BLUEJACKET
Banned Idiot
We are getting off-topic, but here is my take on it: all great powers have used and are using now various justifications for their territorial expansion/claims, and neither Japan, Russia, nor China are exceptions!
Japanese have a plan to deal with Chinese new 094 nuclear sub
- Thread starter aikea
- Start date
D
Deleted member 675
Guest
Why is it provocation for a non-nuclear power to be able to protect itself? We're not talking about the Americans, we're talking about the Japanese. According to your logic - unless you wish to ammend it - countries must leave themselves open to nuclear attack, even if they do not have a nuclear capability to counterattack with.
Are you really sure that's what you're arguing? Because if it is, you've given the Japanese a great reason to ditch their non-nuclear status and get their own nukes.
I'm surprised you completely missed the point!
And what is stopping China from flushing that policy down the bin if it finds it convenient to do so? There's no one to stop it using its nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states.
I'm not sure how that's relevant to the issue of Japan being able to protect itself against nuclear weapons.
That makes no sense whatsoever - you just said Japan had nothing to worry about because of China's nuclear policy.
Last edited by a moderator:
By your logic, if this assurance means nothing and can be so easily violated, why can’t all the other nuclear states give this assurance? At least there is something called credibility and I trust that the Chinese government will obey its assurance. Don’t assume that everybody cheats. (Or perhaps for a party that cheats too often, it is easy for that party to make this assumption.)
Fundamentally, it is not China’s nuclear policy or how many missiles China has, rather the will of the Chinese people, that that Japan should worry about. There is an old Chinese saying: “楚虽三户,亡秦必楚” (even if there are only three families left in Chu, they will destroy Qin). Focusing on China’s nuclear policy while leaving everything else changed just misses the point.
Last edited:
hongkongpride
New Member
Ligo,
The current Chinese government has just as much credibility as our friend George Bush when he announced in 2003 that he had "no plans at the moment" to attack Iraq. Although the PRC states:
"China undertakes not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon states or nuclear-weapon-free zones at any time or under any circumstances."
with a "no first use" nuclear policy, listen to what General Xiong Guangkai said in 1996 regarding the "no first use" policy:
“And finally, you do not have the strategic leverage that you had in the 1950’s when you threatened nuclear strikes on us. You were able to do that because we could not hit back. But if you hit us now, we can hit back. So you will not make those threats. In the end you care more about Los Angeles than you do about Taipei.”
In effect he is advancing a "non-official line"-read: something that the Politburo of the PRC thinks but is too polite to publicly announce.
So this nutcase is threatening deterrence (EG. LA) in case the US ever gets involved too deep over Taiwan and in effect putting Shanghai, Beijing, Tianjin, Chongqing, Chengdu and Wuhan (Guangzhou will probably be spared due to close proximity to Hong Kong) in the crosshairs of massive US nuclear retaliation from 14 Ohio Class SSBN firing Trident D5 SLBMs.
My question is if a theoretic war breaks out in the Taiwan Strait and ROC and US forces manage to repulse PRC forces and counterattack, will the PRC leadership lose control over their nuclear forces with a nutcase like him in command-and will he order tactical nuclear weapons to be used against US forces or even agaisnt LA? The US will most likely retaliate with limited sub strategic nuke strikes or even a full crippling second strike which will leave massive radiation over much of the Chinese landmass!
So I ask is this the will of the Chinese people to be led to disaster by fools threatening a giant with a stick when the giant has ten thousand swords?
These are indeed 亡國之言, words that would cause a nation to perish.
The current Chinese government has just as much credibility as our friend George Bush when he announced in 2003 that he had "no plans at the moment" to attack Iraq. Although the PRC states:
"China undertakes not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon states or nuclear-weapon-free zones at any time or under any circumstances."
with a "no first use" nuclear policy, listen to what General Xiong Guangkai said in 1996 regarding the "no first use" policy:
“And finally, you do not have the strategic leverage that you had in the 1950’s when you threatened nuclear strikes on us. You were able to do that because we could not hit back. But if you hit us now, we can hit back. So you will not make those threats. In the end you care more about Los Angeles than you do about Taipei.”
In effect he is advancing a "non-official line"-read: something that the Politburo of the PRC thinks but is too polite to publicly announce.
So this nutcase is threatening deterrence (EG. LA) in case the US ever gets involved too deep over Taiwan and in effect putting Shanghai, Beijing, Tianjin, Chongqing, Chengdu and Wuhan (Guangzhou will probably be spared due to close proximity to Hong Kong) in the crosshairs of massive US nuclear retaliation from 14 Ohio Class SSBN firing Trident D5 SLBMs.
My question is if a theoretic war breaks out in the Taiwan Strait and ROC and US forces manage to repulse PRC forces and counterattack, will the PRC leadership lose control over their nuclear forces with a nutcase like him in command-and will he order tactical nuclear weapons to be used against US forces or even agaisnt LA? The US will most likely retaliate with limited sub strategic nuke strikes or even a full crippling second strike which will leave massive radiation over much of the Chinese landmass!
So I ask is this the will of the Chinese people to be led to disaster by fools threatening a giant with a stick when the giant has ten thousand swords?
These are indeed 亡國之言, words that would cause a nation to perish.
I admit that I am not a military expert, but I still have something to say.
First, reading from your quote, I can’t see why what Xiong Guangkai said is in contradiction to a “no first use” policy. He talked about hitting back AFTER nuclear strikes from the U.S. He DID NOT advertise a “first use” policy. I think he meant that the U.S. would have to think twice before it threats China again with nuclear weapons, as it did once in Korea and another time over the Taiwan Strait when Eisenhower was president. (Judging from this, there have been more nutcases in the U.S., because all these threats in the past had been way much more real than what Xioong Guangkai said.)
Second, even if we assume that Xiong Guangkai said something close to a “first use” policy (which I don't think is the case), we can’t be sure that this is what he really meant. It may very well just be bluffing and tactics (can you exclude this possibility?). It is by no means an indication of the official line of the Chinese government. If just by your simple analysis we all see the serious consequences of the nuclear strike on the U.S., why do you assume that the Chinese government is so blind and stupid? Also, why would you assume that the PRC leadership will lose control over their nuclear forces? (Can I also assume that the president of the U.S. would loose control over their military? Remember, it is the U.S. who bombed Chinese embassy, not the reverse.) Such highly unlikely assumptions don’t lead to credible conclusions.
Last edited:
It's the same line of logic, just think about it. There is no reason that a nuclear or a non-nuclear nation shouldn't be allowed to field a BMD. But if they do so, their possible target nations will feel that they are loosing certain leverage, so they will see that as a provocation. You can do a reasonable thing for yourself, but other nations will still get offended. Think about it, US looks at Tor-m1 sale to Iran as a provocation by the Russians, but why shouldn't Iran be allowed to defend itself? And I don't want to turn this to a US vs Iran conversation, so I hope you can understand what I'm talking about here. Again, I'm very surprised you can't get around to thinking about it this way.
Sorry Tp, but your logic still does not connect.
1. China claims it has a no first use of nuclear weapons policy.
2. Japan gets an anti-ballistic missile shield.
3. Note that Japan has no nukes.
4. Since Japan has no nukes, China cannot fire nuclear weapons on Japan without first violating its no first use policy.
5. Since that is so, if one subscribes to China's claims of no first use, then Japan's ballistic missile shield should be in no way provocative to China.... unless one subscribes to the view that China's nuclear weapons are aimed at a non-nuclear Japan with the intention for them to be used. Which would then dictate that you NOT subscribe to the view that China intends to abide by its no-first use policy. Sorry, both are mutually exclusive. Can't have your cake after eating it.
1. China claims it has a no first use of nuclear weapons policy.
2. Japan gets an anti-ballistic missile shield.
3. Note that Japan has no nukes.
4. Since Japan has no nukes, China cannot fire nuclear weapons on Japan without first violating its no first use policy.
5. Since that is so, if one subscribes to China's claims of no first use, then Japan's ballistic missile shield should be in no way provocative to China.... unless one subscribes to the view that China's nuclear weapons are aimed at a non-nuclear Japan with the intention for them to be used. Which would then dictate that you NOT subscribe to the view that China intends to abide by its no-first use policy. Sorry, both are mutually exclusive. Can't have your cake after eating it.
AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
Since when is Japan's missile shield independent? It will be a part of the US system. If Japan sides with the US who uses nukes first who claims it has the right to, Japan is open to attack. If you want to take the literal meaning of "no first use," Japan sides with a country that uses nukes, it doesn't violate the meaning.
it's all about leverage. Doesn't matter what China says. As long as China has something that can kill a lot of Japanese and Japan can't respond to it, China has a leverage.
Other angles include the American factor, China finds it provocative, because it would deter its second strike on US soil if Japanese bases give early warning to the American side. Also in a conflict with Taiwan, if Japan helps out and is involved in a strike against a military site on the mainland. That famous Chinese general already mentionned retaliating against continental USA. Do you think Japan would be left out of that if they are involved in helping Taiwan? There are scenarios where China might find a BMD extremely inconvenient. It's not about what's fair or not fair. It's about what nuclear nations wanting to always have that intimidating arsenal against non-nuclear nations.
D
Deleted member 675
Guest
But there's a difference. If a nuclear nation gets a missile-shield, there is a concern that it will then be able to hide behind it and use its own nuclear weapons with impunity. If a non-nuclear nation gets a missile-shield, it can only be used for defensive purposes (unless it has an overwhelming conventional military, but that isn't Japan).
I can understand what you are saying, but I disagree with it most strongly as being an acceptable argument. Every country has a right, I believe, to protect itself from weapons of mass destruction. Now there are only two ways to do that - build your own or try to have something to stop incoming missiles. I cannot see taking the defensive option as being provocative. Someone may decide it is provocation, but that doesn't mean they should view it as such in all reason.
Last edited by a moderator: