military experts
EnglishРусский中文(简体)FrançaisEspañol
Set as default language
 Edit Translation

Chinese Nuclear Not-First-Use Strategy and Its Problems

Nuclear strategy «non-first use» in the Chinese sense and its problems

China is officially a nuclear power, declared not to be the first to use nuclear weapons under any circumstances. But there are enough high-ranking people in the USA, who doubt it. And you can’t say, which is absolutely no reason, except for a persistent desire “kick” China on the information front, They dont have.

“holes” in nuclear strategy?

As is known, The official position of the People's Republic of China on the issue of the use of nuclear weapons consisted and consists of the assertion, released by the PRC even after its first test 16 October 1964 of the year: “China will never, under any circumstances, be the first to use nuclear weapons.”. As the Americans say, loud and clear, loud and clear. This unequivocal statement was the cornerstone of China's nuclear weapons policy. (YAO) during 56 years and was often repeated and continues to be repeated by officials, and in Chinese authoritative publications for domestic and international audiences, and even in a classified training manual for specialists of the PLA missile forces. This allowance, albeit outdated, long flowed to the West and was officially translated and published by the US Department of Defense years 10 ago. The very fact that such a document fell into the hands of a potential adversary already says a lot about “order of” in China's nuclear forces, by the way.

But here's what's amazing. According to Defense News, recently new commander of US STRATCOM (Strategic Forces Command) Admiral Charles Richard, speaking at the U.S. Senate Committee on Armed Forces, He stated, that “could drive a truck through holes in Chinese politics” on refusal to apply first. But when asked to clarify (asked committee member Senator John Hawley, by the way, this Republican at the end of last year became the youngest senator, him just 39, that for the upper house of the Capitol is just a child's age, there figures years before 90 sit without any change), then Richard suddenly “engaged in reverse gear”. He declared, that China's policy in this area “very opaque” and said, that his assessment is based on “very little information”. breakwater, I know little, That's why I say this about the Chinese, they, breakwater, conceal... The comments of the commander of STRATCOM to the committee indicate that, that he is familiar with the most controversial section of the aforementioned Chinese secret manual. Which the, according to some American analysts, indicates that, that there may be some circumstances, under which China will be the first to use nuclear weapons in a war with the United States.

Strange strategy

This misperception is understandable.. The more so, how do americans write, at one time, with that Chinese document, the US Department of Defense had difficulties even with the correct translation. what, of course, surprisingly, Considering, that there are many Chinese in the USA, including various kinds of defectors, but they didn’t seem to translate from a rare variant of the language of the little-known tribes of Equatorial Africa. Generally, in that 405-page document of the Chinese rocket scientists, non-first use is constantly and clearly stated. But it also says, that ambiguous situations are possible during a military crisis, which may lead to “disastrous” consequences. It says something like this: “If a strong military power, possessing nuclear missiles and an absolute advantage in high-tech conventional weapons, conducts intensive and continuous attacks on our main strategic installations, and we do not have a good military strategy to confront the enemy”, the, implied further, various options are possible. clear, what it is about the USA. Russia is seen as a friend and ally, not as a military adversary, those days are long gone.

Nuclear strategy «non-first use» in the Chinese sense and its problems

About the completion of the repair of the Tavkr "Admiral Kuznetsov": why are the deadlines delayed

The authors indicate, that China's nuclear missile forces in this case are preparing to take concrete steps, including increasing the readiness of nuclear forces and conducting exercises with the launch, that “to convince the opponent to stop continuing strong blows by conventional means”. Pretty toothless and stupid strategy, as the author of this article thinks. No matter how the option, when it will be too late to drink Borjomi, having kidneys, requiring a transplant. This manual refers to these steps as “correcting” China's nuclear policy and “downgrade” nuclear threat threshold. threatening, but not application! Again, a very arrogant plan - with such a large number of nuclear forces, weapons survivability, their real capabilities and with the vast majority of weapons of a formally intercontinental radius, which have never been tested, not only for a full or simply intercontinental, but even at the maximum average range.

Chinese leaders would take these steps, mentioned above, only in extreme circumstances. Several key events and actions are highlighted in the text, that would serve as triggers. for example, American conventional bombing of Chinese nuclear and hydroelectric plants, heavy conventional bombing of major cities, such, both Beijing and Shanghai, or other acts of conventional war, who “seriously threaten” the “security and survival” of the nation. Why hydroelectric power plants are listed together with nuclear power plants is understandable, Chinese dams on major rivers, where the majority of the Chinese population lives, even with massive and accurate strikes with conventional weapons, they can become a source of apocalyptic consequences for dozens, if not hundreds, million Chinese. But, sorry, in the event of even an attempt to deliver a single such strike against Russia, the strike would be delivered immediately, moreover, nuclear and massive. And they just promise “increase the readiness of nuclear forces” and conduct exercises. Not too late?

Doubts in the US and beyond

of course, in the US, many doubt such a strange nuclear strategy. They believe, which is much more likely to be a strategy “escalation to de-escalation”, when the side winds up the stakes up to the use of tactical nuclear weapons (TAO) first, to show the seriousness of their intentions and readiness for a further increase in rates, which will not justify the reasons for the enemy to continue the military confrontation. In the West it is considered, that this strategy is one of those used by Russia, But Russia, previously undeniable, in recent years, for propaganda purposes, denies how these, and other plans for the use of tactical nuclear weapons or strategic nuclear forces first. However, denial it, whoever it comes from, has little to do with real plans for crisis situations, and the Russian Federation, certainly, without assuming any obligation not to be the first to use, can tell anything but the structure of nuclear forces, their development strategy, in particular, new types of weapons (“arms 1 Martha”, what is his name often in the West and in our country), says, that none of the options, vplot to “strike at the appointed time”, not excluded. However, about strategy “escalate to (or) de-escalation” we will talk in detail another time - the topic is very capacious.

So did Admiral Richard., obviously, believes, that this planned adjustment (in the context of massive strikes with conventional weapons against the PRC) China's nuclear stance means, that Beijing is preparing to use nuclear weapons first in these circumstances. And this, of course, it would be logical. Richard told Senator Hawley, what is “a number of situations, when in China they can draw a conclusion, what was the first use of nuclear weapons, that do not meet our definition of first use”. Commander STRATCOM, like other American analysts, considers, that the Chinese will interpret these massive US conventional strikes as equivalent to the first use of US nuclear weapons against China. And they are right, because that's what it should look like in this situation. what, must wait, while cities and nuclear power plants with hydroelectric power plants will be dismantled for you and a local flood will be arranged with Chernobyl and Fukushima cubed?

lower threshold, Let not the

But in the Chinese leadership “lowering the threshold” doesn't mean the same, what is in our or American terms. We “floating” or “reduced” application threshold, let us say, TAO, means, that Russia makes the enemy guess, whether in response to their actions a crushing (or dosed, but with dire consequences.) strike by conventional means of strategic deterrence (eg, Long-range terrestrial CD, sea ​​or air based), or by them, but already in nuclear equipment, or other carriers of tactical / non-strategic nuclear weapons. Which in itself is a deterrent.

Nuclear strategy «non-first use» in the Chinese sense and its problems

IDF launched rocket attacks on suburb of Kuneitra

But for the Chinese it only means… China bringing its nuclear weapons to combat readiness, and not the decision of the leaders of the PRC to lower the threshold for deciding on the use of nuclear weapons. And about the first blow there is not a word!

What does it mean? China, Unlike Russia, United States or even France, keeps its nuclear forces, mostly or completely, able, when warheads are in storage, not on media.. In Russia, let us say, this is not true, of course, not all warheads of strategic nuclear forces, that can be installed on media, they are due to contractual restrictions (while START-3 is still in effect), but all carriers, other than those under renovation., service, modernization, always carry charges. Besides, of course, strategic heavy bombers - neither we, neither Americans with nuclear weapons on board have been patrolling at normal times for a long time, so as not to create dangerous situations in case of accidents, Thule type, Palomares and others “achievements” USA. But hanging nuclear missiles is not for long. TNW is another matter - it, basically, is stored in the arsenals and in the RTB, and in part can even be transferred to lower degrees of readiness, what, however, quickly eliminated. But in China, obtained, not so.

Chinese SSBNs are not constantly at sea in combat service, they are not on duty at the berths, and even if they are on patrol, obtained, may not carry nuclear charges. As for the Chinese, eg, BRSD, BRMD and other non-strategic weapons, then for most of them even nuclear charges were not produced. The above guide describes, like China's nuclear warheads and missiles, who deliver them, managed by two separate structures (we are also responsible for the storage and maintenance of nuclear charges 12 Main Directorate of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, what else are they called, “deaf-mutes”, but it does not mean, that charges are not on carriers). And the Chinese rocket scientists are training, to put them together and run after, how China was attacked with a nuclear weapon. Interesting, who will give them time for such an operation? Especially given the extremely low survivability of Chinese silo launchers, and mobile equipment in its shelters, especially in accepted service. So, not rushing, eg, mobile combat service complexes with patrols on protected routes, there is no duty at waypoints and so on - like duty in hangars with a sliding roof such as “Crown”, which in the mobile grouping of the Strategic Missile Forces of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation carries a third of such complexes constantly, when the other third is in the forest and taiga.

If you plan like this, you may not wake up

All of these behaviors are consistent with the no-first-use policy. “Adjustment”, which Chinese nuclear forces are preparing to produce in a crisis, if the United States bombs China with impunity, It is, to bring China's nuclear forces to a state of readiness, like that, in which the nuclear forces of the United States are located all this time. This step is intended not only to end the bombing, but also to convince American politicians, that they cannot count on the destruction of China's nuclear potential in the event of an escalation of the crisis. excuse me, but there will simply be nothing to correct - nuclear forces can simply be destroyed in this situation. Especially considering that, that the early warning system in China, how systems, still no (but soon with our help).

The authors of the Chinese manual for rocket scientists suggest, that alerting China's nuclear forces to increase alert “will induce a state of shock in the enemy”. They also assume, what can it “prevent the continuation of conventional attacks by a strong enemy on our main strategic targets”. It's highly doubtful. The shock will come from, that the Chinese are still sleeping among the shafts, while their cities are being erased.

Given the low combat readiness and low survivability, and organizational flaws, and a small number of charges and carriers, the head of the White House may be tempted to quickly wipe China's nuclear forces from the face of China, with virtually impunity. And having received notification, that the Chinese put charges on carriers, the President of the United States is unlikely to hope for that, that Chinese speakers, being never tested at the prescribed range, Chinese charges will not be delivered to the States. is he, probably, and doesn't know about it: the current president does not know, what is going on in the nuclear sphere, being in a dream about “strengthening America's power in nuclear weapons to unprecedented heights”, about “hypersonic systems, which are already many” and other. maybe, someday there will be a smarter president, but looking at Trump's main rival, Biden, it doesn't seem so. Generally, whoever was sitting there in the Oval Office, he won't think and wait! One study concluded that, what if the US uses nuclear weapons, to try and knock out Chinese ICBMs and SLBMs, that (in theory) can reach the United States, it could lead to the deaths of tens of millions of Chinese civilians. rather, it will cause the death of Chinese nuclear forces. With the subsequent death of tens or hundreds of millions of Chinese. we, of course, we do not touch on the topic of Russia's behavior in a similar situation, which is unlikely to erase its neighbor and friend from the face of the Earth.

Nuclear strategy «non-first use» in the Chinese sense and its problems

CPVS reported on the actions of the Russian military in Syria over the past day

Chinese nuclear forces, of course, are being improved, but even their latest missile systems look good in parades and in advertising bikes in the Chinese media, but even experts “latest” (developed for a quarter of a century) DF-41 system (which could be disassembled on this resource) raises a smile and questions about the adequacy of its creators. Being outwardly similar to the Russian mobile ground systems of the Strategic Missile Forces, these systems are extremely far from them in terms of their technical level and even in classification. And such arrogance and belief in, that someone will give them the opportunity to at least put their weapons on alert, could cost China dearly. Underground shelters in the rocks are, of course, OK, but not enough to create the potential for a reliable retaliatory strike. And SSBNs can remain in the bases forever, while they will remove the missiles and the charges on them, install and return the missiles back.

Slippery road to nuclear war

The Chinese military is aware of, that an attempt to force the United States to stop conventional strikes, warning their nuclear forces, may fail. They also know, that it could provoke a nuclear war. But if it happens, they also consider, that China will not be the one, who will start it. what, in the opinion of the author, stupidity, because China does not yet have a guaranteed retaliatory capability, yes, even for such a tough option, when nuclear forces meet the war completely non-combat ready.

The logic of the Chinese is completely different.. Nuclear attack often, in their opinion, preceded by nuclear coercion (threat by force, demonstrative nuclear actions up to strikes on uninhabited areas in the oceans, etc.). Because of this, in the midst of a process of high nuclear coercion, China should be well prepared for a nuclear retaliation.. The more complete the preparation, the higher the confidence in nuclear coercion, the easier it is to achieve the goal of nuclear coercion and the less likely it is that, that nuclear missile forces will be used in real combat operations. That's their logic, and she's obviously wrong, they are unlikely to be given time for this.

They assume, what if China demonstrates, that he is well prepared to respond, then the United States will not risk a limiting strike with nuclear weapons. And even if the United States strikes China's nuclear forces with conventional weapons, China still won't strike first. In the introductory section of the next chapter, dedicated to “Nuclear Strikeback Operations”, management gives directions, as is often done throughout the text:

According to the principles of our country, its tough stance on no first use of nuclear weapons, “Second artillery” will carry out a nuclear missile attack on important strategic targets of the enemy, according to the combat orders of the Supreme High Command, only after, how the enemy will carry out a nuclear strike on our country.
Completeness, fellow Chinese, but will you have something to strike after massive strikes with conventional weapons on non-combat-ready nuclear forces of not very high survivability?

So Richard is right., and wrong, talking about “hole” in Chinese strategy. From a Chinese point of view, no “maybe”it doesn't have, and from the point of view of a representative of the strategic nuclear forces of one of the two superpowers, it consists of holes and. However, this is not the most up-to-date Chinese document on this subject, and, since China then allowed, let it be stupid, and extremely careful, but a deviation from those expressed by Mao Zedong, and then Deng Xiaoping, theses about the strict rule of not being the first to use, something might have changed in that time. After all, it is not for nothing that Russian-Chinese military cooperation has already reached strategic areas, such as joint bomber patrols. building a joint, in fact, SPRN, missile defense exercises. They could learn and understand something in nuclear terms, communicating with “fighting nation”. Although, if you figure it out, there is almost no departure from the principles of Mao and Deng, after all, the PRC even on a massive disarming conventional strike (or decapitating normal strike, or blows, causing catastrophic consequences for the country and the population) does not intend to respond with nuclear weapons.

Mao Zedong famously named nuclear weapons “paper tiger”. He called a lot. Many believed, that Chairman Mao talks too cavalierly about the consequences of a nuclear war. But he meant, that they will not be used to fight and win wars. US nuclear threats during the Korean War and Taiwan Strait Crisis in the 1950s, in Vietnam as a threat, followed by no real nuclear attack, only confirmed Mao's idea that, that nuclear weapons were primarily psychological weapons. And hence the Chinese attitude towards this weapon. Chinese leaders decide to acquire nuclear weapons, to free your mind from, what the Mao generation called “nuclear blackmail”. Chinese nuclear scientists called it “leadership position with a straight back”. That is, China needs nuclear weapons, to sit in negotiations with direct, not bent back. “Countering nuclear blackmail along with coercion of other states, nuclear weapon, to negotiate their liquidation were the only two goals, which Chinese nuclear weapons were supposed to serve”. Modern Chinese military, looks like, added a new goal: force the United States to stop attacks by conventional means, without the use of nuclear weapons. But this, as shown above, a strategy that is quite dangerous for China itself, if there are no real inhibitory factors, protecting against attempts of massive conventional disarming and decapitation strikes.

I. Vyatkin, especially for “military review”

A source

                          
Chat in TELEGRAM:  t.me/+9Wotlf_WTEFkYmIy

Playmarket

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
0 comment
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments