China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread


Your logic regards the reason of existence of MAD is so faulty and immoral it is difficult to describe.


This graph describing the reason WHY the MAD exist, and who created it :

And it is still happens these days, the Chinese arsenal growing in the front of our eyes, country after country choose the nuclear weapons and ICBMs capable to reach USA (NK / Iran and the list will grow ), the nuclear agreements restricting the size of active warheads and decrease the trigger level of Armageddon voided by the USA.
The graph you posted doesn't negate my point. Unless you are telling me 5000 nuclear warheads are insufficient to destroy the world? I am merely explaining the calculus that has already been acted upon as evidenced by the graph you posted.
 

Anlsvrthng

Senior Member
Registered Member
The graph you posted doesn't negate my point. Unless you are telling me 5000 nuclear warheads are insufficient to destroy the world? I am merely explaining the calculus that has already been acted upon as evidenced by the graph you posted.
Hard to interpret your intent behind the worlds.

So, you say that say India needs 5000 warhead to be capable to destroy the world with high credibility? And Bangladesh ,and Pakistan, and Nigeria and so on ?

So, as soon these countries become organised enough to start to be worried about the others having too much nuke, so they needs to make sure if any nuclear country bombing say Brazil then Brazil will have the power to make the world inhabitable ?


But my favourite chart telling the story , by simply looking it you can understand the driver behind the mad .

I have to say this is so easy to misinterpret the reality : D


One of my Polish mate see this chart, and he said : " see, the Russians made the nuclear arm race, they had more weapons than anyone else in the 80s" : D


He is an engineer, and it was soooooo difficult to interpret the time axis on the graph : )
 

Biscuits

Junior Member
Registered Member
Honestly, 280 warheads is too small of a number for a country of China's stature. I think China should be keeping an arsenal of at least 1000 warheads, with about a third of them deployed, if it wants to be taken seriously.
There’s no logistical or moral barrier for China to not build thousands or tens of thousands of nukes. And we know for a fact that MAD with the Soviet Union was acknowledged after the sino Soviet split, with the 1979 war almost leading to launch.

I’d say there’s a huge interest in keeping the public number very low in order to placate India (and to a lesser extent Pakistan and NK). 200 Indian nukes could feasibly be blocked, but 3000 cannot. Having both Russia and US able to maintain MAD is enough, no need to pressure new nuclear powers to match China’s arsenal.

But the vast majority of China’s arsenal would also be Cold War weapons like DF-5A that were mainly made against soviet.
 
Last edited:

Anlsvrthng

Senior Member
Registered Member
There’s no logistical or moral barrier for China to not build thousands or tens of thousands of nukes. And we know for a fact that MAD with the Soviet Union was acknowledged after the sino Soviet split, with the 1979 war almost leading to launch.

I’d say there’s a huge interest in keeping the public number very low in order to placate India (and to a lesser extent Pakistan and NK). 200 Indian nukes could feasibly be blocked, but 3000 cannot. Having both Russia and US able to maintain MAD is enough, no need to pressure new nuclear powers to match China’s arsenal.

But the vast majority of China’s arsenal would also be Cold War weapons like DF-5A that were mainly made against soviet.
There is no confirmed Chinese number of warheads. Official or unofficial.

The data that everyone quote coming from the observed heat emission of the Chinese Pu making military reactors.

Quite easy, 3 GW reactor year (thermal) equal no more than one tons of Pu 239 .
 
Hard to interpret your intent behind the worlds.

So, you say that say India needs 5000 warhead to be capable to destroy the world with high credibility? And Bangladesh ,and Pakistan, and Nigeria and so on ?

So, as soon these countries become organised enough to start to be worried about the others having too much nuke, so they needs to make sure if any nuclear country bombing say Brazil then Brazil will have the power to make the world inhabitable ?
...
I am saying that the US and Russia are only willing to reduce their respective arsenals to 5000 warheads each. 5000 warheads each are more than enough to destroy the world multiple times. This is when the US has the world's most powerful conventional military and Russia has one of the world's second-tier most powerful conventional militaries. These two countries consciously choose to each maintain world-destroying levels of nuclear weaponry even when they have world-leading conventional militaries, as well as two of the largest national territories in the world to absorb any attack, do not forget to count overseas territories as well as their mainland territories. For other countries with less powerful conventional militaries and less national territory such as China, their nuclear deterrence against aggression by such powerful countries will logically need to be a world-destroying level of nuclear weaponry in order to sustain MAD.
 

Anlsvrthng

Senior Member
Registered Member
I am saying that the US and Russia are only willing to reduce their respective arsenals to 5000 warheads each. 5000 warheads each are more than enough to destroy the world multiple times. This is when the US has the world's most powerful conventional military and Russia has one of the world's second-tier most powerful conventional militaries. These two countries consciously choose to each maintain world-destroying levels of nuclear weaponry even when they have world-leading conventional militaries, as well as two of the largest national territories in the world to absorb any attack, do not forget to count overseas territories as well as their mainland territories. For other countries with less powerful conventional militaries and less national territory such as China, their nuclear deterrence against aggression by such powerful countries will logically need to be a world-destroying level of nuclear weaponry in order to sustain MAD.
Where the 5000 warhead number coming from ?

The New Start treaty restricting the number of DEPLOYED warheads to 1550.

The level of this number coming from the expected capabilities of ABM systems, capability of first strike and so on ( I presume )

It doesn't count the strategical warheads, and the pits resting in storage.

The nuclear deterrence is not a logical step in any thinking chain.

The current situation is the direct result of the Operation Chrome Dome and company, that created an environment where the soviets ( just recovering from an war unimaginable for anyone in the USA) was forced continuously to match the exponentially growing nuclear delivery and warhead numbers of USA.


Several USA president had the "what stupid thing we done" moment later on.

The nuclear deterrence can works well with 30-40 warhead stored separately with the missiles, and require days of preparation to launch.
That has exactly the same effect that the current system gives.

Currently the existence of the mankind depends on the mood of an operator somewhere deep in a bunker. If he drunk too much Tennessee whiskey previous day then there will be an Armageddon if any malfunction happens in his systems ( before anyone start same ranting : no one know how deep is the delegation of launch authority is in any organisation, appart from a handful of people)
 

Top