China's 294 megatons of thermonuclear deterrence

[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

 

[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.

 

[UKBengali]

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.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

"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?

 

[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

 

[gambit]

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.

 

[gambit]

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.

 

[Alpha1]

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

 

[j20blackdragon]

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.

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?

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.

 

[anonymus]

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]

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]

 

[Viet]

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.

 

[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.