W*gs care to defend your peaceful friends now?

[Hotrod]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45278

??? W*gs tell me how they dont want conflict. How they have no intentions of attacking Taiwan???

If they dont have any intention of a Taiwan conflict why call us out and threatend the USA??? "hundreds of US citys destroyed" sounds like a peaceful nation to me W*gs.


LOL go ahead and defend this rofl

[clarker]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45278

??? W*gs tell me how they dont want conflict. How they have no intentions of attacking Taiwan???

If they dont have any intention of a Taiwan conflict why call us out and threatend the USA??? "hundreds of US citys destroyed" sounds like a peaceful nation to me W*gs.


LOL go ahead and defend this roflThat is some scare sh.t. Nothing to joke about.

[SoCalBronco]

They would never nuke the US thats garbage talk. They could threaten it over and over again, its irrelevant what they say on that point.

Harken back to the early 1970s concept of M.A.D or Mutually Assured Destruction. Once both sides in a potential conflict have amassed a certain amount of arms, a critical threshold of sorts, its irrelevant who has more or who makes a nuclear threat against the other. Since both sides would be assured of destruction in a nuclear exchange, its never in either side's self interest to realistically consider such an option.

China can say whatever it wants, but nuclear threats are always just hot air because of this concept.

[Spider]

Hey . what have we been telling them Hotrod ? ........ SoCal you damn right they will Nuke us over Taiwan , if they feel we are aiming nukes at them......

[SoCalBronco]

Hey . what have we been telling them Hotrod ? ........ SoCal you damn right they will Nuke us over Taiwan , if they feel we are aiming nukes at them......

Fair enough bro, but if its just Taiwan, do u think its worth it for them to nuke us knowing full well that if attacked we would nuke back, and both countries would unquestionably be destroyed? Its not worth it, there is nothing worth it. They might try some War Games or whatever near Taiwan trying to show off some new toys, but they would never, ever attack the US pre emptively because neither side could survive a nuclear attack. I could see them punishing us in other ways, like economically for example, if we hindered one of their interests like Taiwan, but nukes, i cant see that.

Ofcourse this all assumes that they balance interests rationally and think of the likely consequences of their actions before they act. If they just shoot from the hip like Chief Fan, thats another story altogether....

[Spider]

Fair enough bro, but if its just Taiwan, do u think its worth it for them to nuke us knowing full well that if attacked we would nuke back, and both countries would unquestionably be destroyed? Its not worth it, there is nothing worth it. They might try some War Games or whatever near Taiwan trying to show off some new toys, but they would never, ever attack the US pre emptively because neither side could survive a nuclear attack. I could see them punishing us in other ways, like economically for example, if we hindered one of their interests like Taiwan, but nukes, i cant see that.

Ofcourse this all assumes that they balance interests rationally and think of the likely consequences of their actions before they act. If they just shoot from the hip like Chief Fan, thats another story altogether....
Yes I do , as I tried to point out to W*GS , Peking Needs Taiwan , the structure of Mainland China demands Taiwan ....... China is willing to risk alot ......

[Antilles]

I'm REALLY not trying to say China is peaceful, but doesn't the very first sentence of the article state that China would use nuclear weapons IF ATTACKED? Don't you think we'd say and do the same if China attacked Guam? I'd say the first sentence in the article is the only thing that is really important and the rest is just rhetoric, as inflamatory as it may be...

[Spider]

I'm REALLY not trying to say China is peaceful, but doesn't the very first sentence of the article state that China would use nuclear weapons IF ATTACKED? Don't you think we'd say and do the same if China attacked Guam? I'd say the first sentence in the article is the only thing that is really important and the rest is just rhetoric, as inflamatory as it may be...
I cant remember the USA threating anyone with Nukes , we made no seceret that if Russia attacked we could retailiate , But I dont remember us saying will nuke anyone if they attacked us ........

[elsid13]

This is saber rattling. OLD Time China is trying to flex it military muslce, but as the middle class continue to grow and the chinses economy is intergrated into the rest of the world much of the threat goes away. Countries that trade together don't fight each other. Yes there are problems, but China is less a threat to national security then the disaster and displacment going on in Africa and the sub-India area.

[Antilles]

I cant remember the USA threating anyone with Nukes , we made no seceret that if Russia attacked we could retailiate , But I dont remember us saying will nuke anyone if they attacked us ........

good point. I can't remember the US outright threatening the use of nukes either, although it is a pretty fine distinction between an explicit threat and an implicit threat like the one in your cold war example.

[Spider]

good point. I can't remember the US outright threatening the use of nukes either, although it is a pretty fine distinction between an explicit threat and an implicit threat like the one in your cold war example.
I would agree that I was splitting hairs to a point .......

[clarker]

I cant remember the USA threating anyone with Nukes , we made no seceret that if Russia attacked we could retailiate , But I dont remember us saying will nuke anyone if they attacked us ........Does the Cuban Missel Crises count? Not being a smart a**, just asking.

[elsid13]

Does the Cuban Missel Crises count? Not being a smart a**, just asking.


No, Kenndy never directly threaten a nuclear attack againt USSR. Close that US has come is McArthur demanding Truman use nukes on the Chinese during the Korean conflict.

[Montaq]

I cant remember the USA threating anyone with Nukes , we made no seceret that if Russia attacked we could retailiate , But I dont remember us saying will nuke anyone if they attacked us ........

Does Japan count?

[clarker]

Does Japan count?Oh, man, how did we forget that one? Yeah, I would say that counts.

[BRONCCRUSHFAN]

I remember full well back in 95, they launched some Surface to Surface missles over the China Sea at Taiwan. Granted they exploded into the sea a few miles off the coast, but the effect was the show of the Chinese force. Of course 3 days later, this Jarhead was aboard an LKH, as part of a Marine BLT there just daring them to launch another "test." My good friend Chaishen, who was born and raised in Taipei, told me that the PRC is very committed to getting Taiwan back.

[W*GS]

First off, a "hawk" (as mentioned in the articles) no more represents overall Chinese policy than that US general (or whomever he was) some time back who used some ill-chosen words to describe the war in Iraq as a "crusade". I don't recall the exact quote, but there's a reason generals and higher-ups aren't often let near microphones without a lot of training in media handling.

Also, the claim was nothing like "We're gonna nuke the US", rather "If we're attacked, we'll retaliate with nuclear weapons". In short, very much the same as official US policy. If China isn't "peaceful" because of the actual content of the remarks, then the US isn't either, by the same standard. BTW, during the Cold War, the US never officially committed to a non-first-use policy, which means the US could have launched nukes first before the USSR did. The USSR said it would launch only if under attack from nuclear weapons - the US never made that statement.

And yes, the US has threatened use of nuclear weapons - during the Korean War, as was noted; Carter used diplomat-speak to tell the world that the US would use nukes to protect access to the Persian Gulf, and there was a suggestion during the Vietnam War that Nixon had gone bonkers and was seriously considering using nukes. I don't recall if this last one is genuine or not, but the other two certainly are.

So, Hotrod, your argument has been nuked - in a rhetorical sense.

[SoCalBronco]

there was a suggestion during the Vietnam War that Nixon had gone bonkers and was seriously considering using nukes. I don't recall if this last one is genuine or not, but the other two certainly are.

.

President Nixon never considered using Nuclear weapons in Vietnam, although he very much wanted the North Vietnamese to think so. It was his self proclaimed "Madman Theory" that he shared with his chief of staff, H.R. Haldeman, on Air Force One early in his administration in 1969. He had borrowed the concept from an idea President Eisenhower had in a different conflict over a decade earlier. He wanted, via several statements and general stances, the North Vietnamese to believe that "this guy is a madman, we better deal with him and close this thing up" or something to that effect. The theory was flawed though, since the North Vietnamese knew that the US public would never go for such a bombing.

[W*GS]

Thanks for the reference, SCB. Yep, the "Madman Theory". So Nixon.

[Hotrod]

I'm REALLY not trying to say China is peaceful, but doesn't the very first sentence of the article state that China would use nuclear weapons IF ATTACKED? Don't you think we'd say and do the same if China attacked Guam? I'd say the first sentence in the article is the only thing that is really important and the rest is just rhetoric, as inflamatory as it may be...

The question here is IF they did attack Taiwan would our defense of them be seen as an attack???

[Hotrod]

First off, a "hawk" (as mentioned in the articles) no more represents overall Chinese policy than that US general (or whomever he was) some time back who used some ill-chosen words to describe the war in Iraq as a "crusade". I don't recall the exact quote, but there's a reason generals and higher-ups aren't often let near microphones without a lot of training in media handling.

Also, the claim was nothing like "We're gonna nuke the US", rather "If we're attacked, we'll retaliate with nuclear weapons". In short, very much the same as official US policy. If China isn't "peaceful" because of the actual content of the remarks, then the US isn't either, by the same standard. BTW, during the Cold War, the US never officially committed to a non-first-use policy, which means the US could have launched nukes first before the USSR did. The USSR said it would launch only if under attack from nuclear weapons - the US never made that statement.

And yes, the US has threatened use of nuclear weapons - during the Korean War, as was noted; Carter used diplomat-speak to tell the world that the US would use nukes to protect access to the Persian Gulf, and there was a suggestion during the Vietnam War that Nixon had gone bonkers and was seriously considering using nukes. I don't recall if this last one is genuine or not, but the other two certainly are.

So, Hotrod, your argument has been nuked - in a rhetorical sense.

Again your basing your arguement on the idea that we would out and out attack them. The problem with that is of course we wont 'attack" them but I think they would see our defense of Taiwan as and attack on them.

So, W*gs, your nuke attack on my argument has met its destruction due to my ballistic missle space defense system. ;D

[Spider]

Does Japan count?
;D sure does and you are right , we did threaten before we droped the fat man and the skinny boy ........ we demanded Japan to surrender , Japan didnt we dropped the big ones

[Spider]

The question here is IF they did attack Taiwan would our defense of them be seen as an attack???
Damn right it would ...... China looks @ Taiwan as we would lets say texas , and Texas was pulling out of the USA , and Mexico was aiding Texas and said , If America invades we will defend Texas .....

[Hotrod]

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0715/p07s01-woap.html

I just know Spider and others will just love this source ;D but some interesting information anyway.

[Spider]

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0715/p07s01-woap.html

I just know Spider and others will just love this source ;D but some interesting information anyway.
;D I dont have a real Problem with cs monitor ......actually I see them doing more about Poverty then getting caught up in what I call Bull**** religion

[W*GS]

Again your basing your arguement on the idea that we would out and out attack them. The problem with that is of course we wont 'attack" them but I think they would see our defense of Taiwan as and attack on them.

Scenario:

1) China attacks Taiwan
2) US defends Taiwan by destroying Chinese attackers
3) China calls it an attack on China, so retaliates with nukes against US cities
4) US retaliates with nuclear attacks on Chinese cities

Right?

However, in the article:

"Chas Freeman, a former U.S. assistant secretary of defense, said in 1999 that a PLA official had told him China could respond in kind to a nuclear strike by the U.S. in the event of a conflict with Taiwan.

"In the end you care more about Los Angeles than you do about Taipei," Freeman quoted this official as saying."

The question for the Chinese if they are to make their claims credible is not "you care more about Los Angeles than you do about Taipei", it's whether or not the Chinese care more about Beijing (and every other Chinese city, large and small, which would be destroyed by US retaliation again a Chinese nuclear attack on American cities) than Taipei.

So, in short, I don't find Zhu Chenghu's comments credible.

[clarker]

Scenario:

1) China attacks Taiwan
2) US defends Taiwan by destroying Chinese attackers
3) China calls it an attack on China, so retaliates with nukes against US cities
4) US retaliates with nuclear attacks on Chinese cities

Right?

However, in the article:

"Chas Freeman, a former U.S. assistant secretary of defense, said in 1999 that a PLA official had told him China could respond in kind to a nuclear strike by the U.S. in the event of a conflict with Taiwan.

"In the end you care more about Los Angeles than you do about Taipei," Freeman quoted this official as saying."

The question for the Chinese if they are to make their claims credible is not "you care more about Los Angeles than you do about Taipei", it's whether or not the Chinese care more about Beijing (and every other Chinese city, large and small, which would be destroyed by US retaliation again a Chinese nuclear attack on American cities) than Taipei.

So, in short, I don't find Zhu Chenghu's comments credible.
It kind of depends on if Zhu Chenghu is nuts or not. That is why the Mutual Assured Destruction theory worked with the U.S.S.R. and U.S. They could both be counted to do the sane thing in the end. I don't know if I would make that same bet with China and for sure North Korea.

[Hotrod]

It kind of depends on if Zhu Chenghu is nuts or not. That is why the Mutual Assured Destruction theory worked with the U.S.S.R. and U.S. They could both be counted to do the sane thing in the end. I don't know if I would make that same bet with China and for sure North Korea.

Thats a HUGE piece of the puzzle that IMO W*gs refuses to understand. Were not dealing with a free goverment here (especially in NK that dudes crazy).

[elsid13]

Thats a HUGE piece of the puzzle that IMO W*gs refuses to understand. Were not dealing with a free goverment here (especially in NK that dudes crazy).

We weren't dealing with free government in USSR, either. But China is a stable country that is moving toward market base society, which will bring a middle class into power. NK is other matter, that jack ass is nuts and little Hilter in the making and needs to be removed.

[W*GS]

Thats a HUGE piece of the puzzle that IMO W*gs refuses to understand. Were not dealing with a free goverment here (especially in NK that dudes crazy).

Would a government that's trying to maintain itself in power willingly engage in actions that will assuredly make hundreds of millions of its people die?

What good is totalitarian rule over corpses?

[Hotrod]

We weren't dealing with free government in USSR, either. But China is a stable country that is moving toward market base society, which will bring a middle class into power. NK is other matter, that jack ass is nuts and little Hilter in the making and needs to be removed.

Thats fair enough but there is a certain amount of danger involved when a dictatorship starts losing its 'sole' power status to the citizens. It puts said leaders into a position of losing their surpreme power which in turn can make them do unrational things no???

[Hotrod]

Would a government that's trying to maintain itself in power willingly engage in actions that will assuredly make hundreds of millions of its people die?

What good is totalitarian rule over corpses?

See my above post ;D

[W*GS]

Thats fair enough but there is a certain amount of danger involved when a dictatorship starts losing its 'sole' power status to the citizens. It puts said leaders into a position of losing their surpreme power which in turn can make them do unrational things no???

Again, what sort of power can be exercised over dead bodies?

Hitler wanted all of Germany to commit suicide with him. They didn't.

[Hotrod]

Again, what sort of power can be exercised over dead bodies?

Hitler wanted all of Germany to commit suicide with him. They didn't.

If the government is losing power what does it have to lose???

[clarker]

Would a government that's trying to maintain itself in power willingly engage in actions that will assuredly make hundreds of millions of its people die?

What good is totalitarian rule over corpses?Again your banking on the fact that China is ran by sane people. You can a dictator and still be sane enough to know that it doesn't know good to rule over a country that has been bombed into the Ice Age, but who says those guys are sane?

[W*GS]

Again your banking on the fact that China is ran by sane people. You can a dictator and still be sane enough to know that it doesn't know good to rule over a country that has been bombed into the Ice Age, but who says those guys are sane?

Are you claiming that they're not? How much insanity is tolerable?

If China's leaders aren't sane, then neither is Bush.

[elsid13]

If the government is losing power what does it have to lose???


Government is made up of people, what else they have to lose? life and limb, loved ones, etc. Leader need to someone to follow them or their nothing. IT amazing how fast dictators flee a country, when the people act. In China we are not dealing with nut jobs, so there might be some problems but it will be more like the USSR downfall. NK is whole different story.

[Hotrod]

Are you claiming that they're not? How much insanity is tolerable?

If China's leaders aren't sane, then neither is Bush.

I still think that a dictatorship which is losing its grip on power becomes more and more dangerous. Will that result in an all out war I dont know that and neither do you. The point is it does create a certain degree of potentialy unstable conditions does it not

[W*GS]

Apparently Zhu Chenghu has stepped into some doo-doo:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&e=5&u=/nm/20050715/ts_nm/china_taiwan_warning_dc

[Montaq]

If China's leaders aren't sane, then neither is Bush.

Not much of a defense for the sanity of Chinese leadership.

[W*GS]

Not much of a defense for the sanity of Chinese leadership.

I didn't claim it would be.

So, which nation is scarier? China, or the US?

[Hotrod]

I didn't claim it would be.

So, which nation is scarier? China, or the US?

China

[W*GS]

China

Of course you'd say that.

Going by the history of the last few decades, however, it's not so clear.

Ask any "Blame America First"-er.

[W*GS]

Apparently Zhu Chenghu has stepped into some doo-doo:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&e=5&u=/nm/20050715/ts_nm/china_taiwan_warning_dc

The guy really dug himself in:

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/4062b908-f561-11d9-8ffc-00000e2511c8.html

[Hotrod]

"Mr Zhu's claim that China might destroy hundreds of US cities might be beyond the capability of the country's nuclear forces at the moment, according to a paper published last month by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Quoting “the intelligence community”, the paper said China would increase its strategic nuclear warheads from “18 to 75-100” over the next 15 years, primarily targeted against the US."

Well there now I feel better.

[elsid13]

"Mr Zhu's claim that China might destroy hundreds of US cities might be beyond the capability of the country's nuclear forces at the moment, according to a paper published last month by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Quoting “the intelligence community”, the paper said China would increase its strategic nuclear warheads from “18 to 75-100” over the next 15 years, primarily targeted against the US."

Well there now I feel better.


What you want to live forever, gee whiz.

[Montaq]

I didn't claim it would be.

So, which nation is scarier? China, or the US?

Flip a coin.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Speaking of W*GS' friends - this just in:

Lawsuit against M. Moore dismissed: Judge says movie 'Bowling for Columbine' tells the truth

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/index.php?id=3338

[W*GS]

Speaking of W*GS' friends - this just in:

Lawsuit against M. Moore dismised: Judge says movie 'Bowling for Columbine' tells the truth

Don't ever b**** at me about allegedly deflecting a thread again, LABF.

Yet another instance of LABF's hypocrisy.

Oh, and BTW, the lawsuit related to statements made in the film about Terry Nichols (or was it James Nichols, his brother), and nothing else. There are still plenty of lies in Moore's works.

[W*GS]

"Mr Zhu's claim that China might destroy hundreds of US cities might be beyond the capability of the country's nuclear forces at the moment, according to a paper published last month by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Quoting “the intelligence community”, the paper said China would increase its strategic nuclear warheads from “18 to 75-100” over the next 15 years, primarily targeted against the US."

Well there now I feel better.

You should. The US has 7000 warheads.

http://www.thebulletin.org/article_nn.php?art_ofn=mj04norris#1

[Hotrod]

You should. The US has 7000 warheads.

http://www.thebulletin.org/article_nn.php?art_ofn=mj04norris#1

Well that outta bout cover it......several times over ;D

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Heh heh heh!

W*GS is starting to look more and more like Hotrod's prison b!tch. (Ooops...I better not use that figure of speech - he'll accuse me of 'homophobia' again.) Anyway, there should be a big ol' jailhouse tat on W*GS' forehead that reads "under new ownership."

:laugh: ROFL!

[W*GS]

W*GS is starting to look more and more like Hotrod's prison b!tch. (Ooops...I better not use that figure of speech - he'll accuse me of 'homophobia' again.) Anyway, there should be a big ol' jailhouse tat on W*GS' forehead that reads "under new ownership."

Tell me what it is you're smoking, so I can tell others to stay away, since it clearly causes severe distortions of reality.

The only "bitch" 'round these parts is you, dearie.

[Spider]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/china/story/0,7369,1529754,00.html
Maybe the same story as Hotrod posted , worded different , but I dont think so .... here are some excerpts ...... we got a problem here folks .......
A senior Chinese general has warned that his country could destroy hundreds of American cities with nuclear weapons if the two nations clashed over Taiwan.

Major general Zhu Chenghu, a dean at the National Defence University, said he was expressing a private opinion, but his comments, the most inflammatory by a senior government official in 10 years, will fuel growing concerns in Washington about the rise of China.
Speaking at a lecture arranged by the foreign ministry and attended by several foreign correspondents on Thursday, Mr Zhu said China was prepared to initiate non-conventional warfare over Taiwan. "War logic dictates that a weaker power needs to use maximum efforts to defeat a stronger rival," he was reported as saying by the New York Times.

[BRONCCRUSHFAN]

Would a government that's trying to maintain itself in power willingly engage in actions that will assuredly make hundreds of millions of its people die?

What good is totalitarian rule over corpses?

The same rule that ran over their own people, who were peacefully protesting, with tanks. You obviously don't get the concept of totalitarian rule.

[Spider]

Tiananmen Square protests . there is even a photo of a guy getting ran over , as well a bicycle

[W*GS]

Maybe the same story as Hotrod posted , worded different , but I dont think so .... here are some excerpts ...... we got a problem here folks .......

You've missed all the articles about how the Chinese government has been distancing itself from Zhu's remarks.

Would you consider Carter's comments about protecting access to the Perisan Gulf by any means necessary to be equally problematic? If not, explain why not.

[W*GS]

The same rule that ran over their own people, who were peacefully protesting, with tanks.

How does that compare to Kent State? 4 versus thousands, true, but meeting peaceful protest with deadly force is a definition of totalitarianism?

You obviously don't get the concept of totalitarian rule.

I get it quite well.

If China attacks American cities with nukes, the American retaliation will utterly destroy China. What good is glass to a totalitarian?

[Spider]

You've missed all the articles about how the Chinese government has been distancing itself from Zhu's remarks.
thats the problem I dont think eveyone in the Chinese goverment has ......

Would you consider Carter's comments about protecting access to the Perisan Gulf by any means necessary to be equally problematic? If not, explain why not.
you bet I did , still do , but I also understand we need the oil ....... The Carter Doctrine , was to prevent outside forces from trying to invade and control the Middle East , and now we are sucked up in Middle east affairs , such as Being Saudi lap dogs as well as Israels lap dogs ....... The only way out I see is a different fuel source........

[Spider]

How does that compare to Kent State? 4 versus thousands, true, but meeting peaceful protest with deadly force is a definition of totalitarianism?
So unfair , realy Kent state was sparked off by a protester throwing a rock , and a unruley crowd , Tiananmen Square, was alot more mello ... untill the tanks showed up .......





If China attacks American cities with nukes, the American retaliation will utterly destroy China. What good is glass to a totalitarian?
Would it ? of course , But do the Chinese believe we will Nuke ? ..... Thats the question isnt it W*GS ? it is one thing to have these weapons , it is another to use them ......

[W*GS]

thats the problem I dont think eveyone in the Chinese goverment has ......

I guarantee you there's someone in the American government who wants to nuke China right now. Does that mean such a person is emblematic of American policy? This guy shot off his mouth and now he's backtracking and the Chinese government has put a lot of space between itself and his comments. But that's not good enough for you, Spider, since you see China as the enemy.

you bet I did , still do , but I also understand we need the oil ....... The Carter Doctrine , was to prevent outside forces from trying to invade and control the Middle East , and now we are sucked up in Middle east affairs , such as Being Saudi lap dogs as well as Israels lap dogs ....... The only way out I see is a different fuel source........

That's fine, but Zhu was talking about American forces attacking Chinese ones (in defense of Taiwan, of course), which is a lot different than the Carter Doctrine's pledge to use nukes to maintain US access to Middle East oil. That's a heck of a lot more problematic for the US to make credible and legitimate.

[W*GS]

So unfair , realy Kent state was sparked off by a protester throwing a rock , and a unruley crowd , Tiananmen Square, was alot more mello ... untill the tanks showed up .......

Yeah, that wasn't the best analogy.

It's safe to say that the US (or its proxies) has used deadly force against peaceful protestors. Does that make the US totalitarian?

This is the sort of moral problem that has been created by the US' failure to act in accordance with its principles, today and in the past. It's much more difficult to criticise China for Tiananmen when the US has done (or supported) similar immoral acts.

Would it ? of course , But do the Chinese believe we will Nuke ? ..... Thats the question isnt it W*GS ? it is one thing to have these weapons , it is another to use them ......

The whole deterrent value of our nukes is that we promise we will use them given sufficient provocation. A nuclear attack on American cities will most certainly be met with massive nuclear retaliation against the attacker's cities.
If (say) LA gets nuked, Beijing certainly will be. Why would China dare assume that a nuclear attack on American cities would not be met with massive retaliation? Isn't that deranged? You can claim that the Chinese leadership is collectively insane, but you can't make it stand up.

[SoCalBronco]

Yep, its the old Mutual Assured Destruction theory.

[Spider]

I guarantee you there's someone in the American government who wants to nuke China right now. Does that mean such a person is emblematic of American policy? This guy shot off his mouth and now he's backtracking and the Chinese government has put a lot of space between itself and his comments. But that's not good enough for you, Spider, since you see China as the enemy.
We pretty much keep our Idiots under control ........ If it wasnt for the Taiwan issue , I wouldnt be so gaurded when it comes to china .......



That's fine, but Zhu was talking about American forces attacking Chinese ones (in defense of Taiwan, of course), which is a lot different than the Carter Doctrine's pledge to use nukes to maintain US access to Middle East oil. That's a heck of a lot more problematic for the US to make credible and legitimate.
Well I believe the Carter Doctrine , was aimed more at russia , I dont agree with what a Reagan did , but he did keep a close eye on the M.E. ......
I think the difference here W*GS , is that Russia wanted to take over the middle east , where as China sees Taiwan as a part of China .....

[Spider]

Yeah, that wasn't the best analogy.

It's safe to say that the US (or its proxies) has used deadly force against peaceful protestors. Does that make the US totalitarian?

This is the sort of moral problem that has been created by the US' failure to act in accordance with its principles, today and in the past. It's much more difficult to criticise China for Tiananmen when the US has done (or supported) similar immoral acts.
Well I would say that USA didnt use tanks , is there a difference ? dead is dead , whether a bullet hole or flatened by a tank , but I think there is , We have don things against protesters , but the protesters do somthing to provoke the use of force ...... I didnt see that in Tiananmen Square ...... I cant think of a time we used our military to open fire on a peacefull protest .....



The whole deterrent value of our nukes is that we promise we will use them given sufficient provocation. A nuclear attack on American cities will most certainly be met with massive nuclear retaliation against the attacker's cities.
If (say) LA gets nuked, Beijing certainly will be. Why would China dare assume that a nuclear attack on American cities would not be met with massive retaliation? Isn't that deranged? You can claim that the Chinese leadership is collectively insane, but you can't make it stand up.
While that may work against a Direct attack , it didnt work in Korea , Nam , didnt stop Russia from invading Afghanistan , The problem is China is operating under the notion that Taiwan is China , and it is a China Problem ...
we see Taiwan as a independent Asian nation , the Chinese have a different view .......

[BRONCCRUSHFAN]

The only analogy that comes even remotely close to Tinnamen square, would be Waco. The major difference is that those involved at Tinnamen were in a peaceful assembly. Waco was held up in a fortified stronghold, with massive amounts of illegal weapons (although I won't get into that debate). Kent St. was as a result of a protestor throwing a rock at a National Guardsman, then all hell broke loose. However, that was also during the Vietnam war, which was a very dark and crazy time in US history. The major difference is that China is a totalitarian government, and they believe that if a few million deaths are for the good of the state, then so be it. Their whole combat doctrine revolves around it, putting untrained shock troops at the forefront to weaken a force, before it reaches the trained troops. If a few thousand are killed, it is for the good of the state. As far as China's desire to have Taiwan, that is very real and has been for decades. As long as we have forces in Okinawa and Korea, it is a deterrent from them actually attacking Taiwan. Would China use Nukes against the US, they wouldn't really have to. They have enough shock troops at their disposal to eliminate any US fighting force. In a war with China, we would have to perform a preemptive nuclear strike, because the pure numbers are against us.

[W*GS]

Would China use Nukes against the US, they wouldn't really have to. They have enough shock troops at their disposal to eliminate any US fighting force. In a war with China, we would have to perform a preemptive nuclear strike, because the pure numbers are against us.

"Shock troops" are worthless as a military tactic, so no, they would not pose a problem to a US defense of Taiwan. You assume they'd be in place in Taiwan in the first place, which the US would not allow. There's no reason for the US to enact a preemptive nuclear attack - what would the reason be?

Like I've said, what really matters is not that we value LA over Taipei, it's whether China values Beijing and thousands of other cities and towns over Taipei. A Chinese nuclear attack on the US would be suicide for the Chinese leadership and hundreds of millions of Chinese.

[Spider]

I can see China using Shock troops , I dont think China will start a Nuclear war , even though a unnamed source said China wouldnt strike first with nukes , and Zhu is on record , I do Believe the unnamed source . China has had Nukes since 1964 , I do believe they wont be the first to fire a nuke , but I can see them engaging America in a traditional war .......over Taiwan , when China feels it is ready ....... when that is I dont know .........

[Spider]

BEIJING, July 13 - The Communist Party of China (CPC) and visiting New Party of Taiwan yesterday vowed to join hands to fight pro-independence forces and promote peaceful reunification across the Straits.

"It is the common political proposition and the goal of our two parties to firmly oppose 'Taiwan independence' and promote peaceful reunification of the country," said Hu Jintao, general secretary of the CPC Central Committee.

He made the remarks at a meeting with the opposition New Party delegation headed by chairman Yok Mu-ming at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing yesterday afternoon.

Yok is now the third leader from Taiwanese opposition parties to meet Hu, also president, since April following Kuomintang (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan and People First Party Chairman James Soong.

Hu pledged that the CPC would continue to work with the New Party to resolutely oppose "Taiwan independence" forces and their activities, safeguard cross-Straits peace and stability and improve bilateral relations.

He stressed that "Taiwan independence" is a road leading to disaster and only by curbing secessionist activities can cross-Straits peace and stability be maintained to ensure a stable environment for economic and social development on both sides.

"Firm opposition to 'Taiwan independence' means real love for Taiwan," Hu said, adding that the fight against secessionist activities benefits the island's social stability and the immediate interests of people in Taiwan.

The CPC leader praised the New Party's support for national reunification and its contribution to improving cross-Straits ties.

Hu added that the New Party is one of Taiwan's important political forces that can not be ignored.

The New Party has always stuck to the one-China principle, opposed Taiwan's secession from China and stood for peaceful reunification of the motherland, he said.

"It's very praiseworthy for you to do so and we very much appreciate your efforts," Hu said.

Yok said his party would stand firm on its support for reunification.

He expressed his hope that people on both sides of the Straits should unite to strive for a rejuvenation of the Chinese nation.

The 30-member New Party delegation started its eight-day "journey of the Chinese nation" last Wednesday to commemorate the 60th anniversary of victory in the War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression (1937-1945).

[Rascal]

If we were ever to become engaged in a full tilt war against China we would be in trouble because of their numbers. For an example look at Korea. If China were to get in a land battle where they could deploy their troops they could defeat any army IMO if no nukes were used because of their numbers.

[Rascal]

Last I heard conservative estimates had the chinese with an estimated 3000-5000 nukes.

[Spider]

Part that worries me is that new Party in Taiwan ........

[Rascal]

Taiwan isn't going to do anything significant. They know the only thing that stands between them and being taken over is a US aircraft carrier.

[Spider]

Taiwan isn't going to do anything significant. They know the only thing that stands between them and being taken over is a US aircraft carrier.
This is true , but I think a small party could disrupt the People of Taiwan ..... give mainland China a foothold ....... I guess there is a program now about luring People from Taiwan to the mainland with Promise of Jobs and a good life .......
I think China is undergoing this route now cause they know they dont match up well with us , but in the future things can change .....

[W*GS]

Last I heard conservative estimates had the chinese with an estimated 3000-5000 nukes.

Wrong. 400 warheads, 130 on aircraft.

http://www.thebulletin.org/article_nn.php?art_ofn=nd03norris

A full-out Chinese nuclear attack on US cities would pretty much wipe us out. Our retaliation would be 10x or 20x worse for them.

[Rascal]

Luring people from Taiwan to China with a promise of a good job and life? Good luck selling that. If anything I would think it would be the other way around.

Did some research and found out that China recently overtook the US as Taiwan's primary exporter. Interesting, not sure what to think of that just yet.

[BRONCCRUSHFAN]

"Shock troops" are worthless as a military tactic, so no, they would not pose a problem to a US defense of Taiwan.

Oh really? Then you obviously didn't study Soviet doctrine in WWII against the Nazi's. The weather was a factor, but the Soviet's used all available men and women, and threw them at the Nazi's. Then the Red Army attacked a weakened Nazi force. D-day is a shining example of "shock troop" doctrine, and I would say the taking of the beaches of Normandy wasn't worthless. The island hoping campaign in the south pacific, was just a "shock troop" tactic. The idea of using shock troops goes back to the Roman Empire, and is still being used today. Just speaking of pure numbers, there are over 3 Billion chinese, roughly 1.7 Billion capable of being used in a combat capacity. Conversely, there are 500 million Americans, roughly 200 million that are capable of being used in a combat capacity. The numbers are against us in a conventional conflict against China, that is the reality of life. I hope to never see a conflict with China in my or my children's lifetime, and I hope it isn't over Taipei, because nuclear or conventional it is a war we cannot win. Vietnam and Korea proved that.

[Spider]

Luring people from Taiwan to China with a promise of a good job and life? Good luck selling that. If anything I would think it would be the other way around.
for us it wouldnt work , but a for a a person that is accustomed to Chinese way of life ........ who knows ....

Did some research and found out that China recently overtook the US as Taiwan's primary exporter. Interesting, not sure what to think of that just yet.
I did not know this ......

[Bronco_Beerslug]

A full-out Chinese nuclear attack on US cities would pretty much wipe us out. Our retaliation would be 10x or 20x worse for them.

10 or 20x worse than being wiped out? Sounds like a line from Peter Sellers as Dr. Strangelove.

[Spider]

10 or 20x worse than being wiped out? Sounds like a line from Peter Sellers as Dr. Strangelove.
;D still trying to figure that one out myself ........

[Rascal]

Yeap I wrong. Not sure where I got that number.

[W*GS]

Oh really? Then you obviously didn't study Soviet doctrine in WWII against the Nazi's.

I have - and so has our military. Body-throwing is not an effective tactic.

Just speaking of pure numbers, there are over 3 Billion chinese, roughly 1.7 Billion capable of being used in a combat capacity.

Wrong and wrong. There are ~1.3 billion Chinese, of whom 930 million are between 15 and 64, both sexes.

http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/idbsum.pl?cty=CH

Conversely, there are 500 million Americans, roughly 200 million that are capable of being used in a combat capacity.

Wrong and wrong. There are ~295 million Americans, of whom ~200 million are between 15 and 64, both sexes.

http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/idbsum.pl?cty=US

The numbers are against us in a conventional conflict against China, that is the reality of life.

If the raw numbers were the main determinant of success in a military campaign, you might have a point. Since they are not, your point isn't very strong.

Would you trade the US military and its abilities for the Chinese military and its abilities? Why or why not?

[W*GS]

10 or 20x worse than being wiped out? Sounds like a line from Peter Sellers as Dr. Strangelove.

Hundreds of millions dead, cities that are completely obliterated, and rural areas hopelessly contaminated so that the survivors die in famines and of disease.

Does anything think the Chinese leadership views the above as a reasonable goal?

[Spider]

hmmmmm I wonder why the cut off age is 15 ?
12 year olds could be used in a shock Troop tactic ....... I think your #'s need to be reworked W*GS .......

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Hundreds of millions dead, cities that are completely obliterated, and rural areas hopelessly contaminated so that the survivors die in famines and of disease.

Does anything think the Chinese leadership views the above as a reasonable goal?
:) My point was if you're wiped out you're wiped out. I already pointed out neither country is going to engage the other in nuclear conflict unless some madman starts pushing buttons.

[W*GS]

hmmmmm I wonder why the cut off age is 15 ?
12 year olds could be used in a shock Troop tactic ....... I think your #'s need to be reworked W*GS .......

So go do it yourself. I supplied a link.

I'll ask you like I asked BRONCCRUSHFAN - would you trade the US military and its abilities and tactics for the Chinese military? Why or why not?

[Spider]

So go do it yourself. I supplied a link.

I'll ask you like I asked BRONCCRUSHFAN - would you trade the US military and its abilities and tactics for the Chinese military? Why or why not?
I just asked why 15 was used as a cut off age ? . we both know the answer, I just wanted to see if you would admit it ...... Has nothing to do with switching Military , I never once said China had a supirior military , so save the posturing questions for someone that makes that claim .........
Again I ask why is 15 the cut off age W*GS ?

[Billy Clyde Puckett]

I'm leaning more toward Elsid's point of view. Like it or not, we now have a world economy and China is becoming a major consumer. Their citizens will not want to go back after a taste of a modern society. My niece spent two years over there teaching English in a college. She says the population is very hungry to learn and move away from their isolationism. I have a brother in law and a nephew who are also in the area who say the same.

I am more worried about the real mad man in North Korea and all of the underlying Economic problems in South America which have a more direct impact on us than Taiwan.

[W*GS]

I just asked why 15 was used as a cut off age ? . we both know the answer, I just wanted to see if you would admit it ......

There's nothing to 'admit' - the table I referenced used it.

Go ahead and include Chinese infants as part of your "shock troop" calculation - I understand that a whole carpet of them laid down in front of tanks really gums up the tracks.

[W*GS]

Has nothing to do with switching Military , I never once said China had a supirior military , so save the posturing questions for someone that makes that claim .........

So the US military and its abilities and tactics is superior? Thus, what do we have to fear from the Chinese military?

[Hotrod]

I just asked why 15 was used as a cut off age ? . we both know the answer, I just wanted to see if you would admit it ...... Has nothing to do with switching Military , I never once said China had a supirior military , so save the posturing questions for someone that makes that claim .........
Again I ask why is 15 the cut off age W*GS ?

LOL I see Wags is still trying to put words into peoples mouths inorder to not look so silly.

Ya Wags now we all think that China has a better military :laugh: You goof

[Spider]

There's nothing to 'admit' - the table I referenced used it.

Go ahead and include Chinese infants as part of your "shock troop" calculation - I understand that a whole carpet of them laid down in front of tanks really gums up the tracks.
Infants ? 12-14 year olds are now Infants ? I didnt say it was a good tactic, just that it can happen , so spare me the drama , you are the one that threw out #'s , I just asked why you didnt take in all the ones that can carry a gun ... It doesnt reflect well on your argument .....

[Hotrod]

So the US military and its abilities and tactics is superior? Thus, what do we have to fear from the Chinese military?

Its one thing to understand that yes the US military is far superior but that does not mean that Chinas military is unable to bloody our nose. Not to mention Nukes balance things out really quick.

Hey Wags do you think the military of China is that bad or are you racist ???

[Spider]

So the US military and its abilities and tactics is superior? Thus, what do we have to fear from the Chinese military?
again you are assuming I said we have to fear China , I never made that claim , Please pay attention , I have always maintianed Taiwan has somthing to fear from China , and that we vowed to Protect Taiwan ....... Please W*GS try and follow along a simple line here .........

[Spider]

Its one thing to understand that yes the US military is far superior but that does not mean that Chinas military is unable to bloody our nose. Not to mention Nukes balance things out really quick.

Hey Wags do you think the military of China is that bad or are you racist ???
LOL ...... Talk about turning the Tables

[Spider]

What W*GS is missing is the psychological aspect of Shock Troop warfare , Kinda hard to find people that will fire on Kids , or run over children with Tanks , though we know the China goverment has no problem with this , I will say America will have .........
When you are dealing with a different Culture , you have to understand how these people think ,Korea , Nam , Iraq , have showed us this .......
Case in point , Africa , Middle East , Israel , Asia , all have different out looks on death , some believe in reincarnation , Heaven , and so on ...... Not every culture places the same value on life as we do ......

[Rascal]

hmmmmm I wonder why the cut off age is 15 ?
12 year olds could be used in a shock Troop tactic ....... I think your #'s need to be reworked W*GS .......

Age 15 is the standard used by all government agencies to calculate the available military force available to a country. It has nothing to do with Wigs and his opinion, it's the standard used by the goverment agencies and the only numbers that they supply.

[Rascal]

What W*GS is missing is the psychological aspect of Shock Troop warfare , Kinda hard to find people that will fire on Kids , or run over children with Tanks , though we know the China goverment has no problem with this , I will say America will have .........
When you are dealing with a different Culture , you have to understand how these people think ,Korea , Nam , Iraq , have showed us this .......
Case in point , Africa , Middle East , Israel , Asia , all have different out looks on death , some believe in reincarnation , Heaven , and so on ...... Not every culture places the same value on life as we do ......

If you see a bunch of kids charging at you trying to blow your head off you are going to shoot them and say damn later. In battle you don't have the opportunity to look at your enemy and notice how young they are...you do that and you are dead.

America didn't have a problem with it in the civil war...and that was killing our fellow americans. There have been documented cases of large #'s of 14 and younger serving...especially in the south.

[Spider]

Age 15 is the standard used by all government agencies to calculate the available military force available to a country. It has nothing to do with Wigs and his opinion, it's the standard used by the goverment agencies and the only numbers that they supply.
I disagree , it is a census breakdown , as well know 10-60 year olds have been used in a war effort one way or another ........ I would have to see some real hard evidence , to show me that China wouldnt use 10+ year olds in a last ditch war effort ......

[Rascal]

I didn't say they wouldn't use them in a last ditch effort, look at hitler, but the numbers that the military use (and the source of his numbers) only go down to age 15.

I'm not saying who is right or wrong about your conversation, I'm just clearing it up that those weren't his numbers but the military.

[Spider]

If you see a bunch of kids charging at you trying to blow your head off you are going to shoot them and say damn later. In battle you don't have the opportunity to look at your enemy and notice how young they are...you do that and you are dead.
From inside of a tank a Kid with a gun will take you out ? Now foot soldiers are in a different position .... But even a armored Humvee offers protection ....

America didn't have a problem with it in the civil war...and that was killing our fellow americans. There have been documented cases of large #'s of 14 and younger serving...especially in the south.
Wasnt aware we had tanks back then .........

[Bronco_Beerslug]

I'm leaning more toward Elsid's point of view. Like it or not, we now have a world economy and China is becoming a major consumer. Their citizens will not want to go back after a taste of a modern society. My niece spent two years over there teaching English in a college. She says the population is very hungry to learn and move away from their isolationism. I have a brother in law and a nephew who are also in the area who say the same.

I am more worried about the real mad man in North Korea and all of the underlying Economic problems in South America which have a more direct impact on us than Taiwan.
I don't think N. Korea is a nuclear threat either. They want what the rest of the world wants, food, technology, jobs, etc... Their rhetoric is more a bargaining tool than anything else IMO.

[Spider]

I didn't say they wouldn't use them in a last ditch effort, look at hitler, but the numbers that the military use (and the source of his numbers) only go down to age 15.

I'm not saying who is right or wrong about your conversation, I'm just clearing it up that those weren't his numbers but the military.
Thats the entire Shock Troop SOP .....

[Hotrod]

LOL ...... Talk about turning the Tables

He makes it so easy. ;D

[Hotrod]

Heh heh heh!

W*GS is starting to look more and more like Hotrod's prison b!tch. (Ooops...I better not use that figure of speech - he'll accuse me of 'homophobia' again.) Anyway, there should be a big ol' jailhouse tat on W*GS' forehead that reads "under new ownership."

:laugh: ROFL!

LOL post of the year right there folks ;D

[Rascal]

From inside of a tank a Kid with a gun will take you out ? Now foot soldiers are in a different position .... But even a armored Humvee offers protection ....


Wasnt aware we had tanks back then .........

It won't matter inside of a tank either. Talk to a tank driver or a commander for that matter. If I'm in a tank I know my survival depends on those infantry soldiers around me and I will help them out as best I can while battling armored units. If that means rolling over somebody who happens to be a kid then so beat it. They charged they accepted the fact they could get killed.

My statement basically meant on a battle field it doesn't matter how old the enemy is...if they are trying to kill you or your fellow soldiers you will take them out.

[Hotrod]

It won't matter inside of a tank either. Talk to a tank driver or a commander for that matter. If I'm in a tank I know my survival depends on those infantry soldiers around me and I will help them out as best I can while battling armored units. If that means rolling over somebody who happens to be a kid then so beat it. They charged they accepted the fact they could get killed.

My statement basically meant on a battle field it doesn't matter how old the enemy is...if they are trying to kill you or your fellow soldiers you will take them out.

While that is very much true and anyone would do the same thing. Its kill or be killed. There is a some degree of mental damage created on the fighting force when they are put into the position of killing youth.

[Spider]

It won't matter inside of a tank either. Talk to a tank driver or a commander for that matter. If I'm in a tank I know my survival depends on those infantry soldiers around me and I will help them out as best I can while battling armored units. If that means rolling over somebody who happens to be a kid then so beat it. They charged they accepted the fact they could get killed.

My statement basically meant on a battle field it doesn't matter how old the enemy is...if they are trying to kill you or your fellow soldiers you will take them out.
Key point Survival ...... Unless the Kid has a Javelin or a TOW , you realy are not under much threat ...........

[Rascal]

Key point Survival ...... Unless the Kid has a Javelin or a TOW , you realy are not under much threat ...........

really? There are other ways to take out a tank. Besides like I said, if it's an enemy soldier and trying to kill my fellow soldiers I'm taking their ass out regardless of age or sex.

Hotrod,

Sure it may have it's affect, but then so does a bullet.

[Rascal]

I'm not going to tell you how a tank can be taken out spider on a message board, but you don't need a javelin or a tow to do it.

[Spider]

really? There are other ways to take out a tank. Besides like I said, if it's an enemy soldier and trying to kill my fellow soldiers I'm taking their ass out regardless of age or sex.
LOL ...... I see .. So if you are in a tank a kid comes up with a 9 you will blast his ass for being a threat ........ Sure there are other ways to take out a tank , but come on , you are just being silly now .......

[W*GS]

I see Wags is still trying to put words into peoples mouths inorder to not look so silly.

Would you trade the US miltary one-up for the Chinese military?

[Spider]

I'm not going to tell you how a tank can be taken out spider on a message board, but you don't need a javelin or a tow to do it.
LOL ..... we both know you are being hard here just to make an Argument ....... Reaching

[W*GS]

post of the year right there folks

Using lame-ass plaudits from LABF as the standard of approval?

Puh-leeze.

[Rascal]

LOL ...... I see .. So if you are in a tank a kid comes up with a 9 you will blast his ass for being a threat ........ Sure there are other ways to take out a tank , but come on , you are just being silly now .......

You are talking like the kid is going to be alone. Fine, if the kid comes charging up by himself with a 9 mil pistol and I'm in a tank I won't run over his ass. But the situation I'm talking about is in a battle, and in a battle you are not going to take the time to look at who you, the tank driver, are running over (looking at uniforms obviously to make sure it's not your guys) no matter how they armed or how old they are.

[Rascal]

LOL ..... we both know you are being hard here just to make an Argument ....... Reaching

LOL

I'm not reaching on anything Spider. For one if I tell you I compromise our soldiers over there in Iraq, for another I would get my ass fired in a heart beat, and another I would be on the SS and FBI watch list.

Go to your local national guard unit and talk to them about taking out a tank.

[Spider]

You are talking like the kid is going to be alone. Fine, if the kid comes charging up by himself with a 9 mil pistol and I'm in a tank I won't run over his ass. But the situation I'm talking about is in a battle, and in a battle you are not going to take the time to look at who you, the tank driver, are running over (looking at uniforms obviously to make sure it's not your guys) no matter how they armed or how old they are.
LOL ..... I see ..... No I wasnt assuming the Kid would alone , I seriously dount thousands of Kids with a 9 is a match for a M-26 Pershing Heavy Tank , I think you know this as well , or a M1A1 .....

[W*GS]

Its one thing to understand that yes the US military is far superior but that does not mean that Chinas military is unable to bloody our nose.

You're conceding that your fantasies of a big showdown between the US and China would resolve with a US victory. Thanks for getting it.

Not to mention Nukes balance things out really quick.

Use of nuclear weapons by either side would be insane. Do you think the Chinese leadership is insane?

Hey Wags do you think the military of China is that bad or are you racist ???

Sigh.

Your attempt to be clever falls as flat as a Chinese kid under a US tank.

Yes, I think the Chinese military is nowhere near the ominous force you and the others think it is. They got no real navy to speak of, and a bejillion conscripts is about the lousiest form of military one can have.

[Rascal]

You assume the kid(s) are going to be armed with a 9. Hell even Hitler was arming the kids with rifles and automatics during their last days.

[Spider]

LOL

I'm not reaching on anything Spider. For one if I tell you I compromise our soldiers over there in Iraq, for another I would get my ass fired in a heart beat, and another I would be on the SS and FBI watch list.

Go to your local national guard unit and talk to them about taking out a tank.
your argument falls on so many levels , I have already stated there are other ways to take out a Tank , but come on we wouldnt defend Taiwan with a single tank , Tanks have evloved so much since my Dad was in one , and even back then Tanks were damn hard to stop , only problem was stopping then firing , todays tank can blast away doing 60 MPH .......
But a Tank is hardly defensless as you are suggesting ...Hilarious! just admit it , you bit off more then you can chew trying to defend a census stat

[Spider]

You assume the kid(s) are going to be armed with a 9. Hell even Hitler was arming the kids with rifles and automatics during their last days.
Some 50 cal wont pentitrate a Tank ....... go ahead put any caliber in these kids hands you want ...... :laugh:

[Rascal]

Heck Spider, go look up the 12th SS-Panzer division. It was entire division formed with Hitler Youth boys and fought at normany and stalled montgomery of the english for weeks.

Also look at the Volksstrum Service.

[Rascal]

Whatever Spider. Go look it up and talk to a tank driver instead of talking out of your ass.

[Spider]

Heck Spider, go look up the 12th SS-Panzer division. It was entire division formed with Hitler Youth boys and fought at normany and stalled montgomery of the english for weeks.

Also look at the Volksstrum Service.
LOL WW2 tanks vs todays tanks Hilarious! ...... Never mind the fact that Hitler was running low on resources .......

[Rascal]

Some 50 cal wont pentitrate a Tank ....... go ahead put any caliber in these kids hands you want ...... :laugh:

who said anything about needing a rifle to take out a tank.

Seriously, go talk to your national guard unit and then come back and say otherwise.

[Spider]

Whatever Spider. Go look it up and talk to a tank driver instead of talking out of your ass.
Hilarious! I am the one talking out of my ass huh ........ Sure thing Rascal ......

[Rascal]

I'll say it again...

GO TALK TO YOUR NATIONAL GUARD. Your ignorance will be quickly vanquished.

[Hotrod]

You're conceding that your fantasies of a big showdown between the US and China would resolve with a US victory. Thanks for getting it.

LOL whats really funny is nobody has said even once that we would lose a war with China. (atleast I have not).

You really look foolish when you keep arguing against things that nobody has said. Try to keep up thanks.

[Spider]

who said anything about needing a rifle to take out a tank.

Seriously, go talk to your national guard unit and then come back and say otherwise.
I just said other ways , you are the one talking about shooting ... a threat survival yadda,yadda,yadda......... The Infantry around you blah , blah , blah ......

[Spider]

I'll say it again...

GO TALK TO YOUR NATIONAL GUARD. Your ignorance will be quickly vanquished.
LOL .... you speaking of Ignorance ..........

[Rascal]

Again,

GO TALK TO YOUR LOCAL NATIONAL GUARD UNIT.

[Spider]

Again,

GO TALK TO YOUR LOCAL NATIONAL GUARD UNIT.
LOL ........too much Bro ......

[W*GS]

whats really funny is nobody has said even once that we would lose a war with China. (atleast I have not).

You really look foolish when you keep arguing against things that nobody has said. Try to keep up thanks.

I'm not the one arguing that we need to fear China and that they're our enemy.

Hell, you started the thread and your whole argument got blown completely apart. Only the paranoid ignorant buffoons are on your side.

[Rascal]

Whatever Spider. Remain ignorant I don't care. Go talk to your local national guard unit and educate yourself.

[Hotrod]

I'm not the one arguing that we need to fear China and that they're our enemy.

Hell, you started the thread and your whole argument got blown completely apart. Only the paranoid ignorant buffoons are on your side.

LOL your a tool no doubt about that. Lets slow this down for you. There is a differnece between keeping an eye on a country like China and "fearing" or thinking they would beat us in a war. You are dense but hey find something your good at and stick with it. If being dense and foolish are what you do best stick to it. :laugh:

[BRONCCRUSHFAN]

I have - and so has our military. Body-throwing is not an effective tactic.

I never said it was an overall effective tactic. I do know through years of studying soviet and chinese combat tactics, that it is one of their tactics, along with guerilla warfare. Also, if Korea and Vietnam are any indicators, it does show that it produces casualties, and can be a demoralizer.



Wrong and wrong. There are ~1.3 billion Chinese, of whom 930 million are between 15 and 64, both sexes.

http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/idbsum.pl?cty=CH



Wrong and wrong. There are ~295 million Americans, of whom ~200 million are between 15 and 64, both sexes.

http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/idbsum.pl?cty=US

I feel so much safer knowing they only have a 730 million person advantage over us. A few tomahawks ought to balance that right out.


If the raw numbers were the main determinant of success in a military campaign, you might have a point. Since they are not, your point isn't very strong.
I don't know W*GS, let me ask my great uncle Walter, who received a silver star and purple heart at Normandy. He told me that their hope was that at least 15% would survive the landing. The idea was wave after wave hitting the beaches, that enough would survive to defeat or weaken German detatchment. So I'll get back to you on that one.

Would you trade the US military and its abilities for the Chinese military and its abilities? Why or why not?

There are alot of ifs as it pertains to your question. If our intelligence is correct and they do not have Stealth technology. If our intel is correct and they don't have a long range ballistic missle submarine fleet, and if our our intel is correct that they do not have the guidance and controls technology, then at this stage in the game, they have only two decided advantages over us. 1) The numbers. If you figures are correct and there are only ~1.3 Billion chinese (that census report came from the chinese, so I suspect it's authenticity), that still gives them a large advantage over us in the supply of troops and industrialized workers. Fortunately for us, they have shown no signs of building a carrier fleet, or an intercontinental bomber fleet, or a gator Navy of any kind. 2)Industrialization. If you take 20% of that 730 million person advantage (146 million) and put them in the factories producing arms, thats more than the U.S. had during WW II. They are already the largest industrial nation in the world, and could out produce us in armaments to give to that 584 million person advantage. At this stage in the game, I still take the U.S. Military, because of its technological advantage, however the Chinese are not that far behind.

[Spider]

Whatever Spider. Remain ignorant I don't care. Go talk to your local national guard unit and educate yourself.
LOL ....... Since you insist on going there ......
your so called weakness of the "heavy"tanks is their wieght , of course the Heavys , in their Element all but invincible. Even when something goes wrong, it's immensely survivable. But every plus comes with minuses...... So a Heavy in moist terrain or a heavy forrest area will be more of a hinderence then a assest ...
Now comes the Landmine issue the Most tanks have been retrofitted in taking damage, then you get into the weak point of a trac ..ETC..... But other then armor piercing rounds , you are pretty safe i na tank .......

[Rascal]

I see you haven't talked to the National Guard unit.

[Spider]

I see you haven't talked to the National Guard unit.
Hilarious! ...... you know damn well your argument is weak , just trying to save face ......

[W*GS]

your a tool no doubt about that.

Coming from you, that means not a whole lot.

Lets slow this down for you. There is a differnece between keeping an eye on a country like China and "fearing" or thinking they would beat us in a war.

Your own posts belie your real attitude - fear and paranoia.

Get over it.

[Rascal]

Prove my argument is weak by going and talk to your local national guard unit.

[Spider]

Prove my argument is weak by going and talk to your local national guard unit.
I have already proved it .... I should let you save face and drop it ..... But then chances are you are confused on a Stryker and a Bradly as compared to tanks .. there is a difference

[Rascal]

I am not confused Spider and I am well aware of what an abrams is compared to a stryker and bradley. You do remember what I do for a living right? Go and talk to your national guard unit.

[W*GS]

I never said it was an overall effective tactic. I do know through years of studying soviet and chinese combat tactics, that it is one of their tactics, along with guerilla warfare. Also, if Korea and Vietnam are any indicators, it does show that it produces casualties, and can be a demoralizer.

Military tactics and knowledge have changed a bit since Korea and Vietnam. You're like too many folks - what happened in the last war (or the ones a few back) are what will happen in the next one. Wrong-o, kiddo. Wars are won by the side that has the flexibility to adapt and change with the warfighting conditions, not the side with rigid by-the manual strategy. Since totalitarian regimes are always fixated on following the rules to the letter, the militaries of totalitarian regimes are hampered by it. Toss in the fact that they don't use near enough professionals, and rely on very low-quality conscripts, and they've got big problems.

I feel so much safer knowing they only have a 730 million person advantage over us.

That's not as much of an advantage as you think. Compare Israel to its enemies in the Middle East.

There are alot of ifs as it pertains to your question. If our intelligence is correct and they do not have Stealth technology. If our intel is correct and they don't have a long range ballistic missle submarine fleet, and if our our intel is correct that they do not have the guidance and controls technology, then at this stage in the game, they have only two decided advantages over us. 1) The numbers. If you figures are correct and there are only ~1.3 Billion chinese (that census report came from the chinese, so I suspect it's authenticity), that still gives them a large advantage over us in the supply of troops and industrialized workers. Fortunately for us, they have shown no signs of building a carrier fleet, or an intercontinental bomber fleet, or a gator Navy of any kind.

If my numbers are questionable, provide yours - prove your "3 billion Chinese" figure.

I've taken pains to explain why sheer numerical mass isn't much of a determinant in warfighting. Yet you stick with it as some sort of winning point. It isn't. As you note, their biggest "strength" is lots of soldiers. I've also explained that the correlation between a big army and a good army is weak.

2)Industrialization. If you take 20% of that 730 million person advantage (146 million) and put them in the factories producing arms, thats more than the U.S. had during WW II.

You assume that they can produce arms on that scale - that the Chinese are buying Soviet crap tells me that they can't. I suppose it would be impressive if they could churn out thousands of B-24s, Sherman tank knockoffs and the like, but that's lousy equipment - never mind the Chinese can't supply the vehicles and the men needed to use them with fuel and food. What good is a 200-million-man army that's starving to death in tanks/planes/ships with no gas?

At this stage in the game, I still take the U.S. Military, because of its technological advantage, however the Chinese are not that far behind.

It's not just our technology that's superior - our soldiers and our tactics count for more than the gee-whiz gadgets. I see no reason to expect China to surpass us in military tactics, ability or technology any time soon.

[Spider]

I am not confused Spider and I am well aware of what an abrams is compared to a stryker and bradley. You do remember what I do for a living right? Go and talk to your national guard unit.
LOL ..... I see .... Planes are different then tanks ......

[Rascal]

I see you still haven't talked to your local national guard.

[Spider]

I see you still haven't talked to your local national guard.
LOL ..keep repeating that . thats all you have left ....

[Rascal]

Whatever Spider. Go talk to them and see for yourself.

[Spider]

Whatever Spider. Go talk to them and see for yourself.
Talk to who ?

[Rascal]

your local national guard unit....preferabbly somebody in tanks but an infantrymen will do.

[Spider]

your local national guard unit....preferabbly somebody in tanks but an infantrymen will do.
oh the national guard yeah you have mentioned them a time or 2 Ha! How about a vet that was on a Tank crew will he do ? He is the one coaching me , even told me about some Rubber seals ..... But nothing realy to exploit , as for armor all metals have a weak point , no exceptions to the rule ..... so we will leave it at that

[Billy Clyde Puckett]

I don't think N. Korea is a nuclear threat either. They want what the rest of the world wants, food, technology, jobs, etc... Their rhetoric is more a bargaining tool than anything else IMO.

I agree N Korea is not a direct threat to the US as they do not have a relaible delivery system to hit the US. However they can hit S Korea and Japan quite easily and they can certainly provide nuclear material to hostile forces if they want. And I do think that the mad man over there is crazy enough to do that.

Since their population exceeds their ability to produce adequate goods and services, the only way they get those jobs, food and technology is to open their borders to trade. As long as the current regime is in power, I don't see that happening.

[Rohirrim]

They would never nuke the US thats garbage talk. They could threaten it over and over again, its irrelevant what they say on that point.



That's what they said about Japan. Just before Pearl Harbor.

[W*GS]

That's what they said about Japan. Just before Pearl Harbor.

You're comparing a carrier plane attack on a US military base in 1941 with nuclear weapons used against US cities in 20XX?

Why?

[Spider]

You're comparing a carrier plane attack on a US military base in 1941 with nuclear weapons used against US cities in 20XX?

Why?
How did he do that ? It was clear he was talking about Peoples attitudes ......
or is this another one of those W*Gs the dog things ;D ?

[W*GS]

The Pentagon has released its annual report on China's military.

Press release: http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jul2005/20050720_2163.html

Report: http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jul2005/d20050719china.pdf

[Rohirrim]

You're comparing a carrier plane attack on a US military base in 1941 with nuclear weapons used against US cities in 20XX?

Why?

I'm commenting on the idea of the Chinese being too chicken to attack us, not the method of attack. In case nobody has noticed, the U.S. has grandfathered favored nation status on China with the misplaced hope that our culture of consumerism will move their society toward democracy (while ignoring their criminal abuses of civil and individual rights). Instead, they are moving toward nationalism. They see the continued selling out of the West as symbols of weakness; a lack of moral fiber and a subservience to greed. The more we sell them, the weaker they think we are. The more we allow them to bully us with this trade deficit (while they laugh as we whine about it), the weaker we are in their eyes. Not to mention that they hold a considerable portion of our purse strings which continually weakens the dollar. It is they who prop up North Korea. They continuously test our resolve. When they feel that resolve is weak enough, they will move on Taiwan.

For them, North Korea is just a test case for Taiwan.

[elsid13]

The Pentagon has released its annual report on China's military.

Press release: http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jul2005/20050720_2163.html

Report: http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jul2005/d20050719china.pdf


They have and you need to remember who wrote it (AF and DoN slant) and that it will be used in justification of the budgets and procurement of plateforms and systems. NDU.edu policy centers have better information and theories.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

W*GS = still owned.

:D

[W*GS]

W*GS = still owned.

Where's that expose on Soros and his Carlyle connection? Or the Saudi/Clinton connection?

I've "owned" you on both of those for months now.

Are you too afraid to taint your party's sugar daddy and your personal God?

[W*GS]

They have and you need to remember who wrote it (AF and DoN slant) and that it will be used in justification of the budgets and procurement of plateforms and systems. NDU.edu policy centers have better information and theories.

I found one that's interesting:

http://www.ndu.edu/library/docs/crs/crs_RL32882_12apr05.pdf

An excerpt:

"International economic relations are like streets — they go both ways. While Beijing has been trying to coopt its neighbors, particularly Taiwan, by enticing them into the Chinese economic and trading network, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan have effectively coopted China by making it dependent on their technology, financing, markets, and trade expertise. The net result of this mutual dependency is that all parties now have much to lose by any crisis — be it military or financial — that would disrupt economic and financial flows in the region. Economic activity abhors instability. The “electronic herd” is likely to stampede at the first whiff of a serious military clash in Asia. Stock markets would fall; bond ratings would suffer; interest rates would rise; capital would flee; and a risk premium would be applied to investments in the region. All four governments, therefore, seek stability in international relations. Without peace, it is difficult for economic engines to churn out wealth, and even a rumor of war triggers penalties from international financial markets. It should not be surprising, therefore, for South Korea and Japan to seek to improve relations with North Korea or carefully constrain their responses to incursions by Chinese naval ships into their exclusive economic zones. It also implies that sanctions or saber rattling that disrupt growing economic relations are not likely to be welcomed in the region."

[Rohirrim]

I found one that's interesting:

http://www.ndu.edu/library/docs/crs/crs_RL32882_12apr05.pdf

An excerpt:

"International economic relations are like streets — they go both ways. While Beijing has been trying to coopt its neighbors, particularly Taiwan, by enticing them into the Chinese economic and trading network, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan have effectively coopted China by making it dependent on their technology, financing, markets, and trade expertise. The net result of this mutual dependency is that all parties now have much to lose by any crisis — be it military or financial — that would disrupt economic and financial flows in the region. Economic activity abhors instability. The “electronic herd” is likely to stampede at the first whiff of a serious military clash in Asia. Stock markets would fall; bond ratings would suffer; interest rates would rise; capital would flee; and a risk premium would be applied to investments in the region. All four governments, therefore, seek stability in international relations. Without peace, it is difficult for economic engines to churn out wealth, and even a rumor of war triggers penalties from international financial markets. It should not be surprising, therefore, for South Korea and Japan to seek to improve relations with North Korea or carefully constrain their responses to incursions by Chinese naval ships into their exclusive economic zones. It also implies that sanctions or saber rattling that disrupt growing economic relations are not likely to be welcomed in the region."

This is absolutely true when "normal" regimes are governing in the best interests of their people and all sides are operating under philosophies that could be considered reasonable. The growing nationalism (the recent remarks of this General are a good example) in China could lead to anything but a "normal" regime (see Imperial Japan, Germany's Nazi Party, etc.), but instead, a regime that is willing to sweep aside the status quo in the name of national pride and power. Nationalism is a form of mental disease that infects societies every once in a while, driving them to all sorts of ridiculous extremes. On the surface, right now, China seems to be using all the language of a reasonable society while there are pockets of nationalism growing all over the country. Who will win out?

[W*GS]

Sizing up the dragon
Jul 21st 2005 | BEIJING AND WASHINGTON, DC
From The Economist print edition

The Pentagon wonders whether China may threaten more than Taiwan

How big a threat is China's military build-up? Most foreign-policy makers in the administration think it represents the most significant long-term challenge to America's global security. China itself, on the other hand, finds it unconscionable that any country should regard its secretive build-up as worrying—which is odd, given that military spending, by official calculations, has been increasing at double-digit rates for much of the past decade. Both sides may breathe a temporary sigh of relief this week that the Pentagon, in a long delayed and much debated report on China's military strength, suggests that China itself has not yet decided what to do with its own growing power.

China, says the report, is facing a strategic crossroads. It could choose “a pathway of peaceful integration and benign competition”. Or, it says politely, it could “emerge to exert dominant influence in an expanding sphere.” It could also become less confident and focus inwards on challenges to national unity and the Communist Party's legitimacy. “The future of a rising China is not yet set immutably on one course or another,” is the cautious conclusion.

The Pentagon was due to issue the annual report earlier this year, but the State Department and other agencies reportedly worried that some of its language was too blunt. The administration faces difficult negotiations over North Korea's nuclear programme, in which China is playing a central role. Congress is in a protectionist lather about China's fixed exchange-rate regime and the country's bids to buy two of America's best-known companies, Unocal and Maytag (see article). A bill before the House of Representatives would allow countervailing duties to be slapped on Chinese goods. Preoccupied as America is with security issues elsewhere, a spat over China's perceived military ambitions was the last thing the administration wanted.

[W*GS]

(cont'd)

Despite its non-committal language, however, the 45-page report still paints a picture of a country whose military build-up appears worryingly at odds with its stated peaceful intentions. China has deployed 650-730 mobile short-range ballistic missiles (SRBMs) opposite Taiwan and is adding to this arsenal at the rate of 100 a year. Improvements in China's military capabilities, says the report, are helping to shift the military balance in the Taiwan Strait in China's favour.

Although the main focus of China's military modernisation in the near term appears to be preparation for possible conflict in the Taiwan Strait, the Pentagon says, some of China's military planners are looking further afield. China's SRBMs could be deployed beyond the Taiwan theatre. China is also developing new medium-range systems that will “improve its regional targeting capability”. And similar improvements are being made to intercontinental missiles “capable of striking targets across the globe, including in the United States.”

China's air and naval force improvements would also allow it to engage beyond the Taiwan area. Airborne early-warning and control and aerial refuelling programmes will allow extended operations into the South China Sea, says the report. For now, however, the Pentagon says China's ability to project conventional military power beyond its periphery remains limited. And even in the Taiwan Strait, it does not yet have the military capability to accomplish its political goals.

China's extreme guardedness about what it is actually doing, as well as occasional bellicose outbursts by officials on matters concerning Taiwan, do nothing to soothe the Pentagon's uneasiness. A Chinese general at the country's main defence college, speaking to foreign reporters last week, suggested that China would engage in a nuclear war with America if it intervenes to defend Taiwan. “The Americans will have to be prepared that hundreds...of (their) cities will be destroyed by the Chinese,” he was quoted as saying. Bluff perhaps, and almost certainly hyperbole—the Pentagon maintains that only 20-odd Chinese nuclear missiles are capable of reaching continental America. But hardly reassuring.

Copyright © 2005 The Economist Newspaper and The Economist Group. All rights reserved.

[Rohirrim]

Good article, W*gs. Proves my point.

[W*GS]

Good article, W*gs. Proves my point.

I'm more interested in reasonably objective analysis than I am in extremist spin, which, sadly, describes most of the material presented on the OM.

[elsid13]

I'm more interested in reasonably objective analysis than I am in extremist spin, which, sadly, describes most of the material presented on the OM.

I think that look at the Pentagon Report and the Rand (rand.org national security section 2004) brief you come with two interesting facts. First that the China is very dependent on foreign resources (especial when it comes to strategic metals and oil) and that even thought they are rapid modernization there are extreme inefficiencies and problems within the defense industrial base. In fact the technology transfer from Israel and Russia is one of the key abilities for China military to modernize.

[Hotrod]

I'm more interested in reasonably objective analysis than I am in extremist spin, which, sadly, describes most of the material presented on the OM.

Says the man who "IS the NRA" rofl

[Hotrod]

The report which is obviously public record (ie Chinas gonna see it) be completly open and honest. No I dont think so.

[W*GS]

The report which is obviously public record (ie Chinas gonna see it) be completly open and honest. No I dont think so.

Sigh.

[Hotrod]

Sigh.

Well thats as informative as most of your posts.

[W*GS]

Well thats as informative as most of your posts.

Pity you're clinging to your paranoia when if you read the material that's been offered, you'd think more clearly. Maybe you can find an adult to read them to you.

[Hotrod]

Pity you're clinging to your paranoia when if you read the material that's been offered, you'd think more clearly. Maybe you can find an adult to read them to you.

One more time for my slow friend wags. I have no paranoia of China yet they are one of the most dangerous countrys to the US. There is a list we all know which ones they are. So if my keeping an eye on a country like China bothers you dont get involved with my thread.

Just to point out for the record your the only one whos tried over and over to claim anyone whos worried about China is a racist, fearful, war monger. Your the only one whos twisted everyones opinons into "were gonna lose a war with China". I'll give you credit for your ability to read everyones minds. You make yourself to look a fool when you keep trying to put words into everyones mouths.

[W*GS]

One more time for my slow friend wags. I have no paranoia of China yet they are one of the most dangerous countrys to the US.

The part after "yet" contradicts the part before it.

[Hotrod]

The part after "yet" contradicts the part before it.

:hitself: I always thought of LABF as the manes spin master but you may very well be taking the lead. I guess its understandable for someone to start spinning after being owned day after day.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Says the man who "IS the NRA" rofl

:laugh:

^5

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I'm more interested in reasonably objective analysis than I am in extremist spin, which, sadly, describes most of the material presented on the OM.

When W*GS says "reasonably objective" read: "ignores the elephant in the living room."

[W*GS]

I guess its understandable for someone to start spinning after being owned day after day.

By who? You? Ha.

I completely demolished your arguments.

[BRONCCRUSHFAN]

I'm more interested in reasonably objective analysis than I am in extremist spin, which, sadly, describes most of the material presented on the OM.

Hmmm.... Interesting.

[Hotrod]

By who? You? Ha.

.

Na I dont wanna take all the credit Id say you have been owned by just about everyone thats responded to any of your posts :boxing:

[W*GS]

Na I dont wanna take all the credit Id say you have been owned by just about everyone thats responded to any of your posts

You and LABF must have the same dealer because whatever drug you (and he) have been using completely alters reality in a similar fashion.

In this fantasyland of yours, black is white, up is down, and you two think you've debated your points of view successfully against me.

[BRONCCRUSHFAN]

In this fantasyland of yours, black is white, up is down, and you two think you've debated your points of view successfully against me.

LOL Riiight. W*GS, Tattoo and Mr. Rourke says you have to get on the plane now, that you only paid for a 3 day fantasy.

[Rausch]

Nationalism is a form of mental disease that infects societies every once in a while, driving them to all sorts of ridiculous extremes.

What?

Most of what this nation needs is more nationalism.

Nationalism is all about pride in your country and its people.

If we worried about America first, last, and always we'd be a lot better off. Less wars in far off lands and more money spent within our borders. We need to take care of the weeds in our own yard before complaining about the neighbor's...

Russia, Japan, and Germany put INSANE and sadistic people in charge and allowed themselves to be cought up in mass-hysteria. There's a huge difference between proud and power-hungry...

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

LOL Riiight. W*GS, Tattoo and Mr. Rourke says you have to get on the plane now, that you only paid for a 3 day fantasy.

:giggle: :laugh: rofl

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Nationalism is all about pride in your country and its people.


I think you're confusing nationalism with patriotism.

[W*GS]

W*GS, Tattoo and Mr. Rourke says you have to get on the plane now, that you only paid for a 3 day fantasy.

This from the guy who couldn't get something as simple as the population numbers for the US and China correct (darkly hinting that there are nearly 3x as many Chinese as there actually are) and whose ideas on military strategy and tactics date from the middle of the last century.

You're in the factless fantasy land, not me.

[BRONCCRUSHFAN]

This from the guy who couldn't get something as simple as the population numbers for the US and China correct (darkly hinting that there are nearly 3x as many Chinese as there actually are) and whose ideas on military strategy and tactics date from the middle of the last century.

You're in the factless fantasy land, not me.

The funny thing is, your last post after attacking me, solidified what I was saying. You agreed with me, even after trying to put words in my mouth and telling me what I meant. That's what I find to be so funny.

[BRONCCRUSHFAN]

This from the guy who couldn't get something as simple as the population numbers for the US and China correct (darkly hinting that there are nearly 3x as many Chinese as there actually are) and whose ideas on military strategy and tactics date from the middle of the last century.

You're in the factless fantasy land, not me.

Oh and another thing bitchboy, my number was arbitrary and used to exemplify the fact they have more people than we do. I could have said they have 3 and we have 1, it's the same number. Focus on the discussion or you will have to move back to the kiddie table.

[BRONCCRUSHFAN]

This from the guy who couldn't get something as simple as the population numbers for the US and China correct (darkly hinting that there are nearly 3x as many Chinese as there actually are) and whose ideas on military strategy and tactics date from the middle of the last century.

You're in the factless fantasy land, not me.

Oh and one last thing, until you serve this country in combat, and spend more time outside of this country instead of being the bitter conservative in the people's republic of Boulder, don't talk to me about military tactics. You're a tool.

[BRONCCRUSHFAN]

W*GS, what kind of idiot would post on the Broncos message board, and not talk about football? All you do is troll around the political forum, spinning people's words or flat out placing them in their mouth, and acting like you actually now something. You talk about me being in fantasyland, I live in the real world, something you haven't went out and experienced. You don't rate to talk to me or breathe my same air.

[Spider]

Well that just about sums that up ........

[Rausch]

I think you're confusing nationalism with patriotism.

No...

Main Entry: na·tion·al·ism
Pronunciation: 'nash-n&-"li-z&m, 'na-sh&-n&l-"i-z&m
Function: noun
: loyalty and devotion to a nation; especially : a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=nationalism&x=0&y=0

Being devoted to your nation and believing that it is the most important of all nations. Who here doesn't believe this is the greatest nation on earth?...

[W*GS]

The funny thing is, your last post after attacking me, solidified what I was saying. You agreed with me, even after trying to put words in my mouth and telling me what I meant. That's what I find to be so funny.

I tend to take the opinions of people who can't even get simple facts remotely correct to be highly questionable.

That said, I greatly doubt the Chinese military will overtake (or closely approach) our very significant advantages in warfighting capabilities any time soon, despite your fears. Their population "advantage", isn't, and as they make the transition from agriculture to industry, we aren't sitting still either. What you or your relatives know from past wars is unlikely to be useful in a (hypothetical) war between the US and China.

[W*GS]

Oh and one last thing, until you serve this country in combat, and spend more time outside of this country instead of being the bitter conservative in the people's republic of Boulder, don't talk to me about military tactics. You're a tool.

As if only folks who have served in the military have a monopoly of knowledge on tactics and strategy. Too often, their ideas are rigidly based on what happened the last time around - history is replete with examples of tacticians planning for the previous war.

And no, I'm not bitter, nor am I conservative.

[W*GS]

W*GS, what kind of idiot would post on the Broncos message board, and not talk about football?

This is the "War, Religion, and Politics Thread". There's no rule that says that everyone here has to talk about football - if I was interested, I could discuss the sport at some length but I haven't really followed it for several years. Quite honestly, I don't care about professional football generally or the Broncos specifically.

All you do is troll around the political forum, spinning people's words or flat out placing them in their mouth, and acting like you actually now something.

You're entitled to your opinion, certainly, but I do try and not twist what people write. I do analyze their arguments, find the weak spots, and question those spots, where I can show their reasoning and/or their facts are faulty or erroneous. That's called debating, and if you don't like the way I do it, that's too bad.

You talk about me being in fantasyland, I live in the real world, something you haven't went out and experienced. You don't rate to talk to me or breathe my same air.

That hurts. Truly.

[elsid13]

A couple of things need to be pointed out when analyzing the Chinese military potential. First, their technology and capabilities are not up US level or rest of the Western world level. Evidence of that is continuing military procurements from Russia and Israel and the strong push by Chinese government to end the European embargo on weapon technology. IF they had that ability they wouldn’t import it, for national security reason it doesn’t make sense. Their military technology level should be considered on late 1970s/ early 80s level with some exception. Second yes they have large military and if we were fighting WWII type battles that might make a difference. But in many ways it is more of problem then an aid, you need to strong Command and Control ( the first part of C4ISR) function to make it work. Think of trying to herd 40 sugar high 1st and kindagraders by yourself at zoo. Something they yet shown they can do in combat situation. Finally they have little to no experience on major land air battles, most of their conflicts have localized border disputes and their navy has no real experience.

The US force might be smaller but we have very distinct and overwhelming advantages. First technology and new management scheme has become a major force multiplier. Changes form the first gulf war have increased ten fold, at that time few to none of computers were networked, and systems had hard time talk together (lot of faxing stuff). What used to take days to coordinate now take literal minutes. We have better C and C then any time the world history. We increased our flexibility and ability by using GIS (on of the biggest advantages we have) satellites, force on force tracking systems, improved sensors and UAVs. Think back to how you did business 10 years ago and compare it how you do business now, the same forces that are at work in the private sector are in play in the military arena. Then are logestic and supply chain management is 100X better then anyone in the world, which is major major advantage. Finally the US force have real world battle experience, something very few country in the world have.

Just my two cents.

[ak1971]

[QUOTE=W*GS]This is the "War, Religion, and Politics Thread". There's no rule that says that everyone here has to talk about football - if I was interested, I could discuss the sport at some length but I haven't really followed it for several years. Quite honestly, I don't care about professional football generally or the Broncos specifically.



Dont care about the Broncos???? I know it is a "War, Religion, and Politics Thread" but hell even old acid head himself LABF...breaks out with an I love Champ remark once an awhile.

[Spider]

This is the "War, Religion, and Politics Thread". There's no rule that says that everyone here has to talk about football - if I was interested, I could discuss the sport at some length but I haven't really followed it for several years. Quite honestly, I don't care about professional football generally or the Broncos specifically.
.
I knew there was a reason I didnt trust you ....... Sounds like a man that wears a belt and suspenders ...... we can disagree about Politics , China , what Brand of Milk to buy , But dont like football , or the Broncos and lives in Boulder ... thats about a 9 on the queer meter son ........

[W*GS]

I knew there was a reason I didnt trust you ....... Sounds like a man that wears a belt and suspenders ...... we can disagree about Politics , China , what Brand of Milk to buy , But dont like football , or the Broncos and lives in Boulder ... thats about a 9 on the queer meter son ........

Thanks for the laugh.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

but hell even old acid head himself LABF...breaks out with an I love Champ remark once an awhile.

You have to chuckle at this "ak1971" tool.

He's been so thoroughly hammered in his attempts to defend Bush that he's been reduced to calling his opponents "acid heads" and hitting them with smears involving gay sex acts.

:laugh:

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Behold the class act that is ak1971:

Sure....Just like the sperm guzzler you are

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?p=686294#post686294

Aren't you glad he's on your team, "moral values" people?

[Spider]

Thanks for the laugh.
Watch the Broncos this season ........ there is hope for you .........

[ak1971]

[QUOTE=L.A. BRONCOS FAN]You have to chuckle at this "ak1971" tool.

He's been so thoroughly hammered in his attempts to defend Bush that he's been reduced to calling his opponents "acid heads" and hitting them with smears involving gay sex acts.


Lets talk about insults...one of LABFs reps for me

'I don't usually give neg rep, but I had to return the favor. BTW, I got your "tool" swingin,' b!tch.'

lets talk about 'kool aid drinkers' etc etc


If you would actually read the whole thing you would see that this was somewhat of a complement for you. Unfortunately you are an idiot of the highest degree, an a giant hipocrate to boot.

[W*GS]

Aren't you glad he's on your team, "moral values" people?

He's no worse than you are. I'm embarassed that both of you are on Team Human with all the rest of us.

[ak1971]

Holy crap...Maybe W*GS and LABF can have a lovefest and gang up against a little BRONCO fan like myself....This is a Bronco fan website isnt it?????

[Spider]

He's no worse than you are. I'm embarassed that both of you are on Team Human with all the rest of us.
I'm embarassed that you dont like the Broncos ....... I got an Idea ......
W*GS I only do this cause I care .......
I will set you up in front of a net , Drive golf balls at you untill you stand there without flinching ........ !Booya!

[Spider]

I am a genius

[elsid13]

I am a genius

Somedays you are, though I would have charged people to hit the golf ball and donated the money to ACLU. Now that would be good capitalist idea.

[Spider]

Somedays you are, though I would have charged people to hit the golf ball and donated the money to ACLU. Now that would be good capitalist idea.
;D somthing could be worked out ....... I am sure W*GS would be happy to see the Money going to the ACLU Hilarious!

[W*GS]

I will set you up in front of a net , Drive golf balls at you untill you stand there without flinching ........

IFF I get to set you up a la William Tell and take shots at the apple with my AK-47. Remember not to flinch yourself.

[Spider]

IFF I get to set you up a la William Tell and take shots at the apple with my AK-47. Remember not to flinch yourself.
you ingrate , I offered to do somthing nice for you and this is the thanks I get tsk tsk .......... I dont know if it would have made you a Bronco fan , but it would have made you a lot tougher

[elsid13]

you ingrate , I offered to do somthing nice for you and this is the thanks I get tsk tsk .......... I dont know if it would have made you a Bronco fan , but it would have made you a lot tougher


Man, just trying to help a guy out and this is the thanks you get. Man downright left wing liberal of him...

[Spider]

Man, just trying to help a guy out and this is the thanks you get. Man downright left wing liberal of him...
you're telling me ....... Very Clintonish of him ;D

[elsid13]

you're telling me ....... Very Clintonish of him ;D


Next thing you know, he'll be blaming bush.

[Spider]

Next thing you know, he'll be blaming bush.
LABF would kill over if that happened ...... Probably mess LABF so bad he wouldnt post for a month , just walk around L.A. Talking to himself about W*GS ;D

[elsid13]

LABF would kill over if that happened ...... Probably mess LABF so bad he wouldnt post for a month , just walk around L.A. Talking to himself about W*GS ;D


Now don't you be given W*GS any ideas, poor LABF would never be the same again. You know §Pide®, that very Karl Rove of you ;D

[Spider]

Now don't you be given W*GS any ideas, poor LABF would never be the same again. You know §Pide®, that very Karl Rove of you ;D
;D .....Cant get one by you Mr Rather ......

[elsid13]

;D .....Cant get one by you Mr Rather ......


I got the National Guard records proving otherwise....;D

[W*GS]

I dont know if it would have made you a Bronco fan , but it would have made you a lot tougher

As tough as you? ???

[Spider]

I got the National Guard records proving otherwise....;D
LOL ... excellent crack back . tip of the hat .......

[Spider]

As tough as you? ???
Dare to dream .......... even tougher ....... Not better looking cause I am one hellva stud ;D

[W*GS]

Dare to dream .......... even tougher ....... Not better looking cause I am one hellva stud ;D

That's not what your wife tells me ;D

[Spider]

That's not what your wife tells me ;D
Yeah my wife says some crazy things when she is out of her meds ..... Like she said you tried to tell her this _____ was 7 inches ;D

[BRONCCRUSHFAN]

You know what W*GS, and I hate to say it, but I owe you an apology. I compared the strength of both China and the US an this is what I found.

China Country United States of America

$60 Billion Yearly Military Expenditure $399 Billion
3.5% - 5% % of GNP 3.9%
18 Min Enlistment Age 18
379,524,688 Available Manpower 73,597,731
1,750,000 Active Military Personnel 471,500
1,400,000 Frontline Personnel 220,000
9,218 Airborne Units 18,169
13,200 Armor 29,920
29,060 Artillery 5,178
18,500 Missile Defense Systems 35,324
34,000 Infantry Support Weapons 2,441

I'm still holding to my guns that being a totalitarian society, they aren't going to care if they lose a few million people as shock troops, but the overall technological advantages that the US (which I never refuted) has, and therefore gives us a tactical advantage. My question to you is this: If the PRC have over 600 missles pointed at Taiwan, and are adding 100 every year, what purpose do they serve other than to attack the Taiwanese? I compared those two nations.

China Country Taiwan

$60 Billion Yearly Military Expenditure $7,611.7 Million
3.5% - 5% % of GNP 2.7%
18 Min Enlistment Age 19
379,524,688 Available Manpower 6,556,484
1,750,000 Active Military Personnel 200,000
1,400,000 Frontline Personnel 140,000
9,218 Airborne Units 916
13,200 Armor 2,819
29,060 Artillery 2,040
18,500 Missile Defense Systems 1,499
34,000 Infantry Support Weapons 1,400

It appears to me that its not to defend themselves against the mighty Taiwanese army, nor is it to encourage a lack of conflict under Mutual destruction theory, but would be used as a first strike weapon against the Taiwanese. Knowing full well, that the United States is not going to idly stand by and watch the fireworks. Does that not put us at a risk of any conflict (nuclear or conventional) with the Chinese? I agree with you that I don't think that; a) the U.S. is not going to sacrifice L.A. over Taipei and b) the Chinese wouldn't use nuclear weapons in any possible conflict with the United States, or are they crazy enough to just do it to gain an advantage over our superior technological advantage? This is not an attack on you or your beliefs, just asking your opinion.

[W*GS]

Yeah my wife says some crazy things when she is out of her meds ..... Like she said you tried to tell her this _____ was 7 inches ;D

That _____ is more than your __. ;D

[Spider]

That _____ is more than your __. ;D
I see my wife shared her drugs with you ;D

[W*GS]

You know what W*GS, and I hate to say it, but I owe you an apology.

Accepted.

Those numbers don't tell the whole story - the pre-Gulf War Iraqi military looked good on paper, but we know now that it was a sham.

My question to you is this: If the PRC have over 600 missles pointed at Taiwan, and are adding 100 every year, what purpose do they serve other than to attack the Taiwanese?

They serve to frighten the Taiwanese.

It appears to me that its not to defend themselves against the mighty Taiwanese army, nor is it to encourage a lack of conflict under Mutual destruction theory, but would be used as a first strike weapon against the Taiwanese. Knowing full well, that the United States is not going to idly stand by and watch the fireworks. Does that not put us at a risk of any conflict (nuclear or conventional) with the Chinese? I agree with you that I don't think that; a) the U.S. is not going to sacrifice L.A. over Taipei and b) the Chinese wouldn't use nuclear weapons in any possible conflict with the United States, or are they crazy enough to just do it to gain an advantage over our superior technological advantage? This is not an attack on you or your beliefs, just asking your opinion.

I don't view questions as attacks, generally.

I think China is committed to reunification - but that their rhetoric and their military actions towards that end will run up against the interests of the increasingly powerful nascent Chinese middle class, as well as against the wider interests of investors from Taiwan and elsewhere. In that excerpt I posted earlier, it was noted that business doesn't like instability and warlike rhetoric - and China, if it is to survive its coming demographic crisis, must make itself wealthier. It can't do that with overt belligerence toward Taiwan. The slowly receding isolationism and pacifism of Japan must be considered by the Chinese as well, and the fact that India is now working its way to being a good friend of the US - quite a change from when India was more or less a Soviet client. Certainly China will soon have the military strength to take Taiwan by force - it may even be able to ward off (not without very heavy casualties) the obvious US defense. However, what it would gain would not begin to compensate for what it would lose. That Chinese general who shot his mouth off is believed by some to be spilling the secret beans - I happen to think he's headed off to re-education camp soon. It's not that the US would sacrifice LA for Taipei - it's that Chinese use of nukes against American cities would mean sacrificing China for Taipei. They're not prepared to do that.

I have no illusions that China is wholly harmless and we can gleefully ignore it. We need to pay attention to it - but not obsessively so. Nor do I believe that China is on the verge of overtaking us, either militarily or economically. China is very near to having to make some hugely significant decisions about its future - driven by the utterly drastic demographic changes it's starting to undergo. For example, the current US median age is 35 - in 2050, it will be 41 or so. The current Chinese median age is about 30 - in 2050, it will be over 45. They have one of the fastest aging societies, and the impact of their one-child policy will create big problems for them unless they learn to adapt and change. That's one of the weakest aspects of totalitarianism - it's inflexibility and adherence to dogma. There is a chance China could implode in some way or another, which would be very bad, but I'm reasonably optimistic that they will do what it takes to solve the challenges they face - and that does not include war with the US, which would be suicide.

[W*GS]

I see my wife shared her drugs with you ;D

She almost gave me your Viagra. ;D That was close - I don't wanna die of permanent wood.

[Spider]

She almost gave me your Viagra. ;D That was close - I don't wanna die of permanent wood.
whew ..... be lost without my blue little pills ;D

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Unfortunately you are an idiot of the highest degree, an(sic) a giant hipocrate(sic) to boot.

rofl

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Oh and one last thing, until you serve this country in combat, and spend more time outside of this country instead of being the bitter conservative in the people's republic of Boulder, don't talk to me about military tactics. You're a tool.

Rep!

^5

[W*GS]

whew ..... be lost without my blue little pills ;D

I haven't needed 'em - yet. ;D Just gimme a wimmin with some meat on 'er bones and I'll be a ridin' happy.

[Spider]

I haven't needed 'em - yet. ;D Just gimme a wimmin with some meat on 'er bones and I'll be a ridin' happy.
LOL I was about to ask you if they realy worked .......

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

China-Mart takes over

The US Navy...Made in China

My poor beloved country, trapped in a Middle Eastern quagmire and tricked by Osama bin Laden into subsidizing to the tune of $300 billion (spent or appropriated) a training ground for Muslim terrorists and insurgents while our once fabulous economy disintegrates.

If the US were still rich and just wanted to throw several hundred billion dollars at bin Laden as a good will gesture, that would be one thing. But we are borrowing the money that we are using to train Muslim terrorists to kill and maim our troops in Iraq and Londoners in England.

The money is being lent to us mainly by Asians, especially the Chinese. China has so many dollars to lend to us because we send so many dollars to China to pay for the goods and services that patriotic American corporations have decided to supply to us from China instead of from America.

US corporations decided that the way to get rich was to destroy their American consumer base by closing their American factories, throwing their US employees out of work and hiring Chinese instead. The Chinese work for less, you see, and free trade economists say lowering costs makes us better off.

http://counterpunch.org/roberts07252005.html

[W*GS]

So what's the solution to the mess Roberts writes about, LABF?

Let's see if you can think on your own instead of letting others speak for you.

[Rausch]

China-Mart takes over

The US Navy...Made in China


I suppose it's only fair since we (by never being bothered by purchasing Chinese products) helped build the Chinese military...

[Rascal]

Got a response from my senator about China:

Thank you for your recent correspondence. The stability of the dollar and our monetary policies in the international economy are important issues.

Since 2002, the dollar has depreciated. When the dollar depreciates it makes U.S. goods cheaper internationally and makes exports from the United States more attractive to foreign buyers. Such a "weak" dollar is not necessarily bad because it promotes US sales to foreign purchasers. Likewise, a "weak" dollar makes travel to the US and tourism more affordable to foreigners. Thus the US manufacturing and service industries can benefit under a weak dollar.

At the same time, American assets, such as stock, bonds, and treasury notes, tend to make up almost 50 percent of the typical foreign investor's portfolio, demonstrating that the international community has faith in the dollar.

The Chinese government takes drastic steps to directly affect the value of their currency on the open market. According to some studies, China undervalues their currency, the yuan, by as much as 40 percent. Over recent years China's actions have been a source of tension, as many believe it contributes to unfair trade.

Currently, the Federal Reserve, the central bank of the United States which was founded by Congress in 1913 to provide the nation with a safer, more flexible, and more stable financial and monetary system, and especially the Chairman of its Board of Governors Alan Greenspan guide the direction of the United States' economic policy and decide how best to influence the dollar, both at home and abroad. Creating new jobs and ensuring stable economic growth will ensure that the dollar remains a stable, international standard.

I am currently examining legislation regarding Chinese currency manipulation.


Once again, thank you for expressing your thoughts on the dollar and our place within the international economic community. Such a complex and important issue deserves the attention of Congress. As your servant in Washington, I am always glad to hear the opinions of those I represent.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

How Bush destroys our country: World turning its back on Brand America

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/77868922-0228-11da-9481-00000e2511c8.html

The US is increasingly viewed as a "culture-free zone" inhabited by arrogant and unfriendly people, according to study of 25 countries' brand reputations.

The findings, published online today, will add to concerns that anti-Americanism is hurting companies whose products are considered to be distinctly "American".

The Anholt-GMI Nation Brands Index found that although US foreign policy remained a key driver of hostility, dissatisfaction with the world's sole superpower might run deeper.

"The US is still recognised as a leading place to do business, the home of desirable brands and popular culture," said Simon Anholt, author of the survey. "But its governance, its cultural heritage and its people are no longer widely respected or admired by the world."

Keith Reinhard, president of Business for Diplomatic Action, a group of business leaders dedicated to improving the US's image overseas, said help from the private sector was needed to repair Brand America.