PLA ICBM Force in 2016

Originally Posted by antiterror13

PLA ICBM force in 2016 would be

30 DF-5A/B MIRV
150 DF-31A MIRV
100 JL-2A/B MIRV with 7-8 094/096 Subs

Perhaps I should revise this prediction to 2020 .. would be more realistic

Originally Posted by Bltizo

By 2016 I think a force of 50 DF-31 and DF-31A, ~30 JL-2 based on Type 094, and ~15 DF-5 should be a realistic and a reasonable ICBM structure I think...
But do the 094s come under 2nd Arty command or PLAN command, does anyone know? :O

Like antiterror13 said at #30, it is indeed China has publicly announced that the current strategy is "LIMITED DETERRENCE".

As far as I know, strategic subs DO NOT under the command of 2nd Arty or PLAN, strategic subs and bombers (if any) are directly under the command of CMC. The story is like - strategic subs may HOUSES at certain PLAN bases, but that's only logistically. Their patrol schedule, rules of engagement and stuff like that, comes from CMC directly, PLAN base commander don't have anything to say.

Regarding the "stockpile" issue that people always WOULD LIKE to talk about, the PRC herself, talks the least. It's a "mind game" SET TO play between PRC govt and any other "concerning" govt; it is NOT SET TO satisfy enthusiasts who claim to be analyst. The different is, any (responsible) govt, have the habit (good habit) to NOT TO trust statistics that is published. "WHAT TO TRUST" is the game, that's why this is a mind game.

PRC surely do not have THAT MANY stockpile like the No. 1 and No. 2 player of this game, not even comparable. But "enough is enough", "efficient is efficient", ahy? (as long as it is not psychopathy who play this "mind game")

I think what we're trying to say is that the PRC's nuclear stockpile is so tiny in comparison to the nation that they're usually compared to if in case, a war were to break out (that nation would be the U.S.), that the majority, and I'm speaking of in the region of 90%+ of PRC deliverance systems would be hit in a first strike, that at most, the PRC would only be able to deal out a "small" nuclear counter attack. Granted each sides knows the general area of the others' deliverance systems.

Originally Posted by antiterror13

FYI ... China has moved from MINIMAL DETERRENCE to LIMITED DETERRENCE a few years ago ... this is a big move

Is it?
What's the real difference between "minimal" and "limited" deterrence? And when did they make this big change?

Originally Posted by Bltizo

Is it?
What's the real difference between "minimal" and "limited" deterrence? And when did they make this big change?

read this
Definitions of the types of deterrence: minimum, limited, maximum?

Originally Posted by antiterror13

read this
Definitions of the types of deterrence: minimum, limited, maximum?

I skimmed through that thread quickly and one poster called limited deterrence being able to deter nuclear conflict with flexibility to attack targets other than cities or something along those lines.
I think the PRC was moving to a more "limited" deterrence (I'm not very familiar with the term, it doesn't seem as common as say "minimal" deterrence") when the 092 SSBN was conceived.

I also find it interesting that the poster said France, the UK, and even India and Pakistan, Israel have "limited" rather than "minimal" deterrence. When the PRC has more nuclear warheads (estimated to be about ~400) compared ot the UKs current ~200+ and France's ~300... And it'll be folly to compare China's nuke arsenal with India, Pakistan and Israel. Perhaps the scale of your deterrence depends on who you're primarily deterring. If China was only deterring say India then currently one could call it MAD between those two countries (could you? I use this statement very loosely, if someone else has another opinion please state it). But China's deterring the US, and the 2nd Arty's ICBM arsenal is significantly smaller than their IRBM and slightly less survivable at the moment, and not to mention the US simply has more nukes.

Also, apparently a few sources say there are ~24 JL-2s in service with the 094s... I find the PLAN SSN and SSBN front to always be very quiet (pun, geddit?) -- is it because these projects are so much more important to national security compared to say SSKs, that we barely hear anything or is it that there's simply not that much development in these areas? I'd think it isn't the latter because there should be no reason for them to build a few extra 094s and 093s even if they're not at state of the art levels, but the fact remains we haven't seen any new pictures of either class for a good few years.

Antiterror, where did you read the PRC was moving from minimal to limited deterrence btw? Was it an actual PRC press release or such, and did they use that kind of phrasing?

China is deterred only by Russia and the United States. The French and British nuclear arsenals are not comparable in megatonnage. However, China's "No First Use" policy renders her nuclear weapons meaningless, except only in a retaliatory scenario.


Stunning, Frightening, Explosive and Destructive Power: Detonation of an 11-megaton Thermonuclear Bomb, March 26, 1954
Operation Castle, ROMEO Event
Bikini Atoll, Republic of the Marshall Islands

Rankings of world P-5 (i.e. Five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council) thermonuclear powers by megatons of firepower:

1. Russia - 1,273 megatons

2. United States - 570 megatons

3. China - 294 megatons (China has over half the nuclear firepower of the United States)

4. France - 55 megatons

5. Britain - 16 megatons

Humorous fact: A single Chinese DF-3A/CSS-2 IRBM or DF-4/CSS-3 ICBM with a 3.3 megaton warhead has over three times the destructive firepower in the entire Indian nuclear arsenal. In general, a thermonuclear warhead is roughly 100 times more powerful than an equivalent atomic warhead.

References:

Russia: NTI: Russia - Nuclear Disarmament
United States: NTI: United States - Nuclear Disarmament
China: NTI: China - Nuclear Disarmament
France: NTI: France - Nuclear Disarmament
Britain: NTI: United Kingdom - Nuclear Disarmament

----------

Rankings of atomic/fission bomb powers:

6. Israel: 1500-4000 kt (or 1.5 to 4 megatons)

7. India: 800 Kt ~ 1000 Kt. (or 0.8 to 1 megaton)

8. Pakistan: 600 kt - 1000 kt (or 0.6 to 1 megaton)

[note: 1,000 kilotons equal only 1 megaton]

References:

Israel: NTI: Israel - Nuclear Disarmament
India: NTI: India - Nuclear Disarmament
Pakistan: NTI: Pakistan - Nuclear Disarmament

Megatonneage is important but of course, so is the ballistic factors; range, accuracy, etc.

I honestly would not know the accuracy figures of modern PLA ICBMs, the only one I found was a CEP accuracy of 1 km, from the DF-5, although obviously it isn't the most modern one in service. That is compared to the CEP accuracy of 120 m from the Minuteman III and the CEP accuracy of 220 m from the R-36 (SS-18 Satan).

Originally Posted by Martian

China is deterred only by Russia and the United States. The French and British nuclear arsenals are not comparable in megatonnage. However, China's "No First Use" policy renders her nuclear weapons meaningless, except only in a retaliatory scenario.

Rankings of world P-5 (i.e. Five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council) thermonuclear powers by megatons of firepower:

1. Russia - 1,273 megatons

2. United States - 570 megatons

3. China - 294 megatons (China has over half the nuclear firepower of the United States)

4. France - 55 megatons

5. Britain - 16 megatons

Humorous fact: A single Chinese DF-3A/CSS-2 IRBM or DF-4/CSS-3 ICBM with a 3.3 megaton warhead has over three times the destructive firepower in the entire Indian nuclear arsenal. In general, a thermonuclear warhead is roughly 100 times more powerful than an equivalent atomic warhead.

The question is how many true ICBM´s does china has, those capable of hitting the entire USA territory? (only DF-5 and DF-31a count, not DF-31) acording to the china military report 2010 they only have 30-35 DF-5/DF-31a, of which 20 are old DF-5. DF-31a production rate is painfully slow.

Compare to russia whose defence minister said that it will buy 36 ICBM´s in 2011 alone. And how many times china´s economy is bigger than russia´s ??

Clearly ICBM´s are not PLA´s priority.

For a retaliatory strike, China does not need large numbers of ICBMs to reach the United States. Using option #8 below, China has plenty of nuclear IRBM forces in Tibet to annihilate Russia. The Russians will use their nuclear arsenal to annihilate everyone else. This is the sequence of retaliatory events.

1) U.S. attacks China.
2) China attacks Russia.
3) Russia wipes everyone out with 1,273 megatons.

Hence, U.S. will not attack China because China can trigger Russian nuclear arsenal via Chinese IRBM nuclear forces. It's an indirect mutually-assured-destruction via Russian nuclear arsenal.

----------

Regarding the issue of whether China has an adequate number of nuclear ICBMs, I don't believe that this problem has been overlooked by the competent government of China.

1) China has the 5,000 KM "Underground Great Wall." You can hide a lot of ICBMs in a 5,000 KM underground facility. See http://forum.****************.com/in...howtopic=86413


China's 5,000 KM "Underground Great Wall"


China's "Underground Great Wall" has massive tunnels to accommodate trains carrying nuclear ordnance.


China's "Underground Great Wall" has massive blast doors.


China's "Underground Great Wall" can simultaneously accommodate two trains and can switch tracks.

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.

3) China has road-mobile and rail-mobile ICBM launchers.

China?s Nuclear Option | The Diplomat

"China’s Nuclear Option
April 26, 2010

By Richard Weitz

Chinese policymakers say the country’s rapidly modernizing nuclear force is nothing to fear. They could do more to prove it."


China's road-mobile ICBMs.

Rail-Mobile ICBMs enter Chinese arsenal

"Rail-Mobile ICBMs enter Chinese arsenal
Kanwa Information Center ^

Posted on Wednesday, April 23, 2003 11:19:59 PM by Filibuster_60

Kanwa was informed that the development of train-borne DF31 ICBM is already completed, and the deployment of these missiles has also been prepared. The development of DF31A, a upgraded version of DF31, has also already been completed.

In order to further enhance the mobile nuclear striking power and the capability to survive attacks, China has developed new types of DF31 series ICBMs similar to the former Soviet Union train-borne SS-24. In normal days, these missiles are moved along the railroads, while at time of war, they can be transported to selected sites and then launch nuclear assaults upon the enemy. DF31 is manufactured in Sichuan at Sichuan Areospace Industry Corporation. Reliable sources from China military industry say the major difference between DF31 and DF31A lies in their warheads. The former has single warhead, while the latter has multi-warheads."

4) China has Type 094 submarines carrying JL-2 SLBMs.


China's most-powerful Jin-class SSBN nuclear deterrent.

5) Nuclear-capable DH-10 cruise missiles have been added to the Chinese nuclear arsenal.

6) I'm not trying to beat a dead horse. However, for the sake of completeness, I want to point out that "It is likely that a number of PRC cargo ships carry CSS-9 missiles to act as a sea-based nuclear response/strike force."

http://www.missilethreat.com/missilesofthe...sile_detail.asp

"The CSS-9 is an effective strategic system that has significantly increased the PRC’s nuclear strike capabilities. Though the PRC’s land-based systems are unable to directly threaten much beyond the west coast of the United States, the CSS-9 is a modern ICBM system that threatens Russia and India, two major PRC rivals. However, the CSS-9 missile system can easily reach all of the US with the placement aboard cargo ships disguised as shipping containers. The self-contained launch system could easily be placed on a PRC ship and launched against targets in the US. It is likely that a number of PRC cargo ships carry CSS-9 missiles to act as a sea-based nuclear response/strike force. Similarly, these containers could be smuggled into and stored in PRC controlled warehouses throughout the Americas. The modular nature of these modern missile systems makes them extremely dangerous since they do not need to follow tradition missile tactics. Even with modern satellite systems, the combination of hidden road and cross-country mobile launchers, missile silos, and rail/ship launchers make it impossible to destroy most of these missiles prior to launch."

7) China is developing the HN-2000 stealth cruise missile with a terminal supersonic phase. Just like the DH-10 cruise missile, it is reasonable to expect that the HN-2000 will also be nuclear-capable. See http://project2049.net/documents/assassin_...ise_missile.pdf

"Global Strike and the Chinese Anti-Ship Cruise Missile: HN-2000

China is currently developing its next-generation cruise missile, the Hong Niao-2000 (HN-2000). This missile will reportedly be equipped with millimeter wave radar, infrared image mapping, laser radar, synthetic-aperture radar (SAR) and the Chinese Beidou satellite guidance system, for accuracies of 1-3 meters. This missile will also incorporate the latest stealth technologies and have a supersonic terminal flight phase, with an expected range of 4,000km."

8) Have you ever watched the movie "WarGames"? A nuclear war between Russia and the U.S. will cause both nations to launch an all-out attack on all countries of the world. Russia and the U.S. will not foolishly destroy only each other and let China become the de facto superpower.

Similarly, in a nuclear exchange between the U.S. and China, China has plenty of thermonuclear SRBMs and IRBMs (especially the ones located in Tibet). China will "wipe out" most Russian cities. In retaliation, the Russians will take everyone else with them. Just as it was depicted in WarGames, Russian nuclear missiles will radiate to every major city in the world. Everybody dies, except for the lucky few in underground military facilities built to withstand a nuclear war.

In essence, China can "borrow" the Russian nuclear arsenal in the final exchange against the U.S. The Russians are not going to let the U.S. become the de facto superpower survivor.

http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2008/05/extens...ntral-china.php

"Extensive Nuclear Missile Deployment Area Discovered in Central China



More than 50 launch pads for nuclear ballistic missiles have been identified scattered across a 2,000 square kilometer (772 square miles) area of central China, according to analysis of satellite images.

By Hans M. Kristensen

Analysis of new commercial satellite photos has identified an extensive deployment area with nearly 60 launch pads for medium-range nuclear ballistic missiles in Central China near Delingha and Da Qaidam.

The region has long been rumored to house nuclear missiles and I have previously described some of the facilities in a report and a blog. But the new analysis reveals a significantly larger deployment area than previously known, different types of launch pads, command and control facilities, and missile deployment equipment at a large facility in downtown Delingha.

The U.S. government often highlights China’s deployment of new mobile missiles as a concern but keeps the details secret, so the discovery of the deployment area provides the first opportunity for the public to better understand how China operates its mobile ballistic missiles."

http://rupeenews.com/2009/09/07/beijings-m...china-tensions/

"Beijing’s Missile in Tibet, & Hainan Naval base scare Delhi: Dramatic rise in India-China tensions

Posted on September 7, 2009 by Moin Ansari

The Chinese Red dragon’s reach has scared the pants off the Indian elephant. Many have predicted a war between India and China within the next few years. Some called that prediction alarmist. First there were repeated statements from Delhi that China was their biggest enemy and threat. Then news stories that China has built a huge infrastructure on the undefined and undemarcated Mcmohan line (the de factor border between India and China). Now the escalating tensions are sounding alarm bells around the world. The Federation of American Scientist has just published pictures of Chinese missiles which can target all of India. The incompetent intelligence agencies of India didn’t have a clue about the missiles. Any high school drop out could have paid a commercial satellite a nickel and gotten the pictures of the satellites. The fact that the FAS pictures has so unnerved Delhi that it has decided to form to new intelligence agencies is a subject of much discussion around the world..."

The ABM Treaty provided for exceptions. The depicted Russian ABM was within the defined exceptions where as the NMD isn't.

Originally Posted by kroko

Clearly ICBM´s are not PLA´s priority.

of course not.

a strict no first use + minimum deterrence is what PLA aims for.

as Martian's post points out.

infrastructure matters too.

if china plays a successful shell game it would a heck alot cheaper than buy bunch of missiles that require extensive $$$ to maintain and field. while achieving the same end: make whoever think twice and three times before they launch nukes at china.

Originally Posted by Martian

Beijing’s Missile in Tibet, & Hainan Naval base scare Delhi: Dramatic rise in India-China tensions

Posted on September 7, 2009 by Moin AnsariThe Chinese Red dragon’s reach has scared the pants off the Indian elephant. Many have predicted a war between India and China within the next few years. Some called that prediction alarmist. First there were repeated statements from Delhi that China was their biggest enemy and threat. Then news stories that China has built a huge infrastructure on the undefined and undemarcated Mcmohan line (the de factor border between India and China). Now the escalating tensions are sounding alarm bells around the world. The Federation of American Scientist has just published pictures of Chinese missiles which can target all of India. The incompetent intelligence agencies of India didn’t have a clue about the missiles. Any high school drop out could have paid a commercial satellite a nickel and gotten the pictures of the satellites. The fact that the FAS pictures has so unnerved Delhi that it has decided to form to new intelligence agencies is a subject of much discussion around the world..."

India is scaring herself shitless for nothing. they are spend alot of money buying fancy weapon systems that has questionable utility in front of a concerted chinese assault. If china chooses to go offensive in any scenario.
Those money spent that would other wise boost her economy and her people's living standard.

China's build up is clearly not aimed at India.
I mean,
to deter india with nuclear weapons there is no need to build these facilities.
the facility in Hainan is not aimed at India, it is clearly aimed at having a second strike capability against what they call the "World Hegemon". or else they wouldn't go to the trouble of fielding JL-2+ missiles.

a couple of old-IRBMs would be have bigger tonnage than the tonnage of the entire India nuke force.

one more thing,

Those new SLBMs that will be/are deployed with the new subs in Hainan, I think they have more range than people give them credit for. to this date there have been only 2-3 high apogee launches and no full range tests.

the requirement was always to have a second strike capability. that means reach most of NA. from the base in Hainan to let's say atlanta GA it is about 14000 km.
Trident II is about 11000 km but that was with a big throw weight.

they can easily trade for war heads for range if they opt for some cheap decoys instead of mirvs.

Originally Posted by Martian

For a retaliatory strike, China does not need large numbers of ICBMs to reach the United States. Using option #8 below, China has plenty of nuclear IRBM forces in Tibet to annihilate Russia. The Russians will use their nuclear arsenal to annihilate everyone else. This is the sequence of retaliatory events.

1) U.S. attacks China.
2) China attacks Russia.
3) Russia wipes everyone out with 1,273 megatons.

Hence, U.S. will not attack China because China can trigger Russian nuclear arsenal via Chinese IRBM nuclear forces. It's an indirect mutually-assured-destruction via Russian nuclear arsenal.

I don't understand how China nuking Russia will trigger Russia nuking world. Most likely Russia will nuke China and the U.S. will be like and Russia will be like, "what?"