How good is the PRC's nuclear deterrent?

pssh...
good enough, kidd...

>>34651898
>I know that the PRC has more warheads than France or Britain
You seem well informed, tell us more.

>>34651950
Well, of course I don't know for sure. I'm just going by publicly available estimates.
Looks like I was off a bit, though. Guess France is estimated to have more warheads:
UK - 120 active / 215 total
France - 280 active / 300 total
PRC - ? active / 270 total
(wikipedia)

Yes, once war starts, the factories making iphones will stop the deliveries. This will cause outcry in America and the Congress will lose overwhelming support and that will stop whatever America is trying to do.

why russia would care for south korea or japan

norks are free to do with those what they want

>>34652050
I'm asking about PRC, not NK :)

>>34651898
its a buncha nukes on a couple missiles

nuclear deterrents are effective by definition, as in they effectively grant you bragging rights and make no difference in the real world since no one has the cajones to use them

>>34652114
>nuclear deterrents are effective by definition, as in they effectively grant you bragging rights and make no difference in the real world since no one has the cajones to use them
Well yeah, that's why they are called deterrents. It's not really about bragging rights, though. Nobody would spend the money it takes to build a nuclear program just for bragging rights. People build them to deter outside threats.

>>34651898

It's shit. A couple times some commanders attempted to seize nukes, including Mao's nephew IIRC. What this means is that China now stores it's warheads separate from the delivery systems under different chains of command. What this also means is that it would take time and effort to fuel the missiles, assemble the missiles to the warheads, put then on the launchers, and launch them. A decapitation strike would cripple them entirely if performed by Russia or the US, especially considering they are behind in MIRV technology and have a low warhead count anyway.

What this means is that they will never use them, the nukes are there as a political tool and bargaining chip if they lose a conventional war. It's an extra ace in the hole at a treaty table.

>>34652363
If that is true, I am surprised that they have not invested the time to build a proper deterrent. Are they still worried, even today, about some rogue political faction seizing the nukes? If so, I wonder why. The USSR leadership never seemed to have such a paranoia.

>>34652398

The KGB had a specific unit dedicated to paradrop on top of and seize rogue nuclear silos. They had political commisars attached to subs, sometimes more than one, sometimes posing as normal crewmen. They were that paranoid. The difference is that they were better at keeping secrets and also nobody ever tries to seize a nuclear arsenal.

The Chinks are updating theirs. They are rolling out their first new MIRVs and their first boomers. They still have a very strict no first use and no escalation policy.

>>34652410

Tried*

>>34652410
Interesting. Thanks for the info, anon.

>>34652398
>Are they still worried, even today, about some rogue political faction seizing the nukes? If so, I wonder why. The USSR leadership
Yes.

It's enough for their political purposes just to have them. Their current doctrine doesn't call for/depend on first strike capability.

>>34651898
The PRC deterrent is primarily based on mobile launchers dispersed throughout the countryside (which is mostly empty). In SHTF type scenarios they think concealment is key to survivable deterrent rather than deep bunkers.
They also have ~5-6 SSBNs, of which one, the Xia, is almost certainly not fully operational and uses outdated shorter range missiles anyway, so it's not a strategic deterrent to the mainland US. Of the remaining boats at any one time only two are estimated to be operational. But they could probably ready the whole fleet of type 94s (4 or 5 boats) given a sufficient build-up. There is also one nuclear capable SSB which is mostly a technology and testing platform, but it exists and can be converted to carry 2 missiles.
MIRV capability is an unknown quantity.
The PLAF also has some tactical weapons for air use.

>>34652020
>PRC - ? active / 270 total

They have like 50 times more capacity for warheads on existing missiles than actual warheads, either most of the missiles have no warheads or they have a lot more than 270 warheads.

>>34652540
>In SHTF type scenarios they think concealment is key to survivable deterrent rather than deep bunkers.

I was in Beijing a few months ago visiting relatives, every underground parking lot doubled as a refugee shelter for citizens etc. The entrances are large blast proof doors that seal off and servicemen guard certain areas which I assume are either supplies or equipment.

>>34652114
*cojones

>>34652398

Unless you trust your army with your nukes, most states would rather choose to simply stockpile plutonium or keep the warheads separated and unarmed than stablish checks and balances for the military, since the first problem of such a system is that its the military the one who would have to check itself for political reliability.

This happens a lot in Arab countries, where loyalty is the main factor when choosing who to promote or send to hell.

Meanwhile the US can delegate all of these matters to the army with certain confidence, the UK too but their nukes aren't actually theirs but rather are under NATO control and France is delegative too(Israel doesn't have nukes, I don't know what you are talking about Goy). And the soviet union sort of falls in the middle, they didn't trust their military but their military surely behaved in Russia and the DDR.

>>34652629
That's only to preserve the civilian and some lower administrative apparatuses that can't be moved on short notice.

Their retaliation infrastructure is fairly mobile and designed around that fact.

>>34652674
Sorry, but UK nukes are NOT under NATO control.
They are UK property and whilst primary role is as part of NATO's strategic deterent, UK has control of them, and retains the right to use them as it sees fit, just as the US does with any warheads on/in vessels assigned to NATO roles.