CDZ Why wouldn't China attack the U.S. in a first strike?

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

You just need one. And again, if China did decide to hit us with just one over our power grid....which democrat party military officer or President is going to have the testical fortitude to order a nuclear launch that would kill 10s of millions of chinese civilians? You give me that list....

So you still believe in your science fiction?

 

[2aguy]

I guess you never heard of NORAD?

And they monitor secret loading of missiles onto North Korean frieghters? They have first strike authority......? All on their own?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

And they monitor secret loading of missiles onto North Korean frieghters? They have first strike authority......? All on their own?

What are you blabbering about now?

 

[2aguy]

What are you blabbering about now?

You brought up NORAD.....I point out how the Chinese could launch from a freighter, even using the North Koreans as cover .....or the Iranians.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

You brought up NORAD.....I point out how the Chinese could launch from a freighter, even using the North Koreans as cover .....or the Iranians.

Do you know anything about how ICBM launches are detected? Obviously not!

You need to stick to the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

Almost never agree with Admiral Rockwell Tory on anything — but he is absolutely correct that 2aguy is only showing off his complete ignorance of military (and political) reality in this whole truly ridiculous and infantile OP.

 

[the other mike]

I ask this because China wants to dominate the world...I have been told that there is no way China would attack the U.S. in a first strike, knocking out our energy grid, killing hundreds of millions of Americas with one missile strike...sending the U.S. into the Dark Ages with their hypersonic weapons......

I have been told that they wouldn't want to lose the U.S. market for their goods....that we would still have the ability to strike back...

1) Knocking out the U.S. would give China control over the entire world...who would stand against them if we weren't in the picture? So the "they wouldn't kill off their primary customer," doesn't ring true when you understand that some prefer power over wealth.

2) Our nuclear deterrent only works if you have those in charge who would use it in retaliation against a first strike attack....do you think the democrat party politicians, and their diversity generals would have the stomach to launch retaliatory strikes against civilian Chinese populations?

Obama, Biden and the rest have filled the military leadership with generals more interested in "Diversity" and "White Supremacists," than the threat China poses against us.........

As the story below points out.....the attack wouldn't even have to come from China, but could come from a proxy of China.......how would the "Diversity" generals and a democrat party President respond to an attack, ordered by China, but launched from North Korea....?

So.......tell me how China won't attack us if they see the opportunity.....

I was awake ridiculously early this morning (like 4 am), and was caught short by the news of the FAA ground stop and landing order for air traffic in the western U.S. yesterday in hair trigger response to a North Korean test launch of a hypersonic missile. The FAA’s statementleft things pretty vague as to why. I note the mainstream media caught up with this unusual story today, but as usual offer superficial accounts.

The ground stop and landing order (similar to the landing order of 9/11) only lasted a few minutes and was quickly cancelled, but I am wondering about the linkages and protocols between NORAD and the FAA’s air traffic control system. It doesn’t seem there was much time lapse. Maybe this is just part of the post-9/11 world. But I also wonder if there is something we aren’t being told. Why would the government order a total ground stop and landing order for the west coast in response to a single missile launch? I can think of a few plausible reasons, but I can also think of some others that are less reassuring.

The greatest threat to the U.S. from a pipsqueak country like North Korea (or Iran) is not a substantial nuclear attack, but an EMP (electro-magnetic pulse) explosion in high altitude over or near the U.S., which would incapacitate civilian aircraft along with much else. (Anyone think California’s antiquated and poorly maintained electricity grid, which keeps setting the state on fire, is protected against an EMP blast?) Hypersonic missile technology makes this threat more menacing. Accuracy is not much of a problem with an EMP attack. Is our government worried about this possibility to the extent that they order air traffic ground stops on a single launch warning?

Of course, if the government were candid about this risk, there would be pressure for higher defense spending, and less for solar panels and windmills while we harden our electricity and communications grid. Can’t have that.

A Story to Quicken The Pulse

I was awake ridiculously early this morning (like 4 am), and was caught short by the news of the FAA ground stop and landing order for air traffic in the western U.S. yesterday in hair trigger response to a North Korean test launch of a hypersonic missile. The FAA's statement left things pretty...

www.powerlineblog.com

Xi just deployed a drone to your location.

If you're a Chinese dissident.

 

[Dayton3]

Keep believing your fantasies. I know of what I speak.

The automatic response is because the President will not have sufficient time to respond to a first strike.

U.S. policy for decades (and as far as is known that of the Soviet Union/Russia) is to ride out a nuclear attack and then respond in a calculated way.

Though all that "launch on warning" or "launch under attack" stuff makes for dramatic television and movie scenes of American missile crews desperately trying to launch their missiles before the enemy missiles arrive or U.S. B-52 crews scrambling to get their planes off the ground.....that has never been true.

If this were not true then there would've never been so much angst about the survivability of U.S. ICBMs because if you're going to launch on warning it won't matter.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

And wipe out their best customer? It would be just about the dumbest thing ever...the only thing dumber would be their penning a 2nd Amendment and inviting the genocide that the OP is so proud of.

According to loons you probably support, the world has less than 12 years left so why not take all the resources now ?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

U.S. policy for decades (and as far as is known that of the Soviet Union/Russia) is to ride out a nuclear attack and then respond in a calculated way.

Though all that "launch on warning" or "launch under attack" stuff makes for dramatic television and movie scenes of American missile crews desperately trying to launch their missiles before the enemy missiles arrive or U.S. B-52 crews scrambling to get their planes off the ground.....that has never been true.

If this were not true then there would've never been so much angst about the survivability of U.S. ICBMs because if you're going to launch on warning it won't matter.

You are full of crap! I toured the alert crew facility at Grissom AFB when I was in high-school. Your idea that it was only in the movies is a bald-faced lie.

 

[Dayton3]

You are full of crap! I toured the alert crew facility at Grissom AFB when I was in high-school. Your idea that it was only in the movies is a bald-faced lie.

Prove it.

 

[xyz]

What would be the point? In their history, they never attack far.

Would they attack Russia, Taiwan, Burma, maybe even Korea? Given the opportunity and right time, if they can take some land, yes, they would.

Now even if the US would be stuck in civil war situation, I don't think they would be interested in occupying the US.

Nuclear war: just no. Even if the US hypothetically had all its missiles blocked, some other nuclear allied nation might strike them. It would call for a response.

 

[Dayton3]

You are full of crap! I toured the alert crew facility at Grissom AFB when I was in high-school. Your idea that it was only in the movies is a bald-faced lie.

I never said it was "only in the movies". I have no doubt that U.S. missile crews practiced quickly launching while under attack.

But launching in the face of incoming nuclear missiles has never been the policy of the U.S. or Soviets (Russians).

Use a little bit of common sense. If that were true then there wouldn't be all the worries about our nuclear weapons surviving an enemy strike. Because if launch on warning were the policy out silos would be empty by the time enemy nuclear weapons hit them.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Prove it.

President Bush ends B-52 alert, Sept. 27, 1991​

President Bush ends B-52 alert, Sept. 27, 1991

On this day in 1991, President George H.W. Bush ordered the Strategic Air Command to halt the policy of keeping a fleet of nuclear-armed B-52 bombers on around-the-clock alert, posed for an immediate retaliatory strike against the Soviet Union.

www.politico.com

Now, will you STFU about things you know nothing about?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I never said it was "only in the movies". I have no doubt that U.S. missile crews practiced quickly launching while under attack.

But launching in the face of incoming nuclear missiles has never been the policy of the U.S. or Soviets (Russians).

Use a little bit of common sense. If that were true then there wouldn't be all the worries about our nuclear weapons surviving an enemy strike. Because if launch on warning were the policy out silos would be empty by the time enemy nuclear weapons hit them.

Yes, you XXXXX did!
Though all that "launch on warning" or "launch under attack" stuff makes for dramatic television and movie scenes of American missile crews desperately trying to launch their missiles before the enemy missiles arrive or U.S. B-52 crews scrambling to get their planes off the ground.....that has never been true.

You also don't understand "launch on warning"! Typical fucking amateur!

 

[Dayton3]

President Bush ends B-52 alert, Sept. 27, 1991​

President Bush ends B-52 alert, Sept. 27, 1991

On this day in 1991, President George H.W. Bush ordered the Strategic Air Command to halt the policy of keeping a fleet of nuclear-armed B-52 bombers on around-the-clock alert, posed for an immediate retaliatory strike against the Soviet Union.

www.politico.com

Now, will you STFU about things you know nothing about?

Up yours. Jerk.

 

[Dayton3]

Yes, you fucking did, you GD moron!
Though all that "launch on warning" or "launch under attack" stuff makes for dramatic television and movie scenes of American missile crews desperately trying to launch their missiles before the enemy missiles arrive or U.S. B-52 crews scrambling to get their planes off the ground.....that has never been true.

You also don't understand "launch on warning"! Typical fucking amateur!

Then explain what "launch on warning" means and how it differs from "launch under attack" if you're so smart.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Up yours. Jerk.

You are the fucking jerk who obviously cannot handle being proven wrong!

 

[Dayton3]

essYou are the fucking jerk who obviously cannot handle being proven wrong!

You've proven nothing aside from a penchant for personal insults.

I've explained why neither the U.S. nor anyone else ever had a "launch on warning" policy and the fact that both sides were intensely interested in the survivability of their ICBMs in case of a nuclear attack.

If they did have a "launch on warning" or "launch under attack" posture there would've been no need to spend so much on ICBM survivability because the ICBM silos would've been empty when the nuclear first strike arrived.

You've never been able to answer that so I guess we can assume you cannot.

Thank you. Concessions accepted.

Though not expected.

 

[candycorn]

You've proven nothing aside from a penchant for personal insults.

I've explained why neither the U.S. nor anyone else ever had a "launch on warning" policy and the fact that both sides were intensely interested in the survivability of their ICBMs in case of a nuclear attack.

If they did have a "launch on warning" or "launch under attack" posture there would've been no need to spend so much on ICBM survivability because the ICBM silos would've been empty when the nuclear first strike arrived.

You've never been able to answer that so I guess we can assume you cannot.

Thank you. Concessions accepted.

Though not expected.

Every thread he's in ends up the same way. But its always someone else's fault.