Does China possess the technical ability to develop MIRV technology for ICBM?

I've heard rumors that China are developing MIARV technology for whatever comes after the DF-21D. As for MIRV technology to use with nukes, Wikipedia claims that DF-31 can carry up to 3 warheads, and DF-41 can carry up to 10 warheads. Citing http://articles.janes.com/articles/J...X10-China.html and http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/china/df-31.htm and http://www.sinodefence.com/strategic/missile/df31.asp.

I would imagine that the holy grail in the medium term would be 10-warhead maneuverable MIRV. I still haven't figured out if people are calling them MIarv, MaIRV, or maybe MaMIRV? lol

It is certainly a yes. JL-2 is clearly meant to be MiRVed, not sure about land based missiles but a variety of rumours have floated for the likes of DF-5A, DF-31A etc.

Originally Posted by Phead128

I feel that having multiple warheads would give China more warheads to retailiate in the event of a first strike that eliminattes a bulk of China's ICBM.

The remaining ICBM on mobile TEL or hidden in tunnels or below South China Sea and other waters China claims preeminence will have more warheads to pose a credible second strike deterrent.

I think this is important also since US withdrew from the Anti-Ballastic Missile Treaty in early 2000's, so developing MIRV technology will help circumvent Ballastic Missile Defense (ie. Aegis, SMP-3 etc..) which would minimize China's credible second strike capability.

BMD only works against single missiles, unless there is an Anti-Ballastic Missile technology that can hit multiple warheads (MIRV) that I don't know about...

It is generally rumored that the DF-5, DF-31, DF-41, and JL-2 feature this technology. And also the DF-25.

There is no doubt China has the capability and has deployed them DF-31A, JL-2A and DF-5A/B

MIniature nuke head like the W88 design... I believe China has already managed to achieve that.

Originally Posted by Lion

MIniature nuke head like the W88 design... I believe China has already managed to achieve that.

long time ago, like 20 years ago

While it's true that most of China's BMs are single warhead, I'm quite sure China today has the ability to produce MIRVs. Many experts actually believe the DF41 and JL 2 can carry 3-6 MIRVs. Weather they actually do or not no one can say for certain.

any proofs on MIRV already existing?

Originally Posted by CottageLV

any proofs on MIRV already existing?

DF-41 (CSS-X-10) (China) - Jane's Strategic Weapon Systems and DF-31 - China Nuclear Forces

Up to 10 on the DF-41 and up to 3 on the DF-31.

Originally Posted by CottageLV

any proofs on MIRV already existing?

It depends what kind of proof you'd like to see ? .. want to see the inside of actual DF-31A or JL-2A or when China send it and blast it to India ? .. you can believe what you want to believe .... or you can keep asking any non sense question/proof just to deny it, perhaps like your baby "steppers" :-)

... actually I haven't seen your post regarding your baby "steppers" to deny all Chinese advancement for a while now ? because there is no PROOF of China producing "Steppers" or perhaps you just don't know it .. and make an assumption, stupid one :-)

Originally Posted by antiterror13

It depends what kind of proof you'd like to see ? .. want to see the inside of actual DF-31A or JL-2A or when China send it and blast it to India ? .. you can believe what you want to believe .... or you can keep asking any non sense question/proof just to deny it, perhaps like your baby "steppers" :-)

... actually I haven't seen your post regarding your baby "steppers" to deny all Chinese advancement for a while now ? because there is no PROOF of China producing "Steppers" or perhaps you just don't know it .. and make an assumption, stupid one :-)

You had better be careful with the "blasting India" thing, the emperor doesn't seem in a good mood.

Originally Posted by CottageLV

any proofs on MIRV already existing?

Does this answer your question?

“Russia and China’s capabilities pose mortal threat to USâ€� – American intelligence chief — RT

While US vice-president Joe Biden has been visiting Moscow to reaffirm the US-Russia reset, the US Director of National Intelligence says Russia’s and China’s nuclear capabilities pose the greatest threat to the US.
President Obama's Director of National Intelligence James Clapper has claimed that Russia and China are a “mortal threat” to the US "from a capabilities standpoint”. The assessment came during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing.
Clapper said he based his assessment strictly on the strategic nuclear capabilities of nation-states that have the potential to be mortal dangers to the US.
James Clapper is a retired Lieutenant General of the US Air Force who has 47 years of experience in the intelligence community. Being the Director of National Intelligence, he has access to some of the best intelligence that the US$80 billion American spying bureaucracy can offer.Meanwhile, Joe Biden has just wrapped up his visit to Russia trying to capitalize on the “reset” in Russia-US relations.
The White House came out to clarify Clapper’s comment.
"Obviously, Russia and China are two of the three largest nuclear powers in the world. Therefore, they have dangerous weapons and have the capacity. But he made clear that we do not view Russia and China as a threat," White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said.

No MIRV plus miniature warhead and you think can threaten USA? Even armed with 14000km Solid fuel ICBM without MIRV is not going to really make US lose a sleep..

For all of you guys thinking that china has MIRV equipped missiles or even MIRV tech, see this blog and most importantly the replys that he makes answering the responses to the article. He talks about DF-41, MIRV, etc, possible new chinese ICBM, etc.

Chinese Mobile ICBMs Seen in Central China » FAS Strategic Security Blog

IMO he makes honest and deep analysis about nuclear weaponry in this blog (FAS.org).

If I take that FAS blog at face value (which I don't), then I am guessing you think that either:

1) China is incapable of, but wishes to protect itself from nuclear blackmail (by MIRVing its DF-31A).
2) China is capable of, but for political reasons (maybe internal), does not wish to protect itself from nuclear blackmail.
3) China is incapable of, and does not wish to protect itself from nuclear blackmail.

Considering the link between space-launch capabilities and ICBM capabilities, it can't be 1) and it can't be 3). So 2) is the most likely? I'll laugh grimly at their stupidity if the day ever comes that they regret that choice.

If I take that blog at face value, and I assume you agree with it, then basically China and her nuclear forces can't survive a nuclear first strike, they have little/no retaliatory capability against the U.S., and have no desire to develop one. There are approximately a dozen DF-31A according to that blog. I fully expect the U.S. to have eyes on all of them, and be ready to take them out in a nuclear first strike.

Edit: The blog can't be right. I count 12 DF-31A in the National Military Parade and I am not about to believe that China would put all of them in one single location for the U.S. to pull off a clean first strike with virtually no risk of nuclear retaliation. Either that or the launchers are empty, but the blog also claims that there are only as many launchers as there are of the actual DF-31A. So that can't be true either.

All Western intelligence have already shown themselves to vastly underestimate the rate and scale at which China developed and deployed just about every other single modern weapon system they have. The ASAT test, the J-10, J-20, the 094, the 041, the list goes on and on. It's a lot more likely that they're just making the same mistake again, for the umpteenth time.

---------- Post added at 12:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:13 PM ----------

Look up the background of Hans M. Kristensen. He's highly critical of nuclear weapons development and deployment, as well as preemptive nuclear strike. I find it much more plausible that his agenda distorts his analysis in the opposite direction as that of Phillip A. Karber's agenda.