[baybal2]

> 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.

[CryptoPunk]

>>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.

[baybal2]

> 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.