Taiwan to boost forces in disputed Spratly Islands

[Martian2]

Today, China has the military tools to ensure a Total Victory that will last 50 years. The Vietnamese will be destroyed and they will not challenge Chinese sovereignty over the South China Sea for two generations.

The Felix Doctrine, or a "War Plan For Total Victory," can be easily implemented. It will send a strong message to not just the Vietnamese, but the Filipinos and other American puppets that are trying to undermine China's historical thousand-year-old South China Sea sovereignty.

Modern China has precision-guided weapons that allow three months of "Rolling Thunder" to be easily accomplished. Another three months of ground operations and Hanoi will look like Libya's Misrata (see http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/phot.../c_13912447.htm).

Photo taken on June 5, 2011 shows a street in Misrata, the third largest city of Libya, where the rebels and government forces fought for months. (Xinhua/Cai Yang)

"There’s a Chinese proverb that talks about 'killing the chicken to scare the monkey.'

The old saying holds that it’s smarter to punish or do away with a lesser animal (a chicken) as a lesson to a higher or more important one (a monkey) that you can’t afford to get rid of. Hopefully, the monkey will take the hint and fall into line."

The Russians understand the Chinese proverb well. They accomplished their foreign policy objectives by hammering Georgia and annexing 20% of Georgian territory. The United States respect Russia and will not interfere in core Russian foreign policy objectives.

Similarly, China must show the United States that it is serious and there are limits to its tolerance for ridiculous attempts to dispute China's thousand-year-old South China Sea sovereignty. A show of force is necessary.

----------

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/russia-could-de...al/72456-2.html

"Russia could destroy NATO ships in 20 mins: Admiral
IANS
Updated Aug 29, 2008 at 09:05pm IST

Moscow: Russia's Black Sea Fleet is capable of destroying NATO's naval strike group currently deployed in the sea within 20 minutes, a former fleet commander said Friday.

"A single missile salvo from the Moskva missile cruiser, the flagship of Russia's Black Sea Fleet, and two or three missile boats would be enough to annihilate all the NATO ships deployed in the Black Sea," Admiral Eduard Baltin said.

The former commander was reacting over the NATO build up near the Russian waters in the wake of the Georgian crisis and subsequently Russia breaking off ties with the alliance.

On Tuesday, Russia's General Staff said that there were 10 NATO ships in the Black Sea comprising three US warships, Polish frigate General Pulaski, German frigate FGS Lubeck, Spanish guided missile frigate Admiral Juan de Borbon and four Turkish vessels. It also said that eight more warships were expected to join the group.

But Baltin said: "Despite the apparent strength, the NATO naval group in the Black Sea is not battle-worthy."

"Within 20 minutes the waters would be clear," he said, stressing that despite major reductions, the Black Sea Fleet still has a formidable missile arsenal.

However, Baltin said the chances of a military confrontation between NATO and Russia in the Black Sea are negligible.

"We will not strike first, and they do not look like people with suicidal tendencies," he said.

In addition to its flagship, the Moskva guided missile cruiser, Russia's Black Sea Fleet includes at least three destroyers, two guided missile frigates, four guided missile corvettes and six missile boats.

NATO announced its decision to deliver humanitarian aid to Georgia after the end of hostilities between Tbilisi and Moscow over breakaway South Ossetia August 12.

On Tuesday, Moscow recognised the independence of Georgian break-away regions, South Ossetia and Abkhazia, despite being urged by Western leaders not to do so.

Russia's General Staff later said the alliance's naval deployment in the Black Sea "cannot fail to provoke concern", with unidentified sources in the Russian military saying a surface strike group was being gathered there.

According to Russian military intelligence sources, the NATO warships that have entered the Black Sea are between them carrying over 100 Tomahawk cruise missiles and Harpoon anti-ship missiles."

----------

http://www.france24.com/en/20080827-us-aid...rgia-russia-us#

"US aid ship fails to dock in Russian-controlled Georgian port
Latest update: 27/08/2008 - Georgia - Russia

A US ship on its way to war-torn Georgia and carrying aid to the conflict victims, did not dock at the Russian-patrolled port.

BATUMI, Georgia - A U.S. Coast Guard ship carrying aid for victims
of Georgia's brief war with Russia arrived on the country's Black Sea
coast on Wednesday, but backed down from docking in a
Russian-patrolled port.

The decision avoided any direct confrontation between U.S.
and Russian military in Georgia, a U.S. ally whose drive for
NATO membership had antagonised Moscow even before Tbilisi's
failed drive to retake a pro-Moscow rebel region this month.

The cutter Dallas docked in Batumi instead of Poti, a port
80 km (50 miles) to the north where Russian troops have been
manning checkpoints since pushing into Georgia proper this month
after a war over the breakaway province of South Ossetia.

Russia, which on Tuesday recognised the independence of
South Ossetia and a second Georgian rebel region, Abkhazia, has
defied Western pressure to remove its forces from Georgia.

Moscow has said its troops will continue to patrol Poti, a
small oil shipment and dry grain port outside a "buffer zone"
where Russia plans to post peacekeepers indefinitely.

The U.S. embassy in Tbilisi originally said the Dallas would
be joined in Poti by a U.S. warship, the USS McFaul, which
docked in Batumi on Sunday. But the embassy said late on Tuesday
that the plan had changed.

"This decision was taken at the highest level of the
Pentagon," a U.S. embassy spokeswoman told Reuters.

A U.S. Navy official said the U.S. guided-missile destroyer
McFaul had left the Black Sea port of Batumi and was "outside of
Georgian territorial waters."

"The McFaul is conducting operations in the Black Sea," the
official said. He declined to elaborate.

A third vessel, the Navy command ship USS Mount Whitney, has
also been loaded with aid supplies and has left its home port in
Italy, said U.S. Navy Lt. Commander Tamsen Reese.

WATCHING NATO

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has accused Washington of
delivering weapons to Georgia by sea, but made clear Russian
ships would not obstruct the operation.

"What the Americans call humanitarian cargoes -- of course,
they are bringing in weapons," he told the BBC in an interview
on Tuesday, adding: "We're not trying to prevent it."

A White House spokesman rejected Medvedev's accusations of
U.S. ships bringing in weapons as "ridiculous".

Nevertheless, the Russian military said on Wednesday it was
monitoring the increasing number of NATO warships operating in
the Black Sea.

"Given the build-up of NATO forces in the Black Sea area,
the (Russian Black Sea) fleet has also begun taking measures to
monitor their activity," Anatoly Nogovitsyn, deputy chief of the
Russian military's General Staff, told a news briefing."

 

[NiceGuy]

Why the Felix Doctrine or a "War Plan For Total Victory" is necessary
Today, China has the military tools to ensure a Total Victory that will last 50 years. The Vietnamese will be destroyed and they will not challenge Chinese sovereignty over the South China Sea for two generations.

The Felix Doctrine, or a "War Plan For Total Victory," can be easily implemented. It will send a strong message to not just the Vietnamese, but the Filipinos and other American puppets that are trying to undermine China's historical thousand-year-old South China Sea sovereignty.

Modern China has precision-guided weapons that allow three months of "Rolling Thunder" to be easily accomplished. Another three months of ground operations and Hanoi will look like Libya's Misrata

But what happen if USA close the oil supply from Middle east to you when China open war against ASEAN ?? You will lose soon if having no oil supply .^^.

If war happend in East sea, food and resouces ship will be stuck and can not move to CHina also.^^,Chinese will get hungrry and willing for Jasmine revolution against Dictator regime.^^

 

[Martian2]

But what happen if USA close the oil supply from Middle east to you when China open war against ASEAN ?? You will lose soon if having no oil supply .^^.

If war happend in East sea, food and resouces ship will be stuck and can not move to CHina also.^^,Chinese will get hungrry and willing for Jasmine revolution against Dictator regime.^^

In that case, China seizes all Vietnamese domestic oil fields. Also, China pushes west via land. It will dispatch battalions of thermonuclear-armed troops to occupy Afghanistan. If the Afghans do not cooperate, China will also implement the Felix Doctrine and bring Afghanistan to its knees. An oil pipeline can be built from oil-rich Iran to China.

In any case, if the U.S. dares to interdict Chinese oil supplies form the Middle East, the world is headed for global thermonuclear war.

Therefore, you have to ask yourself, was the United States willing to impose an economic blockade on Russia over Georgia? Or did the United States beg Russia for a "reset?" Similarly, ask yourself of the likelihood that the United States is willing to risk its existence over a conquered Vietnam?

You seem confused. Vietnam is not Hawaii. Vietnam is not a core American interest. Georgia is an American ally and it was easily dispensable. Vietnam is far less important to the United States than Georgia.

----------

Civil.Ge | U.S. Official: ‘We are not Ignoring Georgia’

"U.S. Official: ‘We are not Ignoring Georgia’
Civil Georgia, Tbilisi / 11 Jun.'10 / 14:44

It remains the Obama administration’s foreign policy objective “to end Russian occupation” of parts of Georgian territory, although there is no progress in pursuing this objective, a senior White House adviser on Russia said on June 10.

Michael McFaul, the U.S. President’s special assistant and senior director for Russian and Eurasian affairs at the National Security Council, has strongly rejected a notion that Washington was abandoning Georgia, at the expense of hitting a reset button with Russia.

Speaking at Washington-based Peterson Institute for International Economics McFaul laid out key principles of the Obama administration’s reset policy with Russia saying that from the very start of his presidential tenure Obama’s “principle observation” was that the dangerous drift in the U.S.-Russia relations, which started even before “Russian invasion of Georgia” in August, 2008, was not in the Washington’s nation interests.

He said that most of the central challenges of the U.S. national interests were not at all at odds with those of the Russian Federation, including on issues like Afghanistan, nonproliferation, reducing nuclear arsenal.

McFaul said that an important part of the Obama administration’s Russia policy was “to deliberately avoid linkage between issue areas that have nothing to do with each other” – for example, he said, it was not a precondition to negotiate START treaty for release of Mikhail Khodorkovsky, imprisoned former Yukos oil tycoon.

As another example he brought Georgia’s case and said: “We are deliberately not pushing for the end of the occupation of Georgia to resubmit 123 agreement” – a peaceful nuclear treaty with Russia.

When President Obama resubmitted the treaty to the Congress on May 10 he wrote in the message to lawmakers that “the situation in Georgia need no longer be considered an obstacle to proceeding with the proposed Agreement.” Remarks were criticized by Obama’s former presidential challenger, senator John McCain, saying that such stance was fueling sentiments that Washington “is selling” Georgia “out to Moscow as the price of our ‘hitting the reset button’.”

But as McFaul said the Administration’s strategy “does not mean that we are ignoring Georgia… We are doing these things in parallel, but we are not linking them.”

At the same time, he said, the Administration was not “allowing our Russian colleagues to link things that they want to link.”

“So we are not ending our assistance to Georgia [and] throwing Georgians under the bus in the name of UN Security Council resolution – that was a proposition put to us a long time ago and we said: ‘we're not gonna play that game’,” McFaul said.

After speaking about the issues on which he thought progress had been achieved with Russia as part of reset policy, McFaul then listed areas where no progress was observed.

“On the top of my list are Georgia and democracy [in Russia],” McFaul said.

“Is it a foreign policy objective of the Obama administration to help end Russia’s occupation of Georgia in a peaceful manner and restore Georgia territorial integrity? Absolutely yes; that’s the objective we have. We have other goals with Georgia as well: we have a goal of enhancing stability in Georgia and in the region; we have a goal of enhancing democracy and we have a goal of enhancing economic growth in Georgia and we are doing all those things simultaneously.”

“Have we made progress on that central objective? My answer is ‘no’; we have not; that’s the truth. So we have the goal, we have the strategy that we are pursuing and we’ll pursue that when President Medvedev is here [this month]. And have we made real progress in restoring Georgia’s sovereignty? My answer is ‘no’.” he said.

Also on June 10, the U.S. Department of State spokesman, Philip J. Crowley, told a news briefing in Washington that Georgia and in particular situation in its breakaway regions remained a source of disagreement between the U.S. and Russia.

“We still do not see eye-to-eye on all aspects of that,” Crowley said. “We’ve certainly not forgotten what happened in the crisis between Georgia and Russia. We continue to make clear to Russia that the situation needs to change. And we continue to support Georgia in terms of its territorial integrity and its rights in the region.”

He also said that Washington was “actively engaged” with Russia on these issues.

“Regional security issues are an inherent part of our ongoing dialogue with Russia,” Crowley said."

 

[NiceGuy]

In that case, China seizes all Vietnamese domestic oil fields. Also, China pushes west via land. It will dispatch battalions of thermo-nuclear armed troops to occupy Afghanistan. If the Afghans do not cooperate, China will also implement the Felix Doctrine and bring Afghanistan to its knees. An oil pipeline can be built from oil-rich Iran to China.

In any case, if the U.S. dares to interdict Chinese oil supplies form the Middle East, the world is headed for global thermonuclear war.

Therefore, you have to ask yourself, was the United States willing to impose an economic blockade on Russia over Georgia? Or did the United States beg Russia for a "reset?" Similarly, ask yourself of the likelihood that the United States is willing to risk its existence over a conquered Vietnam?

You seem confused. Vietnam is not Hawaii. Vietnam is not a core American interest. Georgia is an American ally and it was easily dispensable. Vietnam is far less important to the United States than Georgia.

global thermonuclear war ?? are you China general or just melodramatic Chinese ??^^

Vietnam is not a core American interest.?? USA allow Vn to enrich Uranium that worrying China gov, pls note that.^^

US-Vietnam Nuke Deal Will Likely Allow Enrichment


WASHINGTON — The Obama administration has told US lawmakers that a nuclear cooperation deal with Vietnam is unlikely to include a promise by the Hanoi government not to enrich uranium, congressional aides say.

The United States had sought a no-enrichment pledge, which the State Department promotes as the "gold standard" for civilian nuclear cooperation accords.
...................

US-Vietnam Nuke Deal Will Likely Allow Enrichment

Even Korea, Japan can not have this right.^^

 

[Martian2]

global thermonuclear war ?? are you China general or just melodramatic Chinese ??^^

Vietnam is not a core American interest.?? USA allow Vn to enrich Uranium that worrying China gov, pls note that.^^
US-Vietnam Nuke Deal Will Likely Allow Enrichment

Even Korea, Japan can not have this right.^^

You are a fool if you do not think strangling China's Middle Eastern oil supply is the reddest of China's Red Lines. Once China's economy has been harmed and millions are unemployed, the CCP has little to lose. It will be time to wage global thermonuclear war on the rich Americans with $45,000 per-capita GDP.

In the end, except for you, most people would agree that rich Americans have a lot more reasons to want to stay alive than poor Chinese, who are only 1/10th as rich as Americans.

----------

Regarding the issue of whether China has an adequate number of nuclear ICBMs, I don't believe that this problem has been overlooked by the competent government of China.

1) China has the 5,000 KM "Underground Great Wall." You can hide a lot of ICBMs in a 5,000 KM underground facility. See http://forum./index.php?showtopic=86413

China's 5,000 KM "Underground Great Wall"

China's "Underground Great Wall" has massive tunnels to accommodate trains carrying nuclear ordnance.

China's "Underground Great Wall" has massive blast doors.

China's "Underground Great Wall" can simultaneously accommodate two trains and can switch tracks.

2) The 20 silo-based "city-buster" ICBMs (i.e. 1 to 4 megatons) alone can destroy 20 American cities. If you annihilate the top 20 American cities, you are talking about roughly 30 million dead plus nuclear fallout. This is called nuclear deterrence.

3) China has road-mobile and rail-mobile ICBM launchers.

China?s Nuclear Option | The Diplomat

"China’s Nuclear Option
April 26, 2010

By Richard Weitz

Chinese policymakers say the country’s rapidly modernizing nuclear force is nothing to fear. They could do more to prove it."

China's road-mobile ICBMs.

Rail-Mobile ICBMs enter Chinese arsenal

"Rail-Mobile ICBMs enter Chinese arsenal
Kanwa Information Center ^

Posted on Wednesday, April 23, 2003 11:19:59 PM by Filibuster_60

Kanwa was informed that the development of train-borne DF31 ICBM is already completed, and the deployment of these missiles has also been prepared. The development of DF31A, a upgraded version of DF31, has also already been completed.

In order to further enhance the mobile nuclear striking power and the capability to survive attacks, China has developed new types of DF31 series ICBMs similar to the former Soviet Union train-borne SS-24. In normal days, these missiles are moved along the railroads, while at time of war, they can be transported to selected sites and then launch nuclear assaults upon the enemy. DF31 is manufactured in Sichuan at Sichuan Areospace Industry Corporation. Reliable sources from China military industry say the major difference between DF31 and DF31A lies in their warheads. The former has single warhead, while the latter has multi-warheads."

4) China has Type 094 submarines carrying JL-2 SLBMs.

China's most-powerful Jin-class SSBN nuclear deterrent.

5) Nuclear-capable DH-10 cruise missiles have been added to the Chinese nuclear arsenal.

6) I'm not trying to beat a dead horse. However, for the sake of completeness, I want to point out that "It is likely that a number of PRC cargo ships carry CSS-9 missiles to act as a sea-based nuclear response/strike force."

http://www.missilethreat.com/missilesofthe...sile_detail.asp

"The CSS-9 is an effective strategic system that has significantly increased the PRC’s nuclear strike capabilities. Though the PRC’s land-based systems are unable to directly threaten much beyond the west coast of the United States, the CSS-9 is a modern ICBM system that threatens Russia and India, two major PRC rivals. However, the CSS-9 missile system can easily reach all of the US with the placement aboard cargo ships disguised as shipping containers. The self-contained launch system could easily be placed on a PRC ship and launched against targets in the US. It is likely that a number of PRC cargo ships carry CSS-9 missiles to act as a sea-based nuclear response/strike force. Similarly, these containers could be smuggled into and stored in PRC controlled warehouses throughout the Americas. The modular nature of these modern missile systems makes them extremely dangerous since they do not need to follow tradition missile tactics. Even with modern satellite systems, the combination of hidden road and cross-country mobile launchers, missile silos, and rail/ship launchers make it impossible to destroy most of these missiles prior to launch."

7) China is developing the HN-2000 stealth cruise missile with a terminal supersonic phase. Just like the DH-10 cruise missile, it is reasonable to expect that the HN-2000 will also be nuclear-capable. See http://project2049.net/documents/assassin_...ise_missile.pdf

"Global Strike and the Chinese Anti-Ship Cruise Missile: HN-2000

China is currently developing its next-generation cruise missile, the Hong Niao-2000 (HN-2000). This missile will reportedly be equipped with millimeter wave radar, infrared image mapping, laser radar, synthetic-aperture radar (SAR) and the Chinese Beidou satellite guidance system, for accuracies of 1-3 meters. This missile will also incorporate the latest stealth technologies and have a supersonic terminal flight phase, with an expected range of 4,000km."

8) Have you ever watched the movie "WarGames"? A nuclear war between Russia and the U.S. will cause both nations to launch an all-out attack on all countries of the world. Russia and the U.S. will not foolishly destroy only each other and let China become the de facto superpower.

Similarly, in a nuclear exchange between the U.S. and China, China has plenty of thermonuclear SRBMs and IRBMs (especially the ones located in Tibet). China will "wipe out" most Russian cities. In retaliation, the Russians will take everyone else with them. Just as it was depicted in WarGames, Russian nuclear missiles will radiate to every major city in the world. Everybody dies, except for the lucky few in underground military facilities built to withstand a nuclear war.

In essence, China can "borrow" the Russian nuclear arsenal in the final exchange against the U.S. The Russians are not going to let the U.S. become the de facto superpower survivor.

http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2008/05/extens...ntral-china.php

"Extensive Nuclear Missile Deployment Area Discovered in Central China

More than 50 launch pads for nuclear ballistic missiles have been identified scattered across a 2,000 square kilometer (772 square miles) area of central China, according to analysis of satellite images.

By Hans M. Kristensen

Analysis of new commercial satellite photos has identified an extensive deployment area with nearly 60 launch pads for medium-range nuclear ballistic missiles in Central China near Delingha and Da Qaidam.

The region has long been rumored to house nuclear missiles and I have previously described some of the facilities in a report and a blog. But the new analysis reveals a significantly larger deployment area than previously known, different types of launch pads, command and control facilities, and missile deployment equipment at a large facility in downtown Delingha.

The U.S. government often highlights China’s deployment of new mobile missiles as a concern but keeps the details secret, so the discovery of the deployment area provides the first opportunity for the public to better understand how China operates its mobile ballistic missiles."

http://rupeenews.com/2009/09/07/beijings-m...china-tensions/

"Beijing’s Missile in Tibet, & Hainan Naval base scare Delhi: Dramatic rise in India-China tensions

Posted on September 7, 2009 by Moin Ansari

The Chinese Red dragon’s reach has scared the pants off the Indian elephant. Many have predicted a war between India and China within the next few years. Some called that prediction alarmist. First there were repeated statements from Delhi that China was their biggest enemy and threat. Then news stories that China has built a huge infrastructure on the undefined and undemarcated Mcmohan line (the de factor border between India and China). Now the escalating tensions are sounding alarm bells around the world. The Federation of American Scientist has just published pictures of Chinese missiles which can target all of India. The incompetent intelligence agencies of India didn’t have a clue about the missiles. Any high school drop out could have paid a commercial satellite a nickel and gotten the pictures of the satellites. The fact that the FAS pictures has so unnerved Delhi that it has decided to form to new intelligence agencies is a subject of much discussion around the world..."

 

[Ryan]

Its not just Vietnam though is it buddy. Look at Phillipines and Brunie and Malaysia, the Chinese line is literally upto their shores. Even beyond the 200 NM EEZ which every country gets.

oops. Last time I checked the map and I found out that India has the faraway islands(hundreds miles away if not thousands) close to Thailand, Myanmar and Malaysia. Going with your logic, India should have ceded all those islands to other countries.

 

[NiceGuy]

You are a fool if you do not think strangling China's Middle Eastern oil supply is the reddest of China's Red Lines. Once China's economy has been harmed and millions are unemployed, the CCP has little to lose. It will be time to wage global thermonuclear war on the rich Americans with $45,000 per-capita GDP.
In the end, except for you, most people would agree that rich Americans have a lot more reasons to want to stay alive than poor Chinese, who are only 1/10th as rich as Americans.

----------

Regarding the issue of whether China has an adequate number of nuclear ICBMs, I don't believe that this problem has been overlooked by the competent government of China

Once China's economy has been harmed and millions are unemployed, the CCP has little to lose. It will be time to wage global thermonuclear war on the rich Americans with $45,000 per-capita GDP.

What can I say ?? your Gov is the Truly Evil of the worl !

btw: you are not the general .^^

 

[Martian2]

Once China's economy has been harmed and millions are unemployed, the CCP has little to lose. It will be time to wage global thermonuclear war on the rich Americans with $45,000 per-capita GDP.

What can I say ?? your Gov is the Truly Evil of the worl !

btw: you are not the general .^^

Give me a break. Everybody on this forum knows that the United States did not lift a finger to help its ally Georgia against Russia. The United States will do even less for Vietnam against China.

You seem naive and this may come as a shock to you. In a conflict between Vietnam and China, you are on your own. Just as in Georgia, the United States will lend a lot of verbal support (e.g. talk is cheap and free). When the PLA starts shooting, I guarantee you that you won't be able to find an American within 1,000 miles of the battlefield.

----------

Has China "crossed the multiple-warhead Rubicon"?

The old projections may have to be revised in the face of new information. Well-known analyst Richard Fisher, Jr. states: "While a worst-case estimate, there is good reason to consider that China's warhead numbers could exceed 500 by 2020."

DF-31As camouflaged

FISHER: China and START - Washington Times

"FISHER: China and START
Missile buildup may surpass U.S., Russia as they denuclearize
By Richard D. Fisher Jr. - The Washington Times 5:56 p.m., Wednesday, September 15, 2010

Might China someday have more nuclear warheads than the United States? Than Russia? Inconceivable as it may sound, this could come to pass, because China may just be starting a period of double- or triple-digit annual growth in its warhead numbers as the Obama administration sets its sights on further U.S. warhead reductions, with little hope that China will join a regime of negotiated nuclear stability. But even if it did, would nuclear "parity" with China be in America's interest?

The new START Treaty signed in May commits the United States and Russia to a "parity" that reduces deployed nuclear warheads from 2,200 to 1,550 and reduces to 700 the number of deployed nuclear delivery vehicles. However, President Obama has made clear his intention to seek further reductions; late 2009 leaks to the press suggested further goals of 1,000 warheads or even fewer.

Since it started deploying intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) in the 1980s, China has refused to join in nuclear weapons negotiations. This did not matter as long as China deployed a small number, about 20 liquid-fueled 13,000-kilometer-range DF-5s with single warheads, until early this decade. Furthermore, China had lulled many analysts by regularly suggesting that it adheres to a doctrine of "minimum deterrence" that abjures U.S.- or Russian-level warhead numbers. But China has also rejected U.S. and Soviet levels of nuclear "transparency" as part of its deterrence calculus, with the result that nobody knows its nuclear force goals.

China began modernizing its nuclear missile forces by mid-decade, replacing early DF-5s with a similar number of improved DF-5A missiles based in stationary silos and deploying the new 7,000-to-8,000-kilometer-range, solid-fueled and mobile DF-31 and the larger 11,200-plus-kilometer-range DF-31A. In its latest report to the Congress on China's military released on Aug. 16, the Pentagon says there are less than 10 DF-31 and "10-15" DF-31A ICBMs, up to five more than reported in the previous year's report, covering 2008. However, in the 2010 issue of "Military Balance," Britain's International Institute of Strategic Studies notes there is one brigade of 12 DF-31s and two brigades or 24 DF-31A ICBMs, indicating a possible increase of one new brigade from 2008 to 2009.

In addition, China may be close to fielding two more long-range nuclear missiles. First is the new 7,200-plus-kilometer-range JL-2 submarine-launched ballistic missile. Though reported to be experiencing developmental challenges, when completed, 12 each will go on the new Type 094 nuclear ballistic missile submarine, which the Pentagon estimates will number at least five, for a potential total of 60 missiles. Then there is a new yet-unidentified larger ground-mobile ICBM which has been revealed in Chinese Internet-source images since 2007, but which the Pentagon did not publicly acknowledge until its latest China report. The distinguishing feature of the "DF-XX" is its use of a large 16-wheel Russian-style transporter-erector-launcher (TEL), likely derived from Russian-Belarus technology imported in the late 1990s.

But here is where the real danger begins: The Pentagon also notes this new ICBM is "possibly capable of carrying multiple independently targeted re-entry vehicles (MIRV)." Starting in 2002, the Pentagon's China report noted the People's Liberation Army's (PLA) interest in developing multiple warheads, with more explicit language being used in the 2009 and 2010 reports. Might some PLA ICBMs already have multiple warheads? This analyst has been told by Asian military sources that the DF-31A already carries three warheads and that one deployed DF-5B carries five or six warheads. These sources speculate the new "DF-XX" may carry a similar number of warheads.

While it is not possible to confirm these disclosures from open sources, they point to an alarming possibility: China has crossed the multiple-warhead Rubicon and, with the possibility that it can build one brigade of DF-31A and DF-XX ICBMs a year, could be capable of annual double- or triple-digit increases in its deployed nuclear warheads. Chinese sources also suggest interest in developing longer-range versions of the JL-2, which could also be MIRV-capable. While a worst-case estimate, there is good reason to consider that China's warhead numbers could exceed 500 by 2020.

In addition, China may also be on its way to fielding a national missile-defense system by the 2020s. Its recent, successful Jan. 11 missile warhead interception test marks the culmination of China's second anti-ballistic missile (ABM) program; the first was ordered started by Mao Zedong in 1963 and was pursued until 1980. This stands in contrast with years of howling complaints by Chinese diplomats against American missile-defense programs and their fervent campaigning to ban outer-space weapons. Was this merely deception designed to limit American defensive programs while China gathered the capacity to pursue its own ABM and space-warfare programs?

These potential trends would logically cause one to ask: Why not talk to the Chinese about their nuclear strategic plans? Indeed, the administration's April Nuclear Posture Review calls for "strategic assurance dialogues" with China. However, not only has China traditionally rejected any "negotiations" regarding its nuclear forces, it won't even send its main nuclear missile forces commander on a courtesy visit to the United States. Normal military-to-military dialogue is regularly held hostage to Washington ending arms sales to democratic Taiwan.

But there is a deeper basic conflict: China wants to displace U.S. strategic leadership in Asia and is building military forces capable of defending its global interests, even if that means challenging the United States well beyond Asia. So until China achieves its desired level of global power, which may not include concepts of "parity," China may have no interest in "negotiations" that limit or even inform others about its nuclear weapons plans.

But even if the United States and China could agree on nuclear parity, that may come at the cost of America's Asian alliances. A larger and defended Chinese nuclear arsenal could greatly undermine the U.S. ability to extend its nuclear deterrent, accelerating the process of decoupling the United States from key allies like Japan, South Korea and Australia. America's ability to deter China will decline further when the administration implements its Nuclear Posture Review decision to retire U.S. nuclear-armed TLAM-N cruise missiles carried by secure U.S. submarines, replacing them with tactical nuclear bombs carried by more vulnerable U.S. jet fighters. And then one must consider Russia and its increasing political-military cooperation with China. Might Russia someday "tilt" its nuclear forces with China's to dissuade the United States from defending a future vital interest?

Countries like Taiwan, South Korea, Japan and India are today facing increased Chinese military pressures. They and the United States are also increasingly pressed to fund conventional military forces needed to deter China. It is indeed legitimate to ask if the current START Treaty gives the United States the ability to deter both Russia and a China just starting its strategic nuclear buildup. Furthermore, might START and intended follow-on agreements bring Asia closer to an era of nuclear proliferation and unforeseen instability?

Richard D. Fisher Jr. is a senior fellow with the International Assessment and Strategy Center and author of "China's Military Modernization, Building for Regional and Global Reach" (Praeger, 2008)."

----------

No nuclear limit: China

(Range of China's defensive thermonuclear missiles)

http://www.theage.com.au/world/no-nuclear-...0227-1ba0l.html

"No nuclear limit: China
Philip Dorling
February 28, 2011

HIGH-RANKING Chinese officials have declared that there can be no limit to the expansion of Beijing's nuclear arsenal, amid growing regional fears that it will eventually equal that of the United States, with profound consequences for the strategic balance in Asia.

Records of secret defence consultations between the US and China reveal that US diplomats have repeatedly failed to persuade the rising superpower to be more transparent about its nuclear forces and that Chinese officials privately admit that a desire for military advantage underpins continuing secrecy.

According to US diplomatic cables obtained by WikiLeaks and provided exclusively to The Age, the deputy chief of China's People's Liberation Army General Staff, Ma Xiaotian, told US Defence and State Department officials in June 2008 that the growth of China's nuclear forces was an ''imperative reality'' and there could be "no limit on technical progress''.

Rejecting American calls for China to reveal the size of its nuclear capabilities, Lieutenant-General Ma bluntly declared: ''It is impossible for [China] to change its decades-old way of doing business to become transparent using the US model.''

While claiming in a further July 2009 discussion that Beijing's nuclear posture has "always been defensive'' and that China would "never enter into a nuclear arms race", General Ma acknowledged that, "frankly speaking, there are areas of China's nuclear program that are not very transparent''.

China's assistant foreign minister He Yafei similarly told US officials in June 2008 that there will be an ''inevitable and natural extension'' of Chinese military power and that China ''cannot accept others setting limits on our capabilities''.
...
The International Institute for Strategic Studies estimates China has up to 90 intercontinental ballistic missiles (66 land-based and 24 submarine-launched) and more than 400 intermediate range missiles targeting Taiwan and Japan. The US intelligence community predicts that by the mid-2020s, China could double the number of warheads on missiles capable of threatening the US."

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

China has minimum 2000 strategic warheads, so deal with it.

 

[NiceGuy]

Give me a break. Everybody on this forum knows that the United States did not lift a finger to help its ally Georgia against Russia. The United States will do even less for Vietnam against China.

You seem naive and this may come as a shock to you. In a conflict between Vietnam and China, you are on your own. Just as in Georgia, the United States will lend a lot of verbal support (e.g. talk is cheap and free). When the PLA starts shooting, I guarantee you that you won't be able to find an American within 1,000 miles of the battlefield.

Bro, I only shock when you take your poor and unemployee Chinese as the reason of thermonuclear war.^^. Do your gov think so ??or it's better to step down, and new civilized China regime will replace.^^.

If in normal war, China will lose, coz we strong enought and lots of experience when China is inexperience. But for the thermonuclear war , we don't know. and don't care .^^.

We will thing again when your gov Threaten the world with this one .^^

 

[rcrmj]

Bro, I only shock when you take your poor and unemployee Chinese as the reason of thermonuclear war.^^. Do your gov think so ??or it's better to step down, and new civilized China regime will replace.^^.

If in normal war, China will lose, coz we strong enought and lots of experience when China is inexperience. But for the thermonuclear war , we don't know. and don't care .^^.

We will thing again when your gov Threaten the world with this one .^^

everything is based on your rediculous assumption that america will get itself involved in south china sea for vietname``lol

p.s vietman never won a normal war, but the incompetent vietcon pushes innocent civilians to engage the dirty suiciding guerilla war. so its safe to say vietnam is very eperienced at dirty wars, but in a civilized modern war to vietnam is a far distance dream.

you better check those documentaries about vietnam war how those poor captured american soldiers being tortured and killed by those immoral vietcons.

 

[Martian2]

Chinese military power is far more formidable than the United States is willing to admit in public. It is in the strategic interest of the United States to avoid a confrontation with China over non-core issues. Today, this means the U.S. is hinting that it is willing to exclude the Daiyou/Senkaku islands from the U.S.-Japan defense treaty.

The U.S. pledge to defend the Japanese homeland is credible. However, realpolitik strategists do not seriously believe the United States is willing to become entangled in a border war between China and Japan over some islands.

China is militarily strong and they will become unimaginably strong in the coming decades. Think of fleets of hundreds of China's J-20 Mighty Dragon stealth fighters flying overhead in 15 years. China will not permit the United States to help the Japanese steal Chinese territory. Intervention in Daiyou/Senkaku dispute means endless war over generations. China will not relent and will ultimately prevail.

In the final analysis, the United States is unsure about the extent that it is willing to defend Japan. U.S. knows Japan stole China's Daiyou Islands at gunpoint in 1895. The Chinese are not going to let this go. Japan is the most important American ally in Asia, but there are limits to the American-Japan defense treaty.

Vietnam is not an ally of the United States. Also, Vietnam has never had a defense treaty with the U.S. Considering the limit of U.S. willingness to support Japan in a confrontation with China, it is laughable to claim the U.S. is willing to engage in a major military confrontation with China on behalf of Vietnam or take steps "to irritate Beijing."

U.S. not to state security pact with Japan covers Senkaku Islands ? Japan Today: Japan News and Discussion

"U.S. not to state security pact with Japan covers Senkaku Islands
Tuesday 23rd August, 03:04 AM JST
(2010 Kyodo News)

WASHINGTON —

The U.S. administration of President Barack Obama has decided not to state explicitly that islands disputed by Japan and China in the East China Sea are subject to the Japan-U.S. security treaty, in a shift from the position held by former President George W. Bush, sources familiar with the matter said Monday.

Although the U.S. government has not officially changed its stance that the Japan-U.S. pact applies to the islands, known in China as the Diaoyu, the shift from making a direct reference to them could become a source of concern for Tokyo as it addresses the dispute with Beijing, the sources said.

The U.S. administration has already notified the Japanese government of the change in its policy, but Tokyo may have to take countermeasures in light of China’s increasing activities in the East China Sea, according to the sources.

Japan’s concern over the uninhabited islands became heightened when a Chinese oceanographic research vessel entered Japanese territorial waters near the islands in December 2008, shortly before the launch of the Obama administration.

The Obama government, however, had decided from the start not to state explicitly that the Japan-U.S. security pact applies to the islands, the sources said.

Washington is believed to have shifted position so as not to irritate Beijing as it wanted to secure cooperation in the U.S. economy’s recovery from the financial crisis, the sources said.

In March 2004, then U.S. State Department deputy spokesman Adam Ereli told a press briefing, ‘‘The Senkaku Islands have been under the administrative control of the government of Japan since having been returned as part of the reversion of Okinawa in 1972.’‘

The spokesman also said, ‘‘Article 5 of the 1960 U.S.-Japan Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security states that the treaty applies to the territories under the administration of Japan; thus Article 5 of the Mutual Security Treaty applies to the Senkaku Islands.’‘

When the Japanese government sought confirmation of the U.S. position on the islands in March last year, the Obama administration said the islands have been under Japanese administrative control since the 1972 reversion and the Japan-U.S. security pact applies to territories under Japanese administration, but it did not mention directly that the Senkaku Islands are subject to the pact, the sources said.

Japan’s then Chief Cabinet Secretary Takeo Kawamura announced at the time that the U.S. position on the matter remained unchanged.

In response to a recent inquiry by Kyodo News, the State Department also said the U.S. position on the issue 'is longstanding and has not changed."’

 

[HongWu]

Today, China has the military tools to ensure a Total Victory that will last 50 years. The Vietnamese will be destroyed and they will not challenge Chinese sovereignty over the South China Sea for two generations.

The Felix Doctrine, or a "War Plan For Total Victory," can be easily implemented. It will send a strong message to not just the Vietnamese, but the Filipinos and other American puppets that are trying to undermine China's historical thousand-year-old South China Sea sovereignty.

Modern China has precision-guided weapons that allow three months of "Rolling Thunder" to be easily accomplished. Another three months of ground operations and Hanoi will look like Libya's Misrata.

Agent Orange - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[A1Kaid]

I personally would like to see a diplomatic and peaceful resolution to China and Vietnam's dispute over Spratly Islands in the South China Sea. Military action should definitely be the last option. Perhaps, China and Vietnam can compromise with both countries taking ownership and control of some of the islands.

China being the greater power here should resist temptation for war with Vietnam, it doesn't serve Asian interest.

 

[Speeder 2]

everything is based on your rediculous assumption that america will get itself involved in south china sea for vietname``lol

p.s vietman never won a normal war, but the incompetent vietcon pushes innocent civilians to engage the dirty suiciding guerilla war. so its safe to say vietnam is very eperienced at dirty wars, but in a civilized modern war to vietnam is a far distance dream.

you better check those documentaries about vietnam war how those poor captured american soldiers being tortured and killed by those immoral vietcons.

vietcong's war strategy, I suspect, has been developed by its ethnic Chinese strategists in Vietnam all along, especially when you look at the war against the U.S. when the Vietcoog's "People's War", for example, was a direct copy/paste of Mao's in the Chinese Civil War vs. the Nationalists.

.