posted on April 29, 2001 06:15:39 AM
I find it real hard to believe that there is not a controler sitting somewhere who can change the targeting of the whole force in about 30 seconds from scenerio to scenerio.
The chinese are not going to be happy as long as they know that their exostance as a viable nation is dependant on external forces.
2,000 warheads on China would mean they did not exist as a nation anymore even if you did not aim them. Just ground burst them anywhere toward the west and let the fallout plumes do the rest.
posted on April 29, 2001 06:18:34 AM
what a surprise... not.
do you think Bush planned and hoped for these developments, in order to escalate negative public opinion and an aggressive stance towards China, since before the election? personally I think that might be the case.
I just returned from chruch
and I said a little prayer for you and Hepburn and Zilvy
and the banana thread.
So you can all relax...God forgives.
About this story...It confirms another news report that I read.
Dubya's Presidential ambitions: Cold war with Russia; star wars with China and global warming. All this, while he pacifies the average American with a pat on the back and "How ya' doin' buddy?" Women
get kisses on the tops of their heads.
posted on April 29, 2001 09:23:37 AM
With the swing to transcengenderalism as evidenced in New York Bush may be planting those kisses on women's balding heads if he's reelected.
posted on April 29, 2001 09:34:44 AM
HJW - I am humbled if you actually remembered me away from the screen.
Thanks to everyone for not mocking my spelling.
I would hate to see a war with China. Their mindset is so different than ours I can see more chance of a nuclear exchange with them
than there ever was with Russia.
I really think that the US could absorb 12 to 18 warheads the Chinese could launch and remain a functioning country. I don't think they would ever understand the American mindset that would say - Destroy them as a people and culture. - not just a government, if that happened. Nobody has ever struck here at the continetal US with any effectiveness.
The bacllash if they did would go down in history for a long, long time. I don't think the players understand each other at all.
posted on April 29, 2001 10:25:27 AM
[i]I don't think they would ever understand the American mindset that would say - Destroy them as a people and culture. - not just a government, if that happened.[i] -gravid-
Really? Well I guess we didn't go far enough with Japan in WWII then did we? What evidence suggests that mindset? What country has the US destroyed as a people and a culture? Don't say this is different, because if it is, then it is less serious than previous incidents. After all, we did drop two atomic bombs on Japan in a time of war. Didn't try to destroy the people or the culture, just the government. Lets also not forget that China has had missles pointed at the US for some time now. Japan was a much bigger threat then, then China is now. But we still have toyota's and Sony's and Sushi.
I know ya'll don't like Bush, that's cool, I don't really like him either. What bothers me is that most of you can't figure out WHY you don't like him. Facts are a strange thing.
posted on April 29, 2001 10:28:56 AM"The United States is considering major changes in America's nuclear posture, such as slashing the number of strategic warheads"from krs' link
Gee, that sounds terrible. You mean Bush is going to lower the number of strategic warheads and targets. What an evil man.
"The US will undoubtedly require a new nuclear weapon... because it is realised that the yields of the weapons left over from the cold war are too high for addressing the deterrence requirements of a multipolar, widely proliferated world," Paul Robinson, director of America's Sandia Nuclear Laboratories pronounced recently. "Low-yield weapons with highly accurate delivery systems" would be a useful deterrent, he said, adding that such devices could help decision-makers "contemplate the destruction of some buried or hidden targets while being mindful of the need to minimise collateral damage".
In a paper entitled Nuclear Weapons in the 21st Century, Stephen Younger, head of nuclear weapons research at the Los Alamos laboratory, last year said low-yield nukes would be more effective against underground concrete bunkers and mobile missiles than conventional bombs. Weapons of less than five kilotons, the argument goes, would be a more credible deterrent than "normal" nuclear weapons. Indeed, they could have been used during the Kosovo war. And mini-nukes would enable the US to reduce its stockpile of 6,000 much larger nuclear warheads.
posted on April 29, 2001 11:09:15 AM
Great!!! I'm all for less collateral damage. Thank you President Bush! Thanks for that info HJW, I'm glad to see it is a good idea after all.
posted on April 29, 2001 11:16:35 AM
China has been targeting us for quite some time, so it's only good policy to target them back!
I heard from a good source last night that when Bush, Sr. was in office he and Mrs. Bush wouldn't let George, jr. into the Oval Office because he was such an embarrassment to them. I wonder how true that is?
As we know, Bush is a model of efficiency in all things. That being the case, can you imagine what method he might find to be the most efficacious were he to decide to reduce the number of nuclear warheads in the US arsenal?
