China ICBM/SLBM, nuclear arms thread

Some have MIRV (JL-2/3, DF-5B, DF-31B, DF-41). I have similar opinion that PLA is not a big fan of MIRV, I think considering limited number of nukes relatively compare to US and Russia. I feel that PLA prefer to have many ICBM with many advanced decoys instead in the ICBM itself
Perhaps PLA feels MIRVs are susceptible to advancements in mid-course interception (resulting in interception of delivery vehicles prior to MIRV separation and dispersal)?
 

bustead

Junior Member
Registered Member
Given the high ICBM/SLBM numbers, it appears as if PLA isn't a fan of MIRVs?
Think of it this way, the old PLARF doctrine saw MIRVs as a way to saturate enemy missile defenses. However, this also means that a first strike from the US may destroy multiple warheads in one hit (if the warheads have been loaded onto the missiles, as per PLARF doctrine during emergencies). This means that warhead survivability may actually decrease if the enemy launches a first strike.
Meanwhile, new technologies (HGVs) allows China to field more survivable systems, albeit with a lower warhead count. Thus, it makes a lot of sense for China to switch over to newer warheads, rather than MIRVs.
 

ENTED64

New Member
Registered Member
Perhaps PLA feels MIRVs are susceptible to advancements in mid-course interception (resulting in interception of delivery vehicles prior to MIRV separation and dispersal)?
Even before MIRVs separation and dispersal it's not particularly more vulnerable than 1 single warhead in that same spot would be. I don't really think this is the reason for the PLA not using MIRVs more.
 
MIRVs are not significantly more vulnerable to interception than 1 single warhead. Even before MIRVs separation and dispersal it's not particularly more vulnerable than 1 single warhead in that same spot would be.
A single warhead being intercepted results in loss of one warhead, whereas a MIRV being intercepted pripor to separation and dispersal results in loss of multiple warheads.
 

antiterror13

Brigadier
Think of it this way, the old PLARF doctrine saw MIRVs as a way to saturate enemy missile defenses. However, this also means that a first strike from the US may destroy multiple warheads in one hit (if the warheads have been loaded onto the missiles, as per PLARF doctrine during emergencies). This means that warhead survivability may actually decrease if the enemy launches a first strike.
Meanwhile, new technologies (HGVs) allows China to field more survivable systems, albeit with a lower warhead count. Thus, it makes a lot of sense for China to switch over to newer warheads, rather than MIRVs.

Can you elaborate of newer warhead of PLA? it is a very little information regarding the advancement of Chinese warhead. I am pretty sure it is very advance as China now is like "100x" (exaggeration is intended) more advanced and richer than in 1990s where China had already built W-88 equivalent which was the most advanced US warhead even now
 

antiterror13

Brigadier
A single warhead being intercepted results in loss of one warhead, whereas a MIRV being intercepted pripor to separation and dispersal results in loss of multiple warheads.

And for China ... a warhead is more precious than the ICBM.

I think China will build more ICBM MIRV which not necessarily with multiple real warheads ... I think likely 1 or 2 and the rest are very advanced decoys
 
Can you elaborate of newer warhead of PLA? it is a very little information regarding the advancement of Chinese warhead. I am pretty sure it is very advance as China now is like "100x" (exaggeration is intended) more advanced and richer than in 1990s where China had already built W-88 equivalent which was the most advanced US warhead even now
I believe he means HGVs, for which we have very little information. HGVs are much more difficult to intercept for obvious reasons, hence vastly increasing the probability of the warhead reaching the target.
 

ENTED64

New Member
Registered Member
A single warhead being intercepted results in loss of one warhead, whereas a MIRV being intercepted pripor to separation and dispersal results in loss of multiple warheads.
True but there are a lot of other considerations. After separation it's harder to intercept MIRV. Further MIRV are inherently a better usage of throw weight than 1 big warhead because of the general smaller warheads are more efficient thing. Also depending on where the separation takes place it can be pretty hard to intercept before it happens. Finally, given the low success rate in intercepting ICBM warheads in general right now and the fact that so few interceptors are available I don't think this is the major consideration on MIRV vs single warhead.

And for China ... a warhead is more precious than the ICBM.
I suppose it depends on the relative cost of these things and strategic doctrine. I don't think a warhead would cost more than the rocket to procure but it is possible PLA doctrine wants more control/less of them around given their no first use policy and general conservatism in this field.
 
Top