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

Skip to comments.

China will continue to target US cities - Powell
rediff.com ^ | 10-23-01 | T V Parasuram

Posted on 10/23/2001 11:15:16 AM PDT by tallhappy

China will continue to target US cities: Powell

T V Parasuram in Washington

US Secretary of State Colin Powell, fresh from his talks with Chinese leaders, said that China would continue to keep American cities within striking distance of its missiles and modernise its nuclear weapons.

He, however, suggested that this would not spark an India-China or an India-Pakistan nuclear race, as New Delhi and Islamabad were really concerned about the problems in their neighbourhood.

"The Chinese have always kept a relatively small amount of intercontinental ballistic missiles and they have never viewed them in the same way as the Soviet Union did during the Cold War when we were constantly building up," Powell told reporters.

"If we put them (missiles) in SSBNS (nuclear submarines), they would put them in SSBNS. If we had a triad (missiles in the air, on land and at sea), they had a triad," Powell said about the Cold War.

"The Chinese were never a part of that competition. They built a few first strike intercontinental ballistic missiles. They were not designed to go after somebody else's nuclear forces. They were designed to go after something of enormous value -- San Francisco, Los Angeles, Seattle -- and as long as they could do that, their nuclear forces were serving their purpose," he said.

"It is expected that over time one would modernise such a force. Can't keep an old force around forever. The Chinese have been working to modernise that force, which tends to make it more stable and safe," he added.

PTI


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-49 next last
To: veracious
As for your initial summary: yes, that's why they have those forces...to deter us from pushing them too far. That reason was, ultimately, why the US had nuclear forces--to deter Russia and China from pushing US too far.

As for the future: their nuclear forces are slated for a modernization, but a modern ICBM costs far more for them than it costs us (in terms of total national wealth). So any force expansion is going to be fairly slow. And they have a LOT of structural problems that are going to catch up with them sooner rather than later.

I don't see China being a player on the international stage as either the next big baddie OR a "civilized nation." Instead, they're going to fall into yet ANOTHER round of warlordism and banidtry before 2020. Heck, the US Navy may reactivate the Yangtze River Station before 2030.

21 posted on 10/23/2001 12:08:54 PM PDT by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Malcolm
China is our enemy. True enough.

But that doesn't mean we have to be in a hurry to fight a war with them. Notice that we managed to defeat the USSR without a war.

22 posted on 10/23/2001 12:11:35 PM PDT by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy
I'm convinced. Colin Powell has gone insane
23 posted on 10/23/2001 1:33:47 PM PDT by spycatcher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eva
Re: I wonder how, Govenor Locke of WA, feels about Seattle. That indeed is very low... and it sounded somewhat racists if I may say so - "no one said you can't make friends with them you know"! The more enemies you dream up, the more enemies you make for yourself. In fact, enemies are the by-products of your own invention and of course your inagination!!! Hey, you don't have to agree with me on this one. Just keep in mind - the Wright Brothers never thought their Kitty Hawks would have turn out the way it did. They likely took it for some sporty toy hobby or somethin' when they started fiddling with those bicycles. So if you want to invent enemies - you INVENT enemies!!! EOM. .
24 posted on 10/23/2001 1:39:59 PM PDT by EdisonOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: EdisonOne
. That indeed is very low... and it sounded somewhat racists if I may say so - "no one said you can't make friends with them you know"!

Your post almost made me laugh. I had to reread it to make sure that you weren't being facetious. Yes, indeed, that is sure a friendly overture on the part of China, to point nukes at Seattle! There's no reason in the world for us to not just turn the other cheek and just help them refine some of those missiles so that they can hit multiple cities at one time. Oh, I forgot, Clinton already gave them the technology to do that.

25 posted on 10/23/2001 2:01:25 PM PDT by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy
Why the hell did Bush make this blithering idiot his secretary of state?

It's really very simple, Mr. Powell: they aim weapons at us, that makes them our enemy. They're either FOR us or AGAINST us... how much of that isn't clear?

26 posted on 10/23/2001 2:05:30 PM PDT by Darth Sidious
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eva
Oh… please do excuse my ignorance, because, and honestly speaking, I never intended for it to be any kind of a laughing matter. I must have overlooked something somewhere somehow. BTW, don't you think Monica's some lucky ducky this time around? However, I can't say the same for Hillery wherever she might be these days. One more thing: If I were OJ, I wouldn't as much as jay walk across my own drive way these hectic OJ days. Incidentally. now that you've got Gary in the hole, don't forget to put that whatever Chao lady from the Labor's Department in this very roster will ya? Nice talkin' and over and out.
27 posted on 10/23/2001 2:43:39 PM PDT by EdisonOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

Comment #28 Removed by Moderator

To: EdisonOne
I take it that you are continuing to be facetious. Nothing you say makes any sense, whatsover. Logic seems to be anathema to the left.
29 posted on 10/23/2001 9:41:48 PM PDT by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy
Is this man an apologist for the Red Chinese?
30 posted on 10/23/2001 9:44:40 PM PDT by Don Myers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eva
Good Mornin' Eva, May I repeat - this is no joke!!! And, however illogical and senseless I may be, if everyone read posts like that however, and are sold by it, may I say that it indeed could put the guy (Gary) in the spot and of course his career on the line??? Here's something hilarious and something you may find entertaining: Ha ha ha… has it ever occur to you, or others on this board of course, that he could potentially be working towards the reaching of the line up for some future US Presidential race? After this round of badgering however, I'd say the idea's definitely screwed for him. Sensitive, isn't it? So, I hope some of you are now satisfied. God… I feel sorry for OJ for he now can't even chance jay walking due likely to his ethnicity and how people picks on him because of it. And I feel sorry for Hillary because of the inner strength and the values of the family which she likely takes to upholding without reservation and are now paying dearly for it due partly to her political aggressiveness. Thanks, I've made my point, EOM, discussion over.
31 posted on 10/24/2001 6:38:04 AM PDT by EdisonOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
This may be & I have read many of your posts and have agreed with most. But I disagree with you totally, the Chinese are sneaky little B@stards & have our destruction in mind with every new weapon they acquire or build. They have strategically taken over the Panama Canal & never miss a chance to show us up or stand in our way. It's not that I want you to be wrong, I wish that you are right , but somehow I doubt it.
32 posted on 10/24/2001 6:48:34 AM PDT by HELLRAISER II
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: HELLRAISER II
Being "sneaky" will not help them in the event of a nuclear laydown. And in that event, they do not have the wherewithal to prevail--the most the can do is blow up some US urban centers (and a sufficiently cold-blooded assessment might conclude that this can only help the US).

China has serious economic (and, ultimately, political) problems, tied to the structure of their economy. Being "sneaky" won't help them there, either. You cannot finesse your way around economic collapse.

China is going to go down for the count before 2020, whereupon they will have the good ol' days of warlords and bandits squabbling over who owns the next hill. They won't give a damn about owning the Panama Canal after that.

BTW, if you're so damn worried about the Chinese "owning" the Canal through Hutchinson Whampoa, why don't you organize a hostile takeover effort? They are publicly traded, after all.

33 posted on 10/24/2001 8:13:11 AM PDT by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah; DoughtyOne
re : Targeting cities IS a good sign--it means that the PRC doesn't envision themselves starting a nuclear exchange and winning.

I agree with Poohbah.

America and the Soviet Union both built up enormous stockpiles of Nuclear Weapons to cope with the first strike scenario, can one side win a nuclear war by attacking the other side with so many weapons that they would not be able to launch an attack back.

Tony

34 posted on 10/24/2001 8:19:31 AM PDT by tonycavanagh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Darth Sidious
re : It's really very simple, Mr. Powell: they aim weapons at us, that makes them our enemy. They're either FOR us or AGAINST us... how much of that isn't clear?

America has had Nuclear weapons aimed at China for a long time, Russia still has weapons aimed at America and America at Russia, does that mean the Russia and China are right to consider America an enemy.

What is different today than the 60s, 70s, and 80s, and 90s.

Would you agree to a further limiting of Nuclear weapons, would you agree that all Nuclear weapons must be untargeted.

Powell is recognising the world as it is today, not as people would like it to be.

Tony

35 posted on 10/24/2001 8:25:16 AM PDT by tonycavanagh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: tonycavanagh
Tony; The arguement Poohbah made is worthless. He should know it and so should you. Think about it. Twenty well placed nukes on our cities would kill in excess of 100 million US Citizens. That's more than 1/3 of our populace. Care to venture how many nukes we'd have to use to take out 1/3 of their populace? Probably 90% of China's populace lives in an agrarian culture spread out so sparcely that they would hardly be effected by a nuclear attack by the US. Our culture is exactly the opposite. We'd have to use 100s of nukes to even come near the 400 million figure to "get even." You tell me who'd lose that war. How do you bomb a nation back to the stone age when 90% of their populace already lives there? Unfortunately the same mind-set that "never thought" of the human missle aspects of a loaded 747, now thinks that a nuclear attack by China is unthinkable. It may not be thinkable to us. We have a lot more to lose in such an exchange. China already knows this, and I think it's time our populace realized it.
36 posted on 10/24/2001 9:46:49 AM PDT by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: tonycavanagh
This is the nation we're dealing with.  Check it out.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/555642/posts

37 posted on 10/24/2001 10:26:26 AM PDT by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: EdisonOne
Sorry, but you have not made your point. The circle logic that you use is impossible to follow. Try a little deductive reasoning. Maybe you'll end up with a reasonable conclusion.

You can skip the OJ and Hillary lines. I have no interest in either one. They are both irrelevant to current politics. Condit also. Who cares? They are all nothing more than a side show.

38 posted on 10/24/2001 12:33:57 PM PDT by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
Tony; The arguement Poohbah made is worthless. He should know it and so should you. Think about it. Twenty well placed nukes on our cities would kill in excess of 100 million US Citizens.

BS. Unless US population has grossly expanded or performed the most amazing shift in the past year, the total population of the top 20 cities in the US is just under 31 million. Let's double it (assume the folks in the 'burbs double the total body count when they go to work in the morning). That's 62 million. That's a lot of dead, but WAY under your guesstimate. It also assumes, for instance, that EVERY last bit of New York City's surface area is reduced to rubble (that's ONE bomb affecting 300 square miles), AND you assume that every resident is a citizen. If you're going to throw numbers around, would you mind not just pulling them out of thin air?

That's more than 1/3 of our populace. Care to venture how many nukes we'd have to use to take out 1/3 of their populace?

Fewer than you'd believe possible. Targeting: key infrastructure nodes (rail and road junctions, harbors, etc).

Sure, we wouldn't kill them all right away.

But you're just as dead from starvation and disease six weeks after an attack as you are if you're vaporized in the first millisecond. China imports food. China's food PRODUCTION is far away from most of its food CONSUMERS. No transportation means that most of China starves in a matter of weeks.

Probably 90% of China's populace lives in an agrarian culture spread out so sparcely that they would hardly be effected by a nuclear attack by the US.

Did you just make up this factoid, did you merely "assume" this factoid, or do you have some hard facts to back it up?

Our culture is exactly the opposite. We'd have to use 100s of nukes to even come near the 400 million figure to "get even."

Like I said, not very many for a "get even" mission. However, revenge, while briefly satisfying, does not usually accomplish anything useful, unlike (for instance) completely obliterating the PRC's capacity to create, support, and employ any sort of military force beyond spears and (maybe for the high-tech folks) bows.

You tell me who'd lose that war.

The People's Republic of China would cease to exist as any sort of political entity. The United States would be rid of 62 million or so folks who mostly voted for Al Gore. You tell ME who lost that war.

How do you bomb a nation back to the stone age when 90% of their populace already lives there? Unfortunately the same mind-set that "never thought" of the human missle aspects of a loaded 747, now thinks that a nuclear attack by China is unthinkable. It may not be thinkable to us. We have a lot more to lose in such an exchange. China already knows this, and I think it's time our populace realized it.

I see you believe that The Thoughts of Chairman Mao contain all strategic wisdom for the modern era.

There is a reason that the terrorists attacked us in the fashion they did. Believe me, they'd WANT to be able to rain thousands of nuclear warheads on us. The problem is very simple: THEY CAN'T. That's why they went wth Plan B.

China may WANT to win a nuclear war with the United States. Nuking 20 cities ain't the way to do it--but that's all that they have the means to do.

39 posted on 10/24/2001 1:45:01 PM PDT by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Eva
Sorry Eva, I guess what it is is that "some people" have a tendency of hearing their own voice only and no one else's. I concede defeat here, Eva... without question, you are right as can be expected. To set the record straight however - I feel sorry for Governor Locke the Chinese guy and not Governor Condit. Once again, discussion finish. Over and out.
40 posted on 10/24/2001 8:05:30 PM PDT by EdisonOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-49 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