Download the Tom's Hardware App from the App Store
The reference for current tech news
Yes No
Ads
Tom's Hardware > Forum > Old Man/Woman's Club > Other > China ‘ready to use N-weapons against US’

China ‘ready to use N-weapons against US’

Forum Old Man/Woman's Club : Other China ‘ready to use N-weapons against US’

Page:    Previous 1 2 Next Bottom Search this thread
Word :    Username :           
 

Quote :

China is prepared to use nuclear weapons against the US if it is attacked by Washington during a confrontation over Taiwan, according to a senior Chinese military official.

“If the Americans draw their missiles and position-guided ammunition on to the target zone on China's territory, I think we will have to respond with nuclear weapons,” Zhu Chenghu, a major general in the People's Liberation Army, said at an official briefing.

“In the end you care more about Los Angeles than you do about Taipei,” Mr Freeman quoted this official as saying. The official is believed to have been Xiong Guangkai, now the PLA's deputy chief of general staff.


L.A. ... naw ...

<A HREF="http://news.ft.com/cms/s/28cfe55a-f4a7-11d9-9dd1-00000e2511c8.html" target="_new">Full article</A>


<b>"The Edge - there is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over." Hunter S. Thompson, </b><b><i>Hell's Angels, 1965</i></b>

Reply to Jake_Barnes
Register or log in to remove.
- 0 +

How stupid. Attacking a nuclear power with nukes is like committing suicide.

<pre><font color=red>A64 3200+ Winchester
DFI Lan Party NF4 Ultra-D
1GB Corsair 4400C25PT
WD740GD, WD2000JB, WD1200JB
ATI X800XL
Dell 2405FPW</pre><p>

Reply to dhlucke
- 0 +

All talk.. and the US would just as easily say they're prepared to use Nuclear weapons against China..

Ever wonder why we're really building that Missile Defense? China.

China has a very low tech military.. the US is out numbered by a huge amount in man power.. but with our tech working for us, they don't stand a chance until nuclear weapons come into play.

China wouldn't risk it.. and I doubt the US would attack China's homeland over Taiwan.. more or less it's an agreement that if China goes militarily after Taiwan, they'll have us to deal with.. and with that, they'll stay off.

2 weeks ago or so Taiwan officials met Chinese officials in Bejing and agreed to a peaceful resolution.

Problem is, China has been dumping a huge amount of money into importing weapons and a large buildup opposite Taiwan.. They say one thing, their actions say another.

Which is why a few years ago when the US sold a few Destroyers to Taiwan for defense.. they pulled back on giving out the Aegis destroyer, which is the most advanced destroyer out there.. so that technology wouldn't fall into the hands of China.


Where are those Suitcase nukes anyhow?

Reply to riser

What China lacks is the sophisticated guidence systems for ICBM's ... they have the H-Bomb yeilds ... but today, they can only get "close" ... if they get the accuracy, that will change the game ...


<b>"The Edge - there is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over." Hunter S. Thompson, </b><b><i>Hell's Angels, 1965</i></b>

Reply to Jake_Barnes
- 0 +

Not stupid at all. That is the purpose of nuclear, to threaten others from attacking period. Of course you hope the China wouldn't actually, but the threat is there.

<pre><font color=red>°¤o,¸¸¸,o¤°`°¤o \\// o¤°`°¤o,¸¸¸,o¤°
And the sign says "You got to have a membership card to get inside" Huh
So I got me a pen and paper And I made up my own little sign</pre><p></font color=red>

Reply to RichPLS
- 0 +

getting "close" is good enough with nukes though.

"Like a scrotum, there it is in a nutshell."
<font color=red>Roll Tide!</font color=red>
<A HREF="http://www.cameronwilliamson.com" target="_new">-={Apathetic As<i></i>shole.}=-</A>

Reply to mrface
- 0 +

Accuracy is not critical with nuclear missles, just a few in our country would reak devastation. And anywhere near the coastline would be a target and plenty of damage.

<pre><font color=red>°¤o,¸¸¸,o¤°`°¤o \\// o¤°`°¤o,¸¸¸,o¤°
And the sign says "You got to have a membership card to get inside" Huh
So I got me a pen and paper And I made up my own little sign</pre><p></font color=red>

Reply to RichPLS
- 0 +

China already owns our economy, no need to nuke us.

--
"There's more to life than profits."
<font color=red>"Like what?"</font color=red>
"Like, you know, Slurpees and stuff."
<A HREF="http://images.southparkstudios.com/media/video/707/slurpees.mov" target="_new">South Park</A>

Reply to ksoth

5232521

I wonder how much the average person in this forum knows about his government to be able to make statements about it...
Personally I don't think there is anyone here who has anywhere near the amount of knowledge needed to make predictions or statements. This is strange to me, very strange. Is it that we tent to think we know enough to state comments or is it just that we will talk about anything and everything? I think this sort of stuff is so pointless to talk about, because only the government knows what its doing. Any statement anyone makes here is as good as drawing a line on water...

Then I see those who make themselves feel big by giving a size matters and we are the biggest speech. I can't express how stupid that sounds to me. Or why not stop taking sides. Can it be that millions of people are wrong in America or is it that millions of people are wrong in china? Could either civilization be more stupid than the other? I think not, its all about not having the capacity to share and live with each other as one.

What a shame that more people are interested in nuclear weapons and war than science and technology (world wide). It will take a great disaster of astronomical size to bring us humans together. Maybe an asteroid SHOULD hit the earth; it might get us to realize fighting each other is not constructive. I can only imagine and dream about what might have happened if the money that went into the war with Iraq was spent to help Africa... *sigh* I wish we as a community were able to stop talking about war, power, money, possession, and destruction.

I almost never post in threads like this. Mostly because they are disturbing to me and I just skip them. This happens to be one of those times where I read the thread and I felt like voicing out my opinion just like everyone else has so far. I hope I haven't offended any of you and I’d like to add this was not directed at anyone.

</font color=red><b><font color=orange>I believe in my penis, it has the power to create life.

Reply to scamtrOn
- 0 +

Quote :

I can only imagine and dream about what might have happened if the money that went into the war with Iraq was spent to help Africa



I think the two are seperate. Truth is we could afford to do both but we don't. I then have to ask why would we spend more money on Africa? Money is not the solution. At least not the complete solution. As far as I'm concered, throwing money at Africa is like throwing money at your typical teenager and thinking it will solve the problem. It won't. They have cultural and moral problems that cannot be overcome with money alone. Money would be good to get them out of the dark ages and away from subsistance living. If it rains too much there they die from flood and a ruined crop, if it rains too little they die from starvation and drought. It's a no win situation. They spread disease, but diseases with no cure. Money will not really stop the spread of AIDS, only education. How do you educate these people though? Trying to re-define people's culture is not exactly something can be done over night. It will take a hundred years. And who will listen? These people still believe that having sex with infants will cure their disease.

Throwing money at Africa to cure poverty is a very liberal idea. It's not very well thought out though. You want to solve their problems you should do it one massive step at a time. Spend all these billions of dollars JUST on bringing in heavy agricultural machinery, modern irrigation, pesticides, etc. You then have a bigger problem since the mortality rate will improve and now you'll have even more uneducated fools spreading disease. So you need to spend money on infrastructure for modern urban metropolitan areas. Places where people can focus on not just farming, but education, art, science, entertainment etc that make life worth living. If they aren't so concerened about drought, famine, disease, and insect infestations maybe they can spend their time teaching their children about the future and how to properly secure it for themselves and future generations.

In the end you have to ask yourselves if it's worth it. By the time you're done in a couple hundred years you'll have to have overcome corruption, war, genocide, religious persecution, cultural differences, and a myriad of other things that frankly make it seem to me like Africa is just a dead end and we just don't see it yet. Just like facism didn't work, neither did colonialism in Africa.

<pre><font color=red>A64 3200+ Winchester
DFI Lan Party NF4 Ultra-D
1GB Corsair 4400C25PT
WD740GD, WD2000JB, WD1200JB
ATI X800XL
Dell 2405FPW</pre><p>

Reply to dhlucke

Of course we can do both, but is that an excuse to have wars?

I’m not into liberalism in the sense it is used and I don't like the idea of "throwing" money at Africa. As a matter of fact I disagree with it in the sense you explain in your reply. First off, my point wasn't Africa. My point was not fighting and putting the time, money, and energy towards something constructive like science. Second, I would never agree to giving money to any government, NEVER. Governments are the root of corruption, even the “best” of them; New Zealand :wink: or America.

My approach would be completely different and I must say I have never heard of a better idea from a politician. It’s not my idea in a sense of originality, but it hasn't been implemented in Africa in a large scale. It takes a lot of money to do this and where it HAS been done, there have only been success stories. But this is not something you would hear about on TV. TV is a political tool and it doesn't display anything unless there is money to be made off it. Exceptions are those 15-30 second sponsored ads you see about "talk to your children", "family values" and that sort of stuff.

But again, I have to ask, why should we do something just because we can when its harmful. I bet you and I can kick each others butts all day and then some, but how would that be a good thing? Now if you and I did some community service, that’s something that is constructive and well respected. THIS is the point I’m trying to make.

Also, there has already been millions of dollars that have been “thrown” at Africa from America alone, already. It has done next to nothing. In some cases it has actually brought more corruption.

</font color=red><b><font color=orange>I believe in my penis, it has the power to create life.

Reply to scamtrOn

Quote :

I can only imagine and dream about what might have happened if the money that went into the war with Iraq was spent to help Africa



i would be interested in what could have happened if the money were spent to reduce poverty in America... to increase education, increase healthcare....

enough good causes exist in the first world nations that don't get enough cash. the third world is an important place that needs a lot of fixing, but i think countries need to work on themselves in order to best help other countries.

Alltaken

<A HREF="http://www.mudpuddle.co.nz" target="_new">http://www.mudpuddle.co.nz</A> its where its all going on, oh and its also all going on HERE <A HREF="http://doug.mudpuddle.co.nz/gallery/" target="_new">http://doug.mudpuddle.co.nz/gallery/</A>

Reply to alltaken

A sensible comment ... and from <b>you</b>!


<b>"The Edge - there is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over." Hunter S. Thompson, </b><b><i>Hell's Angels, 1965</i></b>

Reply to Jake_Barnes

i also think that with the price of the war (which was "suposedly" for oil) could have been very well put towards developing an alternative to oil. at 3 billion dollars a month for 2-3 years you have enough money to invent a lot of stuff, and solve a lot of problems.

on top of that if the US were to protect that intellectual property, build the vehicles, or machines in the country, and export them, the net profits of this both financially, morally, environmentally, and job wise.... would be massive.

so much constructive stuff can be done in the world.

Alltaken

<A HREF="http://www.mudpuddle.co.nz" target="_new">http://www.mudpuddle.co.nz</A> its where its all going on, oh and its also all going on HERE <A HREF="http://doug.mudpuddle.co.nz/gallery/" target="_new">http://doug.mudpuddle.co.nz/gallery/</A>

Reply to alltaken

Quote :

i also think that with the price of the war (which was "suposedly" for oil) ...


Iraq was never about oil ... when are you naive, revisionist liberals going to understand that ... we've gone over this ad nauseam over the last 2-3 years ... just because you say the words, doesn't make it so.


<b>"The Edge - there is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over." Hunter S. Thompson, </b><b><i>Hell's Angels, 1965</i></b>

Reply to Jake_Barnes
- 0 +

just because you say the words, doesn't make it so.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That is true, but they think if they keep repeating them long enough, that it will become truth.

<pre><font color=red>°¤o,¸¸¸,o¤°`°¤o \\// o¤°`°¤o,¸¸¸,o¤°
And the sign says "You got to have a membership card to get inside" Huh
So I got me a pen and paper And I made up my own little sign</pre><p></font color=red>

Reply to RichPLS

Quote :

How stupid. Attacking a nuclear power with nukes is like committing suicide.


Exactly why I keep saying the U.S should take care of country's that currently are trying to achieve Nuclear capability's.

Imagine IRAQ as a nuclear power!! Russia was and still is a Nuclear power but since the fall of the communist era they went through huge organizational problems dealing with the waste materials involved in cleaning up weapons they scrapped and they had the equipment and the awareness ability's to deal with it.

I can't understand how the U.S and the Freaking U.N has allowed other country's world wide to achieve the nuclear ability's that both the U.S and Russia have learned are totally wasteful of mankind's endeavours.

However in Chinas case they appear to have other interests not including war and the Chinese General that had a loose mouth that started all this speculation is probably shot in the back of the head by now or riding a jail cell till he rots.



Discovery Channel headline.

It was announced on Friday in the China Daily newspaper that plans are in full throttle to send China's second manned Shuttle mission into space this October; just 2 years after becoming the 3rd nation in the world to complete such a feat.
Six candidates, picked from a pool of 14 back in December, have already begun their astronaut training. Only two of these space aces, however, will eventually be chosen for the early October journey aboard the Shenzhou VI.

And as NASA eagerly tries to scrape things together at the Kennedy Space Center, the Space Department of the China Aerospace Science and Technology Corp. is looking more ambitious than ever, with plans to set up a Chinese orbiting space station within the next five years, send up a third Shenzhou VII mission with a spacewalk, and once again place human feet on the moon.


<font color=red>GOD</font color=red> <font color=orange>LOVES</font color=orange> <font color=red>CANADA</font color=red>

Reply to SoDNighthawk

I thought you went fishing?


<b>"The Edge - there is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over." Hunter S. Thompson, </b><b><i>Hell's Angels, 1965</i></b>

Reply to Jake_Barnes

Yes the Wife and I returned on Saturday.

<font color=red>GOD</font color=red> <font color=orange>LOVES</font color=orange> <font color=red>CANADA</font color=red>

Reply to SoDNighthawk

The Iraq war, what was it about? Should it have had only one reason? Could it have been "weapons of mass destruction", oil, political positions in the Middle East and so on?

If we go by what Mr. Bush said, then why are we still there? There were no weapons of mass destruction. Oh wait, then it changed to harboring terrorists... what the heck! There are more terrorists in other parts of the Middle East than in Iraq... why are we still there? Reasons just keep coming, but in the end, there is no way you can read the government. In fact if you think you have, that’s when they've got you as a puppet.

From where I’m standing, it looks like a big advancement for America to have a foot set in the Middle East and have a saying power. Politics, I don't understand it, but I know that’s the main reason why American troops are still there. Ways to prove this is Americans don’t want their sons and daughters there, but every time the white house has a different reason as to why they should still be there. Americans are innocent, they do not read through the government and don't understand why we are still there, but the government sure knows why and has given Americans reasons. The sad part about it is that some Americans believe the reasons given by politics.

Now you say it wasn't for oil, what was it for then? Can you tell me that? America is the world power today, but it knows this is changing and moving over to Asia. The guys in the white house are scared shitless and want to prevent it somehow. At the same time nothing stays the same. The Iraq war has a lot to do with remaining world power. That’s the big picture, but so many fail to see it... then again, how can I prove it? Only time will do that.

</font color=red><b><font color=orange>I believe in my penis, it has the power to create life.

Reply to scamtrOn

"That is true, but they think if they keep repeating them long enough, that it will become truth."

Mr. Bush kept repeating the war is about weapons of mass destruction. That wasn't true.... we're still in Iraq.

</font color=red><b><font color=orange>I believe in my penis, it has the power to create life.

Reply to scamtrOn

Quote :

Exactly why I keep saying the U.S should take care of country's that currently are trying to achieve Nuclear capability's.


Have you been outside of North America? Not just out side of North America on a mission, but to go on a vacation, meet people?

Other peoples views about America are very differently shared than those in North America... do you think America can nuke all nuclear power countries at the same time? If you guys were right about this, I promise you America would have done this a long time ago, but as cold hearted politicians are, they are just as smart.

On the other hand, do you realize how stupid that comment sounds? You live your life the way you enjoy it and wouldn't have it any other way, the same goes for people on the other side of the globe, so what makes you think you have the right to say who should be nuked and who should survive. I promise you some North Koreans feel the same way about Americans. Some Pakistanis, some Russians, some Chinese, some Iranians, some Indians... so on. It’s not wise to overestimate your own power. Punch too hard and you will break your hand, I know. Use nuclear weapons like than and we'll drown, grow legs out of our eyes, defecate out of our mouths, and swim with the fish. Maybe you guys don't appreciate our atmosphere, but I like it the way it is.

</font color=red><b><font color=orange>I believe in my penis, it has the power to create life.

Reply to scamtrOn

I said DIS-ARM not USE nuclear weapons on the other country's. Prior to IRAQ coming under American and coalition control we were all not led to believe; but as a world group believed that IRAQ had nuclear capability's.

Country's such as North Korea and other small country's have no purpose on planet earth owning them. America owns them by default from WWII because they needed them to defeat a Japanese people who at that time were the most sadistic animals walking the face of the earth even worse then to the Axis powers led by Hitler, and even I have a hard time saying that about the Japanese but it was in fact true.

Country's who have developed nuclear arsenals since 1945 are experienced in the fact that they have made all the learning curve mistakes. Aside from launching a nuclear attack on another nation the U.S and Russia already understand the folly of owning and maintaining a nuclear arsenal.

As these two super powers understand these daily crimes and accidents caused by nuclear waste and development they need to prevent other country's from operating nuclear facility's that can produce weapons grade plutonium and other minerals associated with nuclear bombs and the possible development of ICBM. Intercontinental Ballistic Missals were not even achieved as accurate by the Russians and even the Americans could not claim pin point accuracy until many years after WWII. Now that the U.S has missile platforms such as the Tomahawk Cruise missile there can never again be any doubt of Americas ability to strike any target any where in the world any time they like.

That power in responsible hands must be maintained and not allowed to fall into a country's hands that have different moral and ethical principals that do not let them see past their religions and beliefs to our own humanity. In some cultures such as Japanese and Chinese faiths saving FACE is always much preferable then to saving another's life. The same with an Arab religion that prevents them from joining modern country's on this planet, their religion is out of date out of time and ready to implode in on it's self as it has been since Israel made an independent state.

No one likes to be told how to live but the fact remains the Catholic/Protestant and Jewish religions although some times brutal have learned to adjust to modern times and create a proper balance within the world group.

No one pushes a button simply to strike out against another person so they feel physical pain and to watch them die those kinds of psychopaths are not allowed into Missile control rooms!! However Religious Military leaders that believe in Doctern such as the Nazi's believed in Nazi doctern those are the types of people who gain control over governments and gain access to the availability of such weapons.

If Bin Laden had taken his Holy cause through government routes instead of a military one that [-peep-] world currently be the most dangerous man alive. Because he opted for a military route to his Jihad he is either dead or neutered to the point of sidewalk bombings.

Just hope that a person like Bin-Laden never gets near a military complex through political channels to ever strike out against the religions outside of his own past tense faith.

Religious belief is the cause of all mankind's problems corrupted by so many men and woman to achieve personnel goals that the religions themselves have little more meaning in them then the instructions printed on match book covers [Close Cover Before Striking]

<font color=red>GOD</font color=red> <font color=orange>LOVES</font color=orange> <font color=red>CANADA</font color=red>

Reply to SoDNighthawk

You ask more questions than you offer answers ... but I suspect that is your way to heap critisism and scarcasim (aka Socratic irony or Scamtronian sarcasm ... )

You seem to suggest that Bush offered only one reason for the Iraqi invasion at a time, that's why you suggest the reasons keep changing. I suspect you know better than that. And yes, we did believe that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. That was easy enough to believe ... the Russians believed he did, so to the French, German's, British and the former Clinton administration ... how many resoultions did the UN pass? Over a dozen? I assume that means they still believed he had something ... and they asked him to come clean and he refused, and threw the UN inspectors out. Let me copy and paste a comment I made on this subject on 1/28/2004:

Quote :


>>invading Iraq because saddam was a bad person is a huge departure from invading Iraq because he posed an imminent threat to the united states. we know at one point the weapons existed, he still may have them, but this is a massive intelligence failure of granduer. this needs to be explored via an independent commission to find out exactly what went wrong. how could we have intelligence that was off my so much and who is responsible


Quote :

If jmycal had had done a more thorough web search instead of relying on the Democratic talking points, he would have
discovered that the belief that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction did not originate with President Bush nor PM Tony Blair.

On Feb. 17, 1998, Bill Clinton stated: "We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program."

On Feb. 18, 1998, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright remarked that " ... the risk that the leaders of Iraq will use nuclear, chemical or
biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security risk we face."

On Sept. 23, 2002, Al Gore said: "We know that Saddam Hussein has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

Even Bob Graham, my Senator and a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee (and an ex-Presidential Candidate), stated on Dec. 8, 2002, "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Hussein has ... a developing capacity for the production of weapons of mass destruction."

Obviously, if deception was going on, members of both parties in the US were affected. In fact, most of the free world shared our
intelligence estimates. Unlike jmycal, most of us Americans agree with Bush that we need to be in for the long haul in our efforts to defeat those who seek to destroy us. Al Qaida is not bound by the Afghanistan border; it is active throughout the world. Vigilance, in the form of terror alerts, and even preemptive war is a minor inconvenience when compared with the alternative of more death and destruction on our shores, ie. 9/11!

I, for one, feel much safer with the removal of one more insane dictator from the world stage - with or without weapons of mass destruction - With or without approval of or a "permission slip" by the UN ...


<A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/community/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=50914#50914" target="_new">original thread</A>

Hope that addresses the comment on WMD ... we now suspect there are none left (that we can find) ... but we know they were there. In fact, Saddam used some against your former countrymen back in the Iran-Iraq war ... and he gassed his own people ... and when asked, by the UN, to prove he had destroyed everything - he refused. Go figure.

As far as going to war for oil ... to insure the middle east is stable for a stable supply of the stuff ... I'll buy that. But to steal or take it ... that's horsesh<b></b>it, the US has spent, what, over $200 billion - that's some pricey gas ...

Remaining a world power and having a presence in that volitle region ... I hope so ...

What else Scammy?


<b>"The Edge - there is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over." Hunter S. Thompson, </b><b><i>Hell's Angels, 1965</i></b><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Jake_Barnes on 07/17/05 07:27 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

Reply to Jake_Barnes
- 0 +

Quote :

I wonder how much the average person in this forum knows about his government to be able to make statements about it...
Personally I don't think there is anyone here who has anywhere near the amount of knowledge needed to make predictions or statements. This is strange to me, very strange. Is it that we tent to think we know enough to state comments or is it just that we will talk about anything and everything? I think this sort of stuff is so pointless to talk about, because only the government knows what its doing. Any statement anyone makes here is as good as drawing a line on water...




A lot of us X military types know a lot more than you think, and though we even today cannot talk about in detail, and give you or anyone specific details, about what some of us actually do know about the projects we were involved with, we can summarize from the things we've seen just how powerful the US arsenal actually is.

What you are allowed to know about, and have access and knowledge to as the American public, and the world itself, is only a small percentage of the weapons capabilities this country has, I prefer to call it sandbagging as in relation to a card game.

I can say this, I've seen with my own eyes Nuclear weapons where there were supposed to be none, and though someone in governmental ranks knew of their existence, and kept a running account of them they were not reported as being numbered in the actual arsenal, which was a cold war ploy to present numbers to Russia, that were way lower than the actual stockpile, so what we openly disarmed were outdated weapons we had no use for that were being phased out anyway, and we never were in jeopardy with Russia's arsenal ever!

So knowing that as a solid fact, today I can only imagine where our capabilities are at, but rest assured this country is prepared for a nuclear offensive attack son, no matter what you think!

Ripleys

Hopefully we will never see any country stupid enough to launch against the US, because life on this planet would never be the same!


Ry





<A HREF="http://forums.btvillarin.com/index.php?act=ST&f=41&t=2541&st=0#entry20385" target="_new">My Puter</A>


<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by 4ryan6 on 07/17/05 08:04 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

Reply to 4Ryan6
- 0 +

Quote :

From where I’m standing, it looks like a big advancement for America to have a foot set in the Middle East and have a saying power. Politics, I don't understand it, but I know that’s the main reason why American troops are still there.



Personlly I'd like to think we are still there to finish what we started, in Desert Storm we pulled out before the job was done and left the Iraqui people holding the bag, not this time, and I respect my country for staying the course, whether you can see it, or not!




<A HREF="http://forums.btvillarin.com/index.php?act=ST&f=41&t=2541&st=0#entry20385" target="_new">My Puter</A>

Reply to 4Ryan6
- 0 +

Quote :

do you think America can nuke all nuclear power countries at the same time? If you guys were right about this, I promise you America would have done this a long time ago, but as cold hearted politicians are, they are just as smart.



Yes!


What would be the purpose in doing something so stupid, you seem to forget we are the only country that has used these types of weapons on a race of people, and first hand seen the aftermath of it.


Wake Up Scammy!!!!


The World is not a Chessboard you can set back up when the game is over!






<A HREF="http://forums.btvillarin.com/index.php?act=ST&f=41&t=2541&st=0#entry20385" target="_new">My Puter</A>

Reply to 4Ryan6
- 0 +

The US could nuke every country on Earth at the same time.

<pre><font color=red>A64 3200+ Winchester
DFI Lan Party NF4 Ultra-D
1GB Corsair 4400C25PT
WD740GD, WD2000JB, WD1200JB
ATI X800XL
Dell 2405FPW</pre><p>

Reply to dhlucke
- 0 +

Quote :

The US could nuke every country on Earth at the same time.


The same goes with all Nuk-Powers.
If you know what to nuke, and you have just some dozens of missiles like all mature nuclear powers have today (US, UK, France, China, Russia, two dozens of former Soviet republics we don't even know their names) you can destroy some wide area of this planet even if noone retaliates.
When you nuke some country that haves nuclear reactors as power generators (like China does today), you may be starting a very interesting chain reaction. Think of the fallout that comes next. The Chernobil reactor melted and the fallout reached Greece, some thousants of miles away... and no bomb fell on Chernobil.

That's an interesting question for the tech-head amongst you:
<font color=red>What happens when a H-bomb hits a plutonium-rich reactor? </font color=red>

----------------
<font color=blue>Religious fanatism = No logic. Create nuclear weapons = No logic. Small countries become nuk-capable = No logic.
A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess? </font color=blue>

Reply to elfmits

Quote :

we've gone over this ad nauseam over the last 2-3 years



and you have never provided an alternative POV on it.

you think they were their to spread freedom? to get rid of saddam?

oh yeah.... if it were for freedom or moral values, then there are far worse places than Iraq that needed fixing. if you have another alternative for a motive then i would love to hear it.

Alltaken

<A HREF="http://www.mudpuddle.co.nz" target="_new">http://www.mudpuddle.co.nz</A> its where its all going on, oh and its also all going on HERE <A HREF="http://doug.mudpuddle.co.nz/gallery/" target="_new">http://doug.mudpuddle.co.nz/gallery/</A>

Reply to alltaken

Quote :

That power in responsible hands must be maintained and not allowed to fall into a country's hands that have different moral and ethical principals that do not let them see past their religions and beliefs to our own humanity.


sorry but the US has different religious moral and ethical principals to most of the world.

nobody in the world wants anyone to have nukes, and the US is no exception to the rule.

IMO its either NONE, or ALL.

it is as hypocritical as satan running heaven. and is unfeasable in any political sense.

the only countries that should not have nuclear weapons IMO are the ones who choose not to. I for one, do not want nukes in my country. whether they are my nukes, or someone elses nukes.

Alltaken

<A HREF="http://www.mudpuddle.co.nz" target="_new">http://www.mudpuddle.co.nz</A> its where its all going on, oh and its also all going on HERE <A HREF="http://doug.mudpuddle.co.nz/gallery/" target="_new">http://doug.mudpuddle.co.nz/gallery/</A><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Alltaken on 07/18/05 04:06 AM.</EM></FONT></P>

Reply to alltaken

Quote :

and you have never provided an alternative POV on it.


You throw out some bullsh<b></b>it, like we were there to steal their oil, and are now assuming that your hypothosis stands unless I provide an alternative POV ... pure horsesh<b></b>it ...

We were there for a lot of reasons, some were and are absolutely true (Saddam, baathists run amoke, developing WMD - see above) and some maybe political ... but you suggest there were "worse places" ...

We did take on a worse place 1st, Afghanistan (and the Taliban) ... so on to the next worse place ... your choice ... Iraq, Syria, etc - you pick it ... wait, your people wouldn't pick anything except, perhaps, your noses ...

Bush made a decision, and perhaps in hindsight, he could have planned better - but there is no denying that Saddam was, himself, a "WMD"!


<b>"The Edge - there is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over." Hunter S. Thompson, </b><b><i>Hell's Angels, 1965</i></b>

Reply to Jake_Barnes
- 0 +

You don't know anything about the USA so just stop while you're ahead.

<pre><font color=red>A64 3200+ Winchester
DFI Lan Party NF4 Ultra-D
1GB Corsair 4400C25PT
WD740GD, WD2000JB, WD1200JB
ATI X800XL
Dell 2405FPW</pre><p>

Reply to dhlucke
- 0 +

and another to add to that, neither you, me, ksoth, dh, allshaken, etc. etc. really even know what we went there for. hell im 100% sure that there were more reasons than wmd/saddam/oil. but we will never know, we dont get secret documents printed in our newspaper, we dont get the minutes of the meeting when they decided to come up with the plan.

btw(to all taken),

If our main goal was to go there just for oil, how come we gave all that oil back to the iraqis? we dont possess that oil(im sure if we did ourt gas prices would prolly be a lot lower) and neither does britian.

"Like a scrotum, there it is in a nutshell."
<font color=red>Roll Tide!</font color=red>
<A HREF="http://www.cameronwilliamson.com" target="_new">-={Apathetic As<i></i>shole.}=-</A>

Reply to mrface
- 0 +

Nice.

US imported 8.5 Billion worth of oil from Iraq at current market value, exported 895 million to Iraq.

Exactly. We didn't take their oil, we bought it from them and paid them market value instead of just giving them the money.

Definately other reasons than what he know. Iraq definately was a training ground.. especially with Syria and Iran there.. they all have the same objective.

Reply to riser
- 0 +

Once Iraq gets itself in order, it'll start to stand on it's own two feet. It'll rapidly realise that the way to prosperity is oil, and it'll start trading freely with the west. The country will thrive through the revenue, and we'll all benefit because there's another source for oil. Eveyone's a winner.

<font color=blue>"Why are you so fat, Brandes?" - Glen McGrath to Eddo Brandes.
"Because every time I shag your wife, she gives me a biscuit" - Eddo Brandes' reply</font color=blue>

Reply to RobD
- 0 +

yeah its hard for some people to see the truth through alot of liberal bullsh|T; but in the end it should help alot morre people out than before...

"Like a scrotum, there it is in a nutshell."
<font color=red>Roll Tide!</font color=red>
<A HREF="http://www.cameronwilliamson.com" target="_new">-={Apathetic As<i></i>shole.}=-</A>

Reply to mrface
- 0 +

Look at kuwait.. they're like the richest people in the world.. each gets a [-peep-]-ton of money for the oil their government sells..

You'd think Iraq would just look at them and say... Hell.. I could buy a lot of AK-47s from the Russians to commit random acts of violence.. but it's so much more work than blowing myself up.


Then again, how much influence does money have on them over their religion and such? The best thing is to stay in and get it done right.. instead of being a stupid democrat and saying we need to pull out troops out immediately.

Reply to riser

I know most chinese takeaway's can't even deliver an order correctly, so I can only imagine how random an ICBM would be delivered.

No woman is safe within reach of my heart.

Reply to Tom_Smart
- 0 +

ICBM range is 14,000km covering most, but not all, of the US.

Good thing is that China's forces are using weapons from the 50s to the 70s, not updated and unreliable.

20 nukes are on ICBMs, the rest are mobile or tatical.

Standing army of 2.5 million.. but they don't have the capabilities to create high-tech weapons or machinery.. like modern machine guns like the US has, and/or aircraft/tanks.

<A HREF="http://www.comw.org/cmp/fulltext/iddschina.html" target="_new">link</A>

Reply to riser
- 0 +

Quote :

sorry but the US has different religious moral and ethical principals to most of the world.


...
You don't know anything about Americans but what you read. You don't know what the real morals and ethics of the Americans on this forum. Except what you gather from what we say here. YOU DON"T KNOW ANY OF US PERIOD! not really...

<font color=red>GO BUCKEYES!</font color=red>

Reply to TeeTewl
- 0 +

**spits tabacca wad on dirt street, checks gun belt, adjusts brim of hat, and walks up to bar** I'll have a whiskey, what ya havin?

<pre><font color=red>°¤o,¸¸¸,o¤°`°¤o \\// o¤°`°¤o,¸¸¸,o¤°
And the sign says "You got to have a membership card to get inside" Huh
So I got me a pen and paper And I made up my own little sign</pre><p></font color=red>

Reply to RichPLS

I'll have a teenage boy and a bag of nuts please.

:eek: Sex is great but it's no substitute for the real thing :eek:

Reply to WingDing

Only if you'll moonwalk for us Mr. Jackson ...


<b>"The Edge - there is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over." Hunter S. Thompson, </b><b><i>Hell's Angels, 1965</i></b>

Reply to Jake_Barnes

...*boogies on down to the country and western jukebox*...

:eek: Sex is great but it's no substitute for the real thing :eek:

Reply to WingDing
- 0 +

Actually, they're generating more money in Iraq than under Saddam.

Before, they were under the now-not-so-good Oil for Food.. where oil was sold to buy food and medicine..

Now the oil is sold and the money can be used for anything.

The US is pooring a lot of money in now, but that debt will be repaid many times over in the next 10-20-30-100 years.

Reply to riser
- 0 +

The US is pooring a lot of money in now, but that debt will be repaid many times over in the next 10-20-30-100 years.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Will it? Why is the US going to have our childrens children paying this back? And why is SS min age to recieve rising? Why are the SS funds predicted to dry up in 20 years? Why are deficiets climbing at record rates? Where is my million dollars???

<pre><font color=red>°¤o,¸¸¸,o¤°`°¤o \\// o¤°`°¤o,¸¸¸,o¤°
And the sign says "You got to have a membership card to get inside" Huh
So I got me a pen and paper And I made up my own little sign</pre><p></font color=red>

Reply to RichPLS
Register or log in to remove.
Previous
1 2
Tom's Hardware > Forum > Old Man/Woman's Club > Other > China ‘ready to use N-weapons against US’
Go to:

There are 1895 identified and unidentified users. To see the list of identified users, Click here.

Please mind

You are about to answer a thread that has been inactive for more than 6 months.
If you still wish to proceed, please ensure that your posting is original and does not duplicate or overlap any prior responses to this thread.

Add a reply Cancel
  • Ask the community now
  • Publish
Ad
Ads
Best offers
They won a badge
Join us in greeting them