A Chinese arms control official on Tuesday called on the US and Russia to reduce their nuclear arsenals. The comments came a day after the three powers, along with Britain and France, released a joint statement that said a nuclear war must never happen.
Including retired warheads awaiting dismantlement, the US currently has approximately 5,750 nuclear warheads and Russia has about 6,375. China’s arsenal is just a fraction of what the US and Russia possess. Current estimates put Beijing’s nuclear stockpile somewhere around 300 warheads.
Fu Cong, director-general of the Chinese Foreign Ministry’s arms control department, said Beijing would join arms control talks with the US and Russia once their stockpiles were at a similar level.
“We will be happy to join if they have reduced to our level,” Fu said. “The two superpowers need to … drastically reduce their nuclear capabilities to a level comparable to the level of China, and for that matter to the level of France and the UK, so that other nuclear states can join in this process.”
In the meantime, Fu said China will continue to modernize its nuclear weapons, but he denied a report from the US that claimed Beijing was rapidly expanding its arsenal. In November, the Pentagon published a report that said China could have as many as 1,000 nuclear warheads by 2030.
“On the assertions made by US officials that China is expanding dramatically its nuclear capabilities, first, let me say that this is untrue,” Fu said. “China has always adopted a no-first-use policy and we maintain our nuclear capabilities at the minimal level required for our national security.”
The US has an over $1 trillion plan to modernize its nuclear arsenal, giving the Pentagon a good reason to hype up China’s nuclear weapons.
At the same time as they are increasing theirs and behaving in a belligerent fashion.
I see your definition of “belligerent” isn’t limited to Iran. Just as idiotic though.
https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2021/6/15/biden-to-stay-course-on-nuclear-modernization
Belligerent? Do you mean they have warships off our shores? Not.
We certainly have ships on their shores and since Obama the plan is to put 60% of the US naval forces off their shores as part of the “Pivot” to contain China. The new agressiveness is attributed to Xi BUT the Pivot began to be implemented openly in 2011, with signs of it many years earlier.
Xi became President AFTER that – in 2012.
The cause cannot come after the effect, Jake.
Excellent Call….! Yes, Reduce your nuclear arsenal to what we (China) have…! Then, all three of us (and perhaps others) can sit down to talk nuclear disarmament….!
If the Big Five were serious about nuclear non-proliferation, a good foundational policy would be a synchronized disarmament and arsenal parity. This assumes much good will on all sides so what am I even talking about?
Alexander Mercouris in his video yesterday points out that the recent statement of the nuclear powers was suggested by Russia. He says it accomplishes a (limited) goal of getting the US and the other powers to re-commit to the notion of universal nuclear disarmament. This once again puts Russia on the “moral high ground” when it comes to the US/NATO talks next week.
He also pointed out that the only reason France and the UK are even considered “great powers” is because they have nukes. If they disarm, they get reduced to “also-rans”. So they were not happy about this declaration, with France inserting a sentence about using nukes for “defensive purposes”.
Of course, once the Ukraine-Russia war breaks out, all that will evaporate.
At this point, it would be wisest for the US to unilaterally and publicly dismantle its ICBM missiles in US silos. They are sitting ducks in a first strike, and removing them eliminates a series of nice big fat non-moving targets in the US. Next, enter into negotiations with Russia to start full disarmament talks, and invite all nuclear nations (declared and undeclared) to join once both have reached fewer than 1000 weapons each.
China is so aggressive, but they only have 5% of nukes other 1st worlds have?
That’s a smart decision.
If the nukes are 1) deliverable to targets anywhere on the planet, and 2) situated so as to largely be protected from being disabled by a first strike, having anything like the amount the US or Russia has is just an expensive penis-size contest / corporate welfare fund for “defense” contractors.
If anything, even China’s nuclear arsenal is far bigger than needed as a deterrent. But they didn’t give in to the urge to show off nearly as much as the US and Russian regimes did.
Good points
Humanity shouldn’t be left suffering from a nuclear fallout.
It is time to lock up Those willing to push these button(s) first