China welcomes Japanese people to improve bilateral ties

[KAL-EL]

We have a "No First Use" policy (we cannot nuke or make a threat to nuke other countries first), so any nuking done by China is only possible in "retaliation" against a nuclear or nuclear equivalent attack on us.

Whereas America and Russia have "First strike" policies. It would be irresponsible if we did not take this into consideration, considering that both have threatened to nuke us before, America during the Korean War and Russia during the Sino-Soviet split.

We have to make sure that no one will be able to "make good" on these threats, by having an HGV arsenal of sufficient power to ensure unacceptable retaliation against anyone who could possibly commit a first strike on us.

Well my friend, it was never about that for me. China (like any other sovereign nation) has every right to a credible defense. That;s not what drew me in to post. it was because of the casualness of genocide talk.(or so that's what it seemed to me)

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

For me the "No First Use" policy is a term used to just to give an impression of a responsible nuclear power..... This policy is taken by the government of the country unilaterally and if they decide they can withdraw this any time...... (It applies for both of our countries )

I would argue that a NFU policy is more about weakness than about being responsible.

China was the very first country to declare a No First Use policy, and we are the only "recognized" nuclear weapons power to have such a policy.

This is because we were the weakest out of the three major Cold War powers (USA and USSR being the two superpowers at the time). And we did not want excessive attention on ourselves, since as I mentioned before, both of these powers had threatened to nuke us at one point.

It was a strategic decision on our part, we could not match the nuclear arsenals of the two superpowers.

Whereas America, NATO and Russia have consistently and repeatedly refused to declare a No First Use policy, they all still have a First Strike policy.

Well my friend, it was never about that for me. China (like any other sovereign nation) has every right to a credible defense. That;s not what drew me in to post. it was because of the casualness of genocide talk.(or so that's what it seemed to me)

I apologize if you got that impression, but as we are discussing, China has a No First Use policy. All our theoretical discussions involve retaliation against a nuclear First Strike against us, and the possible ways to deter such an eventuality.

And to deter a First Strike against us, we need the capability for absolutely massive retaliation. Hence the talk of HGV arsenals.

 

[nair]

I would argue that a NFU policy is more about weakness than about being responsible.

China was the very first country to declare a No First Use policy, and we are the only "recognized" nuclear weapons power to have such a policy.

This is because we were the weakest out of the three major Cold War powers (USA and USSR being the two superpowers at the time). And we did not want excessive attention on ourselves, since as I mentioned before, both of these powers had threatened to nuke us at one point.

It was a strategic decision on our part, we could not match the nuclear arsenals of the two superpowers.

Whereas America, NATO and Russia have consistently and repeatedly refused to declare a No First Use policy, they all still have a First Strike policy.

If you ask there is no such policy called "NFU".... It is just a word or a hollow assurance given with out any obligation....

It become a policy in the case of war between a nuclear and non nuclear country.......

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

If you ask there is no such policy called "NFU".... It is just a word or a hollow assurance given with out any obligation....

It become a policy in the case of war between a nuclear and non nuclear country.......

If it is a hollow assurance, why have all the other recognized nuclear powers REFUSED to have a No First Use policy?

Because a No First Use policy means you can't "threaten to nuke" another country either. And as mentioned, we were on the receiving end of multiple (and credible) threats of nuclear attack from both the US and the USSR during the Cold War.

 

[xunzi]

Well I'm certainly not interested in nuking anyone either. it wouldn't be like a video game, thats for sure.

If there is one weapon we want everybody to get rid of, it is nuclear weapon. Remember it is not us who decide to go nuke. In fact, we didn't go nuke until a real threat possess to us during the Korean War. We have no choice but to seek nuke for our civilization safety.

 

[Pangu]

Keep the NFU policy. NFU doesn't mean we'll have to wait until after an enemy's nuke strike us before we retaliate, it could simply mean when we detect a launch with projected trajectory into our homeland, we launch. But in a MAD situation, it doesn't matter who launch first, we all loose in the end.

 

[xunzi]

If you ask there is no such policy called "NFU".... It is just a word or a hollow assurance given with out any obligation....

It become a policy in the case of war between a nuclear and non nuclear country.......

In the realm of military, claiming a "No First Use" has immense strategic implication. If the US/Soviet claim a "NFU", there is a high chance of both going to war with each other. But you see, for us we said it out loud that we had NFU. NFU does not mean we will never use nuke to retaliate but it means we can agree to suffer conventionally if any party willing to risk going to war with us as long as no nuke is exchanged. We are confident in ourselves that defeating us conventionally is impossible because in order to defeat us, you need to occupy and take away our strength at home. At home, we are invincible. No army will ever defeat us at home.

 

[KAL-EL]

Keep the NFU policy. NFU doesn't mean we'll have to wait until after an enemy's nuke strike us before we retaliate, it could simply mean when we detect a launch with projected trajectory into our homeland, we launch. But in a MAD situation, it doesn't matter who launch first, we all loose in the end.

That my friend is the bottom line! There is no winner in a global nuclear war. I wish some people just realized that sobering fact.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

That my friend is the bottom line! There is no winner in a global nuclear war. I wish some people just realized that sobering fact.

Exactly, hence our need for deterrence.

And some food for thought, why does America consistently refuse to declare a No First Use policy?

Why do they still maintain a "First Strike" policy? Do you personally think America should adopt a NFU policy, and pledge not to threaten the first use of nuclear weapons in the future? Especially considering they are the only ones to have actually used them before.

You may be a pacifist, but your government is not. Three invasions of other countries in the past decade alone, not to mention threatening the use of nuclear weapons against China during the Korean War, only 5 years after nuking someone else.

A First Strike is a real possibility, in the event of say another Korean War. And America refusing to renounce their First Strike policy hardly engenders feelings of safety.

 

[KAL-EL]

Exactly, hence our need for deterrence.

And some food for thought, why does America consistently refuse to declare a No First Use policy?

Why do they still maintain a "First Strike" policy? Do you personally think America should adopt a NFU policy, and pledge not to threaten the first use of nuclear weapons in the future? Especially considering they are the only ones to have actually used them before.

in my opinion, yes we should adopt a NFU.. Never to use first, but if attacked first, then the full nuclear triad is activated. As for what US did many many years ago, I had no say in that (obviously)

 

[nair]

in my opinion, yes we should adopt a NFU.. Never to use first, but if attacked first, then the full nuclear triad is activated. As for what US did many many years ago, I had no say in that (obviously)

A nation who is planning a preemptive nuclear attack is fully aware of the consequence of a retaliation...... Hence if some one decide to attack first, the attack is going to be a deceive one and create enough damage that there is no chance of a retaliation..... (the only option for retaliation is the third leg of the triad).....That is were one question the NFU policy.....

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

in my opinion, yes we should adopt a NFU.. Never to use first, but if attacked first, then the full nuclear triad is activated. As for what US did many many years ago, I had no say in that (obviously)

I appreciate your stance.

The American government on the other hand, has consistently refused to adopt a No First Use policy. Their "First Strike policy" means they reserve the right to nuke anyone at anytime, which is a very real threat considering how many wars America tends to fight at a given time.

If say, there was another Korean War (worst case scenario again), the only thing we can do against America's First Strike policy, is to rigorously build up our capability for massive retaliation.

Until America renounces their First Strike policy that is the only way we can deter it.

China has always advocated that other nuclear nations adopt the No First Use policy, but none of the recognized nuclear powers are interested in giving up their First Strike policies.

 

[Tractor]

people here talk about nuke
Japan is really not far away from China and if the US had more than two atomic bombs...

 

[NiceGuy]

people here talk about nuke
Japan is really not far away from China and if the US had more than two atomic bombs...

And China still bow down to Japan and beg for some cheap Yen again like in 1978 despite the Jap massacred million Chinese.

 

[mike2000]

well its true that none of us in the 5 recognized nuclear power have NFU apart from China. But then again in a nuclear confrontation it doesn't really matters that much which country strikes first, at the end both will suffer a nuclear holocaust where everybody will perish and the earth will almost been made uninhabitable. After all, all of the P5 have ICBM capabilities , and you need just one or two hits to damage a country permanently and cause massive casualties. so chill down, no country in this world will ever attack a nuclear armed country directly. even little north Korea has not been attacked by the U.S since they had nuclear weapons no matter what they do(though must admit its also because of the fear of China and to some extent Russia response). At the end of the day, it will all boil down to economic/cyber and technological warfare. this is what the battle of the 21st century will look like. No great/big powers will ever dare fight directly among themselves, because that will mean the end of the world as we know it. So No CHINA. RUSSIA, U.S will never engaged in a direct fight. they may be economic and cyber espionage/cyber attack warfare, economic sanctions(as is the case now the Russia), or proxy struggle/wars(as was the case between CHINA/RUSSIA in Vietnam against the U.S) or the one going on now in Syria/Ukraine, etc.
So in this case i think nuclear weapons is kind of a necessary evil and contributes to war peace/stability.