Chinese state media says a war will start if the US puts troops in Taiwan

Shmooglavoue

Active member
As far as the US is concerned, if China fires first they will have casus belli to retaliate. And there are many nations, besides the US, that are upset with China right now. So if it comes down to a shootout between the two many of them would side with the US, at least politically.

This is a fight that China doesn't want to pick. But they may if the CCP thinks it's about to lose control over their country. So it's unpredictable what will happen, since we don't know enough about China's internal workings.
 

Travis The Dragon

Well-known member
I'm not quite sure how the media giving their opinion on what China will do is a military event, but this is definitely a scary situation. I wonder what the chances are that the US will send troops back to Taiwan.
 

Shmooglavoue

Active member
I'm not quite sure how the media giving their opinion on what China will do is a military event, but this is definitely a scary situation. I wonder what the chances are that the US will send troops back to Taiwan.
Global Times is a state-run media source. They're one step away from being an official announcement platform for the CCP. The only difference between this and an official declaration is that the CCP can officially say "Oh we never said that, that was just a journalist getting in over his head." if they are pressed on the issue. Nevermind that the CCP controls exactly what is and isn't said by the Global Times.
 

TheChrome

Power Poster
Most of China's war experience over the decades and centuries equate to battles within, or within their own back yard. They do not have the experience of being a Global World Power militarily such as Great Britain or the United States. As a result, they most likely do not have the military tactics to compete with the centuries of experience of the British and American Empires who's empire the "sun never sets" on.

At least by bible prophecy we know China or Russia will never overtake or depose the United States and Great Britain as world powers. The real question is, how, and what will bring seeming peace between China and the US? - "While people are saying 'peace and safety,' destruction will come on them suddenly." (1 Thessalonians 5:3)
 
Last edited:

RiffRaff

DEFCON Staff
Staff member
Most of China's war experience over the decades and centuries equate to battles within, or within their own back yard. They do not have the experience of being a Global World Power militarily such as Great Britain or the United States. As a result, they most likely do not have the military tactics to compete with the centuries of experience of the British and American Empires who's empire the "sun never sets" on.

At least by bible prophecy we know China or Russia will never overtake or depose the United States and Great Britain as world powers. The real question is, how, and what will bring seeming peace between China and the US? - "While people are saying 'peace and safety,' destruction will come on them suddenly." (1 Thessalonians 5:3)
With all due respect to everyone's personal theological beliefs on this forum, we must separate those from our situational analysis. Even if Bible prophecy is a real thing, there are just way too many different methods of it being interpreted for it to serve as a reliable analytical tool.

Again, no disrespect intended. I hope everyone understands the point I'm trying to make.
 

falloutsucks

New member
Let's say there's a war. Is a ThermoNuclear war with China M.A.D.?

Will Russia take the side of the Chinese or stand on the sidelines?

I can easily find outdated information regarding a potential exchange with Russia ( most of the analysis was done when they were the USSR ).

Has any serious research been done or papers been published indicating likely targets in the event of a war?

How is their preparedness, in regards to shelters, etc to survive the potential fallout?

Forgive me if this is the wrong place for these questions.

-FalloutSucks
 

RiffRaff

DEFCON Staff
Staff member
Let's say there's a war. Is a ThermoNuclear war with China M.A.D.?

Will Russia take the side of the Chinese or stand on the sidelines?

I can easily find outdated information regarding a potential exchange with Russia ( most of the analysis was done when they were the USSR ).

Has any serious research been done or papers been published indicating likely targets in the event of a war?

How is their preparedness, in regards to shelters, etc to survive the potential fallout?

Forgive me if this is the wrong place for these questions.

-FalloutSucks
A nuclear exchange between the US and China with no other nuclear powers involved would end up far worse for China than the US, simply due to the sheer difference in number of nuclear weapons on each side. China has a few hundred, not all of which are ICBMs. Their nuclear bombers would never make it to CONUS, and their nuclear missile subs are so noisy compared to ours that they would have a hard time not being hunted down and destroyed before they could launch their payloads.

Would the US suffer catastrophic damage? Of course, but China would simply cease to exist as a nation. So, no, MAD does not apply in this scenario.
 

Yekdable

Member
¿Es posible que el resultado de las elecciones de noviembre fuera una guerra nuclear?

DEFCON Warning System translation: Is it possible that the result of the November elections was a nuclear war?

1601083549526.png
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DEFCON Warning System

Director
Staff member
¿Es posible que el resultado de las elecciones de noviembre fuera una guerra nuclear?

DEFCON Warning System translation: Is it possible that the result of the November elections was a nuclear war?
Directly? No. But this election will be interesting. Since everyone is waiting to see what happens, post-November will be when the cards are played.

China could decide to invade Taiwan.

Russia could decide to invade Ukraine.

China could decide to attack India.

India and Pakistan could decide to go after each other.

So it really doesn't matter who wins with regard to those events. The question is: What would each candidate do in response.

And that question could be answered no matter what the election outcome is.

Do we think one candidate is less or more likely to get the US involved in a nuclear war? I actually think it really is out of the US's hands. The other guy will be the one to fire the first shot.

Traducción: ¿Directamente? No. Pero esta elección será interesante. Como todo el mundo está esperando a ver qué pasa, después de noviembre será cuando se jueguen las cartas.

China podría decidir invadir Taiwán.

Rusia podría decidir invadir Ucrania.

China podría decidir atacar a India.

India y Pakistán podrían decidir enfrentarse mutuamente.

Así que realmente no importa quién gane con respecto a esos eventos. La pregunta es: ¿Qué haría cada candidato en respuesta?

Y esa pregunta podría responderse sin importar cuál sea el resultado de las elecciones.

¿Creemos que un candidato tiene menos o más probabilidades de involucrar a Estados Unidos en una guerra nuclear? De hecho, creo que está fuera de las manos de Estados Unidos. El otro será el que dispare el primer tiro.
 

TheChrome

Power Poster
With all due respect to everyone's personal theological beliefs on this forum, we must separate those from our situational analysis. Even if Bible prophecy is a real thing, there are just way too many different methods of it being interpreted for it to serve as a reliable analytical tool.

Again, no disrespect intended. I hope everyone understands the point I'm trying to make.
No disrespect taken. I understand that most people will disagree with anything theological, and that is their choice. The bible is either true or it isn't. If it's true, then there will always be those who know what's going on. (Amos 3:7) I have found that situational awareness is directly tied to prophecy, and that any actual situational awareness cannot be understood without it. Back to the subject, China will not overtake the US/UK as a world power. There could be war, but it will not result in a victory for China. There will be a one world government of some kind where the US /UK does give a portion of their sovereignty up though.
 
Last edited:

Yekdable

Member
[QUOTE = "TheChrome, publicación: 110607, miembro: 1068"]
Sin falta de respeto. Entiendo que la mayoría de la gente no estará de acuerdo con cualquier tema teológico, y esa es su elección. La Biblia es verdad o no lo es. Si es cierto, siempre habrá quienes sepan lo que está pasando. (Amós 3: 7) He descubierto que la conciencia de la situación está directamente ligada a la profecía, y que cualquier conciencia de la situación real no puede entenderse sin ella. Volviendo al tema, China no superará a EE.UU. / Reino Unido como potencia mundial. Podría haber guerra, pero no resultará en una victoria para China. Sin embargo, habrá un gobierno mundial de algún tipo en el que EE. UU./ Reino Unido ceda una parte de su soberanía.
[/CITAR]
the prophecy speaks of the internet. It is like the false messiah. everyone loves him and in the shadows he only brings bad things.
 

RiffRaff

DEFCON Staff
Staff member
I am very afraid. I'm from Mexico and I'm afraid they'll drop a nuclear bomb here. :(
There are no strategic targets in Mexico and Mexico has no nuclear weapons so they are not a nuclear threat. While Mexico might sufer some residual fallout from the United States. I can all but guarantee you that nobody has any of their nuclear missiles aimed at Mexico.
 

Albertoeh

Member
Personally, I consider that the Panama Canal is a strategic target, on the other hand, thinking about the scorched earth doctrine, it would not be logical to think that Russia or China will not attack Latin America, for US access to resources such as oil, minerals, foods ???
 
Top