China ICBM/SLBM, nuclear arms thread

[Andy1974]

Just because Chinas keeps its strategy quiet doesn’t mean we can’t discuss possible developments.

A limit suits everyone, imo, because:

If you are the USA your analysts are already telling you that China will have 1k nukes by 2030, so it suits them to make that a limit, it seems they have accepted it. On the other hand you are under time pressure because your arsenal is deteriorating and you can’t afford to replace it fully. You want to reduce.

If you are Russia you have already accepted the multipolar world so an equal amount or nukes among the superpowers is fair and reasonable from that point of view.

If you are China you want a proper and sensible amount which might be the 1000 oft mentioned. You also want to build up this in a cost effective manner so keeping steady production up to 2030 then moving to refurbishing is perfect.

 

[taxiya]

If China sees X number is enough and sensible, then China will stop there regardless what other thinks. Whether other countries can make/maintain more or less isn't making a difference to China, nor does China have the desire to stop others to have more. It isn't really "keeping quiet" but rather "non of your business".

 

[antiterror13]

If China sees X number is enough and sensible, then China will stop there regardless what other thinks. Whether other countries can make/maintain more or less isn't making a difference to China, nor does China have the desire to stop others to have more. It isn't really "keeping quiet" but rather "non of your business".

Do you think China would consider 1,000 is enough or will continue to 1,500 or even 2,000 nukes ? Nobody (outside Chinese elites) really knows how many nukes China currently have, okay CIA thinks China already have 600 nukes

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

but we all know they are very often got it wrong about China nukes and weapons in general. I wouldn't be surprised if China already have 1,000 nukes by now, considering continuous threats China have received from USA and EU

 

[bebops]

The cold war arm race produced nukes that either USSR or USA could wipe the world many times alone. Apparently it was more of a size contest than necessity. But neither side was willing to be seen as "defeated" by voluntarily stoping/reducing without concent from the other, therefor the treaty. It was a childish idiocy followed by a face-saving coverup dressed as peace-loving "achivement", nothing more.

Of course there is a threshold, but we will never know what the leadership think. But one thing is certain, Chinese leadership isn't going to make that many like USA and USSR did, without that rediculous extra there isn't a reason for China to negotiate limiting the necessity.

[add]
To put a current analog, the cold war race was like Trump's tariff. When the tariff from both sides reached 100%, it essentially stopped any trade, beyond that there is no difference between 101% and 200%. China stopped at 100% which is the threshold of necessity. But Trump like his predecessor and old Soviet leaders would go and had gone to 200% or 3000/4000 nukes. That is excessive and stupid which needed a treaty to save faces for both sides. China doesn't play that kind of game as shown now.

Is Russian nuke well maintained? you have to take account that some work and some don't

 

[antiterror13]

Is Russian nuke well maintained? you have to take account that some work and some don't

The same for US nukes

 

[gelgoog]

Is Russian nuke well maintained? you have to take account that some work and some don't

They are. Russia has the most well developed nuclear industry in the world. They can vastly outproduce the US in production of plutonium pit cores for example.

 

[datastack]

If China sees X number is enough and sensible, then China will stop there regardless what other thinks. Whether other countries can make/maintain more or less isn't making a difference to China, nor does China have the desire to stop others to have more. It isn't really "keeping quiet" but rather "non of your business".

you may well use the same "none of your business" argument on the US-Soviet arms control negotiations and ask yourself why didn't Brezhnev just say that to Nixon/Ford/Carter. Arms control is a complicated matter and childish views won't add much value here.

 

[datastack]

The same for US nukes

Not the same. we get to see basic information & how much money NNSA allocates for various life extension programs each year, W88 Alt 370 for example. The nuance in the difference between the US & Russian practices of warhead refurbishment is well documented but seems not well understood here in this community. See also

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

if interested.

 

[datastack]

Just because Chinas keeps its strategy quiet doesn’t mean we can’t discuss possible developments.

A limit suits everyone, imo, because:

If you are the USA your analysts are already telling you that China will have 1k nukes by 2030, so it suits them to make that a limit, it seems they have accepted it. On the other hand you are under time pressure because your arsenal is deteriorating and you can’t afford to replace it fully. You want to reduce.

If you are Russia you have already accepted the multipolar world so an equal amount or nukes among the superpowers is fair and reasonable from that point of view.

If you are China you want a proper and sensible amount which might be the 1000 oft mentioned. You also want to build up this in a cost effective manner so keeping steady production up to 2030 then moving to refurbishing is perfect.

For China - and to some extent Russia as well - the quality of the deterrence matters more than the quantity alone, assuming the quantity is beyond certain threshold. China seems to realize that it was not a good idea to place too many RVs on TELs and have opted to diversify their deterrence by adding those few hundreds of silos, which is a significant investment, the ramification of which is not well perceived outside of ICs.

Why didn't they just add those RVs to DF-41 (or whatever came after) instead of going by the silo approach? was it because 41's capabilities in throw-weight or something else, like survivability?
Why did they place single-tipped DF-31BJ in the silos instead of a silo version of the DF-41?
Why did they produce a single-tipped DF-5C a few years after revealing the MIRV-ed 5B?

Behind closed doors there has to be careful deliberation within China's various bodies governing nuclear doctrines & strategic postures on these matters. Many things would affect the answers to these questions, including but not limited to the following:
- package of RVs currently available to produce besides the good old type 535, and whether the much smaller 575 is a real thing or not;
- technology/facilities available for LOW, which by now is most likely positive given the silos are being filled;
- willingness to participate arms control talks at some stage, and if so which models are likely to be used as chips on the table.
- what are the most threatening launchers the US can deploy against China, and what chips China is willing to offer in exchange to remove that threat. Some believe it is likely some sort of nuclear-tipped MRBM/IRBMs in those island chains, but we'll see.

 

[Wrought]

you may well use the same "none of your business" argument on the US-Soviet arms control negotiations and ask yourself why didn't Brezhnev just say that to Nixon/Ford/Carter. Arms control is a complicated matter and childish views won't add much value here.

As others have already pointed out, there is zero evidence or indication of any formal Chinese interest in arms control negotiations. If that ever changes, then you'll have some ground to stand on. But for the time being, it's both pointless and stupid to fantasize about such things.