Does China possess the technical ability to develop MIRV technology for ICBM?

CottageLV said:

any proofs on MIRV already existing?

Click to expand...

Does this answer your question?

While US vice-president Joe Biden has been visiting Moscow to reaffirm the US-Russia reset, the US Director of National Intelligence says Russia’s and China’s nuclear capabilities pose the greatest threat to the US.
President Obama's Director of National Intelligence James Clapper has claimed that Russia and China are a “mortal threat” to the US "from a capabilities standpoint”. The assessment came during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing.
Clapper said he based his assessment strictly on the strategic nuclear capabilities of nation-states that have the potential to be mortal dangers to the US.
James Clapper is a retired Lieutenant General of the US Air Force who has 47 years of experience in the intelligence community. Being the Director of National Intelligence, he has access to some of the best intelligence that the US$80 billion American spying bureaucracy can offer.Meanwhile, Joe Biden has just wrapped up his visit to Russia trying to capitalize on the “reset” in Russia-US relations.
The White House came out to clarify Clapper’s comment.
"Obviously, Russia and China are two of the three largest nuclear powers in the world. Therefore, they have dangerous weapons and have the capacity. But he made clear that we do not view Russia and China as a threat," White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said.

Click to expand...

No MIRV plus miniature warhead and you think can threaten USA? Even armed with 14000km Solid fuel ICBM without MIRV is not going to really make US lose a sleep..

For all of you guys thinking that china has MIRV equipped missiles or even MIRV tech, see this blog and most importantly the replys that he makes answering the responses to the article. He talks about DF-41, MIRV, etc, possible new chinese ICBM, etc.



IMO he makes honest and deep analysis about nuclear weaponry in this blog (FAS.org).

MIRV is basically payload miniaturization and payload separation/separation sequence control

looking at China's successful civilian space launches and rocket capabilities, it's hard to think that it's not within 2nd Artillery's research capability or deployed capability

in this modern day, single warhead ICBM without decoys/jamming or MIRVed warheads is simply not a survivable platform, IMHO

gjy2105 said:

Either that or the launchers are empty, but the blog also claims that there are only as many launchers as there are of the actual DF-31A. So that can't be true either.

Click to expand...

Perhabs they were not operational carriers (after all they were never equipped with missiles) or they werent even launchers at all. Why would china bother to build actual carriers if they hadnt missiles for them?? So they could actually be just trucks, disguised as launchers.

gjy2105 said:

All Western intelligence have already shown themselves to vastly underestimate the rate and scale at which China developed and deployed just about every other single modern weapon system they have.

Click to expand...

Regarding long range BM, they have clearly overestimate china´s capacities.

kroko said:

Regarding long range BM, they have clearly overestimate china´s capacities.

Click to expand...

On the contrary, long range BMs were more fully developed pre-1990's compared to other weapons systems in the PRC arsenal, so if anything that claim is just BS.

montyp165 said:

On the contrary, long range BMs were more fully developed pre-1990's compared to other weapons systems in the PRC arsenal

Click to expand...

That is true, but it doesnt invalidate what i said. it just means that in the last 20 years (since the end of USSR) china´s long range BM hasnt advanced as much as other weapon areas, because unlike those areas, china didnt get acess to russian technology.

kroko said:

That is true, but it doesnt invalidate what i said. it just means that in the last 20 years (since the end of USSR) china´s long range BM hasnt advanced as much as other weapon areas, because unlike those areas, china didnt get acess to russian technology.

Click to expand...

Lol you're digging yourself from one hole to another.

If I didn't know better, you're suggesting indigenous weapons development in all areas are contingent on russian technology

And sorry, but what are we using to measure ICBM advancements again?

Bltizo said:

If I didn't know better, you're suggesting indigenous weapons development in all areas are contingent on russian technology

Click to expand...

I only said "as much as other areas" didnt say that it was "contingent". Of course china has big know-how in this area (IMO its their best area military wise).

kroko said:

I only said "as much as other areas" didnt say that it was "contingent". Of course china has big know-how in this area (IMO its their best area military wise).

Click to expand...

You said "china's long range BM didnt' advance as much as other areas [Ibecause[/I] they didn't have access russian tech"... Rephrasing it, you're saying other areas advanced because they had access to russian tech(?). So the advancement(another word for development) in said other areas were contingent on russian tech.

Don't get me wrong, I'm the last person to write off russian assistance with the indigenous arms industry but classing it as a single variable which could change the entire pace of development as you said is incorrect.

Also, there has been development in long range BM, but it may not have been as much as other areas namely because the threat of nuclear war is secondary compared to the threat of conventional war (so IRBMs, LACMs and SRBMs are taking priority along with everything else from aircraft to ships).

This is one of the stranger questions I've come across. It may have been relevant had it been asked in 1992.