Welcome to Librarium Online!
Join our community of 80,000+ members and take part in the number one resource for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K discussion!
Registering gives you full access to take part in discussions, upload pictures, contact other members and search everything!
Lately there has been disturbing grumbling coming from China. Some of it's generals have actually been calling for a pre-emptive nuclear strike on the U.S. in anticipation of their invasion of Taiwan.
No one knows for sure how many Nuclear weapons China is hording, but the best guesses by experts are in the neighborhood of 20 or so.
More and more China has been building up its military using U.S technology bought with campaign contributions to the Clinton campaign and outright stolen from the U.S. using clever espionage.
This website provides a pretty fair assessment of China's recent political and military moves and motives: http://inatoday.com/china%20threat%207605.htm
I don't believe the site is partisan, but I must admit I could find very little in the mainstream media about the brewing problems with China.
What do you think?
If you think the U.S should turn it's back on Taiwan and let China invade them, do you support us taking the same policy concerning an invasion of Your country?
Is China just sabre rattling or do they really expect to launch a nuclear strike?
Does anyone here doubt that whatever was left of the U.S. government and people in the aftermath of that horrible scenario would unleash a devastating nuclear counter strike?
Would you honestly expect the U.S. to turn the other cheek after such a reprehensible action?
All I have to say is that I believe that the USA is a bigger threat to world peace than China is.
MEAT IS MURDER
Adding to that I'd say North Korea is a more immediate threat as far as nuclear war goes. Still, China packs a wallop. I shall have to think on it some more.
North Korea is a threat, there is no doubt of that. They have also threatened the U.S. with nuclear strikes.
Thankfully; so far; they don't have the capability to reach our mainland just yet, although Japan is right in their crosshairs.
China; however; does have intercontinental ballistic missiles. And their generals are apparently itching to use them. Although it may just be grumbling.
Anyone who lived through the cold war should recognize the real danger here. And it would be folly to ignore it.
I also have to agree with you Nagato, the U.S. is 'A' threat to world peace, but not 'The' threat to world peace. But I'm positive we will differ in our reasons why.
I think the U.S. will go to war to protect the free people of this world. That includes the Taiwanese people with whom we have an agreement to stand beside. Just as we would stand beside the Greek people if they ever become threatened with invasion, even the Greeks that don't like our country.
Instead of speculating on 'your' reasoning for calling the U.S. the greater threat to peace I will just ask:
Why do You think so?
Please try to indulge me with more than a one sentence response. I am trying to stimulate conversation, not gather clever ideas for Michael Moore's next bumper sticker. :lol:
Neither of you has addressed what I deem to be the real issue at hand.
These countries are new to the whole nuclear capability stage, and at the very first sign of them not getting their way politically they threaten those around them with nuclear war.
Many people here are anti-American that much is obvious. But are you really willing to accept another country launching a nuclear war just to see us 'get what's coming to us'?
We here in the U.S. are all too familiar with living under the constant threat of a nuclear exchange between us and the former Soviet Republic.
And yet it seems that none of the other rising nuclear nations of this world learned anything from that period in history.
N.Korea, China, Pakistan, India, all threaten nuclear war at the first sign things aren't going their way.
But still some people let those threats pass without comment.
I don't recommend appeasing any of them.
I don't think the U.S. would, under any circumstance, leave Taiwan to counter a Chinese invasion by itself. The U.S. has too many economical ties to and interests in Taiwan to allow China to take over. Hell, I don't think the U.S. would sit idly by and allow China to invade any country. I simply don't think the government would allow Communist aggression of that scale to take place without getting involved. It's a case of biting the problem on the ass before it progresses to something more serious and, ultimately, more dangerous. If China were to invade Taiwan and get away with it, the world over would assume that the U.S., reigning superpower that it is, is unwilling to oppose China, which would probably lead to more such efforts by the Chinese military. The U.S. would step in so that the situation might be contained before it grows out of control.Originally Posted by JokerI highly doubt they'd do something as stupid as nuke the U.S. simply in an attempt to dissuade them from getting involved in an invasion of Taiwan. China knows that if they invade, the U.S. would step in. They also know that if they fired nukes, the U.S. would come down on them like eight tons of bricks. Just think for a second. Assume Seattle or some other major city was nuked by China as a pre-emptive action to their invasion of Taiwan. Look at September 11 and what that led to. If the deaths of fifty thousand people spawned a war, the destruction of a major U.S. city by means of a nuclear weapon would lead to the complete subjugation of China. The American government would never allow something like that to go unpunished, and the only punishment they'd see fit for such an act would be pretty much the worst they could get away with. You all would have a fifty-first state.Originally Posted by Joker
Also, everyone has nukes. They're not really anything special. They're powerful influencing factors, yes, but if a country fires one off then they're giving a lot of other countries reason enough to fire theirs. It's rumored that Al Queda has access to nuclear weapons. Just think of what they'd do if China nuked an American city. Nuclear weapons are so utterly destructive that the detonation of one would immediately become a global crisis and a global concern. Every world power would have to get involved in an attempt to quash any furthur use.Yes, I do. I don't think the U.S. would respond with nukes of their own, or at least not right away. I think the logical solution would be to take over China and gain total control of the country, including its military. Not an easy task by any stretch of the imagination but "an eye for an eye" isn't the best strategy where nukes are involved. Then again, I could very easily be wrong.Originally Posted by JokerThe counter attack would be initiated even before the mushroom cloud clears. The answer's a big, resounding no.Originally Posted by Joker
Last edited by Zanzibar; August 5th, 2005 at 11:23.
Whoa there! Nukes are not anything special?! If that's the case, then why are we and the IAEA and every other nuke-possessing power so intent on keeping them and then restricting them to other countries?Originally Posted by Zanzibar
Why is the US so hot about Iran and its nuclear program? Nukes mean a lot. Nukes mean you are a heavy weight, a world power, someone who can demolish one's enemies. Nuclear weapons are the pinnacle of military might. We can, quite literally, set the progress of humankind back by millenia. Utter annhilation ain't no trifling matter.
Is China a world threat? I'm no political scientist nor an expert in Asian affairs. I do keep myself informed, however, and my sense is that it's potentially a very large threat. Think about it, they have a massive military. It lacks the controls of a democratic state. Even with their ethically dubious controls, the population is massive and growing, threatening the country's stability. Read the section on China in Jared Diamond's latest book "Collapse." They are facing dire ecological problems. Unstable countries facing population and ecological collapse are a threat to everyone. First their neighbors are threatened. But in a global context, the entire world is involved.
Their human rights are appalling, which prevents us from doing trade with them, though we do some trade even so. Yet greater trade and economic benefit is the best way to help stabalize the country and let it prosper, greatly diminishing any threat it poses.
As for the United States as a threat, well, sure. I for one think that Bush made a tremendous mistake invading Iraq with reasons that have since all proven false or mistaken. You may not agree with me, and that's fine. I'm not trying to ignite a post-war over Iraq; we all know how volatile that discussion could be. My point is that the US seems a menace to many. However, I think that's reactionary. The United States could not get away with willy-nilly invading countries as, say, Hitler did. Or Bonaparte. First, it's own population wouldn't allow it.
And you tell me, who would you rather have nuclear weapons? The United States, Great Britain, or a virulent theocracy like Iran? I wish that we lived in a world without such weapons, but they're here, and they will not be relinquished. But we can at least control their spread. A democratic nation has controls and is much less apt to use such weapons, while a nation like Pakistan or North Korea is a dog of another color.
If we and other first-world nations must play global police, then I'd rather us have the big guns than the bad guys. I just hope that we can police justly and responsibly, but I fear that happens to seldom at times.
Last edited by DavidWC09; August 7th, 2005 at 08:13.
Heh. Alright, I didn't mean to dismiss nukes as unimportant. What I meant was every major world power has them or has access to them, so when they come to the table saying, "We've got a nuclear weapon pointed at your capital city", it's very likely they'll have five pointed back at them, and they know this. I don't think any country could survive nuclear war without drastic changes being wrought, if the country survives at all.Originally Posted by DavidVC04
Also, my own jaded outlook probably influenced the statement some. When I hear of such things in the news I tend not to react much at all. I'm open to discussing it, sure, but I don't panic or worry when I hear nukes are on the launch pad. Probably a mistake on my part, but that's simply how I feel. I suppose the first launch, if it happens, will snap me out of my stupor. Despite this apathy, I'm morally opposed to nuclear weapons. I hate that they were used on Japan during the second World War and I'd hate it if they're used again, on anyone, by anyone. Weapons like that shouldn't exist. This doesn't stop me from not worrying about them though...That's a very good point. One of the biggest factors that arises when nuclear launches are considered is probably how the citizens of the launching country will react. If a nuke is launched, retaliation is guaranteed. Not to put down the U.S. but they'd most likely be the one's to retaliate, and most citizens probably wouldn't want to live under U.S. martial law. It's a sad state of affairs but I think we can all agree that the U.S. is disliked by a large percentage of the world's population because no country wants to be occupied by another, and the U.S. is capable of such occupation. However undesirable that outcome may be though, it beats the hell out of being disintegrated in a nuclear explosion or poisoned by nuclear fallout.Originally Posted by DavidVC04
The strange thing is at the moment things are fairly balanced power wise, China and America are fairly similar in military might and if one where to attack the other it would lead to a massive war, neither country wants that as it would deplete both to ruin, China is no more a threat to world peace than America, but by the same token America is no more than China. America is also planning (purportedly) to invade several countries for reasons it sees as valid, this could lead to retaliation by various groups, including china.
It is highly unlikely that eitehr America or China would launch nuclear strikes, fully aware as both governments are that retalitory strikes would be airborne before thri missiles hit and that this would lead to an all out nuclear war which would decimate most of the planets and leve bpoth countries, its just an unlikely scenario.
On the idea of america being able to invade other countries, it can't really, except fro those that it has dubious reason for doing so wiht (Iraq for example) and therefore it is not immediately contested. If America tried to invade a first world country or a country widely recognised as peaceful or undeserving of such action they would be opposed and stopped, simply because that is what it would take to cause Europe as a whole to move in unison, and when all the European countries move together they are far bigger than America, thats without mentioning Australia and New Zealand, the same si true of china, therefore both countries powers are limited by the nature of the world we live in. Military might is no longer enough, you now need global permission, or at least global apathy, as well.
What scares me (warning: random post not related karantalsis' great post) is China's control of such an uncontrollable medium as the internet. I kick myself for not writing down her name.
There was a chinese girl, average looks, trying to get into uni to be a vet. She had been turned down twice, and started blogging her life. She became famous very quickly, she had a very attractive personality, that X factor. She was offered magazine and radio interviews.
Shortly before any interviews, the Chinese government decided that they didn't like this girls popularity, even though she had expressed no politiacal views. Before this, her name would hit over 100,000 sites on google, now, when I typed her name 2 weeks afterwards, less than 10,000. Google images are even more scary, it went from thousands of images to about 5, none of which were on the first page.
This is already too long.
China for one is infintely more politically sophisticated than ANY western nation, especially one as young as the US. What is most likely in this situation is that they are deliberately leaking reports of generals clamouring for war in the hope that it will make US politicians say "who cares about Taiwan anyway? It's not worth nuclear war." Remember they had a civil service exam when Europeans were stealing each other's cattle and strangling each other in bogs.Originally Posted by Joker
Luckily the US government understands this about China and so is not overly concerned with ANYTHING they say. If I were you I would take the same attitude.
China is difficult to undertsand and predict, plus there are so many of them. Little wonder they cause fear in others. Ignoring their words seems to be the only attitude that works for western nations dealing with China, way back to Britain and the Opium wars. Ignore anything they tell you.
In their long history China has rarely been interested in building empires outside their own nation. On the occasions they have done so, they have usually opted for an economic (tribute-based) empire rather than one based on military conquest. If I were you I would be worried about China knocking the US off their top-dog richest nation perch than anything so crude as a nuclear strike. And judging by history (excludng the recent communist revolution which is an anomaly) China would be a pretty good ruler. They would allow their tribute nations to keep their own languages, rulers and systems of government. All they have ever cared about is that the ruler acknowledges China as thir superior. Better than a US empire which requires that everyone have the "correct" form of government, or an islamic empire where veryone must be muslims, wouldn't you say?
As for India, Korea and the others I know very little about their history or culture so I can't comment.
Last edited by Kahoolin; October 8th, 2005 at 05:50.