Chinese General Threatens Use of A-Bombs if U.S. Intrudes
-
What a comment~
New York Times 15 July,2005
Chinese General Threatens Use of A-Bombs if U.S. Intrudes
BEIJING, Friday, July 15 - China should use nuclear weapons against the United States if the American military intervenes in any conflict over Taiwan, a senior Chinese military official said Thursday.
"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," the official, Maj. Gen. Zhu Chenghu, said at an official briefing.
General Zhu, considered a hawk, stressed that his comments reflected his personal views and not official policy. Beijing has long insisted that it will not initiate the use of nuclear weapons in any conflict.
But in extensive comments to a visiting delegation of correspondents based in Hong Kong, General Zhu said he believed that the Chinese government was under internal pressure to change its "no first use" policy and to make clear that it would employ the most powerful weapons at its disposal to defend its claim over Taiwan.
"War logic" dictates that a weaker power needs to use maximum efforts to defeat a stronger rival, he said, speaking in fluent English. "We have no capability to fight a conventional war against the United States," General Zhu said. "We can't win this kind of war."
Whether or not the comments signal a shift in Chinese policy, they come at a sensitive time in relations between China and the United States.
The Pentagon is preparing the release of a long-delayed report on the Chinese military that some experts say will warn that China could emerge as a strategic rival to the United States. National security concerns have also been a major issue in the $18.5 billion bid by Cnooc Ltd., a major Chinese oil and gas company, to purchase the Unocal Corporation, the American energy concern.
China has had atomic bombs since 1964 and currently has a small arsenal of land- and sea-based nuclear-tipped missiles that can reach the United States, according to most Western intelligence estimates. Some Pentagon officials have argued that China has been expanding the size and sophistication of its nuclear bombs and delivery systems, while others argue that Beijing has done little more than maintain a minimal but credible deterrent against a nuclear attack.
Beijing has said repeatedly that it would use military force to prevent Taiwan from becoming a formally independent country. President Bush has made clear that the United States would defend Taiwan.
Many military analysts have assumed that any battle over Taiwan would be localized, with both China and the United States taking care to ensure that it would not expand into a general war between the two powers.
But the comments by General Zhu suggest that at least some elements of the military are prepared to widen the conflict, perhaps to persuade the United States that it could no more successfully fight a limited war against China than it could against the former Soviet Union.
"If the Americans are determined to interfere, then we will be determined to respond," he said. "We Chinese will prepare ourselves for the destruction of all the cities east of Xian. Of course the Americans will have to be prepared that hundreds of cities will be destroyed by the Chinese."
General Zhu's threat is not the first of its kind from a senior Chinese military official. In 1995, Xiong Guangkai, who is now the deputy chief of the general staff of the People's Liberation Army, told Chas W. Freeman, a former Pentagon official, that China would consider using nuclear weapons in a Taiwan conflict. Mr. Freeman quoted Mr. Xiong as saying that Americans should worry more about Los Angeles than Taipei.
Foreign Ministry officials did not immediately respond to requests for comment about General Zhu's remarks.
General Zhu said he had recently expressed his views to former American officials, including Mr. Freeman and Adm. Dennis C. Blair, the former commander in chief of the United States Pacific Command. -
The end of the world started when ppl press the buttons which they should not have.
It is clearly stated in the comics (Fist of the North Star), movies (Mad Max) etc since early 1980s.
Once all the natural resource are all destroyed, ppl will kill each other for food and water.
Nuclear? Will kill themselves too.
Shd know better than that. -
about 400 nukes to start a nuclear winter. 26 minutes for a ICBM to reach it's target and explodes. 6 minutes for a SLBM to reach it's target. Both nations have started to have underground cities so no worries if really bomb each other.
-
it's about time to end this stupid world we have now and start all over again..
-
time for red alert 3.China vs US
-
those hiding in cavern cities will be the new masters, the world will not end unless the planet explodes.Originally posted by I-like-flings(m):it's about time to end this stupid world we have now and start all over again.. -
We should start worrying about what possible effect such a scenario will have in our already unstable region. First, there is North Korea, now Taiwan.
-
US really itched by this "brave-heart" PLA general's Nuclear seasoned comments:
US calls Chinese general's nuclear threat 'irresponsible'
http://www.forbes.com/finance/feeds/afx/2005/07/15/afx2141431.html
07.15.2005, 03:30 PM
WASHINGTON (AFX) - The US shrugged off as 'irresponsible' a reported threat by a Chinese general to use nuclear weapons if attacked by the US in a conflict over Taiwan.
State Department spokesman Sean McCormack called the remarks attributed to General Zhu Chenghu 'unfortunate' and said he hoped they did not reflect the views of the Chinese government.
'I haven't seen all the remarks but what I've seen of them, I'll say that they're irresponsible,' McCormack told reporters.
The Financial Times and the Asian Wall Street Journal on Friday quoted Zhu, a professor at China's National Defence University, as issuing the threat at a briefing organised by a private Hong Kong organisation.
pm/tw/jc -
i think Singapore should also defend Taiwan........use some of the military trucks and tanks...and lent USA out hotwitzer.....
-
and this island will sink..so many nukesOriginally posted by ceecookie:i think Singapore should also defend Taiwan........use some of the military trucks and tanks...and lent USA out hotwitzer.....
use your brain dumbo -
Originally posted by 38�Ž:
Actually , China's nuclear missiles will not be a threat in 10 years time.
What a comment~
New York Times 15 July,2005
[b]Chinese General Threatens Use of A-Bombs if U.S. Intrudes
BEIJING, Friday, July 15 - China should use nuclear weapons against the United States if the American military intervenes in any conflict over Taiwan, a senior Chinese military official said Thursday.
"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," the official, Maj. Gen. Zhu Chenghu, said at an official briefing.
General Zhu, considered a hawk, stressed that his comments reflected his personal views and not official policy. Beijing has long insisted that it will not initiate the use of nuclear weapons in any conflict.
But in extensive comments to a visiting delegation of correspondents based in Hong Kong, General Zhu said he believed that the Chinese government was under internal pressure to change its "no first use" policy and to make clear that it would employ the most powerful weapons at its disposal to defend its claim over Taiwan.
"War logic" dictates that a weaker power needs to use maximum efforts to defeat a stronger rival, he said, speaking in fluent English. "We have no capability to fight a conventional war against the United States," General Zhu said. "We can't win this kind of war."
Whether or not the comments signal a shift in Chinese policy, they come at a sensitive time in relations between China and the United States.
The Pentagon is preparing the release of a long-delayed report on the Chinese military that some experts say will warn that China could emerge as a strategic rival to the United States. National security concerns have also been a major issue in the $18.5 billion bid by Cnooc Ltd., a major Chinese oil and gas company, to purchase the Unocal Corporation, the American energy concern.
China has had atomic bombs since 1964 and currently has a small arsenal of land- and sea-based nuclear-tipped missiles that can reach the United States, according to most Western intelligence estimates. Some Pentagon officials have argued that China has been expanding the size and sophistication of its nuclear bombs and delivery systems, while others argue that Beijing has done little more than maintain a minimal but credible deterrent against a nuclear attack.
Beijing has said repeatedly that it would use military force to prevent Taiwan from becoming a formally independent country. President Bush has made clear that the United States would defend Taiwan.
Many military analysts have assumed that any battle over Taiwan would be localized, with both China and the United States taking care to ensure that it would not expand into a general war between the two powers.
But the comments by General Zhu suggest that at least some elements of the military are prepared to widen the conflict, perhaps to persuade the United States that it could no more successfully fight a limited war against China than it could against the former Soviet Union.
"If the Americans are determined to interfere, then we will be determined to respond," he said. "We Chinese will prepare ourselves for the destruction of all the cities east of Xian. Of course the Americans will have to be prepared that hundreds of cities will be destroyed by the Chinese."
General Zhu's threat is not the first of its kind from a senior Chinese military official. In 1995, Xiong Guangkai, who is now the deputy chief of the general staff of the People's Liberation Army, told Chas W. Freeman, a former Pentagon official, that China would consider using nuclear weapons in a Taiwan conflict. Mr. Freeman quoted Mr. Xiong as saying that Americans should worry more about Los Angeles than Taipei.
Foreign Ministry officials did not immediately respond to requests for comment about General Zhu's remarks.
General Zhu said he had recently expressed his views to former American officials, including Mr. Freeman and Adm. Dennis C. Blair, the former commander in chief of the United States Pacific Command.
[/b]
With PAC-III missiles , Arrow ABM-launcher , you think USA give a damn?
especially when they have those satellite laser stuffs.
Especially if China wants to attack USA with it's nukes , it's nukes has to go past Pearl Harbor...which poses another problem...
USA didn't spend billions and billions on anti ballistic missile technology for nothing.
Threat dismissed
-
I rather China doesn't reunite with Taiwan , so violent.
President Hu once said , "to truly love taiwan is to block independence"
All of us knows that to love someone , you have to give the person the freedom to choose. -
Ya, lend out Hotwitzer, then the Yankees fire the Nuke shell with them. and let u experience the artificial winter in S'pore ever in a lifetime, right?Originally posted by ceecookie:i think Singapore should also defend Taiwan........use some of the military trucks and tanks...and lent USA out hotwitzer.....
Just barely 1 month ago, China tested fire a new 6000 mile range SSBN launched ICBM , That may contribute to this General's tough tone 1 month later...
China has successfully flight-tested a submarine-launched missile -
Their submarine will have to go through the huge amount of P3-C Orions passing through the whole area, in order to go some safe place to fire
I remember once , their submarine instrude into another countries's waters and got detected. -
But don't forget the 1 being detected is an old 1980 era 091 type Submarine. the newer 1 will be much quiet 094SSBN , and as the nature of the SSBN, such type submarine won't sail near to the enermy naval base like that old 091 attack submarine did
-
LOL!!! PAC III and Arrow can only stop Ballistic Missile like Scud -D....but not ICBM. So far all attempt by US to create a anti-ICBM shield fail. The new system which is in trial is tested only on a single war-head. What happen if China lauched MIRV warhead with decoy hitting the same target?Originally posted by SMAPLionHeart:Actually , China's nuclear missiles will not be a threat in 10 years time.
With PAC-III missiles , Arrow ABM-launcher , you think USA give a damn?
especially when they have those satellite laser stuffs.
Especially if China wants to attack USA with it's nukes , it's nukes has to go past Pearl Harbor...which poses another problem...
USA didn't spend billions and billions on anti ballistic missile technology for nothing.
Threat dismissed -
ICBM =intercontinental ballistic missileOriginally posted by zenden9:LOL!!! PAC III and Arrow can only stop Ballistic Missile like Scud -D....but not ICBM. So far all attempt by US to create a anti-ICBM shield fail. The new system which is in trial is tested only on a single war-head. What happen if China lauched MIRV warhead with decoy hitting the same target?
Scud-B is also a form of ballistic missile , well , i have to agree with you
"An ICBM differs little technically from other ballistic missiles such as intermediate-range ballistic missiles, short-range ballistic missiles, or the newly named theater ballistic missiles; these are differentiated only by maximum range"
For defense against short-range missiles, see Arrow missile, MIM-104 Patriot, Aster 15 or Crotale missile.
The Reagan-era Strategic Defense Initiative (better known as "Star Wars"), along with research into various energy-beam weaponry, brought new interest in the area of ABM technologies. Extensive research and some experiments proved that several concepts for space-based systems (X-Ray Lasers, "brilliant pebbles", etc) were not feasible with then-current technology.
Nothing was deployed operationally until Patriot antiaircraft missiles were used in the 1991 Gulf War to attempt to intercept Iraqi Scud missiles. Post-war analyses show that the Patriot was largely ineffective because of the limited range of its radar and the control system's inability to discriminate payloads from other objects when the Scud missiles broke up (or were broken up -- it's not clear which) during reentry. On the other hand, the Scud itself was highly inaccurate and not very reliable. It was more a psychological than real threat to military targets. Theodore Postol of MIT wrote a study which concluded that the Patriot (originally designed, like the early Nike systems, as an anti-aircraft system) may not have hit a single Scud.
"
So what ive figured is that , is PAC-III the most advanced weapon USA got against ballistic missiles?
USA is doomed.. -
If anything fails , we can always ask LaserLordz to pilot a fighter jet aka
F/A-18 hornet suiciding on alien warship in independence day style , to crash onto the incoming missile
or use the star wars defense system? -
Originally posted by SMAPLionHeart:Threat dismissed
Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes
you are a dumbFuck.Originally posted by SMAPLionHeart: USA is doomed.. -
obviouslyOriginally posted by the.raven:you are a dumbFuck. -
China land based missile strike force? China missiles are all mobile missiles for your info and are not fixed at a location. They are all towed. Impossible to get them at the first strike so the attacker must prepared to eat some nukes.
Do you know the speed of the ICBM and SLBM travelling speed? China has upgraded them from liquid fuel to solid fuel which means they are travelling at Mach speeds.
Try stopping a missile when it can split to 13 warheads travelling at Mach speeds.
And ICBM usually fly up to space near the orbital path where common anti missile can't reach and re-enter the atmosphere at mach speeds to reach it's target. They are mostly designed to burst at 100m above ground level for maximum casualty. -
Let's choose this official announcement from US Missile Defense Agency(MBA) to address your wild thinking.Originally posted by SMAPLionHeart:Actually , China's nuclear missiles will not be a threat in 10 years time.
With PAC-III missiles , Arrow ABM-launcher , you think USA give a damn?
especially when they have those satellite laser stuffs.
Especially if China wants to attack USA with it's nukes , it's nukes has to go past Pearl Harbor...which poses another problem...
USA didn't spend billions and billions on anti ballistic missile technology for nothing.
Threat dismissed
MDA: BMD Ineffective Against Russia and China
http://www.missilethreat.com/news/200411241037.html
November 24, 2004 :: News
In a recent letter to the Kodiak Mirror newspaper, Missile Defense Agency spokesman Rick Lehner corrected a previous opinion piece which had asserted that the MDA is “preparing to launch lasers and interceptors into earth orbit.” Lehner pointed out that no such space-based systems are even contemplated and that the space-based laser research office “was shut down more than three years ago.” On November 18, Lehner confirmed as well the very limited character and capability of the systems which are being deployed this year. Lehner said quite simply that “this missile defense system being deployed is not a threat to either the Russian or the Chinese strategic deterrent force.”
Lehner accurately presents official policy, but this points to the problem with current policy. It is true that the United States is not seeking to deploy a strategic defense, and that it is specifically avoiding the space-based systems useful to that end. The arms controllers who vehemently opposed Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative are therefore wrong to attack the system and policy as such. The systems currently under development would still preserve a policy of mutually assured destruction, permitting enemy missiles to have a “free ride” to our territory and citizens.
The beginning of a limited deployment this year in Alaska and California is an important first step, but it is essential that such deployment be followed up with more ambitious and capable systems. Specifically, the proper direction for future missile defense should be toward space-based interceptors designed to counter the strategic threat posed by Russia and China.
Why should China's Strategy force's missile necessarily over fly Pearl Harbor? WhatÂ’s the purpose for PLA to deploy 094 SSBN? Why the new nuclear Submarine base is built in southern Hainan Island instead of Northern China. ItÂ’s all because such arrangement makes the PLA easily launch an attack from all directions and avoid passing by the Pearl Harbor or Guam where got heavy US force deployment. ThereÂ’r just too many wormholes in the waterway between Taiwan and Philippine for the modern and quiet 094 SSBN to sneak into vast pacific ocean, where the SSBN could comfortable find a unnoticed corner and surpass the American BMD mainly existing at north -
Of course PAC-3 is not designed to intercept ICBM .Originally posted by SMAPLionHeart:ICBM =intercontinental ballistic missile
Scud-B is also a form of ballistic missile , well , i have to agree with you
"An ICBM differs little technically from other ballistic missiles such as intermediate-range ballistic missiles, short-range ballistic missiles, or the newly named theater ballistic missiles; these are differentiated only by maximum range"
For defense against short-range missiles, see Arrow missile, MIM-104 Patriot, Aster 15 or Crotale missile.
The Reagan-era Strategic Defense Initiative (better known as "Star Wars"), along with research into various energy-beam weaponry, brought new interest in the area of ABM technologies. Extensive research and some experiments proved that several concepts for space-based systems (X-Ray Lasers, "brilliant pebbles", etc) were not feasible with then-current technology.
Nothing was deployed operationally until Patriot antiaircraft missiles were used in the 1991 Gulf War to attempt to intercept Iraqi Scud missiles. Post-war analyses show that the Patriot was largely ineffective because of the limited range of its radar and the control system's inability to discriminate payloads from other objects when the Scud missiles broke up (or were broken up -- it's not clear which) during reentry. On the other hand, the Scud itself was highly inaccurate and not very reliable. It was more a psychological than real threat to military targets. Theodore Postol of MIT wrote a study which concluded that the Patriot (originally designed, like the early Nike systems, as an anti-aircraft system) may not have hit a single Scud.
"
So what ive figured is that , is PAC-III the most advanced weapon USA got against ballistic missiles? USA is doomed..
1). ICBM's terminal speed when it re-enters the air is ultra-high, usually over 6M, this makes PAC-3 almost impossible to intercept
2). Because of PAC-3 relatively short range, even when the ICBM carries Nuke being successfully intercepted by PAC-3, the damage caused by the Nuke exploded in mid air or in the ground will be not too much in difference.
The US relies on the " Theater High Altitude Air Defense" like Aegis + SM3 to intercept such ICBM. -
Thankfully the military dun run the show. Too many idiots in high places nowadays. In fact, dun have to look far for one as well. There's alot of them in these forums too.
-
This forum is called military NUTS