Could Drumpf blunder his way into a nuclear war with China?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

The Chinese government will take all necessary steps to save face. They are not Merv Griffin who Donald Drumpf rolled in a real estate deal. Rex Tillerson, Drumpf's Secretary of State, said he would block access to some disputed islands, aka sand bars, in the South China Sea. If you read my posts I am a proponent of defending us and our allies. However I do not believe it is prudent to risk war with an economic and (semi) military behemoth over some sand bars. That is lunacy on steroids.

Harry Truman had the good sense to sack General MacArthur when he wanted to widen the Korean Conflict to include China. There is an old saying about the stock market that it can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent. Well, a nation with nearly two billion people can throw more bodies at you faster than you can kill them. That is why a war with China if it was prolonged could end up in a nuclear exchange with us being the first to use nuclear weapons.

God help us all... A majority of Americans didn't sign up for this.

[Chasstev365]

1. ONLY If Putin Wants One!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

8. He would be eliminating one rival and likely two.

[sinkingfeeling]

2. Absolutely.

[randome]

3. I think it could end up in a confrontation but not nuclear.

And China would simply take Taiwan and we would be the losers in that short 'scuffle'. Trump does nothing but weaken his position over time. And soon his position will be America's position so we will all suffer for the loss of prestige he dolls out like Halloween candy from ten years ago.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]

[madokie]

4. China has the capability to toss a few nukes our way too

in case the short fingered bastard didn't know that

And enough people to pretty much repopulate the world after a skirmish of the nukular kind

[DemocratSinceBirth]

6. That is precisely the thinking went into Truman sacking MacArthur.

I don't want any nation pushing us around nor do I believe we should push other nations around. There are times to make a stand and not make a stand. Making a stand over some sand bars is not one of them.

[HoneyBadger]

5. China would be erased, they are 20 years from having the naval infrastructure to be a player

US is to China in nukes is as China is to North Korea. Russia is the only other country with nuclear parity to the US.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

7. That is crazy talk

China would be erased

That is crazy talk







China has two hundred sixty nuclear weapons. What would happen to America?

they are 20 years from having the naval infrastructure to be a player

China doesn't need a blue water navy to defend itself from America because they aren't going to travel 7,000 miles to attack us. In this scenario are going to travel 7,000 miles to attack them. The whole point of this exercise is any war between China and the U S has the potential to become a nuclear one.

US is to China in nukes is as China is to North Korea

North Korea has four nukes that we don't even know if the will work. China has 260.

[HoneyBadger]

14. How many does America have

Chinese nukes actually need to reach America. They have very limited means to do this. And about 8 hours later, they cease to exist.




What’s behind Beijing’s drive to control the South China Sea?

China is developing a similar missile but officials in Beijing fear that the Chinese nuclear arsenal is so small it could be almost completely wiped out without notice, with the few missiles launched in reprisal being destroyed in mid-air by US missile defences.

Without that capability to respond with a “second strike”, China would have no meaningful deterrent at all. The government of President Xi Jinping insists the country has no plans to abandon its “no first use” principle but military officials argue US weapon developments give it no choice but to upgrade and expand its arsenal in order to maintain a credible deterrent.

There seems to have been some discussion of moving to a “launch on warning” policy, to fire Chinese weapons before incoming missiles land and destroy them. That appears to be a minority view, however.

The dominant approach is to stick with the current deterrent posture, which relies on hitting back in a devastating manner once China has been attacked. The core aim is to have a second strike capacity that is “survivable” and “penetrative”. Submarines, on patrol in the ocean depths, fulfil the first requirement, they say.

It has tested a missile, the Ju Lang (Giant Wave) 2, for that purpose, and each Jin submarine can carry up to 12 of them. Partly to help penetrate US missile defences, China has in recent months also started putting multiple warheads on its largest missile, the DF-5, another development that has set alarm bells ringing in the Pentagon, where some analysts view it as the first step towards a massive nuclear armament drive aimed at obliterating the US arsenal.

Jeffrey Lewis, the director of the East Asia Non Proliferation Programme at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey, argues there is a danger of the two sides fatally misunderstanding each other’s intentions.

“Given China’s apparent desire to overwhelm US missile defences, it is not surprising that multiple warheads – whether independently targeted or not – would become a feature of Chinese deterrence. The surprise is that it took so long for them to be fielded,” Lewis writes in a book on multiple warheads (Mirvs) published last week by the Stimson Centre thinktank.

“What western strategic analysts might view with alarm, their Chinese counterparts might view as modest increments necessary to strengthen deterrence … Chinese strategic analysts, unlike their western counterparts, have so far adopted a surprisingly relaxed view of nuclear threats, while some of their US counterparts are inclined toward envisioning worst-case scenarios.”

Evidence for China’s more “relaxed” approach is the length of time it took to deploy multiple warheads, two decades after developing the necessary technology. China has similarly taken decades to deploy nuclear missile submarines.

Part of the reason has been technical: it is a hard technology to master. Wu Riqiang argues China’s Jin submarines (known in the Chinese military as Type 094) are still not ready, as they are too noisy and could easily be located by US attack subs. They would never get past the first island chain off China’s coast and into the mid-Pacific, where they would have to be to hit the continental US.

“My argument is that because of the high noise level of the Type 094 and China’s lack of experience of running a SSBN fleet, China cannot and should not put 094 in deterrent patrol in the near future,” he said.

The slow pace has not just been for practical reasons. China’s guiding principle has been to have a capacity for “minimum means of reprisal” while minimising the chance of accidental or unauthorised launch

[DemocratSinceBirth]

15. So we would be the first to use nuclear weapons

China is developing a similar missile but officials in Beijing fear that the Chinese nuclear arsenal is so small it could be almost completely wiped out without notice, with the few missiles launched in reprisal being destroyed in mid-air by US missile defences.

-HoneyBadger

So we would be the first to use nuclear weapons, just as I suggested in my seminal post:

"....That is why a war with China if it was prolonged could end up in a nuclear exchange with us being the first to use nuclear weapons..."

-DemocratSinceBirth

Thank you for agreeing with me. I knew you were a smart lad.


BTW, how does the rest of the world , especially markets, react as two world powers lob nukes at one another?


What does defeating China in a nuclear war look like?

[Buckeye_Democrat]

9. Maybe. Trump stated years ago that he wanted to disarm every country with nuclear...

weapons EXCEPT the USA and RUSSIA (the Soviet Union at that time).

As if those other countries would willingly comply.

Not to mention that Trump is reckless, mentally lazy and inexperienced/ignorant in international affairs.

[usedtobedemgurl]

10. Nope, not going to happen.

I believe other countries have a stake in a nuclear war not happening but more so than this, remember what Bush did to pay for Iraq? He sold off a lot of our country to China and other places. Not literally selling off our country but things like investments in our country. At the time the amount he let go was totally unprecedented and was never heard of before because all China (and other countries) had to do was call in their markers and they could bring us down without firing a single bullet (or nuclear weapon). They could totally decimate us and think how much worse something like that would be for comrade Trump. He would be embarrassed and ashamed. He tried bullying someone and they silently turned their back and just took us totally down without a single weapon.

[MoonRiver]

11. Of course he could.

But I doubt it would be a blunder. God help us all.

[dalton99a]

12. Risk of nuclear war is actually low with Putin's employee sitting in the Oval Office

But we're dealing with an employee with mental issues

[neverforget]

13. The Chinese will test Trump very soon just like they tested

W and Obama. Only this time, I'm not sure cooler heads will prevail with Flynn as NSA and Trump's talk about discarding One China policy. The Chinese see that as very provocative and we he have insane people in charge. If Trump doesn't respond, he'll lose and he hates losers. If we do respond