What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

China's Big Problem: Taiwan Likely Has Nuclear Weapons

Meister

Diamond Member
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2009
Messages
46,094
Reaction score
20,215
Points
2,290
Location
Conservative part of the Northwest
Please stay on topic going forward, thanks in advance
 

Donald H

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2020
Messages
4,541
Reaction score
1,364
Points
188
China has absolutely no intention of reuniting with Taiwan by anything other than peaceful means.

All the fuss over the issue is nothing but US fomented trouble that will gain nothing.

However, some suspect that the US may be trying to catch up with China on eventually forming a military alliance with Cuba.

Reality is that Biden and president Xi have reached an agreement on the status of Taiwan. The situation has been successfully defused and has set the tone for US/China relations for the future.
Or, at least until China decides to move relations more to their advantage.
 

Donald H

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2020
Messages
4,541
Reaction score
1,364
Points
188
If Bejing was hit with a nuke...............
The counter-strike would be against the US.
Nothing we see posted on this board demonstrates an understanding of China's relationship to Taiwan. Neither Taiwan or mainland China is going to attack the other.
 

White 6

Platinum Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2019
Messages
16,826
Reaction score
9,452
Points
1,140
The counter-strike would be against the US.
Nothing we see posted on this board demonstrates an understanding of China's relationship to Taiwan. Neither Taiwan or mainland China is going to attack the other.
Well I guess no need to consider the thrust of the thread then. I agree, neither will attack or defend with nukes.
 

Donald H

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2020
Messages
4,541
Reaction score
1,364
Points
188
Well I guess no need to consider the thrust of the thread then. I agree, neither will attack or defend with nukes.
I didn't say with nukes. Neither are going to attack the other.
The biggest fear of nuclear war we have to live with is the use of nuclear weapons by the Zionist regime against Iran.
And now recently we've been made aware of the possibility of a US attack against China if Trump gets another opportunity.
Milley blew the whistle on his country and it was deliberately.
 

Donald H

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2020
Messages
4,541
Reaction score
1,364
Points
188
China will nuke the USA if it decided, that it is safer than not nuking. And vice versa.
That's the equivalent of either country just ignoring the M.A.D. deterrent.

China understands that the use of nuclear weapons is unthinkable. We suppose that the US thinks the same but we don't have to take into consideration a sociopath as president at the moment.

Milley rang the alarm bells and justifiably so. There's no way of unringing them now.

It's near certain that America is looking long and hard at it's priorities and it's precautions to prevent a madman from doing the unthinkable. This is of course of the highest priority of secrecy.

Likewise China would be having a closer look at it's defensive measures and it's level of alertness.
 

Silver Cat

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2020
Messages
1,947
Reaction score
376
Points
140
Location
Absaroka
That's the equivalent of either country just ignoring the M.A.D. deterrent.

China understands that the use of nuclear weapons is unthinkable. We suppose that the US thinks the same but we don't have to take into consideration a sociopath as president at the moment.

Milley rang the alarm bells and justifiably so. There's no way of unringing them now.

It's near certain that America is looking long and hard at it's priorities and it's precautions to prevent a madman from doing the unthinkable. This is of course of the highest priority of secrecy.

Likewise China would be having a closer look at it's defensive measures and it's level of alertness.
There are no "unthinkable" things. Especially, if at stake is existence of the state and millions lives.
And yes, with the obsolete US nuclear arsenal there is no MAD. One of simplificated scenarios:
1. Tension around Taiwan are raising. American leaders to avoid provocations decrease amount of alert Ohio submarines in the Ocean.

2. China asks the Russians to help them to fight USA. Russia agreed and gave them, say, fifty Tu-95MS-16 (Bear-H) with 16 Kh-102 stealth cruise missiles (1 Mt warhead, CEP 10 m, range - more than 5 thousand kilometers) each.

3. They use (or create) holes in North Warning System and 50×16 = 800 warheads more than enough to destroy the whole system (500 sites) of continental US strategic targets - more than 90% of total nuclear arsenal and to kill, say, 5 millions of Americans.

4. So, after this sudden counter-force strike Biden still have, say, 4 Ohio with 24 obsolete Tridents II missiles with 4 warheads (90 kt) each, interceptable by new Russian and Chinese AA complexes. It is far from "assured destruction" - it means less than one million Chinese civilians or 0,1% of their population killed. What is even more important, by the third, retaliation strike against defenseless USA China will be able to kill roughly half of the US population and allow Cubans (and other Latinos) to occupy remains.
Therefore, there are good chances that Biden will succumb to this postattack blackmail and accept 'generous peaceful offering' from his friend Xi.
 

Donald H

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2020
Messages
4,541
Reaction score
1,364
Points
188
There are no "unthinkable" things. Especially, if at stake is existence of the state and millions lives.
And yes, with the obsolete US nuclear arsenal there is no MAD. One of simplificated scenarios:
1. Tension around Taiwan are raising. American leaders to avoid provocations decrease amount of alert Ohio submarines in the Ocean.
Sorry but your problems with the English language has resulted in mostly confusion over what point you're trying to make. You seem to be suggesting that MAD doesn't apply because of obsolete US weapons?
I can't imagine any reason to agree that the US would reduce it's N.weapons due to Taiwan tensions.
Therefore, there are good chances that Biden will succumb to this postattack blackmail and accept 'generous peaceful offering' from his friend Xi.
I can't accept that there is any 'post attack' blackmail happening.
Your line of thinking overall is original but I'm not finding it to be credible.
 

Silver Cat

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2020
Messages
1,947
Reaction score
376
Points
140
Location
Absaroka
Sorry but your problems with the English language has resulted in mostly confusion over what point you're trying to make. You seem to be suggesting that MAD doesn't apply because of obsolete US weapons?
Yes. Russia and China can destroy 80-90% of the US nuclear arsenal and then intercept significant part of the retaliation strike. Therefore, Chinese and Russian losses may be decreased to the acceptable (for them) level.
I can't imagine any reason to agree that the US would reduce it's N.weapons due to Taiwan tensions.
If Russia and China think, that the USA are preparing to attack them - it can provoke them to attack first.
I can't accept that there is any 'post attack' blackmail happening.
Why not? If Russia and China can prevent death of thousands of their citizens by negotiations - they may try it. Just to stop nuclear exchange after the first succesful counter-force strike.

Your line of thinking overall is original but I'm not finding it to be credible.
There is nothing original. Did you read Herman Kahn 'On thermonuclear war'?
 

Donald H

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2020
Messages
4,541
Reaction score
1,364
Points
188
Why not? If Russia and China can prevent death of thousands of their citizens by negotiations - they may try it. Just to stop nuclear exchange after the first succesful counter-force strike.
You're not making it clear what point you're trying to make. Stick to that one and try to clarify. Otherwise I'm going to leave you with it.
 

Silver Cat

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2020
Messages
1,947
Reaction score
376
Points
140
Location
Absaroka
You're not making it clear what point you're trying to make. Stick to that one and try to clarify. Otherwise I'm going to leave you with it.
Ok. What is more important - to protect your citizens or to kill civilians in a foreign state?
I think - to protect your citizens. If your enemy is already almost disarmed (but still can harm you) isn't it rational to suggest him peace on your terms?
From another hand. If you are almost disarmed, have no chance to win the war, but still have a chance to save millions of your civilians - isn't it rational to surrender (or to start peaceful negotiations to buy some time or better peace conditions)?
 

Donald H

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2020
Messages
4,541
Reaction score
1,364
Points
188
Ok. What is more important - to protect your citizens or to kill civilians in a foreign state?
I think - to protect your citizens. If your enemy is already almost disarmed (but still can harm you) isn't it rational to suggest him peace on your terms?
Actually no. If a country is proposing peace it wouldn't suggest it would be on it's own terms. It would suggest mutually acceptable terms.
From another hand. If you are almost disarmed, have no chance to win the war, but still have a chance to save millions of your civilians - isn't it rational to surrender (or to start peaceful negotiations to buy some time or better peace conditions)?
No, surrendering isn't rational. Suggesting peaceful coexistence would be one rational approach to the situation, while keeping up the appearance of strength.
That just might be what Biden is doing with China.

I don't think we're accomplishing anything so I'll leave it with you for now.
 

Silver Cat

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2020
Messages
1,947
Reaction score
376
Points
140
Location
Absaroka
Actually no. If a country is proposing peace it wouldn't suggest it would be on it's own terms. It would suggest mutually acceptable terms.
Sometimes even 'unconditional surrender' becomes 'mutually acceptable terms'. The possibility to impose your will (and write a text of a peace treaty) is what we usually call a victory.

No, surrendering isn't rational. Suggesting peaceful coexistence would be one rational approach to the situation, while keeping up the appearance of strength.
That just might be what Biden is doing with China.
Do you want to say, that Japan and German leaders weren't rational in 1945?


Anyway, the conception of MAD became obsolete after invention of MIRVs and ABD.
For instance, imagine situation with two countries, A and B.
1. Both of them have 100 cities, 100 missiles with 10 warheads each (with 0,9 single shot probability) and ABD with 20 missiles (with 0,9 single shot probability). If they both launch their missiles against cities (counter-value strike) - they have MAD (they can guarantee almost total annihilation of cities). But there are also other ways to use nukes.

2. Country A launch 22 missiles (220 warheads) against country's B siloes (counter-force strike). Country B intercept 18 warheads, 202 warheads hit their 100 siloes. Most likely, country B don't have even one missile after the attack.
3. Even if B-country still have two missiles they hardly will launch them, because A-country most likely will intercept 18 of them and, after being hit by two warheads, will launch 78 missiles, and 780 warheads will totally FUBAR all cities in country B.
 
Last edited:
OP
P

Persuader

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2020
Messages
2,371
Reaction score
2,292
Points
1,928
There are no "unthinkable" things. Especially, if at stake is existence of the state and millions lives.
And yes, with the obsolete US nuclear arsenal there is no MAD. One of simplificated scenarios:
1. Tension around Taiwan are raising. American leaders to avoid provocations decrease amount of alert Ohio submarines in the Ocean.

2. China asks the Russians to help them to fight USA. Russia agreed and gave them, say, fifty Tu-95MS-16 (Bear-H) with 16 Kh-102 stealth cruise missiles (1 Mt warhead, CEP 10 m, range - more than 5 thousand kilometers) each.

3. They use (or create) holes in North Warning System and 50×16 = 800 warheads more than enough to destroy the whole system (500 sites) of continental US strategic targets - more than 90% of total nuclear arsenal and to kill, say, 5 millions of Americans.

4. So, after this sudden counter-force strike Biden still have, say, 4 Ohio with 24 obsolete Tridents II missiles with 4 warheads (90 kt) each, interceptable by new Russian and Chinese AA complexes. It is far from "assured destruction" - it means less than one million Chinese civilians or 0,1% of their population killed. What is even more important, by the third, retaliation strike against defenseless USA China will be able to kill roughly half of the US population and allow Cubans (and other Latinos) to occupy remains.
Therefore, there are good chances that Biden will succumb to this postattack blackmail and accept 'generous peaceful offering' from his friend Xi.
unfortunately .....that is very possible.....with biden all you can expect is one disaster after another.
 

Silver Cat

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2020
Messages
1,947
Reaction score
376
Points
140
Location
Absaroka
As expected, current administration is not able to improve US-Russia relationships, and just push Russia toward China more and more.
New joint (Russia-China) military fleet exercises were started today in the Sea of Japan.




Good work, Victoria Jane Nuland!
 
Last edited:

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$70.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top