If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Defense News)   US Intelligence: "Uh, you know how we speculated China had around 300 nukes? We may have missed a zero"   (defensenews.com) divider line 231
    More: Scary, People's Republic of China, United States, try, Chinese, nuclear deterrent, Federation of American Scientists, nuclear tests, U.S. law  
•       •       •

17836 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 Jan 2013 at 6:23 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



231 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-07 05:25:23 PM
Who's counting anyway?  Even 300 is 295 more than you need to turn all critical cities in the US (or most any other industrialized nation) into glass parking lots.  Anything else is just overkill.

Besides, what motive would they have to use them?  Attack any UN/NATO ally, and the world rains death upon you.  Attack us, and even if you survive the counterattack, you'll lose your biggest global customer, and still haven't received the previously mentioned death from above, sponsored by NATO.
 
2013-01-07 05:27:01 PM
Yeah... I'm not staying up late worrying that China is going to nuke us. They've got way too much invested in being part of the world to bother incinerating it.
 
2013-01-07 05:45:00 PM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: Who's counting anyway?  Even 300 is 295 more than you need to turn all critical cities in the US (or most any other industrialized nation) into glass parking lots.  Anything else is just overkill.

Besides, what motive would they have to use them?  Attack any UN/NATO ally, and the world rains death upon you.  Attack us, and even if you survive the counterattack, you'll lose your biggest global customer, and still haven't received the previously mentioned death from above, sponsored by NATO.


It would be much easier for them to say to us "xxxx trade concessions or we nuke japan and south korea, both who you're bound by treaty to defend,"
 
2013-01-07 06:07:04 PM
But if they nuke you into the stone age, an hour later you're civilized again
 
2013-01-07 06:12:22 PM
Me bomb you long time.
 
2013-01-07 06:22:57 PM
His team estimated that as many as 3,000 nuclear weapons could be hidden

They possibly maybe could conceivably have 3,000.
EVERYBODY PANIC!
 
2013-01-07 06:24:43 PM
Dammit. Fark keeps eating my line breaks.
 
2013-01-07 06:25:36 PM

Some 'Splainin' To Do: Yeah... I'm not staying up late worrying that China is going to nuke us. They've got way too much invested in being part of the world to bother incinerating it.


You obviously do not understand the Chicom hive mind which is bent on racial domination of the globe by nature's most perfect specimen: the Han Chinese. So perfect they come with a 3 inch dick.
 
2013-01-07 06:25:44 PM
Come on now. No one thinks the Chinese are going to bomb the U.S. with nukes.
 
2013-01-07 06:28:07 PM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: But if they nuke you into the stone age, an hour later you're civilized again


Werr prayed
 
2013-01-07 06:28:12 PM
Maybe the US government should spend more time spying on the Chinese than it's own citizens?
 
2013-01-07 06:28:14 PM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: But if they nuke you into the stone age, an hour later you're civilized again


Har!
 
2013-01-07 06:30:13 PM
Obviously the only answer to this is to double or triple the US  defence budget. In fact, I propose the Defence Department take ALL incoming revenue, and give back what they don't need. Oh ya, and invoke conscription again. But only the homeless and people making less than $250000 a year.

/Tea Party for the win!
 
2013-01-07 06:30:52 PM
They're far more likely to nuke themselves in the foot than they are to nuke the US.
 
2013-01-07 06:30:53 PM
Defense department guy, "oh shiat, they really almost actually might cut some of our grossly inflated budget"

MI Complex 1%er, "quick, lets try to whip us up a new Cold War"

Defense department guy, "phew, my great great great grand kids 150 years from now need to live in the lap of sybaritic luxury, and I was worried"
 
2013-01-07 06:31:19 PM
If China bombed the US, wouldn't China's economy cease to exist? They may "own" us, but we own all their "made in china" crap.. in fact, i think when i crap, its pre stamped "made in china". i'll have to check.
 
2013-01-07 06:32:17 PM
They'll never use them. Wanna know why? General Tso's chicken.
 
2013-01-07 06:32:34 PM

Brian Ryanberger:
You obviously do not understand the Chicom hive mind which is bent on racial domination of the globe by nature's most perfect specimen: the Han Chinese. So perfect they come with a 3 inch dick.


I hope you mean soft otherwise I'm going to be really disappointed with the assimilation.
 
2013-01-07 06:32:41 PM
How many does Israel have?
/Somebody had to go there
 
2013-01-07 06:33:45 PM

fusillade762: His team estimated that as many as 3,000 nuclear weapons could be hidden

They possibly maybe could conceivably have 3,000.
EVERYBODY PANIC!


Someone else noticed that little chunk of high grade weasel language as well huh? So basically they're saying that they have *storage space* for ~3,000 warheads. That's like saying just because someone has a three car garage they for sure have 3 cars. There are quite a few other methods and metrics for working out a nations likely nuclear stockpile size. Also, do they have reasonable long range delivery systems for 3,000 warheads? What *kind* of warheads are we talking about? Big ass cold war 1 megaton city breakers? 250 kiloton counterforce Mirvs for ICBMs? Little dinky 5 kiloton tactical jobs? The PANIC! and durp in that article where far above normal US intel levels for wargarble.
 
2013-01-07 06:35:19 PM

neongoats: Defense department guy, "oh shiat, they really almost actually might cut some of our grossly inflated budget"

MI Complex 1%er, "quick, lets try to whip us up a new Cold War"

Defense department guy, "phew, my great great great grand kids 150 years from now need to live in the lap of sybaritic luxury, and I was worried"


I would laugh, if it weren't so true.

/Eh, hell, I'll laugh anyway
//Not like enough sheeple have woken up to do anything about it yet
 
2013-01-07 06:35:42 PM
1) Nuke USA until it glows.
2) Wait for it to cool off.
3) Drop a million anchor babbys that were seeded in china and born in the USA.
4) Profit?
 
2013-01-07 06:35:51 PM

Solid State Vittles: They'll never use them. Wanna know why? General Tso's chicken.


Oh China. You terrify us with your army and your brutal government, but your chicken is delectable.

/Also
//MAD is a terrible, terrible idea
 
2013-01-07 06:36:08 PM

Brian Ryanberger: Some 'Splainin' To Do: Yeah... I'm not staying up late worrying that China is going to nuke us. They've got way too much invested in being part of the world to bother incinerating it.

You obviously do not understand the Chicom hive mind which is bent on racial domination of the globe by nature's most perfect specimen: the Han Chinese. So perfect they come with a 3 inch dick.


Don't even pretend your teaderping micropenis is any bigger. Poor thing, constantly crushed between your fat rolls and your power chair.
 
2013-01-07 06:36:44 PM

Some 'Splainin' To Do: Yeah... I'm not staying up late worrying that China is going to nuke us. They've got way too much invested in being part of the world to bother incinerating it.


Also, it's cleaner and more beneficial to them to just owe our ass.
 
2013-01-07 06:37:11 PM

deamonbutterfly: If China bombed the US, wouldn't China's economy cease to exist? They may "own" us, but we own all their "made in china" crap.. in fact, i think when i crap, its pre stamped "made in china". i'll have to check.


China's economy doesn't really exist in the first place.

At least, not like they want to pretend it does.
 
2013-01-07 06:37:12 PM
There is no practical difference between 300 and 3,000.

So, yeah, non-issue.
 
2013-01-07 06:37:19 PM

RobertBruce: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Who's counting anyway?  Even 300 is 295 more than you need to turn all critical cities in the US (or most any other industrialized nation) into glass parking lots.  Anything else is just overkill.

Besides, what motive would they have to use them?  Attack any UN/NATO ally, and the world rains death upon you.  Attack us, and even if you survive the counterattack, you'll lose your biggest global customer, and still haven't received the previously mentioned death from above, sponsored by NATO.

It would be much easier for them to say to us "xxxx trade concessions or we nuke japan and south korea, both who you're bound by treaty to defend,"


It's not like they'd be able to complain about us not honoring the treaty afterwards.
 
2013-01-07 06:39:14 PM

AverageAmericanGuy: Come on now. No one thinks the Chinese are going to bomb the U.S. with nukes.


I would think their intent may be more regional-India for example.
 
2013-01-07 06:40:03 PM
I believe that 30 nukes is a reasonable number for China.
 
2013-01-07 06:40:26 PM

shintochick: Brian Ryanberger:
You obviously do not understand the Chicom hive mind which is bent on racial domination of the globe by nature's most perfect specimen: the Han Chinese. So perfect they come with a 3 inch dick.

I hope you mean soft otherwise I'm going to be really disappointed with the assimilation.


Based on your username, I think it's safe to infer that you'll be disappointed either way.

/ I'm just assuming they're not totally stoked about Japanese religious practices any more than they are anything else Japanese.
 
2013-01-07 06:40:58 PM
Oh no. Stop them. Oh no.
 
2013-01-07 06:41:09 PM
So someone finally found the 0 weapons from Saddam's nuclear program?
 
2013-01-07 06:41:17 PM

OtherLittleGuy: Some 'Splainin' To Do: Yeah... I'm not staying up late worrying that China is going to nuke us. They've got way too much invested in being part of the world to bother incinerating it.

Also, it's cleaner and more beneficial to them to just owe our ass.


OWN our ass...

/Browncoat Chinese cussing
 
2013-01-07 06:41:18 PM
we need a new mission "to disarm Iraq China of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein Hu-ever's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people Chinese women."
 
2013-01-07 06:41:38 PM
and we have 5000+ (that we're admitting to)
and we have more and better ways of getting them to where we want them to go

how hard would it be to get a submarine off the coast of Shanghai?
how many military installations do we have in striking distance of china? (taiwan, japan, okinawa)
 
2013-01-07 06:42:40 PM
They have 30-40 million surplus males, they don't need nukes.
 
2013-01-07 06:44:44 PM

CygnusDarius: Solid State Vittles: They'll never use them. Wanna know why? General Tso's chicken.

Oh China. You terrify us with your army and your brutal government, but your chicken is delectable.

/Also
//MAD is a terrible, terrible idea


MAD is the only thing making nuclear war a zero-sum game. It's basic game theory, and it's the only reason we haven't had a global thermonuclear war.

That being said, I wouldn't be surprised if, upon learning of thousands of incoming ICBMs, Obama et. al. decided not to retaliate. I mean, they got first strike, they won. This mentality, which is antithetical to MAD, is why first strike became so important during the cold war.

Want to sleep well tonight? Read about Dead Hand. By all accounts it's still in place and turned on. Even still, it's not fully automatic, someone has to push a button at the Kremlin.

Cite my sources you say?

pc-museum.com
 
2013-01-07 06:45:58 PM
I'm more worried about the nukes that Israel has.
 
2013-01-07 06:46:07 PM

drjekel_mrhyde: How many does Israel have?
/Somebody had to go there


oh please... like the Jewish people believe they are gods chosen ones and can do no wrong.
 
2013-01-07 06:46:27 PM
If their nukes are like any other Chinese produced item, they'll break before they can even get any use out of them, because to save costs on parts they replaced the expensive Pu-239 fusion plug with a thin piece of plastic,and wired the whole thing with the thinnest wire they could find.
 
2013-01-07 06:46:29 PM
Here's something to remember. Everyone remembers former President Jimmy Carter as weak on defense. Well, he wasn't. He's the guy who moved almost our entire nuclear arsenal to a submarine based force.

In essence we can lay waste to China in the matter of about 10 to 20 minutes. And they know it.
 
2013-01-07 06:46:35 PM

mayIFark: There is no practical difference between 300 and 3,000.

So, yeah, non-issue.


If your missile defense systems shoot down 95% of the incoming, there is quite a big difference.
 
2013-01-07 06:48:28 PM
Hu's gonna bomb us??
 
2013-01-07 06:49:10 PM

cchris_39: mayIFark: There is no practical difference between 300 and 3,000.

So, yeah, non-issue.

If your missile defense systems shoot down 95% of the incoming, there is quite a big difference.


And if my aunt has a penis she'd be my uncle. What's your point?
 
2013-01-07 06:52:04 PM

RobertBruce: It would be much easier for them to say to us "xxxx trade concessions or we nuke japan and south korea, both who you're bound by treaty to defend,"


You're forgetting the relevant parable.

If you owe the bank a million dollars, the bank owns you. If you owe the bank a billion dollars, you own the bank.

We don't owe China a billion, we owe them well over a TRILLION dollars. We own them. If they were insane enough to attack one of our allies, we would cancel that debt, then shut down their economy. How? Most of the Chinese economy is based on exports. Exports sent out on very large, very slow cargo container ships. China doesn't have a deep sea navy to protect those ships. We could take every single cargo ship leaving China with hardly a shot fired. We could stop all cargo ships attempting to enter their waters. We wouldn't even have blow their ports or mine them.

We could completely destroy their economy without firing a singe shot into their country, and they're going to start a shooting war with Japan or Korea? Not farking likely.
 
2013-01-07 06:54:27 PM
img202.imageshack.us
DEATH IS A PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE TO COMMUNISM.
 
2013-01-07 06:54:28 PM
"Bottom line," Karber's report said, "200 million lost, and surviving Americans will be living in the dark, on a subsistence diet, with a life style and life expectancy equivalent to the Dark Ages."

I'm okay with this.
 
2013-01-07 06:54:35 PM

What was plan to take over America again? I forget.......

ts3.mm.bing.net

 
2013-01-07 06:54:43 PM
China declaring war on us would be like the local Walmart declaring war on a nearby trailer park.
 
Displayed 50 of 231 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report