China's Nuclear Strike Force

[tanlixiang28776]

Hehe, we have the right to enrich uranium, if CHina treaten us with Nuke boom, we will ask US for the right to make Nuke also plus blocking your shipping line paasing by our EEZ, your 2rd largest economy will say bye bye to the world, coz no ship passing by our EEZ can sail to CHina any more

Keep smoking your joints, and living in fantasy land.

 

[Martian2]

If you were a PLA general, would you ask your government to fund a prestigious toy (e.g. show the flag) like an aircraft carrier or would you demand they provide the funds to build another 100 ICBMs first (to defend the homeland)? The preparation of the Shi Lang for sea trials speaks volumes about the preparedness of China's military for a thermonuclear war.

We can only reasonably infer the PLA generals have satisfied all of their ICBM needs in deterring the United States and they're now moving on to aircraft carrier projects with much lower priority.

A launch silo for China's DF-5 ICBM

[Note: This is my post from a different thread and it is relevant here.]

 

[Chogy]

Why is it that Russia and the U.S. are working hard over decades to REDUCE the size of their nuclear arsenals? Could it be, perhaps, that having large numbers of warheads is destabilizing, rather than beneficial or protective?

Maybe China should become more transparent, and join in reducing the number of these devices... I think everyone can agree that China has adequate deterrence.

It's like neighbors who own firearms. Mr. Smith owns a 12 gauge shotgun, and feels secure. Mr. Jones (for whatever reason) feels that he needs a shotgun. And 6 assault rifles, and 5 handguns, and grenades, and a rocket launcher, and trenches and barbed wire surrounding his property.

 

[aakash_2410]

2) The 20 silo-based "city-buster" ICBMs (i.e. 1 to 4 megatons) alone can destroy 20 American cities. If you annihilate the top 20 American cities, you are talking about roughly 30 million dead plus nuclear fallout. This is called nuclear deterrence.

I struggle to comprehend, why would you want to bomb the country you live in and kill its' civilians? Or the feeling of being an 'Asian American' takes over the American patriotism?

 

[UKBengali]

Missing my point. Most American sites don't concentrate on them. I actually enjoy the read, I am more talking about other threads where half the posters are yelling nuke this, nuke that.

PS...did you get my "Strangelove" reference? Nuke are basically a deterent, secret ones are meaningless. I am sure if China had thousands, they would advertise the fact.

It is a question of economics.

If China advertised the fact that it's nuclear arsenal was as large as the US, then the richer US would only increase the size of it's arsenal. China would then be in a position of spending money it did not have to match this increase.

China chooses to follow a policy of "Strategic Ambiguity". This means that the US could never tell if China had 20 or 500 nuclear missiles that could reach the US. The reason why it is so effective is that the US knows full well that China has both the money and the ability to build up an arsenal of this size and so must always take into account that China could literally end the US as it now exists in any nuclear war.

 

[Peter]

When ever I visit American defense sites, you never see constant bragging about nukes, as you do on these forums. A sign of maturity? Confidence? A deep fear in these other nations?

Of course, we American are by far more advance than China and not naive to reveal our secret tested weapons. Unlike China's

Transparency actually. China's nuclear arsenal is vastly under reported and hidden. Just giving out some facts for greater understanding.

Childish is one thing, and secondly to show-off something that we can measure China's nuclear arsenal status.

 

[Martian2]

Why is it that Russia and the U.S. are working hard over decades to REDUCE the size of their nuclear arsenals? Could it be, perhaps, that having large numbers of warheads is destabilizing, rather than beneficial or protective?

Maybe China should become more transparent, and join in reducing the number of these devices... I think everyone can agree that China has adequate deterrence.

It's like neighbors who own firearms. Mr. Smith owns a 12 gauge shotgun, and feels secure. Mr. Jones (for whatever reason) feels that he needs a shotgun. And 6 assault rifles, and 5 handguns, and grenades, and a rocket launcher, and trenches and barbed wire surrounding his property.

If Major General Zhu Chenghu was telling the truth in 2005, when he threatened to nuke hundreds of American cities, then China arguably is getting close to qualifying for arms-reduction talks. Of course, the Chinese will avoid the question of General Zhu's outburst and correctly claim its arsenal is much smaller than the number of American deployed warheads PLUS stockpile and reserve.

According to this Chinese reasoning, they will continue to enjoy the freedom of increasing their nuclear forces as long as they fall under the ceiling of American deployed warheads, stockpile, and reserve of 9,983 nuclear warheads. (See NRDC: New Estimates of the U.S. Nuclear Weapons Stockpile, 2007 and 2012)

From the Chinese perspective, they should continue to modernize and expand their nuclear forces until they reach the American level of 9,983 total warheads sometime in the distant future.

I struggle to comprehend, why would you want to bomb the country you live in and kill its' civilians? Or the feeling of being an 'Asian American' takes over the American patriotism?

I am an objective analyst. Does a Jane's reporter interject his/her personal background into an article? Similarly, I am merely being professional. My views are supported by a plethora of citations and I believe the analysis is reasonable. The goal is to discern the truth, wherever the facts may lead.

 

[gambit]

I am an objective analyst. Does a Jane's reporter interject his/her personal background into an article? Similarly, I am merely being professional. My views are supported by a plethora of citations and I believe the analysis is reasonable. The goal is to discern the truth, wherever the facts may lead.

No...You are neither 'objective' nor 'professional' and this has been proven many times over. The latest bias is the current insistence on APA's so-called 'analysis' on the J-20, via the flawed Physical Optics (PO) method, that it is the definitive statement on the aircraft despite my evidences to the contrary. If you are truly 'objective', and never mind the laughable 'professional' bit, you would have at least make a public concession that I have valid counter arguments, if you cannot challenge them.

By the way, here is something for you and the public's interest...

Take note of the authors and how their names are spelled. Take note of the date. Take note of the authors' origins where they learned their knowledge. Is that the same place the J-20 came from? And take note of the last statement...

The physical theory of diffraction (PTD) overcomes this shortcoming, in which the physical optics (PO) current on a discontinuous surface of a perfect conductor is refined by the addition of a so-called "edge wave" (EW) current component due to the presence of the (edge) discontinuity.

You do not refine something unless that something is consistently proven inadequate over diverse conditions. Chinese engineers know that PO is an inappropriate tool on a complex body. Twenty years later Iranian engineers learned and know the same. But today APA using the same flawed tool is infallible just because YOU liked what they said about the J-20 and when challenged you resort to name calling.

Stop the pretense of 'objectivity'. You can fool other Chinese members here but not me.

 

[Martian2]

Why does China need to build a huge nuclear force for a counter-strike?

1. There is an expected failure rate. Though China has a very good record in the reliability of their civilian rockets/missile analogs (see China Matches U.S. Space Launches for First Time | Danger Room | Wired.com), some of the DF-5 ICBMs were built a long time ago.

2. Part of China's counter-strike missiles is expected to be shot down by U.S. conventional anti-ballistic missile defense.

3. In a surprise U.S. attack (e.g. U.S. has never agreed to a pledge of No First Use), a first strike is expected to destroy a significant portion of China's counter-strike missiles.

4. Some of China's counter-strike missiles will be neutralized by U.S. nuclear-tipped anti-missile missiles.

U.S. Nike Hercules nuclear-tipped anti-missile missile with a 2 to 20 kiloton warhead and a range of 77 miles (or 124 km)

High-altitude nuclear weapon test:

5. MIRVed warheads on the DF-41 ICBMs and Julang-2 SLBMs are expected to be only 150 kilotons each. Therefore, using the standard from the U.S. SIOP plan (see Why Obama Can't End Nukes - Newsweek), five warheads are targeted at each city to ensure its destruction.

6. This is politically incorrect, but I'm going to say it anyway. An all-out nuke war isn't just between two countries. Once a global thermonuclear war is underway, every major and medium-sized city in the world will be targeted. After all, you can't let some minor country become a superpower in a post-nuclear-war world by leaving its cities intact. To accomplish this strategic objective, a massive nuclear arsenal is necessary.

----------

Regarding the issue of the number of Chinese silos, I can assure you that the claim of only 20 Chinese ICBM silos is ludicrous. The length of a DF-21 IRBM is 11m. The length of a DF-31 ICBM is 13m. If a silo is dug a little deeper and wider, it can accommodate an ICBM; instead of an IRBM.

In the following video, which encompasses only a few mountains, I counted at least 30 silos. We know from a Chinese-state television CCTV broadcast on March 24, 2008 that China has built a 5,000km (or 3,000-mile) missile complex under a mountain range. If a few mountains contain 30 silos, imagine how many silos are hidden along 5,000km.

 

[Martian2]

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."

After the 1992 to 1996 thermonuclear tests, China knows with certainty that its version of the W-88 warhead is fully functional. China is not relying on computer simulations. China's most-advanced thermonuclear weapon designs were tested for four years to their satisfaction.

China Stole Nuclear Secrets From Los Alamos, U.S. Officials Say

"China...Nuclear Secrets...
By JAMES RISEN and JEFF GERTH
March 6, 1999

WASHINGTON -- Working with nuclear secrets stolen from a U.S. government laboratory, China has made a leap in the development of nuclear weapons: the miniaturization of its bombs, according to administration officials.

Until recently, China's nuclear weapons designs were a generation behind those of the United States, largely because Beijing was unable to produce small warheads that could be launched from a single missile at multiple targets and form the backbone of a modern nuclear force.

But by the mid-1990s, China had built and tested such small bombs, a breakthrough that officials say was accelerated by the theft of U.S. nuclear secrets from Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico.

The espionage is believed to have occurred in the mid-1980s, officials said. But it was not detected until 1995, when American experts analyzing Chinese nuclear test results found similarities to America's most advanced miniature warhead, the W-88. (article continues)"

W88 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The W88 is a United States thermonuclear warhead, with an estimated yield of 475 kiloton (kt), and is small enough to fit on MIRVed missiles. The W88 was designed at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in the 1970s. In 1999 the director of Los Alamos who had presided over its design described it as "The most advanced U.S. nuclear warhead."[1]

The Trident II SLBM can be armed with up to 8 W88 (475 kt) warheads (Mark 5) or 8 W76 (100 kt) warheads (Mark 4), but it is limited to 4 warheads under SORT."

 

[Broccoli]

http://www.defence.pk/forums/china-defence/69551-chinas-nuclear-strike-force-6.html#post1954877

How you know that is DF-41? We can't see what kinda missile it will carry. It could be a new high mobility TEL for DF-31A...

 

[AerospaceEngineer]

It is a question of economics.

If China advertised the fact that it's nuclear arsenal was as large as the US, then the richer US would only increase the size of it's arsenal. China would then be in a position of spending money it did not have to match this increase.

China chooses to follow a policy of "Strategic Ambiguity". This means that the US could never tell if China had 20 or 500 nuclear missiles that could reach the US. The reason why it is so effective is that the US knows full well that China has both the money and the ability to build up an arsenal of this size and so must always take into account that China could literally end the US as it now exists in any nuclear war.

Yes, you are telling the truth.

However, every1 knows that China has well over 2000 Thermo Nukes!!

It is actually easy to calculate it. Just add the number of DF-31, DF-41, DF-21, JL-2. Plus H-6K bombers you will get a very accurate estimate.