I'm more interested seeing what kinda nuclear capable cruise missile (as per Pentagon report) they give on H-20 units. Probably something more stealthy than CJ-20.
A minimum deterrence strategy works when the regime has nothing to lose, and the country was poor, which the main adversary was many times more powerful materially and impossible to defeat in a conventional war. North Korea today would be a good fit for adopting a minimum deterrence strategy (which it has achieved since late 2017). In other words, minimum deterrence strategy was equivalent to a nation-wide suicide bombing campaign with the hope that by detonating itself, the much weaker defender could at least cripple the much stronger foe. However, China has much to lose today, and if I were decision makers in Beijing, one of the questions in my mind would be what if my adversary were to use low-yield, radiation-enhanced tactical nuclear weapons first with the hope of "escalating to de-escalate," especially in a scenario when an enemy (think Trump or Putin, practitioners of brinkmanship) were to completely annihilate one single Chinese naval port city (like Qingdao, Dalian, or Zhanjiang) and cause more than a million casualty, completely incinerating all industrial capacities of that city as well. And subsequently warn me not to escalate, or expect nastiers sneak attacks short of all-out nuclear exchange.
It's probably DF(东风)-10 for the rocket force and AKD(空地)-20 for the air force. No signs so far that the navy is equipped with cruise missiles from the CJ-10 family.Just a question to be sure ... what's the current most accurate designation for the CJ-10/DF-10 Ground Launched Cruise Missile?
You can find everything ranging from DH-10 (very early until about 2011), then CJ-10 (from 2012 on) but also DF-10, which is also clearly visible on the missile itself? But what is official?
View attachment 71367View attachment 71368
Only the US (and maybe India) is worried. When you wave an arsenal of 5000+ nuclear warheads in front of China's face. What then would be the logical thing for China to do?
If true, good. China needs those nukes now more than ever. Its the ultimate guarantor for its own security.So why, then, is China building a breeder reactor in addition to its large portfolio of light, water-cooled reactors—the traditional kind on which most of the world’s nuclear plants rely?
Here’s where the situation gets even more complicated. In a
Yeah, so what? 'International' pressure didn't stop North Korea from building up its own nuclear stockpile.The two recent former U.S. Assistant Secretaries of State for International Security and Nonproliferation who wrote the new paper urge world governments to confront the Chinese government about what the reactors mean for China’s weapons program
China should have the right to first strike because the yanks have no hestitations; remember Horishima and Nagasaki? One was enough, but the yanks love to show off its dirty mights. And China now should delete NFU to be on equal footing with the yanks.Exactly. China doesn't have the means and nor should it pursue this tactical nuke brinkmanship game because it drains resources and muddies the water when a superior solution is right there. All China needs to do is put into law that any WMD strike on it, however limited and "tactical" would be responded to with strategic weapons with the aim of ending the fight.
This is what Russia has in place. The US would never consider a tactical nuke on Russia because Russia would send several dozen megaton yield missiles just to Washington and then ask if the Americans would like to play on.
China needs more warheads and more delivery systems with reach at least DF-31 range. They probably already have a substantially decent amount.
Only the US considers first use and would potentially do it. I'd rather China scrap NFU and actually also commit to first use on threatening fleets. If they don't like having fleets nuked, they can escalate and everyone dies or they can simply not use their fleets in violence. It's very simple. I'd wager that if China ever declares NFU scrapped and warns that underwater nukes and anti ship/fleet nuclear weapons will be used if US or allied fleets ever start a war, they will never even consider a conventional war on the sea.
Yields today have almost no restriction and Tsar bomb level (actual designed yield not detonated) are a walk in the park now. They just require more material. They can guarantee that not a single PLAN or PLAAF asset has to move an inch to sink entire fleets. If they want to escalate with nuclear exchange, that's insane because the choice is binary - die or don't use fleet against China even in conventional confrontation. Every sane leader and responsible person would choose not to go to war with China instead of risking nuclear MAD.
The flip side of this policy is that China itself will need to be accommodating somewhat as well wrt SCS and Taiwan. It doesn't mean they give up entirely on Taiwan since that is sovereignty but islands in SCS claims may be scaled back to be more accommodating and provide an easier bargain. The current situation risks PLAN engaging in conventional fight with USN and all the uncertainty within.
Does someone know how China's nuclear warhead looks like? How small it is? Like Americans, they show publicly how small is their nuclear warhead especially W88, W80, B83, and B61, etc. Warhead miniaturization is very important for MIRV and can reduce the use of critical fissile material such as plutonium. Does China really need another nuclear test for warhead miniaturization? Even France need American help for their last nuclear test in 1996.