I think we are safe with regards to deterrence of China. Geez, they are still back in the 60s with regards to some of this technology. While any sane individual in this world would agree that the world does NOT need more nuclear warheads, I don’t see this as a major threat to US interests and CERTAINLY no reason to increase the US arsenal in response – which is my fear…

Given, China is becoming a much more prominent player on the world stage, in many regards. They are developing relationships with many nations that they never had anything to do with before, especially in places like Africa. Energy resources and raw materials are the pretty obvious reasons. With at least 5,000 nuclear warheads under the control of the US and Russia EACH, China probably wants to make sure that it can hurt either nation to sufficient degree to prevent being bullied by a superior nuclear power. Which is how deterrence works, right?

I.e., want the Chinese to stop making new nuclear weapons and delivery systems? Get the US and Russia to REDUCE their own.

Reply: Probably some, although the number is anyone’s guess. Significantly, the DOD estimate of “upwards of 50″ DF-21s is made in the nuclear forces section, so I assume ASAT use will be from another DF-21 inventory. HK

If they are increasing their nuclear arsenal, we, the people of the planet should be outraged. How is it that a nuclear armed country who is a signatory of the NPT can seriously abuse their absolute obligation with such boldness?

Article VI. The states undertake to pursue “negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament”, and towards a “Treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control”.

Where is the strict and effective international control ? When the United States talks to the government from China, as suggested, will they inquire at all about the fact that they are dodging their obligation in Article VI ? Hardly. In fact, in all likelihood, the NPT will not even be breached in their conversation.

At this point, what good will talking do ? We already know their intentions and there is no misunderstanding because nuclear armed countries continue to proliferate at an alarming rate. And who here shall stop them? Talk, has not curbed proliferation. Talk, will not halt the future making of a more versatile thermonuclear weapon. Talk, will not subdue China’s increase in nuclear weaponry. And so far, as I can tell, it is not talk that has saved us thus far from a nuclear weapon being exploded on anybody.

What we do know, without talking, is what each of the nuclear armed countries intentions are. And that is to continue to harbor nuclear weapons, to allow each other in that group to advance their nuclear arsenal if they so wish and to beat the drum ever so softly that all of the other 187 countries in the world should not step forward towards being a part of this very privy club. There are no misunderstandings between nuclear armed countries when they converse because they all are in agreement with he status quo.

Talk, is all we ever do. It’s the listening that we have severe trouble with.

HMB

Reply: You sound very pessimistic about the whole thing. I can’t speak for the people of the whole planet, but I for one certainly am “outraged” – to use your wording – that China is increasing it’s nuclear arsenal. China today is the only nuclear weapon state in the NPT regime that is increasing its arsenal. Doing so while all of the other nuclear weapon states under the treaty are reducing their weapons puts China in conflict with Article VI in a unique way.

But don’t forget that if it were not for talks, neither the NPT nor any of the other agreements that have been reached with “adversaries” would have been possible. Talk – to the extent it produced agreements – has certainly curbed both proliferation and existing nuclear arsenals. But I agree that Article VI would probably not be raised during potential talks between Beijing and Washington. Neither government likes NPT very much if it limits their own activities. Besides, neither China nor the United States are planning to fulfill Article VI anytime soon.

It took decades of Cold War to get down to business with the Russians. Now we’re faced with the challenge of how to create constructive engagement between China and the United States. China is not the Soviet Union, nor are we in a nuclear arms race with China to the extend we were with the Soviet Union. But we’re certainly in a military competition with China. So now – precisely now – is the time to talk to the Chinese.

The Chinese nuclear development is not happening in a bubble of purely nationalistic intentions, but in a complex interaction with the other major military powers in the region. Of those, Russia and the United States may be reducing their overall number of nuclear weapons, but they’re also modernizing what they intend to keep. Part of those inventories are aimed at China. Our government has certainly been clear about that, and the Chinese know. We aim at them; they aim at us.

How to ensure that this tit-for-tat military relationship is not allowed to dominate relations? Dismissing talks, in my view, certainly won’t. HK

Reply: Good catch. They’ve had problems with the maps in many of the previous volumes as well, including the 2006 version showing the DF-31A range to be much longer than the DF-5A. HK

Shocking.

Quote: China and the United States have now “agreed to move forward on our dialog on nuclear strategy and policy.” A process is “in place now,”
Possibly, the most dangerous statement in the whole article IMO. Which can be summarized by stating that the talking heads feel that this is not much of a concern at this time so status quo or perhaps, a counter proliferation on our behalf is in order.

HMB

Reply: If I understand your point correctly, then you’re saying that we shouldn’t be talking to the Chinese when they’re increasing their nuclear arsenal. Or maybe it is the other way around. As far as I understand, the talks are pursued precisely because not doing so will make things worse and lead to misunderstandings about intentions. HK