What's new

US triggers China’s urgency to strengthen nuclear deterrent: Global Times editorial

Beidou2020

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
7,857
Reaction score
-48
Country
China
Location
New Zealand
US triggers China’s urgency to strengthen nuclear deterrent: Global Times editorial
Global Times
03:28 Jul 28 2021
DF-5B intercontinental ballistic missiles Photo: Fan Lingzhi/GT

DF-5B intercontinental ballistic missiles Photo: Fan Lingzhi/GT
On Monday, The New York Times quoted nuclear weapons experts from the Federation of American Scientists as saying that China has built a new silo for launching nuclear missiles in the Hami prefecture of Northwest China's Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region. China now owns 110 silos, according to the US media. On June 30, the Washington Post published the findings of researchers from US think tank James Martin Centre for Nonproliferation Studies, who identified around 120 new silos near the city of Yumen, Northwest China's Gansu Province. The results of both reports are based on pictures taken by commercial satellites.

There has been no official Chinese response to these US reports. Some in China have suggested that those silos claimed by the US might be foundations of wind power plants, though this claim has also not been confirmed by official sources.

There are two major reasons why some people in the US, and the West in general, have been talking more and more about China's nuclear weapons. First, the US has made China its main strategic rivalry. As it has adopted various policies to lay siege to China, the risk of strategic confrontation between the two countries has increased. As the US is strengthening its own nuclear weapons arsenal, it naturally assumes that China will do the same. Second, China's economic and technological strength is sufficient beyond doubt to support the expansion of its nuclear weapons arsenal. It would be easy for China to do so if it wanted to.

The Pentagon's 2020 report to the US Congress assessing China's military capabilities suggested that China would double its warhead stockpile in the next decade. Also, three Republican senators in June claimed that China would have 1,000 nuclear warheads by 2029, achieving some kind of "nuclear parity with the US."

What is China doing with its nuclear arsenal? It's the country's top secret. The New York Times article speculated that silos at Yumen and Hami "are clearly being built to be discovered" by US satellites and they "can play a shell game" probably only filling part of them with missiles.

The US media and relevant institutes repeatedly hyped the newly discovered "silos" in China. Their fundamental purpose is to exert public opinion pressure on China. They have always believed that Western public opinion could influence China and that increasing the pressure can force China to change its behavior. Some US forces are also keen to further modernize the US nuclear arsenal. The media and the mentioned organizations hype China's "silos," which provides more reason for the US to upgrade its nuclear arsenal.

Obviously, Washington hopes that the current nuclear arsenal gap between the US and China can be maintained for a long time. It also hopes its absolute advantage would help sustain the US strategic offensive and coercive capabilities against China and bolster US confidence and its sense of superiority.

However, Washington needs to be clear that in an era when China's economic and technological capabilities are abundant, the US' implementation of a policy with strong pressure and the resulting increased risk of a China-US strategic collision will inevitably bring a sense of urgency for China to intensify the building of its nuclear deterrent. The US - the country with the strongest military force - is worried that its nuclear deterrent is not sufficient. They should put themselves in China's shoes and consider what China's strategic concerns will be. Don't we have many more reasons to make our nuclear arsenal stronger?

Some Americans are striking an attitude in talking about what China would do with a stronger nuclear capability. We don't know whether they are naive or hypocritical. China's strengthening of its nuclear deterrent is to suppress the impulse of some US forces to impose maximum pressure on China or even provoke a war to crush the will of the Chinese people.

In the face of some extreme US politicians' repeated provocations and the US' arrogance in the South China Sea and the Taiwan Straits, China must take resolute countermeasures against the US' arrogance. It should force the US to maintain restraint at moments and localities that may lead to a military confrontation between China and the US, and make efforts to avoid conflicts. China's building of its strength must convince the US that if and when a war breaks out at the door of China, the US will never win. China's strength is sufficient to support us in combating any escalation of the conflict until the provocateurs are defeated in the future.

Americans should know as clearly as the Chinese do about what level of nuclear power China really needs to build. It would be a nuclear force strong enough to make the US - from the military to the government - fear. To a significant degree, it could participate in shaping US public opinion toward China. The dynamic equilibrium will be achieved when the radical elites in the US completely lose the courage to even think about using nuclear weapons toward China, and when the entire US society is fully aware that China is "untouchable" in terms of military power.
 
. .
This is the clearest message yet:

"Yes, these are silos. Yes they're filled. Don't take it seriously? Try it and find out."

land based nuclear missiles are of no use if you are looking to provide nuclear deterrence using 2nd strike

only SSBN can do that and Chinese SSBN do not conduct deep sea patrols even although China has operated SSBN for decades
 
.
land based nuclear missiles are of no use if you are looking to provide nuclear deterrence using 2nd strike

only SSBN can do that and Chinese SSBN do not conduct deep sea patrols even although China has operated SSBN for decades

As usual, you have no clue.

China has thousands of miles underground network under giant mountains like Taihang, to store and transfer nuclear weapons, and with hundreds, if not thousands of entry/exit points of the tunnel, most of them are hidden (these points will only be opened with the help of pre-installed expolsive material within the critical points), they are pretty safe for a second strike.

Whilst mobile launchers like DF-41 can also survive a first strike.

As for silo-based ICBMs, they are first-strike weapons.

And unlike the US/USSR, SSBN is not that useful for China, the first reason it will take a minimum 14,000 km range for a SLBM to cover the US from a SSBN in China, whilst for land-based, it will only take about 12000 km.

And secondly most sea area around China has a depth about 20-50 meters, the depth makes the enemy an easy job to spot these rather large SSBNs.
 
.
As usual, you have no clue.

China has thousands of miles underground network under giant mountains like Taihang, to store and transfer nuclear weapons, and with hundreds, if not thousands of entry/exit points of the tunnel, most of them are hidden (these points will only be opened with the help of pre-installed expolsive material within the critical points), they are pretty safe for a second strike.

Whilst mobile launchers like DF-41 can also survive a first strike.

As for silo-based ICBMs, they are first-strike weapons.

And unlike the US/USSR, SSBN is not that useful for China, the first reason it will take a minimum 14,000 km range for a SLBM to cover the US from a SSBN in China, whilst for land-based, it will only take about 12000 km.

And secondly most sea area around China has a depth about 20-50 meters, the depth makes the enemy an easy job to spot these rather large SSBNs.

can you tell me how many JL-3 tests China has conducted ? or even the older JL-2?

US + UK has done over 180 Trident tests since induction from SSBN

this repeatedly validates the system for use
 
.
can you tell me how many JL-3 tests China has conducted ? or even the older JL-2?

US + UK has done over 180 Trident tests since induction from SSBN

this repeatedly validates the system for use

Just read my post, SLBM and SSBN have always been low priority in China, for the obvious reason I mentioned above.
 
.
Just read my post, SLBM and SSBN have always been low priority in China, for the obvious reason I mentioned above.

yes because they do not have sea based nuclear deterrence which was my original statement
 
.
yes because they do not have sea based nuclear deterrence which was my original statement

Because it is not suitable and efficient for China, just like I said.

As for Trident, well the US claimed that they have test all their 100+ Tridents launch succesfully, but unfornatuate when UK also try test the Trident a few years ago, the launch failed and it go to the US instead of the sea target.

So maybe the Trident in the US is just as good and reliable as this one:

5e83b9d253101.jpg
 
.
Because it is not suitable and efficient for China, just like I said.

or another simple way too expensive too complicated

North Korea also store many nuclear warheads in deep under ground bunkers

what purpose that serves, well I guess its good for domestic consumption
 
.
or another simple way too expensive too complicated

North Korea also store many nuclear warheads in deep under ground bunkers

what purpose that serves, well I guess its good for domestic consumption

Believe whatever make you sleep, my explanation is for readers with logic and reasoning abilities anyway.
 
.
This is promising that China wants parity.

Though following is the technology that usa has that I have been warning about:

Directed energy weapons are another option being looked at, he noted.

Meanwhile, the Navy has been pursuing hypervelocity projectiles that could be launched from electromagnetic railguns or powder guns. They are smaller and cheaper than interceptor missiles, and a ship could carry more of them, Callender noted. The projectiles could contribute to point defense and increase the carrier battle group’s capacity to handle thick salvos of enemy hypersonic weapons, he said.

The CSBA report said shipboard lasers, high-powered microwaves and electronic warfare systems could also potentially contribute to the mission.

Callender said the military could use electronic jamming, decoys or other methods of spoofing to complicate the task of enemy shooters.



usa has been working 70 years on classified technology that can take down missiles through DEW, EW, etc. China has a couple decades on jamming. Though that is very old technology and level 1 EW.

China needs a variety of delivery methods. And developing a ICBM that is EW-proof DEW-proof with heat shielding, farady cages, etc is vital.

China is too humble in their military pursuits. When China needs many, China builds only a few. Iran lacks rockets and missiles and Iran has perhaps many hundreds of thousands of rockets and missiles. China needs something like 300K or more nuclear weapons, mostly ICBMs and ICRockets. Nuclear ICRockets are something like V-2 rockets, with the range of ICBMs, low accuracy that have updated simple guidance that can't be interfered with microwaves or other electronic weapons whose latter purpose is to make the ICBM miss the entire usa when fired during a nuclear exchange.

usa had 40 years of protecting itself from nuclear ICBMs from the USSR. And then 30 years after that. China is fighting some 1950s or 1960s conflict with very outdated weapons.

China won't last 5 hours in a conventional or nuclear war with usa.

China also needs a very long range fighter/interceptor to deny usa bombers the entire Western and Central Pacific. If China can't, then develop a H-20 variant that has state of the art AA and anti-stealth radar, and AAM for intercepting bombers at very long range. Though very limited since incapable of dogfighting, if missiles are ineffective in war with Washington.

Buying a squadron of SU-34s, and modifying them to a J-18 variant to be very long range fighters with superior AA radar and a combat range of 3000-4000 km with two fuel tanks. Give them the most fuel efficient engines, high speed is not a concern.

Such weapons like the link below fired at range over the Central Pacific, nuclear or conventional, can destroy the entire Chinese fleet. Which is why I suggest focusing heavily on subs and sats/ASATs.


Each threat has to be countered.

China's current ICBMs are going to be given off guidance to land in the ocean, DEW to fry the ICBM and warhead electronics. And laser weapons to destroy every other that is making it toward usa. That is Washington current technology. There are probably 5-10 other additional ways Washington can make ICBMs ineffective.

Washington is the bully who gets angry when a bullied kid starts to work out with a 1 kg dumbbell. Washington: "How DARE that bullied kid work out with a 1 kg dumbbell"

When the bullied kid needs to workout with a 50 kg dumbbell for months to beat the bullies in Washington.
 
Last edited:
.
land based nuclear missiles are of no use if you are looking to provide nuclear deterrence using 2nd strike

only SSBN can do that and Chinese SSBN do not conduct deep sea patrols even although China has operated SSBN for decades

China has launch on warning. Anyone that tries to hit the silos will just hit empty ones as the retaliation is in the air already.
 
.
DF-41 road mobile ICBM and JL-3 SLBM are already deployed. Apparently the new silo based ICBM could be the new super heavy ICBM DF-45.

Mess with China and get ready to go back to the Stone Age.
 
. .
can you tell me how many JL-3 tests China has conducted ? or even the older JL-2?

US + UK has done over 180 Trident tests since induction from SSBN

this repeatedly validates the system for use
Does any of these Christian US+UK Trident/SSBNs belong to your 'beloved' Muslim brothers?
 
.
Back
Top Bottom