China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread

[Anlsvrthng]

There is many way to generate Pu one of them is thru reprocessing But you can also get it from natural uranium From your own reference. china does have the technology of enrichment and power plant, reprocessing So there is no impediment whatsoever to produce weapon grade in large number

Plutonium-239 is more frequently used in nuclear weapons than Uranium-235, as it is easier to obtain in a quantity of

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

. Both Plutonium-239 and Uranium-235 are obtained from

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, which primarily consists of Uranium-238 but contains traces of other isotopes of uranium such as

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

. The process of

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, i.e. increasing the ratio of U-235 to U-238 to

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, is generally a more lengthy and costly process than the production of Plutonium 239 from U-238 and subsequent

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

.

Every country report the production of Pu and other fissile material except China So nobody really know what is the stockpile of China's fissile material
Hans Kristensen estimate is way off He work for FAS that tend to minimize China stock pile in order to drive his agenda of complete disarmament of nuclear weapon
So China is his poster boy

So.

This discussion is not about China capability to make 100,1000 or 10 000 warhead.

China CAPABLE to make those, and (honestly) even India is capable to do that.

China DECLARED in words and actions that she stop to make more nuclear weapons at the beginning of 90s.

It is easy to monitor the activity around the Pu making plants, and to asses based on the data the amount of Pu available for weapon making.

No government on the world has AUDITED report about the amount of nuclear weapon materials.

There is same declarations, but no one checked it, and considering the importance of this data you can expect that they lie about it.

So, again, the question is not the CAPABILITY of China to make Pu, but that in the absence of Pu did they choose to make U235 based warheads?

That require way more missile to deliver the payload, and makes it hard (impossible) to fit the warheads onto cruise missiles.

And the U235 as pit material NOT decrease the yield, but INCREASE the diameter / weight of the warhead.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Based on this China has 90 delivery vehicle.
If all of the mirved then it would require the whole nuclear stockpile that China poses.

Means there is no way to increase the number of warheads.

And 90 missile can be intercepted by the US with the korean radars/ABMs.
And if USA attack first then the remaining 10-30 ICBM is not a issue to intercept for the ABM systems.

 

[Figaro]

So.

This discussion is not about China capability to make 100,1000 or 10 000 warhead.

China CAPABLE to make those, and (honestly) even India is capable to do that.

China DECLARED in words and actions that she stop to make more nuclear weapons at the beginning of 90s.

It is easy to monitor the activity around the Pu making plants, and to asses based on the data the amount of Pu available for weapon making.

No government on the world has AUDITED report about the amount of nuclear weapon materials.

There is same declarations, but no one checked it, and considering the importance of this data you can expect that they lie about it.

So, again, the question is not the CAPABILITY of China to make Pu, but that in the absence of Pu did they choose to make U235 based warheads?

That require way more missile to deliver the payload, and makes it hard (impossible) to fit the warheads onto cruise missiles.

And the U235 as pit material NOT decrease the yield, but INCREASE the diameter / weight of the warhead.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Based on this China has 90 delivery vehicle.
If all of the mirved then it would require the whole nuclear stockpile that China poses.

Means there is no way to increase the number of warheads.

And 90 missile can be intercepted by the US with the korean radars/ABMs.
And if USA attack first then the remaining 10-30 ICBM is not a issue to intercept for the ABM systems.

Why are you so keen on insisting that China only has two or three hundred warheads? Just because its government maintains that they have the smallest nuclear stockpile among permanent members? Don't be so naive. The fact is nuclear weapons in China are a state secret and thus would be extremely difficult to monitor due to the security/geography involved. If it truly possessed only a limited stockpile of nuclear weapons, why would China be implementing MIRV of up to 10 on the DF-41, DF-5, DF-31, and JL-2?

Estimates say China has ~1.8t of weapons grade plutonium

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

enough for up to 600 warheads which adds up to be a bad day for anyone on the receiving end.

The experts on FAS usually low ball the number of Chinese nuclear weapons to keep China, as Hendrix alluded to earlier, the poster-child of their nuclear disarmament message.

 

[SinoSoldier]

Will China actually use its nuclear arsenal should it be attacked first? That is the real question and the answer to why the Chinese stockpile may be so low.

 

[antiterror13]

Will China actually use its nuclear arsenal should it be attacked first? That is the real question and the answer to why the Chinese stockpile may be so low.

how do you know the Chinese stockpile is low?

 

[Hendrik_2000]

Will China actually use its nuclear arsenal should it be attacked first? That is the real question and the answer to why the Chinese stockpile may be so low.

And why should China not retaliate? Learn history Chairman Mao once said we will eat grass and go hungry but we must have those A bomb
People should not doubt China resolve when it come to territorial integrity. 1955 Korea is a good example totally outclass in term of conventional weapon yet she fought the colossus of the time
Now China hundred time more powerful and richer

This is a government that rest their legitimacy on basically maintaining 3 thing. they come to power promising those thing . Chinese people will put up with them so long they maintain those 3 promises
1 Chinese territorial integrity
2 Increasing people living standard
3 having relatively orderly government and peace well maybe another one(optional)
*Restoring China to her rightly place

 

[Icmer]

In my opinion China should seriously be taking steps to increase its nuclear stockpile given the increasingly threatening nuclear posture of the US. China should also reevaluate its doctrine of no-first-use. Unfortunately these don't seem to be realistic possibilities given the pushback from official media to such proposals.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[SinoSoldier]

how do you know the Chinese stockpile is low?

There have been numerous assessments and reports from authoritative sources that place the figure at around 200-300 nuclear weapons. For the purpose of nuclear deterrence there is no point in downplaying the size of your arsenal unless you wish to use it as a bargaining chip for a future conflict.

And why should China not retaliate? Learn history Chairman Mao once said we will eat grass and go hungry but we must have those A bomb
People should not doubt China resolve when it come to territorial integrity. 1955 Korea is a good example totally outclass in term of conventional weapon yet she fought the colossus of the time
Now China hundred time more powerful and richer

This is a government that rest their legitimacy on basically maintaining 3 thing. they come to power promising those thing . Chinese people will put up with them so long they maintain those 3 promises
1 Chinese territorial integrity
2 Increasing people living standard
3 having relatively orderly government and peace

Your argument is all over the place. Firstly, territorial integrity should not be mated with the concept of a nuclear second-strike. The two scenarios bring about drastically different consequences and hence China's stance on the two will be diametrically different. When a country like the USSR or US threatens to wipe out China in a nuclear first strike, it does not do so because it wishes to gain China's territory or to redefine its borders; it carries out the attack because it wishes to prevent China from ever becoming a threat to the sovereignty of itself and that of democratic allies. Whereas China may risk a military conflict to defend its borders and overseas territory, knowing fully well that such conflicts are likely limited and short in scope, its stance towards an apocalyptic nuclear exchange will be much different.

Now, back to the postulate. If the US/USSR/Godzilla launches an all-out decapitation nuclear strike against China, in which virtually all of China's military and urban infrastructure is destroyed, what would China gain from retaliating? Does the outbreak of a nuclear war not negate the purpose of having a nuclear arsenal? Why would China expend its nuclear arsenal, at the risk of creating additional fallout that could harm the entirety of humanity, to achieve a goal that was dashed the moment the enemy launched her weapons?

Despite what some historical leaders (Mao) may say to the public & press, there is little reason for China to retaliate in the event of a nuclear first strike against her, and this is true regardless of China's stockpile size.

 

[SinoSoldier]

In my opinion China should seriously be taking steps to increase its nuclear stockpile given the increasingly threatening nuclear posture of the US. China should also reevaluate its doctrine of no-first-use. Unfortunately these don't seem to be realistic possibilities given the pushback from official media to such proposals.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

No; all major powers are moving away from a sheer numbers game and are instead looking to upgrade their existing delivery systems & warheads while shrinking the quantities of their warheads.

 

[Icmer]

There have been numerous assessments and reports from authoritative sources that place the figure at around 200-300 nuclear weapons. For the purpose of nuclear deterrence there is no point in downplaying the size of your arsenal unless you wish to use it as a bargaining chip for a future conflict.



Your argument is all over the place. Firstly, territorial integrity should not be mated with the concept of a nuclear second-strike. The two scenarios bring about drastically different consequences and hence China's stance on the two will be diametrically different. When a country like the USSR or US threatens to wipe out China in a nuclear first strike, it does not do so because it wishes to gain China's territory or to redefine its borders; it carries out the attack because it wishes to prevent China from ever becoming a threat to the sovereignty of itself and that of democratic allies. Whereas China may risk a military conflict to defend its borders and overseas territory, knowing fully well that such conflicts are likely limited and short in scope, its stance towards an apocalyptic nuclear exchange will be much different.

Now, back to the postulate. If the US/USSR/Godzilla launches an all-out decapitation nuclear strike against China, in which virtually all of China's military and urban infrastructure is destroyed, what would China gain from retaliating? Does the outbreak of a nuclear war not negate the purpose of having a nuclear arsenal? Why would China expend its nuclear arsenal, at the risk of creating additional fallout that could harm the entirety of humanity, to achieve a goal that was dashed the moment the enemy launched her weapons?

Despite what some historical leaders (Mao) may say to the public & press, there is little reason for China to retaliate in the event of a nuclear first strike against her, and this is true regardless of China's stockpile size.

Are you questioning the utility of a second-strike capability? Why should the US have the ability to retaliate in the event of a first strike but not China?

 

[Hendrik_2000]

There have been numerous assessments and reports from authoritative sources that place the figure at around 200-300 nuclear weapons. For the purpose of nuclear deterrence there is no point in downplaying the size of your arsenal unless you wish to use it as a bargaining chip for a future conflict.



Your argument is all over the place. Firstly, territorial integrity should not be mated with the concept of a nuclear second-strike. The two scenarios bring about drastically different consequences and hence China's stance on the two will be diametrically different. When a country like the USSR or US threatens to wipe out China in a nuclear first strike, it does not do so because it wishes to gain China's territory or to redefine its borders; it carries out the attack because it wishes to prevent China from ever becoming a threat to the sovereignty of itself and that of democratic allies. Whereas China may risk a military conflict to defend its borders and overseas territory, knowing fully well that such conflicts are likely limited and short in scope, its stance towards an apocalyptic nuclear exchange will be much different.

Now, back to the postulate. If the US/USSR/Godzilla launches an all-out decapitation nuclear strike against China, in which virtually all of China's military and urban infrastructure is destroyed, what would China gain from retaliating? Does the outbreak of a nuclear war not negate the purpose of having a nuclear arsenal? Why would China expend its nuclear arsenal, at the risk of creating additional fallout that could harm the entirety of humanity, to achieve a goal that was dashed the moment the enemy launched her weapons?

Despite what some historical leaders (Mao) may say to the public & press, there is little reason for China to retaliate in the event of a nuclear first strike against her, and this is true regardless of China's stockpile size.

It does not matter whether they want to gain territory or not "INTEGRITY" mean in violation of country border
If some one attack you they violate you border that is a simple as abc
As Xi said recently in our culture when some one hit me I will hit him back as simple as that you don't need to over analyzed it 5 years old will understand! Whether it bring Gotterdammerung or not beside the point The right to retaliate is socrosant