Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Your seeing "T" bonds on the rise, and Gold being bought up like no tomorrow.
What does that tell you and where we are headed.
Exactly.
There are a lot here who say things like...."China would never go to war with us....it would be dumb as they wouldn't GAIN from it financially......i.e. GET PAID.
They fail to recognize that there ARE "other ways" of collecting debt and IF.....they ever feel they won't......or have NOTHING to lose in going to any war......they will gladly do so, I'm sure.
They have a HUGE population, massive military troop numbers, nukes and are as Commie as it gets.
THEY own us alright..........and already.
We appear to be increasingly FORCED to ACCEPT their ways via our sick progressive govt. minions to possibly, avoid a serious conflict now......or, we are just delaying what is inevitable.....especially if we choose NOT to conform to the current direction our govt. is obviously wishing for us to take.
There are a lot here who say things like...."China would never go to war with us....it would be dumb as they wouldn't GAIN from it financially......i.e. GET PAID.
They fail to recognize that there ARE "other ways" of collecting debt and IF.....they ever feel they won't......or have NOTHING to lose in going to any war......they will gladly do so, I'm sure.
They have a HUGE population, massive military troop numbers, nukes and are as Commie as it gets.
THEY own us alright..........and already.
We appear to be increasingly FORCED to ACCEPT their ways via our sick progressive govt. minions to possibly, avoid a serious conflict now......or, we are just delaying what is inevitable.....especially if we choose NOT to conform to the current direction our govt. is obviously wishing for us to take.
Scary....either way anyone wishes to look at it.
I'm not sure why so many people think China has a massive military. They don't and in fact, considering China shares borders with something like 13 nations and has a population of 1.3 billion to protect, China's army is small. Another way to look at it:
China has 1.7 active troops per 1000 capita
US has 4.6 active per 1000
Russia has 7.3
North Korea has 46
Also take into consideration US military's superior technology and a border with Canada that we don't have to worry about.
I'm not saying that the US Army is too large. I'm saying that China's army isn't big and can be considered small.
you certainly know more about banking than i do and i appreciate your insight. If china stops buying our debt then what?
Interest rates go up a point or two at most, probably less. It's all a matter of yield. An analogy is CD's. When yields are low, most people keep their money in savings accounts. When yields are high. that's when CD's become popular. It works the same way with Treasury bonds. When yields are low, most investors stay away from them. As yields go up, other investors will step in.
Will higher interest rates have a negative effect on the economy? Absolutely. But the fact is Uncle Sam has lived with Treasury interest rates of 17% (back in the 80's). The Republic survived.
I'm not sure why so many people think China has a massive military. They don't and in fact, considering China shares borders with something like 13 nations and has a population of 1.3 billion to protect, China's army is small. Another way to look at it:
China has 1.7 active troops per 1000 capita
US has 4.6 active per 1000
Russia has 7.3
North Korea has 46
Also take into consideration US military's superior technology and a border with Canada that we don't have to worry about.
I'm not saying that the US Army is too large. I'm saying that China's army isn't big and can be considered small.
That's a very unusual way to compare militaries. The conventional way is to look at the number of personnel fielded by a country's potential adversaries. It's no good if a country has more troops per 1000 when its potential adversary has ten times the first country's population. To the extent possible, smaller countries try to match their potential adversaries' troop numbers. Here are some numbers (including trained reserves and paramilitary troops):
China 7m
US 3.8m
Russia 3.8m
North Korea 6m
Taiwan 2m
South Korea 4.2m
The reason the US has a lot of troops is security commitments. It has defense treaties with South Korea, Japan and Australia, not to mention the NATO countries and a host of other military dependencies. Even without the other security commitments in the Far East, the US would need a pretty significant Navy to hold on to its Pacific territories, which include Guam, Hawaii and the Mariana Islands. Guam is 5300 nautical miles away from the mainland US, but only 1822 nautical miles from China.
Provides greater target damage for a given missile payload. Radiation (including radiated heat) from a nuclear warhead diminishes as the square of the distance (called the inverse-square law), and blast pressure diminishes as the cube of the distance. For example at a distance of 4 km from ground zero, the blast pressure is only 1/64th that of 1 km. Due to these effects several small warheads cause much more target damage area than a single large one. This in turn reduces the number of missiles and launch facilities required for a given destruction level.
With single warhead missiles, one missile must be launched for each target. By contrast with a MIRV warhead, the post-boost (or bus) stage can dispense the warheads against multiple targets across a broad area.
Reduces the impact of SALT treaty limitations. The treaty initially limited number of missiles, not number of warheads. Adding multiple warheads per missile provided more target destruction for a given number of missiles.
Reduces the effectiveness of an anti-ballistic missile system that relies on intercepting individual warheads. While a MIRVed attacking missile can have multiple (3–12 on United States missiles and 12-24 on Russians) warheads, interceptors can only have one warhead per missile. Thus, in both a military and economic sense, MIRVs render ABM systems less effective, as the costs of maintaining a workable defense against MIRVs would greatly increase, requiring multiple defensive missiles for each offensive one. Decoy reentry vehicles can be used alongside actual warheads to minimize the chances of the actual warheads being intercepted before they reach their targets. A system that destroys the missile earlier in its trajectory (before MIRV separation) is not affected by this but is more difficult, and thus more expensive to implement.
MIRVed land-based ICBMs were considered destabilizing because they tended to put a premium on striking first. MIRVs threatened to rapidly increase the US's deployable nuclear arsenal and thus the possibility that it would have enough bombs to destroy virtually all of the Soviet Union's nuclear weapons and negate any significant retaliation
that's pretty nuts to think they could stop a superpower like russia
That's my point! We now have MIRV's with ten warheads per missile and one Ohio class submarine could theoritically launch 192 seperate warheads(assuming 8 MIRV's per missile). We still use them on our MX(renamed Peacekeeper and MinutemanIII....with ten warheads each) missiles along with the Tridents... . Ohio class submarine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. 
