China's 294 megatons of thermonuclear deterrence

[Shotgunner51]

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.

 

[samsara]

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

 

[Akasa]

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]

"...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

 

[Akasa]

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]

"...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.

 

[samsara]

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.

 

[Penguin]

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

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.

Come from someone with a fake ID, it is alternative fact.

For lack of your substantive reply, no doubt.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

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.

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.

 

[samsara]

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.

 

[jkroo]

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

 

[Louiq XIV]

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.

 

[Penguin]

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]

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.

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?

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?

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

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.

 

[Shotgunner51]

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