I believe that the number of nuclear warheads required is between 2000 to 3000, with 500 land-based intercontinental missiles, 500 sea-based, and 300 air-based. One point I don't agree with them is their underestimation of our military-industrial enterprises. As long as our country wants to increase the number of nuclear warheads, it can reach a thousand within a year. Therefore, to ensure long-term stable development of the national economy, increasing the quantity of nuclear warheads is necessary!

In recent years, an American think tank released a report about the development of our country's nuclear arsenal, which sparked much discussion. The report mentioned that our nuclear arsenal is expanding rapidly and is expected to exceed 1000 nuclear warheads by 2030. This is no small number! But more interestingly, the report claimed that the larger the nuclear arsenal, the more it could promote world peace. Do you know the logic behind this?

The Development of Nuclear Arsenal

In recent years, the American think tank "Washington Quarterly" released a report on the development of our country's nuclear arsenal, which has drawn widespread attention and discussion. This 17-page report details the current status of our nuclear arsenal development and its potential impacts. The report mentions that America's security largely depends on not provoking trouble or interfering in our internal affairs. With the expansion of our nuclear arsenal, the military balance in this region may be disrupted, affecting America's intervention decisions.

The report states that our nuclear arsenal is improving both in quantity and quality. In particular, the "Nuclear Strategy" released in 2020 clearly proposed building world-class military forces, including nuclear power. The report predicts that we currently have approximately 400 nuclear warheads, but by 2027, this will increase to 700, and by 2030, it is expected to exceed 1000. This number seems quite astonishing, but the American think tank believes that the larger the nuclear arsenal, the more it promotes world peace, which is a rather peculiar logic.

According to this logic, when the scale of the nuclear arsenal is small, major powers often spare no effort in launching missile tests to demonstrate their capabilities and deter opponents. However, when the scale of the nuclear arsenal reaches a certain level, major powers tend to restrain their actions because they are well aware that once a nuclear war begins, the consequences will be unbearable for both countries and all humanity.

From this perspective, the development of our nuclear arsenal is not something to fear; instead, its construction aimed at peace contrasts sharply with America's interventionist policies. America expands its nuclear arsenal to pressure its opponents, while we are gradually perfecting our own nuclear arsenal under a defensive strategic mindset.

It is worth noting that America's military deployment in this region is also significant. According to the report from "Washington Quarterly," America has around 700 nuclear warheads in the Asia-Pacific region, while Russia has deployed about 300 nuclear warheads in the Far East. Together, these numbers exceed 1000, which is a huge pressure for any country.

The report mentions that we currently have only 350 nuclear missile launch systems that can be deployed at any time, which is significantly lower than the numbers of the US and Russia. However, experts from the American think tank stated that this is not a problem because we possess world-class missile technology, and our nuclear warheads can also be launched via intercontinental missiles. Although the US and Russia have large nuclear arsenals, they do not necessarily have the most advanced technology.

Although the US has around 700 nuclear warheads, it only has 60 systems capable of launching nuclear warheads. Similarly, although Russia has over 300 nuclear warheads, it only has 40 launch systems. Thus, even for the US and Russia, the number of nuclear missile launch systems is far lower than the number of nuclear warheads. Does this mean there are significant risks for both?

In the event of a nuclear war, they may not have enough time to use all their launch systems to fire all their nuclear warheads. Just like during conventional wars between the Soviet Union and the US, both sides were desperately sending fighter jets to each other, but neither side used up all their aircraft because both knew that once war began, the consequences would be unimaginable.

The report from the American think tank believes that our defensive strategy means that the expansion of our nuclear arsenal does not imply direct threats. On the contrary, if the nuclear arsenals of China and the US reach a relatively balanced state, it would actually be a form of protection for the entire world because no country would want to see its regime destroyed by a nuclear war it helped establish.

Allies Turning Neutral

It is worth noting that under the enhancement of our nuclear arsenal, some of America's allies might turn neutral, such as Japan and South Korea. Although they appear closely aligned with the US, they will undoubtedly be hesitant in the face of our powerful military force. If conflict arises, even a conventional war would be difficult for them to withstand, let alone a nuclear war.

The alliances between the US and Japan or South Korea may not withstand such tests. In that case, the US would lose all its strategic footholds in the Asia-Pacific region. When faced with our formidable military pressure, the US might have no choice but to retreat to its homeland.

On this matter, the American think tank holds a different opinion. They believe that precisely because of the development of our nuclear arsenal, the US will become more determined to deploy its military forces in the Asia-Pacific region to form a deterrent. Otherwise, if the balance of power shifts, the US would completely lose its global influence. Moreover, the US submits an annual budget to Congress, including costs related to military deployments in the Asia-Pacific region. Even if we did not develop our nuclear arsenal, the US would still spend money on deployments.

The American think tank also believes that nuclear weapons, though frightening, are not meant to truly fight the enemy but to deter them. It is precisely because both sides have the capability to mutually ensure destruction that they will not easily initiate a nuclear war.

We provide an unusual perspective, suggesting that the expansion of the nuclear arsenal is not necessarily a threat but could bring certain peace and stability. This view has sparked much controversy. What do you think? I would say that if the nuclear forces of China and the US are comparable, the US would lose its audacity and desire to provoke China, naturally leading to greater safety!

Original article: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7487840907350295081/

Disclaimer: This article solely represents the author's personal views. Please express your attitude by clicking the "thumbs up/thumbs down" buttons below.