Military Review

China named conditions for joining US and Russia on START

49

Beijing will join the US and Russia strategic offensive arms negotiations in only one of two cases. This will happen if the US reduces its nuclear weapon to the level of the PRC, or if China builds up its nuclear arsenal to the American level. Which of these two options Washington wants to implement, the US administration has not yet explained.


This was announced at a briefing in Beijing by Fu Tsong, who holds the post of head of the arms control department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of China.

He noted that as soon as the United States reduces its nuclear weapons to the level of China, Beijing will immediately be “happy” to join the agreement. But the head of the department believes that this will not happen.

At the same time, a Chinese official noted that Russia does not insist on the participation of the PRC in the negotiations, only the United States wants this. Fu Tsun thanked the Russian Federation for understanding the position of Beijing. On the part of Washington, unfortunately, this understanding is not observed.

In addition, the director of the department said that China would join the negotiations between the US and Russia if the two countries decide to extend the START Treaty and begin to reduce their nuclear arsenals.
49 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Russ
    Russ 8 July 2020 11: 54 New
    +5
    On the part of Washington, unfortunately, such an understanding is not observed.

    And who did Washington understand at least once? Only exclusively beloved "exceptional" yes
    1. dauria
      dauria 8 July 2020 12: 02 New
      +6
      And who did Washington understand at least once?


      But the Chinese will not calm down until they are equal in terms of warheads and carriers to the United States. So we’ll live without contracts. Nothing wrong. Lived.

      Actually it was written a month ago laughing in article June 3, 2020
      "What will happen if you give up control of nuclear weapons - speculate in the US press"
      Fu Tsun reads "Military Review"? !!! wassat I am proud of my favorite site.
      1. Paranoid50
        Paranoid50 8 July 2020 14: 25 New
        +4
        Quote: dauria
        Fu Tsun reads "Military Review"? !!!

        Does not read. This site is reprinting other sources. yes Alas, my poor wanderer, this ray will not flash ... (c) laughing
        1. bayard
          bayard 8 July 2020 20: 35 New
          0
          You think poorly about Chinese analysts - they both read, and in the reports quote for sure. Normal open source work.
          Our site even looked at Trump, at least after wishing him victory on behalf of the site during the pre-election race (former).
          He even wrote an open letter to all of us then. yes
          So Trump is ours bully .
          But for China, IT is generally a storehouse of military thought. lol .
          So proud smile and appreciate.

          And the intellectual level ... so he is everywhere negative . request . And on the quality of the material - too.
        2. Akuzenka
          Akuzenka 11 July 2020 19: 48 New
          0
          You cannot understand these Chinese, maybe they are reading.
  2. Hunter 2
    Hunter 2 8 July 2020 11: 56 New
    13
    Hmm ... and who knows how many Nuclear warheads the PRC has? Here are the cunning Chinese politicians ... they seem to have sent, but so succinctly! wink
    Russia at the Present - It is definitely not beneficial to reduce the arsenal of nuclear arsenal.
  3. APASUS
    APASUS 8 July 2020 11: 57 New
    21
    Why did the wedge converge in China? But what about Israel, England or France? Ah, I completely forgot, they are allies, they can ..........................
    1. mvg
      mvg 8 July 2020 12: 17 New
      -11
      But what about Israel, England or France

      Yes, because none of these countries produces more nuclear weapons. Only improve carriers and delivery systems. The British generally have only American Trident D5, and the maximum that can do is increase the number of BGs on Wengard from 96 to 192, but who will give them?
      But India and Pakistan are fair.
      1. APASUS
        APASUS 8 July 2020 12: 33 New
        12
        Quote: mvg
        Yes, because none of these countries produces more nuclear weapons.

        And what is the difference whether it produces or not, it really owns nuclear weapons and it stands on alert duty.
        1. mvg
          mvg 8 July 2020 15: 24 New
          0
          produce or not produce

          Yes, because the PRC, Pakistan, India, and the DPRK are producing. How many China knows no one, some estimates of 500-600 charges. This is more than that of England or France combined. And at such a pace to catch up with the Russian Federation or the US for long. If you freeze, then at all.
          PS: Well, as I understand it, when signing the PRC will have to allow the IAEA to its facilities
      2. alexmach
        alexmach 8 July 2020 15: 05 New
        +2
        So it is ... And Russia and the USA also don’t seem to produce new ones. Weapon-grade plutonium is not being produced; they also work with existing products and materials.
        1. Siberian54
          Siberian54 9 July 2020 09: 05 New
          0
          The states have a stockpile of weapons-grade plutonium exported from Russia to them for disposal and somehow quietly forgotten in storage depots ..
    2. Vestovoi
      Vestovoi 8 July 2020 20: 27 New
      -6
      Quote: APASUS
      Why did the wedge converge in China? But what about Israel, England or France? Ah, I completely forgot, they are allies, they can ..........................

      Well, you copy my thoughts to the point .. good
      The United States owes China a lot .. And Iran, too (their accounts have been blocked for a long time already billions of dollars) ..
      China, of course, got up in vain in a pose, but the conditions are quite healthy .. What the USA and them .. will not go!
  4. DMoroz
    DMoroz 8 July 2020 12: 00 New
    11
    And why only the nuclear arsenal of the states is taken into account? and their NATO allies, who also have such weapons, are not taken into account? If reduced, then to the cumulative level. In general, they are going to bring our promising developments, which they themselves do not have, under a new agreement ... Will ours go for it? request
    1. Vestovoi
      Vestovoi 8 July 2020 20: 49 New
      -5
      Quote: DMoroz
      And why only the nuclear arsenal of the states is taken into account? and their NATO allies, who also have such weapons, are not taken into account? If reduced, then to the cumulative level. In general, they are going to bring our promising developments under a new agreement, which they themselves do not have ..

      They always played cunningly. And now, when Russia presented them with the latest ICBMs, etc. they moved ...
      Quote: DMoroz
      In general, they are going to bring our promising developments, which they themselves do not have, under a new agreement ... Will ours go for it?

      They want to annul our supersonic! ..Well, everything that threatens them specifically (it was so during the humpback and drunken Yeltsinos ..)
      Now excuse me, at first remove military bases from our Russian borders and apologize for EVERYTHING! You can stand on the knees, along with African-Americans .. ..))))
  5. rotmistr60
    rotmistr60 8 July 2020 12: 02 New
    10
    if the United States reduces its nuclear weapons to the level of China, or if China increases its nuclear arsenal to the American level
    But the Chinese pushed the Americans by setting impossible conditions in the style of negotiating the United States.
    1. AUL
      AUL 8 July 2020 12: 50 New
      0
      And why, in fact, impossible? Everything is quite logical and objective!
      1. dauria
        dauria 8 July 2020 13: 33 New
        +4
        And why, in fact, impossible?


        Because with equality in nuclear weapons, Americans will have to forget about the threats to China by the war in Asia forever. And reconcile with the thought that China is hosting it.
        The fact is that China is following the path of the USSR. Its strategic nuclear forces are backed up by a powerful trump card - ground forces. And they are able to throw into the ocean from the mainland any expeditionary force from Korea and Vietnam to Pakistan. So the beginning of any war with China (even nuclear, even ordinary) on the mainland becomes meaningless.
        But this is only a matter of time. At what level of nuclear weapons equilibrium is established indifferent. China is beneficial to smaller, but the United States needs more.
        1. AUL
          AUL 8 July 2020 13: 40 New
          0
          Well, judging from the point of view of mattresses, yes. And if from the point of view of common sense - why not?
    2. Shiden
      Shiden 8 July 2020 18: 54 New
      -3
      By trolling, it’s by trolling, but the USA can say whatever you like, but we won’t put pressure on Japan, Taiwan and South Korea to get a nuclear arsenal. And Beijing’s ambitions will smoothly turn into requests that they were misunderstood, they say the Chinese diplomatic language was not so translated.
  6. yfast
    yfast 8 July 2020 12: 05 New
    0
    That is, China will never join.
  7. Wedmak
    Wedmak 8 July 2020 12: 05 New
    0
    Uncle Sam, as usual, wants to impose his vision and his conditions. Leaving for the beloved a lot of loopholes and a field for maneuvers. China tactfully sent to ... Russia is unlikely to include its promising developments in the new treaty ... given that the United States has already been declared non-negotiable. So ... all together we enter the new nuclear world fried by small showdowns, intrusions, overthrows, coups ...
    1. dauria
      dauria 8 July 2020 13: 56 New
      +1
      So ... all together we enter the new nuclear world fried by small showdowns, invasions, overthrows, coups ...


      Actually, this is the old nuclear world. So they lived from Stalin to Gorbachev. They remembered that the exchange of 120 for 120 million lives was at stake. And they held ground forces, in which case to throw off the "American expedition" in the Bay of Biscay. And they invaded, turned over, etc. only when they realized that this was "not overkill", but a necessity that the adversary would "endure and swallow."
      Only the name of the parties has changed. From USA-USSR to USA-China.
  8. tralflot1832
    tralflot1832 8 July 2020 12: 07 New
    +4
    This is only part of the speech of the Chinese diplomat. He spoke a lot there. There is more information on Vzglyad. Mark Esper frantically translated the Chinese message. You can consider this Chinese speech to be the answer to his speech today. Meaning: USA sent by forest.
  9. mark1
    mark1 8 July 2020 12: 12 New
    +1
    American nuclear weapons in Europe should be considered strategic. able to solve for the most part tasks of a strategic level. We are already in an unequal position - so either the withdrawal of an American, as it were, TNW from Europe, or the quantitative level of nuclear charges of Russia's strategic nuclear forces should rise to the total number of nuclear weapons in the American strategic nuclear forces and their nuclear weapons located in Europe.
  10. alone
    alone 8 July 2020 12: 16 New
    +2
    A reasonable question arises: Is the increase in the number of nuclear warheads profitable or not? Including Russia?
    1. tralflot1832
      tralflot1832 8 July 2020 12: 34 New
      0
      Because of the US withdrawal from the INF Treaty, we will have to redirect some of the missiles intended for the US to Europe. The question is what remains for the United States, it will cause irreparable damage. We spray forces!
      1. Siberian54
        Siberian54 9 July 2020 09: 13 New
        +1
        Every warhead, the headache of the Ministry of Finance, is money, big money, very big money! And the quantity is the principle of cartridges, it’s small but there is no more money.
    2. Grits
      Grits 8 July 2020 14: 39 New
      0
      Quote: lonely
      Is an increase in the number of nuclear warheads beneficial or not? Including Russia?

      Russia now benefits from the current situation with the current quantity.
  11. aszzz888
    aszzz888 8 July 2020 12: 19 New
    +2
    China named conditions for joining US and Russia on START
    A balanced, and politically verified answer to the PRC to the merikatos.
  12. Hagen
    Hagen 8 July 2020 12: 21 New
    +1
    as soon as the United States reduces its nuclear weapons to the level of China, Beijing will immediately be “happy” to join the agreement

    Recalling the story of the forgery of gilded tungsten ingots sold instead of gold, the Chinese "will be happy to run away and believe" the Americans. I do not think that this will happen in the foreseeable future.
  13. askort154
    askort154 8 July 2020 12: 42 New
    -1
    I like the current policy of China regarding the Anglo-Saxons.
    In the 70s of the last century, they relentlessly sent their "Chinese warnings", giving them a serial number, which reached the number 1500. It looked anecdotal, causing fair ridicule. Now China, speaks to them on equal terms, without bending, which modern Russia cannot afford.
    Because in the 21st century, the focus is not on weapons that can destroy each other several times, but on financial and oligarchic structures that crushed themselves
    all world politics, not to mention Russia. Therefore, there will never be a triple alliance: USA-Russia-China. The Anglo-Saxons will do everything so that the “union” is dual, either with Russia or with China, in order to drive a wedge between them, up to “hot relations”.
    And the Anglo-Saxons in this, over the past 400 years - "not one dog ate."
  14. Cowbra
    Cowbra 8 July 2020 13: 05 New
    -2
    For the United States, this is the best way - to cut back. Warheads are degrading; plutonium production technology has been LOST; restoration is not 10 years. And it’s completely impossible for the present pentagonal sawmill. And you can cut it with a proud face - ish you, I am the creator of Mirra!
  15. alone
    alone 8 July 2020 13: 24 New
    0
    In this unstable world, one shouldn’t particularly trust someone ..China is no exception .. Everything is clear with the United States. It bawls openly .. And China is acting quietly ..
  16. Old26
    Old26 8 July 2020 14: 01 New
    +4
    Quote: Hunter 2
    Hmm ... and who knows how many Nuclear warheads the PRC has? Here are the cunning Chinese politicians ... they seem to have sent, but so succinctly! wink
    Russia at the Present - It is definitely not beneficial to reduce the arsenal of nuclear arsenal.

    And nobody knows that. The indicated 250-280 warheads in China are hardly true

    Quote: mvg
    But what about Israel, England or France

    Yes, because none of these countries produces more nuclear weapons. Only improve carriers and delivery systems. The British generally have only American Trident D5, and the maximum that can do is increase the number of BGs on Wengard from 96 to 192, but who will give them?
    But India and Pakistan are fair.

    They will not be able to build up. Over the past few years, the number of weapons in service in the UK has declined altogether to 120 units

    Quote: DMoroz
    And why only the nuclear arsenal of the states is taken into account? and their NATO allies, who also have such weapons, are not taken into account? If reduced, then to the cumulative level. In general, they are going to bring our promising developments, which they themselves do not have, under a new agreement ... Will ours go for it? request

    This is not real at all. Even the participation of a third party (China) already creates difficulties in limiting. How to decide how much and who should have it. And if you “fasten” the remaining nuclear countries to this, the task has no solution

    Quote: mark1
    American nuclear weapons in Europe should be considered strategic. able to solve for the most part tasks of a strategic level. We are already in an unequal position - so either the withdrawal of an American, as it were, TNW from Europe, or the quantitative level of nuclear charges of Russia's strategic nuclear forces should rise to the total number of nuclear weapons in the American strategic nuclear forces and their nuclear weapons located in Europe.

    Even counting only the strategic weapons of all nuclear countries makes the task of concluding a treaty impossible. And if you add here another tactic - the conclusion of the contract is postponed for a year until 2220-2230, not earlier. And what do you think, and for European NATO member countries is Russian tactical nuclear weapons “strategic”? Then it is necessary that it be taken into account, and ours will never agree to this? So your proposal exclusively about American tactical nuclear weapons is, to put it mildly, delusional.

    Quote: tralflot1832
    Because of the US withdrawal from the INF Treaty, we will have to redirect some of the missiles intended for the US to Europe. The question is what remains for the United States, it will cause irreparable damage. We spray forces!

    BG is enough. The number of BG required for such a development of events is 3 times less than what is currently

    Quote: Cowbra
    For the United States, this is the best way - to cut back. Warheads are degrading; plutonium production technology has been LOST; restoration is not 10 years. And it’s completely impossible for the present pentagonal sawmill. And you can cut it with a proud face - ish you, I am the creator of Mirra!

    The United States has about 60 tons of plutonium reserves. Lost at present is the production of new BG. And to upgrade the old ones - they have been doing this for 10-15 years under the LEP program
    1. Orkraider
      Orkraider 8 July 2020 14: 53 New
      0
      BG is enough. The number of BG required for such a development of events is 3 times less than what is currently

      Greetings!
      You wanted to write BG carriers is not enough, right?
  17. Ros 56
    Ros 56 8 July 2020 15: 59 New
    0
    Therefore, never.
  18. tralflot1832
    tralflot1832 8 July 2020 16: 19 New
    0
    Probably not without reason C called Putin VV today. We look forward to continuing ...
  19. Old26
    Old26 8 July 2020 17: 00 New
    +1
    Quote: Orkraider
    BG is enough. The number of BG required for such a development of events is 3 times less than what is currently

    Greetings!
    You wanted to write BG carriers is not enough, right?

    No, comrade, not true. Based on open materials from the network, it can be concluded that in order for the United States to cease to exist as a political structure, approximately 250-450 BG is required, depending on the power that will strike one and a half hundred main targets. Russia now has about 1326 deployed BGs (as of March 2020)
    1. Grazdanin
      Grazdanin 8 July 2020 17: 44 New
      -1
      The number of BG is necessary, enough with us. If we assume that 30% of the missiles will not take off, 30% will be destroyed by a bullet strike, 30% will be intercepted. Just 454 BG will hit the target.
  20. Old26
    Old26 8 July 2020 18: 03 New
    +1
    Quote: Grazdanin
    The number of BG is necessary, enough with us. If we assume that 30% of the missiles will not take off, 30% will be destroyed by a bullet strike, 30% will be intercepted. Just 454 BG will hit the target.

    I wonder where the numbers come from. Okay, I can understand that 30% are destroyed by a preemptive strike, and why 30% will not take off, and most importantly, how 20% will intercept it. Where are the numbers from?
    1. Grazdanin
      Grazdanin 8 July 2020 18: 44 New
      -1
      I’ll look for an article, like on an English-language site. And the numbers are quite logical, naturally they are pretty cool and can dance (due to the source in a more positive direction for them), but many converge in the fact that 40% is guaranteed to fly. I prefer getting ready for the worst case scenario, and rely on the best. I have big doubts about the low fault tolerance of the missiles in service, the launches of Volna (R-29R) missiles do not add optimism. https://ru.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_(Rocket launcher)
  21. Alex Justice
    Alex Justice 8 July 2020 19: 45 New
    0
    Fair
  22. Old26
    Old26 8 July 2020 20: 51 New
    +1
    Quote: Grazdanin
    I’ll look for an article, like on an English-language site. And the numbers are quite logical, naturally they are pretty cool and can dance (due to the source in a more positive direction for them), but many converge in the fact that 40% is guaranteed to fly. I prefer getting ready for the worst case scenario, and rely on the best. I have big doubts about the low fault tolerance of the missiles in service, the launches of Volna (R-29R) missiles do not add optimism. https://ru.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_(Rocket launcher)

    Comrade, you can’t look for the article, I’m afraid of the numbers there “from the flashlight”. In your example, 90% of Russian missiles will not achieve the goal.
    1. 30% will not take off
    2. 30% will be destroyed by a preemptive strike
    Well, we can assume (purely theoretically) that a certain amount will be destroyed by a preemptive strike. But I just doubt that it will be 30%. During OVD, the number of affected complexes will not be 30%, but much less. Well, let 10%.
    The number of those who did not take off - 30% - how is it? I can understand that a certain number of missiles can “refuse” corny and not take off, but not 30%. Link to space launches R-29R - not correct. Since if you count the number of successful and unsuccessful launches in the framework of LCI and UBP - approximately 74 successful versus 15 emergency ones.
    1. Grazdanin
      Grazdanin 8 July 2020 22: 13 New
      -1
      Quote: Old26
      Comrade, you can’t look for the article, I’m afraid of the numbers there “from the flashlight”.

      Good) this is all a theory.
      Quote: Old26
      In your example, 90% of Russian missiles will not achieve the goal.

      Not about 30% is guaranteed to achieve the goal. Not correctly put it. 30% will be destroyed, 30% of those not destroyed will not reach technical problems, of the remaining 30% will be intercepted. The formula about which he wrote (((1326 * 0,7) * 0,7) * 0,7) = 454, which is more than enough for the guaranteed destruction of the United States. Naturally, this is all a theory, I can’t vouch for these numbers, I won’t fight.
      Quote: Old26
      Since if you count the number of successful and unsuccessful launches in the framework of LCI and UBP - approximately 74 successful versus 15 emergency ones.

      17% of those unsuccessful for prepared, tested missiles are a bit too much what is going on with combatant missiles, I don’t want to ask the familiar rocketers, they have enough funny stories about the service from them. I want to sleep soundly :)
      From 30% to 60% of BGs with special warheads should reach their goals, I agree with this wording. As always, you need to hope for 60%, plan 30% smile
  23. razved
    razved 8 July 2020 21: 34 New
    0
    Why don't Amers invite France, Britain, India, Pakistan and Israel ?. It is clear that the question is rhetorical, but maybe it would be worth asking it to these "peacekeepers" ...
  24. Old26
    Old26 8 July 2020 22: 11 New
    +1
    Quote: razved
    Why don't Amers invite France, Britain, India, Pakistan and Israel ?. It is clear that the question is rhetorical, but maybe it would be worth asking it to these "peacekeepers" ...

    Andrei! To be honest, I'm tired of repeating the same thing. Treaties between the USA and the USSR (Russia) were prepared for 5-6 years, and sometimes more. Dozens of factors must be considered. Two countries can "average" this. But when such countries 3-7-10 this is not possible at all. The only option between these countries is the FULL ELIMINATION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS. There will be nothing else. It is impossible, as the saying goes, "to harness a horse and a trembling doe in one harness." What to take as check digits?
  25. kos2910
    kos2910 9 July 2020 07: 39 New
    0
    Noble trolling! Well done :)
  26. Old26
    Old26 9 July 2020 14: 40 New
    +2
    Quote: Siberian54
    The states have a stockpile of weapons-grade plutonium exported from Russia to them for disposal and somehow quietly forgotten in storage depots ..

    Yes, damn it, expert. Russia NEVER DELIVERED WEAPON PLUTONIUM IN THE USA. The Gore-Chernomyrdin deal is a SALE in the USA of uptake of up to 3,5% of WEAPON URANIUM recovered from discharged weapons. Thus, we put the States on the "uranium needle." Materiel, you know the "negative value"

    Quote: mark1
    American nuclear weapons in Europe should be considered strategic. able to solve for the most part tasks of a strategic level. We are already in an unequal position - so either the withdrawal of an American, as it were, TNW from Europe, or the quantitative level of nuclear charges of Russia's strategic nuclear forces should rise to the total number of nuclear weapons in the American strategic nuclear forces and their nuclear weapons located in Europe.

    Nonsense does not need to be repeated that are circulated in the media. With exactly the same success, the West may require us to consider our tactical weapons as strategic, because for the West in a conflict it will solve strategic goals. Not without reason did they at one time call our pioneers "Euro-strategic weapons."
    And who will benefit if the US arsenal, with the inclusion of tactical nuclear weapons, increases by 200-300 units, and we will be forced to include about 7 thousand of our tactical ones here. As a result, we will leave "in the red." It’s great how it will be.

    Quote: Grazdanin
    Not about 30% is guaranteed to achieve the goal. Not correctly put it. 30% will be destroyed, 30% of those not destroyed will not reach technical problems, of the remaining 30% will be intercepted. The formula about which he wrote (((1326 * 0,7) * 0,7) * 0,7) = 454, which is more than enough for the guaranteed destruction of the United States. Naturally, this is all a theory, I can’t vouch for these numbers, I won’t fight.

    Sorry, comrade, but these numbers are sucked from the finger, like the formula. Americans are physically unable to intercept 30% of warheads (not to mention 30% of missiles). Pure math. The Americans have about 44-48 strategic interceptors. The probability of hitting a target with such interceptors is about 0,9. This means that for defeat, at least with a probability of 0,99, or better with a probability of 0,999, 2-3 interceptors will be needed for the target. But even if we assume that 1 interceptor = 1 target, then the Americans will be shot down 44-48 targets. And this is far from 30% ...