5 ms·
China Is Building a Second Nuclear Missile Silo Field
- nabla9 5y agoSilos are so far a apart that single warhead can destroy only one silo. Arms control experts seem to think that China is building missile "sponge". Field of 120 silos would contain only 12 ICBM's or so. If they build enough silos into the desert and and decoys for the rest, the US must spend more and more missiles to destroy just few missiles. The US had similar plan at the beginning of the Cold War. It became politically impossible to use eminent domain to create so large missile fields on farmland.
- baybal2 5y agoA simpler explanation is them simply expanding their offensive arsenal. Why wouldn't they.
- nabla9 5y agoIt's only simpler for you to think about. "Missile sponge" is simpler plan to execute and operate. ICBM's are expensive to build and maintain. Chinese are expected to moderately expand their arsenal, but they don't need significantly more silo-based warheads for credible deterrence, they just need to increase survivability from decapitation attack. Missile sponge is very cost effective way to do that. Their road-mobile and rail-mobile DF-41 ICBM's provide already good deterrence, but putting the new DF-41s into silos just increases the variety and survivability of their ground based deterrence.
- baybal2 5y ago> ICBM's are expensive to build and maintain. Not a problem for China with its industrial capacity larger than both USA, and Russia together. The biggest gun you can afford is almost always the most efficient spend of your money. > they don't need significantly more silo-based warheads for credible deterrence Who said they need it for deterrence? If their goal would be just deterrence, they wouldn't be trying so hard to undermine it. It's very clear they want to have enough missiles to perform a first strike on the two likeliest (now possibly three) enemies. It's the most clear, and logical explanation standing any military theory test.
- CryptoPunk 5y ago>>It's the most clear, and logical explanation standing any military theory test. Nuclear proliferation is extremely dangerous, for every one in the world including the proliferater, so it's not clear that a country maximally expanding its nuclear arsenal is the most logical move to advance its self-interest.
- baybal2 5y ago> Nuclear proliferation is extremely dangerous, for every one in the world including the proliferater It's outright stupid to think that the person doing something something as big as this is not conscious of this. On the opposite, this big scare factor very much must be a part of the strategy.
- throwaway4good 5y agoHonestly I find this use of Google maps to find military sites or concentration camps questionable. However it is fairly obvious to me that the Chinese are going to expand their nuclear weapons arsenal until it matches that of the Americans. The solution for this is for the Americans to have a smaller arsenal.
- zthrowaway 5y agoWhy is it questionable? Because it might turn up dirty laundry? The solution of reducing arms is moot. Pandora’s box has already been opened. Plus you don’t defend yourself by looking weak. I argue the nuclear arsenals around the world have kept everyone in line. WW1 was horrifying enough to deter any further war, then WW2 happened. You can’t eradicate human conquest, but you can deter it with enough counterforce that makes the action seem too large of a sacrifice.
- throwaway4good 5y agoA kid hired by some questionable think tank, sitting in an office a thousands miles away, analyzing a piece of land, he has never seen in real life, solely through a sattelite photo, driven by whatever politics and incentives ... well ... he just might be wrong.
- nix23 5y ago>politics and incentives ... well ... he just might be wrong. Very well said.
- uCantCauseUCant 5y agoTurns out our leaders worry about their own asses, exclusively.
- nabla9 5y agoOpen source arms control experts don't just use Google maps. Once they locate interesting spot, they can buy better quality satellite images and get better time coverage.
- moistly 5y agoA similar photo hit the web a month or so ago. Turned out to be windmills. It makes no sense to put missile silos close together. I’ll reserve judgment for now, but I doubt the headline’s claim.
- mytailorisrich 5y agoWe'll see when the climate-controlled domes are removed. I'm no expert and so a little surprised that building the base of a windmill requires such dome.
- Arrath 5y agoIt looks a bit overkill, but the domes could feasibly be to allow for proper temperature and moisture control of the concrete curing process. Or to make satellite overwatch of what they're doing under the dome that much more difficult. Or both!
- minikites 5y agoSinophobia is the new Islamophobia, which was the replacement for Russophobia when the USSR collapsed. The USA seems to need an enemy at all times so we don't focus on how bad things are in the domestic sphere.
- Proven 5y agoI'm sure Chinese Uighurs endorse that message.
- tharne 5y ago> Sinophobia is the new Islamophobia A phobia is an extreme irrational fear. There's nothing extreme nor irrational about being wary of a country that is A) Increasingly powerful, B) treats its own citizens extremely badly, e.g. the Uighurs, Tibet, etc., and C) very likely covered up the spread of COVID in the early stages in an effort to save face. If they treat their own citizens like enemies, it's only natural to worry about how they'll treat their rivals. And no, this in not a defense of U.S. policy, foreign or domestic -- it's to point out that a legitimate concern or criticism of another country should not be slapped with a knee-jerk "phobic" label. Western countries do not have a monopoly on bad behavior and no one should be above criticism.
- mjbeswick 5y agoIs this at all surprising that the chinese would see the need for such nuclear deterrent, since the US still has 1800 silos (that are public knowledge).