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.

 

NEWS: China prepares to invade "inferior white race's" countries

page: 12
7
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:
apc

posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 10:15 PM
link   
I'm just now rejoining this debate as I ignored it for a whopping half dozen pages or so, but...


Originally posted by chinawhite
China only needs to launch its twenty or so nuclear weapons with 5megatons each it will make the american continent to poluted to sustain life. Throw in some other missles in the region and the whole world is un-sustainble thanks to the american attack.


You seriously need to read up on nuclear blast effect and radiology. It's this kind of ignorance that leads people to think nuclear winter is an effect of modern day nuclear warfare.

Assuming this guy's speech was real, which seeming as it was published, I'm guessing these words really did leave his mouth. And assuming there are others in power in China that share his beliefs. Aaaaand assuming China possesses such genetic weaponry, which upon personal scrutiny, I have deemed impossible and fantasy...

We end up with two end scenes:

1: China attacks the US. The attack fails. China launches her two dozen 5MT nukes at US cities. Half of them miss. The other half hit. US communications remain intact. US Government remains intact.

The US obliterates China.

2: China's communist party collapses or suffers revolutionary civil war. Soon.

I have a feeling the second of the two is the reality in which we live.




posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 12:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite
From what i am aware of the americans have a escalation poliicy not a first general strike


That's for conventional warfare, see Serbia/Kosovo. If you launch a nuke into Washington there will be nothing graduated about their retaliation, they will turn Beijing into a carpark before they begin to "apply the pain" of a graduated response.

Yes, western warfare when used in a peace-keeping role tends to be done along the lines of slowly ratcheting up the pain until the "aggressor" party cries "enough" and gives in. But not always, just look at what we did to Saddam in '91. Don Rumsfeld's "Shock and Awe" theory in action.




And you need to destroy the US bases in the UK, which store nukes.
And the US bases in Japan and South Korea.
And Guam.
And Rammstein in Germany.


China has other missiles. the DF-5 is a missile to hit the US mainland.


Yes, but you can't hit the UK. Or all the other targets. That's my whole point.



posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 12:43 AM
link   
Nuclear winter will not happen with the 20 or so missiles hitting the USA but with the US resonse (leveling china to a giant carpark) I am pretty sure there will be massive fallout and radioactivity

Apc why is the sucess rate 50%?. seeing as how the chinas launch sucess in launching satellites has been 100% for the last decade. and the CEP is 1000m for the DF-5

while the DF-31 has a CEP of 100-300m

China has about 24-36 DF-5 missiles and about 12 DF-31 missiles.

They would be used as a combination with the shorter range DF-31 targeting the west coast and the longer range DF-5 targeting the east coast.


2: China's communist party collapses or suffers revolutionary civil war. Soon.


Why would it?. china is going through the longest ever time in prosperity in recored history. (Not time but growth rates)



posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 12:46 AM
link   


Yes, but you can't hit the UK. Or all the other targets. That's my whole point.


I think you're missing the guy's point, which is that China doesn't need a first strike capable force, only a deterrent force. 20 glassed cities are quite a sufficient deterrent to any US nuclear first strike.

Is China's nuclear arsenal insufficient for an effective first strike against the US, one that is capable of preventing US retaliation?
Obviously.
The US could sent ten warheads back for every warhead that hit us.
With hundreds to spare.

On the other hand, the prospect of losing most of the major cities on the West Coast (with a 5MT warhead a "miss" is almost irrelevant), one would hope, is enough to deter the US leadership from launching a first strike of it's own.

Which apparently, in China's estimation, is all they really need. A credible deterrent capability.

More evidence IMHO that the original article is pure fiction.
China clearly does not have the arsenal for an effective first strike against the US. Nor do they appear to be building up the kind of ICBM or SLBM force that such a plan would require.

[edit on 11/30/05 by xmotex]



posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 12:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
That's for conventional warfare, see Serbia/Kosovo. If you launch a nuke into Washington


Chinas first response is not to launch a nuke at washinton but use tactical nuclear weapons on the americans carriers. if the americans respond by nuking chinas civillian centers than china will nuke washinton



Yes, but you can't hit the UK. Or all the other targets. That's my whole point.


We can with the DF-4.

i used this map..lol



The DF-4 has a range of 7,000km so it would still be a long way in chians borders.

While the DF-3 or DF-21 can be used to attack the japanese

[edit on 30-11-2005 by chinawhite]



posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 01:08 AM
link   


Chinas first response is not to launch a nuke at washinton but use tactical nuclear weapons on the americans carriers. if the americans respond by nuking chinas civillian centers than china will nuke washinton


Unfortunately such a tactic would almost guarantee a US nuclear response.
It's very unlikely you'd see an attack against population centers, on the other hand Chinese SAG's and perhaps isolated air and missile bases would certainly get tactical nukes of their own.

I expect China will live up to it's "no first use" policy, as all the alternatives are quite unpalatable and inherently disadvantageous to China. On the other hand, in a confrontation over Taiwan, I would not be surprised to see unexpected but non-nuclear methods used to attack or supress US CVBG's.

If the US launches a nuclear first strike against China in response to the loss of a carrier, well, I personally am likely to be very unhappy about the probable response, considering I am planning to move to San Diego in a year or so.

[edit on 11/30/05 by xmotex]



posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 01:15 AM
link   
Get a different map, one that gives accurate measures of distance, 99% of projectons do not.

Quote:

...Only countries like the United States, Canada and Australia have the vast land to serve our need for mass colonisation...

Chinawhite, you live in Australia (where you are being "polluted by bourgeosie values!), how many hundreds of millions of Chinese do you think the Australian conitinent can support? White men have destroyed that island. It goes through regular multi-year droughts, the Murray and Darling rivers are dying from virtually irreversible salination, more than 60% of the country is desert...Somebody better clue the PLA leadership into how to read a map and do a little research.

Quote:

...America was originally discovered by the ancestors of the yellow race, but Columbus gave credit to the white race. We the descendents of the Chinese nation are entitled to possession of the land!..

Take that, Leif Erikson, it wasn't you after all, Hah! Stand in line like Colombus.

Then Thailand, Laos and southern Vietnam all belong to Cambodia and the Maoris should all bugger off back to wherever the hell they came from. And let's face it, Europe should be ruled by black people. Right, you English tossers, bow to your rightful ruler, President Robert Mugabe, reversing colonialism.


Quote:

...From a humanitarian perspective, we should issue a warning to the American people and persuade them to leave America and leave the land they have lived in to the Chinese people...

Oh, I get it, a declaration of war. Which, of course, when the yanks reject your peaceful offer you'll be perfectly reasonable in attacking them with weapons outlawed by the Geneva Convention. But, then, you're actually admitting that humanitarian values play no part and you just don't care, like we didn't already know that.

Quote:

...Our historical experience has proven that as long as we make it happen, nobody in the world can do anything about us...

Tell that one to Hanoi.

Quote:

...Furthermore, if the United States as leader is gone, then other enemies have to surrender to us.

Tell that one to the UN, the EU and the OAS...They might all have a little something to say about it. You think Russia is going to just stand around and watch a golden opportunity pass them by?..

Quote:

...If our biological weapons succeed in the surpirse attack [on the United States],..

Oops, I was wrong.

So, not a nuclear first strike. However, my point about China's inability to destroy the US by nuke still stands. China doesn't have enough. And it doesn't have enough to destroy her nuclear armed allies. Or her conventionally armed allies. Or even her erstwhile not-friends-but-no-longer-enemies.



posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 01:33 AM
link   
You do realize you're arguing points with the (IMHO) phony speech in question, and not anyone here, right?

I mean, I have't seen any of the Chinese here defending the content of the alleged speech, only arguing that it's bogus. Which it in all probability is, as it's contents are, as you have pointed out, preposterous in the extreme. Almost as if they were calculated and created specifically to create outrage and scorn.... maybe there's a reason for that?

From the response it's getting here, this seems to be a very effective piece of propaganda, written to distill fears and anxieties about China's current rise to a high pitch of paranoia.

Let's get real here - China is growing, yes, but they are in no position to take over the planet and aren't going to be anytime soon. China clearly wants to be a the preeminent power in Asia, apparently economically moreso than militarily (clearly they've been watching the success of the modern Japanese model carefully).

There is only one power that currently represents even a moderately plausible threat of attempting to impose a global hegemonic order, and it's us (the US). Fortunately I don't think the US populace is likely to support such a project. Hopefully, that fact still matters.

[edit on 11/30/05 by xmotex]



posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 01:40 AM
link   
Wait until you see me in action when the evening news is on telly!



posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 02:01 AM
link   
To simply add to the horrible consequences of war with China, one must remember that China happens to be a major part of our foreign based economy. Like, consumer items, freight shipping, tourism industry etc. War would hurt the US economy in general, but war tends to be a way to boost the economy.

Actually on second thought, China's economy would also be hurt. Either way war is bad, but if it happens I know one thing: I'll be ready to exercise my second amendment rights. And I'm also sure that a lot of other people across the US will gladly do the same. It would be a pleasure, China. The US is un-defeatable in armed conflict.



posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 02:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
Unfortunately such a tactic would almost guarantee a US nuclear response.


Very true but its not my opinion. but it the generals opinion about nuclear escalation. And chinas response instead of what HowlrunnerIV said about nuking washinton

------------------------------------------

HowlrunnerIV Im not going to answer the other post becauses

A) Its fake
B) I have no intention of defend him or his alleged comments



Get a different map, one that gives accurate measures of distance, 99% of projectons do not.


I used two maps. Its not that accurate but it still says china can launch missiles with in its borders to britian



Chinawhite, you live in Australia


Actualy it seems like australia does have lots of water(thats what you get from living in the garden state) But i do realise that it does have problems from all the water saving ads on tv.

Right now our current population is pushing the limit(so im told). There were even plans to pull a ice berg into port phillip bay


What channel are you on. you mentioned something before. Damn im trying to argue with a reporter

[edit on 30-11-2005 by chinawhite]



posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 03:03 AM
link   
Hmm Other than China's awesome military personel of 2.5 million troops.China's war machine lacks hardware. Unless they plan on swimming they do not have the means of a large scale amphibious assault nor an overwhelming means of paratroops. Well enough planes anyway to achieve such an endeavor. The US Navy has 20x the tonnage of ships and subs of China.They only have 1 nuclear ballistic sub and one speculated or rumored sub. It is unconcivable that China could even invade Taiwan with such a small Naval force. Unless they can squeeze an occupational sized force approximately 250k troops onto 33 amphibious landing craft. USA has 7x the number of fighters. 12x the number of bombers. We have 2x the amount of tanks. 3x the amount of light armour. Not to mention almost all of their military hardware is aged. Most is 15-20 years old. Attack on the US is highly unlikely. Their neighbors should be highly concerned. As it stand China has no way to wage war on a conventional scale on US soil. A Nuclear campaign on the other hand, China's nuclear aresenal is no where near comparable to ours.China's last known estimate 2003 suspected nuclear arsenal was 600 compared to our staggering 10,000 plus. They are mostly bombs with half the number in ICBM and mobile launch. They only have 30 nuclear capable bombers and one sub with 4 more planned and the first is in production as od 2002.

China is on a buildup. They are planning to double and even triple their warmachine within the next 5-10 years. It would be hard to hide that kind of build up. Especially a much needed Naval Fleet if they plan on trying to flex their muscle and pushing beyond a regional effort. Even Japan has a larger Naval Force than it's neighbor China. Not to mention the United States Naval bases. All of this info can be found by using the search. It goes without saying China is a future threat but by no means a immediate threat to the US soil conventionally. Now if the US was to try to invade China it would be a bloodbath. Their firstwave attack alone would descimate anything we threw at them. SO I can't believe any analyst would say we would lose an all out war with China. Lets just say for debate. China invades Taiwan. This for one would be unacceptable to even the Russians. It would not be a walk in the park by no means but China would be whittled down conventionally from all sides. They know this and this is why they have not pressed. At least until they can buildup the military hardware they would need for such an endeavor. They USA spends 12x the amount on defense than the other 12 countries combined. Any build up seen would be matched equally by the US just in the same manner it did during the Cold War with Russia. Not to say that it is not happening now as we speak.*cough* *cough* War games scenarios have been played out since the 60's on how to deal with China. Of course War Games are a real stretch from actual face to face combat. The results lets just say very high casualty rates but the US flag will still stand. Many say the WE don't have the heart for fighting especially crying after losing 2000 troops in Iraq. The sprit of America I feel would come together if it really truly meant self preservation instead of attacking some country that didn't have jack crap to do with 9/11. Not unless they want to spend the rest of their lives on a rice diet. Not to mention the millions of Chinese that feel subdued by their leaders that would rebel take arms and forego to civil war. If they thought they would have the backing of an outside force.

Overview of China's Military Hardware:

Nuclear Intercontinental Missle Threat
200 ICBM
12 SLBM
The rest is bombs or simular devices.
Air Power
4150 Aircraft total
1500 Fighters
120 Bombers
60 Helos
300 Attack
Naval Subs
74 Sub Total
1 Nuclear Attack Sub w/ICBM's
7 Nuclear Torpedo Attack Subs
Rest are Diesel
764 Total Ships
2 Aircraft Carriers 1 of which is Mult-role
90 Guided Missle Boats
50 Frigates
9 Torpedo Boats
92 Mine Sweeper and Laying
233 Patrol Boats
33 Amphibious
Rest are support
Ground Forces
2.5 Million Troops
1.4 Active
1.1 Reserve
10000 Tanks and Light Armour
Most of which are old Soviet T Type 72 and under



posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 04:55 AM
link   
Vonz where did you copy and paste that from. Its completey wrong



posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 05:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite

The DF-4 has a range of 7,000km so it would still be a long way in chians borders.

[edit on 30-11-2005 by chinawhite]


I used Google Earth to check the distance from China to UK. From within the edge of Chinas borders to the UK is a little over 6000KM.



But even if China did launch a nuke it wouldnt be long before the US or UN stopped them right?


apc

posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 07:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite
Nuclear winter will not happen with the 20 or so missiles hitting the USA but with the US resonse (leveling china to a giant carpark) I am pretty sure there will be massive fallout and radioactivity

Like I said... you need to study up. A "nuclear winter" is the result of massive amounts of fallout being pumped into the atmosphere. This only happens with big big big bombs, like in the 10MT range. The US doesn't use these. There's no point. We use small nukes, because we can aim.



Apc why is the sucess rate 50%?. seeing as how the chinas launch sucess in launching satellites has been 100% for the last decade.

Publicly, 100%.
We all know China is just like the Soviets in this regard. The government does not release all information to the public. I sleep easy at night knowing many Chinese rockets exploded on the pad.





2: China's communist party collapses or suffers revolutionary civil war. Soon.


Why would it?. china is going through the longest ever time in prosperity in recored history. (Not time but growth rates)

Maybe you should read up on "recorded history." Specifically the USSR, late 1980s.



posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 10:06 AM
link   
Actually there's a big difference between the USSR and China, we're far stronger economically then the USSR ever was at its height, also even if the US military has those numbers assuming you had them, your spread out over many dozens of nations for one, next, the more troops you throw at a problem the higher the rate of attrition is and the less flexible your chain of command.

Numbers is a significant factor yes but not the decisive one, they are otehr factors that cranch it up higher.



posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite
Vonz where did you copy and paste that from. Its completey wrong


If you can show me where I am wrong I will be glad to edit.



posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite
What channel are you on. you mentioned something before. Damn im trying to argue with a reporter


That previous quote was about arguing with a general's speech and not an ATS poster. What I meant was I argue with the tv, too. Especially when people like Johnny or W are making pronouncements about their latest policy and what a gift to the people it is.

I'm not a reporter, I'm a news producer.



posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 05:33 PM
link   
If American industrialist somehow fail to keep the American government from war with China it will not be a war on China AND Russia. Doing the math as if China stands alone in trying to stop American imperial ambition is doing very bad math imo.... Any nuclear exchange will absolutely devastate the USA ( China's arsenal alone will kill tens of millions) as there simply is no large scale civilian nuclear shelters. The USA will lose half it's population with Russia losing 5-10 million( due to it's extensive civilian fallout shelters systems and extensive ABM defenses) and China losing God knows how many.... A nuclear war will be strictly avoided by the US administration as they have known all these things for at least two decades. As we speak Russia is arming China with their ABM systems ( and so many other of their weapon system) and as this trend increases China will become ever more agressive in demanding fair treatment in world affairs.

What we should really do is watch Russian moves in global affairs as they will be the real strategic "winners" in case of a global nuclear war.

I obviously have volumes of information supporting this so please do not assume otherwise!

Stellar



posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by apc
Like I said... you need to study up. A "nuclear winter" is the result of massive amounts of fallout being pumped into the atmosphere. This only happens with big big big bombs, like in the 10MT range. The US doesn't use these. There's no point. We use small nukes, because we can aim.


Any nuclear explosion releases huge amounts of dust. The difference between a 5MT one and a 10MT is not the actual dust being put up but the radiation



Publicly, 100%.
We all know China is just like the Soviets in this regard. The government does not release all information to the public. I sleep easy at night knowing many Chinese rockets exploded on the pad.


Not even close. china has three launch pads only.

It mainly flies commerial satellites with its military load. The sucess rate of chinese satellites are more sucessful than americas





Maybe you should read up on "recorded history." Specifically the USSR, late 1980s.


The difference is the soviet union was a command economy while chinas is market based.

A huge difference when comparing figures



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join