15-07-2005 16:54									#31
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I see Germans have still not learnt the art of sarcasm yet So it is perfectly acceptable to kill millions of people, probably hundreds of millions?

	15-07-2005 16:56									#32
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

children - scary thing is the pentagon/whitehouse is run by them

	15-07-2005 17:25									#33
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Lancer This is a threat of first use of atomic weapons. In other words, if the Chinese attack Tiawan and the US defends Tiawan, they'll nuke us.

No, the general was saying that if the U.S. started bombing Chinese cities, China would not be able to stop the attack by conventional means so the only option would be to strike first with nukes.

BUT, China has a specific policy not to be the first to use nukes.

quote: Originally posted by Lancer I suggest an immediate boycott on all goods manufactured in communist China

If you do that the American economy will tank because China will stop financing the U.S. government deficit. Inflation will shoot up. Interest rates will climb.

Basically, China has the U.S. by the balls right now.

	15-07-2005 17:32									#34
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Tingkai No, the general was saying that if the U.S. started bombing Chinese cities, China would not be able to stop the attack by conventional means so the only option would be to strike first with nukes. BUT, China has a specific policy not to be the first to use nukes. If you do that the American economy will tank because China will stop financing the U.S. government deficit. Inflation will shoot up. Interest rates will climb. Basically, China has the U.S. by the balls right now.

quote: “If the Americans draw their missiles and position-guided ammunition on to the target zone on China's territory, I think we will have to respond with nuclear weapons,” said General Zhu Chenghu. Gen Zhu was speaking at a function for foreign journalists organised, in part, by the Chinese government. He added that China's definition of its territory included warships and aircraft.

His definition of Chinese territory is a bit broad, don't you think? Essentially he is saying that if China wants Taiwan and the U.S. intervenes without attacking mainland China, that would be cause for using nuclear weapons.

	15-07-2005 17:44									#35
	Remove this text

Hum, aren't US ships considered US territory? I've only watched JAG, so I'm not too sure... (And never much payed attention to anything else than Sarah MacKenzie, anyways....)

	15-07-2005 18:06									#36
	Got spare money?

Ok so we have Armagedon - then what? The world will be ruled by Chinese cockroaches - the usa(+west) cant win this end game........

	15-07-2005 18:06									#37
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Tingkai No, the general was saying that if the U.S. started bombing Chinese cities, China would not be able to stop the attack by conventional means so the only option would be to strike first with nukes. BUT, China has a specific policy not to be the first to use nukes.

Wrong, he says that if the U.S. intervenes when PRC decides to finally destroy the democracy on Taiwan that the PRC's only chance is to mutally destroy the U.S. A crude bluff, only surpassed by your crude attempt to make it seem perfectly normal and harmless.

	15-07-2005 19:20									#38
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

i dont remember which thread but i read on poly an article that china only has 12 - 24 ICBM capable of attack the US and the warheads + fuel arent even in the same place as the rocket it self...they do have a lot of smaller rockets capable of getting to india, japan, z korea, etc etc. but not the US...this seems like a big bluff

	15-07-2005 19:33									#39
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by child of Thor um MarkG - is that avatar one of the members of Iron Maiden? he looks familiar to me?

axel of guns n' roses

	15-07-2005 19:40									#40
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by MarkG axel of guns n' roses

doh! of course a young axel rose, but definately him.

	15-07-2005 19:49									#41
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

2nd question is why??

	15-07-2005 19:54									#42
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Dis we would run out of goods if we boycotted china.

No.

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten Sanctions on China will only work if the Euros and Japan go along with them. Good luck with that.

The Europeans would immediately follow suit. they are beginning to become worried about Their trade deficit with China. Japan still has a decision to make though.

	15-07-2005 19:59									#43
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Tingkai If you do that the American economy will tank because China will stop financing the U.S. government deficit. Inflation will shoot up. Interest rates will climb. Basically, China has the U.S. by the balls right now.

That is not yet the case. If things continue on it will be, but right now it just means pissing everyone off by cutting non-discretionary spending by a 3rd to a half.

	15-07-2005 20:33									#44
	Remove this text

quote: The Europeans would immediately follow suit. they are beginning to become worried about Their trade deficit with China.

They wouldn't have a trade deficit anymore if they could provide the exports no longer provided to China by the US...

	15-07-2005 20:48									#45
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

They run a substantial trade surplus with us that more then covers for their deficit with China for the time being.

	15-07-2005 20:53									#46
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

I don't see why they wouldn't keep trading with us. Unless you think the US would embargo both China and Europe...

	15-07-2005 21:57									#47
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

So a hardline Chinese general blusters..wow.

Cause you know that makes it Chinese policy, just like when gen. Boykin said we are fighting a good Christian war that made it US policy....

In terms of the actual use of nukes, I personally don;t see why the Chinese would not seriously contemplate tactical nukes vs. US carrier groups in the open sea-a double hiroshima sized bomb would not spread radioactivity very far, the chance of civilian collateral damage is low, and you take a US carrier out of battle, even if you don;t sink it (which would probably only happen with a direct hit, or an underwater blast right under it).

	15-07-2005 22:10									#48
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Tingkai No, the general was saying that if the U.S. started bombing Chinese cities, China would not be able to stop the attack by conventional means so the only option would be to strike first with nukes. BUT, China has a specific policy not to be the first to use nukes.

1) That's internally inconsistent.

2) As previously mentioned, the Chinese consider their ships and aircraft, not to mentioned Taiwan, their territory. So you're wrong.

	15-07-2005 22:31									#49
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Sikander Wrong, he says that if the U.S. intervenes when PRC decides to finally destroy the democracy on Taiwan that the PRC's only chance is to mutally destroy the U.S. A crude bluff, only surpassed by your crude attempt to make it seem perfectly normal and harmless.

No, it's a realistic appraisal of Chinese military power. The general specifically said that China is weak relative to U.S. military might and that leaves it with limited options.

"War logic" dictates that a weaker power needs to use maximum efforts to defeat a stronger rival, he said, speaking in fluent English. "We have no capability to fight a conventional war against the United States," Zhu said. "We can't win this kind of war."

His comment about all cities east of Xian being destroyed is a reference to U.S. carrier power. Obviously, US nukes could destroy any city, but carrier aircraft would only be able to hit cities on the coast areas.

He also said that he does not expect a war between China and the US.

"He said he mainly meant to emphasize that both the United States and China were prone to "misjudging each other's intentions" and that he did not expect that tensions between the two countries would lead to war."


http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/07/15/news/china.php

	15-07-2005 22:33									#50
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Whoha That is not yet the case. If things continue on it will be, but right now it just means pissing everyone off by cutting non-discretionary spending by a 3rd to a half.

Follow through with your thinking.

What happens to the US economy if the US government cuts its spending by 33-50%?

The sudden decrease in spending creates recessionary effects.

It's basic economics.

	15-07-2005 22:34									#51
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker 1) That's internally inconsistent. 2) As previously mentioned, the Chinese consider their ships and aircraft, not to mentioned Taiwan, their territory. So you're wrong.

Okay, I'll give a Kuci response.

1) Your thinking is misguided.

2) As previously mentioned, Zhu is a Chinese general.

	16-07-2005 01:30									#52
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by child of Thor doh! of course a young axel rose, but definately him.

yep axel, not Janick Gers of Iron Maiden (who I think you were thinking of)

	16-07-2005 01:33									#53
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by GePap So a hardline Chinese general blusters..wow. Cause you know that makes it Chinese policy, just like when gen. Boykin said we are fighting a good Christian war that made it US policy.... In terms of the actual use of nukes, I personally don;t see why the Chinese would not seriously contemplate tactical nukes vs. US carrier groups in the open sea-a double hiroshima sized bomb would not spread radioactivity very far, the chance of civilian collateral damage is low, and you take a US carrier out of battle, even if you don;t sink it (which would probably only happen with a direct hit, or an underwater blast right under it).

Do their missiles even have capability of hitting a moving target?

First you need some radar planes to find the damn carrier (without getting shot down first)

	16-07-2005 01:34									#54
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I've always liked the term Splendid Second Strike.

Incidentally, the US has Splendid Second Strike capacity against the Chinese, I'm sure. What with our much larger arsenal and all...

	16-07-2005 03:00									#55
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

You guys are wusses. If it's their hudnreds of millions or mine, I go for theirs.

	16-07-2005 03:04									#56
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Tingkai Okay, I'll give a Kuci response. 1) Your thinking is misguided. 2) As previously mentioned, Zhu is a Chinese general.

Arranging your points in the same why I do is somehow supposed to mock me?

	16-07-2005 03:05									#57
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Dis Do their missiles even have capability of hitting a moving target?

Yes, they do. You would not use IRBM's (itermidiate ballistic missiles) but regular anti-ship missiles modified to carry nukes, or nuclear torpedos.

The point of nukes is you don;t have to be particulalrly accurate. Besides, the very threat of it would force the US to think twice and keep its ships a bit further from China's landbased aircraft, thus lessening the impact of US planes.

quote: First you need some radar planes to find the damn carrier (without getting shot down first)

I am pretty sure the Chinese have some rudemintary AWACS type planes, or have bought older Russian systems.

I wonder just how fast the Chinese are advancing in basic electronics- its one industry they are building a good foundation in.

	16-07-2005 03:16									#58
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Tingkai Okay, I'll give a Kuci response. 1) Your thinking is misguided. 2) As previously mentioned, Zhu is a Chinese general.

Could you at least answer me serious and tell me why Chinese ships in the Taiwan straight and other places would be considered "chinese soil" and cause for nuclear reataliation against the U.S.? If the U.S. simply sunk the PLAN, wouldn't it be against "war logic" to respond with a nuclear strike against U.S. targets?

	16-07-2005 03:27									#59
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Where the hell did the general ever say China would consider a nuclear attack if it's ships were attacked?

	16-07-2005 03:29									#60
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by GePap Where the hell did the general ever say China would consider a nuclear attack if it's ships were attacked?

Paragraph 3 of the Financial Times Coverage:

quote: “If the Americans draw their missiles and position-guided ammunition on to the target zone on China's territory, I think we will have to respond with nuclear weapons,” said General Zhu Chenghu. Gen Zhu was speaking at a function for foreign journalists organised, in part, by the Chinese government. He added that China's definition of its territory included warships and aircraft.