asked it, I will give you my best answer.
> 
> Firstly, I believe the United States has a very good classified estimate of China's nuclear forces (through spy satellites, electronic intercepts, spies, counting ICBMs as they leave the factory, etc.). That is why the U.S. government always refuses to officially comment on Chinese ICBM launches. The U.S. government knows what's going on, but won't tell the public.
> 
> Secondly, unless a person is an idiot, it should be obvious that China has a lot more than the 200-400 warheads that the Pentagon has been claiming since 1985 (which was 30 years ago).
> 
> A quick estimate shows the ridiculousness of the Pentagon's low-ball estimate.
> 
> China has at least three brigades of DF-5 missiles. Assuming all three brigades have been modernized, that's 360 thermonuclear warheads with a half-megaton on each warhead.
> 
> 3 brigades DF-5B ICBM x 12 missiles per brigade x 10 MIRVs per missile = 360 thermonuclear warheads carried on DF-5B ICBMs
> 
> 7 brigades DF-31A ICBM (since 2007 introduction and adding one brigade per year) x 12 missiles per brigade x 3 MIRVs = 252 thermonuclear warheads carried on DF-31A ICBMs (assuming NO RELOAD missile per TEL; if you assume ONE reload missile per TEL then you double the number of warheads to 504 thermonuclear warheads)
> 
> The first known/reported DF-41 ICBM launch was on July 24, 2012. It has been 17 months since the first known launch. Assuming a production rate of two DF-41 ICBMs per month (which roughly matches the 20 annual Long March rocket launches), China should have 34 DF-41 ICBMs.
> 
> 34 DF-41 ICBMs x 10 MIRVs per missile = 340 thermonuclear warheads carried on DF-41 ICBMs
> 
> There are three important caveats. It is more effective to build one reload missile per TEL. This means the number of DF-41 ICBMs could be 68. Also, the military in every country is usually very well funded compared to the civilian sector. Thus, we would not be surprised at a DF-41 production rate that is double or triple the production of Long March rockets.
> 
> Finally, there is a huge uncertainty over the initial date of production of DF-41 ICBMs. I started my estimate on July 24, 2012. However, the earliest picture of the DF-41 ICBM is dated March 21, 2007. If China started production of DF-41 ICBMs years earlier then the Chinese DF-41 ICBM is considerably larger.
> 
> ----------
> 
> Now, I will answer your question directly.
> 
> The best guess is that the United States is trying to force China to announce/confirm the massive size of the Chinese thermonuclear arsenal. The strategic goal of the United States is to use worldwide public pressure to force China into the strategic arms reduction negotiations and sign a treaty.
> 
> There is no way China will ever permit foreign inspectors to examine every Chinese nuclear facility and count the ICBMs. That's not going to happen.
> 
> Thus, we live in the strange limbo of today. The United States pretends China's massive thermonuclear arsenal doesn't exist and is at the level of 1985. China won't agree to foreign verification of the Chinese thermonuclear arsenal. China will not permit a foreigner to examine the secret 3,000-mile Underground Great Wall. This leaves China with leaks by its generals to wipe out the United States in a thermonuclear strike/retaliation.
> 
> Another important reason that China can't announce the real size of its thermonuclear arsenal is it would scare everyone around the world. This is a problem for China's business image. First and foremost, China is a business-oriented country and exports over $2 trillion of goods each year. Customers worldwide might be scared if they learn the true size of the Chinese thermonuclear arsenal.
> 
> In conclusion, China knows the United States is aware of China's real thermonuclear arsenal size. However, due to business considerations and to protect its secret facilities, China cannot reveal the size of its thermonuclear arsenal. Having the freedom to build as many warheads as it likes is in China's strategic interest and a good reason to stay out of arms reduction talks.
> 
> The islands in the East and South China Sea are small potatoes. They have historic and emotional interest to China, but they are not important. China is doing the right thing by staying secretive and protecting its strategic interests in a closely-guarded Chinese thermonuclear capability.


 
Thanks man. That was very informative. In that case, let's keep China's nuclear arsenal a secret. 

However one thing I wasnt' clear of was allowing one of the underground nuclear tunnel as a tourist attaction. Wouldnt that give away some secret should foreign spies disguise as a tourist visit that site?

keep up the good fight.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Martian2

bolo said:


> Thanks man. That was very informative. In that case, let's keep China's nuclear arsenal a secret.
> 
> However one thing I wasnt' clear of was allowing one of the underground nuclear tunnel as a tourist attaction. Wouldnt that give away some secret should foreign spies disguise as a tourist visit that site?
> 
> keep up the good fight.




If China has decommissioned one of its earlier tunnels then it has probably been stripped of important nuclear secrets.

However, the 3,000-mile Underground Great Wall that was completed in 2009 (after a decade of work by the PLA Army Corp. of Engineers) is definitely off limits.

Regarding the East and South China Sea islands, China will reclaim all those islands by conventional means. It could happen in the next five years or in fifteen years. The actual date doesn't matter, because China's preponderance of conventional military capability is not in doubt. China's conventional military ability will scale with the Chinese economy (which is estimated at $10.43 trillion for 2014).

In 15 years (and probably much earlier), China's economy will become larger than the United States. Wait an extra ten years for China's conventional military buildup and China will recover all of the islands.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Martian2

China Fields New Intermediate-Range Nuclear Missile | The Washington Free Beacon

"*China Fields New Intermediate-Range Nuclear Missile*
*DF-26C deployment confirmed*
BY: Bill Gertz Follow @BillGertz
March 3, 2014 4:59 am






Chinese Internet photos first published Feb. 29, 2012 show China's new DF-26C intermediate-range ballistic missile.
*
U.S. intelligence agencies recently confirmed China’s development of a new intermediate-range nuclear missile (IRBM) called the Dongfeng-26C (DF-26C), U.S. officials said.

The new missile is estimated to have a range of at least 2,200 miles—enough for Chinese military forces to conduct attacks on U.S. military facilities in Guam*, a major hub for the Pentagon’s shift of U.S. forces to Asia Pacific.

As part of the force posture changes, several thousand Marines now based in Okinawa will be moved to Guam as part of the Asia pivot.

In April, the Pentagon announced it is deploying one of its newest anti-missile systems, the Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) to Guam because of growing missile threats to the U.S. island, located in the South Pacific some 1,600 miles southeast of Japan and 4,000 miles from Hawaii.

And on Feb. 10, the Navy announced the deployment of a fourth nuclear attack submarine to Guam, the USS Topeka.

Chinese military officials said the Topeka deployment is part of the Pentagon’s Air Sea Battle Concept and posed a threat to China.
*
Disclosure of the new Chinese IRBM follows the announcement this week by Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel that the U.S. military is sharply reducing its military forces.*

“How can [U.S. policymakers] possibly justify such reductions in defense spending when American forces as far away as Guam, Korea, and Okinawa are targeted by these nuclear missiles,” said one official familiar with reports of the DF-26C.

It was the first official confirmation of China’s new IRBM, which officials believe is part of the People’s Liberation Army military buildup aimed at controlling the Asia Pacific waters and preventing the U.S. military entry to the two island chains along China’s coasts.

The first island chain extends from Japan’s southern Ryuku Islands southward and east of the Philippines and covers the entire South China Sea. The second island chain stretches more than a thousand miles into the Pacific in an arc from Japan westward and south to western New Guinea.

Few details could be learned about the new missile and a Pentagon spokesman declined to comment, citing a policy of not commenting on intelligence matters.

The missile is said to be on a road-mobile chassis and to use solid fuel. The fuel and mobility allow the missile to be hidden in underground facilities and fired on short notice, making it very difficult to counter in a conflict.

The DF-26C is expected to be mentioned in the Pentagon’s forthcoming annual report on China’s military power, which is due to Congress next month.

Adm. Cecil Haney, commander of the U.S. Strategic Command, told a congressional hearing this week that missile and other nuclear threats from China and Russia continue to grow.

“The current security environment is more complex, dynamic, and uncertain than at any time in recent history,” Haney said in testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee. “Advances of significant nation state and non-state military capabilities continue across all air, sea, land, and space domains—as well as in cyberspace. This trend has the potential to adversely impact strategic stability.”

Russia and China in particular “are investing in long-term and wide-ranging military modernization programs to include extensive modernization of their strategic capabilities,” Haney said. “Nuclear weapons ambitions and the proliferation of weapon and nuclear technologies continue, increasing risk that countries will resort to nuclear coercion in regional crises or nuclear use in future conflicts.”

Richard Fisher, a China military affairs specialist, said Chinese reports have discussed a DF-26 missile as a medium-range or intermediate-range system. Medium-range is considered between 621 miles and 1,864 miles. Intermediate-range is between 1,864 and 3,418 miles

Online reports of three new types of medium- and intermediate-range missiles have said the weapons could be multi-role systems capable of firing nuclear or conventional warheads, along with maneuvering anti-ship and hypersonic warheads, Fisher said.

According to Fisher, two likely transporter erector launchers (TEL) for the new missiles were displayed last year on Chinese websites. They include two versions from missile TEL manufacturing companies called Sanjiang and Taian.

Three years ago, the state-run Global Times reported that the China Aerospace Science and Industry Corp. (CASIC) was working on a new 2,400-mile range missile that would be deployed by 2015.

That Chinese manufacturer also produced the DF-21 missile, prompting speculation that the DF-26C is a follow-up version of that system.

“China is developing and will soon deploy new longer-range theater missiles as part of its anti-access, area denial strategies, to be part of a combined force of new long-range bombers armed with supersonic anti-ship missiles, plus space weapons and larger numbers of submarines,” Fisher said in an email.

These forces are being deployed to push U.S. forces out of the first island chain and to have the capability to reach the second chain, including Guam, he said.

“China also consistently refuses to consider formal dialogue about its future nuclear forces or to consider any near term limits on them,” Fisher said. “China is giving Washington and its Asian allies no other choice but to pursue an ‘armed peace’ in Asia.”

According to Fisher, the Chinese missile buildup has forced the Navy to redesign its first aircraft carrier-based unmanned combat vehicle into a larger and longer aircraft.

The new Chinese long-range missiles also highlight the urgent need for a new U.S. long-range bomber to replace an aging fleet of strategic bombers. (article continues)"

----------

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Kyou

what's the point of making more nukes? having x amount versus y amount doesn't matter. long as you have a few dozen you are pretty much untouchable.

only a insane person would actually use them.


----------



## Kiss_of_the_Dragon

Kyou said:


> *what's the point of making more nukes*? having x amount versus y amount doesn't matter. long as you have a few dozen you are pretty much untouchable.
> 
> only a insane person would actually use them.


 
Nuke one city is not the same as destroy the entire country many times, only MAD will make insane person sleep well

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
1 | Like Like:
5


----------



## Martian2

*Known DF-5A and DF-5B ICBM silos*

Map of known DF-5A and DF-5B ICBM silo locations






Looking at an old map of known DF-5A and DF-5B silo locations, we see three brigades. Two brigades are DF-5A five-megaton single-warhead ICBMs and one brigade is DF-5B 10-MIRVed ICBMs.

As an aside, the map shows the locations of four DF-31A brigades.

However, it is reasonable to believe China has upgraded its remaining DF-5A ICBMs into the MIRVed DF-5B version. This is a normal response to U.S. missile defense efforts. 360 Chinese MIRVed thermonuclear warheads are more survivable than 36 Chinese thermonuclear warheads.

In the illustration below (from Richard Fisher in 1999), we can see that China had the ability to launch MIRVed warheads after it had successfully put multiple Iridium satellites into orbit. It is now 2014 and China had 15 years to improve its MIRV dispenser.

China Increases Its Missile Forces While Opposing U.S. Missile Defense






To my knowledge, Richard Fisher was the first to notice the Pentagon's 2013 military report referred to China's "enhanced" DF-5 ICBM (or DF-5B ICBM). FYI, the DF-5 ICBM is also known as CSS-4 ICBM.

http://www.defense.gov/pubs/2013_china_report_final.pdf (page 31)

"By 2015, China’s nuclear forces will include additional CSS-10 Mod 2 and *enhanced CSS-4 ICBMs.*"

----------

This leaves two remaining issues regarding China's DF-5A/DF-5B arsenal.

Firstly, there is a silo base near Lhasa. However, the Pentagon is silent on whether the Chinese Lhasa missile base is comprised of ICBMs. China has at least 60 MRBM mobile launchers in central China and it does not make sense to duplicate the military capability by having MRBM/IRBM silos. Thus, there is a good likelihood that the Lhasa silos contain ICBMs.






Secondly, how many more ICBM silos are located in China? China has the 3,000-mile Underground Great Wall and many mountain ranges that are ideal locations for more ICBM silos.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Martian2

*Federation of American Scientists lists four launch locations for China's DF-5A/B ICBMs*

The Federation of American Scientists' (FAS) information is from year 2000.

The launch sites are located at Luoning, Wuzhai, Xuanhua, and Tongdao.

The launch sites may not be a comprehensive list. China might have built additional silos during the past 14 years. Also, there might have been secret silos that were unknown to FAS.

Four brigades of Chinese DF-5A/B ICBMs x 12 ICBMs per brigade = 48 DF-5A/B ICBMs

If all four brigades are DF-5B ICBMs:

48 DF-5B ICBMs x 10 MIRVs per DF-5B = 480 thermonuclear warheads

----------

DF-5 | Federation of American Scientists

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## bolo

There is a misconception by some people that claim their country have enough nukes to destroy the world 9x over, which is BS. 
The asteroid impact that killed the dinosaurs was equal to over 1b atomic bombs dropped at H&N (combined 36 kt). That asteroid impact equal over 36 billion kt of TNT. You can take all the earth's nukes which is a fraction of the 36b kt, thus impossible to destroy the earth.
China should continue and build more thermonuclear long range weapons

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## shuttler

bolo said:


> There is a misconception by some people that claim their country have enough nukes to destroy the world 9x over, which is BS.
> The asteroid impact that killed the dinosaurs was equal to over 1b atomic bombs dropped at H&N (combined 36 kt). That asteroid impact equal over 36 billion kt of TNT. You can take all the earth's nukes which is a fraction of the 36b kt, thus impossible to destroy the earth.
> China should continue and build more thermonuclear long range weapons



nuke carries radiations which contaminate everything for a long time

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Martian2

*Seven known Chinese DF-5A/B ICBM brigades*

From the Federation of American Scientists, we know there are four DF-5A/B brigades at Luoning (804th brigade), Wuzhai (Base 25), Xuanhua, and Tongdao (805th brigade).[1]

From Air Power Australia, we know there are three more DF-5A/B brigades at Lushi (801st brigade) and Jingxian (803rd and 814th brigades).[2]

Assuming all seven brigades have been upgraded to DF-5B ICBMs (or will soon be fully upgraded in the near future):

7 DF-5B brigades x 12 DF-5B ICBMs per brigade x 10 MIRVs per DF-5B ICBM = 840 thermonuclear warheads

----------
References:

1. DF-5 | Federation of American Scientists

2. PLA Second Artillery Corps | Air Power Australia

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Martian2

*Eight known Chinese DF-5A/B ICBM brigades*

1. Luoning/Luoyang (804th brigade)
2. Wuzhai (Base 25)
3. Xuanhua
4. Tongdao (805th brigade)
5. Lushi (801st brigade)
6. Jingxian (803rd brigade)
7. Jingxian (814th brigade)
8. Hunan (818th brigade)

Assuming all eight brigades have been upgraded to DF-5B ICBMs (or will soon be fully upgraded in the near future):

8 DF-5B brigades x 12 DF-5B ICBMs per brigade x 10 MIRVs per DF-5B ICBM = 960 thermonuclear warheads

----------
References:

DF-5 | Federation of American Scientists

PLA Second Artillery Corps | Air Power Australia (54th and 55th bases)

MULTIMEGATON WEAPONS | Johnston Archive

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## bolo

shuttler said:


> nuke carries radiations which contaminate everything for a long time


 
But that cannot be even compard to the after impact of the asteroid that hit the earth.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Martian2

*My tally of 96 Chinese DF-5A/B ICBMs matches earlier American intelligence estimate*

My current tally of 96 Chinese DF-5A/B ICBMs (which is the equivalent of 8 brigades) was predicted by an earlier American intelligence estimate.

----------

WORLD NUCLEAR ARSENALS - CENTRE FOR DEFENSE INFORMATION

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Martian2

*Chinese ICBMs and SLBMs are thoroughly tested and reliable*

In the mainstream western press, you constantly read that Chinese ICBMs and SLBMs are beset by troubled development. Is this claim true?

An examination of the test records of Chinese ICBMs and SLBMs shows a history of SUCCESSFUL test flights. A successful test flight is easy to determine, because the missile will reach an apogee of 1,000km (or 600 miles).

----------
*
TEN CONSECUTIVE SUCCESSFUL DF-5 ICBM TEST FLIGHTS*

DF-5 Chronology | Encyclopedia Astronautica






----------
*
FIVE CONSECUTIVE SUCCESSFUL DF-31 ICBM TEST FLIGHTS*

DF-31 Chronology | Encyclopedia Astronautica






----------
*
TWO CONSECUTIVE SUCCESSFUL JL-2 SLBM TEST FLIGHTS*

JL-2 Chronology | Encyclopedia Astronautica

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## shuttler

bolo said:


> But that cannot be even compard to the after impact of the asteroid that hit the earth.



nah
I have not heard the last meteor impact in Russia has caused any aftermath evacuation of people living in the vicinity
The nuke leaks in Chernobyl and now japan are rendering the areas uninhabitable even they have sealed the plant in Chernobyl or having the plant in japan cooled down
Nukes are more devastating and having a long lastingly detrimental effect to the people and environment unless the incoming meteors are composed of radio active materials

The meteor that hit Russia is very powerful but after the impact is gone the livelihood is restored. No cancer causing illnesses sufferiing for the inhabitants after impact

"*approximately 500 kilotons of TNT(about 1.8 PJ), 20–30 times more energy than was released from the atomic bomb detonated at Hiroshima."*

*The meteor hit Russia on 15 February 2013 and the no of casualties is*

"The blast caused by the meteor's air burst caused a considerable number of injuries. Russian authorities stated that *1,491 people,* including 311 children, sought medical attention in Chelyabinsk Oblast within the first few days. Health officials said 112 people had been hospitalised, with two in serious condition. A 52-year-old woman with a broken spine was flown to Moscow for treatment. Most people were hurt by shattered, falling or blown-in glass The intense light from the meteor, momentarily 30 times brighter than the Sun, led to over 180 cases of eye pain, and 70 people subsequently reported temporary flash blindness.Twenty people reported ultraviolet burns similar to sunburn, possibly intensified by the presence of snow on the ground."

*Source for the above*: Chelyabinsk meteor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

*By comparison the casualties of the nuke bomb "little boy" which was dropped in Hiroshima were like this*

*"According to figures published in 1945, 66,000 people were killed as a direct result of the Hiroshima blast, and 69,000 were injured to varying degrees."*

"a 1985 report concluded that *the yield was 15 kilotons ± 20%*."

*" Radiation:
*
Local fallout is dust and ash from a bomb crater, contaminated with radioactive fission products. It falls to earth downwind of the crater and can produce, with radiation alone, a lethal area much larger than that from blast and fire. With an air burst, the fission products rise into the stratosphere, where they dissipate and become part of the global environment. Because Little Boy was an air burst 580 metres (1,900 ft) above the ground, there was no bomb crater and no local radioactive fallout.

However, a burst of intense neutron and gamma radiation came directly from the fireball. Its lethal radius was 1.3 kilometres (0.8 mi), covering about half of the firestorm area. An estimated 30% of immediate fatalities were people who received lethal doses of this direct radiation, but died in the firestorm before their radiation injuries would have become apparent. Over 6,000 people survived the blast and fire, but died of radiation injuries. *Among injured survivors, 30% had radiation injuries from which they recovered, but with a lifelong increase in cancer risk.* "

*Source*: Little Boy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## bolo

shuttler said:


> nah
> I have not heard the last meteor impact in Russia has caused any aftermath evacuation of people living in the vicinity
> The nuke leaks in Chernobyl and now japan are rendering the areas uninhabitable even they have sealed the plant in Chernobyl or having the plant in japan cooled down
> Nukes are more devastating and having a long lastingly detrimental effect to the people and environment unless the incoming meteors are composed of radio active materials
> 
> The meteor that hit Russia is very powerful but after the impact is gone the livelihood is restored. No cancer causing illnesses sufferiing for the inhabitants after impact
> 
> "*approximately 500 kilotons of TNT(about 1.8 PJ), 20–30 times more energy than was released from the atomic bomb detonated at Hiroshima."*
> 
> *The meteor hit Russia on 15 February 2013 and the no of casualties is*
> 
> "The blast caused by the meteor's air burst caused a considerable number of injuries. Russian authorities stated that *1,491 people,* including 311 children, sought medical attention in Chelyabinsk Oblast within the first few days. Health officials said 112 people had been hospitalised, with two in serious condition. A 52-year-old woman with a broken spine was flown to Moscow for treatment. Most people were hurt by shattered, falling or blown-in glass The intense light from the meteor, momentarily 30 times brighter than the Sun, led to over 180 cases of eye pain, and 70 people subsequently reported temporary flash blindness.Twenty people reported ultraviolet burns similar to sunburn, possibly intensified by the presence of snow on the ground."
> 
> *Source for the above*: Chelyabinsk meteor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> *By comparison the casualties of the nuke bomb "little boy" which was dropped in Hiroshima were like this*
> 
> *"According to figures published in 1945, 66,000 people were killed as a direct result of the Hiroshima blast, and 69,000 were injured to varying degrees."*
> 
> "a 1985 report concluded that *the yield was 15 kilotons ± 20%*."
> 
> *" Radiation:
> *
> Local fallout is dust and ash from a bomb crater, contaminated with radioactive fission products. It falls to earth downwind of the crater and can produce, with radiation alone, a lethal area much larger than that from blast and fire. With an air burst, the fission products rise into the stratosphere, where they dissipate and become part of the global environment. Because Little Boy was an air burst 580 metres (1,900 ft) above the ground, there was no bomb crater and no local radioactive fallout.
> 
> However, a burst of intense neutron and gamma radiation came directly from the fireball. Its lethal radius was 1.3 kilometres (0.8 mi), covering about half of the firestorm area. An estimated 30% of immediate fatalities were people who received lethal doses of this direct radiation, but died in the firestorm before their radiation injuries would have become apparent. Over 6,000 people survived the blast and fire, but died of radiation injuries. *Among injured survivors, 30% had radiation injuries from which they recovered, but with a lifelong increase in cancer risk.* "
> 
> *Source*: Little Boy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



no doubt the Russian one is not powerful compared to the one that hit the Yucatan Peninsula that killed the dinosaurs and wiped out over 75% of life on earth.

"a 1985 report concluded that *the yield was 15 kilotons ± 20%*."

That is the same size as one of the atomic bomb that dropped on H&N.

"The asteroid that killed the dinosaurs was the Chicxulub asteroid in the Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico. The Chicxulub Crater is approximately 180 km in diameter and 10 km deep.

Read more: http://www.universetoday.com/36697/the-asteroid-that-killed-the-dinosaurs/#ixzz2wALabkOT"

IN summary, man's most powerful weapons does not even come close to the power of mother nature.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## shuttler

bolo said:


> no doubt the Russian one is not powerful compared to the one that hit the Yucatan Peninsula that killed the dinosaurs and wiped out over 75% of life on earth.
> 
> "a 1985 report concluded that *the yield was 15 kilotons ± 20%*."
> 
> That is the same size as one of the atomic bomb that dropped on H&N.
> 
> "The asteroid that killed the dinosaurs was the Chicxulub asteroid in the Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico. The Chicxulub Crater is approximately 180 km in diameter and 10 km deep.
> 
> Read more: http://www.universetoday.com/36697/the-asteroid-that-killed-the-dinosaurs/#ixzz2wALabkOT"
> 
> IN summary, man's most powerful weapons does not even come close to the power of mother nature.



My point is radiation ( please see my original post then)
if you have equal kilotons of nuke to explode matching the same force of mothernature, probably we are still not living now suffering from the aftermath of radiation fallouts!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Martian2

*Seven known Chinese DF-31A ICBM brigades*

1. Delingha
2. Haiyan
3. Datong (809 Brigade)
4. Tainshui (812 Brigade)
5. Xixia
6. Shaoyang (805 Brigade)
7. Yuxi

7 DF-31A brigades x 12 ICBMs per brigade x 3 MIRVs per DF-31A ICBM = 252 thermonuclear warheads

In my next post, I will provide further citations and pictures to show the deployment of Chinese DF-31A brigades.

----------

China: New START-type report | Nuclear Forces

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Martian2

*Correcting Bill Gertz's error*

Bill Gertz has made a rare error regarding China's thermonuclear weapons. I have brought it to his attention in the comment section.

----------

Inside the Ring: Pentagon goes hypersonic with long-range rapid attack weapon | The Washington Times

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Martian2

*Hans Kristensen is clearly wrong about DF-31A ICBMs at China's Kunming Valley*

Hans Kristensen conducted a pixel analysis of two tunnel entrances at China's Kunming Valley. His conclusion was that the Chinese DF-31A ICBM mobile TEL would have difficulty entering the tunnel portals (see citation below) and he claimed the entire Kunming Valley complex was a munition depot. I will show that his conclusion is clearly wrong.

Hans Kristensen conducted a selective analysis. When you look at the upper end of Kunming Valley, you notice the existence of tunnel portals that are not located orthogonally to the road. These tunnel portals allow for easy ingress and egress of Chinese DF-31A ICBMs (see second citation below).

There is another major error in Hans Kristensen's reasoning. He failed to understand the road edge (with a width of 4.5 meters) represents the beginning of a tree canopy. Since I am not a Kunming tree expert, I will use a typical Chinese tree such as a willow tree. The average width of a willow tree canopy is about 11 to 14 meters. Divide by two and subtract one meter for the tree trunk and we have an additional clearance of five meters.

That is plenty of room for a DF-31A mobile TEL to enter the tunnel portals that Hans Kristensen claimed did not offer enough turn radius for the DF-31A ICBM mobile TEL.

----------

No, China Does Not Have 3,000 Nuclear Weapons | FAS Strategic Security Blog





"This image shows two of the so-called 'tunnel portals' identified by the Georgetown University report as being part of a DF-31 deployment site near Kunming. An image of a DF-31/DF-31A launcher is superimposed to illustrate the difficulty it would have turning at the site. The dimensions of the roads indicate that the facility is not for DF-31 launchers, but looks more like a munitions depot."

----------

Look at the tunnel entrances in the upper-right corner. There is plenty of room for a DF-31A mobile TEL to enter or leave the tunnels.

Les installations souterraines de la seconde artillerie










An expanded view of the upper-right part of the Kunming Valley shows the presence of tunnel entrances where a DF-31A ICBM mobile TEL can easily enter and leave.

----------





There is plenty of room for a DF-31A mobile TEL to turn into the tunnel. There is an extra five meters of ground beneath the tree canopy from the road edge.





Source: Silhouette of a weeping willow tree in a public park in Kunming, Yunnan Province, China.  [Note: I substituted a different willow tree to avoid violating a copyright.]

Weeping Willow Tree Facts - Buzzle

"Mar 2, 2012 - A weeping willow tree or the Salix babylonica is the favorite of those who want to add a ... create a 'falling' canopy, they form excellent shade trees that are much in demand. ... Their height and *width can be about 35 to 50 feet.*"

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Martian2

*PLA Second Artillery missile bases and brigades*

China has at least six missile "bases" (e.g. 51st through 56th base). "Each base has numerous subordinate missile brigades."[1]

Spotlight on New Second Artillery ICBM Base Leadership | AsiaEye






"*Each brigade is presumably equipped with 12 launchers* (six launch battalions, two subordinate companies each, and with each company assigned one launcher)."[2]

Let's take a closer look at one of the missile bases (e.g. Missile Base 55).[3]

Spotlight on New Second Artillery ICBM Base Leadership | AsiaEye






From the chart, we see that the information is consistent with the other sources in my earlier posts. It is general knowledge that China's nuclear modernization is gathering speed. China watchers have expected the liquid-fueled DF-4A IRBMs to be replaced with newer solid-fueled DF-31A ICBMs.

Interestingly, with advancements in lightweight composites and higher impulse for rocket fuel, the DF-31A ICBM at 16 meters is much shorter than the DF-4A IRBM at 28 meters. The diameter is also smaller on the DF-31A ICBM with "2.0m (1st/2nd stages), 1.5m (3rd stage)" versus the DF-4A IRBM at 2.25m.

In the citation below, we can see a DF-31A ICBM being moved into Shaoyang, Hunan for the 805 brigade.

New DF-31A ICBM Brigade in Hunan? | AsiaEye






In the following citation, we see more proof of DF-31A ICBM deployment that meshes with the list of known DF-31A ICBM brigades.

Chinese Mobile ICBMs Seen in Central China | Federation of American Scientists











The total of seven Chinese DF-31A ICBM brigades is consistent with the known rate of Chinese DF-31A ICBM production at one brigade per year.[4]

In conclusion, we know there are at least six large Chinese missile bases. Each Chinese missile base has many brigades of ICBMs. At Missile Base 55, there are two brigades of DF-5A/B ICBMs. Those two 803rd and 814th brigades (or 24 ICBMs) already exceed the U.S. estimate of 20 total DF-5 ICBMs. When you include the other five missile bases, it should be obvious that the U.S. estimate is dead wrong.

Similarly, we see pictures of the widespread deployment of Chinese DF-31A ICBMs. With one to two brigades of DF-31A ICBMs at each missile base, the estimate of seven known Chinese DF-31A brigades is very reasonable.

----------

1. PLA Second Artillery Corps | Air Power Australia

"Second Artillery Corps missile units are organized into what the PLA refers to as “bases”. There are six bases, each located in a different geographical area. Described in the terms used by the Russian military, these bases are analogous to Russia's “Missile Armies”. Each base has numerous subordinate missile brigades, with each brigade maintaining one or more garrisons, various underground facilities (UGFs), rail transfer points, and field launch positions."

2. New DF-31A ICBM Brigade in Hunan? | AsiaEye

"Each brigade is presumably equipped with 12 launchers (six launch battalions, two subordinate companies each, and with each company assigned one launcher)."

3. Spotlight on New Second Artillery ICBM Base Leadership | AsiaEye






4. China and START. Missile buildup may surpass U.S., Russia as they denuclearize

"China and START
By Richard D. Fisher Jr.,
The Washington Times,
20 September 2010
...
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.
...
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."

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Martian2

*Two known Chinese DF-31 ICBM brigades*

I have previously covered the eight brigades of liquid-fueled DF-5A/B ICBMs and seven brigades of solid-fueled DF-31A ICBMs.

The DF-31 ICBM (at 13 meter length) is smaller than the DF-31A (at 16 meter length) and has a shorter range.[1] However, the DF-31 can reach Alaska, Hawaii, and possibly the Northwest of the United States.

The two known brigades of DF-31 ICBMs are located at:

1. Nanyang (813th Brigade)
2. Xining (Urban/Industrial Brigade or U/I Brigade)

PLA Second Artillery Corps | Air Power Australia











----------

Reference:

1. DF-31/-31A (CSS-9) | Missile Threat

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Martian2

In December 2001, the United States National Intelligence Council forecast 75-100 Chinese DF-5 ICBMs by 2015. Their forecast was accurate. My current best estimate is 96 DF-5A/B ICBMs (in eight brigades).

----------

National Intelligence Council | Federation of American Scientists

Foreign Missile Developments and the Ballistic Missile Threat Through 2015, unclassified summary of a National Intelligence Estimate, December 2001.











If you have trouble reading the small text, here's the quote:

"The Intelligence Community projects that Chinese ballistic missile forces will increase several-fold by 2015, but Beijing's future ICBM force deployed primarily against the United States�which will number around 75 to 100 warheads�will remain considerably smaller and less capable than the strategic missile forces of Russia and the United States.� "

----------

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

The US ABM was aimed to neutralize China's ICBM threat, since USSR/Russia has too many of them, it is impossible to neutralize it, so they were aiming at China's.

But now with the unsuccessful ABM program and China's growing ICBM force, it will also make impossible for the US to neutralize China's ICBM force.

From the circa 2010-2020, China is largely deploying the DF-41 ICBM, and from the circa 2020-2030, China will again largely deploy the JL-3 SLBM.

This will only further knock the US back to the reality that their ABM technology cannot stop China.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## terranMarine

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> The US ABM was aimed to neutralize China's ICBM threat, since USSR/Russia has too many of them, it is impossible to neutralize it, so they were aiming at China's.
> 
> But now with the unsuccessful ABM program and China's growing ICBM force, it will also make impossible for the US to neutralize China's ICBM force.
> 
> From the circa 2010-2020, China is largely deploying the DF-41 ICBM, and from the circa 2020-2030, China will again largely deploy the JL-3 SLBM.
> 
> This will only further knock the US back to the reality that their ABM technology cannot stop China.



Then there's China's HGV

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Martian2

*China is world's second-largest thermonuclear power after you divide US arsenal (to target Russia and China)*






Link to NTI page on China:




----------
Picture of Chinese DF-31A ICBMs:





Picture of Chinese DF-41 ICBM:





Picture of two Chinese DF-5 ICBMs in China's Underground Great Wall:





Picture of Chinese JL-2 SLBM (aka Chinese Trident C4):

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

I think the JL-2 is closer to the D5 than to the C4.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Martian2

Next Big Future: China new nuclear JL-2 and DF-41 missiles will cover all US territory

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Shotgunner51

Martian2 said:


> Next Big Future: China new nuclear JL-2 and DF-41 missiles will cover all US territory



Any updates on nuclear stockpiles by country? (in number of warheads, or in megatons)

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Martian2

Shotgunner51 said:


> Any updates on nuclear stockpiles by country? (in number of warheads, or in megatons)


The hot potato is China. No one knows how many thermonuclear warheads that China is hiding. There are no official data on China, because the Pentagon has the only classified source (via spies).

However, the mainstream media is starting to suggest that the Chinese thermonuclear arsenal could be a lot bigger. In any case, the deployment of DF-41 10-MIRVed ICBMs and JL-2 8-MIRVed SLBMs (according to Jane's Defence) is forcing the unofficial estimates much higher.
----------

Chinese Military Confirms DF-41 Flight Test | Washington Free Beacon

"Chinese Military Confirms DF-41 Flight Test
Beijing says new multi-warhead missile does not change nuclear policy
BY: Bill Gertz
December 26, 2014 3:36 pm
...
*The MIRVed DF-41 missile test also is expected to rekindle the debate in U.S. intelligence circles about the size of China’s nuclear arsenal, initially thought to be limited to around 240 strategic warheads.

The testing of a 10-warhead missile is an indication that the Chinese warhead arsenal is far larger or will rapidly expand as new DF-41s are deployed in the coming years.*

A new report by the Georgetown University Asian Arms Control Project reveals that satellite photos have identified a new DF-41 launch complex at the Taiyuan launch center. The imagery is dated April 13, 2014, and is compared with a photo from 2010 of the same location.

The report, dated Dec. 16, states that the DF-41 appears to be based on the Russian design SS-25 road-mobile ICBM but “with Chinese characteristics.”

*The DF-41, deployed with either six or 10 MIRVs, as well as DF-31A MIRVed missile will increase the number of warheads in the Chinese strategic arsenal to as many as 600 warheads by 2025, according to the report.

The report also reveals that China’s military is developing new tunneling technology that will permit widening construction of some of the 3,000 miles of underground strategic nuclear facilities. The new tunnels size of 17 meters wide by 10 meters wide will permit adjacent passage of road-mobile DF-31As and DF-41s as well as a possible rail-mobile ICBM variant in a single tunnel, the report said.*

A Pentagon spokesman had no immediate comment.

The congressional U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission stated in its annual report made public earlier this month that the DF-41 will carry up to 10 warheads and initial deployment of the mobile missile is expected next year.

The DF-41 will 'have a maximum range as far as 7,456 miles, allowing it to target the entire continental United States,' the report said.* 'In addition, some sources claim China has modified the DF–5 and the DF–31A to be able to carry MIRVs.'

The Free Beacon also disclosed in September that China is building a new missile labeled the DF-31B that also is expected to be MIRVed.*"

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Jlaw

Martian2 said:


> *PLA Second Artillery missile bases and brigades*
> 
> China has at least six missile "bases" (e.g. 51st through 56th base). "Each base has numerous subordinate missile brigades."[1]
> 
> Spotlight on New Second Artillery ICBM Base Leadership | AsiaEye
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "*Each brigade is presumably equipped with 12 launchers* (six launch battalions, two subordinate companies each, and with each company assigned one launcher)."[2]
> 
> Let's take a closer look at one of the missile bases (e.g. Missile Base 55).[3]
> 
> Spotlight on New Second Artillery ICBM Base Leadership | AsiaEye
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From the chart, we see that the information is consistent with the other sources in my earlier posts. It is general knowledge that China's nuclear modernization is gathering speed. China watchers have expected the liquid-fueled DF-4A IRBMs to be replaced with newer solid-fueled DF-31A ICBMs.
> 
> Interestingly, with advancements in lightweight composites and higher impulse for rocket fuel, the DF-31A ICBM at 16 meters is much shorter than the DF-4A IRBM at 28 meters. The diameter is also smaller on the DF-31A ICBM with "2.0m (1st/2nd stages), 1.5m (3rd stage)" versus the DF-4A IRBM at 2.25m.
> 
> In the citation below, we can see a DF-31A ICBM being moved into Shaoyang, Hunan for the 805 brigade.
> 
> New DF-31A ICBM Brigade in Hunan? | AsiaEye
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the following citation, we see more proof of DF-31A ICBM deployment that meshes with the list of known DF-31A ICBM brigades.
> 
> Chinese Mobile ICBMs Seen in Central China | Federation of American Scientists
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The total of seven Chinese DF-31A ICBM brigades is consistent with the known rate of Chinese DF-31A ICBM production at one brigade per year.[4]
> 
> In conclusion, we know there are at least six large Chinese missile bases. Each Chinese missile base has many brigades of ICBMs. At Missile Base 55, there are two brigades of DF-5A/B ICBMs. Those two 803rd and 814th brigades (or 24 ICBMs) already exceed the U.S. estimate of 20 total DF-5 ICBMs. When you include the other five missile bases, it should be obvious that the U.S. estimate is dead wrong.
> 
> Similarly, we see pictures of the widespread deployment of Chinese DF-31A ICBMs. With one to two brigades of DF-31A ICBMs at each missile base, the estimate of seven known Chinese DF-31A brigades is very reasonable.
> 
> ----------
> 
> 1. PLA Second Artillery Corps | Air Power Australia
> 
> "Second Artillery Corps missile units are organized into what the PLA refers to as “bases”. There are six bases, each located in a different geographical area. Described in the terms used by the Russian military, these bases are analogous to Russia's “Missile Armies”. Each base has numerous subordinate missile brigades, with each brigade maintaining one or more garrisons, various underground facilities (UGFs), rail transfer points, and field launch positions."
> 
> 2. New DF-31A ICBM Brigade in Hunan? | AsiaEye
> 
> "Each brigade is presumably equipped with 12 launchers (six launch battalions, two subordinate companies each, and with each company assigned one launcher)."
> 
> 3. Spotlight on New Second Artillery ICBM Base Leadership | AsiaEye
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4. China and START. Missile buildup may surpass U.S., Russia as they denuclearize
> 
> "China and START
> By Richard D. Fisher Jr.,
> The Washington Times,
> 20 September 2010
> ...
> 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.
> ...
> 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."


The CPC listing their brigades will compromise their position in case of war? The US can target these area.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Martian2

Jlaw said:


> The CPC listing their brigades will compromise their position in case of war? The US can target these area.



Not really. It's like saying the missile is located somewhere in North Dakota, because the missiles are road-mobile.

Regarding the silos, they are hardened and deep within continental China. Any attempt to attack the Chinese silos with US ballistic missiles will be detected by Chinese infrared satellites. China should have Chinese Nike-class anti-missile missiles with tactical thermonuclear warheads to defend the silos.

Any attempt to attack the Chinese silos with stealth subsonic cruise missiles will be detected and shot down with land-based CIWS. China has anti-stealth radars and infrared detectors to track stealth cruise missiles.
----------

A nice overhead view of a Chinese Type 094 Jin-class SSBN.





A nuclear-powered submarine of the Chinese navy prepares to dive in this undated photo. The Pentagon on Thursday said China will probably start naval nuclear-deterrence patrols later this year. (AFP/AFP/Getty Images)

Source: China May Begin Naval Nuclear-Deterrence Patrols in 2014: Pentagon - NationalJournal.com

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Jlaw

Martian2 said:


> Not really. It's like saying the missile is located somewhere in North Dakota, because the missiles are road-mobile.
> 
> Regarding the silos, they are hardened and deep within continental China. Any attempt to attack the Chinese silos with US ballistic missiles will be detected by Chinese infrared satellites. China should have Chinese Nike-class anti-missile missiles with tactical thermonuclear warheads to defend the silos.
> 
> Any attempt to attack the Chinese silos with stealth subsonic cruise missiles will be detected and shot down with land-based CIWS. China has anti-stealth radars and infrared detectors to track stealth cruise missiles.
> ----------
> 
> A nice overhead view of a Chinese Type 094 Jin-class SSBN.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A nuclear-powered submarine of the Chinese navy prepares to dive in this undated photo. The Pentagon on Thursday said China will probably start naval nuclear-deterrence patrols later this year. (AFP/AFP/Getty Images)
> 
> Source: China May Begin Naval Nuclear-Deterrence Patrols in 2014: Pentagon - NationalJournal.com


The article is bs when they said China has 250 warheads while an impoverished north Korea in 2020 will have at least 100 warheads, LOL. 
I always take the Pentagon Chinese threat written articles with a skeptic mind as their objective is to get more funding and villainise China.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Martian2

Jlaw said:


> The article is bs when they said China has 250 warheads while an impoverished north Korea in 2020 will have at least 100 warheads, LOL.
> I always take the Pentagon Chinese threat written articles with a skeptic mind as their objective is to get more funding and villainise China.



I don't think anybody believes that China had 250 warheads for 30 years.

*Two likely reasons for unchanging Pentagon claim of 250 Chinese warheads for decades*

There are two lines of thinking regarding the Pentagon claim.

1. The US will keep claiming 250 Chinese warheads indefinitely unless China provides an official number. Since no one knows China's true thermonuclear strength, the US will keep embarrassing China until there's an official account.

2. The US wants to minimize the Chinese thermonuclear arsenal to keep a free hand in the South China Sea. If the Pentagon came out and said "China has 1,000 thermonuclear warheads," the American public would go berserk. The US doesn't have 1,000 large- and medium-size cities. Acknowledging a MAD (ie. mutually assured destruction) status with China would greatly restrict US courses of action in Asia.

*The need for China to maintain secrecy over its thermonuclear arsenal size*

Now, let's look at the other side. Why won't China reveal the size of its thermonuclear arsenal? China says it needs to maintain strategic ambiguity to fend off a stronger thermonuclear power (e.g. the United States). However, I think the story is more complicated than that.

If China discloses the true size of its thermonuclear arsenal, the U.S. will garner worldwide political support and force China into arms talks. China does not want to have to listen to the Europeans at every meeting and hear them complain about the size of the Chinese thermonuclear arsenal.

Arms talks are bad for China. Verifiable arms reduction measures mean the U.S. will finally have a good look at the 5,000km Underground Great Wall. Without seeing the entire structure in detail and in person, the U.S. will always be kept guessing about the veracity and timeliness (e.g. has changes and upgrades been made) of spy reports. In other words, the Underground Great Wall will remain a mystery. If the U.S. is allowed to see the Underground Great Wall, China has lost the element of surprise.

On the other hand, the U.S. maintains its element of surprise because no one knows where the U.S. boomers are located.

Thus, China cannot participate in arms control talks. The Underground Great Wall can never be shown to outsiders. Otherwise, it loses its potency. Though China is building a credible sea-based deterrent, the conservative Chinese mind-set would want to keep the Underground Great Wall a secret as a backup.

In conclusion, the Pentagon will keep insisting on a tiny Chinese thermonuclear arsenal until China comes clean. China is happy to let the Pentagon keep insisting on an unbelievably low number, because it's good for business. I don't think the unholy alliance will change in the near future. They are both perpetuating a lie, but it suits their political purposes.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Jlaw

Martian2 said:


> I don't think anybody believes that China had 250 warheads for 30 years.
> 
> *Two likely reasons for unchanging Pentagon claim of 250 Chinese warheads for decades*
> 
> There are two lines of thinking regarding the Pentagon claim.
> 
> 1. The US will keep claiming 250 Chinese warheads indefinitely unless China provides an official number. Since no one knows China's true thermonuclear strength, the US will keep embarrassing China until there's an official account.
> 
> 2. The US wants to minimize the Chinese thermonuclear arsenal to keep a free hand in the South China Sea. If the Pentagon came out and said "China has 1,000 thermonuclear warheads," the American public would go berzerk. The US doesn't have 1,000 large- and medium-size cities. Acknowledging a MAD (ie. mutually assured destruction) status with China would greatly restrict US courses of action in Asia.
> 
> *The need for China to maintain secrecy over its thermonuclear arsenal size*
> 
> Now, let's look at the other side. Why won't China reveal the size of its thermonuclear arsenal? China says it needs to maintain strategic ambiguity to fend off a stronger thermonuclear power (e.g. the United States). However, I think the story is more complicated than that.
> 
> If China discloses the true size of its thermonuclear arsenal, the U.S. will garner worldwide political support and force China into arms talks. China does not want to have to listen to the Europeans at every meeting and hear them complain about the size of the Chinese thermonuclear arsenal.
> 
> Arms talks are bad for China. Verifiable arms reduction measures mean the U.S. will finally have a good look at the 5,000km Underground Great Wall. Without seeing the entire structure in detail and in person, the U.S. will always be kept guessing about the veracity and timeliness of spy reports. In other words, the Underground Great Wall will remain a mystery. If the U.S. is allowed to see the Underground Great Wall, China has lost the element of surprise.
> 
> On the other hand, the U.S. maintains its element of surprise because no one knows where the U.S. boomers are located.
> 
> Thus, China cannot participate in arms control talks. The Underground Great Wall can never be shown to outsiders. Otherwise, it loses its potency. Though China is building a credible sea-based deterrent, the conservative Chinese mind-set would want to keep the Underground Great Wall a secret as a backup.


I agree with the assessment. Chinese military personnel are smart. Weapons reduction would harm Chinese interest. And yes, the great Wall has to be a secret. That is our trump card.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## TaiShang

I feel that by releasing official reports that underestimate China's nuclear deterrence capability, the US regime is wishing to force Beijing to reveal the actual numbers, which is probably much higher than the estimations.

But that will hardly work since nuclear deterrence is sort of doubled if it is accompanied by nuclear ambiguity. 

I wish China will never release the actual size of its nuclear arsenal.

Let the opponent remain engaged in guess-work.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Martian2 said:


> I don't think anybody believes that China had 250 warheads for 30 years.
> 
> *Two likely reasons for unchanging Pentagon claim of 250 Chinese warheads for decades*
> 
> There are two lines of thinking regarding the Pentagon claim.
> 
> 1. The US will keep claiming 250 Chinese warheads indefinitely unless China provides an official number. Since no one knows China's true thermonuclear strength, the US will keep embarrassing China until there's an official account.
> 
> 2. The US wants to minimize the Chinese thermonuclear arsenal to keep a free hand in the South China Sea. If the Pentagon came out and said "China has 1,000 thermonuclear warheads," the American public would go berserk. The US doesn't have 1,000 large- and medium-size cities. Acknowledging a MAD (ie. mutually assured destruction) status with China would greatly restrict US courses of action in Asia.
> 
> *The need for China to maintain secrecy over its thermonuclear arsenal size*
> 
> Now, let's look at the other side. Why won't China reveal the size of its thermonuclear arsenal? China says it needs to maintain strategic ambiguity to fend off a stronger thermonuclear power (e.g. the United States). However, I think the story is more complicated than that.
> 
> If China discloses the true size of its thermonuclear arsenal, the U.S. will garner worldwide political support and force China into arms talks. China does not want to have to listen to the Europeans at every meeting and hear them complain about the size of the Chinese thermonuclear arsenal.
> 
> Arms talks are bad for China. Verifiable arms reduction measures mean the U.S. will finally have a good look at the 5,000km Underground Great Wall. Without seeing the entire structure in detail and in person, the U.S. will always be kept guessing about the veracity and timeliness of spy reports. In other words, the Underground Great Wall will remain a mystery. If the U.S. is allowed to see the Underground Great Wall, China has lost the element of surprise.
> 
> On the other hand, the U.S. maintains its element of surprise because no one knows where the U.S. boomers are located.
> 
> Thus, China cannot participate in arms control talks. The Underground Great Wall can never be shown to outsiders. Otherwise, it loses its potency. Though China is building a credible sea-based deterrent, the conservative Chinese mind-set would want to keep the Underground Great Wall a secret as a backup.
> 
> In conclusion, the Pentagon will keep insisting on a tiny Chinese thermonuclear arsenal until China comes clean. China is happy to let the Pentagon keep insisting on an unbelievably low number, because it's good for business. I don't think the unholy alliance will change in the near future. They are both perpetuating a lie, but it suits their political purposes.



For the same reason, China also keeps the number of its nuclear subs in secret because of the element of surprise.

Since China's territorial water has been blocked by the first island chain and the second island chain, so the nuclear subs also need to be kept in secret.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Jlaw

TaiShang said:


> I feel that by releasing official reports that underestimate China's nuclear deterrence capability, the US regime is wishing to force Beijing to reveal the actual numbers, which is probably much higher than the estimations.
> 
> But that will hardly work since nuclear deterrence is sort of doubled if it is accompanied by nuclear ambiguity.
> 
> I wish China will never release the actual size of its nuclear arsenal.
> 
> Let the opponent remain engaged in guess-work.


I hope Chinese netizens realize this and ignore threads and articles regarding China's nuclear stockpile. I know some Chinese members can get quite riled up by false news but it never bother me I believe in hidden strength is more powerful than showing achievement as you wake up sleeping enemies.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## TaiShang

Jlaw said:


> I hope Chinese netizens realize this and ignore threads and articles regarding China's nuclear stockpile. I know some Chinese members can get quite riled up by false news but it never bother me I believe in hidden strength is more powerful than showing achievement as you wake up sleeping enemies.



Exactly ! Keeping enemy at bay and insecure is better than giving them a solid understanding and knowledge of the situation. China is master at that and the overwhelming Chinese netizens are well aware of this, hopefully. 

Personally, I am more bothered by over-estimations than under-estimations.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Martian2

*The West claims no Chinese thermonuclear warhead growth for 35 years!*

Look at the chart from the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists (which probably bases its data on Pentagon estimates). The claim is virtually no additional Chinese thermonuclear warheads for 35 years. The question is: Do you believe the chart?

Here is the problem. China had inducted many new thermonuclear weapon systems during the last 35 years.

a. DF-5A ICBM
b. DF-5B 8-MIRVed ICBM
c. JL-1 SLBM
d. DF-31 ICBM
e. DF-31A 3-MIRVed ICBM
f. JL-2 8-MIRVed SLBM (Jane's Defence)
g. DF-41 10-MIRVed ICBM

We can expect this farce to continue. Despite the growing number of Type 094 SSBNs with JL-2 SLBMs and the DF-41 ICBM brigades, the estimate of Chinese thermonuclear warheads will be kept laughably low for political reasons.

A single brigade of DF-5B ICBMs would add 96 thermonuclear warheads.
Three Type 094 SSBNs should have added 288 thermonuclear warheads.
Instead, we see almost no movement in the total number of Chinese thermonuclear warheads.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Jlaw

Martian2 said:


> *The West claims no Chinese thermonuclear warhead growth for 35 years!*
> 
> Look at the chart from the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists (which probably bases its data on Pentagon estimates), the claim is virtually no additional Chinese thermonuclear warheads for 35 years. The question is: Do you believe the chart?
> 
> Here is the problem. China had inducted many new thermonuclear weapon systems during the last 35 years.
> 
> a. DF-5A ICBM
> b. DF-5B 8-MIRVed ICBM
> c. JL-1 SLBM
> d. DF-31 ICBM
> e. DF-31A 3-MIRVed ICBM
> f. JL-2 8-MIRVed SLBM (Jane's Defence)
> g. DF-41 10-MIRVed ICBM
> 
> We can expect this farce to continue. Despite the growing number of Type 094 SSBNs with JL-2 SLBMs and the DF-41 ICBM brigades, the estimate of Chinese thermonuclear warheads will be kept laughably low for political reasons.
> 
> A single brigade of DF-5B ICBMs would add 96 thermonuclear warheads.
> Three Type 094 SSBNs should have added 288 thermonuclear warheads.
> Instead, we see almost no movement in the total number of Chinese thermonuclear warheads.


That is good news bro.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## feilong

Guys
There is evidence that China has another secret 3000 miles tunnel. First tunnels were 3000 nukes, what about this second tunnels. Can anyone guess how many nukes China hiding.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Martian2

*China has two million tonnes of Uranium*

China only needs 25kg of highly enriched uranium (HEU) and 4kg of plutonium for a modern thermonuclear warhead. (See China's Nuclear Strike Force - Page 21)
----------

China claims to hold over 2 million tonnes of uranium deposits | MINING.com







[Note: Thank you to UnnamedSweeperMonk for the newslink.]

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Martian2

*China's W-88 warhead was most likely independent convergent engineering*

There are two ways to develop a W-88 thermonuclear warhead.

1. You can research and develop it yourself. This is within China's capability, because it had decades of experience in miniaturization. Also, China had access to supercomputers that would allow for simulated testing of a wide variety of designs.

2. Or you can steal the design through spying. However, this is extremely unlikely. After the Rosenbergs, the US had instituted very rigorous methods to ensure security. The claim that important American classified military technology can be stolen defies credulity.

In 1999, The New York Times reported that seismic tests proved China had a W-88 thermonuclear warhead. The question is whether you believe it is method #1 or #2 (listed above). I think China developed the W-88 thermonuclear warhead design through decades of hard work.

Here's my reasoning. There are plenty of countries in the world that would love to obtain the W-88 warhead design. Why haven't they acquired it through spying? Since no other country has a comparable W-88 warhead design, it must mean that China developed theirs independently.
----------

BREACH AT LOS ALAMOS - A special report. - China Stole Nuclear Secrets For Bombs, U.S. Aides Say - NYTimes.com

"The evidence that so alarmed him had surfaced a year earlier. *Senior nuclear weapons experts at Los Alamos poring over data from the most recent Chinese underground nuclear tests had detected eerie similarities between the latest Chinese and American bomb designs.*

*From what they could tell, Beijing was testing a smaller and more lethal nuclear device configured remarkably like the W-88, the most modern, minaturized warhead in the American arsenal. In April 1995 they brought their findings to Mr. Trulock.* Los Alamos scientists have access to a wide range of classified intelligence data and seismic and other measurements."

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Shotgunner51

Martian2 said:


> *China has two million tonnes of Uranium*
> 
> China only needs 25kg of highly enriched uranium (HEU) and 4kg of plutonium for a modern thermonuclear warhead. (See China's Nuclear Strike Force - Page 21)
> ----------
> 
> China claims to hold over 2 million tonnes of uranium deposits | MINING.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Note: Thank you to UnnamedSweeperMonk for the newslink.]



Kazakhstan is one important pivot in China's geopolitical game plan, the two countries have very close working relationship on uranium.






Kazakhstan to export uranium to U.S., Canada via China

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Martian2

*Sixth flight of China's DF-ZF thermonuclear-capable hypersonic glide vehicle (HGV)*

Remember the picture of the AMaRV (ie. Advanced Maneuverable Re-entry Vehicle) that I posted previously? A Chinese DF-41 ICBM can carry 10 AMaRVs. AMaRVs can flatten out its trajectory to evade missile defense. However, an AMaRV is limited by the general ballistic flight path of an ICBM. In other words, if a defensive tactical thermonuclear warhead reaches the AMaRV before the fins are deployed then it can be stopped. Thus, an AMaRV is limited by a small radius.

The earlier that an AMaRV's steering fins are deployed, the sooner it starts slowing down due to friction. This means an AMaRV will not deploy its steering fins until the last minute.

A Chinese DF-ZF hypersonic glide vehicle (HGV) is like an AMaRV on steroids. A DF-ZF can maintain hypersonic speeds (somewhere between Mach 5 to Mach 10) for thousands of miles. This means a thermonuclear-armed Chinese DF-ZF is unstoppable. The defender is helpless as a barrage of DF-ZF HGVs glide hypersonically to their targets.

A DF-ZF hypersonic glide vehicle cannot be stopped by a laser. There are two reasons. Firstly, a laser has a limited range of a few miles in the dense lower atmosphere. The energy is bled away when the air molecules are lased and starts rising. Cooler air molecules take their place and keeps bleeding away the energy.

Secondly, a DF-ZF HGV travels hypersonically. This means it has a glowing plasma sheath. The plasma sheath is comprised of ionized particles that will keep dispersing a laser due to chaotic refraction caused by differing density (which continuously fluctuates due to temperature variation and air flow throughout the plasma sheath and layer density variations dependent on the distance from the surface of the warhead). Also, the gas atoms (such as oxygen, nitrogen, and others) will disperse the laser light energy in different directions. This makes it impossible to focus the laser light energy on one spot to burn through the warhead.

On an unrelated matter, Chinese scientists recently theorized that it is possible to communicate through a plasma sheath by using the plasma sheath as part of the antenna circuit. It's a very clever idea. In the past, everyone has been trying to brute force it and punch through the plasma sheath. Instead, the Chinese scientists decided to co-opt the plasma sheath for communication. This is a new idea that no one had thought of before.
----------

China Again Tests Nuclear Hypersonic Missile - Washington Free Beacon





----------

A matching approach to communicate through the plasma sheath surrounding a hypersonic vehicle





----------

Scientists look at communicating with hypersonic vehicles using plasma resonance





----------

*Have you heard of AMaRV? It can perform a hairpin turn (see photo below).* The US tested three AMaRVs around 1980. It is logical to expect China to develop its own AMaRVs.

Source: http://www.paforge.com/files/articles/ballisticmissiles_techistory.pdf (p. 4)





"Flight test of the Advanced Maneuvering Reentry Vehicle in early 1980. The path of the reentry vehicle is the upper streak of light, with the booster tanks immediately below. Lights from the Kwajalein Atoll in the Pacific can be seen in the lower right corner. (U.S. Air Force)"

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Shotgunner51

Martian2 said:


> *Sixth flight of China's DF-ZF thermonuclear-capable hypersonic glide vehicle (HGV)*
> 
> Remember the picture of the AMaRV (ie. Advanced Maneuverable Re-entry Vehicle) that I posted previously? A Chinese DF-41 ICBM can carry 10 AMaRVs. AMaRVs can flatten out its trajectory to evade missile defense. However, an AMaRV is limited by the general ballistic flight path of an ICBM. In other words, if a defensive tactical thermonuclear warhead reaches the AMaRV before the fins are deployed then it can be stopped. Thus, an AMaRV is limited by a small radius.
> 
> The earlier that an AMaRV's steering fins are deployed, the sooner it starts slowing down due to friction. This means an AMaRV will not deploy its steering fins until the last minute.
> 
> A Chinese DF-ZF hypersonic glide vehicle (HGV) is like an AMaRV on steroids. A DF-ZF can maintain hypersonic speeds (somewhere between Mach 5 to Mach 10) for thousands of miles. This means a thermonuclear-armed Chinese DF-ZF is unstoppable. The defender is helpless as a barrage of DF-ZF HGVs glide hypersonically to their targets.
> 
> A DF-ZF hypersonic glide vehicle cannot be stopped by a laser. There are two reasons. Firstly, a laser has a limited range of a few miles in the dense lower atmosphere. The energy is bled away when the air molecules are lased and starts rising. Cooler air molecules take their place and keeps bleeding away the energy.
> 
> Secondly, a DF-ZF HGV travels hypersonically. This means it has a glowing plasma sheath. The plasma sheath is comprised of ionized particles that will keep dispersing a laser due to chaotic refraction caused by differing density (which continuously fluctuates due to temperature variation and air flow throughout the plasma sheath and layer density variations dependent on the distance from the surface of the warhead). Also, the gas atoms (such as oxygen, nitrogen, and others) will disperse the laser light energy in different directions. This makes it impossible to focus the laser light energy on one spot to burn through the warhead.
> 
> On an unrelated matter, Chinese scientists recently theorized that it is possible to communicate through a plasma sheath by using the plasma sheath as part of the antenna circuit. It's a very clever idea. In the past, everyone has been trying to brute force it and punch through the plasma sheath. Instead, the Chinese scientists decided to co-opt the plasma sheath for communication. This is a new idea that no one had thought of before.
> ----------
> 
> China Again Tests Nuclear Hypersonic Missile - Washington Free Beacon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----------
> 
> A matching approach to communicate through the plasma sheath surrounding a hypersonic vehicle
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----------
> 
> Scientists look at communicating with hypersonic vehicles using plasma resonance
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----------
> 
> *Have you heard of AMaRV? It can perform a hairpin turn (see photo below).* The US tested three AMaRVs around 1980. It is logical to expect China to develop its own AMaRVs.
> 
> Source: http://www.paforge.com/files/articles/ballisticmissiles_techistory.pdf (p. 4)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Flight test of the Advanced Maneuvering Reentry Vehicle in early 1980. The path of the reentry vehicle is the upper streak of light, with the booster tanks immediately below. Lights from the Kwajalein Atoll in the Pacific can be seen in the lower right corner. (U.S. Air Force)"



Good progress, 6th test now, all successful except the 2nd (August 2014 if I remember correctly). How close you think we are from deployment of DF-ZF (or Wu-14 as called previously)? This is one critical solution to penetrate US missile defense.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Martian2

Shotgunner51 said:


> Good progress, 6th test now, all successful except the 2nd (August 2014 if I remember correctly). How close you think we are from deployment of DF-ZF (or Wu-14 as called previously)? This is one critical solution to penetrate US missile defense.


As a general rule of thumb, I would say five to ten successful tests are sufficient for deployment. The Chinese DF-ZF HGV (aka Wu-14) has had five successful flight tests.

Also, the Chinese DF-41 10-MIRV ICBM has had four successful flight tests. Since it's pretty close to five successful flight tests, some are predicting DF-41 ICBM deployment in 2015.

China Tests ICBM With Multiple Warheads
"A report made public earlier this month by a congressional China commission stated that the DF-41 will be able to carry up to 10 warheads and is expected to be deployed next year.

'The DF-41, which could be deployed as early as 2015, may carry up to 10 MIRVs, and have a maximum range as far as 7,456 miles, allowing it to target the entire continental United States,' the report said. 'In addition, some sources claim China has modified the DF–5 and the DF–31A to be able to carry MIRVs.'"
----------

*TEN CONSECUTIVE SUCCESSFUL DF-5 ICBM TEST FLIGHTS*

DF-5 Chronology | Encyclopedia Astronautica





----------

*FIVE CONSECUTIVE SUCCESSFUL DF-31 ICBM TEST FLIGHTS*

DF-31 Chronology | Encyclopedia Astronautica

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## war&peace

I wish Pakistan to be around 500-MT around 2020 and then we just focus on conventional capabilities.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Martian2

war&peace said:


> I wish Pakistan to be around 500-MT around 2020 and then we just focus on conventional capabilities.


Pakistan only has atomic (fission) warheads.

Pakistan's total tonnage is probably one to two megatons. About the same as India's.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## war&peace

Martian2 said:


> Pakistan only has atomic warheads.
> 
> Pakistan's total tonnage is probably one to two megatons. About the same as India's.


Since 1998, a lot has changed and no one knows. All of the info on net is just estimates. Pakistan does not provide much info and that is the best policy so far.


----------



## Martian2

war&peace said:


> Since 1998, a lot has changed and no one knows. All of the info on net is just estimates. Pakistan does not provide much info and that is the best policy so far.


No. Seismic tests do not lie. They are objective. The most powerful Indian nuclear test was about 20 kilotons. Similarly, Pakistani nuclear tests are in the kiloton range.

China's 1964 atomic test was 22 kilotons.

China's 1967 thermonuclear (fusion) test was 3.3 megatons. Seismographs can easily distinguish between a megaton fusion bomb versus a 0.02 megaton (or 20 kiloton) atomic bomb.

http://fas.org/nuke/guide/india/nuke/

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## war&peace

Martian2 said:


> No. Seismic tests do not lie. They are objective. The most powerful Indian nuclear test was about 20 kilotons. Similarly, Pakistani nuclear tests are in the kiloton range.
> 
> China's 1964 atomic test was 22 kilotons.
> 
> China's 1967 thermonuclear (fusion) test was 3.3 megatons. Seismographs can easily distinguish between a megaton fusion bomb versus a 0.02 megaton (or 20 kiloton) atomic bomb.
> 
> http://fas.org/nuke/guide/india/nuke/


Did you even read my or understood my comment. If you need a pair of glasses, I can send you. I clearly said a lot has changed since 1998.


----------



## Martian2

war&peace said:


> Did you even read my or understood my comment. If you need a pair of glasses, I can send you. I clearly said a lot has changed since 1998.


Nothing has changed. All known Pakistani nuclear tests have been a few kilotons.

To date, the largest Indian atomic bomb is about 20 kilotons. The largest Pakistani atomic bomb is 12 kilotons.

Actually, the fact that almost 20 years have passed for Pakistan (since 1998) and 40 years for India (since 1974) is a strong indicator that neither the Indian nor Pakistani atomic weapons are indigenous.

All five thermonuclear powers transitioned from atomic to thermonuclear weapons in about five years. If a country actually understood the principles of nuclear weapons, it is simple to graduate from atomic to thermonuclear weapons. China did it in three years (1964 for atomic and 1967 for thermonuclear bomb).

http://fas.org/nuke/guide/pakistan/nuke/

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Shotgunner51

war&peace said:


> Since 1998, a lot has changed and no one knows. All of the info on net is just estimates. Pakistan does not provide much info and that is the best policy so far.



Bro the links that @Martian2 has provided are good reads. As a quick summary, thermonuclear weapons are megaton-grade, that's exponentially more powerful than fission (i.e. atomic) weapons which are kiloton grade. Five nations have successfully tested: US (1952), USSR (1954), Britain (1957), China (1967), France (1968). As per 1958 US-UK Mutual Defence Agreement, Britain was given access to the design of the American Mk 28 warhead and were able to manufacture copies hence ceased indigenous program. Other four nations have pursued their respective thermonuclear programs till nowadays.

Since 1998 Pakistan has successfully built an inventory of fission (mostly HEU-based, could have some Pu-based) warheads, securing a balance with India which has similar level of stockpile.

Remember back in 1998, Pakistan made successful fission weapon tests just within 2 weeks after India did the same? I am confident that Pakistan can at least maintain this *"2 week" gap* with India, or even do better, keep up the good work bros!

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## war&peace

Shotgunner51 said:


> Bro the links that @Martian2 has provided are good reads. As a quick summary, thermonuclear weapons are megaton-grade, that's exponentially more powerful than fission (i.e. atomic) weapons which are kiloton grade. Five nations have successfully tested: US (1952), USSR (1954), Britain (1957), China(1967), France (1968). As per 1958 US-UK Mutual Defence Agreement, Britain was given access to the design of the American Mk 28 warhead and were able to manufacture copies hence ceased indigenous program. Other four nations have pursued their respective thermonuclear programs till nowadays.
> 
> Since 1998 Pakistan has successfully built an inventory of fission (HEU-based) warheads, securing a balance with India which has similar level of stockpile. Sure I believe Pakistan must have made further progress by now, no doubt on that, keep up the good work bros!


I very well know the difference between fission, fusion and boosted devices and also the nuclear reactions in fission and fusion and even the Carbon cycle in the bigger stars.
What he is unable to understand is that after 1998 a lot of progress has taken place but he is really not capable of understanding that basic info, I think he is suffering from severe iodine deficiency, and thinks tests are conducted before the devices are made. Pakistan has not conducted the nuclear tests since 1998 due to political reasons but that does not mean the capability is not there. Before 1998, Pakistan had the fission device and we just tested at the right time. And now Pakistan does not feel so much need to test the thermonukes because of the validation of our fission device in 1998, cold test and computer simulations. Perhaps you know that a fission device is needed to initiate the fusion process of hydrogen into helium and lithium atoms.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Shotgunner51

war&peace said:


> I very well know the difference between fission, fusion and boosted devices and also the nuclear reactions in fission and fusion and even the Carbon cycle in the bigger stars.
> What he is unable to understand is that after 1998 a lot of progress has taken place but he is really not capable of understanding that basic info, I think he is suffering from severe iodine deficiency, and thinks tests are conducted before the devices are made. Pakistan has not conducted the nuclear tests after 1998 due to political reasons but that does not mean the capability is not there. Before 1998, Pakistan had the fission device and we just tested at the right time. And now Pakistan does not feel so much need to test the thermonukes because of the validation of our fission device in 1998, cold test and computer simulations. Perhaps you know that a fission device is needed to initiate the fusion process of hydrogen into helium and lithium atoms.



Yes bro I briefly know about multi-stage thermonuclear devices. Remember back in 1998, Pakistan made successful fission weapon tests just *within 2 weeks* after India did the same? Sure progress since then has been made, no doubt, I am confident that Pakistan can at least maintain this "2 week" gap with India, or even do better! Keep up the good work bros!

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Martian2

*There are five levels of thermonuclear warhead technology.*

1. Single thermonuclear warhead. China's DF-5A is currently the world's largest at five megatons.
2. MIRVs (multiple warheads)
3. MARVs (maneuverable multiple warheads)
4. AMaRVs (advanced maneuverable multiple warheads)
5. DF-ZF (aka Wu-14) hypersonic glide vehicle resembles an AMaRV with a range of thousands of miles

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Martian2

*Thermonuclear war is very complicated*

Many people mistakenly think that thermonuclear war is a simple exchange. It is not.

If you can attack Chinese hardened silo-based ICBMs with only inertial guidance, it gives you a tremendous capability and advantage. Ideally, Trident D5s with only inertial guidance would want to wipe out Chinese MIRVed ICBMs. The Holy Grail is to used a MIRVed Trident D5 to destroy multiple Chinese silos. This would prevent a Chinese DF-41 10-MIRVed ICBM from landing on the United States.

However, inertial guidance cannot provide sufficiently accurate guidance. A CEP of 1,250 feet is not good enough against a silo built to withstand 2,000 psi. Super-hardened silos built to withstand 4,000 and 8,000 psi require a direct hit from a 500 kiloton W-88 warhead and GPS guidance.

The situation is further complicated by the likely defense of Chinese Nike-Hercules thermonuclear anti-missile missiles. This will create a temperature inversion and scramble a follow-on incoming inertial-guided warhead.

You also have to worry about megaton-class EMPs being detonated to attack the guidance system of ICBMs.

Added to the mix, you have conventional ground-based interceptors targeting ICBMs.

Furthermore, you have Chinese DF-ZF HGVs that fly flat trajectories and are currently impossible to intercept.

Thermonuclear war is not a simple exchange. The threat of EMPs will force a staged response. It is a complicated dance. Since inertial guidance is not sufficient to destroy hardened silos, this means silos can be reloaded for multiple launches.

I predict the citizens of the United States and China will be thoroughly dead after both sides have unloaded their full thermonuclear arsenals.

Thus, it is surprising to see the US media talk so cavalierly about war with China. A war with China could easily escalate and they are going to find out how powerful the Chinese thermonuclear counter-strike can be.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Shotgunner51

@Martian2 Do you have info about latest stockpile of thermonuclear warheads, for China, Russia and US respectively?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Martian2

Shotgunner51 said:


> @Martian2 Do you have info about latest stockpile of thermonuclear warheads, for China, Russia and US respectively?


I remember doing a count of Chinese thermonuclear warheads based on the number of brigades (ie. 12 ICBMs per brigade) at Chinese missile bases. It was about 2,000 thermonuclear warheads.

I could do an estimate of China's DF-41 10-MIRV ICBM, but it would only be an educated guess. We would have to agree on the start date of Chinese DF-41 production. Next, we would have to agree on a conservative minimum estimate of one DF-41 ICBM per month.

As a benchmark, China will launch 19 orbital rockets this year. This means that China's relatively underfunded civilian space program produces the equivalent of 19 ICBMs per year. When you adjust for a significantly larger military budget and the national priority of self defense, two to three new DF-41 ICBMs produced each month seems reasonable.

It's been 3 1/2 years since the first known DF-41 ICBM launch. That's 42 months.

42 x 2 = 84 DF-41 ICBMs (probable lower bound)
42 x 3 = 126 DF-41 ICBMs (probable upper bound)

Assuming an average of 100 DF-41 ICBMs (probable middle estimate) with 10 MIRVs per missile, that's an additional 1,000 thermonuclear warheads.

I would say a reasonable and fair estimate of China's current thermonuclear arsenal is about 3,000. The only caveat is the number of DF-5A ICBMs that have been upgraded to DF-5B 8-MIRVed ICBMs. That would add a few more hundred thermonuclear warheads.

In my previous count, I had already attributed 3 MIRVs to each DF-31A ICBM (which is now called DF-31B).

The last adjustment upward is the number of JL-2 8-MIRVed SLBMs. I think the Chinese Type 094 fleet has expanded from three to five. There is a picture of the fifth Chinese Type 094 SSBN in dry dock about 1 1/2 years ago.

Lastly, you have to keep in mind that the Type 096 Tang SSBN could be undergoing sea trials. There is a lag of a few years before China reveals its latest military hardware. The Type 096 SSBN is expected to carry 18-24 SLBMs with longer range (e.g. possibly JL-3 with 10 MIRVs).

Anyway, I don't keep a precise count because everyone knows China can destroy the United States in a thermonuclear counter-strike.
----------

The number of Russian and American thermonuclear warheads is inflated by tiny tactical thermonuclear warheads. A more apt comparison is strategic thermonuclear warheads that can launch from one continent to strike another.

When you consider only strategic warheads, the number of thermonuclear warheads between Russia, China, and the US is actually fairly close.

Let's face it, B-52s are not survivable. They're useless in a superpower fight. Non-stealthy and subsonic B-52s really can't deliver their thermonuclear payload. A megaton-class EMP would bring down the entire B-52 fleet.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

China already got two Type 094 back in 2007, and it is hard to believe that China is only adding 2 more boats of the class in 8 years.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Shotgunner51

Martian2 said:


> I remember doing a count of Chinese thermonuclear warheads based on the number of brigades (ie. 12 ICBMs per brigade) at Chinese missile bases. It was about 2,000 thermonuclear warheads.
> 
> I could do an estimate of China's DF-41 10-MIRV ICBM, but it would only be an educated guess. We would have to agree on the start date of Chinese DF-41 production. Next, we would have to agree on a conservative minimum estimate of one DF-41 ICBM per month.
> 
> As a benchmark, China will launch 19 orbital rockets this year. This means that China's relatively underfunded civilian space program produces the equivalent of 19 ICBMs per year. When you adjust for a significantly larger military budget and the national priority of self defense, two to three new DF-41 ICBMs produced each month seems reasonable.
> 
> It's been 3 1/2 years since the first known DF-41 ICBM launch. That's 42 months.
> 
> 42 x 2 = 84 DF-41 ICBMs (probable lower bound)
> 42 x 3 = 126 DF-41 ICBMs (probable upper bound)
> 
> Assuming an average of 100 DF-41 ICBMs (probable middle estimate) with 10 MIRVs per missile, that's an additional 1,000 thermonuclear warheads.
> 
> I would say a reasonable and fair estimate of China's current thermonuclear arsenal is about 3,000. The only caveat is the number of DF-5A ICBMs that have been upgraded to DF-5B 8-MIRVed ICBMs. That would add a few more hundred thermonuclear warheads.
> 
> In my previous count, I had already attributed 3 MIRVs to each DF-31A ICBM (which is now called DF-31B).
> 
> The last adjustment upward is the number of JL-2 8-MIRVed SLBMs. I think the Chinese Type 094 fleet has expanded from three to five. There is a picture of the fifth Chinese Type 094 SSBN in dry dock about 1 1/2 years ago.
> 
> Lastly, you have to keep in mind that the Type 096 Tang SSBN could be undergoing sea trials. There is a lag of a few years before China reveals its latest military hardware. The Type 096 SSBN is expected to carry 18-24 SLBMs with longer range (e.g. possibly JL-3 with 10 MIRVs).
> 
> Anyway, I don't keep a precise count because everyone knows China can destroy the United States in a thermonuclear counter-strike.
> ----------
> 
> The number of Russian and American thermonuclear warheads is inflated by tiny tactical thermonuclear warheads. A more apt comparison is strategic thermonuclear warheads that can launch from one continent to strike another.
> 
> When you consider only strategic warheads, the number of thermonuclear warheads between Russia, China, and the US is actually fairly close.
> 
> Let's face it, B-52s are not survivable. They're useless in a superpower fight. Non-stealthy and subsonic B-52s really can't deliver their thermonuclear payload. A megaton-class EMP would bring down the entire B-52 fleet.



Thanks bro! I was wondering how many thermonuclear warheads (i.e. "H-bomb") are still active at the moment in US inventory. Can you get info? For Russia or China as well. Not total nuclear stockpile, only thermonuclear warheads.

The following pics were about the last Mk/B53 (yield 9 megaton) being disassembled on 25 October 2011:

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Martian2

China advances sea- and land-based nuclear deterrent capabilities | IHS Jane's 360

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Shotgunner51

Martian2 said:


> China advances sea- and land-based nuclear deterrent capabilities | IHS Jane's 360



Good progress!

By the way, how many thermonuclear warheads (i.e. "H-bomb") are still active at the moment in US/Russia/China inventory?

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Martian2

Shotgunner51 said:


> Good progress!
> 
> By the way, how many thermonuclear warheads (i.e. "H-bomb") are still active at the moment in US/Russia/China inventory?


Russia and the US have thousands, but the number is inflated by small tactical warheads with a low yield. The American W76 is only 100 kilotons. One Chinese DF-5A is five megatons. That means one Chinese DF-5A warhead is equal to 50 Trident I (aka C4) W76 warheads.

Also, the 1.2 megaton American B83 thermonuclear bomb carried by B-52s really shouldn't be counted at all. How are you going to realistically send a subsonic non-stealthy B-52 into China? It'll never reach its target.

We should only really count the Minuteman IIIs (about 400) and the SLBMs.

The B-52s are not survivable. The non-stealthy B-1s are also non-survivable. I have my doubts about a slow-flying subsonic stealthy B-2 that can be brought down by a megaton-class EMP. In any case, the thermonuclear war will be over in 30 minutes. The B-2 won't make any difference.

With respect to the Chinese thermonuclear arsenal, The New York Times usually prints a disclaimer. I remember reading that the Chinese thermonuclear arsenal is unknown (with the explanation after an asterisk).

NTI (ie. Nuclear Threat Initiative) also printed a disclaimer. They said China's arsenal is the "most opaque" of the five acknowledged nuclear powers.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Martian2

Shotgunner51 said:


> Good progress!
> 
> By the way, how many thermonuclear warheads (i.e. "H-bomb") are still active at the moment in US/Russia/China inventory?


There are six things to keep in mind.

1. Russian and American thermonuclear weapons are inflated by tactical nukes (see Federation of American Scientists' citation below).

2. To compare apples to apples, we have to adjust for the difference in yield between tactical and strategic thermonuclear warheads. This normalization can be easily accomplished by comparing overall yield for the different countries. Nuclear Threat Initiative (ie. NTI) provides a rough comparison. I say rough, because NTI's estimate of China's 294 megatons of thermonuclear weapons is about 10-15 years old.

3. Tactical nukes should probably be excluded from consideration altogether. In an all-out nuke war, tactical nukes have insufficient range.

4. Among strategic nuclear weapons, the ones carried by aircraft probably should be excluded from the count too. B-52s, B-1s, and B-2s (susceptible to EMP) are not survivable. Also, refueling tankers are vulnerable to EMPs too.

5. The Federation of American Scientists (ie. FAS) tell you that China's tactical nuke information is "vague and contradictory." It would make more sense if everyone simply agreed that there is little reliable information regarding China's thermonuclear arsenal. No one really knows and the printed estimates are laughable. They are too low and haven't changed since about 1980.

6. The US has always planned to simultaneously nuke Russia and China [see Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP)]. Otherwise, the untouched Russia or China would become the world's dominant superpower. Hence, the US arsenal has to be divided by two. NTI says China has at least 294 megatons. NTI also says the US has 570 megatons. 570/2 = 285 megatons. Looking at the overall megatonnage, China should be able to inflict more damage on the United States.

In any case, after the Russians unload on the US, the US definitely will suffer more damage than China or Russia.
----------

Russian Tactical Nuclear Weapons - Federation Of American Scientists

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Martian2

*US only has 725 strategic nuclear warheads aimed at China under New START treaty*

You've read the misleading mainstream media propaganda. The US has tens of thousands of nuclear warheads. Most of these warheads are tactical and cannot reach China.

Let's talk about strategic nuclear warheads that are capable of hitting China.

The U.S.-Russian New START treaty entered into force on February 5, 2011 (see citation from U.S. Department of State below)..

By the New START treaty deadline of February 5 2018, the U.S. and Russia are each limited to a maximum of 1,550 strategic nuclear warheads (see paragraph two under "Aggregate limits:" in the citation below).

Under the long-standing U.S. SIOP plan (which calls for a simultaneous nuclear strike on Russia and China) and its classified successor, we have to divide the US strategic nuclear arsenal into two halves. Both Russia and China are continental sized. This means the U.S. only has 725 strategic nuclear warheads available under the New START treaty to aim at China.
----------

New START

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Jlaw

Martian2 said:


> *US only has 725 strategic nuclear warheads aimed at China under New START treaty*
> 
> You've read the misleading mainstream media propaganda. The US has tens of thousands of nuclear warheads. Most of these warheads are tactical and cannot reach China.
> 
> Let's talk about strategic nuclear warheads that are capable of hitting China.
> 
> The U.S.-Russian New START treaty entered into force on February 5, 2011 (see citation from U.S. Department of State below)..
> 
> By the New START treaty deadline of February 5 2018, the U.S. and Russia are each limited to a maximum of 1,550 strategic nuclear warheads (see paragraph two under "Aggregate limits:" in the citation below).
> 
> Under the long-standing U.S. SIOP plan (which calls for a simultaneous nuclear strike on Russia and China) and its classified successor, we have to divide the US strategic nuclear arsenal into two halves. Both Russia and China are continental sized. This means the U.S. only has 725 strategic nuclear warheads available under the New START treaty to aim at China.
> ----------
> 
> New START



How does this get enforce? A treaty is all find and dandy but what's stopping each country from producing more nukes than the agreed amount. I find these type of treaties laughable just like I find "rules for war engagement" under Geneva laughable.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Martian2

Jlaw said:


> How does this get enforce? A treaty is all find and dandy but what's stopping each country from producing more nukes than the agreed amount. I find these type of treaties laughable just like I find "rules for war engagement" under Geneva laughable.


You have to read the U.S. Department of State citation (see below). It explains the verification mechanism of on-site inspections.

I saw a documentary where an American is posted at every Russian ICBM rocket factory. The US counts every Russian ICBM that comes off the production line.

Ronald Reagan always said: "Trust, but verify."
----------

New START

"*Verification and Transparency:* The Treaty has a verification regime that combines appropriate elements of the 1991 START Treaty with new elements tailored to the limitations and structure of this Treaty. Verification measures under the Treaty include on-site inspections and exhibitions, data exchanges and notifications related to strategic offensive arms and facilities covered by the Treaty, and provisions to facilitate the use of national technical means for treaty monitoring. To increase confidence and transparency, the Treaty also provides for an annual exchange of telemetry on an agreed number of ICBM and SLBM launches.
...
*What is the difference between a “Type One” and a “Type Two” inspection?*
The New START Treaty provides for 18 on-site inspections per year. There are two basic types of inspections. *Type One inspections *focus on sites with deployed and non-deployed strategic systems; *Type Two inspections *focus on sites with only non-deployed strategic systems. Permitted inspection activities include confirming the number of reentry vehicles on deployed ICBMs and deployed SLBMs, confirming numbers related to non-deployed launcher limits, counting nuclear weapons onboard or attached to deployed heavy bombers, confirming weapon system conversions or eliminations, and confirming facility eliminations. Each side is allowed to conduct ten Type One inspections and eight Type Two inspections annually."

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Jlaw

Martian2 said:


> You have to read the U.S. Department of State citation (see below). It explains the verification mechanism of on-site inspections.
> 
> I saw a documentary where an American is posted at every Russian ICBM rocket factory. The US counts every Russian ICBM that comes off the production line.
> 
> Ronald Reagan always said: "Trust, but verify."
> ----------
> 
> New START
> 
> "*Verification and Transparency:* The Treaty has a verification regime that combines appropriate elements of the 1991 START Treaty with new elements tailored to the limitations and structure of this Treaty. Verification measures under the Treaty include on-site inspections and exhibitions, data exchanges and notifications related to strategic offensive arms and facilities covered by the Treaty, and provisions to facilitate the use of national technical means for treaty monitoring. To increase confidence and transparency, the Treaty also provides for an annual exchange of telemetry on an agreed number of ICBM and SLBM launches.
> ...
> *What is the difference between a “Type One” and a “Type Two” inspection?*
> The New START Treaty provides for 18 on-site inspections per year. There are two basic types of inspections. *Type One inspections *focus on sites with deployed and non-deployed strategic systems; *Type Two inspections *focus on sites with only non-deployed strategic systems. Permitted inspection activities include confirming the number of reentry vehicles on deployed ICBMs and deployed SLBMs, confirming numbers related to non-deployed launcher limits, counting nuclear weapons onboard or attached to deployed heavy bombers, confirming weapon system conversions or eliminations, and confirming facility eliminations. Each side is allowed to conduct ten Type One inspections and eight Type Two inspections annually."



Good time for China to produce as much thermonuclear warheads as possible that can destroy both Russia and US.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Martian2

Jlaw said:


> Good time for China to produce as much thermonuclear warheads as possible that can destroy both Russia and US.


It's fun to talk about thermonuclear weapons.

Realistically, they'll never be used.

It's maddening that the United States government refuses to formally acknowledge a state of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) with China.

The US government keeps pretending that it has significantly more strategic thermonuclear warheads than China. It does not.

Strategic thermonuclear warheads in reserve are useless. Without a delivery vehicle (e.g. ICBM or SLBM), the reserve thermonuclear warhead never comes into play during an actual war. An all-out nuke war will not wait one year until new ICBM or SLBM missiles are built.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Jlaw

Martian2 said:


> It's fun to talk about thermonuclear weapons.
> 
> Realistically, they'll never be used.
> 
> It's maddening that the United States government refuses to formally acknowledge a state of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) with China.
> 
> The US government keeps pretending that it has significantly more strategic thermonuclear warheads than China. It does not.
> 
> Strategic thermonuclear warheads in reserve are useless. Without a delivery vehicle (e.g. ICBM or SLBM), the reserve thermonuclear warhead never comes into play during an actual war. An all-out nuke war will not wait one year until new ICBM or SLBM missiles are built.


I find it strange that they have considered using "tactical nukes" or small warheads. To me any nuke, small or big hitting Chinese or Russian soil will result in MAD. 
But they do undermine China's nuke arsenal for a good reason--to get China to fully come out with a real number but that isn't going to happen.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Martian2

Jlaw said:


> I find it strange that they have considered using "tactical nukes" or small warheads. To me any nuke, small or big hitting Chinese or Russian soil will result in MAD.
> But they do undermine China's nuke arsenal for a good reason--to get China to fully come out with a real number but that isn't going to happen.


The United States is resorting to sensational displays of its thermonuclear might to remind Russia and China about US capability.

In my opinion, it's a three-way standoff. I think the US, Russia, and China all have the capability to level the other two.

Here's a recent US Trident II launch off the coast of Los Angeles from last month (Nov. 7 2015). It's pretty cool.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Martian2 said:


> The United States is resorting to sensational displays of its thermonuclear might to remind Russia and China about US capability.
> 
> In my opinion, it's a three-way standoff. I think the US, Russia, and China all have the capability to level the other two.
> 
> Here's a recent US Trident II launch off the coast of Los Angeles from last month (Nov. 7 2015). It's pretty cool.



This was probably a JL-2 test back in several years ago.








Martian2 said:


> *US only has 725 strategic nuclear warheads aimed at China under New START treaty*
> 
> You've read the misleading mainstream media propaganda. The US has tens of thousands of nuclear warheads. Most of these warheads are tactical and cannot reach China.
> 
> Let's talk about strategic nuclear warheads that are capable of hitting China.
> 
> The U.S.-Russian New START treaty entered into force on February 5, 2011 (see citation from U.S. Department of State below)..
> 
> By the New START treaty deadline of February 5 2018, the U.S. and Russia are each limited to a maximum of 1,550 strategic nuclear warheads (see paragraph two under "Aggregate limits:" in the citation below).
> 
> Under the long-standing U.S. SIOP plan (which calls for a simultaneous nuclear strike on Russia and China) and its classified successor, we have to divide the US strategic nuclear arsenal into two halves. Both Russia and China are continental sized. This means the U.S. only has 725 strategic nuclear warheads available under the New START treaty to aim at China.
> ----------
> 
> New START



1550 in half should be 775.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Martian2

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> This was probably a JL-2 test back in several years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1550 in half should be 775.


You're right. 1,550 divided by 2 is 775. I apologize for the error. Sometimes, I write posts when I'm tired.

After we subtract the subsonic and non-stealthy B-52s (which will never reach their targets in a nuke war), the number is closer to 700.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## somebozo

Martian2 said:


> 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.



Most of the powers work in passive mode..the did not do anything Hitler roared..neither they did anything when communism was flourishing..they let both destroy themselves under their own weight...as long at it did not impact their economy or kill their people..everyone washed hands in Saddam weapon trade..but leaving him alone to handle the mess once the funds dried out..


----------



## Martian2

*Comparing American and Chinese strategic thermonuclear warheads*

By February 2018, the United States is only permitted to have 1,550 strategic thermonuclear warheads. Due to a definition quirk, a bomber counts as "one" thermonuclear warhead.

1,550 thermonuclear warheads - 77 B-52H bombers - 68 B-1B bombers - 20 B-2A bombers = 1,385 thermonuclear warheads

I subtracted out the American bombers, because I don't think they can reach their targets (due to EMP vulnerability).

With 1,385 strategic thermonuclear warheads under a verifiable New START treaty, the US has to divide its arsenal into two to simultaneously strike continent-sized Russia and China.

1,385 / 2 = *693 thermonuclear warheads aimed by the US at China*
----------

Now, let's look at how many Chinese strategic warheads are aimed at the US in a counter-strike.

*Eight known Chinese DF-5A/B ICBM brigades*

1. Luoning/Luoyang (804th brigade)
2. Wuzhai (Base 25)
3. Xuanhua
4. Tongdao (805th brigade)
5. Lushi (801st brigade)
6. Jingxian (803rd brigade)
7. Jingxian (814th brigade)
8. Hunan (818th brigade)

Assuming all eight brigades have been upgraded to DF-5B ICBMs (or will soon be fully upgraded in the near future):

8 DF-5B brigades x 12 DF-5B ICBMs per brigade x 8 MIRVs per DF-5B ICBM = *768 Chinese thermonuclear warheads from DF-5B ICBMs*

*Seven known Chinese DF-31A ICBM brigades*

1. Delingha
2. Haiyan
3. Datong (809 Brigade)
4. Tainshui (812 Brigade)
5. Xixia
6. Shaoyang (805 Brigade)
7. Yuxi

7 DF-31A brigades x 12 ICBMs per brigade x 3 MIRVs per DF-31A ICBM = *252 thermonuclear warheads from DF-31A ICBMs*

*Five Chinese Type 094 SSBNs*

The fifth Chinese Type 094 SSBN was seen in dry dock about 1 1/2 years ago. It should be operational by now.

5 Type 094 SSBNs x 12 JL-2 SLBMs per Type 094 SSBN x 8 MIRVs per JL-2 SLBM = *480 thermonuclear warheads from JL-2 SLBMs*

*China should have produced 100 DF-41 ICBMs during the past 42 months*

It's been 3 1/2 years since the first known DF-41 ICBM launch. That's 42 months.

42 x 2 = 84 DF-41 ICBMs (probable lower bound)
42 x 3 = 126 DF-41 ICBMs (probable upper bound)

Assuming an average of 100 DF-41 ICBMs (probable middle estimate) with 10 MIRVs per missile, that's an additional *1,000 thermonuclear warheads on DF-41 ICBMs*.

Adding up all of China's strategic thermonuclear warheads.

DF-5B thermonuclear warheads: 768
DF-31A thermonuclear warheads: 252
JL-2 thermonuclear warheads: 480
DF-41 thermonuclear warheads: 1,000

*In total, China should presently have about 2,500 strategic thermonuclear warheads.*

China should have 3 1/2 times more strategic thermonuclear warheads aimed at the US than vice versa. However, a thermonuclear war is unwinnable. 693 thermonuclear explosions plus radioactive fallout would render China unrecognizable.

China technically should have significantly more strategic thermonuclear warheads than the US, but Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) would ensure their non-use. It is illogical and completely insane for one mature thermonuclear power to launch a nuke war against another mature thermonuclear power.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Shotgunner51

Martian2 said:


> *Comparing American and Chinese strategic thermonuclear warheads*
> 
> By February 2018, the United States is only permitted to have 1,550 strategic thermonuclear warheads. Due to a definition quirk, a bomber counts as "one" thermonuclear warhead.
> 
> 1,550 thermonuclear warheads - 77 B-52H bombers - 68 B-1B bombers - 20 B-2A bombers = 1,385 thermonuclear warheads
> 
> I subtracted out the American bombers, because I don't think they can reach their targets (due to EMP vulnerability).
> 
> With 1,385 strategic thermonuclear warheads under a verifiable New START treaty, the US has to divide its arsenal into two to simultaneously strike continent-sized Russia and China.
> 
> 1,385 / 2 = *693 thermonuclear warheads aimed by the US at China*
> ----------
> 
> Now, let's look at how many Chinese strategic warheads are aimed at the US in a counter-strike.
> 
> *Eight known Chinese DF-5A/B ICBM brigades*
> 
> 1. Luoning/Luoyang (804th brigade)
> 2. Wuzhai (Base 25)
> 3. Xuanhua
> 4. Tongdao (805th brigade)
> 5. Lushi (801st brigade)
> 6. Jingxian (803rd brigade)
> 7. Jingxian (814th brigade)
> 8. Hunan (818th brigade)
> 
> Assuming all eight brigades have been upgraded to DF-5B ICBMs (or will soon be fully upgraded in the near future):
> 
> 8 DF-5B brigades x 12 DF-5B ICBMs per brigade x 8 MIRVs per DF-5B ICBM = *768 Chinese thermonuclear warheads from DF-5B ICBMs*
> 
> *Seven known Chinese DF-31A ICBM brigades*
> 
> 1. Delingha
> 2. Haiyan
> 3. Datong (809 Brigade)
> 4. Tainshui (812 Brigade)
> 5. Xixia
> 6. Shaoyang (805 Brigade)
> 7. Yuxi
> 
> 7 DF-31A brigades x 12 ICBMs per brigade x 3 MIRVs per DF-31A ICBM = *252 thermonuclear warheads from DF-31A ICBMs*
> 
> *Five Chinese Type 094 SSBNs*
> 
> The fifth Chinese Type 094 SSBN was seen in dry dock about 1 1/2 years ago. It should be operational by now.
> 
> 5 Type 094 SSBNs x 12 JL-2 SLBMs per Type 094 SSBN x 8 MIRVs per JL-2 SLBM = *480 thermonuclear warheads from JL-2 SLBMs*
> 
> *China should have produced 100 DF-41 ICBMs during the past 42 months*
> 
> It's been 3 1/2 years since the first known DF-41 ICBM launch. That's 42 months.
> 
> 42 x 2 = 84 DF-41 ICBMs (probable lower bound)
> 42 x 3 = 126 DF-41 ICBMs (probable upper bound)
> 
> Assuming an average of 100 DF-41 ICBMs (probable middle estimate) with 10 MIRVs per missile, that's an additional *1,000 thermonuclear warheads on DF-41 ICBMs*.
> 
> Adding up all of China's strategic thermonuclear warheads.
> 
> DF-5B thermonuclear warheads: 768
> DF-31A thermonuclear warheads: 252
> JL-2 thermonuclear warheads: 480
> DF-41 thermonuclear warheads: 1,000
> 
> *In total, China should presently have about 2,500 strategic thermonuclear warheads.*
> 
> China should have 3 1/2 times more strategic thermonuclear warheads aimed at the US than vice versa. However, a thermonuclear war is unwinnable. 693 thermonuclear explosions plus radioactive fallout would render China unrecognizable.
> 
> China technically should have significantly more strategic thermonuclear warheads than the US, but Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) would ensure their non-use. It is illogical and completely insane for one mature thermonuclear power to launch a nuke war against another mature thermonuclear power.



Under the MAD deterrence principle, size of thermonuclear stockpile should be kept at a level adequate to serve the purpose i.e. assured-destruction. Using Russia as a benchmark which is 1273 megatons, an over-kill level, maybe China should double the reported 294 megatons to say 600 megatons. We have to note that it's not just North America but potential launch sites in other parts of world, some redundancy capacity needed.

Of course delivery systems, missile defence, space and cyber warfare are all equally important as thermonuclear stockpile. Progress in various sectors this year so far are alright e.g. DF-ZF, 41, 5B-MIRV, BMD/low-orbit ASAT, 094, DN-3, Beidou, but not enough. Need faster progress next year.

Reactions: Like Like:
 5


----------



## Martian2

Shotgunner51 said:


> Under the MAD deterrence principle, size of thermonuclear stockpile should be kept at a level adequate to serve the purpose i.e. assured-destruction. Using Russia as a benchmark which is 1273 megatons, an over-kill level, maybe China should double the reported 294 megatons to say 600 megatons. We have to note that it's not just North America but potential launch sites in other parts of world, some redundancy capacity needed.
> 
> Of course delivery systems, missile defence, space and cyber warfare are all equally important as thermonuclear stockpile. Progress in various sectors this year so far are alright e.g. DF-ZF, 41, 5B-MIRV, BMD/low-orbit ASAT, 094, DN-3, Beidou, but not enough. Need faster progress next year.


The 294 megaton estimate is about 10 to 15 years old.

Let's calculate a current estimate.

DF-5B thermonuclear warheads: 768
DF-31A thermonuclear warheads: 252
JL-2 thermonuclear warheads: 480
DF-41 thermonuclear warheads: 1,000

Each DF-5B warhead is a half-megaton. Eight DF-5B warheads equal 4 megatons. The original DF-5A had a single five-megaton warhead. There are eight DF-5B brigades. Each brigade has 12 ICBMs. The sum of 96 DF-5B ICBMs contains 384 megatons.

There are seven DF-31A brigades. Each brigade has 12 ICBMs. There are a total of 84 DF-31A ICBMs. Each DF-31A can carry a single one-megaton warhead or three smaller ones. An estimate of the total DF-31A megatonnage is 84 megatons.

There are five Type 094 SSBNs. Each JL-2 SLBM can carry a one-megaton warhead or eight smaller warheads. An estimate of the total JL-2 megatonnage is: 5 Type 094 SSBNs x 12 JL-2 SLBMs x one megaton = 60 megatons

There should be about 100 DF-41 ICBMs. China has already conducted five tests, so you know China has a lot of them. Also, we've seen pictures of DF-41 ICBMs coming out of the manufacturing plant or being tested on an angled speed track.

100 DF-41 ICBMs with a one-megaton warhead or ten smaller warheads. An estimate of the total DF-41 ICBM yield is 100 megatons.

Let's add up all of the megatons.

DF-5B: 384 megatons
DF-31A: 84 megatons
JL-2: 60 megatons
DF-41: 100 megatons

*A contemporary estimate of China's total strategic megatonnage is 628 megatons.*

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Martian2 said:


> The 294 megaton estimate is about 10 to 15 years old.
> 
> Let's calculate a current estimate.
> 
> DF-5B thermonuclear warheads: 768
> DF-31A thermonuclear warheads: 252
> JL-2 thermonuclear warheads: 480
> DF-41 thermonuclear warheads: 1,000
> 
> Each DF-5B warhead is a half-megaton. Eight DF-5B warheads equal 4 megatons. The original DF-5A had a single five-megaton warhead. There are eight DF-5B brigades. Each brigade has 12 ICBMs. The sum of 96 DF-5B ICBMs contain 384 megatons.
> 
> There are seven DF-31A brigades. Each brigade has 12 ICBMs. There are a total of 84 DF-31A ICBMs. Each DF-31A can carry a single one-megaton warhead or three smaller ones. An estimate of the total DF-31A megatonnage is 84 megatons.
> 
> There are five Type 094 SSBNs. Each JL-2 SLBM can carry a one-megaton warhead or eight smaller warheads. An estimate of the total JL-2 megatonnage is: 5 Type 094 SSBNs x 12 JL-2 SLBMs x one megaton = 60 megatons
> 
> There should be about 100 DF-41 ICBMs. China has already conducted five tests, so you know China has a lot of them. Also, we've seen pictures of DF-41 ICBMs coming out of the manufacturing plant or being tested on an angled speed track.
> 
> 100 DF-41 ICBMs with a one-megaton warhead or ten smaller warheads. An estimate of the total DF-41 ICBM yield is 100 megatons.
> 
> Let's add up all of the megatons.
> 
> DF-5B: 384 megatons
> DF-31A: 84 megatons
> JL-2: 60 megatons
> DF-41: 100 megatons
> 
> *A contemporary estimate of China's total strategic megatonnage is 628 megatons.*



According to Huanqiu:

JL-2 = 50 tonnes
JL-2A = 57 tonnes

The diameter of the JL-2A has also been increased from 2 meters of the JL-2 to 2.25 meters.

首曝高清图：巨浪2让中国水下核威慑力剧增(2)_环球军事网

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Shotgunner51

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> According to Huanqiu:
> 
> JL-2 = 50 tonnes
> JL-2A = 57 tonnes
> 
> The diameter of the JL-2A has also been increased from 2 meters of the JL-2 to 2.25 meters.
> 
> 首曝高清图：巨浪2让中国水下核威慑力剧增(2)_环球军事网



Does it mean that JL-2A can carry warheads of higher yield than 5 megaton, without loosing range?

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Shotgunner51 said:


> Does it mean that JL-2A can carry warheads of higher yield than 5 megaton, without loosing range?



The DF-41 can carry a single 5 megaton warhead with a range still beyond 14000 km, so I guess it should be slightly less for the JL-2A.

The DF-41 is absolutely a monster with 21 meters in the length and 2.5 meters in the diameter, and it should also weigh about 80 tonnes.

I am expecting the JL-2A to carry eight 500KT thermonuclear warheads with a range up to 8000 km or four 500KT thermonuclear warheads with a range up to 12000 km.

@Martian2, the DF-31A now should be upgraded into the DF-31B.

I think the DF-31B should fully phase out the DF-31A by 2020.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Martian2

*Correcting DF-41 ICBM 10-MIRV warhead yield to 225 kilotons each*

I underestimated the yield of China's new DF-41 ICBM with 10 MIRVs.

I had used an estimate of 100 kilotons per warhead. That is incorrect. According to The Diplomat, the proper yield is 150 kilotons to 300 kilotons per warhead.

I took the average to reach a 225 kiloton yield for each DF-41 ICBM MIRV warhead.

This means each DF-41 ICBM carries a total of 2.25 megatons (not the one megaton that I assumed earlier).

China Tests New Missile Capable of Hitting Entire United States | The Diplomat





----------

Here is my revised estimate of China's total yield from its strategic thermonuclear warheads.

DF-5B: 384 megatons
DF-31B: 84 megatons
JL-2: 60 megatons
DF-41: 225 megatons

*The best estimate of China's total megatonnage from strategic thermonuclear warheads is 753 megatons.*

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

The original Type 094, the boats #1 and #2 belong to this subclass.






The slightly improved Type 094A, the boats #3 and #4 belong to this subclass.






The further more improved Type 094B or Type 094G, the boats #5 to #8 belong to this subclass.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Martian2

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> The original Type 094, the boats #1 and #2 belong to this subclass.
> View attachment 283826
> 
> 
> 
> The slightly improved Type 094A, the boats #3 and #4 belong to this subclass.
> View attachment 283827
> 
> 
> 
> The further more improved Type 094B or Type 094G, the boats #5 to #8 belong to this subclass.
> View attachment 283828


The second picture of China's Type 094 SSBN intrigued me. It looks like it has 18 launch tubes. The picture can be found in an April 27, 2015 Popular Science article on the Type 094 SSBN.

I've never seen a Chinese SSBN with more than 6 launch tubes on each side. The picture looks like a Type 094 upgrade. To be fair, one to two years ago on Chinese Defence Forum (CDF), you ChineseTiger1986 claimed there was a Type 094 SSBN upgrade in the works.

Chinese Navy Stars in Latest U.S.Intelligence Report | Popular Science

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Martian2 said:


> The second picture of China's Type 094 SSBN intrigued me. It looks like it has 16 launch tubes. The picture can be found in a April 27, 2015 Popular Science article on the Type 094 SSBN.
> 
> I've never seen a Chinese SSBN with more than 6 launch tubes on each side. The picture looks like a Type 094 upgrade. To be fair, one to two years ago on Chinese Defence Forum (CDF), you (ChineseTiger1986) claimed there was a Type 094 SSBN upgrade in the works.
> 
> Chinese Navy Stars in Latest U.S.Intelligence Report | Popular Science



Did you notice the Seawolf/Virginia style of conning tower in the third picture?

This could be a further improved subclass of the Type 094.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Shotgunner51

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> Did you notice the Seawolf/Virginia style of conning tower in the third picture?
> 
> This could be a further improved subclass of the Type 094.




Sharp observation bro!

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Why the US suddenly wants to acknowledge this fact?

@Martian2

http://allnewspipeline.com/China_Prepares_Nuclear_Strike_Against_US.php


----------



## Jlaw

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> Why the US suddenly wants to acknowledge this fact?
> 
> @Martian2
> 
> http://allnewspipeline.com/China_Prepares_Nuclear_Strike_Against_US.php


It's not a mainstream news media. Probably not endorsed by the US government. It's one of those "give me liberty or give me death" blog site at best.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Shotgunner51

*China's Nuclear-powered Submarine Spotted at Pakistani Port*
IANS *First published:* January 6, 2017, 11:23 PM IST | *Updated:* Yesterday 





In this April 23, 2009 file photo, a Chinese Navy submarine takes part in an international fleet review to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the founding of the People's Liberation Army Navy in Qingdao, Shandong province. (Photo: Reuters)

Read the full article at http://www.news18.com/news/world/ch...marine-spotted-at-pakistani-port-1332508.html

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## jkroo

Where's Martian's upgraded caculation? I just love it.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Shotgunner51

jkroo said:


> Where's Martian's upgraded caculation? I just love it.


Yes, data should be updated, especially with Russia-US START treaties
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/US_and_Russia_agree_on_START_nuclear_treaty_annexes_999.html
http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary...ons-a-first-step-to-reset-US-Russia-relations
For China, the 294 megatons data should be updated as well.
@Martian2

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Shotgunner51

@Martian2
Also should add non-thermonuclear (fissile only) stockpiles in other states, some updates here:
UK 16 megaton (warhead yield range 80~110 kt)
Israel 1.6~12 megatons
Pakistan 2.1 megatons
India 1 megaton (warhead yield range sub-kt~20 kt)
http://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/united-kingdom-nuclear-disarmament/
http://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/israel-nuclear-disarmament/
http://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/pakistan-nuclear-disarmament/
http://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/india-nuclear-disarmament/

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Martian2

*China has about 57 DF-41 ICBMs with 570 thermonuclear warheads.*

In January 2014, a Chinese DF-41 ICBM was seen leaving its manufacturing plant.

China Shows New Mobile ICBM on Internet | The Washington Free Beacon





Since China Aerospace Science and Industry Corporation (CASIC) builds both China's civilian Long March orbital rockets and the military DF-41 ICBM, we will assume a one-to-one correspondence. This means one military DF-41 ICBM is built for each civilian Long March orbital rocket. This assumption is reasonable, because China's military space budget dwarfs its civilian space budget.

In 2014, China conducted 16 orbital launches.[1]
In 2015, China conducted 19 orbital launches.[2]
In 2016, China attempted 22 orbital launches.[3]

Since January 2014 (when the picture of the DF-41 ICBM leaving its manufacturing plant was taken), China has launched 57 Long March orbital rockets. This means there should be about 57 DF-41 ICBMs produced to date.

Each Chinese DF-41 ICBM carries 10 MIRVs (ie. Multiple Independently-targetable Re-entry Vehicle).

*Thus, China has about 570 thermonuclear warheads deliverable by its DF-41 ICBMs. This total does not include the MIRVs on China's DF-5B 8-MIRV ICBMs, DF-31B 3-MIRV ICBMs, and JL-2 8-MIRV SLBMs.*

References:

1. Launch Activity Hits 20-year High in 2014 | Space News
2. 2015 Space Launch Statistics | SpaceFlight 101
3. USA, China Led World in Launches in 2016 | Parabolic Arc

Reactions: Like Like:
14


----------



## Bussard Ramjet

Martian2 said:


> we will assume a one-to-one correspondence.



How is that assumption valid? This is simply a haphazard assumption.



Martian2 said:


> because China's military space budget dwarfs its civilian space budget.



Sources?
(Also, even a larger military budget doesn't necessarily entail a larger nuke force.)



Martian2 said:


> Each Chinese DF-41 ICBM carries 10 MIRVs



Sources?


----------



## Martian2

The expansion by one brigade for China's DF-31A ICBM per year is normal. See citation from Britain`s International Institute of Strategic Studies below from the year 2010.

Assuming the expansion of China's DF-41 ICBM by 1 1/2 brigade per year is also reasonable, because China's nominal GDP ($11.4 trillion) is almost double the size of its nominal GDP in 2010 ($6 trillion).

China and START. Missile buildup may surpass U.S., Russia as they denuclearize

"China and START
By Richard D. Fisher Jr.,
The Washington Times,
20 September 2010
...
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."
----------

A larger military budget does imply a larger thermonuclear arsenal. For example, China fired 10 medium-range DF-21 ballistic missiles in ONE exercise as a show of force. The DF-21 is thermonuclear-capable.

China Flight-Tests 10 DF-21 Missiles | The Washington Free Beacon
----------

It is widely known that China's DF-41 ICBM can carry 10 MIRVs to overwhelm a missile defense system.

DF-41 | Deagel
*"In July 2014 China officially confirmed the development of the DF-41 next generation ICBM with a range of 12,000 kilometers and 10 MIRVed warheads as a direct response to US missile defenses such as THAAD."*

China Tests Powerful New Long-Range Nuclear Missile That Could Destroy A Major U.S. City In 30 Minutes | National Security
“As with previous MIRV tests, the PLA has used a small number of reentry vehicles to mask the real capability of the DF-41, which is estimated to be able to loft up to 10 warheads,” said Fisher.

China Flight Tests New Multiple-Warhead Missile | The Washington Free Beacon
"The DF-41 is assessed by U.S. intelligence agencies to be powerful enough to deliver between six and 10 warheads up to 7,456 miles—far enough to reach every corner of the United States from launch areas in eastern China."

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Shotgunner51

Martian2 said:


> China fired 10 medium-range DF-21 ballistic missiles in ONE exercise as a show of force. The DF-21 is thermonuclear-capable.




Welcome back!

Though off-topic but this article corresponds to your statement
*China’s PLA held live drills with 100 ballistic missiles*
http://www.msn.com/en-in/news/world/china’s-pla-held-live-drills-with-100-ballistic-missiles-chinese-media/ar-BBy9jLG?li=AAggbRN

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## jkroo

Shotgunner51 said:


> Welcome back!
> 
> Though off-topic but this corresponds to your statement
> *China’s PLA held live drills with 100 ballistic missiles*
> http://www.msn.com/en-in/news/world/china’s-pla-held-live-drills-with-100-ballistic-missiles-chinese-media/ar-BBy9jLG?li=AAggbRN



Oh, holly! 100 ballistic missiles that can erase a small country on the earth.

Missiles Kindom just has too many big toys.

Awesome

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Martian2

*China may have deployed 3 brigades of DF-41 ICBMs | Sputnik News*

I had previously guessed that China had built 57 DF-41 ICBMs (or 4 1/2 brigades).

However, the latest news from Sputnik News (via Apple Daily newspaper) indicates China has deployed only three brigades of DF-41 ICBMs.

DF-41 ICBM brigade locations:
a. near Daqing City
b. Xinyang, Henan
c. Xinjiang

3 brigades of DF-41 ICBMs x 12 ICBMs per brigade = 36 DF-41 ICBMs

36 DF-41 ICBMs x 10 MIRVs = 360 total thermonuclear warheads on DF-41 ICBMs
----------

China May Have Deployed Missiles Not Far From Border With Russia | Sputnik News

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Martian2

*China could have deployed 96 DF-41 ICBMs.*

Let's count the total number of Chinese DF-41 ICBMs.

Chinese media, Russia's Sputnik News, and Russia's RT have reported that China has deployed three brigades of DF-41 ICBMs.

The DF-41 ICBM locations are:
a. Daqing City, Heilongjiang Province in northeastern China (see video below)
b. Xinyang City, Henan Province in central China
c. Xinjiang Province in northwestern China (deployment soon)

However, there appears to be a possible fourth DF-41 ICBM brigade in Tibet Province in southwestern China (see picture below). The terrain looks like the Tibetan plateau. The wide distribution of DF-41 ICBMs throughout continental-sized China is logical.





----------

*Re-load of DF-41 ICBM*

Chinese media have reported the deployment of three brigades of DF-41 ICBMs. There is photographic evidence of a possible fourth brigade of DF-41 ICBMs on the Tibetan plateau. However, we have only counted the number of DF-41 ICBM TELs (ie. Transporter Erector Launcher).

It is inefficient to fire only one ballistic missile per launcher. It is more logical to fire two ballistic missiles per launcher. This process is called re-loading. A DF-41 TEL can either be re-loaded with another DF-41 ICBM missile nearby or the DF-41 TEL can drive to a hidden re-supply location for another DF-41 ICBM.

If you accept that China has one re-load missile for each DF-41 TEL then the total number of Chinese DF-41 ICBMs has to be doubled.

Four brigades of DF-41 ICBMs (Heilongjiang, Henan, Xinjiang, and Tibet Provinces) with one re-load per DF-41 TEL yields 96 total DF-41 ICBMs.

4 DF-41 ICBM brigades x 12 DF-41 ICBM ballistic missiles per brigade x 2 (for the re-load) = 96 total DF-41 ICBMs

96 DF-41 ICBMs x 10 MIRVs for each DF-41 ICBM = 960 thermonuclear warheads on DF-41 ICBMs
----------

By the way, ballistic missile re-loading was a common practice. Thus, the US-Soviet/Russian START treaty specifically prohibits missile reloading (including silo-based ICBMs). However, China is not a signatory to any arms-control treaty on ICBMs and is not bound by the prohibition on ICBM reload.

China Conducts Second Flight Test of New Long-Range Missile | The Washington Free Beacon

*"Fisher said there are reports that the Second Artillery Corps, as China’s missile service is called, includes at least one reload missile for each mobile missile-launcher system.*

*If the new DF-41 is deployed in the future with a reload missile per launcher, it would vastly increase the numbers of nuclear warheads in the Chinese arsenal, as many as 120 to 240 warheads for each DF-41 [brigade] unit."*





----------

If you haven't seen it yet, here is a Chinese DF-41 ICBM spotted at Daqing City, Heilongjiang Province in northeastern China. Chinese ballistic missiles are always deployed in a brigade, because it is a known standard Chinese military practice. There are charts of Chinese military brigades and the type of ballistic missiles under their control. Thus, if you spot a Chinese ballistic missile at a location then there are more nearby from the same brigade.





----------

This is an organization chart of a typical Chinese ballistic missile base. As you can see, the standard Chinese ballistic missile unit is a brigade. For example, in the chart below, the Hunan 803 Brigade controls 12 DF-5A ICBMs (which may have been upgraded by now to DF-5B 8-MIRV ICBMs).

Spotlight on New Second Artillery ICBM Base Leadership | Asia Eye

*Chart I: Organizational Structure of 55 Base*




"Source: Second Artillery Handbook, July 25, 2011 (unpublished draft)"

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Surya 1

Martian2 said:


> 3. China - 294 megatons (China has over half the nuclear firepower of the United States)



So 294 MT is half of 1273 MT?


----------



## Shotgunner51

Surya 1 said:


> So 294 MT is half of 1273 MT?




Read his posts again

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Surya 1

Shotgunner51 said:


> Read his posts again
> 
> View attachment 371756
> 
> View attachment 371759



Ok


----------



## terranMarine

Indian maths

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Shotgunner51

Martian2 said:


> Four brigades of DF-41 ICBMs (Heilongjiang, Henan, Xinjiang, and Tibet Provinces) with one re-load per DF-41 TEL yields 96 total DF-41 ICBMs.




Thanks for your analysis on DF41. Those brigades you mentioned use road-mobile TEL, how about rail-mobile launcher, are they deployed? Quantity?






There are also other topics like DF31, DF5B and such, please also share whenever convenient, thanks!

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Martian2 said:


> *China could have deployed 96 DF-41 ICBMs.*
> 
> Let's count the total number of Chinese DF-41 ICBMs.
> 
> Chinese media, Russia's Sputnik News, and Russia's RT have reported that China has deployed three brigades of DF-41 ICBMs.
> 
> The DF-41 ICBM locations are:
> a. Daqing City, Heilongjiang Province in northeastern China (see video below)
> b. Xinyang City, Henan Province in central China
> c. Xinjiang Province in northwestern China (deployment soon)
> 
> However, there appears to be a possible fourth DF-41 ICBM brigade in Tibet Province in southwestern China (see picture below). The terrain looks like the Tibetan plateau. The wide distribution of DF-41 ICBMs throughout continental-sized China is logical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----------
> 
> *Re-load of DF-41 ICBM*
> 
> Chinese media have reported the deployment of three brigades of DF-41 ICBMs. There is photographic evidence of a possible fourth brigade of DF-41 ICBMs on the Tibetan plateau. However, we have only counted the number of DF-41 ICBM TELs (ie. Transporter Erector Launcher).
> 
> It is inefficient to fire only one ballistic missile per launcher. It is more logical to fire two ballistic missiles per launcher. This process is called re-loading. A DF-41 TEL can either be re-loaded with another DF-41 ICBM missile nearby or the DF-41 TEL can drive to a hidden re-supply location for another DF-41 ICBM.
> 
> If you accept that China has one re-load missile for each DF-41 TEL then the total number of Chinese DF-41 ICBMs has to be doubled.
> 
> Four brigades of DF-41 ICBMs (Heilongjiang, Henan, Xinjiang, and Tibet Provinces) with one re-load per DF-41 TEL yields 96 total DF-41 ICBMs.
> 
> 4 DF-41 ICBM brigades x 12 DF-41 ICBM ballistic missiles per brigade x 2 (for the re-load) = 96 total DF-41 ICBMs
> 
> 96 DF-41 ICBMs x 10 MIRVs for each DF-41 ICBM = 960 thermonuclear warheads on DF-41 ICBMs
> ----------
> 
> By the way, ballistic missile re-loading was a common practice. Thus, the US-Soviet/Russian START treaty specifically prohibits missile reloading (including silo-based ICBMs). However, China is not a signatory to any arms-control treaty on ICBMs and is not bound by the prohibition on ICBM reload.
> 
> China Conducts Second Flight Test of New Long-Range Missile | The Washington Free Beacon
> 
> *"Fisher said there are reports that the Second Artillery Corps, as China’s missile service is called, includes at least one reload missile for each mobile missile-launcher system.*
> 
> *If the new DF-41 is deployed in the future with a reload missile per launcher, it would vastly increase the numbers of nuclear warheads in the Chinese arsenal, as many as 120 to 240 warheads for each DF-41 [brigade] unit."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----------
> 
> If you haven't seen it yet, here is a Chinese DF-41 ICBM spotted at Daqing City, Heilongjiang Province in northeastern China. Chinese ballistic missiles are always deployed in a brigade, because it is a known standard Chinese military practice. There are charts of Chinese military brigades and the type of ballistic missiles under their control. Thus, if you spot a Chinese ballistic missile at a location then there are more nearby from the same brigade.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----------
> 
> This is an organization chart of a typical Chinese ballistic missile base. As you can see, the standard Chinese ballistic missile unit is a brigade. For example, in the chart below, the Hunan 803 Brigade controls 12 DF-5A ICBMs (which may have been upgraded by now to DF-5B 8-MIRV ICBMs).
> 
> Spotlight on New Second Artillery ICBM Base Leadership | Asia Eye
> 
> *Chart I: Organizational Structure of 55 Base*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Source: Second Artillery Handbook, July 25, 2011 (unpublished draft)"



The re-load.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## TaiShang

I think this is the one recently spotted.












Also DF 31, drills in Jiling:






2016年东风-31导弹在吉林省某地进行冬季训练，该导弹可能是从其他基地转场来的

The topography of the base is interesting, offering a natural barrier.

@Martian2

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## grey boy 2

TaiShang said:


> I think this is the one recently spotted.
> 
> 
> View attachment 371954
> 
> 
> 
> @Martian2



I believed its new, nice one, thanks for sharing

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Martian2

*Stratfor's New Chinese ICBM Range Map*

Stratfor has released an updated map of the ranges of Chinese ICBMs launched from northeastern Heilongjiang Province. I will discuss the ICBMs listed on Stratfor's map.

How Far China's Nuclear Capabilities Stretch | Stratfor





----------

*China's DF-31 ICBM* can only reach Alaska and Hawaii. "The United States currently fields 26 interceptors at Fort Greely in Alaska and four at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California."[1] We expect China to use the DF-31 ICBM to neutralize the anti-ballistic missile interceptor base at Fort Greely in Alaska.

China has two brigades of the solid-fuel DF-31 ICBM[2] located at:

1. Nanyang (813th Brigade)
2. Xining (Urban/Industrial Brigade or U/I Brigade)

*China's DF-31A ICBM* can reach every major American city except Miami, Florida.

China has seven brigades of the solid-fuel DF-31A ICBM[3] located at:

1. Delingha
2. Haiyan
3. Datong (809 Brigade)
4. Tainshui (812 Brigade)
5. Xixia
6. Shaoyang (805 Brigade)
7. Yuxi

*China's DF-5A/B ICBM* can reach all of the United States.

China has eight brigades of the liquid-fuel DF-5A/B ICBM[4] located at:

1. Luoning/Luoyang (804th brigade)
2. Wuzhai (Base 25)
3. Xuanhua
4. Tongdao (805th brigade)
5. Lushi (801st brigade)
6. Jingxian (803rd brigade)
7. Jingxian (814th brigade)
8. Hunan (818th brigade)

*China's DF-41 ICBM* can also reach all of the United States.

China probably has four brigades of the solid-fuel DF-41 ICBM[5] located at:

a. Daqing City, Heilongjiang Province in northeastern China
b. Xinyang City, Henan Province in central China
c. Xinjiang Province in northwestern China (deployment soon)
d. There appears to be a fourth DF-41 ICBM brigade on the Chinese Tibetan Plateau (see picture below) in Tibet Province, China.





The total number of thermonuclear warheads on Chinese ICBMs can be calculated.

DF-31: 2 brigades x 12 missiles per brigade = 24 DF-31 ICBMs
DF-31A: 7 brigades x 12 missiles per brigade = 84 DF-31A ICBMs
DF-5A/B: 8 brigades x 12 missiles per brigade = 96 DF-5A/B ICBMs
DF-41: 4 brigades x 12 missiles per brigade = 48 DF-41 ICBMs

The DF-31 can only carry a single warhead. Thus, there are 24 thermonuclear warheads carried on the DF-31 ICBMs.
We should assume all DF-31A ICBMs are being upgraded to the DF-31B 3-MIRV variant.[6] Each DF-31A/B can carry three MIRVs. 84 DF-31A/B ICBMs x 3 = 252 thermonuclear warheads.
The DF-5A missiles are being upgraded to DF-5B 8-MIRV missiles.[7] 96 DF-5B x 8 MIRVs = 768 thermonuclear warheads.
The DF-41 ICBM carries 10 MIRVs on each missile.[8] 48 DF-41 ICBMs x 10 MIRVs= 480 thermonuclear warheads.

The current total is 1,524 thermonuclear warheads on Chinese ICBMs (which does not include SLBMs).

I think the technical definition of a re-load for an ICBM in a silo is that another ICBM can be fired within 24 hours.

If you accept China has one re-load ICBM per TEL or Silo then you have to double China's total to 3,048 land-based thermonuclear warheads.

Does 3,048 land-based Chinese thermonuclear warheads seem like a lot? It is important to remember that China detonated its first 3.3-megaton thermonuclear bomb in 1967. That was 50 years ago. China's economy is huge and it had 50 years to build 3,048 land-based thermonuclear warheads.

References:

1. Ground Based Interceptor (GBI) - GlobalSecurity.org

2. PLA Second Artillery Corps | Air Power Australia

3. *China: New START-type report | Nuclear Forces*
Map of known DF-5A and DF-5B ICBM silo locations




Looking at an old map of known DF-5A and DF-5B silo locations, we see three brigades. Two brigades are DF-5A five-megaton single-warhead ICBMs and one brigade is DF-5B 10-MIRVed ICBMs.

As an aside, *the map shows the locations of four DF-31A brigades.*

4. DF-5 | Federation of American Scientists
PLA Second Artillery Corps | Air Power Australia (54th and 55th bases)
MULTIMEGATON WEAPONS | Johnston Archive

5. China May Have Deployed Missiles Not Far From Border With Russia | Sputnik News

6. Confirmed: China is Upgrading ICBMs With Multiple Warheads | The Diplomat
"Beijing has been retrofitting single-warhead ICBMs with multiple, independently targetable re-entry vehicles.

For the past several months, China has been upgrading single-warhead intercontinental ballistic missiles with multiple, independently targetable re-entry vehicles (MIRVs), according to U.S. intelligence agencies, The Washington Times reports.

'China is re-engineering its long-range ballistic missiles to carry multiple nuclear warheads,' the head of U.S. Strategic Command Admiral Cecil D. Haney said in a January 22 speech."
----------
China puts on show of force with DF-31B mobile ICBM missile test | South China Morning Post
"The People's Liberation Army launched a Dongfeng-31B on September 25 from the Wuzhai Missile and Space Test Centre - also known as the Taiyuan Satellite Launch Centre - in Shanxi province, according to US-based online newspaper The Washington Free Beacon.

The DF-31B is an upgraded version of the DF-31A and the launch was at least the second time the PLA's Second Artillery Corps had tested a DF-31 missile in the past three months. In late July, the PLA conducted a flight test of a DF-31A in what was the fourth known flight test of that missile in two years.
...
'The DF-31A was designed to carry three warheads. I think the new DF-31B is possibly a multi-warhead version with higher accuracy,' Wong said."

7. China adds warheads to older DF-5s | The Washington Times
"China’s military has begun retrofitting single-warhead DF-5 intercontinental ballistic missiles with multiple, independently targetable re-entry vehicles, according to U.S. defense officials. The upgrading of the DF-5 missiles with multiple warheads, known as MIRVs, was detected by U.S. intelligence agencies within the past several months.

The addition of three warheads on the long-range missiles marks a significant shift for China’s nuclear arsenal that is increasing in both warheads and missile systems under a major buildup."

8. DF-41 | Deagel
"In July 2014 China officially confirmed the development of the DF-41 next generation ICBM with a range of 12,000 kilometers and 10 MIRVed warheads as a direct response to US missile defenses such as THAAD."

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
1 | Like Like:
11


----------



## Daniel808

Martian2 said:


> *Stratfor's New Chinese ICBM Range Map*
> 
> Stratfor has released an updated map of the ranges of Chinese ICBMs launched from northeastern Heilongjiang Province. I will discuss the ICBMs listed on Stratfor's map.
> 
> How Far China's Nuclear Capabilities Stretch | Stratfor
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----------
> 
> *China's DF-31 ICBM* can only reach Alaska and Hawaii. "The United States currently fields 26 interceptors at Fort Greely in Alaska and four at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California."[1] We expect China to use the DF-31 ICBM to neutralize the anti-ballistic missile interceptor base at Fort Greely in Alaska.
> 
> China has two brigades of the solid-fuel DF-31 ICBM[2] located at:
> 
> 1. Nanyang (813th Brigade)
> 2. Xining (Urban/Industrial Brigade or U/I Brigade)
> 
> *China's DF-31A ICBM* can reach every major American city except Miami, Florida.
> 
> China has seven brigades of the solid-fuel DF-31A ICBM[3] located at:
> 
> 1. Delingha
> 2. Haiyan
> 3. Datong (809 Brigade)
> 4. Tainshui (812 Brigade)
> 5. Xixia
> 6. Shaoyang (805 Brigade)
> 7. Yuxi
> 
> *China's DF-5A/B ICBM* can reach all of the United States.
> 
> China has eight brigades of the liquid-fuel DF-5A/B ICBM[4] located at:
> 
> 1. Luoning/Luoyang (804th brigade)
> 2. Wuzhai (Base 25)
> 3. Xuanhua
> 4. Tongdao (805th brigade)
> 5. Lushi (801st brigade)
> 6. Jingxian (803rd brigade)
> 7. Jingxian (814th brigade)
> 8. Hunan (818th brigade)
> 
> *China's DF-41 ICBM* can also reach all of the United States.
> 
> China probably has four brigades of the solid-fuel DF-41 ICBM[5] located at:
> 
> a. Daqing City, Heilongjiang Province in northeastern China
> b. Xinyang City, Henan Province in central China
> c. Xinjiang Province in northwestern China (deployment soon)
> d. There appears to be a fourth DF-41 ICBM brigade on the Chinese Tibetan Plateau (see picture below) in Tibet Province, China.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The total number of thermonuclear warheads on Chinese ICBMs can be calculated.
> 
> DF-31: 2 brigades x 12 missiles per brigade = 24 DF-31 ICBMs
> DF-31A: 7 brigades x 12 missiles per brigade = 84 DF-31A ICBMs
> DF-5A/B: 8 brigades x 12 missiles per brigade = 96 DF-5A/B ICBMs
> DF-41: 4 brigades x 12 missiles per brigade = 48 DF-41 ICBMs
> 
> The DF-31 can only carry a single warhead. Thus, there are 24 thermonuclear warheads carried on the DF-31 ICBMs.
> We should assume all DF-31A ICBMs are being upgraded to the DF-31B 3-MIRV variant.[6] Each DF-31A/B can carry three MIRVs. 84 DF-31A/B ICBMs x 3 = 252 thermonuclear warheads.
> The DF-5A missiles are being upgraded to DF-5B 8-MIRV missiles.[7] 96 DF-5B x 8 MIRVs = 768 thermonuclear warheads.
> The DF-41 ICBM carries 10 MIRVs on each missile.[8] 48 DF-41 ICBMs x 10 MIRVs= 480 thermonuclear warheads.
> 
> The current total is 1,524 thermonuclear warheads on Chinese ICBMs (which does not include SLBMs).
> 
> I think the technical definition of a re-load for an ICBM in a silo is that another ICBM can be fired within 24 hours.
> 
> If you accept China has one re-load ICBM per TEL or Silo then you have to double China's total to 3,048 land-based thermonuclear warheads.
> 
> Does 3,048 land-based Chinese thermonuclear warheads seem like a lot? It is important to remember that China detonated its first 3.3-megaton thermonuclear bomb in 1967. That was 50 years ago. China's economy is huge and it had 50 years to build 3,048 land-based thermonuclear warheads.
> 
> References:
> 
> 1. Ground Based Interceptor (GBI) - GlobalSecurity.org
> 2. PLA Second Artillery Corps | Air Power Australia
> 3. *China: New START-type report | Nuclear Forces*
> Map of known DF-5A and DF-5B ICBM silo locations
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Looking at an old map of known DF-5A and DF-5B silo locations, we see three brigades. Two brigades are DF-5A five-megaton single-warhead ICBMs and one brigade is DF-5B 10-MIRVed ICBMs.
> 
> As an aside, *the map shows the locations of four DF-31A brigades*
> "Beijing has been retrofitting single-warhead ICBMs with multiple, independently targetable re-entry vehicles.
> 
> For the past several months, China has been upgrading single-warhead intercontinental ballistic missiles with multiple, independently targetable re-entry vehicles (MIRVs), according to U.S. intelligence agencies, The Washington Times reports.
> 
> 'China is re-engineering its long-range ballistic missiles to carry multiple nuclear warheads,' the head of U.S. Strategic Command Admiral Cecil D. Haney said in a January 22 speech."
> ----------
> China puts on show of force with DF-31B mobile ICBM missile test | South China Morning Post
> "The People's Liberation Army launched a Dongfeng-31B on September 25 from the Wuzhai Missile and Space Test Centre - also known as the Taiyuan Satellite Launch Centre - in Shanxi province, according to US-based online newspaper The Washington Free Beacon.
> 
> The DF-31B is an upgraded version of the DF-31A and the launch was at least the second time the PLA's Second Artillery Corps had tested a DF-31 missile in the past three months. In late July, the PLA conducted a flight test of a DF-31A in what was the fourth known flight test of that missile in two years.
> ...
> 'The DF-31A was designed to carry three warheads. I think the new DF-31B is possibly a multi-warhead version with higher accuracy,' Wong said."
> 7. China adds warheads to older DF-5s | The Washington Times
> "China’s military has begun retrofitting single-warhead DF-5 intercontinental ballistic missiles with multiple, independently targetable re-entry vehicles, according to U.S. defense officials. The upgrading of the DF-5 missiles with multiple warheads, known as MIRVs, was detected by U.S. intelligence agencies within the past several months.
> 
> The addition of three warheads on the long-range missiles marks a significant shift for China’s nuclear arsenal that is increasing in both warheads and missile systems under a major buildup."
> 8. DF-41 | Deagel
> "In July 2014 China officially confirmed the development of the DF-41 next generation ICBM with a range of 12,000 kilometers and 10 MIRVed warheads as a direct response to US missile defenses such as THAAD."


Thank you very bery much for Calculation and Analysis brother @Martian
Happy Chinese new year, bro

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Martian2 said:


> *China's DF-31 ICBM* can only reach Alaska and Hawaii. "The United States currently fields 26 interceptors at Fort Greely in Alaska and four at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California."[1] We expect China to use the DF-31 ICBM to neutralize the anti-ballistic missile interceptor base at Fort Greely in Alaska.



The DF-31 could probably neutralize it by carrying a HGV warhead.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Martian2

*Can you re-load a Chinese DF-5B ICBM silo?*

If it is a hot-launch then the Chinese DF-5B ICBM silo will be out of commission for about a month. The silo has to be cleaned and all of the melted components have to be replaced. During a nuclear war, this is not realistic.

However, a cold-launched DF-5B ICBM can be reloaded like a Peacekeeper ICBM.

(U) Peacekeeper (PK) Sustainment/Deactivation
"The Peacekeeper ICBM utilizes a 'cold launching' method which utilizes a gas generator to eject the missile from the missile silo to a height of 20 to 30 meters, at which point the first stage solid propellant motor ignites. This method reduces damage to the silo on launch, facilitating the refurbishment and reuse of the silo."

An alternative method is to mechanically push the ICBM out of the silo before igniting its engines. This will minimize the damage to the silo and permit a re-load.





In conclusion, a Chinese DF-5B ICBM silo can be reloaded if it is cold-launched or if it is mechanically pushed out of the silo before engine ignition.
----------

As an aside, the START TREATY defined "rapid reload."

START TREATY ANNEX TERMS AND THEIR DEFINITIONS
"87. (98) The term 'rapid reload' means reloading a silo launcher of ICBMs in less than 12 hours or a mobile launcher of ICBMs in less than four hours after a missile has been launched or removed from such a launcher."

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Martian2

*Update on China's DF-31A, DF-5B, and DF-41 ICBMs | Popular Science*

Popular Science states: "The three-stage *DF-31A*, with an estimated range of over 6,835 miles, has a *payload of three to five 150 kiloton MIRV warheads*, making it powerful enough to strike most of the continental USA from Chinese territory."​
I think "three to five 150 kiloton MIRV warheads" on the DF-31A sounds reasonable. Seismic data have proven that China possesses the most advanced W88-equivalent thermonuclear warhead design. "[In] 1995, when American experts analyzing Chinese nuclear test results found similarities to America's most advanced miniature warhead, the W-88."

Popular Science states: "*DF-5*, which has a range of over 7,450 miles and the capacity to carry 3.2 tons—as either be a 5 megaton 'city buster' hydrogen bomb, or, more recently, *3 to 8 multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle (MIRV) nuclear warheads*, that can each individually strike a different target."​
I think there are four reasons to believe China's DF-5B ICBM carries 8 MIRVs. Firstly, China wants to penetrate the US anti-ballistic missile shield. 8 MIRVs are much harder to intercept than only 3 MIRVs.

Secondly, Richard Fisher showed a diagram in 1999 of 8 MIRVs within a DF-5 ICBM with data from both the China Academy of Launch Vehicle Technology and the Beijing Institute of Aerodynamics.

Thirdly, the diameter of the DF-5B is a huge 11 feet. There is plenty of room to fit in 8 separate warheads.

Fourthly, let's benchmark China's DF-5B against the Russian SS-18 Satan ICBM. The DF-5B has a larger diameter at 11 feet vs the SS-18's 10-foot diameter. Both the DF-5B and the Russian SS-18 have the same length at 106 feet. The Russian SS-18 was "deployed with 10 warheads and up to 40 penetration aids and the missile's high throw-weight made it theoretically capable of carrying more warheads or penetration aids." Thus, there is every reason to believe China's DF-5B ICBM can carry at least 10 thermonuclear warheads.

Popular Science states: "The 9,320-mile-range *DF-41 ICBM* is one of the world's most lethal missiles. Weighing about 80 tons, it is carried and launched by a 12X12 all-terrain truck, and can also be launched from rail. *Its payload of 12 MIRV nuclear warheads* can be augmented with decoys and jammers to confuse enemy sensors, letting the actual warheads slip past missile defenses."​
I think Popular Science is right that China's DF-41 ICBM is armed with 12 MIRV thermonuclear warheads. It is consistent with the report in China's Global Times of a maxiumum of 12 MIRVs on each DF-41 ICBM.

Dongfeng-41 will bring China more respect | Global Times

"According to reports, the Dongfeng-41 is a nuclear solid-fuel road-mobile intercontinental ballistic missile. With a range of 14,000 kilometers and *a payload of 10-12 nuclear warheads*, it can target anywhere in the world and is widely considered one of the most advanced intercontinental ballistic missiles."​
During the last 46 years (after China launched the DF-5 ICBM in 1971), China has made vast improvements in carbon-composite technology, improved semiconductors and electronics, and new rocket fuel with higher energy density and specific impulse. Thus, it is reasonable that China's most advanced DF-41 ICBM can carry 12 MIRVs. The DF-41 should be the lightest (per volume) and most powerful of China's ICBMs. It should have the highest throw-weight to carry 12 MIRVs.
----------

THE NUCLEAR ARSENALS OF CHINA AND THE U.S.: PLANS FOR A FUTURE ARMAGEDDON | Popular Science





----------

In the illustration below (from Richard Fisher in 1999), we can see that China had the ability to launch MIRVed warheads after it had successfully put multiple Iridium satellites into orbit. It is now 2017 and China had 18 years to improve its MIRV dispenser.

China Increases Its Missile Forces While Opposing U.S. Missile Defense | Heritage

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Martian2

*China Tests [DF-5C ICBM] Missile With 10 Warheads | The Washington Free Beacon*

In the previous post, I said: "Fourthly, let's benchmark China's DF-5B against the Russian SS-18 Satan ICBM. The DF-5B has a larger diameter at 11 feet vs the SS-18's 10-foot diameter. Both the DF-5B and the Russian SS-18 have the same length at 106 feet. The Russian SS-18 was 'deployed with 10 warheads and up to 40 penetration aids and the missile's high throw-weight made it theoretically capable of carrying more warheads or penetration aids.' *Thus, there is every reason to believe China's DF-5B ICBM can carry at least 10 thermonuclear warheads.*"

My insight was right on target. The Washington Free Beacon just reported a test of China's DF-5C ICBM with 10 MIRVs (see article below).
----------

China Tests Missile With 10 Warheads | The Washington Free Beacon

"*China flight tested a new variant of a long-range missile with 10 warheads in what defense officials say represents a dramatic shift in Beijing's strategic nuclear posture.

The flight test of the DF-5C missile was carried out earlier this month using 10 multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles, or MIRVs. The test of the inert warheads was monitored closely by U.S. intelligence agencies, said two officials familiar with reports of the missile test.

The missile was fired from the Taiyuan Space Launch Center in central China and flew to an impact range in the western Chinese desert.
...
The test of a missile with 10 warheads is significant because it indicates the secretive Chinese military is increasing the number of warheads in its arsenal.*"

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Shotgunner51

Martian2 said:


> *China Tests [DF-5C ICBM] Missile With 10 Warheads | The Washington Free Beacon*
> 
> In the previous post, I said: "Fourthly, let's benchmark China's DF-5B against the Russian SS-18 Satan ICBM. The DF-5B has a larger diameter at 11 feet vs the SS-18's 10-foot diameter. Both the DF-5B and the Russian SS-18 have the same length at 106 feet. The Russian SS-18 was 'deployed with 10 warheads and up to 40 penetration aids and the missile's high throw-weight made it theoretically capable of carrying more warheads or penetration aids.' *Thus, there is every reason to believe China's DF-5B ICBM can carry at least 10 thermonuclear warheads.*"
> 
> My insight was right on target. The Washington Free Beacon just reported a test of China's DF-5C ICBM with 10 MIRVs (see article below).
> ----------
> 
> China Tests Missile With 10 Warheads | The Washington Free Beacon
> 
> "*China flight tested a new variant of a long-range missile with 10 warheads in what defense officials say represents a dramatic shift in Beijing's strategic nuclear posture.
> 
> The flight test of the DF-5C missile was carried out earlier this month using 10 multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles, or MIRVs. The test of the inert warheads was monitored closely by U.S. intelligence agencies, said two officials familiar with reports of the missile test.
> 
> The missile was fired from the Taiyuan Space Launch Center in central China and flew to an impact range in the western Chinese desert.
> ...
> The test of a missile with 10 warheads is significant because it indicates the secretive Chinese military is increasing the number of warheads in its arsenal.*"



Good news indeed. DF-5A used to carry a single 5 megaton warhead, now MIRVed with 10-12 warheads (and/or penetration aids) can greatly increase effectiveness of DF-5 series, making it valuable asset in PLARF inventory. With the continual deployment of upgraded DF-5 series, I think PLA should abandon or at least modify the outdated NFU doctrine.

Land/rail-mobile DF-31/41 series, sea-based JL-2/3, these can be used in second strikes. But liquid-fueled silo-launched DF-5 series doesn't quite fit the purpose, its long preparation time only makes it a first strike option.
It's economically sustainable to maintain a sizable stock of DF-5 (or LM-2), since it can be used as satellite launch vehicle.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Shotgunner51

Martian2 said:


> *Update on China's DF-31A, DF-5B, and DF-41 ICBMs | Popular Science*




The infographic below shows the range of different Chinese missile platforms, you have mentioned those ICBM targeting US including DF-31A, DF-41 and DF-5. Also there is SLBM JL-2. China should modify NFU doctrine, maintain a sizable stock of DF-5 (when used as SLV then it is LM-2) and use it in preemptive strike when security situation deems necessary.

Shorter range ICBM should be used for western Europe, that's DF-31.

IRBM like DF-21, DF-26 and a range of cruise missiles can cover US bases in Asia Pacific, South Asia and Middle East.







http://www.businessinsider.com/chinese-missiles-range-chart-2017-1

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Martian2

*China has nine brigades of DF-5B ICBMs.*

Stratfor says there are Chinese DF-5A/B ICBMs located in China's northeastern Heilongjiang province. I will assume the minimum of only one brigade. There could be two DF-5A/B ICBM brigades in Heilongjiang province. For example, the Chinese ICBM missile bases at Anhui, Henan, and Hunan have two brigades of DF-5B ICBMs in each province.

China's DF-5A/B ICBM can reach all of the United States.

China has nine brigades of the liquid-fuel DF-5A/B ICBM[4] located at:

1. Luoning/Luoyang (804th brigade), Henan province
2. Wuzhai (Base 25), Shanxi province
3. Xuanhua, Hebei province
4. Tongdao (805th brigade), Hunan province
5. Lushi (801st brigade), Henan province
6. Jingxian (803rd brigade), Anhui province
7. Jingxian (814th brigade), Anhui province
8. Hunan (818th brigade), Hunan province
9. Heilongjiang province *(see Stratfor citation below)*

9 DF-5B brigades x 12 ICBMs per brigade x 8 MIRVs per DF-5B ICBM = 846 thermonuclear warheads

Over the next few years, China will most likely upgrade all DF-5B ICBMs to DF-5C ICBMs. The reason is the greater probability of penetrating anti-ballistic missile defenses.

9 DF-5C brigades x 12 ICBMs per brigade x 10 MIRVs per DF-5C ICBM = 1,080 thermonuclear warheads
----------

How Far China's Nuclear Capabilities Stretch | Stratfor

*"...Heilongjiang province is the ideal location to maximize the missile's reach so it covers all of the continental United States. The Dongfeng-5 missiles have long been based in the same region for the same reasons."*

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Martian2

*China and US have equal uranium reserves | World Atlas*

According to the World Atlas, China and the US each have about 200,000 metric tons of uranium reserves.

This means China has the uranium resources to build a thermonuclear arsenal equivalent to the United States. If the US builds thousands of new thermonuclear warheads, China has the raw material to match the US in thermonuclear capability.

If China decides to reclaim Outer Mongolia, it will add another 140,000 metric tons of uranium reserves to the Chinese arsenal.

Outer Mongolia's uranium will enable China to build a larger thermonuclear arsenal than the United States.

*China and Outer Mongolia: 340,600 metric tons of uranium reserves
United States: 207,400 metric tons of uranium reserves*
----------

The 16 Biggest Uranium Reserves In The World | World Atlas

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Shotgunner51

Martian2 said:


> *China and US have equal uranium reserves | World Atlas*
> 
> According to the World Atlas, China and the US each have about 200,000 metric tons of uranium reserves.
> 
> This means China has the uranium resources to build a thermonuclear arsenal equivalent to the United States. If the US builds thousands of new thermonuclear warheads, China has the raw material to match the US in thermonuclear capability.
> 
> If China decides to reclaim Outer Mongolia, it will add another 140,000 metric tons of uranium reserves to the Chinese arsenal.
> 
> Outer Mongolia's uranium will enable China to build a larger thermonuclear arsenal than the United States.
> 
> *China and Outer Mongolia: 340,600 metric tons of uranium reserves*
> *United States: 207,400 metric tons of uranium reserves*
> ----------
> 
> The 16 Biggest Uranium Reserves In The World | World Atlas


Good info. Despite having sizable natural reserves at home, China instead actively develops mines in Kazakhstan, Niger, Namibia.

Kazakhstan is the top source, see below chart. China General Nuclear Corp (CGN) and Kazakhstan's Kazatomprom has begun cooperation since 2006 on uranium development and trade and nuclear fuel fabrication was initiated in 2006. The two have a uranium mining joint venture, a nuclear fuel plant. CGN also imports nuclear fuel pellets and uranium from Kazatomprom.

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NP-Kazakhstan-and-China-further-cooperation-30111601.html






Niger is the earliest production base for China Nuclear International Uranium Corporation (*Sino-U*), which began operation at Azelik in 2010. Azelik has reported resources of 13,000 tU at 0.2%, owned by Societe des Mines d'Azelik SA (SOMINA), a joint venture established in 2007 in which the government of Niger has a 33% interest and Sino-U holds 37.2%. The remainder of the SOMINA is owned by Chinese investment management company ZXJOY Invest, and China-based private mining and investment firm Trendfield Holdings.

Other than greenfield investments in Kazakhstan, Niger and Namibia, China sovereign funds like CIC has been investing in mine firms in Australia and Canada.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Martian2 said:


> *China and US have equal uranium reserves | World Atlas*
> 
> According to the World Atlas, China and the US each have about 200,000 metric tons of uranium reserves.
> 
> This means China has the uranium resources to build a thermonuclear arsenal equivalent to the United States. If the US builds thousands of new thermonuclear warheads, China has the raw material to match the US in thermonuclear capability.
> 
> If China decides to reclaim Outer Mongolia, it will add another 140,000 metric tons of uranium reserves to the Chinese arsenal.
> 
> Outer Mongolia's uranium will enable China to build a larger thermonuclear arsenal than the United States.
> 
> *China and Outer Mongolia: 340,600 metric tons of uranium reserves*
> *United States: 207,400 metric tons of uranium reserves*
> ----------
> 
> The 16 Biggest Uranium Reserves In The World | World Atlas



China has the most advanced nuclear warheads, this is what matters the most.

Also, China's Plutonium reserve is even much bigger.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Penguin

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> China has the most advanced nuclear warheads, this is what matters the most.



Really?


----------



## Get Ya Wig Split

China should expand Nuclear Arsenal to 4000-5000! 250 is a joke!!!


----------



## Farbeyonddriven

I wonder how efficiently can the Thaad deployed in South Korea now handle DF-41.

And surely CCP's nuclear prowess is not as hyperbolic as it hypes,otherwise it wouldn't have overreacted like bitch to South Korea minutes after Lotte provided venue to the deployment of thaad.


----------



## samsara

Penguin said:


> Reallyu?


And *do you REALLY believe* in above figures after all the expositions by *@Martian2* (and he's a very cool head, far from emotionally-driven) and others in this dedicated thread?

WHY do you think that China *need to report* its actual stock to "ICAN" or any other institution?

Unlike the couple of newbies seen here, as a long-time member of PDF at analyst level you may wish to *try to dissect the incentive and disincentive factors* from China's point of views about divulging the true (larger) numbers of its nuke head stockpiles, the pluses-minuses consideration.... from military, geopolitics and strategic positions.

And what do you see as possible factors that prevent China from producing more nuke heads as necessary? Funding & cost, technology, raw materials, production capacity, storage limitation (geographic constraint)? Or any other things?

*Hint:* just think of China's other "strategic stuffs" like its gold and strategic petroleum reserves

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

China is the first country to equip with the non-ballistic gliding nuclear warheads, the test with the DF-5C from January 2017 just proved that.

This is the fact, maybe the Yankee cheerleaders prefer to stick with the alternative fact instead.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Akasa

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> China is the first country to equip with the non-ballistic gliding nuclear warheads, the test with the DF-5C from January 2017 just proved that.
> 
> This is the fact, maybe the Yankee cheerleaders prefer to stick with the alternative fact instead.



Speaking of "alternative facts"...

1. There is no evidence that the DF-5C test involved HGVs
2. There is no evidence that the WU-14 is "non-ballistic" or has entered service


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

SinoSoldier said:


> Speaking of "alternative facts"...
> 
> 1. There is no evidence that the DF-5C test involved HGVs
> 2. There is no evidence that the WU-14 is "non-ballistic" or has entered service



An Indian troll who pretends to be a Chinese poster is already a propagandist of the alternative fact.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Akasa

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> China has the most advanced nuclear warheads, this is what matters the most.
> 
> Also, China's Plutonium reserve is even much bigger.



A marker of nuclear warhead advancement is the yield-to-mass ratio. So far, the Chinese have not demonstrated the capability to design a warhead anywhere close to the efficiency of the W88, or even the preceding W78 warhead for that matter.



ChineseTiger1986 said:


> An Indian troll who pretends to be a Chinese poster is already a propagandist of the alternative fact.



Can I safely assume that you have no evidence to back up your claims at this point?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

SinoSoldier said:


> A marker of nuclear warhead advancement is the yield-to-mass ratio. So far, the Chinese have not demonstrated the capability to design a warhead anywhere close to the efficiency of the W88, or even the preceding W78 warhead for that matter.
> 
> 
> 
> Can I safely assume that you have no evidence to back up your claims at this point?



Come from someone with a fake ID, it is alternative fact.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Akasa

Shotgunner51 said:


> I also tend to believe the NTI/ICNND (see ICNND 2009 Report) estimated number of warheads is conservative given China does not disclose information, but based on this, NTI/ICNND further estimate the total destructive power at 294 megatons, citing China warheads are almost entirely made up of high yield strategic warheads, minimum 200kt, largest 3.3 megaton thermonuclear, primarily projected by ballistic missiles. Unlike US or Russia, NTI/ICNND cites that China does not posses large quantity of small warheads (minimum sub-kt level, tactical warheads) that can be projected by other means say air or ground artillery.
> 
> View attachment 381399
> 
> 
> source: icnnd.org/reference/reports/ent/pdf/ICNND_Report-EliminatingNuclearThreats.pdf



A high-yield, low-warhead arsenal could also imply that the accuracy of Chinese ICBMs wasn't exactly all that impressive, at least at the time of this publication's release.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Shotgunner51

SinoSoldier said:


> A high-yield, low-warhead arsenal could also imply that the accuracy of Chinese ICBMs wasn't exactly all that impressive, at least at the time of this publication's release.


Agree that's a trade off, on/before the time of this 2009 Report, the carrier China relied on was only silo-based ICBM (DF-5/5A series) unlike nowadays, hence China opted for high yield 3.3 megaton thermonuclear warheads to compromise for lack of precision.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## samsara

SinoSoldier said:


> A high-yield, low-warhead arsenal could also imply that the accuracy of Chinese ICBMs wasn't exactly all that impressive, at least at the time of this publication's release.


Or, the China's principles that if the nuke is EVER NEEDED to be used then let's go in TOTALITY, why ever fire them with half-intent (indeed that part belongs to the tactical portion), bigger load certainly creates more devastating effects. After all the nuke is just solely for deterrent purpose, unlike the ordinary part of any conventional warfare that may more likely be put into actions. And within the last few years so many developments have been done in PLA RF, therefore it's everyone's FAITH on what to believe, or not to believe wrt "accuracy" at present

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Akasa

samsara said:


> Or, the China's principles that if the nuke is EVER NEEDED to be used then let's go in TOTALITY, why ever fire them with half-intent (indeed that part belongs to the tactical portion), bigger load certainly creates more devastating effects. After all the nuke is just solely for deterrent purpose, unlike the ordinary part of any conventional warfare that may more likely be put into actions. And within the last few years so many developments have been done in PLA RF, therefore it's everyone's FAITH on what to believe, or not to believe



"...bigger load certainly creates more devastating effects..."

A bigger warhead, but a small quantity of them, is significantly less destructive (and therefore less of a deterrent) than numerous low-yield targets that could cover most of the opponent's military & economic infrastructure.


----------



## samsara

SinoSoldier said:


> "...bigger load certainly creates more devastating effects..."
> 
> A bigger warhead, *but a small quantity of them*, is significantly less destructive (and therefore less of a deterrent) than numerous low-yield targets that could cover most of the opponent's military & economic infrastructure.


You're right IF it's of small quantity... but the quantity is a top secret matter that no one knows and China has no intent to disclose its number. Again, back to my earlier post above what factors that may hinder China from making more as it deems NECESSARY

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Akasa

samsara said:


> You're right IF it's of small quantity... but the quantity is a top secret matter that no one knows and China has no intent to disclose its number. Again, back to my earlier post above what factors that may hinder China from making more as it deems NECESSARY



Yield does not replace or compensate for quantity. You don't achieve greater deterrence against an opponent's military hardware if you merely increase the power of your existing munitions without deploying additional measures against that opponent.


----------



## Shotgunner51

SinoSoldier said:


> "...bigger load certainly creates more devastating effects..."
> 
> A bigger warhead, but a small quantity of them, is significantly less destructive (and therefore less of a deterrent) than numerous low-yield targets that could cover most of the opponent's military & economic infrastructure.


Destructive power say energy released, blast radius and radiation all proportinates with yield, that's *physics*. Low yield warheads are not more destructive, but more flexible (especially against non-nuclear states, or states with only very small stockpile), say some tactical purposes like denying an armoured brigade, attack a bunker. IMO, nations with low yield warheads may not follow NFU doctrine, may use nuke when conventional forces are overrun, and the that's why I say China should reconsider NFU while expanding new means of delivery coupled with smaller warheads.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## samsara

SinoSoldier said:


> Yield does not replace or compensate for quantity. You don't achieve greater deterrence against an opponent's military hardware if you merely increase the power of your existing munitions *without deploying additional measures against that opponent*.


Not sure what do you mean by "without deploying additional measures against that opponent" because last time I read China is leading in its HGV development, and it can carry nuke munition as well. Then the MIRV capability progress in late years and various progresses such as in the penetration tip area, hardened tip, new material, and so on. As for the media and think tank "experts" suggestion/insinuation about "the lack of accuracy", the developments in China's various missile and aerospace technologies do not prop such belittlement notions. Though I have no wonder on such belittlement because one can hardly find any recognition of China's capabilities within those ranks, if any! At the end, it's up to everyone's faith to believe or what not to believe. Ignorance is bliss, reality is not.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Penguin

samsara said:


> And *do you REALLY believe* in above figures after all the expositions by *@Martian2* (and he's a very cool head, far from emotionally-driven) and others in this dedicated thread?
> 
> WHY do you think that China *need to report* its actual stock to "ICAN" or any other institution?
> 
> Unlike the couple of newbies seen here, as a long-time member of PDF at analyst level you may wish to *try to dissect the incentive and disincentive factors* from China's point of views about divulging the true (larger) numbers of its nuke head stockpiles, the pluses-minuses consideration.... from military, geopolitics and strategic positions.
> 
> And what do you see as possible factors that prevent China from producing more nuke heads as necessary? Funding & cost, technology, raw materials, production capacity, storage limitation (geographic constraint)? Or any other things?
> 
> *Hint:* just think of China's other "strategic stuffs" like its gold and strategic petroleum reserves


Oh, ok, relax (don't get all emotional on me now), China has 7500 nukes if you say so 



ChineseTiger1986 said:


> China is the first country to equip with the non-ballistic gliding nuclear warheads, the test with the DF-5C from January 2017 just proved that.
> 
> This is the fact, maybe the Yankee cheerleaders prefer to stick with the alternative fact instead.


yadayadayada to you too, mr alternative fact.



ChineseTiger1986 said:


> Come from someone with a fake ID, it is alternative fact.


For lack of your substantive reply, no doubt.


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Penguin said:


> For lack of your substantive reply, no doubt.



That guy is a well known troll and false flagger, I don't need to reply him with anything substantial, since it would be a waste of time anyway.



Shotgunner51 said:


> Agree that's a trade off, on/before the time of this 2009 Report, the carrier China relied on was only silo-based ICBM (DF-5/5A series) unlike nowadays, hence China opted for high yield 3.3 megaton thermonuclear warheads to compromise for lack of precision.



Both UK and France don't even have a functional nuclear arsenal.

UK just becomes headless that they can't even properly launch the Trident missiles that bought from the US, while France's M51 is still unproven and cannot perform the salvo launch.

Only a fool would believe that France has a stronger nuclear arsenal than China who possesses a fully functional three dimensional nuclear deterrence.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## samsara

Penguin said:


> Oh, ok, relax (don't get all emotional on me now), China has 7500 nukes if you say so


It may look so if only I address quite a silly post from a long time member... the tenure just correlates with nothing! It shows little substance.

Indeed had you're a yesterday's newbie at PDF I would haven't cared to address at all. But now I seem to agree with @ChineseTiger1986 to not further waste my time.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## jkroo

samsara said:


> It may look so if only I address quite a silly post from a long time member... the tenure just correlates with nothing! It shows little substance.
> 
> Indeed had you're a yesterday's newbie at PDF I would haven't care to address at all. But now I seem to agree with @ChineseTiger1986 to not further waste my time.



Congratulations, you found another pattern. 

We have all the confidences on our nuclear weapons which succeed half acentury ago even the first thermonuclear warhead test reached the real weapon level that project by fighter plane. 

Further more we claimed that no first use of nuclear weapons and stopped nuclear weapon test around 1990s and replaced the test by super computer simulations.

It's really amusing to see those fancy posts to bla bla everything. It's just funny

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Louiq XIV

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> while France's M51 is still unproven and cannot perform the salvo launch.


No serious army on earth really doubts French nuclear capabilities. M51 and ASMP-A are 100% proven weapons.

Last successfully launched ASMP-A is less than a month (14 february 2017)
Last successfully launched M51 has been done at 9:18 AM the 1st of july 2016 (without warhead of course)
I am pretty sure those have been noticed by Chinese authorities.

Now regarding France vs China number of warheads nobody really cares as both countries have enough to kill all their enemies if required anyway.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Penguin

samsara said:


> It may look so if only I address quite a silly post from a long time member... the tenure just correlates with nothing! It shows little substance.
> 
> Indeed had you're a yesterday's newbie at PDF I would haven't cared to address at all. But now I seem to agree with @ChineseTiger1986 to not further waste my time.


Another hollow reply


----------



## Penguin

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> That guy is a well known troll and false flagger, I don't need to reply him with anything substantial, since it would be a waste of time anyway.


Then wiser to not respond at all to begin with.



ChineseTiger1986 said:


> Both UK and France don't even have a functional nuclear arsenal.


Says who? You?

The French no longer operate 4 Le Triomphant class SSBN then? Have their M45 and M51 missiles somehow ceased to function? Does their navy no longer operates Rafale F3 fighters, and these are not armed with the upgraded supersonic ASMP-A nuclear missiles? Doesn't the Armee de l'Air operate M2000N and Rafale-N with ASMP-A?



ChineseTiger1986 said:


> UK just becomes headless that they can't even properly launch the Trident missiles that bought from the US


RN operates 4 Vanguard class SSBN, with Trident II D5. 

The Trident II was the original missile on the British _Vanguard_-class and American _Ohio_-class SSBNs from _Tennessee_ onward. The D5 missile is currently carried by fourteen _Ohio_-class and four _Vanguard_-class SSBNs. 
There have been 161 successful test flights of the D5 missile since design completion in 1989, the most recent being from the USS _Maryland_ (SSBN-738) in August 2016. There have been fewer than 10 test flights that were failures, the most recent being from HMS _Vengeance_ (S31), one of Britain’s four nuclear-armed submarines, off the coast of Florida in June 2016
If you write-off the UKs Trident II force, because of 1 failed test, why are you not also discounting the US Trident II force, which consequently had up to 9 flight test failures? Do you believe the UK test doesn't involve the Americans, just because the UK bought these from the US?



ChineseTiger1986 said:


> France's M51 is still unproven and cannot perform the salvo launch.


You discount at least 6 sucesfull launches, including from SSBN. What would be your source of info concerning salvo launching? And even is you were correct about that for the M51, that still leaves the M45s, which remain fully functional.

PLAN operates 5 (perhaps by now 6) SSBN, of which 1 is an old and noisy Type 092 with 12 single warhead JL-1. The remainder are Type 094 with 12 JL2, each with 3-4 warheads (max 48 warheads per SSBN). That's a capacity of 252 max possible warheads, therefor (if JL1 carries 6 warheads, lke DF-21D, then this adds 60, making a total of 312). 
This compares to 16 M51 with 6-10 warheads (max 160 warheads per SSBN), or 16 M45 with 6 warheads (max 96 warheads per submarine) on France's four Le Triomphant. That makes a capacity of at least 384 and at best 640 warheads.
The four British Vanguard SSBNs each have 16 tubes for Trident II D5, with 8-12 warheads each (max 192 warheads per SSBN). Which makes for a capacity of 768 max possible warheads.

China's total nuclear arsenal size is estimated to be between 100 and 400 nuclear weapons.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Liberation_Army#Rocket_Force

In total, China is estimated to be in possession of 260 nuclear warheads, with an unknown number of them active and ready to deploy. However, as of 2013, United States Intelligence estimates the Chinese active ICBM arsenal to range between 50 and 75 land and sea based missiles
See https://fas.org/issues/nuclear-weapons/status-world-nuclear-forces/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Liberation_Army_Rocket_Force
Note: 2013 is 5 years ago, during which time more Type 094 SSBNs have entered service with PLAN

Clearly, relative to UK and France, any relative numerical edge in nuclear tipped missiles China has lies in its landbased strategic and tactical missile forces. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Liberation_Army_Rocket_Force#Active_missiles



ChineseTiger1986 said:


> Only a fool would believe that France has a stronger nuclear arsenal than China who possesses a fully functional three dimensional nuclear deterrence.


I'll leave it up to the readers to decide who they think is a fool.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Shotgunner51

samsara said:


> And *do you REALLY believe* in above figures after all the expositions by *@Martian2* (and he's a very cool head, far from emotionally-driven) and others in this dedicated thread?
> 
> WHY do you think that China *need to report* its actual stock to "ICAN" or any other institution?
> 
> Unlike the couple of newbies seen here, as a long-time member of PDF at analyst level you may wish to *try to dissect the incentive and disincentive factors* from China's point of views about divulging the true (larger) numbers of its nuke head stockpiles, the pluses-minuses consideration.... from military, geopolitics and strategic positions.
> 
> And what do you see as possible factors that prevent China from producing more nuke heads as necessary? Funding & cost, technology, raw materials, production capacity, storage limitation (geographic constraint)? Or any other things?
> 
> *Hint:* just think of China's other "strategic stuffs" like its gold and strategic petroleum reserves


I also tend to believe the NTI/ICNND estimated size of stockpile is conservative, given that China does not disclose information. Anyway as per NTI/ICNND, total destructive power of stockpile was *294 megatons* (see page 20 of ICNND 2009 Report), citing China warheads are almost entirely made up of *strategic warheads only* (high yield, min 200kt ~ max 3,300 kt) primarily projected by ballistic missiles. Assuming ICNND estimate was accurate, from 2009 onwards till nowadays, China should have fast expanded stockpile of smaller and lower yield strategic warheads (below 500 kt) to commensurate with increase of MIRV delivery platforms.

Unlike US or Russia, *China officially denied possession of tactical warheads* (or "Sub-strategic" weapons), but observers suggest China may possess 150~350 of them (see page 234 of the 2009 Report, Notes and Sources). By now I suspect China also possess a sizable stockpile of low yield warheads (tactical nukes, ERW, EMP, etc).

*ICNND 2009 Report* summarized the stockpile:
Russia 1,273 megatons
US 647 megatons
*China 294 megatons*
France 55 megatons
UK 16 megatons
Israel 1.6~12 megatons
Pakistan 1.3 megaton
India 1 megaton
North Korea 0.05 megaton​






source: icnnd.org/reference/reports/ent/pdf/ICNND_Report-EliminatingNuclearThreats.pdf

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Imran Khan

stupid humans wanna kaboom a tiny planet which is one and only know human' home

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## samsara

Imran Khan said:


> stupid humans wanna kaboom a tiny planet which is one and only know human' home


may I add some *existing* "stupidity" or more rightly the extreme lusts for greed  that have been occurring for ages...

Stupid human-being wanna dominate this globe for the very own interests of their small circles, and in that process are using violent forces to achieve or preserve such domination and its consequential blood sucking... and they even care free about the fate of the only known home to human-being supposed the earth goes kaboom. [Georgia Guidestones]



ChineseTiger1986 said:


> UK


You mean this ... 

*British nuke-capable missile flies in wrong direction—toward the United States—in failed test*
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/23/uk-l...d-nuclear-missile-test-off-florida-coast.html

*Trident nuclear missiles have history of failure, US documents show*
https://www.rt.com/uk/375587-trident-nuke-missile-failure/

*Trident fiasco as Brit sub ‘fired dummy missile at the United States’ in first nuke test for four years*
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/26750...ted-states-in-first-nuke-test-for-four-years/

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## grey boy 2

A "Historical Day" to be remembered, our 1st successful nuclear test with a atomic bomb equivalent to 20,000 tons of TNT explosives on 10/16/1964 in Xinjiang
1964 年 10 月 16 日，中 国 在 新 疆 进 行 了 第 一 次 核 试 验，成 功 地 爆 炸 了 一 颗 当 量 相 当 于 2 万 吨 梯 恩 梯 炸 药 的 原 子 弹。

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## samsara

grey boy 2 said:


> A "Historical Day" to be remembered, our 1st successful nuclear test with a atomic bomb equivalent to 20,000 tons of TNT explosives on 10/16/1964 in Xinjiang
> 1964 年 10 月 16 日，中 国 在 新 疆 进 行 了 第 一 次 核 试 验，成 功 地 爆 炸 了 一 颗 当 量 相 当 于 2 万 吨 梯 恩 梯 炸 药 的 原 子 弹。


And the *two key figures* involved were: from military side, *Marshall Nie Rongzhen 聂荣臻* who ran the entire nuke programs and from civilian member/scientist: *Qian Xuesen 钱学森*. I happened to watch the corresponding segment of the A-bomb testing in a TV series on the life and times of Marshall Nie Rongzhen 聂荣臻 aired by CCTV-4 two days ago.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Shotgunner51

grey boy 2 said:


> A "Historical Day" to be remembered, our 1st successful nuclear test with a atomic bomb equivalent to 20,000 tons of TNT explosives on 10/16/1964 in Xinjiang
> 1964 年 10 月 16 日，中 国 在 新 疆 进 行 了 第 一 次 核 试 验，成 功 地 爆 炸 了 一 颗 当 量 相 当 于 2 万 吨 梯 恩 梯 炸 药 的 原 子 弹。


Yes *October 16th 1964* is a historical moment. Then in 32 months, on *17th June 1967 *China detonated its first thermonuclear device (*Yu Min Configuration*) with a yield of 3.31 megaton.






Until 1988, Yu Min's name remains the top state secret of China. He was openly awarded the national top science award - State Preeminent Science and Technology Award - in January 2015, almost 48 years after first denotation of his design.

Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## grey boy 2

5/18/1980 China successfully test fired the 1st DF-5 ICBM 
1980年5月18号，中国成功地进行了东风-5洲际导弹的全程试射

从那时起我们有了打到地球另一边的工具，几十年来它都是我们国家安全的基石，并且在东5的基础上发展出了长征2、3、4运载火箭，为中国成为航天大国立下了不可磨灭的贡献。

几十年过去了，还清晰地记得当时《人民日报》、《解放军报》发表号外的情景......
Below is the news report from the People Daily news paper

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Shotgunner51

*China's nuclear weapons R&D attains hightest level*
2017-06-19 08:57 Global Times 

_*Country marks 50th anniversary of first H-bomb test*_​
"China's first hydrogen bomb was tested in the desert of Northwest China's Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region on June 17, 1967. The successful test took only two years and eight months for China to develop a hydrogen bomb after China tested its first atomic bomb in October, 1964."

"China is still conducting nuclear tests, although it has turned from underground to computer simulation out of consideration for possible environmental pollution and the huge cost," Gui Liming, an expert on China's nuclear safety system at Tsinghua University, told the Global Times, adding that nuclear weapons also cost a lot to maintain.

Chinese media commemorated the 50th bomb test anniversary by interviewing former staff working on the project. Read the full article at http://www.ecns.cn/military/2017/06-19/261925.shtml

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Shotgunner51

*US Confirms China’s New Xian H-20 Stealth Bomber will Carry Nuclear Weapons*
*By* Arthur Dominic Villasanta | Jun 12, 2017 10:36 PM EDT

The Pentagon has confirmed persistent reports that China's Xian H-20 stealth strategic bomber currently being developed will be able to launch thermonuclear missiles or drop thermonuclear bombs on targets as far away as the continental United States.

In its 2017 Report on Chinese Military Affairs, the Pentagon also noted the People's Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) "does not currently have a nuclear mission." This omission will end with the development of the H-20, which will become China's first heavy and long-range strategic bomber.

China is now engaged in "developing a strategic bomber that officials expect to have a nuclear mission," said the Pentagon report. This bomber will fulfill China's aspiration to develop a next generation, long-range strike bomber to replace its ageing Xian H-6 strategic bombers that first flew in 1959.

Rear Admiral Yin Zhuo, Director of the People Liberation Army Navy's (PLAN) Expert Consultation Committee said having the H-20 will become one of the symbols of the PLAAF as a strategic service.

Adm. Yin pointed out that China has never developed such a heavy and long-range strategic bomber before. He said China's current heavy bomber, the Xian H-6, isn't a true strategic bomber because it lacks the necessary long-range. He praised the H-20, saying this stealth bomber will certainly be on par with the United States' Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit. He confirmed the H-20 will be a stealth strategic bomber and that it might take 10 years to develop.

He noted China has gained some experience in stealth technology from the development of Chengdu J-20 and the Shenyang J-31 stealth fighters, so the materials and designs for the H-20 aren't big problems. Adm. Yin revealed the cruise missiles, nuclear bombs and other weapons that will arm the H-20 are all in place. This means now is the time for China to develop strategic bombers.

http://www.chinatopix.com/articles/...s-china-new-xian-h-20-stealth-bomber-will.htm

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

OMG ... the Pentagon *CONFIRMS* anything an a secret Chinese system ?!!! 


... with the sole aim to spread fear among the US citizens in order to get a bigger defence budget.


----------



## Shotgunner51

Deino said:


> spread fear among the US citizens in order to get a bigger defence budget.


Exactly, guess who is paying, and where does the money flows to, that's also pretty much "confirmed"!

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## terranMarine

Deino said:


> OMG ... the Pentagon *CONFIRMS* anything an a secret Chinese system ?!!!
> 
> 
> ... with the sole aim to spread fear among the US citizens in order to get a bigger defence budget.



Fear is a "justifying" mean for the public to digest in order to convince these sheep to see the "urgent" need to keep on increasing the defence budget which is already more than what the next couple of countries are spending combined. As long US tax payers are happy to oblige to that demand, crumbling infrastructure and social needs are small price to pay

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Shotgunner51

*H-Bomb Could Be Next Addition to North Korean Nuke Arsenal*
Military & Intelligence 22:08 27.06.2017(updated 03:41 28.06.2017) 






*Pyongyang has demonstrated its ability to produce hydrogen-3, a radioactive isotope of hydrogen also known as tritium that’s “necessary for a hydrogen bomb to create fusion,” a Stanford University professor said Tuesday.*

_“The evidence is quite clear,”_ professor Siegfried Hecker told Yonhap News Agency on June 27, _“that North Korea is able to produce tritium,”_ based on their experience making lithium-6, a central component for creating hydrogen-3. Since the North Korean military can create tritium, they have the “basic element” needed for thermonuclear weapons like the H-Bomb, Hecker said.​
However,_ “it takes much more than that to weaponize hydrogen bombs,” _the nuclear scientist said. North Korean leader Kim Jong-un has long made clear, however, his intention to develop a nuclear weapon regardless of pressures or sanctions from the international community.​
Fusion combines hydrogen isotopes in a reaction that produces more energy, which causes other hydrogen atoms to merge; the process escalates by orders of magnitude. The earth’s sun is a natural fusion reactor, for example. 

When Pyongyang was beating the war drums in March 2016, DPRK Today reported that Pyongyang had an H-Bomb “much bigger than the one developed by the Soviet Union.” If the warhead were attached to an intercontinental ballistic missile, North Korean officials threatened, it would “fall on Manhattan in New York City, [and] all the people would be killed there instantly.”

Hecker has estimated the DPRK’s nuclear warhead stockpile to stand at about 25, according to Yonhap, and he thinks the North Koreans can likely churn out about six to seven more each year.

Days after Moon Jae-in replaced South Korean President Park Geun-hye, Pyongyang tested a medium-range ballistic missile that US analysts said showed unprecedented progress in North Korea’s ballistic missile development. 

_“North Korea’s latest successful missile test represents a level of performance never seen before from a North Korean missile,” _aerospace specialist John Schilling wrote for 38 North, a website maintained by the US-Korea Institute at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies.​
Pyongyang isn’t naïve, Schilling noted, and thus might not test an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) publicly even if it were capable of carrying out such a test. Medium-range ballistic missile tests can be useful for developing the components that go into ICBM technology, the analyst said, noting “the possible testing of ICBM subsystems in this low-key manner may be a North Korean hedge.”

https://sputniknews.com/military/201706271055025466-h-bomb-north-korea-nuclear-arsenal/

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Martian2

*Sixteen DF-31AG ICBMs at Chinese military parade | Popular Science*

Popular Science counted 16 new DF-31AG ICBMs at the Chinese PLA 90th anniversary celebration in Inner Mongolia province. Popular Science also said China is likely to have many more DF-31AG ICBMs than those on display at the parade. (See citation at bottom)

"The DF-31AG is believed to be capable of carrying up to *five warheads* that can be independently aimed, the South China Morning Post reported, adding that the missile can reach most of the continental United States as well as Europe." (Source: China's weapons of war on display: From ballistic missiles and stealth fighters to anti-radar drone | IBTimes)

16 new DF-31AG ICBMs x 5 MIRVed thermonuclear warheads = 80 thermonuclear warheads

Since Popular Science said there are more Chinese DF-31AG ICBMs due to China's military build-up (such as pictures of new DF-41 ICBMs leaving its manufacturing plant), there is an unknown number of ADDITIONAL DF-31AG ICBMs.

Let's review China's ICBM inventory.

DF-5A ICBM: single five-megaton warhead
DF-5B ICBM: 10 MIRV warheads with each warhead at half-a-megaton
DF-31 ICBM: single warhead that can hit Alaska or Hawaii only
DF-31A ICBM: 3 MIRV warheads that can hit continental US
DF-31AG ICBM: 5 MIRV warheads
DF-41 ICBM: 10 MIRV warheads
JL-2 SLBM: 8 MIRV warheads
JL-3 SLBM: navalized version of DF-41 ICBM in development, should carry 10 MIRV warheads

The thermonuclear warheads from the DF-31AG ICBMs at the Chinese military parade amount to 80. If Popular Science is right and there are more DF-31AG ICBMs elsewhere in China, the total number of DF-31AG warheads could easily reach 200.

Now, the Pentagon estimates that China's total thermonuclear warhead inventory is 200. Just the DF-31AG ICBMs alone could fulfill the Pentagon estimate. However, the DF-31AG ICBM has only been produced in recent years.

What about the DF-5 ICBM series? Those have been in service for 37 years.
The DF-31 ICBM series has been in service for 10 years. The DF-31AG ICBM is only a recent variant.
DF-41 ICBMs have been in production for years longer than the DF-31AG ICBM.
JL-2 SLBM has existed for many years as well.

In conclusion, the DF-31AG ICBMs alone are enough to meet the Pentagon's estimate of 200 Chinese thermonuclear warheads. When you consider the Chinese DF-5 ICBM series, earlier DF-31 ICBM series, DF-41 ICBMs, and JL-2 SLBMs, it should be clear that China's thermonuclear arsenal is a lot larger than just the Pentagon estimate of 200 Chinese thermonuclear warheads.
----------

China's army is showing off its new tanks, stealth fighters, and missiles | Popular Science

*"Sixteen DF-31AG ICBMs marched in the parade. China likely has more DF-31AGs in addition to those, thanks to a recent, rapid build-up of Chinese nuclear forces."*

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

According to CCTV, the DF-31A can carry 3 MIRV warheads.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Martian2

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> According to CCTV, the DF-31A can carry 3 MIRV warheads.


Okay, I went back and fixed my post regarding the DF-31A ICBM to show three MIRV warheads.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Martian2 said:


> Okay, I went back and fixed my post regarding the DF-31A ICBM to show three MIRV warheads.



In 2:45, it states that the DF-31A can also carry the multiple MIRV warheads.






In 3:18, the JL-2 was described to carry multiple MIRV warheads with a range of 10,000 km.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Hulk

Nukes are useless piece of shit which will be used maybe in next 1000 years but is good to create stupid threads and boast about it.


----------



## ChennaiDude

Martian2 said:


> 3. China - 294 megatons (China has over half the nuclear firepower of the United States)


hahah!294 Megatons of fake warnings..must make a lot of useless noise...thats all.


----------



## 帅的一匹

Our nuclear retaliation power is way beyond 294 Megatons.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## 帅的一匹

China is the only country on this planet has H bombs in stock.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Martian2

I think it's hilarious that the Pentagon estimate of China's total thermonuclear warheads hasn't budged since about 1990. The Pentagon keeps repeating the falsehood that China only has 200-250 thermonuclear warheads.

Since 1990, China has modernized the DF-5A ICBM into DF-5B 10-MIRV ICBMs. That's a 10-fold jump in the number of thermonuclear warheads per DF-5 missile. Yet, there is no spike in the chart to reflect the 10-MIRV upgrade of China's DF-5A into DF-5B ICBMs.

China introduced the DF-31 and DF-31A 3-MIRV ICBMs into service in 2006-2007. Once again, there is no spike in the chart to show the increase in Chinese thermonuclear warhead total.

Last year, we saw China deploy brigades of DF-41 ICBMs in northeast China and Tibet province. Each DF-41 ICBM carries 10 MIRVs. The Pentagon's annual report on Chinese military power kept repeating the claim of 250 Chinese thermonuclear warheads (which is basically unchanged from 1990).

Also, China increased the number of Type 094 SSBNs from two to four. Once again, the Pentagon ignored the increase in Chinese JL-2 8-MIRV SLBMs.

Last week, we saw China parade 16 DF-31AG 5-MIRV ICBMs. Popular Science says there are more DF-31AG ICBMs, because China is on a nuclear build-up. Chinese military experts have said that China intends to reach parity in thermonuclear weapons with the United States. China has been modernizing its nuclear forces for 40 years. Yet, the Pentagon keeps claiming that China's total thermonuclear warheads hasn't budged from 250 for three decades.

You get to decide whether your eyes are lying or the Pentagon is lying. Are the pictures of China's DF-5B ICBMs, DF-31A ICBMs, DF-31AG ICBMs, DF-41 ICBMs, and JL-2 SLBMs all fake? If you believe the pictures of Chinese ICBMs are real and there are also pictures of Chinese ICBM launches (and there is an old video of a Chinese DF-5 ICBM launch into the South China Sea) then China's total thermonuclear warheads is NOT 250.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Yep, if China's nuclear stockpile is only like that of the UK and France, then China wouldn't need so many ICBMs.

BTW, the fourth brigades of the DF-41 was recently deployed in Xinjiang.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Martian2

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> Yep, if China's nuclear stockpile is only like that of the UK and France, then China wouldn't need so many ICBMs.
> 
> BTW, the fourth brigades of the DF-41 was recently deployed in Xinjiang.
> 
> View attachment 416865


There are pictures of four brigades of DF-41 ICBMs in China (Heilongjiang, Henan, Xinjiang, and Tibet Provinces).

I saw the video of the DF-41 ICBM in Heilongjiang. I also saw picture(s) of the DF-41 ICBM on the Tibetan Province plateau.

Each brigade of Chinese ICBMs contains 12 missiles.

4 DF-41 ICBM brigades x 12 ICBMs per brigade x 10 MIRVs per DF-41 ICBM = *480 thermonuclear warheads
*
China's DF-41 ICBMs alone is double the Pentagon estimate of 250 total Chinese thermonuclear warheads.
----------

I Google-searched your picture. It says the Chinese DF-41 ICBM was probably coming out of "Xinjiang Turpan train station."

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Olli Ranta

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> Yep, if China's nuclear stockpile is only like that of the UK and France, then China wouldn't need so many ICBMs.
> 
> BTW, the fourth brigades of the DF-41 was recently deployed in Xinjiang.
> 
> View attachment 416865


Two remarks:
1. The US estimate is partly based on the estimated production of tritium in China. Some amount of it is necessary to keep hydrogen / thermonuclear bombs in order. Fusion based bombs do not need that and so more of them may exist.
2. After first bomb experiment Mao Zedong declared the policy of no-first-use. That policy makes lot of sense for China and later leaders have confirmed it. As US and Soviet Union each had initially some 20000 bombs and now have some 6000 each that leaves China vulnerable to a devastating first strike. Because of that Chinese practice has been not to keep warheads inside missiles but stored somewhere in tunnels. If carrier rockets are lost then the warheads may be redeployed elsewhere. This implies more rockets than is the actual need. Most survivable rockets are either road mobile or under South China Sea provided that that sea is fully in Chinese control.

The mentioned policies may, of course, be subject to change. In 1970's the non-escalation arrangements and avoidance of war by accident achieved quite good status between US and Soviet. In the present world much of that understanding may have been lost.


----------



## ZeEa5KPul

Olli Ranta said:


> Two remarks:
> 1. The US estimate is partly based on the estimated production of tritium in China. Some amount of it is necessary to keep hydrogen / thermonuclear bombs in order. Fusion based bombs do not need that and so more of them may exist.
> 2. After first bomb experiment Mao Zedong declared the policy of no-first-use. That policy makes lot of sense for China and later leaders have confirmed it. As US and Soviet Union each had initially some 20000 bombs and now have some 6000 each that leaves China vulnerable to a devastating first strike. Because of that Chinese practice has been not to keep warheads inside missiles but stored somewhere in tunnels. If carrier rockets are lost then the warheads may be redeployed elsewhere. This implies more rockets than is the actual need. Most survivable rockets are either road mobile or under South China Sea provided that that sea is fully in Chinese control.
> 
> The mentioned policies may, of course, be subject to change. In 1970's the non-escalation arrangements and avoidance of war by accident achieved quite good status between US and Soviet. In the present world much of that understanding may have been lost.


This seems *really* bass-ackwards, and if the Pentagon believes this then they're a bunch of complete retards -- which I suppose is possible.

1. It's not necessary for fusion weapons to use tritium. In fact, it's much easier to use lithium deuteride (a solid) which becomes a tritium-deuterium plasma _in situ_. Measuring warheads by tritium production (and even if China were using that, how could the US be sure of secret production?) is highly inaccurate.

1.1. In fact, it might be unnecessary for China to increase production of any sort of nuclear material, since there could be enough material in a >1MT warhead for several 50-100kT warheads. 

2. This policy was implemented because China was desperately poor and didn't have the infrastructure to support full deployment of nuclear weapons. As I'm sure even Ray Charles could see, that isn't the case today. Driving TEL's and sailing submarines around with . . . what? Empty nosecones? Dummy warheads? Makes no sense whatsoever.

It's simply an article of religious belief that China has a paltry number of nuclear warheads.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Olli Ranta

ZeEa5KPul said:


> This seems *really* bass-ackwards, and if the Pentagon believes this then they're a bunch of complete retards -- which I suppose is possible.
> 
> 1. It's not necessary for fusion weapons to use tritium. In fact, it's much easier to use lithium deuteride (a solid) which becomes a tritium-deuterium plasma _in situ_. Measuring warheads by tritium production (and even if China were using that, how could the US be sure of secret production?) is highly inaccurate.
> 
> 1.1. In fact, it might be unnecessary for China to increase production of any sort of nuclear material, since there could be enough material in a >1MT warhead for several 50-100kT warheads.
> 
> 2. This policy was implemented because China was desperately poor and didn't have the infrastructure to support full deployment of nuclear weapons. As I'm sure even Ray Charles could see, that isn't the case today. Driving TEL's and sailing submarines around with . . . what? Empty nosecones? Dummy warheads? Makes no sense whatsoever.
> 
> It's simply an article of religious belief that China has a paltry number of nuclear warheads.



Don't know about lithium deuteride, I'm not an expert. Anyway Americans seem to look at North Korean tritium. See "N. Korea is clearly advancing H-bomb development" in english.yonhapnews.co.kr/news/2017/06/27/0200000000AEN20170627007000315 html

The no-first-use policy is not only about lack of money. On the day it becomes clear that China has given it up there are several countries starting their own nuclear bomb programs: Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Vietnam, possibly others. Then we must understand that any war is inherently destructive effort: Dead people, ruined cities. How much better it is to be able to kill hundreds of millions of people instead of only some tens of millions? Could the war possibly be kept a little smaller so that the destruction were only similar to that caused by the Chinese civil war? The more-is-better idea may be too primitive.

I fully admit that definitive answers are beyond my knowledge.


----------



## ZeEa5KPul

Olli Ranta said:


> Don't know about lithium deuteride, I'm not an expert. Anyway Americans seem to look at North Korean tritium. See "N. Korea is clearly advancing H-bomb development" in english.yonhapnews.co.kr/news/2017/06/27/0200000000AEN20170627007000315 html
> 
> The no-first-use policy is not only about lack of money. On the day it becomes clear that China has given it up there are several countries starting their own nuclear bomb programs: Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Vietnam, possibly others. Then we must understand that any war is inherently destructive effort: Dead people, ruined cities. How much better it is to be able to kill hundreds of millions of people instead of only some tens of millions? Could the war possibly be kept a little smaller so that the destruction were only similar to that caused by the Chinese civil war? The more-is-better idea may be too primitive.
> 
> I fully admit that definitive answers are beyond my knowledge.


First, Taiwan isn't a country -- and if it even _thinks_ the words "nuclear weapon" it'll get its shit pushed in so far it'll come out of its mouth. Second, if any signatory of the NPT moves toward a nuclear weapon, the sort of sanctions that buckled Iran and sent North Korea's economy down the drain will fall on it. And the US better get on board with such sanctions, else Venezuela, Bolivia, Cuba, and Mexico will be next up with nuclear weapons.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## samsara

From the think-tank based in Stockholm. Read on the last paragraph, the author suggested *to engage China in the trilateral discussion on the strategic nuclear talks*...
and I don't think at the current stage China prefers to be included in any of such talk, moreover any binding agreement  that may help explain, at least partially, why its strategic nuke arsenal will remain be understated for several years to come (from Chinese POV).... though I don't grasp it why the Pentagon adheres to the such standing either.

I will paraphrase the old saying: _"don’t hit the grass to not disturb the snake"_ 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

*China's calculus on hypersonic glide | SIPRI*

15 August 2017
Dr Lora Saalman

Hypersonic glide vehicles are a growing factor in strategic stability calculations. Given their speed, precision and manoeuvrability, these systems are well suited to defeating missile defences. This section takes the current dyadic approach to US–Chinese competition in the field and inserts Russia as a factor that is shaping Chinese views on the subject. Presenting the key takeaways from 872 of 1675 surveyed Chinese-language texts, the author reviews more than a decade of research on hypersonic and boost-glide technologies to reveal growing Chinese interest in Russia. Combining this trend with both countries’ shared concerns over US missile defence suggests that it is time to start factoring in how Russia’s calculations on its own prompt global strike programme might shape China’s decisions on future nuclear and conventional payloads, and the targets and range of its own hypersonic glide vehicle programme.

*Strategic intersection*

In China, as in Russia, the US prompt global strike programme is discussed as an inherently pre-emptive and destabilizing system. Both countries make the worst-case scenario assumption that the USA will deploy a prompt global strike system that places their arsenals and command and control infrastructures at risk, whether on intercontinental ballistic missiles, air- and submarine-launched hypersonic cruise missiles, or kinetic weapons launched from an orbiting space platform. In the light of these concerns, it is not surprising that both China and Russia are exploring similar capabilities to offset or deter decapitation of their arsenals by the USA.

The timing of China’s flight test of its DF-ZF (previously designated as the WU-14) in April 2016 further highlights integration as a factor. China’s hypersonic glide vehicle test was reportedly a success and occurred just days after Russia carried out its own test. Its proximate timing to that of Russia recalls China’s previous flight tests, which often came on the heels of those conducted by the USA. This is more than mere coincidence. A review of more than a decade of Chinese writing on hypersonic and boost-glide technologies reveals growing interest in and research on Russia’s hypersonic glide vehicle programme. Combining this trend with both countries’ shared concerns over US missile defence suggests that it is time to start factoring in how Russia’s calculations on its own prompt global strike programme might shape China’s decisions on future nuclear and conventional payloads and targets, as well as the range of its own hypersonic glide vehicle.

Russia and China are not simply linked by China’s increased interest in Russia’s hypersonic glide developments. China’s renaming of its Second Artillery Corps as the People’s Liberation Army Rocket Force (PLARF) and the publication of its 2015 Military Strategy White Paper also hint at a growing convergence. The full implications of this name change and restructuring, which seemingly mirror Russia’s own Strategic Rocket Force, are unclear but there is an emerging similarity between the two forces. The PLARF commands all three legs of China’s nuclear triad and is now thought to be on an equal footing with the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), Navy and Air Force.

In addition, while China’s 2015 White Paper might not be as specific as Russia’s 2015 Military Doctrine, it emphasizes a similar vision of a global revolution in military affairs tied to long-range, precise, smart, stealthy and unmanned weapons in both outer space and cyberspace. It also details how the Second Artillery, now the PLARF, ‘seeks to improve nuclear and conventional forces and long-range precision strike capability’ and ‘is building systems of reconnaissance, early-warning, command and control, as well as medium- and long-range precision strike capabilities’. Finally, it advocates the development of ‘independent new weapons and equipment’ and fielding ‘a lean and effective nuclear and conventional missile force’.

Thus, Chinese experts from such organizations as the China Airborne Academy in Luoyang and the China School of Aerospace Engineering at the China Institute of Technology already place a high priority on near-space attack systems as the future of warfare. China has also been increasing the manoeuvrability of its hypersonic glide vehicles, conducting simulations that leverage near space and heat reduction to allow for successful re-entry, and researching more powerful engines and better trajectory optimization to expand the range of its hypersonic glide vehicles. While the majority of these papers involve technological mirroring of US advances, a number also highlight the arc of Russia’s hypersonic and boost-glide pursuits. Chinese research into aerodynamic properties, manoeuvrability and the G-force effects on the fuselage at high speeds often feature overviews of Russia’s programmes, including its Project 4202 which spawned the Yu-70 (102E or 15Yu70) and the more evolved Yu-71 and Yu-74.

As both Russia and China seek to deploy their own version of a hypersonic glide system, they are confronted with many of the same considerations faced by the USA in distinguishing between a conventional and a nuclear payload. Nonetheless, Russia’s reported testing of its hypersonic glide vehicle on the UR-100N and the potential mounting of it on the heavy liquid-propelled RS-28 ICBM to defeat US ballistic missile defences suggest that it is making its intentions clear. Given the focus on defeating US missile defences, a nuclear payload would be the most likely option. By contrast, China has been hedging on whether its DF-ZF will be conventional or nuclear. Current discussions on mounting hypersonic glide vehicles on the DF-21 medium-range ballistic missile (MRBM) and the DF-26 intermediate-range ballistic missile (IRBM) indicate a regional contingency. This has elicited a profusion of Western analyses of China’s use of its systems for anti-access area-denial (A2AD) to complicate US regional intervention in a crisis.

What these studies disregard, however, is that roughly a quarter of the Chinese technical studies on hypersonic glide vehicles remain focused on US missile defences, rather than any A2AD agenda. Some Chinese experts are even beginning to allege that the very existence of A2AD is a fabrication by Western analysts. Roughly half the Chinese studies surveyed on hypersonic glide vehicles and related technologies concentrate on countering or developing longer-range systems, such as space planes. This suggests that the future uses of China’s hypersonic glide vehicles will extend well beyond a conventional payload and a regional conflict. The fact that they place a similar focus on Russia’s intended use of these systems to defeat US missile defences in response to US withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty also suggests identification with Russia when confronting this threat.

Thus, when it comes to the question of whether the DF-ZF, or the Yu-71 and the Yu-74, would be used to overcome theatre missile defence (TMD) or national missile defence (NMD), Chinese and Russian analyses have similar perspectives. They do not distinguish between regional and national missile defence. Much as in Russian discussions of US deployment of TMD in Eastern Europe, Chinese debates over TMD in East Asia concentrate on how these systems serve larger US NMD reconnaissance and intercept goals, thereby threatening its strategic deterrent. This has recently come to the forefront of Chinese concerns over the intended stationing by the USA of THAAD in South Korea, in terms of both enhanced radar and intercept capabilities. Moreover, US X-Band radar deployment in Japan has been a concern for a number of years. The fact that both Chinese and Russian developments in prompt high-precision systems are trending towards the targeting of US missile defences and a nuclear payload makes the postural crossover of these countries all the more relevant.

*System integration*

If China’s DF-ZF is intended as a conventional weapon to be used against a non-nuclear target, then the chances of use are likely to increase. This stems from the inherent difference between conventional weapons and nuclear weapons posited by Li Bin, professor and director of the arms control programme at Tsinghua University, who argues that countries do not intend nuclear weapons for actual use, but rather for coercion—or bargaining in the case of the USA. Unlike nuclear weapons, hypersonic glide vehicles are viewed in a much more utilitarian way in Chinese texts. In part, this stems from their current use, which Western analysts assume is to be mounted on medium-range missile systems to thwart US regional intervention.

When it comes to Chinese technical and official analyses, however, China appears to be extending hypersonic glide range and utility from the regional conventional systems to be deployed on DF-21D MRBMs and DF-26 IRBMs, to longer-range nuclear systems that put US missile defences at risk. Given the pre-existing utilitarian concept of these systems as conventional weapons, building hypersonic glide vehicles into China’s strategic deterrent creates the potential for them to erode the nuclear taboo, increasing the likelihood of their use even if mounted with nuclear payloads.

The utilitarian posture in China towards hypersonic glide vehicles, which may at some point carry over to nuclear payloads, creates worrying challenges in terms of escalation and overall strategic stability. Exacerbating these challenges is the co-mingling argument made by James Acton at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, which posits that a conventional strike against co-located nuclear and conventional command and control centres could trigger a nuclear response. In this case, China’s own control architecture poses the greatest challenge.

China’s assumed conventional and nuclear co-location deters an adversary from launching an attack. Yet, the likelihood of such facilities being compromised in a conventional conflict remains and could result in rapid escalation. If China’s DF-ZF system is launched in response to what has been deemed a ‘first-use’ attack on a co-mingled facility, there is a chance of nuclear escalation. That is why the impact of Russia’s posture on China—as it pertains to its own hypersonic glide vehicles and tactical nuclear weapons—is so critical.

To this end, further exploration of the concept of ‘rapid response’ (快速反应) should be part and parcel of understanding this postural evolution in China. Although Zhao Tong has noted in previous publications that this term could be associated with launch-on-warning, there are indicators that it could just as easily be referring to prompt global strike capabilities. The concept of ‘rapid response’ appeared in roughly a quarter of the Chinese texts surveyed for this section. In most cases, it was paired with near space, space-based weapons and prompt global strike capabilities.

As just one example, in China’s 2015 Military White Paper, rapid response appears on a list that contains ‘strategic warning’ (战略预警), ‘command and control’ (指挥控制), ‘missile penetration’ (导弹突防) and ‘survivability protection’ (生存 防护).22 While its inclusion on a list with ‘strategic warning’ could point towards launch-on-warning, the positioning of ‘rapid response’ between ‘missile penetration’ and ‘survivability protection’—combined with the importance of early warning in countering prompt global strike—suggest that this reference could also be applied to hypersonic glide vehicles, space planes and the future of strategic stability.

At the military level in China, US space planes such as the X-37B and X-51 are also frequently paired with discussions of ‘rapid response’ (快速反应) and ‘rapid strike’ (快速打击). While the latter term correlates with prompt strike systems as a direct translation to Chinese, the postural implication of ‘rapid response’ is less clear. In Chinese texts, prompt global systems, such as near space aircraft, are viewed as providing platforms for reconnaissance, missile defence, electromagnetic countermeasures, transportation, communication and space weapons.

For example, ‘rapid response’ appears in Harbin Institute of Technology theses to describe the use of near space aircraft as space weapon platforms and serves as part of a longer list that includes such capabilities as long-range attack, widerange, high-mobility, precision-strike capabilities or, in other words, the ‘fifth dimension’ (五位一体) of joint operations.

Chinese technical studies on hypersonic glide vehicles and related technologies emulate what they call US ‘rapid response’ programmes, such as the Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) Falcon project, with its the common aero vehicle and affordable rapid response missile demonstrator. While the USA and other foreign powers such as Russia dominate these Chinese studies, they also focus on China’s own ambitions when it comes to hypersonic glide vehicles and related systems.

Beyond papers advocating that China develop more active prompt global systems, a number also detail China’s own eforts to obtain ‘rapid response’ capabilities. These include: (a) hypersonic aircraft ground tests and wind tunnel tests by China North Industries Corporation; (b) a robust adaptive approach to near space vehicles based on trajectory linearization control at Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics; and (c) designs and simulations using terminal guidance laws, gas thermo-elastic multi-field coupling and thermal protection for reusable hypersonic vehicles at the Harbin Institute of Technology.

If the postural interpretation of the term ‘rapid response’ is retaliatory and supports ‘active defence’ (????), a case could be made that it diminishes the chances of pre-emption on the part of China. However, the larger question becomes: to what are these systems responding? If China’s hypersonic glide vehicles are to be deployed regionally to serve as A2AD systems mounted on the DF-21D or the DF-26 but with greater delegation of launch authority, this indicates a conventional payload and pre-emptive use.

However, if the goal of China’s hypersonic glide systems is more in line with that of Russia and targeted on defeating US missile defences, this suggests a nuclear payload. This latter trend could alter not only how ‘rapid response’ and ‘active defence’ are defined, but also how experts interpret China’s postural bedrock of no first use. This bedrock is being eroded by the very systems identified in the US Nuclear Posture Review as the USA’s deterrent against China and Russia—missile defence and prompt global strike.

*Conclusions*

Given that hypersonic glide tests conducted by China, Russia and the USA have not yet led to deployment, there is still an opportunity for greater analysis of how these technologies will affect the postural evolution of these three countries. Not taking the time to assess the potential outcomes of a technology-driven posture could lead to greater strategic instability and arms racing. As part of this process, beyond the US–Chinese paradigm, more emphasis needs to be placed on integrating Russia into analyses of China’s hypersonic glide vehicle development. This would provide a more nuanced analysis than the current bilateral calculations, which often simplify nuclear relations.

Chinese and US experts already meet on strategic nuclear issues at the academic and semi-official levels, although prompt global strike is generally a smaller and newer portion of the agenda. *Expansion to a trilateral discussion that includes China, Russia and the USA at a more official level would mean moving beyond the idea that China’s asymmetrical disadvantage in nuclear warhead numbers precludes its involvement in US–Russian strategic stability talks. As China’s advances in hypersonic glide vehicle technology grow and its arsenal size responds to missile defence expansion in the Asia-Pacific region, the excuse of asymmetric disadvantage diminishes and the argument for trilateral engagement grows.*

About the author: Dr Lora Saalman is the Director of and a Senior Researcher in the SIPRI China and Global Security Programme.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Figaro

Martian2 said:


> I think it's hilarious that the Pentagon estimate of China's total thermonuclear warheads hasn't budged since about 1990. The Pentagon keeps repeating the falsehood that China only has 200-250 thermonuclear warheads.
> 
> Since 1990, China has modernized the DF-5A ICBM into DF-5B 10-MIRV ICBMs. That's a 10-fold jump in the number of thermonuclear warheads per DF-5 missile. Yet, there is no spike in the chart to reflect the 10-MIRV upgrade of China's DF-5A into DF-5B ICBMs.
> 
> China introduced the DF-31 and DF-31A 3-MIRV ICBMs into service in 2006-2007. Once again, there is no spike in the chart to show the increase in Chinese thermonuclear warhead total.
> 
> Last year, we saw China deploy brigades of DF-41 ICBMs in northeast China and Tibet province. Each DF-41 ICBM carries 10 MIRVs. The Pentagon's annual report on Chinese military power kept repeating the claim of 250 Chinese thermonuclear warheads (which is basically unchanged from 1990).
> 
> Also, China increased the number of Type 094 SSBNs from two to four. Once again, the Pentagon ignored the increase in Chinese JL-2 8-MIRV SLBMs.
> 
> Last week, we saw China parade 16 DF-31AG 5-MIRV ICBMs. Popular Science says there are more DF-31AG ICBMs, because China is on a nuclear build-up. Chinese military experts have said that China intends to reach parity in thermonuclear weapons with the United States. China has been modernizing its nuclear forces for 40 years. Yet, the Pentagon keeps claiming that China's total thermonuclear warheads hasn't budged from 250 for three decades.
> 
> You get to decide whether your eyes are lying or the Pentagon is lying. Are the pictures of China's DF-5B ICBMs, DF-31A ICBMs, DF-31AG ICBMs, DF-41 ICBMs, and JL-2 SLBMs all fake? If you believe the pictures of Chinese ICBMs are real and there are also pictures of Chinese ICBM launches (and there is an old video of a Chinese DF-5 ICBM launch into the South China Sea) then China's total thermonuclear warheads is NOT 250.


Because China is the poster-child for the Western world when it comes to "denuclearization". They view that if such a powerful country like China does not have that many nukes, then why does Russia also need so Many? IMHO, China has least 800-1000 nukes to guarantee full retaliation if there's nuclear war... 260 would be highly vulnerable to missile interceptions or failures. Also, why else should China build thousands of km of underground tunnels all across the country : to store it's nuclear weapons ...

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Figaro said:


> Because China is the poster-child for the Western world when it comes to "denuclearization". They view that if such a powerful country like China does not have that many nukes, then why does Russia also need so Many? IMHO, China has least 800-1000 nukes to guarantee full retaliation if there's nuclear war... 260 would be highly vulnerable to missile interceptions or failures. Also, why else should China build thousands of km of underground tunnels all across the country : to store it's nuclear weapons ...



China doesn't want to be dragged into the START.

China only wants treaty free, so it can develop any kind of weapons without any restriction.

To achieve this goal, you need to stay quiet in low profile, since the treaty of the restriction of the intermediate ballistic missile has prevented both USA and Russia to develop the same capability as China's DF-21D and DF-26, so China has learned this lesson by avoid signing into any sort of treaty.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Figaro

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> China doesn't want to be dragged into the START.
> 
> China only wants treaty free, so it can develop any kind of weapons without any restriction.
> 
> To achieve this goal, you need to stay quiet in low profile, since the treaty of the restriction of the intermediate ballistic missile has prevented both USA and Russia to develop the same capability as China's DF-21D and DF-26, so China has learned this lesson by avoid signing into any sort of treaty.


Exactly ... which begs the question why would China attempt to cap it's nuclear weapons at 260 if it doesn't face any treaty restrictions. I feel that Western publications want to make China look weak as if it were a country that would be annilated in a first strike

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Figaro said:


> Exactly ... which begs the question why would China attempt to cap it's nuclear weapons at 260 if it doesn't face any treaty restrictions. I feel that Western publications want to make China look weak as if it were a country that would be annilated in a first strike



China's ICBM family is very flourishing, and China is currently operating many different type of ICBMs.

Since the ICBM is very expensive to develop, only at the mass production stage can curb down its development cost, so it is unlikely that China has developed so many different ICBMs, yet producing only a little quantity.

When you look at the small nuclear powers among the P5 nations; the UK and France, you can see that they operate only one type of ICBM(SLBM), and their nuclear portfolio is not diversified. They only focus on the single dimensional naval deterrence instead of the triad dimension.

China on the other hand doesn't look anything like the UK and France, since China's nuclear portfolio looks very diversified, and it is constantly upgrading and strengthening. China can operate a dozen of SSBNs, while the UK and France can only operate four maximum. China got vast territory which can easily harbor many land based ICBMs beneath underground, while the UK and France don't enjoy this kind of geographical advantage. Finally, China is also developing the stealth strategic bomber with the intercontinental range, and this is something that the UK and France can never possess.

So overall, China's nuclear stockpile doesn't look anything like the UK and France, but more akin to the US and Russia.

The only difference is that the US and Russia were the known giants, whereas China is a hidden one for some very obvious reasons.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Gurjeet Walia

Martian2 said:


> I think it's hilarious that the Pentagon estimate of China's total thermonuclear warheads hasn't budged since about 1990. The Pentagon keeps repeating the falsehood that China only has 200-250 thermonuclear warheads.
> 
> Since 1990, China has modernized the DF-5A ICBM into DF-5B 10-MIRV ICBMs. That's a 10-fold jump in the number of thermonuclear warheads per DF-5 missile. Yet, there is no spike in the chart to reflect the 10-MIRV upgrade of China's DF-5A into DF-5B ICBMs.
> 
> China introduced the DF-31 and DF-31A 3-MIRV ICBMs into service in 2006-2007. Once again, there is no spike in the chart to show the increase in Chinese thermonuclear warhead total.
> 
> Last year, we saw China deploy brigades of DF-41 ICBMs in northeast China and Tibet province. Each DF-41 ICBM carries 10 MIRVs. The Pentagon's annual report on Chinese military power kept repeating the claim of 250 Chinese thermonuclear warheads (which is basically unchanged from 1990).
> 
> Also, China increased the number of Type 094 SSBNs from two to four. Once again, the Pentagon ignored the increase in Chinese JL-2 8-MIRV SLBMs.
> 
> Last week, we saw China parade 16 DF-31AG 5-MIRV ICBMs. Popular Science says there are more DF-31AG ICBMs, because China is on a nuclear build-up. Chinese military experts have said that China intends to reach parity in thermonuclear weapons with the United States. China has been modernizing its nuclear forces for 40 years. Yet, the Pentagon keeps claiming that China's total thermonuclear warheads hasn't budged from 250 for three decades.
> 
> You get to decide whether your eyes are lying or the Pentagon is lying. Are the pictures of China's DF-5B ICBMs, DF-31A ICBMs, DF-31AG ICBMs, DF-41 ICBMs, and JL-2 SLBMs all fake? If you believe the pictures of Chinese ICBMs are real and there are also pictures of Chinese ICBM launches (and there is an old video of a Chinese DF-5 ICBM launch into the South China Sea) then China's total thermonuclear warheads is NOT 250.


Maybe Pentagon don't want to see 2 nuclear armed rival, except Russia.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Martian2

*China displayed 16 new DF-31AG 3-MIRV ICBMs at July 30, 2017 parade | Jane's*

According to Jane's, China showed 16 of its new DF-31AG 3-MIRV ICBMs to the world on July 30, 2017 (see article below).

The DF-31AG has a range of 11,200 km, which means it can hit the entire United States.

DF-31AG Intercontinental ballistic missile | Military Today

"A total of 16 DF-31AG launchers with missiles were publicly presented during this parade. *Such appearance of numerous missiles indicates that the DF-31AG is already in service with Second Artillery Corps*, that are de facto strategic missile forces of Chinese army. Currently it is among the deadliest ICBMs in the world.
...
Once on high alert the road-mobile DF-31AG missiles can leave their bases and operate in remote areas. Its autonomy allows the vehicle to operate undetected in an area equivalent to a small European country. Such mobile missiles are typically harder to intercept than stationary silo-based missiles. As a result these have a high probability of surviving the first strike once the country has been attacked."

*The family of Chinese ICBMs and SLBMs is expanding.*

DF-5A ICBM: Single Five Megaton warhead
DF-5B: Ten MIRVs
DF-31: Single warhead
DF-31A: Three MIRVs
DF-31AG: Three MIRVs with extended range (distinguished by eight-wheel TEL with missile abutting driver cabin)
DF-41: Twelve MIRVs

JL-2 SLBM: 8 MIRVs (according to Jane's)
JL-3 SLBM: Navalized DF-41 ICBM with 12 MIRVs (in development)
----------

DF-31AG ICBM can carry multiple warheads, claims China’s state media | Jane's





----------





The DF-31AG TEL (shown in picture) carries the missile behind the driver's cabin. In contrast, the longer DF-41 ICBM missile extends beyond the front of its TEL driver-cabin. The TEL has eight wheels for both the DF-31AG and DF-41.
----------

At eight seconds into the video below, the first eight TELs are regular DF-31A ICBMs (which has shorter range). The front of the DF-31A ICBM canister is located about ten feet behind the driver cabin.

In contrast, DF-31AG ICBMs can be seen 24 seconds into the video. The front of the canister for the DF-31AG ICBM is almost flush against the back of the driver cabin.

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## samsara

UPDATES ON CHINA NUCLEAR DETERRENT FORCES

Some quite recent nearly-official updates on the latest development of China's Nuke Deterrent forces through various state media, recapped from few posts done in the Chinese Missiles thread.

(1) *The DF-41 ICBM is expected to be deployed at large scale!* Aired on 22 November 2017
[Greater China Live Broadcast]《直播港澳台》 20171122 *Dongfeng-41 ICBM is expected to enter large scale operation *东风-41_有望大规模入役 - *Shenzhen Satellite TV News*
See the post at here.

(2) *The People's Daily's tweet *and attached short footage on 18 November 2017
"WATCH: Video reveals *Dongfeng-41*, China's newest intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), which can carry _*10 nuclear warheads*_ and has an operational range of over 12,000 kilometers."
See the post at here.

Also a footage from Tencent Video was posted there.

(3) The *South China Morning Post*'s article on Dongfeng-41 trial, article dated 09 November 2017
See the post at here.


Now I wonder a bit whether or not the relevant authority in the U.S. will update its publicized "classical references" about the Chinese strategic nuclear warheads and their delivery vehicles in 2018...  
。。。

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## atan651

Bravo, all these missiles will be aimed at the USA!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## samsara

TANAHH said:


> Bravo, all these missiles will be aimed at the USA!


Actually all sane & thoughtful minds should think broader in this regard that a highly respectable and effective Chinese nuke deterrent forces will ensure that the MAD situation among the major powers is being preserved, a balance of power is in place and rectified... thus this condition of parity may prevent any party's wild adventurous thinking or temptation to launch *the First Nuke Strike*, that is a sudden, unprovoked strike to decapitate the adversary's nuke force with expectation/confidence/belief that its own ballistic missile defence (BMD) installed in the global theatres (*GMD - Global Missile Defence*) will shield its own mainland from the retaliatory attacks by the adversary's remaining nuke warheads after being hit severely by the First Nuke Strike.

*Such nuke fallacies of one's own nuke superiority is quite dangerous* and indeed has moved the Doomsday Clock to the position of 2.5 minutes to the midnight, one of the narrowest position to the "boom". This clock is being administered by the members of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists' Science and Security Board. Therefore the additional beef-up of China's strategic nuke deterrent forces will help put back the nuclear power equilibrium, deny any other major powers' attempts to achieve and impose its own *Nuclear Primacy*; hence, help preserve the world peace that has been lasting ever since WWII... much of the peace among the major powers is attributed to the existence of the strategic nuclear parity that in turn creates the nuclear MAD situation.

Look for and watch the *John Pilger*'s cool documentary: "_The Coming War on China_" just for some ideas... The Global Research - Centre for Research on Globalization website (GlobalResearch.ca) also carries some good articles on this subject (some authored by Professor Michel Chossudovsky himself).
。。。

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Martian2

*China's DF-41 ICBM carries 10 MIRVs. Each MIRV has a yield of 150 kilotons.*

Australia's Dr. Malcom Davis ("a senior analyst in defence strategy and capability at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute") said China's DF-41 ICBM carries "*up to 10 warheads each with yields of around 150 kilotons* (150,000 tons TNT equivalent) — or a single warhead with a yield up to 3 megatons (millions of tons of TNT)."

The US atomic (fission) bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima had a yield of 15 kilotons.

China's DF-41 ICBM carries 10 MIRV thermonuclear (fusion) warheads. Each MIRV thermonuclear warhead has a yield of 150 kilotons. This means each MIRV warhead is ten times more powerful than the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima. Detonated in an airburst at 2,000 feet above a city, China's 150-kiloton MIRV warhead would be devastating.
----------

About News.com.au: "Australia’s number one news site news.com.au reaches over 5.5m* Australians, delivering extensive breaking news and national interest stories thanks to our team of dedicated journalists plus the strength of the News Corp Australia network."

China: New missile, DF-41, expected to be deployed next year | News.com.au (December 1, 2017)

"Dr Malcolm Davis, a senior analyst in defence strategy and capability at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, said this [DF-41] was China’s most advanced ICBM.

'It’s a road-mobile, solid fuelled ICBM with the range to cover all targets in the continental United States,' Dr Davis said.

'Its MIRVed — MIRV standing for multiple independently targeted re-entry vehicles.

This means the missile can carry multiple nuclear warheads — up to 10 warheads each with yields of around 150 kilotons (150,000 tons TNT equivalent) — or a single warhead with a yield up to 3 megatons (millions of tons of TNT).'

Dr Davis said 24 of these missiles could deliver between 240 warheads against the US.

'The North Korean Hwasong-15 would by contrast carry a single warhead,' he said.

'It would also carry penetration aids (‘penaids’) designed to confuse US missiles defences.'

Dr Davis said China is also developing ‘MARVs’ — manoeuvring re-entry vehicles — that would give them the ability to further defeat US missile defence, and potentially, attack mobile targets.

'They are also developing hypersonic glide vehicles which would carry individual warheads and glide at up to Mach 20 at very high altitude on a highly evasive trajectory, with the hypersonic glide vehicle (called a ‘DZ-ZF’) being launched atop the DF-41 in place of the regular payload of warheads,' he said.

Beijing’s overall objective is to ensure Chinese ICBMs like the DF-41 can defeat US missile defence systems, Dr Davis said."

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Olli Ranta

Martian2 said:


> I think it's hilarious that the Pentagon estimate of China's total thermonuclear warheads hasn't budged since about 1990. The Pentagon keeps repeating the falsehood that China only has 200-250 thermonuclear warheads.
> 
> Since 1990, China has modernized the DF-5A ICBM into DF-5B 10-MIRV ICBMs. That's a 10-fold jump in the number of thermonuclear warheads per DF-5 missile. Yet, there is no spike in the chart to reflect the 10-MIRV upgrade of China's DF-5A into DF-5B ICBMs.
> 
> China introduced the DF-31 and DF-31A 3-MIRV ICBMs into service in 2006-2007. Once again, there is no spike in the chart to show the increase in Chinese thermonuclear warhead total.
> 
> Last year, we saw China deploy brigades of DF-41 ICBMs in northeast China and Tibet province. Each DF-41 ICBM carries 10 MIRVs. The Pentagon's annual report on Chinese military power kept repeating the claim of 250 Chinese thermonuclear warheads (which is basically unchanged from 1990).
> 
> Also, China increased the number of Type 094 SSBNs from two to four. Once again, the Pentagon ignored the increase in Chinese JL-2 8-MIRV SLBMs.
> 
> Last week, we saw China parade 16 DF-31AG 5-MIRV ICBMs. Popular Science says there are more DF-31AG ICBMs, because China is on a nuclear build-up. Chinese military experts have said that China intends to reach parity in thermonuclear weapons with the United States. China has been modernizing its nuclear forces for 40 years. Yet, the Pentagon keeps claiming that China's total thermonuclear warheads hasn't budged from 250 for three decades.
> 
> You get to decide whether your eyes are lying or the Pentagon is lying. Are the pictures of China's DF-5B ICBMs, DF-31A ICBMs, DF-31AG ICBMs, DF-41 ICBMs, and JL-2 SLBMs all fake? If you believe the pictures of Chinese ICBMs are real and there are also pictures of Chinese ICBM launches (and there is an old video of a Chinese DF-5 ICBM launch into the South China Sea) then China's total thermonuclear warheads is NOT 250.



One more note: As I mentioned before the number of 250 warheads may be related to the number of hydrogen / fusion bombs and that figure comes from production of tritium to keep them in operating condition. According to wikipedia's Nuclear_weapon_yield article a typical size for a fission, non-hydrogen bomb is 150 MT and maximum size 500 MT. So it's likely that a MIRV warhead has only non-thermonuclear bombs.


----------



## Martian2

Olli Ranta said:


> One more note: As I mentioned before the number of 250 warheads may be related to the number of hydrogen / fusion bombs and that figure comes from production of tritium to keep them in operating condition. According to wikipedia's Nuclear_weapon_yield article a typical size for a fission, non-hydrogen bomb is 150 MT and maximum size 500 MT. So it's likely that a MIRV warhead has only non-thermonuclear bombs.


You're making a ridiculous claim.

The US government always puts an asterisk next to its estimate of Chinese nuclear weapons. It says the "estimate" could be wrong.

You have no idea about tritium production in China. To claim otherwise is silly. Have you ever conducted a country inspection of China in the last 50 years on its tritium production? [Note: China's first thermonuclear bomb was 3.3 megatons and detonated in 1967, which was 50 years ago.]

Tritium production in China is a wild guess.

Before China unveiled its secret nuclear reactor near Chongqing, did anyone know or talk about the nuclear facility? The answer is no.

China opens Cold War nuclear plant to travelers | CNN (March 27, 2017)

No one knows what's hidden in China's mountains.

This is the absurd claim that you're making: China is building all of these ICBMs for show. They really don't have thermonuclear warheads!

Yeah, right. You're an idiot.

The US government is upset about China's ICBM buildup. But hey, you know better. You're claiming there are no thermonuclear warheads in them. If that is the case, why is the US government concerned about China's ICBM buildup?
----------

Is there a tritium shortage in China? I don't think so. China has been exporting tritium to Pakistan. That indicates a surplus of Chinese tritium.

PRODUCING TRITIUM IN NORTH KOREA | Arms Control Wonk (May 10, 2016)

"While North Korea would struggle to acquire tritium from the major commercial exporters in Canada, Switzerland, the US, and France, it might have better luck from noncommercial sources. While Pakistan was illegally importing tritium from Germany, it also reportedly received tritium directly from China. Israel also transferred tritium to South Africa in exchange for Pretoria looking the other way while their yellowcake was used to generate weapons-grade plutonium in Dimona."
----------

We know China has conducted about 40 hydrogen bomb tests, with about 20 of the tests being atmospheric. Every hydrogen bomb required tritium, which appeared to be in plentiful supply.

*We know for a fact that China has the capability to produce tritium for 50 years.*

*For argument's sake, let's pretend that China has a tritium shortage. What is to stop China from reactivating its tritium plants to produce new tritium?*

If the amount of tritium is still insufficient, build new Chinese tritium plants.

In conclusion, the claim that Chinese ICBMs have non-thermonuclear warheads due to a tritium shortage is just plain dumb. China simply has to increase production of tritium to meet its needs. There is no reason that China would intentionally deprive itself of tritium. In China, the technology to produce tritium is at least 50 years old.
----------

China has a surplus of tritium. China sells tritium-based consumer products.
AliExpress has multiple sellers of TRITIUM gas tube lamps to consumers.

Imports of self-luminous 25 years tritium gas tube lamp tritium lamp | AliExpress

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## samsara

*Hydrogen Bomb (H-bomb; fusion) vs. Atomic Bomb (A-bomb; fission): What's the Difference?*

Hydrogen bombs (H-bomb), or thermonuclear bombs use fusion, are more powerful than atomic or "fission" bombs (A-bomb). The difference between thermonuclear bombs and fission bombs begins at the atomic level.

*Fission bombs*, like those used to devastate the Japanese cities of Nagasaki and Hiroshima during World War II, work by splitting the nucleus of an atom. When the neutrons, or neutral particles, of the atom's nucleus split, some hit the nuclei of nearby atoms, splitting them, too. The result is a very explosive chain reaction. The bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki exploded with the yield of 15 kilotons and 20 kilotons of TNT, respectively, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists. 

In contrast, the first test of a *thermonuclear weapon, or hydrogen bomb (uses fusion)*, in the United States in November 1952 yielded an explosion on the order of 10,000 kilotons of TNT. Thermonuclear bombs start with the same fission reaction that powers atomic bombs — but the majority of the uranium or plutonium *in atomic bombs (A-bombs) actually goes unused*. In a *thermonuclear bomb (H-bomb)*, an additional step means that more of the bomb's explosive power becomes available.

First, an igniting explosion compresses a sphere of plutonium-239, the material that will then undergo fission. Inside this pit of plutonium-239 is a chamber of hydrogen gas. The high temperatures and pressures created by the plutonium-239 fission cause the hydrogen atoms to fuse. This fusion process releases neutrons, which feed back into the plutonium-239, splitting more atoms and boosting the fission chain reaction.

Sources:

Live Science (2017-09-22)
Fission and Fusion - Union of Concerned Scientists
。。。

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Olli Ranta

Hi Martian2! So good that Samsara took the trouble to clarify basic concepts. Anyway it now seems to me that as China stopped the construction of large U235 plants in early 1980 to concentrate economic resources elsewhere that likely was a clever move. More recently China possibly has constructed new large plants for such purpose. Old plants typically were based on diffusion of gases containing uranium and were extremely energy intensive. More recent plants normally use centrifuges to separate U235.


----------



## Beast

We will see the DF-41 on display on 2019 China national day.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Adam WANG SHANGHAI MEGA

*Why does China not increase its nuclear warheads to 2,000?*
China is not lacking in economic strength and ability to manufacture nuclear warheads (whether it is an atomic bomb,neutron bomb or a hydrogen bomb. At present, China is the only nuclear power that reserves 30 hydrogen bombs thanks to YU Min model which makes them easier to maintain). It is clear that the only thing Americans fear is the number of Russian nuclear warheads. Why China does not increase its nukes number to 2000 or 5000 instead of 250 units smaller than France? I can not understand very well. . .



Chinese hydrogen bomb


----------



## PAKISTANFOREVER

Adam WANG SHANGHAI MEGA said:


> *Why does China not increase its nuclear warheads to 2,000?*
> China is not lacking in economic strength and ability to manufacture nuclear warheads (whether it is an atomic bomb,neutron bomb or a hydrogen bomb. At present, China is the only nuclear power that reserves 30 hydrogen bombs thanks to YU Min model which makes them easier to maintain). It is clear that the only thing Americans fear is the number of Russian nuclear warheads. Why China does not increase its nukes number to 2000 or 5000 instead of 250 units smaller than France? I can not understand very well. . .
> 
> 
> 
> Chinese hydrogen bomb





How do you know China doesn't have 2000 nuclear weapons?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Adam WANG SHANGHAI MEGA

It is considered 250 to 300 according to western intelligence,and of course,western spying capacity is better such as CIA,FBI,MI6,so....


----------



## randomradio

Adam WANG SHANGHAI MEGA said:


> *Why does China not increase its nuclear warheads to 2,000?*
> China is not lacking in economic strength and ability to manufacture nuclear warheads (whether it is an atomic bomb,neutron bomb or a hydrogen bomb. At present, China is the only nuclear power that reserves 30 hydrogen bombs thanks to YU Min model which makes them easier to maintain). It is clear that the only thing Americans fear is the number of Russian nuclear warheads. Why China does not increase its nukes number to 2000 or 5000 instead of 250 units smaller than France? I can not understand very well. . .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chinese hydrogen bomb



The main objective of nuclear weapons is deterrence.

Nukes threaten any potential adversary to the point where no objective is worth pursuing through violent means. For that purpose, China's estimated 250-400 nukes is more than enough. Having 2000 nukes serves no purpose.

For example, the US and Russia have about 50-100 cities each that have populations that are big enough to serve as targets. There is no need to have 2000 nukes when the targets are so few.

Of course, most nuclear powers will have enough fissile material to build more nukes quickly in case a nuclear war does happen.

But if you do indeed use nukes, you better have the conventional might to back up whatever happens next.


----------



## Mista

Because 100 nukes is already enough to make the Earth inhabitable. It's enough of a deterrence to any country. There's no difference between 2000 nukes or 5000 nukes, unless you view nukes as a national penile length contest so you don't look bad and 'lose face'.

https://www.globalzero.org/blog/how-many-nukes-would-it-take-render-earth-uninhabitable

Might as well use the money for building roads or improving education/healthcare, which is a tangible effect on the people's lives. Why follow the US or Russia in maintaining thousands of nukes, which is a result of their cold war history?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Adam WANG SHANGHAI MEGA

Mista said:


> Because 100 nukes is already enough to make the Earth inhabitable. It's enough of a deterrence to any country. There's no difference between 2000 nukes or 5000 nukes, unless you view nukes as a national penile length contest so you don't look bad and 'lose face'.
> 
> https://www.globalzero.org/blog/how-many-nukes-would-it-take-render-earth-uninhabitable
> 
> Might as well use the money for building roads or improving education/healthcare, which is a tangible effect on the people's lives. Why follow the US or Russia in maintaining thousands of nukes, which is a result of their cold war history?


US does not see China nuke power equal to itself but only Russian's!


----------



## eldamar

PAKISTANFOREVER said:


> How do you know China doesn't have 2000 nuclear weapons?


yes. 

This was exactly the thought that came to my mind when i first read the post above.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 52051

It is only the US who try to fool its public to inisist China only get 300 nukes whatever despite of all evidence (*the US estimated number has not changed for the last 30+ years*), like the huge scale of infrastructure (China has world largest underground tunnel to store and transfer nukes, thousands of miles long), the number of deliever vehicles, the number of confirmed SSBNs suggesting otherwise.

Besides, nowadays China can import uranium ore from uranium-rich ex-Soviet center asian states and within China there are several large uranium mine discovered, and China can produce Pu-239 from U-238 thanks to the advancement of China's 4th gen nuclear reactor.

It is rather stupid to believe nowadays China, who produce more fighters and tanks each year than the NATO combined and produce 2-3 carriers and 15+ DDG at the same time, *yet produce 0 nuke for the past 30+ years and counting even through China become much richer and have much better source to accquire U-235/Pu-239*.

Have you ever noticed the change of tune towards China between Trump before his presidency and after? Must because the CIA show China's real nuke number to cool the dotard down abit, it must be some bigly yuge number.

So just use your reasoning ability.



Mista said:


> Because 100 nukes is already enough to make the Earth inhabitable. It's enough of a deterrence to any country. There's no difference between 2000 nukes or 5000 nukes, unless you view nukes as a national penile length contest so you don't look bad and 'lose face'.
> 
> https://www.globalzero.org/blog/how-many-nukes-would-it-take-render-earth-uninhabitable
> 
> Might as well use the money for building roads or improving education/healthcare, which is a tangible effect on the people's lives. Why follow the US or Russia in maintaining thousands of nukes, which is a result of their cold war history?



Even at the peak of cold war, with all the nukes the Soviet/US have, it wont make earth inhabitable, nuke weapon has much less lasting effects comparing to nuclear reactor accident.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Han Patriot

Adam WANG SHANGHAI MEGA said:


> *Why does China not increase its nuclear warheads to 2,000?*
> China is not lacking in economic strength and ability to manufacture nuclear warheads (whether it is an atomic bomb,neutron bomb or a hydrogen bomb. At present, China is the only nuclear power that reserves 30 hydrogen bombs thanks to YU Min model which makes them easier to maintain). It is clear that the only thing Americans fear is the number of Russian nuclear warheads. Why China does not increase its nukes number to 2000 or 5000 instead of 250 units smaller than France? I can not understand very well. . .
> 
> 
> 
> Chinese hydrogen bomb


You really think we shout out loud about how many warheads we have like the Hindus?

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## 52051

Han Patriot said:


> You really think we shout out loud about how many warheads we have like the Hindus?



Dotard know the real number so he is very cool with China, must be some bigly beatuiful number.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## RowdyRathore

once US & Soviet reached at peak of 60,000 nukes each, then they realised they came so far.
north Korea with some 20 tiny nukes can do the job who needs 2000? unless you think as Pakistanis do 1-1 & 2-2


----------



## Shotgunner51

Adam WANG SHANGHAI MEGA said:


> *Why does China not increase its nuclear warheads to 2,000?*


Your numbers refer to a very old FAS (Federation of American Scientists) estimate, see the source below. According to this outdated report, China only deployed high-yield strategic warheads (200~3,300 kt), not large quantity of low-yield tactical nuke devices e.g. artillery, mines, torpedoes or even backpacks.






source: icnnd.org/reference/reports/ent/pdf/ICNND_Report-EliminatingNuclearThreats.pdf

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Adam WANG SHANGHAI MEGA

People are realistic,you have the ability but you have not the nuke number and they would not believe you!
The most realistic is UK and US,you never heared UK threat to nuke Russia coz they know they are inferior to Russia and does not stand a chance but we heared a lot that US military leaders always claim that US can destroy 95% of CHINA nukes during the first wave of attack , IF so,what the rest 15 nukes can do with US anti missile system such as thaad systems!?
600 units should become minimum number of nukes of CHINA considering the provocative nature of USA !


----------



## Figaro

Adam WANG SHANGHAI MEGA said:


> People are realistic,you have the ability but you have not the nuke number and they would not believe you!
> The most realistic is UK and US,you never heared UK threat to nuke Russia coz they know they are inferior to Russia and does not stands a. chance but we heared a lot that US military leaders always claims that US can destroy 95% of CHINA nukes during the first wave of attack , IF so,what the rest 15 nukes can do with US anti missile system such as thaad system!?
> 600 units should become minimum number of nukes of CHINA considering the provocative nature of USA !


I believe that China has around 800 deployable nuclear weapons currently. 200-300 would simply not be enough to guarantee a second strike ability, particularly if these warheads are mounted on older delivery systems. Minimal deterrence is extremely risky and I don't believe China went down that route (especially confronted by major NATO powers).



52051 said:


> It is only the US who try to fool its public to inisist China only get 300 nukes whatever despite of all evidence (*the US estimated number has not changed for the last 30+ years*), like the huge scale of infrastructure (China has world largest underground tunnel to store and transfer nukes, thousands of miles long), the number of deliever vehicles, the number of confirmed SSBNs suggesting otherwise.
> 
> Besides, nowadays China can import uranium ore from uranium-rich ex-Soviet center asian states and within China there are several large uranium mine discovered, and China can produce Pu-239 from U-238 thanks to the advancement of China's 4th gen nuclear reactor.
> 
> It is rather stupid to believe nowadays China, who produce more fighters and tanks each year than the NATO combined and produce 2-3 carriers and 15+ DDG at the same time, *yet produce 0 nuke for the past 30+ years and counting even through China become much richer and have much better source to accquire U-235/Pu-239*.
> 
> Have you ever noticed the change of tune towards China between Trump before his presidency and after? Must because the CIA show China's real nuke number to cool the dotard down abit, it must be some bigly yuge number.
> 
> So just use your reasoning ability.
> 
> 
> 
> Even at the peak of cold war, with all the nukes the Soviet/US have, it wont make earth inhabitable, nuke weapon has much less lasting effects comparing to nuclear reactor accident.


The reason why it hasn't changed was much of the current estimate (i.e. 270) came from a defected Chinese nuclear scientist in the early 80's who allegedly revealed Chinese plutonium capacity to the Westerners. At that time (70's) , China's nuclear forces were still nascent, so it makes sense that the production rates were lower. Unfortunately, such a number became the basis for all Western nuclear estimates, something China has smartly played into. China is a country slightly bigger in size than the United States and 4 times as populous ... does one really think China ought to have a nuclear arsenal to effectively protect its populace?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Shotgunner51

Adam WANG SHANGHAI MEGA said:


> People are realistic,you have the ability but you have not the nuke number and they would not believe you!
> The most realistic is UK and US,you never heared UK threat to nuke Russia coz they know they are inferior to Russia and does not stands a. chance but we heared a lot that US military leaders always claims that US can destroy 95% of CHINA nukes during the first wave of attack , IF so,what the rest 15 nukes can do with US anti missile system such as thaad system!?
> 600 units should become minimum number of nukes of CHINA considering the provocative nature of USA !


As mentioned above those numbers were only third party estimates, and very outdated, "surprisingly" no significant change since late 1980's (see below). But let's say you believe these old numbers, China's destructive power is already more than adequate, you should know a thermonuclear warhead is a few hundred times more destructive than Hiroshima-type A-bomb.




In the 1980's it was all about *DF-5 single warhead ICBM*, plus some SRBM/MRBM, and a lone SSBN.

_Why third party estimates suddenly stopped growing from late 1980's, when new carriers started to flourish? _That's an interesting question, since even the newer DF-5 ICBM (B/C variants) are already MIRVed with multiple warheads. If silo-launched ICBM aren't reliable second strike options, you can see new carriers like DF-15 SRBM, DF-21 MRBM, DF-26 MRBM, CJ-10 LACM, DF-31 ICBM and DF-41 ICBM, ... etc., all road-mobile, the heavy ones are MIRVed. As a supplement to land-based options, in the air new ALCM are nuke-capable, and Type-094 SSBN have MIRVed JL-2 SLBM in active service.

Together with expanding EW sat/radar network, several missile defence programs in-progress, HGV and other developing projects, PLASSF and PLARF should be able to deter nuclear war. Peace!

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Adam WANG SHANGHAI MEGA

In a word,250 to 300 is not enough and if this is the real number i would be very shocked....

600 to 1000 units is minimum 
there are not only US but also prvocative india(inferior but very provocative like the empire UK and bully Iron bro PAK and its other NB countries),russia(respects China only when China is powerful),north korea(respects no one but kim) ,UK(sounds hongkong is still theirs),France(trying to control China strategic economical assets)....
500 for US and 100 to 400 for the rest of the world!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## 52051

Shotgunner51 said:


> Your numbers refer to a very old FAS (Federation of American Scientists) estimate, see the source below. According to this outdated report, China only deployed high-yield strategic warheads (200~3,300 kt), not large quantity of low-yield tactical nuke devices e.g. artillery, mines, torpedoes or even backpacks.
> 
> View attachment 453335
> 
> 
> source: icnnd.org/reference/reports/ent/pdf/ICNND_Report-EliminatingNuclearThreats.pdf



Even the table itself is very flawed:

*How could the smallest possible nuke in China is still>200kT TNT?*

*China has neutron bombs decades ago*, and no one could build a neutron bomb that has a yielding of 200kT TNT equalivent , so the lower limit of China's nukes could not be 200 kT.

The pathetic americans tried too hard to underestimate China's nuke power to the degree *law of physics is not very respected among these nuclear phyisicists*

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Figaro

52051 said:


> Even the table itself is very flawed:
> 
> *How could the smallest possible nuke in China is still>200kT TNT?*
> 
> *China has neutron bombs decades ago*, and no one could build a neutron bomb that has a yielding of 200kT TNT equalivent , so the lower limit of China's nukes could not be 200 kT.
> 
> The pathetic americans tried too hard to underestimate China's nuke power to the degree *law of physics is not very respected among these nuclear phyisicists*


To be fair, China is seen as a poster-child of "minimal deterrence" by FAS and Union of Concerned Scientists. These special interest groups want to see the US reduce its nuclear stockpile. so they deliberately underestimate China's (as evidence that 200 is enough ). I read somewhere that just because China stopped nuclear testing in 1996, they couldn't possibly have a more advanced warhead design ... the sheer stupidity! China has a military budget 3 times that of Russia's, so it doesn't make any sense why they cannot maintain a nuclear arsenal of around 800. 

Minimal deterrence does not equal mutually assured destruction ...

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Adam WANG SHANGHAI MEGA

People are realistic,you have the ability but you have not the nuke number and they would not believe you!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Kiss_of_the_Dragon

Adam WANG SHANGHAI MEGA said:


> *Why does China not increase its nuclear warheads to 2,000?*
> China is not lacking in economic strength and ability to manufacture nuclear warheads (whether it is an atomic bomb,neutron bomb or a hydrogen bomb. At present, China is the only nuclear power that reserves 30 hydrogen bombs thanks to YU Min model which makes them easier to maintain). It is clear that the only thing Americans fear is the number of Russian nuclear warheads. Why China does not increase its nukes number to 2000 or 5000 instead of 250 units smaller than France? I can not understand very well. . .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chinese hydrogen bomb



Why build so many nuke when we don't have a good survivable delivery system: wait until next generation quiets subs and stealth bombers, than you will see Chinese Nukes will pup up like rabbit.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

Kiss_of_the_Dragon said:


> Why build so many nuke when we don't have a good survivable delivery system: wait until next generation quiets subs and stealth bombers, than you will see Chinese Nukes will pup up like rabbit.


DF-41, DF-5 variants, DF-31A/AG, JL-2A/JL-3 are all very capable delivery systems. A stealth bomber surely cannot be as survivable as a ICBM. As for the next generation submarine, there is already the JL-2A and the JL-3 (currently in development) ... but we will have to wait for the 096.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Adam WANG SHANGHAI MEGA



Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Beast

It was the most advance bomb at that time. Weights less than a ton and yet yield 3 mega tons of explosion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test_No._6

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Adam WANG SHANGHAI MEGA

It was a fully functional, full-scale, three-stage hydrogen bomb, tested 32 months after China had made its first fission device. 
The time between the U.S.'s first atomic test and its first hydrogen bomb test was 86 months, for the USSR it was 75 months, for the UK 66 months and later for France, 105 months.

CHINA= 32months!

It explains why CHINA can build a full scale aircraft carrier in 3.5 years now!

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Reichsmarschall

Adam WANG SHANGHAI MEGA said:


> View attachment 454566
> View attachment 454567
> View attachment 454568
> View attachment 454569
> View attachment 454570
> View attachment 454571
> View attachment 454572
> View attachment 454573
> View attachment 454574
> View attachment 454575
> View attachment 454576
> View attachment 454577
> View attachment 454578
> View attachment 454579
> View attachment 454580
> View attachment 454581
> View attachment 454582
> View attachment 454583
> View attachment 454584
> View attachment 454585


its high time you give this beauty to your Friends in south

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Beast

Russian Tsar was the most powerful H-bomb but it proves impossible to fit into ballistic missile warhead nor fit into a medium size bomber.





China H-bomb can easily modify and fit into a standard size ballistic missile or fit into a medium size fast bomber and used effective as deterrence or retaliation weapon.

Russia dare not used nuclear weapon on China 1969 border conflict not becos of US interference. But becos the reality of China able to hit back on Soviet Union with such advance weapon. Can Soviet Union afford just 3-4 of H-bomb 3 mega explosion on Soviet soil? No. 

Worst case, 10-12 of such bomb could hit Soviet. Resulting all Soviet major cities destroyed. And US would have won. Soviet will never want that happen.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Beast

The American will just talk and BS and yet the American never dare to provoke Chine to real war. The US president know the actual China nuclear deterrence power. All those US small provocation is just for domestic consumption for increase his rating. US knows a real war with China is Armageddon.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Bussard Ramjet

Figaro said:


> To be fair, China is seen as a poster-child of "minimal deterrence" by FAS and Union of Concerned Scientists. These special interest groups want to see the US reduce its nuclear stockpile. so they deliberately underestimate China's (as evidence that 200 is enough ). I read somewhere that just because China stopped nuclear testing in 1996, they couldn't possibly have a more advanced warhead design ... the sheer stupidity! China has a military budget 3 times that of Russia's, so it doesn't make any sense why they cannot maintain a nuclear arsenal of around 800.
> Minn
> Minimal deterrence does not equal mutually assured destruction ...




It is not only those organizations. I have heard even multiple Chinese analysts, and politicians refer to small figures of nukes. 

Also, military budget doesn't equate to number of nukes, or Saudi Arabia would have had nukes almost equal to Russia. 

No one is doubting China's capability to maintain a huge stock pile. 

But the general consensus and even the stated policy seems to be that of "Minimum credible nuclear deterrance"

Also, from the stand point of deterrence, it would be wrong to not disclose a large arsenal. The whole purpose of deterrance is to let the adversary know that you can strike back with vengeance. But, deliberately sustaining a perception that you own less nukes doesn't work to your favor than.


----------



## Beast

Bussard Ramjet said:


> It is not only those organizations. I have heard even multiple Chinese analysts, and politicians refer to small figures of nukes.
> 
> Also, military budget doesn't equate to number of nukes, or Saudi Arabia would have had nukes almost equal to Russia.
> 
> No one is doubting China's capability to maintain a huge stock pile.
> 
> But the general consensus and even the stated policy seems to be that of "Minimum credible nuclear deterrance"
> 
> Also, from the stand point of deterrence, it would be wrong to not disclose a large arsenal. The whole purpose of deterrance is to let the adversary know that you can strike back with vengeance. But, deliberately sustaining a perception that you own less nukes doesn't work to your favor than.



There is also flaw in your statement. China is the poster bad boy of western in terms of military threat but at the same time, China would want the western world to work with them in area of economic. By maintaining a less threatening tone of minimal deterrence of little nuke stockpile. Imagine China talk about having enough nuke to wipe out USA, Europe and rest of the world. The negative view and effect on working/trade with China looks more impossible. 

There is every reason for China to maintain less threatening tone and under declared nuke power. It makes China more a trading power rather than a real foe compare to Russia. China has a huge trade to manage unlike Russia. You know why Russia is isolated by West? Becos Russia has enough stockpile to wipe them off. Nobody likes that. China is smart to under declared but will not hesitate to wipe off any countries dare threaten us with nuke.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## ozranger

Beast said:


> China H-bomb can easily modify and fit into a standard size ballistic missile or fit into a medium size fast bomber and used effective as deterrence or retaliation weapon



In fact, China successfully tested using tiny attacker plane Q-5 to throw war-ready H-bombs. It would be sort of suicide bombing for stopping massive Soviet tank invasion if such a real war happened.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------

