Talk:Nuclear triad

The

clean up

This was, I thought, pretty weakly constructed when I got here. I think its' better now, but even what I did was half-ass. It could use quite a bit more work. Unschool (talk) 04:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The mythical Indian Strategic Bomber

Russian delivery of Tu-142 and Il-38 (or the future lease of Tu-22M)to Indian Navy are maritime reconnaissance versions of both aircraft and are not capable of delivering nuclear payloads. Please protect this article from vandalism (blatant misinformation), as POV commnets like "the indian Tu-142 or Il-38 can easily be converted into nuclear capable aircrafts" are totally baseless and has no credible online or paper-based military resource.

Also, Russia, as signatory of the NPT, cannot export its nuclear-capable versions of Tu-95 or Tu-22M -- Ash sul (talk) 14:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Launch of India's INS Arihant

India launched its Nuclear submarine on July 26, 2009, and is hence eligible to be included in the list of countries which have a nuclear triad. [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INS_Arihant] [1] Swaroop 06:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

No, the Arihant is not operational yet, and won't be for a few more years. (At least you asked before making the change; the flood of inaccurate edits over at SSBN has only just stopped.) YLee (talk) 06:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

But India has formerly used Nuclear Submarines like INS Chakra. [2] Swaroop 11:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

INS Chakra is an SSN, not an SSBN. YLee (talk) 19:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Strategic bombers

China is not considered a nuclear triad power because it does not maintain a modern strategic bomber fleet. Provide sources or I will remove it.--Mr nonono (talk) 17:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Source provided. Yes, the H-6 is old. Age alone does not disqualify a bomber fleet from being part of a viable nuclear system; the B-52 is older, after all. YLee (talk) 18:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

It´s not only about it´s age, it´s about it´s characteristics. the H-6 does not reunite the criteria to be considered a modern strategic bomber (range, for example). It can not effectively deliver a first strike or a second strike deterrence against another nuclear power (the US). That´s why China is not considered to have a modern strategic bomber fleet.--Mr nonono (talk) 19:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

We need expert outside opinion on this question. I admit to having difficulty in locating reliable sources that describe China as *today* possessing a viable nuclear triad. The FAS/NRDC 2006 report only mentions the word "triad" regarding Chinese forces once, and that for the status quo in 1984 when Russia was still operating the Tu-16, the H-6's progenitor. China today has a fair number of ICBMs, but exactly one SSBN and 50 years-old nuclear bombers that everyone agrees are pretty antiquated. (As I state above the B-52 is even older, but the airframes are in pretty good shape and they've received a lot of work over the years.) Can we really call that a triad? I honestly don't know. Or, to put another way, is it appropriate for Wikipedia to judge whether a country's air, land, and sea-based nuclear weapons systems qualify as a "real" triad or not? YLee (talk) 09:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I have requested help from the Wikipedia Military science and technology and Military history task forces. YLee (talk) 10:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

What are your sources that the bomber leg must be "modern". Please cite RS not rely on your original research. Nirvana888 (talk) 17:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Il´l better explain why China shouldn´t be in that list.

1: The sources mentioned there in any moment say that China possess a nuclear triad, they only talk about their nuclear weapons. So provide reliable sources. 2: To possess a nuclear triad, a country must have components on ground, air and sea capable of delivering a first or a second strike against another nuclear power. Neither the chinese so called strategic bomber fleet nor they nuclear submarines are capable of that, making their ground based ICBMs the only effective nuclear deterrent. 3: As I said above, China is not considered to have a modern bomber fleet, and many sources say that (http://sp.rian.ru/analysis/20091225/124506164.html for example).--Mr nonono (talk) 20:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, I am asking you to provide reliable sources that according to you says that a nuclear triad suggests that "a country must have components on ground, air and sea capable of delivering a first or a second strike against another nuclear power". This seems like a personal opinion rather than based on scholarly sources.

Even if this is true, the sources provided clearly state that China has a nuclear triad. From "EVOLUTION OF CHINA'S NUCLEAR CAPABILITY IMPLICATIONS FOR U.S. POLICY": "China has the third largest nuclear arsenal consisting of triad of nuclear forces: land based missiles, bombers, and submarine launched missiles." and "To achieve the aforementioned objectives, the Chinese are attempting to improve all three legs of their nuclear triad by continuing to fund their nuclear program and by acquiring the technological assistance of other countries, specifically the cash strapped former Soviet Union." In "Chinese Nuclear Forces and U.S. Nuclear War Planning" published by the authoritative FAS/NRDC, the authors state that, in 1984, "DIA also suggested that China had managed to build a nuclear Triad where the “warheads can be delivered by both land- and sea-based missiles, as well as by conventional bomber aircraft." Hopefully, this addresses your questions and why you were reverted a number of times. Nirvana888 (talk) 01:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I already mentioned above the FAS/NRDC report's single use of the word "triad". As you acknowledge, it occurred in 1984, and quotes a DIA source as doing so. The report itself never calls today's Chinese nuclear forces a triad, which is odd for a publication of more than 200 pages.

And yes, the definition of a nuclear triad implies more than "three ways to deliver nuclear weapons"; as the article discusses it includes survivability and the ability to launch a second strike. If a Russian first strike today could plausibly knock out all or most US bombers, SSBNs, and ICBMs the US would no longer possess a triad; it is each delivery method's ability to survive different forms of attacks that is important, and I don't know whether China's single SSBN and pretty old H-6s qualify. But how do we determine this without violating WP:OR? I don't know. As I state above, we need reliable sources to decide one way or another. YLee (talk) 01:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I found this 2006 article from Foreign Policy. It only calls the US and Russian nuclear forces as being part of a triad, and says about China:

China has a limited strategic nuclear arsenal. The People's Liberation Army currently possesses no modern SSBNs or long-range bombers. Its naval arm used to have two ballistic missile submarines, but one sank, and the other, which had such poor capabilities that it never left Chinese waters, is no longer operational. China's medium-range bomber force is similarly unimpressive: the bombers are obsolete and vulnerable to attack.

YLee (talk) 07:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, Il´l provide sources: http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20100415/158597505.html by the START definition, "heavy bomber" means a bomber of any type that satisfies either of the following criteria: (a) its range is greater than 8,000 kilometers; or (b) it is equipped for long-range nuclear air-launched cruise missiles (ALCMs) with a range in excess of 600 kilometers. The H-6 does not satisfies that criteria.--Mr nonono (talk) 08:24, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

You bring up an interesting point. I think we can all agree that the US and Russia clearly have a more developed and survivable nuclear triad if nothing else because they have thousands of warheads each on high alert where as China has only a few hundred. Nevertheless, I do not think we should discount the many sources that infer that China has a nuclear triad even though more emphasis is placed on its land-based ICBM leg. And yes, when these sources mention "nuclear triad" in the context of China, they seem to define it as "three ways to deliver nuclear weapons" as the FAS/NRDC report suggests for instance. There are a number of other recent sources I can glean from a quick search on Google Books/Scholar. Other authors may define a triad in different terms and may not include China in such cases. Nirvana888 (talk) 16:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

We should read that 1984 statement in context. China had launched its first Type 092 SSBN in 1981 and, presumably, planned to launch more. The USSR was still operating the Tupolev Tu-16, the original version of the Chinese Xian H-6. In other words, it was plausible to call China a developing nuclear triad power.

26 years later, the circumstances have changed. China still only has one Type 092, the Russians retired the Tu-16 in 1993, and reliable sources agree that the H-6 is quite antiquated and probably unable to accomplish its mission. However, we still risk WP:SYN and WP:OR if we say that China today has a triad just because it has three different ways of delivering nuclear weapons, whether they are viable or not...but we risk WP:SYN and WP:OR if we say that China does not have a triad because we take it upon ourselves to decide that viability matters in the triad definition. Without reliable sources we are stuck. YLee (talk) 18:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, I would agree that the PRC's "nuclear triad" is certainly not as survivable or developed as those possessed by the U.S. and even Russia. The question, is whether this means it does not possess a nuclear triad at all. As you suggest the best way is to use reliable sources that address this directly. I will see what I can find for now and may dig deeper. Also from what I am able to glean in addition to the Type 092, they have several new Type 094 SSBNs which I am unable to confirm have entered service yet.

• From NTI updated in 2003: "China is modernizing all legs of its nuclear triad".
• From Chinese nuclear doctrine, 2000 "Within China's nuclear triad, its airforce is the weakest element" ::::[3]

Both at least acknowledge that a triad exists notwithstanding its limitations. Nirvana888 (talk) 18:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I would say that the position that "China has no nuclear triad" by fiat claim of nonconformance is WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH, since it requires WP:SYNTHESIS of the conditions needed to qualify for "nuclear triad". There are actual sources that document the claim that China has a nuclear triad. I do see that someone provided one reference that claims that China no longer has a nuclear triad. So with that, there a competing sources and claims. Just leave the article with the three countries listed, but put an asterisk next to China, and a footnote saying that there are conflicting sources that say it does or does not have a triad.

As for my personal opinion on the matter; China has an SSBN, China seems to have nuclear cruise missiles, China has more than short-range-tactical nuclear bombers, China has ICBMs, therefore China has a nuclear triad; whether that nuclear triad is effective or not, it will survive a war against India, Pakistan and North Korea with that kind of triad, all nuclear powers, so yes, it does seem like it is effective. 70.29.212.131 (talk) 06:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)