China Newspaper Says.....

page: 12
15
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 08:07 PM
link   


Again I want to thank every one for responding.

The above presents why China is not interested in actual conflict over these "deputed islands".


Any thoughts?

edit on 20-1-2013 by Kashai because: added content




posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 08:31 PM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


First thing first. No one wins thermal nuke war.

Who would be in the advantage spot for survival? No one.

The World could not survive an exchange.

So all in the game know this and don't see this.

Especially Red China with an acceptable loss in the hundreds of millions and ours is only 10-12 million to wipe us out.

10 MIRVS on one Ballistic with 10 separate tarkets with 36 in tubes times how many Tridents we have and where are they?

Man your definitly gonna have to bend real hard to kiss your arse goodbye.



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 08:54 PM
link   
Hypothetically speaking Russia and China launch a preemptive nuclear strike, against the United States. The US destroys every ICBM headed towards the US. Once that is done, the US responds by launching a retaliatory strike, effectively turning China and Russian into a parking lot. Eurasia, Africa and Australia no longer have humans living on them and all life on Antarctica has been wiped out. What happens next is a Nuclear winter that lasts about a 1000 years.

Nothing that allows for human survival exist, in the form of food exists.

Any thoughts?



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kashai
Hypothetically speaking Russia and China launch a preemptive nuclear strike, against the United States. The US destroys every ICBM headed towards the US. Once that is done, the US responds by launching a retaliatory strike, effectively turning China and Russian into a parking lot. Eurasia, Africa and Australia no longer have humans living on them and all life on Antarctica has been wiped out. What happens next is a Nuclear winter that lasts about a 1000 years.

Nothing that allows for human survival exist, in the form of food exists.

Any thoughts?


Heres a thought. What if the US does NOT fire back with nukes because we destroyed them all? If we destroyed their capability to hit us its redundant to hit them with nukes,when conventional warfare would work after that? MAD is not a absolute.



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 09:16 PM
link   
reply to post by yuppa
 


That could happen, though the problem is in relation to the amount of Fissionable material Russia and China could very well have (beyond what has been placed into ICBMs). Literall,y in about 6 months both countries could launch another attack and continue to do so for about 5 to 7 years, then they would probably deplete, all there fissionable nuclear material.
edit on 21-1-2013 by Kashai because: modified content



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by RevRay
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


First thing first. No one wins thermal nuke war.

Who would be in the advantage spot for survival? No one.

The World could not survive an exchange.

So all in the game know this and don't see this.


Then you are in agreement with me that no nukes would be exchanged, and China would lose a conventional war in a matter of weeks. They know this, which is why there will be no war.


Especially Red China with an acceptable loss in the hundreds of millions and ours is only 10-12 million to wipe us out.

The loss of 10 million lives would not wipe us out. Quit pulling facts out of your butt. That's about 3% of our population. We could lose well over a hundred million people and be fine.


10 MIRVS on one Ballistic with 10 separate tarkets with 36 in tubes times how many Tridents we have and where are they?

The question is not how many tridents, but how many SM-3 we have.


Man your definitly gonna have to bend real hard to kiss your arse goodbye.



Where I live wouldn't get hit. So no. All of China would be glass. It's very possible some of their missiles would land as well. It would be a bad thing. Good thing we both agree nukes wouldn't be used.



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kashai
Hypothetically speaking Russia and China launch a preemptive nuclear strike, against the United States. The US destroys every ICBM headed towards the US. Once that is done, the US responds by launching a retaliatory strike, effectively turning China and Russian into a parking lot. Eurasia, Africa and Australia no longer have humans living on them and all life on Antarctica has been wiped out. What happens next is a Nuclear winter that lasts about a 1000 years.

Nothing that allows for human survival exist, in the form of food exists.

Any thoughts?


Fallout 3 becomes real life.



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 11:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by yuppa

Originally posted by Kashai
Hypothetically speaking Russia and China launch a preemptive nuclear strike, against the United States. The US destroys every ICBM headed towards the US. Once that is done, the US responds by launching a retaliatory strike, effectively turning China and Russian into a parking lot. Eurasia, Africa and Australia no longer have humans living on them and all life on Antarctica has been wiped out. What happens next is a Nuclear winter that lasts about a 1000 years.

Nothing that allows for human survival exist, in the form of food exists.

Any thoughts?


Heres a thought. What if the US does NOT fire back with nukes because we destroyed them all? If we destroyed their capability to hit us its redundant to hit them with nukes,when conventional warfare would work after that? MAD is not a absolute.


WWII taught us nukes can be used. If we were fired upon we would nuke back. We wouldn't launch everything though. We would tactically nuke them though. No nuclear winter needed.



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 07:57 PM
link   
One new Volcano erupting every few years is not a problem. If anything the material it ejects into the atmosphere helps support in Ozone in relation to harmful radiation from the sun.

Take the example of 10 to 100 new volcanoes erupting over a year?

Using Tactical nukes in order to deal with China and Russia would be like 10 new volcanoes. Farms as we understand them today would fail and as a result there would be little if any meat. Structures would have to be built that were climate controlled in order to produce food. Especially since for about the next 100 years or so the atmosphere would be toxic. Large animals would die on land and in the Oceans, only those who lived underground, would survive potentially, without developing mutations (cancer and even eye's on the back of your head)


Without plants the food chain is broken.

Given a scenario where Russia and China formally surrendered. Because of an ineffective result, with regards to a first strike, our situation is much different. Launching and detonating as many as several hundred tactical nukes, in our upper atmosphere. Would make being outdoors a problem for quite some time due to damage to the ozone layer.

Any thoughts?
edit on 22-1-2013 by Kashai because: modified content



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 12:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kashai
Launching and detonating as many as several hundred tactical nukes, in our upper atmosphere. Would make being outdoors a problem for quite some time due to damage to the ozone layer.

Any thoughts?


Yes, why would we use several hundred when 2-3 would destroy them?



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 01:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by Kashai
Launching and detonating as many as several hundred tactical nukes, in our upper atmosphere. Would make being outdoors a problem for quite some time due to damage to the ozone layer.

Any thoughts?


Yes, why would we use several hundred when 2-3 would destroy them?


huh??

The Tsar Bomb or AN602 was supposedly the largest nuke tested. It was built and detonated by the Russians... and was one of the cleanest nuclear bombs tested.

I realize they make them bigger than this but people well within a hundred miles of this bomb would certainly survive unscathed.

2 or 3 nukes in no way shape or form would destroy China.

Now if we are talking very dirty nukes, then releasing them in the upper atmosphere could cause mucho trouble for a lot of people... but that would include everyone around the globe because that is how air currents operate, which would be very dumb of them.

but 2-3 nukes DESTROY them?


You *were* talking about China, correct? maybe i misunderstood... I HOPE I misunderstood.

Maybe you are talking about a large city or something... or a tiny state.

Hell, if you SEE a nuke go off and actually see the freaking cloud go up, as long as you do not get hit by the thermal blast and if you do not panic and go in the wrong direction, there is a very good chance you could survive it... unless they closed all roads near you... and then you would STILL have a good chance of surviving it as long as you knew which direction the wind was blowing and put it in your mind to not stick around and wait.
edit on 25-1-2013 by NotAnAspie because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 02:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by NotAnAspie

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by Kashai
Launching and detonating as many as several hundred tactical nukes, in our upper atmosphere. Would make being outdoors a problem for quite some time due to damage to the ozone layer.

Any thoughts?


Yes, why would we use several hundred when 2-3 would destroy them?


huh??

The Tsar Bomb or AN602 was supposedly the largest nuke tested. It was built and detonated by the Russians... and was one of the cleanest nuclear bombs tested.

I realize they make them bigger than this but people well within a hundred miles of this bomb would certainly survive unscathed.

2 or 3 nukes in no way shape or form would destroy China.

Now if we are talking very dirty nukes, then releasing them in the upper atmosphere could cause mucho trouble for a lot of people... but that would include everyone around the globe because that is how air currents operate, which would be very dumb of them.

but 2-3 nukes DESTROY them?


You *were* talking about China, correct? maybe i misunderstood... I HOPE I misunderstood.

Maybe you are talking about a large city or something... or a tiny state.

Hell, if you SEE a nuke go off and actually see the freaking cloud go up, as long as you do not get hit by the thermal blast and if you do not panic and go in the wrong direction, there is a very good chance you could survive it... unless they closed all roads near you... and then you would STILL have a good chance of surviving it as long as you knew which direction the wind was blowing and put it in your mind to not stick around and wait.
edit on 25-1-2013 by NotAnAspie because: (no reason given)


Maybe you simply are unable to grasp what 3 bombs killing 60 million people and turning 3 of their greatest cities to glass will do. The war will be over, they will surrender, their will destroyed.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 02:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by NotAnAspie

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by Kashai
Launching and detonating as many as several hundred tactical nukes, in our upper atmosphere. Would make being outdoors a problem for quite some time due to damage to the ozone layer.

Any thoughts?


Yes, why would we use several hundred when 2-3 would destroy them?


huh??

The Tsar Bomb or AN602 was supposedly the largest nuke tested. It was built and detonated by the Russians... and was one of the cleanest nuclear bombs tested.

I realize they make them bigger than this but people well within a hundred miles of this bomb would certainly survive unscathed.

2 or 3 nukes in no way shape or form would destroy China.

Now if we are talking very dirty nukes, then releasing them in the upper atmosphere could cause mucho trouble for a lot of people... but that would include everyone around the globe because that is how air currents operate, which would be very dumb of them.

but 2-3 nukes DESTROY them?


You *were* talking about China, correct? maybe i misunderstood... I HOPE I misunderstood.

Maybe you are talking about a large city or something... or a tiny state.

Hell, if you SEE a nuke go off and actually see the freaking cloud go up, as long as you do not get hit by the thermal blast and if you do not panic and go in the wrong direction, there is a very good chance you could survive it... unless they closed all roads near you... and then you would STILL have a good chance of surviving it as long as you knew which direction the wind was blowing and put it in your mind to not stick around and wait.
edit on 25-1-2013 by NotAnAspie because: (no reason given)


Maybe you simply are unable to grasp what 3 bombs killing 60 million people and turning 3 of their greatest cities to glass will do. The war will be over, they will surrender, their will destroyed.


A) This isn't the 40s. People aren't going to think God came back just because a nuke goes off. scared, sure... but much more prepared... especially if your whole government is built on Anti-imperialism after seeing what DID happen in the 40s. After the shockwave, those people would simply be PISSED and coming for western blood come hell or high water.

B) They are aware of our nukes and would not likely surrender because the government has taken control of a lot of underground locations and built even more and they would TOTALLY be expecting this if they engaged in war with us.

C) Japan has a tendency to be one of the most densely populated areas in the world, so killing a lot of people there can be done in a smaller location... China is much different and in the age of automobiles everywhere in big cities many more could survive a nuclear attack for multiple reasons... transportation and simply being able to identify it, not to mention personal protective equipment that their forces would likely be prepared with in light of an oncoming war

D) We've had Russian subs sneaking around in US waters lately... according to rumors that I have multiple reasons believe but the government simply won't confirm it... and our government does not want to GO THERE... if it's smart. BRICS could retaliate and decimate us faster than we could them. They have the majority of the landmass by far and MANY more places to hide.

E) Japan already had plans to surrender. So you worship the big bad bomb and think it's God. Not everyone does.

I can GRASP quite a bit. And what I GRASP is that you must be a really big fan of fiction.

In Hiroshima and Nagasaki there might have been 250,000 killed by the bombs both immediately and lingering effects in the following year.

Tragic? YES... and They should still be complaining about it, but a strong tidal wave on the east coast from la palma is likely to kill many more people than that and it's doubtful that WE would surrender to anyone who caused it to happen.

I have no idea where you are getting this 60 million scenario from... perhaps a video game or something but until you can show me where this has occurred you're just blowing smoke.

A death toll like that is unlikely to happen in China.

That kind of death toll wouldn't even be possible in New York City with 3 bombs.

You talking really big fish there, dude. Keep dreaming.

edit on 25-1-2013 by NotAnAspie because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 03:05 AM
link   
reply to post by NotAnAspie
 


I have a few older friends that lived in St. George, UT that was playing in the ashes from the Nevada test site nukes. He said they would go outside and rub the ashes on their faces like indian war paint. He's still alive and is over 70yrs old. Drinks, smokes and still kickin with no cancers or anything. I was born in Vegas in 75 and had many stories told to me by relatives, neighbors, friends who all were in the area's aroud Vegas/St. Goerge and saying the same thing. They would go outside and dust the ashes away after the testings.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 03:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by NotAnAspie

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
Maybe you simply are unable to grasp what 3 bombs killing 60 million people and turning 3 of their greatest cities to glass will do. The war will be over, they will surrender, their will destroyed.


A) This isn't the 40s. People aren't going to think God came back just because a nuke goes off. scared, sure... but much more prepared... especially if your whole government is built on Anti-imperialism after seeing what DID happen in the 40s. After the shockwave, those people would simply be PISSED and coming for western blood come hell or high water.

You are truly delusional if you don't think their greatest cities lying in rubble would not have an overwhelming impact. Now let's assume you're right. How would they be 'coming for western blood'? They have ZERO ability to project their forces on us.

B) They are aware of our nukes and would not likely surrender because the government has taken control of a lot of underground locations and built even more and they would TOTALLY be expecting this if they engaged in war with us.

And what of the people? Their will to wage war would be gone. What the government wants is unimportant when their people won't fight.


C) Japan has a tendency to be one of the most densely populated areas in the world, so killing a lot of people there can be done in a smaller location... China is much different and in the age of automobiles everywhere in big cities many more could survive a nuclear attack for multiple reasons... transportation and simply being able to identify it, not to mention personal protective equipment that their forces would likely be prepared with in light of an oncoming war

So when the bomb goes off people get in their car and drive? Seriously? You're joking I hope.


D) We've had Russian subs sneaking around in US waters lately... according to rumors that I have multiple reasons believe but the government simply won't confirm it... and our government does not want to GO THERE... if it's smart. BRICS could retaliate and decimate us faster than we could them. They have the majority of the landmass by far and MANY more places to hide.

Just because they are there doesn't mean we don't have tails on them. We have the SM-3 as well. They do not. But just so we are clear, you have gone from them using nukes first, to us not wanting to nuke or they will do it back. I am sorry, can't have it both ways. I already said the US would win in weeks in a CONVENTIONAL war and no nukes would ever be fired because of the consequences.


E) Japan already had plans to surrender. So you worship the big bad bomb and think it's God. Not everyone does.

Source that.


I can GRASP quite a bit. And what I GRASP is that you must be a really big fan of fiction.

In Hiroshima and Nagasaki there might have been 250,000 killed by the bombs both immediately and lingering effects in the following year.

Hiroshima had about 350,000 people in it, and it's estimated 130,000 died. The bombs we have today are MUCH more powerful, and the populations of China's 3 top cities is about 20 million each. The only one who wants to leave reality is you if you think a small bomb on a population of 350,000 will have the same effect as a large bomb on a population of 20 million.


Tragic? YES... and They should still be complaining about it, but a strong tidal wave on the east coast from la palma is likely to kill many more people than that and it's doubtful that WE would surrender to anyone who caused it to happen.

I have no idea where you are getting this 66 million scenario from... perhaps a video game or something but until you can show me where this has occurred you're just blowing smoke.

Shanghai 22 million
Beijing 18 million
Guangzhou 10 million

So it's 50 million in just the urban areas. There's another 85 million people in the areas around those 3 cities.


A death toll like that is unlikely to happen in China.

That kind of death toll wouldn't even be possible in New York City with 3 bombs.

ou talking really big fish there, dude. Keep dreaming.


Well NYC has about 8 million people, so of course not. Good thing China has about 6 cities with higher population than NYC.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 03:39 AM
link   
Let me give you yet another perspective... China's most populated city has over 23 million... yet the city covers almost 2500 sq miles.

Do you realize how many bombs it would take to wipe out that city? they would probably not be able to destroy just that one city with 3 bombs if they used B53s... which is supposed to be the largest US bomb, but since it's never been tested, it's radius is only a projection.... causing lethal burns to unprotected people within a 18 mile radius and collapsing building at a 10 mile radius.

And while 3 B53s might be enough to consider that city destroyed, it would not kill everyone and that is 23 million... not 60 million. HOWEVER, the last B53 was supposed to have been dismantled in Texas on 2011.

these things are from the cold war era and might not even work... PLUS, somebody somehow.... according to multiple military generals, has the capacity to disarm a nuke. I'd say it's far from impossible seeing as how they are devices. Any device that can be built can be disarmed and that would seem like an extremely important technology to develop for countries who have been under the threat of imperialists.

and to add to the flaw in your total annihilation theory, Hong Kong is the most densely populated, but it's still only 7 million people and would doubtfully be destroyed by even a B53.... so you would still need several more densely populated cities like Hong Kong and a bunch more bombs.

You are forgetting that there were people IN Hiroshima not far from ground zero who survived into old age to tell the story.

"Fight till the Death" doesn't not mean "Until you drop a nuke"

Holy crap if we tried to pull some crap like that all hell would break loose but i seriously doubt hey would surrender.

Hell, Mao Zedong was responsible for the death of 40 million of his own people in just a few years and they STILL have his picture hanging all around the place.

Not to mention the fact that we'd have a lot more people than just China to "destroy" if we went and done something like that. as in more than two thirds of the world would hate us more than they already do... and it's already a lot.

Surrender from 2-3 nukes... No way.
edit on 25-1-2013 by NotAnAspie because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 03:47 AM
link   
Boy, you are just not getting mere numbers here... The reason I mentioned New York city is because it's one of the most densely populated areas of the world... yet you could not destroy it with 3 nukes.... so OF COURSE the fact that they only have 8 million and something plays into my argument. What the hell did you think I meant?

I know that China has more populated cities... but they're bigger therefore... IT WOULD TAKE EVEN MORE BOMBS.

Holy crap I can't believe I had to break that down.

to kill 60 million you would 7 NYCities, which are densely populated so you would get more bang for your buck and this is how you would want to go because less dense areas are still not going help your lofty death toll, which is what your twisted mind is looking for... Now how you gonna do that with 3 bombs??!

You're fantasizing.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 04:13 AM
link   
Hong Kong has 17000 per sq mile... new York city has 27000 per square mile.

Now are you getting why I mentioned New your city?

You would STILL not be able to destroy NVC with 1 B53 and you CERTAINLY would not be able to destroy 7 NYCities with 3 B53s.

Get it now? You're simply not going to kill 60 million with 3 nukes.

It's not going to happen, not even with all the odds in your favor. There will be numerous variables added on top of the unlikely odds.

Don't you understand that in a city like Hong kong, there are many places that would serve as shelter from a direct blast?... not to mention any underground structure and there are plenty of those that are public and in big cities that are usually crowded with people. they would be protected from the thermal blast and then come out to see what was going on, perhaps even with ears bleeding but once they figured it out they would get away from the fallout. annihilation is never 100% and 3 of the worlds largest bombs (which would make us an enemy of almost every country if we got THAT sick and desperate) would still be doing it's best to take out a third of chinas most populated city.

You better go run and get you a few more dozen nukes and you better make sure you execute that plan before those in range of us have a chance to retaliate.

this isn't WW2 where they say they got a sweep that some are obviously still having heroic dreams about.

There's nothing heroic about trying to sweep a victory by tossing around a 'a few" nukes.

Dangerously, DANGEROUSLY foolish thoughts.

Are you in Israeli politics?


Try a helmet or something.
edit on 25-1-2013 by NotAnAspie because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 05:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by NotAnAspie
Let me give you yet another perspective... China's most populated city has over 23 million... yet the city covers almost 2500 sq miles.

And you think the population is evenly spread? It has areas with extremely dense population, and areas with iminimal population.


Do you realize how many bombs it would take to wipe out that city? they would probably not be able to destroy just that one city with 3 bombs if they used B53s... which is supposed to be the largest US bomb, but since it's never been tested, it's radius is only a projection.... causing lethal burns to unprotected people within a 18 mile radius and collapsing building at a 10 mile radius.

Imagine what their 3 greatest cities being turned into craters would do to them. With them having ZERO chance at retaliation. They have NO navy. They can NEVER invade.


And while 3 B53s might be enough to consider that city destroyed, it would not kill everyone and that is 23 million... not 60 million. HOWEVER, the last B53 was supposed to have been dismantled in Texas on 2011.

Let's assume you're right. Only 23 million. Is that all? That's with a 25mt bomb. We have the ability to deliver 40-60mt bombs. Officially they don't exist. Maybe they really don't. Or maybe they do.

Dont have time to go into the rest I need to work!



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 05:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by Taikun
Another Gulf of Tonkin incident waiting to occur? I will not rule out a false flag from the Chinese this time around, for a full scale military grab for the islands. U.S. will join Japan, where Russia will back China. A world war in the making.


China would not start a war any time soon. My belief is that they are trying to intimidate the other Pacific nations. The US would back Japan with the full might of our military, and China would be in ruins within weeks. Russia would never back China, and if they did they too would be annihilated, it would take most likely a few months for both nations to surrender, with almost no US casualties. Both countries combined could not dent the US Navy, they would be blockaded, bombed, and become withering hulks. They would be forced to repay huge reparations, and would be a huge coup for the US and the US economy.

Never happen.


Your kidding right! "with almost no US casualties". Wars like this won't be lost by the enemy having superior conventional forces, they will go nuclear as soon as one side starts to lose badly enough.
To think the American forces,(which are superior to China or Russia) would be allowed to ruin China or Russia)Without strategic retaliation, is naive and shows you don't grasp Geo politics or military strategy. Actually your assumptions are very dangerous for America..





top topics
 
15
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join