War with China Quite Possible , Soon!

Status
Not open for further replies.
E

ernest2

New member
NEWS ALERT

Weinberger Says U.S. May Have to Go to War
With China

2/29/00 - By Scott Stanley Jr.

Taking note of yesterday’s announcement by
Liberation Army Daily, the official newspaper of
Red China’s armed forces, former defense
secretary Caspar Weinberger told a meeting on
Capitol Hill Tuesday that, “It might not be wise
for America to go to war with China, but it might
be necessary.” The threat by the People’s
Liberation Army to engage in long-range missile
attacks on the U.S. mainland needs an
“unequivocal, immediate, unambiguous, firm
response,” Weinberger said.

The former defense secretary also cited an
11,000-word white paper released by Beijing as a
high-level negotiating team led by Deputy
Secretary of Defense Strobe Talbott left China to
return to the United States. Weinberger noted that
although Clinton’s ambassador to China, Joseph
Prueher, claimed the document contained only a
sentence or two that was threatening, it was in fact
so warlike as to contain “no nuances,” Weinbeger
said, adding: “Clinton should have picked a
stronger U.S. ambassador.

Weinberger also noted China’s forward
deployment of missiles directed at Taiwan even as
a carrier task force led by the USS Kittyhawk and
two U.S. missile cruisers maneuvered off Japan.
Thanks to U.S. technology sold to and stolen by
the Red Chinese, Beijing is thought by defense
experts to have at least 24 long-range missiles
capable of hitting most of the United States with
warheads the equivalent of 5 million tons of TNT.

Weinberger told the hushed audience at the
Monday Club, hosted by former Indianapolis News
editor M. Stanton Evans, that this would be a very
good time to have a missile-defense shield in place
as proposed under President Reagan. Because of
the Clinton administration, Weinbeerger said, “I
don’t think we are militarily ready for conflict
with China.”

Copyright © 2000 News World Communications, Inc.
Web site developed by Griffin Strategy Group
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Want to Know More ??
http://www.the-times.co.uk/news/pages/tim/
2000/03/06/timfgnfar01001.html?999

-------------------------------
GUN CONTROL puts THE CONTROL
in the hands of THE CRIMINALS.

------------------------------
You all have my permision to
use any of these"signatures"
here, if you like!
------------------------
-They call 'em POLUTE-TICIANS because they POLUTE the MINDS
of OUR CHILDERN with their ANTI civil/firearms RIGHTS SOCIALIST
political agendas. We of the older generations know B.S.
when we hear it.
----------------------------------
In 2000, we must become politically active in
support of gun rights or we WILL LOSE the right
& the freedom.
--------------------------------------------
NO FATE BUT WHAT WE MAKE!!!
-------------------------------------------
Every year,over 2 million Americans use firearms
not to take live but to preserve life,....limb & family
.Gun Control Democrats would prefer that they are all disarmed
and helpless and die victims of felony violence,instead.

Protect your gun rights, go to: http://home.xnet.com/~gizmonic/TheMarch.html
and sign up as a helper or attendee or state organizer.
ernest2, Conn. CAN opp. "Do What You Can"! http://thematrix.acmecity.com/digital/237/cansite/can.html

[This message has been edited by ernest2 (edited March 06, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by ernest2 (edited March 06, 2000).]
 
The Chinese dp have the capability tp hit the United States with long range ICBNs carrying thermonuclear warheads. They don't have very many of them, but the do have some installed on their launchers. Since they could only a deliver a few warhead and their missiles are not as accurate as ours their targets would probavbly be some of our large cities. (they have threatened to destroy Los Angeles several times) or an area military target where one or two warheads could do major damage to our military capabilities. An example would be Pearl Harbor.
Since the Clinton administration has stalled the development of US missile defence systems we could not defend ourselves against the actual attacks. Our hope is that the threat of counter strikes by our own strategic missiles is strong enough tp deter them from actually attacking. LOts of luck.
 
i think the "accidental destruction" of the Chinese Emabasy building last year was a bit of a "hint" by our military

24 launchers could be taken out fairly fast

maybe some of the technology they stole, we wanted them to steal.

China has been preparing for nuke war since the 50's and is pretty well dug in.

Rosie O is in NYC

dZ
 
Let's assume for the purposes of conversation that China did decide to launch an attack on the US. Considering our superior nuclear capabilities it would be foolhardy for them to engage us in that type of battle. Let's further assume, for the purpose of discussion, that they would direct their attack at the continental US as opposed to US interest overseas. Given the overwelming number of the Chinesse people, military, et. al. it would "tax" our military to prevent them from landing on US soil. Anyone else thinking the movie Red Dawn here? Private gun ownership may become not only popular but encouraged.
I am not a war mongor and realize the conscequences(sp?) of such an event. However gun owners have used this arguement (legitimately) for years. The antis use the tragic deaths of children to further their "cause" at every opportunity. We should take advantage of the pending "China situation" to point out the advantages that the second amendment offers in these type of situations.

Of course I could be wrong and they may elect to use ICBM's instead of a direct convential attack. That being the case Washington D.C. would seem the most logical choice for the first strike.

------------------
Gunslinger

We live in a time in which attitudes and deeds once respected as courageous and honorable are now scorned as being antiquated and subversive.
 
China isn't going to attack us until we stop sending boatloads of money to them via the trinkets and crap we buy from mass merchandisers like China-Mart (Begins with a "W")

And Clinton will probably revoke their Most Favored Nation status and replace it with Mostest Bestest Ultra Favorite Nation.

And, don't forget, Hillary still needs some campaign funds as well as Gore.

Boats of crap headed east and boats of money headed west.
 
Our nuclear threat is only as good as the will we have to carry it out. The Chinese know that the only credible retalitory capability we have is nuclear. Our conventional forces have been drawn down to the point that they are over taxed to keep up with the "peace keeping and nation building" missions the administration has committed them to.

I'm sure that they see that with just the forces available we could not really stop them conventionally. They'll just wait until we get committed a little more somewhere else and move in, I predict the first felon will ask the Chinese on Taiwan to lay down their arms to avoid bloodshed.

Jeff
 
If the Red Chinese ever come over here as NATO troops to help out FEMA after a big flood or such we know we are in for trouble!
Hank
 
If you mean in five years, yeah, I've been telling people this for awhile. If you mean right now, well, they have to get the troops OVER HERE first, right? How will they do this?
 
Half of those needed are already vactioning in the US as we speak. ;)

------------------
Gunslinger

We live in a time in which attitudes and deeds once respected as courageous and honorable are now scorned as being antiquated and subversive.
 
The other half are doing research at medical centers here. That is beside the point. First, they have to join NATO. That is when it gets wierd!
Hank
 
I was generally discounting a lot of this talk. However, if Weinberger is taking this seriously, then it puts a finer point on the discussion.

I tend to think China would keep such a conflict conventional. If they quickly overpowered Taiwan with conventional forces, we wouldn't play the nuclear card, and they would be tough to embargo effectively. Once they have Taiwan, we would be reluctant to invade due to high casualties among our troops and the Taiwanese.

I still doubt they are ready to risk destruction of our relations at this time. OTOH, if they think Bush is likely to be elected, they may decide to move earlier, while they have 'friends' in high places?

Of course, there is always the possibility we could negotiate with them so only Sacramento was hit, and that would do wonders for California politics ... bad joke, I know.

And, to be frank, I think any discussion of the RKBA helping in a Chinese invasion would be seen as more than a little extreme. Perhaps possibly helpful, but pretty far out there for most people to conceptualize.

I always feel so confident with a sharp cookie like Clinton on watch ... ;)
 
At the risk of sounding callous, the Earth could comfortably deal with a few hundred million less people. Now, I don't know about the effects of nuclear war on the environment...

10 million lemmings march to the sea. Not a disaster for you or me.
 
Jeff white is ABSOLUTELY right. Our strategic missile forces are an effective deterrent ONLY if our potential attacker really believes we will strike back with a massive counter strike. THe president has to make that decsion.
 
I don't think China has any interest in attacking the U.S. Why would it? They benefit immensely from exporting to our market economy. The point is not that they will attack us, the point is that they want us to know they have a credible deterrent, so that we don't help Taiwan if they decide to invade.

They're after regional hegemony, Taiwan is their most immediate desire, and the U.S. military presence in Asia is the thorn in their side. If they want to establish their sphere of influence, they have to present a clear threat to us as a deterrent against our action.

I'm no expert in military technology, but the US must be generations ahead of China, despite security leaks -- even Russia is still way ahead of China. The Chinese may have numbers to their advantage, but that doesn't mean they could defeat NATO in a conventional war. Remember the Eastern Front of World War I? The Russian military vastly outnumbered the German military and the Germans were even spread across two fronts. But poor organization and lack of military technology (among other factors) forced Russia to capitulate.

The size of the Chinese military helps but it wouldn't determine the outcome of a war. They know that -- that's why they want a credible nuclear deterrent.
 
It seems to me that the most likely scenario is that China will attack and probably conquer Taiwan. We will make threatening noises, but will not do anything because of (choose one)
1)We are too addicted to the cheap shoes, clothes, toys, and other trinkets to go to war with them.
2) The plight of the Taiwanese people is too remote for most Americans so all we do is bluster.
3) Look at our millitary and figure out that there is only one superpower left in the world, and it ain't us, so all we do is try to get the UN to condemn China's action.

and the least likely option in my opinion,

4) Attempt a millitary campaign against China, and get our hat handed to us because the supply line are too far, and we have very little in the way of cargo vessels available for transport of war materials in the Pacific. We may have enough of an advantage in technology to win the first battles, but they do have the worlds largest Army, and we will run out of the high tech stuff before they run out of cannon fodder.

Eric


------------------
Does the "X" ring have to be that small?
 
Let's see if I can summarize the establishment elitist's banking strategy, since war has been backed (some say perpetuated) by them throughout modern history.

Create a conflict, throw in some threats, sell the threats to the American people, maybe throw in a terrorist act on American soil with the enemy claiming responsibility...threaten our livelihood, our families, and our way of life, our economy...over emphasize the need for immediate action...sell the threat to the American people...propaganda, propaganda, propaganda...and then get Congress in the bickering mood, while whomever is president by-passes the process of Congress to declare war, and signs another executive order thereby putting American soldiers in harms way.

All the while, wars cost both sides lots and lots of money. Regardless of who wins, or how many people die, the establishment bankers rake in the dough (from both sides).

One of the main objectives of the establishment elite is to create a Global Government, along with a central bank, a Global police force, and a disarmed populace. A war involving a nation with the population density of China and the industrial/technology of America, could certainly be a springboard to reaching this goal. Especially since China has outright refused participation in the Global utopian scheme. Eventhough the elitists believe there are far too many people on this Earth, I'd doubt that they would use nukes to destroy any geography that could effect industrial/technical output/cash flow, except maybe in China. It would make more sense for them to toss a few biological weapons around, thereby reducing the "Global village" population to a more manageable/efficient number, saving real property and agri-business from destruction. The threat of nukes would be just that, threats.

The elitists are VERY impatient right now. They want their utopian Global government to be a reality, sooner than later. Every move towards war should be suspect, every threat should be dissected, every political action to draw us into a war should be stopped...in its tracks. And Americans need to be ready for the deception of the new century, ...with loaded arms.
 
China may well have the capability of launching nuclear missles at us, but she is in no position to invade. The same staggering invasion difficulties face them as did the Japanese in 1941 or the U.S. (to go to Japan in 1941).

First, security of the sea lanes. They're navy is in no position to challenge ours. Second, she has no sea lift capability to bring a sizeable army over, yet alone sustain one. Finally, even if an army could be brought over, the logistics of maintaining one is staggering. You have to have a fleet capable of fighting off the USN. You have to have a fleet capable of carrying the troops, supplies, aircraft. You have to have auxilliaries (tankers, ammunitions ships, cargo, repair, etc.) to support it all.

If anything, Chinese strategy would rely on their being invaded by us and a long protracted war. Now, like the Chinese, even if we were at the Gulf War level of military preparedness, we would still not be strong enough to invade China. There's simply not enough troops, tanks, aircraft, to hold what we seize. The Chinese intent would be to survive long enough for the war effort to lose public support. Our best chance of victory through invasion is to topple the current government. Don't forget that the Japanese invaded in 1934 and occupied much of China until 1945. While Japan was defeated largely because of the efforts of the USN, US Army and USMC (and OK, our gallant allies of the British Commonwealth), China was occupied for 11 years without any suggestion of surrendering.

China's best hope against us is to do what they do so well - buy our politicians. Why fight us when they can own our leaders? (Thanks Comrade Klinton).

The Communist can be toppled from power and are scared of any organization they can't control. Look at those old folks practicing QiGong in public parks. Any study of Chinese history shows that Chinese governments (dynasties) inevitably fall of their own accord. Given them time and tradition will be practiced.

------------------
Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt
 
The argument that so-called "establishment bankers" perpetuated small-scale foreign wars such as Vietnam is pretty far out, but let's just say that's true. After all, they might benefit from the stimulus to the domestic economy.

But there's no way that these so-called "establishment elites" would risk the instability of a major world-altering war. If the establishment is established, they certainly don't want to become disestablished. War at home is one of those forces that tends to upset the balance of power and topple the establishment. Again, look at World War I and World War II. These wars caused some major shifts in the establishments of combatants' on both sides, especially those who fought on their own soil.

If these "establishment bankers" who profit from war exist at all, they would be much more interested in financing small conflicts. It would not be in their economic or political interests to support World War III.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 4V50 Gary:
Any study of Chinese history shows that Chinese governments (dynasties) inevitably fall of their own accord. Given them time and tradition will be practiced.[/quote]

I agree with you that the government will fall of its own accord or maybe reform itself beyond recognition, but, given the history of Chinese dynasties, it could be centuries before that happens. I would argue that it will happen much sooner than that -- not because of Chinese history, but because of Communist history.

By the way, I think the Japanese invaded Manchuria even earlier than that - 1931. The reason they never bothered with the Chinese rebels hiding up in the mountains is that they really had no need to. Eastern China and Manchuria, which they held, contained the natural resources and the labor that the Japanese were after.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top