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 51
    More: Scary, People's Republic of China, United States, try, Chinese, nuclear deterrent, Federation of American Scientists, nuclear tests, U.S. law  
•       •       •

17834 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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-01-07 06:28:12 PM
5 votes:
Maybe the US government should spend more time spying on the Chinese than it's own citizens?
2013-01-07 06:54:43 PM
4 votes:
China declaring war on us would be like the local Walmart declaring war on a nearby trailer park.
2013-01-07 07:20:42 PM
3 votes:
Bring it on. I have enough money to buy a 10mm pistol and a Varmint Rifle.

patronsaintofknives.files.wordpress.com
2013-01-07 06:07:04 PM
3 votes:
But if they nuke you into the stone age, an hour later you're civilized again
2013-01-07 05:45:00 PM
3 votes:

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 05:25:23 PM
3 votes:
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 07:57:04 PM
2 votes:
bbsimg.ngfiles.com

Shrimp bomb.
2013-01-07 07:13:38 PM
2 votes:

CygnusDarius: //MAD is a terrible, terrible idea


I know it's terrible, look at all the atomic wars since 1945.
2013-01-07 07:01:13 PM
2 votes:
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 06:52:04 PM
2 votes:

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 06:41:09 PM
2 votes:
So someone finally found the 0 weapons from Saddam's nuclear program?
2013-01-07 06:32:41 PM
2 votes:
How many does Israel have?
/Somebody had to go there
2013-01-07 06:12:22 PM
2 votes:
Me bomb you long time.
2013-01-07 05:27:01 PM
2 votes:
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.
2013-01-08 05:12:43 PM
1 votes:

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 11:23:23 AM
1 votes:
Uh oh! Looks like someone is afraid of "defense" spending cuts and needs to pump up the boogey man.
2013-01-07 10:52:57 PM
1 votes:

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 10:34:16 PM
1 votes:

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 09:52:03 PM
1 votes:

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 09:39:23 PM
1 votes:

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 09:26:43 PM
1 votes:

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

Why?


Because JOOOOOSSSSS!!!
2013-01-07 09:14:44 PM
1 votes:

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 09:08:12 PM
1 votes:

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 08:52:04 PM
1 votes:

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 07:45:04 PM
1 votes:

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 07:42:19 PM
1 votes:
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 07:40:15 PM
1 votes:

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 07:31:52 PM
1 votes:
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 07:24:30 PM
1 votes:

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 07:20:57 PM
1 votes:
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 07:17:16 PM
1 votes:
Better shiat my pants and increase defense spending.
2013-01-07 07:16:20 PM
1 votes:
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 07:15:41 PM
1 votes:
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 07:15:17 PM
1 votes:

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 07:13:01 PM
1 votes:

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 07:03:19 PM
1 votes:
What a ridiculous article.
2013-01-07 06:57:45 PM
1 votes:
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 06:54:28 PM
1 votes:
"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 06:54:27 PM
1 votes:
img202.imageshack.us
DEATH IS A PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE TO COMMUNISM.
2013-01-07 06:46:27 PM
1 votes:
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 06:46:07 PM
1 votes:

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 06:45:58 PM
1 votes:
I'm more worried about the nukes that Israel has.
2013-01-07 06:42:40 PM
1 votes:
They have 30-40 million surplus males, they don't need nukes.
2013-01-07 06:41:18 PM
1 votes:
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 06:39:14 PM
1 votes:

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 06:37:12 PM
1 votes:
There is no practical difference between 300 and 3,000.

So, yeah, non-issue.
2013-01-07 06:37:11 PM
1 votes:

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 06:36:44 PM
1 votes:

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 06:30:52 PM
1 votes:
They're far more likely to nuke themselves in the foot than they are to nuke the US.
2013-01-07 06:30:13 PM
1 votes:
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 06:22:57 PM
1 votes:
His team estimated that as many as 3,000 nuclear weapons could be hidden

They possibly maybe could conceivably have 3,000.
EVERYBODY PANIC!
 
Displayed 51 of 51 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report