China is preparing to deploy its own Golden Dome. Satellite photographs show a network of air defense missile launch pads designed to protect Beijing’s intercontinental ballistic missile silos from a nuclear first strike. When your enemy begins to ensure that its offensive nuclear capability is protected, it is confirmation that the US's massive missile defense program has some validity.
Nuclear Ambitions of China Not to Be Overlooked
US concern about China as a near-peer military threat is focused on the Taiwanese Strait and the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) designs on unification with Taiwan. Yet the PRC’s nuclear ambitions cannot be overlooked. The latest threat is the protection being afforded the Red Dragon’s nuclear intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) silos. Establishing a missile defense shield for its ICBM capability is an indication that the People’s Liberation Army Rocket Force (PLARF) intends to survive a first strike from an enemy. The PLARF would then launch a countervalue attack on major urban areas, since, after absorbing a first strike, large cities would be the logical target. Attacking silos would seem illogical. However, if China placed its anti-ballistic missile capability surrounding metropolitan and urban areas, that would indicate a willingness to adopt a first-strike strategy. There would be no need to defend empty silos. According to Wikipedia, the PLARF has the primary responsibility for all of China’s land-based missiles, including launch control centers, support facilities, missile brigades, and site security for these assets.
The Center for Global Security Research at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory published a report entitled “Counterforce in Contemporary US Nuclear Strategy.” This analysis provides useful background on US concepts of nuclear counterforce and countervalue strategies. Though it is unlikely that the United States would adopt a first-strike strategy, over the years, American nuclear planners have adopted a stance that relies on uncertainty. As the Center for Global Security Research concludes:
US concern about China as a near-peer military threat is focused on the Taiwanese Strait and the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) designs on unification with Taiwan. Yet the PRC’s nuclear ambitions cannot be overlooked. The latest threat is the protection being afforded the Red Dragon’s nuclear intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) silos. Establishing a missile defense shield for its ICBM capability is an indication that the People’s Liberation Army Rocket Force (PLARF) intends to survive a first strike from an enemy. The PLARF would then launch a countervalue attack on major urban areas, since, after absorbing a first strike, large cities would be the logical target. Attacking silos would seem illogical. However, if China placed its anti-ballistic missile capability surrounding metropolitan and urban areas, that would indicate a willingness to adopt a first-strike strategy. There would be no need to defend empty silos. According to Wikipedia, the PLARF has the primary responsibility for all of China’s land-based missiles, including launch control centers, support facilities, missile brigades, and site security for these assets.
The Center for Global Security Research at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory published a report entitled “Counterforce in Contemporary US Nuclear Strategy.” This analysis provides useful background on US concepts of nuclear counterforce and countervalue strategies. Though it is unlikely that the United States would adopt a first-strike strategy, over the years, American nuclear planners have adopted a stance that relies on uncertainty. As the Center for Global Security Research concludes:
“In the end, contention over targeting concepts was papered over as the U.S. approach incorporated elements of both CF [counterforce] and CV [countervalue]. This remained the case throughout the post-Cold War period, during which there were few calls to revisit the basic approach to targeting. China’s nuclear breakout has changed that, as the implications of continued emphasis on CF targeting become clearer.”
There should be a sense of urgency to understand what China is doing by building missile defense launching pads surrounding its ICBM silo fields, such as those in China’s remote far northwestern Xinjiang region and Gansu province. In a recent report, Reuters explained, “Now, satellite images reviewed by Reuters show Beijing is building a sprawling web of launch pads, bunkers and communications nodes near the isolated nuclear silos that hold the Chinese military’s longest-range missiles. China has built more than 80 launch pads and three octagon-shaped installations in its remote northwest, near the Hami nuclear silo field.”
Satellite Imagery Shows More Than Missile Defense Launch Pads
The imagery also shows that in addition to the missile defense launching pads, “facilities that may serve electronic warfare, satellite communications and command operations, according to three security analysts, who assessed the imagery for Reuters.” Additional pads can be expected as China’s ICBM capability grows. A recent War Department assessment of China’s nuclear capability revealed, “While this report assessed in 2020 that China’s nuclear warheads would double from a stockpile of the low 200s over the next decade, the PLA remains on track to have over 1,000 warheads by 2030.”
The War Department observed, “Beijing continues to reiterate NFU [no first use] when questioned about its lack of transparency regarding its expanding nuclear arsenal and is likely to reemphasize this policy when faced with assessments that it has expanded its objectives for nuclear deterrence.” The PRC’s program for protecting its ICBM silos appears to reinforce the “no-first-strike” policy. However, the construction of missile defense launch pads to defend ICBM silos does not preclude a first-strike nuclear strategy.
Dave is a retired U.S. Air Force Pilot with over 180 combat missions in Vietnam. He is the former Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense, Comptroller and has served in executive positions in the private sector aerospace and defense industry. This article was first published HERE

10 comments:
China will not be bullied ever again and it looks that way into the future. The country doing all the bullying and trying to force other countries to buy its weapons of death is … USA!
So what is China doing in the South China Sea if not 'bullying'? Ask any Philippino. And see my Breaking Views article of 1 March 2019, "Reining in the blustering Beijing bully."
"So what is China doing in the South China Sea if not 'bullying'?"
I remember Obama's "pivot to Asia" in about 2011. That was when the US woke up to the fact of China's growing power and influence. I also remember that Obama's "pivot" seemed to consist only of barbs directed at China, and attempts to rile up that country. I must say that many of us were expecting something more constructive from the US.
The South China Sea isn't called that for nothing. It's an area very important to the PRC, both geographically and from a security point of view, so naturally, there'll be jockeying for position among neighbouring countries.
The US has affected an air of injured innocence in its attempts to meddle in that area. But it would also be protesting vociferously, were the boot on the other foot, and China were to be stirring things up, close to the US seaboard.
The author must think that we here know as little as he evidently does about the PRC, and what's been happening in the South China Sea. The PRC is our biggest trading partner, by a considerable distance, yet here we are, being dragged into the US's attempts to stir things up. Enough already! We should stay out of it, and stick to trade. And the US should stay in its lane and focus on its domestic issues. And trade, of course.
International law clearly states (in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea) that artificial islands do not generate territorial waters. So what do the Chinese do? Construct artificial islands and then claim territorial waters around them. When the Philippines tried to take them to the International Court of Arbitration, they simply didn't show up. Oh, but all that doesn't matter as long as trade between China and us isn't affected, right Anon 632?
"Oh, but all that doesn't matter as long as trade between China and us isn't affected..."
Trade is the only thing over which we have any control. What do you propose that NZ could actually do that would produce change in PRC's alleged behaviour? We cannot even be sure that we know what's going on. Best to stay out of it, and stick to trade.
Oh yes we CAN be sure exactly what is going on - it's not as thought there is any secret about it nor is there any ambiguity about it in international law!
Little ol' NZ can't do a jolly thing about it of course, but can join other countries including some Pacific neighbours such as the Philippines in vociferously protesting what is so obviously the piratical behaviour of a nation that is growing far too big for its boots.
Do it now or go the way of Chamberlain in 1938.......
"...
yes we CAN be sure exactly what is going on...."
Nope. We cannot. Where does that information come from? How credible is it?
"...vociferously protesting what is so obviously the piratical behaviour of a nation that is growing far too big for its boots."
Sure you're not talking about the US there? Sounds exactly like it.
The same video-based information from multiple sources tends to indicate that what is said to be happening really is. Besides, the Chinese make no secret of what they are doing. They have snubbed the law-abiding international community by snubbing the International Court of Arbitration.
I don't like the neo-imperialistic behaviour of the Yanks any more than you do - I had 17 years to observe it first-hand in the Middle East - but that makes no case in favour of Chinese neo-imperialism. The Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei and Indonesia are all adversely affected by Beijing's aggressive adventurism. They need the support of friendly nations who respect their sovereignty.
"....that makes no case in favour of Chinese neo-imperialism."
A common mistake made about the PCR is that it's neo-imperial. I return to Obama the Awful's pivot to Asia: PCR defending itself from increasing hostility - or the perception of it - courtesy Uncle Sam.
The Philippines is still in the US camp. It was a US possession (annexed by it after the Spanish-American War in the late 19c) for a long time, remember. We have Filipino extended family: such discussions with them are very interesting regarding the politics.
Do not uncritically accept everything in the msm. Most of it is propaganda.
You're not addressing the issue, Anon 1242.
The issue I raised was the unlawful annexation of the South China Sea by constructing artificial islands and then claiming territorial waters around them, and then refusing to turn up at the International Court of Arbitration.
Nothing to do with US-Philippines relations or your in-laws.......
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.