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

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-49 last
To: EdisonOne
Locke deserves no sympathy. He held three illegal, out of state fund raisers with Maria Hsia's friends, including one at a Buddist Temple in New York. His loyalties will always be suspect.
41 posted on 10/24/2001 8:20:04 PM PDT by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
"If they seriously intend to fight and win a nuclear exchange against the United States,their force structure would look a lot more like the XUSSR's did at their peak."

That assumes that they think like you do. But then, very few people do.

42 posted on 10/24/2001 8:33:12 PM PDT by wcbtinman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: wcbtinman
Youre post was completely devoid of a model of how China wins a nuclear exchange with only 20 deliverable warheads. OK, it looks like you're in desperate need of a chalk talk.

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?

43 posted on 10/25/2001 5:12:05 AM PDT by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
My 2 cents: I was wonderin', in reality, was it Gorby, or was it the US who had truly defeated the USSR anyway? Somehow, I was of the opinion that good Ol' Gorby was the candidate here in this regard, but what do I know. IMO however, the guy probably thought that with Reagan's connections that he could somehow land a leading role with some hot chick or somethin' in Red October when he wasn't doing so well in the Moscow front. No??? Of course, good Ol' Brezhnev must get credit where credit is due also. It couldn't have been possible without the official announcement of his (Brezhnev's) retirement. BTW, I sometimes wonder how many of those hardliner Bezhnev type commies are still out there, both in Russia and elsewhere in the world these days, and how many of them didn't take it quite so well about the demise of their once tall tall country? God... I love intriques and this one indeed is something worthy of scrutinizing.
44 posted on 10/25/2001 7:14:10 AM PDT by EdisonOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: EdisonOne
My two cents: the hardliners were of the same generation as "Chuckles" Brezhnev. If they're still around, they can barely remember their own names, let alone how they feel about the USSR imploding.
45 posted on 10/25/2001 8:23:53 AM PDT by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
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.

I'm thinking collateral damage here.

46 posted on 10/25/2001 8:39:29 AM PDT by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: skeeter
Yeah, which is why we don't want to START a nuclear war ourselves, despite the fact that we'd "win."
47 posted on 10/25/2001 9:21:26 AM PDT by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
A war is not about numbers, who kills most.

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 self’s 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

48 posted on 10/26/2001 3:20:53 AM PDT by tonycavanagh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy
Thank you scumbag clinton.
49 posted on 10/26/2001 3:27:08 AM PDT by the catfish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


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