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
 
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.
 
2013-01-07 06:54:44 PM

whither_apophis: Hu's gonna bomb us??


China. China's gonna bomb us. Didn't you read the article?
 
2013-01-07 06:55:13 PM

kd1s: 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.


Not a good idea, that. Moving everything to submarines raises the stakes and cuts time to de-escalate or detect mistakes -- it tends to promote a "launch on warning" response from the folks who know you can take them out in the same time it takes to cook a frozen burrito.
 
2013-01-07 06:57:45 PM
The US has 5,113 nukes (citation). That scares the piss out of me. But I guess if the "good guys" have world-destroying holocaust bombs, that's okay?
 
2013-01-07 06:58:27 PM
Skimmed TFA, I quickly imagined a different Chinese Dr. Strangerove in EACH hidden mountain nuke tunnel and cave. Each tunnel has its own personality of chain of command, but a crazy one at the helm of each. Bureaucracy at the above ground military brass level is so thick, each tunnel is semi-autonomous. The enlisted men live in horrible conditions with stifling hot half oxygen quarters and control booths. The officers have concubines on staff, farcical military outfits on the women, unbuttoned and pulled down sitting on the brass' laps more often than not. The Dr. Strangeroves and their inner circles tap (and fap) into uncensored internet.
 
2013-01-07 06:58:44 PM

Fark, no!

Instead of being able to nuke every US city from New York (Numero Uno, pop. 9,000,000) to Broken Arrow (Rank: 300, pop. 100,000), they'll be able to blow up every US city from New York (The Big Apple) to Plumber's Crack, Arkansas (the Place Where the Sun Don't Shine).

Of course, only the top couple of hundred towns are adding anything useful to American civilization. I guess that means that China is just another nuclear power with a lot of over-kill capacity. Their nukes are all dressed up with no place to go (except Russia).

If they decide to bomb Canada at the same time, you'll at least be able to save Podunk, at the cost of losing Ecum-Secum*, Nova Scotia.

upload.wikimedia.org
It's got a blue sign, people!


*IEcum Secum is derived from the Mikmaq language and means "a red house".
 
2013-01-07 07:01:13 PM
Having the space to store 3000 nukes is emphatically NOT the same thing as actually having 3000 nukes. For example, I have room in my garage for as many as 2 Ferraris! But I don't actually have 2 Ferraris. See how that works, subby?
 
2013-01-07 07:01:38 PM

AmazinTim: They're far more likely to nuke themselves in the foot than they are to nuke the US.


Sadly, there was some confusion at Headquarters over the meaning of the phrase "take-out Chinese".
 
2013-01-07 07:02:00 PM
300 nukes is not the preferred nomenclature.
 
2013-01-07 07:03:19 PM
What a ridiculous article.
 
2013-01-07 07:05:15 PM
You'll be glad they have all those nukes when Divis Mal starts getting all disintegratey.
 
2013-01-07 07:06:25 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.


Why not, if they nuke the shiat out of us, Obama will just let them write off their investment loss on their 1040.

/ducks
 
2013-01-07 07:11:21 PM
"as many as 3,000 nuclear weapons could be hidden"

This absolutely has nothing to do with the "we have a spending problem" story, not in any way an attempt to gain leverage in making sure that we protect all "security" spending while gutting social spending.

We must spend trillions in developing scifi super weapons to neutralize, truly, the most horrific threat truly that we have ever faced.  Truly.

Move along.
 
2013-01-07 07:12:38 PM
Israel? Have you ever heard of a little place called Pakistan. Nothing ever goes wrong there.
 
2013-01-07 07:13:01 PM

kvinesknows: 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.


The Chinese are what the Jews would have been if they had managed to hold the Holy Land for 5000 years, assimilating all would be conquerers,

Also

Shih Tao is generous... Very generous.
 
2013-01-07 07:13:38 PM

CygnusDarius: //MAD is a terrible, terrible idea


I know it's terrible, look at all the atomic wars since 1945.
 
2013-01-07 07:14:22 PM

whither_apophis: Hu's gonna bomb us??


Third base?
 
2013-01-07 07:15:17 PM

RandomRandom: 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.


No you don't. The bank still owns you.

Is this some weird US propaganda thing where you have been fed something, anything, to believe owing huge amounts of money to other people is some sort of secret tactic that actually makes you really powerful when in fact it makes you weaker.

If the Chinese decide to attack the US the debt involved won't make any difference, and freeing up their industrial production from making cheap tat for the US and European markets will free those production lines to make armaments (and having lead in everything can be an advantage when producing ammunition at least).

Not to say the Chinese have any particular plans to do so, but paying to build up the r&d, infrastructure, education and industrial capacity of a nation is not something that makes them "weaker" and ends up with you "owning" the country in question.
 
2013-01-07 07:15:41 PM
If you've ever seen the magnificent documentary "Trinity and Beyond: The Atomic Bomb Movie", then you'll have a special fear in your heart for Chinese nukes. The film concludes with footage of the first Chinese nuclear test, featuring the unsettling images of Chinese cavalry troops in gas masks riding horses in gas masks, rushing toward the explosion.
 
2013-01-07 07:16:20 PM
Why can't we have an honest discussion on nuke control? These high-capacity nuclear arsenals and assault-nukes are just not needed by the common nation.
 
2013-01-07 07:16:44 PM
US - 5,000+ thermonuclear weapons
China 300-3,000 nuclear weapons

Not a fair fight.
 
2013-01-07 07:17:16 PM
Better shiat my pants and increase defense spending.
 
2013-01-07 07:18:11 PM

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

closer to the truth
 
2013-01-07 07:20:07 PM
Overall, Glaser believes the new reporting requirements are a reaction to Karber's work, making him one of a few lonely challengers to suggest that U.S. intelligence estimates are wrong.

Next time read TFA before drafting your headline, submitter.  China has loads of partially-completed infrastructure it has no need for, because their available labor has outstripped their resources.  The actual intelligence estimates are likely based on . . . y'know . . . intelligence.  Information some Georgetown professor and his teacher's aide wouldn't have access to.
 
2013-01-07 07:20:42 PM
Bring it on. I have enough money to buy a 10mm pistol and a Varmint Rifle.

patronsaintofknives.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-01-07 07:20:57 PM
Let's see here. Who believes MAD is a viable method to maintain non-aggressive behavior but doesn't think everybody should be armed with guns as a similar method?

Discuss. (or put me in my place)
 
2013-01-07 07:21:32 PM

kd1s: 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.


I'm sorry you confused Clinton and Bush with Carter.

1980 - US had 1054 ICBMs, 664 SLBMs and 1320 air launched cruise missiles
 
2013-01-07 07:21:35 PM

lenfromak: I'm more worried about the nukes that Israel has.


Or the USA has.
 
2013-01-07 07:21:39 PM
Forgive me but I'm not sure how much faith I give 'US Intelligence' in the counting of weapons department. They seemed to have missed a zero in Iraq also...the only zero.
 
2013-01-07 07:23:45 PM

tinyarena: whither_apophis: Hu's gonna bomb us??

China. China's gonna bomb us. Didn't you read the article?


I did. Actually it isn't Hu but Wen!
 
2013-01-07 07:24:30 PM

Sock Ruh Tease: Bring it on. I have enough money to buy a 10mm pistol and a Varmint Rifle.

[patronsaintofknives.files.wordpress.com image 425x318]


Well now, that depends entirely on how good your Barter skill is, doesn't it?
 
2013-01-07 07:24:52 PM

Mr. Coffee Nerves: China declaring war on us would be like the local Walmart declaring war on a nearby trailer park.


Nice..

/slow clap
 
2013-01-07 07:25:12 PM
Oh no I'm so terrified.
/What is this bullshiat.
 
2013-01-07 07:25:16 PM

Rich Cream: Let's see here. Who believes MAD is a viable method to maintain non-aggressive behavior but doesn't think everybody should be armed with guns as a similar method?


With MAD, if I pull the trigger, you pull the trigger, I die, you die, all your relatives die, all my relatives die and most of our respective dwellings are destroyed, and so are most of the dwellings within our zip code.

With a gun, I can shoot at you, you might shoot back, you might miss, I might miss, I might hit a bystander, I might hit the wall, you might hit your foot.

Apples and Limes
 
2013-01-07 07:25:43 PM

Huggermugger: If you've ever seen the magnificent documentary "Trinity and Beyond: The Atomic Bomb Movie", then you'll have a special fear in your heart for Chinese nukes. The film concludes with footage of the first Chinese nuclear test, featuring the unsettling images of Chinese cavalry troops in gas masks riding horses in gas masks, rushing toward the explosion.


Bonus: Includes shots of Proud Chinese Soldiers polishing fantastically phallic HEU centrifuge tubes.
 
2013-01-07 07:27:06 PM

Rich Cream: Let's see here. Who believes MAD is a viable method to maintain non-aggressive behavior but doesn't think everybody should be armed with guns as a similar method?

Discuss. (or put me in my place)


If person A and person B get into a gunfight, is it guaranteed, beyond any reasonable doubt, that both person A and person B will die?
 
2013-01-07 07:30:21 PM

lenfromak: I'm more worried about the nukes that Israel has.


Well they have whatever they have plus whatever the US has.
 
2013-01-07 07:30:46 PM
I think we keep forgetting while "leaders" love to build missiles.
imageshack.us
"Do you think they are compensating for something?"
 
2013-01-07 07:31:11 PM
anyone lets a nuke fly on the US, or a US ally will suddenly find themselves very, very dead. Not worried about this.
 
2013-01-07 07:31:52 PM
Look, let's not argue now, in this post-apocalyptic rubble, whether China had *finger quotes* three thousand nukes or *finger quotes* 300 nukes or *finger quotes* virtually no nuclear capability at all.

We all agree that China was a very bad man and had to go.  Also we built, like, 5000 daycare centers in China.  They greeted us as liberators.  Now Chinese women can vote.

/as zombies
 
2013-01-07 07:32:16 PM
Nobody needs 3,000 nukes and China doesn't have the Cold War as an excuse. They probably do have just 300 because more would be an insane waste of money. I'd compare it to their manned space program. They've proved they can do it but they don't launch nearly as often as Russia.
 
2013-01-07 07:34:49 PM

amindofiron: 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.


What are you..some kind of goddamn pinko? That Panic, Durp and Wargable are how we keep the proles in line. Show some respect.
 
2013-01-07 07:35:36 PM

amindofiron: 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.


Well, you'd have to wonder why the person spent all that money buying a three car garage if it was going to be empty, but yeah.
 
2013-01-07 07:37:29 PM
Based on the many belligerent postings here and those that is anything China related I would say the average American is more hellbent on nuking China than the other way around.

Having been to the far east on numerous occasion I can honestly say the anti Chinese attitude in America is by far a lot more pervasive than over there. Heck from what I observed the average Chicom may even like Americans.

They are probably scared shiatless of us nuking them because of our anti Chinese mentality exhibited not only by our politicians but also by the general populace as well.
 
2013-01-07 07:37:34 PM

Glancing Blow: US - 5,000+ thermonuclear weapons
China 300-3,000 nuclear weapons

Not a fair fight.


A) The difference between thermonuclear weapons and nuclear weapons is like the difference between flammable and inflammable.
B) It doesn't take a whole lot of nukes to utterly destroy a nation, even a nation the size of the US. With 300 nukes you could level or functionally cripple every city with a population over 50,000 and poison the major watersheds and arable regions of the United States for 100 years.
 
2013-01-07 07:37:46 PM

Nem Wan: Nobody needs 3,000 nukes and China doesn't have the Cold War as an excuse. They probably do have just 300 because more would be an insane waste of money. I'd compare it to their manned space program. They've proved they can do it but they don't launch nearly as often as Russia.


Really? An insane waste of money, you say?

i.imgur.com

i.imgur.com

Yeah, they would never do that.
 
2013-01-07 07:38:09 PM

crab66: Better shiat my pants and increase defense spending.


That shoiuld be your takeaway fr

Deep Contact: lenfromak: I'm more worried about the nukes that Israel has.

Or the USA has.


Exactly.
 
2013-01-07 07:38:54 PM
Yeah, the Chinese really want to nuke their best customer.
That's the stupidest thing I've read all day.
So what? Who cares?
Maybe they'll sell us some of their surplus weapons when we lose the ability to produce them ourselves when the idiocracy gets too deep.
 
2013-01-07 07:39:03 PM
Many people would agree with you.

Glancing Blow: US - 5,000+ thermonuclear weapons
China 300-3,000 nuclear weapons
Not a fair fight.


But think of how amazing it would look. It would be all over the internet right before the world ended.
 
2013-01-07 07:39:06 PM

oakleym82: 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 image 720x400]


To be honest why even bother with a second strike? It's a lot more efficient to let the other country's culture evolve to a better point then it is for us climb our way back out of the stone age in a radioactive wasteland.
 
2013-01-07 07:40:15 PM

Huggermugger: If you've ever seen the magnificent documentary "Trinity and Beyond: The Atomic Bomb Movie", then you'll have a special fear in your heart for Chinese nukes. The film concludes with footage of the first Chinese nuclear test, featuring the unsettling images of Chinese cavalry troops in gas masks riding horses in gas masks, rushing toward the explosion.


I just watched that recently, and yeah. I think that scene is much more powerful now than when they made the movie.
The large numbers of weapons created by the USA and the USSR were a part of a strategy called "Mutual Assured Destruction", the idea being "You wouldn't possibly attack us with 1 missile when we'd retaliate with 1,000".
That strategy doesn't work any more.

//Watch Pakistan and India, that's where nuclear war is going to break out.
 
2013-01-07 07:42:19 PM
Welp... I guess 0booger has finally caved to the arms industry and their fear mongering games. Too bad, I kind of liked the dude.
Good news for you repubbers though. I'm sure this will end up funneling a retarded amount of money into the military while people continue to die of easily treatable/preventable illnesses.
 
2013-01-07 07:44:39 PM
@Rich Cream
MAD only works on the grand scale. It only stops grand conflagrations like WW1 and WW2 from occuring. We still have hundreds of armed conflicts at the micro and state level in over 60 countries currently. Also it only works if those making choices are rational actors.
If the Switzerland conscription numbers are correct and 20% of the 20-53 age group (their active armed forces militia) are found to be regularly unable to perform the duties due to either incompetence, inability and/or would be an outright hazard to themselves or others, then it is obvious that to have everyone armed with guns would result in mass gun violence, on an almost daily basis.
Oh what, that's right, that's what we have in the US with an 88% level of household personal armament.

You don't get absolute world peace with MAD, you just get small regional unrest affecting millions, instead of all out aggression towards billions, and you don't get a whole lot of peace with everybody packing heat, either, you just end up with 10's of thousands of deaths, and in many instances, you are getting more deaths from firearms, because they are mechanical, and easily repeat the action, when other means would involve more limiting actions with less force and/or accuracy resulting in more injuries than actual fatalities.

Neither is very useful, for their stated goals. Some how the 1860-1890 mindset and the 1950-1980's mind sets have taken over all dialogue on these issues.
They weren't correct even in their correct chronologies, and this anachronistic revisionism and cult like worship to these value systems do more harm than good today. The only beneficiaries on both these issues are the arms dealers/defense industry, and those who promote hatred, distrust, and paranoia, which I guess in some respects are around 88% of the population at some level or another, at least in the USA.
 
2013-01-07 07:45:04 PM

kd1s: 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.


What? How did he manage that? The Tridents? That was Nixon's program, originally conceived as a way around the 1972 SALT 1 limitations (and the first one didn't go into service until Reagan was President). The previous significant nuclear expansion on submarines was the C3 missile which increased the MIRV capability up from 3 to about 14 and that was started under LBJ and implemented (again) under Nixon.

The move to submarines was done in the 1980's as a part of Reagan's forward maritime strategy. Carter did very little for the US Submarine ballistic missile force. In the 4 years of his presidency only 3 out of an intended 24 (at the time) hulls were authorized under his watch. 4 were authorized in 2 years by Nixon\Ford, 9 by Reagan and 2 By GHW Bush before the program was cancelled. There were supposed to be 6 more but while the hull numbers were reserved (and still are) the boats were never built.

Carter was weak on defense. He refused to pay the military personnel enough to live on (for example food stamps were commonly used among the lower ranked enlisted with families). Reagan had to significantly raise salaries that had remained stagnant under Carter (even with his out of control inflation) just to keep an all volunteer military. During the Carter administration the best people were leaving in droves as their enlistments were up.

People in the military absolutely hated Carter because of his disregard for them. He was the worst type of officer, one who didn't think about his people other than a number on a piece of paper. Fark him.
 
2013-01-07 07:46:09 PM
The rational choice is to enact a massive blind out of the blue first strike, damn good chance of catching those yellow devils with their pants down.
 
2013-01-07 07:46:26 PM

clovis69: Rich Cream: Let's see here. Who believes MAD is a viable method to maintain non-aggressive behavior but doesn't think everybody should be armed with guns as a similar method?

With MAD, if I pull the trigger, you pull the trigger, I die, you die, all your relatives die, all my relatives die and most of our respective dwellings are destroyed, and so are most of the dwellings within our zip code.

With a gun, I can shoot at you, you might shoot back, you might miss, I might miss, I might hit a bystander, I might hit the wall, you might hit your foot.

Apples and Limes


Kibbler: If person A and person B get into a gunfight, is it guaranteed, beyond any reasonable doubt, that both person A and person B will die?



I understand an A-bomb does more damage than a gun and that's what prevents people from using it...but

MAD is based on using a deadly force to avert a deadly force. How are guns different from that?
 
2013-01-07 07:47:51 PM

indylaw: A) The difference between thermonuclear weapons and nuclear weapons is like the difference between flammable and inflammable.


no.

flammable and inflammable mean exactly the same thing
thermonuclear specifically refers to FUSION devices.
nuclear includes both fusion and fission devices.
 
2013-01-07 07:47:55 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.


The problem with having that many is that the more you have, the more you have to lose control of.
 
2013-01-07 07:49:53 PM

RandomRandom: 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.


RandomRandom: 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 forjgetting 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.

is this like guns don't kill people but people kill people?
 
2013-01-07 07:50:47 PM

here to help: pltpltpltpltpltpltpltPLTLTLTLTppp


Dude...seriously. That was pretty stupid, even for you.
 
2013-01-07 07:53:50 PM

The_Original_Roxtar: indylaw: A) The difference between thermonuclear weapons and nuclear weapons is like the difference between flammable and inflammable.

no.

flammable and inflammable mean exactly the same thing
thermonuclear specifically refers to FUSION devices.
nuclear includes both fusion and fission devices.


You are right, but my subpoint remains - "nuclear weapons" is a set that includes "thermonuclear weapons." Saying that the United States has thermonuclear weapons and China "only" has nuclear weapons only makes sense if you assume that all of China's weapons are fission weapons. It's comparing apples to fruits.
 
2013-01-07 07:56:16 PM

Acravius: MAD only works on the grand scale.



Nice. Good stuff. Not sure 60 years is proof it "works" but so far so good?

/I guess it's also more like two people actually pointing loaded guns at each other rather than just having them.
 
2013-01-07 07:56:31 PM

insertsnarkyusername: To be honest why even bother with a second strike? It's a lot more efficient to let the other country's culture evolve to a better point then it is for us climb our way back out of the stone age in a radioactive wasteland.


Well, if you have enough caps, you might get a nice apartment with running water.
 
2013-01-07 07:57:04 PM
bbsimg.ngfiles.com

Shrimp bomb.
 
2013-01-07 07:57:06 PM

Rich Cream: MAD is based on using a deadly force to avert a deadly force. How are guns different from that?


Scale. One death is a tragedy but in the grand scheme of things it's not all that big of a deal. A few billion deaths and the absolute destruction of most of your country however... is kind of a big deal.
 
2013-01-07 07:57:19 PM
Mine shaft gap
 
2013-01-07 08:00:05 PM

Rich Cream: clovis69: Rich Cream: Let's see here. Who believes MAD is a viable method to maintain non-aggressive behavior but doesn't think everybody should be armed with guns as a similar method?

With MAD, if I pull the trigger, you pull the trigger, I die, you die, all your relatives die, all my relatives die and most of our respective dwellings are destroyed, and so are most of the dwellings within our zip code.

With a gun, I can shoot at you, you might shoot back, you might miss, I might miss, I might hit a bystander, I might hit the wall, you might hit your foot.

Apples and Limes

Kibbler: If person A and person B get into a gunfight, is it guaranteed, beyond any reasonable doubt, that both person A and person B will die?


I understand an A-bomb does more damage than a gun and that's what prevents people from using it...but

MAD is based on using a deadly force to avert a deadly force. How are guns different from that?


Can you assure me that if someone attacked you, you could, in your dying breaths kill the attacker, his family, and everyone he ever knew, plus wreck his car, his house, and salt the earth of his farm? Could you do that with a pistol? The ethical calculus of MAD is such that you use such an overwhelming guarantee of destruction it's futile to even try to see if you're the fastest gun in the west. And STILL strategists thought a nuclear war could be "won."
 
2013-01-07 08:01:21 PM

A Shambling Mound: here to help: pltpltpltpltpltpltpltPLTLTLTLTppp

Dude...seriously. That was pretty stupid, even for you.


Aww... we hatin'?

Are you mad because I said something mean about Obama or that I pointed out the chicken hawk tendencies of the right?

'Cause seriously... they all suck. I was just hoping the bamster could keep the evil down to a minimum.
 
2013-01-07 08:03:02 PM

HotWingAgenda: Overall, Glaser believes the new reporting requirements are a reaction to Karber's work, making him one of a few lonely challengers to suggest that U.S. intelligence estimates are wrong.

Next time read TFA before drafting your headline, submitter.  China has loads of partially-completed infrastructure it has no need for, because their available labor has outstripped their resources.  The actual intelligence estimates are likely based on . . . y'know . . . intelligence.  Information some Georgetown professor and his teacher's aide wouldn't have access to.


Phil Karber's research has been ridiculed by a good number of people. He has been giving these presentations on China's nuclear tunnels in D.C. for a while now, but I'm still surprised he got this into the NDAA. Either there's a grain of truth to this suspicions, or ... Washington is operating as it always does.

The problem is his analysis is based on how many nukes you can stuff/hide into a large tunnel, not how many nukes the Chinese are known to have built.
 
2013-01-07 08:03:14 PM

PanicMan: Oh no. Stop them. Oh no.


You said that in the Kevin Hart voice in my head.
 
2013-01-07 08:04:04 PM

Kibbler: Rich Cream: Let's see here. Who believes MAD is a viable method to maintain non-aggressive behavior but doesn't think everybody should be armed with guns as a similar method?

Discuss. (or put me in my place)

If person A and person B get into a gunfight, is it guaranteed, beyond any reasonable doubt, that both person A and person B will die?


Along with everyone and everything else in a 30 mile radius? And everyone and everything downwind? Pretty much the same thing I guess.
 
2013-01-07 08:06:57 PM

SuperNinjaToad: RandomRandom: 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.

RandomRandom: 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 forjgetting 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.

is this like guns don't kill people but people kill people?


No no. This is Guns don't kill people. Banks kill people.
 
2013-01-07 08:07:13 PM
So, let me guess where this is going...

300 vs. 3000... that means the report coming out in August will say we *dont* have the ability to withstand this and they will recommend we increase our budget to come up with a new solution.

Which could mean 10 times the budget or a brand new spanking toy for missile interception.

And all the while, these nukes are in underground tunnels... So none of us with regular satellite image access could verify if they exist at all.
 
2013-01-07 08:07:32 PM

Pointy Tail of Satan: 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!


Annnnnd we have the point of this. More enemies to build bombs against. It really comes down to that.
 
2013-01-07 08:08:24 PM

jmr61: Pointy Tail of Satan: 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!

Annnnnd we have the point of this. More enemies to build bombs against. It really comes down to that.


Job creation. Which is what liberals want, right?
 
2013-01-07 08:12:16 PM
I got an idea! Why don't we sell a lot of stock in and whole US companies and government debt and stuff to the Chinese and sign a bunch of contracts to buy and sell stuff to them so that they can't afford to bomb us... Oh wait
 
2013-01-07 08:13:37 PM

Seth'n'Spectrum: The problem is his analysis is based on how many nukes you can stuff/hide into a large tunnel, not how many nukes the Chinese are known to have built.


That depends upon how you want to look at it. On the one side you can go with the lower number and plan accordingly based upon that. The problem with that is that if you're wrong the consequences may be devastatingly catastrophic. Or you can go with the higher number and plan accordingly. The problem with that is that it costs a lot more for what may turn out to be too much for what you ended up needing. Unfortunately when you need it but don't have it it's usually much too late to get it.

Think of it like insurance. It's always better to have too much than not enough. Sure the higher premiums suck, but you sure are glad that you paid them if something really bad happens to you.
 
2013-01-07 08:14:23 PM

clovis69: Rich Cream: Let's see here. Who believes MAD is a viable method to maintain non-aggressive behavior but doesn't think everybody should be armed with guns as a similar method?

With MAD, if I pull the trigger, you pull the trigger, I die, you die, all your relatives die, all my relatives die and most of our respective dwellings are destroyed, and so are most of the dwellings within our zip code.

With a gun, I can shoot at you, you might shoot back, you might miss, I might miss, I might hit a bystander, I might hit the wall, you might hit your foot.

Apples and Limes


Yup cuz North Korea has proven very recently that all long range delivery methods always work and never miss.

Thanks for playing, Try again.
 
2013-01-07 08:14:47 PM
If they program missiles like they drive we have nothing to worry about.

"YOU PROGRAM MISSILE RIGHT?"

"YES I PROGRAM MISSILE RIGHT!"

Missiles fire up into air, then turn around and fly directly back into the ground.

"OH SON OF BIATCH!"

BOOM!

/not racist
//hate everbody
///except farkers
 
2013-01-07 08:19:53 PM
Wanted for questioning:

1.bp.blogspot.com

/has a history of getting decimal points wrong
 
2013-01-07 08:20:44 PM
jehovahs witness protection
Me bomb you long time.

PROTIP: China is not Vietnam.
 
2013-01-07 08:21:11 PM
Oh great. Now the NRA shills are gonna demand that every home has a nuclear weapon... 'cause, yanno... anything less would be completely irresponsible and without one everyone you love is gonna get raped and chopped up into to tiny little pieces then raped again.

AMERICA!1

yeah
 
2013-01-07 08:21:41 PM

thisisarepeat: Yup cuz North Korea has proven very recently that all long range delivery methods always work and never miss.

Thanks for playing, Try again.


Only a fool thinks that they didn't learn anything from their failures. People like you also thought that the first Sputnik launch was a failure, only it wasn't. It was a successful ballistic missile test intentionally disguised as a failed satellite launch.

It's hard to get pinpoint accuracy with a ballistic missile (and even more so with the ones out at sea), but when you're talking about nuking a city, close is good enough for the purpose of being a threat. Our first missiles were not all that accurate either, but they worked well enough for their intended purposes.
 
2013-01-07 08:21:45 PM
Also, a quick check of the internets shows the 3000 number is not new, and has pretty much been debunked. Even the 300 are not strategic (on a missile or bomb), but in reserve.
 
2013-01-07 08:22:18 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!


encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com
/oblige
 
2013-01-07 08:23:24 PM

cretinbob: Also, a quick check of the internets shows the 3000 number is not new, and has pretty much been debunked. Even the 300 are not strategic (on a missile or bomb), but in reserve.


Yea, but with that big a population you can carry them almost anywhere.
 
2013-01-07 08:24:43 PM
I wonder what Dr. Octogon has to day about this?
 
2013-01-07 08:24:43 PM
When you really only need one to make folks have a bad day, does a zero really matter?
 
2013-01-07 08:27:00 PM
ReverendJynxed
When you really only need one to make folks have a bad day, does a zero really matter?

Uhhh, yes? Like "more than ever" yes?
 
2013-01-07 08:27:01 PM
www.conservativecommune.com

"I'm not the thief; the government is. Every year you make hardworking Joes like my reporter friend pay income taxes. And for what? Aid to ungrateful foreigners, do-nothing nuclear missiles, tomb polish for some unknown soldier."
 
2013-01-07 08:30:22 PM
Well we gotta hype the new enemy goddammit. Those new Pentagon purchases aren't going to build themselves so we're going justify even more military spending and conveniently lobby against ever cutting our huge defense budget. And we'll pay for that with another round of tax cuts for the rich.

For your safety, of course
 
2013-01-07 08:30:40 PM

Mr. Coffee Nerves: China declaring war on us would be like the local Walmart declaring war on a nearby trailer park.


You win +1 Internets.

/laughed her ass off
 
2013-01-07 08:30:53 PM

Radioactive Ass: thisisarepeat: Yup cuz North Korea has proven very recently that all long range delivery methods always work and never miss.

Thanks for playing, Try again.

Only a fool thinks that they didn't learn anything from their failures. People like you also thought that the first Sputnik launch was a failure, only it wasn't. It was a successful ballistic missile test intentionally disguised as a failed satellite launch.

It's hard to get pinpoint accuracy with a ballistic missile (and even more so with the ones out at sea), but when you're talking about nuking a city, close is good enough for the purpose of being a threat. Our first missiles were not all that accurate either, but they worked well enough for their intended purposes.


So, you agree. With the addition of some shiat about learning curves.
 
2013-01-07 08:36:25 PM
Am I the only one amazed by how often US intelligence agencies get stuff wrong (that we know about), yet they still manage to get paid/be part of the government/exist?
 
2013-01-07 08:41:37 PM

Yoyo: Am I the only one amazed by how often US intelligence agencies get stuff wrong (that we know about), yet they still manage to get paid/be part of the government/exist?


It is amazing, but once a government agency is created, it NEVER goes away regardless of effectiveness. They can even DO the very damage they were formed to prevent and nobody even thinks that dissolving them could be a good idea. The most recent example would be the Fast & Furious farkup with the BATFE.
 
2013-01-07 08:42:58 PM

thisisarepeat: So, you agree. With the addition of some shiat about learning curves.


Agree? No (assuming that you were being sarcastic, which, given the context I thought that you were). Once a nation can get anything into sub-orbital space they presumably have the capability to make IRBM's. If they can achieve orbit (no matter how sloppy it is) they presumably can make ICBM's. To assume otherwise is courting disaster.
 
2013-01-07 08:45:15 PM
how many cities in the US have more than 250,000 people?
 
2013-01-07 08:48:24 PM
So China only has 30 nukes? Sweet....
 
2013-01-07 08:51:38 PM
rack.1.mshcdn.com
 
2013-01-07 08:52:04 PM

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


Except, possibly, the Chinese Central Committee.
 
2013-01-07 08:52:44 PM

Radioactive Ass: thisisarepeat: So, you agree. With the addition of some shiat about learning curves.

Agree? No (assuming that you were being sarcastic, which, given the context I thought that you were). Once a nation can get anything into sub-orbital space they presumably have the capability to make IRBM's. If they can achieve orbit (no matter how sloppy it is) they presumably can make ICBM's. To assume otherwise is courting disaster.


I don't assume otherwise, never even implied that i did. I just said you can miss with a nuke, in response to a statement that a person could miss with a bullet. And just as there is a lot more air than target with respect to using a firearm there are still a lot more uninhabited square miles on this rock than there are inhabited ones.
 
2013-01-07 08:54:08 PM

dforkus: The rational choice is to enact a massive blind out of the blue first strike, damn good chance of catching those yellow devils with their pants down.


"I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed. But I do say no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops."

cr4.globalspec.com
 
2013-01-07 08:54:16 PM

davidab: how many cities in the US have more than 250,000 people?


At least 125, but about a quarter of those have over a million.
 
2013-01-07 08:56:50 PM

Gleeman: So China only has 30 nukes? Sweet....


Last I heard there were 300 nukes owned by the screaming Chinamen.

There WERE! *throws whiskey on campfire*
 
2013-01-07 08:59:06 PM

Raoul Eaton: kd1s: 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.

Not a good idea, that. Moving everything to submarines raises the stakes and cuts time to de-escalate or detect mistakes -- it tends to promote a "launch on warning" response from the folks who know you can take them out in the same time it takes to cook a frozen burrito.


www.capitalnewyork.com
 
2013-01-07 08:59:37 PM

lenfromak: I'm more worried about the nukes that Israel has.


Pretty much this. Given China's zest for making shoddy products, it may well be a safe bet that a lot of these nukes are duds. Israel though loves to stab its allies in the back (USS Liberty anyone?) so we should be worried about where they'd launch their nukes. China needs a market for the cheap shiat they produce and a place to send the college-aged offspring of their elites to college. Israel has no such concerns.
 
2013-01-07 09:00:12 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.


I have you know that we Chinese generally have a 5 inch dick.

/Didn't do any personal research, though.
 
2013-01-07 09:02:14 PM

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


Cheap Chinese-made nukes probably won't work half the time.
 
2013-01-07 09:02:18 PM

Kibbler: Now Chinese women can vote.

/as zombies



images3.wikia.nocookie.net

/unavailable for comment
//sorry I had to
 
2013-01-07 09:02:25 PM

buzzcut73: 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.


But the real problem with their nukes is that the warhead manufacturer (a wholly owned subsidiary of Bark Bark Celestial Dog Food Conglomerate) replaced the plutonium with lead to save on costs.
 
2013-01-07 09:02:39 PM
You know what? I don't even care. The frenemy relationship we have with communism is beneficial to both sides. It won't be long till we sub out the weapon building to them as well. Everyday we get a little closer to their way of life anyway. All activities and actions legislated and codified for criminality. Full disarmament of the civilian population. Travel restrictions. Employment restrictions. The list is growing daily.

3000 nukes? Who the hell cares.

Immediate threats to my rights and freedoms? Artificially inflated prices on just about everything. Especially fuel. The local PD.

Before you decide to call me nuts and prove me wrong take a good hard look around you.
 
2013-01-07 09:04:00 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.


Unless it started as a burrito, in which case, "Hecho en Mexico"
 
2013-01-07 09:04:13 PM

thisisarepeat: I don't assume otherwise, never even implied that i did. I just said you can miss with a nuke, in response to a statement that a person could miss with a bullet. And just as there is a lot more air than target with respect to using a firearm there are still a lot more uninhabited square miles on this rock than there are inhabited ones.


I don't think that a "Miss" with a nuke is the same as a "Miss" with a bullet. Hitting Brooklyn instead of Manhattan is not going to make all that big of a difference in the grand scheme of things. Besides that the usual fix for that potential miss by a nuke is to target several nukes at the same place using the theory that one of them will hit what you wanted to hit. The only time accuracy matters is when you are trying to hit hardened targets (like missile silos) where being off by a few hundred yards may make all of the difference. If your goal is to hit unhardened targets (like cities) then close really is good enough.
 
2013-01-07 09:08:12 PM

Sticky Hands: They have 30-40 million surplus males, they don't need nukes.


They're going to bukakke another country to death?
 
2013-01-07 09:09:26 PM

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


Well they certainly aren't so they can bomb themselves.
 
2013-01-07 09:10:29 PM

whither_apophis: Hu's gonna bomb us??


Yup. I think he's the Xi.
 
2013-01-07 09:13:00 PM

brantgoose: Fark, no!

Instead of being able to nuke every US city from New York (Numero Uno, pop. 9,000,000) to Broken Arrow (Rank: 300, pop. 100,000), they'll be able to blow up every US city from New York (The Big Apple) to Plumber's Crack, Arkansas (the Place Where the Sun Don't Shine).

Of course, only the top couple of hundred towns are adding anything useful to American civilization. I guess that means that China is just another nuclear power with a lot of over-kill capacity. Their nukes are all dressed up with no place to go (except Russia).

If they decide to bomb Canada at the same time, you'll at least be able to save Podunk, at the cost of losing Ecum-Secum*, Nova Scotia.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 800x590]
It's got a blue sign, people!

*IEcum Secum is derived from the Mikmaq language and means "a red house".


The blue states, overwhelmingly, would be the ones targeted. I can imagine that some Americans would be OK with that.

Link
 
2013-01-07 09:14:24 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


Contrary to the popular song, We are not the world.
China's economy would do just fine without us.
Our economy without them on the other hand, not so much.
Thanks Poppa Bush.
 
2013-01-07 09:14:44 PM

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

So, yeah, non-issue.


Except that leaves a 2,700 weapons surplus that can be lost, stolen or sold by either corrupt officials or inept bureaucracy.

Other than that, you're right. It's a non-issue.

/10/10 - you caught me.
 
2013-01-07 09:19:16 PM

Rich Cream: I understand an A-bomb does more damage than a gun and that's what prevents people from using it...but

MAD is based on using a deadly force to avert a deadly force. How are guns different from that?


Yes, if you arbitrarily strip away every functional difference between the two scenarios to shoe-horn your analogy into a shape that fits, then, like magic, your analogy fits. Go farkin' figure.

That said, the bigger difference (than the amount of damage done) is that Person A can, for instance, shoot Person B in the back and kill him at little/no danger to himself, despite the fact that Person A and Person B are similarly armed. Person B never has an opportunity to respond in kind. This is not possible when you replace Persons A and B with Countries A and B, and guns with ICBMs. A surprise nuke attack by country A would still leave ample time for country B to finish his coffee before launching his own nukes, and that's even ignoring SSBNs.
 
2013-01-07 09:20:09 PM
How many Walmarts are there? Maybe those nukes are already in the US, parked inside every Walmart storage area.
 
2013-01-07 09:23:07 PM

lenfromak: I'm more worried about the nukes that Israel has.


Why?
 
2013-01-07 09:26:43 PM

BgJonson79: lenfromak: I'm more worried about the nukes that Israel has.

Why?


Because JOOOOOSSSSS!!!
 
2013-01-07 09:27:27 PM
How many ICBM's does China have that can hit the US?

not many.
 
2013-01-07 09:29:22 PM

Radioactive Ass: thisisarepeat: I don't assume otherwise, never even implied that i did. I just said you can miss with a nuke, in response to a statement that a person could miss with a bullet. And just as there is a lot more air than target with respect to using a firearm there are still a lot more uninhabited square miles on this rock than there are inhabited ones.

I don't think that a "Miss" with a nuke is the same as a "Miss" with a bullet. Hitting Brooklyn instead of Manhattan is not going to make all that big of a difference in the grand scheme of things. Besides that the usual fix for that potential miss by a nuke is to target several nukes at the same place using the theory that one of them will hit what you wanted to hit. The only time accuracy matters is when you are trying to hit hardened targets (like missile silos) where being off by a few hundred yards may make all of the difference. If your goal is to hit unhardened targets (like cities) then close really is good enough.


Your farked up city is not a destroyed nation, in the sense that it could demonstrate MAD. In fact it allows for a greater number of possible levels of damage between undamaged and destroyed for the bearers of nuclear devices (nations) than one could expect to sustain in a conflict between two armed persons (individuals).
 
2013-01-07 09:29:37 PM
Fark it. Who cares about 'nukes'? It's a ruse to make us forget about...oh, hell. BRB, gotta go to Wal-Mart. USA!
 
2013-01-07 09:29:46 PM
Right now...
somewhere in China...
a high-ranking Chinese defense department official...
is getting the best blowjob of his life...
from a North Korean "special emissary"...
on top of a new mattress made of cash.
 
2013-01-07 09:31:00 PM
Call me when we don't have enough nukes to make it a tie

/seriously, nuking us means everyone dies
//I already know the abandon mine I'm gonna die in
 
2013-01-07 09:35:32 PM

Allen. The end.: Fark it. Who cares about 'nukes'? It's a ruse to make us forget about...oh, hell. BRB, gotta go to Wal-Mart. USA!


Don't forget to pick up some ammo.

Oh wait...
 
2013-01-07 09:38:45 PM

thisisarepeat: Radioactive Ass: thisisarepeat: I don't assume otherwise, never even implied that i did. I just said you can miss with a nuke, in response to a statement that a person could miss with a bullet. And just as there is a lot more air than target with respect to using a firearm there are still a lot more uninhabited square miles on this rock than there are inhabited ones.

I don't think that a "Miss" with a nuke is the same as a "Miss" with a bullet. Hitting Brooklyn instead of Manhattan is not going to make all that big of a difference in the grand scheme of things. Besides that the usual fix for that potential miss by a nuke is to target several nukes at the same place using the theory that one of them will hit what you wanted to hit. The only time accuracy matters is when you are trying to hit hardened targets (like missile silos) where being off by a few hundred yards may make all of the difference. If your goal is to hit unhardened targets (like cities) then close really is good enough.

Your farked up city is not a destroyed nation, in the sense that it could demonstrate MAD. In fact it allows for a greater number of possible levels of damage between undamaged and destroyed for the bearers of nuclear devices (nations) than one could expect to sustain in a conflict between two armed persons (individuals).


Additionally, with a confrontation between two armed persons, the one that fires first has decided to put their own life on the line, that would never be the case with heads of state, there is no circumstance where they personally bear the risk.
 
2013-01-07 09:39:23 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.


Know how I know you don't understand the effects of Nuclear weapons?

Just out of curiosity though, which are the "five critical cities" in the US and why?
 
2013-01-07 09:44:49 PM
Let me guess. This "study," which appears to have cutting-edge methodology worthy of "Loose Change" was funded by the Unification Church. And the requirement was slipped into the NDAA by pantswetting teabaggers.
 
2013-01-07 09:47:51 PM

SuperT: anyone lets a nuke fly on the US, or a US ally will suddenly find themselves very, very dead.


Are you sure about that? Do you really think that Walmart would just stand by and let the U.S. send a retaliatory strike against its largest producer-state of retail goods? Do you believe for a moment that Wall Street would allow the nuking of the largest single foreign consumer market in the world?

I think it would be an interesting scenario. I can see the CEOs of some of our Fortune 50 companies going on television, urging "cautious restraint" and a "degree of tolerance" in our response...

"Um... c'mon folks... We're better than this... So China nuked one of our staunchest allies? I mean... have we really examined the issues here? Maybe they had a really good reason for doing it..."

or better yet...

"Okay... so they nuked San Francisco... and Cleveland... oh, and don't forget Detroit. I just don't see the problem here. How many of us haven't thought about nuking Detroit... amirite?"
 
2013-01-07 09:52:03 PM

xria: No you don't. The bank still owns you.

Is this some weird US propaganda thing where you have been fed something, anything, to believe owing huge amounts of money to other people is some sort of secret tactic that actually makes you really powerful when in fact it makes you weaker.

If the Chinese decide to attack the US the debt involved won't make any difference, and freeing up their industrial production from making cheap tat for the US and European markets will free those production lines to make armaments (and having lead in everything can be an advantage when producing ammunition at least).

Not to say the Chinese have any particular plans to do so, but paying to build up the r&d, infrastructure, education and industrial capacity of a nation is not something that makes them "weaker" and ends up with you "owning" the country in question.


Your hatred for debt has blinded you to the upsides debt sometimes delivers. If the debt is large enough to break the bank - and the bank has no outside leverage to collect, the debtor is in control, not the bank. And when the debtor can at any time devalue the debt? Wow, is the debtor ever in control.

That's exactly where we are. The Chinese have lent us over a trillion dollars in OUR OWN CURRENCY! We can devalue it, we can cancel it, it's our money with no value other than the good faith and credit of the US government. These aren't bearer bonds, we know exactly which particular bonds they own. We could cancel them all tomorrow and China has no power to collect. That debt gives us tremendous power over China.

A war with China wouldn't go at all as you envisage. The debt makes one hell of a difference, at least in preventing a war. As for what would happen if China attacked Taiwan, Korea, or Japan. We'd retaliate immediately, and any war between the US and China would be effectively over within the week. China wouldn't have time to change iPhone production to weapon production, they'd be finished long before then.

Day one, they attack. Day two, we retaliate. The debt is canceled, permanently. Then Chinese power plants start going away. Without electricity, high tech, long distance weapons cannot be constructed. Low tech small arms don't do them any good, we're not invading them, we're "stone aging" them . Their power plants are vulnerable, each and every one. As we saw with Fukushima, even the most hardened reactor buildings are only as strong as their cooling. Take out a power plant's cooling and the plant is finished. Cruise missiles and stealth aircraft would destroy all the important power plants, as well as main ports, important bridges, and airports, all within the first week.

By the end of that first week, China would be set back a generation or two. They do not have the capability to inflict any such reprisals on the US. Their only long distance weapon able to breach our defenses would be convention warheads on ICBM. Nuclear powers in a conventional war do not fire conventional ICBMs at one another because it's impossible to tell whether an ICBM is conventional or nuclear until it detonates. To fire ICBM's during a conventional war is to invite immediate nuclear retaliation.

China won't attack Japan, Korea, Taiwan or the US

A. They'd be set back economically 20 to 30 years
B. They'd lose militarily.
 
2013-01-07 10:11:04 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.


This. Just TRY to buy something not made there.
 
2013-01-07 10:12:22 PM
I'm pretty sure I saw this in the latest issue of Cop Math Magazine.
 
2013-01-07 10:20:35 PM

RandomRandom: xria: No you don't. The bank still owns you.

Is this some weird US propaganda thing where you have been fed something, anything, to believe owing huge amounts of money to other people is some sort of secret tactic that actually makes you really powerful when in fact it makes you weaker.

If the Chinese decide to attack the US the debt involved won't make any difference, and freeing up their industrial production from making cheap tat for the US and European markets will free those production lines to make armaments (and having lead in everything can be an advantage when producing ammunition at least).

Not to say the Chinese have any particular plans to do so, but paying to build up the r&d, infrastructure, education and industrial capacity of a nation is not something that makes them "weaker" and ends up with you "owning" the country in question.

Your hatred for debt has blinded you to the upsides debt sometimes delivers. If the debt is large enough to break the bank - and the bank has no outside leverage to collect, the debtor is in control, not the bank. And when the debtor can at any time devalue the debt? Wow, is the debtor ever in control.

That's exactly where we are. The Chinese have lent us over a trillion dollars in OUR OWN CURRENCY! We can devalue it, we can cancel it, it's our money with no value other than the good faith and credit of the US government. These aren't bearer bonds, we know exactly which particular bonds they own. We could cancel them all tomorrow and China has no power to collect. That debt gives us tremendous power over China.

A war with China wouldn't go at all as you envisage. The debt makes one hell of a difference, at least in preventing a war. As for what would happen if China attacked Taiwan, Korea, or Japan. We'd retaliate immediately, and any war between the US and China would be effectively over within the week. China wouldn't have time to change iPhone production to weapon production, they'd be finished long befo ...


A lot of this. Things might be different in 50 years though.
 
2013-01-07 10:23:12 PM

Sock Ruh Tease: Bring it on. I have enough money to buy a 10mm pistol and a Varmint Rifle.

patronsaintofknives.files.wordpress.com


10mm... okay, and i can sell your ammo for $100 a round.

the varmit rifle is a good idea if u get it in .308. spend as much on optics as you do on the gun.
 
2013-01-07 10:32:14 PM
One set of guesses is now being replaced by another.
 
2013-01-07 10:34:16 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.


More US debt is held by the American public (pension plans mostly) than is held by China.
 
2013-01-07 10:42:10 PM

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


Now THAT is inscrutable!
 
2013-01-07 10:42:26 PM
Eek, I'm so scared.
 
2013-01-07 10:52:57 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.


Shooting down Scuds is one thing. ICBMs is different.
 
2013-01-07 10:55:36 PM

Bucky Katt: 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.

Shooting down Scuds is one thing. ICBMs is different.


Are they harder to hit than any other supersonic aircraft? if not? the lowly patriot battery will suffice.
 
2013-01-07 10:56:32 PM

Bucky Katt: Shooting down Scuds is one thing. ICBMs is be different.

 
2013-01-07 11:00:15 PM

Gyrfalcon: Eek, I'm so scared.


Don't forget to panic. That's important.
 
2013-01-07 11:01:06 PM

Huggermugger: If you've ever seen the magnificent documentary "Trinity and Beyond: The Atomic Bomb Movie", then you'll have a special fear in your heart for Chinese nukes. The film concludes with footage of the first Chinese nuclear test, featuring the unsettling images of Chinese cavalry troops in gas masks riding horses in gas masks, rushing toward the explosion.


That really is a gripping bit, isn't it? Such a juxtaposition of the pinnacle (at the time, and possibly still today) of technology and science against swords and horses. And that's still China today: technology on one corner, and across the street, destitution.

Great musical score in that video, too.
 
2013-01-07 11:02:03 PM

thisisarepeat: Bucky Katt: 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.

Shooting down Scuds is one thing. ICBMs is different.

Are they harder to hit than any other supersonic aircraft? if not? the lowly patriot battery will suffice.


They can be harder to hit if they have M.I.R.V.s.

Link
 
2013-01-07 11:06:24 PM

katerbug72: Just TRY to buy something not made there


if you can dodge the elderly drivers at a farmers market - many good products are available in the US (There is a great little market in summertime in Coos Bay Oregon, I miss that one )
If you prefer malls - why do you hate America ?
 
2013-01-07 11:09:28 PM

clovis69: CygnusDarius: //MAD is a terrible, terrible idea

I know it's terrible, look at all the atomic wars since 1945.


You obviously have no idea of how often we came close to the brink of annihilation because of technical errors coupled with an insanely brief time to make apocalyptic decisions.

The very best thing that could have been said about MAD was that it was the least insane option we had. Let's try not to get to that point again.
 
2013-01-07 11:23:41 PM

neongoats: A lot of this. Things might be different in 50 years though.


Or even in 20 years. Today though, we own China's ass.
 
2013-01-07 11:33:12 PM

Slartibartfaster: If you prefer malls - why do you hate America


I live in Canada, dude. I can get local produce all summer but I don't have much choice for other things where I live. It's crazy how much shiat is made in China.
 
2013-01-07 11:41:28 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.


When our dollar implodes, we explode.
 
2013-01-07 11:42:55 PM

Sticky Hands: They have 30-40 million surplus males, they don't need nukes.


This. Red Dawn mother f*ckers.
 
2013-01-07 11:45:01 PM
I don't want to say that losing America won't hurt -- because it would be absolutely *crippling* to the Chinese economy -- but the USA is only China's largest export market by a small margin.

In fact, from 2006 to Nov, the EU was their biggest market until it switched recently.

Not making a point... just some minor clarity.
 
2013-01-07 11:47:45 PM

SuperNinjaToad: Based on the many belligerent postings here and those that is anything China related I would say the average American is more hellbent on nuking China than the other way around.

Having been to the far east on numerous occasion I can honestly say the anti Chinese attitude in America is by far a lot more pervasive than over there. Heck from what I observed the average Chicom may even like Americans.

They are probably scared shiatless of us nuking them because of our anti Chinese mentality exhibited not only by our politicians but also by the general populace as well.


So you are a traitor? Figures cowards like yourself always seem to be the loudest.
 
2013-01-07 11:57:32 PM

poisonpill: I don't want to say that losing America won't hurt -- because it would be absolutely *crippling* to the Chinese economy -- but the USA is only China's largest export market by a small margin.

In fact, from 2006 to Nov, the EU was their biggest market until it switched recently.

Not making a point... just some minor clarity.


If we got into it with China, they wouldn't be exporting anything to anywhere. Importing anything either for that matter.
 
2013-01-08 12:02:30 AM

RandomRandom: If we got into it with China, they wouldn't be exporting anything to anywhere. Importing anything either for that matter


Nonsense--after half the planet is destroyed, just think of the opportunities. The economy would explode.
 
2013-01-08 12:02:54 AM
FTA: "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."

So we'd living in China then?
 
2013-01-08 12:33:00 AM

cryinoutloud: RandomRandom: If we got into it with China, they wouldn't be exporting anything to anywhere. Importing anything either for that matter

Nonsense--after half the planet is destroyed, just think of the opportunities. The economy would explode.


You're assuming such a war would go nuclear. Considering the abundant science on nuclear winter, no leader is likely to push that button. Nuclear winter starts fast, just days after the strikes - and turns things very, very cold for a very long time. Nuclear winter is the reason the Soviets came to the bargaining table. Radiation aside, their scientists concluded nuclear winter would make Russia lifeless, most of the US and China too.

The big three are run by canny politicians who don't want to destroy their nations. They'll only go nuclear in retaliation of nuclear or to repel a land invasion, neither of which would be likely in any potential US vs. China skirmish.
 
2013-01-08 12:47:45 AM
In between atom bombs and thermos are 'tritium enhanced.' It's practically a continuum.
 
2013-01-08 12:58:53 AM

Bucky Katt: thisisarepeat: Bucky Katt: 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.

Shooting down Scuds is one thing. ICBMs is different.

Are they harder to hit than any other supersonic aircraft? if not? the lowly patriot battery will suffice.

They can be harder to hit if they have M.I.R.V.s.

Link


Multiple warheads only matter if you cant hit them before separation. But its irrelevant, the U.S. could shiat 100,000 patriot missiles in a month. All of a sudden, everybody is working again. The rest of nato cant throw gold at us fast enough to produce the arms they need to defend themselves. And "ta-da". no more economic crises.

/Replaces tin foil hat (lest teh i-products extract more knowledge)
 
2013-01-08 01:04:33 AM
Sun screen is gonna get expensive though...
 
2013-01-08 01:21:24 AM
Came for a far more precise count of 300.0 nukes, leaving disappointed.
 
2013-01-08 01:46:11 AM

Tennozan: FTA: "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."

So we'd living in China then?


Still beats Best Korea by a country mile...
 
2013-01-08 01:51:22 AM
Of course they won't attack us. But since they're fighting a resource war with India and Russia, they should be afraid. Putin vs the chicoms, not gonna be pretty.
 
2013-01-08 01:54:26 AM
Does this mean we don't have to be afraid of North Korea anymore?
 
2013-01-08 03:13:08 AM

deamonbutterfly: They may "own" us


Fun fact: China only owns around 8% of US debt. They don't "own" us by any stretch of the imagination.
 
2013-01-08 04:58:43 AM

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,"


They won't be doing this (and thus trying to play this as a poker bluff is a waste of time and both sides know it) as A) the Chinese aren't that bloodthirsty and B) we'd end ho-hum thousand years of Chinese history by reducing their entire nation into one big scorch-mark. Even at several thousand nukes, they still have a tiny nuclear arsenal compared to the US and they lack the ability to hit most of us at home (wouldn't want to be anywhere near the West Coast should US-China relations fray anyway).

Thanks for providing the right wing war wank fantasy though I guess.
 
2013-01-08 06:08:52 AM
So, 0300. Got it.
 
2013-01-08 07:30:58 AM
FTA: The new National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), signed by U.S. President Barack Obama on Jan. 2, orders the Commander of the U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM) to submit a report by Aug. 15 on the "underground tunnel network used by the People's Republic of China with respect to the capability of the United States to use conventional and nuclear forces to neutralize such tunnels and what is stored within such tunnels."

Why do we waste our money on this carp? I can guarantee you that Switzerland doesn't waste money on garbage like this. Why not? Because they know that there is zero chance that China is going to nuke them. And, if we'd mind our own business and not try to turn the entire planet into our empire, we wouldn't have to worry about it, either.
 
2013-01-08 08:16:24 AM

SkunkWerks: So, 0300. Got it.


300.0; the initial estimate was actually more precise than first thought.
 
2013-01-08 08:22:33 AM

DrPainMD: FTA: The new National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), signed by U.S. President Barack Obama on Jan. 2, orders the Commander of the U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM) to submit a report by Aug. 15 on the "underground tunnel network used by the People's Republic of China with respect to the capability of the United States to use conventional and nuclear forces to neutralize such tunnels and what is stored within such tunnels."

Why do we waste our money on this carp? I can guarantee you that Switzerland doesn't waste money on garbage like this. Why not? Because they know that there is zero chance that China is going to nuke them. And, if we'd mind our own business and not try to turn the entire planet into our empire, we wouldn't have to worry about it, either.


We're not trying to turn the world into our empire, dolt. That's too bloody expensive to maintain - a lessen we learned from the Brits. What we're trying to do is turn the entire world into our biatches. Much cheaper for us.

The state of education and critical thinking these days is horrifically bad. How you idiots even make it out of primary school is beyond me.
 
2013-01-08 08:54:19 AM

Rich Cream: clovis69: Rich Cream: Let's see here. Who believes MAD is a viable method to maintain non-aggressive behavior but doesn't think everybody should be armed with guns as a similar method?

With MAD, if I pull the trigger, you pull the trigger, I die, you die, all your relatives die, all my relatives die and most of our respective dwellings are destroyed, and so are most of the dwellings within our zip code.

With a gun, I can shoot at you, you might shoot back, you might miss, I might miss, I might hit a bystander, I might hit the wall, you might hit your foot.

Apples and Limes

Kibbler: If person A and person B get into a gunfight, is it guaranteed, beyond any reasonable doubt, that both person A and person B will die?


I understand an A-bomb does more damage than a gun and that's what prevents people from using it...but

MAD is based on using a deadly force to avert a deadly force. How are guns different from that?


It's probably been covered already...but...

For guns to work like MAD, you would basically need to be in a permanent Mexican-standoff. With MAD, the fingers are always on the trigger and the end result is GUARANTEED death (of the country/society/culture). With guns, most people aren't walking around pointing loaded weapons at others. If someone knocks on your door, do you answer it with a gun pointed in someone's face? Because if a Russian/Chinese/North Korean/ Iranian/Pakistani bomber plane figuratively knocks on OUR door, you better believe we're pointing some ICBM's right back at 'em ASAP. On the flip side, if there was literally 100% gun ownership, and even better 100% of the population is carrying a loaded pistol 24/7, someone can still break into your house at night and beat you to the draw, take your stuff, kill your family, eat your food, and walk right out. With MAD, there is ZERO CHANCE of getting away without massive retaliation. I mean, it is literally the definition of Mutually ASSURED Destruction

TL:DR - MAD works because of the threat, guns are not NEARLY as threatening, unless you are pointing a loaded one at somebody
 
2013-01-08 09:24:02 AM

Tennozan: FTA: "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."

So we'd living in China then?


But less crowded.

/I keed
 
2013-01-08 10:32:06 AM
Made-up Missile Gap: this is not a repeat from 1957.
 
2013-01-08 11:23:23 AM
Uh oh! Looks like someone is afraid of "defense" spending cuts and needs to pump up the boogey man.
 
2013-01-08 11:59:58 AM

fusillade762: deamonbutterfly: They may "own" us

Fun fact: China only owns around 8% of US debt. They don't "own" us by any stretch of the imagination.


snarky comment was snarky... hence my "" "" around the words :)

sarcasm fail? or uncesseary literal interpretation?

/fark me, my first "you're an idiot" received posts.. yay me!
 
2013-01-08 01:09:09 PM

BolshyGreatYarblocks: Gap


What about a Basselope Gap?
 
2013-01-08 03:08:37 PM

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

Cheap Chinese-made nukes probably won't work half the time.


Who knows if ours even work. They just sit around year after year getting rusty. Rust never sleeps.
 
2013-01-08 05:12:43 PM

ronaprhys: DrPainMD: FTA: The new National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), signed by U.S. President Barack Obama on Jan. 2, orders the Commander of the U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM) to submit a report by Aug. 15 on the "underground tunnel network used by the People's Republic of China with respect to the capability of the United States to use conventional and nuclear forces to neutralize such tunnels and what is stored within such tunnels."

Why do we waste our money on this carp? I can guarantee you that Switzerland doesn't waste money on garbage like this. Why not? Because they know that there is zero chance that China is going to nuke them. And, if we'd mind our own business and not try to turn the entire planet into our empire, we wouldn't have to worry about it, either.

We're not trying to turn the world into our empire, dolt. That's too bloody expensive to maintain - a lessen we learned from the Brits. What we're trying to do is turn the entire world into our biatches. Much cheaper for us.

The state of education and critical thinking these days is horrifically bad. How you idiots even make it out of primary school is beyond me.


We already have turned the world into our empire. At the end of WW2, we took over the empire from the Brits and have been working hard to expand it ever since. And we are paying to maintain it... have you seen our military/homeland defense/State Department budgets lately. Maintaining the empire is a major reason why our economy is in the tank.

Altho, you are correct on one point: the state of education and critical thinking these days is horrifically bad. How you idiots even make it out of primary school is beyond me.
 
2013-01-08 06:51:32 PM

deamonbutterfly: fusillade762: deamonbutterfly: They may "own" us

Fun fact: China only owns around 8% of US debt. They don't "own" us by any stretch of the imagination.

snarky comment was snarky... hence my "" "" around the words :)

sarcasm fail? or uncesseary literal interpretation?

/fark me, my first "you're an idiot" received posts.. yay me!


You're not an idiot. It's a pretty common misperception that China holds the bulk of US debt.

And yes, I may have missed the sarcasm.
 
Displayed 231 of 231 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report