China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread

[caohailiang]

Well, I am sure the CIA would know the approximate number (which is NOT 300), but they just don't want the public to know ...

Why do you think Trump wanted to include China in the nuclear treaty with Russia and not UK and France if China had similar number of nukes as UK or France ?

what would be the motivation for CIA to "want" or "not want" people to know here?
as for the wanted trilateral talk of START, there could be many reasons not asking UK or France to join, as they are not really considered strategic rivalry for any of the big 3

 

[caohailiang]

As someone posted earlier, the Chief Editor of Global Times Mr Hu Xijin advocated on Weibo that China should expand its nuclear arsenal to about ~1000 warheads, roughly 1/6 th of the US's.

This stirred up much debate within China, many supported this motion some hated it while most people seem to be indifferent since it isn't an official announcement. But, interestingly, this question got asked during one of MoFA's daily press briefings and of course the spokesperson never directly said whether China was going to do it or not. But the fact a question as to what the Chinese government thinks of such a proposal got asked to the spokesperson says a lot in and of itself.

Many now doubt if China's already have that much nuclear warheads (~1000) OR is already in the process of building this number up and are just prepping people about this eventual outcome.

Hu Xijin post another weibo today, further explaining his arguments.
being new to SD, i am not sure how to quote a weibo directly, but in essence what he says:
1, China's nuclear arsenal was consider enough in the last few decades, because China was not considered to be main strategic rivalry of the US, but that has changed now
2, Containing China is becoming core interest of the US now, so when dealing with China, the US is much more tolerant to the risk of escalation than it was, which is why China need stronger nuclear deterrence to balance it out.

 

[tidalwave]

There are analyses on Hu Xijin recent surprising outburst calling for minimal 100 DF41F and at least 1000 nuke warheads.
Hu Xijin is the chief editor global times. And alot of times when the Chinese government want to convey some info to the western countries, they often use global times , the state mouth piece to convey the message.

Coinciding a chinese think tank advises Xi on past Virus scenario where US and China may well very get into military conflict and China has to prepare.

Western side often designated China has between 200 to 300 warheads. Its not convenient for the Chinese government to come out to officially dispute that.

Therefore the analysis saying the Chinese government may very well use Hu Xijin to leak some info on purpose to the west. China could very well has 100 DF41F and that alone already count for 1000 warheads. That is not including other type of missiles.

 

[tidalwave]

There are analyses on Hu Xijin recent surprising outburst calling for minimal 100 DF41F and at least 1000 nuke warheads.
Hu Xijin is the chief editor global times. And alot of times when the Chinese government want to convey some info to the western countries, they often use global times , the state mouth piece to convey the message.

Coinciding a chinese think tank advises Xi on past Virus scenario where US and China may well very get into military conflict and China has to prepare.

Western side often designated China has between 200 to 300 warheads. Its not convenient for the Chinese government to come out to officially dispute that.

Therefore the analysis saying the Chinese government may very well use Hu Xijin to leak some info on purpose to the west. China could very well has 100 DF41F and that alone already count for 1000 warheads. That is not including other type of missiles.

For the first time i see gordon chang got backed down. He always promoting US should do this and that to China. This time he saying US dont want war and China should come out to ask for forgiveness.
Wow. First time ever by him

China maybe.has new.type of thinking. against those US cold war old fosssils , insteag of cold war, hot wars are ready to serve up. Thats directly calling war against US and also implying they have alot more nukes than US designated them.

China is going back to the old Doctrine of Mao
"all imperialists are paper tigers" prepare for war is the only option. Thats how Mao viewed US.
Now China going back to that doctrine.
Only Mao can qualified to make that statement.

Soviet at one point ready to nuke China. US also at some points ready to nuke China, Mao was still fearless.

Chang on this particular case, looks like a paper tiger.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[AssassinsMace]

This is not about fairness and equality. Americans believe they're more responsible hence they get to keep their nuclear weapons because they'll use them for the world's sake if they have to. China is not a responsible power and they'll abuse it. It has nothing to do with anyone thinking everyone has the same amount so everyone has to reduce their stockpile. The US had a problem with North Korea when they had only one nuke and demanded North Korean get rid of it. No one thought North Korea had a comparable amount to the US so everyone should reduce theirs too even to this day.

 

[AssassinsMace]

I believe I mentioned this anecdote somewhere before in here... When I was in college I took an International Relations class called Strategy and War. One day the professor asked the class if you were in charge of Saddam's army during the Gulf War, what would your strategy be in fighting the US? We all had to write it down and then the class was broken up into smaller groups where every student had to read what they wrote and receive critique from the other students in the group. I was listening to what the other students wrote and a lot of them wrote down what they would do with tanks and troops and how they were positioned and how they would attack US forces. Some wrote stuff like how they would surrender to Americans because Iraq violates the human rights of their own people and are a threat to their own neighbors. Then it was my turn. I wrote down that I would concentrate no matter what on killing as many American soldiers as soon as possible and hopefully sustain a high casualty rate for the American side because the US can't take casualties. Too many of their soldiers die and Americans will turn against the war especially since the Vietnam War still haunted them. There were people in my group that were shocked. Some were even offended criticizing how callous I was. Some even said I didn't understand the assignment. When that was over, the instructor wanted the students to read their strategies to the rest of the class. It was pretty much the same things students in my group said and one after the other with the professor saying nothing. And then eventually the professor called on me. I read what I wrote and then the professor pointed at me and said, "Exactly!" He made no comments for anyone else. I understood the question. Everyone else were giving tactics or displacing themselves as an American dictating what an American wanted the Iraqi army to do. It wasn't strategy. And then when the students in my group were called to read what they wrote, they were squirming like worms and they did not speak what they wrote and tried to improvise and spin it to sound more like strategy or did not mention anything close to what they wrote.

What made Americans turn against the Iraq War? It was when Americans who lost loved ones had to mourn alone and American deaths were reduced to a statistic. In the beginning, the media was lionizing every death. There were so few American casualties they could literally air biographical news segments on everyone of them on TV. They were making TV movies for Private Jessica "Rambo" Lynch based on something that turned out to be completely the opposite of what actually happened and she survived the experience. But there's only so much time to give equal attention and the more casualties the less time available. So imagine when a loved one dies and that's it...

Ask how many Chinese lives equals one of theirs and they will gladly answer. One thousand? Ten thousand? 100K? A million...? And that will be psychologically the number they think of for themselves of how many they lost when they lose one. So imagine what a nuclear weapon will do? This is why they think it's completely fair that China with fewer nukes has to reduce and why the Western nuclear powers can keep as many as they want. Again like some of those students in my group... they're not thinking from the other side's perspective. They're not thinking about what's fair. They're imposing their perspective on how they're the good guys and anyone who disagrees with them, it has to be because they're evil. Evil is suppose to surrender unconditionally. There is no negotiating one bit with evil or else evil has won.

They were alarmed and in panic when North Korea developed one nuke. They can't take those kinds of casualties. Sure they can threaten a counterstrike but that's meaningless. Here's where they think you think just like them. You think your life is so precious and will be deathly afraid of losing it that you'll be reacting just like them. That's not true because when you look at examples like the Korean War or the Vietnam War... The casualties were lopsided in favor of the US yet did the Chinese or Vietnamese surrender out of fear of losing their lives which was more likely than an American losing theirs? Not alike.

The US can nuke the world several times over. China doesn't have to chase the US on how many nukes they have. China just has to have enough and no one will have the right to complain about it because the US will always have more.

 

[ZeEa5KPul]

Bro, I was loving your post until this:

The US can nuke the world several times over. China doesn't have to chase the US on how many nukes they have. China just has to have enough and no one will have the right to complain about it because the US will always have more.

Why not? Why not?! Why shouldn't China be able to nuke the world several times over and then nuke the falling ash? You managed to put yourself into the shoes of an Iraqi strategist perfectly but you still have what I've come to call the "old China blind spot." You still view China as a poor country that has to settle for table scraps and leftovers. China is already the wealthiest state on Earth - sounds crazy, right? But think it through before you dismiss it: Developed countries' GDP is inflated by the FIRE sector (finance, insurance, and real estate); why should money sloshing around a financial system without actually doing anything useful count as wealth? China has the world's most extensive industrial infrastructure, that's real wealth.

 

[AssassinsMace]

Bro, I was loving your post until this:

Why not? Why not?! Why shouldn't China be able to nuke the world several times over and then nuke the falling ash? You managed to put yourself into the shoes of an Iraqi strategist perfectly but you still have what I've come to call the "old China blind spot." You still view China as a poor country that has to settle for table scraps and leftovers. China is already the wealthiest state on Earth - sounds crazy, right? But think it through before you dismiss it: Developed countries' GDP is inflated by the FIRE sector (finance, insurance, and real estate); why should money sloshing around a financial system without actually doing anything useful count as wealth? China has the world's most extensive industrial infrastructure, that's real wealth.

I'm thinking practically. You don't need to nuke the world several times over. You already destroyed the world once. Why do you need to do it more?

 

[tidalwave]

I'm thinking practically. You don't need to nuke the world several times over. You already destroyed the world once. Why do you need to do it more?

1)Your minimal l nukes can be destroyed by opponents first strike.
2)Some of your missiles can be intercepted
3)Some of your missiles can be malfunctioned.
4)to create nuclear winter or the earth become so radioactive you need to hit alot of areas.
5)if you spent all your nukes and yet the earth is not destroyed and what happened?
6)what if your opponent attack you with low yield nuke destroying your key infrastructure yet not totally environmentally destructive , how would you respond.

The more nukes and more varieties you have will give you more redundancy against failures and more options to respond.

According to Hu , more nukes will definitely affact US elites psychologically. Its a psychological game.

 

[ZeEa5KPul]

According to Hu , more nukes will definitely affact US elites psychologically. Its a psychological game.

There's a quote from Hu Xijin that I wish I came up with and that I'm going to shamelessly steal: Nuclear war is unthinkable, but nuclear deterrence works silently every day.

Ultimately, this is about self-preservation. I simply can't fathom the psychology of anybody who doesn't see this in the starkest possible terms. No "pragmatism", no "China isn't a bellicose/warmongering/imperialist country", no "nuclear weapons are expensive/dangerous/accident-prone" or any of that nonsense. This boils down to one question: Do you think your existence is something worth preserving?