Look at all the Asian anti-China propagandists working for Western propaganda mouthpieces. Nearly all of them are Asian women. Hardly any Asian men.
Miscellaneous News
- Thread starter bd popeye
- Start date
Look at all the Asian anti-China propagandists working for Western propaganda mouthpieces. Nearly all of them are Asian women. Hardly any Asian men.
You can literally become rich just by spouting anti-China rhetoric to Western media. People can make a living doing this.
There are people who even lie about China oppression to get a green card and asylum refugee status in the United States. So literally pandering to Westerner's fears or superiority complex can get you a full time job or even residency status.
Lol. And that ain't the most hilarious one.
This one takes the cake:
Apart from that funny-sounding name - Yeah US, do us (the Global South, I mean) a big favor and bankrupt yourself in the process.
Looking back into the nuclear stockpile history of the NPT-designated nuclear weapon states since 1945:
In particular, that of the USA vs the USSR/Russia:
During the Cold War, the USSR possessed around 40 thousand nuclear warheads at its stockpile peak in the mid-late 1980s, while the US possesed slightly over 30 thousand nuclear warheads at its stockpile peak in the mid-late 1960s. Meanwhile, the combined total number of nuclear warheads possessed by the UK and France has never went past 1000 at its peak.
Therefore, if the nuclear arms race is resumed once again, I have a better idea - Russia and China should work together in this race to "beat" the US-led NATO.
Here, "beating" the US-led NATO in this race doesn't necessarily mean having more nuclear warheads than the opposing side, but to hava a combined nuclear warhead stockpile and nuclear deterrence capability that is at least close to/on-par with the combined nuclear stockpile and nuclear deterrence capability of the US-led NATO. The goal here is to exhaust the US-led NATO's (or the US', in particular) efforts into producing, deploying and maintaining their nuclear stockpiles, while guaranteeing parity on mutually-assured destruction (MAD) capability is in place.
To take a rough figure as an example:
From my own rough calculation, the average number of nuclear warheads held by the US and Russia throughout history from the data table above hovers around 14000-15000, respectively. Hence, in order to achieve the same level of nuclear deterrence, China and Russia should work together to expand their combined nuclear stockpile towards the same level as prescribed.
Russia already has around 6000 nuclear warheads today. In order to reach the 15000~ warheads-combined nuclear stockpile goal, China could chip in to either:
#1 - Fill up the rest of the gap, i.e. ~9000 nuclear warheads; or
#2 - Split the 15000~ warhead goal into two equal halves - Russia would be responsible for one half, i.e. 7500 nuclear warheads, while China would be responsible for the other half i.e. 7500 nuclear warheads.
Recall that the combined number of nuclear warheads of UK and France in history at its peak is around 1000. In order to fill up the rest of the ~14000 nuclear warhead gap on the US-led NATO side, that means the US would have to pick up the responsibility of the production, deployment and maintenance of the ~14000 nuclear warheads - ALONE. Even if the US has 1 trillion USD of defense budget, having to shoulder the responsibility for 14000 nuclear warheads would be pretty heavy, when compared to China and Russia's of having to be responsible for a fraction of that number only, respectively.
Considering the present situation of the Russian military and the need for modernizing their conventional armed forces in the coming years in the backdrop of worsened economic realities, I don't think Russia could do much in terms of increasing their own nuclear stockpile. On the other hand, China has the absolute manpower, resource and economic advantage to enable the massive expansion of her nuclear stockpile, should Beijing intends to. Therefore, personally speaking, #1 is more desirable.
Last edited:
We know China is already busy away building up a lot of new silos, and 096 is somewhere on the horizon. I'm not seeing how US can increase delivery vehicle count without spending really BIG money. As it is they're already spending big money on GBSD to replace their aging Minutemen III and on Columbia-class to replace Ohio-class. The only sort of bright spot for their triad is B-21.
It's another instance of cold war era gear coming to end of life and you need to spend a lot just to keep existing capability ala Ticonderoga cruisers, a problem that does not affect PLA nearly as much.
You can only echo your Western masters. Otherwise, you get your plane shot down and a bullet put through your head.
Still amazing that everybody just agreed to close their eyes and forget about it.
Reminds me of this infamous FBI "movie" that Counter Intelligence showed us while I still worked in the defense industry. Watching it was part of the mandatory training.
Get your popcorn ready in about 2 months. We're in for a real treat. 
IMHO, this time China should say nothing at all wrt his Taiwan visit, even when the FM spokespersons get asked at media briefing sessions and simply say "No comment". Keep complete silent, I bet Pentagon and the White House would panic instead.Get your popcorn ready in about 2 months. We're in for a real treat.
Forced to study chemical engineering, SAD