China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread

[9dashline]

Some sectors of the US establishment wants to bluff China on Taiwan with nuclear threat (you can tell that even some of the US members at SDF are clearly under that influence). Why? Because they know it's very difficult, and increasingly unlikely, for the US to prevail in a conventional military conflict over a Taiwan contingency. It's very difficult for them to accept this reality psychologically. They're wielding, explicitly or implicitly, the nuclear card to either scare or bargain with China from the position of that weakness.

China must make it abundantly clear that there is no equal position on Taiwan between China and the US. Taiwan is NOT a piece of territory that must be negotiated between the US and China. China will reunify Taiwan peacefully or militarily with conventional force. China does not threat Taiwan or anyone with nuclear weapons. But China will escalate to any level should any third-party initiate nuclear attack against China because of Taiwan or other reasons. And nuclear threat will NOT deter China from reunifying Taiwan, peacefully or otherwise. If there would be a Cuban Missile Crisis of sort, Taiwan to China would be much more than Cuba to the US, simply because Taiwan is Chinese territory. Taiwan is for China to lose.

Any preparation should be based on the above position. The US should not hold any delusion on such matter.

Hypothetically say if China "lost" TW, whether be it through losing it by giving it up after succumbing to pressures of US nuclear blackmail and/or losing it in a kinetic fight etc.... then given history of WWII and US actions thereafter, its likely that TW would become a US base (not unlike Hawaii) for at least the next 70 to 100 years... esp if China suffered a kinetic loss in war, then its almost a foregone conclusion that US would mount short range nuclear missiles in TW aimmed at and against China to seal the deal of the nuclear blackmail and put China in a position where it won't be able to get its navy out to the Pacific, US would claim the SCS for itself, and put chokehold on Chinese trade unless China signed away Plaza Accord 2, 3, 4 and 5.

Stalemate/strategic ambiguity is one thing, but actually losing TW would spell the end of the Chinese rise/dream and recapitulate China back into being a colony enslaved by the West/US yet once again....

Given Chinese's advancements in nuclear parity with the US, I just don't see this realistically coming to play without a WWIII scenario, it would be incredibly naïve if America thinks it can force this on China and that this time around their homeland will be safe and untouched like during the previous two world wars.

 

[escobar]

While it does not necessarily give China an upper hand over the US, the briefers said, there were certain elements of the missile's capabilities and how it operated that took the officials by surprise.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Lol, A Chinese first strike would be suicidal and will remain suicidal for the foreseeable future.

 

[ZeEa5KPul]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Lol, A Chinese first strike would be suicidal and will remain suicidal for the foreseeable future.

No, it's not a suicide, it's a double homicide.

 

[weig2000]

Hypothetically say if China "lost" TW, whether be it through losing it by giving it up after succumbing to pressures of US nuclear blackmail and/or losing it in a kinetic fight etc.... then given history of WWII and US actions thereafter, its likely that TW would become a US base (not unlike Hawaii) for at least the next 70 to 100 years... esp if China suffered a kinetic loss in war, then its almost a foregone conclusion that US would mount short range nuclear missiles in TW aimmed at and against China to seal the deal of the nuclear blackmail and put China in a position where it won't be able to get its navy out to the Pacific, US would claim the SCS for itself, and put chokehold on Chinese trade unless China signed away Plaza Accord 2, 3, 4 and 5.

Stalemate/strategic ambiguity is one thing, but actually losing TW would spell the end of the Chinese rise/dream and recapitulate China back into being a colony enslaved by the West/US yet once again....

Given Chinese's advancements in nuclear parity with the US, I just don't see this realistically coming to play without a WWIII scenario, it would be incredibly naïve if America thinks it can force this on China and that this time around their homeland will be safe and untouched like during the previous two world wars.

At this stage of China's development, should China ever allow that to happen, then maybe China just deserves the fate - hypothetically speaking, of course.

I mean, China spends only 1.3% of GDP on defense currently and has the technological, industrial and financial means to achieve nuclear parity with the US in relatively short period of time. You're not a poor, hapless third-wolrd shit-hole country like you were in the 19th or early 20th century anymore. You're a superpower. If you're allowing a faraway foreign power to meddle with and mess around your fundamental core national interest: indisputable sovereignty and territorial integrity, for so long and still would not be willing to pay some moderate price to buy yourself some basic life and property insurance, what would that tell the rest of world about yourself?

In other words, do the right thing and have the will to fight: Don't mess with China on Taiwan.

 

[escobar]

At this stage of China's development, should China ever allow that to happen, then maybe China just deserves the fate - hypothetically speaking, of course.

I mean, China spends only 1.3% of GDP on defense currently and has the technologically, industrially and financial means to achieve nuclear parity with the US in relatively short period of time. You're not a poor, hapless third-wolrd shit-hole country like you were in the 19th or early 20th century anymore. You're a superpower. If you're allowing a faraway foreign power to meddle with and mess around your fundamental core national interest: indisputable sovereignty and territorial integrity, for so long and still would not be willing to pay some moderate price to buy yourself some basic life and property insurance, what would that tell the rest of world about yourself?

In other words, do the right thing and have the will to fight: Don't mess with China on Taiwan.

Really deserve the fate if they still chided US for seeking absolute nuclear security, superiority and primacy.
Their nonsense expectation is for US to have weak nuclear posture

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[longmarch]

Really deserve the fate if they still chided US for seeking absolute nuclear security, superiority and primacy.
Their nonsense expectation is for US to have weak nuclear posture

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

United States surely have some insane people. But you don't have to resort to nuclear war before US back down, like in Vietnam.

 

[AssassinsMace]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Lol, A Chinese first strike would be suicidal and will remain suicidal for the foreseeable future.

The Chinese won't be striking first. It's the US that likes bombing countries all the time. It's the US that wants to change China so it's more likely they will act when China doesn't change to their liking. That's how it usually works.

 

[hashtagpls]

The Chinese won't be striking first. It's the US that likes bombing countries all the time. It's the US that wants to change China so it's more likely they will act when China doesn't change to their liking. That's how it usually works.

Chances are given the fog of war, we won't know who launched first until after the dust settles and even then, the anglos will be motivated to hide their culpability. Anglos have demonstrated overeagerness as a society and culture to use nukes on non whites, look at the survey on nuking north korea for eg, or look even at that event where Nixon drunkenly wanted to nuke north korea or when the anglos wanted to get the soviets on board with nuking China.

And given the increased discourse on "tactical nukes" it's clear that the anglos do not have confidence in winning a regional conflict with china, hence why they want to escalate to nukes.

The news of China's FOBS test has evidently shocked the anglo leadership enough that they're heaving irrationally, wanting to set the world on fire if they can't maintain hegemony, like a toddler upending a chessboard when he's losing.

 

[AssassinsMace]

Chances are given the fog of war, we won't know who launched first until after the dust settles and even then, the anglos will be motivated to hide their culpability. Anglos have demonstrated overeagerness as a society and culture to use nukes on non whites, look at the survey on nuking north korea for eg, or look even at that event where Nixon drunkenly wanted to nuke north korea or when the anglos wanted to get the soviets on board with nuking China.

And given the increased discourse on "tactical nukes" it's clear that the anglos do not have confidence in winning a regional conflict with china, hence why they want to escalate to nukes.

The news of China's FOBS test has evidently shocked the anglo leadership enough that they're heaving irrationally, wanting to set the world on fire if they can't maintain hegemony, like a toddler upending a chessboard when he's losing.

There's always the Gulf of Tonkin. The US will mostly likely lie if they were to start the war and Americans will believe it because they never want anyone to believe they'd start it. What this weapon simply does is increase American fear that they will be hit where before they believed US ABM technology would protect them. Like I've said before, Americans think their lives are much more valuable than everyone else's, therefore they're more in fear of losing them. Now they'll know they'll be hit if they start something. Americans have the assumption China will start the war. They're the ones upset all the time countries are not embracing their values. That is where they're more likely to start something. I don't see China demanding the world be more like them. As they keep saying, China is getting everything it wants at America's expense. Why would China start a war when according to them China is already winning?

 

[montyp165]

There's always the Gulf of Tonkin. The US will mostly likely lie if they were to start the war and Americans will believe it because they never want anyone to believe they'd start it. What this weapon simply does is increase American fear that they will be hit where before they believed US ABM technology would protect them. Like I've said before, Americans think their lives are much more valuable than everyone else's, therefore they're more in fear of losing them. Now they'll know they'll be hit if they start something. Americans have the assumption China will start the war. They're the ones upset all the time countries are not embracing their values. That is where they're more likely to start something. I don't see China demanding the world be more like them. As they keep saying, China is getting everything it wants at America's expense. Why would China start a war when according to them China is already winning?

Exactly this, which is why it is the US that will start this fight, but China must be able to decisively finish it whatever the circumstances.