China's 294 megatons of thermonuclear deterrence

[gambit]

Why should China?

To have nuclear weapons states who are friendly to China to challenge US? There are two ways to achieve nuclear parity:

- Matching with own stockpile.
- Matching with many stockpiles from allies.

Of course, the second option is less guaranteed of influence than the first. Which do you advocate for China?

Same question, why doesn’t US help Japan and S. Korea get nuke?

Because we want to reduce the numbers of nuclear weapons in the world.

No body.

So if no one can force China to remain in the NPT, who forced China into the NPT in the first place?

China decided not to proliferate anymore.

The argument is this: 'MAD requires a credible deterrence, one which US exceeded while China is lacking.'

The commentator is too much of a coward to come out and advocate nuclear parity via an increase of own stockpile, another avenue of proliferation. Tacit in this is the argument that the US uses the NPT as some sort of a 'moral' club to beat nuclear weapons aspirants into retreat from that goal. My question is how is China differs from US since China belongs to the same exclusionary group?

China’s nuke tech is perhaps still lagging behind in some fields, so it can hope to get help.

No one believes this.

Perhaps you are right. And finally you get enlightened that US is at the same level of evilness as China, if not more.

Keep remembering this…

This is from the son of Chinese immigrants to the US? The readers can savor the delicious irony.

 

[gambit]

You can play a game of What-If? which is a clear path to irrational thinking, whereas I prefer to look at reality. The reality is, in the face of overwhelming force that can totally and utterly annihilate you from a hostile and belligerent country (United States), it is the Human Right of the victims to protect themselves. This sort of argument about why the US should disarm, some of their THOUSANDS of nukes, at all when opponents like Iran "might" have a secret underground weapons program based on assumptions, speculation, dubious asylum seekers and non-existent ICBM delivery systems are the rantings of the sort of irrational minds that I am talking about that have the potential to launch unprovoked, 1st strike nuclear Armageddon on these defenseless countries. These sorts of ideologues are produced in droves today in the Western world, aka. Anglo-American alliance, and they spout the same sort of chicken little threat theories you repeat ad nauseum here while simultaneously promoting the subjugation of countries self-determination and self-defense in the name of Human Rights. LOL Until the Anglo-American alliance stops threatening and regime changing various countries, I can assure you that there will be a perpetual list of "threats" that the Western world will be demonizing.

And this shows how out of touch you are of the same reality. Disarmament can come from either enforced or self motivated.

First of all, the US is the last country on Earth that anyone can enforce any will upon US. Deal with it.

Second, we are in the process of self nuclear disarmament.

Third, if you want to talk about gross disparity of military forces, nuclear or non, and if you want to talk about the ability to utterly defeat any opponent, then you might as well advocate the FORCIBLE disarmament of US non-nuclear forces as well, because we have more than adequately demonstrated we can defeat any opponent in the conventional arena. Might not be as rapid as Iraq ala Desert Storm, but if the PLA's (alleged) red faced withdrawal of a report/commentary to the Politburo that predicted horrendous US casualties as a price of victory over Iraq as indicator of the PLA's acumen regarding the US military, then you can count China among that 'any' that we can defeat.

That leave an increase in one's own forces, nuclear and non, as the only avenue left for China to present a credible deterrent to US. So for you to say that it is incumbent upon US and Russia to self nuclear disarm simply because of said gross disparity is to be intellectually dishonest since there are many in Asia who feel the same argument towards China and who counts on US to provide them with at least the threat of an alliance against China because just as we can militarily run over any adversary, including China, China can militarily run over any adversary in Asia without the need to resort to nuclear weapons. How about they say that China should disarm, nuclear and non?

 

[j20blackdragon]

China can militarily run over any adversary in Asia without the need to resort to nuclear weapons.

I agree with this part.

Vietnam will become a Chinese province again within this century.

How many times in history did China slap Vietnam silly like a little ******? I lost count.

First Chinese domination of Vietnam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Second Chinese domination of Vietnam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Third Chinese domination of Vietnam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fourth Chinese domination of Vietnam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[amalakas]

The nuclear keys and codes are extensive and designed to prevent exactly what you describe.

Assume for a moment a nuclear weapon appeared in my garage like magic. I couldn't make it explode. No way. The act of taking it apart to remove the safeguards would also render it inoperative. I'd have to re-build it using the core from the ground up.

Do a bit of internet search on nuclear safeguards and the like. The chances of a rogue commander being able to employ a nuke is near zero. Besides, such people are extensively vetted, investigated, and assessed for mental stability. You don't enlist and then get the keys to a minuteman III missile.

you don't ???? damn ..there goes my plan for world domination !!!

 

[S10]

Who is? The American nuclear weapons stockpile is the result of the Cold War and now we are working to reduce it. The question is that if you do not support China as a nuclear weapons proliferant, as in export of knowledge and weapons, then do you support China as a nuclear weapons proliferant by an increase in stockpile to match US?

I support the increasing of China's nuclear capability to ensure MAD, minimum standard of deterrence, in a nuclear war against United States. Right now, we're not there yet.

Given China's current environmental problems, including the Three Gorges Dam and its own environmental disaster, you might not want to use this analogy.

You are right. We should pollute others by spray some Agent Orange. Some of which clearly leaked into your head.

 

[marshall]

The nuclear keys and codes are extensive and designed to prevent exactly what you describe.

Assume for a moment a nuclear weapon appeared in my garage like magic. I couldn't make it explode. No way. The act of taking it apart to remove the safeguards would also render it inoperative. I'd have to re-build it using the core from the ground up.

Do a bit of internet search on nuclear safeguards and the like. The chances of a rogue commander being able to employ a nuke is near zero. Besides, such people are extensively vetted, investigated, and assessed for mental stability. You don't enlist and then get the keys to a minuteman III missile.

Who said there would be any need to remove safeguards? The people who are vetted, etc, have the potential to launch the sort of unprovoked 1st strike that I am talking about. Like I said, at the end of the day, we are all Human Beings who make mistakes with different beliefs and priorities. It would not be hard to feed fake intelligence to decision makers to make them think and do what you want them to do, which is what I said to begin with if you re-read my message and comprehend it. I believe that's what happened during the Bush II presidency and a similar such movement is now underway against Iran. As I said, splinter groups and subversive elements have existed in almost every government throughout history. If you have a nuclear arsenal large enough to annihilate civilizations, it is way way too much, way way overboard and way way too dangerous.

 

[marshall]

First of all, the US is the last country on Earth that anyone can enforce any will upon US. Deal with it.

You are way too defensive for whatever reason. Nobody is trying to take America's "right" to do regime changes and assassinate Iranian civilian nuclear scientists. Most people just don't want the world to end in a nuclear holocaust because of America's tendency to periodically threaten the annihilation of countries with unprovoked 1st strike nuclear attacks.

Second, we are in the process of self nuclear disarmament.

You're finally learning, keep it up and you'll end up on the right side of history.

Third, if you want to talk about gross disparity of military forces, nuclear or non, and if you want to talk about the ability to utterly defeat any opponent, then you might as well advocate the FORCIBLE disarmament of US non-nuclear forces as well, because we have more than adequately demonstrated we can defeat any opponent in the conventional arena.

What are you rambling on about? The US has many thousands of nuclear weapons both strategic and tactical. People just don't want some neocon Christian fundamentalist Americans to totally lose their minds someday and cause a nuclear war large enough to wipe out half the world's population with the survivors enduring various radiation mutations.

That leave an increase in one's own forces, nuclear and non, as the only avenue left for China to present a credible deterrent to US. So for you to say that it is incumbent upon US and Russia to self nuclear disarm simply because of said gross disparity is to be intellectually dishonest since there are many in Asia who feel the same argument towards China and who counts on US to provide them with at least the threat of an alliance against China because just as we can militarily run over any adversary, including China, China can militarily run over any adversary in Asia without the need to resort to nuclear weapons. How about they say that China should disarm, nuclear and non?

Your jingoism knows no bounds. I'm talking about keeping a lid on the total nuclear weapons so the world has no chance to be destroyed and setting back Humanity many many generations, while you're talking about who's schwang is bigger. Unbelievable!

 

[Chogy]

Vietnam will become a Chinese province again within this century.

How many times in history did China slap Vietnam silly like a little ******? I lost count.

Hmmm.... I've read here on PDF hundreds of times that China is a peaceful nation without territorial ambitions, and simply wants to live in peace with neighbors.

So which is it?

 

[j20blackdragon]

In the last decade, Beijing has made nuclear power a central component in its energy strategy. China has 13 operating nuclear reactors producing nearly 2 percent of its total power output, but there are another 27 reactors under construction, 50 more planned and more than 100 proposed. With new reactors coming every year, China is aiming for a tenfold increase in its nuclear generating capacity by 2020, with rapid growth projected to continue until 2050.

China

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

Hmmm.... I've read here on PDF hundreds of times that China is a peaceful nation without territorial ambitions, and simply wants to live in peace with neighbors.

So which is it?

there are crazy people everywhere, 40% of US population don't believe in evolution and think earth is 6000 years old.

 

[j20blackdragon]

Hmmm.... I've read here on PDF hundreds of times that China is a peaceful nation without territorial ambitions, and simply wants to live in peace with neighbors.

So which is it?

Southeast Asia has both arable land and fresh water.

China has 1.3 billion people (and growing).

Do I really need to spell it out for you?

The 2050 version of China should be able to take whatever it wants.

 

[below_freezing]

1. Hehe, and ASEAN will cut your oil route in malacca if you block the water flow
2. ASEAN(like Laos-Camb) chops down fresh forests and exports to VietNam first , and we sell to China in higher price after that
3. Hehe, but at least our water, our land is not seriously polluted like you

we have 50 days of strategic oil reserves.

can you survive 50 days without water?

 

[NiceGuy]

we have 50 days of strategic oil reserves.

can you survive 50 days without water?

Oh dude, we can buy salt water filter, and we can survive at least one year , when poor Chinese will die in 50 days

 

[IronsightSniper]

Megatonnage is a bad measure of a nation's nuclear power. Anything more than x (I haven't gotten around to doing the research) is enough to ruin a nation (or the world for that matter) for decades. Russia and the US can each destroy the world some odd times over. China probably doesn't have that capability, but they do have the capability to say, kill half, if not more, of the US or Russian populations with their nukes, which is enough, really.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

Megatonnage is a bad measure of a nation's nuclear power. Anything more than x (I haven't gotten around to doing the research) is enough to ruin a nation (or the world for that matter) for decades. Russia and the US can each destroy the world some odd times over. China probably doesn't have that capability, but they do have the capability to say, kill half, if not more, of the US or Russian populations with their nukes, which is enough, really.

The nukes aren't that powerful, even with the peak stockpile during the Cold War can't destroy Earth's entire living population.

Today's nukes are primarily used to bomb its opponent back into the stone age.