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.

 

Chinese government to make 'urgent' announcement

page: 20
75
<< 17  18  19    21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 12:52 AM
link   
I would *imagine* that strategy for the US "defense" of ROK (Republic of Korea) is for some units to resist while others and the civilian population conduct a massive RETREAT. After a certain time limit, tactical nukes would be used to stop/slow the initial spearhead of invasion.

Next, would be a repeat of the first step. Use some units to resist while the evacuation continues. Then, as the North advances southwards, more tactical nukes to disarm and halt their advance. This continues for about five steps. I would imagine.

An invading army cannot continue a surge if they are being tactically nuked. It is simply impossible. Sure, the regions nuked might be unsafe for a decade or three, but at least the civilian population would not endure the kind of TORTURE and massive slayings imparted by the North back in the 1950s. Talk to a Korean senior citizen, not a young college student who has no idea. The seniors KNOW what the North Koreans did to the civilian population, and they appreciate the American presence in the region.

If the son of an insane dictator wants WAR, by Almighty, the U.S. will give it to him. Our military industrial complex has been founded on the slogan: THERE WILL BE WAR.

Personally, I prefer the days of the COLD WAR to the current GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM. Back then, you could fly rather safely, and the food on airliners was really becoming something noteworthy. Flying was enjoyable. Nowadays, having to deal with all of the current mess... it sucks. If China becomes the next Soviet Union and there is a new Cold War that diverts tensions into that greater conflict, not the mundane struggles of terrorists in tents, and we can all fly safer keeping in mind the theory of DETERRENT, I'd like to have another COLD war. The theory was beautiful: you try to kill all of us, and we'll kill all of you. Lately, when you inject the Muslim fanatical mindset of SUICIDE, deterrence doesn't seem to work.

The thing is: China and Russia can do economically what they want. They've got us by the SHORT HAIRS. However, if they pull too hard on them, we'll POUND THEM INTO THE NUCLEAR GROUND. And they know that pissed-off Americans are nothing they want to deal with. Hell, we almost destroyed our own nation in the 1860s in a conflict called the "Civil" War just to make sure we all sang the same tune.




posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 01:17 AM
link   
Well...if China is going to threaten us....we better continue to buy HD TV's and toys from them!!



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 01:42 AM
link   
The ideal situation would be China taking control of North Korea. If a war breaks out, I have read north Korea has 4000+ artillery tubes trained on Seoul. Seoul would be majorly damaged in a fight, but I think the superior weapon systems, especially in the air composed of the U.S. and South Korea would wreak havoc on the North Koreans. South Korea and the U.S. would break North Koreas back in a very bloody, pitched battle of attrition. At this point China could move into a battered North Korea and assume control, and maintain a buffer state between South Korea and the west. China is a strong, rational nation that relies on Japan, the EU, and the U.S. for their economy to thrive. This would stabilize the region to everyone's satisfaction. Goodbye Kim!



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 02:18 AM
link   
reply to post by buckeyefan
 


China already controls N Korea..come on guys..

2nd line



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 02:20 AM
link   
reply to post by GhostLancer
 


Awesome post, I wish I had the insight and time to post like that..BRAVO!!

Its kinda like having a Badger on a leash..yeah..you kinda have it under control...well, then again..its still a badger on a leash, maybee it would be best to just let it go on its way..funny..well..a little



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 02:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shadowfoot
reply to post by AP-Chris
 



It is readily apparent that you are NOT military strategy trained...thanks for the tactics laugh


Enlighten me Shadowfoot, what did I say that was laughable?

By the way I was in the Marines and in Korea in '92 and the planners were on cruise control. There has been no signifigant overhaul of U.S. strategy for Korea in decades. What I read this month is not substantially different than '92 and '92 was little different than '82 or '72.

Why?
Because the terrain dictates it. We constantly talk about NK sweeping south into Seoul because that is what we hope and pray they do when war comes. If they don't, it will be a very difficult fight. I can guarantee you our troops in SK don't take NK as lightly as everyone here seems to.

NK troops are well disciplined, in excellent shape and know what to do when cut off from their chain of command which, by the way, will also be hard to accomplish since they use old school land lines buried all over the place.

Tell me all knowing one, what if China treats our fight with NK as an act of war on them and sweeps in to take Taiwan when we launch an offensive on NK. Think we can do NK and Taiwan at the same time? Along with Afghanistan and troop commitments in Iraq?

Since you are a self described "Intermediary between plants and mankind", what do the plants tell you we should do if that happens?



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 03:39 AM
link   
Hey guys check out this video,

www.youtube.com...#!

I can't agree with him more. American has to stop fighting these wars, its has all been about the military industrial complex.

Our economy is on a downhill spiral and the dollar as you know it is on the way down.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 03:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Shadowfoot
 


While I'm at it, Shadowfoot

I'm sure you've heard of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction)

Well, we don't have it with NK on even terms.

As I mentioned in another thread, we can't use nukes on a scale enough to assure a quick defeat of NK because the fallout would blow over onto our ally Japan. Coincidentally, they are the only country that has been nuked before and are (understandably) quite sensitive to the possibility of fallout.

Nukes are on the table for NK, but not for us. We can all thank Bill Clinton for that one. That was the biggest f up in recent history.

War will be conventional on our side regardless of what wildcards NK does. Can they thread a nuke through our defenses? That's the million deaths question.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 04:32 AM
link   
Wow, some sersious delusion happening in here.

Firstly China wont go to war with America, at least not in the conventional sense, why would they have to THEY OWN AMERICA?

Secondly if they did? The US would have little to NO CHANCE of surivival, virtually NONE. Can I remind you of well the US army and all its awsome technology has been doing fightingwhat are effectively cave men? NOT WELL. The US army has a decade of battle wear and fighting civilians for all that time makes you lazy. The second the US marines have to face down a well trained, well armed enemy with no air support to do the fighting, its pretty much GAME OVER, No contest. Sorry guys but that is just a fact. (again, Remember THE CAVE MEN)

In terms of population you could probably nuke most of China and they'd still have more people left, in fact nuking them would probably be doing them a favour, they do after all have severe over population issues as well as an extremely unbalance population all control by a government of gangsters (lots more men, again war would be the "perfect" solution to that problem)

Loss of life in China also would not be as much of a problem, the American population are tired from the non stop war and the constant fear the media keeps them in, in a real war with an actual real enemy, losses would be in the hundereds if not thousands per day not even close to how "low" it is now! I dont think the american people can take that, pre 911 before you werent all driven by constant terror and completely devided, perhaps, but nowadays? You guys would tear yourselves appart before the chinese got near your borders! (could that be the point of this division?!)

But in reality it doesnt matter, We dont have Governments anywmore we have Corporations, Chinese, US, UK its all the same, a group of greedy old men out for profit & power and given thier most profitable time of year is about to start I can garantee you there will be no war, not yet at least anyway.

edit on 29-11-2010 by S3ns1bl3 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 05:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by SarK0Y
don't you think that's something at least a bit criminal???
miserable herd of clowns have issued colored shreds of paper & everyone must use it for trading, right?


Russia, and China among others have been trying to destabilize the U.S. dollar for decades. Heck two CCP Colonels wrote a book in 1999 on new ways to attack the U.S, by ways of hacker attacks, using terrorists like Osama Bin Laden to attack the U.S. in places like the World Trade center attack the U.S. economy, etc, etc, etc.


Russian prime minister Vladimir Putin calls for end of dollar stranglehold

Russian prime minister Vladimir Putin has called for concerted action to break the stranglehold of the US dollar and create a new global structure of regional powers.

By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in Davos 11:18PM GMT 28 Jan 2009

"The one reserve currency has become a danger to the world economy: that is now obvious to everybody," he said in a speech at the World Economic Forum.

It is the first time that a Russian leader has set foot in the sanctum sanctorum of global capitalism at Davos.

Mr Putin said the leading powers should ensure an "irreversible" move towards a system of multiple reserve currencies, questioning the "reliability" of the US dollar as a safe store of value. "The pride of Wall Street investment banks don't exist any more," he said.
...

www.telegraph.co.uk...


Two army colonels of the Chinese Peoples Liberation Army wrote a book in 1999 predicting that future wars against the United States or the West could be carried out in many forms, ranging from attacks by terrorists and computer hackers to financial collapse. Reportedly, they also predicted the attacks against the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Washington on September 11, 2001, which were masterminded by Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda organization. Their book was translated into English and distributed among the intelligence community in the US three years before the events of last September.
...

www.taipei.org...

This is not a new tactic they developed the other day...


How many hacker attacks from China have occurred in recent years?

They wrote about unrestricted warfare by crippling the U.S. economy. The Russians and Chinese began buying gold like crazy in recent years before the economic crisis, and were mentioning that they wanted to get off the dollar, obviously by attacking it.

Even the president of Iran was predicting the collapse of the U.S, and Israel "soon" before the economic crisis even began. Ahmadwhatshisname had been invited and even spoke at a couple of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization meetings, before the economic crisis, and these countries were discussing ways to counter NATO and the U.S.

The two colonels, with the blessing and consent from the CCP published the book which predicted a terrorist attack "by Osama Bin Laden on sites like the WTC"...

Not to mention the whole Iraqi war fiasco which the Russians deliberately armed Saddam themselves with WMD, and then moved them. (read the reports from allies of large Russian convoys leaving Iraq under cover of being diplomats) We even caught the Russians in their lies as they gave Saddam's regime U.S. troop movements through the Russian ambassador to Iraq.

Putin himself had to admit that the Russian intelligence agencies had been providing evidence to the U.S. since 9/11 and up to the beginning of the war that Saddam was preparing terrorist attacks against the U.S., but before he had to admit this publicly he was one of the most ardent oponents to the Iraqi war...

But hey to some people all these facts are just "coincidences"...



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 07:20 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


"Not to mention the whole Iraqi war fiasco which the Russians deliberately armed Saddam themselves with WMD, and then moved them. "

That is literally the first time I have heard of this. Do you have any actual evidence of that? (logically, it doesnt even make sense, Why would they need to do that? I think you'll find it had more to do with Saddam putting a stop to trading Iraqi oil in dollars! Yeah might not sound as "cool" as russian spec ops sneeking WMDs about (LOL, really?), it however is supported by evidence!)

If you have evidence then hey, Its important info , it shoud be out there, but if the only proof is what is in your post? You are helping no one with that type of specualtion (AKA Garbage)

edit on 29-11-2010 by S3ns1bl3 because: Spelling



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 08:41 AM
link   
reply to post by S3ns1bl3
 



Muuuhahaha, Mr. Chinese President is that you? Way to puff up your men. America will kick your ass in ways your great great grandchildren will have nightmares about. In our last war America lost 50 thousand, while China lost 2.5 million and NK lost what 4 times that... and that's only because Truman stopped us from killing 600 million. Most of your military is over 30 years old and your air force is a joke. You might win a battle but you know damn well these two things... that neither you or any sane person can deny regardless of your laughable pep talk.

1) if it comes to war America will tell you to take that 4 trillion of our paper and wipe your ass with it because we ain't paying...

and

2) if it comes to war we will kick your ass worse then we kicked your grandfathers ass because our weapons are way, way, way better, while yours are just barely better for most of your army... not to mention my thirty million man army can kick your 400 million man army any day of this year or next... but you did make me laugh...

Nothing but love...

--Charles Marcello
edit on 29-11-2010 by littlebunny because: peep to pep



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by S3ns1bl3
 


"The US army has a decade of battle wear and fighting civilians for all that time makes you lazy. The second the US marines have to face down a well trained, well armed enemy with no air support to do the fighting, its pretty much GAME OVER, No contest. Sorry guys but that is just a fact. (again, Remember THE CAVE MEN)"

I will take an army/air force/navy made up of personnel that CHOSE to be our defenders rather than the seemingly "well disciplined" North Korean army. The NK army will start with good intensions and then lack of food and supplies will cause dispersment. We will not try and occupy NK, but rather disrupt and destroy, much like the Gulf War.

Our "battle weary" army would love to have a good old fashion war were you kill any and everyone in front of you. We will not invade.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by AP-Chris

Originally posted by Aeons
reply to post by AP-Chris
 

What do we win by militarily defeating NK? Nothing, nothing, debt. Seoul will still have been destroyed.



While I disagree with this rest, I think this is an excellent question.

Currently, the only thing anyone would get is less volatiliity.
edit on 2010/11/29 by Aeons because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by sensible thought
reply to post by S3ns1bl3
 


"The US army has a decade of battle wear and fighting civilians for all that time makes you lazy. The second the US marines have to face down a well trained, well armed enemy with no air support to do the fighting, its pretty much GAME OVER, No contest. Sorry guys but that is just a fact. (again, Remember THE CAVE MEN)"

I will take an army/air force/navy made up of personnel that CHOSE to be our defenders rather than the seemingly "well disciplined" North Korean army. The NK army will start with good intensions and then lack of food and supplies will cause dispersment. We will not try and occupy NK, but rather disrupt and destroy, much like the Gulf War.

Our "battle weary" army would love to have a good old fashion war were you kill any and everyone in front of you. We will not invade.


While I do have pride in our military, I would not propose that our military wants to wage war. In fact, they are probably the ones who have the biggest investment in waging peace...since they are the first to die.

N Korea was defeated due to lack of supplies. Do you think they would make that same mistake again?

Any nuclear confrontation would draw the ire of both China and Japan. Japan would be under the nuclear cloud following bombardment. It is unlikely that any nuclear bombardment would occur from the US. The US would bear some of the blame for provoking the NKs if they were to begin nuclear war.

Have a look at a map of NK and SK. Take a look at the areas that are being bombed by NK and tell me you think they are wrong. The island looks like it ought to belong in the NK border, to me. It is further from SK than from NK. The maneuvers of the US in those waters can only be seen as provoking by any rational person. What if Russia owned Catalina Island off the coast of southern California? How would you feel if you were a Californian and the Russians were firing weapons and having military exercises around Catalina Island? Take into account how we acted when there were Soviet missiles in Cuba, considerably further away.

Put things into a relative sense and you may see how the NKs are feeling about the military getting too close to their mainland. We're a lot closer than the D Day invasion when it was amassing in England.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Jim Scott
 


While I do have pride in our military, I would not propose that our military wants to wage war. In fact, they are probably the ones who have the biggest investment in waging peace...since they are the first to die.

A sentiment shared by the vast majority of current and ex-military, I am sure. Sometimes war is necessary, but no sane person "wants a war".



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by AP-Chris
Tell me all knowing one, what if China treats our fight with NK as an act of war on them and sweeps in to take Taiwan when we launch an offensive on NK. Think we can do NK and Taiwan at the same time? Along with Afghanistan and troop commitments in Iraq?


Great point about Taiwan, I forgot all about that angle. I agree, China would pounce on the excuse to take Taiwan back and while we are tied up with Korea, that would be the ONLY opportunity China would have to annex Taiwan. Believe me, they would take it.

This would be the ugliest conflict the world has seen in over sixty years, probably eclipsing the first Korean conflict.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by paearmor
reply to post by buckeyefan
 


China already controls N Korea..come on guys..

2nd line


Proxy war is always on my mind concerning this



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by SarK0Y
reply to post by Aim64C
 



Disabling those strategic resources does serious damage to a country's ability to push a war effort. Rather than attacking ships and soldiers - you strike at who/what commands those units and you shut down the factories that keep them fed and supplied. With something like power - a huge necessity for modern high-density urbanization, going without it will lead to social unrest and an entire socio-economic collapse, something China is not in a position to combat (they have trouble with the jobless, hungry, and rioting as is).

you're right, my friend, China has less powerful weapon than USA, but that fact will force'em to nuke with full Power & this moment is serious problem for all.


China does, indeed have ICBMs. These would be among the first targets disabled - although the anti-ballistic missile systems already being deployed would be more than capable of intercepting these relics. They have enough to be of some concern - but, even without our ABM defenses, we could survive attrition losses in a nuclear exchange with China. It is, however, unlikely that we will return fire as the Chinese do not have enough weapons to endanger survivability of the U.S.


+ hard strikes to China's industrial objects will provide dreadful environmental consequences for region, in particular Russia's Areas, it may be most reason of Russia to say own "W" versus USA, then Nothing will help USA, even (d)uck & cover exercises.


Russia will not step in to defend China. The two are economic partners, but Russia and China have already demonstrated their separate interests with the PAK-FA program. Russia is co-developing that fighter with India - whom is involved with an arms race and cold-war with China.

Russia would probably find it preferable for China to be stripped of its military capability, as the two have also been having some border and resource disputes these past several years. China's growing demand for resources and Siberia's abundance of a number of these resources has lead to some tensions - though China has been pushing south and west, choosing to pressure India.

China attempting to take a pot-shot at a U.S. carrier battle group would likely find itself in a hell of a gang-bang and rapidly dethroned with many bids for its labor force ending up going to India, Taiwan, and Russia (of all places). Each of those countries are on better diplomatic and economic terms with the U.S. and other western powers, and Russia can manage to produce a number of low-tech and high-tech industry contracts within quality standards, and can probably manage to keep lead out of children's books and toys.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Vitchilo
 




Sorry I hate reading through ten pages of post to find out they didnt say anything.

So what gives did they say anything?



new topics

top topics



 
75
<< 17  18  19    21  22 >>

log in

join