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
Nanheyangrouchuan    RE:'Shaped' Nuclear Charge or Nuclear Claymore   6/7/2004 3:52:07 AM
I think this design was a bit simler. The warhead was disc shaped and "exit points" were created at the top and bottom of the disc. The disc would still be destroyed hopefully a large percentage of the blast would be directed at a smaller area than a typical warhead.
 
Quote    Reply

Roman    RE:'Shaped' Nuclear Charge or Nuclear Claymore   6/7/2004 9:57:17 PM
Lasers (not sure whether they are X-Ray lasers) are also being considered as a way to initiate fusion reactions in nuclear weapons without the need for a fission trigger stage. I am not sure how far that has progressed so far, but the 'benefits' of triggering a thermonuclear device in this manner are enormous.
 
Quote    Reply

Roman    RE:Chinese Nuclear Arsenal   6/7/2004 9:59:09 PM
*'in this manner' refers to triggering the thermonuclear/fusion explosive device without a fission stage. To my knowledge, however, attempts to do so have so far not been very successful.
 
Quote    Reply

Strangelove    RE:'Shaped' Nuclear Charge or Nuclear Claymore   6/8/2004 2:08:08 AM
Nanheyangrouchuan: Do you remember anything about the source for the disc shaped bomb?
 
Quote    Reply

hybrid    RE:Chinese Nuclear Arsenal   6/8/2004 3:50:05 AM
Well...lasers are only partially successful for fusion to work. The biggest hindrance currently is that after stripping the atoms of its electron clouds a plasma does tend to form, this plasma unfortunately shields the next atom set thrown in so its hard for the lasers to retarget and fuse the next atom. Hence you need to throw more energy at the target to punch through the plasma or wait for the plasma to dissipate a bit (and in turn reduce your energy output) and then retarget the atoms.
 
Quote    Reply

Roman    RE:Chinese Nuclear Arsenal   6/8/2004 8:53:37 PM
"Well...lasers are only partially successful for fusion to work. The biggest hindrance currently is that after stripping the atoms of its electron clouds a plasma does tend to form, this plasma unfortunately shields the next atom set thrown in so its hard for the lasers to retarget and fuse the next atom. Hence you need to throw more energy at the target to punch through the plasma or wait for the plasma to dissipate a bit (and in turn reduce your energy output) and then retarget the atoms." Hmm, that sounds like a major obstacle indeed. Is plasma opaque to all electromagnetic frequencies, or would changing the frequency of the lasers so that they can penetrate it better be a productive way of dealing with the problem?
 
Quote    Reply

Nanheyangrouchuan    strangelove   6/8/2004 8:55:06 PM
off the top of my head i would say "scientfic american" from the mid to late 80s.
 
Quote    Reply

Roman    RE:strangelove   6/23/2004 8:16:57 PM
Hmm, is the issue available on the net?
 
Quote    Reply

elcid    EMP bombs   6/24/2004 6:54:36 AM
A "small EMP bomb" is inherently not a nuclear weapon. There are US and PRC efforts at such weapons. It is not clear they work as desired. A true nuclear weapon is always an EMP weapon, in the nature of things. I supposed and "enhansed radiation weapon" is more of an EMP weapon than a regular one. But ERW is only about 30% more energy in radiation form, and that is such a small thing that you would not be able to tell if you saw it. Neutron bombs are political nonsense, according to Cohen, who invented them. They never were what they were supposed to be. Nuclear EMP weapons are not likely to get used - because they are nuclear weapons. But if they do, they are nasty to everyone, friends, foes and neutrals. You will be paying lawsuits for generations if you use one.
 
Quote    Reply

elcid    RE:Silos - Dense Packed or Spread Out   6/24/2004 6:57:20 AM
Chinese silos are in the mountains, very spread out, hardened, and not approachable from all directions. They have reloads nearby, and if a silo remains, it will be used at least four times. Probably eight.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics