Chinese General: We should use nukes if US defends Taiwan

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050719/ts_nm/china_usa_military_dc_1
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050719/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_china_8
http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/ns/news...8360002086436&dt=20050719183600&w=RTR&coview=

It looks like China's strategy is to focus its military on Taiwan without taking on the US in order to show that their strength is more than capable without engaging in a costly spending spree to keep up with the Americans.

Who knows whether that pattern will change in the next 20 years.

 

Yeah, I'd say that.

 

basso says Max is overreaching. hmmm...

I seem to recall this Max Boot was the same guy who suggested the solution to US military recruiting shortage is outsourcing.

 

that's true. they are focusing improving key certain areas that will make it costly for the u.s. to intervene and they spending their money very wisely. china makes it simple focus on a couple of things: building/buying lots of advanced submarines that will force u.s. carriers far to be far away, building/buying lots of advanced fighters with state of the art missiles, and lots of aircraft to attack naval ships. other stuff like building aircraft carrier and building lots of surface ships pale in importance to subs, fighters, and naval fighter bombers.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050721...lbCrS_9xg8F;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MXN1bHE0BHNlYwN0bWE-


China Affirms 'No First Use' Nuke Policy By JOE McDONALD, Associated Press Writer
Thu Jul 21, 3:02 PM ET



China will not use nuclear weapons first in a military conflict, the foreign minister said Thursday as he tried to quell an uproar over a general's remark that Beijing might use atomic bombs against U.S. forces in a conflict over Taiwan.

Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing said China "will not first use nuclear weapons at any time and under any condition," according to the official Xinhua News Agency. Li said China has embraced that stance since it developed nuclear weapons in 1964, and it "will not be changed in the future."

Li made the comments to a group of academics from the United States, Japan and China, Xinhua said.

Beijing has been trying to reassure the United States and its Asian neighbors since Maj. Gen. Zhu Chenghu, a dean at China's National Defense University, told foreign reporters last week that Beijing might use nuclear weapons if U.S. forces attacked China in a conflict over Taiwan.

According to Xinhua, Li said the general's comment was "only his personal view."

The State Department on July 15 criticized the remarks as "highly irresponsible" and asked for Chinese assurance that it did not reflect official thinking.

China claims Taiwan, which split from the mainland in 1949, as part of its territory and has threatened to invade if the self-governing island declares formal independence or puts off talks on unification.

Despite its efforts at diplomatic damage control, Beijing also has reaffirmed its insistence that it will not tolerate formal independence for Taiwan — a step the mainland has said could lead to war.

Beijing said Saturday that China would "never tolerate Taiwan independence" and would not allow "anybody with any means to separate Taiwan from the motherland."

The three-sentence Xinhua report on Li's pledge Thursday did not mention Taiwan.

Li's comments came a day after Beijing angrily rejected a new U.S. government report that says growing Chinese military ambitions could threaten other Asia-Pacific nations.

Li said Wednesday that China is "not a threat to anyone" and is intent on "developing in a peaceful way."




Copyright © 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.


Copyright © 2005 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Questions or Comments
Privacy Policy -Terms of Service - Copyright/IP Policy - Ad Feedback

 

Am I the only one that think this is a good idea? If someone's willing to die for freedom (or atleast the quality of life that this country offers), I don't see why that's such a big problem.

 

I think the Pentagon already employs defense contractors to do some of the policing and "peace keeping" in Afghanistan and Iraq. They don't have to abide by Geneva Convention rules.

There's something about using mercenaries that sends us back to the Middle Ages. It mitigates the public gravity of war in democracies, and it leaves the military industrial complex even more unchecked.

 

I feel like throwing in my cancer man credentials to the mix.

My father used to work research and development for the NSA and Pentagon. All he's told me about that experience is that he'd go before a room of generals, they'd present him with imaginary ideas and tell him and others to make them a reality. Pretty interesting stuff. To cut to the chase, China would be annhialated in a conventional/small scale nuclear war with the United States. Not only would their missiles never reach US soil, but our delivery capabilities are far beyond the scope that most know.

Now he's in the oil business (your conspiracy theories are welcome), and the whole UNOCAL affair is really rather benign. They just made a better offer than Chevron (18 billion cash vs. a majority stock-based proposal? Please), and anyways, we barely get any of our oil from that region. It's a non-issue. Those complaining are just ignorant protectionists. Hell, UNOCAL's not even that good of a company.

Too much to lose for both countries for a bullet to be fired on either side though. Our destinies are too intertwined from an economic perspective. They essentialy credit our debt right now and we're still obviously each other's biggest trading partners.

Anwyays, there's already a strategic alliance being formed in the region to contain Chinese influence, as evidenced by Singh's visit to Washington this past week. I studied under a former US ambassador to India last semester (shameless but necessary reference on my part) and he convinced me of the role India is going to play in this regard.

 

First off, how come the I barely heard about China's reply on the news? A lot of people still are talking about what the Chinese General said... Seems like major anti-China propaganda is brewing.

Pretty good analysis. I would disagree with your idea that China would not be able to attack the US if a war broke out. Maybe that was the case when your dad was in the NSA, but now, China can at least attack the Western side of the US. Anyways, that's a moot point because it probably wouldn't occur.

I've noticed too that the US is trying to cozy up to India. India is a very logical choice since it also has intelligent people and a huge population base. On a side note, I'm surprised India has developed faster than it has been for the last decade. Anyways, I forsee China-Russia growing a lot closer. India-China relations are also pretty good, so I don't really see what the US is planning to do. The time for one or two countries to dominate the world is over.

 

china launched a man into space a while ago.....what makes you think they can hit the U.S?

their new nuclear submarines can deliver nukes anywhere. they had very long range missile technology for 25 years, surely that would have figured out how to make a missile fly farther. plus, ICBM technology ain't that difficult, i'm sure they can hit anywhere in the u.s.

 

Do you want China to nuke the US?

 

They have NO new operational nuclear submarines, plus didn't they say they were not going to use nukes first?

 

I read the other day that there are about 30,000 nuclear weapons in the world today and all but about 200 of them are either in the US or within the former USSR. The fact is if anyone went nulcear on anything but the most limited scale everyone in the Northern Hemisphere would die from radiation poisoning anyway because the fallout will circulate contiuously on the jet stream. Mutually Assured Destruction is a damn good diplomatic motivator.

The documentory Trinity was on HDTV the other night. I didn't realize the US has exploded over 350 nuclear test bombs and the Ruskies actually tested a huge 100 kilo ton bomb in Siberia. It's a wonder we don't all have cancer now.

Good news on page 7 today though. It gets less play than the hyperbole that preceeded it.

CHINA
Official refutes remark on nukes
BEIJING - China will not use nuclear weapons first in a military conflict, the foreign minister said Thursday as he tried to quell an uproar over a general's remark that Beijing might use atomic bombs against U.S. forces in a conflict over Taiwan. Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing said China ''will not first use nuclear weapons at any time and under any condition," according to the official Xinhua News Agency. Li said China has embraced that stance since it developed nuclear weapons in 1964, and it ''will not be changed in the future." Beijing has been trying to reassure the United States and its Asian neighbors since Maj. Gen. Zhu Chenghu, a dean at China's National Defense University, said last week that Beijing might use nuclear weapons if U.S. forces attacked China in a conflict over Taiwan.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/world/3277242

 

Well, it all depends on how they tested it. Did the drop the bomb from the sky? Was it detonated on the ground? Was it detonated underground?

The major problem with nuclear bombs is when it is detonated IN THE AIR. Detonating in the air maximizes the blast area and sends radioactive material up into the air where it is carried by jet currents. Detonating on the ground is FAR less destructive. The ground absorbs a huge amount of energy and the radioactive material won't travel that far. So if a terrorist carries a suitcase of nuclear material, I wouldn't be worried unless I'm very close by. Obviously, underground detonation is the best since it is contained... FYI

 

The movie says radioactive debris (dirt) is thrown up to 70,000 feet in the air, into the troposhere. (it's definitly a must see documentary, straight history with no real agenda)

But no matter which way is the most dangerous we did it. They blew them up in the air, on the ground, on towers, on islands, on barges, under mountains, dropped them from planes, shot them in missles , shot them in cannon shells, blew up pigs, sheep, busses, trains, buildings; put American troops in trenches in Nevada and on ships in the Pacific where they basically wiped out the entire Bikini Atoll.

And the Russians and the Chinese did the same. There is one hilarious clip in the movie where Chinese soldiers don protective gear and then mount up on horses with swords and charge in to a blast zone like a Mongol Horde. The horses have gas masks too!

I guess I'm glad they did because Mutually Assured Destruction has kept the super powers from fighting a real war but.........

 

The Little Boy weapon dropped on Hiroshima had a yield of approximately 13 kilotons of TNT (54 TJ). Thus, a megaton of TNT is equivalent to roughly 78 Hiroshima bombs.

The largest nuclear weapon ever detonated was the Tsar Bomba, which had a yield of 50 megatons of TNT (210 PJ). The most powerful nuclear weapon ever produced was a version of the Tsar Bomba that would have yielded some 100 megatons of TNT. Typical H-bombs today have a yield of around 1 megaton of TNT.

http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Kiloton

Don't know about the source, Dubious... it's from a quick Google, but I think the info is accurate. It's safe to say that we could turn China into a parking lot several times over, but we wouldn't want to get hit by one bomb, much less a dozen or more. There is no percentage in a nuclear exchange for anyone. That's why M.A.D. worked for so long. Sadly, there are mad people in the world that would use them for terror, or a national "reason" (think North Korea) given the chance, or if they thought it would somehow be useful. Madness, to be sure.



Keep D&D Civil!!

 

Just wait until the day people invent death star like toys. That would be fun then.

 

Yeah, it was a 100 megaton bomb that was reduced by half for the test (it ended up at 58 megatons). The explosion reversed the Van Allen radiation belts for 2 years and spread radiation all around the planet. For comparison the biggest US nuke test was 15 megatons. The US conducted several tests in space to disrupt the Van Allen belts ~ when the belts are charged it disrupts communication and guidance systems.



100 megaton Tsar bomb

Are you talking about the documentary Trinity and Beyond with William Shatner narrating? They show the 100 megaton test in that video as well as all the big US tests. Space tests, underwater tests, thermo nuke tests, nuclear cannon test...

Amazing.

 

I can't wait until we get our superpowers!

 

My father served on the Saratoga for a time during WWII. That's the aircraft carrier that didn't sink during the famous Bikini Atoll test, shown on film so often over the years, when they essentially dropped a bomb on a fleet of ships to see just what it would do. They found out.



Keep D&D Civil!!