Canadian Money Forum banner
1 - 20 of 52 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
112 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
As I mentioned previously, this world is heading to a dangerous phase politically, where a nuclear war is a possibility. I can already forsee one coming very shortly.

As US try to curtail the influence of China, one way to do so is through technological embargo against China. However, as South Korea is unwilling to fully cooperate with US, due to many business relationships S Korea have in China, and because South Korea want China's help to keep the DPRK (N Korea) under control, US's plan have yet to succeed. However, as the right wing party in S Korea is becoming more popular, further cooperations between US And S Korea are expected. This situation may cause China to take great risk (war involve landing on another land by ship is very difficult) to try capture TW in order to try to control TW's semiconductor manufacturing capabilities (TSMC !!). This situation is especially more likely, as the newly purchased weapons by TW from US for the purpose of going against invasion from PRC have yet to be deployed.

Any actions by the PRC to attack TW (ROC) will cause US to respond in kind, which will trigger nuclear war.

The possibility for war across the TW strait become even more likely as it help bolster the legitimacy of the CCP, as doing so fit with its agenda of "national revival". Furthermore, a war against TW is also useful, as CCP always suffer from legitimacy problem. This is because Communism as an ideology is completely bankrupt, and PRC government is very corrupt, while economic growth is slowing down in China.

For me, this is the second coming.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,567 Posts
WW3=end (or close to that) of humans
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,562 Posts
I wouldn't agree that the Chinese version of government is in the classic mold of communism. It is more of a socialist capitalist system.

A totally communist system would not be on the verge of becoming the world's most dominant economy, as their system has allowed it to become.

They are an authoritarian regime, .....a system that has evolved over centuries and replaced all other previous systems.

We consider that a bad system and would prefer a democratic system similar to ours, but that may not be possible.

As to Taiwan........the US no longer controls every corner of the earth. China is the boss of that neighborhood, and if they want Taiwan they will have it.

I think a "handover" will be arranged such as was done with Hong Kong.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
112 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 · (Edited)
I wouldn't agree that the Chinese version of government is in the classic mold of communism. It is more of a socialist capitalist system.

A totally communist system would not be on the verge of becoming the world's most dominant economy, as their system has allowed it to become.

They are an authoritarian regime, .....a system that has evolved over centuries and replaced all other previous systems.

We consider that a bad system and would prefer a democratic system similar to ours, but that may not be possible.

As to Taiwan........the US no longer controls every corner of the earth. China is the boss of that neighborhood, and if they want Taiwan they will have it.

I think a "handover" will be arranged such as was done with Hong Kong.
The fact that China is no longer a pure communist regime is the reason why they have no legitimacy, as Communism is what the CCP say they want to do.

Look at what happen in HK, no one will trust the PRC anymore. Not to mention all the semiconductor manufacturing facilities TW have, there is NO WAY US will let TW falls into the hand of the PRC. US will rather destroy the island with nuke than to let it fall into PRC's hand.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,567 Posts
The fact that China is no longer a pure communist regime is the reason why they have no legitimacy, as Communism is what the CCP say they want to do.

Look at what happen in HK, no one will trust the PRC anymore. Not there nation all the semiconductor manufacturing facilities TW have, there are NO WAY US will let TW falls into the hand of the PRC. US will rather destroy the island with nuke than to let it fall into PRC's hand.
... and risk WW3? Don't think so.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,562 Posts
I would predict a collapse of the US before China. The influence of the US is in decline while China's is rising.

The US has military bases all over the world to support and historically every nation that extended themselves too far in history has fallen.

The US should worry more about North Korea than China. Chinese does it's knitting close to home. It has extensive trade with every country around them.

North Korea is a very dangerous situation as they acquire missile systems for their nuclear warheads.

Perhaps the US will agree to 'stand down" and negotiate a peaceful transfer of Taiwan if the Chinese agree to "stand down" with their support of North Korea.

Waging war is an easy choice when the other side has no way to retaliate. That isn't the case with China.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
112 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
Semiconductor manufacturing is too important, there is 0 chance US will compromise this with China, unless US build massive capacity domestically, but that will take decades to achieve.

Population is the cornerstone and gold standard for the basis of building a powerful country, China's aging population situation is very serious. In contrast, US population is frequently replenish with new immigrants.
(Lots of people don't guarantee success, but declining population guarantees failure).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,562 Posts
For all their military might and bluster, the US couldn't even defeat the Taliban.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
220 Posts
Not to mention all the semiconductor manufacturing facilities TW have, there is NO WAY US will let TW falls into the hand of the PRC. US will rather destroy the island with nuke than to let it fall into PRC's hand.
Hmmm no, Intel and TSMC is already building new semi-conductor plants in the US so that the shortage that is happening right now can not happen again. Lessons were learned during Covid about self sufficiency.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
112 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
For all their military might and bluster, the US couldn't even defeat the Taliban.
It is always difficult to defeat a bunch of warriors that blend in with the crowd, USSR also face this problem when they were in Afghanistan. We also see this happening in Mali with the French right now.

This is clearly not the case in US vs China.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
112 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
Hmmm no, Intel and TSMC is already building new semi-conductor plants in the US so that the shortage that is happening right now can not happen again. Lessons were learned during Covid about self sufficiency.
TSMC still put their most advance plant (5nm 3nm etc) in Taiwan. And intel have only recently get themselves unstuck with making 14nm chips, while Samsung's 5nm fab is also face difficulty, as only around 50% of chips produced actually pass QC.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
560 Posts
WW3=end (or close to that) of humans
Many scholars have posited that a global thermonuclear war with Cold War-era stockpiles, or even with the current smaller stockpiles, may lead to human extinction. ... However, models from the past decade consider total extinction very unlikely, and suggest parts of the world would remain habitable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
560 Posts
The United States of America, in some form, will survive. The People’s Republic of China, like the Russian Federation, will cease to exist as a political entity.
In Russia, the situation will be even worse. The full disintegration of the Russian Empire, begun in 1905 and interrupted only by the Soviet aberration, will finally be complete. A second Russian civil war will erupt, and Eurasia, for decades if not longer, will be a patchwork of crippled ethnic states led by strongmen. Some Russian rump state may emerge from the ashes, but it will likely be forever suffocated by a Europe unwilling to forgive so much devastation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
560 Posts
Nuclear mathematics: how many nuclear charges does the United States need to destroy Russian strategic nuclear forces?
To defeat the Russian strategic nuclear forces, the enemy will need:

- On 12 SSBNs, of which 6 will be in the base, the enemy will spend 6–12 nuclear warheads plus torpedoes, possibly with tactical nuclear warheads. As a result, we have a loss of 432-1920 YAB; This can also include the "Poseidons" and their carriers, since as targets they do not differ at all from SSBNs.

- The enemy will spend 4–8 nuclear weapons on SB at two air bases. As a result, we have a loss of 500-800 missile launchers with nuclear warheads (this is not so critical, since under the START treaty it is still about 100 nuclear warheads).

- The enemy will spend 150-200 nuclear warheads to destroy heavy ICBMs in highly protected silos. As a result, we have a loss of 150-750 YAB.

- On 75 PGRK in the base, the enemy will spend 8-16 YaBB. As a result, we have a loss of 225 YaBB.

- On 75 PGRK on the route, the enemy will spend 75 YABB. As a result, we have a loss of 225 YaBB.

- On 150 light ICBMs in silos, the enemy will spend 300 YABB. As a result, we have a loss of 450 YaBB.

In total, for the destruction of all Russian strategic nuclear forces, the United States should spend about 500-600 nuclear warheads out of 1550 operatively deployed, plus a certain amount of high-precision weapons, of which they have a lot.

Such a number of nuclear submarines can be deployed on three or four Ohio-class SSBNs. The minimum launch range of the Trident II (D5) SLBM is 2300 kilometers or 5,5 minutes of flight time. To increase launch density, the United States may use eight SSBNs in conjunction with promising hypersonic precision missiles launched from Virginia Block V nuclear submarines, surface ships, strategic aircraft, and ground launchers. Potentially, they can be supplemented by two British Vanguard-class SSBNs with the same Trident II (D5) SLBMs.

If Russian SSBNs are tracked on combat patrol routes, they, like SSBNs stationed at the base, will be destroyed in an even shorter period of time.

Yes, it is possible that part of the ICBM will not be destroyed and will be able to launch, but for this the United States is deploying and improving the anti-missile defense system
It can be concluded that the Russian strategic nuclear forces have a high offensive potential, which, if necessary, can be additionally strengthened, but at the same time their resistance to a sudden disarming attack by the enemy may be insufficient.

When delivering a sudden disarming strike, the United States will spend about one third of its operatively deployed nuclear warheads, which will allow them, after striking, to dictate the terms of a “disarmed” Russia, and not to fear a blow “in the back” from the PRC. Taking into account the NATO allies, primarily Great Britain, the capabilities of the United States are becoming even higher.

Often, in the comments to articles on the stability of strategic nuclear forces to a sudden disarming strike, one can see remarks like “by the time the enemy’s nuclear weapons fall, our mines will be empty”. This is true only when hitting from a maximum distance of 8-10 thousand kilometers, when the launch detects in advance missile attack warning system (early warning system) and the country's top leadership will have about 20-30 minutes to make a decision about the beginning of the end of the world. When hitting from a distance of about two to three thousand kilometers, the time for passing the entire chain of information and making a decision will be 5-10 minutes, after which it will be too late.

The "Perimeter" or "Dead Hand" system, even if it functions, will not help - it protects against the destruction of the country's top leadership, that is, from a "decapitating" strike, but not from a "disarming" strike, when there is already nothing to give the command to start.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,562 Posts
That assessment doesn't include the tens of millions who would die from the aftermath of a full nuclear exchange.

Radioactive clouds (much worse than the Chernobyl cloud that swept across Europe), poisoned food and water, and rampant disease spreading from tens of millions of un-buried bodies would cause the most deaths.

More people would die gradually of starvation, radiation poisoning, lack of water, lack of medicine or healthcare, and disease than in the initial blasts.

The consensus is those who died in the initial blast would be the lucky ones.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,562 Posts
Imagine a world where the leadership and infrastructure is gone. Nobody would be farming or delivering food or goods. There would be no functioning hospitals. All the major cities along the East and West coast would be gone.......totally destroyed and leaving hundreds of millions dead.

The survivors would wander foraging for food and getting sick. It would be a slow and torturous death and much worse than being at ground zero.

Anyone who thinks a full nuclear exchange is in any way winnable is totally bonkers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
560 Posts
According to the 1980 United Nations report General and Complete Disarmament: Comprehensive Study on Nuclear Weapons: Report of the Secretary-General, it was estimated that there were a total of about 40,000 nuclear warheads in existence at that time, with a potential combined explosive yield of approximately 13,000 megatons.

By comparison, in the Timeline of volcanism on Earth when the volcano Mount Tambora erupted in 1815 – turning 1816 into the Year Without A Summer due to the levels of global dimming sulfate aerosols and ash expelled – it exploded with a force of roughly 800 to 1,000 megatons,[citation needed] and ejected 160 km3(38 cu mi) of mostly rock/tephra,[48] which included 120 million tonnes of sulfur dioxide as an upper estimate.[49]A larger eruption, approximately 74,000 years ago, in Mount Toba produced 2,800 km3 (670 cu mi) of tephra, forming lake Toba,[50] and produced an estimated 6,000 million tonnes (6.6×109 short tons) of sulfur dioxide.[51][52] The explosive energy of the eruption may have been as high as equivalent to 20,000,000 megatons (Mt) of TNT, while the Chicxulub impact, connected with the extinction of the dinosaurs, corresponds to at least 70,000,000 Mt of energy, which is roughly 7000 times the maximum arsenal of the US and Soviet Union.

Comparisons with supervolcanos are more misleading than helpful due to the different aerosols released, the likely air burst fuzing height of nuclear weapons and the globally scattered location of these potential nuclear detonations all being in contrast to the singular and subterranean nature of a supervolcanic eruption.[53]Moreover, assuming the entire world stockpile of weapons were grouped together, it would be difficult due to the nuclear fratricide effect to ensure the individual weapons would detonate all at once. Nonetheless, many people believe that a full-scale nuclear war would result, through the nuclear winter effect, in the extinction of the human species, though not all analysts agree on the assumptions put into these nuclear winter models.[2]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,567 Posts
Many scholars have posited that a global thermonuclear war with Cold War-era stockpiles, or even with the current smaller stockpiles, may lead to human extinction. ... However, models from the past decade consider total extinction very unlikely, and suggest parts of the world would remain habitable.
... which part(s) of the world? Gilligan's island(s) where you can eat coconuts all day? Or maybe it's Long Island still standing where you can drink nuke water, amongst a new species of **** sapiens with 3 eyes, and an extra pair of limbs. No thanks.

Right now in the year 2021, we (particularly the USA) can't even get a grip on a known virus. Imagine what a full scale global war with nuke this and nuke that will do ... it's not just a world catastrophe, it's self-annihilation of mankind. So smart.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sags
1 - 20 of 52 Posts
Top