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: 8
0
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 13 2006 @ 02:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by k4rupt
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?


No you made a statement which was completely misleading and wrong, which you tried to gloss over
Whose the childish one ?

As for your question, that has nothing to do with what I was talking about. This is a hypothetical what if scenario, so I am responding to that.
The thread heading is " Chinas plans to wipe out the USA ", all I am doing is pointing out why it wouldn't be in China's interests to do that.

The fact reamins from the heading, that millions of american lives would already hvae been lost as China would have been the agressor; as sucj your question bares no relevance. Do you understand that or, are you too thick.




posted on Mar, 13 2006 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
Stellar bases most of his opinion on DIA reports from the late 70's and 80's, about Soviet Military power.


I simple did not but this is the type of lie Rogue will tell just to enable this piece of CIA garbage into the discussion.


These reports were vastly overinflated and in some cases completely falsified Soviet capabilites.


The DIA made mistakes but their mistakes were at least overestimations instead of CIA vast underestimations. Which one would you rather have ensuring your national survival? The only party who repeatedly falsified the historic record is the CIA as i will shortly show.


The fact is that the Soviets were never that advanced and Russian cpabilities are not an extension from Soviet times.


They are far more advanced now than they were then and it's a direct extension of Soviet power projection.


Sorry Stellar but the Soviets/Russians weren't that advanced.


Your a old style liar that will just keep up the bluster desperately hoping that people will not look at your meager arguments for the evidence. I guess i will set you strait as i did in most responses before this one.


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.


Yet another blatent lie simply made up so that this 'evidence' can be presented.


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).



The Tu-22M designation was used by the Soviets during SALT-2 arms control negotiations, creating the impression that the Backfire-A aircraft was a modification of the Tu-22 Blinder. This designation was adopted by the US State and Defense Departments, although some contended that the designation was deliberately deceptive, and intended to hide the performace of the Backfire. Other sources suggest the "deception" was internal, because this made it easier to get budgets approved. According to some sources, the Backfire-B/C production variants were believed to be designated Tu-26 by Russia, although this is disputed by many sources. At Tupolev the aircraft was designated the AM.

Many of the development steps in manufacturing the AM were unique in their time. Special attention was given to the construction of the variable sweep wing - the basis of the whole project. The mid-mounted wings are variable, swept-back, and tapered with curved tips and a wide wing root. Two turbofan engines are mounted in the body, with large rectangular air intakes and dual exhausts. The fuselage is long and slender with a solid, pointed nose and stepped cockpit. The body is rectangular from the air intakes to the exhausts. The tail fin is swept-back and tapered with a square tip. The flats are mid-mounted on the body, swept-back, and tapered with blunt tips. The wing consists of a center section and two outer panels that have five fixed positions with respect to the leading edge sweep. The two-spar centre section has a rear web and bearing skin panel. The outer wings are secured to the centre section with the aid of hinged joints. The high-lift devices include three-section slats and double-slotted flaps on the outer wings (extension angle: 23~ for takeoff and 40~ for landing) and a tilting flap on the centre section.

During the SALT II process, the United States negotiating team obtained a statement from then-Soviet Premier Brezhnev that the Backfire's refueling capabilities would not be upgraded to allow them to function as intercontinental strategic bombers, and that the Soviets would only build 30 of these bombers per year. When the SALT-2 treaty was signed in 1979, the Soviets informed the USA that it would not equip the TU-22M bombers with air refueling devices. SALT II was not ratified, though subsequently the air refueling system was removed from all TU-22M.

According to press reports in the late 1980s, a defector stated that the Backfire was regularly exercised at intercontinental range, that this intercontinental range was greater than the Bison's, that the Backfire had a screw-in type refueling probe, that this screw-in refueling probe was stockpiled for every Backfire at all bomber bases, and that the Soviets had an active program of camouflage, concealment, and deception to mislead the West about the intercontinental range capability of the Backfire.

"DIA stated in its unclassified February 1990 Soviet Force Structure Summary publication on page 6 that: `The Backfire has an intercontinental strike capability when equipped with a refueling probe.'

The US proposed to the Soviets that they sign a politically binding declaration outside of START, which would commit them to: (1) not give the Backfire an intercontinental capability by air-to-air refueling or by any other means; (2) deploy no more than 400 Backfire; and (3) include all Backfire -- including naval Backfire--in the Conventional Forces in Europe [CFE] aircraft limits.


www.fas.org...


So without refueling it may not be able to reach the continental US but with it it could and would. Yet more deception by the CIA to compromise American strength by pretending that they believed the USSR would honour these agreements when they knew full well that they broke each and every treaty before. Now as to the numbers claimed i can assure you the CIA estimates were in fact far lower as percentage than the DIA's overestimation turned out to be. Given all that we now know the DIA got it mostly right by seeing the threat of a intercontinental bomber where the CIA as ussual just saw another bomber.


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.


And what evidence do they give for this claim? Is it because the USSR had Russian engineers doing the work? Whatever the survivability of American silo's they were not stated to have a reload capacity thus follow on strikes by surviving Russian Silo's and road mobile units would have eventually destroyed the silo's. The USSR planed to fight a long term nuclear war so they planned for repeated strikes to ensure target destruction.


Perhaps most critical for the key issue of Minuteman vulnerability were the estimates of missile accuracy. In the early 1970s, Soviet missile accuracies tended to be underestimated. Perhaps in part in overcompensation, the estimates from 1977 through 1980 in turn overestimated Soviet missile accuracies, although this did not become clear until 1983. Although these overestimates of the late 1970s were closer to Team B's alarmist projections, they were not influenced by the unproven assertions of Team B but by the fact that tests of the SS-18 Mod 4 and SS-19 Mod 3 in late 1977 and early 1978 yielded better results than expected.

www.cia.gov...


So in turn i must ask if they underestimated older missiles ( which had the warheads to do the job the accuracy could not ensure) how inaccurate were the later SS-18's-19's really? 100 meters or 50 error rate in the prediction? Whatever the truth American silo's were not hardened to survive close hits and they were not reloadable anyways.


Team B estimated that the Soviet Union would field a mobile ABM system, which it did not.


Well take a look at my earlier post today that kinda shows that they had a national ABM system since the middle 1970's at least. One can argue the effectiveness of the system against a massive strike by America but not the fact that it got better year on year as more large radars where built to provide tracking information for the entire nations SAM/ABM system.

Here is a teaser:


While Gorbachev offers some reassurances on the
Krasnoyarsk radar (which do not involve dismantling this
facility that violates the ABM Treaty), little-publicized
advances in Soviet missile defense continue.
The Air Force Intelligence Service has discovered secret
underground silos believed to be for antiballistic missile radars
and interceptors that are banned under the ABM Treaty.
These are located throughout the Soviet Union, near command
bunkers, nuclear weapons storage facilities, and other strategic
sites. The Soviet ABM plant near Tyumen has recently
doubled in size. It is believed that as many as 3,000 SH-08
and SH-04 interceptors will be produced there -- far more than
the 100 that are allowed by treaty. In addition, electronic
monitoring of the Soviet nation-wide network of phased-array
radars revealed testing related to battle-management
capabilities (Washington Ernes Mar 10,1988).

www.oism.org...



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.


This claim i will have to go check out as i have not heard of it before.


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.



The SS-16 is a three-stage, solid-propellant, single-RV ICBM that the Soviets claim has not been deployed. The system was first tested in 1972; the last known test took place in 1976. The SS-20 LRINF missile is closely related to the SS-16. The SS-16 probably was intended originally for both silo and mobile deployment, using equipment and a basing arrangement comparable to that used with the SS-20. The Soviet Union agreed in SALT II not to produce, test, or deploy ICBMs of the SS-16 type and, in particular, not to produce the SS-16 third stage, the RV, or the appropriate device for targeting the RV of that missile. While the evidence is somewhat ambiguous, it indicates that the SS-16 activities at Plesetsk are a probable violation of SALT II, which banned SS-16 deployment.

www.fas.org...


That is in fact what the DIA claimed but it turns out the SS-20 is nothing but the SS-16 renamed to fool people who would rather be fooled than reflect on reality. The Mod 3 upgrade for the SS-20(early 1980's) was stated as having a range of 7500 km which is enough to hit the eastern starboard and much of northern USA from nothern and north eastern areas of the USSR. Welcome to the world of deceptive CIA intelligence meant to fool most anyone who wants to be. At least the US defense intelligence establishment largely got it right even if the politicians were only listening to the CIA.


When the INF Treaty entered into force in June 1988, Votkinsk was a closed city of 100,000 people located in the Ural Mountains, approximately 1,000 kilometers northeast of Moscow. Three INF missiles had been assembled there: SS-12s, SS-20s, and SS-23s. The Votkinsk plant still assembled some of the Soviet Union's most modern ballistic missiles, specifically the SS-25 missile.3

Encased in large missile canisters, SS-25 missiles were shipped from the plant in special railroad cars to operational military units. The SS-25 was not banned under the INF Treaty. However, the missile's first stage was physically similar to the SS-20 first stage; its missile canister was similar in size and weight; and its railcar exiting the assembly plant was similar to those used to transport SS-20s. The major difference in the two missiles was that the SS-20 was a two-stage missile in which the second stage was 2.87 meters long, while the SS-25 was a three-stage missile, with a second stage 3.07-meter-long.4 Given these similarities and differences, treaty negotiators had to agree upon an inspection process that would allow U.S. inspectors to be sure that no SS-20 missiles or missile stages were leaving the plant.

www.fas.org...


Now taking into account that the SS-25's first stage was so much like the SS-20's one has to wonder what the SS-20 really was. If you do not wonder about this you clearly have not looked out how the USSR/Russia cheats on every damn agreement in their own favour.


3. SS-20 data taken from the IISS Military Balance 1981-1982, page 105. Mod 2 is the version so often discussed in the European theater, with 3-150 KT RVs. The range of Mod 2 is given at 5600 kilometers. By shifting to a single 50 KT RV, a range of 7400 kilometers is obtained. Both Mods clearly meet the SALT II criterion of being an ICBM, yet the SS-20 is not listed anywhere in the agreed statements or understandings as being a SALT II accountable ICBM. Despite the fact that the Mod I only has a 5000 kilometer range, any missile that has been tested in an ICBM mode is supposed to count.

www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil...


And this is how America keeps on losing it's power in world affairs. Why does arm treaty agreements always go in favour of the USSR/Russia even before they start cheating on the agreed upon conditions?


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 Soviets are also developing an airborne laser. Assuming a successful development effort, limited initial deployment could begin in the early l990s. Such a laser platform could have missions including antisatellite operations, protection of high-value airborne assets, and cruise missile defense.

The Soviets are working on technologies or have specific weapons-related programs underway for more advanced antisatellite systems. These include space-based kinetic energy, ground- and space-based laser, particle beam, and radio frequency weapons. The Soviets apparently believe that these techniques offer greater promise for future antisatellite application than continued development of ground-based orbital interceptors equipped with conventional warheads. The Soviets also believe that military applications of directed energy technologies hold promise of overcoming weaknesses in their conventional air and missile defenses.

The USSR's high-energy laser program, which dates from the mid-1960s, is much larger than the US effort. They have built over a half dozen major R&D facilities and test ranges, and they have over 10,000 scientists and engineers associated with laser development. They are developing chemical lasers and have continued to work on other high-energy lasers having potential weapons applications - the gas dynamic laser and the electric discharge laser. They are also pursuing related laser weapon technologies, such as efficient electrical power sources, and are pursuing capabilities to produce high-quality optical components. They have developed a rocket-driven magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) generator which produces 15 megawatts of short-term electric power - a device that has no counterpart in the West. The scope of the USSR's military capabilities would depend on its success in developing advanced weapons, including laser weapons for ballistic missile defense.

And:

The Soviets have now progressed beyond technology research, in some cases to the development of prototype laser weapons. They already have ground-based lasers that could be used to interfere with US satellites. In the late 1980s, they could have prototype space based laser weapons for use against satellites. In addition, ongoing Soviet programs have progressed to the point where they could include construction of ground-based laser antisatellite(ASAT) facilities at operational sites. These could be available by the end of the 1980s and would greatly increase the Soviets' laser ASAT capability beyond that currently at their test site at Sary Shagan. They may deploy operational systems of space-based lasers for antisatellite purposes in the l990s, if their technology developments prove successful, and they can be expected to pursue development of space-based laser systems for ballistic missile defense for possible deployment after the year 2000.

www.fas.org...


So where these predictions at least partially accurate? Decide for yourself


ASATs The Soviets may have a new "direct-ascent" antisatellite
capability, according to the Pentagon's annual report
to the Congress. This would be more effective than the "coorbital"
ASAT, which has been operational since 1971. It is
speculated that the new ASAT could carry a nuclear warhead.
Lasers: According to Paul Nitze, the Soviets have over a
half dozen major development facilities, including an ABM test
center at Sary Shagan. US intelligence sources suspect that
Soviet lasers have already damaged some American spy
satellites. In 1984, Richard DeLauer testified that it would
take the US about ten years to reach parity in laser weapons.
Active Measures (Wet)?: Since July 1986, there have
been seven terrorist bombings, three assassinations, five highly
suspicious "suicides," and one disappearance among European
scientists and officials working on SDI-related projects.
(Washington Inquirer, 12/18/87).

www.oism.org...



At the annual meeting of The American Civil Defense Association (TACDA) in Los Angeles, October, 1985, Dr. Teller stated that the U.S.
has made encouraging progress in research on x-ray lasers. But he believes the Soviets are a decade ahead of us in strategic defenses.

www.oism.org...



In 1976, a KH-11 or Code 1010 satellite was "painted" by a Soviet laser
and sustained "permanent damage," according to a senior Air Force official.
This source said that such paintings continued into the late 1980s.

www.strategypage.com...



One potential method might be a powerfull ground-based laser (why was the infrared sensor on one of our satellites suddenly blinded as it passed over the USSR?) A laser on the Mir space station recently "illuminated" an ICBM during the cruise phase of its flight in space, demonstrating Soviet ability to detect and track a missile, according t o Pentagon sources (Washington Inquirer , July 24, 1987).

The purpose of Mir may indeed include bringing about "peace" -- Soviet style,
implies absence of opposition.

www.oism.org...


How sure are we that it's all just misunderstandings and threat inflation?


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.


It was just part and parcel of a larger whole with the idea in mind that even if nuclear weapons exploded everywhere ( on tips off ABM/SAM missiles or from American weapons) there would be fallout shelters for enough people to keep driving the Soviet war economy.

Here is some references to what they did do in the interest of national survival.


He spoke of the astonishing civil defense measures which have been developed, and continue to be developed, in the Soviet Union. He stated
that 25% of all Russian factory workers are in training programs preparing them for civil defense leadership roles. Major defense
manufacturing facilities in Russia have been dispersed well clear of all existing major industrial areas so as to afford a large measure of
protection for those industries in the event of nuclear war. Keegan alleged that he was in possession of ample evidence to show that the
Russians are in the process of building up huge stocks of foods and grains, in preparation for war. He said that all the evidence points to
the fact that the Russians are not merely aiming for superiority but are "preparing for war. . . ." Evidence available quite openly in

Russia, contained in Soviet literature, shows that already the Soviets have constructed enough mass-shelters in key strategic industrial
areas to protect More than sixty million from nuclear attack. Bunkers have been provided for the civilian population in all main cities,
including several which are the size of football fields. "My collection team." said the Major-General. "have identified grain-storage bunkers
the size of several football fields on the perimeter of all main cities, guarded by the military -- the most elaborate of their kind in the
world. We are observing the most extensive peace-time war preparations in recorded history. . ."

More about the man :[url=http://www.af.mil/bios/bio_print.asp?bioID=6003&page=1]MAJOR GENERAL GEORGE J. KEEGAN JR.[url]



In 1968, Radio Moscow reported that the most reliable protection available against nuclear, chemical, and bacteriological weapons was "evacuation from large cities and industrial areas". Soviet leaders assumed that American attacks would be centered around cities and industrial centers, so with proper warning time, Soviet citizens could escape to rural and suburban areas without harm.
In the event of an American nuclear attack, there were nine (9) different warning signals that could be broadcast throughout the city. One of these signals (which corresponded to different levels of urgency) would be played all over the city using sirens, loudspeakers, whistles, and radios.
When citizens heard the signal, they were instructed to move to a pre-assigned location, or "collection point", from which they would be evacuated to rural or suburban areas, out of harm's way. Every available mode of transportation (including trucks, cars, trains and buses) would be used to get as many people as possible away from the city center in the shortest amount of time.

www.piedmontcommunities.us...=
page&GID=01303001151018293682662999&PG=01304001151018318529636575



This dispersal plan had a huge impact on city planning in the Soviet Union. When new cities were built, they were planned as dispersed
cities with suburban populations instead of centralized towns (see above).
Changes to existing cities included constructing wide streets, artificial reservoirs, and a network of highways around the city, as well as
reducing building density to reduce the possibility of blast and fire damage.
The Soviets, therefore, assumed that they would have enough advance warning of an American attack to implement the aforementioned evacuation
and dispersal exercises. Through the use of these removals, pre-attack warning systems, and improved city planning, Soviet military leaders
hoped to reduce the number of civilian and economic (industrial) losses.

www.piedmontcommunities.us...=page&GID=
01303001151018293682662999&PG=01304001151018318529636575



Industrial dispersal. The Soviets have been involved in an industrial dispersal program for more than 15 years. Their approach to the program has been and continues to be the siting of new industrial complexes in towns and settlements with populations of 100,000 people or less. The program has several advantages for the Soviets. First, it is of great economic importance from the standpoint of accelerating and expanding their economic development; this is especially true regarding growth of such sparsely developed areas as Siberia. Second, it prevents high concentrations of industry in a small number of large industrial centers and helps the Soviets make better use of their abundant natural resources. Third, dispersal creates a proliferation of aimpoints for U.S. strategic planners and greatly complicates targeting tasks.

And:

Industrial hardening. The Soviets have an ongoing program designed to harden their industrial base. Included in this program are underground facilities, new plant construction techniques, construction of duplicate plants, retrofit hardening of existing facilities, and expedient techniques. The first three hardening methods can be productively utilized only for new facilities and require a long lead time for fruition. The fourth method, retrofit hardening of existing facilities, has near-term implications but is expensive. The fifth means, expedient techniques, is relatively inexpensive and has short-term implications; it will be the focus of this discussion.

If current Soviet expedient hardening preparations for protection of their industrial base are implemented on a large scale, the effectiveness of a U.S. retaliatory capability could be significantly degraded. By utilizing relatively inexpensive and simple expedient techniques such as packing machinery in sandbags, the Soviets could make their industry relatively invulnerable to overpressures of a few pounds per square inch (psi). Depending on the specific precautions taken in mounting and protecting machines, they can be made to survive overpressures in the range of 40 to 300 psi. Figures 1 and 2 illustrate specific hardening techniques.7

www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil...



The vast Soviet network of shelters and command facilities, under construction for four decades, was recently described in detail by
Secretary of Defense Frank Carlucci.The shelters are designed to house the entire Politburo, the Central Committee, and the key leadership of
the Ministryof Defense and the KGB. Some are located hundreds of yards beneath the surface, and are connected by secret subway lines,tunnels,
and sophisticated communications systems. "These facilities contradict in steel and concrete Soviet protestations that they share President
Reagan's view that nuclear war can never be won and must never be fought,"Carlucci said (Ariwna Republic, April 3, 1988). These
facilities reveal that they are preparing themselves for just the opposite." The shelters are also protected against chemical warfare agents,
and stocked with sufficient supplies to allow the leadership to survive and wage war for months.In contrast, the limited US shelter system
begun in the 1950s has mostly been abandoned."To have something comparable, we'd have to have facilities where we could put every governor,
mayor, every Cabinet official, and our whole command structure underground with subways running here and there," Carlucci said. "There's just
no comparison between the two."

www.oism.org...




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."


Well that was the aim however incredible. The problem with science fiction and fatansy is that is has to stick to possiblity where realiy does not much give a damn if we imagine something possible or not.


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.


Patently false as tehre was never a credible way to estimate Soviet spending. The methods employed was either based on shear speculation or on estimates based on 'official' Russian spending figures that could obviously not be twisted to fit western models.


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.


Then why are they so well armed still with their CLEARLY " horrible' economy these days? How does it make sense that they can maintain such vast forces with current spending figures when they managed far more with apparently less then? Illogical at best but that is what the CIA will try allude to in a effort to missdirect.


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."


Well when it comes to national survival in the eyes of the rulers of Moscow people can starve as long as it's in the general national interest.


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


As you can see the CIA lied since it's inception but since it had the ear of the president the DIA and NIE information were sidelined in favour of CIA lies and deception.

You just keep this up Rogue as your ignorant defense of CIA lies will do even lless for your credibility than all your other posts so far.

Stellar

[edit on 13-3-2006 by StellarX]



posted on Mar, 13 2006 @ 07:04 PM
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. 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); however, that's easily enough to wipe out every major, semi-major, and even small city in the country.


Russia alone has a nuclear warhead pointed at EVERY single city in the US with a population more of 10k ppl, multiple for major citys.

Mod Edit: Quoting Etiquette – Please Review This Link.



[edit on 14-3-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 04:51 AM
link   
Keeping in mind the USA has enough nukes to blanket the world 3 times over. Also, AFAIK the USA is the only country to possess bunker busting Nuclear warheads.



posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by yeoldehomer
Keeping in mind the USA has enough nukes to blanket the world 3 times over. Also, AFAIK the USA is the only country to possess bunker busting Nuclear warheads.


I you don't much mind i would really like if you at least read a few pages of the thread you just posted on. Since that practice helps me to avoid making embarrassing/stupid comments i believe it migth very well help you aswell.

Thanks.

Stellar

[edit on 14-3-2006 by StellarX]



posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lecter
Russia alone has a nuclear warhead pointed at EVERY single city in the US with a population more of 10k ppl, multiple for major citys.


This is wrong. Russian missiles are pointed at strategic targets and ignore US population. The reason is that a nuclear war it would be vital to destroy the potential damaging targets; not some innocent morons in a city.

Mod Edit: Quoting Etiquette – Please Review This Link.



[edit on 14-3-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
I you don't much mind i would really like if you at least read a few pages of the thread you just posted on. Since that practice helps me to avoid making embarrassing/stupid comments i believe it migth very well help you aswell.

Thanks.
Stellar



Nah reading sucks


Mod Edit: Quoting Etiquette – Please Review This Link.



[edit on 14-3-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus

This is wrong. Russian missiles are pointed at strategic targets and ignore US population. The reason is that a nuclear war it would be vital to destroy the potential damaging targets; not some innocent morons in a city.


You mean the History chan lied to me?!


Mod Edit: Quoting Etiquette – Please Review This Link.



[edit on 14-3-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 07:48 PM
link   
Why would you even trust a tv show? First of all what's the common sense behind pointing your missiles at say...LA or Chicago? So you blow up a bunch of people...you still lose because you let your enemy keep all their missiles.



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 03:15 AM
link   
The Russians have more than enough missiles to to pursue countervalue ( economic and civilian targets ) and counterforce ( military targets )targetting at the same time.
Russian SLBM's are not accurate enough for countervalue targetting anyway are only good enough for city busting.

As for stratr_F's information, he has ben proven wrong several times and never provides sources for his claims, which are wrong most of the time anyway.



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 04:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
The Russians have more than enough missiles to to pursue countervalue ( economic and civilian targets ) and counterforce ( military targets )targetting at the same time.
Russian SLBM's are not accurate enough for countervalue targetting anyway are only good enough for city busting.

As for stratr_F's information, he has ben proven wrong several times and never provides sources for his claims, which are wrong most of the time anyway.


You are the biggest moron in the world.

Words you don't know:

Deployed

Look it up.

Concepts you don't know:

Developments

Dropping bombs into swamps as your plane falls apart and kills half your crew is not a "Development".

Reviewing what you write

You must surely have meant that SLBMs are of no counterforce significance due to the fact that a Submarine does not have an exact location at any given time and thus (unless it were to surface) would be incapable of hitting anything but large soft targets i.e. airports and cities etc.

But this is not what you wrote.

No one here thinks you know anything; that's why they argue with you.

And every time you've been asked to prove yourself you either divert the issue to another issue (this time you diverted it to an failure for some reason) or you present evidence from the Bulletin (care to defend their sources because I have already proven them to be uncredible).

And you say I have been proven wrong many times?

Let us let the public decide.

You claim that Russia's nuclear weapons are inferior: But the United States' nuclear arsenal is grossly under weight.

Minuteman IIIs have less than an eight of the carrying capacity of the SS-18 which the Russians still keep as MIRVs while Minutemans have all gone to single warheads on stand-by.

The Russian force is more survivable with a good portion of it being mobile in Siberia.

The Russians are deploying 2000 r. technology and opening new Nuclear complexes.

The USA has closed Nuclear complexes and is using 1960s-1970s r. missiles.

Russia has a ballistic missile defense based on the theory of premature detonation which is effective but crude...still...its a ballistic missile defense.

The USA has no such thing.

Russia has civilian defense much improved since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

USA has no such thing.

And you continue to argue numbers, again using The Bulletin as your main source...or some other online garbage.

Meanwhile I have asked you to provide evidence of deployed missiles but you confuse this with stock-piled missiles.

And to make matters worse...

China cannot feed themselves...they will never bite the hand that feeds them...the United States

So end this stupid debate.

PS

The point of your post in context of mine is that Russia can do both. Russia doesn't waste time with both; nor does the US. Because it takes roughly 2 warheads to destroy one hardened facility; there's an estimated 25% failure and so it takes approximately just 250 warheads hitting their targets successfully to destroy simply the ICBM facilities at Whyoming//Montana.

It would take several warheads for every major US military establishment and every establishment carrying a Nuclear stock-pile.

These establishments are all targeted.

Why would Russia destroy New York or LA when it can destroy the US by simply destroying her military capabilities?

And the US has expressed a similar strategy.

[edit on 16-3-2006 by Stratrf_Rus]



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 07:59 AM
link   
You know to me what's scarier? There are actually people that believe China wants to wipe out US in the first place. That's HELLAVA LOT MORE scary, a sign of what the American public education has become over the years.



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 08:03 AM
link   
This thread is idiotic in the first place, but what you said is so bs to the point that i have to write something about it.

China cannot feed itself without US imports?

ROFL LMAO


You just made my day, period.

China in 2003 imports 24% of its total rice consumption, which all of them virtually came from Thailand. USA my ass.



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 08:38 AM
link   


You know to me what's scarier? There are actually people that believe China wants to wipe out US in the first place. That's HELLAVA LOT MORE scary, a sign of what the American public education has become over the years.


This thread seems to have gotten off track a little bit. If you read the original post, it QUOTES the Chinese plans of what they want to do to the US. Not heresay, but actual quotes from the military authorities. It speaks of a chem/bio attack on the soil of the US, wiping out as many of the US population as possible. While I certainly don't want to believe that China wants to wipe out the US, the facts remain that these words were said publicly. I am not the brightest person on the planet, but for something like this to be said with such detail is scary. To turn a blind eye to this is a mistake. I also do not claim to know all of the politics involved with Chinas infrastructure, but if this was a total lie, I have to believe that it would not have been allowed to be said. I believe (correct me if I am wrong) that there are extremely strict policies of what can and cannot be said in China. Even to the point of what you are allowed to believe in. I have to assume that there is something to this no matter what the true degree is. If China were to actually try something like this is there a possibility that the US could actually win?
A real chem/bio attack which wipes out, or even just sickens millions would make those that were not affected burrow into their holes. A coordinated attack could then be launched on US soil. With the Chinese military being as large as it is, I believe to be near 100 million, waves upon waves of Chinese could simply over run the US border defences. With all of the developments that the Chinese have accomplished over the last decades this is not the least bit far fetched.
1) Chinese ownership of both ends of the Panama Canal.
2) China building the largest cargo facility on the face of the planet in the Bahamas, which is only several hundred miles off the coast of the US.
3) The fact that the Chinese control so much of the US currency which is a different animal entirely.
4) The buildup of the Chinese military weaponry.
5) The Chinese continued efforts to gain control, or build alliances with governments of much of the worlds Oil reserves.
6) The fact that the Chinese several years back captured, and held one of the US military aircraft, and dissected all of the top secret, cutting edge technologies on board.
Personally, I think more attention should go towards China than Iran.



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 09:31 AM
link   
The reason behind all the sabre rattling on China's part, is because they plan to invade and take over Taiwan - who is allied with the US. They are currently working - have been for years - to upgrade their navy (especially) and also their air force so it can compete with American forces (and to a lesser extent, with Taiwan forces) in the Pacific.

The conflict over Taiwan's independence is the most probable trigger that will cause a war with China.

The less probable trigger for a war with China, is a war with North Korea, who is their close ally.

China launching and hitting American cities with ICBMs is definitely within their capability, just as it is within the capability of the US to do the same to their cities.

However, China being able to wage a successful invasion and control campaign against the continental US, is another story.




posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthUnificationFrontier
This thread is idiotic in the first place, but what you said is so bs to the point that i have to write something about it.

China cannot feed itself without US imports?

ROFL LMAO


You just made my day, period.

China in 2003 imports 24% of its total rice consumption, which all of them virtually came from Thailand. USA my ass.


24% of its rice (staple diet) is imported.

24% of their population is about 300,000,000 people. This many people starving because of them going to a war where the US would entirely blockade all trade into China would be disasterous.

300 million deaths would cause many more by plague and their entire health infrastructure would fail.

California exports and China tarrifs

Chinese agricultural imports

Even stating that China reserves all its agricultural exports ... China would still suffer over 100 million starvations and that would still destroy them.



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 11:41 PM
link   


This thread seems to have gotten off track a little bit. If you read the original post, it QUOTES the Chinese plans of what they want to do to the US. Not heresay, but actual quotes from the military authorities. It speaks of a chem/bio attack on the soil of the US, wiping out as many of the US population as possible. While I certainly don't want to believe that China wants to wipe out the US, the facts remain that these words were said publicly.


For Christ's sake do you not understand what scenerios are? Every nation in the world has scenerios for every possibilty. THIS IS A SCENERIO, get over it.



I am not the brightest person on the planet, but for something like this to be said with such detail is scary. To turn a blind eye to this is a mistake. I also do not claim to know all of the politics involved with Chinas infrastructure, but if this was a total lie, I have to believe that it would not have been allowed to be said. I believe (correct me if I am wrong) that there are extremely strict policies of what can and cannot be said in China.


You're wrong. It's not as bad as some people want you to believe. Hell, this is not the 1960s or 70s. China has changed... So should public view on China.



1) Chinese ownership of both ends of the Panama Canal.


Okay? So what? I honestly don't understand how you can even bash China on this. It's truly a wonder.


2) China building the largest cargo facility on the face of the planet in the Bahamas, which is only several hundred miles off the coast of the US.


Well, the U.S. has airbases surrounding China that has the ability to bomb any Chinese city within an hour...


3) The fact that the Chinese control so much of the US currency which is a different animal entirely.


So what if the Chinese control a lot of US Currency. Is that illegal? I can tell you what is illegal - the invasion of Iraq.


4) The buildup of the Chinese military weaponry.


Okay, the U.S. has the largest military int he world and spends MUCH more than China. You know what, GB, JAPAN, and the US all spend more than China.


5) The Chinese continued efforts to gain control, or build alliances with governments of much of the worlds Oil reserves.


The U.S. invades countries to control world oil reserves.


6) The fact that the Chinese several years back captured, and held one of the US military aircraft, and dissected all of the top secret, cutting edge technologies on board.


That US Military aircraft ENTERED Chinese airspace illegally and crashed, KILLING a Chinese pilot. Honestly, are you that extremely biased?


Personally, I think more attention should go towards China than Iran.


Wow, if you think more attention should go towards China than Iran, you have been completely blinded by all these irrelevant, BS Chinese bashings that is so common on this forum.

I honestly think you should read up a bit more on China. Everything you said is completely biased and utterly hypocritical when you look at what the U.S. has done recently.



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 12:57 AM
link   
If China were to try to invade, they would never make it across the ocean with all these hi-tech satellites floating around and if somebody were to lob a nuke it would become mutual assured destruction. Both scenarios won't work for anybody in power, so naturally they both will go after weaker targets and maybe as we sometimes run into each other cold war style. The questions are, how much economic damage and slowdown would result in those kinds of battles? When do we cross some threshold where doing business with China fails to benefit elites and corporations? AS far as terror goes, it appears religious extremists pose more of a threat be they Osama or an equivalent christian, they are more likely to go off the deep end and cause the most trouble. A united muslim middle east probably keeps politicians and oil company executives up at night more than any threat of Wal Marts manufacture country. Plus the Chinese need us to make the oil in the middle east secure so they can get some of it for their needs. If something were to go wrong with oil we then might clash mostly for control of the rest of it, maybe that could be in our future, but somebody will run out of access to the oil or the money to defend their share sooner or later, China might be able to spend more and it would be because of our doing business with them, we might have empowered them more than we can contain them if everybody scrambles for the oil. I don't think a "communist" or even "terrorist" threat is the focus and in fact I think most wars are over access to resources needed to maintain living for people that look to business and government to provide the resources to live a life with modern conviences.



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 02:47 AM
link   
Condoleezza Rice with Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Aso is at the momment in Australia here to discuss China`s growing influence.


The growing influence of China, regional security, the Iraq war and tensions on the Korean peninsula are also on the agenda.



The Federal Government has tried to soothe Chinese concerns that Saturday's meeting between the three allies is aimed at containing China's growing regional power.

www.news.com.au...


Dr Rice was to return to Sydney tonight before trilateral security talks with Mr Downer and Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Aso on Saturday.

www.news.com.au...

So i`d say the US is taking China serious to some degree.



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 03:33 AM
link   
When dealing with China here, think Vietnam. Population extermination simply would not work, as our great Comrade Ho Chi Minh made it very clear and apparent to US: "For every 10 you kill of our men, we will kill 1 of yours, and in the end it will be you who lose." Or something along those lines.

Nonetheless, when facing China, the quote needs to changed to: "For every 20 you kill of our men, we will kill 1 of yours, and in the end it will be you who lose."

Not to mention this "Vietnam" has an expeditious advancing military, strategic allies accross Asia, a vast global intelligence network, and of course nuclear capabilities, which the 60s "Old Vietnam" possess none of these.

As a side note, im sick and downright tired of hearing China and oil. Please have some background knowledge before stating any claims, here's the truth:

65% of China's total energy needs are met by coal, less than 25% of it is supplied by oil.

Here ya go. China's attempt to control oil is a restrain strategy on US more than anything.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join