War with North Korea is a Proxy for China

[Raptor Witness]

What is missing from most media reports about this looming conflict, is the simple fact that a war with North Korea is really a proxy war with China.  North Korea is like a barking chihuahua in the front yard of a much bigger, richer house.

The real danger to the United States, is not the North Koreans acquisition of nuclear technology, but China's rise as an economic power, and the danger of rising interest rates in the near future.

The United States is so close to bankruptcy that even a modest rise in interest rates would destroy our economy. The only way out is to find an excuse to default on Chinese debt, and end China's growth as an economic power on earth. This will also help bring back manufacturing to the United States.

Even if the North Koreans decide to give up their nuclear weapons, I believe that the United States would still find a reason to go to war with China. This may be the real underlying reason why Donald Trump has seemingly, and so foolishly, tried so hard to cozy up to the Russians, who are natural enemies of the Chinese. The fact is, we will need Russian help, if we are to defeat China.

I suspect that the price the United States will be willing to pay, for this Russian assistance, might be allowing the Russians to have more control of, and dominance in the Middle East.

Edited May 28, 2018 by Raptor Witness

[+and-then]

16 minutes ago, Raptor Witness said:

allowing the Russians to have more control of, and dominance in the Middle East.

Yeah, THAT should work out well...

[stevewinn]

42 minutes ago, Raptor Witness said:

What is missing from most media reports about this looming conflict, is the simple fact that a war with North Korea is really a proxy war with China.  North Korea is like a barking chihuahua in the front yard of a much bigger, richer house.

The real danger to the United States, is not the North Koreans acquisition of nuclear technology, but China's rise as an economic power, and the danger of rising interest rates in the near future.

The United States is so close to bankruptcy that even a modest rise in interest rates would destroy our economy. The only way out is to find an excuse to default on Chinese debt, and end China's growth as an economic power on earth. This will also help bring back manufacturing to the United States.

Even if the North Koreans decide to give up their nuclear weapons, I believe that the United States would still find a reason to go to war with China. This may be the real underlying reason why Donald Trump has seemingly, and so foolishly, tried so hard to cozy up to the Russians, who are natural enemies of the Chinese. The fact is, we will need Russian help, if we are to defeat China.

I suspect that the price the United States will be willing to pay, for this Russian assistance, might be allowing the Russians to have more control of, and dominance in the Middle East.

The US had its chance in 50's, 1950 - 53. (Korean War)  when Chinese forces entered the war, the US decided to not bomb north of the Yalu. which could and would have defeated the Chinese in Korea, the talk of using Nuclear weapons was also shelved when Ike, (President Eisenhower) became President, his secretary of state J.F Dulles along with Gen MacArthur, and 8th commander Van Fleet  pressed for the use of nuclear weapons but Ike decided against that, worried about their use and reaction by her allies and at the UN. The Chinese fought the US and UN forces to a stand still. It was Lt Gen William Harrison who when signing the armistice on behalf of the US, was quoted as saying he had the dishonour for the first time in US History as being the official signing armistice not in Victory. - The Policy mistakes made in Korea were not learnt and repeated some  12 years later leading to militarily defeat in Vietnam. - now here we are 65 years later dealing with the same problem, the communist North Korea backed by China. but both are in a position of strength China more so, well on its way to Superpower status. its was lost opportunity in 1950-53 that the UN forces didn't bomb North of the Yalu pushing the Chinese out of Korea and thus unifying the Korean peninsular - If you are correct that US policy today is to go to war with China then prepare for yet another loss, The Russians will not assist Western forces, they'd probably assist the Chinese allowing for both the US and China weaken themselves in the process. a win - win for the Russians both on their Eastern flank and in Europe on their Western. 

[SHaYap]

~

[00.02:15]

~

" it would be easier wouldn't it ? ... Simpler ... Justice of the mob ... "

 

~

 

[Raptor Witness]

18 hours ago, and then said:

Yeah, THAT should work out well...

Fracking technology has made U.S. the number one producer of oil in the world.  Link to "2018 & 2019 Economic Outlook for the Top Oil Producing Countries"

The Middle East is no longer the vital, strategic asset it once was. In fact, the Middle East is a liability, because of the instability of the region. The cost benefit of keeping the region stable is no longer balanced with the cost of protecting the oil reserves. So it makes sense to let the Russians take a turn.

China is the new threat, and they will eventually dominate the world, economically, and strategically, if they are not stopped. It's time to put the sleeping giant back to bed, and North Korea is how the United States might accomplish this.

I don't necessarily agree with the plan, but I see a purpose to the plan, and I can agree in principle with how the United States can try to regain dominance.

I can always view our strategic interest, as a patriot, while weighing the risks of our behavior, as a citizen.

 

Edited May 29, 2018 by Raptor Witness

[aztek]

19 hours ago, Raptor Witness said:

What is missing from most media reports about this looming conflict, is the simple fact that a war with North Korea is really a proxy war with China.  North Korea is like a barking chihuahua in the front yard of a much bigger, richer house.

The real danger to the United States, is not the North Koreans acquisition of nuclear technology, but China's rise as an economic power, and the danger of rising interest rates in the near future.

The United States is so close to bankruptcy that even a modest rise in interest rates would destroy our economy. The only way out is to find an excuse to default on Chinese debt, and end China's growth as an economic power on earth. This will also help bring back manufacturing to the United States.

Even if the North Koreans decide to give up their nuclear weapons, I believe that the United States would still find a reason to go to war with China. This may be the real underlying reason why Donald Trump has seemingly, and so foolishly, tried so hard to cozy up to the Russians, who are natural enemies of the Chinese. The fact is, we will need Russian help, if we are to defeat China.

I suspect that the price the United States will be willing to pay, for this Russian assistance, might be allowing the Russians to have more control of, and dominance in the Middle East.

we owe china less than 2T

https://www.thebalance.com/u-s-debt-to-china-how-much-does-it-own-3306355

[Tatetopa]

18 hours ago, seanjo said:

Are we blaming Trump for threats made by NK?

Not yet.  

[Raptor Witness]

1 hour ago, aztek said:

we owe china less than 2T

https://www.thebalance.com/u-s-debt-to-china-how-much-does-it-own-3306355

The bigger problem is that this reserve imbalance magnifies the trade imbalance. U.S. debt is what allows China to devalue their currency, making their goods cheaper in our market, and our goods too expensive in theirs. By buying U.S. bonds, they also help inflate the U.S. dollar.

China is not a strategic partner, like Japan was. China is the most dangerous adversary the U.S. has ever faced.  We need to destroy them, before they gain more strategic power, and influence.

The United States can't defeat China economically, but they can militarily, in a conventional war, especially with Russian help.  That's the larger point here.

Edited May 29, 2018 by Raptor Witness

[Raptor Witness]

19 hours ago, stevewinn said:

The US had its chance in 50's, 1950 - 53. (Korean War)  when Chinese forces entered the war, the US decided to not bomb north of the Yalu. which could and would have defeated the Chinese in Korea, the talk of using Nuclear weapons was also shelved when Ike, (President Eisenhower) became President, his secretary of state J.F Dulles along with Gen MacArthur, and 8th commander Van Fleet  pressed for the use of nuclear weapons but Ike decided against that, worried about their use and reaction by her allies and at the UN. The Chinese fought the US and UN forces to a stand still. It was Lt Gen William Harrison who when signing the armistice on behalf of the US, was quoted as saying he had the dishonour for the first time in US History as being the official signing armistice not in Victory. - The Policy mistakes made in Korea were not learnt and repeated some  12 years later leading to militarily defeat in Vietnam. - now here we are 65 years later dealing with the same problem, the communist North Korea backed by China. but both are in a position of strength China more so, well on its way to Superpower status. its was lost opportunity in 1950-53 that the UN forces didn't bomb North of the Yalu pushing the Chinese out of Korea and thus unifying the Korean peninsular - If you are correct that US policy today is to go to war with China then prepare for yet another loss, The Russians will not assist Western forces, they'd probably assist the Chinese allowing for both the US and China weaken themselves in the process. a win - win for the Russians both on their Eastern flank and in Europe on their Western. 

I disagree, I think we have advanced conventionally far ahead of the Chinese, since the Korean war. The Chinese have spent most of their money on infrastructure and using their reserves to devalue their currency.

If the U.S. is going to put an end to the rise of China, now is the time, and we have the perfect excuse. 

I don't agree that the Russians would side with the Chinese. I think Putin is far more interested in making deals with the West, because despite our differences, they have more in common with U.S. The simple reason is, we are easier to influence in non-military ways. 

Edited May 29, 2018 by Raptor Witness

[Tatetopa]

5 minutes ago, Raptor Witness said:

The United States can't defeat China economically, but they can militarily, in a conventional war, especially with Russian help.  That's the larger point here.

I think that is a faulty notion.

it won't be a conventional war.  You notice China has been actively pursuing a space program while we have been interested in other things.  They sent a rover to the back of the moon.  Like us, they have a robust satellite system and likely orbital weapon platforms.  it would likely be a nuclear war very quickly.  Even North Korea has ICBM capability, China has a lot. Speaking of the Middle East, Iran is likely to get into it on China's side. The straits of Hormuz would close and war could spread to Israel. If Israel attacks Syria and does take out Assad as well as nuking Iran, the Russians could come in on the China - Iran side of things. 

Russia is not going to help us.  If we flounder, they gain big time.

China is our biggest competitor true enough.  A war won't do us any good.  Yes we are stronger militarily, and  we could obliterate China in the process, but likely the US would not be in good shape either.   Neither one of us might be able to recover in time to keep other powers from supplanting us.  Think of a better strategy to overcome the situation.  You have probably heard of the nuclear winter scenario.  Might not be much left after that.

Seems analogous to a person thinking suicide is the only way.

[Raptor Witness]

6 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

I think that is a faulty notion.

it won't be a conventional war.  You notice China has been actively pursuing a space program while we have been interested in other things.  They sent a rover to the back of the moon.  Like us, they have a robust satellite system and likely orbital weapon platforms.  it would likely be a nuclear war very quickly.  Even North Korea has ICBM capability, China has a lot. Speaking of the Middle East, Iran is likely to get into it on China's side. The straits of Hormuz would close and war could spread to Israel. If Israel attacks Syria and does take out Assad as well as nuking Iran, the Russians could come in on the China - Iran side of things. 

Russia is not going to help us.  If we flounder, they gain big time.

China is our biggest competitor true enough.  A war won't do us any good.  Yes we are stronger militarily, and  we could obliterate China in the process, but likely the US would not be in good shape either.   Neither one of us might be able to recover in time to keep other powers from supplanting us.  Think of a better strategy to overcome the situation.  You have probably heard of the nuclear winter scenario.  Might not be much left after that.

Seems analogous to a person thinking suicide is the only way.

I think it would be suicide to allow China to continue growing in power and influence.

The risk of nuclear weapons is equal, but remember, China has allowed their chihuahua to develop these, so China is already threatening U.S. by proxy.  

My point is to look at the real enemy, instead of the one that China wants U.S. to see.

 

Edited May 29, 2018 by Raptor Witness

[Tatetopa]

1 minute ago, Raptor Witness said:

I think it would be suicide to allow China to continue growing in power and influence.

Currently, I think NK has threatened to retaliate if attacked, not start a war.

Share your thoughts here.  Why is that?   China will grow in influence and power,   Already they are the world's largest economy.  They are reaching out and investing in Africa, Asia, and even the Americas. Right now they are choosing to invest in infrastructure and technology. So, lets say they become the most powerful nation in the world. Then what?  We trade?  If we get off the pot and push hard in technology, we will still retain an edge there.  There are a lot of things we are good at already and can excel in other fields.  There are a lot of goods and services that most of the world buys from us.  China likes our soybeans among other things.

 

[Raptor Witness]

16 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

Currently, I think NK has threatened to retaliate if attacked, not start a war.

Share your thoughts here.  Why is that?   China will grow in influence and power,   Already they are the world's largest economy.  They are reaching out and investing in Africa, Asia, and even the Americas. Right now they are choosing to invest in infrastructure and technology. So, lets say they become the most powerful nation in the world. Then what?  We trade?  If we get off the pot and push hard in technology, we will still retain an edge there.  There are a lot of things we are good at already and can excel in other fields.  There are a lot of goods and services that most of the world buys from us.  China likes our soybeans among other things.

 

Some sort of miracle is always possible, and Pence and Bolton were correct, the Chinese could simply choose to remove their chihuahua, and save countless lives.  If that happens, I'll be the first to say, thank you.

Edited May 29, 2018 by Raptor Witness

[Raptor Witness]

The lack of a Peace Treaty with North Korea means the U.S. is technically at war by proxy with China. We don’t have these expensive troops in the South for fun. They are ready to die. 

So the chihuahua is inside a fence, but his new technology reaches far beyond. 

Trade is a good first weapon, and that’s what Trump is using. i don’t like Chinese products anyway, not even their fireworks so I vote for a complete embargo now, then let’s meet and talk.  

Tough talk with China is useless. Tough action might do the trick, and result in a real Peace Treaty.

The U.S. should already be sacrificing if we want a miracle, but so far that hasn’t happened. This says to me that the decision to go to war has already, likely been made.

Edited May 29, 2018 by Raptor Witness

[stevewinn]

6 hours ago, Raptor Witness said:

I disagree, I think we have advanced conventionally far ahead of the Chinese, since the Korean war. The Chinese have spent most of their money on infrastructure and using their reserves to devalue their currency.

If the U.S. is going to put an end to the rise of China, now is the time, and we have the perfect excuse. 

I don't agree that the Russians would side with the Chinese. I think Putin is far more interested in making deals with the West, because despite our differences, they have more in common with U.S. The simple reason is, we are easier to influence in non-military ways. 

The US entered the Korean war with a poor army and left with a better one, they entered into Vietnam with a better army and left with a poor one.

The US has missed the opportunity with China first in 1949. and then again in 1950-53 Korean War. today China is  a nuclear state thus secured itself from being attacked by the US, in much the same way the US had the 'ultimate bomb' in 1945 and the advantage over Russia. the US allowed that opportunity to pass it by and allowed Communist Russia to become a nuclear state, - from the end of 1939-45 war the Russians have sided against the West, Allied with North Korea in their invasion of the South, and Historians say N.Korean invaded the south with the approval of Stalin, Russia also allied China in that war with weapons and supplies, then 9 years later we had the Cuban Missile Crisis, and the cold war continued until the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1990, as it stands today Russian aggression against the West in Ukraine, annexing Crimea, and Russian actions in Syria highlights the Anti-Western policy, Russian as pursued an Anti-Western powers policy for the last 73 years, there is no indication that has changed, not with the increased military cooperation including exercises with the Chinese. 

Lesson to be learnt for the US (and Western powers), Afghanistan 2001, Iraq 2003. guerilla/insurgency warfare. for all the technological and military equipment advancement  over a less superior enemy ended in stalemate; some say defeat. just like in Korea 1950-53. Vietnam 1965-1975 (US combat)

I wouldn't class China as a second rate military by any stretch.

Just have a quick flick through this thread.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1398864&page=101

The time to contain China as past, the U.S as a superpower is waning and as such the US is being contested on Land, in the Air and Sea. - Space and Cyberspace.

[Raptor Witness]

The line has already been drawn, and crossed. 

Either the chihuahua goes, and/or gives up his toys, or we go to war. It’s already in motion. 

Crimea was the price for Russia removing the majority of Syria’s chemical  weapons, which German companies sold them, the precursors, to make. Russia can be bribed again. 

 

[AnchorSteam]

12 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

Currently, I think NK has threatened to retaliate if attacked, not start a war.

Share your thoughts here.  Why is that?   China will grow in influence and power,   Already they are the world's largest economy.  They are reaching out and investing in Africa, Asia, and even the Americas. Right now they are choosing to invest in infrastructure and technology. So, lets say they become the most powerful nation in the world. Then what?  We trade?  If we get off the pot and push hard in technology, we will still retain an edge there.  There are a lot of things we are good at already and can excel in other fields.  There are a lot of goods and services that most of the world buys from us.  China likes our soybeans among other things.

 

What China NEEDS from us is technological innovation. Being a Communist nation, and above all being China, they can't do that themselves. Creativity and the Free Exchange of Ideas ain't their thing, and it won't be until their society is stood on it's head and undergoes some series changes.

So, they need us and the know it, and it's not even that much of an insult to say so. Tech is our #1 export, and the one thing we are good for as far as China is concerned. 

 

The biggest economy in the world? I dunno, we keep going back and forth on that. Chine SHOULD be, they have 4 times the population and are always gong great guns to get even bigger, but they seem to be over-stretched. IMHO, they should have been more cautious, being brand=new to Capitalism. 

And as far as the Muddle East is concerned, they are welcome to it. Let them and Russia deal with that mess, maybe the two of them will butt heads, or maybe they will turn out to be the only people in the world who are harsh enough to get a handle on things once and for all in the dirty crotch of the world. I've been there, and I have to wonder if they have any idea what they are getting into.

Wish them luck, they will need it.

 

As for North Korea, that is the China's only reliable Military Ally.

I think that says much more about China than it does about anyone else, including the Hermit Kingdom itself. 

[Raptor Witness]

8 hours ago, AnchorSteam said:

What China NEEDS from us is technological innovation. Being a Communist nation, and above all being China, they can't do that themselves. Creativity and the Free Exchange of Ideas ain't their thing, and it won't be until their society is stood on it's head and undergoes some series changes.

So, they need us and the know it, and it's not even that much of an insult to say so. Tech is our #1 export, and the one thing we are good for as far as China is concerned. 

 

The biggest economy in the world? I dunno, we keep going back and forth on that. Chine SHOULD be, they have 4 times the population and are always gong great guns to get even bigger, but they seem to be over-stretched. IMHO, they should have been more cautious, being brand=new to Capitalism. 

And as far as the Muddle East is concerned, they are welcome to it. Let them and Russia deal with that mess, maybe the two of them will butt heads, or maybe they will turn out to be the only people in the world who are harsh enough to get a handle on things once and for all in the dirty crotch of the world. I've been there, and I have to wonder if they have any idea what they are getting into.

Wish them luck, they will need it.

 

As for North Korea, that is the China's only reliable Military Ally.

I think that says much more about China than it does about anyone else, including the Hermit Kingdom itself. 

Some well thought out perspective ....

I noticed that the Trump administration has finally announced, only this morning that they are going to take some real action against China.

14 hours ago, Raptor Witness said:

 ................Trade is a good first weapon, and that’s what Trump is using. i don’t like Chinese products anyway, not even their fireworks so I vote for a complete embargo now, then let’s meet and talk.  

Tough talk with China is useless. Tough action might do the trick, and result in a real Peace Treaty.

The U.S. should already be sacrificing if we want a miracle, but so far that hasn’t happened. This says to me that the decision to go to war has already, likely been made.

 

Trump breaks trade cease-fire with China ahead of Ross visit to Beijing - Politico 5-29-2018

President Donald Trump is moving ahead with steps to protect U.S. intellectual property by punishing China with broad investment restrictions, litigation at the World Trade Organization and hefty tariffs on $50 billion worth of Chinese goods.

The move, which the White House announced Tuesday morning, reignites trade tensions between the world's two largest economies and ratchets up the pressure just days before Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross is set to travel to Beijing for further trade talks.

______________________________________________________________________

I've said it before, and I'll repeat it here again ....

On 3/15/2017 at 12:42 AM, Raptor Witness said:

 ...... Perhaps Donald Trump can be useful for something in history.  He might be the only American President with the balls to do what must be done, and if so, I can forgive most of his failings.

 

 

Edited May 30, 2018 by Raptor Witness

[Tatetopa]

21 hours ago, Raptor Witness said:

Some sort of miracle is always possible, and Pence and Bolton were correct, the Chinese could simply choose to remove their chihuahua, and save countless lives.  If that happens, I'll be the first to say, thank you.

Why should they?  Right now we are in trade negotiations with China.  We just threatened tariffs again after backing off.  We want China to help us with NK.  For that help President Trump has already tweeted the need to help ZTE save jobs in China.  Who would have thought that when they have been reducing jobs in America?  So China is getting an inexperienced administration to change policies several times.  They want tariff relief guarantees, then they will put NK in the house.  But they can keep them around to let out from time to time when they want more concessions.  

Or they could let conflict escalate. Russia and China do not want radioactive clouds blowing in their direction.  If it goes that far, NK can take out much of Seoul and South Korea with conventional weapons. At most they might get off a dozen ICBM's before they are gone.  If only one or two make it to mainland US, President Trump becomes a lot less popular.

Russia may not have a lot of reason to help us.  They might figure why take a bribe when we can take the whole bank roll if we wait.

 

Anchor is right about the Middle East except for Israel, our ally.  If they are attacked, we will help and get pulled in.

 

Also, what makes you think all of the chemical weapons are gone from Syria? 

[Raptor Witness]

1 hour ago, Tatetopa said:

Why should they?  Right now we are in trade negotiations with China.  We just threatened tariffs again after backing off.  We want China to help us with NK.  For that help President Trump has already tweeted the need to help ZTE save jobs in China.  Who would have thought that when they have been reducing jobs in America?  So China is getting an inexperienced administration to change policies several times.  They want tariff relief guarantees, then they will put NK in the house.  But they can keep them around to let out from time to time when they want more concessions.  

Or they could let conflict escalate. Russia and China do not want radioactive clouds blowing in their direction.  If it goes that far, NK can take out much of Seoul and South Korea with conventional weapons. At most they might get off a dozen ICBM's before they are gone.  If only one or two make it to mainland US, President Trump becomes a lot less popular.

Russia may not have a lot of reason to help us.  They might figure why take a bribe when we can take the whole bank roll if we wait.

 

Anchor is right about the Middle East except for Israel, our ally.  If they are attacked, we will help and get pulled in.

 

Also, what makes you think all of the chemical weapons are gone from Syria? 

We could use our tactical neutron weapons on NK.  It's the only time in history I have seen their use justified but admittedly it could set a dangerous precedent, so there's a cost for doing this. Using the neutron weapon, I suspect that we could greatly limit casualties.

I believe that we've verified that most of Syria's chemical weapons are now gone. It's a separate issue for another thread.

[Tatetopa]

1 hour ago, Raptor Witness said:

We could use our tactical neutron weapons on NK.  It's the only time in history I have seen their use justified but admittedly it could set a dangerous precedent, so there's a cost for doing this. Using the neutron weapon, I suspect that we could greatly limit casualties.

Even our allies would balk if we were the aggressor and used neutron weapons in a war.

Back to your original premise though, what is the reason for fighting?  What is it that every American company wants that China has?  Customers.  Everybody wants a piece of that huge market.  China's middle class population is now larger than the American middle class.  Eliminating the Chinese market  won't bring much manufacturing back unless we start making our own cheap plastic Walmart junk.  We have more capacity than we have market in the US. We need foreign markets. Then there is agriculture. The export market is a significant portion of American production.  Without it, pork, soybean, corn, fruit and nut producers would be in trouble and some would fail.  We have rich land and the technology to produce bountiful harvests, it is an American asset.

Everybody in the world competes with us in some markets, China is not magically better than we are.  Free enterprise makes its greatest leaps if there is competition.  State controlled economies are slower to react.

Then there is oil, and back to the Middle East.  If Iran is sanctioned and their oil industry fails, the world market loses 20% of its oil on the market.  People need that oil, prices go up even as Russia and Saudi Arabia increase production.  Another reason Russia might sit on the side lines, big oil money to be made. But you may say we are net exporter of petroleum, no worries. Don't forget, in a free enterprise system we Americans don't own the oil once it is pumped,private corporations do.  Private corporations will sell it to the highest bidder.  If Europe and China are paying $6 for a gallon of gas, we Americans will be paying $6 for a gallon of gas or a little less discounting shipping.  For a lot of us, doubling the cost for gas is a big hit to our budgets.  And if fuel costs rise, everything shipped by truck, train, or ship will go up in price, as will airfares.  So too does fertilizer and the price of food.  It would be a big hit for American middle class families.

I know that China is a rival and they may indeed surpass us.  So will India for that matter.   Part of that is because we would rather have tax cuts than invest in infrastructure,education, and deficit reduction.  We are shooting ourselves in the feet. And where does that tax bounty wind up?   Mostly at the top.  Again, the middle class will not see much improvement in America unless we wise up. We are at least half if not more of our headaches.  China is a pain, North Korea is really trivial in the scheme of things isn't it? What is the long term benefit of fighting? 

[Raptor Witness]

The cost of helping to feed China, is outweighed by the pollution this produces, at home. Not to mention the cruelty to the animals. I have seen some of those hog farms, and I’m not squeamish about how we raise farm our animals. The mass production of meat headed for China has become sickening.

I think shooting ICBM’s over Japan is Chinese in origin, and makes anything we do at this point, defensive. 

The idea of potentially saving millions of lives, using a neutron weapon can’t be ruled out as any more obscene than a conventional disaster. Is widespread death by fire and gas concussion really different than concentrated death by invisible particles? That’s laughable to both God and the Devil. We’re so humane we’ve deluded ourselves into believing a more gruesome death is better?

If I had to choose between a precision guided death and a blanket of hell on earth for our troops and our ally, it wouldn’t be hard. The only question would be the consequences of the precedent.

 

[DarkHunter]

6 hours ago, Raptor Witness said:

The cost of helping to feed China, is outweighed by the pollution this produces, at home. Not to mention the cruelty to the animals. I have seen some of those hog farms, and I’m not squeamish about how we raise farm our animals. The mass production of meat headed for China has become sickening.

I think shooting ICBM’s over Japan is Chinese in origin, and makes anything we do at this point, defensive. 

The idea of potentially saving millions of lives, using a neutron weapon can’t be ruled out as any more obscene than a conventional disaster. Is widespread death by fire and gas concussion really different than concentrated death by invisible particles? That’s laughable to both God and the Devil. We’re so humane we’ve deluded ourselves into believing a more gruesome death is better?

If I had to choose between a precision guided death and a blanket of hell on earth for our troops and our ally, it wouldn’t be hard. The only question would be the consequences of the precedent.

 

You have no idea how neutron weapons work or why development of them stopped, basically they aren't really effective.  The only thing you got right is that neutron weapons kill by an extreme dose of radiation.  

Neutron weapons were a relatively short lived nuclear weapon system that was created when it was discovered/proved that conventional nuclear weapons are really bad at stopping armor or mechanized divisions.  If I remember correctly it was estimated a single strategic nuclear warhead would only be able to kill/disable approximately 10% of an armored or mechanized division advancing assuming it was in a regular formation and not spread out anticipating a nuclear strike, ends up tons of metal and decent distances protect rather well against blast wave and heat.

So then neutron weapons were created with the idea that they would be able to kill most if not all of an armored or mechanized division, and it was proved that they could.  The problem was when they would die, very few would die instantly, most would die within a day or two to about a week or two, and few would die years later from cancer.  Ends up having a lot of well armed soldiers knowing they are probably going to die with a few days to a week or two is a problem.  Also didn't help that for decades all tanks, APCs, IFV, basically all armored vehicles have some form of radiation shielding making neutron weapons completely ineffective.

As for a use on a city, neutron weapons also wont really work as cities now tend to be made with concrete and steal, both of which are decently dense materials and provide okish radiation shielding, depends on the type of radiation.  A neutron weapon would still kill a lot of people but most of them wouldnt be instantaneous but would be between a few days to weeks and years later due to cancer.

As for death by extreme radiation exposure from a neutron weapon, it isnt a good death.  Assuming you arent killed instantly, which statistically most won't be the death is rather painful.  Starts with crippling illness and pain that last from a few hours to a day or so followed by feeling rather good for some time except for hair falling out before falling back into extreme pain and illness before ultimately passing away. 

At least with a blast wave from conventional explosions it is quick and mostly painless, burning is painful till the nerve endings are burnt away but it is generally quick also.

[Raptor Witness]

7 hours ago, DarkHunter said:

You have no idea how neutron weapons work or why development of them stopped, basically they aren't really effective.  The only thing you got right is that neutron weapons kill by an extreme dose of radiation.  

Neutron weapons were a relatively short lived nuclear weapon system that was created when it was discovered/proved that conventional nuclear weapons are really bad at stopping armor or mechanized divisions.  If I remember correctly it was estimated a single strategic nuclear warhead would only be able to kill/disable approximately 10% of an armored or mechanized division advancing assuming it was in a regular formation and not spread out anticipating a nuclear strike, ends up tons of metal and decent distances protect rather well against blast wave and heat.

So then neutron weapons were created with the idea that they would be able to kill most if not all of an armored or mechanized division, and it was proved that they could.  The problem was when they would die, very few would die instantly, most would die within a day or two to about a week or two, and few would die years later from cancer.  Ends up having a lot of well armed soldiers knowing they are probably going to die with a few days to a week or two is a problem.  Also didn't help that for decades all tanks, APCs, IFV, basically all armored vehicles have some form of radiation shielding making neutron weapons completely ineffective.

As for a use on a city, neutron weapons also wont really work as cities now tend to be made with concrete and steal, both of which are decently dense materials and provide okish radiation shielding, depends on the type of radiation.  A neutron weapon would still kill a lot of people but most of them wouldnt be instantaneous but would be between a few days to weeks and years later due to cancer.

As for death by extreme radiation exposure from a neutron weapon, it isnt a good death.  Assuming you arent killed instantly, which statistically most won't be the death is rather painful.  Starts with crippling illness and pain that last from a few hours to a day or so followed by feeling rather good for some time except for hair falling out before falling back into extreme pain and illness before ultimately passing away. 

At least with a blast wave from conventional explosions it is quick and mostly painless, burning is painful till the nerve endings are burnt away but it is generally quick also.

I would think that with more laser precision, coupled with more focused neutron beams, it would have been a better weapon system, but if that has been abandoned, then you’re correct I am behind the curve.

I was also under the belief that shielding was rather difficult and ineffective, especially if you focused on a target, unless you have a lot of money to spend on shielding, which the North Koreans don’t.

Is it ideal? Of course not, but better than using hundreds or even thousands of cruise missiles, at about a $ million $ each, or even more now.

 

[Raptor Witness]

The desperation of what to do with China is not being solved with diplomacy. Why would you gut your state department if you wanted peace? Why would you choose the former head of the Boy Scouts to do it?

Whio wants the job of a blessed peacemaker, when you are preparing for war?

i doubt even the best intelligence officer in the U.S. government understands the truth of why the Chinese would allow this to escalate to where we are now.

The truth defected ....  and it won’t return until Washington is a ghost town.