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.

 

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

page: 4
1
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by netbound
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 ...



HAHAHAHAHAHAHA no offense but thats ludicrous. Nature didn't make nuclear weapons, We did.

I'm polishing my samurai sword incase i gotta go scaveng the world this armageddon. Oh yeah I forgot about one thing... the nuclear winter. Thats a good point not one single human plant or anything would survive that.

With the nuclear munitions around the world still in the dark on totals. The number we know of would easily erradicate the world population, send entire coastlines into the ocean trigure volcanoes and permanently change the face of the planet. I wouldn't be surprised if a nuclear armaggedon actually sterilized the planet permanently.

But if it does turn into a post apocalyptic free for all i'm starting my own tribe and building a castle hahahaha. i'll get scientists to build things out of stuff from area 51 and be the supreme ruler of earth.




posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Magickesists

Originally posted by netbound
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 ...



HAHAHAHAHAHAHA no offense but thats ludicrous. Nature didn't make nuclear weapons, We did.

I'm polishing my samurai sword incase i gotta go scaveng the world this armageddon. Oh yeah I forgot about one thing... the nuclear winter. Thats a good point not one single human plant or anything would survive that.

With the nuclear munitions around the world still in the dark on totals. The number we know of would easily erradicate the world population, send entire coastlines into the ocean trigure volcanoes and permanently change the face of the planet. I wouldn't be surprised if a nuclear armaggedon actually sterilized the planet permanently.

But if it does turn into a post apocalyptic free for all i'm starting my own tribe and building a castle hahahaha. i'll get scientists to build things out of stuff from area 51 and be the supreme ruler of earth.


Glad you found some humor in the "Nature's way" remark.

I do agree with you about a nuclear armaggedon sterilizing the planet, despite the ludicous remark about becoming " the supreme ruler of earth".



posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 03:09 PM
link   
I don't think even a full scale nuclear war would sterilize the planet, nature is a lot more resilient than we think.

I do think it would destroy our civilization, or at least set us back a thousand years or so, maybe even wipe out the species. But the planet will get along just fine without us.



posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
I don't think even a full scale nuclear war would sterilize the planet, nature is a lot more resilient than we think.

I do think it would destroy our civilization, or at least set us back a thousand years or so, maybe even wipe out the species. But the planet will get along just fine without us.


And how do you figure that the worlds total nuclear armament wouldn't sterilize the planet. The resounding effect of the nuclear fallout in itself would cause a lack of sunlight therefore plantlife dieing off and things depending on plant life dying of starvation. The only conceivable thing that might survive in my opinion is some type of deep deep sea creatures if that. They already have a census of the non top secret nuclear armament and after hypothisising and probably running computer simulations they figured out that in itself could split the planet in half.



posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 03:27 PM
link   
I don't remember where I read this, but I remember reading (a couple of years ago) that China believes they can survive a nuclear attack. They acknowledge that they would likely lose somewhere in the neighborhood of 300 million people in a nuclear exchange, but that would not put them out of commission. I also recall reading that just one, 1 megaton bomb, exploding almost anywhere on the eastern seaboard would cause enough casualties to overwhelm the medical systems capabilities to treat the victims who survived--scary thought isn't it.

The only bright spot in this possible scenario is that a nuclear exchange would probably end global warming rather rapidly.

[edit on 15-7-2005 by Astronomer68]



posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 03:40 PM
link   
Even a full scale nuclear war wouldn't put as much dust in the stratosphere as a single large volcano - if Krakatoa didn't end life on Earth, our piddly little nukes aren't going to do it. We think we have powerful forces at our disposal, but on the planetary scale of things, we're little more than fleas with firecrackers.

"Nuclear winter" theory, as much as I was a fan of the late Carl Sagan, has more holes in it than a block of Swiss cheese. Fallout is bad, but it's deadliest effects don't last very long - you'll notice Hiroshima is a thriving city right now, my car was built there, and it doesn't glow or anything


And yes, the Chinese do think they are better equipped than us to survive a nuclear conflict - with good reason, they have an active civil defense program, with lots of fallout shelters in every major population center. We are so enamored with a false sense of our own omnipotence & invulnerability, we don't even bother. Pride goeth before the fall...

[edit on 7/15/05 by xmotex]



posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 04:18 PM
link   
Xmotex - do you have any idea what a 1 megaton nuclear bomb could do?

First, the radius of destruction from such a blast would be approximately 13 miles, now double that and start drawing 26 mile diameter circles across the U.S. Second, the fires started by just one blast (over a city like Washington, D.C. would send thousands of tons of smoke into the atmosphere and that smoke would literally be thick enough to blot out the light of the Sun for around a week or so (depends on how long the fires burn). Further, the smoke would prevent the warmth of the Sun from reaching Earth for about the same amount of time. (Forget the dust, it'll settle back down mostly--albeit in a very radioactive state.)

Nobody really knows just what hundreds of such blasts would do on a cumulative basis, but the best guess is the so-called Nuclear Winter scenario. That scenario alone isn't enough to wipe everything out completely, but it sure would make a good start at it. In addition to the immediate dustructive effects and the prolonged effects of smoke from fires, you have radiation effects. Mostly, the radiation would accompany the dust clouds kicked up by the blasts. That dust would reach high enough into the atmosphere to get blown quite a ways downwind and everywhere it fell a slow death would follow it. Many scientists think the dust would literally be scattered around the globe and thus have the potential to literally end almost all life on Earth. Now I don't know if they are right or wrong, but I sure don't want to find out they were right.



posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 04:18 PM
link   
Sorry for the double post.

[edit on 15-7-2005 by Astronomer68]



posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 04:49 PM
link   
I don't want to find out either, but to the extent that I've looked into it, "Nuclear Winter" is totally bogus. Even it's primary advocates admitted this was the case, including Freeman Dyson, who said "Nuclear winter is not just a theory. It is also a political statement with profound moral implications. Survival is more important than accuracy." It was a well-intended theory put forth for the laudable purpose of discouraging nuclear conflict, but it was bad science. The group that put forth the theory (TTAPS) had to run their simulations over 100,000 times, tweaking every variable to absurdly unrealistic values, before they got the results they wanted to publicize, IE the "Nuclear Winter" effect. It was, to put it bluntly, well-intentioned BS. But well intentioned BS is still BS.

Large explosive volcanoes produce ash plumes that put staggeringly huge amopnds of dust into the atmosphere - enough to put the results of even thousands of 1 megaton groundbursts to shame.

Krakatoa in 1883 was judged to be roughly equivalent to the energy of 10,000 one megaton bombs - more than all the combined nuclear arsenals on the planet.

When Tabmbora blew up in 1815 it put 150 cubic kilometers of ash into the stratosphere - enough to alter global climate to the extent that 1816 was called "the year without a summer." But life on Earth continued.

No manmade catastrophe is going to come anywhere close to this. Even if we tried to wipe out all life on Earth, we still couldn't do it.

[edit on 7/15/05 by xmotex]



posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 05:09 PM
link   
Xmotex - I can't disagree with you about the Nuclear Winter scenario--mostly because I think you are probably right. However, we are still talking about approximately half the U.S. population being killed--mayby more. Granted, China would lose a lot more--in excess of 300 million by their own estimates, but that isn't much comfort to me. Both countries would be so severely devastated that we would be easy prey for any willing, opportunistic opponent. Besides, it is unlikely the rest of the world would just sit idly by on the sidelines while we took one another out. Realistically, we are probably talking about roughly one third to one half of all of humanity being killed outright, or dying off within a couple of years of the outset of such hostilities. Now I don't know about you, but I don't even like to think about that.

I would much rather we learn to cooperate so humanity can reach out and grow. Together, I think we could learn how to exploit the resources the universe provided us in the Solar System and eventually, mayby even reach out to the Stars.

[edit on 15-7-2005 by Astronomer68]



posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
Even a full scale nuclear war wouldn't put as much dust in the stratosphere as a single large volcano - if Krakatoa didn't end life on Earth, our piddly little nukes aren't going to do it. We think we have powerful forces at our disposal, but on the planetary scale of things, we're little more than fleas with firecrackers.

"Nuclear winter" theory, as much as I was a fan of the late Carl Sagan, has more holes in it than a block of Swiss cheese. Fallout is bad, but it's deadliest effects don't last very long - you'll notice Hiroshima is a thriving city right now, my car was built there, and it doesn't glow or anything


And yes, the Chinese do think they are better equipped than us to survive a nuclear conflict - with good reason, they have an active civil defense program, with lots of fallout shelters in every major population center. We are so enamored with a false sense of our own omnipotence & invulnerability, we don't even bother. Pride goeth before the fall...

[edit on 7/15/05 by xmotex]


Could you please backup some of your conclusions with links to some studies? Here's just a few links that seem to contradict your statements:

www.cooperativeindividualism.org...

nyny.essortment.com...

www.atomicarchive.com...

www.infoplease.com...

www.the-spa.com...

www.peace.ca...




[edit on 7/15/2005 by netbound]



posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by manx
the answers to your questions and idea-thinking about how to get rid of this problem we call china.

Why is China a problem? Because they dont sit down, shut up and do as they are told by their 'betters'?



posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 05:27 PM
link   


Now I don't know about you, but I don't even like to think about that.

Hell I don't like to think about it either, especially considering that I live less than 20 miles from NYC, a target that's likely to get a whole litter of MIRV kittens all it's own. Unfortunately I am of a perversely morbid turn of mind and can't help but think about the worst case scenarios.



I would much rather we learn to cooperate so humanity can reach out and grow. Together, I think we could learn how to exploit the resources the universe provided us in the Solar System and eventually, mayby even reach out to the Stars.

You'll find I agree with you about 150% on that.
It's certainly what we should do.
I just don't think it's what we will do.

Look at Iraq - for the price of proving our machismo (and guaranteeing our access to oil) in Iraq, we could have put men on Mars, or started a serious asteroid mining program, or started mining Helium3 for fusion power on the Moon. But any of those would have been a rational choice. And human beings are not rational creatures. Not by a longshot.

[edit on 7/15/05 by xmotex]



posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 05:36 PM
link   
Noble sentiments from both Astronomer68 and Xmotex


The problem with humanity is that we are all deep down terrified individuals. Everyone of us, regardless of age, is scared stiff of something. For some its terrorists, some its our own rogue governments, for some its that other countries could get the edge.

What do we all do when scared? Sit down and think about it and then confront out fears with an open mind?
No, we tend to lash out and try to kill what ever is scaring us.

To me, the best strategy for human kinds survival is for us to do as little as possible. Laisser faire on a global scale. Live and let live. If some one starts lashing out then let the survivors exact vengence. This pre-emptive rubbish is THE greatest threat to mankind. Take a chance, I'd rather hope for a fluke and that we'll all live another day than use pre-emptivity and guarantee armageddon.

Alas, short of spontaneous, and retrospective, evolution of the whole of mankind with regards to how we resolve perceived threats, I think we're all boned.

[edit on 15/7/05 by subz]



posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 05:46 PM
link   
There are over 257 Universities under construction in China as of Today.

In several provinces any foreign business that employs Chinese labor is given 5 years of tax free operation. this is smart business, draw in foreign technology and educate your own workers.

UPS is now nationwide in China, linking supply chains together.

A diploma from the University or Beijing carries more weight that any given American University. it is top of the line academic circles.

China has a massive surplus with the United states....over one trillion dollars...and continues to purchase over 150 Billion in American Debt every year.

If China were to stop purchasing American Debt, the financial structure of our nation would collapse. There is nobody else that can step in and take their place.


This debate is like the discussion between sundance and the kid, about jumping over the cliff into the river 100 feet below.
" your worried about not being able to swim...? Its the fall that will kill you"


China will bury the United States the same manner the russians bit it, we will spend ourselves into the hole. China is smarter, more efficient, employs long term strategy and implements it. They are graduating the equivalent of one thousand Engineers EVERY DAY. China Owns the panama canal, major shipping lines, construction companies, manufacturing companies, and is employing massive nuclear technologies superior to what is available today. they are preparing to manage the world economy, just as the United States did the last 50 years.
We had out shot, we blew it.

your worried about Nukes...?? its the collapse of education that will kill you.



posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 05:55 PM
link   
netbound,

Nuclear Winter has become something of an article of faith among peacenik groups (who I am usually inclined to agree with), but the TTAPS study has been pretty thouroughly debunked over the years. And that's the problem with an article of faith, it can't be questioned. The assumption is that if you don't make yourself believe in it, you must be a proponent of nuclear war


I'm no advocate of flinging fusion bombs around, but opposing it doesn't require me to put my blinders on and play make-believe. The TTAPS study was good politics and bad science. Richard Feynman looked at it and said "I really don't think these guys know what they're talking about", Freeman Dyson, who I provided a different quote from above, nailed it when he said "It's an absolutely atrocious piece of science but…who wants to be accused of being in favor of nuclear war?"

A good even-handed overview of the controversy can be found here: Nuclear winter: science and politics

A convincing debunking of the Nuclear Winter theory can be found here (mentioned in the piece above): The Melting of 'Nuclear Winter'

But it doesn't take any exhaustive research to see that big volcanic eruptions put a lot more dust into the stratosphere than even a "total" nuclear war ever could, and yet they still have failed to turn the Earth into a lifeless stone.

In summary, one doesn't have to believe a bunch of apocalyptic BS to be against nuclear war, the incineration of millions of men, women, and children ought to be enough reason in itself.



posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 06:03 PM
link   
OK, this arguement is getting redundant, reasonably so. We are missing the point here. Even with our nuclear weapons we are still a "surface nuisance" to the planet. We are thinking about this in relation to ourselves. And yes we could quickly screw ourselves, as opposed to doing it slowly(or not so slowly), which we're doing now.

Either way, the planet will heal itself, life will go on and maybe in 30,000,000 years, whatever lifeform is cognizant on the planet, they'll figure out what the hell we were thinking when they find some styrofoam.



posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by toolmaker

China has a massive surplus with the United states....over one trillion dollars...and continues to purchase over 150 Billion in American Debt every year.

If China were to stop purchasing American Debt, the financial structure of our nation would collapse. There is nobody else that can step in and take their place.


What in the world are you talking about? China hasn't "purchased" any American debt. If you are referring to the trade deficit with China you are very seriously wrong. What the trade deficit means is that the U.S. buys 150 Billion dollars a year more goods from China than we sell goods to them it has nothing to do with debt.

If the U.S. suddenly stopped buying Chinese goods the economy of China, not the U.S. would suffer. All it would mean to the U.S. is that we would have to pay a higher price for the goods when we bought them from someone else.



posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 07:15 PM
link   
Toolmaker - To a large extent it is the 150 Billion dollar a year trade deficit with China that is funding the rapid economic expansion of China. In that regard, you might say the U.S. is China's best friend. I'm happy that China is rapidly improving their educational system and their economy. The more they improve the better it is for the Chinese people. They'll have better educations, more wealth and lots of other things that come with being better off financially. Don't mistake America's largesse as a sign of sudden altruism or weakness though. You see it's all a capatalistic plot to get the Chinese people to want even more of the same. As they get more, they'll demand more from the government--like more freedom, more democracy, etc., which will result in better relations with the rest of the world. Keep it up for long enough and communism in China goes bye bye.

It won't take that long either. Pretty soon the Chinese mainland will be just about as democratic as Formosa. The closer the two come together politically and philosophically, the less difference it will make if the two reunite. Then the whole reason this thread got started will have gone away.


[edit on 15-7-2005 by Astronomer68]



posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 07:26 PM
link   
Ok it seems that some people think that this world is one giant huge game of RISK but lets get the facts straight. Why have arguably the two biggest and most important (right now) countries squaring off for Taiwan? I'll give you a hint. It's not because the U.S. is defending democracy and all that PR crap that makes the news. It is because Taiwan is CRUCIAL to U.S. economic interests. China reabsorbing Taiwan can not be allowed to happen and U.S. law and policy demonstrates that America IS AND WILL RISK OPEN WAR WITH CHINA over the Taiwan issue. Here is a good excert from an article that details some reasons besides economic that mandate the US defend Taiwan.

"If the US fails to defend a democratic Taiwan from China, then it destroys any credibility won in the War on Terror with other nations. If we fail Taiwan, what is our response to Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, Ukraine, Japan, Australia, our European allies, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and many other nations that depend on American security?

Additionally, allowing China to take Taiwan by force would automatically make the 21st century a Chinese century, as the ability for the US to promote and defend global security would crumble. Any century that has a non-free government at the apex of the international order will not be a century of peace, economic development and the expansion of liberty." courtesy of lefarkins.blogspot.com...

The importance of Taiwan to U.S. economic and security interests in the global political economy are paramount to that of securing Israel's existence or keeping Germany out of the hands of the U.S.S.R. Both the US and Chinese economies are intertwined so heavily that a collapse from one would mean dramatic downturn of the other if not complete domino collapse as well.

On the insane issue of launching NUKES, I would normally laugh at such propositions but considering the dictatorship (not communist in any way) government of the PRC and the rogue unilateralist direction "Empire America" is positioning itself in order to dominate this century, I cannot effectively rule out a nuclear exchange between the US and China with Taiwan as the line in the sand for the #1 challenge to the global status quo.

To use a boxing analogy it would be the undisputed champ of the 20th century vs the #1 ranked contender to the title in the 21st century.

Either way, like I said in another thread awhile ago everyone will have a choice to make.

Option 1 includes the deserts of Arabia with their extravagant sand castles and depleted uranium.
OR
Option 2 which includes the lush vibrant jungles of the Pacific with tens of millions of pissed off Asians charging at the Anglo-Stupid forces dumb enough to try to take down an 800lb gorilla that we helped create with our relative power already exerted heavily elsewhere.

Yes we could OBLITERATE EVERY TOWN AND CITY on the Chinese mainland and they can most likely launch several successful nuclear strikes against some of our major coastal cities and naval forces in the Pacific but WHY?



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join