<p>
<a href=“Top Chinese general warns US over attack”>Top Chinese general warns US over attack;
<p>oy vey, another angry country.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Either way, a person would have to be crazy if they seriously considered using nuclear weapons against another country, because the radiation from the weapons would be felt worldwide of millions/billions of years.</p>
<p>Oh, please, anyone even surprised about this? Many countries don’t think the way we do, and life is not held in the same high esteem it is in the west.</p>
<p>Well, I should hope so. Isn’t that the very nature of deterrence, the entire bipartisan argument behind the U.S. nuclear buildup over the years, that keeps both of our nations safe? I mean there has only been one nation in history that has been willing to use these weapons against innocent civilians (for good or ill would be a long discussion, and unnecessary here), and if deterrence works for us, why shouldn’t it for them, to both of our benefits?</p>
<p>Lets be clear on this, Gen. Zhu’s comments maybe meant for domestic consumption, a sort of chest beating. I doubt China has enough nukes and delivery systems to annililate the US. The US definitely can annililate China in response. Based on the fact that China has been prospering from free US/china trade, those are the bigger cups they have been filling. To let the Taiwan issue spill their very full cup is foolish. There isn’t anyone in the Chinese leadership that would remotely consider this. Even Mao had the wisdom to align with US to form a triad of power to contend the Soviets.</p>
<p>An aside, having watched “War of the Worlds” however scared the bejeevah out of me. What if aliens arrive, and they did not come in peace? I am for keeping our nukes for this ultimate armageddon.</p>
<p>We used to have 30000 nukes. Recently its like 7000, and Bush is proposing getting them down to 2000. Is that foolish ?</p>
<p>Why would you ever need 2,000 nukes???</p>
<p>Under what scenario would you EVER need even 100 nukes? The US could get by with 15 and i’m pretty sure that 2 or 3 direct hits would get your point across. </p>
<p>Not to mention the fact that your paying tax dollars to maintain enough nuclear weapons to blow up the world about 20 times.</p>
<p>Um, 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…" Why would we expect a different reaction to his premise?</p>
<p>SDI mother****** SDI. Nuclear weapons attacks from horrendously poor third world countries are about 398th on my worries list. Back to Mini’s hippie comments about killing “innocent civilians” It’s called winning a war. If you want to get in the Delorean and live in the parallel Japanese and German exclusive speaking universe, be my guest. Don’t think for a second that Germany or Japan wouldn’t have done the same thing if not worse to us. They should be thanking their lucky stars we didn’t hit Tokyo with the Enola Gay.</p>
<p>I thought it was Korea??</p>
<p>I would imagine China would go to war for a more practical reason - the need for oil or other power sources. It will be interesting to see what happens with their proposal for Unocal.</p>
<p>Unocal provides less than 1% of domestic oil to the US. $18 billion for Unocal at this moment when oil is at record high prices is a horrendously idiotic investment. I say let them buy it at high prices, and then they will sell it 3 years from now for $5 billion when oil is going for $25 a barrel.</p>
<p>Reason we have more nukes than we can use them against (mainly) the Soviets (back then) is they will use nukes to hit our nukes, therefore “nuking” out a bunch of nukes. We built in a lot of reserve so we can still hit them with guaranteed destruction. Now fast fwd to those Alien pods, we need thousands of nukes launching from space stations to protect earth. </p>
<p>keep those nukes (maybe make more smaller mobile ones) and improve on the delivery system (to include space launch). </p>
<p>Yeah, I like the aliens to arrive and give us cure to cancer, explain theo the divine, but what if it doesn’t turn out that way ?</p>
<p>It’s Unocal’s gas reserves that China wants, not oil.</p>
<p>There’s something about the word “nuke” that makes anyone who says it sound like a neanderthal.</p>
<p>yourworld: are you serious or kidding?</p>
<p>In my opinion, China is getting way, WAY too close to the US in terms of economic superiority. U.S will not first strike, unless Bush thinks Chinese are terrorist. (probably does). anyway, i don’t think you guys understand how strong our military is. We have hundreds of submarines armed with nukes traveling every ocean and sea. We have superior military technology which can ultimately shoot down a nuke, and causing the least amount of damage (think about, nukes exploding in mid air…but US wil be affected minimaly). Also, you guys know how many nukes we have? We have approximately 2000 more nukes than the second place winner of “most nukes owned by a country.” We shouldn’t worry. China isn’t stupid to attack first, and Bush won’t attack them. We have no reason to attack them unless they take over our economic superpower status, take all our jobs, etc.</p>
<p>Also, about attackin innocent civilians. We live in a world where the vast majority of the people DON’T care if people in Africa died, or people died in blah blah country. As long as we are prosperous and strong, we really don’t give if all the people in the world die, as long as our economy, etc. is top notch. If people really cared about rival nation’s innocent civilian or just any civilian lving outside of the US, there would be no poverty, shortage of medicine, etc. Also, i remember when the Asia’s huge tsunami which killed hundred thousand people and more, Bush said he pledge in the beginning of hearig the news a 30 million dollar relief package. 30 million dollars?! That’s it. The world’s richest country can only choke up 30 million bux to help and save the Asian people?!!?! Then after much outrage by some countries and trying to save face, bush gave 300 million bux. So if the innocent die in order to protect the US, so be it. We will live prosperously. I’m not selfish. I am telling the truth. If you had to choose to be killed or be a killer, i will guarentee, if you had to choose between the two, you would choose to be a killer. My point, if there is a war, the people’s natural instincts of surviving will make them kill in order to survive.</p>
<p>Just think about what you’re buying. Look at the label. If you can buy an American or UK or Australian or Danish good, do it. Every dollar that flows to China increases their strength.</p>
<p>“Back to Mini’s hippie comments about killing “innocent civilians” It’s called winning a war. If you want to get in the Delorean and live in the parallel Japanese and German exclusive speaking universe, be my guest. Don’t think for a second that Germany or Japan wouldn’t have done the same thing if not worse to us.”</p>
<p>That’s the whole point - and exactly why it is a GOOD thing for China to have its nukes pointed at us. If they express the same willingness to “win a war” by slaughtering innocent civilians as we do (and have), and can back it up with the technology, both of our nations are less likely to use the technology against each other. Nothing hippie here - it is backbone of bipartisan foreign policy, and has been for decades. (the hippie in me would have called for unilateral disarmament. ;))</p>