What's new

China's 294 megatons of thermonuclear deterrence

.
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.
 
. .
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
 
.
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!!
 
.
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

F0IX5F0.jpg

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

eTOYoQH.jpg


----------

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

f3XK2Ta.jpg

"JL-1 displayed in parade.
Jane’s Strategic Weapon Systems"

h5MgtaC.jpg


----------

DF-25 | Missile Threat

JzKrWuZ.jpg


----------

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

SY-400 | Missile Threat

LW5c6y0.jpg


----------

Nuclear EMP: Examples

sgmXzEP.jpg


----------

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.
 
.
@Martian2

Welcome back. Where have you been all the time?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
i remember that they call china 3rd world country also :lol:;)
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?
 
.
Hehe, we have Nuclear ballistic missile Shaddock with the range of 600km too
510678.jpg


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

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

v7n5mZO.jpg

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

5tteyl4.png

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 “PGM-centric” 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"]
 
.
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.
 
.
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.
 
.
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.
 
.
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.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom