posted
If North Korea were to nuke one of our major cities, what would be an appropriate response, on our part?
I know a lot of people would say, "Nuke them back," but I wonder ... would killing as many of their civilians as they killed of ours lose us the moral high ground? Could modern Americans be proud of their own country if it nuked another country back to the stone age, even in retribution?
But would we seem weak and invite more attacks if we responded to a nuclear strike with a mere conventional military invasion? Would it be unnecessarily risky to fall short of nuking them when they have an undetermined likelihood of being able to strike us again?
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is no proper response for such an issue, the very principle of MAD is that there is no response.
Thus we learn children, nukes are very, very bad things and should not be played with by diminutive dictators, lest we plunge the world into a new dark age from which it would arise but very slowly, if at all. SAY NO TO NUKES CHILDREN, they can screw you up really bad.
DARE to keep diminutive dictators away from nukes.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
NK? Use tactical nuclear weapons to strike military targets that can be hit with minimal civilian casualties, then invade (unless the situation has changed greatly, China will help). Assuming this is the near future, NK will not have used a missile (even if their missile that can reach us were working, they're nowhere near being able to build a nuke that can fit on it), so we'd have little to fear from a second attack.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If we fired about 3 Nukes back there wouldnt be a North Korea anymore.
I am not sure about the proper response. I do not think a nuclear response would be right. We could very easily gain TONS of international support and simply use a combined task force (with mainland China's and South Korea's help hopefully) to steam roll over the country and help them set up a new system of government.
Blighting the land as well as subjecting them to the indescriminate force of a nuclear bomb seems like the wrong response since them using nuclear bombs in a preemptive strike would be wrong for so many reasons. How could a nuclear response be convincingly justified if thats true?
Though still unlikely, I still find it entirely possible that the North Koreans having a crazy dictator as their head might nuke themselves and all our troops stationed there with them if we invaded. It probaby would not be hard for America to simply assasinate Kim Jong Il as well as all the strong minded leaders as a way to break the resolve of NK.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that MAD isn't so much a real response as a threat. Once the first missile has been fired, the threat ends.
quote:We could very easily gain TONS of international support and simply use a combined task force (with mainland China's and South Korea's help hopefully) to steam roll over the country and help them set up a new system of government.
This is what I think would happen.
Upon being attacked, regardless of what country it was, the use of nuclear weapons would resulted an immediate* "ton of bricks" response of unprecedented united conventional force.
The only way to stave off such a conventional response attack would be for N.K. (or whoever) to threaten to use Nukes again, if they had them.
That would be more likely to provoke a nuclear response although I think that a lot of intelligence sharing would go on first in order to ascertain the truth.
As a result, as far as I can tell, no one with the slightest bit of sense and with any regard for himself (I mean in the individual sense, clearly this dictator cares very little about his country) would use Nuclear Weapons against anyone else. Build them, yes. Threaten with them, yes. Use them- no. It takes of lot of madness to be so very destructive- sadly, I think it's possible in the mind of the righteous fanatic.
Goodness.
*Immediate would be necessary. I feel like if I were Japan, China, South Korea and America right now, this is what I would be planning: a swift (24 hours at the most) conventional response to a predecided sign of aggression.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If they launched a nuke AND hit one of our major cities...
quote:would killing as many of their civilians as they killed of ours lose us the moral high ground? Could modern Americans be proud of their own country if it nuked another country back to the stone age, even in retribution?
We would not lose the moral high ground by counter attacking with nuclear weapons. I would still be proud of my country, even if such a terrible thing happened. I don't speak for anyone other than myself in this matter, though.
Doing otherwise is like hanging a giant neon sign on Uncle Sam's neck, blinking, "FREE EATS!!! COME AND GET IT!!!"
Posts: 1813 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
But since the civilians killed by our nuclear strike wouldn't have been the ones who chose to attack us, in what sense, honestly, would that be retribution?
I'm definitely not saying that we should do nothing in response to an attack. But even an swift, overwhelming, devastating conventional military response would at least have the ability to be somewhat discerning about its targets.
Fugu's comment about using small-scale nukes against military targets is a good one, if there are such targets to be had. Our response would feel commensurate in its devastating power, but it would be morally much more justifiable.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Cover their country with an umbrella of fighters so dense they blot out the sun, knock out every military fixture on the ground, then use bunker busters to start taking out the rest while paving the way for a ground assault. I'd never advocate nuking them back, there's no point in punishing the people for their crazy leader's decisions.
But we wouldn't let it go unchecked, and I'd have to imagine we'd have all the international support we'd need.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
See, I don't think a nuclear strike would be an isolated incident; it would probably be coupled with a quick push across the DMZ. The ground assault's already started and we're on the defensive.
So we go with swift crippling force. Try to do as much damage to the regime as is possible without invading quite yet-- from the air, from the sea. Get ahold of your allies, and eliminate the nation's ability to make war. If you can't tacnuke it, MOAB it. Then you invade.
posted
I think there are targets you could tactically nuke, I'm just not sure it'd be worth the headlines. We have little one kiloton bombs that would take out a base, but do little long term damage, but I really don't think it's worth the "US uses nukes on N Korea" headline and publicity it brings with it when targeted bombing with conventional weapons does the same thing.
I don't see a "quick" push across the DMZ as really being all the feasible. That kind of troop buildup with be witnessed days in advance, and the heightened alert would give us all the time we need to muster enough force to if not outright stop them, then at least bloody them badly enough to make them think twice. It's hard to move on S Korea when you've lost air superiority and your supply lines are being picked off.
Such a move, especially with the kind of speed required, could only be done with the element of surprise. Maybe that's what all those tunnels they are building are for. They'll just pop up in South Korea with a tank division and yell "Surprise!"
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think MAD would even be a factor in this case- if it was just NK. The only reason MAD was a factor in the Cold War was because of the Soviet Union's overwhelming nuclear force. Compare our tens of thousands of nuclear warheads against NK's probably 20-50 warheads at most (I'm obviously assuming) that might be able to attack the West Coast.
I don't think nuclear warfare with NK would result in our destruction unless other countries joined in on their side.
Posts: 980 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
But aren't they already almost into the stone age? It seems ridiculous for them to build nuclear weapons when so many of their peopel are starving... Shame they can't just rise up and crush the dictators...
I say focus on taking down the goverment and the military without hurting the civilians too much, but how is that possible?
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think there is no leader or citizensry in the world that would not support America if it was simply retaliating in kind. Remember Afghanistan? It may be difficult to think back so far, but there was actually quite a lot of popular support for that even in Europe. You got attacked, you hit the swine who did it; even the leftists of my acquaintance (and I know one guy who is the last remaining member of the Norwegian Communist Party) were going, "Yeah, fair enough, the Taliban are nasty buggers." It was Iraq that was a war too far. If Korea were to use an actual nuke, well, you could blanket them with smallpox and the world would stand up and cheer.
That said, I don't think a nuke would be necessary. It's not as though a conscript army can possibly stand against the US, supported (as it would be) by South Korea, Japan, China, and every two-bit country that can raise three ceremonial guards armed with halberds. Just march into Pyongyang and hang the leadership cadre for war criminals. Then annex the place for your fifty-first state.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't see a "quick" push across the DMZ as really being all the feasible. That kind of troop buildup with be witnessed days in advance, and the heightened alert would give us all the time we need to muster enough force to if not outright stop them, then at least bloody them badly enough to make them think twice. It's hard to move on S Korea when you've lost air superiority and your supply lines are being picked off.
Hmm, maybe "quick push" is the wrong term then. Though we have(had?) troops there, S Korea is pretty good at taking care of itself.
Even so, I can't imagine the North throwing a punch at the US without trying to startle its nearest ally with a (possibly nuclear) attack. A North Korean ground attack wouldn't have to be very successful -- if they have nuclear missiles, it might not even be necessary. It would simply have to prevent the South from making the same move while the Americans assist from above.
posted
N Korea has to know they'll never be able to invade S Korea without a massive uproar of opposing forces. If they really wanted to nuke someone for the hell of it, they should nuke them withdraw from the DMZ, then nuke the DMZ. Kill a few hundred or thousand (I have no idea about border troop deployments) of the enemy, make the area uninhabitable to impede the enemy counteroffensive and hole up.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Shawshank: I don't think MAD would even be a factor in this case- if it was just NK. The only reason MAD was a factor in the Cold War was because of the Soviet Union's overwhelming nuclear force. Compare our tens of thousands of nuclear warheads against NK's probably 20-50 warheads at most (I'm obviously assuming) that might be able to attack the West Coast.
Yea, MAD wouldn't be a factor. We'd be talking about massive casualties on our side, but no more North Korea on their side.
And yes, I'd be all for nuking them until the country is a radioactive pit. Partially because I think a moral high ground is useless for a country unless it provides that country with something it wants or needs. Not nuking North Korea would do neither. Partially because if North Korea nukes us it pretty obviously wants to become a radioactive pit. And partially because I'm positive that an invasion of North Korea would just turn into another Iraq. I don't think that would serve as any kind of a deterrent. If someone nukes us, I want every other country watching them to see how it goes to be very, very deterred.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:And yes, I'd be all for nuking them until the country is a radioactive pit. Partially because I think a moral high ground is useless for a country unless it provides that country with something it wants or needs. Not nuking North Korea would do neither.
I personally think that Americans "need" to feel like they aren't responsible for the deaths of millions of innocent people. I think we've proven that several times in the past few decades.
quote:Partially because if North Korea nukes us it pretty obviously wants to become a radioactive pit.
"It" meaning whom? The leaders of North Korea? Or its citizens? I'm not sure that the detonation of a nuclear device on American soil would necessarily constitute a death wish on the part of the millions of North Koreans who did not decide to send it there.
quote:And partially because I'm positive that an invasion of North Korea would just turn into another Iraq. I don't think that would serve as any kind of a deterrent. If someone nukes us, I want every other country watching them to see how it goes to be very, very deterred.
Though you can be sure that if we utterly destroyed another country, many of the nations who do not feel threatened by the United States, and who are not interested in attacking us, would be deterred from aligning themselves with us in the future.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't see how NK could turn into another Iraq. (And, by the way, Iraq is nowhere near being another Vietnam, yet.) There's no religion to cloud the issue, and the people are not just being oppressed and tortured, they are actually starving. Ship in some ton-loads of rice and watch them welcome their liberators. Throwing roses, no doubt, if they had any.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would completely support our right to retaliate, although if we could achieve the same results otherwise I would support that as well.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
just wait for things to get to the point where they'll unify peacefully with S. Korea, S. Korea is in a labour shortage and by having N. Korean heavy industry and man power would boost their economy. Hech S. Korea even has an offically sanctioned ministry of Unification.
IP: Logged |
posted
I think there may be a subtle (or not so subtle) clarification Puppy needs to make. Is the issue using nuclear weapons or is the issue the killing of innocent civilians? This was touched on with the idea of low grade tactical nukes (by fugu and JTK). Would firebombing population centers be more or less morally degrading than using tactical nukes on leadership posts?
I subscribe to the tit-for-tat ideology, that the proper response to a violent action is one that has a similar effect. If they used a nuclear weapon on a population center of ours, we should use a nuclear weapon on a population center of theirs, with as much immediacy as possible. Then, in response to the lack of provocation for their attack, we should invade and oust Kim Jong Il's (or whomever is the current leader's) regime.
Of course, this is an ideological response and not a political one. My political response would depend on the disposition of S. Korea, China, Japan and Russia; their disapproval or threats of retaliation against the US for an Asian nuclear strike might overwhelm my support for what I believe is the proper response. However, if those countries supported a nuclear strike on NK, I would (probably) do it.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Any attack kills innocent civilians, and an attack that eliminates the threat is necessary. Tactical nuclear weapons against military targets outside of civilian centers would likely not be worse than any other attack in that respect, but would show resolve, demonstrate a willingness to retaliate in kind, and rapidly eliminate important targets in advance of an invasion. One important consideration of action is not compromising our stances verses other nations, as not retaliating in kind would risk doing.
edit: and incidentally provide an effective demonstration of the difference that many are downplaying between a nuclear power and a nuclear superpower.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Basically you get the ok from the neighboring countries that hey I am dropping a nuclear weapon on North Korea don't get angry at us. Then if need be follow up with conventional weapons to destroy and kind of infrastructure they have. The whole idea of MAD is that you don't hit us because you know that we will turn your nation into a nuclear wasteland if you do, so whats the point of attacking us. If you let someone get away with nuking you and not destroying him in kind you lose that fear. Pretty much you let the world know that hey you can kill millions of Americans and all they will do is come in and set up a new government and then give you billions in aid to bring back your struggling economy so that you can join the "free world."
The world is not a kind and gentle place, do not treat everyone with compassion. That and innocent , civilian, etc. can be completely thrown out the window when it comes to talking about your nation and peoples. What matters is your survival, not someone elses. That is the name of the game. You can appear to look as kind and nice as you want to be. The end game is that you are trying to stay alive, and should do everything in your power to do so.
Plus honestly the North Koreans will probably just nuke the Japanese in retaliton for what the Japanese did to them in WWII and before. Quite a bit of hate there. Plus they are no where near close enough to building a missile that can move anything close to a city destroyer towards the USA. The missile they tested could move a small payload, basically they could blow up a building in LA. They are much more likely to build a shorter range missile with the ability to say destroy Tokyo.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have to say that after I'm a pile of radioactive dust being breathed in by people in Nevada, I won't care what you guys do.
But as someone who is still alive and living in a major west coast city, I would HOPE that you would nuke back.
Nuking back is the only response to nuclear weapons. Anything short invites more nukes, cuz after all, America is only going to invade... They're even going to avoid civilian casualties so our families will probably still be alive. Nuke away!
posted
And hopefully we wont have to do it at all, I believe that nuclear weapons are an affront to humanity and keeping such huge stockpiles is absurd, we patience, fair negotiations and with the willingness of China we should be able to resolve the sitution peacefully. However its always possible China is controlling their little puppet behind the scenes erging towards collapse and a unified Korea. A Unified Korea would have no threat from external forces and thus eliminate the need for an American troop pesence and thus if they Unified Korea would not have any american soldiers on it which is good for china.
However as clever as that sounds politics is not a nintendo I doubt they'ld be willing to risk this backfiring on them especially since its propable that they'll unify on their own eventally probly after the death od Kim Jong-Il and the guy who succeeds him. Korea is no in the warsaw pact theree's no communist super power willing to send in the tanks to prevent regime change.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: And hopefully we wont have to do it at all, I believe that nuclear weapons are an affront to humanity and keeping such huge stockpiles is absurd, we patience, fair negotiations and with the willingness of China we should be able to resolve the sitution peacefully.
Yeah, breaking non-proliferation treaties is not an affront to humanity at all.
Seriously man, get over your love affair with Communism.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The thing to do is immediately launch non-nuclear strikes on all facilities that might be capable of housing and/or launching long range missiles or nuclear weaponry. However, we would NOT want to invade immediately or nuke North Korea because both of those would create a big problem with China - who doesn't want America on its border and definitely doesn't want nuclear weapons going off nearby.
We would invade and overthrow the government soon afterward, but only after coordinating with the rest of the world, particularly China, Japan, and Russia.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually if given the option most North Koreans would be VERY happy if they could merge with South Korea. But such talk is treason and constantly punished in NK. Were you to crumble the government in NK I am sure the border checks would also drop and it would basically be The West/East Germany style merger of Korea.
I am not sure how China would respond to NK becoming a democracy with America's insistance. Certainly if NK attacked with nukes they (China) would probably just watch the regime change happen, but if say the government simply fell one day I am not sure what China would do. Hopefully they would just let the Koreans deal with it, rather then pulling a Tibet on Korea and engulfing the whole country with a blitz of Chinese forces. Using the fact that Korea used to belong to China during whatever blah blah dynasty as justification.
I cannot see anybody being able to mobilize fast enough or even caring to do so in order to stop such a move by China.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lets put it this way: nobody like NK, not even China and Russia and certainly not SK or Japan. The U.N. would have totatly destroyed NK had not the Chinese stepped in during the Korean Action and they wouldn't step in again.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Partially because if North Korea nukes us it pretty obviously wants to become a radioactive pit
"It" meaning whom? The leaders of North Korea? Or its citizens? I'm not sure that the detonation of a nuclear device on American soil would necessarily constitute a death wish on the part of the millions of North Koreans who did not decide to send it there.
Which begs the question -- What exactly could Kim hope to accomplish by nuking Los Angeles? All it does is annoy a superpower and give the entire world a reason to hate you. He and his population are going to take a hit in the form of a nuclear strike or conventional bombing.
Either he's launching nukes while taking offensive action against the US elsewhere and, for whatever reason, thinks he can get away with it, or he's already losing a war with the US, or the South, or [i]somebody[i], and he's getting desperate. Theoretically he might do it just to prove that he can, but as crazy as Kim is, I doubt he is suicidal.
I think the proper response for this depends largely on what his rationale were in the first place.
--j_k
[ July 06, 2006, 03:37 PM: Message edited by: James Tiberius Kirk ]
Posts: 3617 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you guys don't think our government is willing to respond in kind to a nuclear attack, you're fooling yourselves. Nuclear deterrence doesn't work without a credible threat. That means you must be willing to counterattack if your weapons are to be of any use defensively.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
They would get his with nuclear weapons one way or another, believe me. Just plain public outcry in the United States would call for immediate counter attack. Plus who knows our little missile defense system might actually work, and we won't have to worry about nuclear waste clouds etc.
That and Invading North Korea would not be a fun game, because we keep forgetting that though they may only have a few viable nuclear weapons, they do have tons and tons of chemical and biological weapons. Not to mention an ungodly amount of artillery with which they can pepper South Korea. Believe me the whole idea of a Second Korean war is no fun, we would win, but not that there would be much to win. Korea would be a cratered piece of land with a lot less of a population. But I will say this, what is the point of having nuclear weapons if you don't use them?
I must be the only human being willing to take a little guilt from the next generation so that they can live without bombed out cities. There are times when you should not go full out Bush style wild. However when someone eliminates one of your metropolitan areas, millions of lives, trillions of dollars thrown away. Yeah.. I want you to be the guy that says we will blow up a few military targets. I tell you what, the Romans wouldn't have been around for 2000 years plus if you were in charge.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:What exactly could Kim hope to accomplish by nuking Los Angelos?
Probably trying to get the U.S. to make the classic blunder of getting involved in a land war in Asia.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: If you guys don't think our government is willing to respond in kind to a nuclear attack, you're fooling yourselves. Nuclear deterrence doesn't work without a credible threat. That means you must be willing to counterattack if your weapons are to be of any use defensively.
But nuclear weapons have never, ever been used as a defensive weapon, if you consider the 2 past uses as alternatives to an invasion. There is no telling what would happen if they were used that way.
The problem with the nuclear threat and the whole idea of the weapon which is effectively too powerful for any usefull purpose is that you have to have it, and you can't use it. Its immensely stupid IMO to even have developed nuclear weapons from the get-go, because countless billions have been spent in Nuke related activites and they have done nothing remotely useful since the day they were first used. No-one in these arguments seems ever to mention that its rather silly to pour money into research on a weapon which is "too dangerous" for others to have. What makes us so special? Nothing.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:What exactly could Kim hope to accomplish by nuking Los Angelos?
Probably trying to get the U.S. to make the classic blunder of getting involved in a land war in Asia.
He has to be aware that it might swing the other way entirely. Nuking LA would give the US a (highly justified) reason not to bother with that messy "land war" thing.
posted
Ori, I don't think you really get it. We weren't the only people developing nukes, and I for one am GLAD we got them first.
I agree that a ton of resources have gone into developing weapon systems that we hope that we never have to use, and while it seems on the surface to be silly I don't think it is.
Having those weapons in the first place has prevented more bloodshed than the alternative.
I believe that using nukes in WWII saved many, many American lives, and without using them just as many people would have been killed. I don't buy into the apologist view that we had no right or need to use them. Look at the history of the war in the Pacific...the Japanese fought until the bitter end, over and over again, even when there was no possible chance of any sort of victory.
If we get into a war, the point of it is to win with the fewest number of American casualties possible. In most situations nukes would cause more problems than they would sure, but in this specific situation they are a serious option.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: And hopefully we wont have to do it at all, I believe that nuclear weapons are an affront to humanity and keeping such huge stockpiles is absurd, we patience, fair negotiations and with the willingness of China we should be able to resolve the sitution peacefully.
Yeah, breaking non-proliferation treaties is not an affront to humanity at all.
Seriously man, get over your love affair with Communism.
Excuse me? And whose the one who withdrew from SALT 1 and refused to sign SALT II? Oh ya the US of effing A.
Oh and who refused to aid the Swiss government in tracking down smuggling of weapons grad plutonium? oh ya the US of effing A.
WHose the only country to ever use nukes in war? oh yeah the US of A.
And which country said that in any case of Soviet attack they would use every single nukle they had regardless of the consequences? the USA.
Which country delcared a "no-first-use" policy and has so far only kept the minimum anount of nukes they need to maintain a credible nuclear deterrent with second strike capabilities? China. 50 ICBM capoable of hitting targets 10,000 miles away compared to the USA's what? 8000?
Refusing to sign a treaty that would leave you defenceless against the nuclear wishes of other powers is perfectly reasonable, upgrading 5000 1950's tanks to 400 ~2000 model tanks designs is just as reasonable.
In fact now that i think about China is one of the few nations that is actually vocal ininternational discussion on the strengthening of NNP treaties.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: Lets put it this way: nobody like NK, not even China and Russia and certainly not SK or Japan. The U.N. would have totatly destroyed NK had not the Chinese stepped in during the Korean Action and they wouldn't step in again.
Be careful about saying SK hates NK. They both insisted on flying under the same singular "Korea" banner in the olympics. A few weeks ago America criticized NK and there were quite a few angry replies from SK. Based on my own understanding of the situation I really do feel that Koreans at the citizen level would love to form one country, its really NK's government that is preventing such a merger from taking place.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Excuse me? And whose the one who withdrew from SALT 1 and refused to sign SALT II? Oh ya the US of effing A.
Oh and who refused to aid the Swiss government in tracking down smuggling of weapons grad plutonium? oh ya the US of effing A.
WHose the only country to ever use nukes in war? oh yeah the US of A.
And which country said that in any case of Soviet attack they would use every single nukle they had regardless of the consequences? the USA.
Which country delcared a "no-first-use" policy and has so far only kept the minimum anount of nukes they need to maintain a credible nuclear deterrent with second strike capabilities? China. 50 ICBM capoable of hitting targets 10,000 miles away compared to the USA's what? 8000?
Refusing to sign a treaty that would leave you defenceless against the nuclear wishes of other powers is perfectly reasonable, upgrading 5000 1950's tanks to 400 ~2000 model tanks designs is just as reasonable.
In fact now that i think about China is one of the few nations that is actually vocal ininternational discussion on the strengthening of NNP treaties.
Blayne: China may be vocal about lowering Nuclear Armament numbers (a fact I lack the knowledge to prove or disprove) but that is probably more because they have not had the funds or time to build as many before these treaties were in place.
How about this statistic:
Which country has had double digit % increases in its military spending for more than a decade? What country's defence budget has doubled since 1997, (citing US activity in Kosovo as a reason for so doing?) What country has military spending in excess of 90 Billion US dollars and yet publishes figures that are intentionally deceptive? What country keeps the largest stock pile of missiles (non nuclear) pointing at a single target at all times and just waiting for launch approval? What country does all this and yet has NO enemies nearby to warrant such huge expenditures in the military?
Finally:
What is the only country on the UN security council to use its military as a means to blitz its way into grabbing a neighboring country, enslaving the population, attempting to breed it out of existance, and completely obliterating its culture?
No one else but the Central Country, China.
BTW your statement that the US is the only country to use Nuclear Weapons in war is deceptive as they were developed first in the US as a means to avoid prolonging the war. Had another country invented them and used them instead, and THEN the US developed nuclear weapons, its completely likely that we would be like any other nuclear power in that we had them, but have never used them.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Most of us have long since given up trying to use reason or logic in discussing China or communism with Blayne. The multiple US of f'in A comments hint at his emotional attachment to the subject. I feel a little bad for even bringing it up now.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian: BlackBlade,
Most of us have long since given up trying to use reason or logic in discussing China or communism with Blayne. The multiple US of f'in A comments hint at his emotional attachment to the subject. I feel a little bad for even bringing it up now.
Perhaps, but I really feel that China's track record is so well documented that any reasonable person can see the risk China poses while still being able to realize the countries potential for good is wonderful.
The current government stands on a mountain of blood, and it must be knocked down before a proper government can exist.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
