TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Bush: Threat of World War III if Iran goes nuclear
Pages (3): « 1 [2] 3 »

Nuking the world is a really good idea. Just when I thought you couldn't be any stupider, you say something like this...and totally redeem yourself!

quote:

Originally posted by LatinLover The Chinese are restructuring their military and they dont come near to have our technological military advancements.

Who cares, it wouldn't take long for everything that we have to dry up if China called in the debts. That's what happens when you piss off people that you owe money to. Where are we going to get money buy all the technological military advancements? Also, you do realize that if we would nuke, the entire world would shut us off. Kind of a problem considering the trade deficit that we run at. That is, if China or Russia didn't nuke us before all of this transpired. The sort of aggression that you're advocating is what caused World War II and most UN backed missions since, like Desert Storm. You just don't take over countries because you feel like it.

Do you really have to express how much of a fucking retard you are with every post that you make? Go back to posting articles, then don't bother to post in the thread again.

I was considering on commenting about this topic, but I can't because I just lost a few neurons flipping through these pages and reading the rationale of our dear Latin. I want that lost time and brain cells back, I really do.

Welp, for all you laissez faire type folks who respect the "voice" of thrice-banned trolls like our dear LatinLover/arnoldj child here, best of luck.

Just curious, how old are you Latin ?

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X please try not to let yourself sink to his level

Dood, he's not even trying...

Now I know for sure the Latin does not have a brain or logic for that matter.

Bush = Lame Duck attention whore!

SOB can't even talk right......

quote:

Originally posted by LatinLover If the Chinese want to start threating the US lets Nuke them also. No offense if you havent figured out that China is our bitch you are living in another world. I dont want to sound so harsh but its the truth, I mean we are to soft with China. They love to play political games, they love to hack into our systems and its time we put them in their place

Really? That's funny, last I read it was the US that has been pleading (begging to the point of being annoying) with China to remove thier curency peg. Oh, actually I've been reading that for about four years now.

And what about treasury bills? China has something like 700 BILLION (700,000,000,000.00) US$ worth of credit. That means that Every US citizen owes the Chinese government about 2,000 $US. Yes, that's right, look at your passport and realize that it is actually proof that you owe the Chinese government money. Lucky you spent 2,000 dollars on cheap Chinese products last year, how could you have lived without them? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6106280.stm)

Then we get to the problems with "nukeing" a country. Let's just pretend that the US administration was using your advice for it's foreign policy. Now clearly they would empty thier silo's, bombers and submarine payloads in an intense campaign to destroy every inch of a country about the same size as the US. First of all the offensive would be detected. The Chinese radar, not to mention every other country in the world's radar, would see this masisve rain of missiles and have maybe five to thirty minutes to react. And of course the problem with missiles being detected flying to "Asia" is that no one really knows where they are going.

So now there is a world wide counter attack starting. The US is likely going to get hit by a couple of ICBM's from around the world, possibly have a few nukes that are already built and waiting to go off in thier cities get set off. I'll go with a conservative estimate and say that the initial provocation would bring down about 10 - 20 nukes on US soil.

Guess what, Miami is clearly one of the 10 top cities in the US. Looks like your policy is suicidal. Good luck getting elected to office.

quote:

Originally posted by LatinLover The Chinese are restructuring their military and they dont come near to have our technological military advancements.

Do you beleive this propoganda?

The main differences between Chinese and US military is the GPS and aronautic wings of the military.

How much have you studdied about Chinese military advancements? Do you think that the fact that they've built more subs in the past 10 years then the US has ever built might give them a bit of an edge?

Or how about shooting down satalites? Or using ground based lazers to blind satalites?

Or what about the military technology that has been specifically designed to target air craft carriers with nuclear warheads? That's not something that a missile defense sheild will be able to take down.

quote:

Originally posted by LatinLover

This is a misleading statistic. Nearly half of the US military budget is being poured into Iraq and Afgan., not to mention the amount being used to finance massive supply lines to troops stationed all over the world.

To my knowledge China has no (or very few) troops stationed internationally. There has also been speculation that they are financing military spending through other branches of the government to evade reporting the actual value being spent on arms procurement.

I think it wouldn't be a stretch to say that the military budget of the two contries, in development terms, is fairly simimlar.

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r Dood, he's not even trying...

oh.... you REALLY got me there...

quote:

Originally posted by venomX Fair enough, that was an overstatement In any case, any military action against China is senseless. My other points still stand. And another thing to consider is the reaction in the region. Even if the US could manage to withstand the economic fallout, what would Russia and the Middle East do? The US can't take China on by itself, what would happened if Russia jumped in? What would the EU do? It is quite narrow minded to say that the US could just up and nuke China.

Err, let's be honest about it. America would kill China. China has 3x as much infantry, but that kindof advantage is irrelevant in modern warfare. America has oodles of high-tech armor support + practically infinite air support. China's infastructure would be leveled and its coordination completely disrupted before troops became involved and by that time, clearing up those troops would be a cleanup operation. Russia are equally useless militarily, for now anyway. The problem these nations have is they dont develop new technologies and they arnt fighting anybody to test it on. America has been in a state of war for about thirty years and are miles ahead of any country. Cold war tech just doesnt compare. Militarily, they are invincible and even nuclear weapons are useless against them. The only force capable of rivalling them is the EU collectively, but let's be honest they arnt going to side with the middle east are they?

But economically, it's shooting yourself in the foot..the head, even.

quote:

Originally posted by LatinLover The Chinese are restructuring their military and they dont come near to have our technological military advancements.

Technology isn't everything... let's look at manpower for a second...
USA
Front Line personal - 1.4 million
Total personal - 2.37 million
Available manpower (this includes you) - 67.7 million

China
Front Line personal - 2.25 million
Total personal - 7 million
Available manpower - 343 million

I'm thinking that the 275,300,000 extra potential soldiers may make up for the technology gap. China has a near inexhaustable population of potential soldiers, much as the USSR did in the second world war... which is why they won, despite Germany's technological superiority.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Technology isn't everything... let's look at manpower for a second... USA Front Line personal - 1.4 million Total personal - 2.37 million Available manpower (this includes you) - 67.7 million China Front Line personal - 2.25 million Total personal - 7 million Available manpower - 343 million I'm thinking that the 275,300,000 extra potential soldiers may make up for the technology gap. China has a near inexhaustable population of potential soldiers, much as the USSR did in the second world war... which is why they won, despite Germany's technological superiority.

EXCELLENT example.

Germany had superior technology in almost everything from tanks to soldier's weapons, but still lost. When you have the numbers, human wave attacks can work. Penal battalions clear the minefields. Technology isn't everything.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton EXCELLENT example. Germany had superior technology in almost everything from tanks to soldier's weapons, but still lost. When you have the numbers, human wave attacks can work. Penal battalions clear the minefields. Technology isn't everything.

Germany could have won the war If you understand military history you would know that. Ofcourse China outnumbers the US in soldiers and so on, but do they have quality soldiers? Quantity dosent outweighed Quality I can have a zillion soldiers but if they are just a bunch of incompetent do you think you are going to win the war... by the way in that sect is where china is improving its military, they want to have quality not quantity

quote:

Originally posted by LatinLover Germany could have won the war If you understand military history you would know that. Ofcourse China outnumbers the US in soldiers and so on, but do they have quality soldiers? Quantity dosent outweighed Quality I can have a zillion soldiers but if they are just a bunch of incompetent do you think you are going to win the war... by the way in that sect is where china is improving its military, they want to have quality soldiers

My minor was military history... Germany could only have won the war had they not attacked the USSR.

Something to keep in mind is that such a war would be one of attrition... 5:1 ratio in a war of attrition is more or less insurmountable.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard My minor was military history... Germany could only have won the war had they not attacked the USSR. Something to keep in mind is that such a war would be one of attrition... 5:1 ratio in a war of attrition is more or less insurmountable.

That is not the only reason If you understand this issue so well what was Hitlers biggest strategic mistake? A hint: Its an internal issue with his regime

quote:

Originally posted by LatinLover That is not the only reason If you understand this issue so well what was Hitlers biggest strategic mistake? A hint: Its an internal issue with his regime

No, no, no, no, no....

World War II was a war of attrition. In such a war, technology doesn't mean a damn thing. When the Allies landed in Normandy, the Germans had all the advantages of superior weapons, but their Tiger and Panther tanks, MG42's, nebelwerfers, etc, all superior weapons to the Allies failed to give the Germans victory. The Allies had much superior numbers in planes, tanks, guns, men, etc. Technology, while important is NEVER a guarentee of victory. Does Vietnam ring a bell? Iraqi insurgency? If YOU knew two shits about war theory, for every advantage there is a response. If the enemy is large, make yourself small. If the enemy has technology, use asymmetrical warfare. You need some extensive schooling...

Before you come on here like you know everything, do some reading...

Art of War

quote:

Originally posted by LatinLover That is not the only reason If you understand this issue so well what was Hitlers biggest strategic mistake? A hint: Its an internal issue with his regime

Sorry to break it to you but Hitler's biggest error was Barbarossa. Had he not initiated Barbarossa the USSR would not have entered the war and Germany would have had the resources necessary to take out the UK... without the UK the USA and Canada would not have had a viable base for operations and therefore would have likely patitioned for peace with Germany (that is of course if the US would have even entered into war with Germany... it is likely that they would not have if not for Churchill's influence over Rooseveldt... no UK renders Churchill ineffective). This would have left the Germans ample time to properly arm for a battle with the Soviet Union. Chances are they still would have lost but it would have been a much longer war.

I presume you believe his biggest error was that he kept his generals and ministers busy in-fighting by constently pitting them against each other. While this was detrimental to the efficiency of the state and the efficacy of the military it was not a fatal error, without the manpower, industrial capacity, and incredibly vast land access of the USSR the allies would not have stood a chance.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Technology isn't everything... let's look at manpower for a second... USA Front Line personal - 1.4 million Total personal - 2.37 million Available manpower (this includes you) - 67.7 million China Front Line personal - 2.25 million Total personal - 7 million Available manpower - 343 million I'm thinking that the 275,300,000 extra potential soldiers may make up for the technology gap. China has a near inexhaustable population of potential soldiers, much as the USSR did in the second world war... which is why they won, despite Germany's technological superiority.

lol, wow.

Oh, and it doesn't include me, because I'll dodge the draft quicker than you can say, "Pussy".

Oh, and here is a fun little article.

quote:

Castro: Bush Could Spark Nuclear War HAVANA � Fidel Castro is accusing President Bush of threatening the world with nuclear war and famine _ an attack on Washington that comes as the White House is set to announce new plans to draw Cuba away from communism. "The danger of a massive world famine is aggravated by Mr. Bush's recent initiative to transform foods into fuel," Castro wrote Tuesday in Cuban news media, referring to U.S. support for using corn and other food crops to produce gasoline substitutes. The brief essay titled "Bush, Hunger and Death" also alleged that Bush "threatens humanity with World War III, this time using atomic weapons." The White House on Tuesday brushed off Castro's comments _ particularly his assertion that Bush was pursuing a forceful conquest of Cuba. "Dictators say a lot of things, and most of them can be discounted, including that," said White House press secretary Dana Perino. Perino said that Bush on Wednesday would urge other nations to join together in promoting democracy in Cuba. "It is true that soon the decades-long debate about our policy towards Cuba will come to a time when we're going to have an opportunity here, when Castro is no longer leading Cuba, that the people there should be able to have a chance at freedom and democracy," she said. "That opportunity is coming." In his essay, Castro predicted that Bush "will adopt new measures to accelerate the 'transition period' in our country, equivalent to a new conquest of Cuba by force." Cuban officials have long denounced U.S. efforts to produce a "transition" from Castro's government to a Western-style representative democracy. Ailing and 81, Castro has not been seen in public since undergoing emergency intestinal surgery and ceding power to a provisional government headed by his younger brother Raul in July 2006. While he has looked upbeat and lucid in official videos, he also seems too frail to resume power. Life on the island has changed little under Raul Castro, the 76-year-old defense minister who was his elder brother's hand-picked successor for decades. Cuba staged municipal elections on Sunday, the first step in a process that will determine if Fidel Castro is re-elected or replaced next year as Cuban leader.

http://www6.comcast.net/news/articles/world/latinamerica/2007/10/14/Cuba.Castro/?cvqh=itn_bushcastro

I know he's just pissed that we want to seed democracy in his country, but he's basing this accusation on how Bush is leading our country. Many people see bush as an imperialist leader bent on expanding the United States empire. How far will he go? Only time will tell, we have another year of this bullshit, keep your fingers crossed.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard ... China has a near inexhaustable population of potential soldiers, much as the USSR did in the second world war... which is why they won, despite Germany's technological superiority.

Actually, it was Mother Nature that kicked Germany's ass...

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r Actually, it was Mother Nature that kicked Germany's ass...

The Germans' failure to plan for winter helped in as much as it allowed the elite forces to get back from Manchria... but they probably still would have won without the cold, it just would have taken longer.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard The Germans' failure to plan for winter helped in as much as it allowed the elite forces to get back from Manchria... but they probably still would have won without the cold, it just would have taken longer.

Sure the Russians had manpower but they were sorely lacking in...everything, especially weapons, of any type.

Sorry but waves of humans would have never stood up to a calculated Nazi blitzkrieg at 100%...

Napoleon's invasion of Russia is another good example.

But I think Vietnam is a particularly compelling case. The Viet Cong's technology was significantly below the Chinese military, and they had significantly fewer men at their disposal, and they still managed to wage a campaign that brought down 67,000 American soldiers. Waging war against China would be suicide, despite whatever technological advantage we currently enjoy.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.