China on the move: New nuke threats
The Obama administration's determination to reduce the number of deployed U.S. nuclear warheads looks all the more foolish in light of China's drive to modernize and expand its nuclear arsenal.
This month brought the second flight test of China's new road-mobile Dong Feng-41 intercontinental ballistic missile. U.S. intelligence agencies expect the DF-41 to be able to carry up to 10 independently targetable warheads far enough to strike the United States. They worry that it's intended as a “first strike” weapon despite “China's professed nuclear doctrine of not being the first to use nuclear weapons in a conflict,” The Washington Free Beacon reports.
If these new missiles are deployed with a reload missile for each launcher, each DF-41 unit could have 120 to 240 warheads, according to Rick Fisher, senior fellow at the International Assessment and Strategy Center. He says that makes the Obama administration's push to further reduce U.S. warheads “simply irrational.”
The DF-41, along with China's modernization of its submarine-launched nuclear missiles, must be viewed in the larger context of China's rising aggression — against Japan and the Philippines over island and maritime claims, and against the U.S. Navy, in a Dec. 5 South China Sea confrontation that forced an American guided missile cruiser to maneuver abruptly to avoid colliding with a Chinese tank landing ship.
With the Chinese threat increasing, this is no time to diminish America's nuclear deterrent.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Benchmarking questions: Fueling perversion
- U.N. Watch: Climate games
- Jesse White’s chutzpah
- Shenango shakedown: Public money at risk
- Those new methane rules: More eco-extremism
- Saturday essay: The thumb itches
- Sunday pops
- The Penn State deal: Focus lost
- The Obama foreign policy ‘model’ imperils the world.
- Piercing the media’s shield: Muzzles & slopes