Article

2006-10-20 China-Japan-Koreas

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by john 2006-10-20 18:52|| || Front Page|| [6 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Amusing saber rattling considering how easily we can already nuke North Korea any day we need to.

Posted by Darrell 2006-10-20 19:48|| 2006-10-20 19:48|| Front Page Top

#2 Parking nuclear weapons on China's doorstep is a perfect response to their complicity in Kim's ongoing Atomic Tantrum. It leaves the unspoken and equally unsettling message that they might become permanent fixtures in the equation. The communist Mandarins should be up to a pucker factor of about 7.5 right about now. Add another whole point when we have nuclear equipped forces docked in Japan and Taiwan.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2006-10-20 19:49|| 2006-10-20 19:49|| Front Page Top

#3 The tactical nuclear weapons (including artillery) would presumably be used to hit massed North Korean troops comming across the border.

Posted by FeralCat 2006-10-20 20:13|| 2006-10-20 20:13|| Front Page Top

#4 nice job, Kim, asshole

Posted by Hu Jintao">Hu Jintao 2006-10-20 20:40|| 2006-10-20 20:40|| Front Page Top

#5 Oops, I in rearry deep doo doo now!

Posted by Dear Reader 2006-10-20 20:42|| 2006-10-20 20:42|| Front Page Top

#6 Better still would be a S. Korea with its own nuclear weapons. Ditto for Japan and Taiwan. If China wants to proliferate they should be made to live with the consequnces.

Posted by Iblis">Iblis 2006-10-20 21:19|| 2006-10-20 21:19|| Front Page Top

#7 I demur on So. Korea, given the increasingly left slant of their politics.

Posted by lotp 2006-10-20 21:30|| 2006-10-20 21:30|| Front Page Top

#8 Actually, tactical nukes on site in Korea is much better for us than the threat of us having to use ICBMs to respond to a NKor nuke attack : the Chinese know all about our tac nukes, their delivery systems, and range limitations. So a tac nuke response is not going to be a worry about losing Bejing in retaliation for a nuke on American troops in the Pusan area. If we use Peacekeepers or Tridents, there is always that possibility for the Politboro to worry about. So in a weird way, US tac nukes are more reassuring to the Chinese than us not having them in the area.

Posted by Shieldwolf 2006-10-20 21:35|| 2006-10-20 21:35|| Front Page Top

#9 Hey, Shieldwolf...I hadda read it twice, but I think I gottit now.

In roadway design, somethimes "it's so dangerous that it's safe". Like mutually assured destruction, I guess.

Posted by Bobby 2006-10-20 21:52|| 2006-10-20 21:52|| Front Page Top

#10 M.A.D....can we say D.E.T.E.N.T.E..now? Good, boys and girls!!

Posted by smn 2006-10-20 21:55|| 2006-10-20 21:55|| Front Page Top

#11 Um Shieldwolf all I got to say is "HUH?". The Chinese know virtually nothing about our tac nuke capability as does most of the world because we simply havent deployed any for the past 10-15 years period. Tac nukes means we're going back to GLCM and Pershing II/ATACM type systems with ranges exceeding or meeting INF restrictions (which will go to hell in a hand basket if the Russians really do decide to trash their end of the treaty because they see the ABM shield we're developing as unfair). This potentially puts China right smack dab in the middle of a 5-10 minute nuke response time against even the US. Not a good place to be dontcha think?

Posted by Valentine 2006-10-20 22:09|| 2006-10-20 22:09|| Front Page Top

#12 In the 1980's REAGAN had a doctrine labeled FLEXIBLE RESPONSE, which was intended to keep the USSR-WARPACT off-balance by making the Soviet-Commie Generals, Admirals, + Politburo unsure as to whether the USA andor US-led NATO would immediately escalate any conventional forces battle in the FULDA GAP, etc. into all-out nuclear war. Unknown to most of the free world at the time, the USSR prior to FLEXIBLE RESPONSE already had plans in place to use massive amounts of tactical nukes + Limited/Selective ICBM strikes in any first-strike against defending US-NATO forces. IOW, while mainstream NATO Pols + Commanders were arguing back and forth about how to fight a DEFENSIVE conventional-only battle against the USSR-WARPACT, the USSR had already changed the dimension of any NATO-PACT conflict into OFFENSIVE NUKLAAR.

Posted by JosephMendiola 2006-10-20 23:20|| 2006-10-20 23:20|| Front Page Top

13:56 Anonymoose
23:56 Zenster
23:53 Zenster
23:53 Old Patriot
23:52 3dc
23:46 3dc
23:30 JosephMendiola
23:26 twobyfour
23:20 JosephMendiola
23:18 NoBeards
23:13 3dc
23:10 mrp
23:08 RD
23:05 Chinter Flarong
23:04 3dc
22:59 RD
22:50 gorb
22:47 RD
22:44 Old Patriot
22:30 Old Patriot
22:29 Asymmetrical Triangulation
22:26 Kalle (kafir forever)
22:22 3dc
22:20 Gen. G. S. Patton (Ret)