I agree normal trade benefits both (would not occur other wise) but many wars have been fought over control of limited resources. You know your history better than me, but I think the first such wars were fought of control over salt deposits more than 2000 years ago. Fresh water will soon be making wars. Many, me included, think US has made several wars over oil. Japan attacked Pearl Harbor in a despirate effort to end the US /British blockade of its oil life line.
Makes no difference. The locations of the ports are presumably known, and a docked submarine makes a great target.
Given that there is no notable strategic resource competition between the US and China (we don't share any potential fresh water sources, are happy enough for China to bid and win oil contracts in Iraq, etc.) I don't see how that's going to lead to a war in the foreseeable future.
Then an adversary can simply strike the mouth of the river, trapping the submarines in an inland area where they do not present a threat.
You seem to have lost the point. -The threat was that it could not be taken out in a first strike and could get its ICBMs off.
The missiles on Chinese submarines don't have the range to strike US targets from inside/near mainland China. They have to be on patrol deep in the Pacific Ocean to do that - they could perhaps hit US bases in Korea and Japan, but that would be about it. There's speculation that China is moving on to longer-range missiles for its submarines in coming years, but even these would not be able to reach the United States from the Chinese mainland. This is in contrast to US SSBN missiles, which are true ICBMs in the sense of being able to strike essentially anywhere in the world from anywhere else. It also bears mentioning that the US has a massive lead in ballistic missile defense, and is closer to fielding a system that could defeat China's entire intercontinental nuclear arsenal (which is rather small - a couple of dozen missile) than China is to fielding SSBNs that would credibly threaten the US.
What is their current range and what do you think it will be in five years? I think surely nuclear first strike by US on China is more than five years away - US will still be needing them to finance its debts five years from now. :bawl:
About 1000 miles. It's not known for sure, since these things are still under development and so have never been tested, but something like 2000-3000 miles is expected. When exactly those would be deployed, and in what numbers, remains unknown. In comparison, the US has fielded SSBNs with missiles that exhibit ranges of 7000 miles for decades already. And, anyway, the US has sufficient forces to attack the entire 40 miles of river that you suggest could be used to conceal nuclear subs. Our nuclear arsenal is like two orders of magnitude larger than China's - we can throw 20 warheads at every one of their missile launchers, submarines and strategic bombers, and still have enough left over to mount a full-scale nuclear exchange with Russia. There isn't going to be a nuclear strike against China, for exactly the reason that it's likely to succeed. That fact provides China with a huge incentive not to get into a war with the United States. And debt has little to do with it: eliminating one of the major foreign holders of debt would be a great way to do away with said debt. And I'll note that so long as China continues to finance US debt, China will not become a consumption-led economy.
If WWIII does happen and it's some countries against Iraq and if the news we hear is true that they do have nuclear bombs and if they really are as powerful as we've heard. We will all kill ourselves in the war.
the problem is this; Iran only answers to god , Iran can lie to anybody , but its god so the the nuclear program Iran has and will advance is about god nothing more nothing less until we understand this , the world is blind
yes it is about god in that they want to use nuclear bombs so they can join him in heaven and they think it would be best if we did too for "our sank" to please god. EDIT: I think the UN should get involved in this and help out in stopping Iran or Iraq whichever it is.
its more of a when not an if.. with all the different religions around the world someone is going to step over the line.. religion is the downfal of our species if you ask me, a massive % of wars can be directly linked to religion one of the worst was the crusades
I doubt there will be a third world war. Namely because as far as this scenario goes there is no one that can consistantly defeat the US military. At least, not anymore, the only people that can really compete are for the most part on our side.
Yeah. Everybody says China. But in all honesty, the only thing they have is the numbers game. And that doesn't always mean victory. For reference see the Zulu Wars.
The only real concern is biological warfare. That may place NK, a small nuisance, into a whole new league. If they can release a plague, a real plague, which they can make nukes so they can make germs, all over Asia, it'd be all over the world in a matter of hours. Then what?