[Zhang Fei]

[Is the U.S. willing to have 20-30 of our largest metropolitan areas hit simultaneously by multiple nuclear weapons over the South China Sea?]

---

Is China willing to have 1000 its largest metro areas hit simultaneously by nukes in retaliation? China’s leader wants a more prominent place in history. He wants fame, not infamy. And like every other politician, he’s keenly interest in his personal physical survival and the survival of kith and kin. Against a nuclear power with retaliatory capability, there is zero chance he will use nukes. And that logic also applies to the US and Russia. National leaders are ego-driven individuals whose principal concern is to improve his standing in history. Starting a nuclear war that kills half his population is the route to eternal infamy. Any war between nuclear powers with city-killing nukes will be conducted by conventional means. It’s a lot like what happened during WWII with respect to chemical weapons. Both sides had them, but refrained from using them for fear of retaliation, even up to the point where one side surrendered unconditionally.

[bert]

The life in China is presently dependent on maritime trade. South China Sea set aside, the rest of the oceans must be traversed to have chinese containers delivered to the world.

Threats against sinking will induce foreign shippers to curtail service. Actual sinking of Chinese container vessels on any ocean where will be detrimental. If the Suez and Panama canals are closed, to China vessels there will be a costly problem

In the words of In Harm’s Way...... a gut bustin Navy war