China and Weapons of Mass Destruction: Implications for the United States

Conference Report
5 November 1999

This conference was sponsored by the National Intelligence Council (NIC) with Armed Forces Journal International and the National Security Studies Program at the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University.  The views expressed in this conference summary are those of individuals and do not represent official US intelligence or policy positions. The NIC routinely sponsors such unclassified conferences with outside experts to gain knowledge and insight to sharpen the level of debate on critical issues.

Introduction | Schedule | Papers Appendix I | Appendix II | Appendix III | Appendix IV

Introduction

This conference document includes papers produced by distinguished experts on China's weapons-of-mass-destruction (WMD) programs. The seven papers were complemented by commentaries and general discussions among the 40 specialists at the proceedings.

The main topics of discussion included:

The development of China's nuclear forces.

China's development of chemical and biological weapons.

China's involvement in the proliferation of WMD.

China's development of missile delivery systems.

The implications of these developments for the United States.

Interest in China's WMD stems in part from its international agreements and obligations. China is a party to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), the Zangger Committee, and the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) and has signed but not ratified the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). China is not a member of the Australia Group, the Wassenaar Arrangement, the Nuclear Suppliers Group, or the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), although it has agreed to abide by the latter (which is not an international agreement and lacks legal authority).

The papers below reflect important trends in thinking outside the Intelligence Community on the issue of China and WMD. As noted on the title page, the views stated in the papers are those of the authors and are not necessarily those of the Intelligence Community or any particular US Government agency.

---

Schedule

Welcome	(9:00-9:05 AM): Robert L. Worden, Chief, Federal Research Division
Opening Comments	(9:05-9:15 AM): Robert G. Sutter, Moderator, National Intelligence Officer for East Asia
Panel One	(9:15-10:45 AM): WMD Capabilities
	Bates Gill and James Mulvenon - The Chinese Strategic Rocket Forces: Transition to Credible Deterrence
	Eric Croddy - Chinese Chemical Warfare Capabilities
	Commentators: Torrey Froscher and Catherine E. Johnston
Panel Two	(11:00-12:30 AM): Scope of WMD Proliferation
	Evan Medeiros - The Changing Character of China's WMD Proliferation Activities
	Shirley Kan - Chinese Proliferation of Missiles and WMD: Issues for US Policy
	Commentators: Harlan Jencks, Peter Brookes, Janice Hinton
Panel Three	(2:00-3:45 PM): China's Views on WMD
	Michael Swaine - The Chinese View of Weapons of Mass Destruction
	Mark Stokes - Weapons of Mass Destruction: PLA Space and Theater Missile Development
	Ken Allen - Key Indicators of Changes in Chinese Development and Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction
	Commentators: Lonnie Henley and Vincent Bonner
Panel Four	(4:00-5:15 PM): Wrap-Up: Implications for US Interests and Policies
	Peter Almquist, Michael McDevitt, and Thomas Fingar
	Contributors
	Ken Allen is with the Stimson Center.
	Peter Almquist is with the Department of State.
	Peter Brookes is a member of the staff of the International Relations Committee, House of Representatives.
	Eric Croddy is a senior research associate at the Chemical and Biological Weapons Nonproliferation Project, Center for Nonproliferation Studies (CNS), Monterey Institute.
	Bates Gill is Senior Fellow in Foreign Policy Studies at the Brookings Institution, and Director of the Brookings Center for Northeast Asian Policy Studies.
	Thomas Fingar is with the Department of State.
	Torrey Froscher is with the Central Intelligence Agency.
	Janice Hinton is a specialist on Chinese affairs.
	Lonnie Henley is with the Defense Intelligence Agency.
	Harlan Jencks is with the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
	Catherine E. Johnston is with the Defense Intelligence Agency.
	Shirley Kan is with the Library of Congress.
	Michael McDevitt is with the Center for Naval Analysis.
	Evan Medeiros is a senior research associate on the East Asia Nonproliferation Project at the Center for Nonproliferation Studies in Monterey, CA.
	James Mulvenon is Associate Political Scientist at the RAND Corporation, and Deputy Director of the RAND Center for Asia-Pacific Policy.
	Mark Stokes is with the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs.
	Robert G. Sutter is National Intelligence Officer for East Asia, National Intelligence Council.
	Michael Swaine is with the RAND Corporation.
	Robert L. Worden is Chief, Federal Research Division, Library of Congress.

---

Bates Gill and James Mulvenon¹

Introduction

The doctrine and force structure of China's Strategic Rocket Forces (also known as the Second Artillery from the Chinese di er pao) remain some of the most heavily shrouded and poorly understood aspects of the Chinese military. Yet, as China undergoes a continued modernization of its nuclear forces, to include improved mobility, reliability, accuracy, and firepower, concerned analysts are compelled to understand and analyze the Second Artillery more precisely, including its evolving doctrine, organization, and hardware, and their implications for international security.²

To date, the most prominent work on China's nuclear posture has either dwelled primarily on hardware and R&D,³ focused on doctrinal debates,⁴ or described the technological development of Chinese nuclear weapons in the form of political-military histories.⁵ Some past work, now more than 10 years old, attempts to weave several of these strands together in the context of a "cultural" explanation.⁶ More recent work by Johnston and Xue goes furthest in providing more unifying analyses that carefully draw together aspects of doctrine and force structure, yet this work requires some reexamination.⁷

In light of China's continuing nuclear weapons modernization program, an updated and more comprehensive framework is needed that fully pulls together theoretical analysis, China's declared nuclear principles, and an empirical assessment of its nuclear force structure. Taking such an approach, we reach four key findings on Chinese nuclear posture:

• First, from a theoretical perspective, traditional approaches such as neo-Realist and organization theory do not adequately predict and explain key aspects of Chinese nuclear doctrine and force structure. Rather, an understanding of such variables as domestic political, technological, historical, and cultural factors provide far greater insight and predictive capacity about the drivers that shape China's doctrinal and force structure decisions.

• Second, from a technical perspective, although we agree with analysts who highlight the role of technology in shaping Chinese doctrine, we go beyond the somewhat simplistic understanding that technology drives doctrine. Rather, we see patterns of rational strategic choice made for China's nuclear posture, though technology limited the realm of the possible for Chinese leaders. Perhaps it could be said that the Chinese made a virtue out of necessity in the construction of their nuclear deterrent, accepting the technological constraints of the system and making rational choices under those constraints.

• Third, we find that the evolution over time of China's doctrine and force structure is the story of trying to close the gap between real capability, on the one hand, and what one might call "aspirational doctrine" on the other. In the United States, the appropriate analog would be a comparison of current operational doctrine, as outlined in the Joint Doctrine publications series, with an aspirational doctrine, such as Joint Vision 2010. In the Chinese case, the discontinuity between reality and aspiration is of times referred to as the "capabilities-doctrine gap." At the present stage in the Second Artillery's modernization, China is nearing an historic convergence between doctrine and capability, allowing it to increasingly achieve a degree of credible minimal deterrence vis-à-vis the continental United States--a convergence of its doctrine and capability it has not confidently possessed since the weaponization of China's nuclear program in the mid-1960s.

• Finally, for the future, the doctrine and force structure of China's Second Artillery should be analyzed at three distinct levels, reflecting a multifaceted force with very different missions: a posture of credible minimal deterrence with regard to the continental United States and Russia; a more offensive-oriented posture of "limited deterrence" with regard to China's theater nuclear forces; and an offensively configured, preemptive, counterforce warfighting posture of "active defense" or "offensive defense" for the Second Artillery's conventional missile forces.

Theoretical Examination of China's Nuclear Posture

In reaching these findings, the work proceeds in five sections. First, we begin with a theoretical analysis of Chinese nuclear posture. Second, in the absence of an open and official declaration of Chinese nuclear doctrine, we examine China's declared nuclear principles to inferentially deduce certain aspects of China's nuclear doctrine. In a third and fourth section, we test these findings by closely examining empirical data on China's current and likely future nuclear force structure. A final section draws these findings together to reach conclusions about China's past, present, and likely future nuclear force posture.

One observer of China's nuclear program states that "for about 30 years after China exploded its first nuclear weapon there was no coherent, publicly articulated nuclear doctrine."⁸ In a similar vein, others have noted that China's nuclear weapons program "proceeded without such strategic guidance" and that "until the early 1980s, there were no scenarios, no detailed linkage of the weapons to foreign policy objectives, and no serious strategic research."⁹ In the absence of definitive official, authoritative open-source documentation to describe China's nuclear doctrine, how can analysts begin to understand Chinese nuclear posture? To start, one can briefly consider several theories, or "analytical lenses," to deduce likely Chinese doctrinal choices. The literature offers three principal "models," or explanatory frameworks.

The first framework to consider is neo-Realism. Neo-Realism stresses the state as the primary actor on the international scene, and focuses on the propensity of states to engage in "self-help" in order to preserve their interests in a hostile, anarchic world system. According to neo-Realist predictions about nuclear posture, China, as "revisionist power," would likely prefer offensive weapons and doctrines. Furthermore, neo-Realism would predict that as a country that faced a number of powerful adversaries in the formative years of its nuclear weapons program (first the United States and then the United States and the Soviet Union), China would wish to pursue offensive weapons and doctrines. Neo-Realism would also predict that, as a revisionist power with limited means to detect imminent attack, Chinese doctrine would favor offensive, preventive war strategies.¹⁰

Another theoretical approach, known as organization theory, looks to the presumed preferences of military organizations as a determinant of doctrinal outcomes.¹¹ An organization theory framework would suggest that under the highly militarized domestic conditions during the initial development of China's nuclear arsenal (from the mid-1950s to the early-1970s) China would have likely pursued an offensive nuclear posture. According to this framework, the strong presence of Chinese military interests in doctrinal and weapons development in the first decades of the People's Republic would likely result in the rejection of no-first-use posture, and would favor first-use options and counterforce targeting. According to the organization theory framework, this would be predicted by the fact that China's leadership during this period was made up of active and former military leaders, and the fact that the nuclear weapons program itself was conducted largely under the auspices of the military. In addition, because China went through a series of external security crises during the formative years of its nuclear arsenal, organization theory would warn of an even stronger likelihood that the military would actively pursue offensive deployments and doctrines.

A third predictive approach gives greater weight to domestic political, historical, and cultural factors as determinants for shaping doctrinal decisions. This approach, known as neo-culturalism in the academic literature, can be applied to the Chinese case by examining domestic political interests, civil-military relations, resource restraints, and historical experience. In the Chinese case, one can point more specifically to domestic political factors (especially the unusual dynamic of Party-Army relations), technical factors (particularly availability of resources), and other historical and cultural factors as critical variables compelling doctrinal decisions.¹² In examining these factors, neo-cultural explanations--unlike neo-Realist or organizational frameworks--would not necessarily predict a Chinese preference for offensive nuclear doctrines.

Certain aspects of the empirical record would lend support to the predictions of either the neo-Realist or the organizational theorist, or both. For example, the initial Chinese decision to go nuclear in January in 1955 is predicted by the neo-Realist approach that places great emphasis on threats and prestige as useful indicators. In another example, we see that midlevel Chinese military officers have been the most open in recent years to promote more offensively oriented deployments and doctrines, as shown in Iain Johnston's work.¹³

However, in taking the 45-year record of Chinese nuclear weapons development as a whole, neo-Realist and organizational frameworks would not predict the basic declared principles and empirical record of Chinese nuclear weapons posture overall. As explained in fuller detail in subsequent sections, China's nuclear posture overall has adopted such principles as no-first-use, has circumscribed use in the form of both positive and negative security assurances and the declared adherence to nuclear-weapon-free zones, provides no extended deterrence guarantees beyond its borders, and maintains qualitatively and quantitatively limited forces, resulting in likely "countervalue" (as opposed to "counterforce") targeting, and a delayed second-strike (as opposed to launch on warning or launch on attack) state of readiness.

Hence, in the Chinese case, considering the neo-cultural approach to help predict and understand Chinese doctrinal choices would be more helpful to us. What specific aspects of domestic politics, historical experience, and cultural tradition stand out in this regard?

From the perspective of domestic politics, we must recognize first and foremost that in the critical decades that Chinese nuclear weapons were first developed, Chinese nuclear weapons decisions were firmly dominated by the views and statements of Mao Zedong and a small number of other leaders under the powerful political sway of Maoist political ideology and rhetoric. Mao's own publicly expressed opinions about nuclear weapons served as the guiding principles for the development of the Chinese arsenal. Lewis and Xue have derived seven major principles from official Maoist statements in the 1960s and 1970s that helped define the future parameters of Chinese nuclear deployments and doctrine: (1) no first use; (2) no tactical nuclear weapons; (3) "small but better"; (4) "small but inclusive,"; (5) minimum retaliation; (6) quick recovery; (7) soft-target kill capability.¹⁴ A recent study by a Chinese missile scientist argues that many of these principles continue to carry great weight in determining the fundamental quantitative and qualitative parameters of China's nuclear weapons arsenal even today.¹⁵

A good part of this thinking with regard to nuclear weapons was derived from the wartime experience of the Chinese communist leadership, especially during the Chinese civil war (1927-49), and in the war or the communists against the Japanese (1937-45). According to Mao, Chinese communist military successes of "People's War" emphasized guerrilla tactics within a protracted war strategy, the importance of manpower over technology, the moral and physical attrition of the enemy over time, and the importance of controlling the strategic "hinterland" to surround the enemy's base in the developed urban centers. For nuclear doctrine, this translated into (1) opposition to quick or preemptive military actions from a position of weakness; (2) an appreciation for "strategic retreat" and the primacy of defense in the interest of eventual victory; (3) a subordination of a strictly military viewpoint to the political-military goals of the revolution; and (4) the ultimate superiority of man over weapons and technology.¹⁶

Mao's opinions also were influenced by his careful reading of Chinese history and its classic texts, especially the work of Sun Zi (Sun Tzu), who wrote the classic Art of War in the 6th century BC.¹⁷ Contemporary Chinese interpretations of this work emphasize the largely defensive and nonviolent nature of Chinese strategic thought, most often citing Sun Zi's well-known maxim: "To win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill." Other aspects of Sun Zi's thought that favor "nonviolent" means to vanquish one's opponents--deception, wily strategy, and what is known today as "psychological warfare"--also are often cited as representative of traditional Chinese strategic thinking.¹⁸ Moreover, this interpretation of strategic thinking finds resonance in the larger context of Confucianism--the single-most-dominant philosophy of statecraft in Chinese history--and its overarching concern with abjuring violence and assuring order through moral--rather than strictly military--strength.

Interestingly, the term in China for "deterrence" itself may help explain Chinese nuclear posture. For example, a "Confucian" approach to nuclear doctrine may be reflected in China's frequently stated "opposition" to the policy of nuclear deterrence. This apparent contradiction only leads to suspicions about true Chinese intentions, especially from Western analysts who view deterrence as an essentially defensive and stabilizing condition. However, discussions with Chinese strategists suggest that this confusion may derive in part from Chinese perceptions of the word "deter," which in Chinese (weishe) connotes strongly the notion of "menacing" or "terrorizing with military force," and implies threatening rather than defensive intent. Alternative terms in Chinese for "deterrence" also imply threats: hezu,to frighten into inaction, and weixie, to awe and threaten. Not wishing to portray its nuclear weapons as threatening, China traditionally stated its opposition to deterrence.

Since late 1995, China's official position has adjusted slightly its stance to criticize the "obviously anachronistic . . . policy of nuclear deterrence based on the first use of nuclear weapons." Track-two discussions between US and Chinese officials were able to glean a further Chinese distinction to the effect that China exercises a "defensive deterrent," while the United States wields an "offensive deterrent."¹⁹

A second domestic political factor in the Chinese case that neo-Realist and organizational theory cannot fully capture is the unique dynamic of China's "Party-Army" relations. Both the neo-Realists and the organizational theorists assume a discernible distinction of preferences between "civil" and "military" leaders in a given state. The revolutionary history of the Chinese political-military leadership often belies that assumption, especially in the formative years of the People's Republic and the development of the Chinese nuclear arsenal. Chinese "civilian" or "Party" leaders--such as Mao Zedong, Liu Shaoqi, Deng Xiaoping and Zhou Enlai--had considerable experience as revolutionary military leaders, while members of the uniformed military carried significant political power as Party leaders and, by dint of their status, as revolutionary heroes. Powerful "military" interests and predispositions intertwined with "civilian" (or "Party") concerns to reach decisions of a broader "political-military" nature, which is reflected in the apparent doctrine of China's nuclear arsenal.

The notion of different "Party-Army" factions is a better approach to understanding how the Party and the Army interact for decisions in China. The differences between these factions are resolved at the highest levels of Chinese politics where both ostensibly "civil" and "military" leaders represent interests as individuals of the Chinese Party-Army state, rather than the corporate interests of bodies of which they are members. Three good examples of how this factionalism and resolution played out were the intervention of the military to quell the excesses of the Cultural Revolution, the overthrow of the Maoist "Gang of Four" in 1976, and the deployment of troops to crush the Tiananmen Square demonstrations of 1989. In these cases, different "Party-Army" factions formed across institutional boundaries to advocate different, often diametrically opposed, courses of action.

We should note how key decisions under the conditions of a symbiotic "Party-Army" relationship have traditionally been taken by China's topmost leaders, who by necessity must credibly bridge the gap between civil and military constructs. The result for strategy in the formative years of the Chinese nuclear arsenal was a more comprehensive and political-military doctrine, not a strictly "military" or "civilian" approach.²⁰

Third, an understanding as to how the Chinese define "doctrine" also helps explain what appear to be discrepancies between doctrine and capability. Briefly put, what Western observers might call "doctrine" is different from the Chinese definition. What the West often defines as doctrine in the Chinese context is better understood to be "basic doctrine, as distinct from operational doctrine." Doctrine for China is "less operational and practical, and is more of a systemic description of the theory or overall construct guiding the PLA's defense posture."²¹ In practice, we would differentiate between "aspirational doctrine" as opposed to "actual doctrine." In the United States, the appropriate analog would be a comparison of current operational doctrine, as outlined in the Joint Doctrine publications series, with an aspirational doctrine, such as Joint Vision 2010. Thus, just as "minimal deterrence" at the beginning of China's nuclear weapons program reflected hopeful thinking as much as on-the-ground reality, so too today discussions of a warfighting or "limited deterrent" are likely indicative of future goals rather than current capabilities. To state, for example, that "the PRC's announced strategic doctrine is based on the concept of 'limited deterrence'"²² not only misinterprets Johnston's research and wrongly implies that the Chinese have ever "announced" a formal doctrine, but also wrongly attributes a Western sense of "doctrine" to what amounts to a Chinese "aspirational" doctrine.

Finally--and again a point not well explained by either neo-Realist or organizational theory frameworks--the empirical record suggests that Chinese nuclear weapons options and doctrine were shaped by resource constraints, especially considerations of technological development.²³ As noted above, we find that Chinese doctrinal preferences were not the principal drivers behind technological deployments (as neo-Realists and organizational theorists would likely predict), but rather the other way around: doctrine was shaped by what was technologically desirable or feasible. As a developing world state, technical obstacles and resource deficiencies almost immediately limited Chinese deployments to a defensive, countervalue, minimal deterrence stance, the principal features of China's traditional nuclear weapons doctrine. For example, China's reliance on countervalue targeting derives from the questionable accuracy of its ballistic missile forces and large-yield warheads that made precise, limited counterforce attacks unfeasible.²⁴

Chinese technological restraints were further exacerbated by certain domestic political and arguably "cultural" or historical factors. In turn, these developments limited Chinese doctrinal options resulting in a reliance on largely defensive and minimalist approaches. First, China's historical perception of itself as a "victim" at the hands of aggressive, more powerful states limited political choices--especially in the early years of China's nuclear weapons development--which may have favored more offensive and threatening nuclear postures. Second, the period of China's early development and eventual deployment of its rudimentary nuclear arsenal coincided closely with a turbulent period of domestic political upheaval. As Lewis and Xue have written in reference to China's pursuit of a nuclear submarine armed with solid-fuel missiles, it is "a story of politics and technology in collision."²⁵

While China eventually--after a 30-year effort--deployed a nuclear-powered submarine armed with nuclear weapons, it did so only tortuously and at great technological cost; the single submarine currently serving as the third leg of China's strategic triad rarely leaves port and has constant operational difficulties.

Third, China's historical ambivalence and self-reliant stance toward political and technological dependency also had implications for its nuclear weapons development. This position, already well entrenched in Chinese thinking dating back to the Opium Wars of the mid-1800s, was considerably strengthened during China's "century of shame" and following China's "betrayal" at the hands of Krushchev in the late 1950s and early 1960s. These lessons of historical experience slowed the acceptance and integration of foreign assistance and technologies in the development of the Chinese nuclear force. This situation constrained doctrinal choice and contributed to the development of the Chinese minimal deterrent.²⁶

Taken together, the available evidence suggests that, in analyzing the underlying causes of Chinese strategic choices, we need to give far greater attention to an approach that carefully considers domestic political forces, resource restraints, and historical experience.

China's Nuclear Weapons Principles

Moving beyond an explanation of the causal factors behind Chinese nuclear posture, what specific nuclear principles have resulted, and what can we deductively infer from them as a way to describe Chinese doctrine? On the whole, these declared nuclear principles tell us more about when China claims it would not use nuclear weapons than when it would. Nevertheless, we can infer from these principles certain aspects of an otherwise undeclared nuclear doctrine. Overall, these declared principles support what the Chinese claim to be the generally defensive nature of its nuclear arsenal. As we will see, there is room to question this assertion, though we find that the principles generally conform to current force structures (see next section). We can consider these declared principles in three parts: China's no-first-use principle, its negative and positive security assurances, and its declared adherence to nuclear weapon free zone agreements.²⁷

No First Use
First, public Chinese statements consistently reiterate the "defensive" purpose of Chinese nuclear weapons to counterbalance foreign threats. China's long-held "no-first-use" (NFU) policy serves as the foundation of this aspect of China's declared defensive nuclear posture. Chinese leaders decided to pursue nuclear weapons in January 1955 due to US nuclear threats during the Korean war and Taiwan Straits crisis of the early 1950s.²⁸ In a statement issued on the day of its first nuclear explosion in October 1964, China cited this achievement in its "struggle to strengthen [its] national defense and oppose the US imperialist policy of nuclear blackmail and nuclear threats":

China cannot remain idle in the face of the ever-increasing nuclear threats from the United States. China is conducting nuclear tests and developing nuclear weapons under compulsion...China is developing nuclear weapons for defense and for protecting the Chinese people from US threats to launch a nuclear war.²⁹

This declaratory policy has changed little in the subsequent 35-plus years that China has been a nuclear weapon state. In a July 1997 speech to the US Army War College, Lt. Gen. Li Jijun, Vice President of the PLA's Academy of Military Science, reiterated China's public position regarding its nuclear posture:

China's nuclear strategy is purely defensive in nature. The decision to develop nuclear weapons was a choice China had to make in the face of real nuclear threats. A small arsenal is retained only for the purpose of self-defense. China has unilaterally committed itself to responsibilities not yet taken by other nuclear nations, including the declaration of a no-first-use policy, the commitment not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states and in nuclear-free zones...In short, China's strategy is completely defensive, focused only on deterring the possibility of nuclear blackmail being used against China by other nuclear powers.³⁰

The cornerstone of this publicly declared defensive position is China's NFU policy. Since first detonating a nuclear device in October 1964, China has consistently declared an unconditional NFU policy,³¹ combined with a policy of no threat or use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon states (negative security assurances) (see below).³² Since that time, China has persistently proposed that nuclear-weapon states conclude a no-first-use agreement. The achievement of such an agreement was one of China's initial bargaining points in its CTBT negotiations. Later, China sought to gain such an agreement with the United States in return for a Sino-US detargeting pledge. Neither of these efforts succeeded, though the CTBT was completed and a Sino-US detargeting deal was reached. China and Russia, however, signed a bilateral NFU accord in September 1994.

Several questions, nevertheless, attend China's no-first-use pledge. First, such a pledge is highly symbolic--it is not verifiable and any violation would not be detected until too late. Second, as a practical matter, the NFU pledge may be less an altruistic principle, and more a simple reflection of the operational constraints imposed on Chinese doctrine by the country's qualitatively and quantitatively limited nuclear arsenal: China maintains an NFU pledge because it fits with the realities of nuclear weapons inventory. Finally, over the years there have been some indications that China's pledge may not be relevant to the first use of nuclear weapons on Chinese soil. Faced with the threat of a conventional Soviet invasion in the 1980s, Beijing's military strategists argued that the first-use of nuclear weapons on Chinese territory would not have violated its NFU pledge. Similarly, Johnston unearths evidence in Chinese military writings that loosely interprets the NFU pledge to possibly advocate launch-on-warning or launch-under-early-attack policies.³³

Negative and Positive Security Assurances
Another set of nuclear-weapon-related principles issued by the Chinese involves both negative and positive security assurances (NSAs and PSAs). As for NSAs, China's declaratory stance is clear:

China undertakes not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon States or nuclear-weapon-free zones at any time or under any circumstances. This commitment naturally applies to non-nuclear-weapon States Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons [NPT] or non-nuclear-weapon States that have undertaken any comparable internationally binding commitments not to manufacture or acquire nuclear explosive devices.³⁴

DF-21 IRBM TELs at National Day Parade in Beijing, 1 October 1999

Of note here is China's pledge not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon states under any circumstances; the US NSA, for example, is conditional in that the country retains the possibility of nuclear weapons use against non-nuclear-weapon states that take part in an attack on US territory, armed forces, or allies.³⁵

As for PSAs, China has agreed with the other four major nuclear weapon states (France, Great Britain, Russia, and the United States) to work within the Security Council to take "appropriate measures to provide . . . necessary assistance to any non-nuclear-weapon State that comes under attack with nuclear weapons."³⁶ The precise nature of the assistance is not elaborated, and the Chinese statement makes clear that this position does not in any way compromise its desire for a universal NFU pledge and unconditional NSAs, nor does it endorse the use of nuclear weapons.

Of related note, Chinese declaratory policy is particularly critical of the policy of extended nuclear deterrence, or so-called "nuclear umbrellas," provided by other nuclear-weapon states to their allies. In operational terms, this means China officially opposes the deployment of nuclear weapons outside national territories, and states that it has never deployed nuclear weapons on the territory of another country, a point that is not contradicted by any open-source evidence. When Japan sanctioned China for continued nuclear testing in 1995 and 1996 during the course of the CTBT negotiations, Beijing derisively dismissed Japanese censure as hypocritical, citing the fact that Japan enjoyed the protection of extended deterrence. China also opposes the threat or use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon states, and has repeatedly called on nuclear-weapon states to agree to a legally binding, unconditional NSA accord.

In practice, if China adheres to its NSAs and PSAs, its deployments and targeting would presumably be focused only on nuclear-weapon states and possibly other states not party to the NPT or similar arrangements. Several questions, however, arise about China's commitments, particularly with regard to NSAs. First, like the NFU pledge, China's NSAs are not verifiable or enforceable. Second, the pledge apparently would not apply to such states as India, Israel, and Pakistan, which are not members of the NPT. Even if they joined, we question whether China's NSA would still apply to a country such as India, which, although not formally recognized by China as a nuclear-weapon state, certainly has attained such de facto status.

Finally, some observers question the need for certain Chinese deployments--such as the DF-21 series--insofar as its range and basing mean its possible targets largely comprise non-nuclear-weapon states. For example, as discussed in the text accompanying table 2, the DF-21s' basing and ranges suggest targets in such places as Japan, South Korea, Okinawa, the Philippines, or Vietnam, in addition to targets in the Russian Far East and India. If true, as asserted by Lewis and Xue, that China's target sets for the DF-3 included US bases in the Philippines and Japan, this targeting also runs contrary to Chinese NSAs. That the DF-3 and -4 series missiles are already capable of reaching Russian and Indian targets raises further questions as to the purpose of the DF-21 series in the context of Chinese NSAs.

Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zones
China has become a signatory to several nuclear-weapon-free-zone (NWFZ) treaties: the Treaty of Pelindaba (Africa NWFZ), the Treaty of Raratonga (South Pacific NWFZ), and the Treaty of Tlatelolco (Latin American NWFZ). During the ASEAN Regional Forum minister's meeting in July 1999 China stated it also would sign the Southeast Asian NWFZ Treaty. In its 1995 white paper on arms control and disarmament, the Chinese government stated its support for "the establishment of nuclear-free zones in the Korean Peninsula, South Asia, Southeast Asia, and the Middle East."³⁷

At a conference focusing on a Central Asian NWFZ convened in Tashkent in September 1997, a Chinese Foreign Ministry official heading the Chinese delegation listed seven principles related to the establishment of NWFZs. Among them, China insisted that "any other security mechanism" should not interfere with the nonnuclear status of a nuclear-weapon-free zone, including military alliance relationships. In addition, perhaps with reference to the South China Sea, the Chinese official declared that NWFZs should not include "areas where there exist disputes over sovereignty of territory or maritime rights." He also called on nuclear-weapon states to commit to an unconditional pledge not to use, nor threaten to use, nuclear weapons against NWFZs.

In practice, China's adherence to NWFZ pledges does not greatly affect its nuclear weapon deployments, especially given that it deploys no nuclear weapons abroad. China's signing and ratifying the Southeast Asian NWFZ Treaty presumably would place an added political onus on its ability to threaten or use nuclear weapons against such targets as Vietnam or the Philippines. Depending on caveats, if any, at the time of its signing, the treaty also could affect use by China in the South China Sea. However, the pledges of nuclear-weapon states to adhere to NWFZs are not verifiable, and some include escape clauses. For example, in signing the Treaty of Raratonga (South Pacific NWFZ), China stated that it could reconsider obligations in the event that other nuclear-weapon states or treaty parties violated the treaty.

Taken together, several points can be gleaned from these principles on NFU, PSAs and NSAs, and NWFZs. First, these long-held principles are consistent with a "defensive" posture and a qualitatively and quantitatively limited nuclear arsenal. Given the reality of Chinese nuclear forces, therefore, these pledges come at little to no real "cost" in terms of reductions, disarmament, or dramatic alterations to Chinese nuclear posture overall. Second, with the possible exception of some deployments, such as the DF-21-series ballistic missile, the nuclear principles noted here are consistent with a posture largely concerned with the other major nuclear-weapon states (especially the United States and the Soviet Union/Russia), as well as India. Third, nothing in these principles necessarily precludes China's nuclear weapons modernization program, but might place political limits on targeting and use options. Finally, although these principles may give us an overall understanding about China's formally stated views about when it would not use nuclear weapons, they provide no details about when they would.

Second Artillery Force Structure

Inferences drawn from theory and from declared nuclear principles may be incorrect. Theoretical inferences have not been tested under actual warfighting conditions, and China may purposely misrepresent its principles for the purpose of deception. To unravel these potential analytic stumblingblocks, in the next two sections we take a careful look at China's nuclear force structure and hardware, draw inferences from this empirical data to clarify questions about China's doctrine and capabilities, and reach understandings about China's overall posture from the vantage point that means most for strategic policy: how does the posture of the Second Artillery actually affect the security balance in strategic, theater, and conventional terms?

History
According to Chinese sources, the Chinese Missile Research Academy (also known as the Fifth Research Academy) was established in October 1956 under the direction of Qian Xuesen.³⁸ Ten research institutions were set up under the Fifth Academy to focus on the development of China's ballistic missiles. China began "copy production" of its first ballistic missile--a Chinese copy of a Soviet R-2 missile--in October 1958, and the missile was first tested three times in November and December 1960. Since that time the exact number of missile tests is difficult to discern through open sources, but, by the end of the 1960s, China had conducted at least 30 MRBM (the DF-2 and -2A missiles) tests at ranges of up to 1,500 km. Major milestones in China's nuclear force modernization are noted over the following pages.

DF-2 and -2A. After a failed flight test on 21 March 1962--in which shortly after takeoff, the missile erratically flew with its engine on fire before crashing near the launch pad--the Chinese successfully tested the DF-2 numerous times in June and July 1964 following the first success on 29 June 1964. Following a February 1965 decision to increase the range of the DF-2, an increase of 20 percent in the range was achieved for the DF-2A, beginning with its first successful tests in November 1965. On 27 October 1966, the Chinese launched a DF-2 with an armed, live nuclear warhead from the Shuangchengzi to an impact area in the Lop Nur testing area.³⁹ The DF-2 series, with ranges of 1,000 and 1,250 km, respectively, and a yield of 20Kt, was "sited in Northeast China and targeted on cities and US military bases in Japan."⁴⁰ China was believed to have produced a total of 100 missiles between 1965 and 1971,⁴¹ deploying approximately 50 missiles at one time.⁴² Retirement of the system reportedly began in 1979 and was completed by 1990.⁴³

DF-3/3A. The DF-3 was China's first indigenously developed ballistic missile.⁴⁴ Official calls for an intermediate-range missile began in the summer of 1964, with formal approval to commence the R&D process granted in May 1965. After the difficulties with the DF-2's "volatile liquid oxygen fuel," the DF-3 was reportedly the first of a series of Chinese missiles designed to utilize storable liquid fuels.⁴⁵ The more stable fuels were also meant to improve readiness because the Cuban Missile Crisis had illustrated that missiles with nonstorable fuels (such as the SS-3s and SS-4s on Cuba) were ineffective in international crises, since they took long to prepare for launch and could not be maintained at high alert levels for extended periods of time.⁴⁶ The missile was first successfully flight-tested on 26 December 1966⁴⁷ although it was not until a third flight test in May 1967 that the Chinese were fully satisfied. Several years were required for the missile to be deployed, though the exact deployment date is in dispute. The IISS Military Balance lists a 1970 deployment, although the Nuclear Weapons Databook asserts a May 1971 deployment.⁴⁸ The DF-3 was designed to carry a 2,150-kg warhead to a distance of 2,650 km (intended, when first conceived in the early 1960s, to hit US military bases in the Philippines). Perhaps as many as 36 of these missiles were sold to Saudi Arabia in the late 1980s, as the slightly longer range (2,850 km) DF-3A was tested in December 1985 and January 1986, and commissioned in that year to replace the DF-3.

DF-4. The Chinese intermediate-range ballistic missile (IRBM) DF-4 was a more difficult undertaking. With a required range of up to 4,000 km ("to strike the B-52 base on the US island of Guam"⁴⁹), the Chinese formally authorized development of the missile in May 1965. This was to be China's first two-stage rocket (using the DF-3 as the first stage), and required technical breakthroughs in such areas as engine reliability in the near vacuum of the upper atmosphere, developing high-altitude test simulator beds, developing more heat-resistant materials, and improved guidance systems for the longer range missile. The first flight test of the missile failed in November 1969--the second stage was not ignited/separated and the missile self-destructed--but the missile was successfully tested in January 1970. According to Lewis and Hua, because of the Sino-Soviet Ussuri River clashes in late 1969, the range of the missile was subsequently raised to 4,500 km (and eventually attained a 4,750-km range) in order to reach Moscow.⁵⁰ According to Norris, et al., it "was initially planned to be deployed in silos but recognition of its vulnerability lead to reconsideration of rail-mobile basing."⁵¹ From 18 September to 2 October 1975, the Chinese conducted DF-4 rail-mobile tests over 8,000 km in 10 provinces.⁵² In 1977, the Chinese finally chose a deployment plan based on cave storage, whereby the missiles would be brought out of the cave for erecting, fueling, and firing.⁵³ A full-range test flight occurred on 2 August 1980.⁵⁴

DF-5 and DF-5A. China formally began development of the intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) DF-5 in March 1965; its progress also was delayed by the exigencies of the Cultural Revolution. A first flight test was conducted on 10 September 1971, although this test--entirely within Chinese territory--had to be conducted across a shorter range and different trajectory than the missile was designed for. Not until 18 May 1980--a full 15 years after the missile began development--could the Chinese conduct a full-range flight test from the mainland into the Western Pacific. This test was followed by a second full-range test on 21 May 1980.

Solid-fuel Missiles. According to Chinese sources, work on solid-fuel missiles in China date back as far as October 1956, when Qian Xuesen first began to set up the Fifth Research Academy.⁵⁵ First strides were made by the late 1950s and early 1960s in developing and testing prototype solid propellant. Static tests were made with 300-mm-diameter engines in 1965 and on 1,400-mm-diameter engines in December 1966.

Initially, work was conducted with the intention of using solid fuels for a single-stage rocket. But, deeming such missiles' ranges as too short, in March 1967 Chinese military-technical authorities decided to go forward in the development of two-stage, "medium-range" solid-fuel surface-to-surface strategic missiles, to be mated with the ongoing nuclear submarine under development (the submarine-based missile was later to evolve into the DF-21 land-based system). Again, owing to the exigencies of the Cultural Revolution, Chinese sources note that serious work on the solid-fuel missile program did not begin until August 1978.⁵⁶ After launch equipment tests in April and May 1984, followed by launch tests in May 1985 (DF-21) and May 1987 (DF-21A), these systems finally became fully operational in the early 1990s. This accomplishment culminated a nearly 30-year development effort.

Another version of the DF-21, the submarine-launched JL-1, was first tested from a submerged conventionally powered Golf-class submarine on 7 October 1982, but this launch failed as the missile lost control soon after ignition and self-destructed. On 12 October 1982 the missile was successfully launched from the submerged Golf submarine. As for launching from China's nuclear-powered submarine, the missile failed its first test on 28 September 1985, again turning over and self-destructing. Not until three years later, on 15 September 1988, did a fully successful JL-1 launch take place from the submerged Xia-class nuclear submarine; a second successful test was conducted on 27 September 1988, culminating a difficult 30-year development process for Chinese SLBMs dating back to the late 1950s. According to open sources, China, since 1988, has not test launched its JL-1 from the Xia-class nuclear submarine.

DF-15 SRBM Launch From TEL

By the early 1990s, China also had tested and begun deployment of two short-range, nuclear-capable ballistic missiles, the DF-15 (CSS-6/M-9) and 300-km-range DF-11 (CSS-X-7/M-11).⁵⁷ Both missiles were originally developed for export; only after China pledged not to export these missiles were they incorporated into the Second Artillery.⁵⁸ The DF-15 has been operational since 1994⁵⁹ and was tested approximately 10 times as part of the missile exercises China conducted around the Taiwan Strait in July-August 1995 and March 1996.⁶⁰ The CSS-X-7/M-11 probably was not deployed with Chinese forces by October 1998,