The most efficient military defense countries are engaging in is developing economic relationships. The number one reason why the US start a military war against China in the foreseeable future. Is not because of their super advanced autonomous airships. But because doing so would be shooting their own foot. As both US and China are highly dependent on one another.

Plenty of small countries around the world have very little military but are completely safe from US attacks because of economic relationships. Modern economics are the most powerful weapon for peace. Not autonomous vehicles nor terrorism.

China has a gigantic arsenal of functioning nuclear warheads sitting atop of maintained and ready ICBMs that are pretargetted at key american targets.

Military action against China by the US is simply not possible.

The US doesn't bully China. It bullies people who don't have working nukes and ICBMs.

One of the main arguments against the US building a network of "star wars" missile defense stations capable of stopping mass ICBM attacks is it would dangerously shift the balance of power with China, requiring them to pursue other means of preventing the US from attacking them. The Chinese are extremely smart so targetted bioweapons that only infect people with smallpox who don't have asian ancestry are not out of the question as a reasonable project to look into next. It would be better for all of us if they do not pursue this line of research. Not having a missile defense system maintains the usefulness of their nuclear arsenal. It is therefore better than having a missile defense system which makes their nuclear arsenal useless.

According to Wikipedia China has "66 land-based ICBMs and 24 submarine-based JL-2 SLBMs" - compared to the US or even Russia that is hardly "gigantic".

China hasn't agreed to any arms inspections, so the size of their nuclear arsenal is pretty vague. (Inspections are typically the result of bilateral arms reductions-- China doesn't have enough nukes to require reducing them, so there's no reason for them to let foreigners into their ICBM silos)

These are only estimates from our intelligence community, but they are considered relatively reliable. China hasn't built up a massive nuke stockpile yet, and its probably not within their best interests to do so (expensive, increased tensions). They could not hope to match the US or Russia today, so why bother trying?

China will continue to build up its conventional forces to project power in the region, that is probably more of a worry for the US than anything else.

If bringing in submarines, we should also bring in all the "fishing boats" that have short range nukes as well which sit off US coasts. There's also the long range bombers, though those are not really effective since the above mentioned robot planes will make quick work of them.

But forget the fishing boats, it's not relevant. Let's just talk the submarines and the ICBMs, some which carry multiple nuclear warheads, each warhead capable of destroying a large metro area.

You don't think it is gigantic, really? Let's launch them all at their primary programmed targets. What happens next? If you're in the US do you feel safe because you feel the arsenal is not as gigantic as I think it is? What is the difference in result between whatever level you personally feel qualifies as a gigantic number of nuclear armed missiles, and the number that somebody typed into Wikipedia?

It's completely astonishing to me that anyone thinks the Chinese don't have a gigantic number of nuclear missiles.

The current number is more than sufficient to permanently end 90% of human life in north america. Why is that not enough to qualify? How many more do they need before it's enough to be a gigantic number of ICBMs carrying nukes?

Let's just think about this for a moment. The US launches a full blown robot attack fighter strike against China, for which there is no defense. What's China's response? To give up? No. China has a defense. A last resort defense. Because they have this defense, the US will not attack China. That's just how it is. Attacking China is suicide because of China's nuclear capabilities. Countries without these capabilities are sitting ducks for american corporate imperialists to toy with as they fancy with their shiny robot death weapons. These countries can resign themselves to be the US's plaything, or they can develop a defense strategy. A defense strategy involving an airforce, an army, or anything resembling conventional warfare is not going to work against the US. So now what? Unconventional warfare, that's what. Nothing surprising in the least that more and more countries will be pushed into this corner if they don't want to be bullied by the US. Right now, as well as last week, as well as next week and the week after that, this is the conversation that is going on throughout the world in every country that has natural resources the US might want, that doesn't price oil they sell in US dollars, or that doesn't feel like being controlled by a corporate plutocracy aligned with a phony protestant religious veneer used to get the rubes on board with the looting scheme under the guise of god and patriotism.

  No. China has a defense. A last resort defense. Because 
  they have this defense, the US will not attack China. 
  That's just how it is. Attacking China is suicide because 
  of China's nuclear capabilities.

Technically, China's agreed to never use their nukes in a first-strike scenario. They're supposed to only be used in response to nuclear attack.

That agreement's laughably unenforceable in a full-bird US/China shooting war; but it's there.

Not only from the point of the adversaries, but to anyone who's thought about the actual role each "side" is playing. But don't worry fellow Americans, just keep supporting the intractable and autonomous government.