Nuclear weapons development must be consistent

[TaiShang]

Nuclear weapons development must be consistent

Global Times

A report on the official website of the Shaanxi Province's Environmental Surveillance Center mentioned projects related to the DF-41 strategic missile, which has widely been considered confirmation from Chinese authorities of the existence of the DF-41 intercontinental strategic missile. Western intelligence organizations have speculated about China's latest nuclear weapons, and some even believe it will profoundly influence how China and the US view each other.

Strategic nuclear missiles relate to China's core strategic capabilities, which influence the attitude of major powers toward China.

The DF-41 seems to have made breakthroughs in terms of survival capacity and penetration capacity. If, as Western intelligence institutions speculated, the DF-41 is projected to use solid fuels and have the capacity to be road-mobile with multiple warheads, then it will be a powerful strategic weapon which would not be easily destroyed in the first round of a nuclear strike and which American anti-missile systems cannot intercept.

The West doesn't take seriously Russia's economic record, but held its unique strategic capability in awe. The fundamental reason is that Russia inherited a huge nuclear arsenal from the Soviet era. The West can isolate Moscow politically and economically, but carrying out military actions against Russia is nearly an impossible option. Nuclear weapons have been the key factor.

China should not stress too much about nuclear weapons because it would bring about intense geopolitical turbulence. Compared with China's other kinds of capabilities, its nuclear one is neither a severe disadvantage nor a strong advantage. Herman Cain, a Republican presidential candidate, was reportedly ignorant of China's presence as a nuclear weapons state. That means nuclear strength hasn't become a strong factor shaping the US public's view over China.

China will not show off its nuclear build-up, but the build-up should be sensed by the outside world. China needs to upgrade the quality of its nuclear weapons and the number of warheads should increase gradually.

The US' nuclear capability far exceeds that of China. The US lacks the imperative to criticize China's development of nuclear weapons. Although Washington is not willing to see the advancement of China's nuclear capabilities, it doesn't fuss about it in the same way it fusses about human rights. This shows that there's room for China to speed up its nuclear capability.

China is a big country that acts prudently, and the US is quite aware of this. As China's nuclear capability increases, there is the possibility that the US will take nuclear deterrent action against China, either explicitly or implicitly.

China needs determination to develop nuclear powers, which also requires technological and political capacities. We don't want to add complexity to China's strategic environment. It requires the wisdom of decision-makers to strike a balance.

@Nihonjin1051

 

[Aepsilons]

@TaiShang ,

This is the best line in the entire article:

China needs determination to develop nuclear powers, which also requires technological and political capacities. We don't want to add complexity to China's strategic environment. It requires the wisdom of decision-makers to strike a balance.

As a major economic power that is centered in the Asia-Pacific, China has intertwining interests with many of its partners in South East Asia (ASEAN), East Asia (Japan, South Korea, Taiwan), and the West (United States, European Union). I think that to maintain an environment that fosters both trust and respect , China has to practice restraint , considering the interests of the region.

While I believe that Japan has the right to practice collective self defense to address security concerns, I am not for further nuclear developments in the region as it destabilizes the region. What China and its partners in East Asia need to do is to find an understanding in regards to territorial issue(s), and I believe that the APEC summit in November 2014 will be a fortuitous opportunity for both Abe and Xi to find common ground.

China matters. China is the 2nd largest economy in the world, the home to plethora of manufacturing bases for Japan and other major economic powers such as the United States et al. In order for continued development of our economies , there has to be an environment that fosters trust and transparency.

The United States will not strike first against the People's Republic of China , which would be the catalyst of regional and global instability. Nor do I think it benefits China or the entire region for China to pursue an aggressive nuclear arms expansion. There has to be greater confidence initiative on China's part.

Despite our political differences, Japan and the rest of the Asian region look towards a more responsible, and transparent China.


Sincerely,
@Nihonjin1051

 

[Beidou2020]

Time to dramatically build up the nukes and aim it straight at the Japs. One wrong move by the Japs regarding Diaoyu Islands and face the consequences. Time to station nuclear missiles in Cuba and aim it straight at the Yanks and if they ever come to the rescue of Japs, say goodbye to Washington, New York and all other cities.

Time to play hardball

 

[Jlaw]

Nuclear weapons development must be consistent

Global Times

A report on the official website of the Shaanxi Province's Environmental Surveillance Center mentioned projects related to the DF-41 strategic missile, which has widely been considered confirmation from Chinese authorities of the existence of the DF-41 intercontinental strategic missile. Western intelligence organizations have speculated about China's latest nuclear weapons, and some even believe it will profoundly influence how China and the US view each other.

Strategic nuclear missiles relate to China's core strategic capabilities, which influence the attitude of major powers toward China.

The DF-41 seems to have made breakthroughs in terms of survival capacity and penetration capacity. If, as Western intelligence institutions speculated, the DF-41 is projected to use solid fuels and have the capacity to be road-mobile with multiple warheads, then it will be a powerful strategic weapon which would not be easily destroyed in the first round of a nuclear strike and which American anti-missile systems cannot intercept.

The West doesn't take seriously Russia's economic record, but held its unique strategic capability in awe. The fundamental reason is that Russia inherited a huge nuclear arsenal from the Soviet era. The West can isolate Moscow politically and economically, but carrying out military actions against Russia is nearly an impossible option. Nuclear weapons have been the key factor.

China should not stress too much about nuclear weapons because it would bring about intense geopolitical turbulence. Compared with China's other kinds of capabilities, its nuclear one is neither a severe disadvantage nor a strong advantage. Herman Cain, a Republican presidential candidate, was reportedly ignorant of China's presence as a nuclear weapons state. That means nuclear strength hasn't become a strong factor shaping the US public's view over China.

China will not show off its nuclear build-up, but the build-up should be sensed by the outside world. China needs to upgrade the quality of its nuclear weapons and the number of warheads should increase gradually.

The US' nuclear capability far exceeds that of China. The US lacks the imperative to criticize China's development of nuclear weapons. Although Washington is not willing to see the advancement of China's nuclear capabilities, it doesn't fuss about it in the same way it fusses about human rights. This shows that there's room for China to speed up its nuclear capability.

China is a big country that acts prudently, and the US is quite aware of this. As China's nuclear capability increases, there is the possibility that the US will take nuclear deterrent action against China, either explicitly or implicitly.

China needs determination to develop nuclear powers, which also requires technological and political capacities. We don't want to add complexity to China's strategic environment. It requires the wisdom of decision-makers to strike a balance.

@Nihonjin1051

The reality is, no foreign countries know exactly how many nukes China actually possesses. Without a credible nuclear deterrence force capable of destroying the entire US, US will always meddle in China's affairs.
Having the capability to destroy a dozen US cities is not enough to deter the US lunatics from deploying a first strike against us.

 

[Aepsilons]

Time to dramatically build up the nukes and aim it straight at the Japs. One wrong move by the Japs regarding Diaoyu Islands and face extinction. Time to station nuclear missiles in Cuba and aim it straight at the Yanks and if they ever come to the rescue of Japs, say goodbye to Washington, New York and all other cities.

Time to play hardball

Anata wa honto ni omoshiroi desu.

The reality is, no foreign countries know exactly how many nukes China actually possesses. Without a credible nuclear deterrence force capable of destroying the entire US, US will always meddle in China's affairs.
Having the capability to destroy a dozen US cities is not enough to deter the US lunatics from deploying a first strike against us.

Think to yourself if the United States Presidency is willing to accept political suicide by launching a nuclear first strike.

 

[Beidou2020]

The reality is, no foreign countries know exactly how many nukes China actually possesses. Without a credible nuclear deterrence force capable of destroying the entire US, US will always meddle in China's affairs.
Having the capability to destroy a dozen US cities is not enough to deter the US lunatics from deploying a first strike against us.

You're right. We should stop building these aircraft carriers that take too much time and money to build and won't change the status quo against the Yanks. We need to be a nuclear peer to the US the way Russia is in terms of the number of warheads and delivery capability and survivability. Then remove the no-first-use nuclear policy.

 

[Jlaw]

[quote="Beidou2020, post: 6013245, member: 151711



Think to yourself if the United States Presidency is willing to accept political suicide by launching a nuclear first strike.[/quote]

We certainly do not wish for nukes to be used first, but it's always best to be safe than sorry. I rather have too many nukes instead of not enough if it is required. US politicians can be crazy. Once they sense urgency or sense their superpower status has been eroded, you never know if they will be crazy enough to do this.

Look at ww2. They did not need to drop the atomic bombs in Japan to end the war, but they did it anyways. Of course they said it was used in order to potentially save millions of lives, but that is debatable as we will never know.

 

[Genesis]

@TaiShang ,

This is the best line in the entire article:

China needs determination to develop nuclear powers, which also requires technological and political capacities. We don't want to add complexity to China's strategic environment. It requires the wisdom of decision-makers to strike a balance.

As a major economic power that is centered in the Asia-Pacific, China has intertwining interests with many of its partners in South East Asia (ASEAN), East Asia (Japan, South Korea, Taiwan), and the West (United States, European Union). I think that to maintain an environment that fosters both trust and respect , China has to practice restraint , considering the interests of the region.

While I believe that Japan has the right to practice collective self defense to address security concerns, I am not for further nuclear developments in the region as it destabilizes the region. What China and its partners in East Asia need to do is to find an understanding in regards to territorial issue(s), and I believe that the APEC summit in November 2014 will be a fortuitous opportunity for both Abe and Xi to find common ground.

China matters. China is the 2nd largest economy in the world, the home to plethora of manufacturing bases for Japan and other major economic powers such as the United States et al. In order for continued development of our economies , there has to be an environment that fosters trust and transparency.

The United States will not strike first against the People's Republic of China , which would be the catalyst of regional and global instability. Nor do I think it benefits China or the entire region for China to pursue an aggressive nuclear arms expansion. There has to be greater confidence initiative on China's part.

Despite our political differences, Japan and the rest of the Asian region look towards a more responsible, and transparent China.


Sincerely,
@Nihonjin1051

no need to work anything out, we'll just wait to about 2030 when our GDP exceed 20 Trillion and we become developed. The time for China to be the dumping ground of developed world is over, mostly because if it's too expensive it's not a dumping ground, it's a recycling plant. So look to Africa or ASEAN or South Asia or any other places.

Japan can do what it wants, don't care, in facts it's better this way, I hate people giving excuses when they lose.

Also have you considered if we didn't practice restraint, there be war already, countries have gone to war for far less. If that isn't responsible I don't know what is, we don't go openly saying we need to add costs to the Philippines for this dispute like some of our good friends.

Though perhaps for transparency we should.

As to nuclear arms expansion, unnecessary, what we have is enough, better missile tech sure, but 300 war heads is more than enough.

 

[Beidou2020]

no need to work anything out, we'll just wait to about 2030 when our GDP exceed 20 Trillion and we become developed. The time for China to be the dumping ground of developed world is over, mostly because if it's too expensive it's not a dumping ground, it's a recycling plant. So look to Africa or ASEAN or South Asia or any other places.

Japan can do what it wants, don't care, in facts it's better this way, I hate people giving excuses when they lose.

Also have you considered if we didn't practice restraint, there be war already, countries have gone to war for far less. If that isn't responsible I don't know what is, we don't go openly saying we need to add costs to the Philippines for this dispute like some of our good friends.

Though perhaps for transparency we should.

As to nuclear arms expansion, unnecessary, what we have is enough, better missile tech sure, but 300 war heads is more than enough.

Chinese conventional military power won't be enough to crush the Yanks. Nukes are the trump card.

 

[Aepsilons]

@Genesis

China is a major power in the world -- politically and militarily. She is also an economic power house , standing as the 2nd greatest economy in the world. China, in a sobering point, has responsibility not only to the Chinese people, but also to the entire world.

What do I mean by this? China has to prove to the world, she has a responsibility to the world and the region that she will be a force for positive change , for stability. She has to show to regional partners that she is able to reason with, and cares not just for her immediate interests, but to the interest(s) of her partners.

I say this in earnest. And I am sure most Japanese share this view with me.

 

[Genesis]

Chinese conventional military power won't be enough to crush the Yanks. Nukes are the trump card.

what exactly are you fighting for, for the right to rule a nuclear waste land? Cause if that's it, mission accomplished.

Who says Chinese conventional weapons can't beat US, all you can say is we can't right now, but hundreds and thousands of billions later, who knows.

 

[xunzi]

I often wonder if the US will treat us differently if we publicly release that we have 10,000 nukes. I think they will. The US is a very dangerous country if they think they have the upper hand in any conflict. I don't believe they want to invade Iraq had Iraq really possess nuke. We are playing a tight rope here. On one hand, we hide our nuke stockpile but on the other hand, we don't want to show our American friends we have a small number which might give them that thought of overconfident in destroying us.

 

[Jlaw]

no need to work anything out, we'll just wait to about 2030 when our GDP exceed 20 Trillion and we become developed. The time for China to be the dumping ground of developed world is over, mostly because if it's too expensive it's not a dumping ground, it's a recycling plant. So look to Africa or ASEAN or South Asia or any other places.

Japan can do what it wants, don't care, in facts it's better this way, I hate people giving excuses when they lose.

Also have you considered if we didn't practice restraint, there be war already, countries have gone to war for far less. If that isn't responsible I don't know what is, we don't go openly saying we need to add costs to the Philippines for this dispute like some of our good friends.

Though perhaps for transparency we should.

As to nuclear arms expansion, unnecessary, what we have is enough, better missile tech sure, but 300 war heads is more than enough.

300 warheads is not enough. You need to closely match the US in warheads to prevent a first strike and stop them from meddling in internal matters. In case of MAD you need to 100% assure they do not survive either.

 

[Aepsilons]

I often wonder if the US will treat us differently if we publicly release that we have 10,000 nukes. I think they will. The US is a very dangerous country if they think they have the upper hand in any conflict. I don't believe they want to invade Iraq had Iraq really possess nuke. We are playing a tight rope here. On one hand, we hide our nuke stockpile but on the other hand, we don't want to show our American friends we have a small number which might give them that thought of overconfident in destroying us.

In my view, the world has greater concern for China than Russia based on the shear economic clout of the former. Russia, although a major nuclear power, does not have the economic clout as China -- and thus -- can be pushed to the periphery of western powers and other developed powers in the world.

China is the manufacturer of the worlds' goods. I mean, Japan, alone, has over 4100 companies stationed in China. If that does not speak volume of our vested interests in China -- what does? Both China and Japan own 15% of the United States National Debt (Japan--7%) and (China -- 8%). This is the reason why there is so much concern on China's influence.

 

[xunzi]

300 warheads is not enough. You need to closely match the US in warheads to prevent a first strike and stop them from meddling in internal matters. In case of MAD you need to 100% assure they do not survive either.

I think a minimum of 1,000 nuke is needed to destroy all US cities. The reason is we have to expect a success rate of 1 out of 3 nuke launches. 300 nukes are needed to destroy the US, time 3X to increase success rate.