China's 294 megatons of thermonuclear deterrence

[Martian2]

I have just uploaded a video on the launch and impact of an American thermonuclear missile. My brother spent days producing the video by using base footage from the United States Air Force and Northrop Grumman.

Excluding Hollywood movie trailers, I think it is the most entertaining video on YouTube. I hope you enjoy it.

You might be wondering what a video on an American thermonuclear missile is doing in a thread on China's thermonuclear weaponry. The flight stages of a Chinese DF-31A intercontinental ballistic missile are identical to those of an American Minuteman III missile traveling in the opposite direction.

This video is intended to be both highly entertaining and instructive.

[The video above works. I re-uploaded the video to address a minor technical issue.]

I hope all of you had a chance to watch my brother's video on "America's Thermonuclear Strike." There are three important facts you should have learned from Northrop Grumman's explanation of ICBM flight stages.

At "T+19" (or 19 seconds after ignition), the ICBM is traveling at supersonic speed. At "T+39," the ICBM is traveling at three times the speed of sound. When an ICBM is launched from America's heartland in the Midwest or China's heartland in Tibet or Xinjiang, no known technology can stop a Chinese DF-31A or American Minuteman III.

Furthermore, watch carefully during the "post boost flight" as the warhead is maneuvered into position at a "pre-determined window in space." The flight of an ICBM is not a mere parabola. The "post boost flight" shows that we have no idea where the thermonuclear warhead is located or the trajectory it will assume upon reentry.

To make things even more complicated, a modern warhead design (not shown in this video) has its own course-altering navigation "jets." The point is that after you watch my brother's video on "America's Thermonuclear Strike," you should conclude that no current or foreseeable technology can realistically defend against Chinese DF-31A or American Minuteman III MIRVed warheads.

Also, my previous claim of a Mach 10 terminal phase for a modern ICBM warhead is too low. Here's a citation from the Federation of American Scientists for a Mach 23 terminal phase for a Minuteman III warhead during reentry.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/icbm/lgm-30_3.htm

"Speed: Approximately 15,000 mph (Mach 23 or 24,000 kph) at burnout"

 

[feilong]

Martian2 you forgot to mention that all Indian fans here claim India have the technology to defeat multi MIRV warhead, it is right all my friends india? Lol kidding

 

[Martian2]

Marshall thinks Richard Fisher, Jane's Defence, and most western publications are engaged in a conspiracy against China by inflating China's thermonuclear arsenal. Let's see for ourselves whether my minimum estimate of 1,924 Chinese thermonuclear warheads makes sense.

1. From the DF-31As alone, there should be 144 ICBM thermonuclear warheads.

China showed us 12 DF-31A TELs at the 2009 Chinese military parade.

We know China launches satellites on 15 to 20 Long March/DF-31A rockets each year. Britain`s International Institute of Strategic Studies' claim that China is adding a brigade or 12 DF-31As to its arsenal each year looks reasonable. Since China manufactures 15 to 20 Long March rockets each year, China can easily produce 12 DF-31A missiles each year.

2. From the DF-5s, there are another 20 ICBMs with 4 to 5 megatons each. Richard Fisher has reported on the deployment of a DF-5B with 5 or 6 MIRVs. We do not know whether the DF-5B is a new missile or a retrofitted and upgraded DF-5.

Since we're trying to make a reasonable minimum estimate, we will just assume the DF-5Bs are upgrades of the existing DF-5s. The sum of 20 upgraded DF-5s is 100 warheads.

DF-5 had its first flight in 1971 and has been in service since 1981.

The Pentagon claims China built 20 DF-5s and then just stopped. Essentially, the Pentagon is claiming China never built a single additional DF-5 for 30 years from 1981 to 2011. Who believes that China has been an angel and did not build another DF-5 for thirty years?!

3. There is at least a dozen DF-31, which can reach Alaska, Hawaii, or the northwestern United States. This is another 12 ICBM warheads. Since the DF-31As are reportedly MIRVed, we will assume the DF-31s are also MIRVed with 3 warheads each. The total is 36 DF-31 warheads.

Here, we see nine DF-31s; which were first seen at China's 1999 military parade.

The Pentagon claims China only built 12 DF-31s by 1999 and just stopped. Let me get this straight. China spent billions of dollars to develop its most advanced solid-fueled ICBM by 1999 and only built 12?! Are you going to believe the Pentagon propaganda?

An U.S. general testified in front of Congress that China was at least 10 years away from building a conventional ASAT missile in 2007. That very afternoon, China successfully destroyed a weather satellite with an ASAT weapon. So much for military intelligence at the Pentagon.

4. According to Jane's Defence, the "Chinese are believed to have started the design and development of the Dong Feng-41 (DF-41) in 1986." It's been over 15 years. China has shown us an operational and deployed DF-31A. There is no reason to believe that the DF-41 has not been fully developed and become operational. It's just a longer and slightly wider missile.

The DF-41 could easily vault China into eventual parity with the United States in the total number of warheads. Ten DF-41s result in 100 150-kiloton warheads. One hundred DF-41s would increase China's nuclear arsenal by 1,000 ICBM warheads.

Since 1986, according to Jane's Defence, China has been developing the DF-41 ICBM (which is capable of carrying 12 MIRVs).

According to GlobalSecurity, "it is anticipated that the DF-41 will be delivered to the 2d Artillery around the year 2010." In other words, the DF-41 has probably already been deployed.

Why should we believe GlobalSecurity? Let's use our common sense. The DF-41 has been in development for over 15 years. It can't stay in development for perpetuity. Given China's previous mastery of the DF-31 and DF-31A, fifteen years should be plenty of time to build a longer-range DF-41.

5. No one knows how many ICBMs China is hiding in its 5,000km Underground Great Wall. I think a sensible person would not claim that China spent ten years building the Underground Great Wall to only place an ICBM every 100km. Similarly, most reasonable people would not claim that China is hiding one ICBM every 1km.

As a rough estimate, a reasonable person would most likely assume that China is hiding one ICBM every 10km. 5,000km / 10km per hidden ICBM = 500 ICBMs hidden in China's Underground Great Wall. Assuming each ICBM is MIRVed with three warheads, I estimate China is hiding 1,500 ICBM warheads in its Underground Great Wall.

China spent ten years building its "'Underground Great Wall' that stretches for more than 5,000km in the Hebei region of northern China."

The Pentagon currently assigns ZERO ICBMs to China's Underground Great Wall. As best as I can understand, their logic is "well, we can't see it...so we're going to say there are no ICBMs there." Seriously, what kind of military assessment is that? It's just as bad as the Pentagon's ASAT assessment.

The 5,000km underground complex was specifically built for a Chinese thermonuclear counterstrike.

I estimate there are probably 500 ICBMs hidden in the 5,000km facility in Hebei, China. I want to mention that China doesn't need 500 launch silos. A missile can be fired from a silo and another missile can be reloaded in its place. Let's assume China plans to reload five missiles for each silo. This means China would only need 100 silos over a 5,000km distance.

I can assure you the claim of only 20 Chinese ICBM silos is ludicrous. The length of a DF-21 IRBM is 11m. The length of a DF-31 ICBM is 13m. If a silo is dug a little deeper and wider, it can accommodate an ICBM; instead of an IRBM.

In the following video, which encompasses only a few mountains, I counted at least 30 silos. We know from a Chinese-state television CCTV broadcast on March 24, 2008 that China has built a 5,000km (or 3,000-mile) missile complex under a mountain range. If a few mountains contain 30 silos, imagine how many silos are hidden along 5,000km.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTJF3wa12Os

6. China has four Type 094 Jin-class ballistic missile submarines (SSBN). Each Type 094 SSBN carries 12 JL-2 SLBMs (submarine-launched ballistic missiles). Since the Julang-2 is based on DF-31 technology, we will follow Jane Defence's report that the JL-2 is MIRVed with 3 or 4 warheads. Using our standard 3 MIRVs for a DF-31A or JL-2 missile, we arrive at 144 warheads (e.g. 4 Type 094 SSBNs x 12 JL-2s per SSBN x 3 MIRVs per JL-2).

Therefore, China's four Type 094 SSBNs carry a total of 144 JL-2 warheads that can strike portions of the United States.

Here, we see two Type 094 Jin-class ballistic missile submarines (SSBN). Two more SSBNs for a total of four Type 094 Jin-class SSBNs seem perfectly reasonable.

 

[feilong]

Martian2 gave a great estimate of 1,924 nukes china now, but in future I believe China will have technology to build more advance nukes which 1 missile can carry 100 MIRV(this only my guessed) warhead to cut down the number nukes.

 

[Martian2]

Federation of American Scientists states that an ICBM warhead in its terminal phase travels at Mach 23. (Source: LGM-30 Minuteman III ICBM - United States Nuclear Forces)

When I first saw the Mach 23 speed of a terminal-phase ICBM warhead, I asked myself whether it made sense. I went through a series of calculations to determine whether I agreed with the Mach 23 citation.

The Earth has a radius of 4,000 miles. The circumference of a circle is 2*pi*radius = 6.28 * 4,000 miles = 25,000 miles. The United States, China, and Russia/Soviet Union are all in the Northern Hemisphere. Therefore the distance from the United States to China is less than half of the circumference, which means 12,500 miles.

During the Cold War or even today, it is common knowledge that an ICBM requires half-an-hour (or thirty minutes) to strike its target on the other side of the world. The old Soviet Union was closer to the United States than China and we'll shorten the 12,500 miles to roughly 10,000 miles (e.g. approximate distance from Iowa to Moscow).

To traverse 10,000 miles in roughly half-an-hour, an American ICBM would have to travel approximately 20,000 miles per hour. Mach 23 is 15,000 miles per hour. I had independently concluded that the Federation of American Scientists' citation was correct.

Like myself, many of you probably made the same calculation in your head fifteen seconds after seeing the Federation of American Scientists' citation of a Mach 23 terminal phase. I went to the trouble of typing up this post for the readers who aren't mathematically inclined.

 

[Martian2]

Three clear pictures of DF-41 canister

According to Jane's Defense, China's DF-41 ICBM is capable of carrying 10 MIRVs. (See http://articles.janes.com/articles/Janes-S...-X10-China.html)

Closer look at DF-41

DF-41 seen on a public road. Look carefully at the unique double-ring with multiple horizontal bars on the end of the DF-41 canister. It is the same design in both the top and bottom pictures.

[Note: There are two distinctive pictures and three total.]

 

[marshall]

Marshall thinks Richard Fisher, Jane's Defence, and most western publications are engaged in a conspiracy against China by inflating China's thermonuclear arsenal. Let's see for ourselves whether my minimum estimate of 1,924 Chinese thermonuclear warheads makes sense.

I did not say, nor did I suggest that "most" western publications are engaged in a conspiracy against China. What I "specifically" said was that you unknowingly or perhaps purposely quoted well known right-wing American neocon think tanks and analysts who have a right-wing neocon anti-China agenda. Pretty much you're entire list of sources is a who's who of American right-wing conservative neocons which calls into doubt every conclusion you make because a large fraction of this information is exaggerated, some completely incorrect and some outright anti-China propaganda. I'm speaking about your quoted sources.

We know China launches satellites on 15 to 20 Long March/DF-31A rockets each year. Britain`s International Institute of Strategic Studies' claim that China is adding a brigade or 12 DF-31As to its arsenal each year looks reasonable. Since China manufactures 15 to 20 Long March rockets each year, China can easily produce 12 DF-31A missiles each year.

2. From the DF-5s, there are another 20 ICBMs with 4 to 5 megatons each. Richard Fisher has reported on the deployment of a DF-5B with 5 or 6 MIRVs. We do not know whether the DF-5B is a new missile or a retrofitted and upgraded DF-5.

First of all, Long March rockets are not DF-31s. LOL That's like saying American Titan rockets are the same as a Minuteman missile. I do not know the reputation of this British source but I find these hard numbers of 15-20 DF-31 series annual production highly suspect and most probably a guess on their part. How would this private think tank be able to gain such highly confidential strategic information without access to China's military industrial complex, military satellite surveillance, Mi6, CIA, etc? Sources are critical when making assessments and the quality of an analysis is directly dependent on this. Not every person has the requisite rational mind to make common sense assessments which is why biased ideological sources like Fox News are considered a joke by serious analysts. I'm not saying Britain's "International Institute of Strategic Studies" is another Fox News but you have to question how a private think tank can come up with this sort of information which is a Chinese government secret when actual Western government intelligence sources with access to billion dollar budgets say otherwise. That also does not mean government intelligence sources are always correct. We must rationally discern what seems rational and what does not and this estimate of 15-20 produced DF-31s per year does not considering the nature and probability of how it was ascertained. There is a 2nd equally important reason concerning the DF-5s that I will address below.

Since we're trying to make a reasonable minimum estimate, we will just assume the DF-5Bs are upgrades of the existing DF-5s. The sum of 20 upgraded DF-5s is 100 warheads.

DF-5 had its first flight in 1971 and has been in service since 1981.

The Pentagon claims China built 20 DF-5s and then just stopped. Essentially, the Pentagon is claiming China never built a single additional DF-5 for 30 years from 1981 to 2011. Who believes that China has been an angel and did not build another DF-5 for thirty years?!

The DF-5 was not actually ready for deployment until after 1981 so series production didn't begin until that time. The 20 odd DF-5 series missiles are said to have ended in the late 1990s with the upgraded DF-5As having a probable 3 warhead MIRV. The end of the DF-5 production is very probable because it is a liquid fueled missile that requires up to an hour for launch. Considering China's 2nd strike posture, this would make this missile vulnerable to a 1st strike which is why the DF-41 solid-fueled ICBM has been emphasized as the DF-5 series replacement ever since. Aside from this, American and Soviet relations improved dramatically by the late 1980s and by the early 1990s, the strategic imperative to stockpile nuclear weapons was mostly gone with the end of the Cold War. This does not mean there was no need for them, but the immediacy was gone and there was already enough to serve as a deterrent. China's stance has always been to never launch a preemptive 1st strike unlike the US and the Soviets. Besides, mass producing a highly vulnerable platform (DF-5s) that was not immediately necessary when a vastly more capable road mobile solid fueled alternative (DF-41s) was on the clear horizon made mass producing the DF-5 illogical.

3. There is at least a dozen DF-31, which can reach Alaska, Hawaii, or the northwestern United States. This is another 12 ICBM warheads. Since the DF-31As are reportedly MIRVed, we will assume the DF-31s are also MIRVed with 3 warheads each. The total is 36 DF-31 warheads.

The Pentagon claims China only built 12 DF-31s by 1999 and just stopped. Let me get this straight. China spent billions of dollars to develop its most advanced solid-fueled ICBM by 1999 and only built 12?! Are you going to believe the Pentagon propaganda

It's not propaganda, this is a rational analysis by the Pentagon backed up by sub-meter military satellite intelligence. The US has had sub-meter resolution military satellites in orbit for decades now. The Gambit series satellites are said to have resolution in the centimeters. Besides, the DF-31 was not operational until the early 2000s and its range is only suitable for targeting Eurasian targets, specifically European targets. What is the strategic necessity to target nominally non-threatening European powers? I'd say it's close to nil, except in the case of Russia where it is practically nil. The fact that the DF-31s range overlaps to fringe American territory does not mean it was designed to target the US. For that job, the JL-2 and DF-41 are more suitable and we should stick to what is reality and not what is hypothetical but improbable.

4. According to Jane's Defence, the "Chinese are believed to have started the design and development of the Dong Feng-41 (DF-41) in 1986." It's been over 15 years. China has shown us an operational and deployed DF-31A. There is no reason to believe that the DF-41 has not been fully developed and become operational. It's just a longer and slightly wider missile.

The DF-41 could easily vault China into eventual parity with the United States in the total number of warheads. Ten DF-41s result in 100 150-kiloton warheads. One hundred DF-41s would increase China's nuclear arsenal by 1,000 ICBM warheads.

Since 1986, according to Jane's Defence, China has been developing the DF-41 ICBM (which is capable of carrying 12 MIRVs).

According to GlobalSecurity, "it is anticipated that the DF-41 will be delivered to the 2d Artillery around the year 2010." In other words, the DF-41 has probably already been deployed.

Agreed, but we are only at the beginning of 2012 so this hypothetical mass production of ICBMs could not be possible even with the successful development of the DF-41 because there simply hasn't been enough time. Considering the actual completion timelines of China's various nuclear missile platforms, the supposed thousands of deployed warheads makes no sense.

5. No one knows how many ICBMs China is hiding in its 5,000km Underground Great Wall. I think a sensible person would not claim that China spent ten years building the Underground Great Wall to only place an ICBM every 100km. Similarly, most reasonable people would not claim that China is hiding one ICBM every 1km.

As I have previously pointed out, I dispute the extent, not existence, of these 5000km of tunnels. To serve as underground shelter from nuclear bombardment, they would have to absolutely be constructed at the very least at least 400 feet, at the minimum, below ground within granite bedrock if they expected to serve their purpose of surviving a preemptive 1st strike. The size of these sorts of tunnels would need to be comparable to 2-lane highway tunnels in order to allow TELs large enough to launch DF-41 ICBMs. The time to tunnel through granite mountains for highways measures in the years, sometimes over 10 years for tunnels of 10kms or more. Now, consider that they claimed that these large tunnels used for the purpose I just mentioned only began in the early 1990s and it's OBVIOUS that it is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE to have 5000km of tunnel built to the required standard that is needed to serve as underground nuclear bunkers for mobile ICBMs. Maybe they have some dirt covered tunnels 40 feet deep good enough for infantry troops but for road mobile ICBMs and 5000km of it? I call BS on this one and it's an easy call.

As a rough estimate, a reasonable person would most likely assume that China is hiding one ICBM every 10km. 5,000km / 10km per hidden ICBM = 500 ICBMs hidden in China's Underground Great Wall. Assuming each ICBM is MIRVed with three warheads, I estimate China is hiding 1,500 ICBM warheads in its Underground Great Wall.

First, assuming the extent of these 5000kms of tunnel existed at the quality level required to house mobile TELs. Which opponents would this be designed for? I'd say it is either the Soviets/Russians or the USA. This would suggest TELs with either the DF-31A or DF-41. The DF-31 was only completed in the early 2000s and the DF-41 is yet to be confirmed as operational as of 2010. Considering the short time frame, your estimate is WAAAAYYYY off base even if assuming these missile platforms were in full production.

The Pentagon currently assigns ZERO ICBMs to China's Underground Great Wall. As best as I can understand, their logic is "well, we can't see it...so we're going to say there are no ICBMs there." Seriously, what kind of military assessment is that? It's just as bad as the Pentagon's ASAT assessment.

As far as I know, there was no Pentagon ASAT assessment when it comes to China because China never overtly declared its intention to pursue one until the feat was already successful. In any case, that is beside the point because in the case of the Underground Great Wall, the missile platforms at China's disposal make the guesstimated number of deployed underground warheads extremely improbable unless there is some sort of extensive underground military industrial complex producing Long March size rockets en masse, something I think is....unlikely.

I estimate there are probably 500 ICBMs hidden in the 5,000km facility in Hebei, China. I want to mention that China doesn't need 500 launch silos. A missile can be fired from a silo and another missile can be reloaded in its place. Let's assume China plans to reload five missiles for each silo. This means China would only need 100 silos over a 5,000km distance.

Fixed silos are perfect targets to be destroyed by American nukes. Why would China concentrate it's strategic assets in fixed locations to be destroyed in 1 go because they stockpiled their missiles at the same silo locations? That does not make sense. The whole purpose of mobile ICBM platforms is to disperse them so they are more survivable and can serve their purpose as the retaliation against a hostile preemptive nuclear strike by the Americans.

In the following video, which encompasses only a few mountains, I counted at least 30 silos. We know from a Chinese-state television CCTV broadcast on March 24, 2008 that China has built a 5,000km (or 3,000-mile) missile complex under a mountain range. If a few mountains contain 30 silos, imagine how many silos are hidden along 5,000km.

I can assure you that sub-meter resolution military satellites can see the same silos that you see with Google Map. Hasn't it occurred to you that those silos might not actually contain any missiles? There's a reason why MIRVed missiles contain decoys. It is far more likely that there are alot of empty silos out in the open without camouflage along with alot of camouflaged silos with missiles hidden in forests that you will never see. Besides this, the reported reason for the Underground Great Wall is to house mobile ICBMs, so the point about silos around mountain ranges has nothing to do with the supposed 5000kms of tunnel.

6. China has four Type 094 Jin-class ballistic missile submarines (SSBN). Each Type 094 SSBN carries 12 JL-2 SLBMs (submarine-launched ballistic missiles). Since the Julang-2 is based on DF-31 technology, we will follow Jane Defence's report that the JL-2 is MIRVed with 3 or 4 warheads. Using our standard 3 MIRVs for a DF-31A or JL-2 missile, we arrive at 144 warheads (e.g. 4 Type 094 SSBNs x 12 JL-2s per SSBN x 3 MIRVs per JL-2).

You're on to something here. This is the most probable and the most significant part of China's nuclear deterrent. Whether the JL-2s are MIRVed is a subject for debate. Rumour has it that these have between 3-12 warheads of varying yield. I find the 12 warheads estimate to be a guesstimate but I agree it is most likely MIRVed.

 

[below_freezing]

Marshall, I read FnB's analysis. Do you dispute the estimate of 160 IRBMs and 246 ICBMs?

I disagree with averaging it out to 3 warheads per missile. For IRBMs I'll go with an average of 0.5 per missile and for ICBMs, 2 per missile. That's still 572 warheads, with average yield of 0.5 megatons, which is quite reasonable and actually lower than the 294 megaton yield given by the source.

 

[marshall]

Lower bounds for number of SLBMs China owns is 48; this is public knowledge with 4 nuclear missile subs with 12 missiles per sub. For land based ICBMs, the lower bound is 75 (assuming there is exactly 1 DF-41 missile). That is 123 ICBMs.

The true number is perhaps double or triple due to detection failures of TELs, intelligence underestimates from the past decade and of course, tunnels with rail or road mobile ICBMs that do not come to the surface. Let's say double.

There are also 80 DF-21 IRBMs publically. Let's just say double, with the same accounting used before.

That would be 160 IRBMs and 246 ICBMs. With just 3 warheads per missile on average, a reasonable estimate, that would be 1200 warheads.

Marshall, I read FnB's analysis. Do you dispute the estimate of 160 IRBMs and 246 ICBMs?

I disagree with averaging it out to 3 warheads per missile. For IRBMs I'll go with an average of 0.5 per missile and for ICBMs, 2 per missile. That's still 572 warheads, with average yield of 0.5 megatons, which is quite reasonable and actually lower than the 294 megaton yield given by the source.

FnB's analysis is more reasonable but at the end of the day, most estimates by the public concerning China's strategic nuclear forces are guesstimates including my own. Having said that, there are some things that can be speculated with great certainty. Specifically, when it comes to the estimated number of DF-31/JL-2 and DF-41 series ICBMs, it is extremely unlikely that these would number in the hundreds given the short time since they became operational. In the case of the DF-31s, it went operational in 2003. The DF-41 hasn't even been confirmed as operationally active yet even though it was speculated to be so by 2010. Concerning the JL-2 sub based DF-31A based variant, it is well known that the JL-2 is still not mature. Only last week they test launched yet another batch of JL-2s. Just from the operational timeline of the DF-31s and DF-41s, we know there cannot possibly be a large number of these, especially in the case of the DF-41s. As I said in my previous message, the DF-31s range would make these the ideal strategic deterrence against distant Eurasian opponents, most likely in Europe. The fact that potential nuclear threats from those countries are next to nil, China does not need many DF-31s, especially given that they do have enough range to target anything other than the fringe areas of the US, who are the only realistic threat that China might need to defend against at such long distances. In that case, the DF-41 would be the strategic deterrence for this case, NOT the DF-5, which is vulnerable and easily destroyed with a 1st strike. The DF-41 as I said hasn't had enough time to be produced in significant numbers, assuming it is even operational. In terms of China's land based ICBMs, I doubt China has more than 50 missiles, which would be mostly DF-31s and a few legacy DF-5s, probably all MIRVed with 3 or more warheads.

Concerning China's sub-based ICBMs, there is a claim of four operational 094 Jins. However, when you look at the so-called proof, there really are only a handful of sightings of the 094 of which only 2 are confirmed. All other sightings have been speculations of being different 094s when they are probably just the same boats. I question the existence of more than 2 094s at this time for this reason. Aside from this, the JL-2 sub launched ICBM is speculated to have entered service in 2009 at the earliest. This hasn't been confirmed and only last week China did another round of launch tests of the JL-2. I suspect the 094s are undergoing sea trials while awaiting the successful certification of the JL-2s. It is possible that the JL-2 and 094s were fully operational as of 2011 but without any reasonable proof, it's a guess and poor speculation. At best, I would place this at 24 JL-2s, at worst 0 JL-2s. The only confirmed SLBMs are the JL-1s on the 092s which are usually moored in harbor. Given this information, I would place the ICBMs at somewhere between 50-74 missiles with somewhere between 150-222 warheads.

Concerning IRBMs and MRBMs, there are no CONFIRMED numbers of these missiles. There was a quote that it was public knowledge that China had at least 80 of these? I don't know where that information came from but I doubt the Chinese government would release any such information. In any case, I doubt China has ONLY 80 IRBMs and MRBMs because these missiles have been operational for a long time now and there is a minor threat to China from a 1st strike by India eventually. Unlike the United States, although it is a distant possibility, it is very unlikely the US would ever launch a 1st strike despite having made several such threats against China in the past. At the end of the day, Americans are rational people with a reasonably rational leadership despite the large number of religious fundamentalist Christians, war mongering right-wing neocons and tarot card reading leaders it may have. I believe China understands this. However, when it comes to India, that is a whole other story. India is full of self-hating low-self esteem jealous racists who have something to prove, to themselves and the world. Although this sort of Indian psychology is mostly restricted to the English educated elites, the fact is, those English educated elites dominate almost all of the top leadership of India. Every single strategic nuclear platform that India develops is usually accompanied with an obligatory public statement about its intended use against China. I'm sure this sort of hostile flippant attitude regarding the use of nuclear weapons hasn't gone unnoticed by China's leadership. My guess is, China is mounting a buildup of MIRV IRBMs to break India and dismember it in the case that a future Indian political leader and/or military commander launches a preemptive nuclear strike against China. The danger in this scenario is that China would be blamed for an Indian preemptive first strike, just as China was blamed for India's hostile "Forward Policy" that caused the 1962 Sino-Indian War, and threaten retaliation against China if it proceeded to dismember India into independent states. However, nuclear retaliation on America's part would be unthinkable for an ally of convenience such as India which is basically a stooge to contain China. The honor of unconditional protection is only afforded to American allies such as Israel, UK, Canada, Australia, etc, so ICBMs would never enter into this equation.

If I were to guesstimate the number of IRBM/MRBMs, I would place this anywhere between 150-240 with the bulk of those having a single warhead payload, I'll just say 1/3 are MIRVed with 3 warheads...

ICBM: 50-74 (3 warhead MIRV) - (35 DF-31s, 15 DF-5s, 0 DF-41s, 0-24 JL-2)
IRBM/MRBM: 150-240 (1/3rd 3 warhead MIRV) - (mixed DF-3/DF-4/DF-21)

...That adds up to anywhere between 200-314 missiles and 400-622 warheads for total IRBM/MRBM/ICBMs. Again I give the disclaimer that this is an educated guess with limited confirmed information, aside from the details concerning the ICBMs.

 

[Martian2]

China has been building deep underground tunnels to protect its second-strike thermonuclear capability for 45 years. For your information, 1967 is the year in which China detonated its first hydrogen bomb with a 3.3 megaton warhead. It makes sense for Chinese leaders to start building underground tunnels soon thereafter to protect China's thermonuclear weaponry.

In this photograph, we see two Chinese ballistic missiles on military trains being transported in an underground tunnel. The Pentagon claims there are no Chinese ballistic missiles in the 5,000km Underground Great Wall. Do your eyes agree?

China has labored for 45 years to create the world's most complex and extensive underground facilities to protect its strategic missiles. How many ICBMs do you think China's leaders are hiding in the Underground Great Wall? Are you willing to believe the Pentagon propaganda of no Chinese ICBMs in those tunnels?

I don't believe the Pentagon estimate of zero. An estimate of 1,000 ICBMs is probably on the high side. Why not split the difference and make a rough estimate of 500 ICBMs? Put three MIRVs on each ICBM and you arrive at a reasonable estimate of 1,500 thermonuclear warheads. That would justify 45 years of hard work and the money spent.

[Note: Thank you to Richard Fisher for the second picture via Chinese Internet.]

----------

Regarding the exact identity of the two ballistic missiles in the underground tunnel, I would venture they are DF-5 ICBMs with 12,000 to 15,000km range, which can counterstrike anywhere in the United States.

China's DF-5 ICBM with a 4 to 5 megaton warhead or 6 MIRVs.

Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DF-5 with footnotes to primary sources

 

[marshall]

China has been building deep underground tunnels to protect its second-strike thermonuclear capability for 45 years. For your information, 1967 is the year in which China detonated its first hydrogen bomb with a 3.3 megaton warhead. It makes sense for Chinese leaders to start building underground tunnels soon thereafter to protect China's thermonuclear weaponry.

As I've said many times, it's IMPOSSIBLE that China was able to build 5000kms of tunnels of the kind that could be used to house and reasonably protect ICBM sized mobile missiles. China didn't have mobile TELs for ICBMs until the 1990s and only recently could be speculated to have completed development of a true solid-fuel ICBM, the DF-41. It is a public fact that China did not begin constructing the sorts of tunnels that you have pictured...the deep, dry, granite walled, road linked tunnels until the early 1990s. These sorts of tunnels use the same kind of tunneling equipment used for highway tunnels and underground mining. In other words, this claim of 5000kms of tunnel of THIS KIND....is B*LLSHeeT! As I said, if there are 5000kms of tunnels, they can only be the shallow dirt covered variety with narrow walls unsuitable for protection from nuclear 1st strike and too small to allow underground transit of ICBM capable TELs, which are bigger than the biggest 18 wheeler and requiring reinforced roadbed for such heavy vehicle traffic.

As far as I know, the Chinese sources never claimed the 5000kms are all suitable for underground mobile ICBM TEL transit. It specifically says tunneling began in the 1960s and that ONLY in the 1990s did they begin to construct tunnels that were of the kind they suggested can be used for hiding mobile missiles. Constructing those sorts of tunnels would proceed at approximately the same speed as creating a 2-lane highway tunnel. That means it would take forever. It's very likely that of these 5000kms of tunnel, something like 4750kms would be shallow dirt covered tunnels for sheltering infantry and some mechanized units while another 250kms would be of the type constructed from the 1990s onward capable of holding mobile ICBMs.

 

[TruthSeeker]

No state power is going to attack China (or the USA). It's ridiculous to even worry about it. The only use of nuclear weapons we will see is by non-state terrorists who hold no territory, and by insane nations (like Iran). And, as far as terrorist go, the only question is whether or not the state-sponsors of terrorist groups, like Iran, can hide their transfer of nuclear materials or weapons sufficiently well to escape retaliation. If the US is attacked by a dirty nuclear weapon, we should just annihilate Iran first and ask questions later.....

 

[marshall]

No state power is going to attack China (or the USA). It's ridiculous to even worry about it. The only use of nuclear weapons we will see is by non-state terrorists who hold no territory, and by insane nations (like Iran). And, as far as terrorist go, the only question is whether or not the state-sponsors of terrorist groups, like Iran, can hide their transfer of nuclear materials or weapons sufficiently well to escape retaliation. If the US is attacked by a dirty nuclear weapon, we should just annihilate Iran first and ask questions later.....

The United States needs a leader like Ron Paul so badly. I am truly saddened by the state of affairs there.

 

[TruthSeeker]

The United States needs a leader like Ron Paul so badly. I am truly saddened by the state of affairs there.

I appreciate Ron Paul's "isolationism" a great deal. It would greatly benefit the American people to declare a two generation holiday from being the world's policeman. That's about how long it would take for the "world" to screw itself up so bad that it needed a policeman to bring order again. BUT, maybe the PRC could do that instead of us. I'm sure the PRC's methods would be highly effective in bring about a "new world of order".

 

[Martian2]

China has been building deep underground tunnels to protect its second-strike thermonuclear capability for 45 years. For your information, 1967 is the year in which China detonated its first hydrogen bomb with a 3.3 megaton warhead. It makes sense for Chinese leaders to start building underground tunnels soon thereafter to protect China's thermonuclear weaponry.

In this photograph, we see two Chinese ballistic missiles on military trains being transported in an underground tunnel. The Pentagon claims there are no Chinese ballistic missiles in the 5,000km Underground Great Wall. Do your eyes agree?

China has labored for 45 years to create the world's most complex and extensive underground facilities to protect its strategic missiles. How many ICBMs do you think China's leaders are hiding in the Underground Great Wall? Are you willing to believe the Pentagon propaganda of no Chinese ICBMs in those tunnels?

I don't believe the Pentagon estimate of zero. An estimate of 1,000 ICBMs is probably on the high side. Why not split the difference and make a rough estimate of 500 ICBMs? Put three MIRVs on each ICBM and you arrive at a reasonable estimate of 1,500 thermonuclear warheads. That would justify 45 years of hard work and the money spent.

[Note: Thank you to Richard Fisher for the second picture via Chinese Internet.]

----------

Regarding the exact identity of the two ballistic missiles in the underground tunnel, I would venture they are DF-5 ICBMs with 12,000 to 15,000km range, which can counterstrike anywhere in the United States.

China's DF-5 ICBM with a 4 to 5 megaton warhead or 6 MIRVs.

Reference: DF-5 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia with footnotes to primary sources

http://news.yahoo.com/digging-china-nuclear-tunnels-013008319.html

"In December 2009,...the Chinese military admitted for the first time that the Second Artillery had indeed been building a network of tunnels. According to a report by state-run CCTV, China had more than 3,000 miles of tunnels — roughly the distance between Boston and San Francisco — including deep underground bases that could withstand multiple nuclear attacks."

----------

There seems to be some dispute over China's tunneling technology and ability. Watch the entire following video to understand China's 45-year-long history of constructing massive underground complexes and judge for yourself.

Pay particular attention at 7:00 in the video. Note that the 2,500km Underground Great Wall (e.g. complete network is 5,000km) was only built recently between 1999 and 2009. The video highlights the specification of "larger tunnels" and the use of "advanced technology" to build it.

At 12:42 in the video, we see "large TELs moving thru Tunnels."

Chinese Nuclear Tunnels:The Underground Great Wall:The DongFeng 21D - YouTube