Let's add a little more detail: the side that has downloaded its missiles to a single warhead apiece has 500 ICBMs, and the side going for MIRVing has 100 missiles.
Additionally, the side with the 500 missiles also has 432 submarine-based missiles...with 6-8 MIRVs apiece, BTW.
Who ya gonna bet on?
This MIRV test probably has much more to do with India than the US. Details, who knows...
Obviously the US has by far the advantage when it comes to nukes when you compare us to China. The US has the advantage in both quality and quantity, plus also in capacity and ease of delivery. And whether or not China got MIRVed to its wazoo and the US had single re-entry vehicles the US would still hold the trump card.
However with that said it is not a good thing when countries like China get MIRVs. My logis is as follows: Let's say my neighbor was a sour-puss and had a murderous tendency of trying to kill anyone living next to him! However let us say the only weapons he had were slingshots and stones .....while i myself packed AR-15s. I obviously have a substantial advantage over the oaf! However let us say i heard he was 'upgrading' to bows and arrows! I still have an advantage, but i would still not be happy since even though his arsenal is inferior to mine he has a greater probability of hurting me with an arrow than with a pebble! Hence even though we still have the upper hand on China their getting MIRV tech should not be laughed at. It is a positive step on their part.
As for Clinton even without him it wouldhave been just a matter of time before China achieved MIRV missiles. And in the next 2 decades i expect several other nations to also get a Eureka moment!If anything the worst Clinton did was cut down the time the Chinese would have spent doing it by themselves (although in my book that is still high-treason and there is no excuse for that).
It reminds me of when the Soviets stole US thermonuclear tech by planting a spy in the US H-bomb project. Experts say that all that spying did was cut one year from the time it would have taken for the Soviets to test their first H-bomb .....but still one year cut is still time off (and i believe the spy was executed as a traitor).
And as Tom Clancy wrote: I fear the guy with one nuclear bomb more than a guy with several (obviously i paraphrase).
A nation trying to get many nukes is trying for a strategy of deterrence by using the implicit threat of 'do anything and i have enough nukes to make it hurt you too.'
Usama just needs one nuke, and if he got it it would not be for deterrence but for immediate use (which is why i always say Usama does not have a nuke ...because if he had one and had an effective way of bringing it to the US, he would have done that).
As for China they shoudl never have gotten this tech, but even without Clinton they still would have (it probably would have taken them an extra decade or so). Clinton should be tried for treason ....but that will probably never happen (he will carry bad stigma for the rest of history, but he probably will not get the law upon him as he deserves).