China's nuclear arsenal could be up to FORTY times bigger than thought

page: 3
62
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 30 2011 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


I forgot about this and thanks for the link I now can go in the really above top secret bit.Ooooo I feel special




posted on Nov, 30 2011 @ 02:09 PM
link   
Here is a quick run down of the Nuclear Arms Accords between the US and Russia

US-RUSSIA ARMS ACCORDS

*1972: Salt I treaty agrees to freeze levels of strategic nuclear missile launchers and submarines; Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty bans missile-defence systems

*1979: Salt II Treaty imposes for first time ceiling on strategic nuclear weapons

*1987: INF treaty eliminates short and medium-range missiles

*1991: Start I slashes nuclear arsenals by one-third

*1993: Start II treaty reduces number of nuclear warheads and bans use of MIRV warheads

*1999: US Senate blocks nuclear test ban treaty

*2000: Russian parliament ratifies Start II treaty

*2002: US withdraws from ABM Treaty; Russia withdraws from Start II the following day

*2002: Sort treaty commits both sides to cut arsenals by two-thirds



posted on Nov, 30 2011 @ 02:22 PM
link   
Not at all surprising..... unfortunately

Far more scarier than these warheads China will be THE economic super-power of the earth
It's bound to happen sooner or later, more than any country on the planet they have been playing their cards so damn right.

China KILLS almost all major conspiracy theories, from the Illuminati, to Bilderberg, to Rotschild.
All talking about white caucasian elitists while allowing China become the SUPREME Superpower????


If there ever is a world Govt. China will sit at the top
All roads lead to Rome?
Or
All roads end in China?



posted on Nov, 30 2011 @ 02:27 PM
link   
To right not surprising all the nuclear powers have more than the "official storyline" how ever the difference is the US nuclear arsenal is aging quickly while the chinese nukes are newer the simple fact that there has not been one new nuke built here in the us since Reagan. You can't build a nuke and expect shelve it and expect it to work 60 years later.

People need to wake up and stop the disarment talks happy thoughts and sticking our heads in the sand thinking no one and nothing can touch us have been proven to be a false assumption a number of times.

Thank Clinton for the Chinese nuclear program thank Pakistan for Iran's nuclear program and than Russia for sending the "technical experts" to train.

We disarm nuclear and conventional and the rest of the world arms and nothing is going to stop that it will be certain fact that we are screwed and yep your paying for it.

Dark days are coming.



posted on Nov, 30 2011 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
Thank Clinton for the Chinese nuclear program thank Pakistan for Iran's nuclear program and than Russia for sending the "technical experts" to train.


Maybe China's missile, rocketry programs but China already had Nukes several decades before Clinton graced us and Monica's blue dress with his presence in the White House.



posted on Nov, 30 2011 @ 02:54 PM
link   
You Never tell the enemy how many bombs troops ect.
you have for real.

america has bases all over the world.
I bet they dont tell them it has nuc missiles.
and I bet they have twice as many nuc subs as they say.

and god only knows what they have in space!
China to.



posted on Nov, 30 2011 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by ChachiArcola
 


i think that view comes down to the fact that the general military policy is anything worth shooting once is worth shooting twice etc and standard first strike doctorine usually involves sending enough missles to take out the enemy nuclear misses air fields and defence instillation's so that the enemys ability to respond is either negated (completely destroyed) or wounded in such a fashion that surrender would be a better option then a counter strike in addition usually all misses will not be used in even a first strike as some are always kept in reserve for further strikes or other aggressive nations so i think the desire to have more and more warheads is brough on by the false beleif that MAD can be over come with shear volume of missiles
www.abovetopsecret.com... i had found some interesting links some what related to this thread that i posted a while ago but if the new missile count information from china is correct it invalidates the standard strike plan for china by alot of variables



posted on Nov, 30 2011 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


en.wikipedia.org... "Davy Crockett Weapon System(s) was a tactical nuclear recoilless gun for firing the M388 nuclear projectile that was deployed by the United States during the Cold War. Named after American soldier, congressman, and folk hero Davy Crockett, it was one of the smallest nuclear weapon systems ever built." from Wikipedia
i wonder how many of those we have laying around
www.youtube.com... the first few seconds i have no idea what those soilders are doing with those foot things but its an interesting short video about another smallish nuke
en.wikipedia.org... and this link as the general list but states that basicly regardless of how small it will be treated as a sever escalation so if they were to be used in a tactical role it would most likely go strategic very quickly

more on topic i thought it was generally regarded that china was more interested in the smaller tactical weapons for coast line defense and to possibly throw at Taiwan . other then the dong feng what other icmbs do they have that can reach Russia or the united states or Europe and are these the ones they had been increasing ?



posted on Nov, 30 2011 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by buddha
 


I think it doesn't really matter how many they have exactly but rather it has been exposed that they have a much larger stockpile than was known by many.

I suspect this was the case for years myself.



posted on Nov, 30 2011 @ 04:12 PM
link   
As mentioned earlier, the military never shows all their cards in their hand......the fact that no nukes have been built in the US since Reagan should really speak for itself......

If the US doesnt feel the need to build any more nukes it is NOT because of some treaty, but more than likely because they have new more advanced technologies that negate the need for the use of nukes.

In that respect, you could look at Chinese Nuclear buildup as "so yesterday".......and primitive in comparison.

I wouldnt be surprised if TSHTF and China/Russia start throwing missiles around, the West lights up the sky with lasers and the like making the Star Wars movies look like a joke.

And regarding any possible first strike planning.....You would not only be hitting the military targets of that one country/target.

You would have to consider retaliation by both the citizens of that said country and the allies of the target country.....with that frame of thought, any first strike option would need to take out -
-all military installations
-all power grids, major manufacturing facilities, ports, anything that could be used in future to build that country back up.
-the same for any allied countries to the target country in case of revenge attacks.

It would be the biggest and greatest light show this planet would have ever seen and more than likely the last it ever sees.



posted on Nov, 30 2011 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by boymonkey74
300 / 3000 /300000 doesn't really matter does it, if any of the major super powers fire just one in anger at the others we are all dead.....
But a good find fella


Yea but that many nukes undergrounds exploding at one time would blow a huge chunk of earth off into space.....

there is no point to even make or have nukes anymore. It's so childish.



posted on Nov, 30 2011 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


I don`t care about how many nuclear weapons are in the world , and if a WWIII nuclear will start i am not afraid because my country will be the only who will survive 100% !!! It is protected by our ancestor hi-tech spherical protective hallo-shild ! Because here are the seeds for the next experiment(like others before experiments) .



posted on Nov, 30 2011 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


The only thing that worries me is that they could in theory, make " Tunnel Missles " that they could launch underground through a tunnel in the earth at us.

I know that sounds really far fetched and extreme, but if they found a way to have tech to pull it off we would be in danger because nobody has a defense for that....And not just our country but the whole world would be at risk.


I mean there are already thousands of miles of caves and tunnels underground anyways.....

But yea that is way too many nukes.



posted on Nov, 30 2011 @ 04:33 PM
link   


there is no point to even make or have nukes anymore. It's so childish.


agreed.....the main motivation for most wars other than destruction is conquest of the lands.....if the lands are polluted and a radiactive wasteland have you really gained as much as initially planned/foreseen?

Destroying the enemy but keeping the land is a much more attractive result.

Something nukes cannot do.....so its pointless in my view.....



posted on Nov, 30 2011 @ 04:56 PM
link   
Awesome replies and input everybody.

Good stuff thanks



posted on Nov, 30 2011 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by KilrathiLG
 


The Davy Crockett Weapon System was insanity of the highest order.


edit on 30-11-2011 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2011 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Yup imagine if the support legs broke just as you fired it



posted on Nov, 30 2011 @ 06:21 PM
link   
the funny thing is, china has a population of 1.3 billion, america has 300 million. china has over 320 million fit for military duty.

just crunching numbers, it is more likely china could wipe out every single american citizen rather than the other way around.

i wouldn't be surprised if in 10 years china has 25,000 nuclear warheads. they don't worry what cnn will say about them or worry if they sexually harassed 5 women.

they'll launch a missile at every square mile of u.s. territory.



posted on Nov, 30 2011 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by randomname
 


You know if the roles were reversed and an American wrote what you did they'd be skinned alive as an ignorant war mongering American.

Just saying is all.

PEACE



posted on Nov, 30 2011 @ 06:36 PM
link   
Something about this thread story has been nagging at me and it just struck me what it was. I thought I'd drop back by and mention it since it strikes me a VERY important now that I've stopped to focus on it.

From the OP:

In 2009, the Chinese military admitted the existence of the network of tunnels - 3,000 miles of them - including underground bunkers capable of withstanding nuclear attacks.


Ummm... HUH? What? Wait... Back up there just a second. We've been so focused on the fact China has more nukes than people thought, did anyone else catch that part about enough tunnel miles to drive from Los Angeles to somewhere up around Boston without ever seeing daylight or the surface?

By comparison, some stats on the Chunnel:


Location: Folkestone, England, and Sangatte, France Completion
Date: 1994
Cost: $21 billion (£9,000,000,000)
Overall Length: 163,680 feet / 50.45 km / 31.35 miles
Under Sea Length: 38 km / 24 miles Purpose: Railway Setting:
Underwater Materials: Steel, concrete


They started construction in 1988. 6 years for 31 miles. Now of course our own nuclear program built miles and miles of tunnels for testing..but THOUSANDS of miles? What technology is China using for their tunneling at this scale and what on Earth are they doing with tunnels like that?? I'm starting to take this underground city concept a bit more seriously as a possibility?





top topics
 
62
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join