Chinese Economics Thread

[manqiangrexue]

Am I wrong? Even the chinese newspapers (an organ of the communist party) are starting to said the same thing - to hugely increase strategic weapons - meaning nukes.


China 'needs more nuclear weapons to deal with Trump': Government mouthpiece newspaper says extra defence is required should US treat Beijing 'unacceptably'

• The editorial was printed in the pro-government paper in
  Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
  the Global Times
• It said China should accelerate the deployment of the DF-41 ballistic missile
• Piece was sparked by the President-elects comments in the week about China
• Chinese officials thought to use the Global Times as a rhetorical hammer

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Uh huh I see. But did they say that they need more nukes than the US? Did they say they should booby trap their OWN country with nukes? As I said, it's quite sensible to build 2,000 or so nukes (which definitely qualifies as "more"), enough to guarantee annihilation through the missile defenses of any country that dares to engage in direct military attack on China but why would you want to build enough nukes to say... blow up the world 6 times? Then if someone else build enough to blow up the world 7 times, does it make you feel safer to one-up that country and build enough nukes to blow up the world 8 times?

 

[advill]

To further increase one's nuclear capability or to encourage other nations to acquire nuclear weapons should be stringently avoided, even if such comments are mere rhetoric. Regretfully, Trump was the FIRST to encourage Japan and South Korea to acquire nuclear weapons to protect themselves from WHOM? It was highly irresponsible for him to suggest that. Not only many nations and their leaders, but also perhaps many Americans are now questioning the mind set and actions of their POTUS. During his first week in office, he signed Executive Orders implementing building the border wall and threatening a Trade War (20% US import duties) with Mexico; anti-Muslims (curtailing immigration from 7 Arab countries), other isolationist policies etc. What's next on his Agenda? Making threats or rhetoric must stop IF the Trump Administration wants respect and real Peace in the World. His own Republican Party (if its majority Congress can control this President), the American Media whom he detest for vigorously questioning him and his Press Secretary; and the American people (those who didn't vote for him - majority of the popular votes) should keep Trump in check, IF they can. They must stop him from being an arrogant & confused bully, as he could start a nuclear war or hostilities in Asia, if not the World. It is very disappointing that many controversies have now arisen from what was a generally respected US who was the Champion of FREE TRADE, non-discrimination of people of all races, and generally diplomatic and fair in many issues.

 

[ahho]

Anyway, back to the real subject matter.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I can see why Alipay and WeChat payment is rising fast in China, since seller are not worried about counterfeit bills and buyer gets discount. I think "recharging" your balance from your bank account is almost instant too if I remember correctly. Apple Pay in Canada, in my opinion, will take a while since our credit card have pay pass and it was implemented a while back and it is very convenient.

 

[Ultra]

Uh huh I see. But did they say that they need more nukes than the US? Did they say they should booby trap their OWN country with nukes? As I said, it's quite sensible to build 2,000 or so nukes (which definitely qualifies as "more"), enough to guarantee annihilation through the missile defenses of any country that dares to engage in direct military attack on China but why would you want to build enough nukes to say... blow up the world 6 times? Then if someone else build enough to blow up the world 7 times, does it make you feel safer to one-up that country and build enough nukes to blow up the world 8 times?

2000 nukes is nothing if you factor in the missile defence that US has.
The US has more defence missiles than China has whether it is 300 or 2000.
There are probably levels of survivability that US is willing to accept if it means getting rid of a future rival that will surpass its dominance.

Right now US has the advantage, China's very small nuclear arsenal will not get past its missile defence, even if increase to 2000 probably only 1 or 2 will get through. On the other hand US has more than enough nukes to overwhelm China's missile defence system that's still in its early infancy / prototype stage.

 

[KIENCHIN]

2000 nukes is nothing if you factor in the missile defence that US has.
The US has more defence missiles than China has whether it is 300 or 2000.
There are probably levels of survivability that US is willing to accept if it means getting rid of a future rival that will surpass its dominance.

Right now US has the advantage, China's very small nuclear arsenal will not get past its missile defence, even if increase to 2000 probably only 1 or 2 will get through. On the other hand US has more than enough nukes to overwhelm China's missile defence system that's still in its early infancy / prototype stage.

It's not a matter of how many nukes China has, after a first strike do we know how many she has left, is that one or a hundered missile, "You have to ask yourself do I feel lucky"," Well do yo punk?"

 

[Equation]

2000 nukes is nothing if you factor in the missile defence that US has.
The US has more defence missiles than China has whether it is 300 or 2000.
There are probably levels of survivability that US is willing to accept if it means getting rid of a future rival that will surpass its dominance.

Right now US has the advantage, China's very small nuclear arsenal will not get past its missile defence, even if increase to 2000 probably only 1 or 2 will get through. On the other hand US has more than enough nukes to overwhelm China's missile defence system that's still in its early infancy / prototype stage.

Those missile defense means nothing once China's HGV becomes mature enough to get through them with ease in a few years (NOT decades). Remember China has the most successful and advanced HGV program in the world with several successful launches from the past years to prove it. That's why the Pentagon are so nervous and their media mouth piece wouldn't want to talk too much about it. After all, it's all about the program.

 

[manqiangrexue]

2000 nukes is nothing if you factor in the missile defence that US has.
The US has more defence missiles than China has whether it is 300 or 2000.
There are probably levels of survivability that US is willing to accept if it means getting rid of a future rival that will surpass its dominance.

Right now US has the advantage, China's very small nuclear arsenal will not get past its missile defence, even if increase to 2000 probably only 1 or 2 will get through. On the other hand US has more than enough nukes to overwhelm China's missile defence system that's still in its early infancy / prototype stage.

Where do you get your imaginary numbers from? That only 1 or 2 missiles will get through if 2,000 are launched? So if 10,000 are launched, you might get 5 or or 10? LOL What do you think happens if 2,000 nuclear weapons with yields that are hundreds of times higher than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima are intercepted and detonated in the atmosphere? You think all that rains down like pixie dust and people celebrate? What technology do you use to intercept DF-ZF style HGV that I advocated for? (I didn't say to build 2,000 DF-4, did I?)

Once again, you're the crazy one making assertions based on complete lack of knowledge about the military, biology, and politics and you're just so confident about it. It's about as funny as it is sad because having this conversation with you like like trying to explain to an angry aggressive 8-year old why we don't just "kill everyone, take all their land and become the only country in the world." No one else here, from any country, thinks that having 2,000 nukes makes you a pushover for anybody. lone driver in 1 direction on a road analogy again. Think about it.

 

[manqiangrexue]

double post delete

 

[SanWenYu]

Am I wrong? Even the chinese newspapers (an organ of the communist party) are starting to said the same thing - to hugely increase strategic weapons - meaning nukes.


China 'needs more nuclear weapons to deal with Trump': Government mouthpiece newspaper says extra defence is required should US treat Beijing 'unacceptably'

• The editorial was printed in the pro-government paper in
  Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
  the Global Times
• It said China should accelerate the deployment of the DF-41 ballistic missile
• Piece was sparked by the President-elects comments in the week about China
• Chinese officials thought to use the Global Times as a rhetorical hammer

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Oh com'on, no more Global Times! This tabloid has never been allowed the position to speak for the Chinese government. It is a for-profit subsidiary of the People's Daily. That's all.

Citing the Global Times for China's nuclear policies is amateurish at the least, if not plain foolish.

 

[advill]

It is really sad to observe that after years of democracy and free trade, the US has recently become DemoCRAZY with the new Administration in place. If Trump's trade, foreign and security policies raise further tensions, there could be SERIOUS possibilities of not only a trade war but also a shooting war against China who is a rapidly Rising Power. (This possible US fear is similar to an ancient belief in the "Thucydides Trap"). It is only prudent and desirable for China and others to be prepared for any eventualities. Hopefully, all rational leaders should realise that there are NO winners in any hostilities or war, and God forbid, a nuclear one.