World War 3 THREAT: China WILL fight 'bloody' WAR if Taiwan becomes 'independent'

Mr Person said:

The last two phrases are separated from the rest. The entire point is that 60 billion in sanctions is not ****ing leverage because they can hurt us just about as much as we can hurt them.

What do you expect will happen if he imposes the sanctions? Do you think he'll say "ok, we'll cancel them if you do X,Y,Z", then China will go do X,Y,Z? If so why, specifically and with historical examples. Why the hell would you think that gets leverage? China can do it right back.





The problem here is that Trump is applying what works in NYC real estate when you inherit a pile of money and can into bankruptcy protection six times without personally going to jail, or at least end up in an alleyway. That thinking doesn't work in geopolitics.

And you know what? I hope I'm wrong, because if I'm right it'll be a bitter I told you so. As with everything else Trump, it'll be an irrelevant one to boot because everyone who needs to hear it will find someone else to blame for the fallout.

Click to expand...

What will China do? Support California secession?
Is China's efforts in the south pacific a problem for the USA or not?

Athanasius68 said:

What will China do? Support California secession?

Click to expand...

What does that have to do with what I have been saying and said?

Athanasius68 said:

Is China's efforts in the south pacific a problem for the USA or not?

Click to expand...

What does that have to do with what I have been saying and said?







Actually....don't bother. You're clearly not interested in considering whether Trump is making a strategic blunder.

Mr Person said:

What does that have to do with what I have been saying and said?



What does that have to do with what I have been saying and said?







Actually....don't bother. You're clearly not interested in considering whether Trump is making a strategic blunder.

Click to expand...

Whats the strategic blunder?

Athanasius68 said:

Whats the strategic blunder?

Click to expand...

Why do people do this?

You pretend to want to talk about it. I talk about it (start with post 44 and reread). And somehow, you decide that it's some kind of clever debate board *gotcha* to ask me what the strategic blunder is when I've been describing what the strategic blunder is.




As if.....what? As if, if you say you don't get it, that means I wasn't making sense? My point is invalid because you pretend (I hope) not to know what I was saying?

:lamo

Mr Person said:

Why do people do this?

You pretend to want to talk about it. I talk about it (start with post 44 and reread). And somehow, you decide that it's some kind of clever debate board *gotcha* to ask me what the strategic blunder is when I've been describing what the strategic blunder is.




As if.....what? As if, if you say you don't get it, that means I wasn't making sense? My point is invalid because you pretend (I hope) not to know what I was saying?

:lamo

Click to expand...

All you have said is that China could retaliate and cause a problem for the USA.
Maybe so.

But China is trying to drive the USA out of the western paccific. Which also presents a strategic problem.

JacksinPA said:

In 2006 we estimated they had 100 nuclear warheads but that estimate could be as high as 2,000.

Click to expand...

The Chinese do not have 2,000 warheads. The source of that information is highly questionable.

JacksinPA said:

And they have the miniaturized W88 H-bomb design captured via espionage. Each W88 is 475 kT, which is about 30 times bigger than the Hiroshima bomb.

Click to expand...

That's not how it works.

It's not miniaturized. It's simply a linear implosion design which permits miniaturization. The W48 6"/155mm AFAP, the W70 Mod 3 for the Lance, the W80 for the air, sea and ground-launched cruise missile warheads, and the W85 for the Pershing II all used linear implosion. Note that the W80 and W85 were also variable yield warheads (what the idiot Media calls "dial-a-yield") that could be set from 0.3 kt to 80 kt.

The Chinese did not gain the design plans through espionage. As the Wall Street Journal reported and a bi-partisan congressional committee that investigated the matter stated:

"Beijing has stolen U.S. design data for nearly all elements needed for a major nuclear attack on the U.S., such as advanced warheads, missiles, and guidance systems. Targets of the spying ranged from an Army anti-tank weapon to nearly all modern fighter jets. Most wasn’t done by professionals, but by visitors or front companies. Lax security by the Clinton Administration is blamed in part, and satellite makers Hughes and Loral are criticized."

Although China obtained the design, the plans were useless unless the Chinese could conduct tests to ensure the design actually works.

Clinton actually gave the Chinese not only all of the US nuclear weapon test data, but also a Cray supercomputer to analyze the data and model test detonations, which in theory would avoid the need to conduct any nuclear weapons tests.

Clinton later attempted to justify his actions by claiming that it would result in the Chinese reducing their warhead yields. That is true to some extent. Large yields were necessary in the past because of poor accuracy of the missiles. Better technology, especially better satellite technology, has increased the accuracy of warheads and both Russia and the US have switched to lesser warhead yields because of it.

Even so, there's no evidence China has made any modifications to any of their warheads, which are estimated to be in the 1 Mt range.

If China ever engages in a modernization of its nuclear warheads, perhaps it will use the design and reduce its warhead yields.