USA - China arms race

[Guest Shingen]

Well now the medias talking about a possible arms race with China because of Bush's new missle defense plan. Here's some of the article:

quote:

---

CNN and Associated press

BEIJING, China -- China has warned that U.S. plans for a missile defense system (NMD) could lead to a possible arms race.

China's official Xinhua news agency on Wednesday slammed President George W. Bush's call to replace the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty (ABM) -- between Washington and Moscow -- with a new missile system.

Bush says the treaty needs to be replaced with a missile system that protects the United States and its allies from attacks by what Washington calls rogue nations or accidental launches.

China has repeatedly voiced strong opposition to the missile defense system, partly out of fears it will be extended to include Japan and Taiwan, which it views as a renegade province.

"The U.S. missile defense plan has violated the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty, will destroy the balance of international security forces and could cause a new arms race," Xinhua said.

Bush has remained vague on key aspects of his initiative such as what kind of missile defense system he would field and when, how much it would cost and the depth of arms cuts.

Violates treaty

Although there was no official reaction from the Chinese Foreign Ministry to Bush's call, Xinhua restated China's long-held position that the plan violated the treaty, which was the "cornerstone of global strategic balance and stability."

Bush's plans for a NMD threaten to further destabilize fragile U.S.-China relations, already rocked by a collision between a U.S. spy plane and a Chinese jet fighter, U.S. arms sales to Taiwan, and Bush's pledges to help the island defend itself.

Beijing fears the NMD system will negate its own modest nuclear arsenal and that a regional version, known as Theatre Missile Defence (TMD), will be used to shield Taiwan and thus embolden pro-independence forces.

Taiwan's Foreign Ministry declined to comment on what it said was an "internal issue" of the United States.

21st century threat

Xinhua quoted unidentified analysts as saying NMD would "also threaten world peace and security in the 21st century."

Meanwhile a China expert at Singapore's Institute of Defense and Strategic Studies has said the move could prompt China to boost its arsenal.

"The Chinese will probably try to build up their nuclear strike force, which will not be a stabilizing thing in this part of the world," said C.P. Chung.

Back in March -- before the spy plane collision -- China adopted a more flexible stance on NMD with its top arms control diplomat saying Beijing was willing to discuss the issue with Washington.

Sha Zukang, director general of the Chinese Foreign Ministry's Department of Arms Control, also indicated for the first time then that Beijing drew a distinction between NMD and TMD.

Caution from ally

Japan, an ally of the United States, was more cautions on Wednesday in its response.

Japanese officials said they would study Bush's ambitious plans and may even ask him to reconsider.

While Japan has refrained from voicing strong support for the NMD system in the past, it is studying with Washington a variant of the system, aimed at shielding U.S. troops in Asia and its allies.

Tokyo moved to study the system after North Korea launched a ballistic missile over Japan in August 1998.

Top government spokesman Yasuo Fukuda said that while he understood the U.S. plan, if the move triggers similar expansions of arms across the world, Tokyo may need to discuss the issue with the White House.

"The fact that the U.S., our ally, plans to deploy such a system may be all right, but we must avoid a situation in which such systems expand throughout the world," Kyodo news agency quoted Fukuda as saying in an interview with domestic media.

Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage is due to visit Japan early next week on a mission to gain Japan's support for Bush's initiative.

China, which was invaded by Japanese forces in the first half of the 20th

century, has repeatedly warned against closer security ties between Japan and the United States.

Tokyo and Washington boosted their military alliance in 1998 to its highest level since the end of World War II, setting off fears in China that the pact was designed to protect Taiwan in the event of Chinese military action against the island.

North Korea

While Communist North Korea has remained silent thus far, it is expected to come out strongly against the plan, perhaps using the issue as leverage in talks with Washington and Seoul, aimed at unifying the divided peninsula.

Bush moved to calm concern on the peninsula by calling South Korean President Kim Dae-jung.

In a 15-minute telephone call with Bush, President Kim praised contacts with Asian nations as "desirable," a spokesman for Kim said.

"I hope that through this process, the U.S. will contribute to peace and stability in the world," the spokesman, Park Joon-young, quoted Kim as telling Bush.

The U.S. administration plans to send a delegation to Asia this month, led by Richard Armitage, the deputy secretary of state.

Australia was the most positive nation, saying that it shared U.S. concerns over potential missile threats from some governments.

A spokeswoman for Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said Australia would allow the use of joint military bases such as the Pine Gap facility in central Australia for missile shield communications.

---

I wonder if the Communist can afford another cold war??

[ 05-02-2001: Message edited by: Shingen ]

[Guest]

I saw this article as well, If Bush does this, we are gonna see China go broke trying to build enough missiles to break through it.

Reagan did it to the USSR, and we can do it to China too. If they start an arms race, our trade with them is gonna be cut to the bone, and Taiwan is gonna find itself with so much business, it's not gonna know what to do.

I say let the Arms race begin, we can afford it, China can't!! They'll go bust pretty fast, instead of building the low tech, Infantry, transportation etc, they will have to concentrate on Missiles and Nukes, you can buy a lot more low tech then high tech.

Let'em, I'd love to hear them scream for a loan for Nuclear tipped missiles!! lol

[Rick Gridley]

The only thing about pouring hundreds of billions into a missile defence system (and yes it will cost much much more than projected (most, if not all weapons system or goverment projects have not cost more than projected?), is that the biggest threat from "rouges" will be a suitcase bomb or a biological or chemical weapon smuggled into the country and placed in or near a city and set off.

I have very mixed feelings about the missile defence system. Really not sure if it can accomplish anything besides making the world a more dangerous place.

Time will tell.

(sad is it not that in a perfect world we could probaly send a man to Mars with a lot less cost than this system)

[Guest]

China is NOT the ex-USSR. Keep that always in mind.

Did you know the USSR once drew up plans and was in a position to build a doomsday weapon? A freighter parked outside one of their ports. Inside the freighter were enough warheads to make the planet glow for the next thousand years.. not to mention cause the total meltdown of the north pole before that happened.

The system had a doomsday trigger... when the computers detected X amount of radiation (where x=predetermined amount or radiation in atmosphere which would tell the computers that a nuke attack had wiped out the USSR) it would trigger the warheads and kill every cell in the planet.

So what happened? USSR knew such a device would QUITE likely blow up when it detected its own radiation (which wouldve leaked out of the warheads eventually), when some of their USSR made computers got a glitch, a human error or a number of other factors which mainly included the USSR lack of high tech VS the Western tech.... so they decided NOT to do it.

You believe China can design something like that? Sure it can. Even more easily nowadays. The question is, would they do it? I'd say YES.

"Reagan did it to the USSR, and we can do it to China too"

Economics isnt the same today as it was during the cold war. Global economy is no longer based on the US dollar as it was during the 50's up to reagan years. I dont know how the US would fare in an economic battle against china now, both sides may actually LOSE it.

Edited:

Forgot to mention:

If Bush put those zillion dollars set for that defense system on NASA and space research/development, the long term benefits would Far, Far, outweigh this idiotic testosterone contest Bush is about to ignite in the international community.

NASA..its where the future's at baby!

[ 05-02-2001: Message edited by: Tac ]

[Tekrebel]

I say let the Arms race begin, we can afford it, China can't!!

Maybe you think your country can afford it but the money would be better spent on education, poverty reduction, environment protection and other stuff that would benefit mankind in the long run. We don't need this Star Wars project which supposedly protects us against the so-called rogue nations. And please, I don't want to hear about your so called "objective" newspaper articles on the Yellow Peril.

What's next, a multi billion dollar glass shielded dome around the US to protect us from the rest of the world? This paranois crap has gone for far too long and another arm would only benefit the weapon industry.

What do you think the poor people in the street think about the goverment spending more money on military than social programs? And no, not all poor people are drunk and lazy bums who sit on their ass doing nothing.

This is not BCM, this is real life, let's act to build a better future, not destroy it. Pipedream? At least it's better than what Bush has plans for.

[aramike]

China...arms race...LOL!

Is it just me, or has China taken a liking to talking "big"? I mean, somewhere they got the idea that they are a major player in international politics.

Heh.

[Guest Shingen]

Well, i don't know enough to coment about China, but I like the idea of missile defense. In fact I would think the the highest probablity of human extintion would come from an earth-crossing asteroids/objects, not nuclear holocost. And the 'experts' say that the tech that is used to intercept an ICBM could be used to intercept and alter the courses of earth-crossing asteroids/objects.

I mean if you think about all the junk flying around up there, and how little of the sky we actually monitor, I like that we have the system already in place.

At least if that scenario were to ever happen, we wouldn't have to rush around to build one...

[Guest]

Tekrebel,

Everything that you stated above, is not something that the Federal Government is allowed to do here in the United States, even though they do some of it anyway.

All of those are Socialist programs, that Canada has in place, the US is not canada, if you can't make it here, then move to canada, they'll use your money to take care of every low life who thinks life owes them a living.

I would rather have my tax dollars spent on a defense system so that the US can't be blackmailed by every little pissant nation that gets it's hands on a nuclear weapon, the civilian lives in the US will no longer be an ace card for those type of rogue nations to play.

[Guest Shingen]

quote:

---

All of those are Socialist programs, that Canada has in place, the US is not canada, if you can't make it here, then move to canada, they'll use your money to take care of every low life who thinks life owes them a living!

---

I agree with you Jaguar, but please let's not get that arguement going again.. it's been done ad nauseum!

[Tekrebel]

Jaguar, if you don't care about anyone but you, that's fine but please consider this:

I you had a close friend who was beaten by his father when he was young, had a poor family and so couldn't get decent education, and therefore ended up in the street due to other problems, would you consider him a low life?

You must accept the fact that some people try as hard as they can to make their lives better but still end up living in miserable conditions because of things they simply can't control.

[Guest]

Response to that, WAHH and BOOHOO.

I started out at 14 with a job at $1.75 an hour, didn't go to college, barely got out of high school, I am now an independent Sales rep and make almost 6 figures a year, I am 36 years old and have worked my tail off to get where I am. If I can do it, ANYBODY can do it, and that's a fact. If someone expects ME to feel sorry for their bad lives, they got another thing coming.

I could go on and on about how miserable my childhood was, looking for spare change for food, getting a paper route, so I could afford lunch at school, etc, etc. How I had to buy my own shoes because we couldn't afford it. How I never had a father because my mom kept divorcing them etc, etc.

I don't care for sob stories, I never went to the government when I had a problem, why should you. Pick your ass up and get to work, it's THAT easy!!! If you think that's wrong, send em to me and I'll find them a job, McDonalds is hiring, so are a few high tech places, they don't even have to know how to do anything, but they better be willing to earn $7.00 an hour + benefits to start. Otherwise they are creating their own problems.

I'm not going to go any further into this, so don't even bother responding, Shingen is right, this has been gone over ad Nauseum. I am so tired of all you bleeding hearts crying about how unfair life is, and how I should give up my hard earned money to make you feel better.

Life is unfair!! Get over it!!!

As far as I'm concerned anyone who gets something from the government, Welfare, Food stamps etc, didn't think of the future, did what felt good at the time with no thought of the consequences, or are just too lazy to get off their ass and get a REAL job!!!

So, NO, I don't feel a bit guilty or bad for them, I did it, they sure as heck can!!!

Also, if none of you know this, 17 cents of every dollar that you spend on products made in China, go to build their military. Cut off trade with China, move all manufacturing from China to Taiwan and South America, and then watch them try and compete with us. They want an Arms race? Bring it on.

Economies don't change, China would be in the same fix as the USSR was in. They would break their little piggy bank trying to build enough missiles to break through a US anti-missile defense system.

The Technology is there, we are capable of building it, why shouldn't we have the right to defend ourselves. Once the threat from Nuclear missiles is no longer relevant, why should any country even build the darn things. Except to say they had them, The missiles would just sit in their silos anyway, because they would be useless against us and our allies.

I say build it and let China goe broke, the government would be forced to make reforms, just as the Soviet Union was. Hey if the recipe works, why change it?

And before any of you start to whine about the ABM treaty, The USSR, no longer exists, it is gone. If someone died, does that mean you have to keep to an agreement you made to them when they were alive. The government doesn't even do that.

Also, Russia has an ABM, they inherited it from the USSR. The USSR broke the treaty, which means the treaty was a bust from the start!!

[ 05-03-2001: Message edited by: Jaguar ]

[Rick Gridley]

We spend 100-200 billion for a system that can defend against a third world nation that has 10-20 missiles. Is not our 7500 nuc warheads enough of a deterent? My god, any third world nation (or "first world") nation that launched a strike against the U.S.A. would be leveled, turned into a parking lot.

The real danger is for a compact nuc to be smuggled into the country (or built undercover by a terrorist cell here) and set off in a U.S. city.

A 200 billion or 400 billion or one trillion dollar system would do NOTHING to prevent that.

Dwight D. Esienhower, that great liberal (NOT!) warned against the military/industrial complex and do not think for one moment that this group is not behind this and we all know they got ties to this Whitehouse, ala Dick Cheney.

[Steve Schacher]

quote:

---

I say let the Arms race begin, we can afford it, China can't!!

Maybe you think your country can afford it but the money would be better spent on education, poverty reduction, environment protection and other stuff that would benefit mankind in the long run.

---

This was the argument when the USA wanted to go to the moon and when Reagan wanted to spend the USSR into submission. However, I do believe that it has more meaning this time because of the the previously cited examples.

Saying that, I still think that there is a risk that must be mitigated. We used to talk about a Peace Dividend. Remember that? The money spent on the arms race was supposed to now go towards poverty, education, roads, etc. What was the result of the last eight years? More homelessness and plummeting SAT scores! So, societal problems will not be solved by throwing more money at them.

A rogue nuke, however, will make a territory uninhabitable for many years -- Hiroshima and Nagasaki were lowly A-bombs and those regions house people today. The Chernobyl region is still closed off to people. What would happen to a city if today's nuclear weapons were to be detonated? How long would it be before we could use that land again? What would that land be good for?

How much is preventing that worth?

[Note: this is an emotional response -- nothing is to be taken as fact.]

[Guest]

quote:

---

We spend 100-200 billion for a system that can defend against a third world nation that has 10-20 missiles. Is not our 7500 nuc warheads enough of a deterent? My god, any third world nation (or "first world") nation that launched a strike against the U.S.A. would be leveled, turned into a parking lot.

---

To terrorists, our huge inventory is NO deterrent at all. They suicide bomb, if they got hold of a missile, you better believe that they are going to lob it at us!! Then what will we do, bomb the country that they came from, for 1 missile, or for that matter 5. We are going to take out a whole country because a few terrorists decided to take out Detroit? I don't think so, we are civilized, we would never take out a whole country without absolute and total provacation, like 50 missiles, or if the government of that country did it.

Which makes more sense? knock the missile out of the air before it takes out Detroit and then take out the terrorists who launched it with a surgical strike, or to let it take out Detroit and then take out the whole country of Iran with 1000 missiles. I think knocking it out of the air makes more sense to me. And if we make the system good enough, we can disassemble most if not all of our Nuclear missile force, why have them when we can take out any missiles that are lobbed at us while they are still in the air?

The fact of the matter is, a missile defense system makes perfect sense, how much does the city of LA cost? how much are the lives of the citizens in that city worth? A few Trillion if you ask me, A missile defense system is a cheap price to pay for that kind of financial and life insurance. The security of having that system is what we want, the world has changed and M.A.D. is no longer the deterrant or security it once was.

And again, why make nuclear missiles if you are impotent to use them against us?

The Chinese would concentrate on their more low cost conventional weapons instead of wasting their time on Nukes, and we still have our tactical nuclear capability if that would become necessary to stop their aggressiveness.

quote:

---

The real danger is for a compact nuc to be smuggled into the country (or built undercover by a terrorist cell here) and set off in a U.S. city.

A 200 billion or 400 billion or one trillion dollar system would do NOTHING to prevent that.

---

No, it would not, but it is not designed to that, it is designed for missiles. The FBI and the CIA are designed to stop this type of terrorism. If a Nuke is ever brought in and set off, I can guarantee that we would respond, probably in a conventional manner, but we would respond.

quote:

---

Dwight D. Esienhower, that great liberal (NOT!) warned against the military/industrial complex and do not think for one moment that this group is not behind this and we all know they got ties to this Whitehouse, ala Dick Cheney.

---

Eisenhower was a military man, he trusted nothing but the military. The fact is that Cheney was the secretary of Defense, he knows what he is about, I served under him, he is a GOOD man. The military/Industrial complex is a socialist nightmare, and a capitalists dream, which are you? I am a capitalist, born and bred. This missile defense system is going to make many people a lot of money, yep, you betcha!! But the ends are gonna be worth every cent, and all that money is pumped back into the economy instead of being wasted on bureaucratic costs that happen with social programs etc. At least we will be getting something for our money instead of flushing it down a sinkhole like we do with welfare and all those other programs.

There, and I didn't even lose my temper, ain't you proud of me Aramike?

What is real funny is that whenever I see a response like Tekrebels, I don't even have to look at the bottom to know where they are, it's either Canada, or Australia. Weird!! lol

[ 05-04-2001: Message edited by: Jaguar ]

[Steve Schacher]

quote:

---

Which makes more sense? knock the missile out of the air before it takes out Detroit and then take out the terrorists who launched it with a surgical strike, or to let it take out Detroit and then take out the whole country of Iran with 1000 missiles.

---

I wonder if this is really the problem that we should be preparing for.

Going back to my earlier arguments in previous threads, it would take a madman in charge of a country to authorize wholesale slaughter of millions of people with weapons of mass destruction. Therefore, the threat must come from individuals with small arms like suitcase nuclear bombs.

So the question is: which is the more likely scenario: 1) a nation launches one rogue nuclear missiles at us, 2) a nation launches a full-scale nuclear assault at us, 3) a terrorist detonates a single nuclear bomb smuggled in a suitcase.

Timothy McVeigh used a truck full of manure to blow up the Federal building in Oklahoma City. Other terrorists used a truck bomb to blow up the World Trade Center. There are truck bombs blowing up all over the Middle East. How long will it be before these trucks start carrying nuclear bombs?

I'm not saying that we should neglect the former, I'm saying that we should also not neglect the latter.

[Soback]

Hey Steve, " Going back to my earlier arguments in previous threads, it would take a madman in charge of a country to authorize wholesale slaughter of millions of people with weapons of mass destruction. Therefore, the threat must come from individuals with small arms like suitcase nuclear bombs."

What do you think Sadam Hussein, (terorism, and waging a war that's been going on forever), or those damn China leaders(the inident with the plane, etc...) u think that they are sane? That's exactly why US needs missile defence, because those countried might decide to take a chance and try to wipe out or significally cripple all of the US.

[Tekrebel]

What do you think Sadam Hussein, (terorism, and waging a war that's been going on forever), or those damn China leaders(the inident with the plane, etc...) u think that they are sane? That's exactly why US needs missile defence, because those countried might decide to take a chance and try to wipe out or significally cripple all of the US.

Come on, that's not a James Bond movie here, China's leaders are not insane maniacs plotting to destroy the world in a nuclear holocaust. Prevention is ok but extreme paranoia is not, in my opinion of course.

[Guest Shingen]

quote:

---

Come on, that's not a James Bond movie here, China's leaders are not insane maniacs plotting to destroy the world in a nuclear holocaust. Prevention is ok but extreme paranoia is not, in my opinion of course.

---

This statement proves that you have learned nothing from history.

Take a good look at the Communist/socialist state and you'll find that murder is indeed a strategic tool that communist leaders use to advance their goals. Stalin used murder, Mao used it and so do all of the other chinese/communist dictators. Why wouldn't they use larger-scale murder against the US and it's allies if they had a chance at total-global domination??

I'm glad that it is something the US armed forces train for daily, and that we are ready and able to defend our borders and allies.

[ 05-04-2001: Message edited by: Shingen ]

[Menchise]

Shingen, how many times do I have to tell you that Stalin was not a real Socialist?

Anyway, here is my opinion on the missile defense contraption.

Why do Americans assume that every country with nuclear warheads is pointing them at the USA?

Israel is also a nuclear weapons power, and a neighbouring enemy of Iraq, so if Saddam Hussein does have nuclear weapons, it is more likely that he is pointing them at Israel, not the USA.

[Guest]

For once I may, and I say may, actually agree with you Menchise. Yes, Israel has nuclear weapons, but do you know where they got them?

Saddam, he is a nut, and if he does have a nuclear missile, the first thing he is gonna do is lob it at Israel. That's why Israel has quite a few of our Patriot antimissile systems.

And if he does lob one, and we shoot it down with the patriot, guess what happens? Saddam becomes the Martyr he's always wanted to become, because we will bomb them with enough conventional weapons to flatten Baghdad and whatever other target we deem important. But as long as we shoot any Nuclear tipped missile launched from Iraq down, there is no reason to retaliate in kind. Why Nuke a perfectly good oil field, if you don't have to?

[aramike]

quote:

---

Why Nuke a perfectly good oil field, if you don't have to?

---

...especially since I just paid $2 a gallon for gas this morning.

[Guest Shingen]

quote:

---

Shingen, how many times do I have to tell you that Stalin was not a real Socialist?

---

Show me a benevolent socialist and I'll show you a pig that can fly!