http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1 022482.shtml China want

>>32255191
>nukes are not weapons
neck yourself

File: 25_35_c79ceb32b37172b.jpg (72KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 960x720px

China is already on a silent rush to parity in nuclear weapons fields.

Oppenheimer and other dumb pundits only watch Lop Nur as if it was still the 1970s. In reality, China's enrichment facilities are now all deep within the mountain-caves of Sichuan and Tibet (2008 Sichuan Earthquake damaged a big one, though).

And the DF-41 has already reached IOC since last year. Pic; truth is in the cake (and the reflection).

>>32255175
>What would that look like?
Did you read your own article? Accelerated missile development, and more warheads.

>Would there be new missiles too?
Again, read your own link, or perhaps wikipedia. There are always new weapons development in major powers, it's an ongoing cycle.

>How long before they are a threat to the US?
They already are a threat. We are already engaged in a relationship of deterrence.

>>32255212
>. In reality, China's enrichment facilities are now all deep within the mountain-caves of Sichuan and Tibet
I like to imagine things too.

>>32255227
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/16/world/asia/16nuke.html

>China’s main centers for designing, making and storing nuclear arms lie in the shattered earthquake zone, leading Western experts to look for signs of any damage that might allow radioactivity to escape.

>A senior federal official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the delicacy of the issue, said the United States was using spy satellites and other means to try to monitor the sprawling nuclear plants. “There appear to be no immediate concerns,” the official said.

>Nonetheless, “it’s potentially a serious issue,” Hans M. Kristensen, a nuclear arms expert at the Federation of American Scientists, a private group in Washington, said in an interview. “Radioactive materials could be released if there’s damage.”

>China began building the plants in the 1960s, calculating that their remote locations would make them less vulnerable to enemy attack.

>China’s main complex for making nuclear warhead fuel, codenamed Plant 821, is beside a river in a hilly, forested part of the earthquake zone. It is some 15 miles northwest of Guangyuan in Sichuan Province. The vast site holds China’s largest production reactor and factories that mine its spent fuel for plutonium — the main ingredient for modern nuclear arms.

>Jeffrey G. Lewis, an arms control specialist at the New America Foundation, a nonprofit research group in Washington, said the military buildings that make up Plant 821 were probably unusually strong compared with civilian structures.

>>32255262
>designing, making and storing nuclear arms
Thats not enrichment, anon.

>>32255268
Maybe you should learn to read:

>The vast site holds China’s largest production reactor and factories that mine its spent fuel for plutonium — the main ingredient for modern nuclear arms.

spent fuel rods need reprocessing and enrichment to make weapon grade plutonium again.

File: Chinese enrichment.png (35KB, 679x488px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 679x488px

>>32255282
Its interesting that your link mentions Jeffery Lewis.

Have you ever read his book about Chinese Nuclear weapons? Its very interesting.

I'll post a page for you.

>>32255221
No, OP specifically asked about nuclear weapons and possible new missiles.
Are we not allowed to discuss tanks on the off chance that someone brings up tank doctrine?

If that faggot of a mod wants to come and ruin /k/ let him do the work himself, dont be a snitch.

>>32255175
>globaltimes

The Chinese equivalent of a jingoistic pro-gun blog.

>>32255296
>appears to have stopped
>1980s

That was the problem. Deng era China isnt Xi era China.

Deng was basically neutering all military activities to suck western economic cocks, Xi is all about throwing out Western economic shitters in favor for massive military buildup.

>>32255268
>making nukes is not enrichment!

Actually, it is.

Building a bomb case is child's play - /k/ could design and build a functioning nuclear bomb case in an afternoon. It is not a complex technology by any means. It only becomes complex when you try to make them smaller, but even a very simple bomb is not very big. You could tote it around in the back of a U-Haul.

The only actually difficult part is making the material that goes inside. Ergo, when people say "making nuclear weapons", they are referring to making the material - which is called enrichment.

But go ahead and explain to the adults here how we're wrong about this.

>>32255311
They haven't restarted production since then.
Thats why Lewis states that their limited supply of material constrains the size of the arsenal.

Ill take a book published in 2014 over a NYT article in 2008.

>>32255296
In the article it basically states that China is (or was in 2008) expanding their stockpile:

>It is unclear if the plutonium-production reactor at Plant 821 has operated recently. Mr. Kristensen of the Federation of American Scientists said China was expanding its nuclear forces to 240 warheads in its overall stockpile from around 200.

File: 1341664330111.jpg (141KB, 501x585px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 501x585px

>A report written by a Georgetown University team led by Phillip Karber conducted a three-year study to map out China’s complex tunnel system, which stretches 5,000 km (3,000 miles). The report determined that the stated Chinese nuclear arsenal is understated and as many as 3,000 nuclear warheads may be stored in the underground tunnel network.[2][3] This hypothetical maximum storage or basing capacity along with Karber's own misconceived fissile production suggestions,[4] resulted in western media purporting that 3,000 warheads were actually in the facility. The Karber study went on to state that the network of tunnels is not likely to be breached by conventional or low-yield earth-penetrating nuclear weapons such as the B61-11.[5][6]

>>32255324
The book is from 2014.

>>32255317
>But go ahead and explain to the adults here how we're wrong about this.
Sure. >>32255296

>>32255321
>>32255331

2014, but based on old data.
"Since 1980"? What sort of source is this?

Xi, who took power in 2012, hasnt revealed anything about their nuclear builduo.

>>32255324

The size of your warhead collection is not necessarily related to the size of your material stockpile.

Most of the bomb material in the US is not inside a weapon, but rather in a building in Tennessee.

>>32255335
>"Since 1980"? What sort of source is this?
No.
It says "at the end of 1980".

>What sort of source is this?
He was good enough for your source to quote back in 2008, but now he's not good enough?

Where is your source that fissile production has restarted?

>>32255331

I never said that China was or was not enriching plutonium. I said that "making nuclear weapons" = "enriching plutonium".

>>32255221
>no mod tag

Lel, nice try.

Newfags, i swear.

>>32255321
>Thats why Lewis states that their limited supply of material constrains the size of the arsenal.


Still enough for at last 500 warheads.

>>32255362
Most of their warheads are multi megaton ones afaik.

You can dismantle a 5mt warhead and turn it into 20 250kt warheads, no?

>>32255362
Just throwing random numbers, eh?

File: hinas Nuclear Weapons and Fissile Materials Holdings-Uncertainties and Concerns__Img1.jpg (53KB, 979x583px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 979x583px

>>32255349
>>32255381

http://www.npolicy.org/article.php?aid=1168&tid=4

>Regarding current production of enriched uranium, China is known to operate several relatively new Russian-designed uranium centrifuge enrichment plants and an indigenous centrifuge plant that are believed together to be capable of producing roughly 2 million separate work units (SWUs) per year.[2] The International Panel on Fissile Materials offers a conservative estimate that China has 16 tons of weapons grade uranium (plus or minus 4 tons) – enough to make between roughly 1,000 (crude first-generation design) and 3,000 (advanced design) nominal 20-kiloton explosive devices.[3]

asians are evil soulless beasts

File: Chinese enrichment2.png (38KB, 674x581px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 674x581px

>>32255397

Nice source from 2012.

Lets go back to what we know in 2014.

File: Chinese enrichment3.png (40KB, 677x596px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 677x596px

>>32255397
Again, all information from 2014.
Which is more recent than 2012, right?

>>32255191
Kys

File: Chinese enrichment4.png (43KB, 677x594px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 677x594px

>>32255397
I wonder if there is a reason that guys numbers are so off?

>>32255412
>Zhou Enlai

kek.

That guy is long dead.

Again, why are you quoting old sources? This isnt a history lesson.

George Washington also used to say that the US shouldnt become a world hegemon.
Makes sense?

>>32255379
Not really. Explosions do to do this thing where double the explosive equals more than double the explosion when you blow it up all at once. So half the size of the warhead is gunnar result in less than half the explosion.

>>32255429
>Again, why are you quoting old sources?
2014 is more recent that 2012, anon.

>>32255428
>2005

2012 soruces are better than a 2014 book that is quoting old shit.

You are you trying to cheat here?

>>32255175
>globaltimes

They are China's Breitbart.

>>32255331
The book uses old data. I already pointed this out to Opp almost a year again.

>>32255437
http://fissilematerials.org/countries/china.html

>Countries: China

>China is a nuclear weapon state member of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Its nuclear arsenal is estimated to include 240 nuclear weapons, of which about 180 are believed to be operationally deployed. China's stockpile of fissile materials is estimated to include 18 ± 4 tonnes of HEU and 1.8 ± 0.5 tonnes of weapon-grade plutonium.

>AUGUST 5, 2016

See, not much different from the 2012 source.

Now, Fuck Off!

>>32255438
How about from your own source?

>As for plutonium, it is unclear to what extent, if any, China has dismantled its existing military plutonium production plants but it is believed to have shut them down. Precisely when they were shut down and precisely how much plutonium they produced is not known.

>>32255467
see
>>32255463

>AUGUST 5, 2016
>AUGUST 5, 2016
>AUGUST 5, 2016
>AUGUST 5, 2016

>>32255463
>Now, Fuck Off!
From your own source.

As for plutonium, it is unclear to what extent, if any, China has dismantled its existing military plutonium production plants but it is believed to have shut them down. Precisely when they were shut down and precisely how much plutonium they produced is not known.

>>32255440

So...the only news source that's accurately reporting on what is actually happening in the world, rather than being an extension of the state's propaganda apparatchiks?

>>32255469
>>32255463
No one is denying that they have a stockpile of material anon.

The point is that they are not currently producing more.

Why don't you stay on topic?

>>32255470
So, shifting the goalpost now?

16-18 tonnes of HEU and 1.8 tonnes of Plutonium is the consensus.

Now, fuck off and go suck Opps cock.

>>32255477
That was for their current stockpile being enough for at least 500 more nuclear bombs.

As for continued enrichment, there are no news regarding that and I doubt that the Chinese will ever reveal that voluntarily.
Why should they?

This is why I said "silent rush to parity".

>>32255461
>I already pointed this out to Opp almost a year again.

I don't recall that.

But the point is that the existing processing facilities are producing material for their civilian nuclear power program, not for weapons.

>>32255463
>>32255469
They have a stockpile. They are not producing more.

>>32255397
>nominal 20-kiloton explosive devices.

Wow, it's fucking nothing!

>>32255491
>This is why I said "silent rush to parity".
Which you have 0 evidence for.

>>32255497
>I don't recall that.

May this year when I argued that China's nuclear doctrine has been changing.

>They have a stockpile. They are not producing more.
[Citation needed]
As far as I can tell, the most recent stories show that they are. Then again, GlobalTimes is Chinese Breitbart

>>32255479
>So, shifting the goalpost now?
No.
The claim was that China is enriching material to make more bombs.
Then evidence was provided that they are no longer producing material for bombs.
Now you are just down to saying that they have a stockpile for more weapons.

Even 500 more nuclear weapons will not bring them to parity with the US.

>>32255510
>the most recent stories show that they are
They produce more for civilian programs. If you have stories that they are producing more weapons grade material (not more reactor fuel) I would be happy to read them.

>May this year
Yes I remember now.

>>32255510
>GlobalTimes
Is owned by the Peoples Daily. Nothing they publish, especially in the OpEd section, is going to be contrary to the wishes of the party.

>>32255510
>the most recent stories show that they are


>>32255491
>there are no news regarding that


You should make up your mind.

>>32255491
>This is why I said "silent rush to parity".

For what purpose? The only ones who can use nuclear weapons are terrorists, so those 5000 bombs have to be guarded with an extraordinary effort, that's a lot of manpower and money for no gain whatsoever.

For simple deterrence more than 50 is not needed because that's more than enough to send any potential enemy back to the stone age.

>>32255566
>For simple deterrence more than 50 is not needed because that's more than enough to send any potential enemy back to the stone age.

You shouldn't post dumb things about nuclear weapons

>>32255566
>more than 50 is not needed

The US has 450 in silos alone.

>>32255578
>>32255588
Can you even name 50 places in the USA which would warrant a 5 mt nuke?

Hitting air force bases and harbors is pointless, without the economic heartland and steady supply of goods/services they're not going to stay open for very long.

>>32255600
Whatever damage your hypothetical nation might do with 50 nuclear weapons, it will pale in comparison to the damage that the US response will bring.

50 nuclear weapons do not pose an existential threat to the US. It would end the US as a global economic power, but the nation would survive and rebuild.

The response would devastate the attackers. The 1000 US warheads would pose an existential risk to the attacking nation.


Minimal deterrence can only deter so much. It is not designed to fight a nuclear war. It is designed to deter action that might be mounted in response to crises with a limited nature.
In the example of China, the US is not willing to sacrifice its position as economic leader and its citizens over sand bars in the SCS.
This does not mean that there are not events that would spur the US to consider such a risk. This does not mean that miscalculation by either side would not result in escalation to a nuclear exchange.

>>32255666
>USA and China have a war
>USA and China fire their nukes, 50 vs 1000
>"It would end the US as a global economic power"
>"The 1000 US warheads would pose an existential risk to the attacking nation"
>And then Ivan invades both disarmed sides

Someone sure is "winning", so if you lose with 50 and you lose with 1000 why should you chose the 1000 option for a higher cost?

>>32255191
>Oppenheimer threads are against the rules.

>He will get banned if he shows up
I refuse to believe that the ONLY tripfag who never shitposts around here will be banned for posting here. And it'd almost be enough to make me leave /k/.

>>32255705
The US is not disarmed in that scenario.
They still have about 500-600 warheads as well as NATO.

>>32255175
Call us when they start storing the warheads and delivery systems anywhere near each other.

>>32255212
>cake as a source

>>32255191
>Hurr durr intsec isn't /k/

How new are you?

>>32255212
And what did Portal teach you about cake?

>>32255341
Let's also not forget about launch vehicles, launch sites, deployment, fueling, total time from order to strike, and probably some more shit I'm overlooking.

>>32255666
But how many of those 50 would actually reach their targets? Are Chinese delivery systems reliable?

Are our ICBM defenses reliable?

>>32255781
I left for a while when we lost Boof, Ivan, and Johnny in the same year.

>>32255781
I was going to say it's a moot point because he already dropped his trip anyway but apparently he's right here.

China should build more nuclear arms to prepare for Trump: Chinese state run newspaper

>>32255175
Why? They will never get a chance to use them because of M.A.D

What a waste of money

>>32255175
China denies shooting down Myanmar fighter jet Anonymous

The reports quoted some analysts claiming that the PLA artillery fired warning shots at Myanmar jets that entered China's airspace and that the fleeing jet accidentally hit the shells, which led to its crash, state run Global Times reported.
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/china-denies-shooting-down-myanmar-fighter-jet/articleshow/55847660.cms

China Military official "We did nothing! We are victim! Neighbours are planning something bad!"

>>32255212

I don't know the validity of using a cake as a source, but now I really want cake.

>>32260446
Yellow Cake?

>>32260322
>Yeah, we totally 360-no-scoped a fighter

>>32255212
>China is already on a silent rush to parity in nuclear weapons fields.
That's just ass pulling. If China really had no more warheads, they would immediately let the world know. There's no point to having nukes if everyone assumes you have less of it.