China ICBM/SLBM, nuclear arms thread

ChongqingHotPot92

Junior Member
Registered Member
If Pakistan can achieve miniaturisation, then China probably already has achieved it a while back.
Pakistan’s warheads are all single stage fission warheads. They only require 4.5 - 5 kg (core) if WGPu per warhead, so they don’t weight that much. Or if the use HEU core, it’s mostly 15-20kg. So their warheads don’t need to be big so long as they have the high-quality shaped insensitive high explosives to compress the tiny core into criticality. The lack of a second stage saves a lot of weight, but yield suffers, as most Pakistani bombs are still in the 5-20 kt range. A single one would trash, but not destroy Mumbai or Delhi.
 

ACuriousPLAFan

Brigadier
Registered Member
China declines to meet with US on nuclear arms control, US official says

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

That's right. Why should China keeps engaging with the US in nuclear arms control when China is still yet to be an equivalent to the US in terms of nuclear weapon fielding and delivery capabilities?

In fact - Until either the US voluntarily reduces her own nuclear arsenal in terms of (whichever of the two is lower) the number of nuclear warheads or the cumulative yield in megatonnage to match that of China - OR let China increases her own nuclear arsenal in terms of (whichever of the two is higher) the number of warheads or the cumulative yield in megatonnage to match that of the US - Then China shouldn't bother with any talks that serve to stifle her own MAD capabilities and/or putting her own MAD capabilities in a decisive disadvantage situation to the US.

SomeoneIsGettingReallyAnxious.jpg

007YjO1pgy1hphcfjuqb2j312r1587sq.jpg

So if the "when-you-come-down-to-our-level-then-we-will-talk" excuse is getting old, then it is only natural that the "when-we-get-up-to-your-level-then-we-will-talk" reasoning becomes the only viable option, right? Right?
 
Last edited:

Jason_

Junior Member
Registered Member
SomeoneIsGettingReallyAnxious.jpg

View attachment 129245

So if the "when-you-come-down-to-our-level-then-we-will-talk" excuse is getting old, then it is only natural that the "when-we-get-up-to-your-level-then-we-will-talk" reasoning becomes the only viable option, right? Right?
Time to grow (China‘s nuclear arsenal in quantity and quality) up!
 

Kalec

Junior Member
Registered Member
SomeoneIsGettingReallyAnxious.jpg

So if the "when-you-come-down-to-our-level-then-we-will-talk" excuse is getting old, then it is only natural that the "when-we-get-up-to-your-level-then-we-will-talk" reasoning becomes the only viable option, right? Right?
Could someone please explain a simple logic on "why arm control nerd insists on talking with China on arm control meanwhile no one cares about New Start?"

Russia is much more dangerous on actual use of nuclear weapon than China ever did but they don't talk about what will happen after New Start expires.
 

Michaelsinodef

Senior Member
Registered Member
Could someone please explain a simple logic on "why arm control nerd insists on talking with China on arm control meanwhile no one cares about New Start?"

Russia is much more dangerous on actual use of nuclear weapon than China ever did but they don't talk about what will happen after New Start expires.
They don't dare since Russia actually got 1000s of nukes.

Meanwhile, they think China has less than 300, ad therefore can pressure China in not expanding.
 

pipaster

Junior Member
Registered Member
Could someone please explain a simple logic on "why arm control nerd insists on talking with China on arm control meanwhile no one cares about New Start?"

Russia is much more dangerous on actual use of nuclear weapon than China ever did but they don't talk about what will happen after New Start expires.

This is largely a unilateral concern of the US. They no longer want to negotiate exclusively with Russia unlike in the past with the Soviet Union. Instead they want trilateral arrangements with themselves, Russia, and especially China.

Foreign policy in the US is increasingly gearing itself to target China in everything they do. I believe they think of they can act recklessly they can coax China into a new agreement with themselves and Russia.
 

gelgoog

Brigadier
Registered Member
After the US started to demand that they could only do START Treaty negotiations with Russia if China was also part of the negotiations the Russians started demanding that France and the UK must also be part of the negotiations. And counted as part of the US arsenal.
 

Kalec

Junior Member
Registered Member
I am not into arm control but i can see why Chinese demand might be unacceptable from the US side so no progress yet.

China should demand strict cap on all nuclear weapon regardless of tactical/strategic with no first use policy in exchange to agree to the same cap on number.

Anyway i see no reason why China should join arm control in the future until reaching 3,000 nukes with the same BMD capability to NGI.
 

Red tsunami

Junior Member
Registered Member
Could someone please explain a simple logic on "why arm control nerd insists on talking with China on arm control meanwhile no one cares about New Start?"

Russia is much more dangerous on actual use of nuclear weapon than China ever did but they don't talk about what will happen after New Start expires.

They don't dare since Russia actually got 1000s of nukes.

Meanwhile, they think China has less than 300, ad therefore can pressure China in not expanding.

Perhaps because they don't actually believe that China only has 300 nukes, and the speed of China's nuclear expansion far exceeds their imagination.
 
Top