New Member of the Nuke Club - TAIWAN 'HAS TWO NUCLEAR MISSILES' : LUSENET : TB2K spinoff uncensored : One Thread


-- Ain't Gonna Happen (Not Here, May 12, 2000


Contrary to the headline, "unnamed sources" have alleged that Taiwan has obtained two missiles and two nuclear devices. The Taiwan defense ministry has denined the charges. There's nothing I've seen on any of the defense websites that confirms this.

-- Jim Cooke (, May 12, 2000.


There's nothing I've seen on any of the defense websites that confirms this.

If memory serves me, you won't find anything official about the nukes that Israel has either. What's your point?

-- Ain't Gonna Happen (Not Here, May 12, 2000.

My point is that the defense web sites I'm referring to are unofficial sites that engage in a lot of specualtion as well as fact about the military situation in various countries. Most of these have speculated about Israel having a nuclear capability for years. None of them have carried anything about Taiwan having any missiles or nukes.

BTW, you do realize that the South China Morning Post is a communist Chinese controlled newspaper, don't you?

-- Jim Cooke (, May 12, 2000.

BTW, you do realize that the South China Morning Post Yes I do.

Did you notice this from the article...

The weapons were obtained covertly through an "intermediary Middle Eastern country"(Israel?) and were originally sold to South Africa

In an 1996 article from the Jerusalem Post Service, information from Janes was published that may shed light on the statement above from the South China Morning Post article.


"There is no doubt that Israel has the means of delivering weapons of mass destruction by making use of its formidable arsenal of ballistic missiles," the report notes. These include 150 Jericho-1 missiles, 50 Jericho-2s and 160 MGM-55C (Lance) missiles. In addition, the report speculates that a Jericho-3 has been developed, with assistance from South Africa.

This is all speculation on my part. By no means do I mean to imply a smoking gun has been found.

-- Ain't Gonna Happen (Not Here, May 12, 2000.


-- Ain't Gonna Happen (Not Here, May 12, 2000.


one more thing...

None of them have carried anything about Taiwan having any missiles or nukes.

Given the recent political climate Taiwan has had with China; the fact Taipei has vitually begged us, the US for Aegis cruisers, patriot missles, etc. Doesn't it seem Taiwan is just a 'tad' concerned about their neighbor recently and appear willing to do whatever it takes to get something militarily 'together' quickly to deter an army of 200,000,000 from walking in thru their back door?

-- Ain't Gonna Happen (Not Here, May 12, 2000.

I heard on the radio yesterday that Saddam may be getting ready to test a nuke in the next couple of months!

Hopefully underground and NOT on any of his neighbors!

-- Ain't Gonna Happen (Not Here, May 12, 2000.

Reality (whatever that is!) aside, it might be nice if David had at least a few pebbles (nuclear or otherwise) to toss at the Goliath across the Straits. Might keept Bill's Commie pals from overwhelming tiny Taiwan.

-- (, May 12, 2000.

I have no doubt that Taiwan would like to have any weapon that might help them fight off the PRC. However, one of the tenets of nuclear deterence is that your enemy both knows you have nuclear weapons and that you're ready to use them. It does no good to keep these weapons secret. That's the reason that Israel, a country fanatic about military security, has allowed word of their nuclear capability to be leaked to the military community. If the Taiwanese have indeed gotten hold of these missiles and nukes then I would expect to see the same thing occur.

It also seems to me that an unidentified mideast country is much more likely to be Iran, a country that Taiwan has maintained good relations with and is known to be developing long range missiles with North Korean assistance.

-- Jim Cooke (, May 12, 2000.

consider the news "leaked" as of these reports

-- Hillary (onetimeonly@didn', May 12, 2000.

I'll consider it "leaked" when the source isn't a communist Chinese newspaper. These were the same folks who were "leaking" about all those planes just flying around south China two months ago ready to attack Taiwan and how the invasion was coming as soon as the election results were in, just for those of you gullible enough to swallow all this hook, line, and sinker.

-- Jim Cooke (, May 12, 2000.

Jim why does everything have to evolve into a fight with you?

Do you deny even the possibilty this may be true?

Regarding the SCMP I've read and posted several stories here on this forum during the past 14 months where the SCMP was the first to break the story only to be followed by the BBC, Times, Agnecy Presse.

-- (###@####.###), May 12, 2000.

I'm sorry you see this as a fight. I see it as trying to present what was really said. An unnamed source said Taiwan has two missiles. Taiwan denied it. None of the military sources that I look at every day have repeated this as even speculation. None of what was presented is more than speculation and wanting believe speculation as fact makes it so.

As to whether or not the South China Morning Post has broken stories that later turned out to be true, what does this have to do with this particular story? Both the Drudge Report and World Net Daily have also broken stories that turned out to be true but that doesn't mean it's prudent to believe every subsequent story is also true until proven.

-- Jim Cooke (, May 12, 2000.

I meant to say that wanting to believe that speculation is fact DOESN'T make it so.

As a point of curiousity, if you've posted several other stories from the SCMP that turned out to be true, why does your current post not contain a name that I recognize?

-- Jim Cooke (, May 12, 2000.

I quit using my real name when things started getting vicious and out of hand around here sometime over the summer.

Funny prior to January I was unfamilar with your handle.

Me thinks you a closet polly who cowardly came out of the woodwork to save face with yourself.

Regardless, personalities aside what do you think of this? The worldwide nuke club is growing at an alarming rate. India came out so Pakistan had to. So on and so forth. This is a very slippery slope we have started down. Whagt if a deal was made with Taiwan to keep quite about there nukes and we'll send you some patriots. That way they effectively keep the cat in the bag and no one else feels the need to come out.

Also is my memory serving me correctly that Japan has all they need for nuclear weapons they just don't have them assembled?

-- (####@###.###), May 12, 2000.

## and Jim:

The only way to know for if we see the mushroom cloud after a successful detenation. So stop arguing about it already.

-- Les Alamos (@ .), May 12, 2000.

Here's another Jim

-- (I@m.trying), May 12, 2000.

-- (I@tr.ied), May 12, 2000.


I've said I wasn't around here before January 1 - does this have some meaning that affects why you can't post under whatever handle you used previously? I've used my name since January 1 and haven't experienced any more nastiness than one expects on the Internet.

I always am concerned about the proliferation of nuclear weapons. I'm simply not willing to get any more concerned over unproven reports. I can believe that the report may in fact be true but, if so , we'll see more independent confirmation. The world is a leaky place when it comes to information.

Regarding the NewsMax article quoting the Defence and Foreign Affairs article, where do you suppose Defence and Foreign Affairs got their information? Why, according to their website, from the South China Morning Post, the same place that put out the original report. That's the problem with the Net. First we have the SCMP, which is then quoted by Defence and Foreign Affairs, which is then quoted by NewsMax as if the report came from Defence and Foreign Affairs. This is exactly how one unconfirmed report becomes a fact in people's minds.

Les Alamos, if you don't like hearing agruments about this, I suggest the back button is still probably in working order on your browser.

-- Jim Cooke (, May 13, 2000.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ