Comments by "VisibilityFoggy" (@VisibilityFoggy) on "Is China Building More Nuclear Weapons?" video.

They also scared the bejesus out of the USAF with the MiG-25, leading the U.S. to develop the F-15, but eventually a Russian pilot defected to America by way of Japan in his plane and we found out it wasn't some kind of super-duper invincible fighter (though it was really fast!). The U.S. really thought it had been bested in a big way, but while the MiG-25 was certainly a quality interceptor with some cool capabilities, it wasn't anything revolutionary.
2
@DK-yz9xk European socialists love to trash the U.S., but would be begging for the U.S. military to defend them if Putin came knocking on their door. This is why some Americans do not like the idea of NATO. Why do you we provide your national defense when you espouse this hatred of us? A lot of Americans think we should leave you to your own devices and let Russia do what they will...
2
CW Lemoine (former F/A-18 and F-16 pilot) does a lot of pilot interviews and aviation stuff.
1
You're rewriting history a bit. Rail-based missiles were relatively easily tracked by surveillance satellites by the time START was negotiated. And the U.S. could have easily made more missiles to match the Soviets' numbers – that was never even remotely an issue. The development of the Tu-160 and the AS-15 was what really prompted the treaty. Before the development of these systems, the Soviets really had no manner in which to penetrate U.S. airspace to deliver a payload. Their bombers were only authorized to attack American sea targets (European land targets were authorized). Had the START treaty not been ratified, the U.S. would have had to develop and deploy more SAM systems to defend against the bombers since American airspace has always been protected by manned aircraft rather than SAM batteries. It really was a money-saving measure which kept the U.S. from having to deal with the hassle and cost of going back to the days of missile batteries dotting the country. For its part, the U.S. removed the nuclear launch capability from the B-1 bomber (though missile pylons have reappeared over the last year on the B-1) and the Soviets agreed to remove the refueling probes on the Tu-22M so they would have no capability of reaching the U.S. (these have been added back in the new Tu-22M3).
1
They wouldn't have that many "shiny happy people" after the Three Gorges Dam is busted open with a small-yield nuclear strike.
1
China is a much scarier threat than Russia because their foreign policy is largely framed around Han ethnic supremacy and the subjugation of other cultures, as well as a bizarre obsession with avenging "wrongs" done to China by neighbors dating back centuries. This is how Xi maintains some level of public support despite the surveillance state, censorship, concentration camps and authoritarian strong-arm government. Classic dictator thuggery tactic. Perception is almost more important than reality when your entire regime is built on propaganda. This is a scary country to trust with a large nuclear arsenal.
1
@-Vektron It really isn't, though. A deployment of 300 missiles wouldn't be pretty, but it also wouldn't be world-ending. It's not even "America-ending." The yield of these things isn't turned up to Castle Bravo or Tsar Bomba levels.
1
Someone didn't watch the video...
1
Uhh, I know this is probably a CCP troll account, but let's correct it for everyone here: America does not have more nuclear bombs than any other country. Russia has the most. And the U.S. has also contracted with Northrop-Grumman to develop a brand new ICBM to replace the Minuteman III, which will be (by far) the most advanced land-based missile platform in the world. Next one: ICBMs are hypersonic by definition, so ANY country that fields them has this capability. Finally, the U.S. would use its SLBMs in a first strike against China, with additional strikes carried out by stealth B-2s that can penetrate Chinese air defenses. On the other hand, China's only bomber is the H-6, which is based on the ancient Tupolev "Badger" bomber. These planes can be easily detected and would be shot down by carrier fighters long before it could ever get anywhere near the U.S. coast. American attack subs and its growing fleet of P-8 Poseidons are far more advanced than China's missile subs, which would likely be tracked and detected in times of high tension, and GBI would be activated for incoming launches of ground-based missiles from China. This is REALLY not a path China wants to go down, and it's actually a bit scary that this is what they are telling their citizens. Your government oppresses you and does not allow you intellectual freedom to obtain facts on your own, which is a sad reality for the Chinese people. Obviously you are using a VPN to get around your country's internet censorship (perhaps you should ask why they need censorship in the first place) so it would behoove you to do some genuine research rather than relying on what the Communist Party tells you. Do you even know that your government operates concentration camps and forces people into slave labor?
1
@fensoxx Biological warfare isn't particularly better than a nuke. I'd rather be blown up without knowing what hit me than infected with something Ebola-like...
1
@Joe_Friday It was too late from the beginning. The U.S. developed the atomic bomb because it had to in order to avoid a bloodbath while invading the Japanese main islands. The Soviets, like the U.S., took possession of German tech (and personnel) and were developing nukes on their own, but there was no immediate need to actually use them, so it took a short time longer. Allies of each followed. In order to stop the Soviets from developing nuclear weapons, the U.S. would have had to start a new war following the German surrender, WHILE they were still fighting the Japanese. That would have been a bad idea all around.
1
Have to wonder how much of the $90 million BLM took in over the last year was actually from foreign governments to stoke racial tensions in the U.S. and divide the country.
1
The US Navy actually has a testing capability in the Finger Lakes in New York, but the only submarine I've ever heard of in reference to the Great Lakes is a German World War I sub that was intentionally sunk after a victory parade. There are numerous fake news articles talking about a World War II U-boat that "surfaced" recently, but this has been confirmed by the Coast Guard to be completely made up.
1
@drandersjiang Sure there is. The U.S. has no interest in invading and occupying China. The mission will be limited to maintaining Taiwanese sovereignty in a support role – a purely defensive operation. There is no reason nuclear weapons would be used in such a conflict. China would have about 24-36 hours to defeat Taiwan (which is unlikely to occur) before U.S. reinforcements appear en masse. I don't want to see a war, but China is practically begging for a kick in the teeth, and they deserve it. It's also important to remember that this isn't just about keeping China from expanding its dictatorship. The stated plan the Chinese have for Taiwan is almost akin to that of the Nazis during World War II. The plan calls for depopulating 95% of males, sending them to re-education (concentration) camps and forcing them into slave labor while indoctrinating them with CCP propaganda. This operation would also be focused around preventing a genocide.
1