What's new

Pentagon report aims to suppress China's nuclear deterrence

Figaro

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Aug 17, 2017
Messages
5,684
Reaction score
8
Country
United States
Location
United States
Pentagon report aims to suppress China's nuclear deterrence
By Hu Xijin Source: Global Times Published: 2020/9/2 18:37:39 Last Updated: 2020/9/2 20:33:42

In its newly released 2020 Report on Military and Security Developments Involving the People's Republic of China, the US Department of Defense unprecedentedly put a number to China's nuclear warheads. It says China currently maintains an operational nuclear warhead stockpile in the low 200s and the figure is projected to at least double over the next decade.

I think the estimation of "low 200s" underestimates the number of nuclear warheads in China. The use of "operational" leaves room for making the figure smaller. The public generally cannot distinguish operational warheads and inactive ones. Generally speaking, as the US and Russia have large nuclear arsenals, some of their nuclear warheads are categorized as non-operational status. Countries with fewer nuclear warheads will have a lower rate of inactive warheads. They will keep most of their nuclear warheads on active status. If tensions occur, inactive warheads, if they have, will be activated.

The international estimation put the number of China's nuclear warheads at over 200 in the 1980s. China has never verified it. As for how long China can double the figure, 10 years is obviously not the shortest time. The time span depends on the extent of US threats to China's security. In other words, it depends on the urgency for China to strengthen its nuclear power.

I think the latest Pentagon report deliberately underestimates China's nuclear warhead stockpile while it emphasizes China's strategic intention to expand its nuclear arsenal. Its purpose, first of all, is to weaken China's nuclear deterrence, especially the role of China's nuclear capability in shaping the US society's attitude toward China. Second, it aims at leading the international community to believe the number of China's nuclear warheads is in low 200s. This is done so that it can use the figure as the base to pressure China's nuclear disarmament with the US and Russia and to suppress the room for China's nuclear capability development.

The Pentagon's annual report on China's military development has always promoted so called Chinese military threats. This time is no exception. But the latest one has a conspiracy to suppress China's nuclear deterrence. Chinese must see through this.

The author is editor-in-chief of the Global Times. opinion@globaltimes.com.cn


Looks like China just indirectly admitted that its arsenal is much larger than estimated ... a direct retort at the Pentagon's latest report suggesting Chinese numbers are low.
 
. . . .
It's time to make more spikey clubs.
The Chinese should use the famous broadsword. Why completely deform/mutilate the Indians with spiked clubs when you can just end them in one clean stroke? Good for the Chinese because they get less blood/cartilage/guts on themselves and good for the Indians because they suffer less. Isn't this a win win? :enjoy:
1.jpg
 
. .
Hu Xijin articles should not read with seriousness.

In any case China's nuclear warheads should long have surpassed 1000 although maybe not operation as he defines it.
 
.
???
Most indicate 300, with a recent production increase to reach 1000 in a near future.

Even those launchers and silos already made visible to public have already pushed up the number of those warheads which can hit North America continent to over 1000.

Good example is the following report published by the Americans, 250 silos with an ICBM for each carrying 3 warheads at minimal, which should normally be 6 to 10, can easily get the number to over 750.


Please note this is a narrative coming from the Americans and it defines the revealed silo field as the SECOND new silo field they recently found. What about those road mobile and submarine ICBMs? DF-41 can carry at least 3 warheads based on common sense, right? The following picture taken at the military parade shows 18 DF-41 launchers and 18 DF-31AG launchers, which implies a minimum total of 54+18=72 warheads .

1694651797318.png
 
Last edited:
.
China might well be the only country
with fully functional H Bombs
Chinese H Bombs are done to the YuMing configuration requiring very little maintenance.
Muricans do their H bombs to the Ulam Teller configuration needing lots of maintenances.

Each warhead needs to have about 200 milligrams of fresh tritium added every year. Here’s a pic showing W80s having their gas changed.
The USA has so many warheads that even if 20% are on maintenance (an incredible high rate), the rest is enough to destroy China, Russia and North Korea nearly 3 times, with some others remaining for Iran...
So it's not an issue.

And never forget who invented A and H bomb.... You aren't on par with them.
 
Last edited:
.
How will the Patriot systems in USA defend against ICBMs coming in at speed of Mach 25 when they cannot even detect missiles at sub Mach or even know where the missiles came from despite overlapping coverage?
Patriot is not made for that. Maybe a second or third rank capacity....
 
.
???
Most indicate 300, with a recent production increase to reach 1000 in a near future.
Nobody knows but given China's capability I won't be surprised if they come out in the open and say 20000
 
.
Nobody knows but given China's capability I won't be surprised if they come out in the open and say 20000
From 300 to 20000 ! the CIA would have inform the US president.
I've read some months ago that China target is 2000 nukes. Far enough to erase USA and India together.
 
.
From 300 to 20000 ! the CIA would have inform the US president.
I've read some months ago that China target is 2000 nukes. Far enough to erase USA and India together.
CIA...LOL.... CIA cannot find its a$$ on the map..... It has an impressive resume the less said the better.
 
.
CIA...LOL.... CIA cannot find its a$$ on the map..... It has an impressive resume the less said the better.
They failed in Afghanistan, but They were the first to see a war coming between russia and ukraine.....
 
.
They failed in Afghanistan, but They were the first to see a war coming between russia and ukraine.....
a person with half a brain could tell there was a war comming nothing ordinary about that.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom