This may be a teaching aid, but the picture is too blurry to show its purpose or structure.
China ICBM/SLBM, nuclear arms thread
- Thread starter Blitzo
- Start date
antiterror13
Brigadier
Topol-M is equivalent to DF-31A, while DF-31B/AG is equivalent to RS-24 Yars
I don't think there is Russian equivalent (yet) to DF-41 (solid fuel)
One idea has come to my mind. We know that Df-61 is real and shares the same TEL as df-41. But last year, we saw 10-axel TEL which was huge! some members here even calculated its payload which kinda amounted to what American general said. So, I thought that Df-61 and that 10-axel missile, loikely named df-45 or df-51, were competing designs and pla has decided to go with df-61 which is smaller to eventually comply with the START treaty limits of 800 launchers and 1550 warheads. If PLA had chosen that 10-axel TEL, probably 800 launchers with their warheads would have surpassed the treaty limits.in other words, that TEL was unnecessarily large, and pla chose df-61.
RS-24 has MIRV that was under rigorous treaty inspection. It's odd though to compare DF31A to RS-24. That DF31A is not MIRV-ed has been a consensus across different ICs for many years. There has been no evidence whatsoever other than fan-fictions that the 3rd stage of DF31A can serve as a PBV.
See also 2024 CMPR for details. Many numbers that were listed in previous CMPRs & doubted by Chinese fans turned out to be true. Long gone those days when fans were fiercely debating whether JL-2(!) has MIRV...
That's a possible explanation, but it's inconceivable that they'll stake most of their warheads to TELs. Over the years they have apparently grown wary of the survivability of TELs as technology advances which explains the rush to build up those silo fields. TELs will continue to serve as the mainstay of their countervalue deployment, but as the silos are being filled, roles of TELs are likely to somewhat diminish - for good reason.
Sorry, but I have neither seen nor heard of any indications of China being remotely interested in participating in any of the present and new nuclear arms limitation talks with the US and Russia, let alone joining one.
Last edited:
If something like this could happen, it would be really cool.
We have zero indication though of something like this happening. Not only that, but what we do know about the world now in 2025, points to the exact opposite.
I really have trouble understanding how you could find it likely. By 2030 too! But, I think we are getting off-topic here so I won't belabor the point further.
The notion of China enterring an arm control treaty negotiation is a WISH by the US, there is no tinnest indication of China even picked up this talk. Any discussion, analysis and prediction based on this assumption is a wishful thinking and does not worth pages of posts. If China seeing 1000 nukes being a waste of money, China will not make that many in the first place, China don't need anyone to tell her to stop. If China sees the necessity of 2000 nukes, China will make it especially if her enemy asked her to not to do so. For the US, if it can afford to keep up the race, go ahead to make 10000 like Trumps 200% tariff, wiping off the earth for 100 times is no worse than 10 times as far as everybody concerns. If the US can not afford the game, then shut up, stop whining like a baby.
There maybe a limit though, what's the point of having 5k when 2k is more than enough to achieve your goals? That leaves funds for other areas of the military.
Is there any indication that the leadership has an upper threshold for warheads?
Is there any indication that the leadership has an upper threshold for warheads?
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.
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.
Last edited: