China threatens nukes against America

[Absinthe]

No. The US and its allies are not to be ****ed with. China's nuclear program is bollocks, if they do use those nukes on Japan or Taiwan or us, or really anybody, there will be hell to pay in the form of a heaping crater full of irradiated mongolian beef.

If you want to risk it, fine. Go write your congressman. I'm sure things will pan out real well.

 

[gh0st]

If you want to risk it, fine. Go write your congressman. I'm sure things will pan out real well.

Whose risking it? If you want to be bullied by other countries, thats all well and good but I dont.

 

[Foxtrot]

We have AA defense systems that can track thousands of planes and shoot them down, but we can't track one giant ICBM and blow it up?

 

[Foxtrot]

Double post hacks!

 

[Absinthe]

Whose risking it? If you want to be bullied by other countries, thats all well and good but I dont.

It's quite probable that China thinks the same thing.

But there's no bullying towards the US going on here. Taiwan is China's game. Not ours.

 

[gh0st]

We have AA defense systems that can track thousands of planes and shoot them down, but we can't track one giant ICBM and blow it up?

They are only huge when they go into space, they break up into something rather small going rather fast.

But there's no bullying towards the US going on here. Taiwan is China's game. Not ours.

They have already threatened to invade Taiwan if they declare themselves independent. We are Taiwan's friend in this matter, and will react accordingly. Using Nukes is not appropriate.

 

[Absinthe]

Again, I doubt nukes will be used. This is just some war hawk running his mouth off.

 

[Raziaar]

It's quite probable that China thinks the same thing.

But there's no bullying towards the US going on here. Taiwan is China's game. Not ours.

The Independence of a country is a game? I know its a phrase... but some people just don't respect the idea of freedom and independence.

Britain tried preventing the united states from becoming independent... So I guess you can see why we feel the way we do.

 

[Tr0n]

We have AA defense systems that can track thousands of planes and shoot them down, but we can't track one giant ICBM and blow it up?

We can track pretty much anything in the sky.It's trying to hit the object that you're tracking that's the hard part.Again...refer to trying to hit a bullet with another bullet.

 

[Raziaar]

We can track pretty much anything in the sky.It's trying to hit the object that you're tracking that's the hard part.Again...refer to trying to hit a bullet with another bullet.

Thats what the new laser thing they are designing, is for.

 

[CptStern]

meh bush set the precedent for pre-emptive strike ...dont be surprised when you see planes with red little stars flying over the skies of america

 

[Cole]

This is the reason for us protecting Taiwan.

When China was in a civil war there were 2 sides. A Communist side and a Democracy Side. We obviously aided the Democracy side. The Democracy side fled to what is present day Taiwan as they were lost the war. The U.S. SWEARS TO PROTECT DEMOCRACY. TAIWAN IS A DEMOCRACY. THUS WE SWEAR TO PROTECT IT. Simple huh? I believe we have also said that if they invade taiwan...we **** them up. Even if our economic system might get ****ed over...well remember bush is the president . He flips a coin for these more important things.

 

[gh0st]

meh bush set the precedent for pre-emptive strike ...dont be surprised when you see planes with red little stars flying over the skies of america

Actually if you knew anything about the history of nuclear weapons in this world, you would know that Eisenhower (a fantastic president) set the precedent of pre-emptive strike, a nuclear policy which has remained in place for every President following him. Moreover, it would not be pre-emptive, since China has said it would only use Nuclear weapons had an invasion of Taiwan been prevented by American/allied forces. You didn't read the article so why bother participating in what you don't understand? Additionally, bush has nothing to do with this. Pull your head out of your ass.

 

[Tr0n]

meh bush set the precedent for pre-emptive strike ...dont be surprised when you see planes with red little stars flying over the skies of america

Well...we'd probally shoot them down before they even got close to Hawaii.

 

[MilkMan12]

Two questions...whats an ICBM for one.

Number two is what is our policy about pre-emptive strikes I have never heard this. Basically if we are threatened with nukes we shoot first? (dont take any negative conotation from that Im just asking). Either way I support the US...Im just curious.

No Limits gonna have a field day with this story by the way.

 

[Foxtrot]

meh bush set the precedent for pre-emptive strike ...dont be surprised when you see planes with red little stars flying over the skies of america

Are you really that dumb? China has no way to get that close to America, ever.

 

[CptStern]

I see, abstract ideas dont play well in the sticks ...sigh I'll explain


see bush (that's your president) thought that saddam (bad guy) was going to attack america (that's your home) sooo instead he (bush) attacked first before the other guy did (saddam ...bad guy) ..that's called a pre-emptive (pr-mptv) strike (strk)











I can almost feel the outrage ...come on guys I'm just having fun with you

 

[gh0st]

I can almost feel the outrage ...come on guys I'm just having fun with you

You're stupid. Bush never set any precedent for pre-emptive strike, you're just looking for another way to blame him for another countries problems. Then when you realize how stupid you sound for doing it, ohh you're just kidding.

 

[CptStern]

lol! I really laughed at that one:

"you're stupid" ...you should have said : "you're stupid, you big stupid meanie"

Bush never set any precedent for pre-emptive strike

really? so saddam wasnt a threat to the US?

you're just looking for another way to blame him for another countries problems. Then when you realize how stupid you sound for doing it, ohh you're just kidding

not my fault you dont understand subtlety ...I'll try to be straight forward for now on ...no more snide implications or innuendos ...just straight from the hip six shooter straight talk ...like: "we'd better get them chinamen before they be getting us" ...lalala


I kill me






okay back on topic ...I think china sees no alternative (not that it's the right choice) ...I mean the US has shown the world that it doesnt take all that much provocation for them to invade whomever suits their fancy

...probably their way of saying "hey buddy we have big guns too, back off"






hey gh0st how am I doing so far? straight enough talking for ya?

 

[Tr0n]

Hell...I'm not a Bush supporter and I don't even see humor or anything.Really stern...just stfu.We was actually having a good decent discussion on SDI/nuclear weapons/etc...then you come in and talk about Bush just to start shit.I like you stern and all that good stuff...but just stop.Now back on topic....

On the laser thing that razor said..read this:

There has been controversy among experts about whether it is technically feasible at all to build a system which intercepts ballistic missiles during their boost phase, as part of the U.S. National Missile Defense program intends.

This technical criticism came especially from U.S. physicists and culminated in the publication of a very critical study on the subject by the American Physical Society.

The study's main point is that it might be possible to develop within several years from now a limited system capable of destroying a liquid-fuel propelled ICBM during the boost phase. It was also found possibly feasible to destroy some solid-propellant launches, such as those from Iran, but not those from North Korea, because of differences in the boost time and citing possibilities for interceptors. However, at this time it is to be expected that the likely users of ICBMs will switch to solid fuel, which makes acceleration faster and the boost phase so short that only few tens of seconds remain to identify, target and destroy the missile. The study concluded that this is unlikely to be achievable with expected advances in technology over the following 15 years.

Using orbital launchers to provide a reliable defense against solid fuel launches from Iran or North Korea was found to require at least 1,600 interceptors in orbit. Reducing the requirement to liquid-fueled missile interception would reduce the number to 700. To allow for the use of two or more interceptors per missile, many more would be required.

If operating in the region, within 300 km of intercept point for a solid fuel missile, 600 km for liquid, the use of the airborne laser was found to possibly be credible, though solid fuel launchers are more resistant than liquid-fueled systems. There is considerable uncertainty about the actual capability of the system.

In summary, the report concluded that:

Given the results that follow from our assumptions, we conclude that while the boost phase technologies we studied are potentially capable of defending the United States against liquid-propellant ICBMs at certain ranges of interest, at least in the absence of counter-measures, when all factors are considered none of the boost-phase defense concepts studied would be viable for the foreseeable future to defend the nation against even first-generation solid-propellant ICBMs.

See also the article on anti-ballistic missiles for further discussion on the feasibility of NMD-like systems.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Missile_Defense
Which is why we're gonna use lasers.

Two questions...whats an ICBM for one.

ICBM = Intercontinental ballistic missile.

 

[MilkMan12]

People like you stern keep complaining how Bush could have prevented 9/11 (all covered in my other post on the other topic, which you and no limit didnt read) but how can we prevent 9/11 without a pre-emptive strike (assuming you rather have us attack them then just wait for them and attack our own planes with our own innocent citizens on them)? So us invading Iraq probably prevented an attack...I say probably because there is no possible way of being 100% sure of that...also the evidence we found there did show they were very capable of multiple terrorist attacks against the US and other Civilized countries around the world. Why am I rewriting this shit...I finally wrote a long good argument and no one but ghost read it...or tron...i forget who.

(now Im assuming your like the rest of the people who complain about Bush not preventing 9/11 because I think you have mentioned it before)

 

[CptStern]

People like you stern keep complaining how Bush could have prevented 9/11 (all covered in my other post on the other topic, which you and no limit didnt read) but how can we prevent 9/11 without a pre-emptive strike (assuming you rather have us attack them then just wait for them and attack our own planes with our own innocent citizens on them)? So us invading Iraq probably prevented an attack...I say probably because there is no possible way of being 100% sure of that...also the evidence we found there did show they were very capable of multiple terrorist attacks against the US and other Civilized countries around the world. Why am I rewriting this shit...I finally wrote a long good argument and no one but ghost read it...or tron...i forget who.

(now Im assuming your like the rest of the people who complain about Bush not preventing 9/11 because I think you have mentioned it before)

...there's no use in having this discussion ....I've posted document after document after document to prove my many points ...does anyone bother discussing them? no you'd rather focus on how anti-american I am

...even when it's de-classified documents directly from the government it's ignored ...I get tired of regurgitating the same shit over and over again



and no I never said he could have prevented 9/11

 

[satch919]

I might be over-reacting but what the hell is wrong with our civilization? Where is the civility in our civilization?

If we resort to all out nuclear war, then humans don't deserve to pollute this world anymore.

I can't even fathom a world in which the two super-powers go to war. Especially with the kind of weaponry we hold.

These are unstable times we live in. Perhaps its always been like that though.

:|

 

[willyd]

Well it obviously means we cant help Taiwan, but they never said the other countries couldn't help them.
So who wants to help them?

(Silence)

Europe?

(Silence)

Canada?

(Silence)

Well ****, we would do it if they didnt have wmd's and they had oil.

 

[gh0st]

lol! I really laughed at that one:

"you're stupid" ...you should have said : "you're stupid, you big stupid meanie"

:frown: I'd be happy if you choked and died.

really? so saddam wasnt a threat to the US?

You said bush set the precedence. Which is wrong, and you knew it. You










came into this thread with the express wish to bring Bush into. Just stop, and












you wont have to humiliate yourself anymore.

not my fault you dont understand subtlety ...I'll try to be straight forward for now on ...no more snide implications or innuendos ...just straight from the hip six shooter straight talk ...like: "we'd better get them chinamen before they be getting us" ...lalala

Why do you even bother posting anymore? Obviously that 10k number of






posts you have is incorrect



its probably







more like





2 real posts.

okay back on topic ...I think china sees no alternative (not that it's the right choice) ...I mean the US has shown the world that it doesnt take all that much provocation for them to invade whomever suits their fancy

...probably their way of saying "hey buddy we have big guns too, back off"

Real observant. Do we threaten other nations with nuclear weapons?











































Absolutely not. If we did you'd be in an uproar. But now chinas military leaders are, and its fine? Cant imagine what would happen if Rumsfeld said he's nuke the next country that attacked us.

hey gh0st how am I doing so far? straight enough talking for ya?

I dont know where you get your delusions from, but give me some of that crack.



























/end stern-esque line breaking

 

[Foxtrot]

Best post ever.

 

[CptStern]

:frown: I'd be happy if you choked and died.

You said bush set the precedence. Which is wrong, and you knew it. You

/me bangs head against wall ...you should see the bump on my nogging from constantly banging my head out of sheer frustrastion at constantly having to explain what things mean ..it's like freakin huge

who recently invaded iraq without real provocation:

a. Canada
b. Bush and friends
c. Canada

:came into this thread with the express wish to bring Bush into. Just stop, and


you wont have to humiliate yourself anymore.

sigh ....once again you cant see forest for the trees. I had a point: china is using it's nuke as a bargaining chip to avoid american intervention with taiwan ..it's a valid point

Why do you even bother posting anymore? Obviously that 10k number of






posts you have is incorrect



its probably







more like





2 real posts.

3 ...4 including this one

Real observant. Do we threaten other nations with nuclear weapons?

your brand of threatening is a little more subtle

Absolutely not. If we did you'd be in an uproar. But now chinas military leaders are, and its fine? Cant imagine what would happen if Rumsfeld said he's nuke the next country that attacked us.

which country was the first?

 

[Raziaar]

I kind of get the impression you cheer China and their nukes, stern.

At least, with the planes over america comments, and everything else you've said here. <chuckles>

 

[Lemonking]

yeah kinda sounds like you want something to happen

 

[Teta_Bonita]

yeah kinda sounds like you want something to happen

nah, he just likes to poke fun at Bush and America every chance he gets.

 

[kirovman]

I think the US will back down before China does... there's nothing profitable in this for the US. And remember Taiwan has insisted that that they would rule over the mainland once again, so their plan has always been of reunification, the independence movement has only been a recent thing. They could have had their independence in 1949, instead of proclaiming themselves to be the Republic of China. But they didn't because they still thought of themselves as the rulers of China. And that's the kind of thing that happens in civil wars. If we supported their independence, we'd recognise them as a nation, rather than forsaking them for the People's Republic of China in the 1970s.

I think the Chinese government are playing the waiting game with Taiwan. They're not stupid.

Anyway, calm down everyone, stop the panic, read this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4688471.stm

 

[The Monkey]

You better get Star Wars ready really soon then.

 

[Gray Fox]

This is the reason for us protecting Taiwan.

When China was in a civil war there were 2 sides. A Communist side and a Democracy Side. We obviously aided the Democracy side. The Democracy side fled to what is present day Taiwan as they were lost the war. The U.S. SWEARS TO PROTECT DEMOCRACY. TAIWAN IS A DEMOCRACY. THUS WE SWEAR TO PROTECT IT. Simple huh? I believe we have also said that if they invade taiwan...we **** them up. Even if our economic system might get ****ed over...well remember bush is the president . He flips a coin for these more important things.

Well what kirovman said:

I think the US will back down before China does... there's nothing profitable in this for the US. And remember Taiwan has insisted that that they would rule over the mainland once again, so their plan has always been of reunification, the independence movement has only been a recent thing. They could have had their independence in 1949, instead of proclaiming themselves to be the Republic of China. But they didn't because they still thought of themselves as the rulers of China. And that's the kind of thing that happens in civil wars. If we supported their independence, we'd recognise them as a nation, rather than forsaking them for the People's Republic of China in the 1970s.

I think the Chinese government are playing the waiting game with Taiwan. They're not stupid.

Anyway, calm down everyone, stop the panic, read this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asi...ic/4688471.stm

+ the old non communist rulers weren't democratic at all, in anything they were worse than the communist, and taiwan only recently became a democratc country.
Nontheless I'm on the US side on this for the previously mentioned reasons.

 

[gh0st]

/me bangs head against wall ...you should see the bump on my nogging from constantly banging my head out of sheer frustrastion at constantly having to explain what things mean ..it's like freakin huge

who recently invaded iraq without real provocation:

a. Canada
b. Bush and friends
c. Canada

Hey douchebag, we're talking about nuclear weapons. This means you're going to have to think a little farther past than your favorite era (early nineties, early 00's), to, oh say, maybe, 1950.

sigh ....once again you cant see forest for the trees. I had a point: china is using it's nuke as a bargaining chip to avoid american intervention with taiwan ..it's a valid point

And I merely pointed out that it was a feeble attempt to shift attention from your delusional babbling.

which country was the first?

Explain. The first to do what?

 

[seinfeldrules]

I think china sees no alternative (not that it's the right choice)

How about leaving Taiwan alone? Oh wait, you'd love to live in a Communist utopian.

...I mean the US has shown the world that it doesnt take all that much provocation for them to invade whomever suits their fancy

The provocation would be China invading/preparing to invade Taiwan! I cant see why they would be shocked if went to help.

 

[halflifeguy]

this is scaring me............
of all the times that Bush could have run for President he had to run during a time in which China threatens us with Nukes........
i can see it now..........*bush speaks* "My fellow americans, we will do whatever it takes to neutralize those lo-mein eating jerks, and we will handle this just like the war in Iraq and Afganistan. We will be the victors:E"


*Everybody shoots George Dubya and gets Bill Clinton back*

Bill Clinton was an excellent president.......so what if he wanted some action?:cheers:

 

[Raziaar]

Clinton was nothing spectacular.

 

[halflifeguy]

he did wonders for our economy...........
then bush ass raped it.............

 

[Raziaar]

he did wonders for our economy...........
then bush ass raped it.............

I think it was that thing... you know, that small little thing that happened that did it.

You know... 9/11?

 

[Absinthe]

His economoc policies did little to improve the situation though.