Every edit you made you added a paragraph, why couldn't you write such a little post in one go?. Little children at the candy store, "I want that
and this and that and...and that"
Originally posted by XBadgerDoes China want to conquer Taiwan so badly that they are gong to launch their nuclear wad even if it means
America retaliating ten fold?
Nuclear weapons are there to show a message a message to America, "Any attempt at intervention and be prepared to go ALL THE WAY". China knows that
most Americans will not swap their own lives for that of Taiwan and its their choice to make. Intervention, even conventional could mean a chinese
counterstrike involving nuclear weapons and that is the consideration we are under when considering nuclear weapon states. The question really is,
does America have the guts to match chinas guts when it comes to the Taiwan situation because chinese people are clearly more involved than the
average American about Taiwan.
Taiwan is like the South was to America, Its pride, its about who we are and putting the final piece of the unfair treaties to the end. Chinese people
are more educated about their own history than America is, obviously because Taiwan has nothing to do with America
I am not sure how China would possibly defend the hundreds of miles of pipelines in REMOTE areas from bombing sorties leaving from Afghanistan
and potentially Uzbekistan.
Chinas western areas like Xingjiang are not as remote as you make them out to be. The oil pipelines travel through major towns and cities and will be
spilt along the way are intervals, you could even say those towns are almost supported by the fuel industry. Take not of the fact that Xingjiang was
the scene of a massive military presence in the cold war and is the centerpiece of chinas new mobility based divisions also known as RRU, Xingjiang is
not lacking in ground forces nor are they lacking in airdefences associated with the PLAAF which has airbases stationed there as well as the definite
possibility of re-enforcements including mobile radar. Enough to protect much of chinas oil pipelines.
Now lets get to Uzbekistan, Pakistan and Afganistan.
Uzbekistan is a member of SCO and would be helping china. I doubt they would be helping
U.S. Troops Leave Uzbekistan
Pakistan is a all weather friend and is obviously more friendly to china. The port of Gwadar which can be used as a port for oil imports as well as
the extensive road network on its border which can be used to truck in oil. Afganistan is already hard pressed for troops not to mention a influx of
chinese arms or even SOF which can be flown to get involved with the fight. China might not be able to protect around the world but its geared to
local wars on its borders
I am one of the people who dont believe in those SOF operations, what Tom Clancy like people are made out of. They might take out a pipeline but that
pipeline will be fixed in a matter of weeks or even days. One pipeline is insignificant to chinas total oil imports nor does it affect its own
production of 3.504 Million bbl/day and its reserve of 90 days. Future conflicts under high tech conditions is chinas own motto for future combat and
will be quick a desive in the first few days.
If you want me to believe America has a EMP program without any actual proof than will you believe china has a EMP program without evidence as
I know exactly how to define race.
When dont you get back to my question about which race i offended. If you called me a racist and then find it so hard to define a race, why would you
then call someone a racist. So did i offend the human race or did i ofend yourself?. Please dont side track this to the 1850's and someone relate
this to the slave trade because it has nothing to do with that, its got to do with your definition of race and the reason for calling me a racist
On a side note, its interesting to think that currently 64.5% of adult Americans are overweight or obese while the figure then jumps to 73% in 2008,
wouldn't these have their lives shortened by having weight problems. Not to mention the growing. On the note of the study, it stressed the deaths
over a period of someones average life so you can divide the figure by 70 or so years. Other figures i have found are not so alarmistic