World War III is near, long speech by Chinese Defense minister - Page 3

Kelzie · 11-07-05, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SKILMATIC

Are you fvcking kidding me? The only country that would reek havoc on us in conventional warfare would be GB and even that country would have a very hard time because we would obtain air superiority very quickly. Then its only a matter of time before victory is obtained. Now on a land basis the strongest country is china but we wouldnt be stupid to put troops on the ground till we bomb the smitherines out of them(not necassarily with nukes). We do have MOAB's too.

So to answer your question nukes dont even have to be in the picture. We would still decimate any country that feels they need a spanking. And loses would be minimal.

Russia too. As a war science student, you should know that they have second strike capability with their nukes.

Trajan Octavian Titus · 11-07-05, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kelzie

Russia too. As a war science student, you should know that they have second strike capability with their nukes.

That's where the missile defense shield comes into play it would ensure U.S. military hegenomy well into the millenium. But who wants war with China the free market and capitalism defeated the Soviets in Russia without even firing a shot the same policy will be proven true in China as well, just give it time.

Kelzie · 11-07-05, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus

That's where the missile defense shield comes into play it would ensure U.S. military hegomy well into the millenium. But who wants war with China the free market and capitalism defeated the Soviets in Russia without even firing a shot the same policy will be proven in China just give it time.

Except for the fact that it doesn't work.

Trajan Octavian Titus · 11-07-05, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kelzie

Except for the fact that it doesn't work.

how do you know? It's not even finished yet. You're thinking about the patriot missile system which actually did work pretty well against Iraqi SKUDs shot at Israel in the first gulf war, it was a software problem something about not being able to translate .5 seconds into digital code so when they left them on for to long it would screw up the guidance system, this short fall has been over come in the new patriot missiles and I'm sure the designers of the missile defense shield have taken it into consideration.

iamjack · 11-07-05, 07:57 PM

Well, scuds ain't ICBMs, but what do I know?

Trajan Octavian Titus · 11-07-05, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iamjack

Well, scuds ain't ICBMs, but what do I know?

Well patriot missiles are not the missile defense shield.

knicksin2010 · 11-07-05, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SKILMATIC

Are you fvcking kidding me? The only country that would reek havoc on us in conventional warfare would be GB and even that country would have a very hard time because we would obtain air superiority very quickly. Then its only a matter of time before victory is obtained. Now on a land basis the strongest country is china but we wouldnt be stupid to put troops on the ground till we bomb the smitherines out of them(not necassarily with nukes). We do have MOAB's too.

So to answer your question nukes dont even have to be in the picture. We would still decimate any country that feels they need a spanking. And loses would be minimal.

On paper that is this case, but there's a human side in management, and we've been mismanaging a lot lately.Too many cronies in high levels, and too much disconnect from reality.

SKILMATIC · 11-07-05, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kelzie

Russia too. As a war science student, you should know that they have second strike capability with their nukes.

They have a second strike capability in that they can launch several at the same time from different places. Well so can we. And we can laucnh from undetectable aircraft behind enemy lines. We would be able to eliminate the second strike before it happened. It is much easier to get away with one major strike then many major strikes. To coordinate and operate a large scale strike like that will end up leaking out and our intelligence agencies will find out. However, they would be able possibly to get away with one attack.

Also, I used to be an intern for SPAWAR and one of the departments were working on bringing back the Pebbles program which is a program that uses satellites to monitor the skies and when it sees an ICBM it shoots a projectile at the nuke to aleviate it. Its actually the best program that has actually been tested and proven serveral times but our good friend Clinton did away with the program. There are also several other major missle defense programs on the table its rediculous.

Kelzie · 11-07-05, 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SKILMATIC

They have a second strike capability in that they can launch several at the same time from different places. Well so can we. And we can laucnh from undetectable aircraft behind enemy lines. We would be able to eliminate the second strike before it happened. It is much easier to get away with one major strike then many major strikes. To coordinate and operate a large scale strike like that will end up leaking out and our intelligence agencies will find out. However, they would be able possibly to get away with one attack.

Also, I used to be an intern for SPAWAR and one of the departments were working on bringing back the Pebbles program which is a program that uses satellites to monitor the skies and when it sees an ICBM it shoots a projectile at the nuke to aleviate it. Its actually the best program that has actually been tested and proven serveral times but our good friend Clinton did away with the program. There are also several other major missle defense programs on the table its rediculous.

That's not second strike capability. You sure you're a war science student?

SKILMATIC · 11-07-05, 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by knicksin2010

On paper that is this case, but there's a human side in management, and we've been mismanaging a lot lately.Too many cronies in high levels, and too much disconnect from reality.

Well thats true to a point. Mismanagement comes from the beaurocrats not the soldiers. Our soldiers are the most fierce and most effective on this planet. If gov stays out of the militaries way it can be done quite easily. However, politics plays a part. However, in this last war we have been there for almost 3 yrs now with just over 2000 casualites. And in the initial invasion we only lost something like 7. Its much better compared to the 8000men we lost on the beach of Omaha in just an hour.

Plus on paper they incorporate mistakes; thats why they also incorporate plan B's and plan C's.