Developing small tactical nukes to escalate to de-escalate is the definition of intimidation. You need to understand that concept. There is so far no evidence that anybody thinks that actually dropping a few nukes on another nuclear country will de-escalate instead of bring about MAD.Not in the minds of supporters of First Use like Trump, Neocons, Pakistani Army, Force De Frappe, Kim Jong'un, and Russians. This is why both the Trump Administration and the Russians support the development of small yield tactical nukes in order to "escalate to -de-escalate." As much as I agree with you that nukes are meant to intimidate, there are lots of military guys and politicians out there still believing in starting a limited tactical nuclear war as a contest of will to force their enemies to back down. Trump and "his friend" the Little Rocket Man clearly believe in this extremely risky strategy.
Yes but that's what I mean by there is no indication that we are even close to a situation where it could be over in a matter of minutes. If relations and tensions really get there, there should be enough time to stockpile those inventories if the CCP responds to changing relations (it could be done right now with the recent escalation of trade war). Truth be told, we're not in a place where the US will launch a sudden first use strike against China yet. It will cripple all of China's neighbours and given the size they need to cover, they will pollute the entire world and be responsible for the worst disaster in recorded human history. Something they will not recover from politically. This is assuming China has no means to retaliate in a way that makes the US and half the world uninhabitable, which isn't even close to being true. Again thermonuclear weapons are not the only means of MAD.The problem with this argument is when nuclear exchange happened it will all be over in matter of minutes. There is no time to produced warhead It is not like WWII which is drawn out over 3 or 4 years.
The question is did you have inventory or not!
I don't think maintaining warhead is expensive A lot of people get confused between maintain warhead and maintaining warhead + missile .
Yeah missile is problematic if it liquid but solid fuel missile has long storage life not infinite but way better than liquid
False.With fewer resources to spend on matching US, hedging MAD bets is the proper way to go.
Adjusted for purchasing power this is true but there are also FAR more mouths to feed and per capita is still lower. That was what I was referring to when I said fewer resources compared to the US. So it cannot be responsible for China to spend as much as the US in this domain particularly if the US levels of spending is unnecessary to achieve desired abilities.False.
China's economy is already larger than the US's ($27 trillion vs. $20 trillion) and its growth momentum and potential are much greater. Write "China's economy is larger than America's" on a blackboard a hundred times like Bart Simpson if you need to - whatever you do, internalize that fact. This kind of "China's a poor country" thinking is going to send it into an abyss.
China's long past the point of worrying about feeding its population. When the per capita GDP is $20,000, you're past that point. This poverty mentality is like a billionaire who grew up poor still pinching pennies and clipping coupons, it's silly, embarrassing, myopic, completely unnecessary, and worst of all wasting opportunities. There's no inordinate expense in China expanding its arsenal by a factor of ten, especially when the hard work of warhead miniaturization and missile design are already done, and there's a vast infrastructure in place - we're just talking marginal costs now, the sunk costs have already been paid. That's just the military side; China also has a vast and mature nuclear industry that can produce the necessary fissile material.Adjusted for purchasing power this is true but there are also FAR more mouths to feed and per capita is still lower.
Whether America's spending is optimal or not, the fact remains that it has thousands of warheads aimed at China. That must be countered. What's irresponsible is not countering it.So it cannot be responsible for China to spend as much as the US in this domain particularly if the US levels of spending is unnecessary to achieve desired abilities.
Because from China's nuclear posturing as well as it's own doctrine regarding nuclear weapons is anathema towards that assumption. This is not accounting towards the lack of any scientific journals or credible articles claim that number. This is not so much a matter of China's wealth and strength but more towards how China views the use of nuclear weapons. While alot of people likes to point towards the US and Russia's warheads numbering in the thousands, a good number of those warheads are of a tactical nature given both nation's first use policies. These warheads are smaller and less destructive, but are no less grave in the implications of their use. China has a no first use policy, and there is little if any indication that it has fielded any tactical nukes.I find it really puzzling why some people refuse to believe that China doesn't/can't have warheads in the thousands. As if China having a nuclear arsenal commensurate with its stature blasphemes against their religion.
A one minute Google search puts the lie to that. America has 14 Ohio class SSBNs, each holds 24 Trident SLBMs, each SLBM has 8 MIRVs. 14 * 24 * 8 = 2688 warheads. I would consider that a good number of strategic weapons - something I'd like to see with the Type 09-VI.While alot of people likes to point towards the US and Russia's warheads numbering in the thousands, a good number of those warheads are of a tactical nature given both nation's first use policies.
I hold that it is all about wealth and power. China adopted its nuclear force posture because it was too poor and weak to adopt anything better, and it worked to deter the US and USSR because back then China wasn't worth destroying. Now it is has both wealth and power, and it very much is worth destroying.This is not so much a matter of China's wealth and strength but more towards how China views the use of nuclear weapons.
That's why I advocate keeping NFU. They'll keep believing China isn't going to lob nuclear weapons at them because China says it won't, that's what being powerful means. They'll believe it because they have no choice - believing it might mean possible annihilation, but not believing it means certain annihilation.Ballistic missiles with conventional warheads form an important part of China's military, especially the SRBM and IRBM. If Beijing was to portray itself as having that many nukes it did lead other nations fearing that in the event of hostilities any missile being lobbed their way could potentially be a nuclear armed one, this in turn would lead to a nuclear race frenzy where everyone has a nuke and treats any nuclear capable platform as a paranoid threat. As unlogical as it might sound, that is the reality of the world as we are in right now.
I don't think China does or should aim any nuclear weapons at Russia (and I hope that's reciprocated). As a Russian I would think you would welcome this. After all, the more nuclear missiles aimed at America the better, no?A more logical number given the current nuclear states in the world vis a vis population centers would put that number somewhere between 700-1000, just touching the magical thousand mark but still vastly below that of the US and Russia.
That's not how it works! The Trident D5s are loaded onto subs that go on patrol and unloaded from them when the subs need maintenance etc from a pool of missiles. The pool of missiles is shared between the UK and US who put their own warheads into the missiles. The missiles themselves need maintenance and have a shelf life in fact lockMart were given orders for additional missiles just last year!A one minute Google search puts the lie to that. America has 14 Ohio class SSBNs, each holds 24 Trident SLBMs, each SLBM has 8 MIRVs. 14 * 24 * 8 = 2688 warheads. I would consider that a good number of strategic weapons - something I'd like to see with the Type 09-VI.