2,350 or 3,500 - How Many Nukes Warheads Does China Have?

[JustForFun]

Not my wishful thinking, but many military insiders do know how our nuclear strategy works.

Few hundred nukes and dozen of ICBMs cannot be considered as a reliable deterrence.

The Americans are free to believe whatever they want to believe. Who cares?

A few hundred nukes are more than enough as a deterrence. You don't need to kill every single individual to kill off a society.
More nukes than that and you are only left with higher costs to maintain and secure them.

 

[Obambam]

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

lol isn't it just incredible. truly an extraordinary feat of engineering.

Surprising people is always the gimmick we love to play.

Who would believe that China could have a 4th gen stealth fighter that soon?

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

A few hundred nukes are more than enough as a deterrence. You don't need to kill every single individual to kill off a society.
More nukes than that and you are only left with higher costs to maintain and secure them.

But keep in mind we are not only facing USA, but also Russia/UK/France.

So we can never take this lightly, and a minimum deterrence is far from being enough.

We are not seeking to build a 30000-40000 stockpile like US and Russia during the Cold War, but anything from 1000-5000 is maintainable with our economic situation.

 

[Nan Yang]

There are even some western source put China's nuclear stockpiles as low as 20, this is the typical western demonization tactic.

Allowing people to believe the threat of your opponent, meanwhile also to convince their people that it can never harm the US.

Yes, for decades China nuclear deterent was only about 20 stratetic nuclear missile in silos and seperated from the warhead.

It was only after 2002/3 that China embark on a nuclear modernisation and build up. And the reason was because W Bush withdrew United States from the ABM treaty and started spending billions building missile shields.

Now instead of facing 20 outdated nuclear missiles, US faces hundreds and all of them mobile.

Was it wise then for US to withdraw unilatary from the ABM treaty ? Do they feel safer now ???

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

Yes, for decades China nuclear deterent was only about 20 stratetic nuclear missile in silos and seperated from the warhead.

It was only after 2002/3 that China embark on a nuclear modernisation and build up. And the reason was because W Bush withdrew United States from the ABM treaty and started spending billions building missile shields.

Now instead of facing 20 outdated nuclear missiles, US faces hundreds and all of them mobile.

Was it wise then for US to withdraw unilatary from the ABM treaty ? Do they feel safer now ???

During the 1990s, we had only 20 ICBMs that can reach the US soil, whereas today we have 10 times more.

To develop the reliable launching platform is much harder than the nuclear warhead itself.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

We are not seeking to build a 30000-40000 stockpile like US and Russia during the Cold War, but anything from 1000-5000 is maintainable with our economic situation.

You're right.

I'd say that 1000-2000 nuclear weapons is optimal for our economic situation during peacetime.

Compare our current GDP to that of the Soviet Union when they were maintaining tens of thousands of warheads. We are only spending a small fraction of our GDP on defence, unlike the Soviets.

 

[JustForFun]

But keep in mind we are not only facing USA, but also Russia/UK/France.

So we can never take this lightly, and a minimum deterrence is far from being enough.

We are not seeking to build a 30000-40000 stockpile like US and Russia during the Cold War, but anything from 1000-5000 is maintainable with our economic situation.

That does not matter. No country is willing to get wiped out while helping another. France is not going to help the US in a MAD scenario. Why should they? It's not likely those nukes are going to make a difference.
In a MAD scenario only 2 countries are going down, others do not have to get involved.
You only need enough for 1 nuke war, because you are done after that anyway.

 

[no_name]

^^^MAD does not involve just nuclear destruction of your primary enemy anyway, but all countries that has a potential to rise to position of power after the nuclear exchange.

If say US and USSR had a total exchange back in the cold war days, all other nuclear powers and even non-nuclear significant powers like Germany will be wiped.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

^^^MAD does not involve just nuclear destruction of your primary enemy anyway, but all countries that has a potential to rise to position of power after the nuclear exchange.

If say US and USSR had a total exchange back in the cold war days, all other nuclear powers and even non-nuclear significant powers like Germany will be wiped.

And this is the best solution to neutralize anyone who wants to launch the first attack or wants to backstab others.

 

[JustForFun]

^^^MAD does not involve just nuclear destruction of your primary enemy anyway, but all countries that has a potential to rise to position of power after the nuclear exchange.

If say US and USSR had a total exchange back in the cold war days, all other nuclear powers and even non-nuclear significant powers like Germany will be wiped.

MAD just assures that the parties in the conflict are destroyed. No need to destroy the rest of the world. Why would you care in what position the other countries are after a nuclear conflict. For the nations in a MAD conflict, there is no such thing as planning for what happens after the conflict, they're gone.
Germany in the USSR US conflict would be the primary battle ground, both Germanies hosting massive numbers of US and Soviet troops and nuclear weapons bases. That's why they would be toast.

Deterrence is just making sure the opposition is going to pay a heavier price than they are willing to pay. Being able to kill someone 1000 times with a 100% certainty is not deter a person more than being able to kill that person 1 time with a 100% certainty.

Having more nukes than this and only the cost and potential risk will go up, it won't do anything for national security.

 

[no_name]

Countries like US and Russia and China will seek to partially survive MAD (and are determined to do so in their strategic planning). It is not possible to destroy all military/hardened targets with nuclear exchange. This means they will wipe out all other countries with even the remote capability to challenge them after MAD. They will also need to land grab/prevent the other side from doing so afterwards.

The Nato and Soviet blocks of the cold war era provides nuclear umbrella for the respective countries allied with either the US or USSR.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

Countries like US and Russia will seek to partially survive MAD. It is not possible to destroy all military/hardened targets with nuclear exchange. This means they will wipe out all other countries with even the remote capability to challenge them after MAD. They will also need to land grab/prevent the other side from doing so afterwards.

What China will do is to keep remain army force after the MAD.

 

[JustForFun]

Countries like US and Russia and China will seek to partially survive MAD (and are determined to do so in their strategic planning). It is not possible to destroy all military/hardened targets with nuclear exchange. This means they will wipe out all other countries with even the remote capability to challenge them after MAD. They will also need to land grab/prevent the other side from doing so afterwards.

The Nato and Soviet blocks of the cold war era provides nuclear umbrella for the respective countries allied with either the US or USSR.

It is possible to destroy enough to render that what survives useless and leave the country in such a state land grab is not very attractive to other countries.
Survival of some military units is worth nothing when all the support systems have gone and no population to fight for..
What will be left if all the arable land has turned into a nuclear waste land, to water supplies conterminated, over 70% of the population have gone, no food supplies to feed the survivors who will be trapped in pockets surrounded by areas littered with radio active particles?
The surviving military units will be nothing more than bands of armed men with no future and no place to go.

 

[JustForFun]

What China will do is to keep remain army force after the MAD.

Oh yes please, let there some army forces remain.
What are those army forces going to fight for and for whom?
Those forces would probably turn out to be a meanace to those few surviving civilians. After a MAD nucleas exchange there is nothing left to fight for. That is what it is, Mutual Assured Destruction. If there is something left worthwile it is either not Mutual or Assured Destruction.