Connecting the dots on the Chinese nuclear threat

Map purportedly showing fallout from Chinese submarine nuclear missile attack on Seattle.

I wouldn’t start building that bomb shelter just yet.

Yes, both Las Vegas and Reno are black dots on that Chinese newspaper map showing damage from a Chinese nuclear attack, but so are Helena, Mont., and Nashua, N.H. Though a Washington Times article discussing the potential for Chinese missile attacks via both submarines and over-the-pole ICBMs lists both San Diego and Norfolk, Va., as potential targets, neither is a dot on the map.

A reporter for the Nashua Telegraph called the Washington Times columnist about the map that accompanied his article and was told it came from the Global Times, an English-language Chinese newspaper. The Chinese paper has carried a number of stories about Chinese nuclear capabilities online recently, but I could not find the map there.

The Nashua paper said the columnist, Miles Yu, said the map was labeled by the Chinese newspaper as a target analysis showing projected damage from a nuclear strike in Seattle. He was uncertain what the black dots on the map are supposed to show. “I think those are urban centers,” he said. “I have no idea what they are. It didn’t explain.”

R-J columnist Glenn Cook said of the Chinese newspaper account, “Las Vegas can appreciate the self-promoting aspect of the Chinese reports, which mentioned the ‘awesomeness’ of the country’s fleet. It’s all posturing and no threat.”

But the other reason to hold off on that bomb shelter is that it might not do you much good, especially if you live anywhere near Nellis Air Force Base and its nuclear bomb storage igloos. Whether Las Vegas is a dot on a newspaper map or not, Nellis is surely a prime target.

As I wrote nearly 34 years ago, a good-sized nuclear attack would leave a big, big crater.

First in a series of articles on the impact of nuclear attack on a Louisiana Air Force Base.

First in a series of articles on the impact of nuclear attack on a Louisiana Air Force Base.

13 comments on “Connecting the dots on the Chinese nuclear threat

  1. Athos says:

    Why don’t the Muslim fanatics attack the Chinese?

  2. Vernon Clayson says:

    There’s no need for China to attack us with a nuclear bomb or bombs. I doubt the Chinese feel any urgency about taking us over, we have resources they could use for their burgeoning population and economy, coal, oil, gas, living space, but why should they destroy what they can buy. They may wonder whether they should sit by while religionists, e.g., Islam gets a foothold but economics will come first, if religion gets in the way of business, they will make vassals of the religionists, Muslims only think they have patience, it’s nothing in comparison to Orientals. And China may hesitate a bit before stepping on the toes of the Japanese, and also the Russians, in both economics and war. Mr. Mitchell, those ancient cultures understand the world and its workings far better than the comparative amateurs we have bumbling and fumbling in our nation’s leadership, let’s go back to the dangers our own government poses before we get excited about China.

  3. They might shoot back?

  4. Rincon says:

    “Why don’t the Muslim fanatics attack the Chinese?” The U.S. has shot back a lot more than the Chinese, so I don’t think that’s it. Perhaps it’s because the Chinese just buy their oil and keep their noses out of the Muslims’ business. How many countries has China invaded? How many of their dictators has China propped up?

  5. Milty says:

    What Muslim country did we invade before 09/11/01?

    C’mon Rincon, say the magic word. Israel. That’s what the Muslims hold against us.

  6. Vernon Clayson says:

    Milty, Israel is just a handy reference for you, how about around 5 billion infidels, the non-believers in Islam, have you considered how you stand in that regard. It’s much more than about Israel.

  7. Milty says:

    But the question was asked why haven’t the Muslims attacked China? A lot of the animosity from Muslims in the Middle East is because of our support for Israel, and we’re the most prominent supporter of Israel in the world.

    You’re correct, “It’s much more than about Israel.” However, Israel is part of the equation.

  8. Rincon says:

    Israel is a handy lightning rod, but we’ve been mixed up in far more. Prior to 9/11, we brought western culture to the middle east, which was very disruptive. Think about Lawrence of Arabia. The western culture that we promote is considered sinful by fundamentalists.

    We also propped up the Shah of Iran, which they still hold against us. The west also split up the middle east countries amongst western powers after World War I – and not along ethnic lines, creating much of the strife that we see today. Israel was only one of many interferences by the west.

  9. Rincon says:

    Before someone jumps on my previous post, there’s nothing inherently bad or evil about our doings over the past 100 years or so, but we turned out to be somewhat naive about the effects of our heavy involvement in the area. At first, we were very powerful compared to them. Now, we’ve infused them with massive amounts of money, which equals power. The tables have turned. We now have a tiger by the tail. And we continue to feed them great quantities of money.

  10. Vernon Clayson says:

    On the other hand we only hear what our great leaders tell us, that we are bringing civilization, prosperity, and democracy to these benighted and backward peoples, that there will be some reluctance but eventually they will see things through our eyes. As if freaking if. Who the hell knows what’s really going on, if the big picture is anything like the limited picture of the Benghazi killings we have been sold we are seriously ill-informed. We have oil, we have our own in-fighting and corruption, why do we look for more where we are hated and not wanted?

  11. Athos says:

    Hm. Energy independence and jobs. What could possibly be stopping us from drilling our own oil, and utilizing the vast quantity of coal, and building pipelines to ship that oil, right here in the good old USA?

    How could any American be against jobs?

  12. Rincon says:

    NIMBY is the big enemy of new petroleum drilling and refineries with environmentalists a close second. A small fossil fuel tax might be traded with envionmretalists for their support, but Conservatives won’t be having that. As for NIMBY, maybe we could just abandon Detroit and set up a slew of refineries in its place 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s