Apr 23, 2025
China’s new non-nuclear hydrogen bomb is designed to unleash sustained firepower to terrorize Taiwan’s defenders and break their resistance in urban wars.
This month, the South China Morning Post (SCMP) reported that Chinese researchers successfully detonated a non-nuclear hydrogen bomb in a controlled field test, citing a peer-reviewed study published last month in the Chinese-language Journal of Projectiles, Rockets, Missiles and Guidance.
Developed by the China State Shipbuilding Corporation’s 705 Research Institute, the device uses magnesium hydride—a solid-state hydrogen storage material originally engineered for off-grid energy applications—as its main component.
During activation, shockwaves break the material into micron-scale particles, releasing hydrogen gas. This gas ignites into sustained combustion and reaches temperatures exceeding 1,000 degrees Celsius.
Unlike conventional TNT blasts, which produce a brief, extremely high-pressure shockwave, China’s new bomb creates a lower peak blast pressure but sustains its fireball for over two seconds, causing extended thermal damage and enabling directed energy effects.
Researchers emphasized the weapon’s military applications, ranging from widespread heat projection to precision-target destruction, facilitated by its controllable chain reaction mechanism.
The production of magnesium hydride, long restricted to laboratories, saw a breakthrough with the opening of a high-capacity plant in Shaanxi province earlier this year, capable of producing 150 tons annually. However, specific details about the test location or operational strategies remain unclear.
The characteristics of China’s magnesium hydride bomb appear functionally similar to those of a thermobaric weapon. These weapons disperse a massive cloud of fuel that ignites upon contact with air, producing a high-temperature fireball and a deadly shockwave that can penetrate bunkers and buildings. These weapons are particularly effective in urban warfare.
Russia’s use of its TOS-1 thermobaric rocket launcher in Ukraine offers a glimpse into how China could employ its new bomb in Taiwan, using overwhelming blasts to destroy infantry in buildings, starve occupants of oxygen and inflict devastating internal injuries.
In a June 2024 article for The National Interest (TNI), Peter Suciu mentions that Russia’s urban warfare tactics using the TOS-1 appeared to emphasize that the best way to take out infantry in buildings is to prevent them from getting out, and that those who get out are too severely injured to continue fighting.
China may face a similar situation in Taiwan should an invasion of the latter bog down into an urban war of attrition. In the 2022 book Crossing the Strait, Sale Lilly mentions that China’s urban warfare tactics are guided by the principle of “killing rats in a porcelain shop,” emphasizing the brutality of such operations while exercising caution to prevent the destruction of cities.
Further, Lilly points out that besides the height of Taipei’s skyscrapers, the city’s underground infrastructure, including parking garages, shopping centers and subway stations, dramatically expands the area available for urban warfare.
Such infrastructure may play a vital role in Taiwan’s attritional defense. E Sean Rooney and other writers mention in an October 2024 Proceedings article that if Taiwan were forced to defend itself without the US, its urban environment would provide an ideal defensive environment, as massed fires against urban targets would create more rubble and defensive positions, requiring China to hold both aboveground and underground layers in a laborious advance.
Rooney and others also say that China using mass fires against urban areas could generate an international backlash and turn international popular opinion against it.
While thermobaric weapons could be effective in such an environment, they could also cause massive collateral damage. However, as China claims its new bomb has a controllable chain reaction and a weaker blast force than TNT, it hints at the weapon’s power being scalable to address such concerns.
Alternatively, China may also take a page from the US “shock-and-awe” tactics in Afghanistan, using its new bomb as a psychological weapon.
Michael Schmitt and Peter Barker mention in an April 2017 Just Security article that the US Massive Ordnance Air Blast (MOAB) weapon, originally designed to be used against large troop formations or hardened aboveground bunkers, was thought to have a potent effect on Islamic State (IS) morale due to its reported 1.6-kilometer blast and the fact its detonation creates a mushroom cloud similar to a nuclear weapon.
Schmitt and Barker note that the MOAB was effective against IS cave and tunnel networks, with the pressure wave killing or injuring the occupants and collapsing the system.
They say that the MOAB could cause an adversary to abandon certain operations, such as underground warfare, forcing them to expose themselves. Additionally, they mention that such a potent weapon sends a powerful message to adversaries, signaling resolve and other strategic messaging.
In the case of China and Taiwan, Afghanistan’s cave and tunnel networks may not be too dissimilar from Taiwan’s underground defenses. A MOAB-type weapon — leveraging sustained blast and thermal effects — could be particularly effective against small frontline strongholds like Kinmen and Matsu.
Taipei’s urban setting and dense civilian presence contrast markedly with isolated cave networks, which pose minimal collateral damage risks. Since China would most likely want to minimize collateral damage, avoid massive urban battles and contain international backlash if it attempts to invade Taiwan, it may use its new bomb as a psychological weapon in conjunction with a blockade.
Using such a weapon against Kinmen and Matsu could rapidly degrade defender capabilities, particularly in confined underground spaces where sustained thermal effects and pressure waves would be most devastating.
Still, the extent and speed of defensive collapse would depend heavily on factors such as weapon yield, defensive preparations and the effectiveness of air defense neutralization efforts.
The purported sheer power of China’s new bomb, alongside the potential for rapid neutralization of Kinmen and Matsu’s defenders, would be a prelude to landing operations to eliminate surviving resistance and seize the islands.
However, a shock-and-awe island seizure of Kinmen and Matsu and a blockade of Taiwan may be a low-risk, low-reward strategy. Capturing Kinmen and Matsu is not the same as seizing Taiwan. While the loss of Kinmen and Matsu and resulting shortages could impose severe psychological and logistical pressure, Taiwan’s leadership has demonstrated resilience in past crises.
Stay Awake. Keep Watch.
SOURCE: Asia Times