- Red and Black
- Sep 5, 2011
-
|
The fears are definitely understated, but for now under Trump, a nuclear exchange with China is probably more likely.
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2017 07:04
|
|
- Adbot
-
ADBOT LOVES YOU
|
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2024 09:52
|
|
- Red and Black
- Sep 5, 2011
-
|
Nah, I don't think so. Trump uses a lot of bluster toward China, but there's really no indication it means anything concrete. A warning of incoming missiles from China, I think, would be easily ignored. Their nukes are probably not aimed at us, and ours not at them. They're aimed at Russia instead. In an institutional sense, nothing really changed after the cold war.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2017 21:52
|
|
- Red and Black
- Sep 5, 2011
-
|
This is ridiculous fear-mongering.
China isn't going to do poo poo but wave the flag and maybe crash into a surveillance plane or two. Even the looniest of Chinese nationalists know a nuclear exchange with the US would be the end of Chinese Communism and likely of China as a self-governing state.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2017 00:40
|
|
- Red and Black
- Sep 5, 2011
-
|
China has the capability to destroy the US west coast, more than enough to achieve the deterrent effect. Obviously both sides maintain systems that will actually launch nukes in retaliation to a first strike, otherwise the deterrent would be useless, so you're wrong to assume the Chinese wouldn't launch. Also it's not just China, the US could also make the first launch in response to a false alarm.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2017 00:55
|
|
- Red and Black
- Sep 5, 2011
-
|
Trump Could Face a Nuclear Decision Soon
quote:Trump’s deal-making talent may prove wanting, however as congressional Republicans adamantly support missile defenses and comprehensive modernization of U.S. nuclear strike forces. Other factors could also thwart an overture to Russia, including intentional acts or accidents between rival fighter aircraft that result in loss of life, triggering further escalation of tensions that could ultimately spin out of control. A conventional conflict could ensue and precipitate a nuclear response, probably by Russia, which relies much more on nuclear weapons than does the United States, but who knows how an unpredictable commander in chief who consults mainly with himself might behave.
This raises the perennial question of Trump’s reaction to indications of a Russian nuclear missile attack received in the wee hours of the night in the midst of an escalating crisis. Would he have a steady hand, or lose his composure and convulse with a knee-jerk reaction?
Nobody knows the answer, but we do know two things. First, such a challenge plays to Trump’s cognitive and emotional weaknesses. An imminent threat to the White House from incoming nuclear warheads flying at four miles per second would surely cause intense emotion and unsettle the steadiest of leaders. With only three to seven minutes allowed to assess whether the indications are true or false and decide whether and how to retaliate, any leader could make a bad call. (This system clearly needs to be reformed to greatly increase warning and decision time.) But Trump’s erratic and volatile personality makes for low confidence in his ability to reach the right decision. Second, a mistake would be irrevocable. If the president gives the order, which takes seconds to convey to his military, missiles would fire from their underground silos within five minutes and from their submarine tubes within 15 minutes. The missiles cannot be recalled or destroyed in flight once they are launched. They would reach their targets on the other side of the planet in 15 to 30 minutes.
quote:
Imagine the following:
—Trump receives urgent intelligence of North Korea’s prepping for nuclear attack and calls an emergency session of his National Security Council in the Situation Room. All his key military commanders around the world are patched into the call. The secretary of state reports that his counterparts in Japan and South Korea are appealing urgently for action to protect their nations from the erratic, volatile, and maniacal commander of the North’s nuclear forces. The CIA reports that communications intercepts and space reconnaissance reveal the Dear Leader’s forces are at maximum readiness poised for immediate launch and that he has instructed his military to prepare for nuclear conflict. And then Dear Leader slings vitriol at Trump himself, and demands an immediate cessation of joint U.S.-South Korean-Japanese military exercises in the region or else suffer the consequences of thermonuclear strikes.
—An irked Trump decides to teach the Dear Leader a lesson and returns the insults and the ultimatum: Stand down your nuclear missiles within 24 hours or else they will be taken out. The secretary of state delivers the demarche. Trump orders his military commanders to prepare their forces for a quick surgical strike on the North’s nuclear bases. He is told that a strike with U.S. and allied precision-guided conventional weapons delivered by aircraft and cruise missile stands a 95 percent chance of wiping out the nuclear threat. Trump says he believes that winning requires the destruction of 100 percent, and orders the Strategic Command to prepare to use nuclear weapons in order to ensure that none of the North’s nuclear weapons would survive and that the Kim dynasty is finally ended.
—During the next 24 hours, senior officials and military commanders discuss and debate the pros and cons of attacking the North, let alone employing nuclear weapons, and speculate on the president’s true intentions. Is it all a bluff, or does he in fact intend to strike and bring down the regime along with its nuclear forces. Might he actually order the use of nuclear weapons?
—North Korea, as is its wont, will not stand down—indeed becomes only more belligerent and defiant. A consensus then jells among most U.S. officials that the North’s outrageous behavior and rhetoric are par for the course and that the hot air does not warrant a pre-emptive military strike by U.S. coalition forces, much less a nuclear strike. But the situation on the ground has dramatically changed since the North’s nuclear missile forces became capable of destroying the major cities of its enemies. And when the 24-hour deadline arrives, and the CIA reports that nothing has changed except that intercepts reveal peak readiness to fire the missiles, the denizens of the Situation Room have internalized the distinct possibility that the president will in fact order a nuclear strike. They have prepared for it, and thus tacitly accommodated the decision.
Again, nobody knows how Trump and his senior advisers would behave. It is quite possible that serious objections would be voiced, perhaps with great vehemence. Would Trump listen to them and revise his thinking? Perhaps not. He brags (vacuously) that he has a big brain and primarily consults with himself. Surrounded by many hard-liners, it is also possible that a kind of group-think prevails bearing great deference to the commander in chief’s decision, however convoluted and emotion-racked his thinking seems to be. His team has come to regard the nuclear option as legitimate and perhaps even necessary.
One thing is certain: Trump will have the sole authority to launch nuclear weapons whenever he chooses with a single phone call. This (oversimplified) scenario suggests that even if Trump, consulting nobody, lashes out because of pique over Kim’s disrespect, his advisers might well simply demur, but if they do object and refuse they have no recourse but to excuse themselves from the proceedings and take what comes. That’s because there simply are no checks and balances on his authority, which is derived from the Constitution. There is no congressional or Supreme Court veto. And there would be no veto by anyone in the president’s circle of advisers or the military.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2017 01:25
|
|
- Red and Black
- Sep 5, 2011
-
|
What is hair-trigger alert?
quote:“Hair-trigger alert” is a U.S. military policy that enables the rapid launch of nuclear weapons. Missiles on hair-trigger alert are maintained in a ready-for-launch status, staffed by around-the-clock launch crews, and can be airborne in as few as ten minutes.
The hair-trigger policy has its roots in the Cold War. Military strategists feared a “bolt from the blue” Soviet first strike, involving hundreds or thousands of nuclear weapons that would compromise our ability to retaliate. By keeping land-based missiles on hair-trigger alert—and nuclear-armed bombers ready to take off—the United States could launch vulnerable weapons before they were hit by incoming Soviet warheads. This helped ensure retaliation, and was seen as a deterrent to a Soviet first strike—a concept known as “mutually-assured destruction,” or MAD.
Submarines, which can’t be targeted when at sea, also kept weapons on hair-trigger alert. The decision to launch any nuclear weapon was based on information from radars and satellites, and remains so today.
The United States no longer keeps its bombers armed and ready to take off. But even though a Russian first-strike is not a credible risk, the United States still keeps its 450 silo-based nuclear weapons, and hundreds of submarine-based weapons, on hair-trigger alert. Thousands more—around 3,500 total—are deployed on other submarines or bombers, or kept in reserve.
Why is hair-trigger alert dangerous?
Hair-trigger alert increases the risk of an accidental nuclear missile launch, or a deliberate launch in response to a false warning. The results of such a launch would be catastrophic: modern weapons are many times more powerful than the bombs that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, capable of killing millions of people with a single warhead.
The risks of hair-trigger alert aren’t theoretical. A training tape was once misinterpreted as reality, initiating the steps needed to launch an attack. A defective computer chip once falsely reported an incoming attack at a time of extremely high tensions. And radar and satellite systems have both delivered false positives, giving decision makers limited time to sort out the truth.
China has the ability to move their nukes on to hair trigger as well, although it's unclear if they have.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2017 01:30
|
|
- Red and Black
- Sep 5, 2011
-
|
South China Sea: China media warn US over 'confrontation'
quote:Blocking China from islands it has built in contested waters would lead to "devastating confrontation", Chinese state media have warned.
The angry response came after secretary of state nominee Rex Tillerson said the US should deny Beijing access to new islands in the South China Sea. Two state-run papers carry editorials strongly criticising his comments.
The hawkish Global Times tabloid warned that any such action would lead to "a large-scale war". Beijing has been building artificial islands on reefs in waters also claimed by other nations. Images published late last year show military defences on some islands, a think-tank says. Speaking at his confirmation hearing on Wednesday, Mr Tillerson likened China's island-building to Russia's annexation of Crimea from Ukraine.
"We're going to have to send China a clear signal that first, the island-building stops and second, your access to those islands also is not going to be allowed." China's official response, from foreign ministry spokesman Lu Kang, was muted. China had the right to conduct "normal activities" in its own territory, he said. Asked specifically about the remark on blocking access, he said he would not respond to hypothetical questions.
'Unrealistic fantasies'
But editorials in the China Daily and the Global Times were more direct in their comments.
The China Daily suggested Mr Tillerson's remarks showed ignorance of Sino-US relations and diplomacy in general. "Such remarks are not worth taking seriously because they are a mish-mash of naivety, shortsightedness, worn-out prejudices and unrealistic political fantasies," it said. "Should he act on them in the real world, it would be disastrous.
"As many have observed, it would set a course for devastating confrontation between China and the US. After all, how can the US deny China access to its own territories without inviting the latter's legitimate, defensive responses?"
The Global Times, a nationalist daily, suggested that Mr Tillerson's "astonishing" comments came because "he merely wanted to curry favour from senators and increase his chances of being confirmed by intentionally showing a tough stance toward China".
China would ensure his "rabble rousing" would not succeed, it went on. "Unless Washington plans to wage a large-scale war in the South China Sea, any other approaches to prevent Chinese access to the islands will be foolish."
The Obama administration has spoken out strongly against the island-building, pledged to ensure freedom of navigation in the South China Sea and sending navy ships to sail in contested areas. But it has not threatened to block access to the islands, a step likely to enrage Beijing.
Mr Tillerson did not explain how the US might block access to the islands, and both Chinese papers suggested a wait-and-see policy. "It remains to be seen to what extent his views against China will translate into US foreign policies," the China Daily said.
This kind of confrontation will increase tensions between the US and China, and increase the chance that a false alarm is misinterpreted as a first strike.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2017 01:35
|
|
- Red and Black
- Sep 5, 2011
-
|
Secretary of Defence needs to confirm the order and the cabinet can invoke the 25th amendment if Trump is clearly off his rocker. There may not be a specific nuclear weapons clause in the constitution but there are numerous mechanisms by which the President can be controlled that would also be applicable.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2017 01:38
|
|
- Red and Black
- Sep 5, 2011
-
|
which is an interesting point. if potus or the russian president or the chinese premier or whoever gave the order, would people actually launch the weapons?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2017 03:43
|
|
- Red and Black
- Sep 5, 2011
-
|
It doesn't matter what you stand to lose when you have a Fojar-ish mindset that the opposing side will always back down and thus you can escalate forever with no fear of consequences
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2017 02:02
|
|
- Adbot
-
ADBOT LOVES YOU
|
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2024 09:52
|
|
- Red and Black
- Sep 5, 2011
-
|
The good news is that once society collapses it will greatly reduce our CO2 emissions
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2017 05:28
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2017 07:04
