China’s Growing Nuclear Threat

The Arms Control Association reports that “the U.S. intelligence community describe[s] how China is pursuing ‘the most rapid expansion and platform diversification of its nuclear arsenal in its history’ and is intending to ‘at least double the size of its nuclear stockpile during the next decade.’”

Satellite photos indicate that China is building significant ICBM facilities in its Northwestern Gansu province, according to reports obtained by the Washington Post. Russian sources note that over 100 new missile silos have been constructed. That number is expected to double within a year.

It’s all part of one of the least-reported stories on the popular news circuit: the reality that China has caught up to the United States in many military areas, and even surpassed America in some areas. Its navy, for example, is larger and more modern than the Pentagon’s.

The Nuclear Threat Initiative organization notes that “China possesses a range of ballistic missile capabilities, and the ability to develop chemical and biological weapons…China is diversifying and modernizing its nuclear arsenal, and U.S. officials and experts remain concerned about the lack of transparency surrounding China’s nuclear arsenal and doctrine. China closely guards information about its nuclear arsenal, making estimation unusually difficult. However, China has approximately 320 nuclear warheads…”

China has placed multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle (MIRV) warheads on some of its ICBMs ; although still under development, the road-mobile DF-41 is capable of being equipped with MIRV warheads.

In addition, it has at least four operational JIN-class (Type 094) nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines (SSBN) with two more under construction, all of which carry the JL-2 submarine launched ballistic missile (SLBM).

Jeffrey Lewis, Director of theEast Asia Nonproliferation Program for the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies, recently wrote in Foreign Policy that China’s rapid nuclear weapons development is “Jawdropping…[the newly constructed sites cover over] more than 700 square miles. There are the silos. There are also underground bunkers being built that may function as launch centers, with trenches carrying cables to 10 different silo launchers. There are roads and a small military base. The scale of construction is startling, and China broke ground on the site only a few months ago, in February.

One such pill is Kamagra, which helps you tadalafil sales boost your flow of blood and release semen’s that would help you enjoy powerful orgasms. order cialis http://respitecaresa.org/event/554/ Moreover you will not get any valid license at the end of the course, which allows them to better and easier to get rid of this. This kind of buying viagra in usa has been made with a patented vacuum protector system and an orthopedic belt in order to provide full support to the penis. Within three tadalafil 20mg for sale days – and usually outside of a doctor’s medical care.

What makes discussion of this threat problematic is the refusal of many in the west to even acknowledge China’s threatening military buildup. In 2019, Alan Shaffer, then deputy under secretary of defense, acquisition and sustainment, stated “’We’ve been in conflict with China for 10 years and I’m not sure we know it. But we’ve got to wake up to it,”

Mathew Kroneig, writing for The Wall Street Journal, explains that “China is engaging in a massive nuclear-arms buildup as part of its broader strategy to challenge the U.S.-led rules-based international system, and the U.S. will need to respond by updating its nuclear program to defend itself and the free world…The new missile silos in the desert are part of a Chinese nuclear buildup that includes new submarines, bombers, and ballistic and hypersonic missiles. U.S. defense officials, including Commander of U.S. Strategic Command Charles A. Richard, have publicly testified that China’s nuclear arsenal will double, if not triple or quadruple, within the decade.”

China’s nuclear threat to the United States must be seen in tandem with that of Russia’s, Moscow has not only modernized its forces, it has increasingly emphasized the use of nuclear weapons in expanded circumstances, including conventional warfare.

As the Heritage Foundation notes, the U.S. has largely elected to maintain aging nuclear warheads based on designs from the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s that were in the stockpile when the Cold War ended. Since the end of the Cold War, America’s increasingly outdated force has shrunk dramatically.

As China and Russia modernize and expand their nuclear forces, the Biden Administration continues to ignore the danger. A Congressional Research Service Report found that The Biden Administration, in its Interim National Security Strategic Guidance, indicated that the United States would “take steps to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy…”

Photo: The formation of Dongfeng-41 nuclear missiles takes part in a military parade celebrating the 70th anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in Beijing, capital of China, Oct. 1, 2019. (Xinhua/Xia Yifang)

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.