it's me again ... I found an article on ABC News online [1] about what Colin Powell does now and in which he talks about his infamous PowerPoint presentation to the UN:



Actually, those people in the "intelligence community" did speak up, under the protection of anonymity, but were not believed.
One more thing which is interesting to notice: Mr Powell is ashamed of the "blot on his record" but does not explicitely mention the many thousands of lifes he helped to erase. Does this mean he's more concerned about his record than about other people's lifes?

[1] http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Politics/story?id=1105979&page=1

 

 

 

Reply

We have to not rely on reports from CIA or any other intelligence after the lesson of Iraq.

We have to use the commonsense and our minds.

China is building successfuly the welfare of its citizens AND HAS NO REASON to destroy that by using Nuclear weapons without be attacked since the enemy will respond with the same.

The lessons of past world wars, make anyone think before attacking.

China is huge country and has huge population but this one factor in winning but not sufficient to win. The weapons and weapon of mass destruction is more in US than in China who build and test these weapon many years after US.

China will not intervene in another countries affair.

China will not start war . Only China want return Taiwan and that is its right.

If China starts to return its territory and US will intervene to defend Taiwan [which is wrong but is expected from US], then it will conflict with US .

If US attack China by nuclear weapon, then why China don't respond with the same weapon.

I expect both of them will be with clasic weaponsbut not with nuclear one. US used nuclear bomb when Japan hadn't it. US didn't use it against the Soviet Union because it will be hurt her with the same.

But anyhow for the tiny possipility China has to prepare to any scenario.

To whom said Israel will use Nuke as last resort, I say every one will say that. And the question where Israel will use it. If it use it against surroundings countries, then it will affect its population too. History shows that Israel has survived 3 times wars and won on all and has occupied parts from 5 countries with normal weapons. My opinion is Israel don't want nuke for the Arabs. It want it to be recognized as important country..

 

 

 

Reply

China has 20 nukes only? You are... brainless!
China has more than 400 nukes. OK, the US have 10,000 nukes, but name
400 cities worth nuking. And as you know, nuking a city will affect a big area near it; if China can successfully deploy the nukes and half of them hit the US, US will be destroyed and the air, soil and water become radioactive!

For countries like US and China , nukes serve a single purpose: ensure mutual destruction. If China is losing a war against the US, I don't think they will hesitate to nuke the US.

Reply

I don't see why everyone focuses on China and USA when talking about nuclear weapons. Both countries are way more civilized then 99% of third world countries. In addition, using nrdc tables, USA has droped from 30k nukes in 1965 to only 10k in 2002 estimate. In fact, China, Russia, UK and France all have less nukes then they did a few years back. I'm more worried about small wars. Maybe Pakistan starts a war with India and launches its estimated 15-25 nuclear weapons and India retaliates with its estimated 25-125 nuclear weapons. China might panic having nuclear weapons flying below it's throat and launch some more leading to a chain reaction. We'll probobly see the best fireworks ever, however you'd probobly need filters so you don't go blind.

Just to throw it in Canada produces most of the world's uranium.

Reply

so nice to see a subject of such understated urgency being actively discussed in an open forum.

while i do believe that china poses a much bigger threat than might be seen at first, i also am VERY concerned by the new proposed guidelines for forward deployed US field commanders in the use of battlefield and intratheatre nukes. very disturbing; basically, they will be able to request authorization for release of nuclear weapons in most any situation they feel isn't going quite as planned. also, part of these guidelines would practically make it a guarantee that at some point in a conflict, if biologicals are used on ground troops, that the US could nuke its own soldiers in order to prevent spread of a virulent or contagious pathogen. the justification would be for the greater good of all involved, "to protect citizens from this horrible disease".....i can see it now. the wording, after all, did say specifically that authorization might be given to prevent the spread of or eliminate the confirmed (or implied, as the case might as easily be) presence of contagious and/or incapacitating pathogens. in a war scenario involving nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons, the use of any one of the three can and most likely will trigger the release of the other two. long story short, any scenario involving NBC's is a bad, bad one.

also, i am very concerned about china's seeming willingness to sacrifice a large percentage of its civilian population in a nuclear exchange. my feeling about that is simply this: the chinese gov't would welcome the loss of millions of its own people as a blessing. more food and resources to go around. sounds sick, but in a nuclear war, this thinking makes all the sense in the world. with an infrastructure all but completely destroyed, industrial capacity extremely limited and arable land all but lost in the impending fallout and subsequent decades-long radioactive decay, the fewer people you have to feed and house, perhaps, the better.

Reply

from what i know, there are more then enough contries who have the technology to start a nuclear way, be it china, japan, usa, uk, india, pakistan, korea, so many people. Most know that it is a bad idea, as, for example, USA need to keep ties with many countries for oil and such, ties which would be severed should they start a nuclear war that the countries would not agree on.

Anyone can start it, but i don't think that they would, just becuase it is in the worst intrest of everyone, if they nuke someone, someone will nuke them and then they will be put in an extremely comprimising situation, whereby they are putting themselves and everyone in their country at risk, a decision that very few countries are willing, or would even consider making.

Reply

Look I've lived(well born )in china, the days where china can start a nuclear war ended when mao-ju-shi died, now it's just weak party officials who get replaced every few years. China would not have anything to gain over a war with America since their economy are some closly tied.

Strangly america who wants to promote world peace is giving nuclear technology to india, "accidentally" shipped some nuclear parts to tiawan, putting a anti-missile system in south korea and japan, and stationing troops in three of them.

Now are they asking for a war????

Seems like it with it's containment policy, why is it when Cuba got nukes they flipped out but when tiawan or india has it it's alright???? Being number 1 in the world for too long makes you a selfish, culturally-insensitive, and rouge state in it's own way: invading other countries, telling them what to be, supporting pro-america tyrants like pakistan (how is that right? bECAUSE IT BENEFITS AMERICA BUT TORTURES and kills pakis?)

How can america fly it's spy planesthat can see into China internaltional waters while china can't spy on america with planes. One day america will screw up, and honestly.. I would be laughing at all the americians dying here in america's third-world *****: Canada.


We make all the urainum but we don't use it

-reply by Glow

Reply

Maybe the USA put the WMDs in Iraq and wherever else they claim to have them and now they are frantically searching for them because those countries are now playing keeps. Just like when we supply weapons to anything else. It could be a huge mistake to do so as we learned with the Al Qaeda.

Reply

Interesting perspective (somewhat funny) it's unlikly since it will just be easier to fake or plant one for the media. However if a nuclear device actually was there through some possibility such as

* ---unlikely--- A middle east country developing it's own nuclear weapon.

* ---unlikely--- America actually giving or planting a bomb and losing it.

* ---possible--- A failed or shot down israel jet carrying nukes in one of the 5 wars (from sum of all fears ).

* ---Likely--- A nuclear device brought from a former soviet country.

* ---Likely--- A nuclear technology brought from former-soviet countries, china, pakistan, india, former soviet scientists, or north korea. Then used to turn weapon grade uraninum (for another source) to a bomb.

* ---very likely--- Nuclear material brought from former soviet countries waiting to be weaponized or used as a dirty bomb.

* ---very likely--- Nuclear material refinined in Iran (with it's own Uraninum mines) to be used as a dirty bomb.

Either or some of those options will create a local power broker if they keep it, or a very big mushroom cloud in Israel or USA.

If it was the local power broker option, it will abuse it to it's advantage: such as enforcing it's ideas on others, leverage with Israel (or tatical nukes in F-16s from it), greater pressence in the region and in OPEC (more control over oil), and the domination of the Persian Gulf. The long-term effects will be a generally peaceful middle east with a single more agressive country vs israel.( probably not in war). (sounds alot like USA)

However if they decide to use it:

* In Israel: They probably choose Tel Aviv since Jerusalem is also holy to muslims, it'll result in the deaths of millions of jewish people, it will also result in millions of the offender's citizens dead, but rich -bas-t-urds(not a bad word) don't care.

* In America: They probably choose something easily reconizeble and big, so new york. This will cripple eastern coast TV, destory alot of banks national and international, kill millions, cost Trillions(I'm serious). And America will have to strike back even if it doesn't know who's responsible (unlike 911 there's no indication of upcoming attacks). It will probably nuke Iran, the mostly likly country, or it can nuke Medina and Mecca (therefore implying that they want to destory the muslim religion) and in a war of a billion muslims worldwide and 300million americians (don't expect any allies for america if it does this) I'm gonna have to further north in canada to the eskimos and learn to hunt.

Of course this is all just a scenario

Reply

There's no reason to believe that the U.S. and China will go to war. Taiwan is a diplomatic issue and will eventually be resolved through diplomacy.

The most likely nations to launch a nuclear attack are obviously Israel and the USA. The single most likely scenario being an Israeli conventional attack upon Iran, followed by an Iranian conventional retaliation, an Israeli campaign of misinformation claiming that Iran, and possibly even Syria, have nukes, and then an Israeli nuclear strike against Iran and possibly even Syria. These Israeli acts of aggression could pull the Saudis and Egypt into the melee, though unlikely. The fallout from a nuclear attack would kill millions of Iranians, Afghanis, Pakistanis, and depending on the wind directions for several weeks, could even kill hundreds of thousands of Saudis, Israelis and Palestinians.

It is highly improbable that the USA would launch a nuclear strike first. There is simply no justification for it anywhere in the world. It's possible that, if Israel was determined to attack Iran, that the USA would launch the attack instead for the purpose of protecting Israel. This is truly possible since the USA is currently occupying Afghanistan and Iraq for the sole purpose of protecting Israel. We (the USA) has already set a precedent for putting Israeli security ahead of our own national security.

The other potential flashpoint is Pakistan. Either an exchange with India or an Islamic extremist coup in Pakistan, followed by either an Indian, Israeli, or American nuclear strike against Pakistani military installations and suspected nuclear weapons caches. Since only Russia and possibly China have the range to hit the USA, it's highly unlikely that any of these scenarios would result in a nuclear attack on the US or Europe. However, all of these scenarios represent a nuclear nightmare for the Middle East.

Reply