About China's nuclear and ICBM power Page 3

MadeInChina · February 20th, 2005

exactly

but anyone who tries to nuke eastern china would be seriously bashed by my words and my comments, because simply it is genocide

chewie_nz · February 20th, 2005

i just want to say this;

nukes do not equal power. they are purely an indication of how much money a Govt is willing to spend on a useless weapon. i don't care how big (or small) the warhead is, there is no practical use for Nuke weapons short of ending us all.

country A fires at country B who fires at country A & C who then fires....

the end of us all. i don't even think it worth debating
if china has the tech to go to space, why don't they do that? foward progression. what would the world think of china if they went to the moon....or mars? it would surely be in a more positive light than stating "well we put a man into space so that shows you how good our ICBM's are". i don't want a return to the cold war.

Knightraptor · February 20th, 2005

Nukes are a, IMO, If-I-Am-Going-Down-I'm-Taking-You-With-Me weapon.

Whispering Death · February 20th, 2005

Not neccessarily. You could envision a scenario where the U.S. first strikes China, sending the hole country into a burning crisp and our missile defence shield picks up the small few ICMBs that are able to survive the initial attack.

In that scenario you could have a Nuclear war where there is a clear winner.

chewie_nz · February 21st, 2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whispering Death

Not neccessarily. You could envision a scenario where the U.S. first strikes China, sending the hole country into a burning crisp and our missile defence shield picks up the small few ICMBs that are able to survive the initial attack.

In that scenario you could have a Nuclear war where there is a clear winner.

i still stand by my comment, even considering nuke use is horrific. have we learned nothing?

Whispering Death · February 21st, 2005

Horrific it would be. I'm just saying that there are modern scenarios where winning a nuclear war is a possibility.

godofthunder9010 · February 21st, 2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whispering Death

Horrific it would be. I'm just saying that there are modern scenarios where winning a nuclear war is a possibility.

That scenario doesn't truly exist yet because the USA does't have a nuclear missile defense system that can reliably knock down every incoming warhead, so it would be a reckless case of Russian roulette. Under current technologies, it would be just a matter of "Which of our cities get wiped out and which don't." That still constitutes victory if you completely destroyed your enemy, but thats one helluva price to pay.

Mind you, that is based upon what the US government is willing to admit. The US government tends to not admit it when they have an ace up their sleave, so who knows for certain.

Personally, I firmly believe that until viable Missile Defense Systems can make nuclear strikes 100% impossible, then the nuclear powers are forced to leave either each other alone or just turn the planet crispy pile of ash. You have to have a 100% effective system in place before World War III can start. Crazy, no?

Sexybeast · February 25th, 2005

i think if a missile is solid-fueled...multi-stage, multi-war heads..

than U.S missile shield thing will have a very little chance to shoot it down

Whispering Death · February 25th, 2005

Not only has the missile defence shield been proven to do that that but the radars are able to seperate the real warheads from the dummies.

MadeInChina · February 25th, 2005

what??? really...

then tell me how??

February 20th, 2005	#21
MadeInChina	exactly but anyone who tries to nuke eastern china would be seriously bashed by my words and my comments, because simply it is genocide A signature is a little text that can be added at the bottom of the posts you make. It\'s limited to 300 characters (size 7 to 12) on 5 line(s) and 1 image(s) with none larger than 100x500 pixels and for a maximum of 20Kb. In your text, no more than 100 characters without space too.

February 20th, 2005	#22
chewie_nz	i just want to say this; nukes do not equal power. they are purely an indication of how much money a Govt is willing to spend on a useless weapon. i don't care how big (or small) the warhead is, there is no practical use for Nuke weapons short of ending us all. country A fires at country B who fires at country A & C who then fires.... the end of us all. i don't even think it worth debating if china has the tech to go to space, why don't they do that? foward progression. what would the world think of china if they went to the moon....or mars? it would surely be in a more positive light than stating "well we put a man into space so that shows you how good our ICBM's are". i don't want a return to the cold war.

February 20th, 2005	#23
Knightraptor	Nukes are a, IMO, If-I-Am-Going-Down-I'm-Taking-You-With-Me weapon.

February 20th, 2005	#24
Whispering Death	Not neccessarily. You could envision a scenario where the U.S. first strikes China, sending the hole country into a burning crisp and our missile defence shield picks up the small few ICMBs that are able to survive the initial attack. In that scenario you could have a Nuclear war where there is a clear winner.

February 21st, 2005	#26
Whispering Death	Horrific it would be. I'm just saying that there are modern scenarios where winning a nuclear war is a possibility.

February 25th, 2005	#28
Sexybeast	i think if a missile is solid-fueled...multi-stage, multi-war heads.. than U.S missile shield thing will have a very little chance to shoot it down