What's new

China's 294 megatons of thermonuclear deterrence

.

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.]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.

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.

Now this is badass, i wouldnt want to be an enemy of the USA!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
U.S is the first country which own nuclear weapon, and now it is the one who mostly want to destroy all nuclear weapons in this world. because their other kinds of weapons are most powerful.
with nuclear weapons, Russia, China and Europe have cards to play when negotiating with U.S.
Do you honestly believe the Americans are trying to destroy ALL nuclear weapons? Americans attempts to limit weapons proliferation is strictly to preserve their military advantage. It has very little to do with saving the world or whatever other flowery language is being used at the time.
 
.
with close to 3000 warheads, china has alot more megatons of firepower.
Repeating an unproven thesis by an American professor and his students will not make this guesstimate 3000 number reality. However, I am sure that this will be repeated a few thousand times by the American anti-China crowd to the point that it will convince the American military industrial complex to plunk down a few hundred billion more dollars to maintain and perhaps expand their existing thousands of nuke ICBMs to counter this supposed Chinese nuclear arsenal. Btw, isn't the real number actually 6000 Chinese nukes, or was it 8000, I've lost count.
 
.
Repeating an unproven thesis by an American professor and his students will not make this guesstimate 3000 number reality. However, I am sure that this will be repeated a few thousand times by the American anti-China crowd to the point that it will convince the American military industrial complex to plunk down a few hundred billion more dollars to maintain and perhaps expand their existing thousands of nuke ICBMs to counter this supposed Chinese nuclear arsenal. Btw, isn't the real number actually 6000 Chinese nukes, or was it 8000, I've lost count.
I guess it shold be more than 10,000 by now.......:D
 
.
Repeating an unproven thesis by an American professor and his students will not make this guesstimate 3000 number reality. However, I am sure that this will be repeated a few thousand times by the American anti-China crowd to the point that it will convince the American military industrial complex to plunk down a few hundred billion more dollars to maintain and perhaps expand their existing thousands of nuke ICBMs to counter this supposed Chinese nuclear arsenal. Btw, isn't the real number actually 6000 Chinese nukes, or was it 8000, I've lost count.

US in the past always said China only has 10 nukes that can strike US, so US can attack China with impunity.
 
. .
1. From the DF-31As alone, there should be 144 ICBM thermonuclear warheads (see first post below).

2. From the DF-5s, there are another 20 warheads with 4 to 5 megatons. 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.

However, we should note there is a report that China has 120 to 150 DF-5s that can be MIRVed with six one-megaton warheads (see citations in the second post below). This means that China may have 900 DF-5B one-megaton warheads in total.

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.

Partial conclusion: A reasonable minimum estimate of the preliminary total of Chinese thermonuclear ICBM warheads that can counterstrike the United States is 280 warheads (e.g. 144 from DF-31As, 100 from DF-5Bs, and 36 from DF-31). A reasonable preliminary maximum estimate is 1,080 warheads (e.g. 144 from DF-31As, 900 from DF-5Bs, and 36 from DF-31).

Now, let's discuss the wildcards in China's ICBM nuclear arsenal.

4. According to Jane's Defence (see third post below), 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. 100 hundred DF-41s would increase China's nuclear arsenal by 1,000 ICBM warheads.

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.

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.

Conclusion: What is the total number of Chinese ICBM warheads?

The lowest reasonable estimate is 144 ICBM warheads from DF-31As, 100 warheads from DF-5Bs, 36 from DF-31s, 1,500 warheads from Underground Great Wall, 144 from JL-2s, and an unknown number from top-secret DF-41s. The most-reasonable minimum estimate of China's ICBM thermonuclear warheads is 1,924 plus possible warheads from DF-41s.

The maximum reasonable estimate is 144 ICBM warheads from DF-31As, 900 warheads from DF-5Bs, 36 from DF-31s, 1,500 warheads from Underground Great Wall, 144 from JL-2s, and an unknown number from DF-41s. The most-reasonable maximum estimate of China's ICBM thermonuclear warheads is 2,724 plus additional warheads from DF-41s.

My best estimate of China's total ICBM nuclear arsenal is 1,924 to 2,724 thermonuclear warheads plus an unknown number of DF-41 warheads.

----------

China's DF-31As deter 144 cities

9yPbT.jpg

China's DF-31A launch

Let's do the math to see if China's DF-31A mobile ICBM retaliatory force is sufficient to provide a nuclear deterrent.

"Britain`s International Institute of Strategic Studies notes" there are "24 DF-31A ICBMs, indicating a possible increase of one new brigade from 2008 to 2009." China is increasing her DF-31A ICBM force by approximately 12 missiles/one brigade a year.

We will add 12 more missiles from 2009 to 2010 and another dozen missiles from 2010 to 2011. A reasonable estimate of China's DF-31A force is 48 ICBMs (e.g. 24 at end of 2009; 36 at end of 2010; and 48 at end of 2011).

If Richard Fisher's information is correct and China's DF-31A is MIRVed with three warheads then that means the 48 DF-31As are armed with a total of 144 warheads (e.g. 48 DF-31As x 3 MIRVed warheads = 144 warheads).

We know China possesses the technology for a W-88 class warhead with a yield of 475 kilotons. The conclusion is that China's DF-31A nuclear force is capable of retaliating against 144 cities. That does seem to be a formidable second-strike capability.

----------

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 most interesting and controversial debate regarding China's reverse-engineering was the development of China's W-88 class miniaturized thermonuclear warhead. The U.S. claims China appropriated the designs and reverse-engineered the W-88 warhead. China says that isn't true.

China says this is a case of convergent engineering. For example, an airplane must have two wings to provide lift and an engine to provide thrust in the rear. Another example of convergent engineering is all rockets are long and thin. In other words, form must follow function. There is only a very limited way to create a massive thermonuclear explosion using a compact warhead.

Here is the crux of the problem. "U.S. government realized that information derived from Chinese tests in 1992-1996 were similar to U.S. nuclear designs." The Chinese nuclear tests data are "similar," but not identical to U.S. nuclear tests on the W-88.

fqook.png

W88 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The W88 is a United States thermonuclear warhead, with an estimated yield of 475 kiloton (kt), and is small enough to fit on MIRVed missiles. The W88 was designed at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in the 1970s. In 1999 the director of Los Alamos who had presided over its design described it as "The most advanced U.S. nuclear warhead."[1]

The Trident II SLBM can be armed with up to 8 W88 (475 kt) warheads (Mark 5) or 8 W76 (100 kt) warheads (Mark 4), but it is limited to 4 warheads under SORT."

NTI: Research Library: Country Profiles: China

"...According to the Cox Committee Report, suspicion of China's nuclear espionage started after the U.S. government realized that information derived from Chinese tests in 1992-1996 were similar to U.S. nuclear designs. This similarity, combined with other information derived from classified sources, led the Cox Committee to claim that China had stolen several bomb designs, including the U.S.' most advanced W-88 design and a design for an enhanced radiation weapon (neutron bomb). Yet, the Cox Report has been severely criticized by both experts and officials in the United States as a political document that has several technical inaccuracies."

----------

Did General Zhu Chenghu blurt out China's nuclear secret in 2005? Analysis.

5CQhK.jpg

A launch silo for China's DF-5 ICBM

I doubt that China will ever disclose the size of its nuclear arsenal. China wants to have it both ways. It wants to appear non-threatening. This is good for its corporate image.

On the other hand, it wants to keep the United States guessing and reap the benefit of deterrence. Also, China cannot reveal the actual size of its nuclear arsenal. Otherwise, it would have just volunteered to join U.S.-Russian disarmament talks.

However, it is possible to reach reasonable conclusions based on an analysis of open-source materials and obtain a sense of the size of China's nuclear arsenal. Let's take a close look at General Zhu Chenghu's outburst. Did he reveal China's nuclear secret in a moment of anger?

In July 2005, "a Chinese general has threatened to launch nuclear missiles at the United States, warning that hundreds of American cities could be destroyed." (See Chinese general threatens nuclear attack on US in war of words - Telegraph) Is it plausible that China had the capability to destroy hundreds of American cities in 2005 or was General Zhu completely nuts?

In 1998, Richard D. Fisher Jr. (see International Assessment and Strategy Center > Scholars > Richard Fisher, Jr.) was working "as Asian Studies Director at the Heritage Foundation" and he reported:

"Congress should question the confidence that the Clinton Administration and the defense intelligence community place on their own assessments of China's current missile force. Some reports that appeared in 1996 suggest the United States may be underestimating China's missile force. For example, during the 30th anniversary celebration of China's Second Artillery (its specialized missile force) in 1996, China's military press reported the completion of a decade-long project to build what is speculated to be a large missile base inside a mountain range.[27] A curious report that also appeared in 1996 estimates that China may have over 120 to 150 DF-5 missiles, which could be modified to carry as many as six one-megaton nuclear warheads.[28] If China is concealing ICBMs in a mountain base, then even marginal improvements to its ICBMs derived from U.S. technical know-how would contribute to a greater potential missile threat." (See Commercial Space Cooperation | The Heritage Foundation)

If Richard Fisher is correct about the 1996 reports, China had approximately 150 DF-5 ICBMs hidden in the 5,000 km Underground Great Wall. This makes sense. No one would spend a fortune and ten years to build a massive 3,000-mile ICBM complex under a mountain range to hide only a small handful of ICBMs. (See The Jamestown Foundation: single[tt_news]=35846&tx_ttnews[backPid]=459&no_cache=1 or China’s nuclear missiles hidden “underground maze” | WAREYE)

Nine years elapsed between Richard Fisher's reference to the 1996 estimate of 150 DF-5s and General Zhu's 2005 warning. Let's use a conservative estimate and say China built one new brigade each year, which is twelve DF-5 missiles. After nine years, China would have accumulated another 108 DF-5s by 2005.

General Zhu may have been referring to a total of 258 DF-5s hidden under thousands of miles of a Chinese mountain range. General Zhu may have been accurate in "warning that hundreds of American cities could be destroyed." While General Zhu's July 2005 outburst is useful for open-source analysis, he was unprofessional and deserved his public demotion in December 2005 (for possibly revealing a state secret). (See Shakeup of Top Chinese Military Command)

Anyway, it's now 2011 and the DF-5 ICBM story has taken another unexpected turn. In 1998, Richard Fisher wrote: "A curious report that also appeared in 1996 estimates that China may have over 120 to 150 DF-5 missiles, which could be modified to carry as many as six one-megaton nuclear warheads." (See Commercial Space Cooperation | The Heritage Foundation)

In September 2010, Richard Fisher reported: "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." (See China and START. Missile buildup may surpass U.S., Russia as they denuclearize)

From 2005 to 2011, China probably built another 66 DF-5 ICBMs. China's current total inventory of DF-5s is probably around 324 (e.g. 258 + 66 = 324). 324 DF-5s with each missile carrying "six one-megaton nuclear warheads" provide a nuclear deterrent of 1,944 one-megaton warheads.

In conclusion, it doesn't really matter how many more DF-31As (with 3 MIRVs) or DF-41s (with up to 10 MIRVs) that China builds. The Chinese most likely have had a substantial nuclear deterrent by 1996 or 2005.

----------

DF-41 ICBM: China's answer to American NMD

Aside from building more road- and rail-mobile DF-31As, what's next for China's ICBM program? The obvious answer is the DF-41 with 10 MIRVs.

China's ICBM nuclear forces were quiescent for 20 years until "President George W. Bush formally announced December 13 [2001] that the United States will unilaterally withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty." (See Withdrawal from ABM treaty signals escalation of US militarism)

The formal withdrawal occurred six months after notification, when "the United States withdrew from the landmark 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty on June 13 [2002]." (See U.S. Withdraws From ABM Treaty; Global Response Muted | Arms Control Association)

The Chinese response was swift. China had possessed the basic technology for MIRVs in 1981, but only tested it after the United States withdrew from the ABM treaty in 2002. China's first known successful MIRV test occurred in December 2002, six months after the U.S. withdrawal from the ABM treaty.

To preserve China's security through mutually-assured-destruction, China must maintain a capability to inflict sufficient damage in a counter-strike. Towards that strategic objective, China is building the DF-41 with 10 MIRVs to overwhelm any American National Missile Defense (NMD) shield.

In a counter-strike, for every DF-41 with 10 warheads, the United States must build 10 interceptors. There is also the question of how many interceptors will succeed (e.g. the success rate). I am leaving aside the question of whether the NMD is viable at all. For example, if China attacked the sea-based X-band radar sites then the NMD will be significantly impaired.

Anyway, it will always be far cheaper for China to build DF-41 ICBMs and much more expensive to defend against them. Ten DF-41s with 10 MIRVs each will require 100 interceptors. 100 DF-41s with 10 MIRVs each will require 1,000 interceptors. It is pointless to build a NMD against a near-peer opponent. The other side can easily overwhelm a NMD system.

I will leave it to you to decide whether America was safer prior to President Bush's withdrawal from the ABM treaty. Prior to 2002, China only had 20 DF-5s capable of a counter-strike against the United States. Forced to counter President Bush's NMD initiative, China is on its way to becoming armed with an ever-increasing number of MIRVs.

xpy9U.jpg

China's DF-41 ICBM is capable of carrying 10 MIRVs.

tvwJ6.jpg

Closer look at DF-41

R9OiF.jpg

DF-41 undergoing tests.

MVUun.jpg

DF-41 spotted on public road in 2007.

Jane's June 21, 2011 article on DF-41 ICBM

DF-41 (CSS-X-10) (China) - Jane's Strategic Weapon Systems

"DF-41 (CSS-X-10) (China)...

Type

Inter-continental range, road/rail mobile, solid propellant, single warhead or MIRV-capable ballistic missile.

Development

The Chinese are believed to have started the design and development of the Dong Feng-41 (DF-41) in 1986, with the operational requirement to have a solid-propellant, road mobile, ballistic missile with a range of 12,000 km to replace the CSS-4 (DF-5 and DF-5A) liquid-propellant missiles. The development for DF-41 is believed to be managed by the China Aerospace Sciences and Industry Corporation (CASIC), Beijing (it was the First Academy of the Ministry of Aerospace Industries). The flight test programme is managed by the 2nd Artillery Corps, based at the Wuzhai test centre in Shanxi province. There has been one reported ground test and a simulated cold launch in October 1999, but no test flights to date, although a test was reported to have been in preparation in September 2001. Original reports stated that DF-41 used the first two stages of the DF-31, with a lengthened third stage, but it is now believed that this description referred to the DF-31A, and that the DF-41 is a new design. It is believed that the NATO designator is CSS-X-10. Reports in 1996 suggested that DF-41 would have between two and nine Multiple Independently Targeted Re-entry Vehicle (MIRV) warheads, but it is possible that the initial build missiles will have provision for either a single warhead or up to 10 MIRV. In 2001 both rail-car and cross-country Transporter-Erector-Launcher (TEL) projects were noted for DF-31, and it is presumed that these might also be adapted later for DF-41. These launchers appeared to use a rail-car."

----------

MIRVed Julang-2 being launched

China Shows Seaborne Muscle | The Right Guy on The Left Coast at Hypocrisy.com

"China Shows Seaborne Muscle
May 11th, 2009 • Richard Cochrane

jl2sblm.jpg


China’s state-run television has broadcast the first images of the new JL-2 long-range submarine-launched ballistic missile to be deployed aboard the new Type 094 ballistic missile submarine.

The JL-2 photos were broadcast on CCTV in connection with the PLA Navy’s anniversary, which included a massive show of naval forces including new submarines near Hainan Island in the South China Sea.

According to photo analyses, the JL-2 appeared to be launched from a Type 094 submarine based on its cold launch from an underwater tube. The distance from the missile and what appears to be periscope and antennae suggest that it is not what had previously been used for JL-2 test launches, a PLAN Golf class conventional missile submarine obtained from the former Soviet Union.

“What is interesting about this missile shape is the very blunt nose structure,” said Richard Fisher, a China military analyst at the International Strategy and Assessment Center.

“This would be consistent with the carriage of multiple warheads. Previously, Asian military sources have commented that the JL-2 could carry three or four warheads. To extend its range, this missile likely uses an aerospike, as does the U.S. Trident SLBM,” he said. The aerospike engine maintains its efficiency across a wide range of altitudes through the use of an altitude compensating nozzle.

Fisher said that so far there have been no reports indicating the JL-2 has been successfully launched to its full range, which may be between 7,000 and 8,000 kilometers.

“However, it appears that the PLA may seek to divide its early enlarged ‘minimum’ deterrent of about 120 missiles between the Navy and the Second Artillery. This will serve to focus even greater Chinese and U.S. attentions on the new PLAN SSBN base on Hainan Island, which may host most of the estimated five 094 SSBNs,” he said."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2005/j...1-102521-5027r/

"China advances missile program
By Bill Gertz
10:25 p.m., Tuesday, June 21, 2005

China has successfully flight-tested a submarine-launched missile that U.S. officials say marks a major advance in Beijing's long-range nuclear program.

"This is a significant milestone in their effort to develop strategic weapons," said a U.S. official familiar with reports of the test.

U.S. intelligence agencies monitored the flight test of a JL-2 missile about 10 days ago, officials said.

The missile was launched from a Chinese submarine near the port of Qingdao and was tracked to a desert impact point in western China several thousand miles away, the officials said.

The Air Force's National Air Intelligence Center reported that the JL-2 "will, for the first time, allow Chinese [missile submarines] to target portions of the United States from operating areas located near the Chinese coast."

The JL-2 is estimated to have a range of up to 6,000 miles, enough to hit targets in the United States.

A defense official said the missile test was a major step forward in China's strategic nuclear missile program and shows an improved capability to produce and launch submarine-launched missiles. "It was a successful test," this official said.

The JL-2 is a submarine version of the DF-31 land-based missile."
 
.
US in the past always said China only has 10 nukes that can strike US, so US can attack China with impunity.
Russia has over 5000 strategic nukes of which over 1000 are on ICBMs or loadable on long range bombers. The US has been overtly trying to weaken and encircle Russia for over 20 years. China had been estimated to have around ~20 ICBMs for the last 20 odd years and they have received similar treatment over the same time period. As long as China has enough nukes to prevent an American 1st strike, it is enough. The US won't even attack North Korea who have ZERO ICBMs so what does that tell you? I'm not saying China shouldn't have enough nukes to kill off at least 75% of the American population if America is insane enough to launch a 1st strike. What I'm saying is, it will never come to that so why waste resources on it? Let the Americans bleed themselves further while China gains more and more power, relatively speaking, so that it will hopefully someday be able to help pull those subjugated countries from under America's thumb.
 
. .
2. From the DF-5s, there are another 20 warheads with 4 to 5 megatons. 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.
...
"...According to the Cox Committee Report, suspicion of China's nuclear espionage started after the U.S. government realized that information derived from Chinese tests in 1992-1996 were similar to U.S. nuclear designs. This similarity, combined with other information derived from classified sources, led the Cox Committee to claim that China had stolen several bomb designs, including the U.S.' most advanced W-88 design and a design for an enhanced radiation weapon (neutron bomb). Yet, the Cox Report has been severely criticized by both experts and officials in the United States as a political document that has several technical inaccuracies."
...
Commercial Space Cooperation | The Heritage Foundation)
...
(See The Jamestown Foundation: single
...
(See Shakeup of Top Chinese Military Command)
...
(See Commercial Space Cooperation | The Heritage Foundation)
...
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2005/j...1-102521-5027r/
I applaud the amount of research you put into your analysis. Having said that, I will point out a fatal weakness with your argument here. The majority of your sources are from well known American right-wing neocon think tanks and related individuals, some of whom are on the same payroll as such ideological news sources as Fox News.

- Richard Fisher
- Cox Report
- Heritage Foundation
- Jamestown
- NewsMax
- Washington Times

...this is a veritable list of the who's who of biased neo-conservative anti-China hawks in America. As they say, garbage-in garbage-out. I'm not saying everything they say is garbage but you have to take everything they say with a huge salt dome of salt. They are afterall not much more than glorified analysts working with mostly publicly available information. Bottom line is, they are wishful thinkers parading their wishful thinking as facts, something that I absolutely detest. Does that mean I have ever believed China only had ~20 ICBMs the last 20 years? No, but that also does not mean we go to the opposite extreme and suddenly place China on par with Russia & America because American strategists decided this year that China is now becoming a peer competitor deserving of even more demonization and that it's time to turn up the China fear factor another notch.
 
.
Russia has over 5000 strategic nukes of which over 1000 are on ICBMs or loadable on long range bombers. The US has been overtly trying to weaken and encircle Russia for over 20 years. China had been estimated to have around ~20 ICBMs for the last 20 odd years and they have received similar treatment over the same time period. As long as China has enough nukes to prevent an American 1st strike, it is enough. The US won't even attack North Korea who have ZERO ICBMs so what does that tell you? I'm not saying China shouldn't have enough nukes to kill off at least 75% of the American population if America is insane enough to launch a 1st strike. What I'm saying is, it will never come to that so why waste resources on it? Let the Americans bleed themselves further while China gains more and more power, relatively speaking, so that it will hopefully someday be able to help pull those subjugated countries from under America's thumb.

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.

Second Artillery Corps (China) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.
 
.
Guys, there is a rumour about China is building a multi ICBM with to have 20 MIRV nuclear head. If this is true please confirm.

---------- Post added at 11:51 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:50 AM ----------

China is planning to build submarine that will have 20~30 missile in it submarine, dont know if they will build it or not.
 
.
The 240-400 claimed by the west is lie, it's much higher not 3000 maybe between 1000-1500.

1000~ 1500 could wiped off the whole world for sure, but 1000~1500 I doubt china would have more not 3000. Time will tell when START come in place with china.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom