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.

 

China may be preparing for a crippling preemptive missile strike on US military bases

page: 2
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 7 2017 @ 03:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Ph03n1x

Now that's a headline grabber!

That'd be a stupid move




posted on Feb, 7 2017 @ 03:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ph03n1x
a reply to: corblimeyguvnor

I absolutely agree with what you said, China wont be invading. the OP is referring to the PLA Rocket force attacking U.S bases in Asia.



Kinda pointless of the PLA to do that unless they want direct conflict, i understand why they might have thoughts ........ i have thoughts everyday. These days its easier to create a false flag, why would PLA take responsibility for that kind of action? they wouldn't!

counterproductive springs to mind



posted on Feb, 7 2017 @ 03:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: eriktheawful
War with China?

Doesn't that mean China invades Alaska, then the US annexes Canada and we fight them off in Alaska, then the bombs fall and....

...oh wait, that's the Fallout universe!



Truth be told, I think China is more into trading and less into shooting.


This seems to be the case, unless something stops them from doing their trading.



posted on Feb, 7 2017 @ 03:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: dashen
If china is looking to have some nuclear redecorating done to it then i say go right om ahead General Tso, make my day.

No, it won't happen.
General Tso's chicken.



posted on Feb, 7 2017 @ 03:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ph03n1x

these are extremely scary times we are living in.



That is no way to Live.
You cannot let Fear rule over you, get off your knees!






posted on Feb, 7 2017 @ 03:07 PM
link   


It's a strange one imo because China has a huge military and could potentially cause problems for NATO but on the other side of the coin, it would not be in their best interests to enter this kind of conflict right now unless they feel they can come out on top with absolute certainty.


The bigger the army the bigger the logistical nightmare.

As you can see here in the US the more toys you have. The more it costs.

I think back to Iraq.

Modern Warfare is fought in a matter of days. Long protracted warfare is more dangerous than the enemy on the battlefield.

Tsun Tzu said as much.



posted on Feb, 7 2017 @ 03:08 PM
link   
a reply to: eriktheawful

I agree, China is very much focused on trade right now as i mentioned in the OP this type of conflict would work against their interests but it's interesting to speculate considering it is not out with the realm of possibility.

The article has no mention of any type of attack on the mainland, it specifically mentions attacks by the PLA rocket force on U.S bases in Asia



posted on Feb, 7 2017 @ 03:08 PM
link   
a reply to: markosity1973

india is a great ally against china as their numbers approach parity and are local with the Himalayas as a speed bump so to speak, the key deciding factor would be which side russia would pick as with us and the russians it could make it very hard for china to try to impose its will on its neighbors . if its gonna pop off expect them to order the north koreans to stirr stuff up in Korean peninsula to act as a distraction or to try to lure us assets into the area to be struck but the pacific version of nato (not sure what its called off hand) is not something to screw with



posted on Feb, 7 2017 @ 03:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: dashen
If china is looking to have some nuclear redecorating done to it then i say go right om ahead General Tso, make my day.

No, it won't happen.
General Tso's chicken.


That's classic.
Nice1



posted on Feb, 7 2017 @ 03:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ph03n1x

originally posted by: jimmyx
the quote you have in your OP is from a Alex Locke, an "OPINION" writer from business insider magazine....NOT from anyone in China


I Know where it's from, i never claimed it was from anyone inside China


nor did you tell people here what I told them....you were trying to illicit a "fear" or "grave concern" response, where there isn't any.



posted on Feb, 7 2017 @ 03:09 PM
link   
There's a new boss and administration in town, radically different from the previous administration....

It's expected that adversaries will test the boundaries of the new administration. As well as their reaction to geopolitical conflicts and potential military threats etc.

Ultimately, that is a test only...

imo



posted on Feb, 7 2017 @ 03:11 PM
link   
We have bases in many nation. It doest seem likely they will want to attack them all.

The article was an opinion, by someone who gets paid to write



posted on Feb, 7 2017 @ 03:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: muzzleflash

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: dashen
If china is looking to have some nuclear redecorating done to it then i say go right om ahead General Tso, make my day.

No, it won't happen.
General Tso's chicken.


That's classic.
Nice1

Thanks to dashen for setting it up.



posted on Feb, 7 2017 @ 03:12 PM
link   
Going to war with China is like going to war with your landlord and banker...dumb idea that will only break you in the end. Chinese government is our competitor, but if it came to war, their government doesn't work for the people, they work to rule the people. They wouldn't worry too much about clamping down on an angry population because its pretty much the norm there..the US however would be overthrown once a few cities got vaporized

Neither the average chinese citizen nor the average american citizen wants to wake up to mushroom clouds settling over their cities...I laugh at people who make light of the event, because it is laughing at your destruction for no reason at all. That is simply lunacy.

Whats happening over in the china sea is a matter for lawyers and negotiators, not military



posted on Feb, 7 2017 @ 03:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: ausername
There's a new boss and administration in town, radically different from the previous administration....

It's expected that adversaries will test the boundaries of the new administration. As well as their reaction to geopolitical conflicts and potential military threats etc.

Ultimately, that is a test only...

imo


Really?




posted on Feb, 7 2017 @ 03:14 PM
link   
a reply to: corblimeyguvnor

Well if they did successfully eliminate the major U.S installations in Asia then China would essentially have free reign over the region so there is that, but like i said in the OP, China is very much a trade nation as opposed to a war nation, this type of conflict would be detrimental to their trade ambitions so it's very unlikely, unless they are certain they can achieve a victory and take control of the region before the U.S can recover and re-establish control.



edit on 7/2/2017 by Ph03n1x because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2017 @ 03:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ph03n1x

originally posted by: muzzleflash
All of this speculation and talk is totally MAD.


Mutual assured destruction or mutually assured destruction (MAD) is a doctrine of military strategy and national security policy in which a full-scale use of nuclear weapons by two or more opposing sides would cause the complete annihilation of both the attacker and the defender (see pre-emptive nuclear strike and second strike).[1]

It is based on the theory of deterrence, which holds that the threat of using strong weapons against the enemy prevents the enemy's use of those same weapons. The strategy is a form of Nash equilibrium in which, once armed, neither side has any incentive to initiate a conflict or to disarm.




Again, Nowhere does it make any mention of Nuclear weapons, the article is talking about non nuclear missiles being used by the PLA rocket force to attack U.S bases in Asia not attack the U.S mainland with Nukes


All we would see is a massive rocket launch of ballistic missiles.
No one's going to sit around and wait to see if they are nukes or not. A massive missile launch would almost certainly cause the US to retaliate before they even reached their targets, and ours would be nuclear tipped.

So it would be suicide.



posted on Feb, 7 2017 @ 03:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Ph03n1x

Pearl Harbor 2 is not going to happen anytime soon, not that i can see anyway



posted on Feb, 7 2017 @ 03:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: visitedbythem
We have bases in many nation. It doest seem likely they will want to attack them all.

The article was an opinion, by someone who gets paid to write


I never claimed it to be anything other than an opinion by someone who is payed to write. per T&C i used the title of the article as the title of the thread.

Yes the U.S has many bases all over Asia but if the PLA chose to, it's my opinion that they could cause enough havoc to gain control of areas of the region that they do not currently control and that could be the only goal of such an attack. it's all just speculation anyway, i never once claimed any of this is happening or is even likely to happen



edit on 7/2/2017 by Ph03n1x because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2017 @ 03:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: Ph03n1x

originally posted by: jimmyx
the quote you have in your OP is from a Alex Locke, an "OPINION" writer from business insider magazine....NOT from anyone in China


I Know where it's from, i never claimed it was from anyone inside China


nor did you tell people here what I told them....you were trying to illicit a "fear" or "grave concern" response, where there isn't any.



Nonsense, i wasn't trying to illicit any kind of "fear" response, i was trying to initiate discussion about a topic i find interesting, if you don't want to participate feel free to leave but stop with the nonsensical accusations of me trying to create fear

Did you even read the OP? i specifically asked the question about Fear-mongering and stated several times that this conflict is unlikely to happen, the sensationalist title comes from the article as per T&C not from me if that's your issue


edit on 7/2/2017 by Ph03n1x because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join