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.

 

U.S. vs. China

page: 62
1
<< 59  60  61    63  64  65 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 11:55 AM
link   
The U.S. wont used nukes against a country unless they fire nukes at us first, I don't know the Chinese doctrine.
And were trying to keep it non nuclear so that we can compare the forces in a conventional non nuclear war.




posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 12:48 PM
link   
The Chinese have stated several times that they'll use Nuclear Weapons if they have too, on both Carriers and American Cities.

I'll hunt the articles down, as soon as possible.



posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 02:16 PM
link   
That's pretty stupid of China because they would rather not loose a battle, yet they don't mind being totally destroyed.



posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
The U.S. wont used nukes against a country unless they fire nukes at us first, I don't know the Chinese doctrine.
And were trying to keep it non nuclear so that we can compare the forces in a conventional non nuclear war.


The US has never said that. In fact, becuase several of the US's potential enemies (Russia and China currently) have massive conventional forces the US would likely use nuclear weapons in response to a large scale conventional conflict.

China on the other hand has publicly stated that it's weapons are only retaliatory in nature (and they are designed as such).

I doubt anyone in here is privvy to exactly what it would take for each country to use nuclear weapons - and if they are they most certainly won't tell you.



posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 06:01 PM
link   
Yes they have, ever since the cold war the U.S. has always kept its nukes as a deterrent and has stated/written that we would only use them as a retaliatory response, this is known fact.



posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 06:20 PM
link   
Both sides say they will use them for defence....then why are the weapons still here?



posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Yes they have, ever since the cold war the U.S. has always kept its nukes as a deterrent and has stated/written that we would only use them as a retaliatory response, this is known fact.


Nope, it is most certainly not. I ask you to find 1 official document stating that nuclear weapons will only be used to retaliate. The official mission is one of detterence - but that does not rule out a strike in retaliation from convential forces. In fact, to quote Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in the 2002 nuclear posture review

"Nuclear weapons play a critical role in the defense capabilities of the United States, its allies and friends. They provide credible military options to deter a wide range of threats, including WMD and large-scale conventional military force. These nuclear capabilities possess unique properties that give the United States options to hold at risk classes of targets [that are] important to achieve strategic and political objectives." (p. 7)

Note the 2nd sentence. This has always been the position of the US military, BTW.

Source: www.globalsecurity.org...



posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 07:55 PM
link   
DevilW they serve a dual purpose they are a retaliatory weapon but they also are a deterrent. A
And DevilW you cant be sure that one side will live up to its promise so you keep them there just incase.

What was the purpose of that post? You have basically stated what I have been saying, that they serves as a deterrent and that they are to be used for a retaliatory attack. I don't see where Rumsfeld said they would be used in a preemptive strike.

[edit on 17-4-2005 by WestPoint23]



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 04:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
DevilW they serve a dual purpose they are a retaliatory weapon but they also are a deterrent. A
And DevilW you cant be sure that one side will live up to its promise so you keep them there just incase.

So wait, your keeping them because they might use them and thier keeping them because you might use them?
Why does nature always work in circles?



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 04:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
The Chinese have stated several times that they'll use Nuclear Weapons if they have too, on both Carriers and American Cities.

I'll hunt the articles down, as soon as possible.


I don't know where you get that from.

China was one of the first signitories to the No-First use UN treaty.

I doubt you could find an article with an Chinese official stating that they would use Nuclear weapons first.



posted on Apr, 20 2005 @ 10:10 PM
link   
back in 1962 america was going to use nukes on chinas nuclear sites.



posted on Apr, 20 2005 @ 10:21 PM
link   
chinawhite are you talking about the Cuban missile crisis? And I don't recall the U.S. wanting to nuke china when our problem was with the Soviets and Cubans.



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 12:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by rapier28

I don't know where you get that from.

China was one of the first signitories to the No-First use UN treaty.

I doubt you could find an article with an Chinese official stating that they would use Nuclear weapons first.


You would have to be extemely naive to think that a peace of paper would stop the Chiese from using nuclear weapons if they so chose. If it would be to their advantage to use them they would.

PS. From time to time some mid level PLA man will say something to the effect of using nuclear weapons preemptively. This is propbably some ' unofficial ' sabre rattling, nevertheless it has been said before.



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 01:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1

Originally posted by rapier28

I don't know where you get that from.

China was one of the first signitories to the No-First use UN treaty.

I doubt you could find an article with an Chinese official stating that they would use Nuclear weapons first.


You would have to be extemely naive to think that a peace of paper would stop the Chiese from using nuclear weapons if they so chose. If it would be to their advantage to use them they would.

PS. From time to time some mid level PLA man will say something to the effect of using nuclear weapons preemptively. This is propbably some ' unofficial ' sabre rattling, nevertheless it has been said before.


the chinese nuclear force is for Deterrence thats why we only have 20 ICBMs.
20 icbm isn't enough for a first strike. if you were going to do a first strike you would need to destroy ALL the enemys missles
as for the sabre rattling ???any link source



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 01:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
chinawhite are you talking about the Cuban missile crisis? And I don't recall the U.S. wanting to nuke china when our problem was with the Soviets and Cubans.


President Kennedy was very anti-communist. they didn't want red china to have nukes because they throught china was very unstable. after 1960 chinese and russian relations had alreadyed soured and President Kennedy was going to take advantage of it by nuking chinas nucleur plants. there were all these plans to re-invade china. they were only stopped because Kennedy was assassinated
im not talking bout Mac arthur during korean war

[edit on 21-4-2005 by chinawhite]



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 01:08 AM
link   
heres link

www.gwu.edu...
www.thebulletin.org...

[edit on 21-4-2005 by chinawhite]



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 01:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite

the chinese nuclear force is for Deterrence thats why we only have 20 ICBMs.
20 icbm isn't enough for a first strike. if you were going to do a first strike you would need to destroy ALL the enemys missles
as for the sabre rattling ???any link source



Ahem what about the other hundreds of weapons they have which aren't mounted on ICBM's ? If you only have a deterrant force then why do you have so many weapons ( and increasing them every year ) ? and why so many tactical weapons at that ?
Also those 20 missiles aren't aimed at military targets, they're aimed at cities.

A preemtive strike doesn't have to be against CONUS it could easily be against a carrier or the such. If China thought they could get away with nuking a carrier during a conflict then they would do it.

Besides I wasn't talking about the US I was talking about all of China's neighbours.

PS. The only reason China doesn't have a strategic pre-emtive option is because as you said they don't have enough ICBM's, but they are trying to make up for it.



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 01:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite
back in 1962 america was going to use nukes on chinas nuclear sites.



Well, that's a complete misrepresentation of the article, They were not going to nuke China, do you even read the sources you post ? duh.

They considered options such as

  • National security adviser McGeorge Bundy played a key role in encouraging covert planning against China's nuclear program, which included discussions of paramilitary operations such as raids by Taiwanese commandos as well as the prospect of joint action with the Soviet Union.


Nowhere is a nuclear attack mentioned. So please enough of your ridiculous false claims, they hold no weight here.



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 01:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1

Originally posted by chinawhite

the chinese nuclear force is for Deterrence thats why we only have 20 ICBMs.
20 icbm isn't enough for a first strike. if you were going to do a first strike you would need to destroy ALL the enemys missles
as for the sabre rattling ???any link source



Ahem what about the other hundreds of weapons they have which aren't mounted on ICBM's ? If you only have a deterrant force then why do you have so many weapons ( and increasing them every year ) ? and why so many tactical weapons at that ?
Also those 20 missiles aren't aimed at military targets, they're aimed at cities.

A preemtive strike doesn't have to be against CONUS it could easily be against a carrier or the such. If China thought they could get away with nuking a carrier during a conflict then they would do it.

Besides I wasn't talking about the US I was talking about all of China's neighbours.

PS. The only reason China doesn't have a strategic pre-emtive option is because as you said they don't have enough ICBM's, but they are trying to make up for it.


our nucleaur force is the smallest out of all france britian russia and US
those tactical missles are non-nucleuar aimed at taiwan. why would we nuke the land we want back.
we had most of the tacticaL nukes facing russia because they had half there army on our border
we have 20 icbm. we're saying if you nuke us your'll suffer a lot of casulties.
also how many nukes america has facing china 200 300 500 missles. we would only nuke a carrier if it was our only option not our first option


ALSO you said it yourself we dont have pre-emtive strike because our nucleuar force doesn't have enough missles, because its for Deterrence



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 01:48 AM
link   
re-edit i was right america did intend to bomb chinas nuclear program

[edit on 21-4-2005 by chinawhite]

[edit on 21-4-2005 by chinawhite]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 59  60  61    63  64  65 >>

log in

join