It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: spy66
Any strikes against China would be launched from the US mainland. There isn't a need to move bombers out to the Pacific until after the first strikes are over. They'd be launching from three or four different bases, using all three bomber types.
Of course China would retaliate, that's why it's called a war. But neither side would use anything but conventional weapons.
originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: criticalhit
It is the point in this instance. Chinas position is they claim jurisdiction and sovereignty over the region, which directly contradicts the treaty they signed.
Chinese actions have created the problem.
you cant use a specific country's law for your example since UNCLOS is an international "law" China agreed to abide by. Read the "law" I linked you to and compare it with China's actions.
originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: spy66
It's called war for a reason. No one but you has said anything about them not retaliating.
No one would see the complete launch, and even if you saw part of it, prove where they're going. The B-2 would attack the defenses, opening the way for low level B-1 strikes, while the B-52s would come after carrying every cruise missile they could.
originally posted by: victor7
My philosophy is to NOT fight a war with 3 nations on earth: US, Russia and China. It would be a mayhem for the world and its future.
originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: criticalhit
You are ignoring the fact that over 5 trillion dollars worth of trade flows through the South China Sea, including US business. China trying to claim the area made it our business.
Who the hell made its china's business to try and claim the entire South China Sea?