Hi Slayer...always enjoy your threads...in relation to the reduction of nuclear arsenals on the part of America and Russia...do you think they count
only those in silo's or do they include cruise missles onboard ships...subs...and carried on a/c ?
While I believe we have reduced that what is counted...ie missles in silo's...I think everyone has been moving toward more strategic types of
nukes...those fired from subs and a/c and cruise missle from drones and ships...so maybe the arsenal has actually increased...just long range capacity
may decreased as far as intercontinental capability
Originally posted by randomname
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.
I wouldn't be surprised if in 10 years we would have systems that could render China's ICBMs and SLBMs obsolete, we are already well on that path.
Plus here's a few combat multipliers, at least the public ones, to think about:
1. Machines: Within 10 years the US military will field a massive number of drones, including humanoid ones that never sleep, get hungry or sick. They
will not stop until the enemy is terminated.
2. Exoskeletons: Within 10 years, the US military will operate a large number of combat exoskeletons, giving a grunt on the ground the firepower and
durability of a light armored vehicle.
3. Positronic Weapons: They have the potential to make nuclear weapons look like firecrackers, yet they themselves may be only the size of a
firecracker. 1 gram of the stuff can produce an energy release multiple times larger than a Hiroshima type nuclear weapon. The concept was made public
in 2004. defensetech.org...
4. Military Spaceplanes: DARPA Project FALCON (Force Application and Launch from Continental United States) publicly began in 2003, its goal is the
development of a craft that can be launched from the US into space and rapidly reach any nation on earth from orbit. SUSTAIN (Small Unit Space
Transport and Insertion) and DARPA Project Hot Eagle is a concept that was announced in 2002, its goal is to take elite units of personnel and insert
them from orbit anywhere on earth.
These are real force multipliers, unlike 320 million mouths to feed and transport, most who would not even have weapons or ammunition.
You take those 300 million Chinese infantry, most armed with sabres, up against a high tech force of essentially "Terminators" and "Mobile Infantry"
who can insert from space, the results will look like a human meatgrinder.
edit on 30/11/11 by MikeboydUS because: (no reason given)
My goodness the Chinese are full of surprises! Just like a fortune cookie. Please excuse the sarcasm, but hearing this news just makes me cringe. I
said on another thread that China is operating on all cylinders. They are running a full court press. I wonder what China's neighbors are going think
about this? Could this lead to an arms race in the Pacific? If this report by the college students in Slayer's OP can be confirmed by actual
intelligence? Then it looks as though China is gearing up for a Cold War?
As the US happily cashed China's checks and welcomed their wares at various ports, the Chinese have conducted themselves with a hostile and
belligerent manner in secret. What is even more morose is the fact that the US is indirectly funding this alleged nuclear build-up with payment on the
interest for Chinese loans and the hordes of consumers splurging on Chinese junk at big box stores. I am not going to get skittish about this report,
because it is a student project comprised of readily available public information that they have compiled from various sources on the internet and
elsewhere. It's not like looking at U2 photos of Soviet tactical nukes on Cuba in the sixties. With that said, I think it is time for the politicians
and those in the defense establishment to wise-up and begin looking upon our Chinese business partners with an ounce of caution and skepticism. Great
find Slayer! Get out the sunglasses, sunscreen, and the marshmellows!
edit on 30-11-2011 by Jakes51 because: (no reason given)
It seems like focus has been taken off the middle east (withdrawal of troops etc) and out of the blue, Obama's down here visiting a new base in
Darwin where the US intends to rotate troops and going on about "our friendship with Australia", kind of like making a point "if you touch this
country, you deal with us and other way around. It's like they know something or expect something to happen. With China and India being the
world's most populated countries, eventually they will either have to cull their own people or move in somewhere else. Australia is effing huge with
only 20 million people and a wonderful climate (so far). If I was gonna take over any country it would be here. S & F.
Many things happen on the global scene for a reason that we, the average citizenry of the world would not have a clue about.
This is only what has been leaked....how do we know that there is even more damning information that hasnt been released because the threat is that
real to the west that the public outcry would be for immediate action?
What if our leaders are not ready yet for immediate action and need another 6 months or 12 months to get their troops/resources in place before
releasing this damning evidence?
as previously mentioned....Chinese behaviour is of an offensive nature...why else would you have tunnels to hide major weponary all over your
country....how do we know China hasnt fully armed North Korea?
Burma has been chasing nuclear weapons for years now and North Korea has been helping them, both these smaller nations also have major underground
tunnels systems to hide their weaponary.....
These 3 nations could easily overtake and annex south east asia without too much resistance should they wish....Homefront is not just a computer
game....it CAN happen for real.
South East Asia would become Greater China.....bordering Australia on the south, India and Russiato the west and north.
China would sacrifice Pakistan to cripple India....its influence in the area could easily increase 3 fold or more.
Obama wasnt here to only to get cuddly with Julia.....the nature of the meeting was a direct warning.
Look that was just a saying ok? but Iam sure that if every nuclear bomb was fired around the world it would mean the end of the world, because we
wouldn't be here.
Yes It wouldnt blow up like this www.youtube.com... I didn't mean it like that and you know it.
But we wouldn't be here, it would be the end of our civilization and many many other species on the planet.
And if it wasn't the end well would you really want to live in it.
But I don't think it will happen I do have faith in humanity I think no is so stupid to fire one even though so many religious types seem to want the
"End of Days" to happen.
Why do people have to drag religion into every losing argument in lieu of ration, reason, and facts?
Heres a good link news.softpedia.com...
So according to these guy's even a regional nuclear war would destroy the planet.
So your statement that I quote "There are not enough nukes in ALL arsenals to destroy the Earth even once" is wrong. Who is showing their ignorance
Do your homework before spouting nonsense.
I can't help it if those guys are fear-mongering liars too. Nothing they said is new, it's the same old regurgitated BS propaganda that they used to
scare kids way back when.
Do some research, find the answers. You'll see what a bunch of fear mongering liars they are then, and that will make you wonder WHY they are lying -
what it is they have to gain by scaring people like you into submission.
A good place to start is to find out what nuclear weapons can actually DO, rather than what the fear mongers speaking through the popular press want
you to THINK they can do.
No hyperbole for fear mongering at all, but thanks for your assumption.
It wasn't an "assumption", it was an assessment of what you plainly stated.
But, the question still stands. Why have more than you need? I think the answer of throwing as many as you can at the shield in hopes a few get
through would be the best explanation here so far.
How many do YOU think are "needed", and how far are you down the chain of command to make that determination? Wouldn't the necessity of punching
through a missile shield increase the "need" for numbers?
And you really don't think there are enough nukes world wide to destroy the planet? I really think there is.....or at least enough to destroy all
life on the planet.
"Think"? No. It's a technological assessment of what nukes are capable of. If you are of a technological bent and can understand the physics of it,
see "The Effects of Nuclear Weapons" for an objective assessment of what nukes can and can't do. Be warned, there are equations to deal with, which
explain the results of the testing programs.
But, this is just a thought or theory from me, not proof or evidence. But your comment you state as fact. Any facts or proof on that comment since you
are so sure?
The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.
All content copyright 2013, The Above Network, LLC.