SOURCE: AFI
The United States has released projections indicating a significant escalation in China’s nuclear weapons stockpile, estimating it at around 600 warheads in 2025, with a potential rise to 1,000 by 2030 and 1,500 by 2035. These figures underscore China’s rapid nuclear expansion, driven by modernization efforts and a strategic push to assert greater global influence.
Meanwhile, India’s nuclear stockpile remains modest at an estimated 172 warheads, with yields significantly lower than those of China’s arsenal. This disparity raises critical questions about India’s deterrence capabilities, particularly its second-strike posture, and the need for a strategic reassessment to maintain credible deterrence in an increasingly volatile region.
China’s nuclear capabilities have evolved dramatically over the past decade, transitioning from a historically minimal deterrent to a more robust and diversified force. US estimates suggest that China’s current stockpile of 600 warheads includes a wide range of yields, starting at 425 kilotons and scaling up to 1 megaton, with some warheads reaching as high as 3.3 to 4.5 megatons, and even multimegaton designs. This spectrum reflects China’s focus on developing both tactical and strategic weapons, capable of addressing a variety of military objectives—from precise counterforce strikes to devastating countervalue attacks against population centers.
The projected growth to 1,000 warheads by 2030 and 1,500 by 2035 indicates a sustained effort to expand not just numbers but also delivery systems. China has been modernizing its nuclear triad, with advancements in intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) like the DF-41, submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) such as the JL-3, and a growing fleet of strategic bombers like the H-20. The diversity in yields and delivery platforms suggests China is preparing for a range of contingencies, including potential conflicts with major powers like the US or regional adversaries like India.
In stark contrast, India’s nuclear stockpile remains relatively static at around 172 warheads. The average yield of Indian nuclear weapons is estimated to start at 20 kilotons and remain in that range, with even fission-boosted designs yielding less than 40 kilotons. These yields, while sufficient for localized tactical objectives, lack the destructive potential of China’s higher-yield warheads, which could deliver catastrophic damage to multiple targets in a single strike. India’s arsenal, primarily based on fission and boosted-fission designs, reflects a cautious approach to nuclear weapon development, emphasizing minimal deterrence over escalation.
Historically, India’s nuclear stockpile was even smaller than Pakistan’s, a fact that has long been a point of concern for Indian strategists. While recent estimates suggest India may have edged ahead of Pakistan in numbers, the qualitative gap with China continues to widen. India’s nuclear doctrine, centered on a No First Use (NFU) policy and credible minimum deterrence, has prioritized survivability over expansion, relying on a modest triad of land-based missiles (like the Agni series), submarine-based SLBMs (like the K-15 and K-4), and air-delivered gravity bombs.
The projected tripling of China’s nuclear stockpile by 2035 poses a direct challenge to India’s second-strike capability—the cornerstone of its deterrence strategy. A second-strike capability ensures that a country can retaliate effectively after absorbing a first strike, thereby deterring adversaries from initiating nuclear conflict. With China’s stockpile potentially reaching 1,500 warheads, many of which could be deployed on survivable platforms like mobile ICBMs and nuclear submarines, India’s smaller and less potent arsenal risks being overwhelmed in a hypothetical conflict.
India’s current stockpile of 172 warheads, with yields capped below 40 kilotons, may struggle to inflict sufficient retaliatory damage against a heavily armed China, especially if Beijing disperses its forces or employs missile defense systems. The disparity in yields is particularly stark: a single Chinese multimegaton warhead could devastate a large Indian city or military installation, while India’s lower-yield weapons would require multiple precise strikes to achieve comparable damage—an unlikely scenario in a degraded post-first-strike environment.
To maintain a credible second-strike capability against a projected Chinese arsenal of 1,500 warheads, India would likely need to triple its stockpile to around 500 warheads. This rough estimate assumes that India would require a sufficient number of survivable warheads to target China’s key military and economic centers, ensuring deterrence through the threat of unacceptable damage. However, numbers alone are insufficient; India would also need to enhance the yields of its warheads, potentially developing thermonuclear designs with yields in the 100–200 kiloton range to match China’s strategic capabilities.
Beyond increasing its stockpile, India must expand and diversify its nuclear delivery systems to ensure survivability and penetration of Chinese defenses. Currently, India’s delivery systems include land-based Agni missiles (with ranges up to 5,000 km), submarine-launched K-series missiles (with ranges up to 3,500 km in the case of the K-4), and air-delivered weapons via aircraft like the Mirage 2000 and Rafale. However, these systems face limitations in numbers, range, and survivability compared to China’s rapidly modernizing arsenal.
India’s reluctance to rapidly expand its nuclear arsenal stems from a combination of strategic, economic, and political factors. The NFU policy and minimal deterrence doctrine reflect a desire to avoid an arms race, focusing instead on economic development and conventional military modernization. However, China’s projected growth to 1,500 warheads by 2035 may force a reevaluation of this approach, as the current posture risks undermining India’s deterrence credibility.
Politically, tripling India’s nuclear stockpile and enhancing yields would require significant investments in fissile material production, testing infrastructure, and delivery systems—resources that compete with other national priorities like healthcare and infrastructure. Additionally, India must navigate international pressures, including calls for restraint under frameworks like the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), despite not being a signatory.
NOTE: AFI is a proud outsourced content creator partner of IDRW.ORG. All content created by AFI is the sole property of AFI and is protected by copyright. AFI takes copyright infringement seriously and will pursue all legal options available to protect its content.