Thread: China's Emergence As A Global Superpower

  1. #221
    Please use Sugar Cane Alcohol Billy T's Avatar
    Posts
    19,694
    to MetaKron:

    You constant talk about a cobalt60 dirty nuclear bomb reflects ignorance in that:
    (1)Cobalt is heavier than other more suitable isotopes, that can be placed in ICBMs.
    (2)Life time for Cobalt60 decay is too long from quick effect,
    (3)Cobalt 60 is much harder to handle as it is radioactive. One would chose an non-radioactive material that becomes radioactive in the neutron flux created by the nuclear yield.

    You are correct that it is relatively easy to get material into US ports. I would estimate at least a 95% probability of success. In contrast, the probability of multiple warhead ICBM getting accurate to targets in USA from China is probably only 15%. (Several smaller warheads separating in flight are not only harder to intercept but do more damage than one big one as it blast effect is 10,000% or more of what is need for total destruction near "ground zero" - Same reason that experts using HE to intentionally bring down a building use lots of small charges, well-timed to use building weight also, instead of one bigger one in the center of building. I.e. even though the total yield of the many smaller warheads is less, they produce more damage.

    Because of these facts and the ease and economy of "penetration aids" (decoys and real bomb simulating a decoy) the "Star Wars" anti-ICMB concepts are a waste of money. - Thousands of times more expensive than the penetration aids that can easily defeat the anti-ICBM systems.

    But again I tell you China need only continue what it is already doing (low value for Yaun, support of US tendency to "buy now / pay later" with credits purchase of T-bills, etc.) to destroy US economically with out risk of war in a few years when they have (with the new increased defense budget) made it too costly for collapsing US to use it stronger military in a "regime change" effort on the mainland. They want to be sure that they can put the seventh fleet on the bottom of the sea first if the US should be foolish enough to try to use its military for an Iraq style "regime change" (all in the name of democracy and human rights of course).

  2. #222
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    5,502
    Billy: Nowhere did I say "put cobalt-60 in bombs." I don't know why seem to think that I did. It is a safe presumption that I meant cobalt-59, the natural form, which transmutes under neutron bombardment. This is way too easy a question.

    Cobalt is a fairly common metal, but not as common or cheap as zinc, and they will probably go for zinc. It is the same thing. The metal transmutes from a radiologically inert material to a radiologically very dangerous material, a gamma emitter. I use the term "cobalt warhead" because I had thought that most people would instantly recognize that type of salted nuclear device. Yes, I picked up the term "salted" while I looked for references about cobalt warheads. Cobalt devices are something that was once very well described in encyclopedias and literature about the topic forty years ago and it never occured to me until I brought up this topic that so few people knew about them.

    It doesn't take so much cobalt or zinc to poison a large area that an ICBM can't carry it, especially when China can put communications satellites in geosync. Zinc is a lot more powerful per pound and clears sooner. Gold or tantalum are much shorter term poisons. But if the land is usable after ten to twenty years, that will work for them. They won't give a damn about the threat of cancers.

    The trouble with economic warfare is that it is possible to recover from that. We may have to live with old computers for a while, but we can do it. I think they are using nuclear blackmail as a kicker, to push over the ambiguous issues and to make it in our best interests to not take a chance in case China decides to detonate the doomsday device. That is, nuclear blackmail motivates our lawmakers to sabotage efforts to create a real economic recovery for the U.S. We're in a mental condition where a single confirmed nuclear explosion in any U.S. city would cripple us emotionally, especially if our own people encourage the process.

    We can count of them to try to get it done cheaply.

    Oh, also, the reason to use many smaller weapons is because the damage radius is proportional to the cube of the explosive yield. It takes a thousand times as much power to devastate a hundred times more area and so on. This can be worth it when there are targets that need to be taken out immediately, but not for targets that can be taken apart piecemeal.

  3. #223
    Metakron, your interest is in methods China might use, my interest is in motives China might have.

    I see no reason for China versus the USA to be more aggressive than the Soviet Union versus the USA.

  4. #224
    Please use Sugar Cane Alcohol Billy T's Avatar
    Posts
    19,694
    Quote Originally Posted by MetaKron
    Billy: Nowhere did I say "put cobalt-60 in bombs." I don't know why seem to think that I did. It is a safe presumption that I meant cobalt-59, the natural form, which transmutes under neutron bombardment. This is way too easy a question.
    I acknowledge that cobalt 59 could be in the bomb case, but also recall reading from about 50 years ago that other non radioactive lighter elements were preferred. Perhaps Cobalt 59 has too small a neutron capture cross section for fast neutrons. I know one makes Cobalt 60 for various uses (I have even used it) by relatively slow "cooking" 59 in a nuclear reactor with slowed neutrons. I am not going to search to get he facts, you can if you wish.
    Quote Originally Posted by MetaKron
    ...We're in a mental condition where a single confirmed nuclear explosion in any U.S. city would cripple us emotionally, especially if our own people encourage the process.
    I do not think so. that would unify the country more than about anything I can think of.

    I agree with your comments on why many small warheads are better than one big one, but did not make this argument as I feared it was too advance to be impressive to you.

    nirkar's point is a good one - The history of cold-war Russia/ US struggle and MAD working, etc. You do seem to think that the Chinese are almost sub human - this a very racist and wrong view. No culture, including the basic Chinese values, changes rapidly and in many ways, their's is much more developed than that of the US‘s. The leaders do care for their people, but are less constrained and more inclined to sacrifice some "for the greater good of many" - look that the forced evacuations of the area now being flooded for the three rivers Dam and the new home being built for the displaced people. If your view were correct, these displaced persons would just be tossed in the river by the current leaders and be done with it.

    All most all of the "wrong thinkers" caught in Mao's "cultural revolution" went to "re-education camps," some for many years and were not economically shot as you suggest. You might also ask your self: what happened to the native intellectuals living on Taiwan when Mao drove Chan Ka Check to Taiwan. (Their slaughter was not told in US as then the "China lobby" anti- communist feelings were very strong. This action was one of desperation, not typical of the Chinese culture.) Things are seldom as "black and white" as you seem to think. The current leaders of China closed 12,000 dangerous small coalmines last year even though they badly need more energy. US does not close the dangerous ones in West Virginia that a father and son operate, selling coal by the basket in their local communities.

    When they are winning the economic struggle, why risk it all with a sneak attack on US? It was mainly with the balance of trade dollars that they bought 1.3 billion dollars worth of soybeans from Brazil this year. - If they were as sub-human as you think, they would not have done this to improve the average Chinese's diet. (Their leaders may be "fat cats" more equal than others as Orwell put it, but even fat cats cannot eat 1.3billion dollars worth of soybeans.)

    Now that I can see you do know some things (even if you have made some really dumb statements such as "it shorter to launch ICBMs from Taiwan" and made many other ill informed statements) I wonder why you think China wants war with US when it is already winning the important one?
    Last edited by Billy T; 12-12-05 at 11:24 AM.

  5. #225
    Please use Sugar Cane Alcohol Billy T's Avatar
    Posts
    19,694
    To MetaKon:
    I forgot to comment on your statement that enemy countries can recover from economic defeat too soon. This is another one of your stupid ideas, IMHO. The victor of a war usually, in modern times, does everything it can to help the vanquished recover. (With an installed and guided new government of course,as US is trying to do in Iraq now.)

    You consider mainly military concepts, so perhaps I should mention that that was the main idea behind the neutron bomb. Look at Japan and Germany. Their recovery from both military and economic defeat, is considered desirable, not something to insure does not happen by good radio-isotope salting of their soil.

    Your thinking is way behind the times. About 2000 years behind. Rome did literally salt the fields of Carthage and it did not recover to rival Rome again, but most now realize that this hurt Rome also as trade ceased.

    BTW that is were the term "salting with radio isotopes" comes from.

  6. #226
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    5,502
    The U.S. is probably, if not physically damaged, more able to recover from economic disaster than any other country on the planet. We still have a lot of know-how and resourcefulness. I am pretty much immune to jingoism. If we will do it we can do it. We have an awful lot of idled workers and we have a lot of idle farmland. We need a sane and rational economic structure.

    I am trying to tell you that the Chinese seem to me to be likely to threaten to knock us back to the stone age if we don't play ball. We'd better pull our heads out of our asses and find out what the game is because from where I sit it looks like we're just giving up the game to them. We should push them back and just dare them to detonate something, see how willing they are to declare game over just because we want to feed our people and what have you.

  7. #227
    Please use Sugar Cane Alcohol Billy T's Avatar
    Posts
    19,694
    Quote Originally Posted by MetaKron
    The U.S. is probably, if not physically damaged, more able to recover from economic disaster than any other country on the planet. We still have a lot of know-how and resourcefulness. I am pretty much immune to jingoism. If we will do it we can do it. We have an awful lot of idled workers and we have a lot of idle farmland. We need a sane and rational economic structure....
    I agree with last sentence only. That policy starts with living on your income, not loans from others which with the demographic changes already certain (more baby boomers collecting their social security and no long paying taxes) have built up an un payable debt.

    Your idle workers and farmland, both of which are not very real as a % of total, will not do much if customers can not afford to drive to the shopping center as gas / oil demand by China and India has the price at $25/ gallon. India's roads are terrible but they are rapidly building four lane highways. China's male population was walking until 10 years ago, now is on bikes, in 5 years will be on motor scooters and in 20 in small efficient cars, not US style SUVs. That is why Tarr motor in India has just announced plans for a major new car plant building a small-motor light-weight plastic car, glued together with cheap labor, etc. and why all the major car companies think China is their main future market, but GM in US will soon be bankrupt, so it does not count.

    US does not even have the option of defaulting on its debt* as much of it is to these retiring baby boomers, in one way or another, etc. The young US adult usually has negative net worth. Only the Baby Boomers have any net worth. It takes assets to have a strong productive economy and US has already mortgaged the physical ones it has "to the hilt." There were lots of “idle workers” and land in 1930 too, but it took WWII to end the depression and now war is not an option as it can not be won.

    Yes, the banks will take ownership of farm land, but not farm it. etc. and they will not be able to recover their loans, etc just as happen in the 30's. Average US wage data just released by Dept of Commerce shows it is dropping for 4 years in a row now, although the concentration of wealth is not.

    Just what is your "game plan / recovery plan" after dollar collapse, for US getting out of debt as jobs are out sourced and baby boomers stop paying taxes and begin collecting Social Security? China is wining this economic war.
    ____________________________________
    *Expect printing press money, strong inflation, that accelerates the rapid collapse of the dollar as foreigners cease to lend when loans are repaid in dollars that are worth less than the original loan. Interest rates of 20% or more needed to attract loans, etc.
    Last edited by Billy T; 12-12-05 at 02:00 PM.

  8. #228
    Bloodthirsty Barbarian
    Posts
    9,391
    Quote Originally Posted by mars13
    what allies? europe,russia,india?
    Japan would be the salient one here. They have an economy the same size as China's, and a lot less mouths to feed.

    Quote Originally Posted by mars13
    and thanks to Ws dumbass we alienated ALL of europe.
    ALL of Europe except, of course, the countries that sent troops to Iraq. And how many European countries are still in Afghanistan again? Also funny that NATO underwent its largest expansion ever just a couple of years ago, so that now 90% of the countries there are allied with the USA. The European intelligensia may have a dislike for George Bush, but that's a long, long way from Europe jumping out of NATO. When push comes to shove, they know who their real friends are. You know that the EU has an arms embargo against China, right?

  9. #229
    Bloodthirsty Barbarian
    Posts
    9,391
    Quote Originally Posted by valich
    This would benefit no one. Winds would then recirculate the radiation all the way around the world back to China, and we'd all lose in the longrun - dieing of cancer and leukemia.
    Right, every military planner with half of a brain realized that decades ago, which is why the only people who take such a possibility seriously are tin-foil hat types on message boards.

  10. #230
    Bloodthirsty Barbarian
    Posts
    9,391
    Quote Originally Posted by MetaKron
    The imagination can come up with numerous nuclear checkmate scenarios that are entirely possible, plausible, and consistent with the psychology of the Chinese government. What's hardest to believe is the idea that they haven't already done this. That I flat cannot believe.
    Yeah, you're obviously some kind of expert on the psychology of the Chinese government. While it is true that there are any number of hare-brained schemes China could pursue in hopes of destroying America's infrastructure, you're forgetting that America also has countless ways of wiping out China. In fact, America has a huge lead in such strategic weaponry. The reason that neither side will use these means is simple: the other side would respond with a nuclear attack. The idea that China can somehow remain a superpower after all of its manufacturing capacity, military and population have been destroyed is ridiculous. A couple hundred high-ranking Communist Party officials in a bunker cannot manufacture weapons and ammo, produce food and fuel, nor can they pilot tanks and planes. There's no way to hide an appreciable army from a nuclear attack, especially an American one employing ground-penetrated munitions.

    Even if your racist idea that the Chinese Communist Party doesn't care about its citizens' lives was correct (it's patently false), they damn sure care about having a population to rule over. Without a bunch of people to run the farms, mines and factories and serve in the military, they don't have any power. The idea that they'd tolerate the decimation of China, and the commiserate decline in their power, in order to destroy a country they enjoy profitable, reasonably-friendly relations with is almost too idiotic for words.

  11. #231
    give me liberty
    Posts
    1,085
    you act like the people in power dont work for china.


    the govenment would NEVER give china an altamatum. especialy considering they controll EVERY aspect of or economy.

    from manufacturing to shipping to ditribution,china owns it all.

    walmart is based 80% in china,they just sell stuff here.

    if you took chinas cheap crap off the market ,we would have shortages of EVERYTHING.

    no medicine,no food,no clothing,NOTHING.

    we dont even have the inferstructer any more to make those things because we sold it all to china.

    not to mention the fact we OWE them shitloads of money.

    they could cripple our economy in a day if they call our debt.

    i take it im the only one that has even a base knowledge of the art of war.

    read it,and you will learn how the chinese think.

  12. #232
    Bloodthirsty Barbarian
    Posts
    9,391
    Quote Originally Posted by mars13
    i take it im the only one that has even a base knowledge of the art of war.

    read it,and you will learn how the chinese think.
    Shit, go read Chicken Little and you will learn how mars13 thinks. Like you can encapsulate the psychology of a billion-man, 5000-year old civilization in one short book from hundreds of years ago. That's like saying you understand how the Italians think because you read Machiavelli. Never mind that every military planner in the world has read The Art of War; it's been a standard text at military academies since the dawn of fucking time... shit, American generals routinely quote it in press conferences.

    I just wonder what all of you doomsday clowns are going to say in ten years when China's economy has cooled off, the Communist Party has its hands full with a newly-empowered middle class, the deficits have gone away, and the US is still the world's foremost economic and military power. It was the same shit 10-20 years ago with Japan: America was running huge deficits, the Japanese economy was on fire, etc., and look what happened with that. I suppose India's next in line for the doomsday crowd...

  13. #233
    give me liberty
    Posts
    1,085
    doomsday?


    try global reality,america is being usurped in its super power statis,mainly throu our own coruption,but china is set to capitalize on our downfall.

    they own us economicly,what do you not understand about that?

    EVERYTHING at the store says MADE IN CHINA,thats an economic takeover.

    america is not invoulnerable ,we are not unstoppable and industructable.

    whats better then crushing your enemies?

    having your enemies PAY you to do it.

    china is NOT your friend,they poison you with crappy products and you think they DONT want to kill you?

  14. #234
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    5,502
    The thing is, people, that a lot of Americans are ready to do anything to avoid taking even one scratch. The Doomsday weapon plan is a "people scare best then they know they are going to die" kind of plan. Americans pass laws at the drop of the hat and get ready to do deadly violence and panic and get hysterical over the smallest things. One nuke in one city and the promise of an explosion in each major city would make us beg to surrender to them. We can be brought to total submission by an enemy that demonstrates that they will pay whatever price it takes to defeat us, and our leadership is even more vulnerable that way. I think they've already done it. I think that in secret the Chinese have already left a nuclear device somewhere in an apartment or something to prove they could, and have told our government that they have scattered them around the country in fair numbers, and that if they even tell the public about it, bombs will start going off. This is what you call "checkmate."

    We may have balls, but that's where they will kick us. We have to be smart. We are not smart.

  15. #235
    Quote Originally Posted by MetaKron

    I am trying to tell you that the Chinese seem to me to be likely to threaten to knock us back to the stone age if we don't play ball. We'd better pull our heads out of our asses and find out what the game is because from where I sit it looks like we're just giving up the game to them. We should push them back and just dare them to detonate something, see how willing they are to declare game over just because we want to feed our people and what have you.
    This makes no sense at all.

    Feeding ourselves is the only thing that we have not outsourced to China. We outsourced feeding ourselves to illegal immigrant farm help, but at least the Americans or their banks still own the land and farm equipment. (OK I exaggerated, we have a few other jobs left.)

    The USA can default on our foreign debt and seize foreign property in the the USA any time It wants to because China and the world can not invade because the USA has the capability to send China and the world back to the stone age. Of course the USA would have shortages in natural resources and it would take about ten years to rebuild the industrial capability that the USA allowed to leave America.

    Drilling Anwar now is stupid not for environmental reasons, but rather because the USA will need domestic oil more later when we can no longer buy on credit.

    In general MetaKron, you have not yet created a realistic scenario for why China would launch a preemptive first strike on the USA. If a preemptive first strike could actually preempt retaliation then maybe under some situation a first strike might make sense.

    A better scenario would be a Chinese conventional invasion and land grab in Siberia with the nuclear threat preventing nuclear a Russian nuclear retaliation. That won't be as fun for your war game thinking because it does not involve the USA but it is much more plausible. It would still be an awfully gutsy move for China because they could not be sure that Russia would not respond with nukes. Before China tries that they would probably take land from Myanmar.

    At present China is starting to deal with their lack of ownership of 1/4 of the worlds natural resources to match their population, buy buying natural resources with the dollars the get from WalMart. While the USA could sell China oil reserves in the USA and then take the reserves back by force without gving compensation and without fear of a Chinese militar response, the same is not true for Indonesia. If Indonesia sells China some natural resources, Indonesia can not then nationalize and steal back those resources without fear of a Chinese military response.
    Last edited by nirakar; 12-12-05 at 07:49 PM.

  16. #236
    Bloodthirsty Barbarian
    Posts
    9,391
    Quote Originally Posted by MetaKron
    One nuke in one city and the promise of an explosion in each major city would make us beg to surrender to them.
    You must be living in a different America than I am. The American population I know would demand a full-scale nuclear attack on China if that happened, and they'd get it. That would be the end of the story. Didn't we just take over two entire countries in retaliation for the destruction of two buildings? When American generals say that we will never be the first to use a nuke, but we will be the last, they mean it.

    You're missing the basic fact that America can put a nuke in every major city in China (or wherever else) at the press of a button, while the best China could hope for is to hit a few cities before being obliterated.

    Quote Originally Posted by MetaKron
    We can be brought to total submission by an enemy that demonstrates that they will pay whatever price it takes to defeat us.
    Well, that's not saying much. The price such an enemy would have to pay would be total destruction, and no nation is willing to pay that. What the fuck is the point of "defeating" America if you get annihilated in the process?

  17. #237
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    5,502
    You're missing the fact that China can plant a nuke in every major city in the U.S. The effort involved is trivial.

    The thing is that our policymakers can't stop the destruction of their cash cow. The U.S. is their cash cow. The bribes they receive from China are more like an honorarium because even the Chinese feel an obligation to pay something to those who work for them. They made us an offer we couldn't refuse. Be cut in on the action, be allowed to run your own scams, or be the first to be annihilated.

    There are numerous ways to demonstrate that they can do it. Most likely they allowed a nuke to be found by our own authorities and it was kept quiet. That is a subtle show of force.

    It's a lot like China saying "you will not do it to us without being hurt very badly." Now, while it is true that some radioactive dust will reach China if they do this, a lot less will reach China than will reach the farm belt of the USA. It's a deterrent to any activities that might endanger China's existence or dominance.

  18. #238
    Registered Senior Member devils_reject's Avatar
    Posts
    659
    Surely someone is still going to overtake the U.S its a matter of time and day. My problem with the Asian giant is that they don't particularly speak English, but who cares about English anymore, I will welcome a change in universal language.

  19. #239
    Bloodthirsty Barbarian
    Posts
    9,391
    Quote Originally Posted by MetaKron
    You're missing the fact that China can plant a nuke in every major city in the U.S. The effort involved is trivial.
    Riiiight. Look, nobody's saying that China doesn't have the technical ability to launch a large-scale nuclear strike. They obviously possess a large-scale nuclear industry and ICBMs. Which is a much better way to do it than hidden bombs, cargo ships of cobalt or massive waves of long-range cruise missiles, by the way. That is the reason that China has invested in ICBMs instead of any of the wack-job schemes you suggested.

    Quote Originally Posted by MetaKron
    It's a lot like China saying "you will not do it to us without being hurt very badly." [...] It's a deterrent to any activities that might endanger China's existence or dominance.
    Obviously, the point of having strategic weaponry is as a deterrent, at least with respect to other nuclear powers. None of your proposed Chinese attacks involve destroying the US means of nuclear retaliation, nor do any of the realistic options for a Chinese nuclear strike. Thus, a state of mutually assured destruction exists between China and the United States. I.e., BOTH sides are saying "you will not do it to us without being hurt very badly." If anything, the US has an edge in this game, but the point is that neither side will launch a nuclear assault without extreme provocation, as they both have everything to lose and nothing to gain.

    The characterizations made by yourself and others of the Chinese as inherently inimical to America, obedient slaves to a power-mad dictatorship or otherwise fundamental untrustworthy are baseless and reek of racism. Suggestions that they have infiltrated and emasculated the entirety of the American economy and military would be funny if they didn't appear in the context of calls to war. So chill with all that shit.

  20. #240
    The North Korean regime might feel a little safer if they had a few Nukes hidden in the USA.

    An organized crime boss might be a little richer if he had a few nukes hidden in the USA.

    Americans would be a little deader or America would be out of the Middle East and would not be funding Israel if Bin Laden had a few nukes hidden in the USA.
    Last edited by nirakar; 12-13-05 at 02:16 AM.

Similar Threads

  1. By Cazzo in forum Earth Science
    Last Post: 02-22-09, 05:04 PM
    Replies: 46
  2. By kmguru in forum Business & Economics
    Last Post: 11-06-08, 07:51 AM
    Replies: 12
  3. By Buffalo Roam in forum World Events
    Last Post: 05-20-08, 07:15 PM
    Replies: 67
  4. By madanthonywayne in forum Earth Science
    Last Post: 04-03-08, 10:19 PM
    Replies: 164
  5. By francois in forum Earth Science
    Last Post: 11-20-06, 11:48 PM
    Replies: 32

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •