PACOM Addresses Growing Chinese ICBM Program

PACOM Addresses Growing Chinese ICBM Program

The Commander of the Navy’s Pacific Fleet addressed a recent report Thursday at the Pentagon that outlines a growing Chinese intercontinental ballistic threat that estimates that the Chinese could have over 100 ICBMs able to reach the U.S. in 15 years.

The report in question, called the 2013 Ballistic and Cruise Missile Threat Assessment from the National Air and Space Intelligence Center, called China’s ballistic missile development program the “most active and diverse” in the world.

“China has the most active and diverse ballistic missile development program in the world. It is developing and testing offensive missiles, forming additional missile units, qualitatively upgrading missile systems, and developing methods to counter ballistic missile defenses. The Chinese ballistic missile force is expanding in both size and types of missiles,” the report stated.

The report also specifies that the Chinese military continues to develop and deploy large numbers of conventionally armed short and medium range ballistic missiles while developing a new submarine launched ballistic missile, the JL-2.

Adm. Samuel J. Locklear III, commander of U.S. Pacific Command, or PACOM, tried to emphasize what he called substantial “progress” in the U.S. to Chinese military-to-military relationship, but he acknowledged issues the U.S. military is facing with the Chinese in the Pacific.

“There is no need or intention for us to have a military containment strategy with China. We are too interconnected in too many ways,” Locklear told reporters July 11 at the Pentagon.

The intelligence report mentioned Anti-Access/Area-Denial concerns and also explains that the Chinese military uses nuclear armed ballistic missiles for regional nuclear deterrence. In addition, the NASIC report says China is acquiring new conventionally armed medium range ballistic missiles to conduct precision strikes called CSS-5 MRBMs.

“These systems are likely intended to hold at risk or strike logistics nodes, regional military bases including airfields and ports and naval assets,” the report states.

Locklear has been to Beijing and met with his Chinese counterparts. He said there is ongoing dialogue between the two militaries regarding what he called “the rules of the road.”

When asked if China’s military expansion was a threat to the U.S., Locklear seemed to emphasize the importance of maintaining a watchful eye regarding Chinese intentions — but explained Chinese military and economic growth as an “opportunity.”

“I look at them as an opportunity. If that opportunity is not realized, as with any foreign military, that opportunity could potentially become a threat — but I certainly view it and approach it as an opportunity. It is a natural thing for them, as their global economic power grows, for them to have security interests beyond their backyard,” Locklear told reporters.

In fact, Locklear mentioned the U.S. military and China’s People’s Liberation Army recently completed humanitarian disaster relief exercises hosted by Brunei this past month.

“Participants from a total of 18 nations exercised multilateral responses to a training scenario involving a post-tropical revolving storm typhoon rescue, survey, recovery and disaster relief in the vicinity of the District of Temburong, as well as other locations in Bandar Seri Begawan, Muara Naval Base and Rimba Air Force Base,” said Lt. Anthony Falvo, Pacific fleet spokesman.

Locklear also mentioned anticipated Chinese participation in the upcoming U.S.-led multi-national exercises called Rim of the Pacific, slated for the summer of 2014.

“This is a big step for the Chinese Navy. They are excited about coming and participating,” Locklear explained.

In addition, the USS Shiloh, a guided missile cruiser, just completed a port visit in Zhanjiang, China for a four day stay, he added.

Chinese ships will be docking for visits at U.S. Navy ports in the near future, Locklear said.

Unlike his reaction to Chinese expansion, Locklear was less positive when asked about the likelihood of continued North Korean provocations.

“They have a cycle of provocation where they institute a provocation against South Korea, the region or the U.S. and raise the level of rhetoric to bring you to a dialogue that allows them to stay in power and allows them to try to extract some kind of deal,” Locklear explained.

In particular, Locklear was asked about North Korea’s recent unveiling of a new road-mobile Hwasong-13 ICMB and continued development of its Taepo Dong-2 missile, both of which were cited specifically in the NASIC intelligence report.

“North Korea has an ambitious ballistic missile development program and has exported missiles and missile technology to other countries, including Iran and Pakistan. North Korea has also admitted its possession of nuclear weapons. An intermediate-range ballistic missile and a new solid propellant short-range ballistic missile are also being developed,” the report says.

Tags: , , , ,

Join the Conversation

What we need to do here is find that very slim target area of concern about China that makes us want to spend on defense like there is no tomorrow, but not to be so concerned that we upset the status quo regarding how our military buys weapons. We want you to be just concerned enough to allow those DoD contractors to continue to make record profits, but please, by all means, don’t go off the deep end. Don’t actually demand that the DoD stop paying contractors more to screw up and drag out development. That would be rash. Ah, such a narrow target, but I think our current breed of defense contractors are up to the marketing challenge.

What’s the great news here? This information was available a year ago. Our response? Dismantling of our own ICBMs. We are becoming a fat, juicy target for a surprise nuclear attack as our nuclear deterrence is weakening. Our allies inculding Japan and Sk should beuild up their own deterrence as we have become weak and unreliable. Thanks a lot, GOP and Mr. President, masters of sequestration.

What’s the news? We have the land-based siloes to deter Russia, then we move the SSBN’s around China to maintain MAD parity. If they want to jump in bed with their own Military Industrial Complex and choke to death on military spending, let them. Their economy might stumble when the outsourcing moves to the next pitiful country.

Our minuteman missiles are over 40 years old and probably don’t work. This administration is planning to retire them with no plans to build new working nuclear warheads or ICBMs. Checkmate, my friend

Aren’t we shooting off a Minuteman every so often to Kwajalein? More worried about those W88’s not working as intended…

It would be a laugh if the US and the USSR nuked each other and our bombs fizzled like North Korean atomic weapons due to age and lack of proper testing. I think the Russians would have an aneurysm, as nuclear deterrence is what keeps the borders static.

No news here. All we have t blame for China having real ICBMs is Bill CLinton who gave China that technology in th e90s. Blam dumb liberals. I do find it disturbing we let a enemy nation participate in allied exercises and dock at our ports now. Feels like Hong Kong in 1930s letting Japanese ships dock there for a short time. Way to go Obama.

Dear Jesus the Chinese “next-generation” tank force expanded by threefold when they built ten more tanks to add to those five tanks coming out of LRIP. Think tanks project at least one thousand tanks per year production rate if the Chinese double their production numbers every year for eight more years. The horror!

Initiate new studies into Project Dinochrome Brigade!

They are the enemy of our own making. We literally gave them the money to spend and the factories to spend the money in.

Poppycock, did you even read the article? “The Commander of the Navy’s Pacific Fleet addressed a recent report Thursday at the Pentagon that outlines a growing Chinese intercontinental ballistic threat that estimates that the Chinese could have over 100 ICBMs able to reach the U.S. in 15 years.” Compare that with the existing US stockpile “As of September 2009 it possessed 5,113 warheads operationally deployed, in active reserve, or held in inactive storage.” http://​en​.wikipedia​.org/​w​i​k​i​/​N​u​c​l​e​a​r​_​w​e​a​p​o​n​s​_​a​nd_

actually according to Russian Missile command China already has 1200 strategic nuclear warheads with many more added each year, see Wash Times article Sept 12, 2012. Nobody knows how many warheads are stored in their 3000 miles tunnel system. Their newest ICBM tested last August has a range of 13400 km and carries 10 MIRVs. Obama unilaterally scrapped 200 nuclear sub based cruise missiles in 2010 and has had dismanted 500 reserve nuclear warheads from the US strategic reserve. Our pursuit of Global Zero will make us a global zero and our allies know it. Hopefully Japan will wake up and join the nuclear club soon.

You guys worry too much about numbers. As internet/telephony/electronic centric as the world has become since the Cold War any nation only needs to detonate a couple good sized warheads a few hundred miles over any nation on Earth, and that nation is in the 19th century instantly. There’s no way to stop that if the other side chooses to do that. The metric simply isn’t the same as when we played the old nuclear deterrence game. The Soviet union was a closed society to us. Them vs. Us. It’s not that way anymore. No one lives under the illusion that you launch a few hundred warheads at the other guy and get anything other than the shitty end of the stick as they die quickly and you whither in a decimated world. The only real world use is in the EMP scenario or as a response to an overwhelming US conventional strike that is threatening to wipe you out conventionally.

Utter garbage. The Chinese military threat is expanding rapidly, and the US accordingly needs to strengthen, not weaken, its military. The US is NOT “spending on defense like there is no tomorrow” — its military spending is at a record low both as a percentage of GDP and a share of the federal budget.

“In reserve or held in active storage” are not “operationally deployed” and are not comparable with these. Only about 1,700 US warheads are operationally deployed, and Obama wants to cut that to just 1,000. Meanwhile, the Russian military estimates that CHina has at least 1,600–1,800 nuclear warheads, while Professor Philip Karber, a former DOD chief nuclear strategist, puts their arsenal at 3,000 warheads.

““There is no need or intention for us to have a military containment strategy with China. We are too interconnected in too many ways,” Locklear told reporters July 11 at the Pentagon.”

What an idiot (or a traitor)! The US desperately needs a military containment strategy towards China. The PRC’s military and economic growth is NOT an “opportunity” for America — it is the biggest national security threat to America.

The Chinese are excited about participating in RIMPAC?

Well, duh! This way, they’ll be able to gain a lot of insight about how the US military operates! They’ll rthus gain, for free, tons of information that even their best spies couldn’t deliver to them! The Obama administration and this despicable traitor named Samuel Locklear are practically handing over this information for free to the Chinese! In violation of the law, I might add, because the FY2000 NDAA PROHIBITS China from participating in any such exercises.

The Minuteman-III is hopelessly obsolete. It was first deployed in 1969 and the last MMIII missile was deployed in 1976 — and the Obama admin currently has NO plans to replace it.

Yes, the former Russian SMF CHief of Staff, Col. Gen. Viktor Yesin (retired), currently a Russian MOD consultant, estimates China currently has 1,600–1,800 warheads — and enough fissile material to produce another 1,800…

Former DOD chief nuclear strategist Professor Philip Karber estimates China may have as many as 3,000 warheads…

Yes, China’s newest ICBM, the DF-41, has a range of 13,400 kms and can carry 10 warheads, and yes, in 2010, he did unilaterally scrap 200 sub-based nuclear-armed Tomahawks — and nobody has reciprocated…

And yes, Japan will join the nuclear club if the US cuts its nuclear deterrent further. It already has a facility capable of producing enough fissile material for 3,600 warheads in a year if need be.

Great, to see somebody agree with me. What is sad, is that the GOP has decided to decimate our military through sequestration instead of pushing a Reagan-like strenghtening of our nuclear deterrence. The GOP in bed with the ultraleft. That’s why we will be wiped out.

Russia and the US need to get over the it’s-just-us mentality. The children have grown up and are ready to cause trouble. We must be the adults and ensure that our bilateral treaties do not potentially handicap us to new threats. For instance, the loss of IRBM missiles to the US and the Russians has strategic implications beyond those of keeping Europe from being a nuclear wasteland. That said, the Russians are more likely to resume building IRBMs than we are.

Of course, this also assumes that Russia is not a threat and is someone we can do business with. That’s not necessarily true…time to start shuttle diplomacy, and pull the PRC into weapons talks. China’s economic growth is slowing; they cannot afford the military arms race any more than we can. They could pull a Reagan and force us into a spending race that we cannot win; but that depends on if they can accept the same risks Reagan did by provoking the militarily larger adversary.

The Peacekeeper wasn’t up to snuff, and the political will to fix them did not exist for many administrations.

Updating the electronics would be welcome, but I’m not sure it’ll happen. I’d be interested to see some Trident technology spin off to land-based missiles…perhaps use Trident missiles in ground silos, plus an additional first stage?

Uh, Lance, study their development tracks. Their most advanced systems wew already completed or well into development by then (excluding the df41, obviously).

Sure, just ignore the index of inflation because if you use that we are spending more than we did during the peak of the Cold War. After all, those numbers are just government lies — hmm, kinda makes you think, huh.

Actually, at the peak of the Cold War, in FY1985-1987, the US was spending about $620 bn per year. Not including the DOE’s budget.

This year’s military budget is $613 bn (ALL of it: the base budget, OCO spending, and the DOE); the base defense budget now, after sequestration, is $469 bn.

As a percentage of GDP and of the total federal budget (4.0% and 16%, respectively), military spending is ALREADY at a historic low.

“Loral was accused of transferring technology to China in 1996. The incident arose as a result of an investigation into the launch failure of Intelsat 708, a Space Systems/Loral–built satellite. In a 2002 agreement with the State Department and Department of Justice the company agreed to pay $20 million in fines to settle the matter and to improve its compliance procedures. In the agreement Loral officials neither admitted nor denied the government’s charges, but Loral executives acknowledged “the nature and seriousness of the offenses alleged by the department in the draft charging letter, including the risk of harm to the security and foreign policy interests of the United States”, and stated that they wished to make amends through the payment of restitution. Schwartz subsequently released a statement accepting “full responsibility for the matter” and portrayed the incident as an error by a single Loral employee.”

“The Intelsat 708 satellite was to be launched aboard a Long March 3B rocket. This rocket failed at launch due to an engineering defect and crashed into a town near the launch site in an enormous explosion, destroying much of it and killing an unknown number of inhabitants. The nature and extent of the damage remain a subject of dispute; the Chinese government, through its official Xinhua news agency, initially reported that six people were killed and 57 injured.

Because Intelsat 708 contained sophisticated communications and encryption technology, and because portions of the debris were never located by the satellite’s developers and may have been recovered by the government of People’s Republic of China, Intelsat and the Clinton administration suffered criticism in the United States for allowing a possible illegal technology transfer to China. These concerns prompted an investigation by the U.S. Congress. In 2002, the United States Department of State charged Hughes Electronics and Boeing Satellite Systems with export control violations in connection with the failed launch of Intelsat 708 and the prior failed launch of the APSTAR II satellite.”

These blurbs suggest the following:

That Loral and Hughes outsourced rocket launches of SENSITIVE satellite technology to the PRC
That perhaps Loral may have provided technical assistance in the aftermath of that particular rocket launch failure.

http://​www​.jonathanpollard​.org/​1​9​9​8​/​0​4​0​7​9​8​c​.​htm http://​www​.nytimes​.com/​1​9​9​9​/​0​5​/​1​1​/​w​o​r​l​d​/​c​l​i​n​t​o​n-a

From the first:

If China was to be the third party “cut-out” then the US would have to transfer both technology and actual missile components. Missile systems are made so that components respond to each other within a narrow band. Making a hybrid missile with different parts usually leads to operational failure. It just is not acceptable technical protocol.

If China was to receive an operational missile, it would have to be the organic whole. The only necessary change would be the replace its outer shell because that could be seen and identified.

Casper Weinberger, as Secretary of Defense could have authorized such a transfer. Congress can no longer ask Ronald Reagan if he was consulted but they can investigate George Bush’s knowledge and culpability. The question to be asked is: “If President Bush pre-pardoned Casper Weinberger so he would not be called to testify in the Iran-Contra hearings, who would now protect Bush if these questions are asked?”

Did Casper Weinberger, a close supporter of Saudi Arabia act as the broker between the US, Saudi Arabia and China?

The first article alleges that before Clinton’s transfer of explosive bolts et al (see the second article), that there may have been a Contra-style conspiracy to launder weapons to the Saudis, and to do so would require transfering a whole missile and components to the launderer…the PRC.

At the moment, the Saudis have DF-3’s from you know who. Notes suggest they were put together in the early ‘80s and exported with a HE warhead to the Saudis. No way to really know for sure what’s in those things without getting hands on one.

like i said in my facebook „dont disarm us[2ammendment ] that’s what they want „.

Another good reason to continue development for the X-47b replacement and for sub, ship, and air launch version of a PGI(prompt global strike) class of weapons.

There is no reason to tie percentage of GDP to military spending. It’s like saying because I bought a bigger house last year I need to spend more on guns too. It’s just stupid and even the politicians have quit pedaling that crap. Second, I don’t know if you’ve noticed but most high tech stuff that we buy has gotten much cheaper for much more performance. The biggest exception is military hardware where we get much less performance for the same dollar. If you think that means we need to throw more money at the military, then you are welcome to give as much of your money to the IRS as you see fit. Just don’t tell me I need to throw more good money after bad, because I’m not buying it.

We need to help the Philippines develop their defense. Now with their ongoing oil discovery and exploration. I think we (US) can profit from it just by helping build,modernize and protect their defenses, With the Philippines territorial disputes with China, the possibilities of conflict with China is very real.

We’ll be explicit about it.

Give our companies mineral rights, we’ll give you the weapons to help us (and you) get rich.

If China cannot be subjugated with 1,700 nuclear warheads, then we have a problem that won’t be solved by the other 3,000 in storage that need to be mated to delivery vehicles and put on top of rockets for delivery across the International Date Late.

Those claims have been debunked so many times that even Karber has been stopping spreading them. You wan’t to believe it because you need a boogeyman.

They have never been debunked with any data or evidence. And no, I don’t need any boogeyman and don’t “want” to believe it. I would have opposed any cuts in America’s nuclear deterrent regardless of the situation. Period.

The Peacekeeper was VERY MUCH up to snuff. It was retired solely for POLITICAL reasons — it had many enemies from the day its development started. Retiring it prematurely was an act of treason for which Bush should be severely punished.

Peacekeeper’s problem is that it got mired in the basing controversy. Missile siloes on the south side of mesas. Packed close together. Packed on railroad cars. Packed into underground missile siloes connected by rail. Cost overruns in the inertial nav system. 20B for 114 missiles (presumably much of it into R&D), combined with the collapse of the Soviet Union? Hrm.

I am very concerned about our officers’ strategic and personal feeling about the PRC. Historically, we should take the results of Nationalist China’s defeat by the Chinese communists as a good example. The communist has a set goal to destroy the other side at all cost. If the goal could not reach by fight , it will be achieved by negotiation. Chiang Kai Shek felled into this trap lost the whole mainland and country to communist. Any thinking that they are human is a great mistake and leading to the defeat of yourself.Open our port for them to dock for a friendly exercise is a grave mistake. They can learn a lot of what they could not be able to get without docking in our port or exercise with our navy. Watch out, they never thought we are their friend. Their friend is only the communists. In their priciple: you are either a friend as you work their way or the enemy to be destroyed. We need more generals like McArthur who has a deep understanding of the opponents. the observer

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

AdChoices | , and join us on Google+
© 2015 Military Advantage
A Monster Company.