Chinese missile could shift Pacific power balance

[Ras]

<An American carrier is listed as a strategic asset...sinking it will have the same effect as nuking an American base and will draw the same level retaliation.>

Hey fu&king dude, nobody is nuking anybody. But if the US uses its strategic asset to destroy China then China has the right to use whatever conventional weapon it chooses to neutralize that strategic asset.

NOTE: The aircraft carrier killer is a conventional weapon. So, don't bring up the nuclear sh*t.

I think you should take your objections to the Pentagon...as it stands today the carrier is defined as a strategic asset.

And ..ya..I did not have any hand in listing a carrier as such so lay of the insults.

 

[mDumb]

<I think you should take your objections to the Pentagon>

I am not objecting.

<...as it stands today the carrier is defined as a strategic asset.>

I see you changed your tune.

This is what you said earlier: An American carrier is listed as a strategic asset...sinking it will have the same effect as nuking an American base and will draw the same level retaliation.

China will do what it takes to protect its existence and sovereignty.

If the US retaliates with a nuclear weapon China can do the same. But I think both countries are mature enough not to be trigger happy with nuclear weapons.

 

[Ras]

<I think you should take your objections to the Pentagon>

I am not objecting.

<...as it stands today the carrier is defined as a strategic asset.>

I see you changed your tune.

This is what you said earlier: ...sinking it will have the same effect as nuking an American base and will draw the same level retaliation.

China will do what it takes to protect its existence and sovereignty.

If the US retaliates with a nuclear weapon China can do the same. But I think both countries are mature enough not to be trigger happy with nuclear weapons.

I did not change my tune..I stated a fact.Attacking and sinking a USN Carrier (which also probably carries nukes) will probably result in a nuclear response. It does not matter if it is done conventionally.

 

[friendly_troll96]

<I did not change my tune..I stated a fact.Attacking and sinking a USN Carrier (which also probably carries nukes) will result in a nuclear response. It does not matter if it is done conventionally.>

Well, it's also a fact that China will sink that fu&king carrier if it compromises China's existence.

< USN Carrier (which also probably carries nukes)>

Legally, Japan forbids the US from carrying/storing nuclear weapons in its territory because of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. But the US is always full of sh*t and I am not surprised.

Your posts are cool but those ugly angle brackets make ‘em rather annoying. Please make use of the ‘quote’ button instead – it’s easy!

 

[Donatello]

I did not change my tune..I stated a fact.Attacking and sinking a USN Carrier (which also probably carries nukes) will result in a nuclear response. It does not matter if it is done conventionally.

It is a stupid doctrine i must say....as stupid and idiotic as the decision to invade Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq.

I am sure most would agree while you may not.

If a country doesn't use nuclear weapons to sink an Aircraft carrier, then USA has no right to use Nukes.


Countries like China, Russia, Pakistan, India all have nukes as well......

 

[Donatello]

Just a thought, what if next time in US doctrine, it lists every military equipment as its strategic asset. This will make everything much easier.

Yea man, World Trade Center was a strategic asset, look at the shyt hole they got themselves into by invading Afghanistan........talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

 

[CAPTAIN AMERICA]

China and USA are unlikely to engage in a war with each other, each has too much to lose, if it happens it will most likely be thru proxies like korea and N Korea.

 

[Donatello]

China and USA are unlikely to engage in a war with each other, each has too much to lose, if it happens it will most likely be thru proxies like korea and N Korea.

Don't say that, even that will be too bloody.......the Korean war still haunts them...plus it will be South Korea who has to deal with refugees...not USA. So South Korea will definitely exercise restrain until and unless North attacks it on purpose, in which case South will have no choice but to attack back.

 

[chauism]

It is a stupid doctrine i must say....as stupid and idiotic as the decision to invade Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq.

I am sure most would agree while you may not.

If a country doesn't use nuclear weapons to sink an Aircraft carrier, then USA has no right to use Nukes.


Countries like China, Russia, Pakistan, India all have nukes as well......

Agreed. Once the Pandora box has been opened, then there is no turning back. So nuclear weapon is only useful when it is still on the launch pad, not after it has left the launch pad.

If US indeed intend to use this doctrine, what will stop it claim that any attack on US property will result in a nuclear retaliation tomorrow.

Whoever first made that claim was being very irresponsible, and I am sure it is not the official statement of the US government or military.

 

[roach]

This is awesome news. The DF-21 is a great leveler, If I may say so.

I think we're quickly reaching a point of strategic balance- Nobody will have the biggest stick, so everybody knows that if there's war- we're up s*** creek without a paddle.

And if humanity is ever dumb enough to start a war where we need to use these weapons....

Well then, we humans dumber than cockroaches and need to be put down, like rabid dogs. I'm digging a bunker, oiling my shotgun and having lots of sex.

Just in case.

 

[azfar]

americans creating so much hype of a not tested weapon.

 

[Ras]

It is a stupid doctrine i must say....as stupid and idiotic as the decision to invade Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq.

I am sure most would agree while you may not.

If a country doesn't use nuclear weapons to sink an Aircraft carrier, then USA has no right to use Nukes.


Countries like China, Russia, Pakistan, India all have nukes as well......

US does not have a No First Strike doctrine like China...until couple of months back the nuclear doctrine did not even prohibit nuclear attacks on non-nuclear states.

 

[Hafizzz]

americans creating so much hype of a not tested weapon.

The West love to demonize their enemy before they are even a threat.

 

[gpit]

I did not change my tune..I stated a fact.Attacking and sinking a USN Carrier (which also probably carries nukes) will result in a nuclear response. It does not matter if it is done conventionally.

The only question is: does that doctrine allow USN carriers to run amuck into China’s core interest.

Obviously it shouldn’t.

If it does, and if the carriers are sunk, and if it therefore initiates a nuclear war, according to your hypothesis, would you like to exchange somewhat 50% of US with 99% of China? Who will be the last laughter? It’s definitely not USA, I guess.

 

[Hafizzz]

If a country doesn't use nuclear weapons to sink an Aircraft carrier, then USA has no right to use Nukes.

Japan did not have nukes and USA still used nukes on Tokyo and Hiroshima back then.

USA will always come up with lame excuses to claim that they have all the rights to use nukes.