China’s Growing Nuclear Arsenal Is A Bigger Threat Than A Spy Balloon, And The U.S. Helped Make It Possible

The Federalist ^ | 02/09/2023 | Helen Raleigh

[gundog]

Private sector unions cozying up to the Democrats was their undoing. Manufacturing will go where labor is cheap.

Nixon, Kissinger, Ambassador to the UN, and China GHWB....the hapless, unelected Gerald Ford. America, post-JFK has been played.

[NorthMountain]

The spectre of the KKKlintons continues to haunt ...

[whitney69]

“China and Putin may decide to “pool their resources”

So what? It will take less than 100 of the devices the world currently uses to poison mankind into history. How much is enough?

In 1945, the Los Alamos scientist, Alex Wellerstein, concluded it would only take between 10 and 100 “Super” bombs to end the world. The apocalypse brought on by these 10-100 super bombs wouldn’t be all fire and brimstone. The scientists posited that “the most world-wide destruction could come from radioactive poisons” unleashed on the Earth’s atmosphere by the bombs’ weaponized uranium. Radiation exposure leads to skyrocketing rates of cancer, birth defects, and genetic anomalies. “Atmospheric poisoning is basically making it so that the background level of radioactivity would be greatly increased, to the point that it would interfere with human life (e.g. cancers and birth defects) and reproduction (e.g. genetic anomalies),” says Wellerstein. Wellerstein says that this fear of widespread nuclear fallout was hardly irrational and that concerns over the atmospheric effects of nuclear detonations were “one of the reasons that we stopped testing nuclear weapons aboveground in 1963, as part of the Limited Test Ban Treaty.” An example is the test grounds in Utah.

It is noted that there were a number of cast and crew on the movie The Conqueror that died of cancer related issues:

“Of the 220 film crew members, 91 (comprising 41% of the crew) developed cancer during their lifetime, while 46 (or 21%) died from it. When this was learned, many suspected that filming in Utah and surrounding locations, near nuclear test sites, was to blame. Although the number of cancer cases among the cast and crew is in line with the average for adults in the US at the time, the perception of a link between the film’s location and subsequent illness remains, not least because many of those involved in the film developed cancer at a younger age than average.”

Noted stars who died in this situation were Dick Powell (dir), John Wayne, Susan Hayward, and John Hoyt. Other people from the film or extended visitors that had cancer related problems were Lee Van Cleef and several of Wayne and Hayward’s relatives who visited the set also had cancer scares. Michael Wayne developed skin cancer, his brother Patrick had a benign tumor removed from his breast, and Hayward’s son, Tim Barker, had a benign tumor removed from his mouth. The filming location was downwind from the United States government’s Nevada National Security Site and received the brunt of nuclear fallout from testing active in this period. And this was in what they thought was a controlled atmosphere and not a full blown weapon intending destruction or death.

350 a good start in development? How much is enough? Seems strange the government would be up in arms about ownership in guns by the public, but are in control of weapons that can destroy humanity if a couple of nuts get to them.

wy69

[fortes fortuna juvat]

What’s even more depressing is that the U.S. helped China build its nuclear weapons.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
BULLCRAP! The U.S. did no such thing. It was traitorous, criminal politicians who betrayed our country that helped China build nukes. And these make-believe journalists will always employ such generalities to protect their asses. Sickening!

[Marko413]

I’m still trying to understand why they sent a balloon in the first place. Dont they have satellites that could do the same thing? Or are their satellites another one of those things like Russias military where they talk a lot but doesnt actually perform.

[Georgia Girl 2]

China’s nuclear arsenal could be larger or smaller and the effect would be the same. The US, Russia and China have enough nukes for mutual destruction. Anything g over the minimum requirement is a waste of money. 🙄

[untenured]

I disagree, because I think you’re attaching too much MAD reasoning to the CCP. Its overriding objective externally is to gain dominance over East Asia, particularly to end the “century of shame” by “recovering” Taiwan. At least Xi and maybe the whole CCP leadership would be plenty willing to threaten a nuclear attack on the U.S. in the course of trying conquer Taiwan. Until recently they had fewer than 100 nuclear bombs, now they are building them up rapidly.

Having more nukes makes the US and Japan more unwilling to defend Taiwan, which in turn makes the CCP more willing to run the risk of doing so to obtain the internal political and emotional (for the leadership) benefits of ending what they see as western conquest of their country.

The more nukes they have, the more plausible an invasion followed by a threat to launch them becomes. If they threaten us with nukes because they have already attacked Taiwan, and the US and Japan support Taiwan, they will quite possibly launch nukes. Why? In part because they’re the CCP, one of the most sinister organizations in the world. Therefore, they can attack Taiwan, and possibly chase the US out of NE Asia.

That’s how I see it anyway.