China: We'd nuke U.S. *Sabre rattling?*

China: We\'d nuke U.S. *Sabre rattling?*

Major general says Beijing prepared to use WMDs against American cities

[ QUOTE ]
A Chinese military official says Beijing will use nuclear weapons against the U.S. if the Americans attack the Asian nation in a fight over Taiwan. .....


[/ QUOTE ]

This is not official position.
This is only if we attack first.
Will we?

Bush says US will defend Taiwan if China starts a war

[ QUOTE ]
When asked in an interview with the Fox News TV Channel, "Do we [the US] still stand by an agreement, Mr. President, that if Taiwan is ever invaded, we will come to the defense of Taiwan?" Bush said: "Yes, we do. It's called the Taiwan Relations Act."

Bush also said he believed that "time will heal" the political dispute between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait.

"My attitude is that time will heal this issue. And therefore we're trying to make sure that neither side provokes the other through unilateral action," he said.

Bush explained that the US stance supported a "one China" policy based on the Three Communiques.

Moreover, Bush said, the US adhered to the Taiwan Relations Act, which meant that it opposed either side of the Taiwan Strait unilaterally changing the status quo.

"In other words, neither side will make a decision that steps outside the bounds of that statement I just made to you. If China were to invade unilaterally, we would rise up in the spirit of [the] Taiwan Relations Act. If Taiwan were to declare independence, it would be a unilateral decision that would then change the US equation," Bush added.

Asked about his views on US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's recent criticism of China's rapid military buildup despite not facing any threats in the region, Bush said the US-China relationship was a complex one.

"It is complex because we deal with each other on a variety of fronts. One front, of course, is our defense posture," he said.

When asked whether he trusted China, Bush said: "So far, I do. We'll see ... time will tell." .......



[/ QUOTE ]

Re: China: We\'d nuke U.S. *Sabre rattling?*

Scary stuff, especially living so "close" here in Alaska!

Re: China: We\'d nuke U.S. *Sabre rattling?*

The Pentagon/DoD says that any Chinese general who's privy to their master war planning and scenarios, especially nuclear deployment, would be keeping his mouth shut.

So that is sort of comforting.

I suspect it the General's comments have any official sanction from Beijing, that they're part of a "good cop/bad cop" military-diplomatic strategy designed to keep the U.S. constantly guessing.

While any armed conflict with China is not a "good thing", it will surely destroy both our economies should we survive such a conflict as intact nations, I think that if there was a major war, it would be one of two scenarios:

- China is a "paper tiger", like it turns out much of the U.S.S.R's conventional capabilities were during the Cold War, with the caveat that the core nuclear strike capability is still devastating, if used. The weapons and systems that appear alarming on the surface are not really maintained or deployed to the extent that propaganda maneuvers make it appear. And the high-end military equipment that is in use isn't integrated properly because of authoritarian power structure, corrupt/territorial generals, and conscript-based military "culture" problems. American combined-arms, stealth technology, professionalism, and C3I Infowar expertise hands the Chinese their backsides to them on a platter.

-or-

- China is as tough, upgraded, and increasingly deadly military opponent as the alarmists say they are, and it's a very even match with the U.S. And we will see what the first true 21st Century all-out warfare between two first class militaries will look like. (while we are still alive, and not ducking fallout in our basments.) Unlike the U.S.S.R., Chinese partial capitalist system and efficient industrialization allows them to capitalize on both Communist/Authoritarian military aggressiveness, and the capitalist/industrialization allows for a technological edge that matches the U.S. system for system.

The rub of it is, which of the two is it?

I'd prefer not to find out.

Re: China: We\'d nuke U.S. *Sabre rattling?*

I'm sure there would be plenty of diplomacy involved before going to war with one of our major upcoming allies. However, China are a bunch of little commie bi*ches so I would not be completely surprised if they did go after Taiwan. Let's just hope it all works out so we don't have to kick their asses. I mean when it comes to people, China can not be messed with, but as far as military technology and capability, China is a small speck of sand on a large beach.

DanK

Re: China: We\'d nuke U.S. *Sabre rattling?*

Majors and generals would always like to use the weapons in their arsenal. this is why the US got rid of her original tactical nukes. So that our folks in the field wouldn't be tempted to actually use them. So now only the president can push the button, not some hothead on a traditional battlefield.

With the exception into those nuclear bunker busters that we researched a while back but still aren't going to build we have stuck to this very strongly.

I believe that other countries have also realized the danger in letter a field official make this kind of decision. So the fact that he said this really means nothing, I'm sure you could find plenty of our military officials that would agree to the opposite. But they are not the ones in the position to decide. And thats as it should be.

Re: China: We\'d nuke U.S. *Sabre rattling?*

Anybody in charge in China would have to be pretty stupid to even think of such a thing. What the hell is china going to do when the US no longer buys MOST of the things they produce? And if we lost a city to their nukes...we would probably blow up the entire country.

Re: China: We\'d nuke U.S. *Sabre rattling?*

China's biggest problem it should be worried about is food.
In the next ten years it will have a terrible time in feeding its huge and growing population. In ten years time there will be grain ships leaving daily from the west coast for China.
It will always need American and Canadian wheat.

Re: China: We\'d nuke U.S. *Sabre rattling?*

Actually, I think it'd be stupid for anyone in charge "not" to think of such of thing. Nuclear contingencies are a frightening prospect, but to ignore the possibility of such a scenario would be irresponsible for anyone with that kind of authority. I find it difficult to believe that a Chinese general would say anything that wasn't "ok'd" by Beijing, unless he was looking to get into a forced labor camp or spending the rest of his life under house arrest. In the end most of this is just political posturing. I doubt the powers that be in Beijing are cavalier enough to seriously consider an invasion that might draw in the US, but it would be nice if Taiwan didn't antagonize the mainland as much.

In 30 years time, China's GDP might elipse ours. If that happens the jokes about cheap products won't be nearly as funny. To me that's more worrying than how many nukes they've got.

Re: China: We\'d nuke U.S. *Sabre rattling?*

Lets face it, empires rise and fall. China is rising. The U.S. is falling. Whether you look at education, trade balances, economies etc etc.

Why does the US care about Taiwan. Why does the US care about Iraq. Why not spending the 300 billion that go into Iraq for education here.

Most empires fall because of Greed. Look at where the investments go thats where the future is. And to the poster who threatened when we stop buying china products. Well China holds about 700 billion dollars in US funds (out of the trade deficit) - meaning this is money the US owns to China. They could crush the US economy whenever they wanted.

Its like in your personal life. The bank rules. Right now China delivers the goods and borrows us the money to buy them. So guess who has more power (todays real wars are fought economically with trade balances and jobs) the US or China. Just ask our corporations and money where they are betting (or investing) their money. Sad but true.

Re: China: We\'d nuke U.S. *Sabre rattling?*

[ QUOTE ]
Ilikeshinythings said:
I'm sure there would be plenty of diplomacy involved before going to war with one of our major upcoming allies.

[/ QUOTE ]

...oh, you mean as there was plenty of diplomacy involved before the little adventure say, in Afghanistan? Or, hey, how about Iraq? Everything's all right then...
(sorry, couldn't resist... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif )

"China is a small speck of sand on a large beach."
The saying: "Famous last words" come to mind...
Apparently, much smaller specks of sand on much smaller beaches are providing plenty trouble for the US military already, from last I've heard... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

Re: China: We\'d nuke U.S. *Sabre rattling?*

You might consider checking out the book Dragonstrike: The Millenium War it's an interesting read. IIRC it was fiction based on what real players were saying in the news.

-LT

Re: China: We\'d nuke U.S. *Sabre rattling?*

[ QUOTE ]
COMSEUR said:
Apparently, much smaller specks of sand on much smaller beaches are providing plenty trouble for the US military already, from last I've heard... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

While our Military is having difficulty with terrorist who disguise themsleves as civilians, and deliberately target crowds of children, that hardly means they are doing a poor job.

Re: China: We\'d nuke U.S. *Sabre rattling?*

Raven, pls note that I did NOT say the the military is "doing a poor job".

On the contrary, under the circumstances (poor BRASS planning, equipment, body armor, logistics and whatnot), I'd say they doing what they can and often more.

Re: China: We\'d nuke U.S. *Sabre rattling?*

In my humble view, war is about money, Where is the most economic interest to the US, in China or in Taiwan? If commerce with China is more profitable than commerce with Taiwan, Let them have it! as long as we can keep making profits. The all american capitalism at work.

I just can't imagine a war in which almost all weapons and systems used were assembled/made in one of the involved countries in the conflict.

Re: China: We\'d nuke U.S. *Sabre rattling?*

[ QUOTE ]
war is about money

[/ QUOTE ]

Since when? There have certainly been lots of wars fought for economic reasons in the distant past, but recently at least the ones involving the US certainly haven't been based on money or economics.

we stayed out of WW2 until Japan bombed the heck out of us, we concentrated on the status quo in the middle east until Ladden bombed the heck out us too. Would have been easier to prop up nasty dictators and buy their cheap oil than to go in and form new governments. These wars are about money, but about the spending of huge amounts of it to gain a future where we're not getting the heck bombed out of us.

Re: China: We\'d nuke U.S. *Sabre rattling?*

I hate to say this but probably all wars are econommically motivated. Pearl Harbor was the incident the president needed to convince the public to go to war, it wasnt the cause (proven by historians).

The same with Iraq. It is proven that THERE IS NO LINK BETWEEN SADDAM HUSSEIN AND 9/11. There is a link between Afganistan and 9/11, but NOT Iraq and 9/11. Same thing here again. Iraq is about Oil, the incident taken to convince the public is 9/11. Just follow the news. Oil and resources (metals etc) keep entire economies afloat. China is just about to waken up with over a BILLION people (4 times the US) to feed with food, consumer goods etc. If you don't secure oil and resources you have a problem as a government (do you think a government gets reelected if the gas or other resource price doubles or triples?). China's bid for Unocal (california oil company) and other recent purchases is just the beginning.

Did you know that the chances of dying in a Terrorist attack in 2001 where much lower then your chances of getting killed while driving to the airport?

Or another example, take Rwanda 10 years ago. Massive Genozide we are talking MILLIONS where killed (ethnic cleansing). No one gave a sh?t, or did anything about it (why, there are no economic interests - Monica Levinsky was more important).

Iraq had not really a problem (no WMD, no genozide, only a dictatorship, but HUGE RESOURCES). The people that got killed years ago was during a time period where the US actually supported Iraq. Suddenly its made a reason to attack. North Korea is where the WMD's are (they even told us).

Re: China: We\'d nuke U.S. *Sabre rattling?*

And what country did Ladden represent? What has kept india and pakistan from nuking themselves off the face of the earth. Money!

India won't attack Paquistan because their economic interests would collapse, close to half of they produce come from economic deals with other countries:

"Link 1"

Even more here: "Link 2

Pakistan has similar interests.

US-China commerce(@418 Billion) is greater than US-Taiwan commerce(@137 Billion)

"Link 3"

"Link 4"

I do not believe in a good samaritan motive for war. Just my .02

AlexGT

Moderator Note: <font color="blue">Please read up and learn to edit your links so that one does not have to scroll over and over to read the posts in this thread - caused by links that are too long.</font> Thank you.

Re: China: We\'d nuke U.S. *Sabre rattling?*

[ QUOTE ]

...Why does the US care about Taiwan. Why does the US care about Iraq.
Why not spending the 300 billion that go into Iraq for education
here...

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no evidence that shows that just spending more money on
'education' has ever enhanced its quality. We spend more every year
and kids learn less the more we spend. Government schools cannot
even be counted on to teach kids to read anymore.

More money has not been the answer to declining government schools
for at least thirty years. If more money was the answer we should
have had some improvement by now, instead we have seen a steady
wholesale erosion of student skills across the board.

One commonly quoted definition of insanity is when someone keeps
doing the same thing over and over and always expects a different
result. Most of the taxpayers and politicians would seem to qualify
when it comes to education policy.

Actually, if the expanding education expenditures and declining
results of the last thirty years are anything to go by, one could
assume that a quick shot of an extra 300 billion into education in
the States would almost immediately translate into a sudden,
measurable downturn of performance.

Re: China: We\'d nuke U.S. *Sabre rattling?*

Sub_Umbra: I was just getting ready to slam you on your comment that more money doesnt improve education quality. My theory was that the US spends much less on education then other countries and thats why there is so much room for improvement.
Then I found this here
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs/eiip/eiipid41.asp
Which kind of proves your point. The US expenditures in education are one of the highest. So I think your comment is right.
Hmm so what could 300 billion be used for then. How about public transportation

Re: China: We\'d nuke U.S. *Sabre rattling?*

I don't think that the US educational system is broken, but there is a brain drain occuring with some of the best graduates in the states going back to their respective nations where the economic opportunities have vastly improved over the last 20 years. Does anyone really think that the 300 billion spent in Iraq would be going to "waste" being spent on education? Maybe it would be. Perhaps our country is too decadent to do anything right anymore. I agree with Mobile's ebb and flow view to empires, but I don't think that means we necessarily have to fall...right now. I think human nature is to tribalistic for the nation states to ever completely fall victim to the rise of multinationals, but who can say. I think it's possible under the correct set of circumstances for the US to remain atop by hitting another surge, but not by bankrupting the country with false objectives, false hopes and false contrition at the loss of "innocent life." I consider it a "waste" for our country to be over there, the costs have been far too high. I think our military men and women are too valuable to be sacrificed to the ego of a man who wants to leave heavy footprints but can only see 5 feet ahead.

There are probably many examples of wars where economics was not the primary motivation, it's just that there are just about 100 times as many examples where it WAS. And you can also be stupid and do the math wrong and paint yourself in a corner. Greed and hubris as Mobile1's said have been the downfall of most empires. There have been memorable wars purely fought for pride or spite, but WWII and Iraq are two HORRIBLE examples. If you were talking about the crusades...well, ok. They weren't fighting over drilling rights in Palestine. In WWII, what mobile said was right on point. As for Iraq ditto, but I've got to second some points. For anyone to ignore the oil in Iraq is ludicrous. There were many secondary "bonuses" like securing a foothold in a strategically important region of the world, getting rid of the man who tried to kill your father, a kind of manifest destiny to transform the middle east, WMD, the threat of terrorism (more or less a red herring for the benefit of the public), but any of these and all the rest take a back seat to OIL. The oil made it possible for all the other reasons to get checked off. Without it, there is no way it hell we would've gone in there.

As for Afghanistan, you could tie that into economics as well. The lives lost on 911 were tragic, but to the country as a whole, economically, it was shattering. Unlike London and Madrid, no disrespect intended whatsoever, which were psychologically devastating, the economic effect of 911 bears absolutely no comparison. With bin laden laughing it up at watching the twin towers fall, there is not a single person who has ever run for president of the United States, that wouldn't have done the exact same thing by going in there with guns blazing. The country required blood for blood at that point. Of course others might have actually captured Osama, some might not have left Afghanistan in such shambles, or made backhanded deals with the warlords, and maybe others might've expended some actual effort and capital at reconstruction, and maybe a few would've tried to institute some order and civility instead of letting a state of virtual anarchy ensue, but no matter right? When was the last time anyone mentioned Afghanistan? In 5 years, the highschoolers will only remember Iraq, even though they'll remember 911. Someone will mention Afghanistan and half will go "oh yeah."

Perhaps I'm too much of a conspiracy theorist, but is it a coincidence that the US was able to capture Sadam alive (the most humiliating way for him to go down), kill off both of his sons and never see a hair on the head of Osama bin Laden? Sadam had the entire country at his disposal. Granted, he was too arrogant and myopic to see the end when Bush lined up a half a million of the US's finest, but the resources at his disposal were ridiculous compared to bin Laden. But how clean was the finish for Sadam and his sons? Of course our moronic war planners never seemed to consider the aftermath, about "infidels" occupying a motherland, but it was a perfect 10 on cleaning up the Husseins. Whereas with Osama, some guy in the back of a jeep, they think he might have some kind of kidney condition, they think he's probably still alive, they think...what??? Is that a f***** joke? That's the best our intelligence services can do with this supposedly sitting on the front burner for the last 5 years? Is Osama's IQ 380? Is he the luckiest man to have ever lived? Because the odds have got to be better for someone to win a couple of powerball lotteries than for a single man to survive against the full glare of the DoD for as long as he has. Maybe he's still out there because we don't really want to find him. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ooo.gif Ya that one's out there.

For anyone wondering "why?" Because, fear is the easiest and the most efficient emotion to exploit for the purposes of mass population control. Ya, I should lay off the coffee. Do I really believe it? Not really, maybe they tried for awhile and then decided he'd be more useful out there as a disembodied head with virtually the entire hierarchy of his organization ripped out from under him. Every once in awhile he'd issue a video to stir things up, but he'd be pretty impotent spending most of his time looking over his shoulder...I wonder sometimes.