39

From the wikipedia page about the number of nuclear weapons we see that China only has 250 nukes, which puts it in the same league as France or the UK, and way under the 1000+ actives held by Russia and the US. That number has been unchanged for decades.

Yet, China is putting some major effort in deploying better weapon systems, has a somewhat aggressive foreign policy in the South China sea area, along with a number of deep held priorities, like Taiwan, that might involve the US against it.

Besides equipment that is still catching up to the West, Chinese troops lack experience, especially compared to US forces that have amassed considerable combat experience, albeit against technologically inferior foes, over the last 18 years.

This part is especially important, as nuclear weapons don't rely on combat-seasoned troops.

Last, but not least, the fledgling Anti Ballistic Missile defenses the US has deployed are not credible against a full-on Russian launch, but are more relevant against an opponent that has a limited number of nukes at hand. China is above that threshold, but not by much.

Have there been indications from China why they have not much strengthened their nuclear forces? They have the technology, funding and are not averse to competing in other areas. They're not much bound by law or treaties, being a recognized nuclear power, having their UN veto, and not being party to the various nuclear disarmament treaties signed between the US and Russia. It seems like it would go a long way to equalize their position wrt the US.

Note: while I don't rule out an official Chinese government explanation, nuclear armament is certainly a domain where countries use a lot of spin in describing what they are up to.

Also, I am mostly interested in the reasons for this restraint from a realpolitik Chinese military planning point of view, rather than other perspectives which, correctly, find nuclear reduction a laudable goal.

Italian Philosophers 4 Monica
  • 83,219
  • 11
  • 197
  • 338

6 Answers6

71

"Only 250"?

That's plenty for their purposes. Nukes are meant to be seen, not heard. Even if the US could intercept 99/100 missiles, having 250 means china can deliver a devastating enough attack that the US is encouraged to avoid the scenario at almost all costs. That's reasonable deterrence for their particular threat model, and for a fledgling superpower, it fits their needs.

250's also more than enough to fend off local challenges, like another Japanese invasion for example. There's little tactical advantage to being able to blow up the world ten times instead of just once. A shotgun might be more deadly than a pistol, but either one can easily kill you. Development is massively expensive, polluting, and physically risky, so why waste effort on over-kill?

It makes no sense for them to "catch up" with Russia and the USA.

Tashus
  • 160
  • 5
dandavis
  • 3,144
  • 2
  • 16
  • 16
36

There are different approaches to nuclear strategy, deterrence, and warfighting.

For deterrence, you want a credibly survivable second strike capability. That is, so many and so well hidden or hardened missiles that you can inflict unacceptable damage to the enemy even after the enemy strikes you first, without warning.

  • Estimate how many major cities would be acceptable damage to your enemy.
  • Estimate how many surviving missiles you need to overcome the enemy defenses, if any.
  • Estimate how many of your missiles the enemy can destroy with a "bolt from the blue" attack.
  • Multiply to find out how many weapons you need to inflict unacceptable damage.

During the Cold War, the UK had what was dubbed the "Moscow Criterion." They wanted to be sure that, if the Soviet Union destroyed the entire UK, they could still destroy a place like Moscow, or Leningrad, or Kiev. Their estimate was that for deterrence purposes, putting one such city at risk would be enough. The Royal Navy got themselves enough ballistic missile submarines that one should be at sea at all times.

The kind of attack this envisions is called a countervalue targeting. Another option is a counterforce first strike.

Counterforce means attacking the enemy nuclear (and conventional) forces to take them out before they can launch. Both the US and the Soviet Union envisioned that as an option during the Cold War and built the necessary arsenals. While a counterforce attack would have been unlikely to work completely, it might have decisively blunted the enemy second strike.

Killing a city is much easier than killing a hardened missile silo, so counterforce arsenals have to be bigger than countervalue arsenals.

Finally, there is the question of tactical use. Both the US and the Soviet Union had nuclear weapons to attack armies in the field, which is also harder than attacking cities.

chirlu
  • 5,772
  • 5
  • 27
  • 32
o.m.
  • 108,520
  • 19
  • 265
  • 393
  • 2
    So are you saying that China has adopted more of a second strike capability, vs the US and USSR which built arsenals capable of first, second, and tactical strikes? – divibisan Dec 12 '19 at 17:20
  • 8
    @divibisan, it looks that way, but China might well have a first strike capability against India or North Korea. Unlikely that they would do that, probably. – o.m. Dec 12 '19 at 17:32
  • 6
    @divibisan the PRC has a stated no-first-use policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_first_use#China – llama Dec 12 '19 at 17:33
  • 2
    I guess I'm trying to get at the tl;dr for this, which I'm guessing is that China has a different approach to the use of Nuclear weapons that the US or USSR during the Cold War, and that approach requires fewer weapons – divibisan Dec 12 '19 at 17:35
  • 14
    @divibisan, yes. Their publicly stated doctrine is a minimal viable deterrent, not a warfighting capability. What is minimal against the US or USSR is plenty on a regional basis, however. – o.m. Dec 12 '19 at 18:34
  • 1
    Fair enough and exactly what I was looking for. However, there is a bit of difference between the UK/France vis-a-vis USSR and that of China vs. USA. Neither France or the UK were any real threat to the USSR, so the deterrence only needed to stop the USSR from initiating something that was purely its choice. China, esp in the coming decades, will be different. The US may, at some point, seriously consider itself to be under threat and could take a "stop China now, or it will be too late" position. In that case, the numbers start to look different. – Italian Philosophers 4 Monica Dec 12 '19 at 19:46
  • Look at the Cuban Missile Crisis. There the US basically dared the USSR, not because they would not take any losses, but because it would be disproportionately to the USSR's disadvantage. But this is only understood in the context that the USSR was a real and credible existential threat to the US, unlike UK-to-USSR. Looking at worst-case scenarios, why would China assume a more benign US behavior, in that type of context? Thucydides Trap outlines my thinking background a bit. – Italian Philosophers 4 Monica Dec 12 '19 at 19:49
  • @ItalianPhilosophers4Monica, it remains to be seen if the Chinese will change their nuclear posture in the coming decades. This will also depend on the other nuclear powers. – o.m. Dec 13 '19 at 06:28
  • Regarding "second strike capabilities", it should be noted that you don't have to wait for nukes to land before retaliating. A positive launch is enough of a casus belli. So in theory, the second strike would happen before the first strike hits, i.e. while you still have your full capabilities. – AmiralPatate Dec 13 '19 at 08:23
  • 1
    @AmiralPatate if you "launch on alert" you are running a very high risk of starting a war accidentally. that's why very low nuke numbers can be extremely dangerous - IF their deployment doctrine includes not waiting for actual strike confirmation to counterlaunch. the US and USSR numbers need to be understood in the context that they both had a tacit agreement to ride out the first strike due to concerns about false alarms. for example, see Stanislav_Petrov – Italian Philosophers 4 Monica Dec 13 '19 at 21:13
  • 1
    @AmiralPatate Wikipedia also has a list of other examples that illustrate ItalianPhilosophers's point, including even the Norwegian rocket incident in 1995, years after the fall of the Soviet Union. – reirab Dec 13 '19 at 22:08
  • 1
    Just as a thought, perhaps China is waging war on an economic level rather than a nuclear weapon level. It's unlikely that a nuclear weapon, in the modern era, would ever be unleashes against a country for a variety of reasons. It makes it even more unlikely that China would be targeted if it is a vital economic and manufacturing partner to most other nations. Also, if you win the economic war, you wint the supremacy war in a way that is self-maintaining, whereas war via weapon domination gets lost eventually. – Brian C Dec 14 '19 at 00:57
  • @BrianC that makes sense. In a way, this both reassures the US and forces them to compete on a conventional military level. If nuclear weapons can't be used, then China having just a bit but essentially semi-baring its throat for the rest makes it very difficult for the US to go nuclear even if it really wished to. But it still leaves them with nukes vs everyone else. Boost the economy until the US can't follow in conventional forces budget and let them hang on to their useless nukes. Come to think of it, that's pretty much what everyone does with Putin anyway. Hmmm... – Italian Philosophers 4 Monica Dec 14 '19 at 04:39
  • @ItalianPhilosophers4Monica Petrov went against protocol by dismissing the launch alert as a false alarm. What does that tell you about the protocol? Obviously, in the incidents we know of, there's always someone in the chain of command that does not positively identify the launch. In Petrov's case, he didn't not recognise the alarm as genuine, because he thought the US would launch a lot more missiles than that. – AmiralPatate Dec 16 '19 at 08:05
  • @divibisan China only had (until recently at least) very limited capability to strike far outside its borders, so the number of targets for their arsenal was limited. Mostly it was Taiwan, a few cities in lightly defended areas of Russia, and Japan. Hence no need for a massive nuclear arsenal. Expect their forces to expand now that they have longer range weapons. – jwenting Dec 16 '19 at 10:57
  • I am going to accept this. It's somewhat lacking in China particulars, but no one else has really offered any and it is the closest one that sticks to military planning. – Italian Philosophers 4 Monica Dec 20 '19 at 16:15
  • @AmiralPatate Petrov had the luxury to make that call because he knew the USSR would not have its second strike capability wiped out by a first strike. Not to a level acceptable to the US anyway. If the USSR had had only 30 "launch on alert birds" ready it would have been a different calculation. He still took a massive gamble, but it was in a context where he knew the US would not be expecting to get away without grievous consequences. That's what MAD is all about. And his superiors may still have taken the same decision as Petrov, for the same reasons. Launch on alert is just dumb. – Italian Philosophers 4 Monica Dec 29 '19 at 06:49
4

Nukes are expensive to create and to keep. Keeping is the worse part - it takes a small army just to guard them adequately, you need to keep a great deal of smart people around to maintain them and be ready to operate them and you have to keep both the small army and the smart people loyal for an extended period of time (e.g. forever).

Generally, everyone made (back then) the ammount proportional to their economic, military and human potential (Russia is a separate case). When the world nuclear ballance formed (a few decades ago) China was "in the same league" (or even lower) as France / UK. In the meantime, the world changed and nukes are no more the most important (politically) military asset so everyone keeps whatever it has.

Making more nukes is hard politically (expenses) and generally frowned upon world-wide, reducing them is also hard because it can be seen as making the country weaker.

fraxinus
  • 6,100
  • 11
  • 31
3

China has a different culture from that of the West. Which makes them think in a different way.

If you look at military conflict only in the short-term and only inside the geographical area of military operations, then clearly having more and better weapons than your opponents is what you need.

But if you take a long-term view and look at the whole world, rather than just the immediate theater of war, then you need to worry about not destroying the whole world, not committing inadvertent suicide, and not looking bad in front of civilian populations around the world, who are all threatened by nuclear war.

Threatening to destroy the whole world and having the means to do it is bad public relations. Because most civilians around the world see such threats as threats against them.

Threatening people is bound to make you unpopular among them. And when you threaten the whole world, then this makes you really unpopular.

Superior weapons are only good for winning a battle. Which isn't the same as winning the war. Because you can win your battles and lose the war. That's what happened with USA in Vietnam, in Iraq, and in Afghanistan.

I think this is the reason why China's strategy is so different from that of USA. The Chinese see the politics of it and not just the military side. Because military isn't everything. It's just a part of a much bigger picture.

In a recent survey of people in 65 countries, most people said that USA is the biggest threat to world peace. And surprisingly, even in countries allied with USA, people had this view of USA. While China isn't anywhere close to that.

https://brilliantmaps.com/threat-to-peace/

Which means that USA is losing the hearts and minds of people around the world, compared to China.

Threatening people is never good public relations. The Chinese see this, but the Americans don't, perhaps due to their cultural differences.

  • 1
    +1 because I think they are playing a different game indeed, at least nuke-wise. but their attitude is hardly super-peaceful and has been rather worrying as of late. Spratleys for example is a ridiculous land grab, while their threats about Taiwan are anything but peaceful. To say nothing of the Uighurs. I really don't wish to see Cold War 2 happening - and I'd rather the world come to terms with a benign but dominant China. But anyone who thinks the Chinese will necessarily be better as sole superpower than the US is rather naive, IMHO. – Italian Philosophers 4 Monica Dec 15 '19 at 02:36
  • Trying to be a sole superpower, who tells everybody in the world what to do is bad public relations. Because people in other countries see this as imperialism and dictatorship, even when a democratic country does this. Because the democracy is only internal. People from other countries don't get to vote for the superpower's government. I don't think China will go this route. They have some regional ambitions and disagreements. And they'll probably keep it at that. Because they understand that in the long-term, politics matters more than military. –  Dec 15 '19 at 08:30
  • Yup, like I said, tell that to their Spratleys neighbors, Tibet, etc... Especially the Spratleys is really odd behavior because the 9 lines map or whatever they call it is farcical and so over the top in its rapacity and it wasn't initiated under Mao like Tibet. They may end up being chill and good guys. Or they may not. Right now, the signs aren't super good, especially since Xi has been in charge. At least at a regional level, they don't seem to be that nice a neighbor. Keep in mind - as it's not a democracy the CCP relies quite a bit on nationalism for justification. – Italian Philosophers 4 Monica Dec 15 '19 at 08:57
1

and way under the 1000+ actives held by Russia and the US.

"+1000" is a gross underestimate.

"As of 2019, the U.S. has an inventory of 6,185 nuclear warheads; of these, 2,385 are retired and awaiting dismantlement and 3,800 are part of the U.S. stockpile." - Wikipedia

Glorfindel
  • 3,212
  • 3
  • 24
  • 42
Alex
  • 111
  • 1
  • 5
    first off, this is not an\ answer to the question, but a comment about it. second, while the overall number is much larger, a number of both US/Russia nukes are not fully operational, but rather mothballed. the number of fully actives is < 2000 I believe on both sides. – Italian Philosophers 4 Monica Dec 15 '19 at 02:32
0

For historical reasons

Wikipedia has an article of Nukes over time. There we can sort of see, that China came into the Nukes game, when the US was at its peak (in terms of number of nukes).

So, another very interesting and related question would be: Why are the US and Russia cool with having < 10.000 nukes, when they had north of 30.000?

The answer is technology.

First, there were nuclear free fall bombs. Then, there were the first ICBMs. Finally, there are mobile and silo-based ICBMs, and also nuclear submarines.

Hence, the risk of losing the nuke-delivery system on its way has been greatly reduced over time. Thus, a stockpile of 100 nukes now presents a similar threat as a stockpile of 1000 in the 50s.

Dohn Joe
  • 2,842
  • 9
  • 18