Do you approve a first-strike US nuclear attack against China if they invade Taiwan?

[the nature boy]

BTW tell me. What was worst: Chili under Pinochet (or Cuba under Batista) or China under the current gov. ?

they're both bad. but the difference is that the US had a hand in pinochet getting and maintaining his power.

 

[spongebob]

The BUSH administrations SUCKS!!!!!. If it benefits corporate AMERICA enough they'll use a nuke. If its the only way to secure the land for a future oil pipeline they'll use a nuke. (you don't really think the "WAR ON TERRORISM " is about terrorism do you????)

i dunno, whats it about?

 

[buddy28]

and what did we get for isolationism,...pearl harbor....and full scale involvement in WW2.

Sponge,

Interesting point. However, its doubtfull an unfettered Chinese invasion of Taiwan by American forces would encourage further Chinese terratorial aggression.

Posted earlier, Taiwan has been part of China for the past 5000 years. Cold war geopolitical strategy prompted military aid for countries which espoused desired political ideologies. Taiwan nationalism was seen as a fertile breeding ground for American democracy, so the American government channeled money to Taiwan to support their selfproclaimed indepedance from mainland China.

Im all for democracy, however, their comes a point when private matters need to be left to the parties involved. Would Cold War America allow Texas or California to proclaim communist indepedance after recieving massive financial aid from the Soviets?

Not a chance. So why is Bush threatening to defend Taiwan? It certainly doesnt create the foundation a harmonious relationship.

 

[primetime21]

hahahahahah, you guys are so funny. Sure the US will use nuclear weapons if china invades taiwan!!! because then the chinese will nuke NY and DC and Calif etc, pretty much ending the US as we know it. These are just scare tacticts that EVERY administration has used since the advent of nuclear weapons. Every administration has had the exact same power to the exact same thing!! even your boy clinton had the power to bomb china. Its called being the commander in chief. So do me a favor and calm down......."US nuking china" that is classic!!!!

 

[spongebob]

Sponge,

Interesting point. However, its doubtfull an unfettered Chinese invasion of Taiwan by American forces would encourage further Chinese terratorial aggression.

Posted earlier, Taiwan has been part of China for the past 5000 years. Cold war geopolitical strategy prompted military aid for countries which espoused desired political ideologies. Taiwan nationalism was seen as a fertile breeding ground for American democracy, so the American government channeled money to Taiwan to support their selfproclaimed indepedance from mainland China.

i would have to agree, but things arent done overnight. we didnt go to sleep dec. 6th 1941 and wake the next day with germany having conquered most of europe and about to kick englands ass and japan inside china. there were numerous events that led up to this point that if were challenged early on may have prevented WW2.

in 1931 the japanese occupied northern china. did we care? no.
in 1933, germany withdrew from the league of nations and began re-arming in 1935. did we care? no.
in 1922, mussolini introduced fascism in italy.

little things can lead to big things.

just as germany and japan had a secrete pact, so to can china and another country. so although we may believe that china is not a major territorial threat, you never know who is conspiring to do what at any given time.

these are just counterpoints for discussion, i believe in isolationism. only when attacked, attack.

one last point, when japan occupied manchuria in 1931, china appealed to the league of nations, which found japan at fault but imposed no sanctions and took no action. japan just resigned from the league.

japans defiance supposedly encourage mussolini to seize power in italy and install fascism. it breeds.

 

[nikolai_bolkov]

It's like if Hawaiii would declare itself independent and China would back them up sending navy fleets across the Pacific.

Bush is legally insane.

 

[buddy28]

japans defiance supposedly encourage mussolini to seize power in italy and install fascism. it breeds.

Good point.

For arguments sake, I suppose it could go both ways. If Bush authorizes nuclear deployment as a first strike capability, it could certianly send the world into a new arms race, with respective countries scrambling to obtain WMD.

My problem with Bushs new aggressive nuclear strategy is that it destablizes world peace along the continum of conflict.

At one end is peace, at the other is world war. National security ohjectives dictate responding to extraneous national aggression with at least an equivilent force. Assuming nations with equivilent WMD capabilities engage in conflict, if the defending nation employs a lesser force then the attacker, the defending nation, in theory, could be overrun. Contrastly, if the defending nation used significantly more force then the attacker, an escalation in conflict occurs.

Bushs authorization of deploying nucs as a first strike capability, on paper anyway, increases the probability attacked nuclear powers will respond in kind, and attacked nations with no WMD capabilities will attempt to aquire WMD capabilities. The larger the global stockpiles of WMD, the more likely theyll be used. Russias unguarded nuclear arsenal proves that.

Now Im just arguing. Good point though.

 

[buddy28]

It's like if Hawaiii would declare itself independent and China would back them up sending navy fleets across the Pacific.

Bush is legally insane.

my man. Where u been bro? U dont hang around the conversation board much i noticed.

 

[spongebob]

Good point.

For arguments sake, I suppose it could go both ways. If Bush authorizes nuclear deployment as a first strike capability, it could certianly send the world into a new arms race, with respective countries scrambling to obtain WMD.

My problem with Bushs new aggressive nuclear strategy is that it destablizes world peace along the continum of conflict.

its hard for me to believe that previous administrations have not had similar plans before.

something like this should never have leaked out. if it is true.

or maybe it was leaked intentionally to show face, a bit of posturing.

p.s. quit making me use my dictionary so much.

 

[buddy28]

its hard for me to believe that previous administrations have not had similar plans before.

or maybe it was leaked intentionally to show face, a bit of posturing.

p.s. quit making me use my dictionary so much.

its funny. Another american said the same thing - Decem. But the other thread i posted, concerning , uhh, hmm, hold on, actually, it was decems thread, aptly titled: "wtf is with all the nuclear war posts". In Decems thread I addressed his comment that previous US administrations developed similar nuclear contingincy plans for china and other rouge states using an LA times online article. The article suggests previous US administrations had no nuclear contingincy plans for a chinese taiwanian conflict. You may enjoy it. Or it may scare the hell out of you

http://boards.elitefitness.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=120739&perpage=10&pagenumber=1