Is China Changing Its Position on Nuclear Weapons?

[bananas]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/19/opinion/is-china-changing-its-position-on-nuclear-weapons.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Is China Changing Its Position on Nuclear Weapons?
By JAMES M. ACTON
Published: April 18, 2013

INTERPRETING any country’s pronouncements about its nuclear weapons can be a study in fine distinctions, but occasionally a state says — or fails to say — something in a clear break from the past. A Chinese white paper on defense, released on Tuesday, falls into this category and now demands our attention, because it omits a promise that China will never use nuclear weapons first.

<snip>

In 1964, immediately after testing its first nuclear weapon, China promised to “never at any time or under any circumstances be the first to use nuclear weapons.” This “no-first-use pledge” was explicitly and unconditionally included in each of China’s defense white papers, from the first, in 1998, through the sixth and most recent, in 2011. It was among the strongest assurances in the world of no-first-use, a stance that the United States has never taken.

<snip>

Last December, shortly after being selected as general secretary of the Chinese Communist Party, Xi Jinping, who last month became China’s president, gave a speech to the Second Artillery Force, which is responsible for China’s land-based nuclear weapons. In the past, borrowing Mao Zedong’s imagery for China’s adversaries, Chinese officials have generally played down the value of nuclear weapons, describing them as “paper tigers.” But in a significant rhetorical shift, Mr. Xi is reported to have said that nuclear weapons create strategic support for the country’s status as a major power. In the speech, Mr. Xi did not repeat China’s no-first-use promise.

<snip>

A candid, high-level dialogue regarding nuclear deterrence has been needed for some time. The new white paper and Mr. Xi’s speech have made the need urgent.

<snip>

James M. Acton is a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

[socialindependocrat]

1. They probably fear the lack of control

N. Korea is growling like a little dog and China is probably afraid that they will
start a nuclear attack that may be very destructive.

The "big dogs" who have had nuclear capability for years have learned to
negotiate or threaten without the mention of nuclear attack.

Un is like a kid with a nintendo and he's trying to show the older guys in his military
that he's no pushover.

They really shouldn't give "the key" to anyone under 60 years old.

We'll see...

[bananas]

2. The US has been placing missile defense systems around China

http://space4peace.blogspot.com/2013/03/md-arc-being-created-across-asia-pacific.html

Tuesday, March 26, 2013
MISSILE DEFENSE ARC BEING CREATED ACROSS ASIA-PACIFIC

<snip>

While the US claims that its MD program is aimed at North Korea's tiny nuclear program, the growing numbers of systems now being deployed in Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, and Okinawa (and the direction they point) indicate they are in actuality being used against China.

Some reports have indicated that the Pentagon is also considering plans to deploy a third radar somewhere else in the region like the Philippines to create an “arc” across East Asia to bolster MD capabilities.

This is destabilizing, as the NYT article in the OP points out:

So China may intend the new language in its white paper to send a signal: that in a future crisis, if it concluded that the United States was about to attack its nuclear arsenal with conventional weapons that were backed up by missile defenses, China might use its nuclear weapons first. The United States should recognize this concern; it was called “use ’em or lose ’em” during the cold war.

That's why we used to have treaties against anti-ballistic missiles:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Ballistic_Missile_Treaty

The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM Treaty or ABMT) was a treaty between the United States and the Soviet Union on the limitation of the anti-ballistic missile (ABM) systems used in defending areas against missile-delivered nuclear weapons.

Signed in 1972, it was in force for the next 30 years until the US unilaterally withdrew from it in June 2002.

<snip>

On December 13, 2001, George W. Bush gave Russia notice of the United States' withdrawal from the treaty, in accordance with the clause that required six months' notice before terminating the pact—the first time in recent history that the United States has withdrawn from a major international arms treaty. This led to the eventual creation of the American Missile Defense Agency.[12]

Supporters of the withdrawal argued that it was a necessity in order to test and build a limited National Missile Defense to protect the United States from nuclear blackmail by a rogue state. The withdrawal had many critics as well as supporters. John Rhinelander, a negotiator of the ABM treaty, predicted that the withdrawal would be a "fatal blow" to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and would lead to a "world without effective legal constraints on nuclear proliferation." The construction of a missile defense system was also feared to enable the US to attack with a nuclear first strike.

<snip>

[Benton D Struckcheon]

3. That promise was never going to survive them becoming a true superpower

Just the reality of being the number two in the world now. Mainly what we will be doing is keeping Taiwan propped up so as to keep them distracted with that. Our Asian allies (Japan, Phillipines, possibly even Viet Nam at this point) will want us to do that also. A reunified China will be in no one's interests. Their "dotted line" map is getting everyone over there riled up.

[John2]

4. You think a

reunified China is a threat? China already governs the entire mainland. Governing Tawain is only a principle because they think it is part of China and belongs to China. I doubt the Chinese's thinks it is anybody else's business anyway, the same the U.S. would probably feel about Hawaii or any other U.S. territory.

The majority of countries in World has even denied Taiwan's legitimacy, just so they could have relations with the mainland. Even the U.S. recently changed their Policies towards China, including South Korea. That is why they are having better relations with China. The South Koreans relations with China improved just recently during the 90s. The Truce in the Korean War did not just involve agreements between North Korea and South Korea but also their principle backers, which included the United States and China. North Korea's and South Korea's military roles played secondary roles to the main participants near the beginning of hostilities ceasing. North Korea's military faced annihilation until the Chinese jumped in and the same happened to South Korea because the counter attack by the Chinese almost eviscerated South Korean forces and some American divisions. That is when MacArthur talked about using nuclear weapons. He was fired by Truman.

The Chinese sought their own nuclear program because of this threat and the United States reneging parts of the Truce. That is also the time the North Koreans also sought nuclear weapons help from both China and Russia, but both rejected giving assistance to North Korea. Both North Korea and South Korea are only proxies for the major Powers. It is all about maneuvering to gain military advantage over the other side. I do not think China's goal is to have a reunited Korea as a powerful nuclear state on its borders. In fact it is not for any of the acting states interests, which includes Russia and Japan. The Koreans have a bad history with imperial Japan. If north and South Korea ever reunited, they have the resources to form a powerful country absent foreign influences. That is why imperial Japan wanted control of the Korean peninsula. It is a very rich country, if unified.

[Benton D Struckcheon]

5. Reunified China means nothing to the US,

but keeping Taiwan as an irritant to China helps both the US and its allies. As you wrote

It is all about maneuvering to gain military advantage over the other side.

That's the game.
It's also why you'll see the US build up India as a counterweight to China. Watch. It's already happening.

[davidpdx]

7. A reunified Korea wouldn't be as big a threat as you think

Considering North Korea is a shit hole with very little industry, crumbling infrastructure, poor uneducated citizens who have been brainwashed for decades. Even if the North Korean Government fell, it would costs hundreds of trillion of dollars to begin to make the country productive. It would also take decades before reunification occurred. South Korea doesn't have have nuclear weapons and would likely dispose of any North Korea had.

I believe the reunification of the two Koreas will happen, but it will take a long time.

The idea that a united Korea would be a threat is a huge misconception

[Franker65]

6. Superpowers need nuclear weapons

As bad as it may seem, as long as China's main economic and military competitors have nuclear weapons, they'll need some as well. And playing down the value of nuclear weapons is a step in the right direction - hopefully nobody gets stupid enough to use them. Statistics on nuclear testing show China's nuclear program isn't as far along as many other countries.