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: 7
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX

Ahem and what eveidence is that, your raving denial
You hvae presented no evidence and their is no evidence that I have seen. Almost every claim about teh AGM-129 says it is highly stealthy, combine that with nap of the earth flying and it's LIDAR guidance and yes, it is undectable. Show me somewhere that it is detectable - back up your ranting.


Which means exactly what in your opinion? Does this mean that it will just be able to fly past soviet air defense missiles complexes with total disregard? Since claims are what we are dealing with we just wont know for sure but the Russians sure keep telling us their missiles can do the job.


They could wuite easily fly passed Soviet radar, no doubt. They are desugned to be stealthy from airborne lookdown radar. Staying invisible from a ground radar would be much simpler, especially with all the ground clutter flying 30 feet above the ground.
So yeah no problems for an AGM-129, first thing the soviets would know of it was when it went off.



Christ, you're a raving madman. So where are these super secret Soviet intelligence reports you are privvy to ? Care to post some of them.


Do you know what FOBS is and do you know how many were deployed? Well you don't and neither does most anyone in the US defense establishment. Those 100 odd Soviet space launches per year where just rocket engine tests yes.


What complete BS, come on you make these ridiculous claims and never back then up
FOBS was only ever deployted on the SS-9 missile and in very small numbers.
So wher eis this informaton on these hundreds of nuclear weapons you claim the Soviets have in space




posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by k4rupt
What are you saying? I never said that Russia would enter the fight... I responded by saying that thinking a nuclear war would occur is paranoid thinking... Please reroad what I posted.



I wasn't talking to you, I was quoting stellar.




Erm, lets see no civil defence drills etc. I doubt they are that prepared. Why don't you tell me what preparations they ar making. Come on you're making the assumption.


erm... okay you've been to China a few times and now you KNOW for a fact that they have no civil defence drills or preparations? Come on, I think you're making the assumptions here. I see no civil defence drills int he U.S., I see nothing that remotely shows WE are prepared for a nuclear strike.


LOL, this is trich. So ah you know they are prepapring for nuclear war how ? I know for a fact there are no civilain drills, I do business over there, I hve conact with many Chinese people and we have discussed relations with the US many times. Not once do did they mention these mythical prepaprations for nuclear war




OKay... Even if a hand full of ballistic missiles reach the U.S., don't tell me it would be all sunshine... Let's see, lets just say 5 cities get hit. Washington, NY, SF, Detroit, LA... Don't tell me that would NOT be catastrophic. Please check your COMMON SENSE before making arrogant statements.


Your original statement :


Um.. Are you serious? If the U.S. destroys the Chinese cities, then 200-250 of the largest American cities would be destroyed as well... The U.S. would cease to exist also... Did I spoil your fun there?


Hmmm, I thought you said china could destroy hundreds of US cities
I was pointing just how wrong and inaccurate you were. So why should we beleive you, when you don't even have a clue about Chinese forces, yet make all these baseless claims ?
LOL

[edit on 9-3-2006 by rogue1]



posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 10:37 PM
link   


LOL, this is trich. So ah you know they are prepapring for nuclear war how ? I know for a fact there are no civilain drills, I do business over there, I hve conact with many Chinese people and we have discussed relations with the US many times. Not once do did they mention these mythical prepaprations for nuclear war


Okay, I live in the U.S. and there are no civilian drills and NO PREPARATIONS whatsover for a nuclear war. Can you PLEASE give me an example of preparation for a nuclear war in... NY? Washington D.C.? SF? Any major city?



Hmmm, I thought you said china could destroy hundreds of US cities
I was pointing just how wrong and inaccurate you were. So why should we beleive you, when you don't even have a clue about Chinese forces, yet make all these baseless claims ?
LOL

[edit on 9-3-2006 by rogue1]


LOL you completely ignored my argument. The second statement was HYPOTHETICAL in YOUR favor. PLEASE REREAD what I wrote before you go on posting irrelevlant arguments. I wrote "Even if a hand full of ballistic missiles reach the U.S..." DID YOU MISS THE "IF" OR DID YOU CHOOSE TO IGNORE IT?

So why should we even read your posts when you go on making these arrogant accusations before even READING clearly what I wrote.

Please get back on topic. You completely ignored my argument that EVEN IF 5 cities were destroyed by nukes, the U.S. would be... oh how do i put this nicely... crippled.

Why do you ignore this when you go spurting out about how the U.S. will nuke China off the face of the earth? Let me ask you, what is it worth to destroy China in the exchange for millions of American lives? Why do people like you CONSTANTLY throw this utterly ignorant b.s. out in the pool of argument?





[edit on 9-3-2006 by k4rupt]



posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 01:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by k4rupt
Okay, I live in the U.S. and there are no civilian drills and NO PREPARATIONS whatsover for a nuclear war. Can you PLEASE give me an example of preparation for a nuclear war in... NY? Washington D.C.? SF? Any major city?


Erm and ? I was referring to China not having civil defence drills for nuclear war. I wasn't talking about the US, you know that.




Hmmm, I thought you said china could destroy hundreds of US cities
I was pointing just how wrong and inaccurate you were. So why should we beleive you, when you don't even have a clue about Chinese forces, yet make all these baseless claims ?
LOL

[edit on 9-3-2006 by rogue1]


LOL you completely ignored my argument. The second statement was HYPOTHETICAL in YOUR favor. PLEASE REREAD what I wrote before you go on posting irrelevlant arguments. I wrote "Even if a hand full of ballistic missiles reach the U.S..." DID YOU MISS THE "IF" OR DID YOU CHOOSE TO IGNORE IT?


This is what you said - what I was responding to, which you know full well.


Um.. Are you serious? If the U.S. destroys the Chinese cities, then 200-250 of the largest American cities would be destroyed as well... The U.S. would cease to exist also... Did I spoil your fun there?


^^^ That is a completely incorrect statement and seems like a reflex comment from you.



So why should we even read your posts when you go on making these arrogant accusations before even READING clearly what I wrote.


See above reply.


Please get back on topic. You completely ignored my argument that EVEN IF 5 cities were destroyed by nukes, the U.S. would be... oh how do i put this nicely... crippled.


Oh 5 cities now, I thought you said it was 250-300



Why do you ignore this when you go spurting out about how the U.S. will nuke China off the face of the earth? Let me ask you, what is it worth to destroy China in the exchange for millions of American lives? Why do people like you CONSTANTLY throw this utterly ignorant b.s. out in the pool of argument?


AHEM, the title of the thread is China plans to wiupe out USA
It seems to be you who isn't staying on topic. I merely point out what would happen if they attempted to wipe out the US.





[edit on 9-3-2006 by k4rupt]



posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 01:45 AM
link   
These Chinese guys are starting to scare me. but then again I read that the NWO is going to either use the middle east or china to start WWIII. They say it goes back to General Pike of the KKK and the freemasons/Illumaniti gang about 200 years ago. Wow what planning these guys do man.



posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
They could wuite easily fly passed Soviet radar, no doubt. They are desugned to be stealthy from airborne lookdown radar.


Speculation that you know is not a accurate reflection of current radar and missile defenses.


Throughout the Kosovo War air campaign the major Russian missile manufacturer Almaz Central Design Burueau was quietly putting the finishing
touches to a new family of highly effective S-300 and S-400 surface-to-air (SAM) missile systems. Destined to become widespread both inside
and outside Russia, the presence of these missiles will "create major problems for [air strike] planners for years to come", and their
significance has been greatly underestimated by Defence Ministers worldwide. This warning is made by Editors Chris Foss and Tony Cullen in
the foreword of the forthcoming authoritative publication Jane's Land-Based Air Defence 2000-1 Edition.

www.janes.com...



Senior Russian aerospace officials admitted that they are testing new SAM missiles against the F-117 that was shot down by Serb forces in 1999. The Russians admitted that the F-117 was being used to test new anti-stealth technology and advanced missiles designed to shoot down U.S. aircraft. Russian researchers are testing components of a new air defense system against the F-117 remains.

The Russian anti-stealth tests include radio frequency seekers from surface-to-air missiles and proximity fuses for missile warheads. Russian missile makers Antey Industrial Corp. and the Almaz Central Design Bureau are using the F-117 and modified Russian-made stealth aircraft to test components for the next generation of Russian Surface to Air Missiles (SAMs).

Almaz engineers claim its S-300PMU-2 system can locate and destroy stealth targets up to 60 miles away. Almaz is currently trying to sell the S-300PMU-2 to China.

www.softwar.net...



In 1997, the Russians unveiled yet another variant of the system, this time called S-300PMU-2 (SA-10E Favorit). Its larger missiles (9M96E
and 9M96E2), longer range (200 kilometers), and better guidance system make the S-300PMU-2 a thorough modification of its predecessor. The
system can engage targets between 10 meters and 27 kilometers above the ground.(7) The Russians claim that, during a series of tests in the
mid-1990s, the S-300PMU-2 shot down a target ballistic missile traveling at 1,600 meters per second, and that the system can destroy targets
traveling at 4,800 meters per second.(8) The Russians add that the system has a kill ratio between 0.8 and 0.98 against Tomahawk-class cruise
missiles and from 0.8 to 0.93 against aircraft.(9)

www.missilethreat.com...



The Antey-2500 is designed to combat aircraft and tactical missiles, including ballistic missiles with a launch range of up to 2,500
kilometers. The Antey-2500 mobile complex, developed on the basis of the well-known S-300V [SA-12] air defense complex, is a new-generation
system, capable of autonomous combat action. It can simultaneously engage 24 aerodynamic targets, including stealth targets, or 16 ballistic
targets with a RCS of up to 0.02 meters, flying at speeds of up to 4,500 m/s. Improved characteristics of the radar information facilities
and optimization of radar signal processing technics make it possible to combat high-speed ballistic targets with a small radar cross
section. Antey-2500 can effectively protect an area of up to 2,500 sq. km and engage targets at altitudes of 25 to 40,000 m.

www.globalsecurity.org...



"Full antimissile defence the length of the perimeter of the borders
of Europe and Russia is not planned," Ivashov said. "It is intended to
concentrate all that we already have, coordinating ABM systems, obtaining
opportunities to destroy ballistic missiles and opportunities in the
command structure, and directing those opportunities in directions
presenting a missile danger."

He said that the systems should cover peacekeeping contingents, and
the civilian population and civilian facilities as well as military
facilities, damage to which could cause significant harm to civilians.

The Russian side has no doubt that "NATO members will not start
purchasing Russian ABM systems on a large scale, like the modernized
S-300PMU or the new S-400, which can effectively combat ballistic
missiles, although NATO's European members do not have systems like
these", Ivashov said. Moscow does not in any case intend to extend its
missile technology to NATO countries, and Sergeyev said this frankly in
Brussels a few days ago.

www.fas.org...



Staying invisible from a ground radar would be much simpler, especially with all the ground clutter flying 30 feet above the ground.


How many American bombers can do that and even back in SU days? How many B-1's will get in the air before nuclear weapons arrive? Will the rest really be able to survive the Russian strategic airforce? Do you really need a fourth generation fighter to shoot down a unarmed bomber? It's this type of absolutely ludicrous arguments that makes me wonder how serious you are when you claim you are "well informed". Seriously deluded more readily comes to mind.

More links if you want them.


So yeah no problems for an AGM-129, first thing the soviets would know of it was when it went off.


Well we call them Russians now but thanks for sharing your bias with the class.


What complete BS, come on you make these ridiculous claims and never back then up
FOBS was only ever deployted on the SS-9 missile and in very small numbers.


RIGHT! It's no problem and the could not get them into orbit ANY other way. What fantasy world do you live in?


So wher eis this informaton on these hundreds of nuclear weapons you claim the Soviets have in space


Once again your making it up as you go but just keep that up. Who said hundreds and why would hundreds be needed?

Stellar



posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
Ahem, so what are the weapons of choice for strategic blackmail ? You allude to these other weapons in several threads - what are they ?


Make another thread and ask me about them if your not just trying to derail the current discussion. Those weapons are simple not required under the current scenario and there is NO reason to keep bringing it up.


//sigh// - You're the one who keeps on interjecting these vague notions of some Russian super weapon.


I mentioned it once and it was stated as a OPINION and that those were not required under the scenario. You should speak about others making 'vague' claims?


If you don't want to be pulled up on it, stop alluding to them all the time
Simple as that.


I mentioned it once and your the only one that now insists it's somehow relevent to the topic even if i stated they were not.


I said there were no nuclear arm,ed cruise missiles, I neglected the AGM-129 stealth cruise missile. I never mentioned gravity bombs


There are at least 3 nuclear armed cruise missiles currently in service so your STILL wrong by claiming only one type. If you can not manage these simple details i suggest you pick simpler topics.


Ahem and what eveidence is that, your raving denial
You hvae presented no evidence and their is no evidence that I have seen.


You will not find the evidence if you avoid looking for it. If you can not understand that your bias is preventing you from looking at all the information it's almost impossible to have a proper discussion.


Almost every claim about teh AGM-129 says it is highly stealthy,


The Russians claim they can shoot down such missiles with 80-90% single missile hit rates so if one goes by claims these American ALCM are not going to get much done.


combine that with nap of the earth flying and it's LIDAR guidance and yes, it is undectable. Show me somewhere that it is detectable - back up your ranting.


Nothing is undetectable and as my last post indicated neither is American ALCM's.


Christ, you're a raving madman. So where are these super secret Soviet intelligence reports you are privvy to ? Care to post some of them.


Your the one calling others names without much reason other than being incapable of arguing the evidence. Why would you need super secret intelligence reports when you can find the information in long since declassified reports and journals?

Bah!

Stellar



posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX


The Russians claim they can shoot down such missiles with 80-90% single missile hit rates so if one goes by claims these American ALCM are not going to get much done.



What utter bunk please link to these claims of a 90% success rate in downing the US ALCM


This is going to be great



posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 06:35 PM
link   
A chinese-american war is very possible considering that china is a rising power with a potential to have its own ambitions. At least it could be over control of east asia. But if china was to attack the united states who is to say they would do it by themselves.



posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 06:47 PM
link   
Greetings Fellow Believers,

Would China invade? No. However, China has allies that the United States government cannot control. Mexico is such a country that would be more than willing to be the foot soldiers for China.

Last month, a story was featured on the national news highlighting 285 border crossings by the Mexican Army into United States territory since 1998.

Observers theorize that the Mexican military is doing this to make sure that drug shipments make it into the United States. I do believe this.

To test the reaction-time of the United States military, it is easiest to send soldiers on the ground across the border. The most the United States has been willing to do is give strong objections to these incusions.

The weakest link in protecting U.S. borders is Mexico. "Strong objections" isn't action to prevent these border crossings. It is as acknowledgement to the impotence of our government to protect our country.

Strong measures must be taken. A Wall must be built between Mexico and the United States. If we cannot build a wall--we must have a standing volunteer militia to patrol the border.

Enough is enough. If we cannot secure our borders--we should not have a country.



posted on Mar, 12 2006 @ 12:56 AM
link   


Observers theorize that the Mexican military is doing this to make sure that drug shipments make it into the United States.


Are they trying to pull an imperialist Britain? The opium war was pretty nasty... At any rate, agents in texas have been actively combating the bloods, crips, Disciples, and MS-13 for a while now:

www.cnn.com...

We had an interesting encounter (well, two now) with drug busts. One happened on the highway. They pulled a car over, and undercover cars came up from behind. Agents pulled out, guns drawn. That was an interesting sight as we drove down the highway. And another was probably of two agents (from what we can guess, not really sure what they were doing) getting ready for a bust.



The weakest link in protecting U.S. borders is Mexico.


From the looks of things, that seems true. Though to be honest, I recommend they go through California instead of Texas. Please dont invade my home state! Well, if Mexico ever does become stupid enough to attempt a successful land invasion of the United States, I guess us texans will be the first to know, and first to resist. Lol. Fear the rednecks.



posted on Mar, 12 2006 @ 01:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jack of Scythes


Would China invade? No. However, China has allies that the United States government cannot control. Mexico is such a country that would be more than willing to be the foot soldiers for China.



Didnt that happen in the movie "Red Dawn" but with Russia using Mexico and Cuba to help in the invasion



posted on Mar, 12 2006 @ 04:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
What utter bunk please link to these claims of a 90% success rate in downing the US ALCM


This is going to be great


I allready did and it would be great if you read the entire thread before jumping to yet more badly informed opinions. If you do not like that one i have more but i am not going to encourage your laziness when i have allready posted the relevent information. If you have some problem to earlier sourced material i will post others given that you at least have reasonable objections.

Stellar



posted on Mar, 12 2006 @ 05:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX

I said there were no nuclear arm,ed cruise missiles, I neglected the AGM-129 stealth cruise missile. I never mentioned gravity bombs


There are at least 3 nuclear armed cruise missiles currently in service so your STILL wrong by claiming only one type. If you can not manage these simple details i suggest you pick simpler topics.


Only the ACM is actually active and deployed with nuclear warheads, the ALCM is in reserve and the Tomahawk doesn't carry nuclear warheads at all - they have been physically removed and are not deployed


Whom, who needs to check their facts.



The Russians claim they can shoot down such missiles with 80-90% single missile hit rates so if one goes by claims these American ALCM are not going to get much done.


OHHH right LOL. So, the Russians cvlaim something and automatically you take it as gospel LMOA. This is typical if you. So where is the evidence ? Where is this proof that you are always demanding from others ? SAD.




combine that with nap of the earth flying and it's LIDAR guidance and yes, it is undectable. Show me somewhere that it is detectable - back up your ranting.


Nothing is undetectable and as my last post indicated neither is American ALCM's.


Sure, the point is the Russians cannot detect it. What are they going to detect it with ? Grounbased radar can't detect it until it's over the target. You hvae herd of radar horizon and ground clutter. Airborne radar, probably couldn't detect it either unless they knew exactly where to look




Your the one calling others names without much reason other than being incapable of arguing the evidence. Why would you need super secret intelligence reports when you can find the information in long since declassified reports and journals?


LMAO, shame your claims don't reflect the information
Someone who doesn't live in reality is a madman - an entirely appropriate description



posted on Mar, 12 2006 @ 06:08 AM
link   
Most of the BS that Russia is claiming is probably bunk! 80-90% kill percentage!? HA! You're not going to convince me that Russia has the abilitity to hit a fly with a BB gun... let alone convince me that they can hit 24 flies with one BB gun! But they have submarines sinking to the bottom of the ocean. An aging navy fleet. A mass exodus of their top scientists. Almost no money for simple maintenance and repairs, let alone R&D on new technology.

Sure, they are probably still developing new technologies. Sure they continue to have a world-class airforce. But your claims that these guys are some kind of futuristic super-force really rings hollow. Sorry.



posted on Mar, 12 2006 @ 09:40 AM
link   
Stellar bases most of his opinion on DIA reports from the late 70's and 80's, about Soviet Military power. These reports were vastly overinflated and in some cases completely falsified Soviet capabilites. The fact is that the Soviets were never that advanced and Russian cpabilities are not an extension from Soviet times.
Sorry Stellar but the Soviets/Russians weren't that advanced.

The following exerpt, refers to Team B, which I have shown in previous posts were the people behind the DIA's - Soviet Military Power reports.


For example, the range of the Backfire medium bomber was considerably overestimated, and the number of Backfires the Soviet Union would acquire by 1984 was overestimated by more than 100 percent (estimating 500 when the real figure was 235). Team B overestimated the accuracy of the SS-18 and SS-19 ICBMs, feeding the unwarranted fears of a "window of vulnerability" for the US ICBM deterrent. Team B estimated that the Soviet Union would field a mobile ABM system, which it did not. It regarded as ominous, rather than reassuring, that no intelligence information had been acquired on Soviet development of a nonacoustic antisubmarine warfare capability, again raising concerns over a looming threat that did not arise.

Team B saw as a "serious concern" the possible upgrading of Soviet mobile intermediate range missiles (SS-20s) to ICBMs and criticized the draft NIE for estimating that the SS-16 mobile ICBM program would remain small. In the event, no SS-16s were deployed, and no SS-20s were upgraded to ICBMs. With respect to exotic technologies for ABM defense, Team B castigated the NIE for failing to draw more attention to the threat of Soviet development of charged particle-beam directed energy interceptors, stating that it would be "difficult to overestimate" the magnitude of the Soviet effort, yet by those very alarmist words it did so. The large-scale but ineffective Soviet civil defense efforts were also depicted as an important part of a Soviet design to be able to fight, and win, a nuclear war. Team B even suggested incredibly that the ABM Treaty helped the Soviet leaders "to pursue a goal of achieving assured survival of the USSR and assured destruction for its major adversary."

Team B also reported "an intense military buildup in nuclear as well as conventional forces" and criticized the NIEs for failing to describe adequately the scale of the Soviet military effort. While Team B was estimating a relentless, continuing buildup at a growing pace, it was later learned that, in fact, Soviet leaders had just cut back the rate of spending on their military effort and would not increase it for the next nine years. To be sure, the Soviet Union continued to spend a great deal on its large military programs, but it was not the limitless buildup in pursuit of a war-winning capability that Team B ascribed. Team B went even further. Its report argued at length that there was no constraining effect resulting from the requirements of the civilian economy. The NIEs were attacked for even suggesting that economic considerations might limit Soviet military growth, and Team B itself asserted that "Soviet strategic forces have yet to reflect any constraining effect of civil economy competition, and are unlikely to do so in the foreseeable future."

www.cia.gov...


As you can see the DIA reports were wrong in critical areas, hence so is stellars argument. No matter how mnay times I point it out theough he ignores it



posted on Mar, 12 2006 @ 10:45 AM
link   
I would appreciate it if someone checked my math... but:

8.5 QUADDRILLION pounds of water to be held back by ONE dam in ONE location.

I am not sure what 1 quadrillion pounds is similar to (and would love an example)... however it seems to this outside observer that such may have techtonic manipulation capability.

Empty.... Fill... 9.6 in California

Empty.... Fill... Another major Indonesian Tsunami

Empty... Fill... Mt. Saint Hellens erupts

Empty... Fill... WWIII (or is it 4... who's counting?)

Food for thought, or is it food for Haliburton?

Induced Hyperactive Isostatic Rebound,

Sri Oracle

ooh... that needs an acrynym IHIR



posted on Mar, 12 2006 @ 05:08 PM
link   
rogue1, you COMPLETELY ignored my question YET AGAIN. This is getting lame and childish. You are basically repeating the same thing AGAIN to completely ignore my question. I asked, why are you willing to trade millions of American lives for to obliterate China?

It's really a simple question and I don't understand WHY you can't answer it.



posted on Mar, 12 2006 @ 05:16 PM
link   
All the same I think that Japan will be able to thump china in the future. We don't know what the Japanese have and they are spending big bucks now to arm themselves plus we have no idea what they can build in their superior factories with the highest technology. If I were the chinese I would be looking over my back at the Japanese.



posted on Mar, 12 2006 @ 08:28 PM
link   
No one not even the US let alone a tiny African nation would want to destroy Japan if given the chance, they would want to OWN it. Japan offers a HUGE advantage in the pacific if you do not control the northern marianas islands (or CNMI depending on what you call it) and thusly controlling Japan is more economical that wiping it out. However think about this: What if China managed to take Japan and hold off the US forces? Thats a MASSIVE increase in technology right off the bat not to mention as others have said: Factories, modern ones at that. Also a massive research network to be added to their nation. From that point they could just advance themselves greatly in technology while the US has now lost a major source of technology. From there long range bombers or stealth bombers (stolen from factories) could be used to launch invasions on the western coastline just to cause some havok. NEITHER side would launch nuclear weapons if they had a brain, but it cannot be ruled out as a possibility. As for bio-attack, taking Japan would offer them the range needed to do so, or they could sneak people in and use garages as chem facilities to get what they need to wipe out a large chunk of the US population, because like others like to point out: No one has the forces needed anymore and I meen NO ONE to control other nations that are large in size like France, Britain, US, Canada, Mexico, ect. So in reality your own hunger to fight back might meen they will just execute you and save themselves the time of having to fight you over a prolonged period of time. China would only have to have 10,000 troops land on the western shore to secure ports after a MASSIVE bio attack that wiped out the cities and from there its a matter of burry the bodies and settup shop.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join