Pentagon: China Preparing Taiwan Attack

[MKSheppard]

You don't get it, Mike, do ya? ONE nuke is enough to ruin you, enough to send the global markets, lead by the US economy down the gutter.

I think you're underestimating the resilence of the US market. Insurance
losses would probably ruin the insurance industry, unless they've all
put in that clause that gets them out in case of a nuclear exchange.

[Posbi]

You don't get it, Mike, do ya? ONE nuke is enough to ruin you, enough to send the global markets, lead by the US economy down the gutter.

I think you're underestimating the resilence of the US market. Insurance
losses would probably ruin the insurance industry, unless they've all
put in that clause that gets them out in case of a nuclear exchange.

Uhm, hello? The act of a dozen Saudis with dirty towels wrapped around their heads almost caused worldwide stock market losses of more than 50% within three days from which we have hardly recovered even two years after, even though they did rather miniscule damage (compared on a national level), causing (in comparison to a nuclear attack) laughable 3.000 casualties.
As I said, a nuke would make that look like child's play.

[phongn]

Well, if we wanted to be cruel we could go for the contamination strike on the Yangtze, but I think a few other countries would be annoyed at us if we did.

That would be so naughty.

Isn't that how you usually like things?

[phongn]

Not to mention that not every nuke is going to make it. US forces will definitely try and strike their silos. If they keep their primitive crap in silos, that is.

Apparently most, if not all, of their force is maintained in silos, and they can't be on alert all the time (the bane of liquid-fueled ICBMs)

[phongn]

Hence why China is fucked. They only destroy 1 or 2 American cities, and
end up being wiped from the face of the earth. MAD works

Bah. US doctrine is, and has always been, Assured Destruction. No-one says that their missiles have to hit us

[Vympel]

Apparently most, if not all, of their force is maintained in silos, and they can't be on alert all the time (the bane of liquid-fueled ICBMs)

Yeah, but we can assume that with high tensions/open conflict they'll be on alert. It won't avail them much though.

Bah. US doctrine is, and has always been, Assured Destruction. No-one says that their missiles have to hit us

But in the Soviet Union's case, of course they would- many many many of them.

[phongn]

Yeah, but we can assume that with high tensions/open conflict they'll be on alert. It won't avail them much though.

Well, they have decoys and we only have 20-odd B2s, so some might launch before all of those silos dissappear.

But in the Soviet Union's case, of course they would- many many many of them.

Hmph. Blame JFK for that. And besides, even our puny 100-ABM system should be able to render the PRC's arsenal irrelevant

[Bob McDob]

And well, "winning" a nuclear exchange isn't exactly the word I would have chosen. You'd only loose by a smaller margin than the Chinese do. Hell, even one succesful nuclear strike against a major city would send the US economy down the drain; loosing more than that would do almost irreperable damage - meaning it would take you decades to recover. And all that for Taiwan?

We'd recover from thirty-five+ nukes within a decade. It would be worth it to defend Taiwanese independence.

Aren't most of the Taiwanese moving to mainland China?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Uhm, hello? The act of a dozen Saudis with dirty towels wrapped around their heads almost caused worldwide stock market losses of more than 50% within three days from which we have hardly recovered even two years after, even though they did rather miniscule damage (compared on a national level), causing (in comparison to a nuclear attack) laughable 3.000 casualties.
As I said, a nuke would make that look like child's play.

So we would have to declare martial law and muster the resources by fiat. That was done in WWI and worked. I'm still not seeing the problem.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Isn't that how you usually like things?

Of course. Especially involving sharp declines in demographic trends.

[Illuminatus Primus]

You don't get it, Mike, do ya? ONE nuke is enough to ruin you, enough to send the global markets, lead by the US economy down the gutter.

I think you're underestimating the resilence of the US market. Insurance
losses would probably ruin the insurance industry, unless they've all
put in that clause that gets them out in case of a nuclear exchange.

Ryan, why the fuck is calling you Mike?

[Vympel]

Ryan, why the fuck is calling you Mike?

Perhaps he thinks Mk stands for Mike

[TrailerParkJawa]

The damage from one MT-range nuke to LA could easily be repaired, and most of the city could still be inhabited immediately after the blast, while most of the populace would survive and easily be able to participate in repair efforts.

Are you smoking a bong today Posbi? Try to remember the damage your country took after WWII--cumulatively vastly worse than that doled out from a hundred atomic bombs, easily--and how quickly Germany was restored into an economic power.

Germany had someone to pump money into their economy to rebuild, and also they had nowhere to go but up. A single nuclear bomb in the US would be crippling if it was in the right city, but not permanent. However, a bomb in SF or LA would shatter whats left of our economy (assuming it happened now ) and plunge the rest of the US into a depression in my opinion.

Almost overnight you would have 100,000 dead. A million out of work since the offices are gone, the roads are toasted etc, the business climate unsure, the fallout from plummeting property values would cause an exodus of people from the state. It would be bad. The economic impact from 9/11 was pretty profound, not permanent but profound. A single nuke attack on CA would be even more pround. We'd recover but not without serious impact. And there would be nobody to pay for it but us.
A major nuclear attack is on par with the damage the next big quake is going to do. We will survive but in the short term it will be nasty.

Now someone mentioned 35 nukes. Thats an interesting problem. 35 nukes hitting the 35 most important military/economic targets on the west coast, followed by a massive retaliation on China would send the world economy into a tailspin, like we've never seen. America would not be a world player for a least 10-20 years while we recoverd.

[HemlockGrey]

Even if we are reduced to not being a world player for some time, China, if it launched a nuclear attack, would quite literally cease to exist. The Republic is not run by Kim Jong-Ill. If the US intervenes in a war with Taiwan, the Chinese convential army bites it, and I don't think they'd be willing to risk the almost certain annhilation of their entire country in exchange for Taiwan.

[Bob McDob]

I still say Taiwan, at this point in time, is virtually irrelevent.

[Sea Skimmer]

Hence why China is fucked. They only destroy 1 or 2 American cities, and
end up being wiped from the face of the earth. MAD works

No it doesn't, and this isn't an example of it. MAD would assume that both sides would be wiped out, that sure as fucking isn't the case. This is an example of AD, Assured Destruction; China will die if it strikes at the US.

[Axis Kast]

I doubt the People’s Republic of China will expend military muscle in “reacquiring” the wayward island of Taiwan. There are few first-generation voices left in government there anyway; the Nationalist Party as first promulgated under Chiang hasn’t held power for some time. In fact, economic and cultural trends in mind, there seems to be a strong argument that the island will voluntarily surrender total sovereignty to the mainland inside of thirty years (probably on the same basis as Hong Kong).

Missiles and aircraft aside, the Chinese People’s Liberation Army Navy has no blue-water – or, worse, amphibious – capability. Saturation bombing and total command of the air wouldn’t stop the Chinese from suffering grievous casualties to first-rate troops and equipment – regardless of whether they even lead the assault. No. Until the mainland Chinese expand their maritime resources, Taiwan isn’t going to change hands.

As for nuclear weapons? We’d have to be careful of a theater exchange. The Chinese might preempt any kind of American intervention by the tactical nuclear destruction of a carrier group – and then announce that they’d consider strikes on continental targets an act of total nuclear war. We’d probably call their bluff, but it’s still iffy as to whether we could annihilate all of their land-based assets before our Seventh Fleet is sitting at the bottom of the Taiwan Straits – especially if they make a desperate gamble with hundreds of front-line aircraft. They’re cranking out Su-27s like it’s nobody’s business.

[RogueIce]

As for nuclear weapons? We’d have to be careful of a theater exchange. The Chinese might preempt any kind of American intervention by the tactical nuclear destruction of a carrier group – and then announce that they’d consider strikes on continental targets an act of total nuclear war. We’d probably call their bluff, but it’s still iffy as to whether we could annihilate all of their land-based assets before our Seventh Fleet is sitting at the bottom of the Taiwan Straits – especially if they make a desperate gamble with hundreds of front-line aircraft. They’re cranking out Su-27s like it’s nobody’s business.

I doubt it... From what you said, it seems they hit the carrier first...then make the "total-war" announcement, prior to any US (nuclear) intervention.

If that's the case, and they nuke a CVBG before we've let any fly (or, Hell, even after we let fly, but world support would, most likely, be on our side in the former) they'd quickly find themselves a glowing parking lot methinks.

A nuked USN CVBG would mean a very pissed off American public.

[Posbi]

Now someone mentioned 35 nukes. Thats an interesting problem. 35 nukes hitting the 35 most important military/economic targets on the west coast, followed by a massive retaliation on China would send the world economy into a tailspin, like we've never seen. America would not be a world player for a least 10-20 years while we recoverd.

Pretty much what I said so far. It would be economical suicide to risk a nuclear play-off with the PRC.

People, don't overquote~CO

[Axis Kast]

I'm not so certain an American president would authorize anything more than retalatory strikes in kind - i.e. against similarly tactical military targets in China. I doubt the growth of the conflict into an inter-continental war.

[Setzer]

I have to correct my formetr statement. While China does have 150 ICBMs, only about 35 of those are able to strike the US. Still, more than enough to cripple you.

All of them can only hit targets in Hawaii and California.....No big loss, as
opposed to the complete extermination of China under megatons of
throw weight

California being fried would probably increase Bush's chance of re-election, with so many Hollywood Liberals gone

[Nova Andromeda]

I'm not so certain an American president would authorize anything more than retalatory strikes in kind - i.e. against similarly tactical military targets in China. I doubt the growth of the conflict into an inter-continental war.

--As several members seem to be advocating here [cough]MKSheppard[/cough] the primary reason for using nukes against China in the advent of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan would be to ensure that Ca. is nuked into the stone age. This would have numerous benefits in their eyes such as ensuring the current hardcore right wing trend in the U.S. remains on track, getting rid of those annoying liberals, circumventing the nuclear test ban treaty, etc.

[Axis Kast]

The benefits of deploying nuclear weapons in retaliation against Chinese destruction of an American carrier battle group would be two-fold. Not only would we preserve the notion of deterrence, but at the same time, we could make the PRC suffer worse damage. There aren't exactly a glut of targets for them to choose from anywhere within easy range unless they want to tackle naval or air assets. We, on the other hand, can pepper at will.

[MKSheppard]

As several members seem to be advocating here [cough]MKSheppard[/cough] the primary reason for using nukes against China in the advent of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan would be to ensure that Ca. is nuked into the stone age. This would have numerous benefits in their eyes such as ensuring the current hardcore right wing trend in the U.S. remains on track, getting rid of those annoying liberals, circumventing the nuclear test ban treaty, etc.

Thats a side bonus, but remember that I live 20 miles from the biggest
primary target of them all - Washington DC, so in case this nuke exchange
goes global, I'm fucked six ways to sunday.

[Sea Skimmer]

Thats a side bonus, but remember that I live 20 miles from the biggest
primary target of them all - Washington DC, so in case this nuke exchange
goes global, I'm fucked six ways to sunday.

Your probably downwind which is what's really going to fuck you, only a massive warhead would do heavy damage at 20 miles. Though if you live near one of the many military installations outside the city its another story..