Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: Scary, People's Republic of China, United States, try, Chinese, nuclear deterrent, Federation of American Scientists, nuclear tests, U.S. law  
•       •       •

17850 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 Jan 2013 at 6:23 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all

 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 231 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report