China launches ICBM-capable submarine: Pentagon

[Blindspot]

China launches ICBM-capable submarine: Pentagon

40 minutes ago 

WASHINGTON (AP) - China has launched the first submarine in a new class of nuclear subs designed to fire intercontinental ballistic missiles, U.S. defence officials said Friday.

The submarine is, at a minimum, months away from having missiles installed and going on a cruise, one official said, discussing foreign weapons developments only on condition of anonymity. Still, it is further evidence of China's intentions to expand both its nuclear weapons and submarine forces, officials say.

It was widely known China was building the new class of nuclear-missile submarine, called the Type 094 but the launch is far ahead of what U.S. intelligence expected, one official said.

The launch was first reported in the Washington Times newspaper. The newspaper reported U.S. intelligence spotted the sub at a shipyard 400 kilometres from Beijing.

It would be China's first submarine capable of launching nuclear weapons that could reach the United States from the country's home waters, officials said.

The Chinese military has also been developing a new class of submarine-launched ballistic missile, called the JL-2, that is expected to have a range in excess of 7,400 kilometres. The Type 094 submarine would carry these missiles but it is not clear whether the missiles are ready for deployment.

Previously, China has had only one submarine capable of launching nuclear missiles, called the Type 092, or Xia, class. In 2001, a Pentagon (news - web sites) report said the Xia was not operational. Its missiles were of an older class that could fly only 1,000 kilometres.

Successful cruises by the Type 094 would give China a new strategic deterrent against the United States, no longer limited to land-based ICBMs and weapons carried on aircraft. But U.S. defence officials said China lags behind the United States in its ability to hide submarines from sophisticated sonars and other sensors.

China is also modernizing its land-based nuclear missile force, replacing its estimated 20 ICBMs with more modern versions. In a report on China's military issued last May, the Pentagon said China's cache of ICBMs could increase to 30 by next year and 60 by 2010.

Although considered unlikely in the near term, the most likely avenue for conflict between the United States and China is over Taiwan, which China regards as a rogue province. Taiwan is seeking high-technology weaponry from the United States, including diesel submarines and anti-submarine aircraft.

The United States, France, Russia and the United Kingdom all have submarines capable of launching ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads.



Now it would seem to me that Canada's need for submarine capability and participation in missile defence has never been greater.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Nope..we don't need submarines not at all, after all like the experts point out there is no one out there who may threaten us.  :

 

[a_majoor]

And no need for BMD either....

 

[Bograt]

<Sarcasm on> Getting back to the original topic, this shouldn't really be a concern. China is a progressive country and a major trading partner. They wouldn't threaten that. We're friends. Everyone respects us.<sarcasm off>

I wonder if I should get into medicine instead of the military? I bet the Eyes-Ears-Throat business is going through the roof. All those "sticking- our-heads-in-the-sand" related injuries must keep those guys really busy.

 

[McG]

It definitely looks like an argument for BMD and ASW capabilities (in whatever form they may come).

 

[Kirkhill]

How effective would an Area Air Defence destroyer, armed with Standard SM-6, and posted within a couple of hundred miles of the suspected patrol zone of an ICBM equipped sub,  be in knocking down ICBMs in the boost phase, before they left the atmosphere?

Is that an argument for a Canadian involvement in sea-based Ballistic Missile Defence? I noted that Scott Brison keeps promoting both land-based and sea-based missile defence.

In addition to the Littoral fleet, is there room, like the Dutch for a THAAD capable surface fleet that Ex-Dragoon keeps promoting?  It might not be incompatible with the scenario I laid out on the JSS and the Brown Water versus Blue Water discussion.

 

[a_majoor]

Ship mounted missiles would be effective IF we could keep tabs on where the launch boxes were likely to be. As part of a tiered array, they would be invaluable in increasing the uncertainty factor of any potential enemy considering launching an SLBM, as well as augmenting the power of an BMD shield by deploying during a crisis.

Canada isn't likely to spend the money required to build a Ticonderoga class cruiser mounting the Aegis system (and if we did, it would be foolish to stop at one, at least a dozen would be needed on the west coast to ensure that three are available to patrol off the east coast of Asia...), but we could offer a fleet of microsatellites for space born surveillance and C3I duties, as I have argued in the "No US Missile Defense program in Canada http://army.ca/forums/threads/21883.0.html for a lot less money, and a lot more benefit to us.

 

[Britney Spears]

I thought one of the arguments for the BMD system being proposed was that it would not be wideranging enough to affect the detterence capabilities of China and Russia? I thought it was only to defenc N. America from 1 or 2 missiles from "rogue states" right? If so, why would the launch of a Chinese SSBN be an argument for BMD?

Getting back to the original topic, this shouldn't really be a concern. China is a progressive country and a major trading partner.

And this isn't true?

 

[a_majoor]

China is an aggressive state with a small number of ICBM's and limited SLBM capability. In the event of some sort of stand off, like a dispute between China and a third party over sea bed resources, or problems developing between China and North Korea, or (top end) a Chinese invasion of Tiawan, they may threaten the use of their nuclear capability to restrict our range of options. A BMD shield makes that ploy very uncertain for the Chinese, and increases the range of options available to the west.

As well, ship born BMD allows us to go to the scene of the action. If Iran develops its long threatened nuclear capabilities, ships in the Persian Gulf, Mediterranean sea and Indian Ocean pretty much shut down the confident use of IRBMs to threaten neighbouring states. When the threat is removed, the ships can be redeployed.

As for use against mass attack, ship mounted BMD would only be a small shield, it would take an improbable number of billion dollar ships to make an effective shield. Remember Canada would have to build and crew 12 of this type of ship to ensure that 3 can be on station off the east coast of Asia, and they would have to be positioned to respond to Chinese, North Korean and Russian launches

 

[Bert]

In most ways, I understand the context in which nay-sayers of BMD argue a missile system may
increase the chances of an "arms race".  Events around the world are smoldering in places.  Yet,
the reality of human behavior exists.  Canada may be a bystander in many world events but
arms races, proliferation, and conflict are eveywhere whether we like it or not. 

To muddy the waters even further with yet another Stratfor special...

Japan: Switching from Defense to Offense?
December 06, 2004    1641 GMT

Summary

Japanese Defense Minister Yoshinori Ono has announced a draft of the country's defense plan for 2005 to 2009. The plan, which is expected to be approved by Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi's Cabinet on Dec. 7, includes provisions for the development of ballistic missiles with enough range to reach Japan's most remote islands. These missiles, if deployed, also will be capable of striking targets on the Asian mainland, such as North Korea, Shanghai and Beijing. The plan also identifies North Korea and China as potential enemies and stresses the need to project power regionally. Although this has been in the works for some years, this official change from Japan's previous pacifist defense policy will cause great concern in the region and escalate the missile race in Asia.

Analysis

Japan's revision of its defense policy for 2005 to 2009 -- announced by Japanese Defense Minister Yoshinori Ono -- includes research on a ballistic missile intended to counter an invasion of its remote islands. Such a missile also would have the capability to hit targets on the Asian mainland, such as North Korea, Shanghai and Beijing, and would dramatically escalate the missile race in East Asia. The move toward a pre-emptive or offensive capability has been considered in earnest since the August 1998 launch of North Korea's Taepodong missiles, which flew over Japanese territory.

The significance of Japan's policy change is the pace with which new technologies and capabilities geared toward an offensive capability are being considered in defense planning. The Japanese Constitution prohibits Japan from using its armed forces for anything other than defense. Japanese intentions to develop ballistic missiles, along with other provisions in the National Defense Program Outline that would enable Japan to project power regionally, signal Japan's turning away from its defensive policy while holding on to the "Peace Constitution" as a cover.

Since the end of World War II, Japan's defense policy was based solely on a defensive posture, with no ability to attack or conduct pre-emptive strikes in the region. With memories of World War II-era Japanese brutality in mind, many countries in East Asia often have expressed concern over the prospect of Japan becoming more militarily active in the region.

The remote islands Ono said would be protected under the proposed defense plan are most likely the southern Ryukyu Islands, which have been the scene of recent Japanese military deployments and Chinese submarine incursions. In an internal meeting Nov. 7, the Japanese Defense Agency identified China as a potential enemy and established three scenarios of possible attacks against Japan by Chinese forces. The Japan Self-Defense Forces (JSDF) also has been shifting its force concentration from northern Japan, where old Cold War doctrine was concerned with threats from the Soviet Union. Japanese forces have been realigning toward southern Japan, Okinawa and the Ryukyu Islands, closer to China and Taiwan. Japan and China also are engaged in an ongoing dispute over nearby natural gas fields and the Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea.





Japan is concerned about other powers' missile development in the region, and will seek to develop a policy of missile defense and pre-emptive strike capability to mitigate threats from China and North Korea. In October, a defense advisory panel recommended to Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi that Japan consider adopting the capabilities to support a strategy of pre-emptive strikes. The recent National Defense Program Outline seems to confirm that Japan will adopt such a strategy.

This change in Japanese defense policy comes amid concerns over North Korean nuclear and missile development and strained relations with China. In November, JSDF units spotted and pursued a Chinese Han class submarine in Japanese territorial waters off Okinawa. Twelve days later, at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in Santiago, Chile, Koizumi's meeting with Chinese President Hu Jintao was less than amicable.

Japan is the most recent Asian country to join in the regional missile race. Although the Japanese have had a commercial space lift capability for decades, they have been kept out of ballistic missile development by political considerations. These considerations are no longer an obstacle, and Koizumi's government sees Japan's new policy as more realistic in the context of the regional security climate -- in which China, Taiwan and North Korea have either fielded or are developing ballistic missiles.

Japan's escalation of the missile race, coupled with turning away from its pacifist defense policy, is cause for major concern in the region. In the climate of increasing missile proliferation in Asia, China already has acquired the S-300P (SA-10 "Grumble") anti-missile system from Russia and likely will continue to expand this capability in response to the latest development from Japan.

 

[Rushrules]

;D  It looks like everyone is getting in the game ;D.  BTW, Canada did have something called a bowmark missile back in the 60's-70's that was nuclear capable.  This was more for defence against a USSR invasion across Western Europe, but it was never intended to be a defensive weapon, rather offensive.  China's main threat is from India, not N Korea or Taiwan.  It'll make the Yanks think twice about intervening in a police action (I like that word) between China and Taiwan. 

Not that I see anything happening in the far east, since trade is more important there than military might.  Plus, they don't have that much oil

 

[DJL]

It looks like everyone is getting in the game .  BTW, Canada did have something called a bowmark missile back in the 60's-70's that was nuclear capable.  This was more for defence against a USSR invasion across Western Europe, but it was never intended to be a defensive weapon, rather offensive.  China's main threat is from India, not N Korea or Taiwan.  It'll make the Yanks think twice about intervening in a police action (I like that word) between China and Taiwan. 

I think you might be confusing the Bomarc with the Honest John.

As for the Americans intervening over a conflict between China and Taiwan, BMD will likely have the same affect on the Chinese.........

As for a conflict in Asia, I disagree with you on the premise that China doesn't place that much value on military might.......as made evident by the topic of this thread, not to mention their dramtic increase (and planned increases) in their power projection capability via their navy.

 

[Kirkhill]

Somebody correct me but wasn't Canada signed up for three nuclear tipped missiles?

Honest John - Tactical Land-Based Surface to Surface Missile employed by 4 CMBG as a counter to the Soviet FROG.
Genie - Air-to-Air missile to be launched from Voodoos? and Starfighters? against mass formations of Soviet Bombers penetrating Canadian Air Space
Bomarc - Surface to Air missile to back up the Genie armed aircraft

(and if I remember correctly the sticking point was that Diefenbaker agreed to take the Bomarcs after having been convinced that they were cheaper/more effective than the Arrow which he cancelled and then refused to accept the nuclear warheads to stick on the missiles - rendering them completely ineffective).

 

[Kirkhill]

http://www.user.dccnet.com/welcomewoods/Nuclear_Free_Georgia_Strait/clearwater.html

I did remember correctly.

We had nukes up until 1985, just after Mulroney came to power.

Cheers.

 

[Bert]

In contrast to Canadian stability and good relations with its neigbhors
(US, Greenland, EU), eastern and southeastern Asia maintain low levels
of conflict.  If the information last paragraph of the following article
is true, then it suggests why Japan is interested in a BMD program
and a primary mode of attack is carried by missiles.  Historically, there
are reasons for Chinese posturing on territory and access to resources.


www.stratfor.com
Taiwan: Elections, Independence and Cross-Strait Tensions

Summary

Taiwanese President Chen Shui-bian hopes the Dec. 11 Legislative Yuan
elections will give his Pan-Green coalition a majority in Parliament -- a
first step toward enacting independence-oriented constitutional reforms.
Although Chen's coalition might achieve a slim majority, it is unlikely to
win enough seats to change the constitution, though a majority would give
Chen a mandate to continue his pro-independence rhetoric -- ensuring that
cross-strait tensions remain high.

Analysis

Taiwan's Dec. 11 Legislative Yuan elections, pitting President Chen
Shui-bian's Pan-Green coalition against the majority Pan-Blue coalition, will
determine the island's position on independence from mainland China -- at
least in the short term.

Since his re-election in March, Chen and his coalition have been exploiting
independence sentiments on the island, and Chen has called for a reform of
Taiwan's 1947 Constitution to reflect current political realities. Beijing,
however, could consider a revision of the constitution -- which would include
language and provisions that reflect Taiwan's status as an autonomous
political unit -- tantamount to a declaration of independence. Beijing long
has said it would consider a declaration of independence by Taiwan as an act
of war, and that it would invade the island if such a move were to occur.

The People's Republic of China -- mainland China -- considers Taiwan a
"renegade province" that it eventually will reabsorb. On Taiwan, the
Kuomintang (KMT), or Nationalist Party, that leads the Pan-Blues has
considered itself the legitimate government of all of China since 1949, when
the Nationalists fled to Taiwan in the wake of Communist Party victories on
the mainland. The KMT expects to reunite eventually with the mainland under
KMT leadership. A declaration of independence from Taipei, however, would
mean that Taiwan has given up on ever becoming part of a whole China again.

Many observers view the legislative elections as an extension of the very
close presidential election in March, in which independence was the main
issue. The KMT has spent most of the year unsuccessfully contesting Chen's
re-election in Taiwan's courts.

Since he was first elected in 2000, Chen has found his reformist legislation
blocked by the Pan-Blue majority. It is likely Pan-Green will win a slim
majority in the legislature on Dec. 11 -- not enough seats to change the
constitution, but enough to push through other measures that will draw Taiwan
closer to independence.

In addition, Chen recently proposed that Taiwan's major state-owned
enterprises drop the name "China" to avoid confusion with similar enterprises
on the mainland. These include China Airlines, China Steel Corp., China
Shipbuilding and Chinese Petroleum Corp. This is likely to cause further
tension between Beijing and Taipei because names and designations are
important in cross-strait relations. A proposal to add the name "Taiwan" to
Republic of China passports, for example, has caused escalated tensions
between the two.

Ultimately, Chen is probably not serious about an outright declaration of
independence for Taiwan, even though many in his coalition want such a move.
Chen's flirtations with Taiwanese independence have more to do with playing
to Pan-Green pro-independence elements than they do with sincere intentions
in that direction. Chen knows that such a radical action would incite the
Chinese to take some level of military action -- something he and Beijing
wish to avoid for as long as possible.

Also at stake in the legislative elections is an $18.6 billion arms purchase
proposed by the Pan-Greens. The Pan-Blues have argued the weapons are too
expensive and will prompt China to take a more aggressive stance toward
Taiwan. The Pan-Greens have put off the vote on the arms deal until after the
elections, when the coalition's expected majority in the Legislative Yuan
will give the deal a better chance for approval. If the package goes through,
it will certainly escalate the cross-strait arms race and further add to
tensions in the area.

A Pan-Green majority in the Yuan will spark an increase in independence
rhetoric -- and consequently in tensions with Beijing. Chen will lack the
votes to change the constitution or declare independence, but he will be able
to continue pushing for a Taiwanese split from mainland China. China is
unlikely to respond to the rhetoric with military action but, with
approximately 600 of the mainland's DF-21 ballistic missiles pointed at
Taiwan, tensions will remain high.

(c) 2004 Strategic Forecasting, Inc. All rights reserved.

 

[Arctic Acorn]

China will be in interesting nations to watch in the next few years. China is rapidly industrializing. Thier oil consumption is going to skyrocket, which will increase competition with other nations for oil, which will likely raise prices globally.


:dontpanic:
J.M.

 

[krugan]

China is an aggressive state ...

a_majoor could you expand on that?

 

[Bograt]

They certainly are the "ones to watch." Immediately after the 2000 election there was unfortunate incident with the EP-3. Last month, a Chinese sub "accidentally" wondered into Japanese waters. Asian region will be the place of focus in the coming decades (India, Pakistan, China, North Korea, Japan, Indonesia). No wonder the Roos are are investing in their capabilities.

 

[a_majoor]

China is aggressive right now in the sense that it is attempting to expand its influence on the international scene both to secure its local hegemony (the traditional view that the surrounding nations are subservient tributaries to the Middle Kingdom) and to limit the power of the United States.

They have done loud sabre rattling against many nations over resources in the South China Sea, political events in Taiwan (even to the extent of firing missiles near the sea lanes leading to Taiwan as part of an "exercise" during the Taiwanese elections), and even against the US after the incident where a Chinese figher jet crashed into an American patrol plane. Their bellicose rhetoric is being matched by a massive military modernization and build up program (including the sub which started the thread), this despite the fact that China is really a very poor nation outside of the coastal economic zones. The Chinese government is also accused of sending "goons" from consular offices to intimidate or physically threaten members of the Gong Fulang (?) movement in western nations.

The growing demand for commodity resources by China is one possible trigger for aggression, Taiwan is another, North Korea collapsing could trigger something depending on how South Korea reacts etc. So I think it is pretty safe to say that China is an agressive nation, and we would do well to watch out backs.

 

[Bill Smy]

To switch the thrust of the discussion:-

These are some facts quickly pulled off the internet, from sources such as a Rand Research Brief, the CIA Handbook, the Army Area Handbook put out by the University of Missouri and China Today:-

China Military Expenditures:

2003 estimate at $60 billion
Increase in 2002 over 2001: 17.6%
3.5 to 5% of GDP

Army

Strength of 1.9 to 2.5 million
14,000 tanks
453 helicopters

Navy

Strength of 250,000
63 subs (now with this new launch 64)
18 destroyers

Air Force

Strength of 470,000
2,556 jet fighters (a $1 billion upgrade in the 1990s)
400 ground attack fighters
A strategic missle force
A space program

And on top of all that, Canada feels it necessary to send tens of millions of dollars in Foreign Aid.

:mg:

Are we stupid or not?  :threat:

Would it not be far more useful to spend our Foreign Aid dollars somewhere where it's needed? Like the Sudan, Rawanda, Congo, etc

I think my MP (and the PM) needs another rant from me this week-end.