China officially refuses to participate in nuclear disarmament talks

China will not take part in any disarmament negotiations with Russia and the United States. This was stated by the official representative of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of China, Hua Chunying.

Speaking at a briefing, Chunying said that China has repeatedly stated its position and does not intend to change it. Thus, Beijing will not participate in any tripartite arms control talks with Moscow and Washington. According to her, the United States, trying to drag China into negotiations, wants to shift responsibility to others.

The US continues to try to drag China in. This is their usual behavior when they want to shift responsibility to others. In recent years, the United States has withdrawn from a number of international agreements (...) and now they are discussing the possibility of resuming nuclear testing. When an official of such a country talks about goodwill negotiations, this is absurd

- she said.

Earlier it was reported that Russia and the United States agreed to hold talks on nuclear disarmament, which will be held June 22 in Vienna. It is assumed that they will discuss the issue of extending the START-3 treaty. As stated by the special envoy of the President of the United States for arms control Marshall Billingsley, China was also invited to the negotiations.

Comments

[marchcat]

Well, they are doing the right thing. First of all, its own country and its people, and not someone's "Wishlist".

[Atlant-1164]

the Chinese firmly decided to sit on the bank of the river .. and wait for something to float past their shore)

[credo]

Quote: Atlant-1164

the Chinese firmly decided to sit on the bank of the river .. and wait for something to float past their shore)

In China, all rivers flow either from north to south, or from west to east, and what is unusual about it that can pass by them?

[tech3030]

Well, either in a ditty-ax or ..ono.

[neri73-r]

Quote: tech3030

Well, either in a ditty-ax or ..ono.

From the village of Kukuevo?

[credo]

Quote: marchcat

Well, they are doing the right thing. First of all, its own country and its people, and not someone's "Wishlist".

But it seems to me that the Chinese could offer something more original, for example:
- the convocation of not three, but all countries of the world that have nuclear weapons, including England, France, Israel, or those participating in nuclear development, including the DPRK, Iran, and it seems in this case not China would refuse such negotiations, but perhaps the United States itself, which confirmed their non-negotiability. Then China would find itself "on a white horse," and the United States could once again be reproached for its belligerence and lack of desire for peace.

[evgen1221]

It was just that there was no hope that everyone whom they called would abandon the cuts. And so the Chinese in fact adamantly defend their and only their interests, and not some partners like us there.

[credo]

Quote: evgen1221

It was just that there was no hope that everyone whom they called would abandon the cuts. And so the Chinese in fact adamantly defend their and only their interests, and not some partners like us there.

Just don't imagine that China can do it alone. These are all dreams. After all, the US is not just trying to tie Russia to its "elite club of 7". If they succeeded in this feint, China would find itself in a ring of enemies with unpredictable consequences for it.

[Nikolai Korovin]

As far as I can tell, the arsenals of Britain, France and China are about the same and much smaller than the Russian and American ones. All the other owners together appear to have an arsenal of one of the three "junior" permanent members of the Security Council. So inviting China alone is clearly illogical. England and France are clearly not weaker than China in this respect. So everyone should be invited. Incl. and the DPRK. Iran is not supposed to be invited yet. The presence of a nuclear power plant is not yet the presence of weapons. In general, the Nonproliferation Treaty ordered a long life, but for some reason no one takes this into account. We need a new one - both on non-proliferation and on restriction, which applies to all owners.

[gsev]

Quote: credo

And it seems to me that the Chinese could offer something more original,

And what is the point of negotiating with the US to the Chinese? All the same, the United States unilaterally withdrew from treaties with Russia, and also withdrew from the treaty with China. Now the intrigue remains, how many charges does the PRC have, 300 or 3000, what are these charges?

[Civil]

Why is China negotiating? A thriving and growing PRC with an irresponsible United States and depressed Russia ... there are no parties and bases for negotiations from the point of view of the Chinese leadership.

[credo]

Quote: Civil

Why is China negotiating? A thriving and growing PRC with an irresponsible United States and depressed Russia ... there are no parties and bases for negotiations from the point of view of the Chinese leadership.

You have a lot of adjectives in the text and a little semantic load. Everything is not as clear as you imagine.

[Civil]

Quote: credo

Quote: Civil

Why is China negotiating? A thriving and growing PRC with an irresponsible United States and depressed Russia ... there are no parties and bases for negotiations from the point of view of the Chinese leadership.

You have a lot of adjectives in the text and a little semantic load. Everything is not as clear as you imagine.

Excuse me, of course, a strong and rich Russia dictates its adamant will to poor and miserable mattresses and Chinas.

[nPuBaTuP]

There are no less adjectives, but the meaning has disappeared altogether ....

[Nikolay Ivanov_5]

The American authorities do not even have faith in their people.

[mark1]

Why are we dancing around nuclear disarmament? It is most unprofitable for us. In other matters, perhaps out of love for the process.

[KVU-NSVD]

Quote: mark1

What are we dancing

Russia will have to participate in these deliberately failed negotiations. The reason is simple - to withdraw, it means giving the US a reason to just shrug it off and say - you see, we wanted, but the Russians refused. But I think the negotiations will end in nothing, the United States wants to get what is beneficial for them and not make the concessions we need, i.e. impose a priori impossible conditions. . My forecast is that a series of START treaties will not be extended

[Sky strike fighter]

Most likely, START-3 will be extended under current conditions. That is, everyone will remain with their own.

[Sergey39]

Correctly she said. The United States is not negotiable at this stage.

[svp67]

Earlier it was reported that Russia and the United States agreed to hold talks on nuclear disarmament, which will be held June 22 in Vienna.

Now, without China’s involvement in such negotiations, it can be concluded for no more than five years ...

[asv363]

There is nowhere to go below the level prescribed in the START-XNUMX (START) Treaty, which means either automatically renew for five years (the mechanism is spelled out in the text of the treaty), or that's it, Russia does not need any new START.

My position is not very popular among professional "contractors", but I do not intend to change it.

[Nemchinov Vl]

Quote: svp67

Now, without China’s involvement in such negotiations, it can be concluded for no more than five years ...

Now it makes no sense at all (!) nothing and With no one conclude ....

[-ш-]

hahaha and well done

[donavi49]

Well, they have a final solution to the Ladakh issue there, there will be nuclear weapons rather than disarmament.

Hindus pull everything they can.


The Chinese also take parts from the north and central Asia and transfer them to Ladakh.

So far, only fights on sticks and standing face to face.

[Alex777]

Why China is annoying China, I still do not understand.
No one will have an easy victory.
States will be happy by releasing the 2 most populous countries ...
Testing something is not the case. I don’t understand Comrade X.

[svp67]

Quote: donavi49

Well, they have a final solution to the Ladakh issue there, there will be nuclear weapons rather than disarmament.

I don’t think that any of the parties will decide to use nuclear weapons in a local border conflict. And while I more believe in the success of China, its army and the organization in general are more credible ...

[Sky strike fighter]

The United States wants to divide and dominate. It will be very similar to the Iran-Iraq war of the 80s, but on a much larger scale. I hope it doesn’t reach the use of nuclear weapons. No one draws any conclusions and doesn’t learn from the mistakes of others. Just to shout America with us and into battle. And the Americans provoke conflicts and derive their geopolitical benefits from them, then convert it into their political and financial capital. This conflict is an American trap for both India and China.

[steelmaker]

Then it is necessary to bring England, France and Israel to the treaty. So it will be more honest. And so China is right.

[askort154]

China officially refuses to participate in nuclear disarmament talks

Number of nuclear warheads:
- Russia - 7500 pcs.
- USA - 7260 pcs.
- China - 260 pcs.
(for 2018)

Naturally, China needs to catch up. Knowing this, the USA stubbornly insists on his participation, leading a double game.

[gorecc]

and this is exactly the statistics of 2018?))

otherwise I have these pictures and tables where "poor" China has only 250-280 nuclear warheads and its lag in this aspect even from France - I have been hearing it since the early 2000s ...
Tobish for so many years, China becoming an economic and industrial superpower could not increase the number of its nuclear warheads? or maybe they even scored on this matter?) Yao think, when in the future a military clash with the United States looms, and nuclear India with territorial claims is also nearby .. who needs it at all
But seriously, no one except the Chinese themselves knows for sure how many nuclear warheads are real for the People’s Republic of China, but if we talk even purely logically, then there is no doubt that to put it mildly, China should have much more than is customary to say ..

[gsev]

Quote: Gorecc

in so many years, has China become an economic and industrial superpower unable to increase the number of its nuclear warheads?

And where could China get uranium to produce plutonium? Recent deposits in Ukraine and Afghanistan are in the hands of the United States. Comrade Stalin back in 1940, organized for the USSR uranium mining in Xinjiang.

[Alex777]

And where could China get uranium to produce plutonium?

Everywhere. Does Iran take it? Does Pakistan take it? DPRK?
Colleague gorecc meticulously noticed.
China has underground tunnels, allegedly 3000 km. And how many China is actually hiding warheads in - nobody knows for sure.
That jankers fidget. Is it still possible to be rude, or is it already necessary to beware?

In the fall of 2011, a group of researchers at Georgetown University in Washington, led by Philip Carber, published a study from which two key conclusions followed: firstly, China has a secret distributed system of tunnels with a length of 3 thousand kilometers, and secondly, this network is able to accept (and since it was built for some reason, probably, according to the authors of the publication, it’s accepting) about 3 thousand nuclear warheads.

https://realt.onliner.by/2020/01/15/china-122
https://rg.ru/2011/01/20/stena-site-anons.html

[gsev]

Quote: Alex777

Everywhere. Does Iran take it?

I suppose that to all countries not included in the friends of the USA, uranium is available only from its territory or the territory of the allies. In China, the problem of searching for uranium ores at one time was acute. For the first time, the actor played the premiere of Zhou En-lai, it seems, in the film about the search for uranium ores.The reduction of nuclear warheads in the USSR and the USA is partly due to the realization that there are few raw materials for their production and warheads may be required after 400 years.

[Alex777]

The reduction of nuclear warheads in the USSR and the USA is partly due to the realization that there are few raw materials for their production and warheads may be required after 400 years.

I can not agree with you.
My IMHO is that Obama cut warheads to get the opportunity for a preemptive strike by reducing the number of targets.
And to increase the significance of advantages in conventional weapons. First of all, in missile defense.
But it so happened that there was hypersound and Sarmat.
If it were raw materials, we would not sell uranium left and right.

[Oleg Zorin]

China does not need to catch up. China did not and does not strive to achieve parity. They are quite happy with the principle of reasonable sufficiency for dealing unacceptable damage.

[FIR FIR]

- China - 260 pcs.

Yes, yes, since 1964, 260 bg. Do not make me laugh. AT LEAST 5.000 bg. Confident third place in terms of quantity. Plus thousands of BRDS and OTR, which can be equipped with apple. China has the third nuclear potential in the world, MINIMUM. The maximum is the first, but they know how to keep secrets and go to their goal.

[Kostadinov]

I still don’t understand why it’s called "negotiate nuclear disarmament." It would be more accurate to "negotiate a nuclear monopoly" between the two powers and their satellites.
A nuclear monopoly is even worse than complete nuclear disarmament.
Only full nuclear armament of all countries of the world will be the best guarantee for the preservation of the Cold War in international relations.

[bk316]

Only full nuclear armament of all countries of the world will be the best guarantee for the preservation of the Cold War in international relations.

You write garbage. 2-3 nuclear charges in 404 will not lead to anything good, and in Egypt, a dozen other will not add anything. Here it is necessary that everyone had a level of guaranteed destruction, but this is impossible,

[The Siberian barber]

Quote: Kostadinov

I still don’t understand why it’s called "negotiate nuclear disarmament." It would be more accurate to "negotiate a nuclear monopoly" between the two powers and their satellites.
A nuclear monopoly is even worse than complete nuclear disarmament.
Only full nuclear armament of all countries of the world will be the best guarantee for the preservation of the Cold War in international relations.

Aha, uncles from any Somalia, the most that!)))

[Viktor Sergeev]

It is necessary to play against the USA dirty, just give the slack and that’s it, the end.

[demiurg]

China is putting on land and sea-based ICBMs. This is a direct allusion to the United States. Europe and the entire territory of Russia are covered by the BRDS. And the question is not the number of warheads, the question is in the very possibility.
As long as Pakistan / India has only BDS, this is just a threat to the bases. It's a shame, annoying but tolerant.
But if in San Francisco near the earth 1-3-5 megatons crash, the US economy will not survive this. And if there are at least 10 such explosions ...

[Oleg Zorin]

Why sets? Already stand. China fully possesses sea, air and land-based facilities. In quantities sufficient to cause unacceptable damage.

[Threaded screw]

Bravo was not found among 1.5 billion not a single hunchback!

[faterdom]

And why should China, which has all the bargaining chips for the Future on its hands, negotiated with losers, albeit heavily armed? What conditions can they set for him?

[kot423]

Nu-nu, hope ... Already here, head over heels in lace shorts, they also hoped.

[Doccor18]

China will not take part in any disarmament negotiations with Russia and the United States.

Did someone naively expect something else?
China will not reckon with anyone, especially now, when it has got as close as possible to its main goal - to become a "middle" state, not in words, but in fact.

[Knell wardenheart]

Nuclear disarmament is not in our interests, although, of course, I am all for peace. We have invested billions in the development of these technologies, but what is there, a solid piece of our security depends on this "last argument", SNF was covered by many years of our slovenliness and stupid military experiments and reorganizations - now to abandon this madness and stupidity. I believe that we should not go to meet the United States in their self-construction after the collapse of the old treaties, because the times of the USSR have sunk into oblivion, and the United States will have to conduct the nuclear race not with us alone, but also with the PRC, the DPRK, probably at some point Iran will join. Let them spend. Our territory is protected - that's all that should worry us.

[Free wind]

Chineses are our enemies. those who claim that the Chinese are our friends are our enemies.

[Oleg Zorin]

They are enemies who have no reason to support the Russian Federation in any way. But there are reasons to take advantage of the Russian Federation

[Oleg Zorin]

China is the only country in the nuclear club that has committed to the following non-nuclear states:
China undertakes not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons or nuclear-free zone states at any time and under any circumstances. China is the first of the countries of the nuclear club to declare the principle of the first non-use of nuclear weapons. The PRC will not be the first to use nuclear weapons at any time and under any circumstances. The essence of the PRC's strategy is to deliberately abandon the struggle for nuclear parity while retaining the technical capabilities to inflict guaranteed damage to the enemy in the event of the use of nuclear weapons or nuclear blackmail against the PRC. In addition, the PRC has several times fewer nuclear charges. Considering all of the above, it is unclear in which "disarmament negotiations" China can participate.

[Free wind]

China attacked some countries without using atomic weapons. USSR, Vietnam, India. Chinese henchmen, you need to be shot.

[Dikson]

Why do they need nuclear weapons? They can easily trample half the world with boots .. And they will never agree with the states or with us .. Silent expansion at one moment can turn into concrete attacks on the enemy .. In China there is someone to fight for a long time ..

[yfast]

The Chinese simply fart at the border of any country, and they will not need any weapons in a fair wind.

[Old26]

Quote: credo

Quote: marchcat

Well, they are doing the right thing. First of all, its own country and its people, and not someone's "Wishlist".

But it seems to me that the Chinese could offer something more original, for example:
- the convocation of not three, but all countries of the world that have nuclear weapons, including England, France, Israel, or those participating in nuclear development, including the DPRK, Iran, and it seems in this case not China would refuse such negotiations, but perhaps the United States itself, which confirmed their non-negotiability. Then China would find itself "on a white horse," and the United States could once again be reproached for its belligerence and lack of desire for peace.

The Chinese will not offer such an unrealistic option. Yes, and we would not agree to such an option. This means putting forward an option that will initially be a failure and for which someone will not agree. For the option is not implemented in principle. The option that everyone will agree to the complete and universal destruction of nuclear weapons is not considered as initially fantastic.

Quote: KVU-NSVD

My forecast is that a series of START treaties will not be extended

Nevertheless, it can be extended if it also remains bilateral ...

Quote: Gorecc

and this is exactly the statistics of 2018?))

No, of course. Even our and American numbers do not correspond to the number of BBs we have with Americans for 2018. Chinese 260 units - a significantly lower figure. This is evidenced by 2-3 details.

First. The amount of accumulated material (plutonium, uranium) according to open data from the Chinese is about 10 tons of plutonium and 30-40 tons of uranium. And they have only 260-280 warheads. I DO NOT BELIEVE

The second. The number of carriers of Yao among the Chinese is approximately the following. 98 ICBMs, 72 dual-purpose ballistic missiles (nuclear version, but not nuclear, conventional), 80 short-range ballistic missiles, 48 ​​SLBMs. A total of 298 warheads (if all infantry fighting vehicles with nuclear warheads). If 1/3 with YBG, then 250 BG. And this is taking into account only monoblock warheads on missiles (and after all, some of them have from 3 to 7-10 warheads on warheads). Plus, at least one and a half hundred bombers capable of carrying nuclear weapons are not taken into account. That is, the number of warheads should be no less than 350-400 warheads.
In addition, China has 94 operational-tactical complexes, 189 short-range, about 70 launchers of long-range KLNB (and possibly 2/3 of 72 medium-range missiles with conventional warheads). And this is another 353 - 401 BG. But in the case of a large batch, all these conventional BGs will be replaced by nuclear ones. Then, in total, the Chinese will need at least 800, or even 1000 BG. What you yourself understand is almost 3-4 times more than the 250 Chinese charges voiced

Quote: Victor Sergeev

It is necessary to play against the USA dirty, just give the slack and that’s it, the end.

Suggest your own version of the dirty game against the USA

Quote: demiurg

Europe and the entire territory of Russia are covered by the BRDS.

Chinese MRBMs are actually covering the entire territory of Russia. Of the "European" countries, Chinese MRBMs cover only one - Ukraine

Quote: demiurg

As long as Pakistan / India has only BDS, this is just a threat to the bases.

India already has ICBMs. She is being tested. This is "Agni-5"

Quote: demiurg

But if in San Francisco near the earth 1-3-5 megatons crash, the US economy will not survive this. And if there are at least 10 such explosions ...

Wow. Their Secretary of Defense believed that the damage that the United States would not survive was 2/3 of the economy and 40 to 60% of the population. Moreover, an elementary calculation shows that the United States will cease to exist as a state when using from 266 to 426 warheads for 165 purposes on its territory. Do you want to solve this problem with 10 warheads? Yes, you are fantastic, my friend

[ficus2003]

Quote: marchcat

Well, they are doing the right thing. First of all, its own country and its people, and not someone's "Wishlist".

The reason is not this, but injustice. China has 300 warheads, and the United States and Russia 1550 each. China is already 5 times smaller with a population of 4-10 times more. You need to be an extreme cynic to demand from China a reduction in nuclear weapons.

[boss]

What justice are you talking about?
Little to China, has the right and increase the quantity.
But the shadow nuclear club - Pakistan, India, Israel and North Korea, an unplowed field. For negotiations, where the goal of some is to maintain the "status quo" and recognition by the nuclear powers, on the other hand, the desire to control any amount of nuclear weapons, enriched uranium, heavy water.
It is necessary to pull all suspects of possession for bargaining, and not just China

[ficus2003]

For you, justice is also inaccessible as the desire to understand something or reckon with the balance of power.

[Old26]

Quote: ficus2003

The reason is not this, but injustice.

What is the injustice? Is China limited by treaties?

Quote: ficus2003

China has 300 warheads, and the United States and Russia 1550 each.

The United States and Russia do not have 1550 warheads, but about three times as many. As well as the fact that China is unlikely to have a number of BGs equal to 250-300, as the media say. I wrote a little higher that there are doubts about this figure.

Quote: ficus2003

Those. China is already 5 times smaller with a population of 4-10 times more.

And what, is there already some kind of “person / number of warheads” ratio that the population has already started to use?

Quote: ficus2003

You need to be an extreme cynic to demand from China a reduction in nuclear weapons.

And what is the cynicism? China was offered to participate in the treaty. He refused, not wanting to be bound by any restrictions. But any contract is a compromise. And if you give your consent to participate in any treaty, then you are obliged to follow its provisions and, depending on the "ceilings" of the treaty, it is possible to reduce your own nuclear weapons or delivery vehicles. This, dear, is not cynicism ...

[Mikhail3]

At the moment, nuclear weapons are the only guarantee of non-interference in the country's affairs by the Americans and the West in general. We do not use this guarantee, allowing us to do whatever we want, but the Chinese do it differently. Trump needs "political victories", one of which he will make the very fact of the beginning of at least some kind of negotiations? He will have to pay the Chinese for such a step, and pay a lot. Moreover, the Chinese want payment in advance, otherwise the statement would not be so tough.
The Chinese are great. This is not our "elite", ugh ...