This says alot for the stability of our armed forces vs the chinese and the potential for problems in the PLA down the road.

dont u need the code in order to launch?

Don't you need a warhead to make a missile more effective? In the US the commanders don't even read the real codes unless they get a special phone call and go through some other codes.

In my opinion, GNI (GNP) is the best method for calculating the total economic wealth of a nation, particularly in regards to the developed G7 economies with multinational companies and the increasing relevance of Globalisation. I say this because GNP is calculated by adding to GDP the income earned by residents from investments abroad, less the corresponding income sent home by foreigners who are living in the country. (millions USD$) 2003 1. United States = 10,207,039 2. Japan = 4,323,919 3. Germany = 1,876,340 4. United Kingdom= 1,610,771 5. France = 1,362,077 6. China = 1,224,157 7. Italy = 1,100,713 8. Canada = 702,041

gnp is not very diferent from gdp. excpet some countrys like kuwait.cos they bhave a big foreighn investment

I've read that China still does live testing of nuke bombs, but they are small ones. At the same time China would probably want to use EMP as a way to knock out the US fleet and neutralize Taiwanese defenses. So my question is: Is the total yield of a nuke weapon and its EMP discharge a constant value or can a bomb be tweaked to have less explosive power but release a greater amount of EM energy? If this is possible then would the Chinese be testing small bombs that could be put on their ballistic missile batteries assigned to attack Taiwan? Small explosive power plus high EMP yield could be more politically acceptable for use as tactical nukes.

yes, this is very possible, much like the analogous case with neutron weapons, only this time maximizing the EMP effect while minimizing physical destruction. In fact, nuclear weapons are not the only way to achieve the effect; there are supposedly conventional munitions on the drawing board that can produce EMP shockwaves while having small explosive charges.

Actually, GDP/GNP in exchange rate terms are a good measure of the international trading competitiveness and sophistication of a nation's economy; i.e. - how relevant and "large" that economy is in global peacetime trade. However, it has much less to do with physical war-making capacity. That is where the PPP-expressed GDP comes in. Just because most of a nation's production can't be usefully exported (for various reasons) does not mean that production simply doesn't exist. It surely does, and can indeed be turned to defense purposes. For example, let's take commercially available firearms. Smith & Wesson, Ruger, Sig-Sauer, Glock, Colt, Heckler & Koch and so forth make high-quality rifles which are much in demand internationally, and therefore command high Euro/Yen/Dollar prices. In Euro/Yen/Dollar terms, the total worth of rifles made and sold by the mentioned U.S. and European companies might be 100 times the amount of the total worth of rifles sold by, say, NORINCO (a Chinese company), which makes MUCH, MUCH lower-priced and presumably lower-quality rifles. The reason for NORINCO's lower asking price? Lack of demand because of lack of sophistication of product. However, NORINCO might actually be producing and selling 10 times the number of rifles as all those other companies combined, for example. Since in the theoretical example, the sales of the First-world gunmakers was 100 times NORINCO's, we can assume each US/European gun to be worth 1000 times each Chinese gun - which is in fact the case in exchange-rate terms. The problem is, there is no way that a gun made by say Smith&Wesson has 1000 times the combat utility and killing capacity as one made by NORINCO - this is where the chief problem lies in assessing war-making capacity via exchange-rate GDPs. The "size" of economies in terms of war-making capability is not the same as their "size" in terms of international trade. The true size of economies vis-a-vis each other can best be measured by taking the actual production of a given category in one country - rifles, say - and calculating how much a product of similar technical sophistication costs to produce in another. For example: To make a cheap NORINCO-spec rifle in the U.S. might cost 1/10 as much as one made to the technical standard of an American brand. With that knowledge, one can multiply the number of rifles made in China with that price to compare the total size of the Chinese gun-manufacturing industry to the American one. This same process can be applied across-the-board to entire economies, whether that of Japan, Germany, India, or China, to calculate their true size compared to, for example, the U.S. (if you want PPP GDP in U.S. dollar terms). I think also that people might be confused when economic size in purchasing-power-parity terms show that for example, India has an economy of IIRC 2.2 trillion dollars, some 22% of the U.S. People shake their heads and assume they're being told that India can create armed forces as high-tech as America's, albeit 22% as large. That's not what that figure means at all! Here, PPP Per-capita GDP plays a big role: Because of massive differences in the SOPHISTICATION of output of India's and America's economy, amply REFLECTED in PPP per-capita differences, the technical sophistication of their respective armed forces will vary as well. Meaning, for now, no Indian F-22s or Seawolf subs, for example. But in TOTAL warmaking power, India is quite formidable: Medium-tech items are well within their capability, and the OVER-ALL war-making capacity of India is indeed 22% that of the U.S., only expressed in lower-tech items and forces. Back to the rifles analogy: One fine H&K assault rifle with laser-dot projector, reflex and telescopic sights and night vision would be matched in total combat power by 5 simple plain-vanilla AKM rifles made by NORINCO.

Yes, Nanheyangrouchan, it can be done. Nuclear weapons are tweakable in many different ingenious ways to maximize some effects and minimize others. Honestly, it would not even require much tweaking - it is sufficient to explode a standard nuclear weapon high up in the upper reaches of the atmosphere...

"Actually, GDP/GNP in exchange rate terms are a good measure of the international trading competitiveness and sophistication of a nation's economy; i.e. - how relevant and "large" that economy is in global peacetime trade." That is more or less what I said - what GDP you use to measure the economy has to depend on what you are trying to look at. Nonetheless, I have to disagree somewhat that nominal GDP/GNP is a good measure of "international competitiveness and sophistication of a nation's economy in peacetime". It is correct for some countries - such as the USA, or Germany, or Japan, or UK, or even Russia (oil factor notwisthstanding). For China (and several other countries) that is simply not the case for a simple reason - unlike the above mentioned countries, China has fixed the Yuan to the dollar at a rate of 8.3 (several other countries also do this, so it is not unique, but we are concentrating on China here...). This means the Yuan is artificially undervalued - if it was allowed to float freely China's nominal GDP would be significantly larger and it would reveal China's true importance, competitiveness and sophistication in peacetime economy. In other words, what you say is more or less correct, but not for some countries (including China), because they do not float their currencies. (BTW: Purchasing Power Parity GDP per Capita - new data was just posted on the economist website (uses IMF data): http://www.economist.com/markets/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2731123 ) [quote]However, it has much less to do with physical war-making capacity. That is where the PPP-expressed GDP comes in. Just because most of a nation's production can't be usefully exported (for various reasons) does not mean that production simply doesn't exist. It surely does, and can indeed be turned to defense purposes.[/quote] Precisely - I completely agree with you here. In fact, I totally agree with the rest of your post too.