China vs. the US - TranceAddict Forums

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- China vs. the US
Pages (2): « 1 [2]

Posted by 'mju:zik on Nov-12-2003 21:20:

quote:
Originally posted by occrider
Thanks . Yes the nuclear bomb issue would be the iffy of the situation. My last post completely disregarded nuclear weapons for obvious reasons ... it's virtually impossible to predict a "victory" with their use. If nuclear weapons were to be used two questions must be asked:

A) Is it going to be a strategic nuclear war?
B) Is it going to be a tactical only nuclear war?

In a strategic nuclear war China would only "win" if they initiated a first strike. The US would lose in the sense that the loss of 15-30 large US cities would be relatively unacceptable to the US despite the complete obliteration of China. If the US were to initiate a first strike China would have no chance at all. Simply put, the US strategic arsenal is so much more adept at first strike scenarios (it was designed to defeat russia) than China could ever hope to match. What makes the US arsenal so lethal? The 12-14 or so Ohio class SSBNs submarines that carry a whopping 50% of the US's strategic arsenal of nuclear weapons. Each submarine carries 24 trident missiles whereby EACH MISSILE contains 5 MIRV (Multiple Independantly Targetable Reentry Vehicle) warheads ... therefore each submarine contains up to a 120 100 kiloton nuclear warheads. One submarine, launching off the coast of China ... its warheads would probably make landfall in 5-10 minutes, relegating the 24 or so Chinese long range ICBMS to radioactive dust.

Second scenario ... a tactical only nuclear exchange. Again I would say the US would "win" such an exchange. The reason I say this is because, once again, the US posseses a far superior arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons. The US possesses thousands of tactical weapons: tomohawk or standoff attack missiles, bombs, artillery, shit there are even nuclear torpedoes. Compared to China's approximately 300 tactical nuclear weapons and there's no competition. Additionally bear in mind that the US nuclear weapons delivery systems are significantly better than the Chinese. Just about the only chinese warheads that stand a chance of getting through are its missile launched warheads ... all of which are quite succeptible by attack from the air. Anyway further info on US/Chinese weapons systems can be found at:

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/index.html

A good analysis of Chinese military modernization compared to US modernization can be found at:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa465.pdf

Yea sorry for babbling ... I'm a huge study of military technology.

so all you're basically saying is the U.S. has more nukes and submarines. Super!!

way to write a paragraph about almost nothing!

Posted by occrider on Nov-13-2003 01:06:

quote:
Originally posted by 'mju:zik
so all you're basically saying is the U.S. has more nukes and submarines. Super!!

way to write a paragraph about almost nothing!

Yes yes, I know that all the big words can be a little bit intimidating ... but my my, we've demonstrated remarkable reading comprehension for our age! So here, take this yummy lollipop

And here's your very own grown-up newspaper for you to read!

http://ink.news.com.au/

Now go run along now!

Posted by 'mju:zik on Nov-13-2003 01:14:

quote:
Originally posted by occrider
Yes yes, I know that all the big words can be a little bit intimidating

ACTUALLY,

the biggest word you used in the paragraph before was "speculation"

if you consider that a "big" word, then you should prolly go back to high school buddy

Posted by occrider on Nov-13-2003 01:17:

What do you do when a person doesn't understand the concept of patronizing someone?

Posted by DrUg_Tit0 on Nov-13-2003 13:44:

quote:
Originally posted by 'mju:zik
ACTUALLY,

the biggest word you used in the paragraph before was "speculation"

if you consider that a "big" word, then you should prolly go back to high school buddy

ACTUALLY try and read through the article again. There are several bigger words there, and if you find one, I'm sure that the general consensus will be that you deserve another lollypop if you find them.

Posted by marcus82 on Nov-13-2003 16:13:

china, nukes, u.s.a...oh my!

i don't even know why you even discussed nukes...

imo they will always be a standoff weapon, i'd be a bitch to deploy small tactical nukes because it raises so many stupid questions and it makes launching strategics nukes all that easier.

lastly, to the point of U.S.A. vs China

China has the largest free standing army on the face of this planet...however, it has no mobilization abilities. However, the U.S. has the largest heavy lifting air mobility wing in any air force and logistics capabilities to complement. China, however, lacks this ability and with a proper first strike (unannounced) the U.S. could take key parts of the Chinese with relative ease, while China would take weeks if not months to muster enough troops to counter the U.S.

However....again, i know i just argued the U.S. vs China bit....but i tend to agree that hypothetical situations like this are unlikely...and thus hypothetical it's not war mongering, it's just playing a little game.

Pages (2): « 1 [2]