Has China "crossed the multiple-warhead Rubicon"?

[CardSharp]

What is the exact definition of the so-called "minimum deterrence"?

Having the ability to destroy Earth more than once can also be considered "minimum deterrence" considered that US has the ability to destroy Earth more than dozen times.

The ability to without fail nuclear weapons to the continental United States. It also means a force that isn't vulnerable to a first strike aimed at debilitating China's nuclear arsenal.

This capability right now is provided chiefly by China's road mobile ICBMs with China's submarine forces acting as a supplementary deterrent.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

The ability to without fail nuclear weapons to the continental United States. It also means a force that isn't vulnerable to a first strike aimed at debilitating China's nuclear arsenal.

This capability right now is provided chiefly by China's road mobile ICBMs with China's submarine forces acting as a supplementary deterrent.

To my own definition of "minimum deterrence" is that China being capable to wipe all the major cities in America if China's major cities get annihilated in a first strike. After all, US would probably nuke Russia and the rest of the World before it goes down.

 

[below_freezing]

Some rough adding and subtracting calculations show that we can only kill 1/3 of the US population - not enough to deter them. we'll need to 5x our nuclear arsenal to deter the US - enough to kill everyone theoretically, and enough left over for survivors.

if someone can do a calculation of radioactive waste transport in the atmosphere that'd be greatly appreciated.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

Some rough adding and subtracting calculations show that we can only kill 1/3 of the US population - not enough to deter them. we'll need to 5x our nuclear arsenal to deter the US - enough to kill everyone theoretically, and enough left over for survivors.

if someone can do a calculation of radioactive waste transport in the atmosphere that'd be greatly appreciated.

According to Deng's definition, the minimum deterrence is to annihilate Earth more than once. I think China's current nuclear arsenal can no doubt reach that level, since we already had megaton nukes back in 1960s.

Can you imagine that China of 1960s be compared to today's China?

 

[ThatDamnGood]

To my own definition of "minimum deterrence" is that China being capable to wipe all the major cities in America if China's major cities get annihilated in a first strike. After all, US would probably nuke Russia and the rest of the World before it goes down.

There will still be survivors. Need to nuke the lakes and farm lands too to contaminate them.

 

[Martian2]

Well, according to the Chinese government's website:
"Among the nuclear-weapon states, China has performed the least number of nuclear tests and possesses the smallest nuclear arsenal. It has never taken part in any nuclear arms race or deployed any nuclear weapons outside its territory. "

This would put China's nuclear arsenal below 200.

You have to be careful. You could be jumping to a false conclusion. You have to interpret the Chinese government's statement from a lawyer's view and recognize the ambiguity in their claim.

http://www.nukestrat.com/china/Book-35-125.pdf

"Estimating the size of the Chinese nuclear arsenal has always relied almost exclusively on U.S. intelligence estimates, while Chinese government information about the size or composition of its nuclear forces has been almost non-existent. In the Chinese view, secrecy increases the potential adversaries’ uncertainty about Chinese capabilities and therefore increases the deterrent effect, although it may also – as in the case of the United States – cause that adversary to assume the worst. Perhaps in recognition of this dilemma, the Chinese Foreign Ministry in April 2004 published a fact sheet that included the statement: “Among the nuclear-weapon states, China ... possesses the smallest nuclear arsenal.”93 Since Britain has declared that it has less than 200 operationally available warheads, and the United States, Russia and France have more, the Chinese statement could be interpreted to mean that China’s nuclear arsenal is smaller than Britain’s.94

Not surprisingly, the devil is in the details. When the Chinese statement uses the word “arsenal,” does that mean the entire stockpile or just the portion of it that is operationally deployed? To add to the confusion, Britain has not disclosed the size of its stockpile but only declared that “less than 200 warheads” are “operationally available.” This strongly suggests that there may be additional British warheads in storage." (see pp. 38-39)

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

There will still be survivors. Need to nuke the lakes and farm lands too to contaminate them.

China is the only nuclear power where 20-30 megaton nukes are still in service, with powerful projectiles like DF-5B and DF-41, it can ensure that America would become 100% wasteland after the deterrence.

 

[Akasa]

China has a no-first-use policy.

So they have nothing to worry about, unless they are planning a first strike.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

China has a no-first-use policy.

So they have nothing to worry about, unless they are planning a first strike.

Of course, but we have to make sure that we are capable to bring down the enemy along with us if they are trying to bring us down.

 

[Martian2]

Nuclear Warhead Modernization

"In September 1981, China successfully delivered three satellites with one launch vehicle: two satellites were delivered in the nose cone and one was delivered during stage separation. This event may have been China's first foray into the area of MRV/MIRV development.
...
A September 1999 National Intelligence Council document called "Foreign Missile Developments and Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States Through 2015" concluded that China has had the technical capability for MRVs for over two decades but apparently chose not to develop and deploy them. The report noted, however, that by leveraging current technologies China could develop a basic MRV or MIRV capability for its current missile force "in a few years." Specifically, the report said:

"China has had the technical capability to develop multiple RV payloads for twenty years. If China needed a multiple RV capability in the near term, Beijing could use a DF-31 type RV to develop and deploy a simple MRV or MIRV for the DF-5 in a few years. MIRVing a future mobile missile would be years away." [Foreign Missile Developments and Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States Through 2015, The National Intelligence Council, Washington, DC, September 1999, p. 11.]"

China has possessed dual-use multiple-satellite release/MIRV technology for 30 years. Why did China wait 30 years to deploy MIRVs? The most likely explanation is that China is serious about their "no first-use" policy. In delaying the deployment of MIRVs for 30 years, China has shown that its nuclear arsenal is strictly defensive in nature.

In reaction to military developments in the United States, China has started to deploy MIRVs. The first concern is stealth attack aircraft. China has a robust overlapping and interconnected air defense system, but the stealth attack jets may penetrate the current defenses. This places silo-based Chinese ICBMs and other retaliatory nuclear weapons at risk. The second problem is the relentless development and improvement of the American missile defense shield. China is no longer confident that it can inflict a sufficiently-painful retaliatory strike on the United States.

To address the problems of American stealth attack jets and missile defense system, China has built more mobile ICBM launchers (e.g. they are harder to find) and deployed MIRVs to overwhelm American missile defense. China's goal is to preserve its capability to inflict sufficient damage in a retaliatory strike to deter an American nuclear first-strike.

Here is an exciting video from Northrop Grumman on the ICBM Flight of a Minuteman III:
YouTube - ICBM Flight Minuteman III launch

If you have never seen a real video of incoming MIRVs, then you must watch this:
YouTube - Minuteman III Missile Launch - California to Kwajalein Atoll

 

[Akasa]

Of course, but we have to make sure that we are capable to bring down the enemy along with us if they are trying to bring us down.

Sure, but even if the enemy is the US, it won't be much matter, since the US has 10000 nuclear warheads deployed. That is enough to wipe out the surface of the earth 10 times. Even if we retaliate, that's not gonna change anything. China would still lie in total destruction.

We only have 400 nuclear warheads.

Not to mention the largest US nuclear warhead (the one installed on the Titan) has 10 megatons in firepower.

Instead, we should be focusing on deploying more high-altitude anti-ballistic missiles.

 

[Akasa]

Nuclear Warhead Modernization

"In September 1981, China successfully delivered three satellites with one launch vehicle: two satellites were delivered in the nose cone and one was delivered during stage separation. This event may have been China's first foray into the area of MRV/MIRV development.
...
A September 1999 National Intelligence Council document called "Foreign Missile Developments and Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States Through 2015" concluded that China has had the technical capability for MRVs for over two decades but apparently chose not to develop and deploy them. The report noted, however, that by leveraging current technologies China could develop a basic MRV or MIRV capability for its current missile force "in a few years." Specifically, the report said:



China has possessed dual-use multiple-satellite release/MIRV technology for 30 years. Why did China wait 30 years to deploy MIRVs? The most likely explanation is that China is serious about their "no first-use" policy. In delaying the deployment of MIRVs for 30 years, China has shown that its nuclear arsenal is strictly defensive in nature.

In reaction to military developments in the United States, China has started to deploy MIRVs. The first concern is stealth attack aircraft. China has a robust overlapping and interconnected air defense system, but the stealth attack jets may penetrate the current defenses. This places silo-based Chinese ICBMs and other retaliatory nuclear weapons at risk. The second problem is the relentless development and improvement of the American missile defense shield. China is no longer confident that it can inflict a sufficiently-painful retaliatory strike on the United States.

To address the problems of American stealth attack jets and missile defense system, China has built more mobile ICBM launchers (e.g. they are harder to find) and deployed MIRVs to overwhelm American missile defense. China's goal is to preserve its capability to inflict sufficient damage in a retaliatory strike to deter an American nuclear first-strike.

Here is an exciting video from Northrop Grumman on the ICBM Flight of a Minuteman III:
YouTube - ICBM Flight Minuteman III launch

If you have never seen a real video of incoming MIRVs, then you must watch this:
YouTube - Minuteman III Missile Launch - California to Kwajalein Atoll

More info on China MIRVs:

- Most number of MIRVs carried by a single missile: 12 (carried on the DF-41)
- MIRV capable of maneuverability (to evade anti-ballistic missiles)
- Most MIRVs carried by SLBM: 10 (carried on JL-2)
- MIRV may have decoys

 

[Solomon2]

Some rough adding and subtracting calculations show that we can only kill 1/3 of the US population - not enough to deter them...

China's size is deterrence enough. When the border troubles with the USSR occurred in the late 1960s the Russians realized that although they could slay 90% of the Chinese with their nuclear weapons that still meant 100 million very angry Chinese would be left alive, facing about the same number of Russians.

Only then did the Russians realize that unilateral and even exclusive use of nuclear weapons was not enough to guarantee victory in a conflict with China. Deterrence achieved.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

Sure, but even if the enemy is the US, it won't be much matter, since the US has 10000 nuclear warheads deployed. That is enough to wipe out the surface of the earth 10 times. Even if we retaliate, that's not gonna change anything. China would still lie in total destruction.

We only have 400 nuclear warheads.

Not to mention the largest US nuclear warhead (the one installed on the Titan) has 10 megatons in firepower.

Instead, we should be focusing on deploying more high-altitude anti-ballistic missiles.

Even 400 nukes are enough to wipe US off the map, this is the policy of mutual destruction.

The Soviets had R-36 (capable of carrying a 20 megatons warhead) back in 1970s, but still hesitated to nuke China because they knew it was not worthy it...as China back then was extremely poor and backward, and the Soviets didn't want to lose their major cities like Moscow, St-Petersburg, Kiev back in a nuclear exchange.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

China's size is deterrence enough. When the border troubles with the USSR occurred in the late 1960s the Russians realized that although they could slay 90% of the Chinese with their nuclear weapons that still meant 100 million very angry Chinese would be left alive, facing about the same number of Russians.

Only then did the Russians realize that unilateral and even exclusive use of nuclear weapons was not enough to guarantee victory in a conflict with China. Deterrence achieved.

You just prove my point. In 1970s, Soviets didn't nuke us wasn't because we were under the protection of the American nuclear umbrella, but the rationality had overcame their madness.

They knew that even they did manage to kill over 90% of the Chinese population, but in exchange, they would probably lose many of their major cities and industrial bases. And US could take this opportunity to finish them off as a consequence.