yea right, there going to give up billions in there trade with the USA - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

TN-W124 Diesel · #1 07-15-2005, 11:46 AM

yea right, we would stop shopping at Walmart

Top Chinese general warns US over attack
By Alexandra Harney in Beijing and Demetri Sevastopulo and Edward Alden in Washington
Published: July 14 2005 21:59 | Last updated: July 15 2005 00:03

china us troubleChina is prepared to use nuclear weapons against the US if it is attacked by Washington during a confrontation over Taiwan, a Chinese general said on Thursday.

“If the Americans draw their missiles and position-guided ammunition on to the target zone on China's territory, I think we will have to respond with nuclear weapons,” said General Zhu Chenghu.

Gen Zhu was speaking at a function for foreign journalists organised, in part, by the Chinese government. He added that China's definition of its territory included warships and aircraft.

“If the Americans are determined to interfere [then] we will be determined to respond,” said Gen Zhu, who is also a professor at China's National Defence University.

“We . . . will prepare ourselves for the destruction of all of the cities east of Xian. Of course the Americans will have to be prepared that hundreds . . . of cities will be destroyed by the Chinese.”

Gen Zhu is a self-acknowledged “hawk” who has warned that China could strike the US with long-range missiles. But his threat to use nuclear weapons in a conflict over Taiwan is the most specific by a senior Chinese official in nearly a decade.

However, some US-based China experts cautioned that Gen Zhu probably did not represent the mainstream People's Liberation Army view.

“He is running way beyond his brief on what China might do in relation to the US if push comes to shove,” said one expert with knowledge of Gen Zhu. “Nobody who is cleared for information on Chinese war scenarios is going to talk like this,” he added.

Gen Zhu's comments come as the Pentagon prepares to brief Congress next Monday on its annual report on the Chinese military, which is expected to take a harder line than previous years. They are also likely to fuel the mounting anti-China sentiment on Capitol Hill.

In recent months, a string of US officials, including Donald Rumsfeld, defence secretary, have raised concerns about China's military rise. The Pentagon on Thursday declined to comment on “hypothetical scenarios”.

Rick Fisher, a former senior US congressional official and an authority on the Chinese military, said the specific nature of the threat “is a new addition to China's public discourse”. China's official doctrine has called for no first use of nuclear weapons since its first atomic test in 1964. But Gen Zhu is not the first Chinese official to refer to the possibility of using such weapons first in a conflict over Taiwan.

Chas Freeman, a former US assistant secretary of defence, said in 1996 that a PLA official had told him China could respond in kind to a nuclear strike by the US in the event of a conflict with Taiwan. The official is believed to have been Xiong Guangkai, now the PLA's deputy chief of general staff.

Gen Zhu said his views did not represent official Chinese policy and he did not anticipate war with the US.

Additional reporting by Richard McGregor in Beijing

GottaDiesel · #2 07-15-2005, 11:50 AM

Hehe,

We pissed off the Arab world, and now we're going to piss off one of the few countries that could strangle us economically (easily), and in war.

Huh, Remind me what a bastard Clinton was again. Yeah, Right.

boneheaddoctor · #3 07-15-2005, 11:59 AM

And remember students....China is the People Clintons cronies gave the MRV wardhead info to....Something I raised hell over back then.....

Funny but Chinas comments don't surprise me.....they have been this way since Mao and his flunkies took over.

mikemover · #4 07-15-2005, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GottaDiesel

Hehe,

We pissed off the Arab world, and now we're going to piss off one of the few countries that could strangle us economically (easily), and in war.

Huh, Remind me what a bastard Clinton was again. Yeah, Right.

WE pissed of the Arab world?!?!! What alternate universe are YOU living in?!

They have been pissed of at EVERYONE, including each other, for CENTURIES.

Mike

GottaDiesel · #5 07-15-2005, 12:17 PM

Name 1 country in the G-8 (Blair aside, since he fell in love with Bush) that is hated by the Arabs. Oh, and post some facts.

Italy, NO.
France, NO.
Germany, NO.
USA, Duh.
Blair, Duh.

So that leave less work for you.

Give me a break. If Shrub was a good as looking like a donkey as he was diplomacy, we'd be on top of the game.

So please, stop.

mikemover · #6 07-15-2005, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GottaDiesel

Name 1 country in the G-8 (Blair aside, since he fell in love with Bush) that is hated by the Arabs. Oh, and post some facts.

Italy, NO.
France, NO.
Germany, NO.
USA, Duh.
Blair, Duh.

So that leave less work for you.

Give me a break. If Shrub was a good as looking like a donkey as he was diplomacy, we'd be on top of the game.

So please, stop.

Well, of course! The French roll over and try to appease EVERYONE, and France AND Germany, along with Russia, had bigger oil contracts with Saddam than ANYONE!

There have terrorist attacks in Spain, Bali, Australia....All carried out by Muslim extremists, 99.9% of which are Arab.

The time for diplomacy has LONG since passed. My gripe with George W. is not that he has attacked our enemies in the Middle East. My gripe is that he has not gone ALL-OUT and removed them from the face of this planet.

Any more questions?....

Mike

GottaDiesel · #7 07-15-2005, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikemover

Well, of course!

Glad you got it.

mikemover · #8 07-15-2005, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by narwhal

Whaaa? How can you read what that General said, and twist it into some sort of blame on the US???

EVERYTHING is our fault.... We're the bad guys. Didn't you get the memo?

Mike

boneheaddoctor · #9 07-15-2005, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GottaDiesel

Name 1 country in the G-8 (Blair aside, since he fell in love with Bush) that is hated by the Arabs. Oh, and post some facts.

Italy, NO.
France, NO.
Germany, NO.
USA, Duh.
Blair, Duh.

So that leave less work for you.

Give me a break. If Shrub was a good as looking like a donkey as he was diplomacy, we'd be on top of the game.

So please, stop.

THey haven't learned the lessons of Neville Chaimberland like we and the UK have.

GottaDiesel · #10 07-15-2005, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by narwhal

Whaaa? How can you read what that General said, and twist it into some sort of blame on the US???

Because we need to keep our hands out of other's people business and start minding our OWN store. Christ, we can't even successfully smash big rocks into smaller ones in Afganistan. Let alone turn around Iraq. Now all of a sudden we're going to do battle with a country that FAR out industrializes us, and population wise... we lose there too.

We're only a super-power because of two things. And in THIS order:

a) We think we are and people (some, few) still think we are.
b) We have nukes.

Aside from that, it is a very different military compared to WW2.

And don't waste your time with Nam or Korea... we lost. YES, we LOST those. So get over it. And so far we haven't won Iraq. Nor will we.

Now you think we can go head to head with China. Yeah. Right. Only if we nuke them before they nuke us, and then we're really screwed. You just aren't going to win. (Don't get me wrong, they won't win either.)

With massive nuke powers there is NO winning. Everyone is screwed. It only worked when a few guys had the nukes and controlled all the non-nuke nations. Now, everyone and their mommy has a nuke, so it doesn't mean a thing.

Take my word for it, pissing off China is a very very fool-hardy thing for us to do.

We need to sweep up in Iraq, make our OWN country strong, and defend her. No more of this crap where we want to be the world-police.

You can't police the world when all the players have nukes.

That's it.

GottaDiesel · #11 07-15-2005, 12:39 PM

Here's some good reading, it's long... and loaded with facts, and works cited...

The folks that take this topic serious will note it worthy of the time needed to read.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/china/doctrine/0046.htm

boneheaddoctor · #12 07-15-2005, 12:42 PM

You know last I heard South Korea has not been overrun by the North koreans and the Chinese....and they are still democratic.....don't see how that was losing....

Sadam the vicious dictator is out of office and they have a democraticly elected government.....

I don't think thats losing....

luvrpgrl · #13 07-15-2005, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GottaDiesel

Hehe,

We pissed off the Arab world, and now we're going to piss off one of the few countries that could strangle us economically (easily), and in war.

Huh, Remind me what a bastard Clinton was again. Yeah, Right.

DUDE, last I checked, Saudi Arabia kicked OBL out. You think he's not pissed at them?

If you dig deep, OBL real motive is to re capture control of Saudi Arabia.
There really are some very good and informative books on it.
I dont recall the details, but it has something to do with mohammed the phrophet and writer of the koran had control of the holy land saudi arabia and now OBL thinks its his turn.
Seriously, check it out, its very detailed, but if you do some serious historical reading, and check what OBL has said, it is his goal.

PC Dave · #14 07-15-2005, 01:02 PM

Some intelligent analysis from people who actually have a clue what they're talking about:

Stratfor Geopolitical Diary: Friday, July 15, 2005

Maj. Gen. Zhu Chenghu of China's People's Liberation Army said
something very interesting on Thursday. As quoted in the Financial
Times, he said, "If the Americans draw their missiles and position
guided ammunition onto the target zone on China's territory, I think
we will have to respond with nuclear weapons." He went on to say that
"we Chinese will prepare ourselves for the destruction of all cities
east of Xian. Of course the Americans will have to be prepared that
hundreds … of cities will be destroyed by the Chinese."

Zhu appeared to be referring to an American defense of Taiwan. In most
scenarios, an attempt by China to invade Taiwan would be met by
conventional U.S. forces, particularly naval aviation using a range of
precision-guided munitions. These weapons would be used to interdict
Chinese naval movements in the Taiwan Strait, including warships and
troop transports. In addition to carrier-based aircraft, U.S. Air
Force assets likely would be deployed to Taiwan, along with cruise
missiles, to attack Chinese war-making infrastructure.

In referring to nuclear weapons, Zhu's reasoning was that China would
be unable to defeat the United States in any conventional
confrontation. Therefore, China's only option would be to escalate the
conflict to the nuclear level -- at which, although they would still
be outgunned, they could still devastate the United States.

What is startling about Zhu's statement is that he made it at all. He
made it clear that he was expressing his own views and not those of
the Chinese government and, more important, that he did not actually
anticipate war with the United States. However, Chinese major
generals, like major generals everywhere, do not normally engage in
playful speculation, particularly when the potential warfighting
scenario is not anticipated. Or to put it more simply, generals do not
deliver hypothetical warnings about nuclear holocausts. But this
general did and, at least to our knowledge, he hasn't been fired.
Therefore, it was a message that China wanted to deliver to someone.

The obvious explanation is one that is extremely hard to believe: that
China is preparing military action against Taiwan and is warning the
United States that it would not be able to intervene and, at the same
time, localize the conflict and confine it to conventional weapons. If
the United States were to intervene, the war would become global and
nuclear.

The obvious explanation assumes that China is preparing an invasion,
and that is just incredibly hard to believe. First, China does not
have the amphibious capability to support an invasion, even against
Taiwanese forces. It might get lodgment, but logistics would be a
nightmare. That might change in a few years, but not now. More
important, why would the Chinese want to invade Taiwan? Symbolism and
the occasional rhetorical dustup notwithstanding, cross-Strait
business is more important to China than having a wrecked Taiwan
administered by Beijing.

So it makes no sense, except that Zhu said what he did. The only other
explanation is the one we gave on the confrontation with Japan over
textbooks: The Chinese, in economic trouble, are playing the
patriotism card at home and this interview, as it filters back to
China, enhances the image of the regime as a global player. Having the
ability to play nuclear hardball is no small achievement and, we would
guess, would be seen as a matter of pride by some Chinese.

That is a lame explanation, but the alternatives are either that China
is about to go to war or that a general was kicking back and having
fun with some Western reporters. Neither of those explanations works
for us, so we default to domestic posturing. It's been a long time
since people regarded thermonuclear war as an option to be discussed.
Yet here we are. It is another sign that the times, they are
a-changing.

mzsmbs · #15 07-15-2005, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by narwhal

Yeah, negativity has seem to become a popular hobby. They say it leads to sarcasm.

and banning in these here parts...