CDZ Why wouldn't China attack the U.S. in a first strike?

[candycorn]

Why don't you lay out the reasons I'm wrong genius.

It doesn't take any genius to point out how wrong you are.

China is winning the economic war. That you think they would destroy their best customer to satisfy some mythical homage to Lenin is about the craziest thing ever.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

It doesn't take any genius to point out how wrong you are.

China is winning the economic war. That you think they would destroy their best customer to satisfy some mythical homage to Lenin is about the craziest thing ever.

Really ? China continues to support North Korea that constantly threats our allies South Korea and Japan. They are militarizing the South China sea and threatening Taiwan with invasion. If you don't think China is a military threat then you are a naive moron.

Also China venerates Mao you idiot.

 

[candycorn]

Really ? China continues to support North Korea that constantly threats our allies South Korea and Japan. They are militarizing the South China sea and threatening Taiwan with invasion. If you don't think China is a military threat then you are a naive moron.

Also China venerates Mao you idiot.

Of course the thread is about China nuking us... not their moves in the region...but nice try to change the subject there, idiot.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Most knowledge is NOT gained through personal experience. We go to school. We read. We learn.

Most of your "knowledge" of nuclear weapons was gained the same way because I'm absolutely certain you never launched a nuclear weapon.

I can neither confirm nor deny that.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Most knowledge is NOT gained through personal experience. We go to school. We read. We learn.

Most of your "knowledge" of nuclear weapons was gained the same way because I'm absolutely certain you never launched a nuclear weapon.

So you went to school on nuclear weapons?

 

[Open Bolt]

Why wouldn't China attack the U.S. in a first strike?

Because it would be the end of China.

Our nuclear deterrent only works if you have those in charge who would use it in retaliation against a first strike attack....do you think the democrat party politicians, and their diversity generals would have the stomach to launch retaliatory strikes against civilian Chinese populations?

Well the first targets would be military.

If we nuked any cities it would only be a proportionate response to the nuking of our own cities. And our target would be the industrial factories in those cities, not any civilian population. That would only be collateral damage.

Yes, I think Mr. Biden and his generals would nuke China in response to China nuking the US.

 

[Open Bolt]

U.S. policy for decades (and as far as is known that of the Soviet Union/Russia) is to ride out a nuclear attack and then respond in a calculated way.

For as long as we have had Minuteman missiles, the President has had the option to launch them on warning.

Though all that "launch on warning" or "launch under attack" stuff makes for dramatic television and movie scenes of American missile crews desperately trying to launch their missiles before the enemy missiles arrive or U.S. B-52 crews scrambling to get their planes off the ground.....that has never been true.

During the Cold War we would definitely scramble the bombers automatically in the face of apparent incoming missiles, even if the President chose not to launch the ICBMs.

Probably the bombers would start taking off at the same time the President was first being notified.

If this were not true then there would've never been so much angst about the survivability of U.S. ICBMs because if you're going to launch on warning it won't matter.

If we made our ICBMs actually survivable then we wouldn't have to launch on warning.

The problem is, we never made our ICBMs survivable.

 

[Dayton3]

For as long as we have had Minuteman missiles, the President has had the option to launch them on warning.

capability yes. but it was always our policy to ride out an attack.

 

[Dayton3]

For as long as we have had Minuteman missiles, the President has had the option to launch them on warning.



During the Cold War we would definitely scramble the bombers automatically in the face of apparent incoming missiles, even if the President chose not to launch the ICBMs.

Probably the bombers would start taking off at the same time the President was first being notified.



If we made our ICBMs actually survivable then we wouldn't have to launch on warning.

The problem is, we never made our ICBMs survivable.

Scrambling bombers in no way indicates they will be ordered to attack.

 

[themirrorthief]

Yes. by "you" of all people and you have no credibility whatsoever.

if china blew up several wal marts...half of china would starve within weeks

 

[Indeependent]

if china blew up several wal marts...half of china would starve within weeks

The Chinese leaders wouldn't care.

 

[Dayton3]

if china blew up several wal marts...half of china would starve within weeks

"half of China" routinely starves or dies in some natural disaster.

Remember what Mao said about China fighting a nuclear war? Back when China had just over 600 million people he said "So what if 300 million Chinese are killed? There will still be 300 million left.".

 

[Open Bolt]

capability yes. but it was always our policy to ride out an attack.

We have no such policy. The President would make his own decision right in that moment.

Riding out an attack against our ICBMs in their current state would be extremely foolish. Much better to launch them.

Better yet to establish decoy silos and shuffle our missiles among the silos so the enemy never knows which silos are empty and which are currently holding a live missile. If we did that then we could safely ride out an attack.

Scrambling bombers in no way indicates they will be ordered to attack.

True. But during the Cold War they would most definitely be scrambled the moment an attack was detected.

 

[Dayton3]

We have no such policy. The President would make his own decision right in that moment.

Riding out an attack against our ICBMs in their current state would be extremely foolish. Much better to launch them.

Better yet to establish decoy silos and shuffle our missiles among the silos so the enemy never knows which silos are empty and which are currently holding a live missile. If we did that then we could safely ride out an attack.



True. But during the Cold War they would most definitely be scrambled the moment an attack was detected.

But they would not be given the okay to attack as soon as an incoming attack was detected.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

But they would not be given the okay to attack as soon as an incoming attack was detected.

Bombers went to their "fail safe" points. By the time they arrived, the war would be mostly over as the missiles flight time is much shorter.

 

[Open Bolt]

But they would not be given the okay to attack as soon as an incoming attack was detected.

That would be up to the President.

I expect that the President would wait before giving orders to bombers. But he wouldn't have to if he didn't want to.

 

[Open Bolt]

You STILL have no relevant experience.

Relevant experience is hardly necessary.

Bombers went to their "fail safe" points. By the time they arrived, the war would be mostly over as the missiles flight time is much shorter.

Depends on the scope of the war. And of course, on whether we launched our ICBMs on warning.

The ICBMs would be mostly counterforce. If we were going to go further and destroy Russian industrial centers, that would require more strikes after the ICBMs.

And if the President decided to ride out the attack and consequently most of our ICBMs were destroyed in their silos, the bombers might end up being the first to strike.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Relevant experience is hardly necessary.



Depends on the scope of the war. And of course, on whether we launched our ICBMs on warning.

The ICBMs would be mostly counterforce. If we were going to go further and destroy Russian industrial centers, that would require more strikes after the ICBMs.

And if the President decided to ride out the attack and consequently most of our ICBMs were destroyed in their silos, the bombers might end up being the first to strike.

We no longer use manned bombers as part of out "Triad" nuclear response. We haven't since 1991. I'm sorry, but your point is irrelevant.

 

[Dayton3]

We no longer use manned bombers as part of out "Triad" nuclear response. We haven't since 1991. I'm sorry, but your point is irrelevant.

While the B-1Bs are no longer "wired" to mount nuclear weapons the B-2A bombers are and the B-52s can still carry nuclear armed cruise missiles.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

While the B-1Bs are no longer "wired" to mount nuclear weapons the B-2A bombers are and the B-52s can still carry nuclear armed cruise missiles.

Your point is?