U.S. vs. China

Originally posted by chinawhite


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

That is what you posted and then the links the next post. As I said before you are completely wrong as these links say nothing about nuclear attack. Plaes stop tryihng to sensationalise your flawed argument and try and stick to the truth.
I like your feeble argument when I pulled you up on this " Oh nooo, I read the nuking of China in a book ", yeah right, duh.

PS. China is increasing its number of ICBM's, what about mounting nuclear weapons on ships as well ?

[edit on 21-4-2005 by rogue1]

Originally posted by rogue1

Originally posted by chinawhite


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

That is what you posted and then the links the next post. As I said before you are completely wrong as these links say nothing about nuclear attack. Plaes stop tryihng to sensationalise your flawed argument and try and stick to the truth.
I like your feeble argument when I pulled you up on this " Oh nooo, I read the nuking of China in a book ", yeah right, duh.

PS. China is increasing its number of ICBM's, what about mounting nuclear weapons on ships as well ?

[edit on 21-4-2005 by rogue1]

the mounting number of nukes onsubmarines is a deterence to the american missle defence

do you have any proof of chinese minister or officer saying that they'll nuke first



[edit on 21-4-2005 by chinawhite]

nuclear missles stats

2004 Estimated Nuclear ICBMs

United States 10,925
Russia 20,000
France 450
China 400
Britain 185
Israel 100
India 40
Pakistan 15
North Korea 2

Originally posted by chinawhite
nuclear missles stats

2004 Estimated Nuclear ICBMs

United States 10,925
Russia 20,000
France 450
China 400
Britain 185
Israel 100
India 40
Pakistan 15
North Korea 2

Once again you completely misunderstand the facts. The figures you have produced aren't for ICBM's they are a total of all classes of nuclear weapons. Please try and at least get some of your facts right.

www.jaysnet.com...

i copyed and pasted wats was on the site

as for kennedy planing to bomb china suck shiet i knew i read it somewhere

www.centurychina.com...

what are you going to say now.



[edit on 21-4-2005 by chinawhite]

That is correct. China will never use its nuclear weapons offensively. This is a brief statement of their nuclear policy
www.infomanage.com...

No first-strike. Retalitory only.

More detailed
www.fas.org...


[edit on 21-4-2005 by Taishyou]

China currently only has 24 ICBM's capable of reaching the United States. Considering the Chinese Nuclear Program has existed for 40 years, China has being extremely restrained. 24 ICBM's are simply not enough to conduct a first-strike against the U.S, therefore China's nukes will only be used in retaliation to cause damage.

I don't about 1962, but Macarthur had some ideas about nuking China during the Korean war.

Lets look at the simple facts.

U.S
1) Missile defence
2) Hundreds if not Thousands of ICBMs.

China
1) 24 ICBMs.

The U.S probably has more Silos then China has ICBM's.

Originally posted by chinawhite
www.jaysnet.com...

i copyed and pasted wats was on the site

Well, The site is completely wrong. As of right now the US has around 510 ICBM's (500 Minuteman III and about 10 Peacekeeper ICBMs). Russia is working towards an even smaller number of missiles (it will maintain SS-18's with MIRVS).

Take a look at any more respected source (i.e. Globalsecurity.org, FAS.org) and look for Start II/Moscow treaty numbers.

Originally posted by chinawhite
as for kennedy planing to bomb china suck shiet i knew i read it somewhere

www.centurychina.com...

what are you going to say now.

I would say what a complete load of propagandist BS. I mean please how much more biased can you get. You have already posted the links to these declassified papers which never mention the use of nulcear weapons against China in the 1960's. You really should do some more research than read some highly inaccurate site.

Here's another quote from it -

• Facing nuclear threat, Chairman Mao said:"we need to have some atomic bombs too". In 1964, China exploded its first A-Bomb, 30 months later, in 1967, it exploded its first H-Bomb, since then, China has developed a variety of strategic and tactical weapons, China also produced missiles of various ranges, initially targeting US bases at Japan and Philippines, and eventually the North America continent. Mao also said:"We must have nuclear submarines even if this would take us ten thousand years". China tested its nuclear subs in early 1970s and tested SLBMs later. The exact size of PLA nuclear stockpile is unknown, but reasonable estimate put it in the range of 2000-4000 warheads.
  

So China has 2000-4000 warheads by conservative estimates Kinda runs contrary to what you've been saying LOL.

Please post some facts next time

[edit on 21-4-2005 by rogue1]

It doesn't matter how many warheads you have, if you can't deliver it, its next to useless. China officially has only around 30 ICBMs capable of reaching America. Thats not a whole lot when compared with other countries like France, Russia, and England. Even if it was to have 8 (which won't happen) MIRVs, its still only 240 small nukes coming to America instead of the thousands thats gonna be coming to China if America decides to fire their nuclear arsenal at us. But a nuclear war won't happen, I rate the nuclear weapon's main power as a shock weapon or a scare your opponents weapon.

Originally posted by COWlan
It doesn't matter how many warheads you have, if you can't deliver it, its next to useless. China officially has only around 30 ICBMs capable of reaching America. Thats not a whole lot when compared with other countries like France, Russia, and England. Even if it was to have 8 (which won't happen) MIRVs, its still only 240 small nukes coming to America instead of the thousands thats gonna be coming to China if America decides to fire their nuclear arsenal at us. But a nuclear war won't happen, I rate the nuclear weapon's main power as a shock weapon or a scare your opponents weapon.

Does that include the SLBMs as well?

Originally posted by Daedalus3

Does that include the SLBMs as well?

Although China has been actively working on SLBM's, it is unlikely that they have any operational, capable SLBM's at this point. By capable I mean a SLBM that can be launched far enough away that the US won't be able to detect the (loud) Chinese subs with it's sonar systems.

Here is a good link covering the Chinese program www.thebulletin.org...

It's interesting to note (especially in this thread) that China has an extremely small number of weapon systems capable of reaching the US - basically the only system is the ancient DF-5 - a purely retaliatory weapon. The vast majority of it's weapons are instead only effective in regional conflicts - with countries such as India, Russia, Taiwan, Japan and Korea.

Originally posted by Taishyou
That is correct. China will never use its nuclear weapons offensively. This is a brief statement of their nuclear policy
www.infomanage.com...

No first-strike. Retalitory only.

More detailed
www.fas.org...

Here we go -

During a 1996 confrontation regarding PRC missile tests off the coast of the island of Taiwan, a senior Communist Chinese official (and frequent policy spokesman), told a US official not to interfere with relations between the PRC and Taiwan because Americans “care more about Los Angeles than they do Tai Pei.”
www.missilethreat.com...


As we can see from just this one statement official policy may not be what it seems all the time.

Well, The site is completely wrong. As of right now the US has around 510 ICBM's (500 Minuteman III and about 10 Peacekeeper ICBMs).

You are not counting the ICBM’s on Boomer subs, and are your figures counting the MIRV’S or just the actual missiles?

Originally posted by rogue1

Originally posted by Taishyou
That is correct. China will never use its nuclear weapons offensively. This is a brief statement of their nuclear policy
www.infomanage.com...
No first-strike. Retalitory only.
More detailed
www.fas.org...

Here we go -
During a 1996 confrontation regarding PRC missile tests off the coast of the island of Taiwan, a senior Communist Chinese official (and frequent policy spokesman), told a US official not to interfere with relations between the PRC and Taiwan because Americans “care more about Los Angeles than they do Tai Pei.”
www.missilethreat.com...

As we can see from just this one statement official policy may not be what it seems all the time.

Maybe he's just speaking out of anger. I honestly don't think ANY sensible nuke owner would use their nukes, ever. Every politician knows that for every nuke they launch at another nuclear nation, they'll get a few dozen back. The US already has enough nukes to blow the whole planet up several times. Nobody would dare launch one at the US, not even Russia (and vice versa too). In fact, China keeps its missiles separate from the missile fuel to prevent any button happy politicians from doing something as stupid as launching a nuke at the US (it's on Popular Science so no link).

Even if some time in the future some crazy chairman deletes the no-first-use policy, it would only make the Chinese nuclear doctrine more or less the same as the US doctrine, which I believe they have the right to adopt, should they choose to, since the US have such a doctrine to begin with

[edit on 21-4-2005 by Taishyou]

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Well, The site is completely wrong. As of right now the US has around 510 ICBM's (500 Minuteman III and about 10 Peacekeeper ICBMs).

You are not counting the ICBM’s on Boomer subs, and are your figures counting the MIRV’S or just the actual missiles?

First of all, ICBM's are not on subs - those are SLBM's. All Minuteman III ICBM's are or will soon be downloaded to 1 RV, so that isn't a player either (Peacekeepers still have up to 10, but they will be deactivated by October).

As far as Subs, the US may have as many as 8 Ohio SSBN's on alert at a time, each with up to 24 Trident II's - with perhaps 12 warheads each (some less, some maybe more). Also some Trident tubes are being converted to hold Tomahawk land attack missiles (TLAM, either conventional or nuclear) - perhaps 10 per Trident removed. Attack subs can also carry TLAM-N's. There are also perhaps 1,000 B-61 gravity bombs in the US arsenal, and maybe 500 ALCM/ACM nuclear air launched cruise missiles (1 warhead each). (Some B-61's are still stored in forward deployed locations for tactical reasons, many are at US bomber bases for stragic use)

Again, a good web site www.thebulletin.org...

I know that the Minutemen are going to only be loaded with one warhead but it does not mean we don't have more.
And don't you guys think its a damn shame were taking the Peacekeeper out of service?

Originally posted by WestPoint23
I know that the Minutemen are going to only be loaded with one warhead but it does not mean we don't have more.
And don't you guys think its a damn shame were taking the Peacekeeper out of service?

The US has the capability to launch exactly 500 Minuteman III ICBM's. Of course there are spare warheads (for maintinance/swaps), but there is no way deliver them. The Russian's have the capability (and they do it on a regular basis) to pick any missile they want and go out and check how many warheads are on it.

It is somewhat of a shame that the most powerful weapon system ever is being deactivated, however it accomplished it's mission. That's more than most systems can say. The US thinks (and they are probably right) that the Minuteman III with 1 warhead is more flexible and surviveable. With a combination of upgrades and other systems (Such as the trdent II D-5) any target the PK could take out can still be targeted.

On a side note, the Russians have chosen to keep the MIRV'd SS-18 and get rid of single RV ICBM's to meet their warhead quotas - it is certainly more cost effective.

Originally posted by Taishyou

Maybe he's just speaking out of anger. I honestly don't think ANY sensible nuke owner would use their nukes, ever. Every politician knows that for every nuke they launch at another nuclear nation, they'll get a few dozen back. The US already has enough nukes to blow the whole planet up several times. Nobody would dare launch one at the US, not even Russia (and vice versa too).

lol, maybe he is. However this is all about perceptions, the US has something else to think about if it defends Taiwan. That is, the Chinese may use nuclear weapons outside of their NFU policy. Besdies China is just like America, they have their ' HAWKS ' as well, if the have the ear of the Premier at the time of a conflict then anything is possible.
These publicly declared NFU policies mean absolutely nothing they can change on a whim.