China's Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) capability

[anonymus]

The man's ego is making claims his intellect cannot match. His ego pronounced his theory to be 'novel', and yet back in Desert Storm, Iraq launched missiles at Israel and nothing came out of it. Israel is a US ally. Saddam Hussein threatened Israel in the hope that Israel would be cowed and pressure the US to back off. If what he posited about threats is valid, then why not Saddam Hussein blackmail Syria and Saudi Arabia thus: 'If the US attack Iraq, you will attack Israel, or I will rain Scuds on your capital cities.'

Right...China is going to nuclear blackmail a peer nuclear weapons state -- Russia -- in the event that there is a US-China conflict. I guess Putin is one of a kind in Russia. Every Russian leader after Putin is going to be a limp wristed fop.

@gambit This theory while being pretty old, does not make any sense when Nukes are involved.

If for a moment we believe that Chinese are so stupid to act on this plan and have the capacity to do that ( they don't have one as most cartography fail Chinese forgets the latitudinal extent of Russia. Distance between Vladivostok and Moscow is 9700 Km and Chinese would have to use ICBM's to hit Russia Proper ), why would Russia Nuke USA?

In case Chinese plan fall through, it would leave Russia crippled with massive infrastructural damage no prospect of world domination. It would require massive aid from rest of the world to rise on it's feet again and destroying the country which had potential to provide highest amount of surplus in food and relief material would be a lunatic choice.

This whole theory rest on premise that Russians hate USA to such an extent that they would destroy themselves in order to harm USA.

Regarding Russia, in long term there is a good chance that Russia would join EU and Nato. Currently it is playing cozy with China because it is dominant partner but as China would grow they would start stepping on Russian toes and there is a good chance of re-emergence of revaunchist attitude in China wrt to Russia.

 

[Alpha1]

1. Chinese and Russian warheads are more powerful than the small American Trident II warheads.
A Chinese DF-5A ICBM has a five megaton warhead. A Chinese DF-5B ICBM carries ten half-megaton warheads.
The Trident II carries MIRVed warheads: either a 100-kiloton Mark 4/W76 warhead or a 475-kiloton Mark 5/W88 warhead.
It takes ten W88s to equal one DF-5A warhead. Alternatively, it requires 50 W76 warheads to match a DF-5A

What is your defination of powerfull? yeild?
The destruction a nuclear detonation causes depends upon various factors
e.g Height of detonation, type of target, Fission fraction , yeild, placement of warheads, CEP
I think i have explained this before?
and can you prove China has more advanced guidance systems? please with a source
The way nuclear strikes are planned , especialy against countervalue targets , 10 well placed W88 warheads will be almost three times more effective than a single DF-5A,

same logic applies to W76 thermonuclear warheads.
IF american BMs have better precision and accuracy then yeild becomes less relevant

If Russia wants to win the post-nuclear winter war, it must nuke the United States. There is no other choice.

There is no such thing as winners in a nuclear war

 

[Broccoli]

Let's bring some realism to this topic.

Since our previous Notebook in 2011, most attention has been on the status of China’s new ballistic missile submarines (SSBN) and Julang-2 SLBM. After a series of technical difficulties, the DOD reported in May 2013 that the JL-2 “appears ready to reach initial operational capability in 2013.”

The range of the JL-2 has been the subject of much speculation, and we are struck by how much the range estimates vary and how much experts and news media continued to use outdated estimates or claim that the missile will be able to target the entire United States from Chinese waters. A review of the various estimates published by U.S. government agencies since 1999 shows estimates spanning from 7,000 km to as much as 12,000 km (see image below), although most hover around 7,200+ km.

The latest range estimates of 7,000+ km (NASIC) to 7,400+ km (DOD) show continued uncertainty within the U.S. Intelligence Community about the JL-2 capability. But both estimates also reaffirm that the missile cannot be used to target the continental United States from Chinese waters. Doing so would require a range of at least 8,400 km – and that would only reach Seattle. To target Washington DC from Chinese waters, the range would have to be at least 11,000 km. With the current range estimate of about 7,200+ km, a JL-2 equipped SSBN would have to sail deep into the Sea of Japan between the island of Hokkaido and Russia’s Primorsky Krai oblast to target Seattle, or venture far into the Pacific northeast of Tokyo. To target Washington DC, the SSBN would have to sail even further and launch from a position between the Aleutian Islands and Hawaii – more than halfway across the Pacific Ocean. Due to the apparent noise level of Chinese missile submarines and the extensive anti-submarine capabilities of the United States, that would indeed be risky sailing in a war.

Sending SSBNs far into dangerous water would be China’s only option to fire missiles directly at the United States if Chinese leaders wanted to avoid shooting across Russian territory (all China’s ICBMs launched at the United States from their current deployment areas would overfly Russia).

A JL-2 equipped SSBN could of course target U.S. territories outside the continental United States, including Alaska and Guam, from Chinese waters. To target Hawaii, and SSBN would have to launch from a position in the Sea of Japan or the Philippine Sea.

All of that just to say that JL-2 – despite what you might hear on the Internet – can not be used to target the continental United States. Instead, it is a regional weapon capable of targeting Alaska, Guam, India and Russia from Chinese waters.

So far three Jin-class SSBNs have been delivered and one or two more are in various stages of construction. By 2020, according to information obtained from ONI, China might operate 4-5 SSBNs (see image below). Now that China has said something about its submarines (see sections below), it would help if it would also say something in its next transparency initiative about how many SSBNs it plans to build. The United States, Russia, France and Britain have all shown their plans and there’s no reasons China cannot do so as well.

New Nuclear Notebook: Chinese Nuclear Force Modernization - FAS Strategic Security Blog

The most fundamental problem with the 3,000-warhead estimate is that there is no evidence – at least in the public – that China has produced enough fissile material to build that many warheads. Not even close.

An arsenal of 3,000 two-stage thermonuclear warheads with yields of 300-500 kilotons would require 9-12 tons of weapon-grade plutonium and 45-75 tons of highly-enriched uranium (HEU).

Based on what is known about China’s inventory of fissile materials, how many nuclear weapons could it build?

According to the International Panel on Fissile Materials, China has produced an estimated 2 tons of plutonium for weapons. Some has been consumed in nuclear tests, leaving roughly 1.8 tons. The estimate is consistent with what the U.S. government has stated and theoretically enough for 450-600 warheads.

Total production of HEU is thought to have been approximately 20 tons. Some has been spent in nuclear tests and research reactor fuel, leaving a stockpile of some 16 tons. That’s theoretically enough for roughly 640-1,060 warheads.

Another critical material is Tritium, which is used in thermonuclear weapons. China probably only produces enough Tritium at its High-Flux Engineering Test Reactor (HFETR) in Jiajiang to maintain an arsenal of about 300 weapons.

The U.S. intelligence community concluded in 2009 that China likely has produced enough weapon-grade fissile material to meet its needs for the immediate future. In other words, no vast warhead expansion is in sight.

No, China Does Not Have 3,000 Nuclear Weapons - FAS Strategic Security Blog

General Kehler’s statement comes at an important time because much higher estimates recently have created a lot of news media attention and are threatening to become “facts” on the Internet. A Georgetown University briefing last year hypothesized that the Chinese arsenal might include “as many as 3,000 nuclear warheads,” and General Victor Yesin, a former commander of Russia’s Strategic Rocket Forces, recently published an article on the Russian web site vpk-news in which he estimates that the Chinese nuclear weapons arsenal includes 1,600-1,800 nuclear warheads.

In contrast, Robert S. Norris and I have published estimates of the Chinese nuclear weapons inventory for years, and we currently set the arsenal at approximately 240 warheads. That estimate – based in part on statements from the U.S. intelligence community, fissile material production estimates, and our assessment of the composition of the Chinese nuclear arsenal – obviously comes with a lot of uncertainly and assumptions, but we’re pleased to see that it appears to fit with the “several hundred” warheads mentioned by General Kehler.

Like the other nuclear weapon states, China is modernizing its nuclear arsenal, but it is the only one of the five original nuclear powers (P-5) that appears to be increasing the size of its warhead inventory. That increase is modest and appears to be slower than the U.S. intelligence community projected a decade ago. Those who see an interest in exaggerating China’s nuclear developments thrive on secrecy, so it is important that China – and others who know – provide some basic information about trends and developments to avoid exaggerated estimates. The reality is bad enough as it is.

STRATCOM Commander Rejects High Estimates for Chinese Nuclear Arsenal - FAS Strategic Security Blog

 

[indoPunjabi]

China's MAD capability, Diayou Islands, and South China Sea

Nuclear Coercion

The ultimate military power is nuclear coercion. We first saw nuclear coercion in the Korean War (1950-1953). At that time, China had not yet detonated its first atomic/fission bomb (1964) or hydrogen/thermonuclear/fusion bomb (1967).

The United States threatened to use nuclear weapons against China if the PLA Army pushed the US Army into the sea. Thus, the threat of nuclear coercion prevented a complete military victory for China on the Korean peninsula.

Today, the United States is using nuclear coercion again against China. Basically, the U.S. has more thermonuclear ICBM and SLBM thermonuclear warheads. This means in an all-out exchange, the U.S. will suffer less damage than China. Using this line of thinking, China must be circumspect in dealing with its Asian neighbors due to U.S. support for them.

To solve the problem of U.S. nuclear coercion, we will take the concept of Chinese nuclear coercion and apply it to Russia. China has plenty of MRBM/IRBM, SLBM, GLCM, and ALCM thermonuclear warheads. The goal is to transform a plentiful supply of medium-range thermonuclear warheads into thousands of long-range ICBM or SLBM thermonuclear warheads.

In the event of an U.S. nuclear attack on China, China has nothing to lose. Thus, China will unleash hundreds of intermediate-range thermonuclear warheads on Russian cities. China has created a situation where Russia has nothing to lose as well.

At this point, China and Russia have both lost. The United States is in pretty good shape with some Chinese ICBM retaliation. However, the Russians have to consider the war after the nuclear winter. If the Russians don't nuke the U.S. then the U.S. will rule the world forever.

Due to Chinese nuclear coercion, Russia has only one rational choice. Russia must nuke the U.S. to give the Russian post-nuclear war survivors an equal chance to win.

China invokes Russian nuclear umbrella

The impetus behind China's thermonuclear attack on Russian cities is to force the launch of Russian ICBMs and SLBMs in a retaliatory strike on China's behalf against the United States. This means Russia can avoid an attack on its cities if it agrees beforehand with China to launch the Russian thermonuclear arsenal against the United States if the U.S. attacks China.

By using nuclear coercion, China can force the Russians to shelter China under the Russian nuclear umbrella. Militarily speaking, the United States must consider China and Russia as joined at the hip. Any nuclear attack on China should be considered as an attack on Russia.

Overthrowing conventional military strategy

Currently, it is widely believed that China does not possess sufficient long-range thermonuclear weapons to deter the United States. Using the new strategy of attacking Russian cities, China has acquired access to the Russian thermonuclear arsenal to deter the United States. Effectively, China has acquired Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) capability against the United States.

The other pillar of conventional military wisdom is that China will sail its Type 094 Jin-class SSBNs eastward into the Pacific to bring parts of the United States within firing range. The Jin-class SSBNs are not as quiet as American subs and China lacks experience in long-range patrols. This is dangerous for China, because 50 American nuclear attack subs are waiting to intercept the Chinese Jin-class SSBNs.

We can avert the problem of losing the Jin-class SSBNs by launching their SLBMs with 288 MIRVed warheads toward Russian cities and effectively transforming them into thousands of Russian thermonuclear warheads headed for the United States.

MAD gives China a free hand in Asia

Previously, without MAD capability, China could not use its full military arsenal to win in the Diaoyu Islands and South China Sea disputes.

If the United States intervenes militarily over the Diayou Islands, China has two good replies. The first option is to abandon the conventional air and naval battle over the Diayou Islands. The PLA re-annexes Mongolia (which was part of China prior to 1945) and spends ten years to build a second Underground Great Wall about 2,000 miles long to protect about 5,000 thermonuclear warheads on 500 DF-41 ICBMs (which have 10 MIRVs per ICBM).

The second option is to nullify the entire U.S. Navy and Air Force in Asia with Chinese megaton-class EMP (electromagnetic pulse) weapons. By sending a surge of 50,000 volts per meter through all electronics and electrical wiring, all American naval ships and aircraft within a 3,000-mile diameter would be rendered useless.

Both options of annexing Mongolia and using megaton-class EMPs are risky without the ability to deter the United States from the ultimate threat of all-out thermonuclear war. By attacking hundreds of Russian cities, China has acquired MAD capability to deter the United States.

Using the new Chinese MAD capability, China should feel free to re-annex Mongolia or use megaton-class EMPs whenever it feels like it.

----------

China's Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) against the United States

The pictures below show three Chinese Type 094 Jin-class SSBNs.

Each Jin-class SSBN carries 12 JL-2 SLBMs.

According to Jane's Defence, one JL-2 SLBM can carry 8 MIRVed thermonuclear warheads. (Source: Jane’s Strategic Weapon Systems (Offensive Weapons). September 30, 2012.)

3 Chinese Jin-class SSBNs x 12 JL-2 SLBMs per SSBN x 8 MIRVs per SLBM = 288 thermonuclear warheads

This is counter-intuitive, but China can deter the United States by aiming 288 thermonuclear warheads at Russian cities. In an all-out thermonuclear war with the United States, China already knows that American nukes are headed for China. This means China is finished.

In retaliation, China wipes out 288 Russian cities and towns. Basically, Russia is finished.

China will leave all Russian nuclear forces untouched. The Russians have a choice to launch all of their ICBMs against the United States. This is important for the war after the nuclear winter. If Russia does not launch all of its ICBMs against the U.S. then the handful of Russians who survive in underground cities will have to face 310 million Americans in an undamaged America.

The only logical choice is for Russia to launch all of its MIRVed thermonuclear warheads against the U.S. to level the playing field after the nuclear winter. Any launch of Russian nuclear missiles against China is redundant and pointless.

Since China has mutually assured destruction capability against the United States (by leveraging the Russian thermonuclear arsenal), this means the U.S. cannot pressure China in Asia or the South China Sea.

From the Bohai Sea or South China Sea, China's three Type 094 Jin-class SSBNs can maintain China's MAD capability against the United States.

Three Chinese Type 094 Jin-class SSBNs seen at dock.

By counting the launch tubes, it is obvious the Type 094 Jin-class SSBN carries 12 SLBMs.

[Note: Thank you to ChineseTiger1986 for the pictures.]

Is this article written by a 5 year old retard kid ? China nuke Russia and Russia nuke USA instead of China? Chinese wet dream

 

[Gijoe]

Is this article written by a 5 year old retard kid ? China nuke Russia and Russia nuke USA instead of China? Chinese wet dream

How stupid you really are? Or you reading the article without understanding the basic English? The article stated if US strike first, communist china strike back. With china nukes stockpile less, china will have to use Russia nukes umbrella to help. If china gone out the map. Russia will be wipe out next, do you get it now. So this article is only a logic of think and not reality or real. Is just a concept thinking.

 

[j20blackdragon]

14 Ohio class SSBNs carry 336 Trident IIs.

China can match this easily with 336 DF-41s.

Give me one good reason why the 3,000 mile Underground Great Wall is incapable of hiding 336 missiles.

China allegedly has 1,600+ missiles aimed at Taiwan, but suddenly the Underground Great Wall is empty?

If China needs uranium, it can be purchased from Kazakhstan located right next door to China. Kazakhstan is the world's largest uranium producer. China is Kazakhstan's largest trading partner. Kazakhstan is a poor third world country. China has the world's largest forex reserves at $3.8 trillion. Do the math.

Production reactors (for Pu-239) can be located underground -- most likely within the Underground Great Wall itself to provide electricity for the tunnel network and for the production of fissile material.

Lastly, China's GDP is four times the size of Russia. Anything they can do, we can do better.

 

[j20blackdragon]

For those of you who need an actual example of a Chinese underground plutonium production reactor that's hidden from satellites, do a Google search for Project 816. China literally hollowed out an entire mountain to build this.

816 Nuclear Military Plant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Remember, just because this specific project was canceled and is now open to tourists does not mean China didn't build others.

According to the World Nuclear Association, China currently has 20 nuclear reactors in operation, 28 under construction, 58 planned, and 118 proposed.

World Nuclear Power Reactors | Uranium Requirements | Future Nuclear Power

These are civilian reactors. As for the military production reactors, who knows?

 

[j20blackdragon]

It's also important to understand that the 3,000 mile figure isn't some kind of speculation by nutjobs. The state-run Chinese media has openly given out this information.

Digging into China’s nuclear tunnels - Yahoo News

In December 2009, just as the students began making progress, the Chinese military admitted for the first time that the Second Artillery had indeed been building a network of tunnels. According to a report by state-run CCTV, China had more than 3,000 miles of tunnels — roughly the distance between Boston and San Francisco — including deep underground bases that could withstand multiple nuclear attacks.

 

[Viet]

China's MAD capability, Diayou Islands, and South China Sea

Nuclear Coercion

The ultimate military power is nuclear coercion. We first saw nuclear coercion in the Korean War (1950-1953). At that time, China had not yet detonated its first atomic/fission bomb (1964) or hydrogen/thermonuclear/fusion bomb (1967).

The United States threatened to use nuclear weapons against China if the PLA Army pushed the US Army into the sea. Thus, the threat of nuclear coercion prevented a complete military victory for China on the Korean peninsula.

Today, the United States is using nuclear coercion again against China. Basically, the U.S. has more thermonuclear ICBM and SLBM thermonuclear warheads. This means in an all-out exchange, the U.S. will suffer less damage than China. Using this line of thinking, China must be circumspect in dealing with its Asian neighbors due to U.S. support for them.

To solve the problem of U.S. nuclear coercion, we will take the concept of Chinese nuclear coercion and apply it to Russia. China has plenty of MRBM/IRBM, SLBM, GLCM, and ALCM thermonuclear warheads. The goal is to transform a plentiful supply of medium-range thermonuclear warheads into thousands of long-range ICBM or SLBM thermonuclear warheads.

In the event of an U.S. nuclear attack on China, China has nothing to lose. Thus, China will unleash hundreds of intermediate-range thermonuclear warheads on Russian cities. China has created a situation where Russia has nothing to lose as well.

At this point, China and Russia have both lost. The United States is in pretty good shape with some Chinese ICBM retaliation. However, the Russians have to consider the war after the nuclear winter. If the Russians don't nuke the U.S. then the U.S. will rule the world forever.

Due to Chinese nuclear coercion, Russia has only one rational choice. Russia must nuke the U.S. to give the Russian post-nuclear war survivors an equal chance to win.

China invokes Russian nuclear umbrella

The impetus behind China's thermonuclear attack on Russian cities is to force the launch of Russian ICBMs and SLBMs in a retaliatory strike on China's behalf against the United States. This means Russia can avoid an attack on its cities if it agrees beforehand with China to launch the Russian thermonuclear arsenal against the United States if the U.S. attacks China.

By using nuclear coercion, China can force the Russians to shelter China under the Russian nuclear umbrella. Militarily speaking, the United States must consider China and Russia as joined at the hip. Any nuclear attack on China should be considered as an attack on Russia.

Overthrowing conventional military strategy

Currently, it is widely believed that China does not possess sufficient long-range thermonuclear weapons to deter the United States. Using the new strategy of attacking Russian cities, China has acquired access to the Russian thermonuclear arsenal to deter the United States. Effectively, China has acquired Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) capability against the United States.

The other pillar of conventional military wisdom is that China will sail its Type 094 Jin-class SSBNs eastward into the Pacific to bring parts of the United States within firing range. The Jin-class SSBNs are not as quiet as American subs and China lacks experience in long-range patrols. This is dangerous for China, because 50 American nuclear attack subs are waiting to intercept the Chinese Jin-class SSBNs.

We can avert the problem of losing the Jin-class SSBNs by launching their SLBMs with 288 MIRVed warheads toward Russian cities and effectively transforming them into thousands of Russian thermonuclear warheads headed for the United States.

MAD gives China a free hand in Asia

Previously, without MAD capability, China could not use its full military arsenal to win in the Diaoyu Islands and South China Sea disputes.

If the United States intervenes militarily over the Diayou Islands, China has two good replies. The first option is to abandon the conventional air and naval battle over the Diayou Islands. The PLA re-annexes Mongolia (which was part of China prior to 1945) and spends ten years to build a second Underground Great Wall about 2,000 miles long to protect about 5,000 thermonuclear warheads on 500 DF-41 ICBMs (which have 10 MIRVs per ICBM).

The second option is to nullify the entire U.S. Navy and Air Force in Asia with Chinese megaton-class EMP (electromagnetic pulse) weapons. By sending a surge of 50,000 volts per meter through all electronics and electrical wiring, all American naval ships and aircraft within a 3,000-mile diameter would be rendered useless.

Both options of annexing Mongolia and using megaton-class EMPs are risky without the ability to deter the United States from the ultimate threat of all-out thermonuclear war. By attacking hundreds of Russian cities, China has acquired MAD capability to deter the United States.

Using the new Chinese MAD capability, China should feel free to re-annex Mongolia or use megaton-class EMPs whenever it feels like it.

----------

China's Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) against the United States

The pictures below show three Chinese Type 094 Jin-class SSBNs.

Each Jin-class SSBN carries 12 JL-2 SLBMs.

According to Jane's Defence, one JL-2 SLBM can carry 8 MIRVed thermonuclear warheads. (Source: Jane’s Strategic Weapon Systems (Offensive Weapons). September 30, 2012.)

3 Chinese Jin-class SSBNs x 12 JL-2 SLBMs per SSBN x 8 MIRVs per SLBM = 288 thermonuclear warheads

This is counter-intuitive, but China can deter the United States by aiming 288 thermonuclear warheads at Russian cities. In an all-out thermonuclear war with the United States, China already knows that American nukes are headed for China. This means China is finished.

In retaliation, China wipes out 288 Russian cities and towns. Basically, Russia is finished.

China will leave all Russian nuclear forces untouched. The Russians have a choice to launch all of their ICBMs against the United States. This is important for the war after the nuclear winter. If Russia does not launch all of its ICBMs against the U.S. then the handful of Russians who survive in underground cities will have to face 310 million Americans in an undamaged America.

The only logical choice is for Russia to launch all of its MIRVed thermonuclear warheads against the U.S. to level the playing field after the nuclear winter. Any launch of Russian nuclear missiles against China is redundant and pointless.

Since China has mutually assured destruction capability against the United States (by leveraging the Russian thermonuclear arsenal), this means the U.S. cannot pressure China in Asia or the South China Sea.

From the Bohai Sea or South China Sea, China's three Type 094 Jin-class SSBNs can maintain China's MAD capability against the United States.

Three Chinese Type 094 Jin-class SSBNs seen at dock.

By counting the launch tubes, it is obvious the Type 094 Jin-class SSBN carries 12 SLBMs.

[Note: Thank you to ChineseTiger1986 for the pictures.]

If the U.S. launches nuclear attack on China, you will nuke Russia? what a logic!
you are a psychopath. you haven´t changed much since you left the forum last time.

It's also important to understand that the 3,000 mile figure isn't some kind of speculation by nutjobs. The state-run Chinese media has openly given out this information.

Digging into China’s nuclear tunnels - Yahoo News

and what happens to those people who survive a nuclear exchange and come out to see China has become a dead desert?
How long can they live in this environment ? not long, I guess.

In Germany during the cold war, there were a lot of tunnels and underground shelters built for some 10 thousands of people, perhaps for 100,000, not enough for all of population. Nobody would survive if it comes to a nuclear exchange between superpowers.

 

[j20blackdragon]

and what happens to those people who survive a nuclear exchange and come out to see China has become a dead desert?
How long can they live in this environment ? not long, I guess.

In Germany during the cold war, there were a lot of tunnels and underground shelters built for some 10 thousands of people, perhaps for 100,000, not enough for all of population. Nobody would survive if it comes to a nuclear exchange between superpowers.

The goal is not to 'win' a nuclear war. There are no winners in a MAD scenario.

The goal of the Underground Great Wall is to create a second-strike capability that is almost untouchable.

Let's take a quick look at the other options.

1. Silos are stationary targets -- easily destroyed by precision guided munitions.

2. SSBNs can be sunk.

3. Road-mobile ICBMs located out in the open are vulnerable to attack, sabotage, and even outright theft if you can hijack the TEL.

But how do you do any of the above to the Underground Great Wall, which is essentially a mountain? During peacetime, the DF-41 TELs are parked safely underneath a mountain protected from attack, sabotage, and theft. A surprise nuclear first strike is worthless against a mountain. Reconnaissance satellites are equally worthless. The best you can do is use precision guided munitions on the entrances. But eventually we will clear the entrances and we're back to square one.

The better question Viets like you should be asking is why would the US risk nuclear war with China over a worthless country like Vietnam? Is Vietnam a NATO ally? Is Vietnam a major economy like Japan? Why in the world would the US stick its neck out for you?

 

[terranMarine]

The better question Viets like you should be asking is why would the US risk nuclear war with China over a worthless country like Vietnam? Is Vietnam a NATO ally? Is Vietnam a major economy like Japan? Why in the world would the US stick its neck out for you?

The Vietcong always surprise me with his logic. VN seeking nuclear umbrella from super powers? Why would India, Russia or US want to exchange nuclear war with China if there's a war going on between a superpower and a lousy jungle?

Didn't some US senator said the US will provide help to Georgia against the Russians? When the Russians waltzed their tanks in Georgia where were the Americans? That Vietcong really think his jungle is a very important treasure the Americans are willing to risk their lives for.