Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Toad on July 17, 2001, 04:28:00 PM
-
This site is for all of you folks that figure Armageddon is just around the corner because the US is still researching missile/warhead interception techniques. (You know they're working on an airborne laser simultaneously, right?)
If you can temporarily rid yourself of the overwhelming fear that the always irrational, warmongering US is about to nuke SOMEBODY, we just don't know who, read this.
I suggest you read the whole thing, it presents a pretty balanced view. These are just tidbits to get you interested.
Then see how you feel.
http://www.ceip.org/programs/npp/brief28.htm (http://www.ceip.org/programs/npp/brief28.htm)
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
NON-PROLIFERATION
April 7, 1999
China currently has the capability to strike U.S. cities with its force of approximately 20 long-range Dong Feng-5 missiles, each armed with a 4- to 5-megaton thermonuclear warhead.... Additionally, its sea-based force (currently only one Xia submarine armed with 12 medium-range ballistic missiles) does not pose a credible threat to either Moscow or Washington.
By 2010, China hopes to have completed an upgrade of its forces. The planned improvements include:
ICBMs: The replacement of the aging force of DF-5's (and potentially the DF-4's) with two new missiles.
DF-31: a solid-fueled, road-mobile missile with an 8,000 km range. Though the missile has yet to be flight tested, the engine has been tested several times since the 1980s and could be fielded as early as 2000 to 2002.
DF-41: a solid-fueled, road-mobile missile with a 12,000 km range. This missile is expected to be deployed near 2010, as the DF-5 leaves service. Some of the newer DF-5's may remain in service past this date. (Reports indicate that 6 DF-5's were produced at Wanyuan in 1998 and that 2 more are expected before the closure of the production facility.)
Exact deployment numbers are unknown, but some experts estimate that China could field between 50-70 MIRVed, solid-fueled ICBMs (DF-31s and DF-41s) by 2010, both mobile and in hardened silos, equipped with various penetration aids to defeat missile defenses.
SLBMs: While China plans to deploy 4-6 of its second generation submarines (the 09-4) it is likely that no more than three will actually be deployed by 2010. Each submarine could be armed with 12 JL-2 SLBMs, with a range of 8,000 km and potential MIRV capability. The JL-2 is based on the DF-31 missile and has been under development since the 1980s.
Strategic Bombers: The H-6 is China's current medium-range bomber. Based on the Soviet Tu-16 Badger of 1950s vintage, it has a range of 3,000 km. While the Chinese air force flight-tested a more modern bomber, the H-7, in 1988, most experts believe that it will not have a nuclear role and that only 20 will be built. It is unlikely that China will invest substantial resources in it's airborne nuclear capability unless it is able to purchase the T-22M Backfire from Russia (although China is reportedly developing an air launched cruise missile).
Given the record, this is where the threat to World Peace lies, IMO.
-
And building a semi-functional NMD system, provoking them into building more missles serves world peace how?
-
Not built yet, is it? Cart before the horse, perhaps?
What has been done so far had been funded in PREVIOUS budgets... check the budgets for the 8 years PRIOR to 2001. Guess who funded the research up to the present. That's right...
The 2001 budgeted amount is $1,740 millions. In 2000 it was $950 millions and in prior years it totaled $4,717 millions.
The fiscal year 2001 budget will be the first to include production funding for national missile defense. Prior to this it has all been research and testing.
"Provoke them into building more missiles"?
Come on. China is going to build their new force whether or not we build NMD. Loral and Hughes sold them the technology to make them real accurate too. Guess who approved the technology transfer? Yes, right again. Same as the answer to the budget question above. Maybe the little light bulb above the head went on somewhere?
It's not just China either. Consider North Korea:
http://www.house.gov/international_relations/nkag/report.htm (http://www.house.gov/international_relations/nkag/report.htm)
I. Do the North Korean weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs pose a greater threat to U.S. security than five years ago?
North Korea's WMD programs pose a major threat to the United States and its allies...
Unlike five years ago, North Korea can now strike the United States with a missile that could deliver high explosive, chemical, biological, or possibly nuclear weapons. Currently, the United States is unable to defend against this threat."
So NOT building an NMD preserves World Peace how?
NMD would never be used if no one fired an offensive missile, would it?
You may be real comfortable with the Chinese and North Koreans having this capability but I'm not.
-
well if you ask me, building an NMD or not is irrelevant, if one nation pushes the button its all over for us on the planet earth. <Game over>
It could prevent attacks from terrorists maybe, tho ....maybe not, who knows.
-
I think we are a far larger threat to China than they are to us.
-
I had all but forgotten about the threat of nuclear war since Reagan. Isn't this great?
-
LOL, Nash... if there's a threat, it isn't from us.
Lot of people in here pretending bad people don't exist in the world anymore though. ;)
-
Toad, I’m behind you one hundred percent on this.
In fact I’d like to take this one step further; let’s do a preemptive nuclear strike on those rice eatin’ rat-bastards.
I even have our war cry:
NUKE THE FETUSES!!! :mad:
-
If Stalin didn't push the red button, i doubt anyone will.
Right now balance exists because:
i shoot = he shoots = everyone dies
If countries start building "shields" it will become:
i shoot = he shoots = hopefully i intercept and only his people die
which will quickly lead to:
i shoot so many whoopee missiles that even if they all hit outside of their targets nuclear winter follows = everyone dies
China has a long long history of paranoia - very much like Russia. We did after all break into it's shell and stirred up the insides in the name of our western principles, didn't we ?
But China never been much of an invader, even in it's communist times. Their history points to one thing - they want to be left the hell alone - something that most westerners can't understand...
-
Toad
your 1st post should read:
April 7, 1999
Thanks to the Clinton Administration,
China currently has the capability to strike U.S. cities with its force of approximately 20 long-range Dong Feng-5 missiles, each armed with a 4- to 5-megaton thermonuclear warhead.... Additionally, its sea-based force (currently only one Xia submarine armed with 12 medium-range ballistic missiles) does not pose a credible threat to either Moscow or Washington.
-
Heh eagler, and I'd add another line:
"and thanks to the bush family, they now have a reason to open fire"
:D
-
Oops, they already have "Great Treck-5"! Last time I checked - they had only Great Treck-3.
India will built it's own missile park in nearest 10 years too.
Other countries will develop nukes and missiles in nearest future.
Can anyone imagine a full-scale war between India and Pakistan now, when they both have nukes and means of delivery?
Anyone having a full-scale ABM coverage over their country will be a serious threat to peace.
And I have to say it again: a massive launch from ANY side will cause ALL other nuclear-capable countries to react in a simultaneous massive launch. For example: if China will launch ICBMS at the US - Russian ICBMS will go off immediately.
-
Originally posted by Boroda:
if China will launch ICBMS at the US - Russian ICBMS will go off immediately.
Why?
miko
-
This page is a slow loader but it shows the 34 countries that have ballistic missile capability.
http://www.ceip.org/files/projects/npp/resources/ballisticmissilechart.htm (http://www.ceip.org/files/projects/npp/resources/ballisticmissilechart.htm)
Here's the "good" news though... I guess"
"Only 11 nations have missiles with ranges over 1000 km; all the rest have only short-range, Scud-type missiles. Only 8 <!> nations have been able to devleop nuclear weapons that could be fitted as warheads on these missiles."
Take a look and see how safe things are around the globe. No possible threats to world peace in that list, no sir!
... and the people researching a shield are the crazy ones.
Yeah, right. :D
[ 07-18-2001: Message edited by: Toad ]
-
So... the United States has approximately 10,500 nuclear warheads (2,000 ICBM).
China has 410 (128 ICBM).
Russia has approximately 20,000 (~3,000 ICBM).
I'll say it again. We are a greater threat to China than they are to us.
-
Originally posted by Eagler:
Toad
your 1st post should read:
April 7, 1999
Thanks to the Clinton Administration,
China currently has the capability to strike U.S. cities with its force of approximately 20 long-range Dong Feng-5 missiles, each armed with a 4- to 5-megaton thermonuclear warhead.... Additionally, its sea-based force (currently only one Xia submarine armed with 12 medium-range ballistic missiles) does not pose a credible threat to either Moscow or Washington.
I'll bite. How is this Clinton's fault?
-
Fd-ski - Stalin was planning to push the big shiny red button, according to certain historians. He was quite insane towards the end of his life.
-
China is a major threat to world peace. Don't forget that it has the population to survive a major nuclear strike. They could lose 500 MILLION people without blinking. However, their targets are likely to be Mongolia, Russia, and India. India too can take a 500 million population loss without blinking. Kashmir is a likely flashpoint.
The US is right to go for NMD.
-
Hehe... that's funny. China is a threat because there are a lot of them. And then they are also human rights violators because they try to control their population.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM:
I'll bite. How is this Clinton's fault?
Here you go, sorry I didn't retype it myself:
In 1994 Bernard Schwartz, CEO of Loral Aerospace, went to China with
Commerce Secretary Ron Brown. Bernard Schwartz, by co-incidence, also
donated just over a million dollars to the DNC. When Mr. Schwartz flew to
China he hoped to make a sale or two, perhaps to offset the large DNC
donation checks he had just written. His company, Loral, makes some
pretty high tech equipment, so the China - low-tech - market had great
appeal. For example, Loral manufactures satellites, radars, global
navigation and world wide secure communications systems. All the fine
things a "wannabe" super-power would desire.
In 1994, just prior to traveling with Brown, Mr. Schwartz had his LORAL
staff prepare a shopping list for the Chinese and Ron Brown. This list,
complete with very big pictures, would make LORAL's large ticket items
easier to understand and digest at Ron Brown's (executive) level.
However, the same list would also make anyone familiar with military
equipment go bananas.
On that day Ron Brown stopped being Secretary of Commerce and started his
new career as an international arms dealer. The items LORAL carried to
the meeting with Ron Brown resemble a JANE'S Defense catalog of high tech
weapons. Some of the Loral suggested "red" ticket items up for sale
included "Airborne Reconnaissance Cameras, Weapon Delivery, Target
Acquisition, Missile Guidance, Shipboard Target Acquisition, Radar
Warning, Missile Warning, RF Jamming, IR Jamming..." and so on.
Please note - Anything that starts with "weapon", "missile" or "target
acquisition" does NOT qualify as a civilian application.
The result of the 1994 China trade trip?
Today, China is using Loral satellites to perform all weather bombing
using a "western" based navigation system in their modified Russia SU-27
FLANKER jet fighters. These navigation aids were originally sold to China
under the condition they would be used on "civilian" airliners. Of
course, now that the satellites are under PRC control, their civilian
operation has been shifted slightly. The SU-27s are made in Russia (soon
to be copied by license in China) and they are not going to complain about
the navigation gear being tuned to Schwartz's satellites. Thus, the next
bombs to fall in anger from a PLA warplane will come courtesy (and with
great accuracy) via the USA.
Another US, high-tech, upgrade for the benefit of China's Generals and
Commissars is their new secure military communication system. China is
now using US built secure encoding systems to protect their military
satellite and global communications. This 21st century system is a
decades leap forward for the Chinese, who previously depended on former
Soviet built analog scramblers to protect their highest military orders.
The great leap forward for the PRC did not come at the end of years of
costly R&D followed by careful deployment. Instead, the Princes in Beijing
can now issue nuclear launch code orders using C4 (Command, Control,
Communications, and Computers) systems that rival the best in the free
west. Basically, this is because their system was built in the free west.
So who is responsible for this? A dead Ron Brown? A very much richer
Bernard Schwartz?
We have Bill Clinton to thank for arming the Chinese this time around.
Bill Clinton personally tasked Bernard Schwartz on a "PRESIDENTIAL
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT MISSION" for Red China. Schwartz actually carried
papers of authorization from his friend Bill with him to China. Thus, it
comes as no surprise that once in China, Schwartz met with Shen Rong-Jun,
Vice Minister for COSTIND (Commission of Science, Technology, & Industry
for National Defense). I do not know if Rong-Jun is related to Wang Jun,
the Chinese arms dealer who paid his way into the White House at about the
same time. However, I do know that COSTIND is an arm of the People's
Liberation Army; note the ND stands for "National Defense". In the end,
Rong-Jun and Wang Jun were really working for the same boss... The
People's Liberation Army.
Additional proof of who authorized the military exports to China comes not
from a SOFTWAR FOIA but from a recently published GAO report on US weapons
exports to China. The GAO published a report on May 7, NSAID-98-171,
which states "According to State (Department) officials, since 1990, 11
Presidential waivers have been issued removing export restrictions on 21
satellite projects. Presidential waivers were also granted to permit the
export of encryption equipment controlled on the Munitions List".
Thus, Bill Clinton determined it was in our national interest to arm Red
China. He wrote the waivers. He authorized the sales... He took the
donations.
===============================
Notice Ron Brown ain't around anymore....
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM:
I'll say it again. We are a greater threat to China than they are to us.
If the US had 50,000 nuclear warheads and China had just 1, China would STILL be a far greater threat to World Peace than the US.
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM:
Hehe... that's funny. China is a threat because there are a lot of them. And then they are also human rights violators because they try to control their population.
Nope. They are currently Human Rights Violators because of the way they control their population.
Heres a few examples from that well-known right-wing organization Human Rights Watch :)
Tortue of Prisoners
Crackdown on Falun Gong
Controls on the Internet
Violations of workers rights
Hong Kong (Special Autonomous Region)
Detained China Scholars
Then there's that old stuff, like running over protesters in Tianamen Square with tanks.
But then you can probably excuse all that. :)
[ 07-18-2001: Message edited by: Toad ]
-
If the US had 50,000 nuclear warheads and China had just 1, China would STILL be a far greater threat to World Peace than the US.
That is perception, not fact. A fight with China is ours to start. China has absolutely nothing to gain by lobbing a nuke in our direction. They are not stupid. They know the cost. Their population is not a threat to us. What are they going to do, boat them over? Hell, the "strongest country in the world" took six entire months to position it's military in the middle east before commencing Desert Storm. The United States can engage or disengage at will with China. Of course, some will ask, "What about Taiwan?" I don't give a rat's bellybutton about Taiwan and I think it would be a complete waste to lose as much as a single American serviceman's life defending it. We cannot win in a conflict with China. Likewise, China can not win in a conflict with the United States. No matter the outcome, we all lose.
World Peace? What a riot. There has never been World Peace and there never will... EVER.
As for China's human rights issues... I think we have enough problems in our own backyard to fix before we start pointing fingers.
[ 07-19-2001: Message edited by: Sandman_SBM ]
-
If so, then your previous comment would also be perception and not fact. There... we both posted perceptions. Yours of no less and no more value than mine; the course of history will eventually decide who was closer to the truth.
I feel confident. :)
Like Russia, China has nothing we need to fight over to get. Why would we fight them?
Taiwan? Hardly. I'm certainly not going to allow my sons to go and "fight for Taiwan". I doubt very many other parents would either. OTOH, I'd sell them whatever "non-cutting edge" technology they wanted to defend themselves. For example, I'd sell them all the F-16's they want and not a single F-22. Then when it's "nut-cutting time" they themselves can decide what their lifestyle is worth.
China won't lob a nuke at us. They'll probably extort us by threatening to lob a nuke at us. Then we either give in to the "demand du jour" (likely) or we tell them to "take their best shot" and let the chips fall (unlikely).
Basically these are the tactics that worked so well for Adolph before he actually sent the troops into combat in Poland. Of course, it'll be a bit higher stakes than that period.
US human rights violations? LOL. Nice misdirect.
YOU bring it up and then try the old "hey, presto! look over there!" trick.
Yeah, the US has some problem areas in Human Rights. NOTHING, however, like the problems that the government of China inflicts on its people. You know it too.
-
sandman wrote:
Of course, some will ask, "What about Taiwan?" I don't give a rat's bellybutton about Taiwan and I think it would be a complete waste to lose as much as a single American serviceman's life defending it. We cannot win in a conflict with China. Likewise, China can not win in a conflict with the United States. No matter the outcome, we all lose.
--------------------------------------
a very large chunk of our economy is based on computers. American companies have spent BILLIONS on chip factories in Taiwan.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM:
China has absolutely nothing to gain by lobbing a nuke in our direction. They are not stupid. They know the cost.
Neither are we, or Russia, or any other country for that matter. I'm pretty sure everyone knows once the nukes start flying, a whole helluva lot of humans are dying. As in probably upwards of 80-90%, if not all of us.
Anyways, I'm against developing the ABMs. It won't help much IF a full scale launch came anyways. A few would hit anyways, and millions would die in the volley. Then billions would die as the retalitory strikes were launched. I just hope if it happens, I'm near an impact point. I'd rather go quick and be incinerated, than die slowly from radiation poisoning...
As for the argument of the ABM being for the rogue nation that'd lob one or two... Ok, let's assume that's true. You put the ABM in place. You think that rogue nation would then lob them at us? Nope, they'd ferry it over, set it up, then detonate it here. No ABM system can stop that.
-
Originally posted by Krusher:
a very large chunk of our economy is based on computers. American companies have spent BILLIONS on chip factories in Taiwan.
Why do you think China is so interested in having the little country back? Because of principle? I don't think so. What good is Taiwan to China if the chip factories get destroyed? If they had the factories, that's billions of US $$$ going to China instead of Taiwan.
-
Originally posted by Nifty:
Why do you think China is so interested in having the little country back? Because of principle? I don't think so. What good is Taiwan to China if the chip factories get destroyed? If they had the factories, that's billions of US $$$ going to China instead of Taiwan.
Whoever controls the motherboards control the world :)
A small self destruct capacitor on the pent 7 and amd "firebird" motherboards set to pop at midnight 01/01/2015. Far fetched??
-
Originally posted by Eagler:
Whoever controls the motherboards control the world :)
A small self destruct capacitor on the pent 7 and amd "firebird" motherboards set to pop at midnight 01/01/2015. Far fetched??
and on 1/2/2015 the bombs would be launched!!! (they used old mo-bos... ;) )
-
eagler wrote:
Whoever controls the motherboards control the world
--------------------------
hehehe remember the virus that was imbedded in a printer shipped to iraq right before the start of the air war :)
-
Originally posted by Toad:
If so, then your previous comment would also be perception and not fact. There... we both posted perceptions. Yours of no less and no more value than mine; the course of history will eventually decide who was closer to the truth.
I feel confident. :)
Your're fooling yourself... but that's okay. It's the typical American perception that we can do no wrong.
Like Russia, China has nothing we need to fight over to get. Why would we fight them?
Exactly my question. As I stated before, we can engage and disengage at will with China. Why do we insist on poking them in the eye with this issue of Taiwan? Computers? Even if every computer on the planet were made in Taiwan, they would still need the purchasing power of the United States. Can't sell 'em if you don't have a buyer.
Taiwan? Hardly. I'm certainly not going to allow my sons to go and "fight for Taiwan". I doubt very many other parents would either. OTOH, I'd sell them whatever "non-cutting edge" technology they wanted to defend themselves. For example, I'd sell them all the F-16's they want and not a single F-22. Then when it's "nut-cutting time" they themselves can decide what their lifestyle is worth.
Really? President Bush has pledged to defend Taiwan. Hasn't he? Of course, the U.S. could circumvent the law by sending mercenaries to Taiwan in the same way that we send them to South America.
China won't lob a nuke at us. They'll probably extort us by threatening to lob a nuke at us. Then we either give in to the "demand du jour" (likely) or we tell them to "take their best shot" and let the chips fall (unlikely).
Right... extortion. roadkill. We have 2000 ICBMs AND a military capable of projecting power across the oceans. China cannot compete, population or not.
Basically these are the tactics that worked so well for Adolph before he actually sent the troops into combat in Poland. Of course, it'll be a bit higher stakes than that period.
China is not Nazi Germany and the United States is not Poland. Next!
US human rights violations? LOL. Nice misdirect.
YOU bring it up and then try the old "hey, presto! look over there!" trick.
Yeah, the US has some problem areas in Human Rights. NOTHING, however, like the problems that the government of China inflicts on its people. You know it too.
Actually, I didn't bring up the subject but human rights are often argued as a reason to be hostile towards China. I think it's hypocritical of us to point at China's "large" problem while ignoring our own "smaller" problems.
[ 07-19-2001: Message edited by: Sandman_SBM ]
-
"Your're fooling yourself... but that's okay. It's the typical American perception that we can do no wrong."
Oh, no no no no, Alphonse! Your're fooling yourself... but that's okay. It's the typical ANTI-American perception that we can do no right. :)
Taiwan? Basically we agree.. pretty shocking, that.
Bush may have pledged to defend them but I think he'll have a REAL HARD time getting it past Congress or the American people.
Clinton slid us into Bosnia against the will of the House and against the popular will of the people (albeit as expressed in polls). That wasn't a red-hot shooting war, however. Big difference, I think.
If the Taiwanese really want to be Independent, let them do their own fighting. We can't "make" someone free.
Mercenaries? WE (the US government) SENDS mercenaries?
Gee, I'd have thought they'd have to volunteer. Sort of what a mercenary is, isn't it? Volunteer to fight for money? You have evidence that the US forces people to go to fight in South America?
Extortion? China is believed to have about 410 nuclear weapons. Approximately 20 warheads are on long-range missiles that can reach the United States.
With all that power we have and can project, are we willing to sacrifice LA for anything or any one in Asia? That's the scenario you face. If they're doing something the world community can't abide and the US tries to stop them are you willing to sacrifice US cities to do so? Or at least call their bluff with the attendant risk that they are not bluffing? That's simply a form of nuclear extortion.
China is not Germany? Nice diversion attempt. It's not which countries are like which countries at all. It's what extortion tactics work and which don't. The Rhineland, the Sudetenland, Czechoslovakia those tactics worked. A shooting war with Poland did not. Tactics.
-
Here we come to the real purpose of 1972 ABM treaty.
If US fields NMD system - they can feel safe against Cina's "20 warheads mounted on ICBMs", and therefore can start a nuclear attack on China without fear of retaliation.
Better try to build a local ABM system around LA if you are afraid it will be nuked. Oh, I forgot, US decided that their "missile farm" in North Dakota is more valuable then 10 million city...
-
Originally posted by Boroda:
If US fields NMD system - they can feel safe against Cina's "20 warheads mounted on ICBMs", and therefore can start a nuclear attack on China without fear of retaliation....
THat's it!! You figured out our master plan!
Along that line of thought, anyone carrying a firearm isn't carrying it for self protection, but to run out and kill anyone who does not carry one...
what a whack job line of thought. I hope you are the minority in your society.
-
Eagler, believe it or not - but that was the main reason for ABM treaty. MAD.
If you know other reasons - please tell us, it's interesting.
BTW, wasn't it American press who was shouting about USSR violating the ABM treaty in 80s? They said we "violated" this treaty by building one more early-warning radar station near Krasnoyarsk. They said that Krasnoyarsk radar station could be used in ABM system.
-
Boroda
You keep refering to the treaty. The treaty is out dated. It has clauses in it to allow the US to do exactly what it is doing. THe world is not the same in many ways when the treaty was first drawn up. Neither is technology. I see no harm in the shield except it will not stop the suitcase bomb. It isn't like the US is saying we are going to build an umbrella over us and forget the rest of the world. The plan is to cover all of our allies. I think of it as nothing but a deterrent, not a 100% fail proof method. Just one more thing to put doubt in the mind of the nutcase considering pressing his button. What in this life is guaranteed 100%? Other than an end to this physical body one day, I see none.. I think it's just another thing the dumocrats here and their counterparts around the world can throw stones at GW about. I think they'd squeak if he gave each a check for $100k. Nothing but politics as most things have become ...
-
Eagler, the treaty is still actual.
Tell me what changed so drasticaly to make it outdated.
-
Originally posted by Boroda:
Eagler, the treaty is still actual.
Tell me what changed so drasticaly to make it outdated.
One that comes to mind would be this missile shield, technically not possible when the treaty was established. Another is your country, it is not the same country which signed on the dotted line, neither politically nor geographically.
-
Missile shield was possible in 1972. As I already said - first ICBM interception was performed in 1963. By 1972 USSR had all systems ready for deployment, first generation ABMs with 1 megaton warheads that were replaced by conventional around 1975.
Russia is a successor of the USSR in all international treaties and agreements, including USSR and Russian Empire's debts that we pay in time.
Any other reasons?
What about that mid-80s Krasnoyarsk radar station hype? In 1980s the treaty was OK, and now suddenly it becomes outdated?
-
Heh.
20 nukes against 10200.
And they are the danger :D.
My math does not work that way.
but of course I'm only a poor spanish barbarian that does not know anything...except that if someone lofts one F%$ˇing nuke, for any reason cabal or not, the one living in a nuclear winter will be me. And that If I survive. And I have no god-damned interest in Taiwan, china , USA, LA, etc etc etc. Still I, and all the rest who hs nothing to do with you nor with china. maybe have to pay for other's errors. For YOUR errors. For THEIR errors-
And I love how you talk about the chinese, their 500 million losses without blink. Or about you and your ABM system. But in all this thread noone has said that YOUR problems are YOURS and that your F"ˇ$"ˇkng nukes can ruin life for the rest of the people. There is a world out of the USA, did you know?. And most of us are not happy to see what's going on.
So if the nukes fly, who is the one I have to thank?... the chinese who build nukes or the guy in the whitehouse who provokes them to buy more?
Both stink :rolleyes:. Now they'll call me antiamerican. Would be funny, but it isnt.
[ 07-20-2001: Message edited by: R4M ]
-
Bring on the nukes like its 1999!
C'mon guys.
Lots of paranoia around this BBS, huh?
-
Originally posted by Animal:
C'mon guys.
Lots of paranoia around this BBS, huh?
One of my more infamous lines is:
Just because I am paranoid, doesn't mean I shouldn't be... :)
-
Originally posted by Animal:
Bring on the nukes like its 1999!
C'mon guys.
Lots of paranoia around this BBS, huh?
well, next year will be the 30th anniversary of the Cuban Missle Crisis. Guess we're just trying to "celebrate" it by re-enacting it. :rolleyes:
-
Remember the old joke about wearing garlic around your neck to keep away vampires? Does it work? Don't see any vampires around here do you?
The US has had either the largest or the next to largest nuclear inventory in the world from 1945 until the present. Undeniable fact.
What's the result been? Well, not a single "World War" since 1945, for one thing.
Not a single use of a nuke in any type of conflict since we bombed Hiroshima & Nagasaki for another thing. (Yes, we certainly did use two at the end of WW2).
Now, a greatly reduced US nuke arsenal is suddenly a HUGE threat to the world because we are testing and developing an ABM system. No decision to deploy as yet; that will have to come from Congress.
Well, we're the same guys that have had the much BIGGER arsenal all along. We've also had a large and very capable military all along. During that period there have been NO world wars.
Suddenly we're going to nuke the world?
LOL.
-
Originally posted by Animal:
Bring on the nukes like its 1999!
C'mon guys.
Lots of paranoia around this BBS, huh?
All this sudden interest in nukes is pretty laughable. To think that any of the larger nations would resort to nukes as an offensive strike for any reason is laughable. Just my opinion.
-
Originally posted by fd ski:
[QB]If Stalin didn't push the red button, i doubt anyone will.
Ummm...I didn't study Stalinist Russia in COLLEGE or anything, but I'm pretty sure the concensus now is that Stalin never had a valid 'button' to push...The Sovs didn't have a credible threat till very late, and perhaps even AFTER Stalin died.
If countries start building "shields" it will become:
i shoot = he shoots = hopefully i intercept and only his people die
Once again, we already HAD that equation...when we were the bully boys, and no one but us and a few exclusive pals had ANY nuclear weapons. Guess what happened? NOTHING! We didn't blow anybody up. The imbalance you predict is not certain, or even credible.
Am i a sinophobe? Perhaps, but they have given us reasons to fear them before...we have a few old Korean War vets to prove it. They have been actively trying to manipulate our government's trade and military policy for a decade or so now.
North Korea with ANY WMDs is a very scary proposition...and if you aren't afraid of that, you are not paying close attention to how they do things. They are the true believers, and I do not doubt for a moment that they would pop a nuke on us without hesitation. Would China stop them? Do you really want to find out?
PapaH
[ 07-20-2001: Message edited by: Greg Smithwick ]
-
Originally posted by Toad:
Mercenaries? WE (the US government) SENDS mercenaries?
Of course we do. They work for companies such as DynCorp, Airscan, and Military Professional Resources Inc.
Current law caps the number of military contractors in Columbia at 300. The limit on military members is 500 and the military is restricted from engaging in combat activities. The House of Representatives is about to vote on the $15.2 Billion Foreign Operations Bill. Contained within the section earmarking $676 Million for counter-drug operations, is this line, "These funds are in addition to amounts otherwise available for such purposes and are available without regard to section 3204(b)(1)(B) of Public Law 106-246: Provided further, that section 482(b) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 shall not apply to funds appropriated under this heading."
What that means, is the U.S. will be able to increase the number of "military contractors" in the Columbia if the bill is passed. Military contractors are not prohibited from engaging in combat.
So yes, the United States does employ mercenaries. We always have. It's a way to circumvent the restrictions on the use of military forces.
-
Careful, I'm one of those mercs..I work along side uncle sugar trying to bring the RSAF into the 20th century...damn..its the 21st now...where does time fly...their still in the fifth...
Anyway, you got Kirk up against a Klingon battlecruiser and your arguement is shields or no shields? I vote shields!
Some of you guys have no idea what mentality or lack of where up against. People that will use babies as shields as they attack.
There is only one way to fight terrorism..take the battle to them..HARD!!
Israel does it right..
Remember the anarchists just before WWI they had the world screwed pretty good when the governments decided to hunt them any where any time...kind of where 007 came from, you know a license to kill...would have worked if they could have gotten them quicker..one of them shot the dude in yugoslavia and WWI started but the terrorists where gone.
You ever thought the ABM might not be built just for missile attacks?...hint "Niburu" cometh...
Remember the best diplomat is a fully energized phaser bank!!!
Me in Saudi
[ 07-23-2001: Message edited by: kreighund ]