It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


POLITICS: China says "prepared to use Nukes against US"

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 07:15 AM
I dont think China are about to launch World War 3, there just saying to keep the hell out of the affairs of there country and dont threaten them. I believe this is fair because I dont see the chinese interferring in the US's affair, I mean, theyre not like Fance and Germany and tell the UN that the US launched an illegal war. They keep themselfs to themselfs and they want others countrys to leave them alone, thats reasonable.

posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 08:33 AM
This is just down right scary. I wish we knew what Pres. Bush is planning. Is he going to defend Taiwan or not? I really dont want to be nuked! Let them have the darn rock. China does not like us, that is no secret. Now, granted, we have a great military, and I am sure we have a great defence system. Yet I still do not want anyone so much as aiming nukes at us. Seriously, if they send them our way, wont the nuke go off if we shoot it down? As soon as it is in the air, it will go off somewhere right? UUUGGGG! they wouldnt have made this statement if they werent about to take Taiwan militarilly. Pres. Bush really need to adress the people on this issue. I think we all want to know where he stands on this. On one hand he says we do not back up Taiwan going for independence, and on the other he denied them ammo to defend them selfs. He also does not want China taking them back by force. That is a pretty big grey area. SO what is it Pres. Bush, whach ya gonna do?

posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 08:52 AM
Ladies and Gentlemen, have you guys ever looked into the story and read when this story was written? If you don't know, I'll tell you guys, 1996, the story is 9 years old. Read the full story and in the story it says the general is expressing his own opinions and his own opinions only and does not reflect the opinions of CCP. 1996 was the Taiwan strait crisis when the Ex Taiwan "president" wished to go independant and China had to fire an IRBM with MIRVs into the sea to show that we are willing to sacrifice and fight for the integrity of our nation, US sent 2 CBGs to the strait then and kept an eye out for trouble.

China has always prepared for big losses, in the seventies China feared that Soviet Union would unleash a nuclear rampage on China and kill everyone east of Tibet which is like 95% of the population. Mao didn't step down to the pressure and played hard and totally spanked the Soviet Union around politically. But during that time China built hundreds of thousands of huge underground bunkers where entire cities would stop for a few days a year just to get things up to schedule.

China is willing to lose, and lose basically everything. China said that they are willing to sacrifice hundreds of cities for Taiwan and be sent back half a century to the state of 1949 just for Taiwan. However this has always been the last resort for Beijing, Beijing stated many times that under the condition of the One China Policy, anything can be talked and granted, ANYTHING. China is willing to let Taiwan have its own army, its own government under CCP regulations and everything else except that it doesn't get foreign interactions and would be forever be a part of China.

posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 08:52 AM
Let's see.......Last I knew, China had no operational long range delivery platforms for said weapons. However, they are known to have short and medium range missles and bombers.Thus, American interests in the region are viable strategic targets(Japan, especially). From a strictly military standpoint, their threat is simply a reaction to whatever perceived threat they may interpret. Mr. Jong has always been known as a bit of a dramatist, tending to over exaggerate for effect. In his mind he thinks if you puff up your chest as it were, that the US will be forced to the bargaining table and have to recognize him as a major player. All this to feed the ego of a vain man. Yet he knows from a military standpoint that the US cannot and won't relinquish Taiwan because it is a valuable island srategically speaking. If China is allowed to take Taiwan....then who's to stop them from taking Japan, South Korea, and continuing expansion througout the region. ( And the dominoes fall in order).

posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 09:11 AM
In the 1980s, CIA estimated China to have >30 DF-5s (a 12000km ICBM meant just to destroy cities not military targets). That was 20+ years ago. Now China has developed many many newer variants such as DF-31, DF-31A, JL-2, DF-4A, DF-5A which are all ICBMs capable of reaching America and delivering MIRVs and MARVs, America's missile defence does nothing against MARVs which are manuveurable in re-entry. The number of ICBMs that China has is extremely top secret but 2nd artillery does keep a minimum nuclear deterrence policy meaning just enough to keep your enemies away from nuking you but in this case the America with 10000+ nukes requires a LOT of nukes to keep a minimum deterrence. 2nd artillery also developes these ICBMs so they can be used after a first strike on China such as road mobile ICBMs, train based ICBMs (DF-31A can do that), SSBN (nuclear ballistic missile subs) and hardened silos with 3x as many decoys as there are silos.

posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 09:49 AM
About 10 seconds after the German wall fell, China became a target (probably was before that also).

SO what is new with this?

just MAD... as usual...
The soviets said the same thing for years.... yep, lots to worry about there....
sure did end up badly didn't it?

chicken littles everywhere... time to make chicken soup...

posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 10:40 AM
The thought of a nuclear exchange is ancient. There is NO WAY anyone would launch a nuclear strike. This is probably nothing more than a FEAR tactic. Does anyone really believe what our government tells us anymore anyway? Remember that we are money-making livestock here in america; unfortunately, we can think for ourselves. It will be interesting to see what this administration has in store for us to think about. Fear keeps people docile.

posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 12:20 PM
Yep, the strategy of appeasement worked so well in the past. Just give 'em poland, just give 'em France, don't wanna start WWII...The failure of policy that was the League of Nations is back again.

Give 'em Taiwan, just give 'em Hawaii, who cares, anything to avoid war, eh?

Turn the other cheek, get that one slapped as well.

Funny how defending allies is called "cowboy" by the biased. Whenever we fail to protect an ally the same bias calls it cowardice.

Besides, China *still* lacks the appropriate amphibious capability to take and hold Taiwan without destroying the infrastructure they desire.

Originally posted by spliff4020
Just give em Taiwan. That little rock is gonna start WW3. I read somewhere that China has more people in thier military that we have citizens. I dont worry about to many things, but China makes me nervous.

posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 12:25 PM
these guys are politicians trained in the exact usage of language. For someone to play apologist and attempt to find a weaseling way out of a threat is propsterous.

What this guy says is simple: "We don't care if you try to stop our imperialist expansion to Taiwan with precision conventional weapons in an attempt to reduce casualties and keep the targets military. We'll slaughter your civilians by the millions if you don't let us have our way."

Pretty simple, open threat. Worded with the same lack of sophistication our own President is accused of. But, only America makes evil threats, right? Everyone else, it's "propaganda" at worst, at best, "protecting" themselves from American aggression.

In this case, protecting their own blatant aggression from the rest of the world.

Originally posted by smallpeeps
Here is part of the General's quote, from the interview in question:

“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.

Let's discuss what is meant here. Does he mean JDAM bombs? I don't think that's what he means. The Party will not retaliate with nukes no matter what conventional weapons are used. That is, unless they mean to actually engage in city-for-city nuclear war, which could actually be plausible. Trading Los Angeles for Bejing, for example.

Let's all learn Chinese before running too far with this. I think what he means to say is, "If the US uses their guided munitions to deliver what may be a nuclear payload, China would have to respond with nuclear weapons also". I am giving him the benefit of the doubt because as it is worded, we can't really say for sure what he means.

posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 12:35 PM

There is NO WAY anyone would launch a nuclear strike.

WW1 wasn't supposed to happen either, but it did.

Given the last two or three centuries of Chinese history, I would not underestimate how far they would be willing to go to protect their sovereignty. I think if it came to a) accepting a US ultimatum on Taiwan, which they regard as their own territory and b) slinging nukes across the Pacific, they'd choose b every time. And I don't think our own leadership understands that, they are true believers in the idea that the US is somehow innately invincible, like so many here.

[edit on 7/15/05 by xmotex]

posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 12:59 PM
Phugedaboudet, your corollary between this and WW2 appeasement is flawed. The alternative to what you see as "appeasement" is not a conventional war that could be won by either side. The alternative is the destruction of the planet.

You cannot play bully boy tactics against nuclear armed countries, the stakes are prohibitively high.

Your "what if" scenario of China going on an imperialistic march across the globe is nothing more than fear mongering. Are we to believe the United States will goose step across the entire planet because they have invaded 2 sovereign nations? Or would you argue that the United States (and allies) had reasons to explain their invasions?

Its a relative argument and one that has no alternative but a peaceful solution.

In a nuclear war there is no winners, only losers. There is no other viable alternative to appeasement here.

[edit on 15/7/05 by subz]

posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 01:03 PM

posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 01:07 PM
I'm not so sure I think Chinese policy towards Taiwan qualifies as "imperialist agression" anyway. Tibet maybe, Taiwan not so much.

Say there was a civil war in the US, and the losing side fled to Texas, seceded, and declared themselves the legitimate .gov of all of the US, in exile. How far do you think the US would be willing to go to bring Texas back into the fold?


What "satellights"?
We don't have any that can take out an ICBM.

The NMD interceptors in Alaska might be able to take out one or two, presuming they actually even leave the launch pad (the last couple we tested fizzled). But not dozens of ICBM's carrying decoys. It's well within the capabilities of the Chinese to flash fry every city on the West Coast, and there isn't diddly we could do to stop it.

And please stop yelling. My eyes hurt from reading that.

[edit on 7/15/05 by xmotex]

posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 01:34 PM
I personally think a nuclear war won't happen. Who would be insane enough to actually launch nuclear weapons its insanity the second you launch one at your enemy your just assuring that neither side wins. Plus i'm sure the top secret super weapons behind closed doors make nukes look stupid now. nukes are just political toys of power now the true weapons of war are the ones we never here about and the covert ops and espionage nowadays.

But mind you if the nuclear armageddon begins im haeading far into the rockies of northern canada finding a lake and making it my home.

posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 02:10 PM
I think too many people of this generation don’t understand there is a difference between real life and video games. It’s a shame, and will one day get us into more trouble than we can handle.

Think of how the WTC event affected the psyche of America. Now think of the affect if all of NYC was leveled, followed by Chicago, Dallas and LA; all in a matter of an hour or 2. Our economy would instantly collapse, our society would be suddenly thrown into a state of blind fright, and the ensuing nuclear winter would finish off those of us unfortunate enough not to be positioned squarely at ground zero when it all began. For all intents and purposes, it would be over before WWIII had a chance to get underway.

Even a “small” nuclear exchange would devastate BOTH sides. And do you think the rest of the world would just sit by idly and watch? Hell no! Any country with nukes would start shooting them off; many of them headed toward our precious land of Ol’ Glory.

I’m afraid what would be left is a planet of smoldering rubble, billions of scared, radiated people fighting over scraps of garbage amidst fear, chaos and confusion. The U.S. would not be standing proud and tall with it’s chest stuck out and flag flying high, but rather cowering in the dark shadows of a world gripped with fear and the knowledge that it was finally all over, and that WE ALL LOST.

IMHO, that is a truer picture of the reality of a nuclear exchange …

posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 02:16 PM
In other words if nuclear exchange occurs get ready for a mad max road warrior style world. Maybe the nuclear effects would turn the world into waterworld most likely thoiugh we would be reverted to savagery indeed.

The strong would survive and the weak would perish.

posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 02:24 PM
dont people here understand...

''china will get wiped off the face of the Earth...'

''noo the US will be destroyed''

WAKE UP! A nuclear strike with the capacity to wipe out either China or the US or both will create a nuclear winter and radiation poisoning to SCREW US ALL! No matter where you happen to be on this ball we all live on.

posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 02:27 PM

Originally posted by Magickesists
In other words if nuclear exchange occurs get ready for a mad max road warrior style world. Maybe the nuclear effects would turn the world into waterworld most likely thoiugh we would be reverted to savagery indeed.

The strong would survive and the weak would perish.

I'm game for either of these worlds.

Mad Max would rock, except all the Australians.

WaterWorld now that was a movie.

posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 02:28 PM
I guess another way of looking at it would be it's Nature's way of re-establishing equilibrium by resolving the human overpopulation problem ...

PS: I was "half" joking, BTW. I hope it doesn't go this way ...

[edit on 7/15/2005 by netbound]

posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 02:37 PM
the answers to your questions and idea-thinking about how to get rid of this problem we call china. i suggest you guys go to, this would solve the economic side of the equation before/without any military involvment. and in the mean time, its really quite easy, anybody ever seen Under Siege 2? same idea with the sat, set off one of their big and expensive nuclear power planets and your problem has begun to solve itself from the inside out. get what i mean.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in