China and Weapons of Mass Destruction: Implications for the United States
5 November 1999
This conference was sponsored by the National Intelligence Council and Federal Research Division. The views expressed in this report are those of individuals and do not represent official US intelligence or policy positions. The NIC routinely sponsors such unclassified conferences with outside experts to gain knowledge and insight to sharpen the level of debate on critical issues.
Introduction | Schedule | Papers | Appendix I | Appendix II | Appendix III | Appendix IV
Introduction
This conference document includes papers produced by distinguished experts on China's weapons-of-mass-destruction (WMD) programs. The seven papers were complemented by commentaries and general discussions among the 40 specialists at the proceedings.
The main topics of discussion included:
- The development of China's nuclear forces.
- China's development of chemical and biological weapons.
- China's involvement in the proliferation of WMD.
- China's development of missile delivery systems.
- The implications of these developments for the United States.
Interest in China's WMD stems in part from its international agreements and obligations. China is a party to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), the Zangger Committee, and the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) and has signed but not ratified the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). China is not a member of the Australia Group, the Wassenaar Arrangement, the Nuclear Suppliers Group, or the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), although it has agreed to abide by the latter (which is not an international agreement and lacks legal authority).
The papers below reflect important trends in thinking outside the Intelligence Community on the issue of China and WMD. As noted on the title page, the views stated in the papers are those of the authors and are not necessarily those of the Intelligence Community or any particular US Government agency.
Papers
Bates Gill and James Mulvenon1
Introduction
The doctrine and force structure of China's Strategic Rocket Forces (also known as the Second Artillery from the Chinese di er pao) remain some of the most heavily shrouded and poorly understood aspects of the Chinese military. Yet, as China undergoes a continued modernization of its nuclear forces, to include improved mobility, reliability, accuracy, and firepower, concerned analysts are compelled to understand and analyze the Second Artillery more precisely, including its evolving doctrine, organization, and hardware, and their implications for international security.2
To date, the most prominent work on China's nuclear posture has either dwelled primarily on hardware and R&D,3 focused on doctrinal debates,4 or described the technological development of Chinese nuclear weapons in the form of political-military histories.5 Some past work, now more than 10 years old, attempts to weave several of these strands together in the context of a "cultural" explanation.6 More recent work by Johnston and Xue goes furthest in providing more unifying analyses that carefully draw together aspects of doctrine and force structure, yet this work requires some reexamination.7
In light of China's continuing nuclear weapons modernization program, an updated and more comprehensive framework is needed that fully pulls together theoretical analysis, China's declared nuclear principles, and an empirical assessment of its nuclear force structure. Taking such an approach, we reach four key findings on Chinese nuclear posture:
- First, from a theoretical perspective, traditional approaches such as neo-Realist and organization theory do not adequately predict and explain key aspects of Chinese nuclear doctrine and force structure. Rather, an understanding of such variables as domestic political, technological, historical, and cultural factors provide far greater insight and predictive capacity about the drivers that shape China's doctrinal and force structure decisions.
- Second, from a technical perspective, although we agree with analysts who highlight the role of technology in shaping Chinese doctrine, we go beyond the somewhat simplistic understanding that technology drives doctrine. Rather, we see patterns of rational strategic choice made for China's nuclear posture, though technology limited the realm of the possible for Chinese leaders. Perhaps it could be said that the Chinese made a virtue out of necessity in the construction of their nuclear deterrent, accepting the technological constraints of the system and making rational choices under those constraints.
- Third, we find that the evolution over time of China's doctrine and force structure is the story of trying to close the gap between real capability, on the one hand, and what one might call "aspirational doctrine" on the other. In the United States, the appropriate analog would be a comparison of current operational doctrine, as outlined in the Joint Doctrine publications series, with an aspirational doctrine, such as Joint Vision 2010. In the Chinese case, the discontinuity between reality and aspiration is of times referred to as the "capabilities-doctrine gap." At the present stage in the Second Artillery's modernization, China is nearing an historic convergence between doctrine and capability, allowing it to increasingly achieve a degree of credible minimal deterrence vis-à-vis the continental United States--a convergence of its doctrine and capability it has not confidently possessed since the weaponization of China's nuclear program in the mid-1960s.
- Finally, for the future, the doctrine and force structure of China's Second Artillery should be analyzed at three distinct levels, reflecting a multifaceted force with very different missions: a posture of credible minimal deterrence with regard to the continental United States and Russia; a more offensive-oriented posture of "limited deterrence" with regard to China's theater nuclear forces; and an offensively configured, preemptive, counterforce warfighting posture of "active defense" or "offensive defense" for the Second Artillery's conventional missile forces.
Theoretical Examination of China's Nuclear Posture
In reaching these findings, the work proceeds in five sections. First, we begin with a theoretical analysis of Chinese nuclear posture. Second, in the absence of an open and official declaration of Chinese nuclear doctrine, we examine China's declared nuclear principles to inferentially deduce certain aspects of China's nuclear doctrine. In a third and fourth section, we test these findings by closely examining empirical data on China's current and likely future nuclear force structure. A final section draws these findings together to reach conclusions about China's past, present, and likely future nuclear force posture.
One observer of China's nuclear program states that "for about 30 years after China exploded its first nuclear weapon there was no coherent, publicly articulated nuclear doctrine."8 In a similar vein, others have noted that China's nuclear weapons program "proceeded without such strategic guidance" and that "until the early 1980s, there were no scenarios, no detailed linkage of the weapons to foreign policy objectives, and no serious strategic research."9 In the absence of definitive official, authoritative open-source documentation to describe China's nuclear doctrine, how can analysts begin to understand Chinese nuclear posture? To start, one can briefly consider several theories, or "analytical lenses," to deduce likely Chinese doctrinal choices. The literature offers three principal "models," or explanatory frameworks.
The first framework to consider is neo-Realism. Neo-Realism stresses the state as the primary actor on the international scene, and focuses on the propensity of states to engage in "self-help" in order to preserve their interests in a hostile, anarchic world system. According to neo-Realist predictions about nuclear posture, China, as "revisionist power," would likely prefer offensive weapons and doctrines. Furthermore, neo-Realism would predict that as a country that faced a number of powerful adversaries in the formative years of its nuclear weapons program (first the United States and then the United States and the Soviet Union), China would wish to pursue offensive weapons and doctrines. Neo-Realism would also predict that, as a revisionist power with limited means to detect imminent attack, Chinese doctrine would favor offensive, preventive war strategies.10
Another theoretical approach, known as organization theory, looks to the presumed preferences of military organizations as a determinant of doctrinal outcomes.11 An organization theory framework would suggest that under the highly militarized domestic conditions during the initial development of China's nuclear arsenal (from the mid-1950s to the early-1970s) China would have likely pursued an offensive nuclear posture. According to this framework, the strong presence of Chinese military interests in doctrinal and weapons development in the first decades of the People's Republic would likely result in the rejection of no-first-use posture, and would favor first-use options and counterforce targeting. According to the organization theory framework, this would be predicted by the fact that China's leadership during this period was made up of active and former military leaders, and the fact that the nuclear weapons program itself was conducted largely under the auspices of the military. In addition, because China went through a series of external security crises during the formative years of its nuclear arsenal, organization theory would warn of an even stronger likelihood that the military would actively pursue offensive deployments and doctrines.
A third predictive approach gives greater weight to domestic political, historical, and cultural factors as determinants for shaping doctrinal decisions. This approach, known as neo-culturalism in the academic literature, can be applied to the Chinese case by examining domestic political interests, civil-military relations, resource restraints, and historical experience. In the Chinese case, one can point more specifically to domestic political factors (especially the unusual dynamic of Party-Army relations), technical factors (particularly availability of resources), and other historical and cultural factors as critical variables compelling doctrinal decisions.12 In examining these factors, neo-cultural explanations--unlike neo-Realist or organizational frameworks--would not necessarily predict a Chinese preference for offensive nuclear doctrines.
Certain aspects of the empirical record would lend support to the predictions of either the neo-Realist or the organizational theorist, or both. For example, the initial Chinese decision to go nuclear in January in 1955 is predicted by the neo-Realist approach that places great emphasis on threats and prestige as useful indicators. In another example, we see that midlevel Chinese military officers have been the most open in recent years to promote more offensively oriented deployments and doctrines, as shown in Iain Johnston's work.13
However, in taking the 45-year record of Chinese nuclear weapons development as a whole, neo-Realist and organizational frameworks would not predict the basic declared principles and empirical record of Chinese nuclear weapons posture overall. As explained in fuller detail in subsequent sections, China's nuclear posture overall has adopted such principles as no-first-use, has circumscribed use in the form of both positive and negative security assurances and the declared adherence to nuclear-weapon-free zones, provides no extended deterrence guarantees beyond its borders, and maintains qualitatively and quantitatively limited forces, resulting in likely "countervalue" (as opposed to "counterforce") targeting, and a delayed second-strike (as opposed to launch on warning or launch on attack) state of readiness.
Hence, in the Chinese case, considering the neo-cultural approach to help predict and understand Chinese doctrinal choices would be more helpful to us. What specific aspects of domestic politics, historical experience, and cultural tradition stand out in this regard?
From the perspective of domestic politics, we must recognize first and foremost that in the critical decades that Chinese nuclear weapons were first developed, Chinese nuclear weapons decisions were firmly dominated by the views and statements of Mao Zedong and a small number of other leaders under the powerful political sway of Maoist political ideology and rhetoric. Mao's own publicly expressed opinions about nuclear weapons served as the guiding principles for the development of the Chinese arsenal. Lewis and Xue have derived seven major principles from official Maoist statements in the 1960s and 1970s that helped define the future parameters of Chinese nuclear deployments and doctrine: (1) no first use; (2) no tactical nuclear weapons; (3) "small but better"; (4) "small but inclusive,"; (5) minimum retaliation; (6) quick recovery; (7) soft-target kill capability.14 A recent study by a Chinese missile scientist argues that many of these principles continue to carry great weight in determining the fundamental quantitative and qualitative parameters of China's nuclear weapons arsenal even today.15
A good part of this thinking with regard to nuclear weapons was derived from the wartime experience of the Chinese communist leadership, especially during the Chinese civil war (1927-49), and in the war or the communists against the Japanese (1937-45). According to Mao, Chinese communist military successes of "People's War" emphasized guerrilla tactics within a protracted war strategy, the importance of manpower over technology, the moral and physical attrition of the enemy over time, and the importance of controlling the strategic "hinterland" to surround the enemy's base in the developed urban centers. For nuclear doctrine, this translated into (1) opposition to quick or preemptive military actions from a position of weakness; (2) an appreciation for "strategic retreat" and the primacy of defense in the interest of eventual victory; (3) a subordination of a strictly military viewpoint to the political-military goals of the revolution; and (4) the ultimate superiority of man over weapons and technology.16
Mao's opinions also were influenced by his careful reading of Chinese history and its classic texts, especially the work of Sun Zi (Sun Tzu), who wrote the classic Art of War in the 6th century BC.17 Contemporary Chinese interpretations of this work emphasize the largely defensive and nonviolent nature of Chinese strategic thought, most often citing Sun Zi's well-known maxim: "To win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill." Other aspects of Sun Zi's thought that favor "nonviolent" means to vanquish one's opponents--deception, wily strategy, and what is known today as "psychological warfare"--also are often cited as representative of traditional Chinese strategic thinking.18 Moreover, this interpretation of strategic thinking finds resonance in the larger context of Confucianism--the single-most-dominant philosophy of statecraft in Chinese history--and its overarching concern with abjuring violence and assuring order through moral--rather than strictly military--strength.
Interestingly, the term in China for "deterrence" itself may help explain Chinese nuclear posture. For example, a "Confucian" approach to nuclear doctrine may be reflected in China's frequently stated "opposition" to the policy of nuclear deterrence. This apparent contradiction only leads to suspicions about true Chinese intentions, especially from Western analysts who view deterrence as an essentially defensive and stabilizing condition. However, discussions with Chinese strategists suggest that this confusion may derive in part from Chinese perceptions of the word "deter," which in Chinese (weishe) connotes strongly the notion of "menacing" or "terrorizing with military force," and implies threatening rather than defensive intent. Alternative terms in Chinese for "deterrence" also imply threats: hezu,to frighten into inaction, and weixie, to awe and threaten. Not wishing to portray its nuclear weapons as threatening, China traditionally stated its opposition to deterrence.
Since late 1995, China's official position has adjusted slightly its stance to criticize the "obviously anachronistic . . . policy of nuclear deterrence based on the first use of nuclear weapons." Track-two discussions between US and Chinese officials were able to glean a further Chinese distinction to the effect that China exercises a "defensive deterrent," while the United States wields an "offensive deterrent."19
A second domestic political factor in the Chinese case that neo-Realist and organizational theory cannot fully capture is the unique dynamic of China's "Party-Army" relations. Both the neo-Realists and the organizational theorists assume a discernible distinction of preferences between "civil" and "military" leaders in a given state. The revolutionary history of the Chinese political-military leadership often belies that assumption, especially in the formative years of the People's Republic and the development of the Chinese nuclear arsenal. Chinese "civilian" or "Party" leaders--such as Mao Zedong, Liu Shaoqi, Deng Xiaoping and Zhou Enlai--had considerable experience as revolutionary military leaders, while members of the uniformed military carried significant political power as Party leaders and, by dint of their status, as revolutionary heroes. Powerful "military" interests and predispositions intertwined with "civilian" (or "Party") concerns to reach decisions of a broader "political-military" nature, which is reflected in the apparent doctrine of China's nuclear arsenal.
The notion of different "Party-Army" factions is a better approach to understanding how the Party and the Army interact for decisions in China. The differences between these factions are resolved at the highest levels of Chinese politics where both ostensibly "civil" and "military" leaders represent interests as individuals of the Chinese Party-Army state, rather than the corporate interests of bodies of which they are members. Three good examples of how this factionalism and resolution played out were the intervention of the military to quell the excesses of the Cultural Revolution, the overthrow of the Maoist "Gang of Four" in 1976, and the deployment of troops to crush the Tiananmen Square demonstrations of 1989. In these cases, different "Party-Army" factions formed across institutional boundaries to advocate different, often diametrically opposed, courses of action.
We should note how key decisions under the conditions of a symbiotic "Party-Army" relationship have traditionally been taken by China's topmost leaders, who by necessity must credibly bridge the gap between civil and military constructs. The result for strategy in the formative years of the Chinese nuclear arsenal was a more comprehensive and political-military doctrine, not a strictly "military" or "civilian" approach.20
Third, an understanding as to how the Chinese define "doctrine" also helps explain what appear to be discrepancies between doctrine and capability. Briefly put, what Western observers might call "doctrine" is different from the Chinese definition. What the West often defines as doctrine in the Chinese context is better understood to be "basic doctrine, as distinct from operational doctrine." Doctrine for China is "less operational and practical, and is more of a systemic description of the theory or overall construct guiding the PLA's defense posture."21 In practice, we would differentiate between "aspirational doctrine" as opposed to "actual doctrine." In the United States, the appropriate analog would be a comparison of current operational doctrine, as outlined in the Joint Doctrine publications series, with an aspirational doctrine, such as Joint Vision 2010. Thus, just as "minimal deterrence" at the beginning of China's nuclear weapons program reflected hopeful thinking as much as on-the-ground reality, so too today discussions of a warfighting or "limited deterrent" are likely indicative of future goals rather than current capabilities. To state, for example, that "the PRC's announced strategic doctrine is based on the concept of 'limited deterrence'"22 not only misinterprets Johnston's research and wrongly implies that the Chinese have ever "announced" a formal doctrine, but also wrongly attributes a Western sense of "doctrine" to what amounts to a Chinese "aspirational" doctrine.
Finally--and again a point not well explained by either neo-Realist or organizational theory frameworks--the empirical record suggests that Chinese nuclear weapons options and doctrine were shaped by resource constraints, especially considerations of technological development.23 As noted above, we find that Chinese doctrinal preferences were not the principal drivers behind technological deployments (as neo-Realists and organizational theorists would likely predict), but rather the other way around: doctrine was shaped by what was technologically desirable or feasible. As a developing world state, technical obstacles and resource deficiencies almost immediately limited Chinese deployments to a defensive, countervalue, minimal deterrence stance, the principal features of China's traditional nuclear weapons doctrine. For example, China's reliance on countervalue targeting derives from the questionable accuracy of its ballistic missile forces and large-yield warheads that made precise, limited counterforce attacks unfeasible.24
Chinese technological restraints were further exacerbated by certain domestic political and arguably "cultural" or historical factors. In turn, these developments limited Chinese doctrinal options resulting in a reliance on largely defensive and minimalist approaches. First, China's historical perception of itself as a "victim" at the hands of aggressive, more powerful states limited political choices--especially in the early years of China's nuclear weapons development--which may have favored more offensive and threatening nuclear postures. Second, the period of China's early development and eventual deployment of its rudimentary nuclear arsenal coincided closely with a turbulent period of domestic political upheaval. As Lewis and Xue have written in reference to China's pursuit of a nuclear submarine armed with solid-fuel missiles, it is "a story of politics and technology in collision."25
While China eventually--after a 30-year effort--deployed a nuclear-powered submarine armed with nuclear weapons, it did so only tortuously and at great technological cost; the single submarine currently serving as the third leg of China's strategic triad rarely leaves port and has constant operational difficulties.
Third, China's historical ambivalence and self-reliant stance toward political and technological dependency also had implications for its nuclear weapons development. This position, already well entrenched in Chinese thinking dating back to the Opium Wars of the mid-1800s, was considerably strengthened during China's "century of shame" and following China's "betrayal" at the hands of Krushchev in the late 1950s and early 1960s. These lessons of historical experience slowed the acceptance and integration of foreign assistance and technologies in the development of the Chinese nuclear force. This situation constrained doctrinal choice and contributed to the development of the Chinese minimal deterrent.26
Taken together, the available evidence suggests that, in analyzing the underlying causes of Chinese strategic choices, we need to give far greater attention to an approach that carefully considers domestic political forces, resource restraints, and historical experience.
China's Nuclear Weapons Principles
Moving beyond an explanation of the causal factors behind Chinese nuclear posture, what specific nuclear principles have resulted, and what can we deductively infer from them as a way to describe Chinese doctrine? On the whole, these declared nuclear principles tell us more about when China claims it would not use nuclear weapons than when it would. Nevertheless, we can infer from these principles certain aspects of an otherwise undeclared nuclear doctrine. Overall, these declared principles support what the Chinese claim to be the generally defensive nature of its nuclear arsenal. As we will see, there is room to question this assertion, though we find that the principles generally conform to current force structures (see next section). We can consider these declared principles in three parts: China's no-first-use principle, its negative and positive security assurances, and its declared adherence to nuclear weapon free zone agreements.27
No First Use
First, public Chinese statements consistently reiterate the "defensive" purpose of Chinese nuclear weapons to counterbalance foreign threats. China's long-held "no-first-use" (NFU) policy serves as the foundation of this aspect of China's declared defensive nuclear posture. Chinese leaders decided to pursue nuclear weapons in January 1955 due to US nuclear threats during the Korean war and Taiwan Straits crisis of the early 1950s.28 In a statement issued on the day of its first nuclear explosion in October 1964, China cited this achievement in its "struggle to strengthen [its] national defense and oppose the US imperialist policy of nuclear blackmail and nuclear threats":China cannot remain idle in the face of the ever-increasing nuclear threats from the United States. China is conducting nuclear tests and developing nuclear weapons under compulsion...China is developing nuclear weapons for defense and for protecting the Chinese people from US threats to launch a nuclear war.29
This declaratory policy has changed little in the subsequent 35-plus years that China has been a nuclear weapon state. In a July 1997 speech to the US Army War College, Lt. Gen. Li Jijun, Vice President of the PLA's Academy of Military Science, reiterated China's public position regarding its nuclear posture:
China's nuclear strategy is purely defensive in nature. The decision to develop nuclear weapons was a choice China had to make in the face of real nuclear threats. A small arsenal is retained only for the purpose of self-defense. China has unilaterally committed itself to responsibilities not yet taken by other nuclear nations, including the declaration of a no-first-use policy, the commitment not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states and in nuclear-free zones...In short, China's strategy is completely defensive, focused only on deterring the possibility of nuclear blackmail being used against China by other nuclear powers.30
The cornerstone of this publicly declared defensive position is China's NFU policy. Since first detonating a nuclear device in October 1964, China has consistently declared an unconditional NFU policy,31 combined with a policy of no threat or use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon states (negative security assurances) (see below).32 Since that time, China has persistently proposed that nuclear-weapon states conclude a no-first-use agreement. The achievement of such an agreement was one of China's initial bargaining points in its CTBT negotiations. Later, China sought to gain such an agreement with the United States in return for a Sino-US detargeting pledge. Neither of these efforts succeeded, though the CTBT was completed and a Sino-US detargeting deal was reached. China and Russia, however, signed a bilateral NFU accord in September 1994.
Several questions, nevertheless, attend China's no-first-use pledge. First, such a pledge is highly symbolic--it is not verifiable and any violation would not be detected until too late. Second, as a practical matter, the NFU pledge may be less an altruistic principle, and more a simple reflection of the operational constraints imposed on Chinese doctrine by the country's qualitatively and quantitatively limited nuclear arsenal: China maintains an NFU pledge because it fits with the realities of nuclear weapons inventory. Finally, over the years there have been some indications that China's pledge may not be relevant to the first use of nuclear weapons on Chinese soil. Faced with the threat of a conventional Soviet invasion in the 1980s, Beijing's military strategists argued that the first-use of nuclear weapons on Chinese territory would not have violated its NFU pledge. Similarly, Johnston unearths evidence in Chinese military writings that loosely interprets the NFU pledge to possibly advocate launch-on-warning or launch-under-early-attack policies.33
Negative and Positive Security Assurances
Another set of nuclear-weapon-related principles issued by the Chinese involves both negative and positive security assurances (NSAs and PSAs). As for NSAs, China's declaratory stance is clear:China undertakes not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon States or nuclear-weapon-free zones at any time or under any circumstances. This commitment naturally applies to non-nuclear-weapon States Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons [NPT] or non-nuclear-weapon States that have undertaken any comparable internationally binding commitments not to manufacture or acquire nuclear explosive devices.34
DF-21 IRBM TELs at National Day Parade in Beijing, 1 October 1999
Of note here is China's pledge not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon states under any circumstances; the US NSA, for example, is conditional in that the country retains the possibility of nuclear weapons use against non-nuclear-weapon states that take part in an attack on US territory, armed forces, or allies.35
As for PSAs, China has agreed with the other four major nuclear weapon states (France, Great Britain, Russia, and the United States) to work within the Security Council to take "appropriate measures to provide . . . necessary assistance to any non-nuclear-weapon State that comes under attack with nuclear weapons."36 The precise nature of the assistance is not elaborated, and the Chinese statement makes clear that this position does not in any way compromise its desire for a universal NFU pledge and unconditional NSAs, nor does it endorse the use of nuclear weapons.
Of related note, Chinese declaratory policy is particularly critical of the policy of extended nuclear deterrence, or so-called "nuclear umbrellas," provided by other nuclear-weapon states to their allies. In operational terms, this means China officially opposes the deployment of nuclear weapons outside national territories, and states that it has never deployed nuclear weapons on the territory of another country, a point that is not contradicted by any open-source evidence. When Japan sanctioned China for continued nuclear testing in 1995 and 1996 during the course of the CTBT negotiations, Beijing derisively dismissed Japanese censure as hypocritical, citing the fact that Japan enjoyed the protection of extended deterrence. China also opposes the threat or use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon states, and has repeatedly called on nuclear-weapon states to agree to a legally binding, unconditional NSA accord.
In practice, if China adheres to its NSAs and PSAs, its deployments and targeting would presumably be focused only on nuclear-weapon states and possibly other states not party to the NPT or similar arrangements. Several questions, however, arise about China's commitments, particularly with regard to NSAs. First, like the NFU pledge, China's NSAs are not verifiable or enforceable. Second, the pledge apparently would not apply to such states as India, Israel, and Pakistan, which are not members of the NPT. Even if they joined, we question whether China's NSA would still apply to a country such as India, which, although not formally recognized by China as a nuclear-weapon state, certainly has attained such de facto status.
Finally, some observers question the need for certain Chinese deployments--such as the DF-21 series--insofar as its range and basing mean its possible targets largely comprise non-nuclear-weapon states. For example, as discussed in the text accompanying table 2, the DF-21s' basing and ranges suggest targets in such places as Japan, South Korea, Okinawa, the Philippines, or Vietnam, in addition to targets in the Russian Far East and India. If true, as asserted by Lewis and Xue, that China's target sets for the DF-3 included US bases in the Philippines and Japan, this targeting also runs contrary to Chinese NSAs. That the DF-3 and -4 series missiles are already capable of reaching Russian and Indian targets raises further questions as to the purpose of the DF-21 series in the context of Chinese NSAs.
Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zones
China has become a signatory to several nuclear-weapon-free-zone (NWFZ) treaties: the Treaty of Pelindaba (Africa NWFZ), the Treaty of Raratonga (South Pacific NWFZ), and the Treaty of Tlatelolco (Latin American NWFZ). During the ASEAN Regional Forum minister's meeting in July 1999 China stated it also would sign the Southeast Asian NWFZ Treaty. In its 1995 white paper on arms control and disarmament, the Chinese government stated its support for "the establishment of nuclear-free zones in the Korean Peninsula, South Asia, Southeast Asia, and the Middle East."37At a conference focusing on a Central Asian NWFZ convened in Tashkent in September 1997, a Chinese Foreign Ministry official heading the Chinese delegation listed seven principles related to the establishment of NWFZs. Among them, China insisted that "any other security mechanism" should not interfere with the nonnuclear status of a nuclear-weapon-free zone, including military alliance relationships. In addition, perhaps with reference to the South China Sea, the Chinese official declared that NWFZs should not include "areas where there exist disputes over sovereignty of territory or maritime rights." He also called on nuclear-weapon states to commit to an unconditional pledge not to use, nor threaten to use, nuclear weapons against NWFZs.
In practice, China's adherence to NWFZ pledges does not greatly affect its nuclear weapon deployments, especially given that it deploys no nuclear weapons abroad. China's signing and ratifying the Southeast Asian NWFZ Treaty presumably would place an added political onus on its ability to threaten or use nuclear weapons against such targets as Vietnam or the Philippines. Depending on caveats, if any, at the time of its signing, the treaty also could affect use by China in the South China Sea. However, the pledges of nuclear-weapon states to adhere to NWFZs are not verifiable, and some include escape clauses. For example, in signing the Treaty of Raratonga (South Pacific NWFZ), China stated that it could reconsider obligations in the event that other nuclear-weapon states or treaty parties violated the treaty.
Taken together, several points can be gleaned from these principles on NFU, PSAs and NSAs, and NWFZs. First, these long-held principles are consistent with a "defensive" posture and a qualitatively and quantitatively limited nuclear arsenal. Given the reality of Chinese nuclear forces, therefore, these pledges come at little to no real "cost" in terms of reductions, disarmament, or dramatic alterations to Chinese nuclear posture overall. Second, with the possible exception of some deployments, such as the DF-21-series ballistic missile, the nuclear principles noted here are consistent with a posture largely concerned with the other major nuclear-weapon states (especially the United States and the Soviet Union/Russia), as well as India. Third, nothing in these principles necessarily precludes China's nuclear weapons modernization program, but might place political limits on targeting and use options. Finally, although these principles may give us an overall understanding about China's formally stated views about when it would not use nuclear weapons, they provide no details about when they would.
Second Artillery Force Structure
Inferences drawn from theory and from declared nuclear principles may be incorrect. Theoretical inferences have not been tested under actual warfighting conditions, and China may purposely misrepresent its principles for the purpose of deception. To unravel these potential analytic stumblingblocks, in the next two sections we take a careful look at China's nuclear force structure and hardware, draw inferences from this empirical data to clarify questions about China's doctrine and capabilities, and reach understandings about China's overall posture from the vantage point that means most for strategic policy: how does the posture of the Second Artillery actually affect the security balance in strategic, theater, and conventional terms?
History
According to Chinese sources, the Chinese Missile Research Academy (also known as the Fifth Research Academy) was established in October 1956 under the direction of Qian Xuesen.38 Ten research institutions were set up under the Fifth Academy to focus on the development of China's ballistic missiles. China began "copy production" of its first ballistic missile--a Chinese copy of a Soviet R-2 missile--in October 1958, and the missile was first tested three times in November and December 1960. Since that time the exact number of missile tests is difficult to discern through open sources, but, by the end of the 1960s, China had conducted at least 30 MRBM (the DF-2 and -2A missiles) tests at ranges of up to 1,500 km. Major milestones in China's nuclear force modernization are noted over the following pages.DF-2 and -2A. After a failed flight test on 21 March 1962--in which shortly after takeoff, the missile erratically flew with its engine on fire before crashing near the launch pad--the Chinese successfully tested the DF-2 numerous times in June and July 1964 following the first success on 29 June 1964. Following a February 1965 decision to increase the range of the DF-2, an increase of 20 percent in the range was achieved for the DF-2A, beginning with its first successful tests in November 1965. On 27 October 1966, the Chinese launched a DF-2 with an armed, live nuclear warhead from the Shuangchengzi to an impact area in the Lop Nur testing area.39 The DF-2 series, with ranges of 1,000 and 1,250 km, respectively, and a yield of 20Kt, was "sited in Northeast China and targeted on cities and US military bases in Japan."40 China was believed to have produced a total of 100 missiles between 1965 and 1971,41 deploying approximately 50 missiles at one time.42 Retirement of the system reportedly began in 1979 and was completed by 1990.43
DF-3/3A. The DF-3 was China's first indigenously developed ballistic missile.44 Official calls for an intermediate-range missile began in the summer of 1964, with formal approval to commence the R&D process granted in May 1965. After the difficulties with the DF-2's "volatile liquid oxygen fuel," the DF-3 was reportedly the first of a series of Chinese missiles designed to utilize storable liquid fuels.45 The more stable fuels were also meant to improve readiness because the Cuban Missile Crisis had illustrated that missiles with nonstorable fuels (such as the SS-3s and SS-4s on Cuba) were ineffective in international crises, since they took long to prepare for launch and could not be maintained at high alert levels for extended periods of time.46 The missile was first successfully flight-tested on 26 December 196647 although it was not until a third flight test in May 1967 that the Chinese were fully satisfied. Several years were required for the missile to be deployed, though the exact deployment date is in dispute. The IISS Military Balance lists a 1970 deployment, although the Nuclear Weapons Databook asserts a May 1971 deployment.48 The DF-3 was designed to carry a 2,150-kg warhead to a distance of 2,650 km (intended, when first conceived in the early 1960s, to hit US military bases in the Philippines). Perhaps as many as 36 of these missiles were sold to Saudi Arabia in the late 1980s, as the slightly longer range (2,850 km) DF-3A was tested in December 1985 and January 1986, and commissioned in that year to replace the DF-3.
DF-4. The Chinese intermediate-range ballistic missile (IRBM) DF-4 was a more difficult undertaking. With a required range of up to 4,000 km ("to strike the B-52 base on the US island of Guam"49), the Chinese formally authorized development of the missile in May 1965. This was to be China's first two-stage rocket (using the DF-3 as the first stage), and required technical breakthroughs in such areas as engine reliability in the near vacuum of the upper atmosphere, developing high-altitude test simulator beds, developing more heat-resistant materials, and improved guidance systems for the longer range missile. The first flight test of the missile failed in November 1969--the second stage was not ignited/separated and the missile self-destructed--but the missile was successfully tested in January 1970. According to Lewis and Hua, because of the Sino-Soviet Ussuri River clashes in late 1969, the range of the missile was subsequently raised to 4,500 km (and eventually attained a 4,750-km range) in order to reach Moscow.50 According to Norris, et al., it "was initially planned to be deployed in silos but recognition of its vulnerability lead to reconsideration of rail-mobile basing."51 From 18 September to 2 October 1975, the Chinese conducted DF-4 rail-mobile tests over 8,000 km in 10 provinces.52 In 1977, the Chinese finally chose a deployment plan based on cave storage, whereby the missiles would be brought out of the cave for erecting, fueling, and firing.53 A full-range test flight occurred on 2 August 1980.54
DF-5 and DF-5A. China formally began development of the intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) DF-5 in March 1965; its progress also was delayed by the exigencies of the Cultural Revolution. A first flight test was conducted on 10 September 1971, although this test--entirely within Chinese territory--had to be conducted across a shorter range and different trajectory than the missile was designed for. Not until 18 May 1980--a full 15 years after the missile began development--could the Chinese conduct a full-range flight test from the mainland into the Western Pacific. This test was followed by a second full-range test on 21 May 1980.
Solid-fuel Missiles. According to Chinese sources, work on solid-fuel missiles in China date back as far as October 1956, when Qian Xuesen first began to set up the Fifth Research Academy.55 First strides were made by the late 1950s and early 1960s in developing and testing prototype solid propellant. Static tests were made with 300-mm-diameter engines in 1965 and on 1,400-mm-diameter engines in December 1966.
Initially, work was conducted with the intention of using solid fuels for a single-stage rocket. But, deeming such missiles' ranges as too short, in March 1967 Chinese military-technical authorities decided to go forward in the development of two-stage, "medium-range" solid-fuel surface-to-surface strategic missiles, to be mated with the ongoing nuclear submarine under development (the submarine-based missile was later to evolve into the DF-21 land-based system). Again, owing to the exigencies of the Cultural Revolution, Chinese sources note that serious work on the solid-fuel missile program did not begin until August 1978.56 After launch equipment tests in April and May 1984, followed by launch tests in May 1985 (DF-21) and May 1987 (DF-21A), these systems finally became fully operational in the early 1990s. This accomplishment culminated a nearly 30-year development effort.
Another version of the DF-21, the submarine-launched JL-1, was first tested from a submerged conventionally powered Golf-class submarine on 7 October 1982, but this launch failed as the missile lost control soon after ignition and self-destructed. On 12 October 1982 the missile was successfully launched from the submerged Golf submarine. As for launching from China's nuclear-powered submarine, the missile failed its first test on 28 September 1985, again turning over and self-destructing. Not until three years later, on 15 September 1988, did a fully successful JL-1 launch take place from the submerged Xia-class nuclear submarine; a second successful test was conducted on 27 September 1988, culminating a difficult 30-year development process for Chinese SLBMs dating back to the late 1950s. According to open sources, China, since 1988, has not test launched its JL-1 from the Xia-class nuclear submarine.
DF-15 SRBM Launch From TEL (U)
By the early 1990s, China also had tested and begun deployment of two short-range, nuclear-capable ballistic missiles, the DF-15 (CSS-6/M-9) and 300-km-range DF-11 (CSS-X-7/M-11).57 Both missiles were originally developed for export; only after China pledged not to export these missiles were they incorporated into the Second Artillery.58 The DF-15 has been operational since 199459 and was tested approximately 10 times as part of the missile exercises China conducted around the Taiwan Strait in July-August 1995 and March 1996.60 The CSS-X-7/M-11 probably was not deployed with Chinese forces by October 1998,61 though some foreign sources familiar with the PLA believe that the 300-km DF-11 already has been fielded by at least two PLA group armies.62 The 1999 DoD Report to Congress on the Security Situation in the Taiwan Strait reported thatan improved, longer range version of the DF-11 might be under development,63 which later was verified by the 1 October 1999 military parade in Beijing.64
Testing. China's 32-year testing program is the smallest of the five major nuclear powers, with 45 tests between 1964 and 1996. By comparison, the United States tested more than 20 times as much, with over a thousand blasts over a more than 50-year program. This static examination of the total number of tests gives us evidence of comparative scale, but changes in annual averages can also signal intent. The amount of Chinese testing increased marginally after 1979 from 1.3 to 1.7 tests per year, but American testing between 1979 and 1992 averaged 13.6 detonations per year.
By previous standards, Chinese testing accelerated significantly in the mid-1990s, though this intensified program was probably linked to China's stated intention from early 1994, at the outset of CTBT negotiations, to conclude a test ban by the end of 1996. This timeline suggests that a political decision to sign the treaty in principle had been made by 1993 or earlier and may have intensified in the face of increasing international condemnation of China's test program, which continued throughout the CTBT negotiation process.65 The pace of Chinese testing certainly intensified over the period 1994-96. China's six tests over a 25-month period (June 1994-July 1996, which overlapped with the negotiations of the CTBT) more than doubled China's average testing pace. For the only time in Chinese history, nuclear weapons were tested twice in three successive years.66 Also, this period marked the only time in Chinese testing history that blasts occurred in either July or August--outside the typical Chinese testing "season"--which also indicates a sense of urgency within the military and nuclear scientific communities.67 Finally, the initial bargaining positions put forth by China--such as on verification and inspection procedures and leaving the door open to peaceful nuclear explosions--offered the military the possibility of further testing and may have succeeded in stalling the negotiation process, thereby granting China's testing program more time. Almost immediately after China announced in early June 1996 that it would have one more test, it stepped away from its objections to the treaty and allowed the negotiations to conclude.
The Cox Report strongly suggests that the combination of nuclear espionage and the intense series of underground tests described above has accelerated the PRC's attainment of advanced, MIRVable small warheads, but some important caveats must be offered. First and foremost, the warheads employed by US nuclear forces are highly complicated devices that are extremely difficult to build. They are the product of decades of dedicated research and development, using some of the most advanced techniques available. As such, there are limits on the amount of benefit that can be wrought from simply obtaining the designs for these weapons.68 As one sober observer writes,
China's theft of the W-88 design used for the US Navy's Trident missile warhead, for example, does not allow its engineers to reconstruct the thousands of parts and electronic components that form the completed weapon. Even the computer codes China may have obtained are mathematical models of the physical characteristics of a nuclear explosion. They cannot be used to design and manufacture a warhead. Chinese engineers may well have obtained some useful information, but they lack the data and experience required to design and build replicas of sophisticated US warheads from the stolen information.69
This line of reasoning is supported by the damage assessment by the intelligence community, which concluded that China had not deployed any operational system using the stolen designs, despite a lapse of more than 10 years since the alleged espionage.70 Passage of the CTBT could have locked this situation in place for the foreseeable future, although its defeat in the Senate should prepare us for the likelihood of a resumption of Chinese testing, and, thus, the possible conquering of important developmental hurdles in the area of smaller warheads.
Current Force Structure
As a result of this historical progression, one of the most intriguing aspects of China's nuclear weapons program has been its quantitatively and qualitatively limited nature over time. These limitations are characterized in practice by a relatively small number of warheads; technically and numerically limited delivery vehicles; an overwhelming reliance on land-based systems; persistent concerns over the arsenal's survivability, reliability, and penetrability; and a limited program of research, development, and testing.
Table 1
Range of Estimates of Chinese Nuclear Weapon Delivery VehiclesDelivery Vehicle
(Western designator)Range (km) Nuclear Weapons Databook (1994) The Military Balance (1998-99) Jane's Strategic Systems (1998) Various Land-based missiles DF-3A (CSS-2) 2,850 50 38+ 60-80 40-80a DF-4 (CSS-3) 4,750 20 10+ 20-35 10-20b DF-5A (CSS-4) 13,000+ 4 17 15-20 4-10,c 20d DF-21A (CSS-5) 1,800 36 8 35-50 25-50e DF-15/M-9 (CSS-6) 600 na 4 400 160-200f DF-11/M-11 (CSS-X-7) 300 na na 200 DF-31g 8,000 0 0 0 0 DF-41g 12,000 0 0 0 0 Aircraft H-6 (B-6/Tu-16) 3,100 na na na 100-120 Q-5 (A-5/MiG-19) 400 na na na 100+ SLBMs JL-1 (CSS-N-3) 1,700 24 12 12 12 JL-2 (CSS-N-4)g 8,000 0 0 0 0 Sources: Adapted from Robert Norris, Andrew S. Burrows, and Richard W. Fieldhouse, Nuclear Weapons Databook, Volume Five: British, French, and Chinese Nuclear Weapons (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1994), p.377-78; The Military Balance 1998/99 (London: Oxford University Press, October 1998), p.178; Jane's Strategic Systems, September 1998; Robert S. Norris and William M. Arkin, "Appendix 11A. Tables of nuclear forces," in SIPRI Yearbook 1997 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), Table 11A.5, 401; National Intelligence Council, "Foreign Missile Developments and the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States Through 2015," September 1999. a Dunbar Lockwood, "The Status of US, Russian, and Chinese Nuclear Forces in Northeast Asia," Arms Control Today, November 1994, p. 24.
b Ibid.
c Ibid.
d National Intelligence Council, "Foreign Missile Developments and the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States Through 2015," September 1999, p. 11.
e Lockwood, "The Status of US, Russian, and Chinese Nuclear Forces," p. 24.
f Department of Defense, "The Security Situation in the Taiwan Strait," Report to Congress Pursuant to the FY99 Appropriations Bill, 26 February 1999.
g The DF-31, DF-41, and JL-2 are under development, and are not expected to be in service until the early 2000s or later (DF-31 and JL-2) or until approximately 2010 (DF-41); the DF-31 was flight-tested in August 1999; and a computer simulation on the DF-41 was reportedly conducted recently.China's current nuclear weapons arsenal totals about 400 devices, 300 of which consist of warheads and gravity bombs for use on its strategic "triad" of land-based ballistic missiles, bomber and attack aircraft, and one nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine (SSBN) (see table 1).71 According to the US Defense Department, over 100 warheads are deployed for use on China's ballistic missiles, with additional warheads in storage.72 The Chinese SSBN is thought to deploy 12 single-warhead missiles. The remaining warheads reportedly consist of about 100 tactical nuclear weapons, including bombs for tactical bombardment, artillery shells, atomic demolition munitions, and possibly short-range missiles.73 China has the capability to increase the size of its nuclear arsenal using its existing stockpile of fissile material. One source indicates that China has an inventory of between 2 and 6 tons of plutonium and 15 to 25 tons of highly enriched uranium.74 Iain Johnston estimates that China has enough fissile material to double or triple its arsenal.75 According to the US Defense Department, however, "China is not currently believed to be producing fissile material for nuclear weapons, but it has a stockpile of fissile material sufficient to increase or improve its weapon inventory."76
In addition to ballistic and cruise missiles, according to the US Defense Department, "China also has a variety of fighters, bombers, helicopters, artillery, rockets, mortars, and sprayers available as potential means of delivery for NBC [nuclear, biological, and chemical] weapons."77 China is working to modernize its capabilities in terms of ballistic and cruise missiles, bombers, and multirole aircraft, but relies upon deterrent systems and technologies that are at least 20 years behind the capabilities of the four major declared nuclear powers. According to Chinese sources, the overall capabilities of the strategic rocket forces have advanced in recent years owing to better, more modern training, the development of strategic missile simulator training, improvements in technical reconnaissance, weather forecasting, geographical surveying, antichemical warfare and logistics support, and the introduction of some "1,000 technological research results."78 Estimates of Chinese nuclear-capable ballistic missile forces are shown in table 1. Estimates vary as to the exact number of these missiles, but China benefits from a large, well-developed infrastructure for the development and production of ballistic missiles.
From table 1, the Chinese nuclear force structure clearly is primarily land-based, relying on a range of missile systems. On the short-range end of the land-based missile spectrum, China reportedly possesses several hundred DF-11s and DF-15s, which have ranges of 300 km and 600 km, respectively. The DF-15 can deliver a 500-kg payload to a maximum range of 600 km, with a CEP (circular error probable) of 600 meters.79 The DF-11 reportedly has an 800-kg warhead and a 150-meter CEP.80
In the medium- to intermediate-range inventory, the PRC fields three types of missiles (DF-3A, DF-4, and DF-21A). Deployed in caves and valleys to increase its survivability, China's liquid-fueled DF-3As have a range of 2,800 km and reportedly carry a single warhead with an estimated yield of 1-3 megatons.81 The liquid-fueled DF-4s, with a range of 4,850-5,500 km, are deployed in silos and tunnels and have a single warhead with an estimated yield of 1-3 megatons.82 The solid-fueled, mobile DF-21As have a range of 1,800 km and a 600-kg warhead with a yield of 200-300 Kt.83
In the ICBM category, China's DF-5 ICBMs can reach targets in all of the United States.84 Each silo-based missile carries a single warhead, with an estimated yield of 3-5 megatons.85
In its weaker second leg of the triad, China has deployed 12 single-warhead JL-1s, a submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) with a range of 1,700 km aboard its one Xia-class nuclear submarine.86 These missiles have faced operational difficulties, and not until 1988 were they first test-launched successfully from the Xia-class submarine. According to Paul Godwin, "this troubled ship has spent most of its time docked or in local waters and is not considered operational."87 The limited range of the missile, the problems it has had in deployment and operation, and the limited experience of the Chinese in long-range submarine operations limits the value of this system as a strategic weapon. Beijing also may have learned some valuable negative lessons from the experience of the Soviet Union, whose SSBN force was forced to retreat to bastions by a superior US attack submarine fleet.
China's bomber and ground-attack fleet is made up of two aircraft, both of which are based on 1950s Soviet designs: the Hong-6 (H-6) bomber (Soviet Tu-16 design) and the Qian-5 (Q-5) ground attack aircraft (a redesign of Soviet MiG-19). Given the nascent state of China's in-flight refueling capability, the maximum ranges of these aircraft are approximately 3,000 and 800 km, respectively. China reportedly halted production of the H-6 in 1982, and now deploys between 100 and 120 H-6s (some in a nuclear role). China deploys over 400 Q-5 aircraft (perhaps 30 currently in nuclear role).88
Toward an Organic View of Chinese Nuclear Force Structure
Viewed as an organic whole, the Chinese nuclear force structure seems to defy simple categorization as either limited or minimal deterrence. Instead, the multifaceted force is made up of strategic, theater, and tactical systems of varying range, accuracy, and yield. The small ICBM force, anchored by the DF-5 family of missiles, appear to be second-strike minimal deterrence forces. The theater systems are unlikely to be used in a second-strike, minimal deterrent role following a preemptive strike. Instead, theater systems look like offensive systems meant to strike US forces and bases in Asia to degrade conventional capability. The short-range, ballistic missile forces, which are also nuclear capable, further confuse the situation by serving a variety of conventional warfighting and nuclear warfighting roles. Perhaps the best way to understand the nature of this multifunction force structure is to deductively infer the purpose of each element in the force by examining range and deployments, payloads and CEP, readiness, and C4I structure.
Table 2
Suspected Chinese Strategic Missile Bases
(Derived From Open Sources)Base Number Base Military Unit Cover Designator Base and Selected Brigade Locations Reported Missile Types 51 Base 80301 Headquarters: Shenyang, Jilin Province Brigades: Tonghua (DF-3A and DF-21), Dengshahe (DF-3A) DF-3A (CSS-2)
DF-21 (CSS-5)52 Base 80302 Headquarters: Huangshan (Tunxi), Anhui Province Brigades: Leping (DF-15), Lianxiwang (DF-3A) DF-15 (CSS-6)
DF-3A (CSS-2)53 Base 80303 Headquarters: Kunming, Yunnan Province Brigades: Chuxiong (DF-21), Jianshui (DF-3A) DF-3A (CSS-2)
DF-21A (CSS-5)54 Base 80304 Headquarters: Luoyang, Henan Province Brigades: Luoning (DF-5), Sundian (DF-4) DF-4 (CSS-3)
DF-5 (CSS-4)55 Base 80305 Headquarters: Huaihua, Hunan Province Brigades: Tongdao (2 brigades of DF-4) DF-4 (CSS-3) 56 Base 80306 Headquarters: Xining, Qinghai Province Brigades: Datong (DF-3A), Delingha (DF-4), Da Qaidam (DF-4), Liujihou (DF-3A)a DF-3A (CSS-2)DF-4 (CSS-3) NA 80310 Headquarters: Baoji, Shanxi Province NA NA NA Headquarters: Yidu, Hubei or Shandong Province DF-3A (CSS-2) In addition, reports also cite the following launch sites: DF-5: Jiuquan (war reserves), Wuzhai (war reserves). Sources: Mark A. Stokes, China's Strategic Modernization: Implications for US National Security, unpublished study for the United States Air Force Institute for National Security Studies, October 1997; Leonard S. Spector, Mark G. McDonough, with Evan S. Medeiros, Tracking Nuclear Proliferation: A Guide in Maps and Charts (Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1995), 52-56; Bill Gertz, "New Chinese missiles target all of East Asia," Washington Times, 10 July 1997, A1. The MUCDs have been collected from open sources, including assorted neibu (internal) Second Artillery publications. Subordinate brigade and battalion MUCDs will be included in a later version of the paper. a The Liujihou brigade was not listed with the other brigades of Base 80306, but its proximity to Qinghai suggests that it should be part of this base. Ranges, Deployments, and Targets. The Chinese nuclear force inventory encompasses a wide variety of ranges, and the deployment of these forces offer a wide variety of potential targets. The range and basing of China's missiles are summarized in table 2.
From the locations of these bases and the ranges of their deployed missiles, several inferences can be drawn about the likely target for these missiles. The DF-3As and DF-21s of Base 80301 probably are targeted on Japan, South Korea, Okinawa, or the Russian Far East. The DF-15s of Base 80302 are almost certainly aimed at Taiwan. The DF-3As and DF-21s of Base 80303 probably are targeted against countries south and southwest of China, including the Philippines, Vietnam, and India. The DF-5s of Base 80304 are the major CONUS-oriented systems, while the DF-4s of both Base 80304 and Base 80305 might be aimed at Hawaii. Finally, the DF-3As and DF-4s of Base 80306 likely are targeted at sites in the former Soviet Union, including Moscow, or possibly India.
How Did the Structure Evolve to This Arrangement? Lewis and Hua maintain that China's nuclear weapons program "proceeded without such strategic guidance" and that "until the early 1980s, there were no scenarios, no detailed linkage of the weapons to foreign policy objectives, and no serious strategic research."89 They even go so far as to say that neither the "Chinese leader nor his senior colleagues on the Central Military Commission considered, communicated, or authorized the investigation of the broader strategic purposes of the program."90 As Lewis and Hua predicted, we have difficulty believing this to be true. From an examination of the sources of their collected works, no one can doubt the authors' access to critical personnel or documents from China's nuclear programs or missile programs, though the level of citation from central leadership documents is considerably lower. Although we doubt that the first generation of leaders, especially Mao, understood the scientific or technical aspects of nuclear combat, they at least were able to articulate the strategic targets for these weapons and task the weapons complex accordingly. Indeed, the authors seem to contradict themselves when they relate stories wherein researchers are told the specifications for specific missiles (i.e., range, payload, etc.) by central authorities, who then later change the range and payload requirements for individual missiles to reflect new strategic goals. For example, they assert that the military commission in 1970 commanded that the range of the DF-4 be increased from 4,000 km to 4,500 km, "bringing Moscow within range of bases in Da Qaidam, Qinghai Province."91 This story, along with others in the narrative about the sequential development of missiles capable of hitting the Philippines, Guam, Hawaii, and the United States, suggest that someone, somewhere, at a central level was making decisions about the strategic purpose and direction of various missile systems, which was then reflected in the seemingly logical pattern (defined as matching geographic location with range to target) of base and missile deployments.
One important dilemma that confronts any analyst trying to understand the overall nature of the Chinese nuclear force posture is reconciling the mixture of strategic and theater systems with claims of either minimal or limited deterrence. Comparative cases of nuclear force structure evolution, however, offer clues about China's intentions. In the Soviet case, we note that Moscow did not draw a sharp distinction between its strategic and theater nuclear weapons systems. The best example of this was the road-mobile SS-20, which was developed to decouple the United States from its allies in Europe and Asia by holding theater targets at risk and preventing Washington from defending allies. The Soviets referred to this combination of strategic and theater nuclear weapons as the "seamless web of deterrence." Is the same thing happening in China? Clearly, China and the former Soviet Union share some commonalties in their strategic environment and goals. Like Russia, China seeks to decouple the United States from its allies in the region, especially Japan and South Korea, by using the threat of theater nuclear weapons. In recent years, this threat has become particularly important in a Sino-US conflict over Taiwan, which could escalate to the point that it threatens to split the US-Japan defense alliance. The United States, however, withdrew its theater nuclear forces in 1991. How has this situation changed the rationale for the DF-21A and other Chinese theater nuclear forces, because they no longer have a second-strike role?92 To explicate this situation, a deconstruction of the Chinese force is required.
Payloads, CEP, and Targeting. Until the DF-31 comes online, the Chinese strategic nuclear force is dominated by missiles with high yield warheads and large CEPs. For example, the DF-4 ICBM has an estimated yield of 1-3 megatons and a CEP of almost a mile.93 The mainstay of the Chinese ICBM force, the DF-5, is more accurate but still has a yield of 3-5 megatons and a CEP of more than a quarter of a mile. This combination of high yield with low accuracy suggests that the force is designed for countervalue, or "city-busting" attacks against "soft" targets such as concentrated population centers, and other locations of political and economic value.94 Counterforce warfighting, by contrast, requires far more accuracy than offered by these systems.
Readiness and Survivability. In the past, the limited numbers, low level of readiness, and slow response times of China's land-based missiles and bombers left China vulnerable to an overwhelming and incapacitating first strike. China does not currently have space-based or land-based early warning assets. A senior US intelligence official has confirmed that Chinese missiles are usually unfueled and unmated to their warheads.95 Furthermore, the process of loading the liquid fuel tanks and installing the warheads can take two to four hours.96 Because of the lengthy prelaunch exposure times of more than 2 hours for the DF-3A, decisions were taken that led eventually to operating the DF-4 from caves and the DF-5 from silos.97 Although cave and silo basing reduces prelaunch exposure, the basing mode could not significantly reduce the overall preparation time for launch, including fueling, arming, positioning (in case of non-silo-basing), targeting and range-setting, and other preparatory checks.98 Given these time constraints, the Chinese DF-3A, DF-4, and DF-5A in today's arsenal may still require from 1 to 2 hours to launch. From this incomplete data, we tentatively infer that the Chinese nuclear force is incapable of launch-on-warning or launch-under-attack. This readiness and survivability level is consistent with a minimal deterrent posture.
DF-31 ICBM TELs. The DF-32 Is Still in the Test Launch Stage.
China has also sought to improve survivability by establishing a credible triad. As early as the mid-1950s, China began developing a sea-based deterrent, though this small program continues to face a number of serious technological obstacles.99 China has held only one known SLBM test from the Xia-class submarine, and the existence of only a single boat obviates the possibility of regular patrolling.100 Efforts to further integrate Chinese bombers into the triad have been impeded by the vulnerability of PRC airfields and the high cost of modern aircraft capable of penetrating advanced air defenses.101 In addition, Chinese nuclear-capable bombers are limited in range and are highly vulnerable to sophisticated air defenses, making it unlikely that the bomber force would be effective in a nuclear delivery role against either Russia or US forces in the Western Pacific region.102 Despite strenuous efforts, therefore, the sea-based and bomber-based legs of China's triad are still relatively unreliable, especially in the context of intercontinental nuclear combat with the United States. As a result, China has been forced to focus on ensuring the survivability of its land forces by deploying road-mobile, solid-fuel systems.
C4I Structure. The Second Artillery (SAC) is tasked with implementing the reliable and secure command and control of China's nuclear and conventional missile forces.103 The SAC was formally established in 1966, based upon a "special" artillery corps formed in 1958 following the Chinese decision to develop nuclear weapons. The SAC is a separate service arm, distinct from the army, navy, and air force. The central command and control center for all Chinese forces, including SAC, is located is Xishan, in the hills west of Beijing, where strategic operational orders originate. Direct communication with China's six launch bases would be passed through the SAC headquarters and its communications regiment. We must note that this system bypasses China's military region commands, and connects directly to base commands. Base commands, in turn, communicate with their respective launch brigades. The SAC reportedly operates about six launch bases, each led by a major general. Each base has two to three missile brigades each commanded by a colonel, with each brigade operating one type of missile. These brigades consist of up to four launch battalions (see table 2).
At a political level, ultimate authority to use nuclear weapons is "subject to the unified command of the Central Military Commission. Only the commission's chairman (currently Jiang Zemin, who is also head of the Chinese Communist Party and the Chinese President) has the power to issue an order to use such weapons after top leaders reach a consensus on the issue."104 However, it is likely that such a decision would require a consensus decision within the Central Military Commission and other senior military elders.105
As for the technical aspects of Chinese nuclear C4I, little open source information is available as to the precise systems employed to ensure safe and reliable communication between the central leadership and the launch bases. In recent years, however, reports increasingly have surfaced in the open literature describing various new technologies and systems that help strengthen China's command and control system. In some cases the "breakthroughs" reported suggest that the past level of command and control structures was not particularly advanced. For example, the official People's Liberation Army Daily in early 1998 noted that the SAC "after three years of arduous work" developed a new digital microwave communications system which now allows for a secure "all-weather" communications for missile launch. "With the new system," the article notes, "the Second Artillery will no longer be affected by natural conditions such as weather."106
At the same time, however, the Pentagon reports that "China has made significant efforts to modernize and improve its command, control, communications, computers, and intelligence infrastructure."107 Given the importance of nuclear weapons to Chinese security, we assume that similar advances in C4I modernization have occurred in the strategic rocket forces. Some evidence indicates, for instance, that the Second Artillery seeks to connect much of its infrastructure with secure, landline fiber-optic cable.108 Moreover, open-source reports detail the deployment of an "automated command and control system."109 From these changes, we can infer desire for greater survivability and positive control of nuclear weapons. They probably also reflect a greater desire for operational security, as well as enhanced denial and deception against increasingly advanced national technical means of other countries. By itself, however, the modernization of Chinese nuclear C4I does not automatically imply that the force is transitioning to a flexible response, counterforce footing. The changes might signal desire for eventual launch under attack (LUA) capability, but the current inventory of missiles and the next generation of replacements are not capable of the reaction times necessary for such a capability. More likely, the C4I modernization program is meant to improve the credibility of China's minimal deterrent posture in the short to medium term.
Future Nuclear Force Posture
Doctrine
Over the past decade, certain indicators suggest that these long-held aspects of Chinese nuclear weapons doctrine may be undergoing some reconsideration.110 As Paul Godwin argues,Minimum deterrence, which uses a single countervalue punitive strike on cities to deter, is seen by many Chinese strategists as passive and incompatible with what they see as a future requirement for more flexible nuclear responses.111
One observer argues that, consequently, some Chinese military planners are considering a shift to a "limited" deterrent posture, which could include the introduction of limited warfighting capabilities; improved command and control and early warning systems; smaller, survivable, mobile, more accurate, and diverse cruise and ballistic missile nuclear delivery systems; possible abandonment of the NFU policy; missile defenses; and the addition of counterforce targets.112 This view has gained backing in other detailed research that notes that "China's strategic modernization R&D [research and development] supports this shift toward a limited warfighting approach to nuclear warfare."113 Such a capability would enable China to respond to "any level of nuclear attack, from tactical to strategic."114
As the previous pages suggest, however, from a strictly doctrinal perspective, such a shift probably will await shifts in the domestic political hierarchy and its view of the outside world, factors that have consistently driven Chinese doctrinal choices. Moreover, as noted in the previous section on force structure, technological constraints will remain one of the foremost drivers determining the direction of doctrine in the near term.
Rather than force a stark analytic choice between either a doctrine of "minimal deterrence" or one of "limited deterrence," drawing out two important nuances to better understand this debate is more logical. First is to recognize the differences between "operational doctrine" and what we might call "aspirational doctrine" in the Chinese context. Second is to recognize that the Second Artillery--which oversees strategic nuclear, theater nuclear, and conventional missiles--more likely operates on three levels of doctrine: credible minimal deterrence with regard to the continental United States and Russia; "limited deterrence" with regard to China's theater nuclear forces; and an offensively configured, preemptive, counterforce warfighting posture of "active defense" or "offensive defense" for the Second Artillery's conventional missile forces.
Force Structure
Various governmental reports suggest that Chinese nuclear force structure will increase in numbers and quality. In 1995, then Secretary of Defense William Perry stated that China "has the potential to increase the size and capability of its strategic nuclear arsenal significantly over the next decade."115 According to the US Department of Defense in 1997, "China probably will have the industrial capacity, although not necessarily the intent, to produce a large number, perhaps as many as a thousand, new missiles within the next decade."116 General Hughes, then Director of the DIA, testified in 1999 that "the number of Chinese strategic missiles capable of hitting the United States will increase significantly during the next two decades."117 Publicly released estimates of the number of ICBMs capable of reaching the United States range from "tens"118 to the Cox Committee's ambitious estimates of "up to 100" ICBMs with 1,000 MIRVed warheads by 2015.119 According to the Pentagon, "China plans to begin production and deployment of at least one solid-propellant ICBM that will provide China's strategic nuclear forces [with] improved mobility, survivability, accuracy, and reliability."120Two principal impetuses are behind the modernization of the Chinese nuclear force structure. The first is the predictable process of replacing aging weapons systems with more modern counterparts. Most of China's operational missile forces, especially the CONUS-capable ICBMs, are 1950s-vintage liquid-fueled systems. As General Hughes has testified, "China's strategic nuclear force is small and dated, and because of this, Beijing's top military priority is to strengthen and modernize its strategic nuclear deterrent."121 This effort has been assisted and accelerated in part by the ready access to technologies now available from Russia. The second driving factor behind Chinese modernization is a rising concern about the survivability of its nuclear deterrent, particularly given the prospect of the Strategic Defense Initiative in the 1980s and now the deployment of theater and national missiles defenses by the United States. Chinese perceptions about the survivability of its force were also undermined by Desert Storm, which highlighted the ability of US conventional forces to destroy fixed targets with precision-guided munitions and the concomitant inability of those same forces to destroy mobile targets. This realization no doubt reinforced the perceived desirability of modern, road-mobile nuclear forces.
The two principal programs in this modernization effort will be the DF-31 and the DF-41.122 The mobile, solid-fuel DF-31 will have a range of 8,000 km, and carry a payload of 700 km. The origins of this missile are controversial. Lewis and Xue argue that the First Academy drew up plans beginning in 1974 to develop not only the JL-1 SLBM, but three other solid-propellant missiles as well over the subsequent decade, namely the DF-21, DF-21A, and the JL-2 SLBM.123 Another source claims that the DF-31 missile was an outgrowth of the DF-23 road-mobile, solid-fueled program, which began development in 1978 as a land-based missile, and was then modified to also serve as the basis for a submarine-launched SLBM, known as the JL-2. To confuse matters even further, a different Lewis article asserts that the R&D for the DF-23 began in August 1970, during "a particularly tense moment in Sino-Soviet confrontation."124 Regardless of its development path, the DF-23 was renamed the DF-31 in January 1985, although the designation JL-2 was not changed. In August 1999, China publicly declared the first full flight test of the DF-31.125 We expect that the DF-31 will be deployed perhaps by the early 2000s.
The planned follow-on to the DF-31, the DF-41, was officially initiated in July 1986.126 The three-stage, solid-propellant ICBM will have a range of 12,000 km, thus making it capable of striking all targets in the CONUS. It is therefore the logical replacement to China's aging DF-5 force, which Beijing will begin replacing around 2010. According to Lewis and Hua, the final basing mode for the DF-41 is still unclear, although it will be stored in caves and is likely to be deployed on a road-mobile TEL.
Some reports indicate that China will launch a major effort to develop and construct a follow-on to the Xia-class nuclear ballistic missile submarines to be deployed after 2000. The next-generation submarine, the 09-4, probably would deploy 16 of the new JL-2 SLBMs, with a range of about 8,000 km.127 However, political and technological constraints may delay or even suspend the deployment of this boat.128
Implications
Mobility. Despite yeoman effort, the Chinese largely have failed to field a credible triad. Instead, the force remains highly unbalanced, with land-based missiles predominant over bombers and SLBMs, especially in the intercontinental category. As a result, Beijing has been forced to improve the survivability of its land-based missiles. Apart from the addition of solid fuels and improved C4I infrastructure, the Chinese began to move from silos and caves to a road-mobile force with missiles loaded on transporter-erector-launchers (TELs) as early as the 1970s.129 With the planned deployments of the DF-31 and DF-41 ICBMs over the next 10 to 20 years, the Chinese nuclear inventory will thus become increasingly mobile over time. This move will have the effect of enhancing the credibility of China's minimal deterrent posture, as long as such a large force size asymmetry exists between China and the larger nuclear powers. Moreover, the deployment of the DF-31 and DF-41 theoretically increases deterrence stability with other nuclear powers by making China's force more survivable.
Solid Fuel. One impediment to greater flexibility and survivability in the Chinese force were the hazards associated with volatile liquid propellants.130 The move to solid fuel increases the credibility of the Chinese force by improving reaction times, thus raising its overall readiness level. As Godwin points out, however, solid fuels also "contain less thrust than liquid fuel, requiring China to develop smaller, lighter warheads with much better yield-to-weight ratios than its older weapons."131
C4I Modernization. Speaking in 1999, DIA Director Hughes testified to Congress that China was actively engaged in "upgrade programs" for its nuclear C4I.132 Overall, the modernization of Chinese nuclear C4I increases the credibility of the Chinese force by strengthening command and control. Specifically, it enhances the leadership's positive control over the force, increasing the probability that the National Command Authority could survive an attack and respond. In the paradox of nuclear strategy, this development actually increases deterrence stability between China and other nuclear powers.
Accuracy. There is reason to believe that the Chinese SAC is attempting to improve the accuracy of its strategic rocket forces. Presurveyed launch sites increase the potential accuracy of the new mobile systems. Chinese research institutes are reportedly attempting to increase precision by developing better gyros and inertial measurement units.133 According to the Pentagon, China is using the Global Positioning System (GPS) to make "significant improvements" in its missile capabilities. As an example, the DoD cites the use of GPS for midcourse guidance correction to improve missile accuracy, and also asserts that such satellite updates will "increase the operational flexibility of China's newer mobile missiles."134 A RAND study on this subject concluded that GPS-aiding of ballistic missile guidance could improve accuracy by 20-25 percent.135 Greater accuracy might signal a desire for eventual counterforce capabilities, although force size will be an important constraint on successful transition to a more offensive posture.
Greater Numbers. The Cox Report and other analyses predict that the Chinese nuclear force structure is likely to increase in size, and therefore pose a greater threat to the United States.136 Why would the Chinese force increase in size? Increasing numbers of Chinese missiles would cause an opposing force to have greater difficulty in "decapitating" the Chinese force, which has been a prevailing fear since the beginnings of the program. The fear only has become more frantic in an age of growing American predominance in space-based reconnaissance. More Chinese missiles might signal a possible shift from a retaliatory countervalue posture to an offensive counterforce posture, particularly if accompanied by necessary improvements in accuracy. According to Godwin, a sufficient number of weapons could permit China for the first time to attempt intrawar escalation control because Beijing would retain enough forces to respond at a higher level if the aggressor chooses to escalate a nuclear exchange.137
An increase in missiles is also the logical response to the deployment of theater (TMD) and national missile defenses (NMD) among the United States and its allies, which the Chinese view as an organic whole rather than separate programs (as one Chinese arms controller put it, "two sides of the same coin"). Proponents of TMD/NMD point out that the Chinese already are modernizing their missile forces, so defenses are not to blame for increases in the quality and quantity of the Chinese force. This claim probably is true but must also be accompanied by an honest recognition that TMD/NMD deployment is likely to accelerate this effort and push the Chinese to spend more money on such relatively cheap antimissile defense accessories as countermeasures and decoys. Perhaps the only good news is that limited increases in Chinese missiles would paradoxically increase deterrence stability between China and other nuclear powers and enable China to maintain a no-first-use principle by reducing the likelihood that the PRC's force could be destroyed in an all-out preemptive attack.
At the same time, we must also entertain the possibility that the new generation of missiles are meant only to replace the aging veterans of the fleet, particularly the DF-4 and DF-5. If the Chinese eventually exchange the road-mobile, solid-fueled DF-31s and DF-41s for these liquid-fueled, silo- and cave-based missiles on a one-to-one basis, or even two-to-one basis, then the net result is ceteris paribus an increase in the credibility of China's previously suspect minimal deterrent, not necessarily a fundamental shift to an offensive posture. Moreover, as the significant delays in the IOCs of past systems and the inaccurate estimates of DF-31/DF-41/DF-25 deployments in Lewis and Hua's 1992 article attest, we should not be overly optimistic about the production timelines or output estimates offered by the Chinese for the rollout of the next generation of missiles. Rather, we should maintain a sober view of the impressive but sometimes erratic production cycles in the Chinese missile system.
MIRVing? Since the late 1980s, China has conducted a series of smaller yield tests, apparently intended to develop smaller, lighter warheads with an improved yield-to-weight ratio,138 although this trend could be traced as far back as 1970.139 Most analysts agree that the purpose was to develop new warheads for single placement on China's next-generation solid-fuel ICBMs (DF-31 and DF-41) as well as ensure the safety and reliability of new warhead designs.140 The antecedents of the DF-31 and DF-41 programs, which were initiated in the early 1970s, were the beginning of a move to develop mobile forces, which required the development of smaller missiles, which in turn required smaller warheads.
Other observers have added an additional, controversial motivation for the testing of smaller warheads--the development of a multiple warhead capability, possibly MRV or even MIRV.141 The Cox Committee, for example, concluded that "the PRC has demonstrated all of the techniques that are required for developing a MIRV bus, and that the PRC could develop a MIRV-dispensing platform within a short period of time after making a decision to proceed."142 Often, this desire is linked to a perceived future Chinese intent to develop flexible response, counterforce-oriented nuclear forces, though the smaller warheads could also be used as MIRVs on the existing DF-4s and DF-5As. Significant evidence suggests that the Chinese have been actively interested in developing multiple warhead technology for more than 20 years.143 The current small size of the Chinese force and the mainstream projections of the size of the future force, however, make unlikely China's seeking multiple warheads for counterforce purposes. Instead, an examination of the timelines for MIRV research in China suggest that the focus of the multiple warhead effort is anti-ballistic-missile defense. Lewis and Hua assert that the Chinese began to study MRVs and MIRVs in 1970 as a response to US deployment of multiple warhead systems, but lowered the priority of the effort in March 1980 after more than a decade of problems.144 Work on multiple warheads was resumed on 10 November 1983, however, when the First Academy included them in the DF-5A modification program.145 Some reports suggest that missile tests undertaken between fall 1986 and late 1987 were for the development of multiple-warhead missiles, including at least one such test for the DF-5A ICBM.146
Why the renewed interest after years of difficulty? Lewis and Hua give us no clues, but the US announcement of the Strategic Defense Initiative in March 1983 seems too great a coincidence to ignore. If we assume that US SDI and now NMD research is driving the current round of Chinese efforts to develop multiple warheads, then a number of potential implications can be offered. The first critical variable is the status of Chinese nuclear testing. Despite allegations of nuclear espionage, Chinese accession to the CTBT would significantly impair China's ability to make progress in this area, particularly given the conclusion of the Jeremiah Commission that China has not deployed a MIRV on its ICBMs.147 Even if we assume that the Chinese have already achieved a level of miniaturization necessary for MIRVing or will do so in the near future, a second critical variable will be the size of the future Chinese nuclear force posture, particularly the CONUS-capable forces. If China maintains a relatively small ICBM force, eventually replacing its several dozen DF-4s and DF-5As with a comparable number of DF-31s and DF-41s, respectively, then Chinese MIRVing along with robust decoys and countermeasures is likely meant to try and overwhelm the proposed 100- or 200-interceptor NMD system, not necessarily perform offensive counterforce attacks. A larger force of ICBMs makes this distinction murkier, but the overwhelming, triadic force asymmetry of the United States vis-à-vis China for the foreseeable future severely reduces the possibility that China could hope to achieve its goals with a preemptive strike.
Conclusions
Based on theoretical analysis, a review of Chinese nuclear principles and doctrine, and a study of China's nuclear force structure, we reach a number of important findings. We conclude that the operational survivability of China's nuclear retaliatory capability vis-à-vis major nuclear powers was and probably still is open to question, particularly in the context of an all-out preemptive strike. At best, then, China's minimal deterrent was primarily psychological, although the potency of this aspect of the deterrent should not be underestimated. The PRC's missile modernization program, therefore, has been a quest to increase the credibility of this deterrence posture by improving the readiness and survivability of the force. Measures being implemented are a transition from volatile liquid fuels to more stable solid fuels, a transition from fixed basing to mobile basing, and the construction of a robust C4I infrastructure. The Chinese have not operationally deployed any of their planned solid-fueled, road-mobile ICBMs, though the shorter range DF-31 seems to be nearing IOC after more than 30 years of work. When these systems come online, the Chinese finally will have succeeded in fielding a much more credible minimal deterrent force, whose mobility and readiness theoretically increase the chances that some percentage of the force could survive a first strike and thus effectively deter potential attackers.
At the same time, however, the Chinese force has grown to encompass more than simply minimal deterrent forces, including theater and tactical systems. Viewed in its totality, the Chinese nuclear force structure seems to defy simple categorization as either minimal or "limited" deterrence. The multifaceted force is made up of strategic, theater, and tactical systems of varying range, accuracy, and yield, reflecting the very different missions it is required to perform. The small ICBM force, anchored by the DF-5 family of missiles, appear to be second-strike minimal deterrence forces. The theater systems, by contrast, are unlikely to be used in a second-strike, minimal deterrent role following a preemptive strike. Instead, theater systems look like offensive systems meant to strike US forces and bases in Asia to degrade conventional capability. The short-range, ballistic missile forces, which are also nuclear capable, further confuse the situation by serving a variety of conventional warfighting and nuclear warfighting roles. For the future, the doctrine and force structure of China's Second Artillery must be analyzed at three distinct levels: a posture of credible minimal deterrence with regard to the continental United States and Russia; a more offensive-oriented posture of "limited deterrence" with regard to China's theater nuclear forces; and an offensively configured, preemptive, counterforce warfighting posture of "active defense" or "offensive defense" for the Second Artillery's conventional missile forces.
How did the Chinese force evolve into this arrangement? First, our analysis tends to confirm the arguments of Lewis, et al., of the importance of technology as a determinant of Chinese doctrine. The progression of missile systems, with their gradually expanding ranges and capabilities, defined the limits of the possible for the Chinese leadership. We disagree, however, that technology alone determined the nature of the Chinese nuclear force posture. Central guidance on ranges and payloads, although admittedly vague, appears to conform with strategic-level perceptions of threats and goals in the external security environment, especially when matched with the corresponding logical deployment pattern outlined in section three. Perhaps we can say that the Chinese made a virtue out of necessity in the construction of their nuclear deterrent, accepting the technological constraints of the system and making rational choices under those constraints.
In the end, however, we question whether China ever actually achieved a fully credible minimal deterrent. Thus, our attention has focused on the discontinuity between reality and aspiration, which is oftimes referred to as the "capabilities-doctrine gap." At the present stage in the Second Artillery's modernization, China is nearing an historic convergence between doctrine and capability, allowing it to increasingly achieve a degree of credible minimal deterrence vis-à-vis the continental United States--a convergence of its doctrine and capability it has not confidently possessed since the weaponization of China's nuclear program in the mid-1960s.
But what about "limited deterrence"? Recent studies find that since at least the late 1980s, Chinese military writings have promoted the need for China to develop a "limited deterrence"--as opposed to a "minimal deterrence"--doctrine. Although these writings are not considered official declarations of doctrine, because they are written by military analysts and appear in officially sanctioned military publications they have a special salience that deserves further scrutiny. In analyzing these writings, Johnston observes the emergence of "more comprehensive and consistent doctrinal arguments in favor of developing a limited flexible response capability" and that "Chinese strategists have developed a concept of limited deterrence . . . to describe the kind of deterrent China ought to have."148
In general and specific terms, these Chinese writings call for limited, counterforce, war-fighting capabilities "to deter conventional, theater, and strategic nuclear war, and to control and suppress escalation during a nuclear war."149 According to Chinese analysts, such a posture requires:
a greater number of smaller, more accurate, survivable, and penetrable ICBMs; SLBMs as countervalue retaliatory forces; tactical and theater nuclear weapons to hit battlefield and theater military targets and to suppress escalation; ballistic missile defense to improve the survivability of the limited deterrent; space-based early warningand command and control systems; and anti-satellite weapons (ASATs) to hit enemy military satellites.150
Because such a posture would require a significant increase in Chinese capabilities, Johnston correctly highlights the gap between this proposed doctrine on the one hand, and actual capabilities on the other. As Godwin points out, the lack of any space-based reconnaissance or early warning systems means that Beijing's command and control system does not have the ability in real time to determine the size and origin of the attack, making it difficult to determine what kind of response is required--an essential component of the more sophisticated versions of limited deterrence found in Chinese military journals.151 Johnston also notes that actually achieving such a deterrent posture is not an inevitable outcome, owing to a number of possible constraints.
We have little basis for questioning the findings of Johnston about internal military writings on nuclear deterrence, especially the striking lack of discussion of the term "minimal deterrence." There are a number of possible explanations. Paul Godwin suggests that Mao Zedong's death in 1976 and the implementation of Deng Xiaoping's military reforms in the late 1970s permitted China's military analysts to explore issues of doctrine and strategy "free from the stultifying requirement to verify everything they wrote with a literal interpretation of Mao's writings and statements."152 Second, Godwin points to the increased battlefield nuclear weapons threat on the Sino-Soviet border, which "raised the salience of strategic deterrence and nuclear warfighting to a level it had never before achieved," encouraging Chinese military analysts to read extensively in Western theories and journals.153 Johnston himself offers some additional explanations in the last few pages of his International Security article.154 Many of the PLA authors explicitly contrast limited and minimal deterrence, obviating the possibility that they have simply renamed the previous doctrine for bureaucratic purposes. The authors appear to be well placed to affect the operational doctrine of the Second Artillery, removing the possibility of a disjuncture between academic and military writings, as occurred between the writings of RAND strategists and the war-winning strategy of General LeMay at the Strategic Air Command. If limited deterrence is defined as flexible response, counterforce warfighting, then perhaps limited deterrence is the aspirational doctrine for a future Second Artillery, although the past production timelines of the missile industry should sober our expectations of its appearance anytime soon.
We would add three more caveats to interpret the emergence and meaning of an ostensible limited deterrence posture in China. First, assuming a continued adherence by China to its testing moratorium, and the possibility that it will ratify the CTBT in the future, we question the ability of China to confidently develop smaller, lighter, and more accurate nuclear warheads (including potential MRV and MIRV capability) consistent with the limited deterrent aspirations described by Chinese analysts in the late 1980s and early 1990s.
Second, the tripartite system we describe possibly is a confirmation of Johnston's conclusions about limited deterrence, and we have simply come to the same place from a different direction. Perhaps the Chinese, when they looked at the multifunctional force structure they created, felt that minimal deterrence no longer could encompass all of the various defensive and offensive, long-range and short-range systems in their arsenal. Borrowing from Confucius, they may have concluded that harmony could only be restored when the name of the thing matched the nature of thing, and the product of this zhengming was "limited deterrence."
Third, even if we accept limited deterrence as an overarching aspirational goal of this multifaceted system, however, we still reject the misinterpretation of Johnston's writings by some, such as the Cox Committee and others, to mean that the Chinese are unquestionably engaged in an aggressive modernization of their missile forces meant to enable counterforce warfighting. Indeed, as we have outlined in this paper, there are legitimate, alternative explanations for many of the hardware trends in China. Reforms in mobility, readiness, and C4I infrastructure are readily and more comprehensively explained as an attempt to increase survivability from foreign attack--simply the long-sought confidence of a credible deterrent, notwithstanding Chinese analytic differentiation between "limited" and "minimal" deterrence--and not necessarily to achieve a warfighting, war-winning strategy. Moreover, as long as the numbers of the force stay beneath a certain level, increases in accuracy and multiple warheads do not pose a threat to American and Russian overwhelming nuclear superiority. American strategic nuclear forces, we must remember, still number around 8,000 deployed on 575 ICBMs, 102 strategic bombers, and 17 SSBNs. Indeed, a single Trident SSBN, carries more missiles (24) than the entire Chinese ICBM inventory.
The troubling countertrend involves the introduction of theater and national missile defenses into the equation, dramatically complicating China's strategic environment. Whereas China previously faced a world marked by the threat of offense racing, the post-BMD world will be marked by the unpredictable interactions of offense racing, defense racing, and countermeasure/decoy racing. In this environment, China would be acting rationally if it accelerated the desultory pace of its missile modernization, spending more money on relatively cheap countermeasures and decoys. To develop smaller warheads for penetrating missile defenses, Beijing would be acting in its self-interest by opting out of CTBT and resuming testing. Finally, China might even seek to foil missile defenses by proliferating its countermeasures technology to other emerging nuclear states. All of these trends would reduce the security of the United States. We hope that a sober understanding of the nature and purpose of Chinese nuclear force modernization and doctrinal evolution could forestall such an outcome.
Chinese Chemical and Biological Warfare (CBW) Capabilities
Eric Croddy
Summary
This paper divides the two disciplines of chemical and biological (CB) weaponry. First, it discusses the PRC view of chemical weapons from a historical perspective. Next, the immediate question of Chinese CB weapons is examined, presenting the likely capabilities of a former or existent offensive capability in either area, followed by a look at Chinese CW defensive preparations. The next section sketches the development of China's chemical industry, and how its uneven progress could have affected offensive CW capabilities. Looking at the state of chemical technology in the PRC can help to establish a framework to consider the production of CW agents.
The BW side of the ledger follows, noting its historical context, facilities in the PRC that are related to the science of biological weaponry, and whether recent allegations of specific BW activity on the part of China have merit.
The main points of this study are as follows.
History
- Statements by PLA officers on CW and its historical development are often derivative of Western and Russian-language sources.
- The same sources charge that the US military used chemical weapons against Sino-Korean forces, including mustard, cyanide, and chloropicrin.
- The PRC also alleges the extensive use of BZ (an incapacitating agent) by the United States in the Vietnam war.
Chemical Warfare: China's Offensive Capability
- In Chinese literature, three CW agents receive the most attention, and probably for good reason: blister, blood, and nerve agents.
- China possessed a significant quantity of chemical weapons at least until the late 1980s, although the amount of CW agent or number of munitions did not approach anywhere near that of the former Soviet Union or the United States.
- The only chemical delivery systems in China that could threaten Taiwan directly include ballistic missiles and possibly aerial munitions.
Chinese Views on Chemical Weapons and Arms Control
- Two PLA officers who are also CBW experts are skeptical that arms inspections can stop the proliferation of chemical weapons technology in toto.
- The PRC is under the impression that coalition forces moved some 2,700 tons of weaponized CW agent near the Persian Gulf during the Gulf war (1991).
- With regard to the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), the PRC probably believes that for a country to clandestinely produce large amounts of chemical weapons and not be discovered is impossible.
The PLA's Chemical Defense Corps (Fanghuabing)
- The PLA's Chemical Defense Corps (CDC) to our knowledge first undertook offensive operations during the campaign in the Yijiangshan islands in January 1955, probably involving obscurant smoke and perhaps flame throwers.
- China was able to indigenously mass produce CW defense equipment only by the mid-1970s.
- A nuclear, biological, and chemical (NBC) defense reconnaissance vehicle recently was modified by the PLA using a chassis from the Beijing-Jeep line of SUVs.
- After 1979, a new series of CW defense materiel was designed, and, by 1987, a total of 50 different standardized models were used by the PLA.
Medical Defense Research and Organization
- During the 1960s and 1970s, China provided instruction in chemical defense medicine to students from Vietnam, North Korea, and Albania.
- The official history of military medicine in the PRC indicates China finally deduced the chemical formula and composition of VX only by the 1970s.
- The two carbamates mentioned in Chinese literature for nerve agent prophylaxis, Cuixingning and Cuixingan, offer the PLA effective nerve agent prophylaxis, possibly superior to that used in the West.
- One of the more important areas for medical defenses are efforts to protect PLA personnel from the toxic propellants and off-gases of rockets and other self-propelled weapons systems.
Development of China's Chemical Industry: 1978 to Present
- China's large oil reserves and petrochemical industry probably were adequate to manufacture blister (Lewisite, sulfur, and nitrogen mustards) in large quantities, perhaps by the mid-1950s.
- Since the founding of the PRC, production of elemental phosphorus for fine chemicals probably was a very difficult procedure for Chinese chemists to accomplish.
- If China has in fact given up an offensive CW capability, the PRC does so now when it is most able to produce a wide range of toxic nerve agents, and in large quantities.
- A pessimistic view is that, in the event of a major crisis, the PRC would have little trouble reconstituting a large chemical weapons arsenal within a relatively short period of time.
Chinese Perspectives on BW
- Allegations that the United States routinely used BW agents during the Korean war--including smallpox, plague, typhus, and anthrax--seem to be accepted as fact within the PLA.
- The PRC repeatedly makes assurances that China has no biological weapons, and categorically states that "China has never manufactured nor possessed biological weapons."155
- Some specialized equipment has also been fiel
