China's 294 megatons of thermonuclear deterrence

[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.

 

[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 The DF-5 has been superseded by the DF-5A and DF-5B ICBMs.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]"

 

[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?

 

[Martian2]

@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.

 

[bolo]

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.

 

[Martian2]

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.

 

[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)"

----------

 

[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]

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

 

[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.

 

[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

 

[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

 

[shuttler]

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

 

[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

 

[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