"This is a fundamental point in the balance of nuclear terror. The ability to react after a first nuclear strike means that even if an enemy were to attack first with a nuclear offensive, the attacked country would retain the capacity for a counterattack. So far only the US and Russia officially have such capabilities.

If China has acquired it or is about to acquire it, global military and political dynamics will change. In fact, China reportedly has trucks that carry concealed, ballistic missiles capable of being operational in a short time always on the road. Given their number and the size of the country, some of them would survive a first strike and could launch their missiles at a possible first attacker.
....
Today, however, the US and China find themselves with very robust arsenals (even if the US remains far more armed) but their political and military rules of engagement remain very confused. Hence there is an increased possibility of mutual accidents and errors.
....
Limits should be negotiated quickly, but this could tilt the situation even more towards a full-fledged Cold War with possible important economic repercussions, whereas the present ambiguities still give room for hope and positive developments. But if limits are not negotiated, the chance of an accident increases.

Moreover, there are questions about what America will do in response to this new Chinese capacity. There are also questions about what nuclear North Korea will do.
....

The idea that China poses the same sort of strategic threat as the former USSR is gaining traction and increasing acceptance in Washington.

It is a very complex issue and such a comparative statement badly captures the whole set of ideas and concerns building up in Washington about China (and also about Russia.) But this consensus, once affirmed, will obey a logic that is difficult to stop or steer."

https://asiatimes.com/2021/05/us-china-in-a-new-no-rules-nuclear-race/

On Tuesday, May 18, 2021 at 3:39:25 AM UTC+8, ltlee1 wrote:
> "This is a fundamental point in the balance of nuclear terror. The ability to react after a first nuclear strike means that even if an enemy were to attack first with a nuclear offensive, the attacked country would retain the capacity for a counterattack. So far only the US and Russia officially have such capabilities.
>
> If China has acquired it or is about to acquire it, global military and political dynamics will change. In fact, China reportedly has trucks that carry concealed, ballistic missiles capable of being operational in a short time always on the road. Given their number and the size of the country, some of them would survive a first strike and could launch their missiles at a possible first attacker.
> ...
> Today, however, the US and China find themselves with very robust arsenals (even if the US remains far more armed) but their political and military rules of engagement remain very confused. Hence there is an increased possibility of mutual accidents and errors.
> ...
> Limits should be negotiated quickly, but this could tilt the situation even more towards a full-fledged Cold War with possible important economic repercussions, whereas the present ambiguities still give room for hope and positive developments. But if limits are not negotiated, the chance of an accident increases.
>
> Moreover, there are questions about what America will do in response to this new Chinese capacity. There are also questions about what nuclear North Korea will do.
> ...
>
> The idea that China poses the same sort of strategic threat as the former USSR is gaining traction and increasing acceptance in Washington.
>
> It is a very complex issue and such a comparative statement badly captures the whole set of ideas and concerns building up in Washington about China (and also about Russia.) But this consensus, once affirmed, will obey a logic that is difficult to stop or steer."
>
> https://asiatimes.com/2021/05/us-china-in-a-new-no-rules-nuclear-race/
-----------

Second strike capability will cost trillions. Let the military-industrial complex make the US spend itself to bankruptcy. This is how the US empire will end.

Wakalukong

On 18/5/2021 3:39 am, ltlee1 wrote:
> "This is a fundamental point in the balance of nuclear terror. The ability to react after a first nuclear strike means that even if an enemy were to attack first with a nuclear offensive, the attacked country would retain the capacity for a counterattack. So far only the US and Russia officially have such capabilities.
>
> If China has acquired it or is about to acquire it, global military and political dynamics will change. In fact, China reportedly has trucks that carry concealed, ballistic missiles capable of being operational in a short time always on the road. Given their number and the size of the country, some of them would survive a first strike and could launch their missiles at a possible first attacker.
> ...
> Today, however, the US and China find themselves with very robust arsenals (even if the US remains far more armed) but their political and military rules of engagement remain very confused. Hence there is an increased possibility of mutual accidents and errors.
> ...
> Limits should be negotiated quickly, but this could tilt the situation even more towards a full-fledged Cold War with possible important economic repercussions, whereas the present ambiguities still give room for hope and positive developments. But if limits are not negotiated, the chance of an accident increases.
>
> Moreover, there are questions about what America will do in response to this new Chinese capacity. There are also questions about what nuclear North Korea will do.
> ...
>
> The idea that China poses the same sort of strategic threat as the former USSR is gaining traction and increasing acceptance in Washington.
>
> It is a very complex issue and such a comparative statement badly captures the whole set of ideas and concerns building up in Washington about China (and also about Russia.) But this consensus, once affirmed, will obey a logic that is difficult to stop or steer."
>
> https://asiatimes.com/2021/05/us-china-in-a-new-no-rules-nuclear-race/
>

No rule is better than rules.

No rule means more production quantity. More production quantity means
more productive.

More productive means more efficient. More efficient means more
competitive cost.

More competitive cost means cheaper price of missiles. Cheaper price
means more purchases.

More purchases mean more countries do not need to produce their own;
they can afford buy them for their own ICBM defenses.

On Wednesday, May 19, 2021 at 2:35:10 PM UTC+8, roove wrote:
> On 18/5/2021 3:39 am, ltlee1 wrote:
> > "This is a fundamental point in the balance of nuclear terror. The ability to react after a first nuclear strike means that even if an enemy were to attack first with a nuclear offensive, the attacked country would retain the capacity for a counterattack. So far only the US and Russia officially have such capabilities.
> >
> > If China has acquired it or is about to acquire it, global military and political dynamics will change. In fact, China reportedly has trucks that carry concealed, ballistic missiles capable of being operational in a short time always on the road. Given their number and the size of the country, some of them would survive a first strike and could launch their missiles at a possible first attacker.
> > ...
> > Today, however, the US and China find themselves with very robust arsenals (even if the US remains far more armed) but their political and military rules of engagement remain very confused. Hence there is an increased possibility of mutual accidents and errors.
> > ...
> > Limits should be negotiated quickly, but this could tilt the situation even more towards a full-fledged Cold War with possible important economic repercussions, whereas the present ambiguities still give room for hope and positive developments. But if limits are not negotiated, the chance of an accident increases.
> >
> > Moreover, there are questions about what America will do in response to this new Chinese capacity. There are also questions about what nuclear North Korea will do.
> > ...
> >
> > The idea that China poses the same sort of strategic threat as the former USSR is gaining traction and increasing acceptance in Washington.
> >
> > It is a very complex issue and such a comparative statement badly captures the whole set of ideas and concerns building up in Washington about China (and also about Russia.) But this consensus, once affirmed, will obey a logic that is difficult to stop or steer."
> >
> > https://asiatimes.com/2021/05/us-china-in-a-new-no-rules-nuclear-race/
> >
> No rule is better than rules.
>
> No rule means more production quantity. More production quantity means
> more productive.
>
> More productive means more efficient. More efficient means more
> competitive cost.
>
> More competitive cost means cheaper price of missiles. Cheaper price
> means more purchases.
>
> More purchases mean more countries do not need to produce their own;
> they can afford buy them for their own ICBM defenses.
-----------more

By refusing to renounce a nuclear first strike, the US has for a very long time given itself no rules. In fact, by tearing up its nuclear treaty with Russia, the US has sunk deeper into the no rules quicksand. So it should stop its hypocrisy about China going no rules, especially when China has renounced nuclear first strike. If the generals want money for their future employers in the military-industrial complex, just beg for it; don't smear others.

Oh, by the way, US Middle East attack dog, Israel, has nuclear weapons, and is currently engaged in no rules slaughter of Palestinians (over 50 children are dead by now). How come the US doesn't worry about this no rules nuclear attack dog?

Wakalukong

On Wednesday, May 19, 2021 at 5:34:05 AM UTC-4, wakal...@yahoo.com.sg wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 19, 2021 at 2:35:10 PM UTC+8, roove wrote:
> > On 18/5/2021 3:39 am, ltlee1 wrote:
> > > "This is a fundamental point in the balance of nuclear terror. The ability to react after a first nuclear strike means that even if an enemy were to attack first with a nuclear offensive, the attacked country would retain the capacity for a counterattack. So far only the US and Russia officially have such capabilities.
> > >
> > > If China has acquired it or is about to acquire it, global military and political dynamics will change. In fact, China reportedly has trucks that carry concealed, ballistic missiles capable of being operational in a short time always on the road. Given their number and the size of the country, some of them would survive a first strike and could launch their missiles at a possible first attacker.
> > > ...
> > > Today, however, the US and China find themselves with very robust arsenals (even if the US remains far more armed) but their political and military rules of engagement remain very confused. Hence there is an increased possibility of mutual accidents and errors.
> > > ...
> > > Limits should be negotiated quickly, but this could tilt the situation even more towards a full-fledged Cold War with possible important economic repercussions, whereas the present ambiguities still give room for hope and positive developments. But if limits are not negotiated, the chance of an accident increases.
> > >
> > > Moreover, there are questions about what America will do in response to this new Chinese capacity. There are also questions about what nuclear North Korea will do.
> > > ...
> > >
> > > The idea that China poses the same sort of strategic threat as the former USSR is gaining traction and increasing acceptance in Washington.
> > >
> > > It is a very complex issue and such a comparative statement badly captures the whole set of ideas and concerns building up in Washington about China (and also about Russia.) But this consensus, once affirmed, will obey a logic that is difficult to stop or steer."
> > >
> > > https://asiatimes.com/2021/05/us-china-in-a-new-no-rules-nuclear-race/
> > >
> > No rule is better than rules.
> >
> > No rule means more production quantity. More production quantity means
> > more productive.
> >
> > More productive means more efficient. More efficient means more
> > competitive cost.
> >
> > More competitive cost means cheaper price of missiles. Cheaper price
> > means more purchases.
> >
> > More purchases mean more countries do not need to produce their own;
> > they can afford buy them for their own ICBM defenses.
> -----------more
>
> By refusing to renounce a nuclear first strike, the US has for a very long time given itself no rules. In fact, by tearing up its nuclear treaty with Russia, the US has sunk deeper into the no rules quicksand. So it should stop its hypocrisy about China going no rules, especially when China has renounced nuclear first strike. If the generals want money for their future employers in the military-industrial complex, just beg for it; don't smear others.

Yes, the US still refuse to accept the most humane rule: The doctrine of No First Use. In addition, the US has many times more nuclear weapons.
>
> Oh, by the way, US Middle East attack dog, Israel, has nuclear weapons, and is currently engaged in no rules slaughter of Palestinians (over 50 children are dead by now). How come the US doesn't worry about this no rules nuclear attack dog?
>
> Wakalukong