CLINTON GAVE CHINA CHIPS FOR NUCLEAR WAR!

iconoclast ^

[clintonbaiter]

Newly declassified documents show that President Bill Clinton personally approved the transfer to China of advanced space technology that can be used for nuclear combat. The documents show that in 1996 Clinton approved the export of radiation-hardened chipsets to China. The specialized chips are necessary for fighting a nuclear war......

[Liz]

Moanica musta been under Clinton's desk when he signed off on this.

He thought he was giving China chocolate chips for microwaving.

[Liz]

indexing

[Poohbah]

The microchips that Clinton GAVE them ENABLED them to have technology they NEVER had before. Read the article linked above in the above posted thread.

I've read about it. The ChiCom nuclear missiles you're referring to were built in the 1970s. The chips under discussion are a separate issue and are not related to the nuclear missiles; they are related to satellite systems, which is an entirely different can of worms. Because they last longer in a space environment, they let the satellite perform its mission longer and reduce the total ownership cost of space systems.

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

The "technology" allowed them to "successfully" point nuclear missles at the US that COULD "make it" to our shores. They could not do this before.

If I can find the old articles I'll ping ya.

FRegards Poohbah

[Shermy]

"MoveOn.org, People"

LOL!

[Poohbah]

The "technology" allowed them to "successfully" point nuclear missles at the US that COULD "make it" to our shores. They could not do this before.

Those missiles were already pointed at the US, and had demonstrated a successful capability to fly the requisite distance downrange.

Please do not get your understanding of technology from infowars or Newsmax--the guys who run those places are technologically illiterate.

There's reason to be concerned about this technology transfer, just not THIS particular reason; and to be concerned about the wrong things tends to obscure

[.cnI redruM]

THere is a world of difference between aiming a weapon and bore-sighting it to within exceptable tolerance.

Aiming the weapon, points it in a desired direction and somewhat brackets where it will strike.

Bore-sighting the weapon correctly guaruntees it will land within a desired tolerance of where it is aimed.

This allows China to specifically suppress point targets with their nuclear arsenal, rather than attempting to blanket a given area.

The net effect of this treachery is that the Chinese are able to put the fear of God into the US for 1/5 what it would have cost the USSR.

[Grampa Dave]

You just ruined my lunch.

I love calamari but this stuff is awful.

[Grampa Dave]

Yep old Jake the Wookie Reno, enabled the Clintoons to do a lot of criminal activities. Goron called the process, "No Controlling Legal Authority!"

[Tacis]

"CLINTON GAVE CHINA CHIPS FOR NUCLEAR WAR!"

I don't believe this! Willie might have sold the chips or taken contributions to the DNC or one of his many legal defense or campaign funds in return. But, giving them away? No, that's not Willie.

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

Thanks for the "layman" explanation. That really helped!! Do you mind helping out a tad more? I trust your expertise.

Knowing that Clinton sold the technology he did to the Chinese, and it being my understanding that this gave them an edge they EXTREMELY desired and did NOT previously have.. what advantage did they GAIN?

I think you can better explain this than I can.

I'm not doing it to well. (I'm doing a search as we speak to find old articles from Congressional Hearings we had on this to the security breaches this posed and the damage it did to our technology race (?).

FRegards

[Poohbah]

This allows China to specifically suppress point targets with their nuclear arsenal, rather than attempting to blanket a given area.

Actually, the same effect could be had by mounting a BHW (Big Honkin' Warhead) on the missile...which they already had done (5 megatons worth). To give you an idea how big that is...drop one on the District of Columbia, and you'll break windows in Baltimore.

[.cnI redruM]

They are able to hit high-value targets with a smaller payload.

This is good for three reasons.

1) The missle flys faster - less reaction time.

2) The missle carries a smaller bomb. - It's cheaper and easier to handle.

3) The missle can be transported more easily. - Smaller missles are more amenable to transport and easier to conceal.

Clinton just gave China a big boost in safeguarding their arsenal and affording greater firepower.

[.cnI redruM]

Yeah, but those tend to have longer times in flight, cost more and our easily detectable prior to launch. Smaller, more accurate warheads are actually more dangerous.

[Poohbah]

They are able to hit high-value targets with a smaller payload.

They still only have 18 missiles.

This is good for three reasons.

1) The missle flys faster - less reaction time.

Actually, it doesn't; there is an absolute speed limit on a ballistic missile (too fast, and it just goes into orbit--or the warheads experience too much Q during reentry).

2) The missle carries a smaller bomb. - It's cheaper and easier to handle.

And more vulnerable to reentry (there's Q again!) and weather effects...

3) The missle can be transported more easily. - Smaller missles are more amenable to transport and easier to conceal.

"Smaller" is a very relative term.

Clinton just gave China a big boost in safeguarding their arsenal and affording greater firepower.

Somewhat. But the chips in question aren't neutron-hardened. They're useful in maintaining their space systems instead of their ICBMs.

[Poohbah]

Yeah, but those tend to have longer times in flight, cost more and our easily detectable prior to launch. Smaller, more accurate warheads are actually more dangerous.

Beyond a certain gross level of destruction, smaller, more accurate warheads are only useful if you buy thousands of the boogers and try to have some sort of coherent war-fighting capability.

The ChiCom's nuclear strategy revolves around minimum deterrence--which is why they get so damn snippy about our missile defense efforts.

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

I found the links below pretty interesting.

Note; on the Chinese report by the DOD in June of 2002, I found the "ommission" of the Loral Intelsat satellite that crashed on lift off in February 1996 interesting (a Chinese Long March rocket). Read on,... interesting stuff:

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3958439a559e.htm

http://www.insightmag.com/news/384405.html

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

Thanks again!! You did that quite well! Even "I" could understand it!

FRegards FRiend!

BTW,.. A BIG "THANKS" for your service!

[Filibuster_60]

You're forgetting the new ICBMs in their arsenal, not the outdated DF-5/A, but the DF-31/A which has probably entered limited service since the late 90s. These are about 1/3 the size of the bulky DF-5/A, they're road- and rail-mobile with solid propellant and quick launch preparation times.

The 18 DF-5/A missiles is surely an outdated figure. It may have been conservative even in the mid-90s. We know for a fact that the DF-5/A is based on the same launch technology used in their "Long March" rockets, of which they produced 3-5 annually as early as the late 70s. If they didn't build more than 18 ICBMs, it definitely wasn't for lack of resources.

[Reactionary]

"They've had those missiles pointed at the US since the 1970s."

Really? Considering that only now they have about a dozen nuclear missiles, perhaps you could post something about Chinese missile technology in, say, 1972.