What's new

The lasting lesson of 1962

The funniest part is that, when Indians invaded China, they didn't call it invasion, but "forward policy". Then China responded and then it was Chinese aggression.

Maybe China should start a "forward policy" and build military posts all the way to Bombay.
 
.
This is what a PAKISTANI anayst wrote

Till 1965 Pakistan Army keeping in view its equipment and training was relatively superior to the Indian Army. India under Nehru was a peaceful country but the Sino-Indian Conflict of 1962 transformed the whole scenario. Thus while Indian Army had by and large registered no major expansion since 1947 after 1962 the Indians embarked on a highly ambitious expansion programme.


---------- Post added at 07:45 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:45 AM ----------

This is what a PAKISTANI anayst wrote

Till 1965 Pakistan Army keeping in view its equipment and training was relatively superior to the Indian Army. India under Nehru was a peaceful country but the Sino-Indian Conflict of 1962 transformed the whole scenario. Thus while Indian Army had by and large registered no major expansion since 1947 after 1962 the Indians embarked on a highly ambitious expansion programme.
 
.
I will gamble "free Tibet" vs "Balkanized India"...China won't play a nice guy as 1962, at that time we fought for communist ideology and Ideal but today we will fight for the core of our interests.

India is a country that allows an attack once, but if that country repeats it, severe punishment is given out. Pakistan did it. Now we are waiting for China to do it, since india's ideology does not allow it to be the aggressor
 
.
Look at item #4 for U.S. rejections of Nehru's pleas for help.

Next, look at the reason the U.S. definitely will NOT EXTEND ANY HELP AT ALL to India in the next Sino-Indian War (see the following post).

Four important lessons from 1962 Sino-Indian border war

1. When the People's Daily newspaper publishes an article warning you to back off, you better listen. It is a prelude to war. The Indians ignored the warning from the People's Daily in 1962 and they paid the price of defeat in the Sino-Indian border war.

This lesson is applicable today to Vietnam and the Philippines. After the People's Daily, Xinhua, and Global Times warned them of military action, Vietnamese and Filipino provocations in the South China Sea stopped.

Sino-Indian War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"On 22 September 1962, the People's Daily published an article which claimed that "the Chinese people were burning with 'great indignation' over the Indian actions on the border and that New Delhi could not 'now say that warning was not served in advance'."[37][38]
...
On 14 October, an editorial on People's Daily issued China's final warning to India: "So it seems that Mr. Nehru has made up his mind to attack the Chinese frontier guards on an even bigger scale....It is high time to shout to Mr. Nehru that the heroic Chinese troops, with the glorious tradition of resisting foreign aggression, can never be cleared by anyone from their own territory... If there are still some maniacs who are reckless enough to ignore our well-intentioned advice and insist on having another try, well, let them do so. History will pronounce its inexorable verdict... At this critical moment...we still want to appeal once more to Mr. Nehru: better rein in at the edge of the precipice and do not use the lives of Indian troops as stakes in your gamble." [38]"

----------

2. Chinese weaponry stationed across from Taiwan can be moved to the Indian sector. In 1962, China moved heavy artillery. In the current context, China can move 1,800 short-range ballistic missiles from the Taiwan sector for use against India.

Sino-Indian War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Chinese attention was diverted for a time by the military activity of the Nationalists on Taiwan, but on 23 June the U.S. assured China that a Nationalist invasion would not be permitted.[30] China's heavy artillery facing Taiwan could then be moved to Tibet.[31] It took China six to eight months to gather the resources needed for the war, according to Anil Athale, author of the official Indian history.[31] The Chinese sent a large quantity of non-military supplies to Tibet through the Indian port of Calcutta.[31]"

----------

3. PLA's blitzkrieg will slice through the enemy's best troops.

Sino-Indian War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Marshal Liu Bocheng headed a group to determine the strategy for the war. He concluded that the opposing Indian troops were among India's best, and to achieve victory would require deploying crack troops and relying on force concentration to achieve decisive victory. On 16 October, this war plan was approved, and on the 18th, the final approval was given by the Politburo for a "self-defensive counter-attack", scheduled for 20 October.[2]
...
At 5:14 am, Chinese mortar fire began attacking the Indian positions. Simultaneously, the Chinese cut the Indian telephone lines, preventing the defenders from making contact with their headquarters. At about 6:30 am, the Chinese infantry launched a surprise attack from the rear and forced the Indians to leave their trenches.[36]

The Chinese troops overwhelmed the Indians in a series of flanking manoeuvres south of the McMahon Line and prompted their withdrawal from Namka Chu.[36] Fearful of continued losses, Indian troops escaped into Bhutan. Chinese forces respected the border and did not pursue.[7] Chinese forces now held all of the territory that was under dispute at the time of the Thag La confrontation, but they continued to advance into the rest of NEFA.[36]
...
Western theatre

On the Aksai Chin front, China already controlled most of the disputed territory. Chinese forces quickly swept the region of any remaining Indian troops.[42] Late on 19 October, Chinese troops launched a number of attacks throughout the western theatre.[8] By 22 October, all posts north of Chushul had been cleared.[8]"

----------

4. In 1962, the United States rejected India's plea for military jets. Today, China is a well-armed thermonuclear power. What are the chances that the United States would be willing to supply India with a single bullet in the next Sino-Indian border war?

Sino-Indian War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Involvement of other nations

During the conflict, Nehru wrote two desperate letters to JFK, requesting 12 squadrons of fighter jets. These jets were necessary to beef up Indian air strength so that an air war could be initiated safely from the Indian perspective. This request was rejected. According to former Indian diplomat G Parthasarathy, "only after we got nothing from the US did arms supplies from the Soviet Union to India commence." [57] In 1962, President of Pakistan Ayub Khan made clear to India that Indian troops could safely be transferred from the Pakistan frontier to the Himalayas.[58]"

--------------------

China has a minimum of 1,924 thermonuclear warheads. Here's why.

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.

AzKcQ.jpg

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.

5CQhK.jpg

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.

umpUn.jpg

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.

xpy9U.jpg

Since 1986, according to Jane's Defence, China has been developing the DF-41 ICBM (which is capable of carrying 10 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.

u2ybT.jpg

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.

Chinese missile site - in TIBET - YouTube

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.

RFyjn.jpg

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.
 
.
I just realized that my estimate of 1,924 Chinese thermonuclear warheads is missing the earlier citations. I have now included this post with the citations.

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

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)

tvwJ6.jpg

Closer look at DF-41

DlMcx.jpg

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.

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."
 
.
Whatever, chinese crap can't cross Himalaya. All we need is some Indian solider with AK47 to shoot in coming troops.
 
.
In 1962, President of Pakistan Ayub Khan made clear to India that Indian troops could safely be transferred from the Pakistan frontier to the Himalayas.[58]"

Look at the great gesture (mistake?) Pakistan made, Instead of utilizing this great opportunity to take back IOK, we assured our enemy India, that we will not attack while they are fighting with China and how did India returned this favour to Pakistan? by attacking Pakistan in 1965. What a shame. What Nehru said about China in his speech, actually fits India's own actions against Pakistan.
 
.
Look at the great gesture (mistake?) Pakistan made, Instead of utilizing this great opportunity to take back IOK, we assured our enemy India, that we will not attack while they are fighting with China and how did India returned this favour to Pakistan? by attacking Pakistan in 1965. What a shame. What Nehru said about China in his speech, actually fits India's own actions against Pakistan.

I don't think India attacked pakistan in 1965.
 
.
. .
OMG

Martian2, you have taken so much time and trouble, it seems you are really desperate for us to acknowledge chinese military.

---------- Post added at 08:40 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:39 AM ----------

Nehru thought he could get away with Stealing our land during the time China was very weakened and had to deal with both the USSR and USA and our best forces where near the north. nehru went for the kill yet lost over 1300 + of his soldiers

this is what happens to CCP brainwashed kids, they spout crap

Nehru's policy of pacifism and appeasement with respect to China also came unraveled when border disputes led to the Sino-Indian war in 1962.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jawaharlal_Nehru



---------- Post added at 08:41 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:40 AM ----------

And good quality joggers to to run to Nepal...

better than surrendering dont u think?
 
.
As the 50th anniversary year of China’s 1962 invasion, 2012 should serve as a time of reflection on what lessons that attack still holds for India...

...

According to this author, India is very innocent :lol: : no forward policy, no jingoistic parliament in pushing Nehru for forward policy, no nepotism in hiring an officer who never saw a Chinese soldier to be in charge of the war.


The lasting lesson of 1962 is not to complain the others, but for India to wake up, and figure out your own hostile foreign policy, and stop making China your number one enemy.

If India takes the wrong lasting lesson of 1962 instead of the correct lesson, and wants to be a second-hand imperialism, India will be doomed to have another humiliation.
 
.
If India takes the wrong lasting lesson of 1962 instead of the correct lesson, and wants to be a second-hand imperialism, India will be doomed to have another humiliation.

If china tries anything again, tibet will be free.
 
. . .

Latest posts

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom