China's 294 megatons of thermonuclear deterrence

[ChineseTiger1986]

I think the JL-2 is closer to the D5 than to the C4.

 

[Martian2]

Next Big Future: China new nuclear JL-2 and DF-41 missiles will cover all US territory

 

[Shotgunner51]

Next Big Future: China new nuclear JL-2 and DF-41 missiles will cover all US territory

Any updates on nuclear stockpiles by country? (in number of warheads, or in megatons)

 

[Martian2]

Any updates on nuclear stockpiles by country? (in number of warheads, or in megatons)

The hot potato is China. No one knows how many thermonuclear warheads that China is hiding. There are no official data on China, because the Pentagon has the only classified source (via spies).

However, the mainstream media is starting to suggest that the Chinese thermonuclear arsenal could be a lot bigger. In any case, the deployment of DF-41 10-MIRVed ICBMs and JL-2 8-MIRVed SLBMs (according to Jane's Defence) is forcing the unofficial estimates much higher.
----------

Chinese Military Confirms DF-41 Flight Test | Washington Free Beacon

"Chinese Military Confirms DF-41 Flight Test
Beijing says new multi-warhead missile does not change nuclear policy
BY: Bill Gertz
December 26, 2014 3:36 pm
...
The MIRVed DF-41 missile test also is expected to rekindle the debate in U.S. intelligence circles about the size of China’s nuclear arsenal, initially thought to be limited to around 240 strategic warheads.

The testing of a 10-warhead missile is an indication that the Chinese warhead arsenal is far larger or will rapidly expand as new DF-41s are deployed in the coming years.

A new report by the Georgetown University Asian Arms Control Project reveals that satellite photos have identified a new DF-41 launch complex at the Taiyuan launch center. The imagery is dated April 13, 2014, and is compared with a photo from 2010 of the same location.

The report, dated Dec. 16, states that the DF-41 appears to be based on the Russian design SS-25 road-mobile ICBM but “with Chinese characteristics.”

The DF-41, deployed with either six or 10 MIRVs, as well as DF-31A MIRVed missile will increase the number of warheads in the Chinese strategic arsenal to as many as 600 warheads by 2025, according to the report.

The report also reveals that China’s military is developing new tunneling technology that will permit widening construction of some of the 3,000 miles of underground strategic nuclear facilities. The new tunnels size of 17 meters wide by 10 meters wide will permit adjacent passage of road-mobile DF-31As and DF-41s as well as a possible rail-mobile ICBM variant in a single tunnel, the report said.

A Pentagon spokesman had no immediate comment.

The congressional U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission stated in its annual report made public earlier this month that the DF-41 will carry up to 10 warheads and initial deployment of the mobile missile is expected next year.

The DF-41 will 'have a maximum range as far as 7,456 miles, allowing it to target the entire continental United States,' the report said. 'In addition, some sources claim China has modified the DF–5 and the DF–31A to be able to carry MIRVs.'

The Free Beacon also disclosed in September that China is building a new missile labeled the DF-31B that also is expected to be MIRVed."

 

[Jlaw]

PLA Second Artillery missile bases and brigades

China has at least six missile "bases" (e.g. 51st through 56th base). "Each base has numerous subordinate missile brigades."[1]

Spotlight on New Second Artillery ICBM Base Leadership | AsiaEye

"Each brigade is presumably equipped with 12 launchers (six launch battalions, two subordinate companies each, and with each company assigned one launcher)."[2]

Let's take a closer look at one of the missile bases (e.g. Missile Base 55).[3]

Spotlight on New Second Artillery ICBM Base Leadership | AsiaEye

From the chart, we see that the information is consistent with the other sources in my earlier posts. It is general knowledge that China's nuclear modernization is gathering speed. China watchers have expected the liquid-fueled DF-4A IRBMs to be replaced with newer solid-fueled DF-31A ICBMs.

Interestingly, with advancements in lightweight composites and higher impulse for rocket fuel, the DF-31A ICBM at 16 meters is much shorter than the DF-4A IRBM at 28 meters. The diameter is also smaller on the DF-31A ICBM with "2.0m (1st/2nd stages), 1.5m (3rd stage)" versus the DF-4A IRBM at 2.25m.

In the citation below, we can see a DF-31A ICBM being moved into Shaoyang, Hunan for the 805 brigade.

New DF-31A ICBM Brigade in Hunan? | AsiaEye

In the following citation, we see more proof of DF-31A ICBM deployment that meshes with the list of known DF-31A ICBM brigades.

Chinese Mobile ICBMs Seen in Central China | Federation of American Scientists

The total of seven Chinese DF-31A ICBM brigades is consistent with the known rate of Chinese DF-31A ICBM production at one brigade per year.[4]

In conclusion, we know there are at least six large Chinese missile bases. Each Chinese missile base has many brigades of ICBMs. At Missile Base 55, there are two brigades of DF-5A/B ICBMs. Those two 803rd and 814th brigades (or 24 ICBMs) already exceed the U.S. estimate of 20 total DF-5 ICBMs. When you include the other five missile bases, it should be obvious that the U.S. estimate is dead wrong.

Similarly, we see pictures of the widespread deployment of Chinese DF-31A ICBMs. With one to two brigades of DF-31A ICBMs at each missile base, the estimate of seven known Chinese DF-31A brigades is very reasonable.

----------

1. PLA Second Artillery Corps | Air Power Australia

"Second Artillery Corps missile units are organized into what the PLA refers to as “bases”. There are six bases, each located in a different geographical area. Described in the terms used by the Russian military, these bases are analogous to Russia's “Missile Armies”. Each base has numerous subordinate missile brigades, with each brigade maintaining one or more garrisons, various underground facilities (UGFs), rail transfer points, and field launch positions."

2. New DF-31A ICBM Brigade in Hunan? | AsiaEye

"Each brigade is presumably equipped with 12 launchers (six launch battalions, two subordinate companies each, and with each company assigned one launcher)."

3. Spotlight on New Second Artillery ICBM Base Leadership | AsiaEye

4. China and START. Missile buildup may surpass U.S., Russia as they denuclearize

"China and START
By Richard D. Fisher Jr.,
The Washington Times,
20 September 2010
...
In its latest report to the Congress on China`s military released on Aug. 16, the Pentagon says there are less than 10 DF-31 and "10-15" DF-31A ICBMs, up to five more than reported in the previous year`s report, covering 2008. However, in the 2010 issue of "Military Balance," Britain`s International Institute of Strategic Studies notes there is one brigade of 12 DF-31s and two brigades or 24 DF-31A ICBMs, indicating a possible increase of one new brigade from 2008 to 2009.
...
This analyst has been told by Asian military sources that the DF-31A already carries three warheads and that one deployed DF-5B carries five or six warheads."

The CPC listing their brigades will compromise their position in case of war? The US can target these area.

 

[Martian2]

The CPC listing their brigades will compromise their position in case of war? The US can target these area.

Not really. It's like saying the missile is located somewhere in North Dakota, because the missiles are road-mobile.

Regarding the silos, they are hardened and deep within continental China. Any attempt to attack the Chinese silos with US ballistic missiles will be detected by Chinese infrared satellites. China should have Chinese Nike-class anti-missile missiles with tactical thermonuclear warheads to defend the silos.

Any attempt to attack the Chinese silos with stealth subsonic cruise missiles will be detected and shot down with land-based CIWS. China has anti-stealth radars and infrared detectors to track stealth cruise missiles.
----------

A nice overhead view of a Chinese Type 094 Jin-class SSBN.

A nuclear-powered submarine of the Chinese navy prepares to dive in this undated photo. The Pentagon on Thursday said China will probably start naval nuclear-deterrence patrols later this year. (AFP/AFP/Getty Images)

Source: China May Begin Naval Nuclear-Deterrence Patrols in 2014: Pentagon - NationalJournal.com

 

[Jlaw]

Not really. It's like saying the missile is located somewhere in North Dakota, because the missiles are road-mobile.

Regarding the silos, they are hardened and deep within continental China. Any attempt to attack the Chinese silos with US ballistic missiles will be detected by Chinese infrared satellites. China should have Chinese Nike-class anti-missile missiles with tactical thermonuclear warheads to defend the silos.

Any attempt to attack the Chinese silos with stealth subsonic cruise missiles will be detected and shot down with land-based CIWS. China has anti-stealth radars and infrared detectors to track stealth cruise missiles.
----------

A nice overhead view of a Chinese Type 094 Jin-class SSBN.

A nuclear-powered submarine of the Chinese navy prepares to dive in this undated photo. The Pentagon on Thursday said China will probably start naval nuclear-deterrence patrols later this year. (AFP/AFP/Getty Images)

Source: China May Begin Naval Nuclear-Deterrence Patrols in 2014: Pentagon - NationalJournal.com

The article is bs when they said China has 250 warheads while an impoverished north Korea in 2020 will have at least 100 warheads, LOL.
I always take the Pentagon Chinese threat written articles with a skeptic mind as their objective is to get more funding and villainise China.

 

[Martian2]

The article is bs when they said China has 250 warheads while an impoverished north Korea in 2020 will have at least 100 warheads, LOL.
I always take the Pentagon Chinese threat written articles with a skeptic mind as their objective is to get more funding and villainise China.

I don't think anybody believes that China had 250 warheads for 30 years.

Two likely reasons for unchanging Pentagon claim of 250 Chinese warheads for decades

There are two lines of thinking regarding the Pentagon claim.

1. The US will keep claiming 250 Chinese warheads indefinitely unless China provides an official number. Since no one knows China's true thermonuclear strength, the US will keep embarrassing China until there's an official account.

2. The US wants to minimize the Chinese thermonuclear arsenal to keep a free hand in the South China Sea. If the Pentagon came out and said "China has 1,000 thermonuclear warheads," the American public would go berserk. The US doesn't have 1,000 large- and medium-size cities. Acknowledging a MAD (ie. mutually assured destruction) status with China would greatly restrict US courses of action in Asia.

The need for China to maintain secrecy over its thermonuclear arsenal size

Now, let's look at the other side. Why won't China reveal the size of its thermonuclear arsenal? China says it needs to maintain strategic ambiguity to fend off a stronger thermonuclear power (e.g. the United States). However, I think the story is more complicated than that.

If China discloses the true size of its thermonuclear arsenal, the U.S. will garner worldwide political support and force China into arms talks. China does not want to have to listen to the Europeans at every meeting and hear them complain about the size of the Chinese thermonuclear arsenal.

Arms talks are bad for China. Verifiable arms reduction measures mean the U.S. will finally have a good look at the 5,000km Underground Great Wall. Without seeing the entire structure in detail and in person, the U.S. will always be kept guessing about the veracity and timeliness (e.g. has changes and upgrades been made) of spy reports. In other words, the Underground Great Wall will remain a mystery. If the U.S. is allowed to see the Underground Great Wall, China has lost the element of surprise.

On the other hand, the U.S. maintains its element of surprise because no one knows where the U.S. boomers are located.

Thus, China cannot participate in arms control talks. The Underground Great Wall can never be shown to outsiders. Otherwise, it loses its potency. Though China is building a credible sea-based deterrent, the conservative Chinese mind-set would want to keep the Underground Great Wall a secret as a backup.

In conclusion, the Pentagon will keep insisting on a tiny Chinese thermonuclear arsenal until China comes clean. China is happy to let the Pentagon keep insisting on an unbelievably low number, because it's good for business. I don't think the unholy alliance will change in the near future. They are both perpetuating a lie, but it suits their political purposes.

 

[Jlaw]

I don't think anybody believes that China had 250 warheads for 30 years.

Two likely reasons for unchanging Pentagon claim of 250 Chinese warheads for decades

There are two lines of thinking regarding the Pentagon claim.

1. The US will keep claiming 250 Chinese warheads indefinitely unless China provides an official number. Since no one knows China's true thermonuclear strength, the US will keep embarrassing China until there's an official account.

2. The US wants to minimize the Chinese thermonuclear arsenal to keep a free hand in the South China Sea. If the Pentagon came out and said "China has 1,000 thermonuclear warheads," the American public would go berzerk. The US doesn't have 1,000 large- and medium-size cities. Acknowledging a MAD (ie. mutually assured destruction) status with China would greatly restrict US courses of action in Asia.

The need for China to maintain secrecy over its thermonuclear arsenal size

Now, let's look at the other side. Why won't China reveal the size of its thermonuclear arsenal? China says it needs to maintain strategic ambiguity to fend off a stronger thermonuclear power (e.g. the United States). However, I think the story is more complicated than that.

If China discloses the true size of its thermonuclear arsenal, the U.S. will garner worldwide political support and force China into arms talks. China does not want to have to listen to the Europeans at every meeting and hear them complain about the size of the Chinese thermonuclear arsenal.

Arms talks are bad for China. Verifiable arms reduction measures mean the U.S. will finally have a good look at the 5,000km Underground Great Wall. Without seeing the entire structure in detail and in person, the U.S. will always be kept guessing about the veracity and timeliness of spy reports. In other words, the Underground Great Wall will remain a mystery. If the U.S. is allowed to see the Underground Great Wall, China has lost the element of surprise.

On the other hand, the U.S. maintains its element of surprise because no one knows where the U.S. boomers are located.

Thus, China cannot participate in arms control talks. The Underground Great Wall can never be shown to outsiders. Otherwise, it loses its potency. Though China is building a credible sea-based deterrent, the conservative Chinese mind-set would want to keep the Underground Great Wall a secret as a backup.

I agree with the assessment. Chinese military personnel are smart. Weapons reduction would harm Chinese interest. And yes, the great Wall has to be a secret. That is our trump card.

 

[TaiShang]

I feel that by releasing official reports that underestimate China's nuclear deterrence capability, the US regime is wishing to force Beijing to reveal the actual numbers, which is probably much higher than the estimations.

But that will hardly work since nuclear deterrence is sort of doubled if it is accompanied by nuclear ambiguity.

I wish China will never release the actual size of its nuclear arsenal.

Let the opponent remain engaged in guess-work.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

I don't think anybody believes that China had 250 warheads for 30 years.

Two likely reasons for unchanging Pentagon claim of 250 Chinese warheads for decades

There are two lines of thinking regarding the Pentagon claim.

1. The US will keep claiming 250 Chinese warheads indefinitely unless China provides an official number. Since no one knows China's true thermonuclear strength, the US will keep embarrassing China until there's an official account.

2. The US wants to minimize the Chinese thermonuclear arsenal to keep a free hand in the South China Sea. If the Pentagon came out and said "China has 1,000 thermonuclear warheads," the American public would go berserk. The US doesn't have 1,000 large- and medium-size cities. Acknowledging a MAD (ie. mutually assured destruction) status with China would greatly restrict US courses of action in Asia.

The need for China to maintain secrecy over its thermonuclear arsenal size

Now, let's look at the other side. Why won't China reveal the size of its thermonuclear arsenal? China says it needs to maintain strategic ambiguity to fend off a stronger thermonuclear power (e.g. the United States). However, I think the story is more complicated than that.

If China discloses the true size of its thermonuclear arsenal, the U.S. will garner worldwide political support and force China into arms talks. China does not want to have to listen to the Europeans at every meeting and hear them complain about the size of the Chinese thermonuclear arsenal.

Arms talks are bad for China. Verifiable arms reduction measures mean the U.S. will finally have a good look at the 5,000km Underground Great Wall. Without seeing the entire structure in detail and in person, the U.S. will always be kept guessing about the veracity and timeliness of spy reports. In other words, the Underground Great Wall will remain a mystery. If the U.S. is allowed to see the Underground Great Wall, China has lost the element of surprise.

On the other hand, the U.S. maintains its element of surprise because no one knows where the U.S. boomers are located.

Thus, China cannot participate in arms control talks. The Underground Great Wall can never be shown to outsiders. Otherwise, it loses its potency. Though China is building a credible sea-based deterrent, the conservative Chinese mind-set would want to keep the Underground Great Wall a secret as a backup.

In conclusion, the Pentagon will keep insisting on a tiny Chinese thermonuclear arsenal until China comes clean. China is happy to let the Pentagon keep insisting on an unbelievably low number, because it's good for business. I don't think the unholy alliance will change in the near future. They are both perpetuating a lie, but it suits their political purposes.

For the same reason, China also keeps the number of its nuclear subs in secret because of the element of surprise.

Since China's territorial water has been blocked by the first island chain and the second island chain, so the nuclear subs also need to be kept in secret.

 

[Jlaw]

I feel that by releasing official reports that underestimate China's nuclear deterrence capability, the US regime is wishing to force Beijing to reveal the actual numbers, which is probably much higher than the estimations.

But that will hardly work since nuclear deterrence is sort of doubled if it is accompanied by nuclear ambiguity.

I wish China will never release the actual size of its nuclear arsenal.

Let the opponent remain engaged in guess-work.

I hope Chinese netizens realize this and ignore threads and articles regarding China's nuclear stockpile. I know some Chinese members can get quite riled up by false news but it never bother me I believe in hidden strength is more powerful than showing achievement as you wake up sleeping enemies.

 

[TaiShang]

I hope Chinese netizens realize this and ignore threads and articles regarding China's nuclear stockpile. I know some Chinese members can get quite riled up by false news but it never bother me I believe in hidden strength is more powerful than showing achievement as you wake up sleeping enemies.

Exactly ! Keeping enemy at bay and insecure is better than giving them a solid understanding and knowledge of the situation. China is master at that and the overwhelming Chinese netizens are well aware of this, hopefully.

Personally, I am more bothered by over-estimations than under-estimations.

 

[Martian2]

The West claims no Chinese thermonuclear warhead growth for 35 years!

Look at the chart from the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists (which probably bases its data on Pentagon estimates). The claim is virtually no additional Chinese thermonuclear warheads for 35 years. The question is: Do you believe the chart?

Here is the problem. China had inducted many new thermonuclear weapon systems during the last 35 years.

a. DF-5A ICBM
b. DF-5B 8-MIRVed ICBM
c. JL-1 SLBM
d. DF-31 ICBM
e. DF-31A 3-MIRVed ICBM
f. JL-2 8-MIRVed SLBM (Jane's Defence)
g. DF-41 10-MIRVed ICBM

We can expect this farce to continue. Despite the growing number of Type 094 SSBNs with JL-2 SLBMs and the DF-41 ICBM brigades, the estimate of Chinese thermonuclear warheads will be kept laughably low for political reasons.

A single brigade of DF-5B ICBMs would add 96 thermonuclear warheads.
Three Type 094 SSBNs should have added 288 thermonuclear warheads.
Instead, we see almost no movement in the total number of Chinese thermonuclear warheads.

 

[Jlaw]

The West claims no Chinese thermonuclear warhead growth for 35 years!

Look at the chart from the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists (which probably bases its data on Pentagon estimates), the claim is virtually no additional Chinese thermonuclear warheads for 35 years. The question is: Do you believe the chart?

Here is the problem. China had inducted many new thermonuclear weapon systems during the last 35 years.

a. DF-5A ICBM
b. DF-5B 8-MIRVed ICBM
c. JL-1 SLBM
d. DF-31 ICBM
e. DF-31A 3-MIRVed ICBM
f. JL-2 8-MIRVed SLBM (Jane's Defence)
g. DF-41 10-MIRVed ICBM

We can expect this farce to continue. Despite the growing number of Type 094 SSBNs with JL-2 SLBMs and the DF-41 ICBM brigades, the estimate of Chinese thermonuclear warheads will be kept laughably low for political reasons.

A single brigade of DF-5B ICBMs would add 96 thermonuclear warheads.
Three Type 094 SSBNs should have added 288 thermonuclear warheads.
Instead, we see almost no movement in the total number of Chinese thermonuclear warheads.

That is good news bro.