China's military is wasteful

F

fishhead

Banned Idiot
You really can't tell an airplane can carry nuke bomb or not. And I am sick and tired of the followings:

"We have not seen any more nuke adapted planes"
"we know well enough of the H-6 upgrades"
"we don't know about them being nuke cleared?"
"I have not even heard a shred of rumor or report of"

What you know are really what PLA allows you konw, you see J-10 only 2 years after it entered service and you don't know everything of it for sure. Until today people only are allowed to see the first Chinese atomic bomb and H-bomb models, but nobody ever see any other warheads, tactical nukes, etc...Do you have any photos?

"also mean having a small staff of 2nd Artillery to go with it"

I really got to stop here, you don't konw what you're talking about.
 
Roger604

Roger604

Senior Member
We know very little about China's nuclear devices aside from western guesstimates using the seismic signatures of China's last nuclear tests in the mid-90's. We don't know about any sub-critical tests or computer simulated tests that may have taken place afterwards.

At this point, the only thing we know is that China has mastered the core nuclear device technologies, along with USA, Russia and France. And we know China has MIRV's. We don't know what the yield / weight ratio of those MIRV's are. Do they really cap off at 150 kT?

That said, I would be VERY VERY surprised if China doesn't have small nuclear warheads for its LACM (like the kind on the Tomahawk). Which implies that at least the PLAAF or PLAN could in wartime handle tactical nuclear weapons.
 
F

fishhead

Banned Idiot
People really konws little about Chinese nuclear force doctrine and weaponary stock. I would say those scientists in NTI don't konw more than I, so you really can't quote those internet numbers as an evidence.

Like warhead number estimate, it really a tricky business. From technical point of view, the number depends on:

1) How much fission materisal Chinese ever produces, there is no accurate data to present

2) More important, the technical level makes huge difference. Today advanced technology makes you not need critical mass to produce the fission reaction, and 2-5kgs or 20-50kg uranium per bomb are all possible estimate, then the total number is a purly guess.

How good Chinese nuclear technology level? We don't know. But one good bench mark is China tested neutral bomb 20 years ago, to master neutral bomb technology means your fission reaction just needs very small amount of fission material to casue the fussion reaction - otherwise it's an atomic bomb core, so it shows Chinese nuclear bomb technology has reached to quite advanced level.

And also building more warheads doesn't cost a lot - contrary to general perception, the expensive part is weapon R&D, and extracting fission/fussion material, if you have the technology and material, then making warhead is just a piece of cake. I think for the current Chinese technology, 1 ton of weapon grade uranium can yield 200-300 warheads, more if it's plutonium.
 
T

The_LT

New Member
Registered Member
First Nuke strike is NEVER a good strategy. Russia is using the First Strike concept because their military is not as efficient back in the Soviets' days. They are downsizing drastically because of money. Back in 2002, there was a story of how an Russian Air Force Colonel had work a second job because the military doesn't pay enough! Their economy is slowly recovering USSR era. China spent more money this year on their military but still reducing troops. This is because the troops are way better trained than back in the 80's or even 90s. They are working "smarter not harder". China is also investing more money on training, RD, better living conditions, and newer equipment. If you have 10,000 pilots, but who doesn't get enough flying hours and are mediocarly equipped, they will be easily defeated with 5-8Kpilots who are well trained with numerous flying hours and use really ammunitions and have many numerous life fire exercises. Also, their morale and motivations would be higher because they have good standard of living (base housing, dorms, chow hall, etc.) These are all driving forces of good soldiers/flyers/sailors/marines. First Nuke Strike concepts are for those with nothing else to offer....just my 2 cents :)
 
V

Violet Oboe

Junior Member
Russia is rapidly recovering! Putin increased the military budget during the last three years more dynamically than Hu Jintao managed to do for PLA. Of course Russia has a long way to go for reaching the level of military power the USSR had during the 80's but Putin made the important first steps in the right direction and his successor could reestablish Russia as a coequal strategic power with the US.
(China must take this development thoroughly into account since Beijing cannot afford to rely on foreign powers for her security.)

Regarding the discussion of tactical nuclear weapons:
Indeed there is existing a certain probability that PLA has developed and deployed nuclear warheads for her new and expanding arsenal of cruise missiles nevertheless there is no confirmation.:confused: Unfortunately most western experts are convinced that what they have not yet seen does not exist. Even for the US that attitude could produce unpleasant surprises (diverse ´black projects´in Area 51, F-117A squadron in Tonopah was operational almost five years before DoD declassified the existence of the Nighthawk!) but looking this way at China would be indeed completely naive.

The strategic environment of the PRC has changed profoundly during the last 10 years: India and Pakistan (an ally of China but also internally unstable) are now declared nuclear powers and New Delhi has recently reached the capability to destroy major chinese cities with her thermonuclear Agni II missile. Furthermore North Korea has obviously acquired a small nuclear arsenal and a potential internal crisis (may be after Kim Jong Il's death) could endanger at least parts of China.

PLA would gain more flexibilty in dealing with a crisis at China's periphery involving regional nuclear powers like India by having the option of tactical nuclear weapons at hand. Cruise missiles (HN, DH series?) with low yield warheads and high precision (5 m CEP) would secure China's strategic superiority by employing the dominance of escalation of Second Artillery's comparatively more massive arsenal (ICBM's, SLBM's). Additionally PLAAF could field a nuclear air to surface standoff weapon similarly to the french ASMP giving chinese leaders the option of a ´final warning strike´ against a symbolic/low value target. (... sending a strong signal could indeed be necessary during several scenarios!:D )
 
Last edited:
T

Troika

Junior Member
Violet Oboe said:
Russia is rapidly recovering! Putin increased the military budget during the last three years more dynamically than Hu Jintao managed to do for PLA. Of course Russia has a long way to go for reaching the level of military power the USSR had during the 80's but Putin made the important first steps in the right direction and his successor could reestablish Russia as a coequal strategic power with the US.
(China must take this development thoroughly into account since Beijing cannot afford to rely on foreign powers for her security.)

Regarding the discussion of tactical nuclear weapons:
Indeed there is existing a certain probability that PLA has developed and deployed nuclear warheads for her new and expanding arsenal of cruise missiles nevertheless there is no confirmation.:confused: Unfortunately most western experts are convinced that what they have not yet seen does not exist. Even for the US that attitude could produce unpleasant surprises (diverse ´black projects´in Area 51, F-117A squadron in Tonopah was operational almost five years before DoD declassified the existence of the Nighthawk!) but looking this way at China would be indeed completely naive.

The strategic environment of the PRC has changed profoundly during the last 10 years: India and Pakistan (an ally of China but also internally unstable) are now declared nuclear powers and New Delhi has recently reached the capability to destroy major chinese cities with her thermonuclear Agni II missile. Furthermore North Korea has obviously acquired a small nuclear arsenal and a potential internal crisis (may be after Kim Jong Il's death) could endanger at least parts of China.

PLA would gain more flexibilty in dealing with a crisis at China's periphery involving regional nuclear powers like India by having the option of tactical nuclear weapons at hand. Cruise missiles (HN, DH series?) with low yield warheads and high precision (5 m CEP) would secure China's strategic superiority by employing the dominance of escalation of Second Artillery's comparatively more massive arsenal (ICBM's, SLBM's). Additionally PLAAF could field a nuclear air to surface standoff weapon similarly to the french ASMP giving chinese leaders the option of a ´final warning strike´ against a symbolic/low value target. (... sending a strong signal could indeed be necessary during several scenarios!:D )
Click to expand...

It is logical not to believe in some thing's existence unless you have seen it or have good evidence for it. Sometimes you are surprised, but it is better than believing any number of maskirovka or things inferred from other things. You can suspect and you can speculate, but the prudent position is not to believe.

Nuclear first use is not good strategic option unless you are nearly at the top of the pile, which China is most certainly not, nor even close. India already is wary of China, it is madness to make them even more paranoid. What will be accomplished? For some hypothetical and extremely unlikely conflict with two or three regional power, you jeopardize China's strategic situation, which has been to make sure never more than two powers on China's border is actively hostile, thus creating for China a possible extremely adverse international situation. Ask yourself, is it worth getting a slight edge of India in an unlikely future conflict to push her into Japan and America's arms? You will send strong signals alright. None of those signals would be good for you in the long run.
 
V

Violet Oboe

Junior Member
@Troika:
China's strategic environment has irreversibly changed during the last decade and Beijing has no other option left than to take this into account. The policy of ´no first use´ and ´minimal deterrent´ was justified during the era of paramount leader Deng Xiaoping when China was desperately poor and technologically backward (1978-1992/effectively). (...indeed Deng recognized that China was only a major power on paper exercising her rights through ´politics of the mouth´ but he also went a ´way of thousand li´ against unimaginable odds to enable the nation to break free from the chains of weakness!)
Today China has to find a more balanced way for securing her strategic environment confronting new threats with determination and strength.
(...learning from the US and Russia's experience would be certainly to Beijing's advantage here!:D )

Of course the indian problem has to be approached by a multidimensional strategy and accomodating Delhi through circumspect diplomacy would be a central part of that. The sino-indian trade relationship has flourished tremendously recently and China will probably advance in '08 to India's prime trade partner (in '07 the balance of sino-indian trade will reach 35-37 bn $, way more than India's milbudget:D ). Moreover Beijing must learn to accept that India is a rising power and deserves full respect from China. Correspondingly China has to demonstrate India what Delhi and 1.1. bn indians in particular can expect from a deep and dynamic relationship.

Nevertheless China would also need a robust strategic relationship with Pakistan and also Myanmar and Bangladesh to communicate the message for Delhi that messing up with China would incur high costs for India. Furthermore there are first indications that PLA has begun to react to India's expanding nuclear capabilities by deploying more IRBM's in central and west China (deployment of DF-21 to Delingha). In fact these developments could lead to a secondary nuclear arms race and Beijing has indeed shown interest in establishing a bilateral ´back channel´ with Delhi recently.
 
Last edited:
Y

Yue Fei

New Member
Roger604 said:
In the past few years, PLA personnel reduced by 200,000. This is still not enough. Russia defends a territory 2x the size of China, and they only have a budget 1/8 the size of the Chinese budget. China should try to emulate Russia's efficiency in this regard. The main reason for the difference is that Russia has a declared policy of using nuclear weapons in any border conflict, so it does need that many standing border troops.

If China stops reiterating the "no first use" policy (even if it doesn't explicitly recant it), it can greatly reduce the number of personnel. By introducing more modern equipment to the Rapid Reaction forces, I think the Army can be cut down to 1 million soldiers from 1.4 million currently. With better implementation of modern policing equipment and tactics, the PAP can be cut down by half to 300,000 or less.

This would be a great benefit to the country as a whole to better utilize resources. I fear, though, that internecine rivalries would be an obstacle against further reducing the Army. Nonetheless, the Party has firm control over the military so if they recognize the need, they can implement it. The recent shedding of 200,000 finished in 2005, they should start another round soon (in 2008).
Click to expand...

What you fail to realise is how many people will lose jobs if there was another cut down, and that the PLA provides many many people with stable jobs.

The reason why Russia cuts down is they have no extreme hostile heated areas right now other than some insurgents here and there.

Whilst China up north are Russians, East American based Korea and Japan, Southern border disputes with Vietnam and West with India.
 
FriedRiceNSpice

FriedRiceNSpice

Major
Nuclear missiles are very expensive to build and maintain. With Russia's budget, they have had to dismantle the vast majority of their nuclear arsenal. It will not save China any money to build up their nuclear arsenals. With their $45 billion budget, they can at best build 20 DF-31As. And thats by spending their entire budget.
 
V

Violet Oboe

Junior Member
So PLA is going broke for paying the bills for 20 ICBM's???
... please FriedRice guy: are you living at least mentally in 1987? :D

A new Minuteman III ICBM still currently in low rate production is costing the DoD currently around 60 mil $ excluding costs for basing, personnel and C4I. Correspondingly let us make the assumption that PLA would have pay around 80 mil $ (probably way too high...) for a new DF-31A and launcher plus C4I and personnel. So this would make around 16 bn $ for 200 launchers and missiles to be spent over a period of perhaps 5-7 years (~2.5-3 bn $ annually).
(The cost of the actual nuclear device is hardly to estimate but it is safe to assume that it is only a fraction of the launcher/missile; so lets add probably ~5 mil $ per unit.)
Of course that would be a substantial sum but as long as PBoC adds a hefty 1 bn $ a day to her reserve coffers we should not assume that China is short of financial resources for her essential defense needs!:D

As for your quotation of 45 bn $ as China's defense budget:
Well, first of all that is not a mean sum and Russia obviously manages to modernize her missile forces with an officially much lower budget. However ´official´is the buzz word here since you have to understand that those numbers are only released for public consumption. (...so being not overcredulous may be appropriate here, dear FriedRiceNSpice guy!):D
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top