General: China Could Be Planning Surprise Missile Attack on United States

The hew teck, i replided to a capt, and he gave his reply. to ask, elecrromangnetics and the signal of. the proton value. the electron equivelnet ant the nuetron and the imballence of. a new, assassinate me for the rrruth a new vanule of the new teck. lost, ok. i have a heart condition, i will die. y ou ask yoursef , what is the quotient of . i give eiinstine and teslas time , time , time is of thesssance.

reply to post by cloaked4u



a pale horse shall ride'

a baby is born, in the white house

h urry, i haave a short window.

Originally posted by USAisdevil

without massive civil defence and underground cities which usa never invested in ,it is impossible to win a nuclear war because your citizens are not sufficiently dispersed.

It's impossible to win a nuclear war even WITH those things. True, it can be survived, but that's not the same as "winning".

ALL cities, underground or not, concentrate population - they never, ever, disperse population.

reply to post by cloaked4u


Dude, your last several posts are out in left field. It's a bad idea to drink and type.

reply to post by USAisdevil

its your govt which is smudging the facts

And who says what you linked doesn't?

you have provided no links of proper financial,monetary and economic analysis.

Yes I did.

why ? because the gubermint and hollywood told you so.

No, because 5000+ nuclear warheads = extinction.

USA will cease to exist as a military hyperpower in the coming years. the soviets had strategic technological superiority in late 70's and 80's compared to usa for fighting and winning a nuclear war. without massive civil defence and underground cities which usa never invested in ,it is impossible to win a nuclear war because your citizens are not sufficiently dispersed.

You repeat what you say without proving it.

Congrats, you're a troll.

Also yes the US will die. Like all nations die. This is why I don't believe in concepts of sovereignty, of nationalism, or of faith in government. All organizations made by men will die.

China is currently becoming a westernized Christian nation with revolts for more rights and freedoms. I've no doubt that by 2040 they will be the default military power on Earth, and I have every intention to move there if that does so happen. I don't find myself needing to support dying animals like the US, or the now extinct soviets. I go where the work is. I don't much care what flag flies over it.

Russia is not dependent on USA as EU is russia's main trading partner ec.europa.eu... ,as for China they can substitute oil with coal effectively. or even anhydrous ammonia, which is the best renewable fuel in the world. Chinese are working and have significant progress in coal fuel cells.

Your link proves me right. They do export/import a lot. What, do you think the fact they export makes them independent? hey guess what happens when the people you are exporting to are nuclear dust? You have no income.

Weather you shoot the buyer or the seller, you're going to fail.

1) there is lack of civil defence investments
2) population is highly concentrated towards the cities
3)no underground facilities for population survival.

Again, nothing can stop your death in nuclear war. A few people will survive, and by the time they rebuild their memories of their ancestors will be long lost.

and youtube videos are not proof of anything.

again, prove it.

the author is a scientist turned human rights activist ,what are your qualifications? you dont have understanding of basic physics.

Those are not qualifications. And me not having any doesn't make my statements false.



So, you still have no proof for your claims, you still are trolling about repeating the same stuff.

Total time it too me to reply: 6 minutes. Nice chatting.

reply to post by cloaked4u
my name is not chris, it is
"can you guess my name" i'v been a round along long time ,can you guess my name?" Rolling Stones www.youtube.com... been getting 503 for a few now
back to the thread with all the chatter of 9-11, would this be the time when China does a sneaky, who gets the blame ... the mid east Terrorist do

The hew teck, i replided to a capt, and he gave his reply. to ask, elecrromangnetics and the signal of. the proton value. the electron equivelnet ant the nuetron and the imballence of. a new, assassinate me for the rrruth a new vanule of the new teck. lost, ok. i have a heart condition, i will die. y ou ask yoursef , what is the quotient of . i give eiinstine and teslas time , time , time is of thesssance.

.... Well, I'm glad you're having fun, cloaked4u.

It's a shame that I cannot join you, as you seem to be having a lot of it.

... On to more productive conversation:

Nuclear warfare is, indeed, 'winnable' and 'survivable.' The entire world's arsenal is insufficient to adequately destroy the productive landmass of countries as large as the U.S. or Russia. Cities need multiple warheads to be effective at destroying key infrastructure and industrial capability. The U.S. and Russia are really the only nuclear powers with enough warheads and delivery systems to theoretically mutually cripple the others' industrial capability (and that effect would only be temporary). All other nuclear powers are simply a cost/effect wager - we could take a full nuclear barrage from the UK and/or China with a smile on our face. The only deterring factor is what we stand to gain for taking such a hit.

Ironically, the most effective way to use fusion-based warheads would be over empty farm land. The goal wouldn't even be to destroy crops, directly - but to contaminate the ground with radioactive isotopes of Cesium - chemically similar to Potassium, and readily absorbed into most plants and concentrated in their fruits/tubers (what we often eat).

The first two or three seasons of harvest following the initial blast would be contaminated with high amounts of radioactive Cesium - severely impacting recovery efforts in any affected nation.

Originally posted by nenothtu

Most of Libya's oil goes to Europe, but I'm sure China will get their cut of it, just like they did in Iraq. It's in Chinese interests to let the US "pacify" the oil fields without interference, since they get the oil without taking the risk and getting their own troops all dead and corpsified.

Actually, I don't think so, not really. If you think about it a little deeper, you will see that the US pacifying these oil fields, will no longer allow them to obtain the oil at a cheaper prize. The price will start to be equivalent with the rest of the world, which means their production cost will rice, and they longer will be able to sustain the mass production at cheap prize, scenario.

It would be like the game fallout, vaults everwhere, baron waste lands! not nice..

i would have to say that the most devastating way one country could cripple another is to poison their water supply.no one can live very long without water.so i guess it would be biological warfare,but the invader would have to bring in their own water supply,unless they just wanted to devastate a country without actually occupying it.this is the most toxic substance known and is worse than radiation > en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by Gorman91

No, because 5000+ nuclear warheads = extinction.

Gorman91, as so often before you are more or less talking with your behind here ... this isn't accurate.

The idea, originally, was that from Nagasaki and Hiroshima, the blast did most of the damage. The radiation didn't do any damage, or little damage. Later, you had this development increased into a Hydrogen bomb and the notion was that the radiation was devestating. The idea was, that in a nuclear war, the blast itself was very little ... but it was the radiation, that would make the earth inhabitable.

Then came Chernobyl ... and there are to this day, live cameras and constant observation of Chernobyl, to observe wether this is true, or not.

it isn't ... far from it. To date, life is trhiving in Chernobyl.

And then came Japan, 2011 ...

It all means, Gorman91 ... is that, people get annoyed from the smell of fart ... the surprise from the noise, and the shyness, is only a temporary effect.

reply to post by Gorman91


I agree with USAisdevil on the financial aspects ,but I believe he's overstating russian capabilities.
He's right that US govt is smudging facts and GDP of 15 trillion is a illusion considering the inflation in the US economy.

www.marketoracle.co.uk...

www.marketoracle.co.uk...

seekingalpha.com...

economictimes.indiatimes.com...

My team calculated the real GDP of USA in 2009 for KPMG and we had an estimate of 6.75 trillion$.The flawed methodology used by BEA for calculation of inflation which leads to severe distortion in GDP figures.

www.chrismartenson.com...
www.americanthinker.com...

Personally,my opinion on real GDP for 2011 is that it is 7.2 trillion,thanks to the credit creation of QE2.But again ,QE2 credit was diverted to the markets,which led to severe speculation in basic commodities.

there are around 27,000 nuclear war heads in the world today.could our nuclear arsenal really destroy the world? > io9.com... >>> www.wagingpeace.org...

reply to post by blocula

could our nuclear arsenal really destroy the world?

No. Not even close.

Your tactical yields are virtually irrelevant in that respect. Sure - you can cluster them together in some nice geometric patterns to make some interesting things happen - but you need your larger weapons to really start changing the landscape.

Which cuts the number of relevant nuclear warheads substantially. "Unfortunately", most are sub-megaton yields. You would need thousands to take out the nearly endless metropolis of New York and the Eastern Seaboard, alone. Forget about the more distributed populations of California, Texas, and the midwest.

The entire world's arsenal would have difficulty destroying the U.S. - let alone the whole world (and what, pray tell, would you nuke in Africa? There's a boat load of people there - but not a whole lot to shoot at).

Sure - you could kill a -lot- of people. But society as a whole would pick up and continue. Only your primary targets that are hit multiple times by megaton-range weapons would be the post-apocalyptic wasteland of hollyweird.

this "one" bomb all by itself, would completely destroy any large city in the world with ease,it is equal to 2,800 hiroshimas!,originally 5,600 hiroshimas! and amazingly so,as it was originally equal to 1/5 the power of "all nuclear weapons" ever detonated! 100 megatons,but was reduced to 50 megatons for the actual test > en.wikipedia.org... and yield comparisons > en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by blocula


They could always pull out the neutron bombs, small damage, big kill!

Leave the cities intact, but sanitized of life!

Now that is a twisted weapon.

Any given nuclear power plant with multiple reactors generally contains enough active and spent fuels that if it were all to go critical, and was blasted into the atmosphere at once with great force... Much of the life on the planet could be eliminated.

No nuclear bombs required.

Originally posted by blocula
this "one" bomb all by itself, would completely destroy any large city in the world with ease,it is equal to 2,800 hiroshimas!,originally 5,600 hiroshimas! and amazingly so,as it was originally equal to 1/5 the power of "all nuclear weapons" ever detonated! 100 megatons,but was reduced to 50 megatons for the actual test > en.wikipedia.org... and yield comparisons > en.wikipedia.org...

edit on 9-9-2011 by blocula because: (no reason given)

and whataya know!,china has the neutron bomb > en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by bjarneorn


Radiation is dependent on weapon. Japan's nukes were air bursts. Not much radiation.

Then came Chernobyl ... and there are to this day, live cameras and constant observation of Chernobyl, to observe wether this is true, or not. it isn't ... far from it. To date, life is trhiving in Chernobyl.

Well no actually. Radiation pockets remain and cancer rates are high. And this was from but a small long term fire. We really have no template examples of long term radiation exposure. A single bar of uranium that madame Curie carried around for years, for example, gave here hollow bones and a painful death. But the people whom worked with radiation in labs had all sort of problems.

Radiation as a threat is nothing more and nothing less than the probability of a particle hitting your dna. And that, to date, has no good examples for long term ambient exposure. Though if the solar system is any example, it can lead to toxic life-suppressing dosage, and perhaps why life is not as successful on other worlds here.