Re <<Did anyone stop to think that nuclear capabilities are defined by protocols signed in the past?>>
... you are either joking or naive, believing that just a piece of paper would stop a signatory from working to develop via supercomputer simulation and actualise in hardware all the bits and pieces in complete and / or semi-knock-down kits weapons of all description
Re <<Look up SALT Strategic Arms Limitations
The so-called civilizations are guided by sovereign countries that engaged on correcting the mistakes of the past.>>
... you are not joking, but naive.
Re <<What someone in China might have thought is:>>
... China is not a signatory to SALT and follow-ons, be it strategic or theatre devices
Re <<How about we develop nuclear capabilities to rival the other superpowers?>>
... little need. only need to prepare to destroy everything once over.
Re <<They would aim that arsenal to China and we don't want to live with that thought.>>
... that arsenal is aimed at china, but at 250 : 5000, that arsenal cannot be used.
Re <<I know you want promotion and become the boss, but where we are going to get the technology from?>>
... lacking technology is not a problem. what have you been reading?
Re <<Like Iran, we pretend to be pacific and build the defense capabilities as we are doing it.>>
... and here i thought china is the only major country not fighting in any sort of wars. perhaps i am mistaken and you are correct. but, please excuse me for a giggle, cannot be helped.
Re <<we need the oceans for trading and supplies. We don't have a navy for open sea, Maximum we can do is impress, that Filipino guy. We go for it and someone will hit us where we don't expect.>>
... you have not been keeping up to date with the latest maritime peace-keeping protocol. it is a dangerous way forward to discern macro but without synthesizing correct info
Re <<As the Brazilian fish analogy, Elmat comes to the Thread, his own Swamp and clean the acts>>
... you mean the thought pollution? hasn't been a problem. is fun. and relatively easy to very easy. Mq, relatively, is much more demanding of bandwidth even if he is often enough wrong, and i would not rate Mq scribblings as just thought pollution. |
