Posted on 10/23/2001 11:15:16 AM PDT by tallhappy
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
That assumes that they think like you do. But then, very few people do.
The first step in winning a nuclear exchange is to engage in something called "damage limitation." That means destroying the enemy's ability to attack your homeland.
Now, the US strategic force consists of 14 nuclear subs (7 at sea at any given moment), each loaded with 24 missiles, plus 500 land-based missiles, and a still-significant bomber force based at, IIRC, about a dozen or so bases. In addition, there are NUMEROUS command and control sites.
So, that gives China a target set of about 700 sites or so; this in turn requires about 1400-2000 warheads (depending on which figures you accept for missile reliability).
To meet this requirement, we have...20 warheads.
Have you, just maybe, begun to see the mismatch between what you want to believe the Chinese strategy is, and the means necessary to accomplish it?
I'm thinking collateral damage here.
You go to war not to kill lots of the enemy you go to war for a reason.
China is a one party state that relies on the secret police and other intelligence and security force organisations to stay in power.
What we are talking about is a large sprawling bureaucratic organisation that gives power to a small group of men at the top the politburo.
In a Nuclear war the Central parties grip on the country will be loosen, maybe even destroyed.
With the local population control centres taken out China will fragment, local Party bosses, regional military HQs, will set them selfs up as regional war lords, China has a great history of this.
Her huge sprawling size is her biggest weakness as well as her strength.
So what will this war achieve a weekend America, a fragmented China, you eliminate an enemy so that you can step into the vacuum, in this case you will have a vacuum, that India, the EU , Japan and a host of other countries will only be to happy to step into.
Just because they are Communist does not mean they are stupied
Tony
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.