Nuclear War

[John]

Tank M47 Patton II US tank Bronze collectible miniature model Figurine Toy

https://www.etsy.com/listing/858776891/ ... ank-bronze

[tim]

https://jrnyquist.blog/2019/09/11/the-s ... i-haotian/

In 2005, THE EPOCH TIMES acquired a secret speech given by Defense Minister Chi Haotian to high-level Communist Party Cadres sometime before his retirement in 2003. Details given in Chi’s speech coincide with previously unpublished defector testimony on Sino-Russian military plans.

Let’s presume that back then Germany and Japan had been able to keep the United States neutral and had fought a protracted war step by step on the Soviet front. If they had adopted this approach, gained some time to advance their research, eventually succeeded in obtaining the technology of nuclear weapons and missiles, and launched surprise attacks against the United States and the Soviet Union using them, then the United States and the Soviet Union would not have been able to defend themselves and would have had to surrender. Little Japan, in particular, made an egregious mistake in launching the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor. This attack did not hit the vital parts of the United States. Instead, it dragged the United States into the war, into the ranks of the gravediggers that eventually buried the German and Japanese fascists.

From a humanitarian perspective, we should issue a warning to the American people and persuade them to leave America and leave the land they have lived in to the Chinese people. Or at least they should leave half of the United States to be China’s colony, because America was first discovered by the Chinese. But would this work? If this strategy does not work, then there is only one choice left to us. That is, use decisive means to “clean up” America and reserve America for our use in a moment. Our historical experience has proven that as long as we make it happen, nobody in the world can do anything about us. Furthermore, if the United States as the leader is gone, then other enemies have to surrender to us.

Biological weapons are unprecedented in their ruthlessness, but if the Americans do not die then the Chinese have to die. If the Chinese people are strapped to the present land, a total societal collapse is bound to take place. According to the computation of the author of Yellow Peril, more than half of the Chinese will die, and that figure would be more than 800 million people! Just after the liberation, our yellow land supported nearly 500 million people, while today the official figure of the population is more than 1.3 billion. This yellow land has reached the limit of its capacity. One day, who knows how soon it will come, the great collapse will occur any time and more than half the population will have to go.

We must prepare ourselves for two scenarios. If our biological weapons succeed in the surprise attack, the Chinese people will be able to keep their losses at a minimum in the fight against the United States. If, however, the attack fails and triggers a nuclear retaliation from the United States, China would perhaps suffer a catastrophe in which more than half of its population would perish. That is why we need to be ready with air defense systems for our big and medium-sized cities. Whatever the case may be, we can only move forward fearlessly, for the sake of our Party and State and our nation’s future, regardless of the hardships we have to face and the sacrifices we have to make. The population, even if more than half dies, can be reproduced. But if the Party falls, everything is gone, and forever gone.

Maybe we can put it this way: death is the engine that moves history forward. During the period of the three kingdoms, how many people died? When Genghis Khan conquered Eurasia, how many people died? When Manchu invaded the interior of China, how many people died? Not many people died during the 1911 Revolution, but when we overthrew the Three Great Mountains, and during the political campaigns such as “suppression of the reactionaries,” “Three-Anti-Campaign,” and “Five-Anti-Campaign,” at least 20 million people died. We were apprehensive that some young people today would be trembling with fear when they hear about wars and people dying.

During wartime, we were used to seeing dead people. Blood and flesh were flying everywhere, corpses were lying in heaps on the fields, and blood ran like rivers. We saw it all. On the battlefields, everybody’s eyes turned red with killing because it was a life-and-death struggle and only the brave would survive.

It is indeed brutal to kill one or two hundred million Americans. But that is the only path that will secure a Chinese century in which the CCP leads the world. We, as revolutionary humanitarians, do not want deaths. But if history confronts us with a choice between deaths of Chinese and those of Americans, we’d have to pick the latter, as, for us, it is more important to safeguard the lives of the Chinese people and the life of our Party. That is because, after all, we are Chinese and members of the CCP. Since the day we joined the CCP, the Party, life has always been above all else! History will prove that we made the right choice.

[Guest]

https://jrnyquist.blog/2019/09/11/the-s ... i-haotian/

In 2005, THE EPOCH TIMES acquired a secret speech given by Defense Minister Chi Haotian to high-level Communist Party Cadres sometime before his retirement in 2003. Details given in Chi’s speech coincide with previously unpublished defector testimony on Sino-Russian military plans.

Let’s presume that back then Germany and Japan had been able to keep the United States neutral and had fought a protracted war step by step on the Soviet front. If they had adopted this approach, gained some time to advance their research, eventually succeeded in obtaining the technology of nuclear weapons and missiles, and launched surprise attacks against the United States and the Soviet Union using them, then the United States and the Soviet Union would not have been able to defend themselves and would have had to surrender. Little Japan, in particular, made an egregious mistake in launching the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor. This attack did not hit the vital parts of the United States. Instead, it dragged the United States into the war, into the ranks of the gravediggers that eventually buried the German and Japanese fascists.

From a humanitarian perspective, we should issue a warning to the American people and persuade them to leave America and leave the land they have lived in to the Chinese people. Or at least they should leave half of the United States to be China’s colony, because America was first discovered by the Chinese. But would this work? If this strategy does not work, then there is only one choice left to us. That is, use decisive means to “clean up” America and reserve America for our use in a moment. Our historical experience has proven that as long as we make it happen, nobody in the world can do anything about us. Furthermore, if the United States as the leader is gone, then other enemies have to surrender to us.

Biological weapons are unprecedented in their ruthlessness, but if the Americans do not die then the Chinese have to die. If the Chinese people are strapped to the present land, a total societal collapse is bound to take place. According to the computation of the author of Yellow Peril, more than half of the Chinese will die, and that figure would be more than 800 million people! Just after the liberation, our yellow land supported nearly 500 million people, while today the official figure of the population is more than 1.3 billion. This yellow land has reached the limit of its capacity. One day, who knows how soon it will come, the great collapse will occur any time and more than half the population will have to go.

We must prepare ourselves for two scenarios. If our biological weapons succeed in the surprise attack, the Chinese people will be able to keep their losses at a minimum in the fight against the United States. If, however, the attack fails and triggers a nuclear retaliation from the United States, China would perhaps suffer a catastrophe in which more than half of its population would perish. That is why we need to be ready with air defense systems for our big and medium-sized cities. Whatever the case may be, we can only move forward fearlessly, for the sake of our Party and State and our nation’s future, regardless of the hardships we have to face and the sacrifices we have to make. The population, even if more than half dies, can be reproduced. But if the Party falls, everything is gone, and forever gone.

Maybe we can put it this way: death is the engine that moves history forward. During the period of the three kingdoms, how many people died? When Genghis Khan conquered Eurasia, how many people died? When Manchu invaded the interior of China, how many people died? Not many people died during the 1911 Revolution, but when we overthrew the Three Great Mountains, and during the political campaigns such as “suppression of the reactionaries,” “Three-Anti-Campaign,” and “Five-Anti-Campaign,” at least 20 million people died. We were apprehensive that some young people today would be trembling with fear when they hear about wars and people dying.

During wartime, we were used to seeing dead people. Blood and flesh were flying everywhere, corpses were lying in heaps on the fields, and blood ran like rivers. We saw it all. On the battlefields, everybody’s eyes turned red with killing because it was a life-and-death struggle and only the brave would survive.

It is indeed brutal to kill one or two hundred million Americans. But that is the only path that will secure a Chinese century in which the CCP leads the world. We, as revolutionary humanitarians, do not want deaths. But if history confronts us with a choice between deaths of Chinese and those of Americans, we’d have to pick the latter, as, for us, it is more important to safeguard the lives of the Chinese people and the life of our Party. That is because, after all, we are Chinese and members of the CCP. Since the day we joined the CCP, the Party, life has always been above all else! History will prove that we made the right choice.

This speech could have been given a Japanese or German general in the 1930s. Most countries have had a version of this speech, only limited by their military and economic capabilities. Most countries want (or wanted to in the past) to expand at the expense of other countries. It's not right, I'm not saying it is, but this speech is not surprising. It is delusional, as John has pointed out. Nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons just make everything a lot worse

[guest]

My Point - it's not so much what you use, but how you use it that really matters in the end, and preparing to fight the previous war is always a losing strategy.

The Chinese don't appear to have a coherent stategy as far as I can tell. Why start fights with a dozen countries at the same time? The CCP general staff doesn't seem to know what they are doing. How many of their generals have even been in combat?

Also, when given the choice between hellish enslavement and war, most countries would choose war, even if it were a lost cause.

China lacks food and water. The Chinese army won't survive looting 7-11s in Tokyo and Seoul. The Chinese army faces serious supply issues. On time delivery systems have created fragile food supply networks in most Asain countries.

I think we are overestimating the Chinese.

If the war goes nuclear, I'd rather be dead.

[John]

** 28-Jul-2021 World View: General Chi Haotian

> https://jrnyquist.blog/2019/09/11/the-s ... i-haotian/

Thanks for posting this link. This is a truly remarkable document.
It's true, as one poster said, that a similar speech could have been
given by the Nazis or Imperial Japanese, but it's not the same. This
speech lays out a plan to colonize other lands and rule the world that
goes a million times farther than Hitler's plans.

I'm currently trying to write an analysis of this large, complex
speech. I'll post it when I get it done.

[John]

** 29-Jul-2021 World View: Why Hitler lost the war

> Sorry to chime in late - just found this forum and thread, been
> reading GD for years. The French equipment of 1940 was far
> superior to what the Wehrmacht and SS fielded and they had more of
> it. The failure on the part of the French and the BEF was that
> they ignored British staff officer JFC Fuller, the real "inventor"
> of Blitzkreig. The British and French flag officers were
> re-fighting WW1, the Germans were not. The German equipment was so
> inferior though, that they almost didn't carry the day. At Aaras
> the BEF Matilda IIs were decimating the Wehrmacht's Early Panzer
> IIIs and IVs as the German guns could not penetrate the Matilda's
> armor until Rommel had a brilliant thought to use the Flak 17/18
> (an early version of the Famous "88") to stop the BEF advance.

> My Point - it's not so much what you use, but how you use it that
> really matters in the end, and preparing to fight the previous war
> is always a losing strategy.

The Chi Haotian speech gives a detailed analysis of why Nazi Germany
lost the war, and the lessons that the Chinese Communists must learn
to avoid a similar humliating defeat. Do you have any opinion of his
analysis?

Your conclusion, "it's not so much what you use, but how you use it
that really matters in the end" seems similar to Chi's conclusions,
though stated far differently.

[tankbuilder]

** 29-Jul-2021 World View: Why Hitler lost the war

> Sorry to chime in late - just found this forum and thread, been
> reading GD for years. The French equipment of 1940 was far
> superior to what the Wehrmacht and SS fielded and they had more of
> it. The failure on the part of the French and the BEF was that
> they ignored British staff officer JFC Fuller, the real "inventor"
> of Blitzkreig. The British and French flag officers were
> re-fighting WW1, the Germans were not. The German equipment was so
> inferior though, that they almost didn't carry the day. At Aaras
> the BEF Matilda IIs were decimating the Wehrmacht's Early Panzer
> IIIs and IVs as the German guns could not penetrate the Matilda's
> armor until Rommel had a brilliant thought to use the Flak 17/18
> (an early version of the Famous "88") to stop the BEF advance.

> My Point - it's not so much what you use, but how you use it that
> really matters in the end, and preparing to fight the previous war
> is always a losing strategy.

The Chi Haotian speech gives a detailed analysis of why Nazi Germany
lost the war, and the lessons that the Chinese Communists must learn
to avoid a similar humliating defeat. Do you have any opinion of his
analysis?

Your conclusion, "it's not so much what you use, but how you use it
that really matters in the end" seems similar to Chi's conclusions,
though stated far differently.

To me, the CCP is much more aligned with National Socialism than Communism, and Chi makes that very clear. I think, though, that their analysis about why the Axis powers lost WW2 is not 100% accurate and hopefully costs them dearly if they decided to use their conclusions as a road map for their success. His speech is full of inaccuracies and not only in relation to WW2. He states the Chinese are racially superior and developed separately from the rest of homosapians! I think the record is pretty clear that the Toba event reduced global populations to below 5000 individuals 72,000 years ago, while migration to Asia occurred 50,000 years ago, 22,000 years later - oh, and yeah they share mitochondrial DNA with the rest of us all traced back to the Toba event mass die-off...

Stating that Pearl Harbor was a strategic failure on the part of the Japanese is incorrect. It really played no part in the US entering the war other than being the excuse the US Government would feed the people as a rationale. The US was going to enter the war no matter what, Pearl Harbor just was a good excuse. FDR knew the attack was coming, why do you think all the carriers were at sea, and only the outdated battlewagons were in port?

The Nazis didn't have too many enemies at once when it counted. In the end, yes, but their war was actually lost at Kursk in 1943. Months before the US became a factor during the Italian campaign, and even then a relatively small German force combined with difficult terrain made US advances costly and slow.

The Nazis were planning on playing the long game (Chi chides them for lacking patience like children) but there is some research coming to light from Russia that Hitler was pushed into his attack on the Soviet Union sooner than he wanted; intelligence showed the Russian were planning to break the treaty and move from eastern Poland to the German homeland in 1942. While there is no doubt that Hitler had plans to attack the Soviet Union, The Soviet movements and massing of troops along the former Polish border was the catalyst for the Germans to attack in September of 1941.

The Germans almost succeeded with operation Barbarossa. It was an early winter that really stopped the German advance, as they were ill-equipped to fight in sub-zero temperatures and deep snow. Their technology had not really advanced that much since 1940! Manstein figured that he could reach Moscow before winter - he gambled and lost. If the weather had held off for 2 weeks, the Soviets would have fallen. It is very clear the Germans were not fighting a multi-front war at this point, (not counting the air battle over Britain, which was all about ego for Hitler as operation Sea-lowe had zero chance of success) the western allies were all but crushed and North Africa was just a diversion.

In my opinion, Chinese racism clouds their interpretation of events that lead to the Axis losing WW2. From my seat, it looks like they are planning to fight WW1/WW2, not a modern conflict. It will cost the world dearly.

[Cool Breeze]

In my opinion, Chinese racism clouds their interpretation of events that lead to the Axis losing WW2. From my seat, it looks like they are planning to fight WW1/WW2, not a modern conflict. It will cost the world dearly.

Yes, it does.

How do you differentiate WW1/2 strategy vs. "a modern conflict"?

[tankbuilder]

In my opinion, Chinese racism clouds their interpretation of events that lead to the Axis losing WW2. From my seat, it looks like they are planning to fight WW1/WW2, not a modern conflict. It will cost the world dearly.

Yes, it does.

How do you differentiate WW1/2 strategy vs. "a modern conflict"?

The real difference is mid 20th century conflicts were attack, occupy real estate, rinse and repeat. Modern warfare is much more focused on neutralizing the enemies ability to fight, occupying real estate is unnecessary and take significantly more resources.

[tim]

Little Japan, in particular, made an egregious mistake in launching the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor. This attack did not hit the vital parts of the United States. Instead, it dragged the United States into the war, into the ranks of the gravediggers that eventually buried the German and Japanese fascists.

Seeing as how China has been stock piling nuclear weapons in their underground Great Wall, I believe that the Chinese attack on the U.S. will be a massive nuclear missile attack where military targets and American cities are all fired upon at the same time. Not all missiles will reach their targets but enough will with the motivation being to knock the U.S. out of the war before the U.S. can retaliate.

China is not going to make the mistake Japan did at Pearl Harbor and they have clearly said so.

https://www.georgetown.edu/news/gu-stud ... r-tunnels/