Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Chinese Activist Warns of Nuclear War
Washington Times ^ | 9-1-05 | Bill Gertz

Posted on 09/01/2005 12:48:45 PM PDT by Paul Ross

China is preparing for nuclear war with the United States over Taiwan, and a conflict is likely in the near future because of divisions among Beijing's leaders, a Chinese democracy activist says.

Wei Jingsheng, a leading international advocate for political reform in China, said in an interview with The Washington Times that President Bush and other U.S. leaders do not fully understand the chance of a conflict breaking out and must do more to avert it.

(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: attnwalmartshoppers; china; communism; nationalism; nuclear; pla; puppetmasters; unrest; war
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 201-210 next last
To: BeHoldAPaleHorse

So how do we disagree? I never said the Chinese would nuke us.

I just said that whoever automatically dismisses the threats originating from China is a fool. And I stand by it.


81 posted on 09/01/2005 2:43:14 PM PDT by SerpentDove (In the shadow of the Almighty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: pganini
It takes trillions of dollars to build those weapons.

Actually, no. Cruise missiles are cheap. And the warheads are not much more...once a sufficiently large nuclear infrastructure is in place. And the Chinese have that.

Be that as it may, even the leftist anti-war sites admit the Chinese likely have 400 nuclear warheads. I think they are off by a factor of ten. Here is one of them, the Natural Defense Resource Council, with a surprisingly open admission:

"The Chinese have been very effective in keeping secret the details about the size and composition of their nuclear stockpile. Thus there remains uncertainty about the size of the nuclear bomber force, the number of ballistic missiles deployed, and whether or not China has "tactical" nuclear weapons. The above table above represents our best estimate. China is believed to maintain an arsenal of about 400 warheads of two basic categories, including some 250 "strategic" weapons structured in a "triad" of land-based missiles, bombers, and SLBMs. We have listed about 150 "tactical" weapons: low yield bombs for tactical bombardment, artillery shells, atomic demolition munitions, and possibly short- range missiles."

82 posted on 09/01/2005 2:45:20 PM PDT by Paul Ross (Definition of strict constructionist: someone who DOESN'T hallucinate when reading the Constitution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: BeHoldAPaleHorse
Because that's what you said they'd do.

No. That is a hypothetical of your devising. You postulated they wouldn't have security. I didn't. So stop being stupid.

83 posted on 09/01/2005 2:46:54 PM PDT by Paul Ross (Definition of strict constructionist: someone who DOESN'T hallucinate when reading the Constitution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross

Someone needs to pass the info that we have a gazillion nukes pointed at Beijing.


84 posted on 09/01/2005 2:47:11 PM PDT by processing please hold (Islam and Christianity do not mix ----9-11 taught us that)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee; Jeff Head; Alamo-Girl

Pinging FYI


85 posted on 09/01/2005 2:48:27 PM PDT by Paul Ross (Definition of strict constructionist: someone who DOESN'T hallucinate when reading the Constitution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross

Cruise missles yes, but we're talking about ICBM's here.


86 posted on 09/01/2005 2:49:38 PM PDT by pganini
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: pganini
Cruise missles yes, but we're talking about ICBM's here.

No, we're not. They are talking about asymmetric attacks, which means not having to slug it out SLBM for SLBM. Weapons delivery via cruise missiles in many ways would be more effective, because they could be more evasive of detection.

87 posted on 09/01/2005 2:52:30 PM PDT by Paul Ross (Definition of strict constructionist: someone who DOESN'T hallucinate when reading the Constitution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross

"No. That is a hypothetical of your devising. You postulated they wouldn't have security. I didn't. So stop being stupid."

You started the hypotheticals, and then suggested that they were deploying these hypothetical weapons to various and sundry ports around the US.

I merely noted that none of these ports had the sort of security that one observes around nuclear weapon storage sites.

I briefly knew several platoon leaders in Vietnam who had your love for extremely complex plans that relied on the enemy's stupidity. I knew them only briefly because none them survived their first firefight.


88 posted on 09/01/2005 2:56:06 PM PDT by BeHoldAPaleHorse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross
I get your points. The difficulty of doing a 'what if scenario' with China is that you are assessing a moving target.

Add in the growing strategic alliance with Russia....where do they play in all this?...I'm not sure.

Then add an additional asymmetric threat with a nuclear equipped Islamic terrorist organization or state...acting as a proxy of China.

It all makes things difficult to predict...especially beyond a five year time frame.
89 posted on 09/01/2005 2:57:53 PM PDT by Dat Mon (still lookin for a good one....tagline)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: ravingnutter

As you may know, the Russians refused the Chinese demands that the recent Exercises be held near Taiwan, and the PLA hardly allowed the Russians any close viewing of their forces....It was more like two seperate activities side by side....I heard comment that the Russians will stay out of any Taiwan war....The Russian PEOPLE don't want their forces to attack Taiwan with China....BUT, what I'm saying is that IF there is a surprise attack of Taiwan, the US would stop it conventionally and then IF the hot ones among the PLA sent nuke missles our way we would deliver a similar return package to the point where there caves wouldn't save them....Oh, I figure also that most of us pounding on these keys are sitting in armchairs, but I have never fired a shot in anger.... Anyway, this is the best forum on the net and I hope it continues....


90 posted on 09/01/2005 3:01:25 PM PDT by crowman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Space Wrangler; Alamo-Girl; airborne; American in Israel; AnimalLover; auggy; backhoe; ...

THANKS.

END TIMES PING TO

END TIMES DREAMS VISIONS PING LIST

Sounds confirming of various prophetic sources, to me!

PRAYER STILL MUCH IN ORDER!

Please let me know if you want on or off this list.


91 posted on 09/01/2005 3:10:32 PM PDT by Quix (GOD IS LOVE and full of mercy HE IS ALSO JUST & fiercely HOLY. Cultures choosing death shall have it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Dat Mon

I agree with you up to the "limited nuclear exchange."

It is ludicrous in the extreme to think that a nation like China WOULDN'T see the effects of taking out a good number of carriers and COULDN'T do it if they said 'damn the cost.' However I consider it likley that ANY nation that unleashes the atomic fire against America will be destroyed utterly by the same means. The reason being: Why would we want to live in a world with a nation that is considers atomic weapons something to be resorted to so easily?

I believe that "limited nuclear exchange" isn't on our list of tolarable things. It was MAD that prevented ANY firing of nukes during the cold war.


92 posted on 09/01/2005 3:11:53 PM PDT by TalBlack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross; All

I would appreciate everyone who knows any Chinese of any alertness and IQ of any significance at all to ask them the following sort of question.

"Say--do you think China will attack Taiwan and the USA BEFORE or AFTER the Olympics.

I'd love to have our networks polled on that score.

It's still hard for me to discern that. Could well be before as they think they could recover if they attack in 2006.

. . . in time for the Olympics.

On the other hand, some may not want to risk it and wait until after 2008.


93 posted on 09/01/2005 3:14:41 PM PDT by Quix (GOD IS LOVE and full of mercy HE IS ALSO JUST & fiercely HOLY. Cultures choosing death shall have it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AbeKrieger

MOST Chinese dissidents have IQ's several orders of magnitude greater than SCREAMING DEAN.

And light years greater than his social sensitivities.


94 posted on 09/01/2005 3:15:37 PM PDT by Quix (GOD IS LOVE and full of mercy HE IS ALSO JUST & fiercely HOLY. Cultures choosing death shall have it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Edgerunner

At 1.2+ billion,

They are CONFIDENT that they have a LOT more 'rice' to fry and still recover and be on top of not just the USA, but the world.

This is their serious mentality.


95 posted on 09/01/2005 3:17:08 PM PDT by Quix (GOD IS LOVE and full of mercy HE IS ALSO JUST & fiercely HOLY. Cultures choosing death shall have it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: konaice

China's population etc. is even more spread out, in some respects, than ours. We don't have enough nukes.


96 posted on 09/01/2005 3:17:58 PM PDT by Quix (GOD IS LOVE and full of mercy HE IS ALSO JUST & fiercely HOLY. Cultures choosing death shall have it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: mc6809e; All

PLEASE see the China related predictions on this thread's intro doc:

PROPHETIC EVENTS ON THE HORIZON [27 Proph Christian sources 1940-NOW]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1472056/posts


97 posted on 09/01/2005 3:19:54 PM PDT by Quix (GOD IS LOVE and full of mercy HE IS ALSO JUST & fiercely HOLY. Cultures choosing death shall have it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross

So, a nuclear war with China would be worth it? Why can't those "remaining allies quailing in terror" rescue them? Why does it always have to be us?


98 posted on 09/01/2005 3:20:21 PM PDT by my_pointy_head_is_sharp (We're living in the Dark Ages.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Quix
China's population etc. is even more spread out, in some respects, than ours. We don't have enough nukes.

We don't waste perfectly good nukes attacking farmers.

99 posted on 09/01/2005 3:20:21 PM PDT by konaice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Frenetic

I think you are lacking in understanding of the over all situation and of the Chinese mentalities, goals, dynamics.


100 posted on 09/01/2005 3:20:56 PM PDT by Quix (GOD IS LOVE and full of mercy HE IS ALSO JUST & fiercely HOLY. Cultures choosing death shall have it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 201-210 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson