China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread

[Hendrik_2000]

Probably the DF-41 still hasnt entered service. I wonder if DF-31AG is a backup program against possible failure of the DF-41 program. Why would china waste resources developing DF-31AG if it has a more capable DF-41 already in development? DF-31AG seems like the DF-31 cannister in the DF-41 truck.

we are seeing the trucks. But how do we know if those trucks have missiles inside? Its far more easy to build a truck than to build a missile. If china built 1000 trucks, would people believe that china has 1000 ICBM´s ?

what is so interesting? i see nothing unusual in a TEL truck.

You can believe in your own delusion I have no problem with that
Even Pentagon and Hans Kristensen now acknowledge that China has MIRVED the ICBM including the road mbile DF31AIG Read this
China has the technology ages ago but decide not to implement it but circumstances change now they do implement it . China explode the H bomb in 1967.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

China has the 2nd largest defense budget of 150 $ billion 3X India"s So what make you think that China doesn't have large stock pile of H bomb because the western analyst said so?

By Hans M. Kristensen

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The biggest surprise in the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

on Chinese military power is the claim that China’s ICBM force now includes the “multiple independently-targetable re-entry vehicle (MIRV)-equipped Mod 3 (DF-5).”

This is (to my knowledge) the first time the US Intelligence Community has made a public claim that China has fielded a MIRVed missile system.

If so, China joins the club of four other nuclear-armed states that have deployed MIRV for decades: Britain, France, Russia and the United States.

For China to join the MIRV club strains China’s claim of having a minimum nuclear deterrent. It is another worrisome sign that China – like the other nuclear-armed states – are trapped in a dynamic technological nuclear arms competition.

 

[manqiangrexue]

we are seeing the trucks. But how do we know if those trucks have missiles inside? Its far more easy to build a truck than to build a missile. If china built 1000 trucks, would people believe that china has 1000 ICBM´s ?

Are you serious?? LOL How do we know if the US silos/Ohio submarines have missiles in them? Of those that do, how do we know if those missiles are real rather than empty decoys? Really easy to build a tin can that looks like a missile! LOL

These aren't 18-wheeler shipping trucks, Orthan! These "trucks" are ICBM-launchers with only 1 function and if China built 1,000 of them, it's generally reasonable to assume that they have 1,000 ICBMs, at LEAST, because after launch, you can load the truck with another missile.

 

[Hyperwarp]

Probably the DF-41 still hasnt entered service. I wonder if DF-31AG is a backup program against possible failure of the DF-41 program. Why would china waste resources developing DF-31AG if it has a more capable DF-41 already in development? DF-31AG seems like the DF-31 cannister in the DF-41 truck ...

Definitely not a DF-41 truck. In the DF-41 TEL the canister divides the drivers section because of the tube length (similar to the DF-26).

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

DF-31A and DF-31AG are there to supplement the DF-41. DF-31A and DF-31AG carry a single 1 MT warhead with penetration aids. Any DF-31 with MIRV will be designated DF-31B similar to the DF-5A becoming DF-5B. An MIRVed DF-31B will still be limited in the number of warheads and yields of those warheads (Max 3x 150 kt warheads). DF-41 on the other hand will eventually replace the Silo based liquid fueled DF-5 series. DF-41 is designed to carry 10x 150kt or 6x 650kt warheads.

There are only a small number of DF-41 in-service. 2 launchers have been spotted from what I remember and there maybe 6 - 8 in service (speculation).

...
we are seeing the trucks. But how do we know if those trucks have missiles inside? Its far more easy to build a truck than to build a missile. If china built 1000 trucks, would people believe that china has 1000 ICBM´s ?
...

None of the trucks carry missiles or any kind of live ammunition. All those tubes are empty, ICBM or SAM or whatever. At any parade in China ( or probably any country) they are not stupid enough to put actual missiles/munitions in a parade with so many key political and military people in attendance. One explosion could cause a catastrophic sequence of events .

 

[subotai1]

if China built 1,000 of them, it's generally reasonable to assume that they have 1,000 ICBMs, at LEAST, because after launch, you can load the truck with another missile.

If I had a 1000 TELs, 2/3 of them would be decoys. Although I do believe China has hundreds to thousands of missiles.

 

[taxiya]

Probably the DF-41 still hasnt entered service. I wonder if DF-31AG is a backup program against possible failure of the DF-41 program. Why would china waste resources developing DF-31AG if it has a more capable DF-41 already in development? DF-31AG seems like the DF-31 cannister in the DF-41 truck.

You are assuming DF-41 is meant to do everything better than DF-31 is doing. That assumption may be wrong.

So far, I heard that all DF-31 A and AG are single Mega tone class warhead, it is meant to destroy a city just like the old DF-5. This is the Chinese doctrine when China keeps a low number of nuclear arsenal with high yield. For this purpose DF-31 is doing a perfect job.

A MIRV missile does a better job to destroy multiple hardened military establishment including SILOs, but also require a big number. DF-41 and DF-5B are meant for this purpose.

But, China is not going to go the same path as USSR/Russia and USA to build big numbers trying to knock out every enemy missiles on the ground. China will keep her nuclear doctrine that will target some key military establishment with DF-41 and big cities with DF-31. Of course DF-41 with a single warhead can do better for the same purpose, but DF-41 is much heavier therefor penalties in servicing, maintenance and maneuverability etc. Also a single war headed DF-41 will just waste its throw weight potential if it carries the same warhead as DF-31, carrying a 2 mega tone war head will be over kill for a city, still a waste.

 

[plawolf]

You are assuming DF-41 is meant to do everything better than DF-31 is doing. That assumption may be wrong.

So far, I heard that all DF-31 A and AG are single Mega tone class warhead, it is meant to destroy a city just like the old DF-5. This is the Chinese doctrine when China keeps a low number of nuclear arsenal with high yield. For this purpose DF-31 is doing a perfect job.

A MIRV missile does a better job to destroy multiple hardened military establishment including SILOs, but also require a big number. DF-41 and DF-5B are meant for this purpose.

But, China is not going to go the same path as USSR/Russia and USA to build big numbers trying to knock out every enemy missiles on the ground. China will keep her nuclear doctrine that will target some key military establishment with DF-41 and big cities with DF-31. Of course DF-41 with a single warhead can do better for the same purpose, but DF-41 is much heavier therefor penalties in servicing, maintenance and maneuverability etc. Also a single war headed DF-41 will just waste its throw weight potential if it carries the same warhead as DF-31, carrying a 2 mega tone war head will be over kill for a city, still a waste.

Excellent post! You hit the nail on the head by pointing out that while both the US and USSR built up their respective massively bloated nuclear arsenals to try and win an all out nuclear exchange; China's nuclear deterrence is truly only a deterrence as it is only supposed to ensure China does not 'loose' an all out nuclear war.

 

[Insignius]

Low warhead number make no sense no matter how you look at them.

1. The enemy can preemptively destroy them more easily.
2. Your few dozen big single warhead missiles will never get through enemy ABM
3. Both of above together will make the enemy who has thousands of missiles feel that he can win a nuclear war against you, hence there is no deterrence effect.

Minimum Deterrence Does Not Work. Period.

It's like two people sitting in a bar playing poker. One is a gangster wearing a full body EOD suit with AR500 plates all around and having 10 guys behind him with machineguns, while the other is someone who subscribes to "minimum deterrence" and only carries a small .22LR varmint gun. Even if latter guy wins the Poker game and is suppossed to receive the chips, the Gangster could just order his men to shoot him dead.
The "minimum deterrence"-guy's deterrence simply doesnt work, since his 22LR will never be able to either penetrate the Gangster's armor nor be enough to kill enough his men behind him before they make him swizz cheese.

The "minimum deterrence"-guy can only concede his loss and offer his fingers to be chopped off by the Gangster.

Needless to say, China is subject to the same kind of blackmail.
Either you have thousands of nukes, or you rather have no nukes at all and offer your butthole to the Gangster right from the beginning.

 

[manqiangrexue]

Low warhead number make no sense no matter how you look at them.

1. The enemy can preemptively destroy them more easily.
2. Your few dozen big single warhead missiles will never get through enemy ABM
3. Both of above together will make the enemy who has thousands of missiles feel that he can win a nuclear war against you, hence there is no deterrence effect.

Minimum Deterrence Does Not Work. Period.

It's like two people sitting in a bar playing poker. One is a gangster wearing a full body EOD suit with AR500 plates all around and having 10 guys behind him with machineguns, while the other is someone who subscribes to "minimum deterrence" and only carries a small .22LR varmint gun. Even if latter guy wins the Poker game and is suppossed to receive the chips, the Gangster could just order his men to shoot him dead.
The "minimum deterrence"-guy's deterrence simply doesnt work, since his 22LR will never be able to either penetrate the Gangster's armor nor be enough to kill enough his men behind him before they make him swizz cheese.

The "minimum deterrence"-guy can only concede his loss and offer his fingers to be chopped off by the Gangster.

Needless to say, China is subject to the same kind of blackmail.
Either you have thousands of nukes, or you rather have no nukes at all and offer your butthole to the Gangster right from the beginning.

Actually, I think that all the weapons you mentioned that in that analogy (body armor, machine guns, henchmen) are more akin to conventional weapons. A nuclear weapon deterrence would be more like carrying a grenade with you, so no matter how many henchmen or machine guns he's got, if a grenade lets loose, everyone dies.

Minimum deterrence does not mean to have a negligently small weapon force; minimum deterrence means to have the smallest amount of weapons possible that still induces doubt in your enemy as to whether or not he could achieve a meaningful victory over you. So when that gangster sees you come in with six grenades strapped to your chest with their pins tied together to a handle in your hand, he knows he's not gonna be pushing anyone around with his buddies or chopping anyone's fingers off. And he knows he spent a fortune on his weapons but he still can't mess with your grenade vest.

The benefit of minimal deterrence is that you can devote those extra resources saved from manufacturing and maintaining a cartoonishly large nuclear stockpile and put them into the economy (to build an even stronger economic base on which to support your military), into the acquisition of more conventional weapons (to play maritime games with, which sometimes lands you more territory), and into the development of the next generation of weapons to get/stay ahead of your rivals.

Obviously, if you underestimate the amount needed for minimum deterrence (eg, you come in with 6 cherry bombs strapped to your chest LOL), you could be inviting trouble.

 

[sanblvd]

Also minimum deterrence today is not about the number of nukes you have, its more about smarter nukes that sow doubt in your enemy's ability to destroy them all.

That means fixed liquid ICBM with fixed location like DF3 or Minuteman silo are completely useless because I'm sure everyone knows where those sites are located, and they are taking valuable resources that can be used for something else.

Those old style air dropped nuclear bombs are equally useless, bombers will get shoot down way before it gets to destination, air launched nuclear tipped cruise missile might be better, but not really, the plane can get shut down and the cruise missile can be shot down.

Today I think the only credible defense is SSBN subs, SSBN when operate at slow speed can be nearly silent that means they are very hard to detect and they are not a fixed target since ocean is 2/3 of earth surface, most SSBN can carry from 10-20 ICBM, and each ICBM can have MRV of 3-10 warhead, so a single SSBN can have the power to kill hundreds of millions.

And at last, most SSBN can submerge for as long as they have food on board, that means up to 6 month at a time, and if a nation have 6 of those subs, that means at least 2 can be on patrol year round non stop.

This is the ultimate deterrent, cheap, effective. No need to go into a nuclear race to see who can build 10,000 nukes.

 

[delft]

Also minimum deterrence today is not about the number of nukes you have, its more about smarter nukes that sow doubt in your enemy's ability to destroy them all.

That means fixed liquid ICBM with fixed location like DF3 or Minuteman silo are completely useless because I'm sure everyone knows where those sites are located, and they are taking valuable resources that can be used for something else.

Those old style air dropped nuclear bombs are equally useless, bombers will get shoot down way before it gets to destination, air launched nuclear tipped cruise missile might be better, but not really, the plane can get shut down and the cruise missile can be shot down.

Today I think the only credible defense is SSBN subs, SSBN when operate at slow speed can be nearly silent that means they are very hard to detect and they are not a fixed target since ocean is 2/3 of earth surface, most SSBN can carry from 10-20 ICBM, and each ICBM can have MRV of 3-10 warhead, so a single SSBN can have the power to kill hundreds of millions.

And at last, most SSBN can submerge for as long as they have food on board, that means up to 6 month at a time, and if a nation have 6 of those subs, that means at least 2 can be on patrol year round non stop.

This is the ultimate deterrent, cheap, effective. No need to go into a nuclear race to see who can build 10,000 nukes.

Not quite cheap. Look at what the UK plans to spend on its replacement Trident force while it cannot pay for an adequate health service or a sufficient police force.