Like Tree51Likes

China's 6 Wars in the next 50 Years

Reply
Page 11 of 16 FirstFirst ... 3 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ... LastLast
  1. #101

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    23,164
    Quote Originally Posted by Watercooler:
    See, this is what I am talking about when you don't understand international relations at all. Please avoid inflammatory accusations like who is "naive" if your comprehension of international relations is insufficient.

    When did I say there is no communication? It's no that there is no communication, but the signal wasn't receive in the way the sender intended. It does not matter whether Japan tells China their nationalization was meant to lower temperature if the Chinese don't believe it. Actions speaks louder than words. Have you ever thought that the Chinese warned the Japanese not to do it in back channels (after being told of the Japanese intentions) but the Japanese went ahead anyway? The fact of the matter is that there is a change in status quo that is unacceptable to China, period.

    And who is unilaterally blaming one side? Seems like you have difficulty with reading my posts. Did I say China was right to have this ADIZ? I am simply stating why, from the Chinese perspective, they felt justified to carrying out their actions. It doesn't mean they actually are justified to do so.
    Ok, so you have no idea. No problem.

  2. #102
    ouwen
    Quote Originally Posted by closedcasket:
    Really? You need me to explain what advantage it would be to have a missile that can go speeds exceeding Mach 5??
    (About 3,800 mph)
    How about complete annihilation of targets before the enemy has time to even think of responding??

    The future of conventional warfare is speed and stealth...not power. I don't know why the Chinese are building aircraft carriers. Aircraft carriers are sitting ducks...
    Try again. The test missile in your video did not produce speed or stealth beyond that of the rocket that propelled it up to scram jet speed. The technological advantage displayed by the test is that the rmissile can travel very long distances with much less fuel that a rocket or a conventional jet.

    How you can confuse fuel economy with speed and stealth is bewildering. Even an accountant or bank teller can understand physics at that level. Are you an adult, or a child playing with his father's Geo account?

  3. #103
    ouwen
    Quote Originally Posted by closedcasket:
    Really? You need me to explain what advantage it would be to have a missile that can go speeds exceeding Mach 5??
    (About 3,800 mph)
    How about complete annihilation of targets before the enemy has time to even think of responding??

    The future of conventional warfare is speed and stealth...not power. I don't know why the Chinese are building aircraft carriers. Aircraft carriers are sitting ducks...


    Mach 5 is not new or sensational. I tracked and computed the SR71 back in the sixties at that speed.

    --- Going back 50+ years to 1961 and coming up to present day ---
    1961 - The Minuteman ICBM - speed MACH 23
    AIM-54 Phoenix Air-toAir missile designed for the F-14 Tomcat, long range (131+ Miles) at Mach 5+.
    Today - Lockheed SR-72 project air to air missiles will reach Mach 6+

    These examples are operational and controllable platforms. They are not roman candles that crash into the sea. My research shows that DARPA scram jet testing is a black hole waste of tax payer money of great concern to many in US government. If you applaud this technology, perhaps you also enjoy education and health care ranked among the worst in the developed world.

    The world fastest fighter jet is Russian, not American. I hope that fact doesn't drive you to despair and suicide.

  4. #104
    ouwen
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBrit:
    The alternative to the Japanese government buying the islands was an extremely racist amd nationalist Tokyo mayor buying them, building on them and stationing Japanese to live on them. Your glib analysis fails to mention the path taken may have been the least worst option available.

    The main concern here is ownership of the natuaral resources in/under the ocean in the 200 mile limit around an island. Do you or Watercooler have any info/news on whether or not Japan claims to govern or have sovereignty over the isands? Just owning land in a country does not make one the government of that country. Only the government can claim the 200 mile limit on ocean resources.

    Does China claim to govern or have sovereignty? Maybe neither side wants to bring up that question.
    Last edited by ouwen; 06-12-2013 at 04:39 AM.

  5. #105
    ouwen
    Quote Originally Posted by closedcasket:
    Really? You need me to explain what advantage it would be to have a missile that can go speeds exceeding Mach 5??
    (About 3,800 mph)
    How about complete annihilation of targets before the enemy has time to even think of responding??

    The future of conventional warfare is speed and stealth...not power. I don't know why the Chinese are building aircraft carriers. [B]Aircraft carriers are sitting ducks...
    Again, you invent sensational facts to glorify US military aggression.

    From Wikipedia:
    The US Department of Defense has stated that China has developed and reached initial operating capability [13] of a conventionally armed[14] high hypersonic[15] land-based anti-ship ballistic missile based on the DF-21. This would be the world's first ASBM and the world's first weapons system capable of targeting a moving aircraft carrier strike group from long-range, land-based mobile launchers.[16][17] [18] These would combine maneuverable reentry vehicles (MaRVs) with some kind of terminal guidance system. Such a missile may have been tested in 2005-6, and the launch of the Jianbing-5/YaoGan-1 and Jianbing-6/YaoGan-2 satellites would give the Chinese targeting information from SAR (Synthetic Aperture Radar) and visual imaging respectively. The upgrades would greatly enhance China's ability to conduct sea-denial operations to prevent US carriers from intervening in the Taiwan Strait.[19]

    United States Naval Institute in 2009 stated that such a warhead would be large enough to destroy an aircraft carrier in one hit and that there was "currently ... no defense against it"
    Last edited by ouwen; 06-12-2013 at 05:06 AM.

  6. #106

    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    4,040

    How about this one ouwen? What nonsense are you going to spew here?

    Drones launched from submarines!!! I'm not a hawk by any means, but some of this stuff is pretty cool.

    http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/wh...ine-2D11702851


  7. #107

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    5,112
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBrit:
    Ok, so you have no idea. No problem.
    Ok, so you refuse to acknowledge you don't understand what's going on. Not a surprise there...
    Last edited by Watercooler; 06-12-2013 at 06:14 PM.

  8. #108

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Victoria, Hong Kong
    Posts
    813

    China will see a revolution that wipes away all Communist heathens or will be nuked back to to stone age.


  9. #109
    ouwen
    Quote Originally Posted by closedcasket:
    How about this one ouwen? What nonsense are you going to spew here?
    Nonsense?

    I gave you an opening to reseach and explain the military applications of your post TO THE FORUM.

    Your condescending reply was directed only at me.

    Your non stop condescending supremacist attitude is not doing much to hide your ingrained inferiority complex.

    I am a US Navy veteran with 3000 air combat hours in 3 continuous years on the front lines of the cold war. Dozens of my squadron mates were killed, some of them by our own government. I have earned the right to criticize my government for unjustly killing tens of thousands of US servicemen, and millions of civilians, mostly women and children.

    You should listen and learn from political dissenters and peace activists. Your government is not your friend, we are.

    Quote Originally Posted by closedcasket:
    Drones launched from submarines!!! I'm not a hawk by any means, but some of this stuff is pretty cool.

    http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/wh...ine-2D11702851
    Very nice. I'm glad to see they found a use for the missile tubes. The US Navy does not want or need 1728 nuclear warheads wandering the seven seas, so most of the trident missile tubes were always empty. Such lunatic systems are forced on the military by the greed of the military industrial complex.

    If you are ever in King's Bay Georgia. Visit the Trident sub base there. Maybe I can get a friend to sponsor you on a shake down cruise.
    Last edited by ouwen; 07-12-2013 at 01:27 AM.

  10. #110

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    猴山
    Posts
    22,173
    Quote Originally Posted by Watercooler:
    From China's standpoint, it makes no difference whether the islands are controlled by a racist mayor or nationalized. They are both equally bad. Unreasonable? Perhaps. Or maybe the Japanese have not adequately communicated their intentions to the Chinese prior to their move? Had the Japanese thought their nationalization move would have lower temperature, they would have made greater effort to communicate their intent to the Chinese.
    Your point seems confused. Some posts you state that the 'nationalisation' of some the islands changed the status quo and caused offence while others you say it doesn't matter.

    Some of the islands were already owned by the government and that was not 'more' offensive (no protest by the CCP) so aligning the ownership was surely not really a radical change of the status quo and the purchase by the central government was seen as a positive step towards minimising the potential of issues by the international community with the exception of China.

    Japan does not have the right to enforce the way China is seen by the international community. The way the CCP reacts publicly to very minor regional changes is in the control of the CCP and the CCP does a very good jobs of making sure the Chinese public and the world know what they believe people should think (unfortunately the Chinese public are not able to have free and easy access to information to allow a more balanced view).
    Last edited by East_coast; 07-12-2013 at 05:11 AM.

Reply
Page 11 of 16 FirstFirst ... 3 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ... LastLast