But although the United States and Russia still have much larger nuclear forces than China, Washington and Moscow will find it difficult to reduce their arsenals considerably further unless Beijing restrains its nuclear modernization. Otherwise, US and Russian strategists would fear that China could exploit Russian-American nuclear reductions to strengthen its own nuclear forces in an effort to become an equivalent nuclear power.
Fears about Beijing’s ambitions have worried US and Japanese policy makers concerned about sustaining the credibility of the US extended nuclear deterrence guarantee to protect Japan against Chinese aggression. In the past, American pledges to defend Japan against a nuclear attack from China or North Korea have been a major, perhaps decisive, factor in dissuading Tokyo, which has advanced civilian nuclear capabilities, from developing its own nuclear weapons. A Chinese nuclear surge, even if it didn’t achieve absolute nuclear parity with the United States, would risk undermining Japanese faith in the credibility of US deterrence commitments.
Chinese government representatives deny that they would exploit the opportunity provided by further reductions in the size of the Russian and US nuclear arsenals to ‘sprint to parity.’ Yet, they have never formally affirmed a readiness to join the strategic nuclear arms negotiations once the Russian and American arsenals reached China’s lower level.
In his April 2009 speech in Geneva, Yang declined to commit China to joining international strategic arms reductions negotiations, at best suggesting that Beijing would consider eliminating its own nuclear weapons when everyone destroyed theirs: ‘As countries with the largest nuclear arsenals in the world, the United States and Russia bear special and primary responsibilities in nuclear disarmament. The two countries should continue to drastically reduce their nuclear arsenals so as to create necessary conditions for the eventual complete and thorough nuclear disarmament.’ Like Xu, Yang argued that China had ‘developed limited nuclear capabilities’ only ‘for the purpose of self-defence’ and had never deployed its nuclear forces in foreign countries or participated in a nuclear arms race.
Chinese analysts have tended to disparage previous Russian and American steps to decrease the size of their nuclear holdings. As in past cases, the signing earlier this month of the New START Treaty, which will require further cuts in the size of the Russian and US stockpiles of nuclear warheads and their delivery vehicles, has failed to entice Beijing into joining international strategic arms control negotiations. Indeed, Maj. Gen. Zhu Chenghu, a scholar at China’s National Defense University, observed that, ‘Although there have been major reductions, their symbolic significance far surpasses their practical significance.’
But Chinese policymakers should realize they could see more progress in Russian-American arms reductions if Beijing would participate in the process. Securing a more binding commitment from the Chinese government than simple declarations of intent to restrain the country’s nuclear forces is essential for reassuring Washington and Moscow that further reducing their nuclear arsenals won’t risk undermining global and regional stability.
Richard Weitz writes a weekly column for The Diplomat on Asian defence and security. He is a senior fellow and director of the Hudson Institute’s Center for Political-Military Analysis.
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
Ivan Wang
Reports indicate the PLA are developing a carrier missile killer.This has caused the Pentagon to find ways to defeat such a threat.From my observation it can be two ways. The defence dept may conjure a threat to suck more money from the American tax player for new weapons or the threat from China could be genuine.We won’t know for sure until the shooting starts whic I pray will never happen.
The Chinese aint itching for a fight with the US.They want to make sure they have the means to defend themselves/prevent coercion from the US as in the past.I am 100% /200% sure if China were like Kosovo,Taiwan could well have become independent.The reason is the PLA could destroy Taiwan and devastate US forces sent to help Taiwan.If the US were to inflict more destruction on China,the PLA could likewise cause significant/enormous/unacceptable damage on the conus.
That is why the cmk/d ie carrier missile killer/destroyer is making the Pentagon edgy.
It is not a game changer because the US will still prevail but it aint willing to pay the price. In a war with the PLA,the pentagon will know it is not tangling with Kosovo/Vietnam/Iraq .Btw the fiscal will bite and US forces will be gradually withdrawn from oversea bases.It will take at least fifty years by my reckoning.
Mekhong Kurt
Mr. Wang, you may want to keep an eye out to see if you run across any reports like a few I have regarding the “carrier-killer” missile. A *few* reports have said there are signs China has run into trouble that were both unexpected and significant in the missile’s capabilities. However, I want to stress that I simply don’t know how reliable my sources were.
The challenge must be enormous, especially regarding active targeting. To hit a moving target, unless it’s close in, isn’t an easy task, as fighter pilots with combat experience can attest. (Not me, by the way.) Who knows what kind of electronic protective gear a modern carrier may have at it’s disposal.
All that said, if China does succeed in developing such a weapon, it will give any naval commander excellent reason to pause and reflect. Deployed along the southern China coast (and maybe Hainan Island) would — if the estimated range I’ve read are accurate — give China a formidable force over the northern half of the South China Sea. Add some more on the Spratleys and the Paracel’s, and it would have that force availabe across the entire sea, plus, depending on base locations, the Taiwan Strait and the East China Sea. And, for instance, part of the Philippine Sea, The Strait of Malacca, and parts of the Andaman Sea and Bay of Bengal. Incidentally, if they were to run missile bases right up their east coast, they could hit waters east of Japan, the entire Sea of Japan, and even southern portions of the Sea of Okhotsk. The Russians would be unhappy about the threat to Vladivostok — headquarters of their Pacific Fleet.)
Enjoyed reading your comment.
Albert Twain
Nuclear weapons are never for defense, they are purely offensive. During the cold war russia and the US hopped to gain a decisive adventage, at which point they would have lauched.
This was an era where generals were old school, with no scientific formation, and didn’t understood the danger posed by nuclear weapons. This changed after 3-miles-island (us disaster) and tchernobil (soviet disaster).
Today’s generals in the US and russia understand that nuke are a menace to the planetary survival. (At least I hope so) and are moving toward new systems which make nukes obsolete. Some of thoses are close to science fiction but their reality was clearly demonstrated in tests.
I am deeply worried about China’s unrealistic stance. Are the chinese generals lacking in scientific teaching ? (for considering nukes) Are they lacking in
up to date tactical briefing (for not understanding nukes are no longer a deterant, they’re obsolete).
I’m even more worried that, considering China was deeply affected by the current environmental crisis (desertification, floods, earthquake, etc) they are not focusing on that instead of military posturing. Indeed they even push to exploit oil in the artic, instead of using their might to prevent other countries from exploiting the artic.
<>
You’re behind in the news. Missile shields are obsolete. The new system destroy the missile silo (hopefully before they lauched). Worst case, one missile will be lauched per silo before the sillo is destroyed. The strategy here is preventing missile from exploding in the atmosphere, to avoid causing techernobil-like cloud over china. Believe it or not, the US don’t want chinese to get hurt.
The newer anti-nuke system that disable the missiles in flight isn’t missile powered, and is intantaneous (almost science fiction). The old missile shield system still exist of course, but is kind of redundant.
<>
China and russia been conducting joint millitary exercise. I sincerely hope their leaders review their tactics before they worsten the environemental disater. Doesn’t Russia have some fires to put out in the forests ? Doesn’t China have better things to do like reclaiming the desert ? Isn’t it time for those two countries to prove they can do something positive ? China is the oldest civilisation, and some say the wisest. Isn’t it time to rise up to the opportunity and prove yourself
———————————————–
to the editor (not part of my comments)
Now let’s see if this comment get up or is censored… ;D
This site strikes me as odd.
So far I only see chinese posters here, most of them have odd position, verry different from the chinese friends I have. It seems … fake…
I mean, we’re in the 21st century, I can’t believe someone in china would be pro nuclear war. even in the cold war era, only the craziest russian/american generals had such theories and positions. most other genrals were more reserved.
as for the general population, in both countries, they were against
so who are those posters ?
James
Heard of the Pom saying ‘If you want peace, prepare for war’
Or re-quoted, ‘Deterrent is the best Defense’
If you are weak,Others will meddle in your nation’s affair,as in Iraq and Libya.
So the best defense is to be strong.
Peter Hwang
During the peak of the cold war in the mid 50s to the 60s, US strategy called for the destruction of Red China as it was then known in the event of war between the US and soviet union. Furthermore, other Communist countries like NK,Vietnam and eastern Europe were also targeted. This info can be found in the Freedom of Info Act.
So to the US and its deputy sheriff,Australia,and possee Japan,China is a big threat when it develops the military. In other words, China is the bad guy and the the US the good guy as shown in the films. Well how many wars has the US fought since WW2? It has attacked defenceless countries like Iraq on the flimsy excuse it had WMD.The 9/11 destruction is nothing compared to US bombing operations in Iraq/Afghanistan/Vietnam.US forces are meant to defend the US、 but it is programmed to attack others including China if need be.This is to defend the US from nuclear attack and to defend freedom and democracy.This is figment disguised to attack. Which country in the world is going to attack the US since it is all powerful?
Well when the US attacks,the victim must not be allowed to hit back.Yes it can use nuclear weapons, but others cannot. For the first time in US military history, if the US were to attack China the PLA can devastate US bases outside the US. It’s not only that the Chinese are capable of inflicting unacceptable damage on the CONUS.
Hence the Americans feel very uncomfortable.Yes I know the US will prevail but it ain’t willing to pay the price.Hence the noises about PLA modernisation.The Chinese need not seek mad or parity with US forces.
They are developing the military so that the US won’t think it will be a cheap victory like the Gulf war/opium war or just sending the ac to the Taiwan Straits without firing a tomahawk missile. All good things must come to an end some day.
Btw, so far the US has fought and prevailed against 3rd/4th rate teams. Team China is not in the same league as the US but it will able to score goals against the US which is forbidden. This is something which the other teams are unable to.
Hwang Sze Kwang
China’s nw are for defence. It has only a handful of icbm which the US can easily destroy. Wait a minute. It aint as easy as that.This is not the 50s when US atomic bomb blackmail coerced the Chinese.The Chinese may have more than that and are making a US n attack will cause the PLA to retaliate causing significant/insignificant damage on the conus.The price for a na/victory for the US has gone up and will continue to go up.
Even the planned missile shield won’t make the US immune from Chinese retaliation.The Chinese are modernising thier defences. Is that a threat?
maybe to US forces attacking China. The US cannot expects its forces to be free from counter attack like in Kosovo/Iraq/afghanistan.