Posted on 09/24/2018 2:58:27 PM PDT by SleeperCatcher
In a meeting with U.S. Defense Secretary James Mattis in June, Chinese President Xi Jinping vowed that Bejing “cannot lose even one inch of the territory” in the South China Sea. That’s about as plain a warning as one gets: China will defend, militarily, it’s outsized claims in a body of water through which one-third of all global trade passes.
The U.S. would have little difficulty in taking out militarily significant targets on any of the islands in question. But that’s not really the point.
Through the construction of these artificial islands-turned-military bases, China acted brazenly but in a calculated way: When the decision was made to begin dredging sand and building artificial islands, Xi and the Chinese Communist Party calculated that no one in the region, including the United States, would directly challenge the construction.
(Excerpt) Read more at greatpowerwar.com ...
“To accomplish that objective, China must necessarily challenge the existing global order which is led by the United States.”
So much nonsense from this author.
China would have to build 1,000 strategic nukes and their respective delivery systems to effectively do as the author suggests.
They only have about 50-100 that can reach the US today. Against 1,500 we have ready to launch at them.
And nukes are the price of an Aircraft Carrier. Or US airfield. Or SSN etc.
How about if we do the same thing, put in our own island bases and they will have to launch a war to stop us.
I don’t understand or believe the supposed limit on the number of Chinese ICBMs.
“I don’t understand or believe the supposed limit on the number of Chinese ICBMs.”
It’s not a limit.
It’s how many they have. Believe it or not.
Is the U.S. willing to have 20-30 of our largest metropolitan areas hit simultaneously by multiple nuclear weapons over the South China Sea?
China could easily have paid the Clintons and/or Obamas for permission to smuggle nukes here directly and hide them in our major cities. It’s not like that wouldn’t be for sale, at the right price.
They’re snooping around Venezuela under the guise of humanitarian aid.
Of that 1/3 of world trade, how much of it is to and from China, anyone know?
[Is the U.S. willing to have 20-30 of our largest metropolitan areas hit simultaneously by multiple nuclear weapons over the South China Sea?]
The good news is they do not have a large enough military to defend that much ground/seas.....
THAT is how you screw them.
Not our problem. No more American wars in Asia.
Quote: [So much nonsense from this author.
China would have to build 1,000 strategic nukes and their respective delivery systems to effectively do as the author suggests.
They only have about 50-100 that can reach the US today. Against 1,500 we have ready to launch at them.
And nukes are the price of an Aircraft Carrier. Or US airfield. Or SSN etc.]
Yes, they say they’ve only got hundreds. But why would they tell the truth? They’re certainly not averse to lying, in order to lull their perceived adversaries into complacency. Heck, they played dead while North Korean forces were running pell mell for the Chinese border after MacArthur’s landing at Inchon, and launched a surprise attack on US forces while the latter was attempting administer the coup de grace to the North Korean People’s Army.
In 2011, high estimates of the Chinese nuclear arsenal again emerged. One three-year study by Georgetown University raised the possibility that China had 3,000 nuclear weapons, hidden in a sophisticated tunnel network.[29] The study was based on state media footage showing tunnel entrances, and estimated a 4,800 km (3,000 mile) network. The tunnel network was revealed after the 2008 Sichuan earthquake collapsed tunnels in the hills. China has confirmed the existence of the tunnel network.[30][31] In response, the US military was ordered by law to study the possibility of this tunnel network concealing a nuclear arsenal.[32] However, the tunnel theory has come under substantial attack due to several apparent flaws in its reasoning. From a production standpoint, China probably does not have enough fissile material to produce 3,000 nuclear weapons. Such an arsenal would require 9–12 tons of plutonium as well as 45–75 tons of enriched uranium and a substantial amount of tritium.[33][34] The Chinese are estimated to have only 2 tons of weapons-grade plutonium, which limits their arsenal to 450–600 weapons, despite a 16-ton disposable supply of uranium, theoretically enough for 1,000 warheads.[33] ]
“Is the U.S. willing to have 20-30 of our largest metropolitan areas hit simultaneously by multiple nuclear weapons over the South China Sea?”
The much bigger question is whether China is willing to have every single one of their cities and military installations destroyed in the vain effort to challenge US power is a real way?
That’s their strategic calculus. They know if they use nukes, they cease to exist. And the only benefit they receive is the destruction of a couple of dozen US cities.
And that’s IF THEY SHOOT FIRST. If we shoot first, our counterforce capability is enough to negate their retaliation to maybe 10% of their arsenal.
“The Chinese likely have thousands of nukes.”
More nonsense.
They would not be able to hide that arsenal from US surveillance. US intelligence pegs them below 300, mostly tactical.
“Nonsense, no one is going to lob nukes at each other.”
Any war between the US and China, or the US and Russia inevitably goes nuclear. And the losing side is most likely to cross the threshold first.
I really don’t see why we should go to war over some islands with nothing worthwhile on them in the South China Sea, let alone a nuclear war. Sounds pretty stupid to me.
We should not give a damn about the south China Sea. Its thiers. So what. We would be pretty damn pi#$ed off if foreign navys tried to take the over the gulf of mexico, staights of alaska etc. Bring the troops home and put them on the mexican border.
why have the enviroweenies been so strangely quiet about the disruption of ocean floor and environments for the little fishies affected by all the dredging? are they getting Chinese money to stay quiet?
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.