Georgetown students shed light on China’s tunnel system for nuclear weapons

My response to a placement of missiles in Chavezland would be to declare a state of war with both nations.This need not involve real military action but would all us the total pnaply of actions that are allowed belligerents. Blockade land,sea,air, asset seizure,trade interdiction anywhere outside territory of neutrals, aid to opposition movements in and out of country, transfer of assets to govts in exile . Insurance rates would skyrocket, trade would decrease to a trickle,the regimes would be destabilized and not many shots fired.

Whats even more scary is that Russia also possesses thousands of miles of these tunnels for its own nuclear arsenal. China likely has about 4,000 nukes Russia/CIS likely has about 12,000 nukes (nukes in other CIS countries would be controlled by Russia).

No, that is not nearly as scary. Not even in the same order of magnitude. Why? Because the Soviets have had those for years - actually, make that decades - and was there any thermonuclear war between the West and the Soviets? No. They have had thousands upon thousands of nuclear warheads, many hundreds of delivery systems of every sort and type ranging from boomers prowling under the arctic, ICBMs on railways, even nuclear landmines. Soviet military doctrine was to quickly move to the nuclear option the moment their conventional forces started to get overwhelmed. At the time when the USSR was at its most powerful and could (at least theoretically) be considered a superpower, when the Warsaw Pact faced off against NATO, when the world came very close to nuclear warfare a couple of times (ranging from the Cuban missile crisis when things got a tad bit dicey, to even more closer calls when the Soviets thought they were under attack due to glitches in their early warning system - and still did not launch). Yet, no nuclear war. Why? Because MAD existed, and no matter how crazy the Russians are they are not stupid.

Comparing the nuclear arsenal of the Russians to the new and increasing nuclear arsenal of the Chinese, and saying that it is 'scarier,' is like someone commenting that some lion in Africa is 'scarier' than the mass-murderer-pedophile-arsonist who just moved in next door! Logically plausible (yes, the lion is 'scarier' in technical terms), but functionally stupid (yes, stupid - the lion is thousands of miles away, yet the perp is bl@@dy next door!).

The Russian nuclear stockpile is indeed larger than the Chinese stockpile, but it has been large for decades without anyone lighting off, and even when the Soviets had some semblance of power, and during periods when things were looking hairy, nothing atomic happened. The Chinese stockpile is growing quickly, and while this doesn't mean there will be nuclear war (like the Russians, the Chinese are not stupid), what it does mean is that the Chinese will have growing influence and the ability to do things without anyone having much to do about it. For instance, if I was a Taiwanese legislator or Vietnamese general or any number of countries that have a political (e.g. the Taiwanese 'breakaway province' per China) and/or economic (e.g. the oil rich reserves in the South China sea that are claimed by several nations, including China) I would be ensuring that I build up my defensive options (preferably something survivable but cheap enough to get in sizeable numbers - maybe a dozen plus advanced AIP-DE submarines armed with anti-ship cruise missiles). Why? Because when China is able to move about at will in a couple of years, there is nothing that the US will do about it.

By the way, continuing down the spectrum. In the same way I rank the Russian nuclear stockpile MUCH lower (in terms of threat) than the fast-growing Chinese nuclear stockpile, I also rank the Chinese nuclear stockpile MUCH MUCH lower than ONE NUCLEAR BOMB in the hands of Al Queda.

Same logic as before. A murderer-arsonist-pedophile next door is not as bad as a murderer-arsonist-pedophile in your bedroom, standing over you sleeping, holding a knife and having visions of smearing your bloody viscera over his face.

But, the Russians have been working diligently to keep their arsenal up to date. They have an effective nuclear triad, and are the only country to have an effective road ICBM. And, yes, they can put these into other CIS countries without violating any treaties as long as they remain under Russian control.

And the same thing goes for Russia and the CIS going into Georgia or Eastern Europe (Poland, Czech Republic, ect). NATO won’t go to their aid because it will be too weak to do so.

But, the Russians have been working diligently to keep their arsenal up to date. They have an effective nuclear triad, and are the only country to have an effective road ICBM. And, yes, they can put these into other CIS countries without violating any treaties as long as they remain under Russian control.

I agree with you on that. They have been spending a lot of money to keep their arsenal upgraded (and even during the 90s when their economy was dead and their military was rusting, the only service that kept receiving money was the rocket forces). My point is that they have had a large arsenal (and larger than the US) for decades. Nothing has happened. The fast-growing Chinese arsenal is a new factor being added to the mix. Not as powerful (yet!), but something that was not in existence before at such a level. Thus, the mix goes from the US and Russia (when it comes to nations with large nuclear stockpiles) to the US and Russia and China.

My point wasn't that Russia is not a potential threat, or that they don't have weapons - it was that they have been that for many decades (and at a time when they were vastly more powerful and had far more sway as part of the USSR which was then a superpower, with the Warsaw Pact bristling at NATO, and basically the Soviet Bear having global influence) ...and yet ...no nuclear war. MAD worked perfectly.

China on the other hand has also had nuclear weapons for quite some time now, but never at this level. Why is this important (and far more dangerous than Russia's 'effective nuclear triad' and 'road ICBMs')?

Well, that simple!

Because it means that those weapons are no longer solely for self-defense/deter purposes. If you needed nuclear weapons as a deterrence then you would not need more than a dozen (or a couple dozen at most). For the longest time China was said to have a couple hundred (around 2-3 hundred). For it to start having a couple of thousand warheads means a change in doctrine, or at least in the potential strategies available for it.

It is like (to use another example) the Mexican cartels suddenly investing in thousands of Kalashnikovs, grenades, drug hauling trucks, tunneling equipment, and mini-submarines for furtive drug transportation. Now, that can mean a couple of things - it can mean they have a lot of money and just decided to spend it on equipment and weapons, or it could mean that they are about to embark on a massive drug transportation initiative.

Sure, the Russians could move in and do a lot in their area of influence without the US doing much about it. For example a couple of years ago they whooped Georgia, and all Shakasvisli (or however one spells his name) could do is hide and wonder why no one came to his assistance.

Now, compare that with the number of countries that are concerned with China. The list is interesting and includes Japan, India, Australia, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, Viet Nam, South Korea. That is a list of nations that have undertaken significant military purchases because of one country. A country that has had a tremendous increase in its conventional forces (especially in terms of their quality), as well as in its nuclear capabilities. A country that, to use one example, has stated that the whole of the South China sea 'belongs' to it. A country that has taken its nuclear capability several magnitudes beyond what is necessary for deterrence. Again, with 300 warheads you have more than enough to deter ANY country from doing something silly - the moment you start going into the thousands basically it is to ensure something else, and the only two nations you would be targeting are the US or Russia ...no other country would require that many warheads. Now, if you put two and two together, if China made a move to grab the oil in the South China sea, which country would try to stop it that may require those warhead numbers to serve as not just a deterrent but also a real and present threat?

Thunder90 - there is something that Pervez Musharraf once said that I agree with (probably the only thing I agree with him on). He said that when analyzing a threat he considers two things - intent and capability. However, of the two he considers capability the most important since intent can change at any given moment. For the longest time Russia (as the Soviets) had ill intent and true capability. Nothing happened. China has had all forms of various intent, but never had capability ...now it has capability. The number of possible foe nations with capability have gone from one (Russia/USSR) to two (Russia and China).

Yet you think that is not an issue and Russia is still the biggest problem? Because it has an 'effective nuclear triad' and 'road ICBMs?' It has had those for decades. A new country has come into the mix with effective capability to directly engage the US, and that is a lesser issue. I am sorry, but it is a big issue, especially when that nation has a strong economy, is rapidly developing, has a vast military that is getting more technologically advanced, is working on measures and strategies directly geared at opposing or mitigating against United States capabilities, and has made statements about geographic and economic territories that other nations claim sovereignity over. Yet that is a lesser threat against a shadow of a former superpower that, even at the height of its power, never lit a nuclear furnace?

I don't know, but that seems very much like showing statistics that state an African lion is more dangerous (in terms of strength, speed, power) than a human being who is an ax murderer, and forgetting to consider that that ax murderer just bought the house you share the same fence with.

But the Russians also have a dangerous history of expansionism. They recently invaded Georgia, and would love to have Eastern Europe back (Not the “Near Abroad”, but Poland, ect.

No it doesn’t; there’s no such thing as “unknown” missile launches near either left-coast of the USA.

Anybody that believes otherwise should put the crank pipe down - get their teeth extracted - and take up smoking crack as their next hobby.

“unknown” misslile launches off of either left-coast of the USA is absolute nonsense.

But the Russians also have a dangerous history of expansionism. They recently invaded Georgia, and would love to have Eastern Europe back (Not the “Near Abroad”, but Poland, ect.

I am not disagreeing with that. I am not saying they are not a danger. All I am saying is they have been a danger for the last half century, and nothing nuclear has happened.

They have also been the only real existential danger to the United States for half a century, and nothing nuclear has happened. Over half a century.

Now, the US is getting a SECOND existential danger (by which I mean not only having nuclear weapons, but having them in a quantity that directly poses an existential danger - sure Pakistan and North Korea have nuclear weapons, but it is at a different level than Russia - and now China - have). When you go from one existential threat that you have managed to have a over 50-year 'nuclear relationship' with (due to MAD) that has been maintained even in the face of intense bricksmanship (e.g. what the Soviets were doing in Cuba) to erroneous but critical information (when Soviet early warning systems mistook a weather condition for a massive early attack by the US, and the person in charge of the Soviet response refused an order to retaliate until he was sure) ...and nothing happening for over a century.

Going from having one threat to TWO is a big change! A dangerous change.

A change that raises a lot of questions on why a country would need to go from a deterrence nuclear arsenal to one number in thousands!

You may not consider that a threat, and you may rank China's push in the Asia and Oceanic region (that has caused significant issues among the Australians, Indians, South Koreans, Japanese, Vietnamese, Indonesians, Taiwanese and Malaysians) a non-issue. That is ok - you have every right to believe as you will.

However, the move from having one possible existential threat to two, especially in such a relatively short term, and by a nation that has taken measures specifically targeted against the US ...in my book, that is a greater danger. By far.

Not only in my book though - it would appear the US military heads are taking the same view considering the attention they are placing towards China's rise compared to Russia (whether it is investment in capabilities that can handle China's developments in anti-ship ballistic missile technology, all the way to increased measures to get closer to India - even to the point of offering the F-35 - as a means of having a stronger bastion in the region). So, you may think what I am saying is crap, but it seems that the US military (as well as the militaries and governments of the nations I named above) seem to take my view and not yours.

But the Russians also have a dangerous history of expansionism. They recently invaded Georgia, and would love to have Eastern Europe back (Not the “Near Abroad”, but Poland, ect.

Oh, and by the way - China claims certain parts of India as its own territory, claims large tracts of Siberia as its own territory (that were allegedly taken while it was too wrapped up in the Opium Wars, and these are territories that are extremely rich in resources), has claimed the entire South China sea as its own, claims the whole of Taiwan as a renegade province, has issues with Japan and Vietnam. I guess it is ok to ignore all of that, right? Also, I'd say that the huge surge in arms spending (especially certain attack capabilities) is simply so they can parade that equipment in military parades, right? Deep investment in area-denial capabilities such as the anti-ship ballistic missile geared against US carriers, advanced integrated air-defense systems that can actually cover part of Taiwan from China, and active hacking of US defense systems and blinding of satellites was all for the fun of it, right? Finally, China's nuclear arsenal going from 300-400 to around 3,000 was just for the fun of it, right?

As I said, you are allowed to have your opinion. It doesn't mean it is right though.

Maybe you missed it about this time last year, it was in all the papers and on the net with video footage.

Many veteran squids and zoomies positively identified it as a sub surface ICBM launch in broad daylight off the coast of S Cali. All branches of the US .mil said it wasn’t theirs. Looks like the Chinese are telling us they now have both offensive and defensive nuclear capability complete with operational delivery systems for all of the above.

Personally, I don’t give a damn, I won’t be fighting the “Big Red One”, but you youngns may get an opportunity to if you are east of the Rockies when it all starts. Those west of the Rockies will see a rare event just before they die, the sun rising from the west.