China's 294 megatons of thermonuclear deterrence

[Adam WANG SHANGHAI MEGA]

It is considered 250 to 300 according to western intelligence,and of course,western spying capacity is better such as CIA,FBI,MI6,so....

 

[randomradio]

Why does China not increase its nuclear warheads to 2,000?
China is not lacking in economic strength and ability to manufacture nuclear warheads (whether it is an atomic bomb,neutron bomb or a hydrogen bomb. At present, China is the only nuclear power that reserves 30 hydrogen bombs thanks to YU Min model which makes them easier to maintain). It is clear that the only thing Americans fear is the number of Russian nuclear warheads. Why China does not increase its nukes number to 2000 or 5000 instead of 250 units smaller than France? I can not understand very well. . .

Chinese hydrogen bomb

The main objective of nuclear weapons is deterrence.

Nukes threaten any potential adversary to the point where no objective is worth pursuing through violent means. For that purpose, China's estimated 250-400 nukes is more than enough. Having 2000 nukes serves no purpose.

For example, the US and Russia have about 50-100 cities each that have populations that are big enough to serve as targets. There is no need to have 2000 nukes when the targets are so few.

Of course, most nuclear powers will have enough fissile material to build more nukes quickly in case a nuclear war does happen.

But if you do indeed use nukes, you better have the conventional might to back up whatever happens next.

 

[Mista]

Because 100 nukes is already enough to make the Earth inhabitable. It's enough of a deterrence to any country. There's no difference between 2000 nukes or 5000 nukes, unless you view nukes as a national penile length contest so you don't look bad and 'lose face'.

https://www.globalzero.org/blog/how-many-nukes-would-it-take-render-earth-uninhabitable

Might as well use the money for building roads or improving education/healthcare, which is a tangible effect on the people's lives. Why follow the US or Russia in maintaining thousands of nukes, which is a result of their cold war history?

 

[Adam WANG SHANGHAI MEGA]

Because 100 nukes is already enough to make the Earth inhabitable. It's enough of a deterrence to any country. There's no difference between 2000 nukes or 5000 nukes, unless you view nukes as a national penile length contest so you don't look bad and 'lose face'.

https://www.globalzero.org/blog/how-many-nukes-would-it-take-render-earth-uninhabitable

Might as well use the money for building roads or improving education/healthcare, which is a tangible effect on the people's lives. Why follow the US or Russia in maintaining thousands of nukes, which is a result of their cold war history?

US does not see China nuke power equal to itself but only Russian's!

 

[ohmrlobalobayeh]

How do you know China doesn't have 2000 nuclear weapons?

yes.

This was exactly the thought that came to my mind when i first read the post above.

 

[52051]

It is only the US who try to fool its public to inisist China only get 300 nukes whatever despite of all evidence (the US estimated number has not changed for the last 30+ years), like the huge scale of infrastructure (China has world largest underground tunnel to store and transfer nukes, thousands of miles long), the number of deliever vehicles, the number of confirmed SSBNs suggesting otherwise.

Besides, nowadays China can import uranium ore from uranium-rich ex-Soviet center asian states and within China there are several large uranium mine discovered, and China can produce Pu-239 from U-238 thanks to the advancement of China's 4th gen nuclear reactor.

It is rather stupid to believe nowadays China, who produce more fighters and tanks each year than the NATO combined and produce 2-3 carriers and 15+ DDG at the same time, yet produce 0 nuke for the past 30+ years and counting even through China become much richer and have much better source to accquire U-235/Pu-239.

Have you ever noticed the change of tune towards China between Trump before his presidency and after? Must because the CIA show China's real nuke number to cool the dotard down abit, it must be some bigly yuge number.

So just use your reasoning ability.

Because 100 nukes is already enough to make the Earth inhabitable. It's enough of a deterrence to any country. There's no difference between 2000 nukes or 5000 nukes, unless you view nukes as a national penile length contest so you don't look bad and 'lose face'.

https://www.globalzero.org/blog/how-many-nukes-would-it-take-render-earth-uninhabitable

Might as well use the money for building roads or improving education/healthcare, which is a tangible effect on the people's lives. Why follow the US or Russia in maintaining thousands of nukes, which is a result of their cold war history?

Even at the peak of cold war, with all the nukes the Soviet/US have, it wont make earth inhabitable, nuke weapon has much less lasting effects comparing to nuclear reactor accident.

 

[Han Patriot]

Why does China not increase its nuclear warheads to 2,000?
China is not lacking in economic strength and ability to manufacture nuclear warheads (whether it is an atomic bomb,neutron bomb or a hydrogen bomb. At present, China is the only nuclear power that reserves 30 hydrogen bombs thanks to YU Min model which makes them easier to maintain). It is clear that the only thing Americans fear is the number of Russian nuclear warheads. Why China does not increase its nukes number to 2000 or 5000 instead of 250 units smaller than France? I can not understand very well. . .

Chinese hydrogen bomb

You really think we shout out loud about how many warheads we have like the Hindus?

 

[52051]

You really think we shout out loud about how many warheads we have like the Hindus?

Dotard know the real number so he is very cool with China, must be some bigly beatuiful number.

 

[RowdyRathore]

once US & Soviet reached at peak of 60,000 nukes each, then they realised they came so far.
north Korea with some 20 tiny nukes can do the job who needs 2000? unless you think as Pakistanis do 1-1 & 2-2

 

[Shotgunner51]

Why does China not increase its nuclear warheads to 2,000?

Your numbers refer to a very old FAS (Federation of American Scientists) estimate, see the source below. According to this outdated report, China only deployed high-yield strategic warheads (200~3,300 kt), not large quantity of low-yield tactical nuke devices e.g. artillery, mines, torpedoes or even backpacks.

source: icnnd.org/reference/reports/ent/pdf/ICNND_Report-EliminatingNuclearThreats.pdf

 

[Adam WANG SHANGHAI MEGA]

People are realistic,you have the ability but you have not the nuke number and they would not believe you!
The most realistic is UK and US,you never heared UK threat to nuke Russia coz they know they are inferior to Russia and does not stand a chance but we heared a lot that US military leaders always claim that US can destroy 95% of CHINA nukes during the first wave of attack , IF so,what the rest 15 nukes can do with US anti missile system such as thaad systems!?
600 units should become minimum number of nukes of CHINA considering the provocative nature of USA !

 

[Figaro]

People are realistic,you have the ability but you have not the nuke number and they would not believe you!
The most realistic is UK and US,you never heared UK threat to nuke Russia coz they know they are inferior to Russia and does not stands a. chance but we heared a lot that US military leaders always claims that US can destroy 95% of CHINA nukes during the first wave of attack , IF so,what the rest 15 nukes can do with US anti missile system such as thaad system!?
600 units should become minimum number of nukes of CHINA considering the provocative nature of USA !

I believe that China has around 800 deployable nuclear weapons currently. 200-300 would simply not be enough to guarantee a second strike ability, particularly if these warheads are mounted on older delivery systems. Minimal deterrence is extremely risky and I don't believe China went down that route (especially confronted by major NATO powers).

It is only the US who try to fool its public to inisist China only get 300 nukes whatever despite of all evidence (the US estimated number has not changed for the last 30+ years), like the huge scale of infrastructure (China has world largest underground tunnel to store and transfer nukes, thousands of miles long), the number of deliever vehicles, the number of confirmed SSBNs suggesting otherwise.

Besides, nowadays China can import uranium ore from uranium-rich ex-Soviet center asian states and within China there are several large uranium mine discovered, and China can produce Pu-239 from U-238 thanks to the advancement of China's 4th gen nuclear reactor.

It is rather stupid to believe nowadays China, who produce more fighters and tanks each year than the NATO combined and produce 2-3 carriers and 15+ DDG at the same time, yet produce 0 nuke for the past 30+ years and counting even through China become much richer and have much better source to accquire U-235/Pu-239.

Have you ever noticed the change of tune towards China between Trump before his presidency and after? Must because the CIA show China's real nuke number to cool the dotard down abit, it must be some bigly yuge number.

So just use your reasoning ability.



Even at the peak of cold war, with all the nukes the Soviet/US have, it wont make earth inhabitable, nuke weapon has much less lasting effects comparing to nuclear reactor accident.

The reason why it hasn't changed was much of the current estimate (i.e. 270) came from a defected Chinese nuclear scientist in the early 80's who allegedly revealed Chinese plutonium capacity to the Westerners. At that time (70's) , China's nuclear forces were still nascent, so it makes sense that the production rates were lower. Unfortunately, such a number became the basis for all Western nuclear estimates, something China has smartly played into. China is a country slightly bigger in size than the United States and 4 times as populous ... does one really think China ought to have a nuclear arsenal to effectively protect its populace?

 

[Shotgunner51]

People are realistic,you have the ability but you have not the nuke number and they would not believe you!
The most realistic is UK and US,you never heared UK threat to nuke Russia coz they know they are inferior to Russia and does not stands a. chance but we heared a lot that US military leaders always claims that US can destroy 95% of CHINA nukes during the first wave of attack , IF so,what the rest 15 nukes can do with US anti missile system such as thaad system!?
600 units should become minimum number of nukes of CHINA considering the provocative nature of USA !

As mentioned above those numbers were only third party estimates, and very outdated, "surprisingly" no significant change since late 1980's (see below). But let's say you believe these old numbers, China's destructive power is already more than adequate, you should know a thermonuclear warhead is a few hundred times more destructive than Hiroshima-type A-bomb.

In the 1980's it was all about DF-5 single warhead ICBM, plus some SRBM/MRBM, and a lone SSBN.

Why third party estimates suddenly stopped growing from late 1980's, when new carriers started to flourish? That's an interesting question, since even the newer DF-5 ICBM (B/C variants) are already MIRVed with multiple warheads. If silo-launched ICBM aren't reliable second strike options, you can see new carriers like DF-15 SRBM, DF-21 MRBM, DF-26 MRBM, CJ-10 LACM, DF-31 ICBM and DF-41 ICBM, ... etc., all road-mobile, the heavy ones are MIRVed. As a supplement to land-based options, in the air new ALCM are nuke-capable, and Type-094 SSBN have MIRVed JL-2 SLBM in active service.

Together with expanding EW sat/radar network, several missile defence programs in-progress, HGV and other developing projects, PLASSF and PLARF should be able to deter nuclear war. Peace!

 

[Adam WANG SHANGHAI MEGA]

In a word,250 to 300 is not enough and if this is the real number i would be very shocked....

600 to 1000 units is minimum
there are not only US but also prvocative india(inferior but very provocative like the empire UK and bully Iron bro PAK and its other NB countries),russia(respects China only when China is powerful),north korea(respects no one but kim) ,UK(sounds hongkong is still theirs),France(trying to control China strategic economical assets)....
500 for US and 100 to 400 for the rest of the world!

 

[52051]

Your numbers refer to a very old FAS (Federation of American Scientists) estimate, see the source below. According to this outdated report, China only deployed high-yield strategic warheads (200~3,300 kt), not large quantity of low-yield tactical nuke devices e.g. artillery, mines, torpedoes or even backpacks.

View attachment 453335

source: icnnd.org/reference/reports/ent/pdf/ICNND_Report-EliminatingNuclearThreats.pdf

Even the table itself is very flawed:

How could the smallest possible nuke in China is still>200kT TNT?

China has neutron bombs decades ago, and no one could build a neutron bomb that has a yielding of 200kT TNT equalivent , so the lower limit of China's nukes could not be 200 kT.

The pathetic americans tried too hard to underestimate China's nuke power to the degree law of physics is not very respected among these nuclear phyisicists