Silos are so far a apart that single warhead can destroy only one silo.

Arms control experts seem to think that China is building missile "sponge". Field of 120 silos would contain only 12 ICBM's or so. If they build enough silos into the desert and and decoys for the rest, the US must spend more and more missiles to destroy just few missiles.

The US had similar plan at the beginning of the Cold War. It became politically impossible to use eminent domain to create so large missile fields on farmland.

A simpler explanation is them simply expanding their offensive arsenal.

Why wouldn't they.

It's only simpler for you to think about. "Missile sponge" is simpler plan to execute and operate. ICBM's are expensive to build and maintain.

Chinese are expected to moderately expand their arsenal, but they don't need significantly more silo-based warheads for credible deterrence, they just need to increase survivability from decapitation attack. Missile sponge is very cost effective way to do that. Their road-mobile and rail-mobile DF-41 ICBM's provide already good deterrence, but putting the new DF-41s into silos just increases the variety and survivability of their ground based deterrence.

> ICBM's are expensive to build and maintain.

Not a problem for China with its industrial capacity larger than both USA, and Russia together.

The biggest gun you can afford is almost always the most efficient spend of your money.

> they don't need significantly more silo-based warheads for credible deterrence

Who said they need it for deterrence? If their goal would be just deterrence, they wouldn't be trying so hard to undermine it.

It's very clear they want to have enough missiles to perform a first strike on the two likeliest (now possibly three) enemies.

It's the most clear, and logical explanation standing any military theory test.

>>It's the most clear, and logical explanation standing any military theory test.

Nuclear proliferation is extremely dangerous, for every one in the world including the proliferater, so it's not clear that a country maximally expanding its nuclear arsenal is the most logical move to advance its self-interest.

> Nuclear proliferation is extremely dangerous, for every one in the world including the proliferater

It's outright stupid to think that the person doing something something as big as this is not conscious of this.

On the opposite, this big scare factor very much must be a part of the strategy.

A similar photo hit the web a month or so ago. Turned out to be windmills.

It makes no sense to put missile silos close together.

I’ll reserve judgment for now, but I doubt the headline’s claim.

We'll see when the climate-controlled domes are removed. I'm no expert and so a little surprised that building the base of a windmill requires such dome.

It looks a bit overkill, but the domes could feasibly be to allow for proper temperature and moisture control of the concrete curing process.

Or to make satellite overwatch of what they're doing under the dome that much more difficult.

Or both!

Sure it makes sense, it means its easier to police/protect. If the aim is deterrence then in any case they launch before something arrives.

Police and protect against who? Are vandals going to steal your nuclear missiles from their silos?

And no, you can't guarantee a launch before destruction for deterrence.

Sinophobia is the new Islamophobia, which was the replacement for Russophobia when the USSR collapsed. The USA seems to need an enemy at all times so we don't focus on how bad things are in the domestic sphere.

Seems to me a rather fact-based analysis as to possible geopolitical role of these silos. where is the phobia?

Of course China can be criticized, but lots of Americans think the USA is a force for good in the world, fighting against the "evils" of these other nations, while never reflecting on our own similar evils. That's what makes it irrational. The USA is A) already powerful, B) does the same with our own ethnic and racial minorities (e.g. the extremely racist criminal justice system and our centuries of poor treatment of indigenous Americans, just two of many examples), and C) has states like Florida continuing to cover up COVID. Pointing this out gets called "whataboutism" because many people have the romantic idea that the USA is a force for freedom and justice in the world, an idea that is demonstrably untrue.

The sins of the U.S. are many, but I don't think anyone can credibly say, in the modern era, that the treatment of minorities in the U.S. is in any way, shape, or form comparable to what's happening in China right now. Say what you will about the U.S., no one's getting put in camps.

We put people in prison because of race, because we choose to enforce some laws on people of certain races and not on others. Slavery is allowed as punishment for a crime (see the text of the amendment) and that's exactly what we do with prisoners. When people of certain races are executed by police, the officer(s) do not usually face consequences or punishment.

We're the world's biggest glass house, maybe we shouldn't throw so many stones. We can set a better example by changing how our society operates, we only need to choose to do so.

Is this at all surprising that the chinese would see the need for such nuclear deterrent, since the US still has 1800 silos (that are public knowledge).

Honestly I find this use of Google maps to find military sites or concentration camps questionable.

However it is fairly obvious to me that the Chinese are going to expand their nuclear weapons arsenal until it matches that of the Americans.

The solution for this is for the Americans to have a smaller arsenal.

Why is it questionable? Because it might turn up dirty laundry?

The solution of reducing arms is moot. Pandora’s box has already been opened. Plus you don’t defend yourself by looking weak. I argue the nuclear arsenals around the world have kept everyone in line. WW1 was horrifying enough to deter any further war, then WW2 happened.

You can’t eradicate human conquest, but you can deter it with enough counterforce that makes the action seem too large of a sacrifice.

A kid hired by some questionable think tank, sitting in an office a thousands miles away, analyzing a piece of land, he has never seen in real life, solely through a sattelite photo, driven by whatever politics and incentives ... well ... he just might be wrong.

>politics and incentives ... well ... he just might be wrong.

Very well said.

Open source arms control experts don't just use Google maps.

Once they locate interesting spot, they can buy better quality satellite images and get better time coverage.

>Honestly I find this use of Google maps to find military sites or concentration camps questionable.

True, completely uncensored high definition optical satellite pictures should be available and free to everyone.

BTW: Most of the pictures are from https://www.planet.com/