China's Nuclear Arsenal Is Growing Faster Than Expected, Pentagon Says (bloomberg.com) 196
China is expanding its nuclear weapons capabilities more rapidly than previously believed, the Pentagon warned in a report released on Wednesday. From a report: The People's Republic of China "likely intends to have at least 1,000 nuclear warheads by 2030, exceeding the pace that the Department of Defense projected in 2020," the Pentagon said in the latest edition of an annual report to Congress. The report also cites China's construction of at least three silo fields, saying they will contain "hundreds" of new intercontinental ballistic missiles.
"The PRC is investing in, and expanding, the number of its land-, sea-, and air-based nuclear delivery platforms and constructing the infrastructure necessary to support this major expansion of its nuclear forces," the Defense Department said. That means China "has possibly already established a nascent nuclear triad" of delivery systems, it said, and is supporting its nuclear expansion "by increasing its capacity to produce and separate plutonium by constructing fast breeder reactors and reprocessing facilities." The Pentagon's new estimate that China is probably aiming for at least 1,000 nuclear warheads by 2030 ---including 700 "deliverable" ones by 2027 that could be mounted immediately on various missiles -- appears to be based on an evaluation of its production capacity.
"The PRC is investing in, and expanding, the number of its land-, sea-, and air-based nuclear delivery platforms and constructing the infrastructure necessary to support this major expansion of its nuclear forces," the Defense Department said. That means China "has possibly already established a nascent nuclear triad" of delivery systems, it said, and is supporting its nuclear expansion "by increasing its capacity to produce and separate plutonium by constructing fast breeder reactors and reprocessing facilities." The Pentagon's new estimate that China is probably aiming for at least 1,000 nuclear warheads by 2030 ---including 700 "deliverable" ones by 2027 that could be mounted immediately on various missiles -- appears to be based on an evaluation of its production capacity.
Just what we need (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
the possibility of a Return to MADness as if it was not scary enough the first time around
Does it really matter? How many nukes do you really need for MAD? China already has over 200 nukes which is enough to not only destroy the USA but likely the planet. Even in the best case scenerio and the USA could prevent half of them from launching, that's still enough to directly destroy the top 100 cities which hold over half the population of the USA and the fallout would likely kill the other half not to mention the rest of the world.
This article says you realistically only need 100 nukes to destr
Re: (Score:2)
That article says that 100 is a sufficient deterrent if those 100 are strategic missiles aimed at enemy population centers.
The article explicitly states this, and also explicitly states that it assumes 100% of launched those missiles will hit their targets.
If your enemy has missile defenses, or you are aiming to destroy most of the enemies capabilities by doing a first strike yourself, you'll need more.
If your aim is to "destroy the world" you'll need much more, even if by "destroy the world" you only mean
Re: (Score:2)
Alas, the article is just speculation. There is no evidence that 100 is the magic number for deterrent. North Korea seems to have managed with, at most, a handful. And there is no evidence that "aimed at population centers" matters a hill of beans either. The USA seems to consider "aimed at population centers" to be a deterrent, but that's not the same as "evidence" to a deterrent e
Re: (Score:2)
The high end of AAA can now defend against nuclear including ICBMs. The percentages are not great, but they are improving. You get 50% for S500 and the next generation of Iron Dome. That alone, has forced all major powers to upgrade their deterrent. The ones that don't will be able to threaten with nuking only other third world countries.
While at it, the article (same as all other articles on the subject) fail to mention WHERE exactly are the majority of the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
None. You only need conventional weapons to target leaders and what they care about most. But if it's a game to kill as many people as possible...
It would likely be trivial for a country to assassinate the leader of a different country but there is an unspoken rule that leaders are off limits. The only exception to this seems to be leaders who have already been removed from power like Saddam Hussein.
Re: (Score:2)
Between Putin and Xi, honestly, I'd trust Putin more.
Re: (Score:2)
the possibility of a Return to MADness as if it was not scary enough the first time around
Wow, China have like 1/10th the number of nukes as America did, and they might get to 1/5th in the next decade? How scary!
Perhaps you should think about why the summary didn't state the most important context, that the US had like 6,000 nuclear warheads in stock? Maybe that would make China's figure so much less scary?
Did we ever get away from MADness? (Score:2)
Tensions are not as bad as at the height of the Cold War, but the U.S. and Russia still have thousands of warheads that they could use against each other.
I don't know why many people think that era is all behind us.
We can't "return to MADness" if we never left it.
Re: Just what we need (Score:2)
Re: Just what we need (Score:2)
Yes, disarm, because preventing world wars is so overrated.
Re: (Score:2)
Conflicts and wars are inevitable. Your very actions of preventing world wars go against somebody else's vision. Nature doesnt like stagnation and our idea of "peace".
Re: Just what we need (Score:4, Informative)
Let's be blunt, geopolitically, the MAD doctrine did as the Congress of Vienna to preserve the peace between the Great Powers. To be sure, it's been an uncomfortable peace that has seen a good many satellite wars, and in recent decades war by other means. But it becomes somewhat less tenable when you end up with multiple significant nuclear powers.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's be blunt, geopolitically, the MAD doctrine did as the Congress of Vienna to preserve the peace between the Great Powers. To be sure, it's been an uncomfortable peace that has seen a good many satellite wars, and in recent decades war by other means. But it becomes somewhat less tenable when you end up with multiple significant nuclear powers.
MAD only works with "reasonable" leaders who care about the preservation of their people or at least the preservation of their own individual wealth. The danger is having madmen who hold the nuclear triggers.
Re: (Score:3)
Let's be blunt, geopolitically, the MAD doctrine did as the Congress of Vienna to preserve the peace between the Great Powers. To be sure, it's been an uncomfortable peace that has seen a good many satellite wars, and in recent decades war by other means. But it becomes somewhat less tenable when you end up with multiple significant nuclear powers.
MAD only works with "reasonable" leaders who care about the preservation of their people or at least the preservation of their own individual wealth. The danger is having madmen who hold the nuclear triggers.
This. MAD only works because it doesn't work. If it's ever tested, it will have failed (I.E. the Destruction part of Mutually Assured Destruction).
What most people forget about MAD is that it only really kind of worked (by not working) when only the US and USSR had nukes. The game breaker is if a rouge agent ever gained access to one and the more countries that have them and the more of them they have the higher the risk of one getting into the hands of someone who really, really shouldn't have one.
No
Re: (Score:3)
Conflicts and wars are inevitable.
Just like teenage fights in high school. But there is a big difference between fights using fist and fights using guns. International conflicts and cold/hot wars will never go away, but there are big differences among using propaganda, economic sanctions, computers, conventional armies, and nuclear weapons.
Re: Just what we need (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
So, you're proposing that we do the whole nuclear disarmament thing? Just curious, how does that work if everyone but China does it? Or even everyone but North Korea?
Re: Just what we need (Score:2)
South Korea
Re: Just what we need (Score:2)
Well it may not destroy us. Nuclear winter should cancel out global warming.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This is because the Soviets are shit at complex systems. They have, or more accurately, they HAD, some of the worlds best scientists and engineers. Science and Tech equal to our own. But their planning and systems engineering is crap, hence their crappy systems sending up false alarms, requiring some Soviet officer to disregard their (idiotic) protocol and say "nah I'm not gonna incinerate half the species for a s
Re: (Score:3)
I'd say the differences between 21st century China and 20th century Russia/USSR are fairly significant. The USSR put a helluva lot of its resources into military research and build up, but never really was able to build up an economic engine, in large part due to the USSR's unwillingness until its dying days to accept that Communism itself was creating the economic drag. China has not been under such an illusion since the Gang of Four were crushed and Deng Xiaoping took power. Since then, China, whatever it
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
weld together a capitalist economy to an autocratic regime
That is referred to as fascism.
Re: (Score:3)
https://russia-insider.com/sit... [russia-insider.com]
Re: Just what we need (Score:5, Funny)
the Democrats are going to get clobbered in the next two election cycles.
Extremely unlikely. Especially if Biden gets his infra structure programs going.
Re: Just what we need (Score:4, Insightful)
If they actually passed the bipartisan "real" infrastructure plan, it might help things some.
But that socialist type money sink the "build back better" social spending of trillions of dollars, really isn't gonna help anyone....
But it isn't even that as much as the Democrats with a now VERY vocal and controlling extreme left progressive side are acting like they really had a major mandate from the majority of the US population to push a very left agenda.
That is just not the case, most of America is middle....and the extreme push of woke and leftist ideals is not resonating well.
The Virgina race showed what regular people really are thinking when they see what the govt. school systems are trying to indoctrinate their children with and then are told the have no business with what their kids are taught.
The last presidential election wasn't for that idealism....it was more of a vote against Trump the persona, than it was for Biden and the progressives.
I think that is what you are seeing and the dems have mistaken their mandate.
They could possibly save themselves, but it isn't by how they've been acting this past year, that's for sure.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
> If they actually passed the bipartisan "real" infrastructure plan, it might help things some.
>But that socialist type money sink the "build back better" social spending of trillions of
> dollars, really isn't gonna help anyone....
i'm positive trillions of dollars is in fact going to help someone. it did when people lost their jobs during the pandemic. it will help someone when failing infrastructure is updated. i suppose next your going to tell me that all of our infrastructure is in perfect con
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
I'm positive that more trillions of dollars is going to accelerate the already fast moving rate of inflation which will hurt everyone.
I was shocked at food prices yesterday.
I have a surprise for you: In socialist countries everyone can afford food, not just the well-off. Isn't that amazing? Interestingly, there are more people in poverty in the US than in Western socialist countries.
I'm shocked to see adults actually promoting hormone therapy for pre-pubescent children....that's potentially causing life changing body changes for children who the majority of grow out of it naturally and embrace the sex they were born with if left alone.
That's hyper-capitalism for you: Anything for a buck, no matter what harm it does to others. What are you, some kind of nanny state proponent who wants to stop capitalism? Surely you want government to stay out of the lives of people?
But we as a country got along much better than this and very few people thought of themselves as victims.
I miss the good old days when cops could murder black people
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But that socialist type money sink the "build back better" social spending of trillions of dollars, really isn't gonna help anyone....
Indeed. Social spending to help those in need doesn't help anyone, better spend on wars instead.
to push a very left agenda.
You have gone so far right that you're now mistaking a centralist right agenda for "very left". Get ahold of yourself. There's a lot of ways to describe the Democrats, even the more extreme ones, but "very left" just makes it look like you don't even understand what the terms left and right mean.
We get it, it's more left then you, but shit man, most people in the world are.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
You have gone so far right that you're now mistaking a centralist right agenda for "very left". Get ahold of yourself. There's a lot of ways to describe the Democrats, even the more extreme ones, but "very left" just makes it look like you don't even understand what the terms left and right mean.
The US has shifted the Overton window so far right the centrist dems look positively right center to non American English speakers. for example the Conservative party in Canada has a very similar platform to centrist dems : pro-choice, pro-single payer healthcare, pro guns but with substantial restrictions for safety and allowed types.
The rest of the English speaking world thinks we’re right wing nut jobs here, and by their standards that is factual. It’s a major source of why online discou
Re: Just what we need (Score:2)
And if you look at Nixon and Reagan today, they'd be considered left-wing RINOs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I take it you are not from/in the US...I get it, the REST of the world is more left than the US.
But that doesn't matter, we're talking ONLY internal to the US.
We left Europe to be different.
And in the US, it isn't that the conservative or more right leaning side has gone farther right, it is that the more liberal democrat side, at least a VERY vocal liberal socialist progressive wing is dragging them further left than the US
Re: (Score:2)
at least a VERY vocal liberal socialist progressive wing is dragging them further left than the US has ever seen.
That is nonsense. Before WWII the US were a middle ground nation just like western Europe is now.
Now it is a country of extremists. Or uneducated morons. Or both.
What is the biggest unemployment aid provider in the US? The US army.
What is the biggest unemployment aid provider in westernEuropean countries? Social welfare.
Need more examples?
Re: (Score:2)
But it isn't even that as much as the Democrats with a now VERY vocal and controlling extreme left progressive side are acting like they really had a major mandate from the majority of the US population to push a very left agenda.
That is just not the case, most of America is middle....and the extreme push of woke and leftist ideals is not resonating well.
Are these the Democrats that Nancy Pelosi spent a lot of time trashing? The ones who are winning elections by wider margins than the rest of the incumbent Democrats whose margins are slowly eroding?
Yeah, fuck those guys winning elections with healthy majorities! We want the Democrats who are indistinguishable from the Republicans!
Re: (Score:2)
But it isn't even that as much as the Democrats with a now VERY vocal and controlling extreme left
Bullshit and you know it. Democrats elected Joe Freaking Biden, shithead. The runners up were even more boring. As boring? Rate them for me. The democrats primaries were boring. Congress? Anything exciting happening there? So much extreme, I know, it's hard for you to give examples, so much of the extreme left control going on, where to start. God, I have to follow C-SPAN every day to keep up with it all, there's so much going on.
You're trying to deflect from the very obvious direct influence Trump
Re: (Score:2)
The last presidential election wasn't for that idealism....it was more of a vote against Trump the persona, than it was for Biden and the progressives.
Dems coulda nominated any demented geriatric dolt and won...oops, nevermind.
Re: (Score:3)
the Democrats are going to get clobbered in the next two election cycles.
Extremely unlikely. Especially if Biden gets his infra structure programs going.
Do you watch the news?
https://www.bloomberg.com/news... [bloomberg.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Bloomberg is not a new site ... so I think no.
I assume you wanted to make a funny comment?
Re: Just what we need (Score:2)
Extremely unlikely, though we might get a tiny percentage of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Extremely unlikely. Especially if Biden gets his infra structure programs going.
If it was infrastructure, it would help him. But when you classify everything from free community college to free day care as "infrastructure", no, it ain't gonna pass.
Re: (Score:2)
But when you classify everything from free community college to free day care as "infrastructure", no, it ain't gonna pass
And why exactly not?
Obviously it is not infrastructure, but would bring your country forward. You enjoy living in a shit hole?
Re: (Score:3)
Disagree. Xi is 68; he wants to solve the Taiwan problem before he dies.
The 75th anniversary of the PRC is 2024; the 80th in 2029. The CCP has put in restrictions and bans on video games, feminine celebrities, and is weaning off of American business.Also, it took ~20-25 years to beat HK into shape, and they want things squared away for the 100th anniversary.
Combine all that, plus the sudden acceleration of nuke building, with Xi's age, and the conclusion is pretty clear:
Expect increasing escalation and outr
Re: (Score:2)
There's also another factor to this - China is ramping up its military expansion, and will surpass the USA (and possibly along with USA allies) in the near future.
The USA power-that-be have been banging the war drums because they're considering firing the first shot, as they're in a use-it-or-lose it situation. It's either that, or admit to lesser status as a world power (and the USA will never willingly do that).
Re: Just what we need (Score:5, Informative)
Disagree. Xi is 68; he wants to solve the Taiwan problem before he dies.
There is no "Taiwan Problem".
From the point of view of mainland China, Taiwan is a part of China.
From the point of view of Taiwan, mainland China is a part of Taiwan, which is together called: China.
The only problem is that a citizen from one part of that strange China needs a passport to travel into the other part. And vice versa ... erm ...
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is that while the PRC has remain steadfast in a "one China" policy, support for reunification in Taiwan has been steadily eroding. The moves by Beijing to further integrate Hong Kong, despite previous notions that Beijing wanted to showcase Hong Kong as a model for how Taiwan would be allowed to become a self-governing enclave in the PRC, haven't exactly warmed many hearts in Taipai. And the US is only too aware of the serious vulnerabilities of Taiwan, and that if an invasion were to occur, it'
Re: (Score:2)
Any President who makes it his policy to nuke mainland China should a PLA soldier set foot on the Taiwanese beachhead should be removed from office. That's utterly insane.
Re: (Score:2)
From the point of view of Taiwan, mainland China is a part of Taiwan, which is together called: China.
I've joked about this many times with Taiwanese people, and I couldn't get a single one to accept that position. I couldn't even get one to laugh about it. :(
Then sometimes they talk bitterly about the end of the Sino-American Mutual Defense Treaty.
Re: (Score:2)
It is even more complicated - or laughable actually - wehen you consider: ... but was short lived.
a) the republic of Formosa - old name of Taiwan - formed around 1895. They seceded from main land China - but now they consider the mainland a part of them
b) half a year later it was occupied by Japan, and was basically colonized, or like Korea a part of Japan
c) population on Taiwan is heavily influenced by Pacific Islanders and native tribes
Culture and life style is still heavy influenced by Japan. E.g. food,
Re: (Score:2)
c) population on Taiwan is heavily influenced by Pacific Islanders and native tribes
Fascinatingly, linguistic studies have shown that it's exactly the opposite: the Pacific Island languages originated in Taiwan. Check it out [wikipedia.org].
Considering that "Mandarin" consists of several dialects, which are not necessarily mutual intelligible
I'm not sure what you mean by this.
they never adopted the writing reforms the mainland did. I guess a typical Taiwanese can not even read a Chinese newspaper (and vice versa).
The characters are still fairly similar and it only takes a few weeks to get used to the simplifications. These writing reforms are not a problem. (In brief, Chinese characters are made up of ~200 basic parts (or radicals), and the writing reforms might simplify a radical, but once you know the new radical, it is the same in all plac
Re: (Score:2)
The characters are still fairly similar and it only takes a few weeks to get used to the simplifications. ... might take a few years.
Oh, it is about 4000 characters, so
These writing reforms are not a problem. (In brief, Chinese characters are made up of ~200 basic parts (or radicals), and the writing reforms might simplify a radical, but once you know the new radical, it is the same in all places. :D
I think you misread something about radicals
Especially as the simplifications did not simply change radicals
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, it is about 4000 characters, so ... might take a few years.
It really doesn't.
I think you misread something about radicals :D
Especially as the simplifications did not simply change radicals, simply radically simplified the look/writing of a Hanzi/Kanji.
I didn't misread something about them, I learned them all.
Re: (Score:2)
Because disarming has always been such a successful strategy to prevent war. I think not.
Re: (Score:2)
I also think that China won't make a first nuclear move.
IMO, the purpose of this upgrade of their nuclear arsenal is to to ensure that a US or NATO that is loosing a conventional war against China will not escalate to nuclear.
Re: (Score:3)
They are probably not even increasing the arsenal but replacing old nukes - which became unreliable, with new ones.
Or switch technology or size.
If some story about any nation building nukes pops up in the news, you can always safely assume it is "intentionally there", and no one of us mundanes really knows what is going on.
Re: (Score:2)
> If the US wanted to de-escalate they would disarm.
These are the same idiots that want to disarm citizens. They literally don't understand human nature.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
The Current issue of The Atlantic addresses this (Score:2)
The article is worth the time it takes to read it.
Re: (Score:2)
If China has no intention of making a first move, they would not increase their stockpile.
China has not been attacked by the US to date.
Im not convinced of your statement that China is not to be wary of.
China is the one attempting to claim territory they do not currently occupy.
And how is it you know so much about what the leadership of China will do or not do?
Re: Just what we need (Score:2)
Re: So why doesn't China ban gain-of-function? (Score:2)
Communism is responsible for killing millions and millions of people everywhere it takes root. F--- the CCP.
I hate opression just as much as the next guy, but may I remind you that in terms of extinction-level destruction, the Communists actually have a less aggressive track record than the West?
For example it was the West that dropped the first - and only, to date - atomic bomb on humans. It was the West that that waged wars in the middle east, e.g. Afghanistan, to the point where the locals actually felt compelled to side with terrorists to actually have any kind of shotnat a "normal life". And many other exam
Re: So why doesn't China ban gain-of-function? (Score:2)
Whereas Communist countries kill their own populations
Especially the USA should keep the ball low in this court, too. It has amongst the highest incarceration rates in the world. The longest prison terms on average. Still deals out death penalties in 2021. And just recently had a number of uprisings for the sheer number of cases in which law enforcement unlawfully, willingly or by accident, killed unarmed people.
So apparently the very definition of "West" kills its own, too.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
People are always saying taxpayer funded research should be released to the public. It appears China obliged - in virus form.
Re:So why doesn't China ban gain-of-function? (Score:4, Insightful)
Keep both at bay.
Re: (Score:2)
Well America actually targeted a cathedral with a nuke, as well as being a Christian nation, has a long history of killing savages (and enslaving them) as it was considered fine to kill non-Christians. Then there is all the bullshit that happened in Europe, going back at least to burning a town of the wrong type of Christian with the famous quote about killing them all and letting God sort it out close to a thousand years back.
Even in China, as many were likely killed in a civil war involving Christians (a
Re: Just what we need (Score:4, Insightful)
I particularly remember a documentary that played on TV about the awesome might of the Soviet Navy, and how they had out built the United States and were an imminent threat to our way of life etc etc .
Of course not too many years later we discovered the Soviet Navy was in fact so run down they couldn't even put to sea, and the "documentary" had been entirely funded by the US Navy.
At the time there was still fallout from losing in Vietnam, and budgets were not what they had been. The Navy was worried they might not get the money they wanted, so they created some propaganda to help their case.
That is largely what all this sort of sabre-rattling is. The US military is not really fighting any wars right now, and they need to keep pressure on those who hold the purse strings, and it looks China is the bogeyman they're using.
China is not going to attack Taiwan and they're not going to attack the US, because what could they possibly gain? They also have too much to lose.
Re: (Score:3)
China is not going to attack Taiwan and they're not going to attack the US, because what could they possibly gain?
China would attack Taiwan if they could get away with it.
What they stand to gain is territory and pride.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree that China would invade Taiwan if they thought they could get away with it, but they wouldn't and they know they wouldn't and they're not stupid.
Re: (Score:3)
*Shrug* When China abused Hong Kong, the world did nothing. When they made concentration camps in Xinjiang, the world did nothing.
Why would the world do something if they took Taiwan?
The world did nothing... (Score:3)
When China abused Hong Kong, the world did nothing. When they made concentration camps in Xinjiang, the world did nothing.
Worse than doing nothing; entities like the NBA doubled down on business arrangements with China.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Concentration camps in Xinjiang don't impact on America's strategic or economic interests.
Re: (Score:2)
Concentration camps in Xinjiang don't impact on America's strategic or economic interests.
That's exactly right, but if CCP abuses their people, then we have sympathy for them as our fellow humans. And the same goes for Hong Kong, and the rest of China.
Maybe.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Maybe.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Guess who'll come out on top this time?
Blah, blah, blah... Well if “sensible” people insist China doesn’t make those parts then we’ll outsource them to India right?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The most worrying thing is that USA often loses to China/Russia in simulated military conflicts.
The once held notion that the USA will always be on the top is no longer assured these days.
In fact, the USA is playing catchup in key economic/military fields, sad!
Re: (Score:2)
The most worrying thing is that USA often loses to China/Russia in simulated military conflicts.
That really needs a citation. It sounds remarkably unlikely that a military larger than the other 4 in the top 5 put together would get defeated often in simulations
Dude, I'll fix that for you... (Score:3)
Russia And China Keep Beating America In Mock Wars. [19fortyfive.com]
Former Deputy Secretary of Defense Bob Work, who served under three Secretaries before retiring in 2017, has been even more explicit. As he has stated publicly, in the most realistic war games the Pentagon has been able to design simulating war over Taiwan, the score is eighteen to zero. [nationalinterest.org] And the eighteen is not Team USA.
Think about the metric 18:0 for a second.
Dude, next?
Re: (Score:2)
America has specialized in asymmetric warfare. So bombing Iraq into the stone age, while they actually had at least in the first Iraq war similar fighters than USA or Europe, was easy.
While the USA probably can defend themselves nicely, I doubt they would have any chance invading either Russia or China.
The air superiority of the US only works via AWACS like planes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
I guess flight altitude of an AWACS is about 40,000 - 45,000 feet. A Russian fighter jet: flies 4 times as high
Re: (Score:2)
I guess flight altitude of an AWACS is about 40,000 - 45,000 feet. A Russian fighter jet: flies 4 times as high. Yes: 4 times
You think Russian fighters fly at 160 to 190 thousand feet? You're on hallucinogens.
Workhorse Russian fighter is the Su-35 [wikipedia.org]. It has a 59,000 foot ceiling. https://www.19fortyfive.com/20... [19fortyfive.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, then find another one. Lol.
The highest flying fighters fly 60km high. Up to you to convert it into feet.
Must be around 120,000 feet.
And you can see the videos about that on youtube.
Google "Russian fighter stratosphere flight" - they are wearing space suits in those fighters.
Polar stratosphere begins at 7 km [Re:Maybe..] (Score:2)
Yes, then find another one. Lol. The highest flying fighters fly 60km high.
LOL! No, they don't. That would be more than twice as high as the record set by SR-71 for sustained flight (and SR-71 is not a fighter). Not even close.
Up to you to convert it into feet. Must be around 120,000 feet. And you can see the videos about that on youtube. Google "Russian fighter stratosphere flight" - they are wearing space suits in those fighters.
Sure, good idea. The results of the google say that the MiG-29 [wikipedia.org] ("Fulcrum") can takes flights into the stratosphere (defined as 7 to 20 km, depending on latitude and season). Service ceiling for the MiG-29 is 18,000 m (59,000 ft), which is definitely into the stratosphere at mid-latitudes. One [migflug.com] site says that you can get up to 23 km in a MiG-29. How do you
Re: (Score:2)
Win-win for the Pentagon.
Of course. That's why you will see these Russia/China scare "reports" coming out every year when Congress make budget. This is tried and true tactic to keep military spending high.
Break out the rainbow flag (Score:3)
It's ok (Score:4, Interesting)
It's ok. If the Idiot gets back into office, he will quickly act on his primary motivation, revenge,
and his secondary motivation, being viewed as the origin of all things.
Within two months, he will want to show the world that neither Putin or Xi push him around.
He will board AF1, announce he has ordered several nuclear strikes, then watch it happen.
China will get to use those shiny new bombs, and that will be that.
But the name Trump will be the last thing on everyone's mind before the big flash.
Didn't say it was a good plan.
Re: (Score:3)
How the fuck did this paranoid bullshit make it to +3?
The man was a buffoon, stop attributing him to every possible bad thing that has ever occurred or will occur or claiming there's grand plans.
Good god this site sometimes.
How does this work (Score:2)
So exactly how does having 20 times the nukes needed to kill everyone increase security ?
Dramatic, not accurate [Re:How does this work] (Score:2)
No, actually we don't.
I'd increase my nuclear arsenal too (Score:5, Informative)
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
and this is not disparaging Gen Milley but the situation that made him feel it was necessary.
Of course the US needs to respond to this Chinese buildup with a massive investment in EDUCATION:
https://www.salon.com/2021/10/... [salon.com]
It only takes one (Score:3)
To destroy the world.
Dr Strangelove (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Pssssht! Don't give them ideas. The way remakes/reboots/sequels are done these days, more often than not it's better to leave the nostalgia linger.
However, now that I ponder on the subject matter of Dr. Strangelove and how it would be remade today, I think that the woke crowd will steer clear of this one all on their own accord. Hell, they probably wouldn't even get past the opening sequence.
So what? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a concern. It's simply a sign that the US missile defense systems are no longer a joke.
Both China and Russia invested aggressively into maneuverable glide vehicles, which are capable of defeating current generation ABM systems. They're only doing that to maintain 2nd strike capabilities.
Re: (Score:2)