Re: Chinese sub stalked US carrier.
Jack Linthicum
<anonym...@remailer.cyberiade.it> wrote:
> For a long time the Americans are very arrogant and openly declared a
> policy to "encircle" China as a form of military intimidation. The policy
> had been a miserable failure. The most significant failures had been the
> Korean War and the Vietnam War. But the Americans persisted in encircling
> China causing all kinds of miseries to many oversea Chinese in SE Asia
> where they had been persecuted brutally by the local peoples. America
> caused these miseries to the overseas Chinese by egging on the SE Asian
> countries to attack the Chinese causing such brutal incidents as the
> slaughter of the Chinese in Indonesia in 1967 and the May 13th incident in
> Malaysia in 1969 and the discrimination of ethnic Chinese in Thailand
> during the Vietnam War era.
>
> The Americans have claimed that it is much superior to the Chinese
> militarily and can blow the Chinese away in any military conflict. (Of
> course, the Chinese had proven this wrong by blowing away the Americans in
> Korea.) America's carrier groups have especially been touted as invincible
> and can sink all Chinese ships in a few hours and bottle up China in the
> event of war. But America's navy had repeatedly demonstrated that it is
> actually very incompetent. Several years ago an American nuclear sub
> actually surfaced under a Japanese fishing boat just off the coast of
> Hawaii in open water. Obviously the Japanese fishing boat was not trying
> to maintain silent operation. The fact the American nuclear sub could not
> detect the noisy Japanese fishing boat means that there are serious flaws
> in the American nuclear subs and would argue that they would not be able
> to detect Chinese nuclear subs in the event of war.
>
> In 2004 a Chinese sub left its port and sailed toward the Pacific. The
> Japanese navy was alerted by the Taiwanese navy. Despite repeated efforts
> on the part of the Japanese to locate it, the Chinese sub remained
> invisible. Finally the Chinese sub was located when Chinese supply ships
> were spotted replenishing its supply. This incidence made it clear that
> the vaunted American technologies for locating submarines are actually
> next to worthless. In the event of war, it is obvious that the Chinese
> subs would have no problem breaking into the Pacific Ocean and get within
> range to fire their nuclear missiles to annihilate American inland cities
> from thousands of miles away.
>
> Now it appears that a Chinese diesel submarine had got within 5 miles of
> an American aircraft carrier, Kitty Hawk, without being detected and in
> spite of the fact that the carrier was heavily defended by one attack
> nuclear submarine, many anti-submarine helicopters, and many surface ships
> that form a protective barrier around the carrier. I don't know how long
> the Chinese sub had been shadowing Kitty Hawk. I would guess for quite
> some time. At least long enough to launch lethal torpedoes which can home
> in on wakes of the carrier. The Chinese sub also carried anti-ship cruise
> missiles which would obviously do serious damages at least and most likely
> could have sunk the carrier. I would guess further that the Chinese sub
> could have got a lot closer to the carrier but surfaced after reaching the
> 5 mile distance because it probably did not wish the Americans to know for
> sure how close the Chinese sub could have approached the carrier without
> being detected. In any event the Chinese sub had amply demonstrated that
> American air craft carriers are much more vulnerable than people had
> realized or what the Americans would have people believe.
>
> Given the fact that China now has many high tech systems and weapons such
> as large anti-ship missiles with nuclear tips, surveillance satellite,
> geopositioning satellites, nuclear attack submarines with noise
> suppression technologies - the Chinese diesel sub apparently is an older
> model, Song Class, without any of the new high tech noise suppression
> technologies which the Americans have disparaged and claimed to be able to
> detect 100 miles away and sunk - and many other modern naval ships and
> planes such as the Aegis equivalent battleships and planes with phase
> radars. Therefore, it would appear that in a real military conflict the
> Americans would most likely be unable to win a decisive naval war against
> the Chinese. In fact, it is more than likely that the Chinese would be
> able to sink every American ship within 1,000 miles of the Chinese coast.
> Similarly, the Japanese naval ships would be sunk in short order along
> with their American mentors.
>
> Given this grim fact for the Americans, it is obvious that it is time for
> the Americans to reassess its military superiority. Especially, since
> American military is doing so poorly in Iraq. I hope these facts will wake
> the Americans to the realization that its military superiority is not so
> decisive as to allow it to win either a protracted land war against a
> determined albeit poorly equipped guerrilla force or a high tech war
> against a rising military power with increasingly equal military technologies.
>
> Therefore, it is time for the Americans to terminate its ill-advised
> policy of encircling China and reduce its military and stop trying to be
> an international bully. America would benefit much more in the long term
> if the hundreds of billions of dollars currently used for military are
> channeled into education and R&D to increase the productivity of the
> American workers or to improve the medical services of the tens of
> millions of Americans who have no medical insurance. In the end, America
> could increase its own safety much more by cooperating with China to
> maintain peace by fighting the Islamic terrorism. Indeed without the
> provocation from the American oil companies, Islamic terrorism will
> probably disappear as Americans leave the Mid-East and become energy
> self-sufficient through the hydrogen/fuel cell/nuclear power system or the
> biodiesel/hybrid car system. In any event, the day when America could wipe
> China off the map has long gone - if there were ever such a day. For
> America's own sake, it is time to abandon the encirclement policy and
> institute a more realistic policy of cooperation.
China has been "encircled" since its first emperor, thats why they
call it the "Middle Kingdom".
W. D. Allen
capabilities. We should be so lucky!
WDA
end
"Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer" <anon...@remailer.cyberiade.it> wrote in
message news:63e366724e9530cf...@remailer.cyberiade.it...
BlackBeard
> Sure hope this represents current Chinese opinion of USA's military
> capabilities. We should be so lucky!
>
> WDA
>
When the incident first happened I commented that we would never
know if the Chinese boat was detected and being tracked, which would
provide far more intel than flushing it when first detected.
Considering they were in international waters and responses were
limited. My comment was that the telling factor would be determined
by how many, if any heads rolled. The USN does not forgive such
lapses without someone being sacrificed. As far as I can tell, no one
has been punished. That would indicate to me that they had a solution
on the Chinese boat and were gaining intel.
We do not know why the Chinese Sub surfaced when they did. What
happens below the water is rarely shared with the general public.
It's entirely possible that once the Chinese got within a certain
distance the American boat 'encouraged' them to surface. Just as when
a fighter plane can signal it's non-hostile intents by lowering its
gear, a Sub surfaces.
If the Chinese were truly undetected they could have gained far more
by staying undetected than the minor political points garnered by
surfacing.
BB
I guess everybody has some mountain to climb.
It's just fate whether you live in Kansas or Tibet...
Tankfixer
spk...@msn.com mumbled
> On Jul 28, 11:10 am, "W. D. Allen" <balle...@roadrunner.com> wrote:
> > Sure hope this represents current Chinese opinion of USA's military
> > capabilities. We should be so lucky!
> >
> > WDA
> >
>
> When the incident first happened I commented that we would never
> know if the Chinese boat was detected and being tracked, which would
> provide far more intel than flushing it when first detected.
> Considering they were in international waters and responses were
> limited. My comment was that the telling factor would be determined
> by how many, if any heads rolled. The USN does not forgive such
> lapses without someone being sacrificed. As far as I can tell, no one
> has been punished. That would indicate to me that they had a solution
> on the Chinese boat and were gaining intel.
> We do not know why the Chinese Sub surfaced when they did. What
> happens below the water is rarely shared with the general public.
> It's entirely possible that once the Chinese got within a certain
> distance the American boat 'encouraged' them to surface. Just as when
> a fighter plane can signal it's non-hostile intents by lowering its
> gear, a Sub surfaces.
Something like outer doors open and a ping by the active sonar from 1000
meters astern ?
:')
> If the Chinese were truly undetected they could have gained far more
> by staying undetected than the minor political points garnered by
> surfacing.
--
Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a
diet of static text and
cascading "threads."
Jack Linthicum
The Soviets used to use hand grenades.
BlackBeard
wrote:
>
> The Soviets used to use hand grenades.
Well we had an external piece of equipment destroyed at one time. But
it was by the Lamps guys who dropped a PDC on us. As a safety factor
in the exercise we had to broadcast a notice on the WQC whenever we
were coming up to PD within a certain crowded sector. The OPFOR were
not allowed to use this notice as a detection device but they cheated
and homed in on it and started dropping PDC's as we were coming up.
They blasted the noise-maker into several pieces. We got even after
that and a couple Lamps cmdrs. ended up across the desk from a very
pissed-off Airdale O-6.
zzbu...@netscape.net
> policy to "encircle" China as a form of military intimidation. The policy
> had been a miserable failure. The most significant failures had been the
> Korean War and the Vietnam War. But the Americans persisted in encircling
> China causing all kinds of miseries to many oversea Chinese in SE Asia
> where they had been persecuted brutally by the local peoples. America
> caused these miseries to the overseas Chinese by egging on the SE Asian
> countries to attack the Chinese causing such brutal incidents as the
> slaughter of the Chinese in Indonesia in 1967 and the May 13th incident in
> Malaysia in 1969 and the discrimination of ethnic Chinese in Thailand
> during the Vietnam War era.
>
> The Americans have claimed that it is much superior to the Chinese
> militarily and can blow the Chinese away in any military conflict. (Of
> course, the Chinese had proven this wrong by blowing away the Americans in
> Korea.)
The Chinese barely got a foothold in Korea, and wouldn't
have even got that if it wasn't for The USSR and our rockets.
Which is obviously where both our GPS, LFA, Cruise Missiles,
Space Shuttles, and Humvee Lasers come from. Just as a way of
showing China,
that not only not your crappy submarines going anywhere.
They're not going anywhere real fast at the speed
of morons, AK-47s, and Che Guevara.