FWIW, another source to consider

[erik_kosberg]

Take this with a grain of salt perhaps:

Wired calls it “Conflict's Drudge Report?” The Israeli site DEBKAfile (according to Wired, “unabashedly in the hawkish camp of Israeli politics and has partnered with the far-right news site WorldNetDaily”) claims that Bush and Putin have agreed to the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons. They’re also reporting that China has sent thousands of troops to fight alongside the Taliban. The first assertion seems quite plausible to me, the second, if true, would really up the ante. China can’t like to see Russia and the U.S. cooperating but would they really risk a direct confrontation with American ground troops?

[poseidon]

Hmmm... I'm not even so sure about the first. Using nukes to wipe out a Third World government that can likely be taken using conventional weaponry (there's a big difference in technology between the time when the Soviets gave up and today)? I'd be against that, and I'm guessing that most Americans would be against that as well. Certainly, we don't run our wars off of polling data, but there's a definite moral issue that needs to be considered.

Second of all, as much as the Chinese hate us, I can't see China fighting side-by-side with the Taliban. The Taliban would first of all hate an atheistic state (as China is) and second of all, if it wasn't an atheistic state, it would hate them simply because they aren't Muslim. Thus, they'd be compromising their core values by allowing the Chinese to fight with them (again, this is my own opinion).

Third of all, I can't see China wanting to antagonize the US to this degree. Their economy depends heavily on the US consumer market and they have to have enough brains to figure out that the US consumer market would be immediately closed to them if they fought against us in a war.

I'm looking at some other news sites that tend to have news faster than CNN/ABC/CBS/NBC/FOX to see if they have any stories on the Chinese taking sides.

[CeeJay62]

Originally posted by erik_kosberg
Take this with a grain of salt perhaps:

[i]They’re also reporting that China has sent thousands of troops to fight alongside the Taliban. The first assertion seems quite plausible to me, the second, if true, would really up the ante. China can’t like to see Russia and the U.S. cooperating but would they really risk a direct confrontation with American ground troops?

I saw that somewhere yesterday, but thought it too far fetched to take seriously. The official remarks coming out of China have been fairly supportive, the last one I read stated they supported a limited military attack. On the other hand, isn't China one of those countries where government factions are always fighting with each other over policy? Maybe Bejing supports us (at least on the face of things), but some General in Western China supports the Taliban. Although I can't imagine why they would pick a fight with us over a crumbling dictatorial regime.

As for nukes, if Bin Ladin is really dug in a Russian military bunker in the mountains as reported, I would much rather they hit him hard with a small nuke, than bomb the front line, where I read they went house to house and rounded up 13 and 14 year old boys to fill out the army ranks. I have four sons and that part is killing me.

[erik_kosberg]

The story mentions deployment of tac nukes rather than any imminent plans to use them. I’d have to assume that the cruise missles being fired from the Indian Ocean could easily be fitted for nukes so that deployment per se might not be a big deal. Yes, the China-Taliban story seems like quite a stretch but it would fit into the the enemy of my enemy is my friend school of geopolitics.

If these devices are truly the sainted and spoken-about-in-hushed-tones Neutron Bombs, then they'll be quite effective at smoking the terrorists out of their hidey holes, as Bush so loves to quip. Dropping gravity bombs on a mountain doesn't do much to the folks in the caves inside. A wave of unblockeable radiation does wonders in cleaning up human morality spills in cave like bin Laden is right now.

Not that leaving buildings standing matters much in most of Afghanistan. Oh well... as long as returning refugees can still plant crops.

[poseidon]

Originally posted by erik_kosberg
The story mentions deployment of tac nukes rather than any imminent plans to use them. I’d have to assume that the cruise missles being fired from the Indian Ocean could easily be fitted for nukes so that deployment per se might not be a big deal. Yes, the China-Taliban story seems like quite a stretch but it would fit into the the enemy of my enemy is my friend school of geopolitics.

Again I'd have to disagree. And I'll disagree with your proverb that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Militarily, we are China's enemy. Economically, we are China's best friend.

On the other hand, militarily we are Iraq's enemy. Economically we are Iraq's enemy, too. Thus, it would make sense for Iraq to join forces with the Taliban (except in the back of my mind I remember hearing that one is Shi'ite and the other is Sunni and thus, they are each other's enemies).

[erik_kosberg]

Shi'ite Muslims are a minority in Iraq, primarily in the southeastern part of the country.