China's nuclear and ICBM power

exactly


but anyone who tries to nuke eastern china would be seriously bashed by my words and my comments, because simply it is genocide
 
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.
 
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.
 
Whispering Death said:
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.
Click to expand...

i still stand by my comment, even considering nuke use is horrific. have we learned nothing?
 
Whispering Death said:
Horrific it would be. I'm just saying that there are modern scenarios where winning a nuclear war is a possibility.
Click to expand...
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?
 
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
 
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.
 
You can do your own research but they use space based early warning radars combined with laser-equiped aircraft patrolling the international waters to spot ICBM launches and shoot down as many intact missiles as possible before they get into space. Then NORAD continues to track using the big radars like the cobra dane and do some cute calculations to determine which ones are the decoys and which ones are the warheards. Then they launch the hit to kill missiles from their bases in Alaska, California, and North Dakota(?) to knock them out.
 
the shield thing needs further experiments before u can say it is 100% works, cuz there are lots of time it fails in the experiment right?

and according to some source, U.S satellite has difficulties to track the Russian newest missiles,

also those missiles which can change their routes in half-way (as wut china and russia ';s missiles can do )


is that true?
 
Again, no expert but let me put it this way. This is missile defence shiled 1.0 so I think this one is meant to prevent an attack by some rogue crazy-state like N.Korea and provide a basic protection against China if anything stupid happens. I imagine that now that the ball is rolling on the project it'll get more and more advanced as time goes on.

It provides no protection at all against Russia because the shield is only designed to stop a MAX of 20 ICBMs. The deal is that at the current technology, there is a point where it becomes prohibitively expensive to build a shield that can stop like... 1,000 ICMBs so you will ALWAYS be able to swarm any kind of shield in the forseeable future. What the shield can do is stop states that do not have the resources to build arsenals like, arguably, China.
 
if the missilethreat web site is reliable.

than i bet shield is really only working for North koreans and Iranians maybe....

cuz new missiles in russian and china all capable of changing routes in half-way for more than 2 time (probably)..and all of them are multi-war heads equiped...


but i am sure China won't do any crazy things in 50 years,

they will just continue to swarm U.S with clothes, toys and TVs.
 
Again it can handle multiple warheads and dummy warheads. I am also reasonably certain, although I'm not going to do any more research to verify, that the hit to kill missiles can handle warheads that change their course.
 
Sexybeast said:
the shield thing needs further experiments before u can say it is 100% works, cuz there are lots of time it fails in the experiment right?

and according to some source, U.S satellite has difficulties to track the Russian newest missiles,

also those missiles which can change their routes in half-way (as what china and russia ';s missiles can do )


is that true?
Click to expand...

Yes. They're the so-called "Crazy Ivan" MIRVs on the Russian RT-2UTTH/SS-27 Topol-M ICBM. These warheads are designed specifically to defeat the US ballistic missile shield by performing evasive maneuvers when attacked by an American missile interceptor. However, as far as I know, this technology has not been sold to the Chinese, so it's unknown if they have a similar system.

BTW, during this discussion, when you talk about the US missile shield, are you just talking about the land-based interceptors or have you also taken into account that the US Navy intends to arm at least 18 Aegis cruisers with Standard-3 interceptors as well?
 
hehehe...

Are we going back to Cold War era/ No more East-West Germany, but now, China-Taiwan, North-South Korea.

What was the point of getting rid of old Cold-War?
 
The old US-Soviet thing was getting old. You've got to stir the pot every few decades.

On the the laser plane topic, yeah the YAL-1 Cobra is getting a lot of the headlines, as are the ground-based interceptors. The reason: they've the systems that are having the most problems and are using the most money. The media tends to focus on the downs more then the ups.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top