| Thursday 26 May 2016 05.26 BST Beijing risks stoking new arms race with move although military says expansion of the US missile defence has left it with no choice The Chinese military is poised to send submarines armed with nuclear missiles into the Pacific Ocean for the first time  arguing that new US weapons systems have so undermined Beijing’s existing deterrent force that it has been left with no alternative. Chinese military officials are not commenting on the timing of a maiden patrol, but insist the move is inevitable. China has been working on ballistic missile submarine technology for more than three decades http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/26/china-send-nuclear-armed-submarines-into-pacific-us -----------------------------------------------------------------------  some good comments there |
 |
| Calm down China, no need to start Cold War II. |
 |
| World's super powers tempting each other into a war that would never happen. Nothing new. |
| Good good based China begin ww3 the world needs a reset. Also this is how fallout started. |
 |
DesertWanderer said: World's super powers tempting each other into a war that would never happen. Nothing new. China isn't a superpower One could argue that its impossible to be one after America loses its superpower status in aboht a decade |
 |
| definitely there is a cold war now a days |
| Chinese is a menace to mankind. This country needs to be "SUB"due. |
#CHEXIT |
| I don't understand the hypocrisy within the US media and pretty much anyone saying that China is shitty by doing this. I'm not defending China as I know how much of pieces of shit they are in a lot of aspects, but Why can the U.S. have nuclear ballistic submarines around the entire globe, and no one bats an eye? The US has 18 Nuclear Ballistic capable submarines stationed around the globe, and China only has 6. The US has 3x more than China, and not to mention that the Ohio class can hold 2x more missiles (24) compared to China's subs (12). If you're totally not biased, and just looking at this from a neutral standpoint, the US is the one that should be condemned for having Nuclear Capable subs all around the globe with no way of tracking it. |
 |
Elegade said: There's a big difference:I don't understand the hypocrisy within the US media and pretty much anyone saying that China is shitty by doing this. I'm not defending China as I know how much of pieces of shit they are in a lot of aspects, but Why can the U.S. have nuclear ballistic submarines around the entire globe, and no one bats an eye? The US has 18 Nuclear Ballistic capable submarines stationed around the globe, and China only has 6. The US has 3x more than China, and not to mention that the Ohio class can hold 2x more missiles (24) compared to China's subs (12). If you're totally not biased, and just looking at this from a neutral standpoint, the US is the one that should be condemned for having Nuclear Capable subs all around the globe with no way of tracking it. The United States is almost guaranteed to not use nuclear weapons except in retaliation due to political constraints. China, while officially stating is has a similar policy, has been known to lie and change positions abruptly, including with regard to nuclear weapons - it was proven to be assisting other nations (including rogue states) in nuclear weapons development even while officially being explicitly opposed to proliferation. Thus, China, if it sees an opportunity, is far more willing, and likely, to use nuclear weapons than the US. And, more importantly, the US does not have territorial disputes with almost every neighbor. And in disputes, it certainly doesn't aggressively challenge (to the point of downright bullying) smaller neighbors on those claims they can back up. Less importantly, but worth noting: the United states does not have 18 nuclear armed submarines. 4 of the Ohio class have been modified to cruise missile submarines with large numbers of conventional Tomahawk cruise missiles instead of Trident II ballistic missiles. Thus, the US has only 14 nuclear armed ones. This has been the actual number for over 8 years now. The US has not had 18 active SSBNs since 2002, when the first of these conversions was started. |
ErwinJA said: Elegade said: There's a big difference:I don't understand the hypocrisy within the US media and pretty much anyone saying that China is shitty by doing this. I'm not defending China as I know how much of pieces of shit they are in a lot of aspects, but Why can the U.S. have nuclear ballistic submarines around the entire globe, and no one bats an eye? The US has 18 Nuclear Ballistic capable submarines stationed around the globe, and China only has 6. The US has 3x more than China, and not to mention that the Ohio class can hold 2x more missiles (24) compared to China's subs (12). If you're totally not biased, and just looking at this from a neutral standpoint, the US is the one that should be condemned for having Nuclear Capable subs all around the globe with no way of tracking it. The United States is almost guaranteed to not use nuclear weapons except in retaliation due to political constraints. China, while officially stating is has a similar policy, has been known to lie and change positions abruptly, including with regard to nuclear weapons - it was proven to be assisting other nations (including rogue states) in nuclear weapons development even while officially being explicitly opposed to proliferation. Thus, China, if it sees an opportunity, is far more willing, and likely, to use nuclear weapons than the US. And, more importantly, the US does not have territorial disputes with almost every neighbor. And in disputes, it certainly doesn't aggressively challenge (to the point of downright bullying) smaller neighbors on those claims they can back up. Yes you're right on almost everything on that, but in regards to China just using Nuclear Missiles willy nilly I think would be false. I don't think even they aren't that retarded to use those as it benefits literally no one. Not even the one's firing. I would assume that pretty much all of the powers that have nukes, that includes Russia, UK, France, US, China, and India, are only using nukes as a deterrent at this point. But even so, while China is having border deputes, you literally can't just corner a nation like that by building Anti-missile defences around it's borders, That goes for Russia too. While we might see it as a way to block incoming missiles, they see it as a way for their nuclear deterrent to be practically useless. This is also assuming that the U.S. is a goodie-goodie state like pretty much everyone is pressed to believe. While I do think that the U.S. is one of the more "stable" countries, building up your army to the point where not even the next ten militaries in line would stand a chance raises flags and concerns there. And in regards to the Ohio class, I should have done more research. I'm more of a battleship kind of guy (too bad they're practically extinct) as you can see from my love of Yamato in my profile. |
|
Elegade said: Correction (maybe I should joke and say OBJECTION!), I did not say China would "use nukes willy nilly." They will not use them unless they see an opportunity where the repercussions are lower than the expected benefits. Right now, China's in no condition to fight a nuclear war, so they will keep going on about how they would prefer everyone to disarm - while constantly expanding and upgrading their stockpile. However, "if" a window appears where they think they can get away with it, they will seriously consider doing so. With the US, that idea would never even be considered.ErwinJA said: There's a big difference: The United States is almost guaranteed to not use nuclear weapons except in retaliation due to political constraints. China, while officially stating is has a similar policy, has been known to lie and change positions abruptly, including with regard to nuclear weapons - it was proven to be assisting other nations (including rogue states) in nuclear weapons development even while officially being explicitly opposed to proliferation. Thus, China, if it sees an opportunity, is far more willing, and likely, to use nuclear weapons than the US. And, more importantly, the US does not have territorial disputes with almost every neighbor. And in disputes, it certainly doesn't aggressively challenge (to the point of downright bullying) smaller neighbors on those claims they can back up. Yes you're right on almost everything on that, but in regards to China just using Nuclear Missiles willy nilly I think would be false. I don't think even they aren't that retarded to use those as it benefits literally no one. Not even the one's firing. I would assume that pretty much all of the powers that have nukes, that includes Russia, UK, France, US, China, and India, are only using nukes as a deterrent at this point. But even so, while China is having border deputes, you literally can't just corner a nation like that by building Anti-missile defences around it's borders, That goes for Russia too. While we might see it as a way to block incoming missiles, they see it as a way for their nuclear deterrent to be practically useless. This is also assuming that the U.S. is a goodie-goodie state like pretty much everyone is pressed to believe. While I do think that the U.S. is one of the more "stable" countries, building up your army to the point where not even the next ten militaries in line would stand a chance raises flags and concerns there. And in regards to the Ohio class, I should have done more research. I'm more of a battleship kind of guy (too bad they're practically extinct) as you can see from my love of Yamato in my profile. To that end, China and Russia are the only nations that can be seen realistically using nuclear weapons offensively. Even Pakistan's preemptive strike doctrine is defensive in nature - it's intended to counter the Indian plan of invading undisputed Pakistani territory. North Korea relies on the threat of such weapons, but does not have an effective way to deliver and exploit such weapons even with a will to do so - they're not seriously going to nuke Seoul unless backed into a corner since they want it themselves. India has a solid no-first-use policy and no reason to violate it. Israel will only use its nukes in retaliation or as a last-ditch defense - it also has no reason to change that. France and the UK, if anything, are even less likely to use such weapons than the US due to their own internal politics. Now, as far as disputes. You're half right. And only half. China actively seeks border disputes. It actually has more disputes now than it did 10 years ago, and the numbers will only go up. Only one dispute was ever settled - the border with Siberia, and mainly because that was necessary in order to validate business-as-usual with Russia. Right now, China can afford these disputes because it can beat most of these other nations in key capabilities and resources. Even all at once. As such, it's not afraid to reach out farther and throw its weight around more. And since only one nation it has a dispute with (India) happens to be a nuclear power, building up and quietly threatening that way is effective. Russia is the same. Every Russian "enemy" or "adversary" the Russians talk about was their own creation. It was Russian interference that drove Georgia all the way to the west, and has Azerbaijan constantly skirting the idea. It was longstanding Russian treatment of the Ukraine and attempts to undermine it that drove it toward the west. Same for all the other Eastern European countries. It's Russian aggression there and against other neighbors that has been getting Finland and Sweden to question their neutrality. They're supposed to be neutral, so Russian threats do not get seen lightly. Russia is the one trying to claim almost the entire Arctic. Whether it feels isolated or surrounded itself is irrelevant - Russia has to earn allies and neutral nations on its borders. And it, sadly, often doesn't seem to know any methods other than undermining and coercion, which naturally have the opposite effect if an alternative backer is available. And Russia has expressly rejected the idea of a no-first-use policy. If anything, they're more likely to launch a nuclear first strike than China, since they actually possess the most powerful current stockpile. |
ErwinJAMay 27, 2016 8:28 PM
| That's just tensions, modern warfare are proxy wars. Not large scale all out wars. |
 |
| The times they are a changin' |
 |
UnoPuntoCinco said: The times they are a changin' All dem weebs better get training to be on the front lines in a few years. Another world war is inevitable. |
|
Spooks said: Good, I hope all the superpoweres are destroyed and marxist revolutions arise all over the globeUnoPuntoCinco said: The times they are a changin' All dem weebs better get training to be on the front lines in a few years. Another world war is inevitable. |
|
UnoPuntoCinco said: Spooks said: Good, I hope all the superpoweres are destroyed and marxist revolutions arise all over the globeAll dem weebs better get training to be on the front lines in a few years. Another world war is inevitable. Looks like im going to have to send liberty prime your way, communist! |
|
Spooks said: I'm just a sympathizer, I may as well be the first against the wallUnoPuntoCinco said: Good, I hope all the superpoweres are destroyed and marxist revolutions arise all over the globe Looks like im going to have to send liberty prime your way, communist! |
|
More topics from this board
Sticky: » The Current Events Board Will Be Closed on Friday JST ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )Luna - Aug 2, 2021 |
272 |
by traed
»»
Aug 5, 2021 5:56 PM |
|
» Third shot of Sinovac COVID-19 vaccine offers big increase in antibody levels: study ( 1 2 )Desolated - Jul 30, 2021 |
50 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:24 PM |
|
» Western vaccine producers engage in shameless profiteering while poorer countries are supplied mainly by China.Desolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
1 |
by Bourmegar
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:23 PM |
|
» NLRB officer says Amazon violated US labor lawDesolated - Aug 3, 2021 |
17 |
by kitsune0
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:41 PM |
|
» China Backs Cuba in Saying US Should Apply Sanctions To ItselfDesolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
10 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:36 PM |