PLA power Exaggerated to justify PentagonÂ’s own expanding
-
Pentagon Exaggerates ChinaÂ’s Nuclear Capability to Justify Buying
New Generation of U.S. Weapons, Report Finds
http://fas.org/main/content.jsp?formAction=297&contentId=568… Based on unclassified and declassified U.S. government documents as well as commercial satellite images of Chinese installations, the 250-page report, “Chinese Nuclear Forces and U.S. Nuclear War Planning,” provides a detailed overview of China’s nuclear forces and its plans to upgrade them. It also describes two nuclear strike scenarios that calculate the casualties that each side would suffer.
(For the report, go to http://www.nukestrat.com/china/chinareport.htm. For high-resolution Google Earth satellite images of dozens of nuclear weapons-related and military sites in China, as well as nuclear strike simulations from the report, go tohttp://www.nukestrat.com/china/FAS-NRDC2006.kmz.)
The reportÂ’s main finding is that the Pentagon and others routinely highlight specific incidents out of context that inaccurately portray a looming Chinese threat. Specifically, the report demonstrates they have been embellishing ChinaÂ’s submarine and long-range missile capabilities.
For the last two years, the PentagonÂ’s annual report on Chinese military developments cited the intrusion of a Chinese nuclear-powered attack submarine into Japanese territorial waters in 2004 as emblematic of how ChinaÂ’s military is trying to expand its reach deep into the Pacific. What the DOD reports did not mention, the FAS/NRDC report reveals, is Chinese submarine patrols have dropped from a peak of six in 2000 to zero in 2005. Dramatic news coverage earlier this month of a Chinese submarine surfacing in the vicinity of the USS Kitty Hawk carrier group near Okinawa failed to mention that this was the first reported Chinese submarine patrol in nearly two years.
In addition, the report found that ChinaÂ’s sole submarine capable of firing ballistic missiles, which was built in 1981, has never gone on an extended deterrent patrol with nuclear missiles. In fact, the submarine has never been fully operational.
Similarly, U.S. intelligence agencies warn that the Chinese will be able to target 75 to 100 nuclear warheads at the continental United States by 2015. But that prediction assumes China will be able to deploy 40 to 55 new DF-31A missiles before 2015, in addition to two other shorter-range missiles. Given that the Chinese have yet to conduct test flights of the DF-31A, the report concluded that that assumption is highly questionable.
The Pentagon also has made much out of the fact that ChinaÂ’s next-generation missiles will be mobile. But the majority of ChinaÂ’s ballistic missile force always has been mobile, the report points out, and the U.S. military has targeted it as a routine matter since the 1980s. In fact, improved U.S. targeting of Chinese missiles has played a significant role in prompting China to develop new long-range missiles, according to U.S. intelligence agencies.
The report concludes that the United States will be easily able to maintain its overwhelming nuclear superiority over the Chinese for decades. But the report also points out the China needs relatively few warheads to adequately deter the United States. A hypothetical Chinese attack with its 20 nuclear long-range ballistic missiles on 20 U.S. cities would result in as many as 40 million casualties, the report estimates, and blanket large portions of the United States and Canada with radioactive fallout. Likewise, the United States needs relatively few warheads to deter China. A limited and highly accurate U.S. nuclear attack on ChinaÂ’s 20 long-range ballistic missile silos would result in as many as 11 million casualties and scatter radioactive fallout across three Chinese provinces, according to a simulation described in the report.
Â… -
Just not too long ago, Iraq is suppose to have WMD which justify the invasion of Iraq by US and UK. Sounds all to familiar doesn't it?
-
But Iraq is an oil-rich nation with a less than able military. China,is a nation struggling with its energy needs and comfirmed nuclear-armed state with a large land army. A little suicidal and illogical to pull an Iraq on China isn't itOriginally posted by tankee1981:Just not too long ago, Iraq is suppose to have WMD which justify the invasion of Iraq by US and UK. Sounds all to familiar doesn't it? -
So who's the most agressive nation on earth now?
-
Superpower wants to continue to be a superpower ... wat to do ??
-
Iraq not THAT oil rich lar.
-
next few days, US & UK will wake up one fine morning & decide that Singapore habors WMD and terrorists. US & UK have the right to choose whenever to invade puny Singapore just for the heck of it & there ain't a damn thing you can do about it except beg to be POWsOriginally posted by tankee1981:Just not too long ago, Iraq is suppose to have WMD which justify the invasion of Iraq by US and UK. Sounds all to familiar doesn't it? 
-
Well, it looks like they gotta do what they gotta do.
The real problem is all this brinksmanship might lead to some unnecessary troubles, such as irrational and dangerous decisions being made. -
Have to agree on that...Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Well, it looks like they gotta do what they gotta do.
The real problem is all this brinksmanship might lead to some unnecessary troubles, such as irrational and dangerous decisions being made. -
What makes you think one day we won't go rogue and push our weight around too? Labelling others as harbouring insurgents.Originally posted by boy in blues:next few days, US & UK will wake up one fine morning & decide that Singapore habors WMD and terrorists. US & UK have the right to choose whenever to invade puny Singapore just for the heck of it & there ain't a damn thing you can do about it except beg to be POWs 
-
Unlikely, unless there was something big to be gained from it... in which case annexing Singapore (or many other ASEAN nations for that matter), is more loss then gain.Originally posted by boy in blues:next few days, US & UK will wake up one fine morning & decide that Singapore habors WMD and terrorists. US & UK have the right to choose whenever to invade puny Singapore just for the heck of it & there ain't a damn thing you can do about it except beg to be POWs
I mean exactly what can the US or UK gain from spending millions on a military operation to annex their allies in the region to which they have economic, political and defence ties? It's close to irrational, not to mention wasteful. A way I see it possible is if the US suddenly takes a whole White Supremacy, Xenophobic stance... and for now... that's unlikely.