Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Strategic Nuclear Weapons Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Chinese Nuclear Arsenal
Roman    2/22/2004 10:52:18 PM
Whenever I read anything about the Chinese nuclear arsenal, I see it stated that China has only 20 ICBMs capable of reaching the US and 450 nuclear warheads in total. Can someone please enlighten me how these numbers are obtained? To me they simply lack any credibility. China had 20 ICBMs that could reach the U.S. 20 years ago and the same applies to the number of 450 nuclear warheads. I find it hard to believe they would not have built more (in fact, many more) in the meantime. It is not as if they could not afford it - Chinese economy now is far larger than the Soviet economy ever was. In fact, Chinese economy (in PPP terms) now is larger than US economy was in 1990 when the Cold War ended, so it would have no economic problems at all building more ICBMs and nuclear warheads. Of course, unlike the U.S. and Russia, they do not release information on the number of their nuclear weapons, so my theory is that the press and academia follows an inertia - someone stated those numbers sometime around 1980 and nobody has said anything different since then, so they have become 'unchanging conventional wisdom'. It would be interesting to read some new studies (without these not credible numbers being regurgicated without any explanation) on the matter, but if any exist they are surely classified.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8   NEXT
warstudent    RE:Chinese Roman   4/8/2004 11:18:04 PM
Good points about Purchasing Power Parity GDP, everyone. Still the best measure of actual productive power devised so far, IMHO. I have read quite a few sources on the strategic nuke balance in general. For China, I put their stockpile thusly: Between 2,000 to 2,800 total warheads, all sizes and types, including tactical nukes from artillery shell to battlefield-missile delivered. Between 400 to 650+ "strategic" warheads deliverable by MRBM, IRBM and ICBM. Strategic defined as multi-megaton "city-buster" warheads, intended for retaliatory second-strike, not first-strike (i.e., not gonna do military targets). Moderate to good accuracy. MRBMs only good for reaching Asia and Middle-East region; IRBMs can target Europe, parts of Africa, Australia. Not saying these areas are targetted, only that they could be. As of now, only 30+ ICBMs capable of reaching anywhere in the U.S. In mid-90s, China had 20 or so older ICBMs capable of reaching the western U.S., but most analysts felt not the eastern seaboard. Those 20 have been either replaced or modernized, and have been joined by 10+ newer ones. Analysts feel this force is solid-fueled and at least the newer ones are MIRVed. Probably with updated decoy tech. Chinese city-busters are also thought to be extremely "dirty", on purpose. Because they could not afford to build many in the past, they wanted those few they had to do maximum damage. (They expected no-one to survive a nuclear war, so they wanted to pay back whoever nuked them as much as possible.) What this means is basically "cobalt-salting" for maximum irradiation and poisoning of enemy soil/air/water. Estimated 3 MIRVs each on the 10+ newer ones, and some on the 20 other ICBMs: maybe 50 to 60 city-buster warheads could reach U.S. cities at present. Some may be set for ground-burst instead of air-burst resulting in less destructive power but considerably enhanced environmental effect. Nuclear forces not expected to increase much, but expected to modernize becoming more accurate, survivable and reliable. Second-strike retaliation will remain cornerstone of doctrine. ICBM force total will increase moderately, most analysts think. China has also designed and built new generations of SLBM, but these are not yet operational. SLBM total force will also somewhat increase, and modernize. Probably working on MARV technology and long-range cruise missiles at present.
 
Quote    Reply

   RE:Chinese Roman   4/9/2004 12:47:41 AM
Chinese GDP is $1.2 trillion - PPP is an inflated number meant to illustrate the disparity in "buying power" - that is, the theory that a dollar in China goes alot further than a dollar in the United States. Because Euorope and Japan enjoy a relatively high standard of living, low inflation rate, and lofty currency value, their own PPP is actually LOWER than their respective GDP. As a measure of capital, or buying power, the PPP may or may not be an accurate figure - depending on what your trying to purchase.z
 
Quote    Reply

Roman    RE:Chinese Roman   4/9/2004 2:24:50 AM
"Between 2,000 to 2,800 total warheads, all sizes and types, including tactical nukes from artillery shell to battlefield-missile delivered." That sounds like a very reasonable estimate. "MRBMs only good for reaching Asia and Middle-East region; IRBMs can target Europe, parts of Africa, Australia. Not saying these areas are targetted, only that they could be. As of now, only 30+ ICBMs capable of reaching anywhere in the U.S." I would suspect, however, that some of the MRBMs can reach some US territories in the Pacific and some of the IRBMs can reach Hawaii and possibly even parts of Alaska. BTW: The 30+ ICBMs, can they only reach the West Coast, or can they reach more or less all parts of the US? "In mid-90s, China had 20 or so older ICBMs capable of reaching the western U.S., but most analysts felt not the eastern seaboard." Right, but by now, can they reach the eastern seaboard? "Chinese city-busters are also thought to be extremely "dirty", on purpose. Because they could not afford to build many in the past, they wanted those few they had to do maximum damage. (They expected no-one to survive a nuclear war, so they wanted to pay back whoever nuked them as much as possible.) What this means is basically "cobalt-salting" for maximum irradiation and poisoning of enemy soil/air/water." Ouch! Cobalt-salting is nasty! That certainly does not bode well. "Estimated 3 MIRVs each on the 10+ newer ones, and some on the 20 other ICBMs: maybe 50 to 60 city-buster warheads could reach U.S. cities at present. Some may be set for ground-burst instead of air-burst resulting in less destructive power but considerably enhanced environmental effect." Very interesting... "Second-strike retaliation will remain cornerstone of doctrine. " Probably true, but I recall reading some studies suggesting that China may be planning to use neutron weapons against US carrier groups in a potential Taiwan conflict. "ICBM force total will increase moderately, most analysts think." Yes, I think that is to be expected. Any info on their 'ideal force level' as far as ICBMs, IRBMS, MRBMs, warheads, etc? The how much do they think is enough question... ;) "China has also designed and built new generations of SLBM, but these are not yet operational. SLBM total force will also somewhat increase, and modernize." Hmm, how many SSBNs do they plan to get eventually? Right now, they have 1 or 2 Xia class SSBNs, but I have not heard much about the new class. I believe the Xia class only carries 12 SLBMs each, but the new submarines will surely carry more. How does the new SSBN compare with Western and Russian ones? "Probably working on MARV technology and long-range cruise missiles at present" Interesting - if I remember correctly, the US and Russia have abandoned their pursuit of MARV technology after the end of the cold war, so China might well be the first nation to acquire it. BTW: Great post - good info (and thanks for bringing the topic back on track).
 
Quote    Reply

warstudent    RE:Chinese Roman   4/9/2004 4:18:58 PM
Roman, Though a small force (50 to 60+ strategic devices), the warhead sizes are quite big: 3 to 10 megatons each, depending on the generation. Leastways, that's what people think. At this point in time yes, those 50 to 60+ warheads are on pretty modern ICBMs, and have the range to go ANYWHERE in the continental U.S. - Northeast corridor (Boston/New York/Washington), Chicago, Miami, Atlanta, Houston etc. SLBM deployment plans are hazy because of immature SSBN tech, not uncertain missile tech. The 12 SLBM configuration is deployed now. I read future plan is for 16 SLBMs per sub (minimum) with arguments going on for 20 and 24-missile configs. PLAN unsure how to approach the issue of sub-launched long-range cruise weapons: some analysts say deployment aboard SSNs and SSKs only, others say deployment aboard SSBNs as well. Cruise-missiles may be nuke-tipped, wherein lies the reason for internal Chinese debate.
 
Quote    Reply

Roman    RE:Chinese Roman   4/10/2004 3:15:10 PM
Interesting... any idea on how many of these new submarines do they have in the works? And are they comparable to Ohios in their noise levels?
 
Quote    Reply

   RE:Chinese Roman   4/14/2004 7:53:25 AM
"I read future plan is for 16 SLBMs per sub (minimum) with arguments going on for 20 and 24-missile configs." Not sure, but I believe your thinking of the Chinese Type 094 ballistic missile submarine, which is presently under development. This is intended to carry 16 JL-2 ballistic missiles in vertical launch tubes, with each platform carrying three 90 kT warheads MIRVED, or a single warhead between 250 and 1000 kT. These have a range of 8,000 km. "Though a small force (50 to 60+ strategic devices), the warhead sizes are quite big: 3 to 10 megatons each, depending on the generation. Leastways, that's what people think." Again, not sure what system your refering to, however I beleive you mean DF-5 ICBM system, commissioned in 1980. These are not MIRVed, they carry a single 2 MT warhead with a range of 15,000 km. In 1983 development began on the DF-5A, which was to be an extended range DF-5 (for striking targets within the continental United States) fitted with MIRVed warheads. Technical difficulties have stalled this program, however. Presently, the DOD rates Chinese DF-5 deployment at "less than 25 missiles."
 
Quote    Reply

Roman    RE:Chinese Roman   4/15/2004 12:37:37 AM
Hmm, interesting info, 'no name', do you have any info about how many of these new 094 submarines and how many DF-5A missiles China is planning to build? Are there any estimate of what level of nuclear armaments does China eventually aim to achieve, so that no further weapons would be deemed necessary by the Chinese leadership? BTW: New info on the Chinese economy has been made public today. The growth in 2003 was faster than initially estimated, so the figures I gave below for the Chinese economy are slightly lower than the real ones - Chinese economy is bigger and booming.
 
Quote    Reply

   RE:Chinese Roman   4/15/2004 1:59:30 AM
In regards to DF-5A procurement, I'm not entirely certain what their procurement plans are. Interestingly, Between 1970 and 200, the Chinese worked on nearly a half dozen seperate ICBM and MRBM programs, with all but the DF-5 being scrapped or otherwise abandoned midcourse. However, I have read about a replacement for DF-5 altogether being picked up somewhere in the mid-90s (the goal being a missile with similar capabilities to the American Minuteman II/III), of which the name evades me. However, perhaps this was intended as a direct replacement for DF-5A (which itself is a 20+ year old program). The Chinese aren't particularly open with procurement plans. In regards to the procurement numbers for the Type 094, nobody knows really. The consensus seems to be "as many as they can," but again the Chinese themselves arent being very open with hard numbers. As a side note, American intel seems convinced that the Chinese have only one shipyard with the capacity to construct the 094, and that given their established infrastructure each sub would take several years to complete..
 
Quote    Reply

Salvo    RE:Measuring Economies - Worcester   4/15/2004 5:30:18 PM
PPP was developed by the EU, created by economists from France, UK, and Germany (other EU states too). They were NOT created by developing countries. And yes they DO measure the approx purchasing power for a certain basket of goods in the indigenous country. Sometimes developed economies use Xchange rate values, in order to make themselves feel good.(note: nearly all the developed countries have consideraly lower PPP's.) heh.
 
Quote    Reply

warstudent    RE:Measuring Economies - Worcester   4/15/2004 5:56:16 PM
There's absolutely no reason to feel bad about PPP ("real") measures of per capita income if you're living in a first world nation. For example, in real terms (PPP), the Mexican annual per capita income is $9,000; the American annual per capita is ~$36,000+. If you are shocked and say to yourself "Americans only live 4 times as well as Mexicans, on average?", don't be. Take your earning power now, and divide by 4(!). Unless you're upper class/rich, you are hurting very badly. No need to get into the gory details; now you can understand why POOR Mexicans (not middle class ones) want to migrate to the U.S. - poor in America is one thing, poor in Mexico is quite another. Then consider that Mexico is one of the better-off 3rd-world nations; most others are poorer still. Ex. pre-OIF Iraq: annual per capita of $2,000 - $2,500. So while PPP/real GDP figures show that total economic size disparities are not as huge as once thought, REAL LIVING STANDARD disparities are still very, very wide. If you live in America, Japan, Canada, Europe or Australia/New Zealand, be thankfull.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics