What's new

China forms missile brigade for South China Sea

Chinese aggressors invaded in to Island Hoang Sa, wich belong to Vietnam.

Our heros, two of them killed by Chinese.

images


Stone slop to remark sovereignity of Vietnam in Hoang SA.
20762117_images1476073_3.jpg



Photo of old map of Vietnam including Hoang Sa and Truong Sa.

trungbayanhkhangdinhchuquyencuavietnamotin180com001.jpg
 
.
China has a NFU (no first use) pledge or does it?

I disagree.

China's NFU (no first use) pledge has shifted over the decades. Let me get the citation.

It used to be NFU for everyone. Then it changed to NFU for only non-nuclear weapon states. Then they hinted it's NFU for countries that don't use WMDs (weapons of mass destruction).

The truth is that China's NFU pledge has shifted. This is also true of Russia/Soviet Union. Their NFU pledge changed as time passed. Let me look for that citation too.

I'll go look for some statements by Chinese generals. There was certainly plenty of ambiguity when I read their statements regarding China's nuclear forces.

----------

Here is my citation from a Chinese major general. It doesn't sound like no-first-use policy to me.

China: We’d nuke U.S.if provoked over Taiwan

"China: We'd nuke U.S. if provoked over Taiwan
Major general says Beijing prepared to use WMDs against American cities
Published: 07/14/2005 at 6:05 PM

A Chinese military official says Beijing will use nuclear weapons against the U.S. if the Americans attack the Asian nation in a fight over Taiwan.

“If the Americans draw their missiles and position-guided ammunition on to the target zone on China’s territory, I think we will have to respond with nuclear weapons,” Zhu Chenghu, a major general in the People’s Liberation Army, said at an official briefing, according to the Financial Times.

Today, however, the Chinese government distanced itself from the comments.

“What he talked about were just his personal views,” said Shen Guofang, an assistant minister of foreign affairs.

Speaking at a function organized for foreign journalists, Zhu noted the definition of China’s territory includes warships and aircraft.

“If the Americans are determined to interfere [then] we will be determined to respond,” Zhu said. “We Chinese will prepare ourselves for the destruction of all of the cities east of Xian. Of course, the Americans will have to be prepared that hundreds … of cities will be destroyed by the Chinese.”

The Financial Times notes Zhu is a self-acknowledged “hawk” who has warned previously that China could strike the U.S. with long-range missiles. But his threat to use nuclear weapons in a conflict over Taiwan is the most specific by a senior Chinese official in nearly a decade.

Zhu is not the first Chinese official to mention the use of nuclear weapons first in a conflict over Taiwan.

Chas Freeman, a former U.S. assistant secretary of defense, said in 1999 that a PLA official had told him China could respond in kind to a nuclear strike by the U.S. in the event of a conflict with Taiwan.


“In the end you care more about Los Angeles than you do about Taipei,” Freeman quoted this official as saying.

Though official U.S. policy on Taiwan is that it is part of mainland China – the “one China” policy – President Bush has said the U.S. would defend the island republic if it were attacked by Beijing.

If you would like to sound off on this issue, participate in today’s WND Poll."

----------

Reference for ambiguity in China's NFU pledge:

No first use - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"China

China is the first to propose and pledge NFU policy when it first gained nuclear capabilities in 1964, stating "not to be the first to use nuclear weapons at any time or under any circumstances". Nonetheless, some scholars and observers have questioned the credibility of China's NFU policy.[8][9] For instance, China had reportedly considered nuclear strikes against the Soviet Union in the event of a conventional Soviet attack. However, China has repeatedly re-affirmed its no-first-use policy in recent years, doing so in 2005, 2008, 2009 and again in 2011. In 2010, the Pentagon concluded that although there is "some ambiguity over the conditions under which China's [no-first-use] policy would or would not apply...there has been no indication that national leaders are willing to attach such nuances and caveats to China's 'no first use' doctrine"[10][11][12][13]"

Reference for Russia dropping Soviet Union's NFU pledge (see footnote):

No first use - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"In 1993, Russia dropped a pledge given by the former Soviet Union not to use nuclear weapons first.[5] In 2000, a Russian military doctrine stated that Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons "in response to a large-scale conventional aggression".[6]"

China should adopt global norm and reject NFU

There are some important military insights that I want to share about China's and Russia's former NFU (no first use) policy.

1. If the Soviet Union had attacked with a large conventional military force, China would have wiped it out with thermonuclear weapons despite the NFU pledge. This is common sense. When your survival is at stake, China won't care about a broken empty pledge.

In law, a promise is legally binding only if something of equal value is given in return. Here, China is making a policy claim without receiving equal consideration. Therefore, China's NFU can be nullified at any time.

2. We have seen Russia retract the Soviet Union's pledge of NFU. Ironically, the roles have reversed. Now, Russia is afraid of Chinese or NATO conventional military power. The Russians want China and NATO to know that you better leave it alone or the desperate Bear will go nuclear.

3. We keep seeing hints of a policy shift by China. These shifts come from Chinese generals and think tanks. It is a soft leak. China is a maturing thermonuclear missile power (e.g. 10-MIRVed DF-41 is probably ready and pulled from 2009 military parade due to potential political problems, such as pressure to join arms negotiations).

China no longer has to hold its head low and appease the United States. With the 10-MIRVed DF-41, China has the capability to threaten the United States with MAD (mutually assured destruction). However, revoking China's NFU pledge and displaying the 10-MIRVed DF-41 will alarm many countries. Thus, China keeps repeating its NFU pledge and the American media happily keeps reprinting the Chinese NFU pledge.

Strategically, it is not credible for China to follow a NFU pledge in an all-out war with the United States and its allies. If China was truly threatened again (e.g. akin to a Soviet threat), I doubt China will spend precious time or troops to fight conventionally.

China is likely to quickly nuke Japan and South Korea to knock them out of the war. Then the slow war of attrition with the United States begins. China will never publicly say this, because they don't need to. The U.S. wargames these scenarios and they know there is a trigger point where China will fight with everything in its arsenal.

In conclusion, my point is not to slavishly listen to the proclamations by countries. I prefer using history as a guide and realpolitik. If your country was truly threatened and your only path to survival or victory laid in using thermonuclear weapons first, wouldn't you? Of course you would.

If China chooses to publicly announce its change in NFU policy, there is no reason for China to feel apologetic. The United States has flatly rejected a NFU pledge. Russia has retracted its NFU pledge. China should follow global norms and renounce its NFU pledge as well.
 
. .
Pyrrhic victory for China will lead to wider annexation blowback

I can't remember which one of you Vietnamese kept repeating that you will intentionally sink ships in the Malacca Strait to impede Chinese shipping.

I don't think Vietnam will engage in this kind of tactic. If Vietnam is successful in disrupting Chinese shipping traffic, it will enrage the CCP. They will probably bring out some old maps and annex Northern Vietnam to teach you a lesson. I don't think the Vietnamese leadership is willing to take this kind of risk.

This kind of scorch-the-earth tactic has also been mentioned by an Indian on a different forum. When confronted with China's overwhelming military superiority and latent war production capability, he conceded India probably couldn't hold on to South Tibet.

He then proceeded to suggest "salting" the earth with radioactive material throughout South Tibet/Arunachal Pradesh to punish China. Once again, escalating the situation and enraging the CCP is bad strategy. China may decide to annex the entire northeastern region of India to teach a lesson.

In conclusion, my point is that the weaker side in a military dispute should not escalate. China has limited border disagreements with Vietnam and India. When you guys lose on the battlefield, don't be sore losers. If you try to turn China's military victory into a pyrrhic one, China can also play this game of scorched earth at the loser's expense through annexation.
 
.
Pyrrhic victory for China will lead to wider annexation blowback

In conclusion, my point is that the weaker side in a military dispute should not escalate. China has limited border disagreements with Vietnam and India. When you guys lose on the battlefield, don't be sore losers. If you try to turn China's military victory into a pyrrhic one, China can also play this game of scorched earth at the loser's expense through annexation.

As China is militarily much weaker than US, China must always gauge the intention of the US before take any action. The only way the SE Asian country can prevent a complete take over of these islands from China is not a military issue, because Vietnam and Philippine will surely lose on the military front. But its a diplomatic issue of involving the US. They can prevent a Chinese take over, even China has such an intention, by internationalize the conflicts and draw in US diplomatically and even militarily.
 
. .
Vietnam and Manchukuo don't have any territory dispute. You can stop screaming here, go back to your homeland, to take back sovereignty of Manchu kuo.

LOL at this idiot still talking manchuko are you still living in stone age?
 
. .
Could China use thermonuclear weapons against Vietnam? It's a close call.

The military question is whether China could use thermonuclear weapons against Vietnam. Let's suppose Vietnam cheated and used biological or chemical weapons in a future conflict against China.

Who thinks China would be bound by its NFU (no first use) pledge? Or do you think it's more likely China will drop a few megatons on Vietnam to teach them a lesson? I think it's a close call and I don't recommend the Vietnamese to test the patience of the CCP.

Implicit in China's NFU pledge is that you don't cross one of China's red lines. I think using biological or chemical weapons against China would invalidate China's NFU pledge.

China is willing to play by gentlemen's rules of warfare. However, if someone else uses a WMD first then I think gentlemanly niceties go out the window.
 
.
Could China use thermonuclear weapons against Vietnam? It's a close call.

The military question is whether China could use thermonuclear weapons against Vietnam. Let's suppose Vietnam cheated and used biological or chemical weapons in a future conflict against China.

Who thinks China would be bound by its NFU (no first use) pledge? Or do you think it's more likely China will drop a few megatons on Vietnam to teach them a lesson? I think it's a close call and I don't recommend the Vietnamese to test the patience of the CCP.

Implicit in China's NFU pledge is that you don't cross one of China's red lines. I think using biological or chemical weapons against China would invalidate China's NFU pledge.

China is willing to play by gentlemen's rules of warfare. However, if someone else uses a WMD first then I think gentlemanly niceties go out the window.

Idiot idea of non human extremist, atom power plants and Three georges Dam in china will be destroy by revenge suicidal attack in time.
 
. . .
Idiot idea of non human extremist, atom power plants and Three georges Dam in china will be destroy by revenge suicidal attack in time.

Three Gorges Dam walls are 40 meters thick on top. That's 131 feet of concrete.

I hate it when you Vietnamese nationalists say really stupid things. Do you realize how thick the Three Gorges Dam walls are? A suicide bomber can barely nick the 40-meter-thick dam wall.

Firstly, he's only carrying a few pounds of explosives. Secondly, the blast will be mostly deflected away from the concrete dam wall.

Try saying something intelligent for once.

----------

http://www.theenergylibrary.com/node/611

"Three Gorges Dam, China crosses the Yangtze River at Sandouping, ... The wall is 115 meters (377.3 ft) thick on the bottom and 40 meters (131.2 ft) thick on top."
 
.
As China is militarily much weaker than US, China must always gauge the intention of the US before take any action. The only way the SE Asian country can prevent a complete take over of these islands from China is not a military issue, because Vietnam and Philippine will surely lose on the military front. But its a diplomatic issue of involving the US. They can prevent a Chinese take over, even China has such an intention, by internationalize the conflicts and draw in US diplomatically and even militarily.

US will never dare to mess with China,that means gauranteed mutual destruction in both country's military and economy.see what happens in N.Korea,they deliberately test nuclear bombs and sank US ally S.Korean ships and threaten nuclear destruction of US.but there is nothing US can do about it,do you think US is afraid of N.Korea??no,it's China behind it.
 
.
Three Gorges Dam walls are 40 meters thick on top. That's 131 feet of concrete.

I hate it when you Vietnamese nationalists say really stupid things. Do you realize how thick the Three Gorges Dam walls are? A suicide bomber can barely nick the 40-meter-thick dam wall.

Firstly, he's only carrying a few pounds of explosives. Secondly, the blast will be mostly deflected away from the concrete dam wall.

Try saying something intelligent for once.

----------

Three Gorges Dam, China | The Energy Library

"Three Gorges Dam, China crosses the Yangtze River at Sandouping, ... The wall is 115 meters (377.3 ft) thick on the bottom and 40 meters (131.2 ft) thick on top."

everything has his Achilles' heel, mean one's point of weakness. :D

US will never dare to mess with China,that means gauranteed mutual destruction in both country's military and economy.see what happens in N.Korea,they deliberately test nuclear bombs and sank US ally S.Korean ships and threaten nuclear destruction of US.but there is nothing US can do about it,do you think US is afraid of N.Korea??no,it's China behind it.

US navy will deploy step by step in SCS, no fighting, just watching. Coming days Philippine will let US reopen Navy base in Phi. In the next days, may be US Navy join with Viet open ship reparature factories in Camranh Vietnam, and so on, no harry...:coffee:
 
.

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom