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.

 

Chinas plans to wipe out the USA. Very Scary.

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 11:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by notbuynit

The only evidence of someone possibly intentionally infecting American Indians with small pox was a British General prior to the revolution. Sure American history is full of abuses against the American Indians, but not genocide. There is no evidence of a US govt. plan to exterminate all American Indians. The fact is, besides the accidental spread of the diseases the European and his slaves brought with them, the biggest killer of the American Indian was the American Indian. People need to get rid of this neo hollywood view of America being a big hippie, tree hugging love in before the the Europeans arrived. The American Indian didn't become one of the fiercest guerilla fighters in history after the Europeans arrived, he already was.


What are you saying? That there many Native Americans weren't given blankets infected with smallpox? That the Native Americans weren't forcibly removed from their rightful land and forced into small reservations? That the U.S. gov't forced their children to go to Christian schools prohibiting them from doing anything that has to do their tradition? That U.S. soldiers didn't massacre Native Americans including women and children? You're saying all this is just a "neo hollywood view of America"?
Wow...



Are you referring to the same China of Tianamin Square infamy? Tibet? This is all recent history. Don't you pay attention to the news?


Yes, and I am also referring to the China that has improved the lives of countless Tibetans in the process. Before the PRC came, the Tibetans lived in the Middle Ages, working as serfs to a lord. There were no electricity, no runninng water... NOTHING. Even the Da Lai Lama has said that Tibet needs China. www.tvnz.co.nz...

I am also referring to the same U.S. that forced Native Americans off their land, massacred them, enslaved millions of Africans, annexed Hawaii against the will of the Natives and the Queen. Did you know that when the Queen of Hawaii spoke out against the annexation, she was locked in her palace guarded by U.S. troops? Yes.. I'm referring to this U.S.




posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 03:58 AM
link   
China may not yet be a leading part of the global solution, but it is certainly not oriented toward military aggression.
The misinformation and even the nasty racism I've observed on this thread does not worry me as much as signs of U.S. psyops operating in world media, even in Internet forums, that seem to be trying to establish optional further U.S. military aggression in order to expand its moves in the direction of world hegemony and domestic control.
Americans have an ample supply of some of the greatest people on the planet, but the U.S. ruling class and its technocrat operatives have had a long history of distorting reality in order to dominate it. This kind of violence in all of its forms is a great threat to all of mankind at this crossroads for the planet when a unified approach to world ecology, resources and population is crucial our very survival.



posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 06:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Omniscient
I would beg to differ; I believe the US' admitted stock of nuclear warheads exceeds 10,000, and this is assuming and they are being 100% honest in how many warheads they own; I'd expect the real number to be much higher.


Do you have any specific reason for assuming that nuclear weapons are still the weapons of choice for strategic blackmail? I believe almost any country could hide their true number of nuclear weapons ( and whatever else they wanted to) given a clear intent to do so.


The US might not be able to kill EVERY LAST citizen with nuclear warfare, but I think they could cover somewhere from 300-600,000 square miles (keep in mind I have absolutely no idea what the area of China is);


China is about the same size as the USA ( 10 million square km io think) so given they could totaly destroy such a area it would still not be enough to kill nearly everyone. It really all depends on how much preparation have been done in China to store food and create shelters or evacuate cities. Since most of the US arsenal of nuclear weapons ( that we know of) is air breathing ( delivered by cruise missiles/aircraft etc) it would take a great deal of time and effort to deliver them on target thus giving the enemy plenty of time to evacuate cities and otherwise prepare. The US could in fact never launch nowhere near all their strategic ICBM's ( and especially not SLBM) as that would expose the USA to blackmail by Russia or whoever else.

The US simply did not prepare itself to fight a nuclear war and win so they will have to depend almost exclusively on air delivered weapons in a fight against anyone but Russia.


however, that's easily enough to wipe out every major, semi-major, and even small city in the country.


They US could try using part of their arsenal but once again that would be taking a chance as China has been buying Russian ABM systems for some time now and might very well have enough to negate a small nuclear strike.

For all the details you would want please look at my contributions in the following thread. First one's are on page 4 or so with most being on the last pages. If you are willing to spend the time i think you will find the strategic situation ( then and now) quite a bit more interesting than you might have imagined.

Who could effectively win in a nuclear war. US or Russia.

Stellar



posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
Do you have any specific reason for assuming that nuclear weapons are still the weapons of choice for strategic blackmail? I believe almost any country could hide their true number of nuclear weapons ( and whatever else they wanted to) given a clear intent to do so.


Not really, predictions can be made of the production of uranium and plutonium. From those estimates, they can calculate the nuclear arsenal a country has. The US and Russia are somewhat different as they aren't producing any new nuclear material, rather retiring old material. However they do have inspectors who visit the respective countries.


Since most of the US arsenal of nuclear weapons ( that we know of) is air breathing ( delivered by cruise missiles/aircraft etc) it would take a great deal of time and effort to deliver them on target thus giving the enemy plenty of time to evacuate cities and otherwise prepare. The US could in fact never launch nowhere near all their strategic ICBM's ( and especially not SLBM) as that would expose the USA to blackmail by Russia or whoever else.


Most of the US strategic warheads are based on missiles. There are no nuclear armed cruise missiles either.
Sow e can assume that if there was a city busting attack, most of the warheads would come from US ICBM's and SLBM's, not manned bombers.
Besides your argument is flawed even if they didn't use any missiles, US bombers could be over China in 12 hours, hardly enough time to evacuate a city
Time for a reality check me thinks.


The US simply did not prepare itself to fight a nuclear war and win so they will have to depend almost exclusively on air delivered weapons in a fight against anyone but Russia.


Utter crap.



They US could try using part of their arsenal but once again that would be taking a chance as China has been buying Russian ABM systems for some time now and might very well have enough to negate a small nuclear strike.


LOL, absolute bollocks. Where's the evidence that the Russians can shoot down ICBM's ? There isn't any. What ABM systems are these ? We've already been through this and you've been shown to be wrong, yet you still persists inpedalling BS





posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
Not really, predictions can be made of the production of uranium and plutonium. From those estimates, they can calculate the nuclear arsenal a country has. The US and Russia are somewhat different as they aren't producing any new nuclear material, rather retiring old material. However they do have inspectors who visit the respective countries.


Well that does not keep in mind the trade in such materials. I guess it is better to imagine that impossible in your mind? It certainly makes the math easier when you like to believe certain things about the world.


Most of the US strategic warheads are based on missiles. There are no nuclear armed cruise missiles either.


Well thanks for pointing out my mistake. I have used data that was far more true in the 1980's than it is now. Currently the US admits to owning about four and a half thousand warheads on ICBM's and SLBM's and another 750 or so non strategic 'air breathing' cruise missiles and gravity bombs. Contrary to your claim the US does still deploy nuclear warheads on cruise missiles and even gravity bombs.


Sow e can assume that if there was a city busting attack, most of the warheads would come from US ICBM's and SLBM's, not manned bombers.


DEpends on the timeframe and wether the US is willing to US strategic weapons which will be hard to replace ( silos can't be re-used as Russian one's can last i checked) if there are other enemies just waiting for a chance to strike.


Besides your argument is flawed even if they didn't use any missiles, US bombers could be over China in 12 hours, hardly enough time to evacuate a city
Time for a reality check me thinks.


Twelve hours is a very long time to evacuate cities if you practice it and if your cities are designed to facilitate such actions. Russians cities built since the 1960's were built in just such a way and evacuate would have started within minutes after detection of large scale missiles launches in the US. That is obviously if the Russians did not strike first in which case they could very well empty their cities to a large extent. The people that could not evacuate their city were in Russian amply supplied with fallout shelters under all factories and public buildings. Wether this is true for China i am not so sure and can go look if you really doubt a nation could do all these things if it were national policy


Utter crap.


Try being abit more specific please! I believe that the US could not afford to launch any large number of their ICBM's and SLBM's for that would render them mostly defenseless against a Russian response. As it is Russia still had a edge and for America to use their strategic forces on a secondary enemy like China will not serve the US well imo.


LOL, absolute bollocks. Where's the evidence that the Russians can shoot down ICBM's ?


Well they say they can and all evidence i have seen suggest they have had the capability since the early 60's. You have seen the sources and i will keep posting them till you bring your own sources that suggest otherwise.


There isn't any. What ABM systems are these ? We've already been through this and you've been shown to be wrong, yet you still persists inpedalling BS


You keep denying the blatently obvious but not everyone is as closed minded as you.

Who could effectively win in a nuclear war. US or Russia.

Why i believe what i believe i made clear in that thread and if anyone has objections they are free to state them so i can address it.

Stellar

[edit on 4-3-2006 by StellarX]



posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 04:01 PM
link   
This is the last time I'm going to respond to this on this thread seeing how it has very little to do with the original topic.


What are you saying?That there many Native Americans weren't given blankets infected with smallpox?


Seeing how that's exactly what I said, then yes, that's what I'm saying. The only evidence that American indians were possibly given small pox blankets on purpose was a British officer in the French and indian war. There are many instances of the US govt. dispatching doctors to vaccinate American Indians against the small pox. Why would the US govt. vaccinate American Indians if their intention was to infect and wipe out the American Indian? If you have some hard evidence to the contrary, then the next time you decide to regurgitate some neo comm propaganda, provide proof of the claim. You are making an ascertion, back it up.


That the Native Americans weren't forcibly removed from their rightful land and forced into small reservations? That the U.S. gov't forced their children to go to Christian schools prohibiting them from doing anything that has to do their tradition? That U.S. soldiers didn't massacre Native Americans including women and children?


I don't deny any of that, as I said originally there were many abuses of the American Indian. What you are describing is cultural genocide. This is what the US is guilty of in my opinion. They wanted to assimilate the American Indian, not wipe them out completely. Notice that there are still American Indians. Not living as they once did, but still are none the less. If genocide was the policy of US then I would be minus one uncle ( a favorite uncle) and 2 friends. We'd be refering to the American Indian in past terms.


You're saying all this is just a "neo hollywood view of America"?
Wow...


No, I'm saying this liberal fantasy of the American Indians being a big tree hugging, hippie love in before the Europeans arriving is neo hollywood view. They understood and waged war, well before the Europeans arrived. Fighting over the same age old reasons, land and resources.

I'm going to take some liberty with what you wrote and change a few things. You didn't actually say what's written below or did you.

Yes, and I am also referring to the US that has improved the lives of countless Indians in the process. Before the US came, the American Indians lived in the Middle Ages, working as serfs to a lord. There were no electricity, no runninng water... NOTHING.

I notice you had no response to Tianamin Square. I guess I can assume that you possibly reside in China and can't google Tianamin Square along with freedom, Democracy, you know, all those wacky western terms.


I am also referring to the same U.S. that forced Native Americans off their land, massacred them, enslaved millions of Africans,


That was horrible. This country does not deny that it practiced slavery or that a long bloody civil war was fought to end it. I think it would be far more beneficial to discuss the current slavery going on in Africa as oppossed to the African slavery that was going on 150 freaking years ago.


annexed Hawaii against the will of the Natives and the Queen. Did you know that when the Queen of Hawaii spoke out against the annexation, she was locked in her palace guarded by U.S. troops? Yes.. I'm referring to this U.S.


Yes, I know that, probably well before you. I lived 10 years of my life in Hawaii. I learned all that in grade school. Do you think they teach the Chinese children about Tianamin Square in school? You see there's a reason they teach this stuff, as the famous saying goes, those who don't know their history are doomed to repeat it.

United States history in regards to the American Indian is horrid enough. No need to embellish it with false accusations of genocide.


"The Indian of North America was as ardent as the white man, free, brave, preferring death to surrender, moral and responsible without compulsion of government, loving to his children, caring and loyal to family and friends, and equal to whites in vivacity and activity of mind". Thomas Jefferson



posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 11:35 PM
link   

Seeing how that's exactly what I said, then yes, that's what I'm saying. The only evidence that American indians were possibly given small pox blankets on purpose was a British officer in the French and indian war. There are many instances of the US govt. dispatching doctors to vaccinate American Indians against the small pox. Why would the US govt. vaccinate American Indians if their intention was to infect and wipe out the American Indian? If you have some hard evidence to the contrary, then the next time you decide to regurgitate some neo comm propaganda, provide proof of the claim. You are making an ascertion, back it up.


Lord Amherst denied that he gave Indian's blankest infected with smallpox, it was not according to his account, he denied it. But in letters found later on, he had encouraged Captain Ecuyer in this germ warfare tactic. It was stories by his own soldiers and accounts by Native Americans themselves that provide evidence of this horrid ordeal. Can you providie proof that Native Americans weren't given blankets infected with smallpox?




I don't deny any of that, as I said originally there were many abuses of the American Indian. What you are describing is cultural genocide. This is what the US is guilty of in my opinion. They wanted to assimilate the American Indian, not wipe them out completely. Notice that there are still American Indians. Not living as they once did, but still are none the less. If genocide was the policy of US then I would be minus one uncle ( a favorite uncle) and 2 friends. We'd be refering to the American Indian in past terms.


Abuses? Is that the best word you can come up with what happened to the Native Americans? Cultural genocide is only part of what the US is guilty of. Plese understand, that the expansion of the U.S. from "sea to shining sea" required the forced removal of the Native Americans. They were forced into signing treaties that benefited the U.S. Gov't. and gave them small territory. When it was discovered that those lands contained resources that benefitted the gov't, the U.S. gov't broke those treaties and again sent them furthur westward. Do you remember the Wounded Knee Massacre?



I notice you had no response to Tianamin Square. I guess I can assume that you possibly reside in China and can't google Tianamin Square along with freedom, Democracy, you know, all those wacky western terms.


Actually, I am quite aware of what happened in Tianimin Square. I don't approve of what happened there AT ALL. That is one mistake I hope China will learn from, but I no matter how much I dissaprove of it, I understood the position Deng was in and why he made that choice. Democracy? You think I oppose democracy? Why is that, because I point out crap the U.S. has done that no one wants to mention? Funny, I have even been accused on this forum of being working for the Chinese gov't because of what I say.


That was horrible. This country does not deny that it practiced slavery or that a long bloody civil war was fought to end it. I think it would be far more beneficial to discuss the current slavery going on in Africa as oppossed to the African slavery that was going on 150 freaking years ago.


Yes it was 150 years ago, but how many years ago did they actually earned equal rights?



Yes, I know that, probably well before you. I lived 10 years of my life in Hawaii. I learned all that in grade school. Do you think they teach the Chinese children about Tianamin Square in school? You see there's a reason they teach this stuff, as the famous saying goes, those who don't know their history are doomed to repeat it.


I don't know if they teach Chinese children about Tianimin Square, but I do know that many Chinese are aware of it.


United States history in regards to the American Indian is horrid enough. No need to embellish it with false accusations of genocide.


I never mentioned genocide. I meantioned massacres and forced removals... which did occur.

Look, I'm not trying to stray off topic, but I am quite disgusted with people that constantly bash China's human rights records while completly ignoring their own.





"The Indian of North America was as ardent as the white man, free, brave, preferring death to surrender, moral and responsible without compulsion of government, loving to his children, caring and loyal to family and friends, and equal to whites in vivacity and activity of mind". Thomas Jefferson

Nice quote.. how about this one from Henry Clay, who actually opposed the Indian Removal Act of 1830 which many members of Congress suopported.

"Indians are essentially inferior to the Anglo-Saxon Race and they were not an improvable breed, and their disappearance from the human family will be no great loss to the world."


[edit on 4-3-2006 by k4rupt]



posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 11:47 PM
link   
If not already posted here, China announced today significant military spending increases for some time in the future.

Who is China afraid of? who is china defending themselves from? I do hear of China threatening the little island of Taiwan though on a regular basis. I also understand that Lil Kim of North Korea is a good buddy of China too. Seems to me that China is beligerent to a degree, certainly more than some seem to suggest.

I'm not clear what China is afraid of though? That the country will become westernized? How is that a problem? The only people that will lose in China's growth and modernization will be the communists and the military types that control it now. Much the same seems to be the issue in North Korea, where the leadership is holding down the country for their own benefit. Then there is Cuba and Venezula and..



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 11:11 AM
link   
US spends ten times more money than china, so what US afraid of?????

BTW, I just did a little research and found the military spending of china is only 2/3 of japan's also less than UK and France, then who is they afraid of?

World TOP 10 - MILITARY SPENDING COUNTRIES
Country In Billion Dollars
United States 335.7
Japan 46.7
United Kingdom 36
France 33.6
China 31.1
Germany 27.7
Saudi Arabia 21.6
Italy 21.1
Iran 17.5
South Korea 13.5


Originally posted by denythestatusquo
If not already posted here, China announced today significant military spending increases for some time in the future.

Who is China afraid of? who is china defending themselves from? I do hear of China threatening the little island of Taiwan though on a regular basis. I also understand that Lil Kim of North Korea is a good buddy of China too. Seems to me that China is beligerent to a degree, certainly more than some seem to suggest.

I'm not clear what China is afraid of though? That the country will become westernized? How is that a problem? The only people that will lose in China's growth and modernization will be the communists and the military types that control it now. Much the same seems to be the issue in North Korea, where the leadership is holding down the country for their own benefit. Then there is Cuba and Venezula and..


[edit on 5-3-2006 by darkhero]

[edit on 5-3-2006 by darkhero]



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
If not already posted here, China announced today significant military spending increases for some time in the future.

Who is China afraid of? who is china defending themselves from? I do hear of China threatening the little island of Taiwan though on a regular basis. I also understand that Lil Kim of North Korea is a good buddy of China too. Seems to me that China is beligerent to a degree, certainly more than some seem to suggest.


Darkhero made a great point. Many nations spend a lot more on their military than China, who are they afraid of?


The only people that will lose in China's growth and modernization will be the communists and the military types that control it now. Much the same seems to be the issue in North Korea, where the leadership is holding down the country for their own benefit.


You cant be serious. The Chinese leadership is holding down the country for their own benefit? Is that why China has now become in majority, a Capitalist nation? Is that why China has become much more liberal than the times of Mao? How in Gods name will the Communists and military lose in China's growth and modernization?
WOW! If anything, they are the ones to gain the most.



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 06:41 PM
link   
The Chinese problems are very acute:massive pollution,low standard of living,no more good fresh water,implosion of their social,economic and political system due to overpopulation.
However,I know that the ancient Chinese people has a lot of resources to spare and the determination to take care of these problems with the right technology involved.
Today,I streched my hand full of genuine friendship and help to the badly treated Chinese people:I promised them the means to deliver their people to other free places of living.
I am a man of peace up to a very high point.Some say that an "appeaser" is someone who feds a lion hoping he will be the last to be eaten.
But it's a say:"Feed the lion before you enter its cage".
Our own people is dying of old age: in 50 years we will be extinct,together with our dream to have a country in the stars.Our technology will be stolen by savage people who will use it to destroy this beautiful planet and the humans on her.
This is the law of the Universe
ne man is born,he learns from the elder warriors,then he has a family,passes his knowledge to his children and dies,hoping to be welcomed by Zalmoxe as a true messenger in his underworld,where the goddess of Victory and Defense covers her naked body with the large shield,while keeping her feet on the skulls of the defeated warriors i the river of blood and fire,while holding an imaginery cup of victory in both hands raised above her head.Her look is severe:"Had you bleed enough to grant you victory?"
Good or bad,well lead or mislead,our children remain our hope for the future:thus,the old man must do what is right,good and honourable and sacrifice his last days for the sake of his children.
Thus,if the Chinese government refuses our very generous offer of peace in this troubled world and pursue with their plan to attack America by biological and nuclear means,with great sorrow and mercyfullness for their troubled people we will crush their military completely under our feet.
The Romans invaded Dacia in 101 ad:at first fortified city,they said:
-Surrender this city and you will be unharmed
-Who are you?
-The masters of this world
-You shall be ,when we'll be all dead
Then messengers from Burebista came to Domitian,presented him:a snake,a bird,a mule ,some earth and some arrows.
Domitianus was pleased
-Tell your king we accept your surrender
-These things say:If you will not crawl into the earth as a mule ,intowater like a snake or fly like birds,you shall not escape our arrows,because we are working this land.
The Chinese and others believes that for having success in controlling the world,one nation must have lots of land and lots of people.
However ,we know that:
one man spoke about love and peace and all the christian world followed him for 2000 years.
one man invented the antigravity
one man invented the laser
on man invented plasma projectors
several men invented antimatter projectiles
more men invented the jump engine and the impenetreble magnetic fields
So,it is possible for a nation of 23 million people to defeat one of 2 billion people.
Come!Come to the great battle!Brothers in life,united in death

We shall fight and we shall die;we shall die and thus,be free;we are free,so we have won!



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 09:37 PM
link   
Caligulas i have absolutely no idea what you are going on about.



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 10:24 PM
link   
I too have no Idea what he is rambling about. But back to topic.
I think the most interesting part of this thread is the economic standpoint that the US is dependent on China for its cheap goods. Well thats not entirely true. There are many other countries in the Asian block that would be more than happy to pick up the slack from China. Malaysia, India, Indonesia, Laos, and the Phillipines to name a few. If necessary, the US could begin a new partnership with any of these countries who wouldnt mind the extra business and boost to their economies. If the situation became hostile the US could do this, I'm sure economists and analysts have looked at this situation before. If the situation was truely getting hostile and China called in the US debt, the US could theoretically say screw you pal and continue about its business with its new partners. Leaving China screwed over economically. This is all theoretical and my own opinion of course, but seems feasible if it were necessary.



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by rogue1
Not really, predictions can be made of the production of uranium and plutonium. From those estimates, they can calculate the nuclear arsenal a country has. The US and Russia are somewhat different as they aren't producing any new nuclear material, rather retiring old material. However they do have inspectors who visit the respective countries.


Well that does not keep in mind the trade in such materials. I guess it is better to imagine that impossible in your mind? It certainly makes the math easier when you like to believe certain things about the world.


Most of the US strategic warheads are based on missiles. There are no nuclear armed cruise missiles either.


Well thanks for pointing out my mistake. I have used data that was far more true in the 1980's than it is now. Currently the US admits to owning about four and a half thousand warheads on ICBM's and SLBM's and another 750 or so non strategic 'air breathing' cruise missiles and gravity bombs. Contrary to your claim the US does still deploy nuclear warheads on cruise missiles and even gravity bombs.


Sow e can assume that if there was a city busting attack, most of the warheads would come from US ICBM's and SLBM's, not manned bombers.


DEpends on the timeframe and wether the US is willing to US strategic weapons which will be hard to replace ( silos can't be re-used as Russian one's can last i checked) if there are other enemies just waiting for a chance to strike.


Besides your argument is flawed even if they didn't use any missiles, US bombers could be over China in 12 hours, hardly enough time to evacuate a city
Time for a reality check me thinks.


Twelve hours is a very long time to evacuate cities if you practice it and if your cities are designed to facilitate such actions. Russians cities built since the 1960's were built in just such a way and evacuate would have started within minutes after detection of large scale missiles launches in the US. That is obviously if the Russians did not strike first in which case they could very well empty their cities to a large extent. The people that could not evacuate their city were in Russian amply supplied with fallout shelters under all factories and public buildings. Wether this is true for China i am not so sure and can go look if you really doubt a nation could do all these things if it were national policy


Utter crap.


Try being abit more specific please! I believe that the US could not afford to launch any large number of their ICBM's and SLBM's for that would render them mostly defenseless against a Russian response. As it is Russia still had a edge and for America to use their strategic forces on a secondary enemy like China will not serve the US well imo.


LOL, absolute bollocks. Where's the evidence that the Russians can shoot down ICBM's ?


Well they say they can and all evidence i have seen suggest they have had the capability since the early 60's. You have seen the sources and i will keep posting them till you bring your own sources that suggest otherwise.


There isn't any. What ABM systems are these ? We've already been through this and you've been shown to be wrong, yet you still persists inpedalling BS


You keep denying the blatently obvious but not everyone is as closed minded as you.

Who could effectively win in a nuclear war. US or Russia.

Why i believe what i believe i made clear in that thread and if anyone has objections they are free to state them so i can address it.

Stellar

[edit on 4-3-2006 by StellarX]


Intresting but incorrect overall.
Go here nuclearweaponarchive.org... for a full listing of US Nuclear Weapons.

As for targeting of US ICBM's, those coordinates can be changed in a matter of minutes.
Also while it may be 12 hours to get Bombers over China, not counting those lifting off from Diego Garcia I guess, the cities would not be evaced nearly enough in that amount of time. The logjam that would surely result would stifle movement for quite a distance, and given the size of those cities, well you can only imagine how hard it would be for people to get out. Also how many of those people even have vehicles to drive? What about refueling them on the way out? Gas would run out surely.

But lets consider something else, US Subs could launch from just outside the shores of China. The most time or warning those cities would have would be 10 mins or so. No one would be going anywhere. Also US target would include the dams in China, taking them out, and not even with nukes would cause massive flooding and would certainly kill quite a few people that way.

Also consider where the majority of Chinese and where they live. You take out the city centers, hit their Military bases, and you have taken away China's ability to not only be a nation, but you have killed most of their population and removed their economic base.

A full scale nuclear strike on China would kill 3/4's of their population, would destroy their industry, destroy their abiity to function, and would render them helpless.



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by scarecrow19d
Intresting but incorrect overall.
Go here nuclearweaponarchive.org... for a full listing of US Nuclear Weapons.


Which parts exactly does that source disagree with? Are you too lazy to disagree specifically or is this the same type of laziness that got you quoting my entire previous post?

The US still has gravity bombs and it still has nuclear warheads for cruise missiles. That all being said you will be one of the first people to prove that i am 'incorrect overall' so i wish you all the best of luck in your efforts.


As for targeting of US ICBM's, those coordinates can be changed in a matter of minutes.


Well that might take less than minutes so it's not even a issue as far as i know.


Also while it may be 12 hours to get Bombers over China, not counting those lifting off from Diego Garcia I guess, the cities would not be evaced nearly enough in that amount of time.


The bombers from Diego Garcia is certainly NOT going to reach mainland China even if they do not get nuked on the airfield itself. There are in fact many American airbases in the region which would all receive the same treatment. If a few do get trought many millions of people will die but would still have a billlion or so to spare.


The logjam that would surely result would stifle movement for quite a distance, and given the size of those cities, well you can only imagine how hard it would be for people to get out.


It is hard to imagine anything that deals with nuclear war but we should try anyways. Whoever does not get out of the cities fast enough will have to get into shelters ( even basements and underground parking lots are far better than nothing) as best they can and take their chances.


InNagasaki, some people survived uninjured who were far inside tunnel shelters built for conventional air raids and located as close as one-third mile from ground zero (the point directly below the explosion). This was true even though these long, large shelters lacked blast doors and were deep inside the zone within which all buildings were destroyed. (People far inside long, large, open shelters are better protected than are those inside small, open shelters.)

www.oism.org...



Also how many of those people even have vehicles to drive? What about refueling them on the way out? Gas would run out surely.


Well it seems to be your doing your best to dismiss the strategy without really having any idea if it could work or not. You do not have to go 20 miles from the city to survive overpressure effects from a single warhead. I am not for a moment suggesting that most people would get out of the city but i am suggesting that important officials or at least some parts of the city might be evacuated in time.


But lets consider something else, US Subs could launch from just outside the shores of China. The most time or warning those cities would have would be 10 mins or so.


Less than ten minutes from the sea of Japan or other patrol areas. You are quite right that a first strike by the US would likely kill a great deal of the Chinese urban population if their Russian bought air defense missiles do not measure up and fail to stop even the SLBM's.


No one would be going anywhere. Also US target would include the dams in China, taking them out, and not even with nukes would cause massive flooding and would certainly kill quite a few people that way.


If the US intent is in your opinion to just kill a few hundred million chinese they might very well be able to do that. SLBM's is the ONLY type of strategic nuclear weapon the US currently operates that can hold the USSR hostage to some extent. Spending those on China might imo not be entirely wise and if the 30 minute warning is given very many millions of Chinese would in fact be saved.


Also consider where the majority of Chinese and where they live. You take out the city centers, hit their Military bases, and you have taken away China's ability to not only be a nation, but you have killed most of their population and removed their economic base.


The same is true for the US and China has enough declared strategic nuclear weapons to do much the same type of damage to the US's urban populations.


A full scale nuclear strike on China would kill 3/4's of their population, would destroy their industry, destroy their abiity to function, and would render them helpless.


IT would not kill anywhere near 3/4 of the population even if they were all living in cities targetted by nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are simple not that effective and data is available if you care to look at it.

Stellar



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX



A full scale nuclear strike on China would kill 3/4's of their population, would destroy their industry, destroy their abiity to function, and would render them helpless.


IT would not kill anywhere near 3/4 of the population even if they were all living in cities targetted by nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are simple not that effective and data is available if you care to look at it.

Stellar


Are you kidding you dont think thousands of nuclear weapons most of which are in the 100-300kT range (Hiroshima was about 12-15kt) couldn't wipe out 3/4 of Chinas a population. The radiation fall out alone of the US arsenal would kill very large portions of Chinas population.

Your talking thousands of square miles of lethal fallout not even counting additional deaths from fires,starvation, lack of medical attention etc..



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 06:27 PM
link   
Wow, talking about using nuclear weapons again? Do people still believe that the U.S. is invincible because they have more nukes than China? Do they believe that no one on their side would perish? Let me tell you, if the U.S. were to use nuclear missiles against China, China wuold retalliate and the U.S. would be destroyed. Imagine, 250 of U.S.'s biggest cities obliterated. You can argue what you want, but the U.S. would be obliterated.

This is sometihng so many Americans tend to ignore. If there is a word that describes this idiotic behavior, it is ignorance.

[edit on 7-3-2006 by k4rupt]



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 08:31 PM
link   
Whoever said the US was invincible to nukes? I would like to see who said that

250 nukes would destroy 250 cities but kill everyone in the US not a chance, The US is a very big place. Now Russia got the right numbers to perhaps do that

[edit on 7-3-2006 by ShadowXIX]



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex



Well then...why is China removing all military personnel from cook, mechanic, and clerical positions?


The PLA is a strange organization, a result of communist China's political legacy and Mao's odd social experiments.

The PLA runs stores, restaurants and all sorts of odd sidelines that have nothing to do with being a military force. In the process of modernizing (and also significantly downsizing) their military force, they are slowly shutting these sideline activities down.

The idea that China is preparing their military to take over the planet is absurd. Their forces are barely equipped to invade little Taiwan, let alone the United States.


I agree, besides their ill equipped for such an invasion. They might have numbers but not such a strategic location with our European friends mere miles away. Besides youve to remember that although they may have billions of numbers, thats mostly poor farmers and poor citizens in general. It just isnt likely to happen, could China start a full scale war, sure why not, but invade the US, or any large coalition country effectively, not a chance.



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 11:10 PM
link   
Maybe they wont want you, ever think about that? If they push you out of the way for good and nukes would do it, then they can go on and do whatever they want to whoever they want in the pacific because if they prepare for it and push people into shelters then your screwed.... even fallout would not work if they had a proper system, just imagine what a subway would do, transfer people OUTSIDE the city or even into the mountain ranges that are uneffected and voila you have a new city waiting to be built. Considering chinese history they dont care if 1/3-2/3 of a city dies if they get the outcome they want, the US cant afford that. Also the mountain ranges would provide such a hamper to radiation fallout that it would not be able to effect all of china, only the low lying areas, and if the winds pulled air EASY of china in the jet streams... wellll you just screwed america over because your OWN RADIATION IS NOW FALLING ON YOU! All they have to do is hold the line and get you to kill YOURSELF. Besides why would they invade a country thats now unfertile? Just leave the US to wipe itself out by squabling groups and militias that are still left. Also as for taking out the WHOLE us... NAAAHHHHH just take out what counts, large cities, medium cities, major production areas... let the rest rot away. Have spies in the US plant diseas in plant crops and since most of the crops in the US are only 1-3 strain types you only need 3 different strains of diseases to plant in the crops to take out the food population. An army marches on its stomach- Napoleon, true and if there is no food the US will perish. Besides the US has gotten rid of most of its nuclear war preparedness systems, shoot in the area I live the best place to hide would be to throw yourself into a ditch because there is NOTHING else, not even in the towns north or east of me have any protection.. though I dont think they would be #1 on the list of hit more like 999,999,999 or so or dead bottom. Radiation would have a DEVASTATING effect on the US because we cant pull in crops from other countries, China can, just go south through vietnam and then wipe out India and steal what you need and let the rest starve to death or take out Cambodia and other places and plant your crops, might have 1-2 years of starvation but in the long run you are now back to where you were before. No one has a clue of what China has or doesnt have, they might have subways that take you to underground facilities in the mountains in event of nuclear war that are waiting on people for all we know. And considering if they get enough subways going and get protocols of what to do in the event of type stuff it would not take much even if you only have 2 min to get people down just sound the hord RUN LIKE HECK PEOPLE!!! INCOMMING NUKE!!! would do wonders if you had systems in place. We will never know untill it happens. The effect of nuclear war would be FAR more devastating on the US though, considering its already in a good deal of anarchy (state vs. state vs. govt. vs. people. vs. anyone/any thing) and a nuke in four cities would do it let alone one. Like I said we have to wait untill it happens.




top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join