U.S. Makes an Irrational Request: China Should Reveal Its Nuclear Secrets

Published in Huanqiu
(China) on 15 January 2009
by Wang Si (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Eugene Tan. Edited by Louis Standish.
Huanqiu special correspondent Wang Si reports, “China’s unyielding secrecy about its nuclear arms strategies leaves open the worrying prospect of a costly U.S. misstep during a crisis.” On January 15, Dennis Wilder, the Senior Director for East Asian Affairs on the National Security Council, made this kind of sensationalized statement, requesting that China reveal its “nuclear secrets.”

On January 15, the Associated Press released a report entitled “Bush official urges China to lift nuclear secrecy.” When addressing an audience of Asia specialists and reporters, Dennis Wilder, NSC Senior Director for East Asian Affairs, stated that Washington and Beijing began bilateral discussions on nuclear policies and systems last year. However, according to Wilder, what is more important is that the U.S. needs the Chinese to be more open on nuclear issues. Wilder added that China has already developed mobile land-based nuclear missiles and moved closer to fielding sea-based nuclear ballistic missile forces.

Wilder also mentioned that China’s “mysterious” stance on this nuclear weapons issue gives the Chinese army “a degree of edge.” He imagines that in the event that China’s military actions pose a threat for the U.S., China will be like a “black box” whose secretive nuclear policies and plans will cause problems for U.S. intelligence agencies. Wilder stated: “At different levels of alert, American forces do certain things. Without that information, you do worry about miscalculation. Right now, the American-Chinese relationship is in great shape. But we all know periods when it hasn't been. And I worry about those moments when the Chinese military, let's say, flushes to the field.” He stated that these actions may just be military exercises, but they may lead to “missteps” on the American side.

According to the Associated Press, Wilder “expressed doubt that China would join the United States and Russia in negotiations over reducing the number of their deployed nuclear weapons.” His reason is that on January 13, Secretary of State-designate Hillary Clinton, at her Senate confirmation hearing, stated that the Obama administration hopes that the U.S. and Russia will both decrease their nuclear arsenal. However, she did not mention China.

In the report, Wilder claimed that he believes the Chinese assertion that they would not be the first to use nuclear weapons, but he also stated: “But I do think they want that retaliatory capability. On the Chinese side, there is a reluctance to have that discussion because it's an ace.”

During an interview with Huanqiu reporters, Shen Dingli – Executive Vice Dean of Fudan University’s Institute of International Studies and an expert on arms control – claimed that it does not make sense for the U.S., a country with a strong nuclear program, to make such a request of China. Professor Shen stated there is a great disparity between China’s and the U.S.’s nuclear strength. Overall, other countries believe that America has a large number of nuclear warheads, of which 300 to 500 are meant for China. “The U.S. is fully aware that China’s nuclear power cannot be compared that of the U.S., but the U.S. still urges China to reveal its nuclear secrets. The U.S.’s goal is to accurately estimate its strength, increase its military intimidation toward China, and ensure greater safety for the U.S. army.” Shen Dingli believes that the U.S. has created an inequality in U.S.-China politics, for example, regarding issues such as the situation with Taiwan. Now, the U.S. hopes to further ensure that there will be an inequality in the military arena, which is really unreasonable.

At the same time, according to Shen Dengli, the U.S.’s so-called fear of “suffering from Chinese military action due to a lack of knowledge of China’s nuclear secrets” is irrational. “Military transparency and the preservation of nuclear striking capabilities have nothing to do with each other.” Shen Dingli pointed that China has reiterated many times that it will not be the first to use nuclear weapons. However, China has not stated that it will give up this form of defensive capability. “China will not initiate a ‘hostile’ attack, but if other countries repeatedly infringe on China’s core interests and ignore repeated warnings, China has the right to launch a counterattack and will not notify America in advance.”


美无理要求中国公开核武器机密保美国安全

环球时报特约记者王斯报道,“中国在核武器上的保密态度,使人不得不担忧美国在未来的危机时刻会因失误而付出沉重代价。”1月15日,美国白宫国安会亚洲事务主任韦德宁(Dennis Wilder)发表了这样“耸人听闻”的言论,以此要求中国公开“核秘密”。

美联社15日以题为“布什政府要求中国公开核秘密”报道称,美国白宫国家安全委员会亚洲事务主任韦德宁在亚洲问题专家和记者的聚会上发言时称,华盛顿和北京从去年起开始了有关核政策和系统的双边讨论。但韦德宁称,更重要的是美方需要敦促中国人在核问题上更加开放,并称“中国已经发展了可机动陆基核导弹部队并且即将获得真正意义上的海基核导弹部队”。

韦德宁还称,中国对核武器的问题上所采取的“神秘”姿态,使得中国军队在某种程度保持了“优势”。他臆想到,当中国的军事行动可能对美国产生威胁时,中国像“黑匣子”一般机密的核政策和计划将对美国情报机构造成麻烦。韦德宁称:“美军在不同的预警级别下,会做不同的事情。在没有情报的情况下,你必须要担心错误估算。现在中美友谊处于非常好的状态下,但那些‘不好的时期’也是尽人皆知的。我担心在这种时期,中国军队会‘冲过来’。”他称也许这些动作可能只是军事演习,但这都可能导致美方的“失策”。

美联社称,韦德宁对于中国是否会加入美国和俄罗斯之间关于削减战略核武器的对话也表示“疑问”,其理由是希拉里·克林顿在13日的参议会外交关系委员会听证会上的发言上表示“奥巴马政府希望与俄罗斯共同削减核武器”,但并没有提及中国的参与。

报道中说,韦德宁一方面对中方不会率先使用核武器的一贯立场表示肯定,但一方面又称:“我认为中国人希望拥有‘报复能力’”,“中国不愿意进行这方面的讨论,因为(核武器)是他们的王牌。”

复旦大学国际问题研究院常务副院长、军控问题专家沈丁立在接受《环球时报》记者采访时说,作为核武强国的美国对中国提出这样的要求是没有道理的。沈丁立教授说,中美双方在核武方面的力量很悬殊。外界一般认为美国拥有千枚核弹头,其中有三百至五百枚是针对中国的。“美国在明知中国的核武力量无法与其相提并论的情况下,仍然要求中方公开核秘密,其目的就是为了精确力量、扩大美国对中国的军事震慑力,为美国在军事领域上获得更大的安全。”沈丁立认为,美国在诸如台海局势等问题上制造了中美政治上的不平等,而现在美国又希望更加确认军事上的不平等,实在是没有道理可言。

沈丁立同时表示,美方所谓的“因难以获取中国核秘密而遭到中方军事行动”的担忧也是说不通的。“军事透明与保留核打击能力毫无关联。”沈丁立说,中国反复重申不首先使用核武器的立场,但并不表示放弃这种自卫能力,“中国不主动发起‘敌对’,但如果别国反复触及中国的核心利益,视中方的一再警告于不顾时,中国有权利进行回击。一旦采取回击,中方也不会事先告知美国。”
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Taiwan: After US Bombs Iranian Nuclear Facilities, Trump’s Credibility in Doubt

Australia: Australia Is Far from Its Own Zohran Mamdani Moment. Here’s Why

Poland: Calm in Iran Doesn’t Mean Peace Yet

Canada: How Ottawa Gift-Wrapped our Dairy Sector for Trump

Canada: New York Swoons over an American Justin Trudeau

Topics

Colombia: The Horsemen of the New Cold War

Australia: Australia Is Far from Its Own Zohran Mamdani Moment. Here’s Why

Canada: How Ottawa Gift-Wrapped our Dairy Sector for Trump

Canada: New York Swoons over an American Justin Trudeau

Germany: Europe Bending the Knee to Trump

Germany: NATO Secretary-General Showers Trump with Praise: Seems Rutte Wanted To Keep the Emperor Happy

China: US Chip Restrictions Backfiring

China: US Visa Policy Policing Students

Related Articles

China: US Chip Restrictions Backfiring

Thailand: US-China Trade Truce Didn’t Solve Rare Earths Riddle

Taiwan: Taiwan Issue Will Be Harder To Bypass during Future US-China Negotiations

Hong Kong: Amid US Democracy’s Moral Unraveling, Hong Kong’s Role in the Soft Power Struggle

Russia: Trump Is Shielding America*

  1. Each nuclear weapon state has a nuclear weapons doctrine that is usually articulated clearly to facilitate (a) Its deterrent posture, which China has long declared; (b) To lay down guide lines on the parameters of its nuclear strategy that would dictate to the concerned agencies the details of systems and structures, operational concept, deployment policy, targeting policy, strategic command and control of strategic forces including release mechanisms and so on – and these SHOULD BE HIGHLY CLASSIFIED, which in China’s case they are. Only a lame brain would expect a potential adversary to make its nuclear strategy public. The US has fielded from 68,000 to the current approximately 17,000 strategic and tactical nuclear weapons, which by its sheer massive overkill capabilities gives rise to an arrogance of power whereby transparency of strategy is used to intimidate the adversary. Yet another characteristic of US nuclear strategy is a throw back to the Cold War era in which they had developed grandiose plans of strategic and battlefield use of nuclear weapon systems, which in turn gave rise to terms such as ‘First Strike’ and ‘Second strike’. Those unrealistic concepts arose from a misplaced belief that nuclear weapons could be orchestrated into a military operation and at the strategic level they would have a capacity to retaliate even after most of the population was wiped out. Countries other than the erstwhile super powers field limited force levels and realistically their doctrines are based on the need to deter and not to carry out prolonged engagements, Their doctrines are based on a threat to retaliate to a nuclear attack and, therefore, it would be down right stupid to make their nuclear strategy transparent. This opacity is a major means to deter ‘hot heads’ in countries with huge nuclear arsenals — and that is where the rub lies.