Keyword: "Conventional". Remember, you've proposed the idea of getting rid of all "conventional" weapons and keeping only the nuclear weapons instead. "Conventional" explosives fall under the category of "conventional" weapon.

Can you just stop coming up with nonsense already, or do we have to keep teaching you all this crap? Stop wasting our time and just throw in the towel; you've dug your own grave by saying how anything other than nuclear weapons are "worthless".

I was talking about this. I said "missiles" not necessarily nukes. And he was talking about Japan then; though he's right about the hypotheticals he's providing. I don't know what threat is being cited in Japan's case, but I'm guessing it's China.

Ugh and I said any proposed budget increase was worthless in the scenario being presented, as in the threat from China is somehow realized as far-right nationalists fear.

Considering how you were being just like the "kind of fu-king retard" who would be willing to destroy Japan? Speak for yourself.



Alright, lets just sum this up. China doesn't even 10,000 warheads. You are mistaking it with the U.S. nuclear inventory. China currently has 400 warheads, at the most, ready to go. And even that's nowhere close enough to assuring that Chinese nuclear stockpile will survive since many of them are;

1. Static silo-based, which can be taken out with precision strikes and special forces,
2. Mobile submarine-launched, which can be taken out with attack submarines trailing the boomer close by,
3. Mobile truck-launched, which can easily be spotted by satellites since these things are massive and delicate bastards to begin with, thus making them sitting ducks for air strikes and bombardments,
3. Gravity bombs dropped by bombers, which are vulnerable to coordinated attacks and air defenses.



So you are willing to see China use nuclear weapons when the other side is using conventional arsenals despite having nuclear capability? And who was it that stated that you don't want to see a nuclear holocaust as a result earlier in this thread?

How ironic.



No. It's you who doesn't understand the concept of the weapons of mass destruction. You've stated that China is going to launch a nuclear attack on Japan and how it is complete waste of money for them to spend money on conventional equipment, and now you are trying to say otherwise. Stop hopping back and forth between making decisions.



Do you understand the concept of MAD at all? If the defending country decides to lob the nukes, it's game over for both the defender and the attacker.



You are an idiot. Why the hell would you strap 3,000kg of conventional explosives on to expensive rockets that can go half-way around the world? Such a small amount of explosives isn't even going to do much damage unless a direct hit occurs, and even then very small area would be affected.



HAHAHAHAHA!! That line coming from the c_nt of a mouth of the retard who wanted the Japan to be nuked? Get over it; you've lost the argument and you can't do anything but to contradict yourself.



Nice attempt to dodge my statements directed towards your stupidity, but stupid is as stupid does. Look below for the wonderful statements that you've posted for the important keywords;

rofl way to cut out all the keywords, dip$hit.

"building nukes and instilling nazi extremism "

"I'm not willing to watch anyone get nuked. Unless they're crazy Right-Wing Nazis"

" starts firebombing Beijing or something. In that case China would probably launch a nuclear motherlode, and they should."

"some with nuclear warheads"

maybe if you weren't fu-king retarded, and learned how to read, you would see that i'm not advocating a nuking of Japan unless they go back to being Nazis. Which they probably won't.



of course, fu-ktard, but they have enough money to develop them.



No, stupid, because if you didn't notice, none of the nuclear powers are keen on attacking China.



It's called a warning shot. SRBM, I guess.

anyway you guys are the experts, you'll have to tell me how much utility America got from its 200-550 billion average military budget.

First this idiot acts how he's all "professional" and all that, goes on to contradict himself, and then get all flared up when I point out that he's an idiot speaking about nonsense.



Alright, first of all, you've mentioned how the Japan should be nuked by North Koreans, and I've stated a valid reason for why they can't due to their technical limitations.

Then you've stated that Japan can't retaliate a nuclear strike by the North Koreans, and I've stated a valid reason that the Japanese will have the nuclear weapons before the North Koreans can ever even create one that can "blow Tokyo away" in their wet dreams.

Then you've decided to say that North Koreans can "abduct some scientist" to create the weapons for them, and I've stated a valid reason why they can't just whip up a warhead in a hurry.

Then you've went ahead and stated that how anything else other than nuclear weapons are "worthless", and both Red Fox Ace and I gave you valid reasons to prove your hypothesis--no, not even that, a STUPID OPINION--wrong and that everyone should build more warheads.

Then you've posted how you would load missiles full of "conventional explosives", which contradicts your statement of how everything else other than nuclear weapons are "worthless" and that you would like to keep and maintain only nuclear warheads.

And after a Holy Sh!tstack of quoting and cancelling out your opinions constructed without knowledge, you've decided to state that you were only speaking of missiles when you were clearly referring to nuclear weapons for the past three pages, of which I clearly pointed out. Now you are just angry because you can't even find a proper reason to prove me wrong on that and had to go about stirring the topic on hand towards a COMPLETELY different direction just to make it look as if you know anything about what you are saying, which is highly doubtful given the fact that your statements are groundless to begin with.

Am I trying to lecture a brick wall here?



Do you even know how much time it takes to develop a SINGLE warhead? It takes TREMENDOUS amount of time and research to enrich uranium to the point where it becomes pure enough to be considered as WEAPONS GRADE. If you don't have highly enriched uranium, the chances are that you will most likely end up with a fizzle. It's not just about MONEY, you tard. You can't simply cork out 10,000 nuclear warheads with the snap of a finger.



Again, contradictory statement. You've stated how you were willing to see the Chinese use nuclear weapons after I've mentioned that Japan will acquire nuclear arsenals even if the political climate may or may not be heated up between the two nations.



Another contradictory statement. TBM is a conventional weapon if it's fitted with conventional explosives. You've stated before that everything else other than nuclear weapons are "worthless" and that they should be disposed of. If it's so "worthless", why bother using it at all?



The U.S. has over hundreds of thousands of equipment, tens of thousands of vehicles, thousands of aircraft, scores of naval vessels, overseas troop deployments and peacekeeping missions around the world, R&D, troop salary and benefits, logistics lines, training resources and dozens of other things that eat the budget up. Compared to that, what's China doing? NOTHING. All they have done for the past two decades of their existence is to brag off about how "superior" their equipment are while blaring propaganda and subliminal messages and having wet dreams of conquering Taiwan. If the Chinese attempt to do everything that the U.S. is doing right now with the amount of resources that the PLA is currently receiving, China would have gone bankrupt more than a decade ago.

Seriously, try not to contradict yourself and stop trying to turn the tables against me with your stupid little opinions based on a whole lot of nothing. It's like you trying to flick toothpicks at a tank; it's never going to work.

rofl. you're delusional. you're inventing things and applying my quotes in improper context to compensate for a lack of an attention span.



if you didn't notice, I put "abduct" in quotes. but you're linguistically retarded, so who knows. here, translating from english to retard: china would use n.k as a proxy to nuke japan. IN THE CASE OF IJA NIPPONNAZI RESURGENCE.



i said not against china, learn how to read.



no, i said the 30$ billion increased budget red fox proposed, for the purpose of defending against china, is worthless. learn how to read.



i'm thinking the quote SOME with nuclear warhead, notice SOME, not ALL, not MANY, not HALF. adjectives exist for a purpose, to help dumbasses understand concepts.



wait, is china ending in 3 years? thanks for the heads up fu-kstick. i guess you're planning your third sino-japanese war in 2009. go get fu-ked. anyway there's a link somewhere showing that they are currently making a big push to develop missiles and prepare nukes.



it takes years to enrich uranium for everyone but Japan. my statement was one attacking right-wing extremism in Japan. unlike some people, i don't advocate random nuclear holocausts UNLESS they become nazis/imperialists again. too bad we didn't have nukes to drop on hitler. and i SPECIFICALLY said that, but if you weren't too busy menstruating like a reactionary you would have read it.



what's your point dumbass? what does "everything but the missiles" mean to you in retardese? i made two crucial mistakes: saying ICBM and leaving out one word in my recent post to differentiate increased funds from things that are already in place.



and it's a good idea, they should be focused on developing their economy rather than carpet bombing desert muslims. when i asked you about the utility of the spending, i'm asking you what it's done to forward america's long term interests. the peacekeeping forces don't cost 300 billion a year.

"Lack of an attention span"? Hey, at least I'm not someone named "moobie" who keeps on coming up with ridiculous nonsense with groundless support.



HAHAHA!! An idiot who can't even use proper grammar telling me that I'm "linguistically retarded". Sure, in your wildest and wettest dreams.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/abduct

ab·duct (āb-dŭkt')
tr.v. ab·duct·ed, ab·duct·ing, ab·ducts
1. To carry off by force; kidnap.
2. [i]Physiology To draw away from the midline of the body or from an adjacent part or limb.[/i]

What, the Chinese are going to use North Korea into launching nuclear attack on Japan? With what will the North Koreans attack Japan with, nuclear warheads delivered by slingshots?



See below;



Where the hell is China mentioned in that post?

Really, don't try to accuse other people of not being able to comprehend your statement when you are the one who doesn't even make the slightest sense and unable to clearly deliver the messages.



China's 2007 military expenditures: approximately USD$45 billion
Japan's 2007 military expenditures: approximately USD$41 billion + proposed USD$30 billion

Do the math.



Why say "SOME" when you've already pointed out that anything other than nuclear weapons are "worthless"? Contradicting yourself again, aren't you?



The world doesn't revolve around China. The same three years applied to China also applies to Japan, during which they will be able to develop enough nuclear arsenals to crush the Chinese economy back for decades. You don't need massive stockpiles of warheads to wipe out the entire world; you just need enough to deter the other side from doing anything stupid. I'm sure you would have noticed that by now considering your level of claimed intelligence.



Look below;



Considering how you have stated that China will nuke Japan if they get into a shooting war with each other, but NEVER mentioning about Japan turning into an extremist nation before and in that post, it's assumed that you are speaking of China and Japan duking it with each other for many other general reasons. It's called being "ambiguous", and you are doing it waaay too often for your own good.

Learn how to think and plan to properly convey the message across before firing your mouth off, retard.



HAHAHA!! You are truely a moron. First admitting your own mistakes, then going off to flame me about your own faults. Nothing can get any more ironic than that. Sorry to crush your miserable dream there, buddy.



The U.S. economy is in a healthy state at the moment and does not need to be touched unless a major reform that will bring huge results is required. You are most likely confusing it with the federal deficit. It's kind of sad that you can't even help yourself to distinguish between the two, eh?

As for the "long term interests"--international recognition, huge influence over foreign countries, strength to negotiate matters to their favor, and so on.

And it may not cost 300 billion bucks to run a peacekeeping force, but it sure as hell does when you are running a full-fledged military that dwarfs rest of the world's in comparison.

wow. "abduct chinese scientists" is (jocular) code for "ccp passing it off as an abduction in light of scrutiny"



oh me too, 10,000/45 vs 4,500/71



Read red fox's list, then my response. "the missiles" count for all of the "missiles" included in his list, meaning the PAC-3s as well.



In a few years it will, yes. Around East Asia in general. You can kinda see the momentum building.



No. Those mistakes were evident in the stuff I was responding to Red Fox with, not you, stupid. Please stop forgetting the contexts of my posts and what I'm responding to. To jog your memory, it was spurred by wild fears of China attacking Japan.. and I rebuffed it as absolutely ridiculous, and threw in a statement conveying the desire to see far-right nationalists in japan destroyed.



Yes, it is, but a few billion dollars is not something you can just toss away into the trash. They could use it to improve the economy further and place their position in the world further ahead.



more like international ire. which powerful countries does the U.S military have a "huge influence" over? no one is going to be submitting to unfair negotiations because of fear of a U.S attack, not large and economically powerful countries at least.

Your little attempt at a figure of speech obviously didn't work because it didn't make SENSE.



Again, your statement is ambiguous. Those 10,000 and 4,500 can mean anything.



All the while considering how you've kept on insisting that everything else other than nuclear missiles were "worthless" and failed to realize that you've made the obvious mistake of conveying the wrong message for the past 2 pages. Yeah, great job.



Stop trying to steer the course of the topic on hand so that you can wiggle your way out. I said China, not Asia.



So you got confused between my statements and Red Fox Ace's statements and continued on to reply after mine for the past three pages WITHOUT EVER NOTICING IT THAT THEY WERE MADE BY ME? You need to get your eyes check there, buddy, because my memory has nothing to do with you being dumb.



You should look at the big picture instead of playing with amount of dollars. The U.S. spends 3.7% of its GDP on the military, and that's nowhere as close to being wasteful. That implies that the U.S. has 96.3% of its GDP available to other various things, including improvements to the economy as you've mentioned. Considering the fact that the U.S. has the room to be able to make purchases based upon what they make, it's definitely not wasteful. If you want to talk about wasteful military budget, then go talk to the Saudis.



I guess you were unable to grasp the fact that I was referring to the U.S. as a nation itself, not its military, in my statement. Try again after digesting the fact a little bit instead of merely spitting it back out.

OK, Moobie, to put it simply:


If the $45 billion of China's annual defense spending were yours to decide, how would you use it?

i guess if i were in their position, (though i dont like the ccp) i'd probably be doing what they're doing now, which is putting more missiles across the taiwan strait, improving tech, maintaining personnel, etc. i don't think r&d is included in their official figures though, iirc.

Then why did you spend all that time telling us that weapons other than nukes are worthless?

for Japan, against China. I honestly don't think China is going to invade Japan, it's not like they ever have and there's no natural resources or space in Japan, but even so they wouldn't be able to hold up against China especially in the future when she has tens of trillions to shove around. Though when I said I'd put China's additional spending in improving and developing ballistic missiles, the three scenarios you drew up showed it would have been a bad decision, since I didn't think of neighbors being obnoxious.

Of course they could always pull food aid to North Korea, but that would terrible and wouldn't change things at all. Or they could declare Seoul the sole legitimate government of the Korean Peninsula, and tip the scales of geopolitics into Korean Reunification (or South Korean takeover of the peninsula, really) but of course the CCP wouldn't do that.

As for Vietnam and the Spratlys, I'd try using diplomatic ties and economic action to deter them.

But all that doesn't seem like natural CCP strategy, which is a lot more direct.

OK! Gotcha.


I apologize for having misunderstood you Moob. It is clear now.

http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=rjh63PjucOI
in 1990

Tell them RentonWong. Tell them!!!!!!!

What Japan does (go right or left wing) is it's business. However, US troops should leave. Northeast asian nations are rich enough to defend themselves.