Does China Really Have Nuclear Weapons?

[braalian]

Thank God Mao died before he could build a sizeable stash of nuclear bombs. And that fatboy’s N Korea is too small and impoverished to build many.

The real danger to the human race is a government collapse in Russia or the US (or to a lesser extent France or the UK), and fanatics having their finger on the button.

Have to give some credit to the USSR for not sharing too much with their commie “brother”. Mutually Assured Destruction doesn’t work when one of the leaders is as batshit crazy as Mao was.

 

[Dayton3]

Why would they have to transfer technologies if they were in a state of conflict?

I figured the technology transfers from U.S.S.R. to China relating to nuclear weapons were approved and took place before the falling out between them.

 

[skye]

OP, the right question should be HOW MANY nuclear weapons does China have.

Not if China has or doesn't have......but how many!

 

[Mushroom]

Actually, its surprising that China doesn’t have a bigger nuclear Arsenal than it does.

Not really. Until a few decades ago their biggest weakness was not bombs, but delivery systems.

 

[Mushroom]

OP, the right question should be HOW MANY nuclear weapons does China have.

Most estimate around 350.

 

[skye]

Not really. Until a few decades ago their biggest weakness was not bombs, but delivery systems.

China has plenty of Nuclear weapons and delivery systems too.

Don't you worry.

 

[Mushroom]

China has plenty of Nuclear weapons and delivery systems too.

Only in the last 5 years or so.

Until 2017, their only ICBM was the DF-5. And they only had around 30 of those.

Only recently did China start to actively build silos to deploy the DF-41 to. That is their newest ICBM, and estimates is that when completed they will have between 150-250 silos. But none are believed to be in service yet, with completion somewhere around 2025.

At this time, their only ICBM is still the DF-5, numbering no more than 14-28.

So yes, they do indeed have issues with their delivery systems. Other than SRBM, MRBM and a few LRBM they just do not have many. Their ICBM program really only got going after they got the technology during the Clinton administration. Including the technology to finally build MIRV warheads.

 

[eagle1462010]

We got this if China wants mutually assured destruction. lol

Capable of wiping out Russia and China all by it's lonesome.

 

[Dayton3]

We got this if China wants mutually assured destruction. lol

Capable of wiping out Russia and China all by it's lonesome.

Well not quite. MIRVs cannot attack widely separated targets. A missile with MIRVs could hit Dallas and Fort Worth, but not Dallas and El Paso.

 

[Baron Von Murderpaws]

Cock..........it's the REAL thing!

 

[eagle1462010]

Well not quite. MIRVs cannot attack widely separated targets. A missile with MIRVs could hit Dallas and Fort Worth, but not Dallas and El Paso.

100 times isn't it per mirv. I thought the targeting was more sophisticated now. but most don't know about MIRVs.............

BRAVO ZULU

 

[Baron Von Murderpaws]

China has been doing lots of things it's not supposed to do.
And yet, the Dems are HELPING them, not hindering them.

And I sure as hell don't see any other country doing anything about squashing China........especially Putin.

 

[eagle1462010]

China has been doing lots of things it's not supposed to do.
And yet, the Dems are HELPING them, not hindering them.

And I sure as hell don't see any other country doing anything about squashing China........especially Putin.

Putin about got his ass kicked in Georgia.........lol

China is the elephant in the room along with BRICS.......which is the UNHOLY alliance against us.

 

[Unkotare]

I figured the technology transfers from U.S.S.R. to China relating to nuclear weapons were approved and took place before the falling out between them.

China and Russia have hated each other since WWII.

 

[Mushroom]

I thought the targeting was more sophisticated now. but most don't know about MIRVs

It is. Today, most US ICBMs have a CEP of 20-50 meters. But we have also other than in our SSBN missiles abandoned MIRV. With the high accuracy of our missiles, we no longer need to blanket an area with a dozen warheads to hit the target. Just one is enough.

 

[Dayton3]

China and Russia have hated each other since WWII.

enemy of my enemy situation

 

[Dayton3]

It is. Today, most US ICBMs have a CEP of 20-50 meters. But we have also other than in our SSBN missiles abandoned MIRV. With the high accuracy of our missiles, we no longer need to blanket an area with a dozen warheads to hit the target. Just one is enough.

You don't know I guess that CEP is NOT the same as "accuracy"?

 

[Mushroom]

China and Russia have hated each other since WWII.

It goes back even farther than that. Specifically when they were part of the Eight Nation Alliance, and took Manchuria away from them.

 

[Mushroom]

You don't know I guess that CEP is NOT the same as "accuracy"?

Yes, because "accuracy" does not really apply for ballistic weapons. So CEP is used, which is roughly the same thing.

Circular Error Probable basically translates to that if 100 weapons are launched at a target, half of them will land inside of the calculated CEP, and half outside of it. With the half landing outside landing within the radius of the CEP computed.

So for a 50 meter CEP, if 100 warheads are launched 50 will land inside that 50 meter circle, the other half will land within 50 meters of the circle. If it is a 100 meter CEP, then half will land inside that 100 meter circle, the other half within 100 meters of the circle. And when talking about nukes, traveling half a world away and landing half the time within 20 meters of the target and the other half within 40 meters from your target, that is good enough for damned near any target.

I know it is not the same as "accuracy", such is simply not possible with a ballistic weapon because of how they operate. But it is close enough to the meaning as most people understand it.

 

[rupol2000]

It goes back even farther than that. Specifically when they were part of the Eight Nation Alliance, and took Manchuria away from them.

In fact, the policy towards China has been constantly changing, from friendly to outright hostile. It has been hostile since the Soviet Union's abandonment of Stalinism in 1956, and this was received extremely negatively by Mao. After the armed conflict on Damansky Island in 1969, it seems that rapprochement was gradually taking place, at present Russia openly supports China

Those territorial disputes that existed before the October coup of 1917 do not matter in modern politics and did not matter already in the 30s, a lot of things have changed there. The Russian Empire itself was not a unitary state, they changed a lot inside the country, the entire political map changed there, and there was no time to remember Manchuria.

You can also remember that China and Russia jointly destroyed Turkestan. The Uyghur region in China is eastern Turkestan. And Tajikistan and Uzbekistan are generally divided between Afghanistan and the former USSR. Some Tajiks and Uzbeks are now independent, and some are occupied by the Pashtuns in Northern Afghanistan.