Well ... I Guess the Chinese Want Some Too

a reply to: ketsuko

So we'll stop them by nuking them? What kind of sense does that make?

"There's oppression over there so we'll nuke their family members, destroy their infrastructure, and contaminate their air, soil, and land. That'll stop the oppression."

By that logic, the US also needs to be stopped because we imprison the largest amount of civilians in the world by far. We imprison people for petty crap like jaywalking and playing music too loud. There have even been people here imprisoned for sagging their pants, including this guy (Ervin Edwards) who was literally tasered to death in custody after being arrested for sagging.

What moral high ground do we have? We even tortured people to death during "enhanced interrogations" and let the architects of those policies walk free. Not to mention our "collateral damage" doctrine, which is literally meant to devalue the lives of the civilians we kill.

Snarl :

The Chinese are the bad guys here...

I wonder what makes you think that? However, to some degree you are not far off the mark, because China like having North Korea in place as a buffer to their southern border, and with Russia at their south-east border. The thing is, Kim Jong-un is not the ideal neighbour. He is loud, he is crass and childish, and just as ego-centric as Trump, but in a paranoid way. China's lack of diplomatic control over Kim Jong-un has helped to create this tense situation.

Trump would do well to obliterate them along with the North Koreans.

Oh yeah? Good luck with that! On the ground, Chinese forces would wipe American troops out, because American forces do not have the same conviction as Chinese troops. Their training is superb for fitness, coordinated teamwork, stamina, and sheer ferocity, and they will have absolutely no fear of dying for their cause. Plus, if America attacks China, you are also taking on Russia, no doubt about that, and between them, they will leave American and the rest of western cities nothing more than smouldering embers. Be under no illusion, if America attacks either China or Russia, either one is capable of taking America down with them, but together, they will utterly annihilate America! Even if it means their own destruction.

If you think they will baulk at the possibility of losing business or money, you are wrong. Neither one thinks like American capitalists. For both Russia and China it is a case of regional power, not global power. They only seek global influence, but not over regional control. They know how to attack America, you attack its technology, its ability to generate electric power. If you close them off to the American people, the country will fall quite rapidly. Your greatest strength, the reliance on technology, is also your greatest weakness!

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Again with this automatic nuking.

Everyone seems to assume we're just going to suddenly drop some nukes on them.

Unless they really try to nuke us or an ally, I see no reason why that would happen.

a reply to: elysiumfire

HAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHHAAH

No.

Chinese troops are weaklings who will crumble at the first sign of a stubbed toe. Ever seen a Chinese soldier get hit by a protester? I have, guess who walked away? Not the soldier. They act all big and tough in a group but when a few are put down they will run. They aren't the same military or people that attacked the US troops during the Korean War, not by a long shot. All those poor Chinese men from villages (not big cities) who go into the military... their family lives off their paycheck. When they die, those death benefits don't go very far. It's engrained into Chinese culture, must work hard and stay alive to take care of mom and dad because CCP won't do it.

Live here for 10 years like me then you'll know what I'm talking about.

a reply to: interupt42

That sounds great in theory but literally none of it will happen in reality. That's because for all of the rhetoric, the vast majority of citizens here like the 2 party, "winner takes all system" we have. And millions of citizens here are employed by the political machine, MIC, for profit healthcare system, Wall Street and Wall Street related firms, govt agencies at the State, local, and federal level, etc. And there's no way politicians and administrators will vote against their own best interests (unlike the common voters who always vote against their best interests).

Just look at this thread for proof. Its whole argument is to actively push for a nuclear confrontation against 2 nuclear powers. Do you really think people like that and the ones supporting that argument care about improving America? We'll always lose a nuclear war because the "winners" and "losers" won't be decided by death tolls.

a reply to: ketsuko

Did you read the OP? This entire thread is literally based on the argument that we should obliterate North Korea and China. That's the context for this argument, not the hypotheticals you're imagining. Read his follow up posts if you want even more context.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

I see. So the only way to bring a country to its knees is through nuking it?

Dresden would be surprised to hear that.

a reply to: UKTruth

I agree with everything in that post

China is taking the piss and riding roughshod over the US

This is because US corporations and others have outsourced manufacturing to China...more profits and damn the common unemployed man in 1st World Western Economies. Bring back Tariffs

a reply to: burdman30ott6

True...but you haven't said anything about where the money is going to magically come from.

a reply to: ketsuko

Did you read the OP and his first follow up post? How else can we obliterate a country with 25 million people and then obliterate a country with 1.4 billion people, both of which have nukes of their own? What do you think this entire post (HERE) is referring to? Also, Dresden is just a city, not a freaking country.

Talking to you is like talking to a wall. I don't even see why I'm wasting my time since you either didn't read the OP & his 2nd post or you're simply ignoring the entire point of this thread.

ETA: And just so you can't claim you don't know this, the 2nd post (the one I linked) includes the following:

What if 120 MIRVs rain down on their strategic nuclear deterrence? Remembering that China has only an estimated 300 nukes. How many boomers parked off their shores does that require? Hint: One. What's the delivery time to target? Hint: About 3 minutes. How much time do you think it would take before China could hope to retaliate strategically? Hint: Hours to days.

This is what a MIRV is according to Encyclopedia Britannica:

MIRV, abbreviation of Multiple Independent Reentry Vehicle, any of several nuclear warheads carried on the front end, or “bus,” of a ballistic missile. Each MIRV allows separately targeted nuclear warheads to be sent on their independent ways after the main propulsion stages of the missile launch have shut down. The warheads can be released from the bus at different speeds and on different trajectories. MIRV technology was first developed by the United States. By the late 20th century both the United States and the Soviet Union had many intercontinental and submarine-launched ballistic missiles equipped with MIRVs.

Combined with the rest of the OP's words, it's pretty obvious what he was talking about.

a reply to: ketsuko

Ketsuke, dont take this the wrong way...but you should reread the whole thread; JoshuaCox and others have been pushing for a pre-emptive strike on N Korea, enlightenedservant and myself are advocating cooler thinking, diplomacy and negotiation.

His concern like mine, is the untold human misery to follow if an all out war were to erupt.

As to your link and and calling mass starvation a concentration camp? Do you think further actions against N Korea are going to magically end the starvation overnight? How long and how much time and aid will be needed to bring some normalcy back into N Korea to give the people any chance for improvement?

What has the dubious and some say unjustified bombing of Dresden in WW2 have to do with nukes ( the bigger context of this thread )? I'm puzzled.

a reply to: VengefulGhost

what china actually wants is the usa out of Korean peninsula and away from their border

a reply to: ketsuko

Another thing to consider is that carpet bombing using defoliants and napalm during the Vietnam war proved ineffective due to underground tunneling by the Viet Cong, or are you next going to suggest the US use 100's of MOABS? on N Korea?

a reply to: enlightenedservant

That sounds great in theory but literally none of it will happen in reality.

Well I didn't say it would happen, I said that is what needs to happen ,if we want to get control of our govt back.


The reason it wont happen is because of political chearleaders that worship their party and refuse to get off the hamster wheel.

a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

And do you think Russia doesn't want the same? They have seen an increase of US bases around their neck of the woods, heck, the whole business of Ukraine was to do with Monsanto getting their greedy little poisons there; as the Ukraine is the bread basket of and provider of untainted food for a Europe.

Incidentally Western Europeans are more fussy as to what additives and mislabeling with foods and have higher purity standards that the crap the Australians and the US's Govts allow our companies to poison us with.

www.naturalnews.com...
September 08, 2014

But now, while the Ukrainian government faces off against a powerful Russian army, the country's agricultural production is about to be ambushed as well, according to CounterPunch: On July 28, the California-based Oakland Institute released a report revealing that the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), under terms of their $17 billion loan to Ukraine, would open that country to genetically-modified (GM) crops and genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) in agriculture.

The report is entitled "Walking on the West Side: the World Bank and the IMF in the Ukraine Conflict." GMOs are banned in Ukraine,but... CounterPunch reports further that, in late 2013, Viktor Yanukovych, who was then president of Ukraine, turned down an agreement with the European Union that was tied to a $17 billion International Monetary Fund loan; the terms of that agreement are just now becoming known.

a reply to: SpartanStoic

I love how everyone is ignoring the informative posts from you who actually lives in China, thanks for the boots on the ground perspective!

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: ketsuko

Another thing to consider is that carpet bombing using defoliants and napalm during the Vietnam war proved ineffective due to underground tunneling by the Viet Cong, or are you next going to suggest the US use 100's of MOABS? on N Korea?

well now a days we have these things called thermobaric bombs with deep penetration that can devestate tunnel systems in a flash. most tunnels can be reached without MOABS though depending on location.

CHina and NK are what we call Decaptation targets. their militaries are so big that killing the leadership effectively stop their war machine.

a reply to: Snarl

"It needs to make clear its stance to all sides and make them understand that when their actions jeopardize China's interests, China will respond with a firm hand," said the paper, which does not represent government policy.

How does that differ from America's stance ?

President Trump is playing right into Mr Kim's hands , like his father before him he wants to be the center of attention and show his people that when he speaks the world (America) listens , Trump's counter threats give him just what he needs.

Congress is in Recess and President Trump can do anything he damn well pleases where the Korean War is concerned.

Then you best prepare for big trouble.

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

It's already in the system. I assume you're going back to my initial statement on the US' military power, which is what it is. The US spends more than the rest of the world combined on our military. We've got by far the largest and best equipped navy in the world. We've got the THREE largest air forces in the world with the USAF, US Navy's air fleet, and the Army's air corps. It's truly not even a remotely close fight as far as military air combat goes, the US has the infrastructure in place to bring everything not plastered with a US flag right out of the air with virtual ease. The combination of US naval strength and air dominance effectively means that any invasion of the US by even the combined forces of the world would be an exercise in futility for the invaders. That's all built using money that's already been pumped into the system. If we saw a WWII situation in which the US shifted it's all into military preparedness and equipment, then the chasm between us and the world would get even wider.

It's arrogance on my part, but it's arrogance based on fact. The combined force of the world would be facing an almost impossible task against the US in normal times... if the US decided to stand and flex, then the world goes down.

originally posted by: gortex
How does that differ from America's stance ?

You're quoting the part from China that concerns me the least, honestly. We all get it, if China sees their interests negatively affected, they'll be pissed. Understandable and expected. The concerning part is China stating that, if North Korea initiates an attack, China will maintain a position of neutrality. You can't very well accuse the US of ever being neutral in any fight. In my opinion, China making that statement violates their recent commitment to becoming more involved in pressuring North Korea to STFU and stand down... which makes China no ally in this situation and places China's toes directly underneath America's foot.