[Heiwa]

China's Nuclear Arsenal: No "Sprint to Parity"
https://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_weapons_a ... senal.html
China’s efforts to modernize its nuclear weapons arsenal are aimed at preserving a credible retaliatory threat, rather than signaling a shift toward a more aggressive nuclear posture, according to a new UCS report, China’s Nuclear Arsenal: Status and Evolution.
The report, authored by UCS senior analyst Gregory Kulacki, includes the following key findings:
• China’s nuclear arsenal is small, with an estimated 155 nuclear warheads ready to be deployed on six different types of land-based missiles, approximately 50 of which can reach the continental United States (by contrast, the U.S. has more than 1,700 warheads than can reach China).
• China’s nuclear weapons systems have evolved more slowly and on a smaller scale than those of the U.S. and Russia, in a manner consistent with a strategy based on convincing adversaries that China can retaliate effectively to a nuclear attack—thus deterring attacks and preventing nuclear coercion—rather than on the ability to inflict specific damage on enemy targets.
• Open-source publications show that China’s defense scientists and engineers see improvements in space and missile defense technology as the most significant challenge to the credibility of China’s retaliatory capability. Upgrades to China’s nuclear arsenal are focused on improving delivery systems to meet this challenge, and not on developing new offensive capabilities.
• China has halted production of military plutonium and decommissioned production facilities. A rapid expansion of its nuclear arsenal would require restarting military plutonium production, which would take time and would be observable.
• China has conducted only a small number of nuclear tests compared to the U.S. and Russia, which limits the number of warhead designs it can deploy. U.S. analyzes suggest that China’s smallest tested warhead is too large to permit placing multiple warheads on long-range missiles.
While China's nuclear forces will play an increasingly important role as the United States and Russia continue to reduce their own arsenals, reliable evidence does not support the claim that China is attempting a "sprint to parity" with the two nuclear superpowers, as some U.S. commentators have suggested.
(end)

You wonder if there exist any scientific, proven data China has ever detonated a nuclear bomb?

[FirstClassSkeptic]

I did a little research a few years ago, via the internet, and discovered that there is no evidence that the Chinese have ever made a jet engine. No, seriously. There was even a trade magazine, in pdf file, on the net someplace, and it said that there was no evidence of the Chinese ever making a jet engine. Not even one. All of these Chinese passenger jets you hear about have General Electric engines in them. Made in California, I think. And Parker/Halifan hydraulics, Rockwell/Collins guidance systems, Eaton cockpit control panel, and most other auxiliary systems made in the USA.

A few years ago, you may have heard in the news, that some Pratt and Whitney helicopter engines ended up on Chinese military helicopters. That got P&W in a little trouble. The Chinese were supposed to copy the engines. But with blueprints and working examples, they apparently weren't able to. And these helicopter engines were Vietnam vintage design.

Siemens came out and announced that they had a multimillion contract to sell high speed train parts to the Chinese. The Chinese denied it. Then the story dropped. But I'll bet that the new Chinese high speed train parts were made in Germany, and assembled in China.

I think someone wants us to think the Chinese are very advanced, and are becoming a big threat to the USA. Who could that be?

[rerevisionist]

Your comment reminds me of architecture - some new towns in China have been designed by Sandinavian architects. I read a very laudatory piece some years ago - hypermodern big energy-efficient new town in China - but on trying to relocate it all I could find was new unoccupied ghost towns and small places.
__________________

And another thing. In about 1967 I was told (by a man studying aircraft engineering) that Concorde went through several redesigns. One had low-slung engines, and this design was discontinued, because of the risk of picking up gravel. However, the designers were aware they had a 'Soviet Agent' in the team (Jewish? Money-making? Double-agent? - Who knows) and permitted him to 'secretly' photocopy the designs and pass them on to someone - maybe they met in a London park, dressed like Michael Caine, and said "the geese have flown"? Anyway - hence the Tupelov. I never heard the story again.
___________________

Fred Reed:--
... Bear in mind that a great many countries fear attack by the United States, among them such trivial nations as Russia, China, and Iran. None of these has the money to build carrier groups to oppose those of the Navy.

All of these have thought about cheap ways to overcome the US behemoth. Four solutions soon came to hand:

Very fast sea-skimming cruise missiles, such as the Brahmos and Brahmos II (Mach 5+).
Supercavitating torpedoes, reaching speeds of over 200 miles an hour.
Very quiet submarines, diesel-electrics in the case of poor countries.
Anti-ship ballistic missiles, such as the one attributed to the Chinese.

Any military buff knows that the Navy cannot defend itself against these. It says it can. It has to say it can. ...

I couldn't help wondering if 'Fred Reed' isn't yet another shill type. Dark glasses and cigar look like a possible disguise; all his material is conventional and (I'd guess) aimed at the great mass of not very educated US 'veterans', making their behaviour seem the right thing - just like Hollywood and BBC film of Britons who e.g. supported the mass-murderer Stalin.

Can there be a Chinese missile? I don't know. Certainly (I imagine) it would be easier to buy parts from overseas, but maybe not the crucial bits.

[FirstClassSkeptic]

I used to be on a forum that was machine shop topics. It was a hobby forum when I joined, but it went pro, and got too snobby for me.

There was a poster on there that claimed to be in China. Actually, at times, he seemed to be about three different people, but that may have been the result of the translation software he was using.

He did the usual brag about China, but at times, he seemed more candid. He labeled himself an engineer.

He pretty much agreed once that if the Chinese needed a precise mold for plastics, or a precision bending jig, they would get it made in Japan, Germany or the USA.

He also admitted once that the Chinese didn't understand metallurgy very well.

There was another man on there that was in the USA, and his shop made molds. He said companies brought him molds made in China to rework. He said Chinese made molds never 'ran' right and always had to be reworked. Some others on there made similar comments.

When you make a jet engine, metallurgy is important. And from what I have read, the fins in those turbines are precision cast so that they fit together without machining, or very little. Now, if you don't know metallurgy very well, and you can't make a precise mold, how the hell are you going to make a jet engine?

There was another man on there who told me I was just a racist, and that the Chinese made their first jet engine in 1949. I asked for a source, and posted the trade magazine article that said there was no evidence that the Chinese had ever made a jet engine.

[FirstClassSkeptic]

I couldn't help wondering if 'Fred Reed' isn't yet another shill type.

He claims to be a retired cop from West Virginia, living in Mexico. His occasional forays into political incorrectness seem to be precisely controlled.

In his writing, I can only find tidbits that I like. I thought his comments about a surface navy being obsolete were interesting, and well put. But I think he got the idea from someplace else. Like maybe from here:

https://www.johntreed.com/sittingducks.html

I think this is the article that I quoted earlier that said that atomic aircraft carriers must be refueled every day.

A little more scholarly than Fred.

[rerevisionist]

Good find, FCS. Good website (though I'm not keen on his money-making schemes publications). Maybe I can get him to comment, though he seems to have no germ of scepticism about 'nukes'.

[rerevisionist]

Update on John T Reed: I emailed him, and he emailed back that he saw the headline 'Proofs that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not A bombed' and left the site. I suppose he's just another boy with toys.