Nuclear War Scenarios - ...who will start it?

brainless

Jul 17 2005, 06:41 PM

QUOTE("Financial Times quoting Gen Zhu")

We Chinese will prepare ourselves for the destruction of all cities east of Xian [in central China], he said. Of course the Americans will have to be prepared that hundreds of cities will be destroyed by the Chinese.

As you might see yourself, Gen Zhu's war threat is harmless unless the USA decide to attack China and devastate one third of the country first (-> Map of China in the CIA World Factbook). As this is currently very unlikely to happen, the chinese response to this is just as unlikely.

And, one more quote to comfort the US citizens (and all others who might feel threatend by China now) among us:

QUOTE("FT")

Chinese government officials emphasised that Gen Zhu's remarks were seen as a minority opinion and being the first to use nuclear weapons would contradict Beijing's military strategy.

Sources (both Financial Times):
(1) "Top chinese general warns US over attack" http://news.ft.com/cms/s/28cfe55a-f4a7-11d...000e2511c8.html

(2) "Beijing plays down general's threats" http://news.ft.com/cms/s/4062b908-f561-11d...000e2511c8.html

-----

so much about the story, let's start the debate:

As the FT quoted the chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, China does not intend to be the first to use nuclear weapons against an enemy but does not object to strike back.

So where's the real threat now? I'd say it's the US since the Pentagon has plans to develop "Mini nukes" which shall be used to destroy bunkers and similar targets without harming the surroundings (which is, physically, nearly impossible). These nuclear weapons might be ready to use when the US government decides to intervene in the China-Taiwan-dispute and will probably be used since US military officials strongly deny that mini nukes might affect the area around a bunker.
Only when this happens, the chinese government has a reason to strike back with their own nukes.

by the way: China has "only" about 20 nukes without "first strike"-option while the USA have several thousands and do have plans for doing a nuclear first strike...

steven

Jul 17 2005, 07:04 PM

QUOTE(brainless @ Jul 17 2005, 02:41 PM)

I know, some time ago someone else started a debate on the same topic but somehow (I suppose it was not intentionally) twisted the facts so that the message was "China threatened the USA". This statement is _not_ true but the issue is interesting even without a current threat.

So what happened that makes me bring this topic onto the agenda?

According to the Financial Times, the chinese General Zhu Chenghu told a group of forein journalists that China might start a nuclear war if the USA decide to attack China in order to protect Taiwan, which is considered chinese territory by the chinese government.
Sources (both Financial Times):
(1) "Top chinese general warns US over attack" http://news.ft.com/cms/s/28cfe55a-f4a7-11d...000e2511c8.html

(2) "Beijing plays down general's threats" http://news.ft.com/cms/s/4062b908-f561-11d...000e2511c8.html

-----

so much about the story, let's start the debate:

As the FT quoted the chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, China does not intend to be the first to use nuclear weapons against an enemy but does not object to strike back.

So where's the real threat now? I'd say it's the US since the Pentagon has plans to develop "Mini nukes" which shall be used to destroy bunkers and similar targets without harming the surroundings (which is, physically, nearly impossible). These nuclear weapons might be ready to use when the US government decides to intervene in the China-Taiwan-dispute and will probably be used since US military officials strongly deny that mini nukes might affect the area around a bunker.
Only when this happens, the chinese government has a reason to strike back with their own nukes.

by the way: China has "only" about 20 nukes without "first strike"-option while the USA have several thousands and do have plans for doing a nuclear first strike...

"I know, some time ago someone else started a debate on the same topic but somehow (I suppose it was not intentionally) twisted the facts so that the message was "China threatened the USA"."

Yeah, I think that might be me. However, I think that China can harm USA in a much better way than US can to China. The reason is because in a way, China "owns" most of the goods that are transported to North Ameria. Today, it is not surprising to see most of the stuff we see, on the Label it says: "Made in China" Therefore, in a war, not only will US experience a decrease in the transported essential goods, but they will also experience heavy military attacks from China. The reason is because China has a lot of army and, my point of view is that, because China has over-population, it won't even hurt them if a lot of Chinese die. Anyways, I think that there should not be any war, as it will affect all the countries surrounding US and China.

That's it from me.

ManOfSTEEL

Jul 18 2005, 09:12 AM

I think china is strong enough to start war, but do you think war can solve the problem? somehow, maybe yes, but if that happen you might not even hear or see the result of the war.

all of us would be all victim of nuclear war. China and US are both great country, strong and very powerful, when talking to massive distruction, well, they're both good, they can destroy the city or even the whole country, but what is the point? To proved that your country has own massive distruction? what about those who don't own that kind of weapon? victim is it?

In war there are no winner, they're both losser maybe they can survive but in return they're still losser, real fight didn't come with nuclear or missile or what. If you want to fight china against US then do it in a manner way, one-on-one like boxing without using gloves that was more great and can be called a supreme war:) what do you think?

Real fight for me didn't come with what weapon you have, or how many soldiers you have. Real fight comes is the one who fight without affecting the audience...

like us we're just and audience of war.

What do you think? can I open this topic to those fighter and start fighting withou handing a weapon?

I hate war you know, there a many civilians died of that fxxx war...like what happen in some other country...

war is an evil act... real war is what I am looking for...

wariorpk

Aug 19 2005, 12:55 PM

I think that China would start the war because it seems they have a few rouge leaders who are not at all interested in peace. However, there is not a doubt in my mind that the United States would retaliate. I do not think anyone would win the war. I think that if this happens the Earth would cease to exist.

saga

Sep 13 2005, 07:05 AM

In a scenario of a world war 3, history will repeat itself. The first weapon of mass destruction (nuclear weapon) that will ever be drop is by USA. It has all intention and capabilities.

United States Government is a rouge state. It does not respect anything exept its own agenda.

China wont dare to attack first with nuclear becuase USA could easily wipe out chinese with its thousands of nuclear. But if they are attack they will strike too for it is the natural reaction and the only one.

Not even North Korea will attack with nuclear if it has one.

To get respected by USA you must have a nuclear capability.

By the way, why do USA keeps a thousand nuclear weapons and yet it is stopping other countries to have one. Have we forgotten that only the USA have the stomach to use a weapon of mass destruction and they already did. Their first victim was Japan. I wonder who will be next.

brainless

Sep 13 2005, 04:14 PM

and once again, the USA are about to move another step to a third nuclear strike ... As the Washington Post reports, a new nuclear strike plan has been worked out by the Pentagon but hasn't been approved by Donald Rumsfeld yet. This draft plan contains so many situations in which military commanders may ask the president for permission to use nuclear weapons that it would be possible to use nukes against about anyone...

QUOTE

[...]

1 (1) Geographic combatant commanders may request Presidential approval for
2 use of nuclear weapons for a variety of conditions. Examples include:
3
4 (a) An adversary using or intending to use WMD against US, multinational,
5 or alliance forces or civilian populations.
6
7 (b) Imminent attack from adversary biological weapons that only effects
8 from nuclear weapons can safely destroy.
9
10 © Attacks on adversary installations including WMD, deep, hardened
11 bunkers containing chemical or biological weapons or the C2 infrastructure required for
12 the adversary to execute a WMD attack against the United States or its friends and allies.
13
14 (d) To counter potentially overwhelming adversary conventional forces,
15 including
16 mobile and area targets (troop concentration).
17
18 (e) For rapid and favorable war termination on US terms.
19
20 (f) To ensure success of US and multinational operations.
21
22 (g) To demonstrate US intent and capability to use nuclear weapons to deter
23 adversary use of WMD.
24
25 (h) To respond to adversary-supplied WMD use by surrogates against US
26 and multinational forces or civilian populations.

[...]

As everyone except for conspiracy theorists knows now, there were no WMD stockpiles in the Iraq since a couple of years -- but until late 2004, George W. and his comrades stuck to their lies which were not even backed by false intelligence reports (contrary, publicly available CIA reports stated that there was nothing but rumors)...
...and if this doctrine would have been in use 3 years ago, Kabul and Baghdad would look like Hiroshima and Nagasaki now :(

-> Washington Post Article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5091001053.html

-> "Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations" [I had to create a mirror on rapidshare since I didn't want to steal the guy I got it from's bandwidth]: http://rapidshare.de/files/5056610/jp3_12fc2.pdf.html

wild20

Sep 13 2005, 04:24 PM

I think it is dumb. No one should have nuclear power. We have enough to destroy the world two times over! Do you see a problem with that?! There are too many people out there that are NOT responsible.

Lets say a nuclear war broke out. We would have to destroy everything that5 shot at us. There would be countries destroyed left and right. Food would be scarse, almost nothing would be okay to eat or drink because the aftermath would be the world filled with radiation from the nuclear bombs.

If China does destroy tons of cities, I know that we will destroy cities at twice the rate, and we will also be left vonurable if we use too many. Russia, iran, most likely iraq, and china have a good ammount of nuclear power. We underestimate their power. Even if we have more than they, the US can only hold so much nuclear blasts before it is one big whole in the ground. I say, end the nuclear programs. It will ease a lot of strain between countries. That is my two cents worth. I just think its a BAD idea.

Milovoriel

Sep 14 2005, 11:49 AM

I think any unstable country, which also has nuclear capabilities could potentially instigate an attack .... so the USSR and Pakistan could fall into this category .... more worrying is the potential attack from countries who are suspected of having nuclear capabilities, but deny same .... so Israel, Iran and the Ukraine ....

However, the USA is paranoid and neurotic enough to instigate a nuclear attack .... and they have a history of it! ....

user posted image

ashiezai

Sep 14 2005, 12:23 PM

hmmm ... china is strong now ... but not that strong to start a war with USA ... that is why China threaten to use nuclear weapon because they are no opponent to the USA ... nuclear weapon is just the last resort and last defence ...

I do not think that any country will use nuclear weapon nowadays ... may be Iraq and North Korea ... because those countries are unstable in the form of economy and business .. and it's still undeveloped yet ... moreover SOME COUNTRIES in the world just keep pressuring them and to control them ... as i said ... the nuclear weapons are just the last resort ...

If a nuclear war really starts ... i do think that it's those attacker countries that deserves it ... it's bullshit to say that they were there to release the people ... hell no ... the people there doesnt welcome those intruders too !! it's just an excuss to start a war !!

brainless

Sep 14 2005, 04:30 PM

One question: How in the world are the iraqi people supposed to use nuclear weapons? There aren't any WMDs in Iraq [except for those imported and used by the USA but that's use of chemical weapons by the USA, not Iraq] and definitely less nukes. When President Bush, that person who started a war <strike>over links between Saddam Hussein</strike <strike>over WMDs in Husseins possession</strike> <strike>"Oil for Food"-Program abuse backed by the USA</strike> <ins>an evil dictator</ins> admits that President Hussein did not possess any WMDs, I dare say that this was already true when many people tried to raise their voice against this unjust, imperialist war.

wild20, ashiezai: There is currently no nuclear weapons program running in Iraq nor was there one during the last few years. Right now, the Iraqi people have better things to do than developing WMDs, things like ... struggling to get their freedom back...

milo: AFAIK Israel does not even deny having nuclear weapons (but does not have plans to use them except for last resort-defence). I'm ashamed that I have to admit that the german government decided that it's ok to sell some submarines to Israel for a symbolic fee even though it's known that they will be upgraded to be able to launch nuclear missiles once they've arrived there :/ Peaceful protest did not help...

As to the Iranian nuclear program: This quite an interesting story:
Mr. Bush threatened Iran with war for the case they don't stop their program for the <strike>production of nuclear weapons</strike> <ins>civil use of nuclear energy</ins> (which, by the way, is completely legal according to the Non-Proliferation Treaty).
As everyone who followed the propaganda should know, muslims are dumb people who blindly have to follow their religious leader who issues a Fatwa every now and then on a current or not-that-current issue which this leader's followers are bound to.
well, here's the catch:
a) yes, muslims are bound to fatwas issued by their chosen leader - but: they're free to choose to be led by someone else if they think their leader's stupid.

Iran Daily reports[1] that

QUOTE

[...]
The Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, has issued the fatwa that the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons are forbidden under Islam and that Iran shall never acquire these weapons, [...]

So where's the problem?

anyway, the CIA stated earlier this year that the Iran will definitely not be a threat in terms of nuclear weapons within the next 10 years ... acusing the Iran of developing or even possessing nuclear weapons is unfair.

North Korea, however, does possess nuclear weapons (the last reports I've read talk about at least 6 [China is reported to have 10, just as little hint so you've got something to compare that to]) and is, according to an article on globalsecurity.org, going to test missiles which are supposed to be able to carry a nuke to the USA's west coast and Kim Jong Il said that he would not hesitate to use these options if the USA were to attack North Korea. If you ask me, this is a way bigger threat to the world than Iraq was in the last 14 years. That this would happens was already known before the War for Oil began but for some reason, Mr Bush decided to go after President Hussein...

[1] http://www.iran-daily.com/1384/2347/html/

Latest Entries

iGuest

Jul 20 2008, 03:17 AM

the results
Nuclear War Scenarios

If a nuclear Armaggedon were to occur I doubt there would be anyone left capable of finishing off or destroy Earth. Chances are, there would be human survivors, and no doubt, animal and plantlife that could adapt to an irradiated biosphere. Who knows maybe one day when we have finished our short existence on this rock one of those organisms lucky enough to discover atomic power will do it again...

-reply by omnissiah01

mikeyboy63

May 25 2008, 09:09 PM

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.

jack177

Apr 20 2008, 03:03 PM

QUOTE(adrianator @ Apr 19 2008, 10:58 AM)

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.

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

adrianator

Apr 19 2008, 02:58 PM

iGuest

Apr 19 2008, 02:25 PM

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

ADD REPLY / Got an Opinion!	Remove these ADs!	RAPID SEARCH!	Free Web Hosting	[X]
Express your Opinions, Thoughts or Contribute more info. to help others. Ask your Doubts & Queries to get answers, So that "Together We can help others!"	Register FREE for AD-FREE forum, Create your own topics, Ask Questions, track topics, setup subscriptions & notifications and Get a Free Website w/ Email and FTP.		500MB Space No Ads, CPanel, FTP, PHP, MySQL, EMails - 100% FREE