U.S. vs. China

Originally posted by COWlan
China's strategic nuclear forces have the defence only nuclear weapon rule. The are not allowed to fire nukes on a country if we are not attacked by nukes.
Please. Do your research before you come and post.
Man, Daedalus, DO YOUR RESEARCH, sixty percent of what you say is BS, you are transmitting false information into other people.

[edit on 3-11-2004 by COWlan]

you mean until the Politburo changes its mind

Please China may state they have a first use policy but that wouldn't stop them fo a second if they thought it was worth while.

Now that is a person who knows about nuke agreement. I agree with COWlan.

Yep, they have one :

Since 1964, China's stated policy has been to �not be the first to use nuclear weapons at any time or under any circumstances." Chinese officials have consistently adhered to this principle and claim that the existence of their NFU pledge is proof that China possesses nuclear weapons for defensive purposes. China expanded on this commitment in 1995 when it publicly issued an unconditional negative security assurance. ["China's National Statement On Security Assurances," 5 April 1995.]

Yep, alot of people think it is Bull S**T.

China remains publicly committed to a policy of no-first-use and delayed response, but some scholars and analysts have questioned the credibility of this declaratory doctrine. During the 1970s and 1980s, reports that China had considered using nuclear weapons as a means of response to a conventional Soviet attack led many Western analysts to doubt the reliability of China�s NFU pledge. Today, observers continue to question whether China�s pledge prohibits use of nuclear weapons on Chinese soil, particularly in response to a foreign invasion or a war in Tibet or Taiwan. In 2003, China�s nuclear policy continued to revolve around a desire for universal elimination of nuclear weapons and a promise of no-first-use. Nevertheless, foreign analysts � and, to some degree, Chinese scholars -- increasingly question China�s commitment to its NFU pledge.

-DT

China is not that stupid about using Nuke anyways, China don't want other countires to go to war with them. If what you said is ture, i believe US will do the same. This one is to Mad S...

[edit on 3-11-2004 by robert605]

Originally posted by COWlan
China's strategic nuclear forces have the defence only nuclear weapon rule. The are not allowed to fire nukes on a country if we are not attacked by nukes.
Please. Do your research before you come and post.
Man, Daedalus, DO YOUR RESEARCH, sixty percent of what you say is BS, you are transmitting false information into other people.

[edit on 3-11-2004 by COWlan]

so i wonder how you arrived at the " 60%" figure!!

My data is sound. Show my your source which says that China has a
no-first use policy. And the "defence only nuclear rule" you state is like this ..

"I am launching a pre-emptive nuclear strike as a defensive measure because conventionally am outgunned."

Listen ive had enough of this running around the bush bit!!
That way even pakistan has a 'no-first-use-policy' .
"We won't use nukes till our country's being overrun conventionally and are sovereignty is at stake!!"

Its a "purely defensive" measure afterall!


Don't try to explain your govt. policy when even you don't understand it!! What I mean by no-first-use is "whatever happens i will not use nuclear
weapons until i myself have ALREADY been attacked by nuclear weapons"..

GOD!! do you get it now??!!!

If china is cionventionally overwhelmed and its sovereignty is at stake it reseves the right to use nukes to 'defend' its sovereignty.
Thats what your government's stance on nukes is!!

Go check chinese foreign policy before you make yourself look like an idiot!!

easiest way to win a war with china in 10 steps:
1. get Bill Clinton as head of the UN
2. 4 agents enter china via different entry points with briefcase nukes
3. let out an osama bin laden tape saying china is full of invidels and shall be punished
4. Let off the nukes in 1 places of commerce, 1 place of culteral significance, 1 place of theological significance, 1 place of military concentation.
5. send aid
6. send troops as releaf workers
7. assananate the president
8. instill interm govenor appointed by UN
9. interm governor framed for trying to sell off nukes to terrorest cells in exchange for protection.
10. US appoints its own governor since it sends more aid



[edit on 3-11-2004 by seedy_sid]

Originally posted by robert605
China is not that stupid about using Nuke anyways, China don't want other countires to go to war with them. If what you said is ture, i believe US will do the same. This one is to Mad S...

[edit on 3-11-2004 by robert605]

yeah you believe that but its a pity that the international community doesn't put its faith in what china says. As i said the 'nukes for defence' clause is flawed, where 'defensive measures' are a point of view..

if Daedalus, that No first nuke policty is strictly followed by a military then all of the No first use policies are fraud because what makes you think USA or another nuclear power won't detonate a few dozen nuclear warheads when they are on the brink of destruction.

For the sources, the other gracious person has already provided you with quotes.

60%? I meant >60%! I read at least 10 of your quotes in the LCA thread, the Taiwan thread and the Can India Liberate Tibet Thread and almost every one of them contains B**L S**T. Daedalus Deny Ignorance.

"wat ever happens we won't use nuclears?" WOW!! In the policy it clearly contains China will not use nuclear weapons on a non nuclear power, China will not use nuclear weapons unless we have suffered a nuclear attack from that country.

If I don't understand my own government, you do?

[edit on 3-11-2004 by COWlan]

[edit on 3-11-2004 by COWlan]

[edit on 3-11-2004 by COWlan]

Originally posted by COWlan
if Daedalus, that No first nuke policty is strictly followed by a military then all of the No first use policies are fraud because what makes you think USA or another nuclear power won't detonate a few dozen nuclear warheads when they are on the brink of destruction.

USA respects that policy because in their opinion no country that they perceive as a threat has the strength to overpower them conventionally.I agree with that too. The US cannot be defeated conventionally.

Same with Russia. Neither the US nor China can overwhelm Russia conventionally.

Also the UK and France perceive no threat that can overwhelm them conventionally. this is because they have a cemented defence assistance pact with the US.

India too doesn't perceive that Pakistan and/or China can overwhelm them conventionally to a point of loss of sovereignty because:

1. Pakistan cannot 'touch' India in conventional terms.
2. India has a 'friendship treaty' with Russia which also provides such a clause, namely "military assistance will be provided in the event of an invasion by hostile forces." This was put to test (As I have already stated )
when the US brought its 7th fleet into the bay of bengal to pressurise India into backing down inthe 71 Indo-Pak war. The russians brought akulas into the bay to buzz the 7th fleet which then went on the defensive. Again fact not fiction.


China can be overwhelmed conventionally by the US or Russia. Similarly Pakistan can be easily overwhelmed by India.

Hence these nuke states have a "twist" in their nuke use policies.

See no BS 100% fact.

So...the people who can invade China cannot invade India?

Funny BS from some biased Indian guy

Friendship treaty?Yeah right.The russians would not help some country like India against China,but maybe against Pakistan yes.Anyway,i believe even Pakistan's military is stronger than India's military,not that Pakistan is lousy or anything,they would just beat India conventionally.Pakistan easily overwhelmed by India.WTF am i listening here?


[edit on 4/11/04 by W4rl0rD]

Yes they can but they won't.

Russia won't invade its only ally India or is that how you chicoms think?!!
I told you of the frindship treaty and its clause. Read the post again.Russia and India pledge to provide military assistance to eact other in case eithers sovereignty is at stake.

The US will not invade India because:
1. It does not perceive India as a threat to its security. In the new world after 9/11 the US sees India as a strategic ally in Asia. An ally which is democratic, capable of defending itself and can influence regional affairs. Plus it can provide insight into islamic fundamentalism in the region. Thats why the AF exercises have begun.
I don't see any US-China AF exercises taking place now do we?

Also the US will not risk attacking India as Russia will intervene( Friendship treaty). This happened before, I mentioned it in my post..The 71 Indo-Pak war...7th fleet..akulas..GOD why don't you read properly before posting!!You're just making a fool of yourself!!

China does NOT have ANY strategic ally!! Pakistan will only help if china is at war with India. They wont help if Russia is involved. They DEFINITELY wont help you if the US if at war with you.
India has a strategic ally...

now read this post TEN times before you say something stupid again!!Please

Originally posted by W4rl0rD
So...the people who can invade China cannot invade India?

Funny BS from some biased Indian guy

Friendship treaty?Yeah right.The russians would not help some country like India against China,but maybe against Pakistan yes.Anyway,i believe even Pakistan's military is stronger than India's military,not that Pakistan is lousy or anything,they would just beat India conventionally.Pakistan easily overwhelmed by India.WTF am i listening here?

[edit on 4/11/04 by W4rl0rD]

So you don't believe the "friendship treaty". Why wouldnt they help us with China. China too big? They helped us with the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA for god sakes!!

"Pakistan military stronger than Indian military?" We've defeated them in 3 wars uptill now!! Hello!!

Originally posted by Daedalus3
Yes they can but they won't.

The US will not invade India because:
1. It does not perceive India as a threat to its security. In the new world after 9/11 the US sees India as a strategic ally in Asia. An ally which is democratic, capable of defending itself and can influence regional affairs. Plus it can provide insight into islamic fundamentalism in the region. Thats why the AF exercises have begun.
I don't see any US-China AF exercises taking place now do we?

China is capable of defending itself,can influence regional affairs and all of the above,besides being democratic.Now,my veggie eating friend,if you noticed,you are changing the topic from US vs China to US+India vs China.Either way,the war is highly unlikely,but if you have any other OPINIONS,feel free to put it in the thread about "liberating" Tibet.

Depending on the goal:

assumption: conventional war

If the goal is to deter or neutralized an invasion of Taiwan
I believe US is fully capable of doing that. In fact, victory is absolutely certain.


If the goal is occupy Beijing
I dont believe any country is capable of doing that. Victory is impossible.

Originally posted by W4rl0rD

Originally posted by Daedalus3
Yes they can but they won't.

The US will not invade India because:
1. It does not perceive India as a threat to its security. In the new world after 9/11 the US sees India as a strategic ally in Asia. An ally which is democratic, capable of defending itself and can influence regional affairs. Plus it can provide insight into islamic fundamentalism in the region. Thats why the AF exercises have begun.
I don't see any US-China AF exercises taking place now do we?

China is capable of defending itself,can influence regional affairs and all of the above,besides being democratic.Now,my veggie eating friend,if you noticed,you are changing the topic from US vs China to US+India vs China.Either way,the war is highly unlikely,but if you have any other OPINIONS,feel free to put it in the thread about "liberating" Tibet.

China is democratic?!! Im sorry I must be in the wrong dimension!!

And I didn't switch topics you did!! when you said I quote:

So...the people who can invade China cannot invade India?

I was merely stating why countries like the US, Russia, UK ,France and ALSO India felt secure having a no-first-use policy because they are not in danger of being conventionally overrun. That is either due to their own military prowess or due to pacts that they have made with other states.

China and pakistan do not have that luxury. Hence the ambiguity in their nuke policy.

[edit on 4-11-2004 by Daedalus3]

Korea, Vietnam, Uigur, Tibet, today's Kazachstan, Turkmenistan ... China has also some imperial history comparable to the Roman Imperium for example.

And 20. century - wars with Vietnam, India, Russia, North Korea ...

I think China won ALL these wars (except against Russia, let's consider it a tie). North Korea? China helped them =P

the american air force and navy are still far better than chinese, but I don't think this is enough... Plus, they are defending, what is a lot easier than attacking

Yeah, I'd like to go home to my ancestoral Poland some day, but not in a casket so if you are going to ivade China, just let me know so I can go hoe.

Unline the USA you morons, China only has one coast and many countries along its frontier borders. Point is....How do you invade a sleeping Giant?

Are you going to waltz in through Hong Kong, take the train to Mainland GuangDong or go by hopping off of TaiWan, or maybe you can Hangglide from Tibet or cross the Desert of XingJiang. Instead of talking BS...let's hear some real invasion strategies...Point is I don't think any exist. Besides my MuddaLand would never let you dance...and as to France I think China is in her Pants.

This war will completely depend on intel, esp. for the US. They have the capacity to cripple chinas nuclear capability with their tac nukes, but they need to have the corect intel. Same for China. I don't know if china has tac nukes. Also i think the chinese have vvery less no. of warheads as compared to the US. So a tac strike by the US is not impossible, but it will be much more difficult for the chinese for 2 reasons:

1. More nukes to neutralise obviously!!
2. Only way to neutralise nukes on the US mainland is by sabotage. China does not have the military capability to take out silos in the US while the reverse is true. (B-2, F-117 etc. etc.)

I do not know if the Us wil be able to mount a full-scale invasion, but the US can definitely "defeat" the chinese, just by taking out 80 to 90% of their nukes by tactical strikes. In that case the chinese will prompt for ceasefire as IMHO they will want to keep their remaining nukes as a credible deterrant for future aggressors.

In the end I think the US can come out of this is victorious is if they have the right intel. An invasion would be unnecessary, the US could just 'liberate taiwan' and give them some ground annexed on the mainland.

Intel is of utmost importance to the US. They have the capabilty to defeat any country(except russia) w/o inccuring much harm themselves militarily on home soil. All they need is the right intel.
Guerrilla warfare on the US mainland is another thing.

So you chicoms better keep on moving those nukes around !!

Thats how!! Tac nuke strikes from taiwan, the sea, from the US the surprise maybe this.. from Indian soil. I doubt the Inidans will allow though.
So from afghanistan or turkey. If 90% of the chinese nuke aresenal is removed they will IMHO will not want the war to progress anymore. They'd probably keep the remaining nukes as a deterrant for future aggressors. Hence there'd be no question of a conventional war. If there was then B-2 s would remove anti-air defences layer by layer, while the other USAF jets would mop up and also provide air support. This isn't foolproof though. Stealth can be defeated. China has the homeground advantage, and the numbers at its disposal. Its all based on which side has better intel on the others moves, and they way in which they respond.

An Invasion of the mainland is not in USA's interests. They wont/can't do that. But they can sure drive China into a tight spot.Also tac nuke strikes aginst the chinese will have to follow after the conventional assault otherwise the US will be in trouble with the international community.

A few posts before you said US will not use nukes because it feels it will not be conventionally overrun and now you say US will use strategic nukes around Taiwan and in China. Wow, Its either ur stupid or you need glasses to see what you are typing. And you think we'd just let you march your army, your navy and your air force into China eh, funny thing. Nukes used against China will therefore over ride the No First Nuke Policy and I am sure what ever China has, they'll throw it one way or another. Lets face it, nuclear war between USA and China WILL NOT happen, lets just say USA attacks China with nukes, China will throw everything they have and attack with nukes at every American city the ICBMs could reach. China suffers say umm......300 million deaths and USA suffers 100 million deaths. US government will no doubt be overthrown because this kind of casulty WILL NOT be tolerated by the American people but on the other hand, China has suffered big casulties many times before and with the bombing we should thank you for decreasing our population because now we got lots of free land except it'll be radiated but who cares, in a hundred years or two it's still good.
If Daedalus that what you say is true, that US follows its no first use policy the WTF are you talking about nuke strikes on China. Now it seems like your IQ is two digit. IF YOUR GONNA MAKE A STATEMENT, FOLLOW THAT STATEMENT, DON"T CHANGE YOUR MIND IN THE MIDDLE.

We have vowed to protect Taiwan should China try to invade,
the chain of events would be in effect , the U.S. would invoke the draft
for more man power, China would still be importing grain and other items
from the various other countries that now grow almost as much grain as the US
the Battle would be fierce because just as every citizen of China would fight
so would every citizen of the U.S. (or goto jail) both would be severly weakened
thereby upsetting the balance of power in the world and leaving both China and the U.S. vulnerable to attack from countries that were once much less powerfull.

okay maybe that is the extreme but we have vowed to protect taiwan.
and then there is the chance that Russia (what is left ) would come to the aid of china like we would do for taiwan.

geo

[edit on 11/4/2004 by geocom]