NationStates Jolt Archive

(Times) July 14 2005 21:59
China is prepared to use nuclear weapons against the US if it is attacked by Washington during a confrontation over Taiwan, a Chinese general said on Thursday.

“If the Americans draw their missiles and position-guided ammunition on to the target zone on China's territory, I think we will have to respond with nuclear weapons,” said General Zhu Chenghu.

Gen Zhu was speaking at a function for foreign journalists organised, in part, by the Chinese government. He added that China's definition of its territory included warships and aircraft.

“If the Americans are determined to interfere [then] we will be determined to respond,” said Gen Zhu, who is also a professor at China's National Defence University.

“We . . . will prepare ourselves for the destruction of all of the cities east of Xian. Of course the Americans will have to be prepared that hundreds . . . of cities will be destroyed by the Chinese.”

Gen Zhu is a self-acknowledged “hawk” who has warned that China could strike the US with long-range missiles. But his threat to use nuclear weapons in a conflict over Taiwan is the most specific by a senior Chinese official in nearly a decade.

However, some US-based China experts cautioned that Gen Zhu probably did not represent the mainstream People's Liberation Army view.

“He is running way beyond his brief on what China might do in relation to the US if push comes to shove,” said one expert with knowledge of Gen Zhu. “Nobody who is cleared for information on Chinese war scenarios is going to talk like this,” he added.

Gen Zhu's comments come as the Pentagon prepares to brief Congress next Monday on its annual report on the Chinese military, which is expected to take a harder line than previous years. They are also likely to fuel the mounting anti-China sentiment on Capitol Hill.

In recent months, a string of US officials, including Donald Rumsfeld, defence secretary, have raised concerns about China's military rise. The Pentagon on Thursday declined to comment on “hypothetical scenarios”.

well I'm glad i live in alabama, see you hawaii, california, oregon, washington, and subsequent west coast areas

I think that if China is going to threaten us in order to get some land that they want in such a manner, I would be willing to go to war in order to crush them. China may have delusions of grandeur but if they do something that extreme(like nuke the U.S) then popular opinion will probably shift to our side. I do not want to live in an America that will allow itself to be pushed around by another nation, especially not one that wants to invade a legitimate nation(I am neutral on the Iraq issue because Saddam was a cruel tyrant who should have been killed). I personally think that the chinese would never let it go so far because of the repercussions of such a war(they would be utterly devastated), even if this statement was something sponsored by the chinese government, it is probably nothing more than an international game of chicken.

Well, they really, really, REALLY consider Taiwan to be just another province of China. They don't like other countries dealing with Taiwan - and they seem hellbent on taking it back.

So, how important is fostering Western-style democracy to the Bush regime? Are they willing to lay it all on the line, toe-to-toe with the only other military machine capable of defeating US forces in the world today?

That's a tail there, between Mr. Bush's legs.

I forgot what it is called but China and the USA do it all the time over the Tawain....basically it is just words and nothing more.

China would never go to war against their best trading partner over a stupid island, especially when their economy is as good as it is right now, they could if it was bad, and the USA would never go to war with China because it would be a very bloody fight and the american public are gutless cowards that rival the french at times.

China says they will nuke the USA
USA sails a fleet through that channel

Nothing happens, world keeps on moving..

I think that if China is going to threaten us in order to get some land that they want in such a manner, I would be willing to go to war in order to crush them. China may have delusions of grandeur but if they do something that extreme(like nuke the U.S) then popular opinion will probably shift to our side. I do not want to live in an America that will allow itself to be pushed around by another nation, especially not one that wants to invade a legitimate nation(I am neutral on the Iraq issue because Saddam was a cruel tyrant who should have been killed). I personally think that the chinese would never let it go so far because of the repercussions of such a war(they would be utterly devastated), even if this statement was something sponsored by the chinese government, it is probably nothing more than an international game of chicken.

China has always considered Taiwan a part of their country. They're not being expansionist so much as nationalist. You really wanna sink the American west coast because China wants its' land back?

Piffle. Don't believe it for a minute.

Well, they really, really, REALLY consider Taiwan to be just another province of China. They don't like other countries dealing with Taiwan - and they seem hellbent on taking it back.

So, how important is fostering Western-style democracy to the Bush regime? Are they willing to lay it all on the line, toe-to-toe with the only other military machine capable of defeating US forces in the world today?

That's a tail there, between Mr. Bush's legs.

Actually China is of little threat militarily...a tactic to destory them is easy...their air force though been beefed up as of late is still about as strong as russias is currently...you just destory their air force then bomb their landforces to the stone age for the next year or two then invade.

China has always considered Taiwan a part of their country. They're not being expansionist so much as nationalist. You really wanna sink the American west coast because China wants its' land back?

Piffle. Don't believe it for a minute.

No they won't. Too much of our debt in their hands. They also want the outsourcing business.

Oh yeah, we will so ditch the lives of millions on the coast for some dumb island which we can reabsorb into our country with money. :rolleyes: Get real. We don't need nukes to take back Taiwan.

Sure its an international game of chicken. Both people will end up swerving off the road. Nobody wants a large scale war like that. Not when both sides are capable of irradiating large chunks of land at the press of a button.

Oh yeah, we will so ditch the lives of millions on the coast for some dumb island which we can reabsorb into our country with money. :rolleyes: Get real. We don't need nukes to take back Taiwan.

Exactly they would do it on the diplomatic table...no point in risking their good ecomony...all this stuff is is talk and nothing more.

They must really, really like those cheap plastic toys from the gum machines at the mall.

Actually China is of little threat militarily...a tactic to destory them is easy...their air force though been beefed up as of late is still about as strong as russias is currently...you just destory their air force then bomb their landforces to the stone age for the next year or two then invade.
That worked so well in the pacific during WWII.

Exactly they would do it on the diplomatic table...no point in risking their good ecomony...all this stuff is is talk and nothing more.

If there was a war, we'd (hopefully) void their Treasuries. $750 billion of worthless paper the US doesn't owe a dime on anymore.

I live just far enough away from Chicago to see it get blown up without getting irradiated. Sounds like a good show.

You take that seriously, do you?
Come on, the Americans are saying exactly the same thing about others - like the Russians for example.
It's part of being a nuclear power.

(Times) July 14 2005 21:59
China is prepared to use nuclear weapons against the US if it is attacked by Washington during a confrontation over Taiwan, a Chinese general said on Thursday.

“If the Americans draw their missiles and position-guided ammunition on to the target zone on China's territory, I think we will have to respond with nuclear weapons,” said General Zhu Chenghu.

Gen Zhu was speaking at a function for foreign journalists organised, in part, by the Chinese government. He added that China's definition of its territory included warships and aircraft.

“If the Americans are determined to interfere [then] we will be determined to respond,” said Gen Zhu, who is also a professor at China's National Defence University.

“We . . . will prepare ourselves for the destruction of all of the cities east of Xian. Of course the Americans will have to be prepared that hundreds . . . of cities will be destroyed by the Chinese.”

Gen Zhu is a self-acknowledged “hawk” who has warned that China could strike the US with long-range missiles. But his threat to use nuclear weapons in a conflict over Taiwan is the most specific by a senior Chinese official in nearly a decade.

However, some US-based China experts cautioned that Gen Zhu probably did not represent the mainstream People's Liberation Army view.

“He is running way beyond his brief on what China might do in relation to the US if push comes to shove,” said one expert with knowledge of Gen Zhu. “Nobody who is cleared for information on Chinese war scenarios is going to talk like this,” he added.

Gen Zhu's comments come as the Pentagon prepares to brief Congress next Monday on its annual report on the Chinese military, which is expected to take a harder line than previous years. They are also likely to fuel the mounting anti-China sentiment on Capitol Hill.

In recent months, a string of US officials, including Donald Rumsfeld, defence secretary, have raised concerns about China's military rise. The Pentagon on Thursday declined to comment on “hypothetical scenarios”.

Do you have a link for us?

.... the USA would never go to war with China because it would be a very bloody fight and the american public are gutless cowards that rival the french at times.and the Syrians(or wherever you are from) are not gutless cowards?

China has always considered Taiwan a part of their country. They're not being expansionist so much as nationalist. You really wanna sink the American west coast because China wants its' land back?

Piffle. Don't believe it for a minute.

I hate to lose and do not like the idea of backing down at all. I do not like being threatened or cowed, for the U.S. to give in to their demands would be a display of weakness. Besides I do not disagree with chinese intentions so much as chinese threats. However, I do believe that this is just a little diplomacy game. China realizes that the U.S. is not an enemy that would be worth making over a little island(this would end up being a crippling war that would destroy both economies beyond salvage).

Do you have a link for us?I always do...and its usually AlJazeera :D

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/28cfe55a-f4a7-11d9-9dd1-00000e2511c8.html

I doubt seriously that the US will interfere militarily (even though we have promised to do so) if China invades Taiwan.

At present, the US and Chinese economies rely too heavily on each other. A nuclear exchange, regardless of human casualties, would cause a near-immediate global recession if not a global economic collapse. There's too much pressure from multi-national corporations to allow the US to interfere and possibly provoke such a nuclear exchange.

If China wants Taiwan, they'll end up getting it.

I doubt seriously that the US will interfere militarily (even though we have promised to do so) if China invades Taiwan.

At present, the US and Chinese economies rely too heavily on each other. A nuclear exchange, regardless of human casualties, would cause a near-immediate global recession if not a global economic collapse. There's too much pressure from multi-national corporations to allow the US to interfere and possibly provoke such a nuclear exchange.

If China wants Taiwan, they'll end up getting it.I think you are 100% rigth.

I doubt seriously that the US will interfere militarily (even though we have promised to do so) if China invades Taiwan.

If China wants Taiwan, they'll end up getting it.

And that marks the beginning of America's decline. Allowing China to bully itself in to Taiwan only paves the way for future conquest. We can't give in to them, or we will acknowledge that we can't stand up against them.

And that marks the beginning of America's decline. Allowing China to bully itself in to Taiwan only paves the way for future conquest. We can't give in to them, or we will acknowledge that we can't stand up against them.
The Chinese are buying French and russian military technology...

Gold (money) is the nerve of War...

read my lips: China has the Money.

whenever Russia or France scream "show me the money"...guess who keeps showing up?

The Chinese are buying French and russian military technology...
Gold (money) is the nerve of War...
read my lips: China s got the Gold.
we cant outbid them like we did to the Soviets.

Their economy is still small compared to ours, so we have time. We can outbid them, but we can't run their economy in to the ground. It's the perfect storm: authoritarian powers and roaring economy. They can force through whatever they want without dissent, and the economy is big and free enough to pay for it all, be it weapons, manpower, or nuclear material.

What to do is the question...at present, I'm not 100% sure what it is. But we have to do something.

Well, they really, really, REALLY consider Taiwan to be just another province of China. They don't like other countries dealing with Taiwan - and they seem hellbent on taking it back.

So, how important is fostering Western-style democracy to the Bush regime? Are they willing to lay it all on the line, toe-to-toe with the only other military machine capable of defeating US forces in the world today?

That's a tail there, between Mr. Bush's legs.
I highly doubt that China would be able to defeat America in a global conflict. We would suffer innumerable casualties, but we would still be victorious. Now add Britain and Isreal into the equation. Day at the beach!

The Chinese are buying French and russian military technology...

Gold (money) is the nerve of War...

read my lips: China has the Money.

whenever Russia or France scream "show me the money"...guess who keeps showing up?
They only have the gold because we give it to them. The US may not interfere militarily, but you can bet that we would put up economic embargos to surpass anything we've ever done if China got really antsy and *really* threatened us with nukes.

Of course, cutting off their "gold supply" might make China do something even more stupid.

This all just China posturing...for now.

It's the perfect storm.


What to do is the question...at present, I'm not 100% sure what it is. But we have to do something.Interesting...
CNN local racist (Lou Dobbs) presented yesterday an special CNN presentation called "Red Storm" ...and it was about all of this new Chinese military migth ...and the Chinese 700 billion bid to buy some Oil company.

but after a lot of the usual Lou-Dobbs blah-blah-blah..he finished his TV presentation just like you...using almost the same words.

Interesting CNN local racist (Lou Dobbs) presented an special programing called "Red Storm"...and it was about all of this ...and the Chinese 700 billion bid to buy some Oil company.

but after a lot of the usula Lou-Dobbs blah-blah-blah he finished his sentence just like you...using almost the same words.

Never seen it, although I'm aware of the CNOOC bid; coincidence and nothing more, I assure you.

I think the CNOOC offer was 18.5 billion, which isn't that much anyway given the hype.

Interesting CNN local racist (Lou Dobbs) presented an special programing called "Red Storm"...and it was about all of this ...and the Chinese 700 billion bid to buy some Oil company.

but after a lot of the usula Lou-Dobbs blah-blah-blah he finished his sentence just like you...using almost the same words.
This is one place where the US *can* make a stand...actually, MUST make a stand.

If the US gov't allows China to buy Unocal (one of the world's largest oil exploration companies), we're fucked...because it will allow China to ratchet up their military buildup...and nothing good can come of that.

I think the CNOOC offer was 18.5 billionmy mistake...Lou Dobbs kept talking about 700 billion...maybe the total Chinese money avaiable to buy Oil companies and othe stuff?

I was working and watching TV :D

China, North Korea... probably not Vietnam, they're pretty peaceful these days, and maybe Cuba, but I doubt it...

Versus the U.S., the U.K., and Israel.

It would be a difficult, large-scale and horrible war, but the U.S. spends much more money on the military. I get the feeling that if the U.S. had a war against China, it'd be more like Soviet Russia in WWII then anything else--- meatshields versus metal.

my mistake...Lou Dobbs ketp talking about 700 billion...I was working and watching TV :D

He was probably talking about China's treasury bonds; they're in the 700-750 billion range. It's going to keep us safe for a while, because the USD is the only currency that offers 4% returns and nearly total stability; they don't want us to default because it will collapse their banking system and economy.

I do the same thing work/TV (slows me down to a crawl :D ), but I know about China from Yahoo Finance.

Despite all this, there's still not much firm evidence that suggests that the Chinese government (which still has rigid control over the PLA) is shifting from their deterrence policy to a first-strike policy against the US. Even then, the prospect of a nuclear war between China and the United States is daunting but distant, as nations still after all, uses nukes for a purpose.

As for the program on CNN, I just laugh at it. Lou Dobbs and his "Red Storm/Flag/whatever Rising/whatever", in my opinion, is an overreactive reporter who panic-mongers at almost every positive economic development in China.

Ihatevacations']well I'm glad i live in alabama, see you hawaii, california, oregon, washington, and subsequent west coast areas
Hmmm! Perhaps the Chinese would agree on a swap ... California for Taiwan! Sounds like a good bargin to me! :D

and the Syrians(or wherever you are from) are not gutless cowards?


yes im syrian born, but anti syria..it is a corrupt government and really is the epicenter of the conflict in the middle east...they are the ones pulling the strings on the palistine thing, they are the ones that i have no doubt causing the problems in Iraq...the government has a vast shadow network throughout the middle east that rivils the saudis.

And yes the american public is gutless..all you have to do is look at it today. They think they are losing in iraq because 1800 men have died. Americans can fight well and their military is strong, the weak point of america is their homefront because their civilian population is gutless and easy to manipulate into rebellion. Every nation knows this, prick their military enough and they will run with their tails between their legs. that is a known fact...look at Vietnam (military victory, home defeat, military retreats) Somolia (a few dead they run again) Iraq 1, and now Iraq 2.

Face it, im a rare muslim that is pro american, but im not dumb, the americans cant win a war because their public is too weak minded to fight long wars...they want results quick, painless and non bloody. Anything else and they become isolationist.

It would be a difficult, large-scale and horrible war, but the U.S. spends much more money on the military. I get the feeling that if the U.S. had a war against China, it'd be more like Soviet Russia in WWII then anything else--- meatshields versus metal.
If it were a conventional war, you're probably right. The only way China trumps the US is in sheer number of their military. We vastly outdistance them in technology.

Now, if a nuclear exchange were to take place, we would probably lose a few cities on the west coast, but would absolutely DEVESTATE the Chinese mainland with a barrage of nuclear warheads. All we would need is two, maybe three, nuclear subs to retarget and empty their silos to effectively destroy every single major population and technological center in China. They have NOTHING to match that kind of firepower.

In the end, it doesn't matter. On land, the only possibility (at least, right now) of a land engagement between the Chinese and the Americans would be on Taiwan and the other islands governed by the ROC, but even then, the decisive factor still lies on the seas. With a nuclear exchange, the number of warheads is meaningless when you consider that both nations would be good as dead after such an exchange, and this takes in the fact that not all of the US would be physically destroyed in such exchange.

I'm of two minds on this issue.

On one hand, I have no desire to see another war on the scale of the world wars be fought.

On the other hand we've seen how well an appeasement strategy works... Hitler anyone?

I am not attempting to stir anything up or offend anyone, but China in its current military state can not defeat the US.

Yes, China has the largest Army in the world. Unfortunately, their air force and navy are using pre-Vietnam era weaponry, and are no match for the US forces, especially air and naval which are continually being upgraded and replaced by new technology. That 2 million strong army is useless outside of Asia, and the US would not fight a war with China by invading it.

China has approximately 400 nuclear warheads, including a few thermonuclear weapons. (H-Bombs.) Most of these are in the form of ICBMs. China is trying to develop nuclear sub technology, but they currently have few to none.

The US currently has 12,500, many of which are thermonuclear weapons, and are ready to launch any time. (China could not hope to avoid a counter-attack by bombing the silos, because one, they don't have enough missiles, and two, there would be approximately 30 minutes flight time, more than enough for the US to launch all of its missiles.) America also posseses many nuclear submarines, each one of which carries the fire power to kill 50 million people, and are all but impervious to a nuclear strike because they can't be found.

Yes, America would be shattered by a Chinese nuclear attack, especially one that targets infastructure, but China would be completely destroyed by the American response.

(Oh, and to the character who said the American public are cowardly, that's why the went to war in Iraq, right? Not to mention, unfavorable public opinion certainly hasn't stopped wars in the past.)

I think that if China is going to threaten us in order to get some land that they want in such a manner, I would be willing to go to war in order to crush them. China may have delusions of grandeur but if they do something that extreme(like nuke the U.S) then popular opinion will probably shift to our side. I do not want to live in an America that will allow itself to be pushed around by another nation, especially not one that wants to invade a legitimate nation(I am neutral on the Iraq issue because Saddam was a cruel tyrant who should have been killed). I personally think that the chinese would never let it go so far because of the repercussions of such a war(they would be utterly devastated), even if this statement was something sponsored by the chinese government, it is probably nothing more than an international game of chicken.


You are correct in saying its an international game of chicken. Now the Soviets learned from the Americans that we dont bluff. Hopefully the Chinese will learn the same thing. I hope that this isnt 1962 all over again. The Chinese could be in for a very rude suprise. I personally dont want to see 3/4 of a billion people dead in one day.

(Times) July 14 2005 21:59
China is prepared to use nuclear weapons against the US if it is attacked by Washington during a confrontation over Taiwan, a Chinese general said on Thursday.

OK, where is the link?

You are correct in saying its an international game of chicken. Now the Soviets learned from the Americans that we dont bluff. Hopefully the Chinese will learn the same thing. I hope that this isnt 1962 all over again. The Chinese could be in for a very rude suprise. I personally dont want to see 3/4 of a billion people dead in one day.

Yeah, America does not bluff(or at least I doubt we would back down due to the politics of brinkmanship and nationalism). I really do not think that China would go to war(at least nuclear war) with the U.S. due to our nuclear strength but ultimately this is political chicken and America would fight the Chinese because we would have to in this situation(we are not likely to give in to threats and if war is declared on us the American populace would be more likely to support the war or at least we would be able to draft a strong enough military).

Yeah, America does not bluff(or at least I doubt we would back down due to the politics of brinkmanship and nationalism). I really do not think that China would go to war(at least nuclear war) with the U.S. due to our nuclear strength but ultimately this is political chicken and America would fight the Chinese because we would have to in this situation(we are not likely to give in to threats and if war is declared on us the American populace would be more likely to support the war or at least we would be able to draft a strong enough military).

It would be interesting to see if it lasted long enough for a full on draft. People like myself would probably be called back into active duty. I watch this situation on a regular basis. I also made plans in my mind on what I would do personally if called back.

Just Chinese bullshitting and wankery. They know they'd be utterly destroyed in a nuclear confrontation.

Being from China I understand the need to take back Taiwan. The whole idea of the Chinese Communism was to unite all the Chinese people together under the Party. But then Chiang fled to Taiwan and started his own little thing going on there.

But I have to say, and this is coming from someone who is pretty sick of the Americans' way of jumping in where it really has no business, if I were China (disregarding whether or not General Zhu actually meant it or not) and I were solving a DOMESTIC issue (remember they think Taiwan is China) and the United States interfered with military action, damn right I'd fight back with something crazy-powerful, if only to get them to learn to sit down and watch when it isn't their turn. Especially after America's other intervening wars - Korea, Vietnam, all the way until this Iraqi war.

America has bluffed before. Remember when we nuked Japan? We told them we would do it again if they didn't surrender. We didn't have any more nukes ready.
Correct me if I'm wrong.

America has bluffed before. Remember when we nuked Japan? We told them we would do it again if they didn't surrender. We didn't have any more nukes ready.
Correct me if I'm wrong.

Well, we still could have nuked them again(it just would have taken a while to get another bomb). Japan was screwed because we were going to invade anyway. The bluff was just an attempt to save lives not brinkmanship(playing chicken). Even if we would not waste the time with another nuke we still would have taken Japan.

America has bluffed before. Remember when we nuked Japan? We told them we would do it again if they didn't surrender. We didn't have any more nukes ready.
Correct me if I'm wrong.

A fourth nuclear bomb was almost finished being constructed when Japan surrendered. It later became part of Operation Crossroads if I remember correctly.

China thought Tibet was part of China, it was after they flooded the country with Chinese. China thought Hong Kong was a part of China and absorbing it worked out fairly well for them, as it corresponded to massive relocations of people from developed to undeveloped areas. So now they want Taiwan. If I was from Taiwan, I would not feel good about the prospect of my nicely built country being taken away and myself, likely being given the option of relocation to a Farm Somewhere or a Prison where my name would become a number until it was time for me to quietly disappear amongst the majority of the earth’s executed people. When a country makes trying to leave an executable crime against the state, one should be concerned.

China has improved in many ways, but it is still a Communist Police State with little respect for individual rights or in this case truth.

This is one place where the US *can* make a stand...actually, MUST make a stand.

If the US gov't allows China to buy Unocal (one of the world's largest oil exploration companies), we're fucked...because it will allow China to ratchet up their military buildup...and nothing good can come of that.
8th largest. Not including private companies (eg, saudi oil) Actually, it's rather small.


How on earth are we fucked?

Are they willing to lay it all on the line, toe-to-toe with the only other military machine capable of defeating US forces in the world today?
Please. You can't be serious. Do you really think that the Chinese military can hold a candle to the American one?

1. The Chinese Navy is laughably obsolete. They wouldn't even dare matching their ships with American ones in battle.

2. Once the US controls the water, that mass of Chinese soldiers becomes largely useless. And it gives the US an area to deploy its planes from. The far more advanced American planes would bash the old Soviet ones the Chinese have, even without heavy support from the water.

3. Now that the US has total control of the air, it's a matter of time before American planes disorganize the PLA enough to allow for a successful beach landing of American troops.

4. Disorganized and ill-supplied conscripts are no match for the disciplined American army in a conventional battle.

5. Even the most alarmist hawks at the navy says China won't be able to hold a candle to the US until 2015. (http://www.nwc.navy.mil/apsg/papers/Chinese%20Military%20Power2.htm)

Please. You can't be serious. Do you really think that the Chinese military can hold a candle to the American one?

1. The Chinese Navy is laughably obsolete. They wouldn't even dare matching their ships with American ones in battle.

2. Once the US controls the water, that mass of Chinese soldiers becomes largely useless. And it gives the US an area to deploy its planes from. The far more advanced American planes would bash the old Soviet ones the Chinese have, even without heavy support from the water.

3. Now that the US has total control of the air, it's a matter of time before American planes disorganize the PLA enough to allow for a successful beach landing of American troops.

4. Disorganized and ill-supplied conscripts are no match for the disciplined American army in a conventional battle.[/URL]
If you read the Times article...you will notice that China does not mention an Air confrontation....or a naval confrontation...they dont even mention their large army...

USA can Destroy China...buts the price tag is unaffordable.

8th largest. Not including private companies (eg, saudi oil) Actually, it's rather small.

How on earth are we fucked?
Actually, when saying "largest", I was referring to the ammount of exploration, not company size.

Buying Unocal would allow China immediate access to large numbers of Unocal-owned strikes (a very large number of them in our own Gulf of Mexico), thus allowing them to ratchet up their military production.

Also, the loss of these strikes would set the "becoming independent of Saudi oil" agenda WAY back.

Some may not call that "fucked", but in the long run, it would certainly hurt our economy while strengthening China's.

A lot of countries may disdain the US and even hate us as the world's only surviving "superpower"...but imagine having to deal with an authoritarian China with dreams of global conquest as a superpower.

Actually, when saying "largest", I was referring to the ammount of exploration, not company size.

Buying Unocal would allow China immediate access to large numbers of Unocal-owned strikes (a very large number of them in our own Gulf of Mexico), thus allowing them to ratchet up their military production.

Also, the loss of these strikes would set the "becoming independent of Saudi oil" agenda WAY back.

Some may not call that "fucked", but in the long run, it would certainly hurt our economy while strengthening China's.

A lot of countries may disdain the US and even hate us as the world's only surviving "superpower"...but imagine having to deal with an authoritarian China with dreams of global conquest as a superpower.
You are aware that if they completely use unocal oil, then the price of oil as a whole will decline, right? You are aware that buying unocal won't change a blessed thing, right?


I fail to see how owning an oil company will leading to a massive military build up.

1. The Chinese Navy is laughably obsolete. They wouldn't even dare matching their ships with American ones in battle.
...and this is why they are modernizing their navy, because they realize the importance of naval power in regional affairs. However in the end, the PLAN is still different from the USN in many respects, especially in the fact that the USN is geared towards blue water operations and power projection, while the PLAN aims to place a foothold in the region.

4. Disorganized and ill-supplied conscripts are no match for the disciplined American army in a conventional battle.
One of the major misconceptions is that the Chinese government actually enforces their conscription policy, which is pretty difficult to do with a country of more than a billion people. I've not met one soldier in the PLA who is actually forced by law to join the military, and from what I've seen, discipline is high and training schedules are actually quite decent despite having older equipment (some, which includes air defence weaponry, still dates back to the 50es and 60es). With the mechanization of the Chinese Army and the reorganizations from the 80es however, the PLA is still a quite formidable foe on land.

If you read the Times article...you will notice that China does not mention an Air confrontation....or a naval confrontation...they dont even mention their large army...

USA can Destroy China...buts the price tag is unaffordable.
I wasn't talking about the article. That article was nothing new (besides the person saying it); many US defense analysts have thought China would use WMD if threatened by the US in a conventional war over Taiwan or the Spratleys.

...and this is why they are modernizing their navy, because they realize the importance of naval power in regional affairs. However in the end, the PLAN is still different from the USN in many respects, especially in the fact that the USN is geared towards blue water operations and power projection, while the PLAN aims to place a foothold in the region.
Note the progressive tense in your post. If you read the link I posted, the Navy concludes that China won't pose a credible threat to US power until 2015 at the earliest, assuming no major US advances. That's a lot of time before what Dobbsworld said comes close to being true.

What they're intended to do is all well and good, but that doesn't make up for the dramatic differences in technology that make US boats able to handily defeat Chinese ones. They may have been designed for different things, but that doesn't me

One of the major misconceptions is that the Chinese government actually enforces their conscription policy, which is pretty difficult to do with a country of more than a billion people. I've not met one soldier in the PLA who is actually forced by law to join the military, and from what I've seen, discipline is high and training schedules are actually quite decent despite having older equipment (some, which includes air defence weaponry, still dates back to the 50es and 60es). With the mechanization of the Chinese Army and the reorganizations from the 80es however, the PLA is still a quite formidable foe on land.
My post assumed a massive disruption campaign by US air and naval forces.

A lot of countries may disdain the US and even hate us as the world's only surviving "superpower"...but imagine having to deal with an authoritarian China with dreams of global conquest as a superpower.
I'll give them a chance before judging them... :D

Oh great. And here I was thinking that this little 14 year old (15 come Sunday) was NEVER going to have to experience the fear America felt during The Cold War.

Gee, at least Russians have cooler accents. :(

Is living 30-50 minutes from Los Angeles and 15 minutes away from Anaheim enough to be safe from a nuclear attack? I mean, dammit.

Oh great. And here I was thinking that this little 14 year old (15 come Sunday) was NEVER going to have to experience the fear America felt during The Cold War.

Gee, at least Russians have cooler accents. :(

Is living 30-50 minutes from Los Angeles and 15 minutes away from Anaheim enough to be safe from a nuclear attack? I mean, dammit.
You're always welcome to hide out on the east coast, heck, we're even liberal over here. Just like home.

You're always welcome to hide out on the east coast, heck, we're even liberal over here. Just like home.
Yes but Governor Arnold and Senator Barbara Boxer are FAR more entertaining shows than petty Hilary Clinton.

Yes but Governor Arnold and Senator Barbara Boxer are FAR more entertaining shows than petty Hilary Clinton.
True, true.

*snip*

DO I HAVE AN ALLY FROM HONG KONG?

ABOUT TIME!

HII!! :D

Hmmm! Perhaps the Chinese would agree on a swap ... California for Taiwan! Sounds like a good bargin to me! :D

They probably would.

We tried to give them North Carolina but they theatened us with war. :D

One other point: Russia would be in a prime position to backstab China. Get the army together with promises of conquest and oil, and off the chinese go, fighting the one force that beat them.

I don't think Russia's forgotten the Golden Horde.

Oh great. And here I was thinking that this little 14 year old (15 come Sunday) was NEVER going to have to experience the fear America felt during The Cold War.

Gee, at least Russians have cooler accents. :(

Is living 30-50 minutes from Los Angeles and 15 minutes away from Anaheim enough to be safe from a nuclear attack? I mean, dammit.

Well, if the American president decides not to attack China with troops, bullets, missiles, etc, and vice versa I don't think you've got anything to worry about. At least not in the nuclear exchange concept.

Quoting OceanDrive2
If you read the Times article...

I've noticed some people asking for links. I'd like to see one. Otherwise, all of this is moot. We can't argue over something we have no proof of.

I think this is most certainly exaggerated. I don't think the Chinese would be as loony to start a nuclear war and sacrifice the bulk of their 1.3 billion people just for annexing those 20 million in Taiwan. That would be pretty dumb.

All this danger in the Pacific theater, yet Rummy pulls troops out of S.Korea, reduces Japan's readiness for quick strikes, and pulls yet more troops into the Middle East. Its such a very dangerous gamble. If trouble occurs in Taiwan or N.Korea, we'd effectively be helpless to act until our reserves could be brought up.

If I was a Japanese hawk, I'd be screaming for an arms build-up (which they already are). And guess what? If they succeed in getting a build up, they'd further piss off China and N.Korea...

Bad situation, made worse by poor choices by our government, which is very actively ignoring the brooding problems in Asia. Worse yet, even if things stay stable on the diplomatic front, that means N.Korea keeps its nukes...so at best now, we lose.

If some people would read what the quote ACTUALLY SAYS rather than what the want to think it says they would realise that it is no more than what the USA and NATO used to say to the Soviets.

Effectively China is saying "If you attack us we MAY use Nukes against you"

NATO used to say "If you attack us we MAY use Nukes against you"

Where's the difference?

If some people would read what the quote ACTUALLY SAYS rather than what the want to think it says they would realise that it is no more than what the USA and NATO used to say to the Soviets.

Effectively China is saying "If you attack us we MAY use Nukes against you"

NATO used to say "If you attack us we MAY use Nukes against you"

Where's the difference?

Well, in absolute terms, it was because the Chinese general said "If you hit us with conventional arms, we'll use nuclear arms immediately." Thats a tad different than "If you nuke us, we'll nuke you back." Don't you think?

It means that unlike with Russia, this general was asserting the idea that ANY confrontation between the two powers would be nuclear.

"“If the Americans draw their missiles and position-guided ammunition on to the target zone on China's territory, I think we will have to respond with nuclear weapons,” said General Zhu Chenghu.

Gen Zhu was speaking at a function for foreign journalists organised, in part, by the Chinese government. He added that China's definition of its territory included warships and aircraft."

There, now that's just a little different than the old mantra of the Superpowers. This is a General who's frankly crossing the line between aggressive and assertive stances and promising armegeddon for all who interfere with his plans. That's just a little thing we call a "diplomatic SNAFU".

The main principle of nuclear weapons is deterrence. Essentially, they're big and nasty-looking sabres that can be rattled if you want to show the world how frightened you are about something.

There is, of course, the possibility that someone might pull the trigger one of these days (if you'll excuse the mixed metaphor) - but idiotic chest-puffing like this aside, the history of the Cold War offers us some hope that both sides ultimately know that in an all-out nuclear war nobody really wins.

Personally, I can't help wondering, given the intrinsic uselessness of these weapons (if they're used, we all lose), how many schools and hospitals and how much decent housing we could have built over the years with the money we've been funnelling into these things. I know my own country's nuclear capability amounts to a handful of semi-knackered SSBNs, but even so. And considering the thousands of warheads America's still sitting on while it conducts its campaign against Weapons of Mass Destruction... :confused:

The main principle of nuclear weapons is deterrence. Essentially, they're big and nasty-looking sabres that can be rattled if you want to show the world how frightened you are about something.

There is, of course, the possibility that someone might pull the trigger one of these days (if you'll excuse the mixed metaphor) - but idiotic chest-puffing like this aside, the history of the Cold War offers us some hope that both sides ultimately know that in an all-out nuclear war nobody really wins.

Personally, I can't help wondering, given the intrinsic uselessness of these weapons (if they're used, we all lose), how many schools and hospitals and how much decent housing we could have built over the years with the money we've been funnelling into these things. I know my own country's nuclear capability amounts to a handful of semi-knackered SSBNs, but even so. And considering the thousands of warheads America's still sitting on while it conducts its campaign against Weapons of Mass Destruction... :confused:

Well, the campaign against WMDs is a bit different than a true call for disarmament. Its goals are obviously geared towards non-proliferation, and specifically keeping such weapons out of states that the US is likely to have problems with in the future.

Notice that the US merely stood back and watched as India and Pakistan got their nukes, and indeed, seems little inclined to pursue N.Korea very strongly on the subject. The WMD craze is part tag line, part pre-emption of potential enemies.

In a way, its a highly selective arms embargo. That being said, the US is being highly inconsistent on its stances, leading most nations to believe that the anti-WMD line was little more than a glorified political justification for the Iraq invasion.

Well, in absolute terms, it was because the Chinese general said "If you hit us with conventional arms, we'll use nuclear arms immediately." Thats a tad different than "If you nuke us, we'll nuke you back." Don't you think?

It means that unlike with Russia, this general was asserting the idea that ANY confrontation between the two powers would be nuclear.

"“If the Americans draw their missiles and position-guided ammunition on to the target zone on China's territory, I think we will have to respond with nuclear weapons,” said General Zhu Chenghu.

Gen Zhu was speaking at a function for foreign journalists organised, in part, by the Chinese government. He added that China's definition of its territory included warships and aircraft."

There, now that's just a little different than the old mantra of the Superpowers. This is a General who's frankly crossing the line between aggressive and assertive stances and promising armegeddon for all who interfere with his plans. That's just a little thing we call a "diplomatic SNAFU".

OK, good point well made. :D

I live just far enough away from Chicago to see it get blown up without getting irradiated. Sounds like a good show.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but generally if you can see the blast from a modern nuclear warhead, the shockwave, alone, can kill you. Heck, if they bombed Austin, I, out in the middle of nowhere, am screwed.

Anyway, to the Chinese: “Bring it on.” :D

Other interesting stuff on the topic...

http://www.larouchepub.com/pr/2003/030224nukefirst.html

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/policy/dod/npr.htm

Or also google for the "Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations".

Everyone likes to show off his big shlong sometimes... :D

Oh great. And here I was thinking that this little 14 year old (15 come Sunday) was NEVER going to have to experience the fear America felt during The Cold War.

Gee, at least Russians have cooler accents. :(

Is living 30-50 minutes from Los Angeles and 15 minutes away from Anaheim enough to be safe from a nuclear attack? I mean, dammit.you probably have time to drive to Mexico..try it anyways...

I wasn't talking about the article. That article was nothing new (besides the person saying it); many US defense analysts have thought China would use WMD if threatened by the US in a conventional war over Taiwan or the Spratleys.China will take over Taiwan...sooner than most "analysts" predict.

the question is how will the US react...If people in the West Coast see the US preparing to attack china...its time to head for the borders (Mexico or Canada)...

heck...even if I was in the East coast I would drive away...just in case.

I really don't like nuclear waepons, but if China nukes us, then we will turn that place into a glass, self-lighted parking lot.

I don't believe we will go to war with China. It would destroy both of us economically, we are tied into each other on a capitalistic level. If we went to war with China it would destroy us both socially and economically, it would be disastrous. I think what China wants to do is annex Taiwan, this may should overbearing but don’t for get why Hawaii is a state in the first place. We annexed Hawaii because of where they are located geographically. Does anyone really want us to go to war with an friend? But it is a hard situation to deal with I’ll give it that. Nixon would be helpful right now, no joke.

I don't believe we will go to war with China. It would destroy both of us economically, we are tied into each other on a capitalistic level. If we went to war with China it would destroy us both socially and economically, it would be disastrous. I think what China wants to do is annex Taiwan, this may should overbearing but don’t for get why Hawaii is a state in the first place. We annexed Hawaii because of where they are located geographically. Does anyone really want us to go to war with an friend? But it is a hard situation to deal with I’ll give it that. Nixon would be helpful right now, no joke.Nixon?

What we need is to put British Politicians in charge...How does President Blair sounds ? :D

While London was busy negotiating with Beijing in behalf of Hong Kong citizens...we were telling the Chinese to fuck off (about Taiwan)

The Brits were telling the Hong Kong people to make some concessions and a mutually advantage Deal would be negotiated with china...

We were telling the Taiwanese that no negotiating was necessary as our fleet was invincible...as a result Taiwanese Politicians kept making aggressive confrontational statements.

so much...that today Diplomacy is difficult borderline impossible...The Chinese Generals are not willing to lose face.

Because you guys haven't probably read the whole thread like (the ones asking for a link) here it is:

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/28cfe55a-f4a7-11d9-9dd1-00000e2511c8.html

Note:

Don't underestimate China. My father and I have lived in China for a while, and he has had experience with the PLA, on both sides. China's navy and airforce, although incomprehensibly underdeveloped and lacking some technological advancements, is still quite powerful, to say the least.

Their navy is quickly advancing, and although it is not yet at a level on which to do some memorable damage against America's fleet, it could do some harm is America underestimates them.

The PLA, the People's Liberation Army, is a very powerful disciplined fighting force. Take a highly disciplined army, with strict training regimes and years worth of propoganda, you would have an infantry force that would be able to hold onto the mainland.

Nuclear weapons from China, are not to be underestimated. Sure, America has greater technology in nuclear weapons, but China's approach to Nuclear Weaponry and advancing in it is technically equivalent to Jenrak's approach to Chemical Weaponry. If you ever see me RP a war Rp, then you will know what I am talking about.

Finally, there is also tactics. Sure, bombing runs and complete bombardment might sound effective, but you have to suit the tactics to your enemy's terrain. America's underestimation of Vietnam and them simply bombing the country was their undoing, creating a multi-yeared war that would result in a war that would piss of many American war veterans still today.

In sufficing terms: China and American are not going to attack each other. It's M.A.D. (if you get my drift), and it would ruin both their economies. But if it was a war, China's navy, airforce and population would be crushed, but America would still suffer huge amounts of losses and possibly never be able to reach Chinese soil effectively.

so much...that today Diplomacy is difficult borderline impossible...The Chinese Generals are not willing to lose face.

American generals are not willing to lose face on this issue either. So goes the stalemate over Taiwan. I think the US will go to war over the island if China attacks. China knows this and thats why Taiwan is still independent. Even Clinton sent a fleet into the Taiwan straight to show that we meant business. I cant imagine the Chinese would think Bush would sit back while they invaded. They most likely would wait until a weak foreign policy president came to power. Possibly if Hillary won. Which I doubt but for discussion sake. Then China may make a move.

Oh great. And here I was thinking that this little 14 year old (15 come Sunday) was NEVER going to have to experience the fear America felt during The Cold War.

Gee, at least Russians have cooler accents. :(

Is living 30-50 minutes from Los Angeles and 15 minutes away from Anaheim enough to be safe from a nuclear attack? I mean, dammit.


The only thing you will see is bright light for about 4 seconds. Then its BBQ time.

I forgot what it is called but China and the USA do it all the time over the Tawain....basically it is just words and nothing more.

China would never go to war against their best trading partner over a stupid island, especially when their economy is as good as it is right now, they could if it was bad, and the USA would never go to war with China because it would be a very bloody fight and the american public are gutless cowards that rival the french at times.

China says they will nuke the USA
USA sails a fleet through that channel

Nothing happens, world keeps on moving..

I beg your pardon! Less than half the voting american public are a bunch of gutless cowards and no one rivals the French! ... ever...at anything! Ask em!

If it ever came to a war between China and the US it would not be about tactics, each country would end up a nuclear wasteland. However, a cold war, compleatly possible, especially if we decide to take nepal under our wing right before China annexs it, that would piss them off and turn nepal in to the cold war battle ground. Maybe another vietnam....

And that marks the beginning of America's decline. Allowing China to bully itself in to Taiwan only paves the way for future conquest. We can't give in to them, or we will acknowledge that we can't stand up against them.

Buddy, why the hell do we average Americans want Taiwan to begin with? Even the higher ups in America don't want such a massive war over such a small island. The beggining of America's decline will be marked with other things that are less obvious to people, not some idiotic war for an island that we aren't even going to keep.

If the US went to war with China, we'd have to pull no stops and neither would they. BILLIONS would die for something I, as an American, don't even know how big the island is. Its not even Madagascar or Australia big to bother trying to expand our territory with it. Nor is it one of our states like Hawaii or Alaska, or already defined US territory. It is basicly Chinese territory and a rogue state. PERIOD.

For us to instigate a war we will win, it has to be for legitimate reasons and rewards. What is the point in wasting our time and economy just to prove we have legitimate military muscle?

The article says that the chinese will nuke the US if the US attack them from taking over Taiwan (their territory, at least they think so).
I think that they are in all their right to defend from the US of any other country who attacks them. And a good offensive is always the best defence.

The article says that the chinese will nuke the US if the US attack them from taking over Taiwan (their territory, at least they think so).
I think that they are in all their right to defend from the US of any other country who attacks them. And a good offensive is always the best defence.
The scenario would go like this.

1. China begins invasion and attacks Taiwan/attempts invasion and attacks Taiwan
2. U.S. responds by defending Taiwan and allying with Taiwan and either blockading the Chinese from Taiwan or striking back at Chinese invading forces
3. China nukes the United States

You see the problem?

One problem everyone seems to be overlooking is being downwind from a nuke, which, if major US cities and military bases were hit, would be pretty much everywhere.

I found a map one time on I think Globalsecurity (to lazy to look right now) that was of just such an event and showed the blowing of dangerous amounts of radiation to a point where they were no longer a threat. Basically, the only safe spot in the US was on the Pacific coast right on the Oregon/California border. So even if you live in the middle of Kansas, you're still boned.

Have a nice day. :)

You see the problem?
But the US has got a preemptive nuclear strike policy against countries including China as well.
That is the one point that seems to have been a little bit underemphasised here.

But the US has got a preemptive nuclear strike policy against countries including China as well.
That is the one point that seems to have been a little bit underemphasised here.
Well we are not suicidal and we would not nuke anyone unless the situation is as dire and nessecary as it was in WW2. And a situation against the Chinese is not WW2, it is much worse. Think Imperial Japan with nuclear weapons.

Look at The Cold War, our most paranoid time period. We were so very close, but we never did it.

With China we've already got the upper economic and military hand over them, for now. As well as nuclear. Again, for now.

And it is most certainly NOT in our best interests to nuke China and start WW3. We wouldnt want an economic disaster on our hands.

Besides. In a nuclear war, who would stop and actually take 5 minutes to think about who had a preemptive nuclear strike policy anyway? It's a nuclear war and you gotta run the fuck out of where you are.

Well we are not suicidal and we would not nuke anyone.
Obviously you wouldn't. You just say you would. Just like China. If you say "We're not gonna use our nukes!" then what is the point of having them anyways. They wouldn't be a reliable tool for foreign policy anymore.

Obviously you wouldn't. You just say you would. Just like China. If you say "We're not gonna use our nukes!" then what is the point of having them anyways. They wouldn't be a reliable tool for foreign policy anymore.
Sorry. It's 1:08 A.M. and I'm not thinking at my best.

Yeah we say "We're not going to use our nukes"

What we mean is "We're not going to use our nukes, unless the game is World War Three"

Forgein Minister Spokesman downplays remarks of Chinese General,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4688471.stm

Though we all knew that already.

I'll be moving further north, now.

I do not want to live in an America that will allow itself to be pushed around by another nation...
Would you feel the same way if the US did the same thing as China is supposedly doing?

heh. if anyone ever played Fallout 2 this is exactly the storyline. the key ti victory is to build massive underground vaults....

(Times) July 14 2005 21:59
China is prepared to use nuclear weapons against the US if it is attacked by Washington during a confrontation over Taiwan, a Chinese general said on Thursday.

“If the Americans draw their missiles and position-guided ammunition on to the target zone on China's territory, I think we will have to respond with nuclear weapons,” said General Zhu Chenghu.

Gen Zhu was speaking at a function for foreign journalists organised, in part, by the Chinese government. He added that China's definition of its territory included warships and aircraft.

“If the Americans are determined to interfere [then] we will be determined to respond,” said Gen Zhu, who is also a professor at China's National Defence University.

“We . . . will prepare ourselves for the destruction of all of the cities east of Xian. Of course the Americans will have to be prepared that hundreds . . . of cities will be destroyed by the Chinese.”

Gen Zhu is a self-acknowledged “hawk” who has warned that China could strike the US with long-range missiles. But his threat to use nuclear weapons in a conflict over Taiwan is the most specific by a senior Chinese official in nearly a decade.

However, some US-based China experts cautioned that Gen Zhu probably did not represent the mainstream People's Liberation Army view.

“He is running way beyond his brief on what China might do in relation to the US if push comes to shove,” said one expert with knowledge of Gen Zhu. “Nobody who is cleared for information on Chinese war scenarios is going to talk like this,” he added.

Gen Zhu's comments come as the Pentagon prepares to brief Congress next Monday on its annual report on the Chinese military, which is expected to take a harder line than previous years. They are also likely to fuel the mounting anti-China sentiment on Capitol Hill.

In recent months, a string of US officials, including Donald Rumsfeld, defence secretary, have raised concerns about China's military rise. The Pentagon on Thursday declined to comment on “hypothetical scenarios”.
This is tough talk from a hawkish general. It's not PLA's official position. If China tried to take Taiwan and a handfull of US carrier battle groups showed up ready to party there would just be a standoff and some tense negotiations until both sides backed away simultaneously restoring the status quo but damaging political and economic ties.

The scenario would go like this.

1. China begins invasion and attacks Taiwan/attempts invasion and attacks Taiwan
2. U.S. responds by defending Taiwan and allying with Taiwan and either blockading the Chinese from Taiwan or striking back at Chinese invading forces
3. China nukes the United States

You see the problem?The scenario would go like this... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War ...but it woudl not finish the same way... Argentina did not have hundreds of nukes.

China's large military will easily overrun Taiwan's small army in a very short period of time.

maybe this maps can help you appreciate the situation...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/98/LocationTaiwan.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ROC_Fuchien.png

basically the US fleet would need to be permanently parked... in between...
but we can only afford to sail tru..every now and then...

People here are forgetting that a war over Taiwan won't involve just the US and China. Japan has agreed to back up the US if Taiwan is invaded by China. The Philippines probably won't stay silent on the issue either.

Also, Taiwan is a recognized independent country. Granted. The UN nor the US, or any major power has recognized them but 20 something nations have. Mostly third world nations.

So now the question remains, will it be called a Civil War or a real war?

Oh, and if China decides to nuke us, there won't be a China left by the time the nukes finished flying.

The scenario would go like this... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War ...but it woudl not finish the same way... Argentina did not have hundreds of nukes.

China's large military will easily overrun Taiwan's small army in a very short period of time.

maybe this maps can help you appreciate the situation...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/98/LocationTaiwan.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ROC_Fuchien.png

basically the US fleet would need to be permanently parked... in between...
but we can only afford to sail tru..every now and then...
China's large military wouldn't make it to Taiwan. Their airforce and navy are not up to the task of landing troops in Taiwan. Taiwanese aircraft and missiles combined with US carrier battle groups would skink PLAN and ruin the Chinese air force.

Hundreds of nukes are a deterant, but not if they can't hit their targets. If the US got wind of silos being prepared to launch and SSNs moving into position most of China's nuclear assets would be destroyed by airstrikes and attack subs. Missile defense systems both existing and soon to be deployed would take care of some more. The nuclear retaliation by the US would wipe China off the map.

And with all of this talk of tactics, strategies, policies, economy and of course poster flameing and posturing, you've all forgotten one "trivial" thing. Nuclear fallout. You all speak with the ease as if a nuke strike is conventional warfare. The repercussions of such a strike would be dire and pardon me if I fart in the general direction of economy, my worry is towards the world population and the enviroment which quite frankly would be pushed to the edge of extinction by such a war. And if the USA and China used their nukes, so would everyone else...I hope the roaches will learn something from our remains and not repeat the same mistakes we have. :rolleyes:

*giggle* :D
Nuclear Blast Simulator (http://www.fas.org/main/content.jsp?formAction=297&contentId=367)

Another that uses Google Maps (http://meyerweb.com/eric/tools/gmap/hydesim.html)

Well, if China really, really wants their entire country turned into a flat sheet of glass all they have to do is launch a nuke at US forces or US territory.

And with all of this talk of tactics, strategies, policies, economy and of course poster flameing and posturing, you've all forgotten one "trivial" thing. Nuclear fallout. You all speak with the ease as if a nuke strike is conventional warfare. The repercussions of such a strike would be dire and pardon me if I fart in the general direction of economy, my worry is towards the world population and the enviroment which quite frankly would be pushed to the edge of extinction by such a war. And if the USA and China used their nukes, so would everyone else...I hope the roaches will learn something from our remains and not repeat the same mistakes we have. :rolleyes:
Actually, at this point in time most of the nukes in the US arsenal give out less radioactive fallout than the amount you would find living downwind from a coal-fired power plant.

Actually, at this point in time most of the nukes in the US arsenal give out less radioactive fallout than the amount you would find living downwind from a coal-fired power plant.

Given that the burning of coal does not have anything to do with radiation, I'm going to have to call bs on that one.

The entire article that this thread is bs too. China has a launch on impact doctrine and maintains a nuclear system only large enough for deterrence. Were they to go any larger, they'd be facing a nuclear armed Japan at the very least.


China's large military will easily overrun Taiwan's small army in a very short period of time.

China has a period of two weeks in which to defeat Taiwan, starting from the first missile impact on Taiwan. If they don't do it in that time, massive USN forces arrive in theater and they lose, end of story. Furthermore, that they have a large military is pointless. They have to get it over there as well, which is a fair bit harder.

China lacks the logistical capabilities to launch a conventional military campaign against Taiwan... first of all, they lack a sufficient number of transport ships to convey their troops across the Formosa Strait in any significant numbers. Taiwan's military would just push them back into the sea as they landed.

Which begs the question, how up to par is Taiwan's military? I know that the backbone of their air force, the AIDC Ching-kuo, is a heavily modified version of the American F-16, but that's about it. I'm assuming that they are mainly equipped with US equipment, but I can't be sure.

Also, don't forget that while China is advancing, the US is advancing as well. The F-22 and F-35 fighters are due to hit production lines in 2007/2008, a replacement is being developed for the M1 Abrams main battle tank that should become operational around 2010, and we're on the borderline of next-generation stealth warships (which have already been proven feasible by the Norwegian and Swedish navies). So, while China IS catching up, it's still a 20-30 year technological gap to close, during which the US is still advancing.

Anyhoo... I, personally, believe they're bluffing. All we need to do is parade a couple carrier battle groups around in the Formosa Strait and it'll shut the Chinese right up.

Given that the burning of coal does not have anything to do with radiation, I'm going to have to call bs on that one.

Yes it does. From the Oak Ridge National Library:

http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html

Well, if China really, really wants their entire country turned into a flat sheet of glass all they have to do is launch a nuke at US forces or US territory.

Pity that the US would then also be a glass plain...

You are idiots if you think the US will move in. China is too smart to move without parity with the US. Al they need do is wait, already many Taiwanese want reunification, sooner or later it'll happen.

If it comes to war we can probably kiss this world goodbye. Hence, it probably won't.

And that marks the beginning of America's decline. Allowing China to bully itself in to Taiwan only paves the way for future conquest. We can't give in to them, or we will acknowledge that we can't stand up against them.

Um, we don't own Taiwan, it's not like China's trying to take Hawaii from us, they just want what they see as theirs in the first place. Personally, I don't see how it makes the US look weak to not get involved.

The Chinese are buying French and russian military technology...


Accully, after Tiemamen Square, the EU signed a pact not to sell weapons or weapons technology to China untill they clean up their act. So the people allowing China to keep a modern military are Israel and the US. I think Russia, but I'm not sure.



Oh, and if China decides to nuke us, there won't be a China left by the time the nukes finished flying.

Doesn't matter, millions of people in the US would die, and our economy would be largely fucked.


Also, you all speak as if you have some sort of military knowledge. Unless you work for the defence department, are a member of the joint cheifs, a high level military man of some kind, you have no idea China's military cpabilties, and you don't know what would happen if the US and Chine went at it. They have people who have special training and knowledge and access to info and equipment that you don't, they spend billions to know more than you about it, stop acting like you know what you're talking about.

I know it sounds nasty but what if we just gave China Taiwan. The Chinese government is also (potentialy) within its rights to invade Taiwan, Simply because the government in Taiwan is a potential Chinese government in Exile and they are actually chinese people. It is simply a left over state from when China went Communist.

I know it sounds nasty but what if we just gave China Taiwan. The Chinese government is also (potentialy) within its rights to invade Taiwan, Simply because the government in Taiwan is a potential Chinese government in Exile and they are actually chinese people. It is simply a left over state from when China went Communist.

HAve i scared everyone off saying that? :)

Um, we don't own Taiwan, it's not like China's trying to take Hawaii from us, they just want what they see as theirs in the first place. Personally, I don't see how it makes the US look weak to not get involved.

If we back down, then China will know we're not going to stand up for ourselves. We lose our status as most powerful nation if we let ourselves be bullied in to giving them what they want.Taiwan is a legitimate nation, and we cannot allow anyone to violate its sovreignty.

Germany saw Czechoslovakia as part of Germany, they bullied England and France in to giving it to them, and proceeded to conquer most of Europe and start the bloodiest war in human history. The same thing will happen with China if we give in. Appeasement never has, and never will work.

It would indeed be a foolish move to nuke the U.S. for several reasons.

1. The United States has a grand total of over 10,000 nuclear warheads in its entire arsenal, China's nuclear weapons, though powerful, cannot completely obliverate the entire U.S. before we retaliate with a few of our multi-MIRV ICBM's

2. The U.S. is a member of NATO, so therefor, if they nuke the United States, the NATO charter would call for all member nations to declare war on China, so matter how many troops they have, a coalition of that size with superior weaponry and more advanced machines would quickly crush the Chinese military.

3. If, by some strange twist, China defeats NATO and invades the United States, I think everyone on NS knows that Americans don't exactly like authority, even American authority, and have shown this on several occasions. If the Chinese do foolishly invade the US, the national guard would no doubt slow-stop the advance, if they are somehow defeated, the Chinese better be prepared to deal with angry mobs of Americans with firearms.

But then again, I think the Chinese are smart enough to think out that invading any country thats not a rag-tag state kept in line by the UN would probably be suicide.

4. If the middle east is any example, the Chinese air force can only withstand a limited number of air assualts before it is completely destroyed, leaving American/ NATO stealth aircraft free to bombard Chinese cities relentlessly, AA and SAM defenses can only go so far before they are spotted and destroyed, once that has been taken care of, I am pretty sure American B-52 Bombers from bases all over the Pacific would pulverize the remains of the Chinese army.

NOTE: Just some guys opinions, don't go flaming me because you disagree with one of the four views. Instead, debate, that's what the general forum is for.

Germany saw Czechoslovakia as part of Germany, they bullied England and France in to giving it to them, and proceeded to conquer most of Europe and start the bloodiest war in human history. The same thing will happen with China if we give in. Appeasement never has, and never will work.

This is different though we havnt just had the Great War for a start, our economies are not ruined, and we have a nuclear detterant, and it is only an independant country cos the Americans wanted to get one over the Chinese in the cold war

By the way im 21 m UK and studing History in Bristol UNI

I take it you guys are American

To be frank though, keep in mind that in Taiwan only a fraction of the population actually supports independence while another fraction that is very similar in size doesn't. You cannot force sovereignity on someone when a large part of their population, despite being less than a half, doesn't want it.

To be frank though, keep in mind that in Taiwan only a fraction of the population actually supports independence while another fraction that is very similar in size doesn't. You cannot force sovereignity on someone when a large part of their population, despite being less than a half, doesn't want it.

It take it the rest of them dont care then

To be frank though, keep in mind that in Taiwan only a fraction of the population actually supports independence while another fraction that is very similar in size doesn't. You cannot force sovereignity on someone when a large part of their population, despite being less than a half, doesn't want it.

Well you can force a government by that margin in the US. You mean the US is undemocratic?

I saw somebody post this up a few pages back, but I think that it's gone largely unoticed.

So, here it is again:


China plays down nuclear 'threat'

The Chinese government has downplayed remarks by a senior general suggesting that China might use nuclear weapons if the US attacked it over Taiwan.
Major General Zhu Chenghu was only expressing "personal views", Beijing officials said.

A foreign ministry spokesman said Beijing was committed to its policy of peaceful re-unification with Taiwan.

A US state department spokesman has described Gen Zhu's remarks as "unfortunate" and "irresponsible".

China regards Taiwan as a renegade province.

One-China commitment

The Chinese general, who is not directly involved in China's military strategy, made his remarks to foreign reporters on Friday.

"If the Americans draw their missiles and position-guided ammunition onto the target zone on China's territory, I think we will have to respond with nuclear weapons," Maj Gen Zhu told an official briefing for foreign reporters.

"We firmly believe it is in the interests of both China and the United States... to oppose the 'Taiwan independence' "

Chinese foreign ministry

The general said his comments were "my assessment, not the policy of the government".

He said he was confident the US and China would not go to war.

The US is currently Taiwan's biggest arms supplier and has indicated it would defend the island in the event of a Chinese invasion.

Gen Zhu's remarks come at a time when many US politicians are already concerned about China's military build-up.

State department spokesman Sean McCormack said he hoped they did not reflect Chinese official policy.

On Saturday, the Chinese foreign ministry said: "We will firmly abide by the principles of peaceful re-unification and one country two systems and we will express the deepest sincerity and exert the greatest efforts to realise peaceful reunification.

"We will never tolerate the 'Taiwan independence'," the spokesman said.


He said China appreciated the US government's repeated commitments to the one-China policy.

"We hope the United States will fulfil its commitments with concrete actions and join efforts with China to maintain the peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait," he said.


Link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4688471.stm

This is different though we havnt just had the Great War for a start, our economies are not ruined, and we have a nuclear detterant, and it is only an independant country cos the Americans wanted to get one over the Chinese in the cold war

By the way im 21 m UK and studing History in Bristol UNI

However, they are still an aggressive autocracy that wants to dominate the world and (defeat the US)and that's all they need for justifying a war.

They've also got the economy, a well established autocracy, a massive military, and are generallly hostile to the US (except when we have money to spend); they've shown no qualms about conquering or attacking others in the past, and they'd love to go after Japan. We cannot give in to them, because they will only want more. It is in the nature of autocratic governments to desire power, and once they realize they can get what they want, nothing less than defeat in war will stop them.

Well you can force a government by that margin in the US. You mean the US is undemocratic?
Out of curiosity is congress run by proportional representation
If not then it is not totaly democratic

Out of curiosity is congress run by proportional representation
If not then it is not totaly democratic

I was talking about the Executive really. I think Congress has some version of FPTP. Horrible system that.

I'm not a USian though.

I know it sounds nasty but what if we just gave China Taiwan. The Chinese government is also (potentialy) within its rights to invade Taiwan, Simply because the government in Taiwan is a potential Chinese government in Exile and they are actually chinese people. It is simply a left over state from when China went Communist.
No body has argued against my idea yet

I was talking about the Executive really. I think Congress has some version of FPTP. Horrible system that.

I'm not a USian though.

Glad im not the only one who hate FPTP :)

Glad im not the only one who hate FPTP :)

Don't everyone not a Labour or Conservative MP?

Just thought I would throw this into the mess: In 1996 it was determined that the Chinese national population had reached the point where you could kill 1,000 Chinese per second, and their population would continue to increase. That was almost ten years ago. We've got the guns, they've got the numbers, and they aren't afraid to lose them.

Don't everyone not a Labour or Conservative MP?
Hey i am conservative voter, if we had PR then we would have Howard in power now Cons got 150,000 more votes than Labour
But we are not here to discuss the merits of voting systems

Just thought I would throw this into the mess: In 1996 it was determined that the Chinese national population had reached the point where you could kill 1,000 Chinese per second, and their population would continue to increase. That was almost ten years ago. We've got the guns, they've got the numbers, and they aren't afraid to lose them.
If it wasnt so scary then it would be hilarious

Most of their population is rural. Try exterminating that without nuclear winter.

all this is utter non sense besides the us will not go down with out a far fght the chinise are cowards look what happened in pearl harbour its all talk dont listen to them

We're not going to let the stupid Chinese intiminate us! We are obligated to protect Tiawon, and we have promessed to defence our fellow democracies! If the Chinese try to nuke us we'll blow them back to the stone age!

all this is utter non sense besides the us will not go down with out a far fght the chinise are cowards look what happened in pearl harbour its all talk dont listen to them

That was the Japanese you realise dont you
The chinese were busy being masacered by the JApanese

Interesting...
CNN local racist (Lou Dobbs) presented yesterday an special CNN presentation called "Red Storm" ...and it was about all of this new Chinese military migth ...and the Chinese 700 billion bid to buy some Oil company.

but after a lot of the usual Lou-Dobbs blah-blah-blah..he finished his TV presentation just like you...using almost the same words.

I love how people throw terms like racist around like water... i watch cnn daily, and while i dont particularly agree with Lou Dobbs.. he's hardly a racist... simply a protectionist.. and its very easy for pro-immigrant proponents for legal and illegal to say if ur not with us, ur racist.

all this is utter non sense besides the us will not go down with out a far fght the chinise are cowards look what happened in pearl harbour its all talk dont listen to them

Spelling. Punctuation. Grammar. Learn these mystical arts then you may return and be taken seriously.

A little history wouldn't hurt either.

*Bows out in zen-master style*

No body has argued against my idea yet

why would we give up a free democratic nation which is highly amicable with us, (and in a strategic position) to a communist country, who is maniuplating their currency taking advantage of us, and in no way on amicable terms with us.

There is no sense to give it up. China would not dare invade because the US would defend it (atleast as long as Bush is in office)

I forgot what it is called but China and the USA do it all the time over the Tawain....basically it is just words and nothing more.

China would never go to war against their best trading partner over a stupid island, especially when their economy is as good as it is right now, they could if it was bad, and the USA would never go to war with China because it would be a very bloody fight and the american public are gutless cowards that rival the french at times.

China says they will nuke the USA
USA sails a fleet through that channel

Nothing happens, world keeps on moving..

It's called posturing.

And China's going to be doing a lot of it because their economy is growing so much. They've got a growing thirst for oil and it's got USA worried. Wasn't there a story recently about a Chinese firm wanting to buy an American oil company, but our free market politicians are trying to simply forbid the deal?

Just goes to show. Reliance on oil is an unsustainable position.

We're not going to let the stupid Chinese intiminate us! We are obligated to protect Tiawon, and we have promessed to defence our fellow democracies! If the Chinese try to nuke us we'll blow them back to the stone age!

That's right! If China wants to take over a Democratic Taiwan then we'll just send some covert agents over there to stage a popular uprising to make it look like Taiwanese repatriation to China was a popular movement so that we can claim neutrality in the whole affair without having to admit to our own population that our "commitment to Democracy" is just a convenient farce that we pull out to justify otherwise indefensible wars of aggression.

In Yo Face China! :gundge:
[\sarcasm...kinda]

However, they are still an aggressive autocracy that wants to dominate the world and (defeat the US)and that's all they need for justifying a war.

Prove it. Not the autocracy part, that's obvious, but plans of world domination. And please, no bullshit like "all autocracies want to conquer the world!"

It seems to me, they just want to keep a province that tried to succeed from the country.

Now, I'm not saying that they are right, or that I like the Chinese government, because I don't, I hate them with a passion, but calling them an imperialist power out to conquer the world is just not accurate.

I love how people throw terms like racist around like water... i watch cnn daily, and while i dont particularly agree with Lou Dobbs.. he's hardly a racist... simply a protectionist.. and its very easy for pro-immigrant proponents for legal and illegal to say if ur not with us, ur racist.Lou Dobbs is as Racist as they come.
maybe CNN likes racist anchors...

Prove it. Not the autocracy part, that's obvious, but plans of world domination. And please, no bullshit like "all autocracies want to conquer the world!"

It seems to me, they just want to keep a province that tried to succeed from the country.

Now, I'm not saying that they are right, or that I like the Chinese government, because I don't, I hate them with a passion, but calling them an imperialist power out to conquer the world is just not accurate.

Imperialism:
The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations.

That is exactly what China wants, and their actions show it.

China wants Taiwan for two reasons. It is economically powerful and strategically valuable for muscleing control over the Pacific Rim; annexing it pushes the US back that much farther, and so fits the idea of hegemony over other nations (Japan can't defend itself, South Korea can't).

Just because Taiwan is culturally Chinese doesn't mean China deserves to have them back. Their claims are weak, since Taiwan's independence dates back to 1895 or even earlier, since China never had very powerful influence on the island to begin with.

Okay first the Chinese could easily give the US a run for there money. Incase anyone here has not noticed they have a considerable amount of more people than we do. I agree their tecnology is weak but quantity DOSE indeed beat quality this has been proven many times in history. One example is in World war two where the American Sherman tank was masproduced and they had thin armor and week guns. The German storm tiger was not produced in large quanititys and had masive guns that could tear through Sherman armor at long distances while the shells of the Sherman bounced of the storm tiger. It tool around four Shermans to take out one storm tiger although costly the shermans defeated the storm tiger. this is a veary costly tactic but the Chinese are commies and dont care about there citezens. Also you seem to have failed to notice that 1. Our troops are in Iraq and we dont really have enough to fight another nation. American cant fight on two fronts like she used to and 2. America has the new geneva code a usles document that makes it nearly imposible to actually fight in a war.

Now if America were to fight in a war with China you would have to get rid of the geneva code and reenstate the draft. dont get me wrong I do strongly agree that we should defend Tiwan and I have no problem with a draft and the end of the geneva code. In fact defending Tiwan Is important becaouse of the American naval base there.

(Please ignore the misspellings because I am not good at useing a keyboard)

all this is utter non sense besides the us will not go down with out a far fght the chinise are cowards look what happened in pearl harbour its all talk dont listen to them
That quote clearly belongs in everyone's sig.

That quote clearly belongs in everyone's sig.

It's the most grammatically incorrect and historically inaccurate statement I've ever heard. Total ignorance on all levels.

It's the most grammatically incorrect and historically inaccurate statement I've ever heard. Total ignorance on all levels.
Isn't it great?

That quote clearly belongs in everyone's sig.

rofl!

and about china, there are 1.3 billion of them, at least 500 million will be forced into the military.
they could kayak over and put up a good fight...

Isn't it great?

Absolutely. That's a sig for sure.

I'm glad to know the US won't go down without a "far fght".

They want Taiwan because it was always part of China, and when Chang lost the civil war, he ran there and declared it it's own country. They have always wanted it back.

It would be as if after the South was beat, Lee ran to Florida or California or something and delared it it's own country. Of course the Union would want it back. Same situation.

So to them, they are putting down an insurection in their own territory. Hardly imperialism.

Also, prove they are intent on world conquest. I have seen no back up for this claim.

China isn't intent on world conquest: that's just stupid. It is intent on regional conquest. If anyone denies that, they are blind. They've taken over Tibet and many other provinces in the name of their "growing population". They may absorb North Korea, Taiwan, and Vietnam next. When will they stop, then?

They're also intent on economic conquest. Not to say that all countries do this, but the way THEY do it is just unfair. They push out mass-produced goods at underinflated prices so countries are, for all purposes, FORCED to buy them.

Hmm, my notes reading over this uberthread:

First of all, China would not nuke the US. The US has a far more advanced and powerful military than they do and could easily destroy their entire landmass with nuclear weapons fired from submarines if it went to all-out nuclear war. Plus, the world would not be the same after such a structure: humanity might be set back a millenium.

Japan CAN defend itself. China is to some degree actually fearful of Japan: Japan has a very powerful set of Western allies, a very strong economy which trades with them heavily, and an advanced (carrierless, but China doesn't exactly have worthwhile carriers either) bluewater navy which could totally shut down chinese shipping, especially if the US is to get involved (carrier battlegroups and nuclear attack submarines are pretty much invincible except if faced by technology of the same character, and only a few nations like France and Britain can do so.) PLAN is as weak as a kitten and the Japanese Navy is specially made to attack and destroy landing craft.

The US people can also be mobilized very quickly to support the military. We no longer have good shipyards, but when it comes to aircraft production and vechile production we could quickly mobilize for war. The US population also can easily be mobilized to enter the military is necessary, so in the unlikely event of another total war situation the US will use its high population and massive industrial base extremely effectively and should not have excess trouble dealing with Chinese forces.

Also, if the Chinese government enters a major war or sustains a nuclear attack, their propaganda is strongly driven around keeping and supressing ALL conflict no matter how small: any hint of rebellion needs to be crushed. They most certainly do NOT want a major war against another nation, and they most certainly do not want to mobilize.

China is bluffing (again) and the US will use this as political ammunition for their efforts to impose trade sanctions on China, so they are just shooting themselves in the foot. Idiots.

I just remembered something; think back to when the US returned the Panama Canal to Panama. You know who owns the companies that control access to BOTH ends of the canal? You guessed it... CHINA; and, their lease with the Panamanian Govt. gives them the right to deny access to the Canal to any vessel at any time, for any reason. Without the Canal, our navy is effectively cut in half for the time it takes to steam around the southern tip of S. America, or accross the Atlantic.

Also, China and North Korea teamed up once, what's to stop them from doing it again?

... CHINA; and, their lease with the Panamanian Govt. gives them the right to deny access to the Canal to any vessel at any time, for any reason.
Don't you think in a wartime situation the US Navy would make its' way even if the Chinese say they're not allowed to?

Also, China and North Korea teamed up once, what's to stop them from doing it again?
A more sensible Chinese leadership for one thing.

Also, prove they are intent on world conquest. I have seen no back up for this claim.

Good point. World conquest is a myth.

thank you

Wait, if you look on almost every product in the United States today, it was made overseas, mostly 40% from China, and if NATO gets involved thats more countries China ain't gonna be too happy to trade with.

So I'm pretty sure the Chinese are just fucking around, unless their really determined to drive a spike into their economy.

The US people can also be mobilized very quickly to support the military. We no longer have good shipyards, but when it comes to aircraft production and vechile production we could quickly mobilize for war. The US population also can easily be mobilized to enter the military is necessary, so in the unlikely event of another total war situation the US will use its high population and massive industrial base extremely effectively and should not have excess trouble dealing with Chinese forces.

HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!! YEAH RIGHT!
First to do that they would divert a lot of the major manufactures from there work to make these airplains and tanks. Which means new cars will be unheard of for several years. Gas will also be rationed and many other losses. The American people would not stand for it. Thats why American citezens (in general) are idots who cant see the big picture.

Also this again brings up the point if and thats a big if you could get the armor and plains who would drive/fly them your troops are in Iraq and we barly have enough for over there. So again are you going to alow a four year draft. No a snowballs chance in hell the American people will ever let that pass.
(please ignore the misspells)

Absolutely. That's a sig for sure.

I'm glad to know the US won't go down without a "far fght".
Me too. Frickin' "chinise."

China lacks the logistical capabilities to launch a conventional military campaign against Taiwan... first of all, they lack a sufficient number of transport ships to convey their troops across the Formosa Strait in any significant numbers. Taiwan's military would just push them back into the sea as they landed.

You would be surprised what could happen by merely building a fleet of cheap traditional chinese sails. Surprisingly, they have the tactical advantage of being able to navigate and outmaneuver most modern vessels including those used by the Taiwanese Navy.

You are also forgeting the fact that Taiwan's coastline, I think, is not fortified to a similar degree to say Hitler's Atlantic Fortress.

none of this is ganna happen, the US and China are too good trading partners to go to war with each other, this is just more international posturing.

Besides, all our little senerios and what ifs and hypothetical chains of events are pointless because,

NONE OF US HAS ANY REAL MILITARY KNOWLEDGE! NO ONE IN THIS DISCUSSION KNOWS CHINA'S OR THE US'S MILITARY CAPIBILITIES, NONE OF US KNOWS WHAT SENERIOS WILL PLAY OUT, NONE OF US KNOW WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF THEY DID PLAY OUT! STOP ACTING LIKE YOU DO!"

If you, by some chance, do know these things, ie are a joint cheif, high level military/intelligence guy, please disregard the above. I doubt any of you are, just covering the bases.

NONE OF US HAS ANY REAL MILITARY KNOWLEDGE!

Well I guss im the exception I studied millitary strategy for three years.

none of this is ganna happen, the US and China are too good trading partners to go to war with each other, this is just more international posturing.

Besides, all our little senerios and what ifs and hypothetical chains of events are pointless because,

NONE OF US HAS ANY REAL MILITARY KNOWLEDGE! NO ONE IN THIS DISCUSSION KNOWS CHINA'S OR THE US'S MILITARY CAPIBILITIES, NONE OF US KNOWS WHAT SENERIOS WILL PLAY OUT, NONE OF US KNOW WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF THEY DID PLAY OUT! STOP ACTING LIKE YOU DO!"

If you, by some chance, do know these things, ie are a joint cheif, high level military/intelligence guy, please disregard the above. I doubt any of you are, just covering the bases.

Oh look, someone who has no idea what they're talking about, and assumes that just because they're clueless, everyone else is as well, and that everyone else is obviously just spewing shit. Because heaven forbid that people know what they're talking about, given the heaping amounts of material on military subjects, like weapons, warships, organizations, and past conflicts.

Well I guss im the exception I studied millitary strategy for three years.

like I said, if you do have such knowledge, that was not directed at you

HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!! YEAH RIGHT!
First to do that they would divert a lot of the major manufactures from there work to make these airplains and tanks. Which means new cars will be unheard of for several years. Gas will also be rationed and many other losses. The American people would not stand for it. Thats why American citezens (in general) are idots who cant see the big picture.

Also this again brings up the point if and thats a big if you could get the armor and plains who would drive/fly them your troops are in Iraq and we barly have enough for over there. So again are you going to alow a four year draft. No a snowballs chance in hell the American people will ever let that pass.
(please ignore the misspells)
We did it in WWI, we did it in WWII...

We did it in WWI, we did it in WWII...
But do you think the US society is still the same?
Was there the same kind of discourse, the same total and utter fixation on personal riches etc?

Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley Williammckinley

But do you think the US society is still the same?
Was there the same kind of discourse, the same total and utter fixation on personal riches etc?
This was also a point of view of the Japanese during WWII, that the US was populated by selfish, decadent people and that they didn't have the "moral power" to overcome Japan.

*snip*
Highly unoriginal trolling. 0/10.

This was also a point of view of the Japanese during WWII, that the US was populated by selfish, decadent people and that they didn't have the "moral power" to overcome Japan.
I don't know much about pre-war American society, but would you agree with the statement that today, the US is even more materialistic and even more fixated on the cult of the individual than in 1942.
Apart from that then they were attacked, while in this case they would be the attackers.

But do you think the US society is still the same?
Was there the same kind of discourse, the same total and utter fixation on personal riches etc?

pretty much the answer is yes..... read some books on the 1920s in America

Don't you think in a wartime situation the US Navy would make its' way even if the Chinese say they're not allowed to?

One thing I did forget to put in about this, I know that we COULD take back the canal if we wanted, were that situation to arise, but would we really WANT to launch an attack on chinese held property within the borders of a third party sovereign nation?

...would we really WANT to launch an attack on chinese held property within the borders of a third party sovereign nation?
Obviously there is something wrong about that, but then again if an all-out war between the US and China was going to happen, ethical considerations would probably take a back seat for a while...

I believe someone said "China's conscripts are no match for US army" well I guess you could say that The Soviet conscripts were "no match" for the German army in WW2.


Let's face it if we went to war w/ China today noone would win, there would have to be a peace treaty, China would get Tiwan, and NK would get SK(I seriously think they would join China in such a war). And anyways if America went to war with China, Russia would provied China with economic aid if they really needed it(If I was leader of Russia I would invade Alaska and join the Chainese alliance).

I don't know much about pre-war American society, but would you agree with the statement that today, the US is even more materialistic and even more fixated on the cult of the individual than in 1942.
Apart from that then they were attacked, while in this case they would be the attackers.

How, pray tell, do you come up with the idea that the US intends to attack China? The most likely reason for a Sino-US war would be the US defending Taiwan, Vietnam or South Korea from an expansionistic China, or China invading Russian Siberia.

A trade war would come about if the Chinese did something obnoxiously offensive to American public opinion to the point were the US did not want to buy cheap Chinese toys, apparal, or misc household goods. In which case, there are plenty of other nations who would dearly love to take over the lost Chinese market share.

For the next decade there is no way the Chinese can directly attack the US with conventional weapons, or for that matter effectively prevent the US from blockading it at will. Only in a nuclear conflict would the Chinese be able to inflict serious damage to the US, and a nuclear strike here would result in a nuclear counterstrike against China sufficient to destroy its ability to make war. Or function as an industrialized economy or nation state.

So there is no reason for the US to attack China.

USA may have a military advantage over China, USA's 10,000 over nuclear weapons to China's 300 over, however saying that the US has an economic advantage is going a bit far.

Okay, so I may be wrong here because it's quite obvious that by being Chinese, I'm just an idiotic coward with a death wish, but isn't the US currently in deficit? Plus, the fact that they're still in Iraq isn't making the situation any better. US cannot currently afford to fight China.

Plus, the US cannot simply nuke China. By doing so you'll be ridding the world of 1/6 of it's population. That's not something that can be done lightly.

Finally, the US has no right to interfere with a domestic issue. We don't tell you how to run your government (and then threaten you with nukes if you don't listen), stay out of it.

How, pray tell, do you come up with the idea that the US intends to attack China? The most likely reason for a Sino-US war would be the US defending Taiwan, Vietnam or South Korea from an expansionistic China, or China invading Russian Siberia.
That's exactly what I meant. China would not be an aggressor, attacking Americans like the Japanese did in Pearl Harbour.
It would be another overseas intervention, more in the like of Vietnam or Korea than WWII.

Oh look, someone who has no idea what they're talking about, and assumes that just because they're clueless, everyone else is as well, and that everyone else is obviously just spewing shit. Because heaven forbid that people know what they're talking about, given the heaping amounts of material on military subjects, like weapons, warships, organizations, and past conflicts.
all that info does not matter here...as the Chinese knows they cant fight a conventional war with the US...

Any war of the US vs China, France or UK would be nuclear for sure.

so the most relevant data is:

WITH HOW MANY NUKES CAN CHINA HIT THE USA , can they hit the East Coast?

I was under the impression that China had "a few dozen long range missiles"...and no Armageddon Subs Nuclear subs.

But the Chinese General clearly spelled : "we would destroy 100 US cities".

Thats a lot!!...considering they don't have Armageddon Subs.

Ok I haven't read all of this thread, but yeesh some of you act like this hawkish Chinese General speaks for all of China.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4688471.stm

That's exactly what I meant. China would not be an aggressor, attacking Americans like the Japanese did in Pearl Harbour.
It would be another overseas intervention, more in the like of Vietnam or Korea than WWII.

Except the American people were generally behind the intervention that saved South Korea from North Korean conquest, and the liberation of Kuwait, and were generally in favor of the Vietnam War for much of that war until about 1969 - 70. There was vocal protest, but it was a fairly minor segment of the population in every case. Only during Vietnam did that protest become significant enough to affect policy.

US strategy during a conventional war with China would be to eliminate its navy, prevent any overseas trade (and China does import significant amounts of food and oil), destroy its ability to build additional nuclear weapons by hitting nuclear assembly plants, storage facilities, and destroy its immobile ICBM silos with whatever weapons were required to do so. All of which is well with US capabilities.

Any Chinese moves against the ROK would result in huge Chinese losses, like in the last Korean War, and this time the ROK army is very good, very well equipped and very motiviated. It would take much of the PLAs strength for even the possibility of Chinese victory.

After blockading China, the US would then start giving support to the Cantonese, who don't like the northern Chinese (who run the government) at all, and are much more capitalist then the northerners. Basically the idea would be to hold off China long enough for it to collapse into civil war or civil disorder, and that is a very real possibility for China in such an instance.

A Chinese invasion of Russian Siberia wouldn't stay conventional long at all, as the Russians would have no choice at all but to use nuclear weapons, and the Chinese hopefully realize that.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice calls for China-Taiwan talks.

China's leadership should begin direct talks with Taiwan's government, as well as talking to opposition leaders,she said.
...
China views Taiwan as its own territory and has often threatened to invade.
...
Earlier this year, China passed a law effectively authorising the use of military action against Taiwan, although the government in Beijing has insisted there are no current plans to invade the territory.
...
Taiwan and China have been separately governed since 1949 when the Communist Party defeated the Nationalists and took control of the mainland. Relations have been icy ever since, and China pressures most of the world not to recognise Taiwan's claims of de facto independence.

BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4668861.stm

-snip-
I guess things remain to be seen. With the current administration at least, there is a lot of suspicion by the populace as to the purposes and justifications for a war.
The US population has been lied to once, and even though they kind of let that one slip by, I think that will still play a role when they are to make up their mind about going into nuclear war about an island that so many of them might not even be able to find on a map.

China Hails New Leader of Taiwan Nationalists

BEIJING: The Chinese president, Hu Jintao, on Sunday hailed the election of Ma Ying-jeou, the mayor of Taipei, as the chairman of Taiwan's main opposition party, signaling Beijing's expectation that the new party leader will continue to try to improve relations across the Taiwan Strait.

Ma defeated the speaker of Taiwan's Parliament, Wang Jin-pyng, to succeed Lien Chan as the leader of the Nationalist Party. Ma won 72 percent of the vote of one million party members Saturday.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/07/17/asia/web.0717taiwan.php

<< I guess this means we can worry less now...

I still would like to know about the 100 cities statement...any comments on that one?

Several points...

First of all, I believe that China does have ONE nuclear missile submarine. I'm not sure how many missiles it carries, but I believe each missile only has one warhead. Not sure about the yield either.

Secondly, people keep talking about China invading Taiwan as though Taiwan would just roll over and accept defeat. Taiwan's army consists of nearly 400,000 men, and has an air-force and a navy bought almost exclusively from the U.S. China's estimated amphibious lift capability is only about 10 to 15 thousand. Even coupled with a large cruise-missile/airstrike campaign and adding in airborne troops to the landings, China simply can't eliminate the entire Taiwanese military, and will suffer extreme, perhaps even catastrophic losses in trying to take Taiwan...and that is WITHOUT U.S. intervention.

This brings me to my point concerning the Chinese General's comments. Everyone knows that China launching nukes at the U.S. is a lose/lose scenario for everyone. That is why I believe that the comments actually refered to the use of Chinese nuclear weapons on military targets. It has been stated several times that China's navy cannot hope to defeat that of the U.S. China knows this, and so if the U.S. positions Carrier battle groups near Taiwan, China will launch nukes at the fleets.

We've all seen the old footage of nuclear tests...a couple of nukes will take out a fleet of ships pretty damn quick.

The Chinese will have nuked a purely military target...The U.S. will not be able to retaliate with nukes against the Chinese mainland, because to do so would be to cause large numbers of civilian casualties. This would be the case even if we limited nuclear strikes to military targets.

So while it is likely just sabre-rattling, I think the statement refers to the tactical use of nuclear weapons, not the strategic use.

I forgot what it is called but China and the USA do it all the time over the Tawain....basically it is just words and nothing more.

China would never go to war against their best trading partner over a stupid island, especially when their economy is as good as it is right now, they could if it was bad, and the USA would never go to war with China because it would be a very bloody fight and the american public are gutless cowards that rival the french at times.

China says they will nuke the USA
USA sails a fleet through that channel

Nothing happens, world keeps on moving..
As an American I can whole heartedly say that only half of America is like the French (pansies) - those would be the Democrats....I'm serious

oh the old dream of tactical nuclear weapons... which was a Cold War nightmare.

The problem with using nuclear weapons against military targets is that the other side is going to respond. If a $20 Billion US CVN task force is destroyed by a Chinese nuclear attack, even if the Chinese did not attack Okinawa (with its rather large concentration of US military power) and Guam (a critical staging base to get to Korea), the fact that such an attack could kill up to 7,000 Americans is going to make America want lots of blood.

US counterstrikes would not be designed to create the maximum Chinese casualties, but the fact that China would suffer severe casualties if hit by any kind of US strike wouldn't trouble Americans much in such a case.

Its very possible Chinese leaders in their military may not realize that, hell, Mao never did (he is on record for wanting Krushchev to start a war with the US and offered up that even if China lost several hundred million, they would still outnumber us). That by the way was the chief cause of the break between China and the Soviet Union in the early 1960s.

US nuclear counterstrikes would depend on what the Chinese hit of ours. If China hit American cities, than nothing less than the destruction of China would be called for and carried out. If they hit military targets, than the US would hit military bases in China housing army divisions, their airbases, their missile bases, their naval bases, and most importantly the seat of their government in order to shatter completely the ability of the Chinese Communist party to control their country. This isn't really all that conjectural, its right out of what the US planned for the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

The US still has about 450 Minuteman missiles, a dozen Ohio class submarines with 24 missiles each, plus some bombers armed with cruise missiles. China has around 20 ICBMs, some of which are aimed at the US (the rest are aimed at Russia and because of the way their silos were constructed, can't really be shifted at us). They have one, extremely noisy, SSBM. Nothing else they have can hit anything outside of the Okinawa/Taiwan/Japan/South Korea area.

Finally...

Remember a critical fact that came out during World War II. Western democracies, if they feel the necessity, are very willing to inflict what ever casualties are required on an enemy to bring them down. Hamburg, Dresden, the Tokyo fireraids, and Hiroshima are prime examples of the willingness of democratic societies to destroy utterly their enemy if threatened seriously.

Remember a critical fact that came out during World War II. Western democracies, if they feel the necessity, are very willing to inflict what ever casualties are required on an enemy to bring them down. Hamburg, Dresden, the Tokyo fireraids, and Hiroshima are prime examples of the willingness of democratic societies to destroy utterly their enemy if threatened seriously.
As far as I am concerned, those examples merely illustrate that any form of society is just a thin layer over animal-like revenge fantasies and barbarity.
I firmly believe that the people at the various bomber commands knew very well that they were not ending, or even shortening the war with their campaigns. It was only about blood.
Remember, when Truman heard the news that the A-Bomb had been dropped, he and all the men on the cruiser he was on had a big party...

Remember a critical fact that came out during World War II. Western democracies, if they feel the necessity, are very willing to inflict what ever casualties are required on an enemy to bring them down. Hamburg, Dresden, the Tokyo fireraids, and Hiroshima are prime examples of the willingness of democratic societies to destroy utterly their enemy if threatened seriously.
its the Willingness of the US you are talking about...isn't it?

lol ..i thought this "game" had intelligent people playing it.

1: china wont use nukes and thats that ..you dont even have to think bout it it was just bluff ..duh!

2: chinas military tech is actually alot better then some people would have you believe (ok ok nobody knows for 100% sure really..unless you work for the pentagon i suppose)
Their tank tech (bout 10% of their tanks i believe) is at least better then the abrahams the usa is using ..but i suppose all that wont really matter cause there wont be a land war like in iraq.

3: taiwan is at least technically speaking part of china so china does have a right to feel they should be added again as a province..in other words its none of usa's business

4: a war between china and the usa wont happen (conventional or otherwise) considering if china had the mind they'd simply ruin half the usa's economy by simply selling the "i-owe-you's" theyve been buying up from the usa by the billions (certain big chinese based banks that is) which would cause a chain effect ..but ill leave you to wonder how that would work out cause my english skills arent up to the task of explaining the finer details of what would happen exactly..all ill say is the usa's deposit would get to such a low point that the dollar would become worthless.

5: ..this point is more for all the americans screaming blood and murder (over a bluff mind you) ..how would the usa respond if ..oh i dunno ..hawaii or alaska or somesuch would declare themselves independent? ..yeh 10 to 1 you'd try to take it back by force at some point. (not that any of it is likely to happen but its just to make a point and im sure you get my drift)

and point finally point 6: ..this is the most important one of all ..you have to remember this one for the rest of your life and tell your children and your childrens children if you can ...make love!!! not war.. :fluffle:

Why are you people even worried about China?

Our airforce alone could turn China into a wasteland. We are the biggest superpower on earth without a shadow of a doubt, so even if China could hit something that wasn't Hawaii or Los Angeles or some bullshit military base we have with a nuke, they would have to deal with us and England just fucking engulfing them in nukes and absolutely obliterating everything that looks remotely Chinese.

I realize you guys out here in General completely underestimate the power the United States has on a military level, but to even think that any single country could pose even a remote threat against us is absolutely asinine in every possible aspect. We have enough VX in a warehouse to kill every single person in Asia within a single day, that's not even resorting to nuclear power. Everything we have can destroy anything else.

Chinese ICBMs can only reach the West Coast and are inaccurate at that, whereas ours can reach anywhere in China and hit with pinpoint accuracy. They could hurt us, but in return they would literally cease to exist.

Why are you people even worried about China?
I'm not. I'm more worried about the US, for the very reasons you have listed.

I do not want to live in an America that will allow itself to be pushed around by another nation, especially not one that wants to invade a legitimate nation(I am neutral on the Iraq issue because Saddam was a cruel tyrant who should have been killed)..

Your Holyness,

I guess it's okay when one sovereign nation continues to unlawfully attack another sovereign nation. Especially if it was Iraq that was in power and they came to liberate America. And of course, it would be totally cool with the rest of the world. After all, your leader was a tyrant who bought weapons from the very same country that has now come to liberate you at the barrel of a gun. They've come to show you what real freedom and democracy are all about.

Of course, a lot of innocent people would be dying in America, not including all those maimed souls who lost their legs and stuff, but heck, that's just collateral damage, right? And it would be difficult to fathom why American children would want to throw rocks at the liberators Hummers, or get outfitted with some C-4 because there was no family to come home to at the end of the day.

And when it was all over (not that it will ever end) you could finally thank the good lord that you no longer have a tyrant leading your country. You could be thankful that your leader is no longer the spoiled son of a powerful politician from a wealthy oil family who is supported by religious fundamentalists, operates through clandestine organizations, has no respect for the democratic electoral process, bombs innocents, and uses war to deny people their civil liberties. Thank you Huey Freedman.

Amen.

Why are you people even worried about China?

Our airforce alone could turn China into a wasteland. We are the biggest superpower on earth without a shadow of a doubt, so even if China could hit something that wasn't Hawaii or Los Angeles or some bullshit military base we have with a nuke, they would have to deal with us and England just fucking engulfing them in nukes and absolutely obliterating everything that looks remotely Chinese.

I realize you guys out here in General completely underestimate the power the United States has on a military level, but to even think that any single country could pose even a remote threat against us is absolutely asinine in every possible aspect. We have enough VX in a warehouse to kill every single person in Asia within a single day, that's not even resorting to nuclear power. Everything we have can destroy anything else.

Chinese ICBMs can only reach the West Coast and are inaccurate at that, whereas ours can reach anywhere in China and hit with pinpoint accuracy. They could hurt us, but in return they would literally cease to exist.

To be fair and all, I as an American am not going to underestimate anybody who could threaten our republic. I don't care what militiaristic propaganda non-sense is said on political or military levels. Its always bullshit lies anyway. Look at Carl Rove who commited treason. He's still around. This wouldn't be happening back in Washington's presidency. He'd be hanged justly. Our military's boasting is just the result of politics and not reality.

China is the next sleeping giant. The only safe way is to not just rely on the American military, but restart up local state militias and arm them to the teeth.

Its about damned time we stop crying to the military for protection that could potentially fail if push comes to shove, and start getting some toys country-wide to work with just in case things go bad. This pea-shooter I have is fine for sniping, but not for tank killing. :sniper: :)

To be fair and all, I as an American am not going to underestimate anybody who could threaten our republic. I don't care what militiaristic propaganda non-sense is said on political or military levels. Its always bullshit lies anyway. Look at Carl Rove who commited treason. He's still around. This wouldn't be happening back in Washington's presidency. He'd be hanged justly. Our military's boasting is just the result of politics and not reality.

China is the next sleeping giant. The only safe way is to not just rely on the American military, but restart up local state militias and arm them to the teeth.

Its about damned time we stop crying to the military for protection that could potentially fail if push comes to shove, and start getting some toys country-wide to work with just in case things go bad. This pea-shooter I have is fine for sniping, but not for tank killing. :sniper: :)
I guess we could pick some guerrilla tactics from the Iraquis...It could be usefull one day

I fear the day the feeble ailing, broke resource starved...United States attempts to attack china. Lets look at it this way in china there are about 30% of the population is middle class making 16+ bucks and hour..in america there is about 20% middle class and higher...in america thats like 60 million people...in china thats 350 million people. Now the US is putting trade wars on every important natural resource they get in..why? lets see ronald reagan was uhh nuts him and his predecessors broke the country completely. See in the cold war the US was about 6 years from having a collapse and going commie..see the commies got there first cause they made twice as many missiles. Essentially the west isnt as strong as we like to think, China's technical expertise, thanks to americas participation and aid in the invasion of tibet and the weapons technology share program that followed and lasted till bush well..Lets just say there are a billion of em, they work harder then us, they are richer then us..they are sort of exactly like the US was percieved to be.


Let them have Taiwan, or give taiwan back ot japan but..we shouldnt interfere. I know people from Taiwan they like things exactly as they are. Leave it that way, we shouldnt make an enemy of a country that will give you there greatest treasures in return fora few fruits and linen shirts ok. China is china same nation it has been for 3000 years. Leave them alone they leave us alone, trade with them and make friends, show them respect. They give you presents and back you up! man the choice is simple. Dont be scared of sharing cause mcarthy said it was wrong lol and welcome china as slightly ecentric and aloof friends. Trust me that general doesnt speak for the chinese people, they want to trade just like you and me. Not fight over nothing. Chinese ICBM's now that they ENTERED THE SPACE AGE lol sorry guys they have ICBM's now is not obsolete. Did you know that crappy looking interceptor has the same targetting computer the F-14 is famous for. and they have alot more of those then we have F 14's. The Pentagon made a projection in 1999 before the majour build up that if it came to war over taiwan the Chinese air force would cause 90% casualties on all american fleet resources and completely obliterate the 7th fleet within..15-30 minutes. This is true. We dont stand a fucking chance against china..We let them catch up hell we helped them catch up...so dont ever think our militaries could actually stop china. Patriotism plus enough nukes to do the job and utter commitment to the unification of there homeland lead to us utterly losing a war against them. If the US couldnt take out canada when the capital was 740 people i dont see them taking on the juggernaut that is china. We wont win..sorry...its not going to happen. We cant attack them, and they cant attack us. Oh and on the brighter side china knowsthe anti nuke trick, the russians showed it to them. haha i forgot

the reason the russians dont want anti ballistic missiles is cause its a waste of money. They discovered in the late 60's that if you launch a nuke in to orbit and detonate it it causes all nukes in the air in earth orbit and all sattelites nearby to sort of umm...go dead and crash to the earth harmlessly :). Now we are back to a real war..7th fleet and extra resources VS chinese Air force...15 minutes later Chinese air force wins, Fatality. Sorry the US time has passed, its over your so far in debt that you cant get out, and your not extorting the world economy anymore cause the other people that own the states, the Chinese and Koreans, are buying Euros now. And the Saudi arabians who own the other 50% of the United states they are looking at it too. I mean you dont even have your own money, nothing that you have bought has come of anything but shares of your own country. Thats right you are rich cause your government sold off your country over the last 50 years. China being mainly communist. Doesnt actually umm need money to function. Good luck beating that, I mean hitler so kicked the commies asses oh wait
he shot himself in the head after eating a suicide pill while the commies closed around him..my bad *^.^*

NONE OF US HAS ANY REAL MILITARY KNOWLEDGE! NO ONE IN THIS DISCUSSION KNOWS CHINA'S OR THE US'S MILITARY CAPIBILITIES, NONE OF US KNOWS WHAT SENERIOS WILL PLAY OUT, NONE OF US KNOW WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF THEY DID PLAY OUT! STOP ACTING LIKE YOU DO!"

1. I have Real Knowledge of the US Military.
2. I know our capibilities (at least the unclassified ones)
3. Your right about the scenerios, however we can speculate about them and come up with plans of actions that way. Anyone with knowledge of the US military can do that.
4. That is where planning scenerios come in. I've done scenerios before using a couple of my computer games. It isn't that hard to do.

its the Willingness of the US you are talking about...isn't it?

not just the US, Britian dropped most of the bombs on Dresden and Hamburg... but the principal is applicable

One thing I did forget to put in about this, I know that we COULD take back the canal if we wanted, were that situation to arise, but would we really WANT to launch an attack on chinese held property within the borders of a third party sovereign nation?

Negotiations are in progress to allow the US military back into Panama. Don't know about the canal but I do know that talks are in progress about reopening a military base in the nation.

all that info does not matter here...as the Chinese knows they cant fight a conventional war with the US...

Any war of the US vs China, France or UK would be nuclear for sure.

so the most relevant data is:

WITH HOW MANY NUKES CAN CHINA HIT THE USA , can they hit the East Coast?

I was under the impression that China had "a few dozen long range missiles"...and no Armageddon Subs Nuclear subs.

But the Chinese General clearly spelled : "we would destroy 100 US cities".

Thats a lot!!...considering they don't have Armageddon Subs.

Chinese ICBMs aren't that great, they pretty much have the capacity to hit west coast targets, although I doubt their accuracy is that great. They do have a few missile submarines, although they're noisy and really unsafe. One of them sunk itself while test firing a missile.

Chinese ICBMs aren't that great, they pretty much have the capacity to hit west coast targets, although I doubt their accuracy is that great. They do have a few missile submarines, although they're noisy and really unsafe. One of them sunk itself while test firing a missile.
CSS-4 ICBMs (range 13,000 km) are able to reach not only the West Coast, I think... and you don't need pinpoint accuracy to hit a city. BTW, are type 94 SSBNs already in service or not?

-snip-
China already got a man into space. Don't you think their military would have something in the back hand, like shooting a nuke into space and letting it drop on an place on the planet etc...

yes im syrian born, but anti syria..it is a corrupt government and really is the epicenter of the conflict in the middle east...they are the ones pulling the strings on the palistine thing, they are the ones that i have no doubt causing the problems in Iraq...the government has a vast shadow network throughout the middle east that rivils the saudis.

And yes the american public is gutless..all you have to do is look at it today. They think they are losing in iraq because 1800 men have died. Americans can fight well and their military is strong, the weak point of america is their homefront because their civilian population is gutless and easy to manipulate into rebellion. Every nation knows this, prick their military enough and they will run with their tails between their legs. that is a known fact...look at Vietnam (military victory, home defeat, military retreats) Somolia (a few dead they run again) Iraq 1, and now Iraq 2.

Face it, im a rare muslim that is pro american, but im not dumb, the americans cant win a war because their public is too weak minded to fight long wars...they want results quick, painless and non bloody. Anything else and they become isolationist.



You need to get your news from someplace other than where you are getting it.

1) Vietnam was a totally different war that lasted more than a few years with more than 1800 deaths a day at times.

2) Iraq 1- US did what they said they would do and that was push Saddam out of Kuwait. Once that was done, if the US continued with the war it would of gone against the objectives of the war

3) Iraq 2 - Please stop listening to the crap media you are and the loosing party in the US. That party is loosing so much on the domestic front, They have to go and whine to someone to try and make a dent in the Presidents agenda. The best part is that I think they will loose another 6-8 seats in the House and another 3-5 in the Senate giving them even more lameness status than they have already.

I believe you are a very naive or maybe ignorant person, we can work with both. First you have to stop watching all Main Stream media and reading Main Stream media papers, including 99% of all European Rags.

I say let China try to Nuke the US, before that happen they will have to worry about what Weapon Platforms the US has put into space. PLus it would be exteremly funny to see China's budding economy fall to pieces as the US declares all of its issued bonds junk.