Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation

Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation

You are here: Home / Archives for Asia

Understanding China’s Nuclear Arsenal – Comments by Maj. General Yao

On April 8, 2013, the Carnegie Endowment hosted their biannual Nuclear Policy Conference.  The first day was marked by a panel featuring U.S. Acting Undersecretary for Arms Control and International Security, Rose Gottemoeller, People’s Liberation Army Major General Yao Yunzhu (China,) and former Deputy Chairman of the Duma Defense Committee, Alexei Arbatov.

The panel was entitled Prague 2.0? Deterrence, Disarmament and Nonproliferation in Obama’s Second Term but the conversation provided an opportunity for General Yao, director of the Center on China-American Defense Relations at the Academy of Military Science, to offer some insights into China’s strategic thoughts and vision for its largely opaque nuclear program.

The major take-away from General Yao’s comments was her articulation of the three underpinnings of Chinese nuclear strategy.  According to General Yao, China’s nuclear arsenal requires three components: survivability, a penetration capacity and a deterrent threat.

General Yao repeatedly highlighted the Chinese no first-use doctrine and that more than ninety percent of the global nuclear arsenal is still controlled by the US and Russia, either as stored or deployed nuclear weapons.  In order to move toward a multilateral framework for arms control, General Yao said that the “U.S. and Russia have to do one or two rounds of negotiations to further reduce” their arsenals.

The panel also discussed further US-Russian bilateral reductions. During this conversation MP Abratov stated that “China is the only state that could quickly build up to level of U.S.-Russian” nuclear arsenal size.  

General Yao responded that, “China will not seek nuclear superiority” and that the smaller Nuclear Weapons States should promise not to enter an arms race with the U.S. or Russia.

MP Abratov called on the Chinese to be more transparent about the size of their nuclear arsenal.  “China is the only serious specter,” according to MP Abratov.  It seems strange for a Russian to criticize the Chinese on a lack of transparency with their arsenal which has been a hallmark of Soviet and Russian policy.

General Yao responded that due to the small size of the Chinese arsenal and its no first-use a “certain amount of opaqueness is necessary” to achieve its three required characteristics..  General Yao also noted the presence of Chinese underground tunnels as part of their survivability strategy. These tunnels have prompted a small number of observers to argue that China could be storing a much larger number of nuclear warheads than US intelligence estimates suggest, though there is little evidence to support this view.  

Undersecretary Gottemoeller did praise the Chinese for their efforts to lead a terminology working group for nuclear weapons that would help to create mutual understanding among the permanent five members of the UN Security Council.  She cited the need to “create fabric, environment for future multilateral negotiations.”  However, Undersecretary Gottemoeller seemed to be the only panelist looking forward to multilateral arms controls talks in the near-term.

Nukes, Missiles and Feints: The Real Deal on Iran and North Korea

A Conversation about the Current Situation in North Korea and How it Differs from Iran

Washington DC – April 16, 2013– Press Advisory– The rhetoric from North Korea has become increasingly hostile. Last Friday, the country warned that “nuclear war is unavoidable” and declared that Tokyo would be its first target in the event of a war on the Korean Peninsula. This statement is just the latest in an escalating war of words and rising tensions between North Korean officials and the United State.

Join Truman Project President Rachel Kleinfeld – just back from Japan – and an expert panel as they discuss the current situation in North Korea, how the situation differs from that of Iran, and how we can better understand Asian hard security and the nuclear challenge?

Who:
L. Gordon Flake, executive director, Mansfield Foundation
Laicie Heeley, senior policy analyst at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation ?
Alexandra Toma, founder, Fissile Materials Working Group
Moderator: Rachel Kleinfeld, President of the Truman Project

When: Friday, April 19th, 9:30am-10:45am ET

Where:Center for National Policy
One Massachusetts Ave. NW Suite 333
Washington, 20001

Breakfast will be served.

RSVP here

####

The Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation is a Washington-based non-profit think tank working to reduce the number of nuclear weapons stockpiled across the globe, increase international nonproliferation programs targeted at preventing the further proliferation of nuclear weapons and nuclear terrorism, redirect U.S. military spending to address 21st century security threats and halt the proliferation of biological and chemical weapons. www.armscontrolcenter.org

Psy or a Nuke – South Korea Likely to Pick Psy

“Developing a nuclear weapon would be disastrous to the world’s 13th largest economy that is heavily dependent of international trade,” said James Lewis, spokesman for the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. “There would be no smartphones, fashion or superstars like Psy. South Korea can either have Psy or a nuke – they will likely pick Psy.”

NYT Opinion: Nuclear Neighbors for North Korea?

North Korea is going all out with threats – why? What can be done? Here are some of my thoughts in the New York Times ‘Room for Debate’ opinion page in a discussion with other esteemed colleagues. Click here or see below:

New York Times Room for Debate

March 11, 2013

Nuclear Neighbors for North Korea?

North Korea declared the 1953 Korean War armistice nullified on Monday, in the wake of growing threats from the country’s leader Kim Jong-un directed last week at South Korea and the United States and the United Nations Security Council decision to in retaliation to its third nuclear test in February.

A new sense of vulnerability is leading some South Koreans to call for the development of its own nuclear weapons program. Its neighbor Japan could easily build up a nuclear arsenal. Will North Korea’s threats and continued testing cause more proliferation in the region?

For South Korea, It’s Unrealistic

By Duyeon Kim

South Korea’s development of nuclear weapons is not realistic, despite the demands made by a few conservative politicians whenever North Korea acts up. It would be a clear violation of international law that would sever political and economic relations with its closest ally, the U.S., and neighboring countries. South Korean nuclear armament risks turning back the clock to the disastrous economic situation during the Korean War and crippling the world’s 12th-largest economy, which relies so extensively on international trade. No more smartphones, no more fashion, no more musical sensations like Psy. Moreover, Seoul does not possess the technical capability to go nuclear.

Seoul hasn’t seriously considered nuclear weapons since the 1970s Park Chung-hee military rule. But that was ignited by fears of abandonment when President Jimmy Carter suddenly decided to withdraw U.S. troops from the peninsula.

Instead, there are more urgent, realistic questions that need to be addressed.

First, how to prevent possible conflict amid spiked tensions on the peninsula as North Korea has threatened nuclear war and declared the Korean War Armistice Agreement nullified, coincident with a new round of joint U.S.-South Korea military drills. North Korean unpredictability looms as South Korea braces for unexpected provocations. Let’s hope there are no miscalculations over the next couple of weeks that lead to unintended consequences.

Second, how to nip a bud that doesn’t want to be nipped. It is clear Pyongyang will not surrender its nuclear ambitions, including recognition as a nuclear power. Kim Jong-un’s regime is creating an extremely volatile situation apparently aimed at forcing Washington into peace treaty talks that would withdraw U.S. troops from the Korean Peninsula while keeping their nukes.

Inaction is worse than any not-good option. Diplomatic talks will need to resume at some point after the noise settles. But does President Obama have a clear North Korea policy, or even an interest?