China's Emergence As A Global Superpower

[Smooth Criminal]

Small problem with that logic. We want to take Iraq intact so we are slowly weeding out the insurgents. If China tries pull the conquer the neighbors thing we could decide to do anything from carpet napalming rice paddies, limitied nuclear strikes, to introducing a few virulent strains of the flu. China has a hard enough time just staying alive. Any of these would have them destroyed in a matter of weeks. It is a sad fact. The USA, Canada and Mexico are bound to be the world powers of the forseable future if only becuase of their barely tapped resources.

1. Carpet Napalming is highly unlikely to be effective, considering China is sorrounded from each side by neighbouring countries and by the time US air crafts approached they'd be shot down in the coastline.

2. Limited Nuclear strikes, dude, you kidding? The US is a wuss, they wouldn't dare use a Nuke after what happened in Japan for the simple fact it would create a context for MAD considering China has it's own nukes, for the reason it would also gain a global protest and backlash from the UN. Not to mention China would Nuke the US's ass, as unlike the US they ostensibly aren't afraid to go all out in war as their last year comment about uitilizing any means necessary incase of a Taiwan initiated conflict implies.

3. And since when is Mexico a world Power? Half the counrty is already somewhere in the US, fleeing the rural nation.They wouldn't stand a chance against most south american countries not to mention globally if it came to a military conflict. And while they may be a trillion dollar plus economy, relative to their population their GNP is low as a third world country. Can most people even find it on the map? As for Canada, with an approximate 10 million dollar a year military budget, lack of nukes, infact of any considerable land, sea, or air power can hardly be called a world power. They wouldn't stand in a conflict against China or many other EU powers for a day without Nato support. Economically, they may have affluent living standards but they aren't an influencing force on global trade.

 

[Smooth Criminal]

There's not going to be a war. China IS a peace-loving nation. Except, however, for their longterm disputes with Taiwan and a few outlying islands now claimed by numerous countries (Japan, Russia, Indonesia...). China will not go to war without a cause. Likewise, no one in their right mind is going to attack China. Then there would be a cause for defense and possible retaliation.

The fact is that Mainland China has far too many internal political problems that the government is struggling to cope with for them to even think about attacking another country and adding to its instability. However, if there were a cause that occurred that would unconditionally unite the population against another country, then that would be a different matter. Right now there is no such cause. China is a friend of the United States, and likewise.

political friends, that's like French are a friend of the Americans. No one actually likes the Americans though, but it's in the country's best interest to keep the politics friendly.

Though considering China implied Nukes last year I wouldn't even go as far as friends... More like, the US needs China so they'll try to keep disputes low.

 

[Smooth Criminal]

I had a friend I once met who served in the Korean War. He kept laughing about all the Chinese soldiers coming down the mountain and they'd just shoot them all - no logistics.

Beyond any doubt the United States is militarily the strongest country in the world - mostly due to our very highly advanced technology. We are THE "World Leader" - at least right now. No other country even comes close.

But as stated above, China WILL most likely overtake us economically, and this may be a greater power concern than military might.

Ironically The Chinese smashed the US army back to the 38th paralel in that war. And that was back in the closed, third world China days...

 

[Smooth Criminal]

I wish people would quantify this statement in some way. Do you mean that the total GDP of China will eventually exceed that of the United States? That seems reasonable. China has a huge population, and if they can attain anything like the productivity of Japan or South Korea, the total GDP will be a whopper. As impressive as that is, it has to feed a lot more mouths before there's anything left over for projecting strategic power outside the borders of China. To enjoy the same standard of living, China's GDP would need to be four times the GDP of America, as they have four times the population. It may well be that GDP per capita is a better measure of economic prowess; it's certainly a better measure of standard of living. And while China is second only to America (and the EU if you count them together) in terms of total GDP:

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2001rank.html

it ranks 121st in per capita GDP:

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html

just behind the terrifying superpower known as Turkmenistan. Mexico, Saudi Arabia and South Africa each have around twice the per capita GDP of China. The US ranks second (behind Luxembourg), with roughly 7 times the per capita GDP. Supposing that the populations and total GDPs of each country continue to grow at current rates, it will take China 10 years to match the total GDP of America, but 27 to match the per capita GDP. But China is growing at a very rapid pace right now, and you have to wonder if it can be kept up for another decade, let alone three. China seems to be really maxing out its natural resources, while the US still has lots of spare land and water.



People said the same thing about Japan ten years ago, and their GDP is extremely impressive. Yet they haven't proven to be a "greater concern" in world affairs than the US. Again, the EU has a larger economy than the US, and where does it get them? Moreover, the rise to prominence of China's economy is part of a larger global trend of development and deconcentration of wealth. That is to say that while the future looks good for China in terms of development, the rest of the world isn't exactly sitting still in the water either. You have to expect India to get its act together in the near future, and Eastern Europe, South and Central America and the Middle East aren't sitting on their hands either. I just can't envision China ever possessing a big enough chunk of the pie to really boss the world around, the way the US has done the past decade or five.

More than that, I'd be willing to bet money that the per capita GDP of China never exceeds that of America in my lifetime. And I plan to live for quite a few more decades.

1. If we go by that logic, then Luxemburg is the number one world power, and is the economic superior of the US...Umm...No, no one really cares internationally about standard of living only the citizens of the country themselves do or businesses that are searching for cheap destinations to produce their products at to sell at higher rates in first world countries. When it comes to projecting your percieved might internationally you'll be using your GDP numbers, because those are the numbers that actually reflect your global economic influenc or should I say status.

2. Eu has the largest economy of the world. Where has it got them? The richest continent on earth, and diplomaticaly the most effective goverment. Usually US diplomacy means "do this or see that bomb outside your window", EU diplomacy is quiet and actually effective so it doesn't need to recieve international headlines for every debate they hold.

 

[Smooth Criminal]

Almost everyone in the United States and the world highly respects the Federal Reserve's Chairman Alan Greenspan for his brilliant economic policy decisions over the decades

In the US, not anyone in the world knows him...they are more concerned being aware of their own officials.

 

[Smooth Criminal]

That's just silly. More Americans are going to college now than at any point in history. And where does the rest of the world send their brightest students to learn the latest stuff? You guessed it...

Not to offend, but America is known as the "center of idiots in the world" due to their education system compared to Europe. Check into a Germany, or Hungarian or Asias Japanese schooling system (where school is manditory on saturdays as well). The level education is YEARS ahead of that of America's or Canada's and I know that from experience as well.

It's mostly that the brightest recieve education somewhere in their origin country, EU or Japan, or nowadays india and move out to the US to actually bring their vision to life via US funding and technological opportunities.

*note an interesting fact, one of my friends is in 2nd year college in America and the current topics she studies (I live in the EU) have already been taught to me in high school 9th grade, some even late primary school.*

 

[Anomalous]

I am sick of this thread comming up in my face again and again.

NO, China will not take over world one day it will do this in months and years. They have already started ordering Microsoft on what to do and what not to about its blogs.

US Economy is melting into China

 

[MetaKron]

1. Carpet Napalming is highly unlikely to be effective, considering China is sorrounded from each side by neighbouring countries and by the time US air crafts approached they'd be shot down in the coastline.

2. Limited Nuclear strikes, dude, you kidding? The US is a wuss, they wouldn't dare use a Nuke after what happened in Japan for the simple fact it would create a context for MAD considering China has it's own nukes, for the reason it would also gain a global protest and backlash from the UN. Not to mention China would Nuke the US's ass, as unlike the US they ostensibly aren't afraid to go all out in war as their last year comment about uitilizing any means necessary incase of a Taiwan initiated conflict implies.

3. And since when is Mexico a world Power? Half the counrty is already somewhere in the US, fleeing the rural nation.They wouldn't stand a chance against most south american countries not to mention globally if it came to a military conflict. And while they may be a trillion dollar plus economy, relative to their population their GNP is low as a third world country. Can most people even find it on the map? As for Canada, with an approximate 10 million dollar a year military budget, lack of nukes, infact of any considerable land, sea, or air power can hardly be called a world power. They wouldn't stand in a conflict against China or many other EU powers for a day without Nato support. Economically, they may have affluent living standards but they aren't an influencing force on global trade.

The only way we can get any control over the China situation is to have a threat like what I am afraid they may be able to use against us if we don't wake up. They might bring the end of the world about if we use even one nuke against them, but if we are on the moon pitching what amounts to rocks, a very carefully thought out show of force willl put them at our mercy. We have to leave them room to give in while saving face. We have to start chipping away at them, forcing them to either allow their people more freedom or commit suicide as a country and a race. Otherwise, we will take away toys and privileges.

If we lose this race, it's because we gave it to them free of charge.

 

[MetaKron]

Not to offend, but America is known as the "center of idiots in the world" due to their education system compared to Europe. Check into a Germany, or Hungarian or Asias Japanese schooling system (where school is manditory on saturdays as well). The level education is YEARS ahead of that of America's or Canada's and I know that from experience as well.

It's mostly that the brightest recieve education somewhere in their origin country, EU or Japan, or nowadays india and move out to the US to actually bring their vision to life via US funding and technological opportunities.

*note an interesting fact, one of my friends is in 2nd year college in America and the current topics she studies (I live in the EU) have already been taught to me in high school 9th grade, some even late primary school.*

If education were handled intelligently in the U.S., we could pull ahead if school students attended classes four days a week. We had it, we gave it up and ignored it, we are paying the price.

 

[Billy T]

... if we are on the moon pitching what amounts to rocks, a very carefully thought out show of force willl put them at our mercy. We have to leave them room to give in while saving face. We have to start chipping away at them, forcing them to either allow their people more freedom or commit suicide as a country and a race. Otherwise, we will take away toys and privileges. If we lose this race, it's because we gave it to them free of charge.

No - if we lose this race it will be because there is too much of the scientific and economic ignorance shown in your posts. “take away their toys” - LOL. - if you can when Cheap cars from India and China bankrupt GM and a few years later Ford. (India’s Tata motors is planning new factory for a glue-together efficient, small, but four passenger, urban-use plastic car, with continuously variable gear speeds with a target price of $2,200! This car has China also as export target. Initially only about 1,000,000 to be produced annually to develop market nitch.)

I will not bother to do the calculation, but I am sure that the energy cost to deliver a 1kg rock to China from US state of Alaska is very much less (I guess 10 times less.) than from the moon. (Even neglecting all the energy in the rocket to get to the moon in the first place)

You may not realize that to go to the sun from Earth is very much harder (five times the energy cost) as to go way beyond Planet Pluto into deep space! Read a little in thread about falling to the sun to understand what you are clearly ignorant of.

Going from moon to Earth requires getting rid of the moon's orbital velocity wrt Earth. Going from one point on Earth to another, there is no need to over come any orbital velocity.

It is true that you can throw a rock completely off the moon, never to fall back, with much less energy that throwing one off the more massive Earth, but the energy require to make it cease orbiting Earth is much greater than just to throw it off the moon. I the case of rock going from Alaska to China, the launch velocity is very much less than the escape velocity of Earth.

However your ignorance of simple physics pales compared to you ignorance of what motivates a nation to go to war. China will not cause its own destruction by much superior US military forces (when it comes to wiping out cities etc.) when they are rapidly winning the only type war that nuclear nations can fight - the economic struggle.

PS - I am still laughing at the ignorance of geography (or flat map thinking?) shown in you post about China wanting to take Taiwan as it takes less enegry to launch rockets at US from there.

 

[MetaKron]

One thing that I can tell you for certain, Billy T, is that it takes about about four percent of the energy to reach lunar escape velocity if all things are equal, and they are not. A ballistic missile spends a lot of energy getting through the atmosphere to vacuum. If it "only" goes about 18,000 miles per hour to go suborbital, it still takes about ten times as much energy to accelerate to 18,000 miles in a vacuum over accelerating to 5,000 miles per hour. And the projectile from the moon doesn't have to go through air while accelerating. The advantage for the projectile from the moon becomes a lot greater when you realize that it doesn't have to expend as much fuel to lift fuel.

What you have is the possibility of a ballistic missile that weighs under four hundred pounds that can deliver a nuclear payload to anywhere on the planet. You also have the possibility of a launcher that can plant meteor-like objects on any spot on the Earth with only a few feet of error, virtually unlimited power and available mass, and almost no chance of retaliation. How many small-scale acts of destruction will we accept before WE engage in a war that will wipe us from the planet? How much will they accept? I really think that they already have a doomsday threat that can wipe us out and we're being total wimps and simps about it. What if they achieve capabilities that could wipe out all of our offensive capabilities with complete impunity? What if they achieve the ability to turn all of our significant military assets into vapor at the same time? The ability to launch let's say 50,000 missiles that depend on kinetic energy alone for their killing power is not that farfetched.

We even have the fact that it would be difficult if not impossible to prove that a small kinetic object was launched from the moon to impact with something like a refinery, a factory, an oilfield, or even the Casa Blanca.

 

[Billy T]

...(1)And the projectile from the moon doesn't have to go through air while accelerating. (2)The advantage for the projectile from the moon becomes a lot greater when you realize that it doesn't have to expend as much fuel to lift fuel.

(1) is true, but it goes thru the air while de-accelerating from near Earth escape velocity. - That is the "rock" you throw from the moon will need a massive heat shield that burns up in the atmosphere. All of this mass must be lifited off the moon.
(2) Again true, but but last time I looked, there were no rocket fueling station on the moon, so I assume you do not mind burning tons of fuel for every pound of fuel you deliver to the moon. (You must work for an oil company and be in charge of increasing oil consumption.)

...What you have is the possibility of a ballistic missile that weighs under four hundred pounds that can deliver a nuclear payload to anywhere on the planet. ...

I think you are forgetting the approxiamtely 400 million pounds of rocket that are required to put each of your 400 pound "balistic missiles" on the moon. Your are also forgeting about the tremendous aerodynamic forces during atmopspheric entry at speeds much greater and Earth orbit speeds. - You would be lucky to hit some where in China instead of Mongolia or Tibet! Most likely you would make a 30 meter crater in the sands of the Gobby desert that the winds would obliterate in less than a week!

... The ability to launch let's say 50,000 missiles that depend on kinetic energy alone for their killing power is not that farfetched.

It is "very farfetched" when you consider the cost of putting 50,000 of the 400 pound missle and their launch fuel on the moon. That is 2 million pounds of missles hard ware delivered to the moon - surely a cost greater than NASA has spent for all its space programs! Oh yes, I almost forgot: more than all the liquid fuel above ground in America and Saudi Arabria to deliver that hard ware to the moon. (guess guessing).


BTW - I never sugessted that it was cheaper to use "blastic missile" (even a sub orbital one) to deliver the "rocks". I trust that all the US Navy's strike planners are not stupid for selecting Tomahawk missles, lauched for about 100 miles off the Chinese coast, if it should ever come to that, in preference to your "moon launch" scheme. - I will let you tell them they are all stupid for not putting them on the moon, etc.

Again and again I have told you it is stupid to consider how to make war on China or that they are about to make war on the US - why should they when they have evey thing to lose and are already winning the only "winable war" - the economic one? Your are stupidly fixated on this nonsense. WHY?

 

[MetaKron]

I think that you are stupidly fixated on something yourself, Billy T, but you don't know what that something is.

The moon is a place where any given group can sit and throw bombs at the Earth with nearly perfect impunity. The value of that "high ground", especially considering the abysmal level of progress the U.S. has made in space since 1977, is extremely high right now. They can make it so that any given launch of a missile costs them next to nothing while they also build colonies up there. If they want to send all of their missiles up as cargo, and no doubt they will do this for the first few hundred just to start filling magazines, they can do this. Cargo rockets can carry a lot more mass if they don't have to carry humans or have any return capabilities.

Would we bring the world to an end if we were being hit just once in a while by punitive strikes from a country that has both declared dominance over the Earth and offered us some sort of prosperity if we cooperate? You've got to realize that if they have the cobalt bomb to use on us, it's an extremely blunt weapon. Even the madmen in charge of China right now prefer precision. Wouldn't any intelligent psychopath prefer to do exactly what they want to do, with options somewhat less than devastating the globe to get what they want? If they have the moon they have that. An iron projectile does not need a "honking big" heat shield. It can run a lot hotter than a space capsule can without losing its shape. Stick a few pounds of ceramic in front of it to deflect the blast away during reentry. It can wear fins and use the same kind of outfit they are using to retrofit old bombs as smart bombs.

At some time they are going to want to come over here and take away our nuclear bombs to reduce or eliminate the chance that our forces will decide that suicide is all we have left.

 

[Smooth Criminal]

are we talking throwing rocks off the moon at the Chinese here? Because it seems like it.. Seriously.. It would just burn up in the atmosphere, you'd have to throw a freakin meteor off the moon for some little dust to reach the earth in one piece.

And if we were to deliver in some type of shielding device, say a rocket, well it'd take a lot less energy and time to just simply launch a nuke with much more forseeable effects. I don't really understand the whole debate about now.

 

[Smooth Criminal]

I think that you are stupidly fixated on something yourself, Billy T, but you don't know what that something is.

The moon is a place where any given group can sit and throw bombs at the Earth with nearly perfect impunity. The value of that "high ground", especially considering the abysmal level of progress the U.S. has made in space since 1977, is extremely high right now. They can make it so that any given launch of a missile costs them next to nothing while they also build colonies up there. If they want to send all of their missiles up as cargo, and no doubt they will do this for the first few hundred just to start filling magazines, they can do this. Cargo rockets can carry a lot more mass if they don't have to carry humans or have any return capabilities.

Would we bring the world to an end if we were being hit just once in a while by punitive strikes from a country that has both declared dominance over the Earth and offered us some sort of prosperity if we cooperate? You've got to realize that if they have the cobalt bomb to use on us, it's an extremely blunt weapon. Even the madmen in charge of China right now prefer precision. Wouldn't any intelligent psychopath prefer to do exactly what they want to do, with options somewhat less than devastating the globe to get what they want? If they have the moon they have that. An iron projectile does not need a "honking big" heat shield. It can run a lot hotter than a space capsule can without losing its shape. Stick a few pounds of ceramic in front of it to deflect the blast away during reentry. It can wear fins and use the same kind of outfit they are using to retrofit old bombs as smart bombs.

At some time they are going to want to come over here and take away our nuclear bombs to reduce or eliminate the chance that our forces will decide that suicide is all we have left.

Ok, having read that the debate makes more sence.

But seriously, the idea just seems like a waste of time in an age when you can destroy the whole planet in more ways than one. Wether it'd be nukes from earth, or carriers on the moon. It still all falls in the group of M.A.D, unless either country actually achieves in building a fully effective Star Wars system.

 

[MetaKron]

Smooth Criminal, I don't know absolutely everything about it, but there are ways to get the projectiles through, like using shielding. The point is to take out relatively small targets in such a way that the targeted country's government will feel that it gains more from cooperating than from starting an all-out war, especially if it can be shown that the attacking country can take out every significant target without suffering great losses and without irradiating the planet.

The moon has a lot of rock on it that has a high enough melting point and density to make it through. Hard dense rocks do make it through intact, even rather small ones. There is no doubt in my mind that a missile can be designed that does not detonate until it hits something solid. If someone is intent on just getting mass through to targets, they can transport the engines up there and make the rest of the mass from indigenous materials. Even the crudest of engines shouldn't have to take up more than 20 percent of the weight of the projectiles. Of course, the U.S. would spend a million each and move the entire projectile from the Earth to the Moon to fill its magazines. China would spend a thousand dollars each and make flint-tipped arrows from the local rock. The U.S. would put a few dozen to at most a few hundred people up there. China would put thousands of people up there for less money.

And you never know how they are actually going to organize it. I don't think that BillyT or some of the others here understand what kind of enmeshment can go on. For a long time we might use them, more or less covertly, to take out targets that we want taken out. Toward that end we would help them make the strikes more and more precise. They would work for us, but you watch. They will flip that arrangement until we wind up working for them. They're big on threats that they don't actually have to use. One of the most demoralizing things for us is that unless we are willing to commit suicide, we will know that they can chip away at us as much as they want any time they want. We will know this even more thoroughly after we have been paying them to kill people we don't like. If we do not disrupt this system, most people won't even know that a threat was made. That is also the way that China likes it, because if the population of the U.S. doesn't see a threat, it doesn't force the government to respond to it.

 

[Billy T]

To Metatron:
Your entire post is wild speculation, What is not totally wrong is simply nonsense:

The US, perhaps soon even China does have the ability to put a few small missiles on the moon, fire them at Earth with approximately a 50/50 probability of hitting within a selected 100 mile circle (without terminal guided flight).*

For example, one of the early Pacific ocean splash downs of the Mercury program was so far from the waiting recovery ships that they needed several hours of "full speed steaming" to get to the location where the astronauts were waiting in their life raft. Unguided, re-entry from the moon (with much higher speed and stronger aerodynamic buffeting) would not be able to target a large city with even a 10% hit probability.

In contrast, the new GPS guided Tomahawk missles can, in less time, and with at least 100,000 times less cost, allow you to chose which window of the building you want the missile to fly thru. (The older "terrain map matching” guided Tomahawks used in the first Iraq war could only hit the chosen building, it was large, not a particular window of a house. You do need to know the GPS coordinates of the window, but an agent can usually get that information for you or high resolutions satellite photos can be used with other known GPS points.)

What do you think would be the fate of some idiot in the military command who even suggesting spending 100,000 times more to buy only a 10% chance of hitting the target city, instead of the routine, inexpensive and proven use of Tomahawk missiles to fly thru the chosen window?

Get a little bit in touch with the real world, or serious, get some psychological help. Your fixation with technology for a highly improbable war also indicates “confused thinking” to put it mildly. Seek help.
_______________________________________
*If you want your missile to be “terminally guided“, it will need small stubby wings, on a cylinderical shaped “fuel and warhead” section, in front of a small jet engine thruster, and a GPS guidance/control system - I.e. it will be essentially a Tomahawk missile, that the US navy could have fired from 100 miles off the Chinese coast.

 

[JessupMD]

One thing about America, we are oblivious to the fine points of human nature. Consciously we think material wealth is our greatest achievement even though culturally we are so dependent on notions such as "freedom". You'd think that nobody else on earth is free.

Any human's sense of well being relies on ideas, such as religion, cultural identy, and a sense of spiritual attachment to the soul of the land. These make our lives liveable as much as the other essentials such as food and physical safety.

Yet we as a nation continue to treat others as if the only happiness that they can ever achieve is to take on our ideals and become like us. This is what brings on hate toward America, not all this "jeolousy" about our apparent freedom.

In a sense, we may possess material and physical freedom, but others may live with spiritual freedom. When America entices other peoples with promise of material wealth, many would rather die than have their spirituality tainted. Thus, terrorism. And we cannot say that we didn't start it, because we don't have to physically be there, what with our banners, ads, and monstrous economy, for others to feel intruded upon.

Plus, Americans may be (among) the most powerfull people on earth, but in schools we are 22nd in English, 25th in Science, and 28th in Maths....hardly a world leader. What advances individuals may make in personal intellect later on is reliant on the promise of wealth in a vast economy rather than for a sense of well being or for the advance of humankind as a whole.

It's not so hard to understand, but with America's leadership today most people won't. That is how much difference leadership can make.

So, China?

I can see many factors already in the mix.....

What would happen to a vast population like China once they become hooked on the need for economic growth?

Americans will trade with anyone that can open trade with us without looking at consequences. Essentially growth of economy is what perpetuates growth for individual wealth.....and whenever one economy combines with another that becomes faster growth for both, or even more for one side. We Americans are claiming that advantage right now, but only because we are accumulating national debt. It's like China gave us a big credit card and we are on a spending spree.

It only takes a little imagination to come up with a multitude of scenarios that will be disastrous to America, and really I don't have much confidence in our ability to solve it. Maybe China will be the wiser....

 

[MetaKron]

Billy, besides the fact that you are an ignorant bastard, a lot of progress has been made since it was hard to get a space capsule to splash down on target in the Pacific. Why don't you go shoot your psychiatrist or something?

 

[Billy T]

Billy, besides the fact that you are an ignorant bastard, a lot of progress has been made since it was hard to get a space capsule to splash down on target in the Pacific. Why don't you go shoot your psychiatrist or something?

I do not call names. Instead I suggest you consider the weight of fuel required at Earth launch to return your 400 pound missile (intact) to the Earth. To help you, I define some terms. All refer to fuel weight only:

T = Tomahawk flight fuel (about 30 pounds per 100 miles - I think.)
Wo = for Low Earth Orbit, LEO, altitude.(straight up, no orbital velocity)
W1 = for Synchronous Orbit SO, altitude.(straight up, no orbital velocity)
W2 = for near zero speed at gravity "cross-over" point. (moon gravity stronger than Earth's)
W3 = for soft landing on moon. Fall to moon will have terminal velocity of approximately 2.37Km/sec or the "escape velocity" of moon. (Everything would be destroyed on moon impact unless more than 99% of this is removed by "retro rockets" as there is no air to skip in and out of to loss energy acquired in the fall to moon.)
W4 = for lift off of moon. Again need to acquire nearly the escape velocity.
W5 = for slowing fall to Earth. If enter atmosphere at Earth's escape velocity, 11.2 Km/sec everything is destroyed. Skip in and out of thin high atmosphere after this "retro burn" of W5 fuel to lose more speed and be able to descend thru the denser high atmosphere. (You can not re-enter significantly faster that the Shuttles does from only LEO.)
W6 = T = for terminal flight - Because of the skipping in thin high atmosphere is very hard to predict and control, you need reserve fuel for several hundred mile correction to target, but any not burnt by good luck in the skips, is part of the destructive payload.

Lets crudely compare these fuel burns, in each stage for transport of your 400 "Rock" of missile with reentry guidance NOT CONSIDERING that each EARLIER stage must lift the fuel for all LATER stages. I.e. the relative fuel burn per Kg requirements:
T < < Wo
Wo < < < W1
W1 < < W2

W3 = W4 = ~ W5 = ~W6 = ~ T = about 100 pounds for a 300 mile range.

Now let us even more crudely give some recognition to fact the fuel burned in later stages greatly increases the fuel required by all the earlier stages. (This all should be done with the "rocket equations.")

W6 = 100 lbs
W5 = 1000 lbs (Had to de-accelerate 400lbs of rocket + W6 fuel = 500lbs)
W4 = 5000 lbs (Had to lift off moon 1500 lbs)
W3 = 20,000 lbs (Had o stop 6500 lbs from crashing into moon - soft land on moon)
W2 = 100,000 lbs (Had to lift 26,500 lbs from SO altitude to cross-over point)
W1 = 400,000 lbs (Had to lift 126,500 lbs from LEO altitude to SO altitude)
Wo = 800,000 (Had to lift 526,500 lbs from Earth surface to LEO altitude)

I do not know the cost of liquid Hydrogen and Oxygen (or what less efficient, more massive, fuel you will use for launch from moon) but am sure it is well above $12.5/lb so 800,000 pounds will cost at least $10,000,000. Lets estimate that the multi stage rockets are the same cost as the fuel. (Ground crews are expensive also.)

SUMMARY:
You are actually suggesting much more than about 20 million dollars be spent to avoid firing a 50 thousand dollar Tomahawk missile, because there are no "moon men" to unload your economical, un-man, "cargo ships."

How do you pan to:

(1)Off load the missiles from the cargo ships. (Because of Moon's low gravity two men probably can lift the 1500 lbs = W3, earth weight, of the missiles off transport racks and carry them to launchers, if launchers are not more than 1000feet away, but it will be hard work in spacesuits.
(2)Make firm launch pads for the launchers.
(3)Set up the missile launchers.
(4)Aim and test.
(5)Step thru the launch routine. I think about 10, highly trained men on moon as minimum will be required for this, not counting all several hundred on earth, backing them up. All must be safely delivered to moon and returned to Earth (years later? or do you plan to start WW3 ASAP?)

These are just a few of the reasons why would plan will actually cost at least 200 million dollars to fire the first missile! For that sum, you could have fired about (2x10^8) /(5x10^4) = 4,000 Tomahawk missiles (and I am sure if you work thru the numbers less crudely, at least 10,000 Tomahawk missiles.)

Make some contact with reality, before it is too late.