China enhances fleet of modern submarines;
Mike
Rapid and secretive work troubles U.S.
BYLINE: David Lague - The New York Times Media Group
February 8, 2008 Friday
SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 1
DATELINE: BEIJING
For a procession of senior U.S. military commanders who have visited
China in recent years, the complaint has become almost routine.
As part of a sustained military buildup, they say, China is investing
heavily in so-called area-denial weapons without explaining why it
needs them.
The term area-denial weapons refers to a combination of armaments,
technology and tactics that could be used to dominate a specific area
or keep opposing forces at bay in a conflict. And one of the most
formidable examples U.S. commanders identify is the Chinese Navy's
rapidly expanding fleet of nuclear and conventional submarines.
''I would say that the U.S. feels a strong threat from Chinese
submarines,'' said Andrei Chang, an expert on Chinese and Taiwan
military forces and editor in chief of the magazine Kanwa Defence
Review.
''China now has more submarines than Russia, and the speed they are
building them is amazing,'' Chang said.
U.S. and other Western military analysts estimate that China now has
more than 30 advanced and increasingly stealthy submarines, along with
dozens of older, obsolete types. ''China is capable of serial
production of modern diesel-electric submarines and is moving forward
with new nuclear submarines,'' the Pentagon said last year in its
annual report on the Chinese military.
By the end of the decade, experts say, China will have more submarines
than the United States, although it will still lag in overall
capability.
In a conflict, these Chinese submarines - many armed with state-of-the-
art torpedoes and anti-ship missiles - would sharply increase the
threat to enemy warships approaching the strategically important
waterways of North Asia, according to security experts.
On a visit to China last month, the senior U.S. military commander in
Asia, Admiral Timothy Keating, said the Pentagon was continuing to
monitor the development of China's area-denial weapons, including
submarines.
''Chinese submarines have very impressive capabilities, and their
numbers are increasing,'' Keating told reporters in Beijing. Like
other U.S. commanders, he also called on China to be more open about
its plans.
If China were more transparent about the need for these weapons, it
would improve trust and reduce the danger of crisis or conflict,
Keating said.
''In submarine operations in particular, because of the medium in
which they are conducted, underwater, there is greater potential, in
my opinion, for inadvertent activity that could be misconstrued or
misunderstood,'' he told reporters.
Under pressure from Washington, senior Chinese officers have said that
the buildup is strictly tailored to defending China's interests and
that it poses no threat to any other nation.
''The distance between the Chinese and U.S. militaries is big,'' said
General Chen Bingde, chief of general staff in Beijing of the People's
Liberation Army. ''If you fear China's military buildup, you don't
have much courage.''
While the administration of President George W. Bush continues to
press Beijing for transparency, most foreign security experts,
including senior Pentagon analysts, believe China's unstated
objectives are relatively clear.
They say that China plans to use its submarines and other area-denial
weapons to delay or deter a U.S. intervention in case of conflict over
Taiwan. China regards the self-governing island as part of its
territory and has warned regularly that it would use force to prevent
Taiwan from moving toward formal independence.
Stealthy submarines would pose a direct threat to the deployment of
U.S. aircraft carrier battle groups, almost certainly the first line
of any American response to a Taiwan crisis, according to security
experts.
In conjunction with attacks on military surveillance satellites,
regional U.S. bases and communication networks, the Chinese military
would attempt to keep U.S. forces at a distance while attempting to
overwhelm the island's defenses, they say.
''This is precisely what the submarines are for,'' said Allan Behm, a
security analyst in Canberra and a former senior Australian Defense
Department official. ''They can bottle up and deny an enemy access to
any given area; in this case that means the U.S. Pacific fleet.''
On previous occasions of high tension over Taiwan, Washington has
deployed aircraft carriers to neighboring waters, sending a signal to
China that it should not use force against Taiwan.
But in a clear demonstration of the increasing vulnerability of these
warships, one of China's new Song-class conventional submarines was
able to remain undetected as it shadowed the U.S. carrier Kitty Hawk
off the coast of Okinawa, Japan, in late 2006. It then surfaced well
within torpedo range.
For some China experts in the U.S. military, this was an aggressive
signal to Washington that ranked with China's destruction in January
2007 of one of its own obsolete weather satellites with an
antisatellite missile. In so doing, the Chinese Navy demonstrated that
it could challenge the most powerful surface combatants of the U.S.
Navy in waters around Taiwan. It also gave evidence that Chinese
submarine technology had advanced more rapidly than some experts had
expected.
''The U.S. had no idea it was there,'' said Behm. ''This is the great
capability of very quiet, conventional submarines.''
Submarine construction is clearly a top priority for the Chinese Navy,
and foreign analysts have noted that in recent years it has
concurrently developed four - possibly five - classes of new, locally
designed and built submarines.
Some experts have suggested that China is taking the same path as
Germany and Japan, which once relied heavily on submarines in a bid to
compete with the British and U.S. navies.
The attraction of submarines, the experts say, is that they are
extremely cost-effective weapons compared with surface warships. For a
relatively modest investment, stealthy submarines can threaten much
more valuable military and cargo vessels and attack targets on land
with missiles.
The suspicion alone that a submarine may be in the area can force an
adversary to operate more cautiously, while diverting resources to
expensive and complex detection and tracking.
In further evidence of progress in submarine technology, China
displayed photographs and models of its new Shang-class nuclear-
powered attack submarine at a Beijing exhibition in July celebrating
the 80th anniversary of the People's Liberation Army. The official
People's Daily newspaper reported that two submarines of this class
are now in service.
In October, Hans Kristensen, a nuclear weapons researcher with the
Federation of American Scientists, spotted on a Google Earth satellite
image what appeared to be two of China's Jin-class nuclear powered
ballistic missile submarines. Some military analysts were surprised
that China had built another submarine of this class so soon after the
first, in 2004.
And to put the improvement of its fleet on a fast track, China has
also taken delivery of 12 advanced Kilo-class conventional submarines
from Russia. These submarines are among the quietest and most
difficult to detect, according to veteran submariners.
Experts say the designs of the newest Chinese submarines show evidence
of technical assistance from Russia.
Analysts have also suggested that some of China's conventional
submarines have been fitted with so-called air-independent propulsion
systems. This would allow the submarines to patrol for extended
periods under water without needing to draw in air for the diesel
engines used to charge their batteries.
A number of naval experts have noticed that the growth in China's
submarine power has occurred while U.S. anti-submarine warfare
capability has declined from its peak during the Cold War.
What is more, in case of conflict over Taiwan, Chinese submarines
would have the advantage of operating in a favorable environment for
undersea warfare.
The waters of the East China Sea, South China Sea and Yellow Sea are
of uneven depth, with considerable background noise, complex thermal
behavior and strong currents. These factors make it very difficult, if
not impossible, for surface ships and aircraft to detect stealthy
submarines, even with the most advanced passive sonar and other
sensors.
Don Ocean
It won't be long until Taiwan either capitulates to Mainland China or
the mainland will take it by force. America has been too busy being sold
out by Jewish and Oil interest to mind the store. China has very
carefully outmaneuvered American Idiotic leadership. It is probably too
late to make any needed corrections in our military stance. 2 Bush's and
a Billy-Bob have insure that. I do hope we have military leaders that
are boondoggling the needed equipment for the questionable future of our
country.
Jack Linthicum
Isn't "area denial" another term meaning coastal defense? IOW we have
to attack them to put them in play?
How many active, ie leaving docks, submarines does China have?
Ray O'Hara
"Don Ocean" <oc...@amerion.com> wrote in message
news:65n3spF...@mid.individual.net...
>
> It won't be long until Taiwan either capitulates to Mainland China or
> the mainland will take it by force. America has been too busy being sold
> out by Jewish and Oil interest to mind the store. China has very
> carefully outmaneuvered American Idiotic leadership. It is probably too
> late to make any needed corrections in our military stance. 2 Bush's and
> a Billy-Bob have insure that. I do hope we have military leaders that
> are boondoggling the needed equipment for the questionable future of our
> country.
submarines aren't too useful for capturing land masses.
scott s.
>
> It won't be long until Taiwan either capitulates to Mainland China
> or the mainland will take it by force. America has been too busy
> being sold out by Jewish and Oil interest to mind the store. China
> has very carefully outmaneuvered American Idiotic leadership. It is
> probably too late to make any needed corrections in our military
> stance. 2 Bush's and a Billy-Bob have insure that. I do hope we have
> military leaders that are boondoggling the needed equipment for the
> questionable future of our country.
>
Doesn't matter, since first priority is to save the whales.
scott s.
.
Don Ocean
They really work well for neutralizing Defensive Naval forces and a few
Boomers may not capture any land masses.. But they sure as Hell can make
them valueless to any forms of life. Also pretty good at destroying land
based retaliatory weaponry. What did you say your warfare expertise
was? China is fast building a very modern hightech everything military.
Submarines are a drop in the bucket. They intend to hold any gains they
have made in the South American countries also. They have just taken a
Seat(sponsored by Bush) to the South American Banking system. Did you
forget they control the Panama canal also?
>
>
PaPaPeng
<jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> The waters of the East China Sea, South China Sea and Yellow Sea are
>> of uneven depth, with considerable background noise, complex thermal
>> behavior and strong currents. These factors make it very difficult, if
>> not impossible, for surface ships and aircraft to detect stealthy
>> submarines, even with the most advanced passive sonar and other
>> sensors.
>
>Isn't "area denial" another term meaning coastal defense? IOW we have
>to attack them to put them in play?
>
>How many active, ie leaving docks, submarines does China have?
In discussing defense matters on China it is always useful to look at
the topographical maps. The most useful map is not one drawn from
plots although for continental shelf depths one does need to depend on
drawn maps. The most useful terrain map is a cleaned up composite
satellite map. One look and the very complex hilly landforms in east
and south China and it is very obvious why you need a satellite map.
This appreciation of the terrain cannot be gleaned from looking at
drawn maps (cluttered with unreadable place names over complex contour
lines.)
The tortoured landforms on mainland China are unsuitable for
mechanized warfare until almost 800 miles inland on China's northern
(Yellow River) plains. Between the coast and Beijing, as is
everywhere else in China, the terrain is fully populated with farms
and cities. There is no easy fast strategic route for any seaborne
based invasion anywhere.
These two maps are available in an excellent National Geographic
"Atlas of China" ed 2008. Pages 12 & 13 (satellite) and pgs. 14 & 15
(drawn) showing the main rivers and continental shelf. There is much
useful information in the book including one on Military Strength in
pages 70 &71. It shows the reach of various Chinese missiles for
example and the lines of the "First island Chain" and the "Second
Island Chain" of defense. These Island Chains are not Chinese
positions on defense trip wires. But the logic of the First Island
Chain is so obvious that one might as well accept it as real. The
logic of the Second Chain is dubious. The maps in these two pages is
very welcome for hopefully one can refer to this reputable publication
that "fact checks" as a common basis on which to argue a position.
Too often arguments about China have data of dubious origin altered on
the fly to suit whatever the writer's point of view may be at that
moment.
On Submarines
The continental shelf averages 460 feet depth (140 m) worldwide.
Compare that with a nuclear powered attack submarine's length
(http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/nssn.htm Length: Los
Angeles 360 feet (110 meters), Seawolf 353 feet (108 meters), NSSN
377 ft. (115 m) and you can see that the continental shelf depth is
less than twice the submarine's length. This makes anti-submarine
defense for the coastal power easy. Look at the extent of China's
continental shelf and it is just as easy to figure out the size and
type of naval assets China needs to build for Area Denial. It is also
an eye opener that in times of war you cannot just sail an aircraft
carrier group into continental shelf waters of a power that has a
credible submarine force. Or send US attack submarines there and have
them attacked by surface or airborne ASW forces. The logic of Area
Denial as a defense policy is pretty obvious. Why any US authority
would accuse China of being reticient on this only reflects the
naivety of that person.
China is not under threat at present. Only the US seeks to or has the
ability to pose a military threat. Therefore China has the luxury of
time to build, test, refine and build its military capabilities in the
years to come. That's your transparency. No China does not need a
carrier force.
Don Ocean
I was going to save one, but my freezer is too small.
> .
Ray O'Hara
the chinese are not going to start tossing nukes and how many sub launched
nuke armed missle subs can they afford.
any nukes by them will get a rain in return.
be real.
Don Ocean
I was in Korea! They don't worry about losses... Only winning.
Your too soft and would be promptly stomped into a shitball.
They won't be blowing Bugles this next time. Only a fool would
underestimate the Chinese. AFFORD? Are you fucking nuts.. They bought
$1.4 Trillion of America's debt without blinking an eye. And they want
something in return. They also think the present administration is based
on insanity and soft in the belly. Hey..thats like you. ;-/ China is
Heavy industry..War is Heavy industry. America's Industry base has been
scrapped.
>
>
Ray O'Hara
yeah, you were in korea. just like you rob casinos right.
and the china of 1950 isn't the china of today.
and that debt. they aren't going to toss 14 trillion in investments.
tankfixer
PaPa...@yahoo.com says...
> The tortoured landforms on mainland China are unsuitable for
> mechanized warfare until almost 800 miles inland on China's northern
> (Yellow River) plains.
You may wish to study the operations of the Soviet Army in Manchuria in
1945....
tankfixer
says...
>
> It won't be long until Taiwan either capitulates to Mainland China or
> the mainland will take it by force. America has been too busy being sold
> out by Jewish and Oil interest to mind the store. China has very
> carefully outmaneuvered American Idiotic leadership. It is probably too
> late to make any needed corrections in our military stance. 2 Bush's and
> a Billy-Bob have insure that. I do hope we have military leaders that
> are boondoggling the needed equipment for the questionable future of our
> country.
Say again, over.
You are coming in broken and stupid...
PaPaPeng
You mean their invasion and rout of the greatly weakened Japanese
Kwangtung Army at the end of WWII? Yes the Russians can invade
Manchuria again via that Siberian Railway route. The problem is
Russia's current population is only 141 millions (CIA Factbook.)
China's is 1.3 billions. Take away 1 billion and the .3 billion rump
is still more than double Russia's manpower. Russia is no threat to
China. Neither is Japan - population 127 millions and Japan's lack of
natural resources precludes her from fighting any modern general war
against another country.
China isn't crazy enough to take over Russia in a general war either.
There is no such thing as a little local war between giant countries
be this Russia or the US. China defeating Russia is the easy part.
But even China's enormous manpower cannot defend Russia against every
country that shares a border with Russia and beyond. Surely no country
in the world will ever let a China (or any other country) hold Russian
territory. Russia's territory is too vast and inhospitable. Ergo
there will never be a war between Russia and China. Its suicide.
When you really get into the fundamentals of total warfare as had been
fought in WWII (and now) it is not wonder weapons nor brilliant
battles that win. It was manpower and the ability to replace losses
in materiel and men that mattered. In this time and day no one can
fight a conventional war with China. Certainly not within or near
China's borders. China is no longer the postrate giant of just 60
years ago. Don't (US) put too much faith in an overwhelming nuclear
strike either. The lethal zone of a nuclear bomb is under twenty
miles in diameter. In other than China's northern plain that lethal
zone is much reduced by the hilly terrain over much of the rest of
populated China. The nuke blast effects on the outskirts will be
shielded and deflected by high ground. In a nuclear exchange there
will be more than enough survivors in China to rebuild quickly and
completely. To give you an idea of the inherent resilience of Chinese
society each of China's 23 provinces (inclusive of Taiwan) has the
the territorial size, population and integrated economy to be a major
country anywhere else in the world. On the other hand, a high
technology country like the US, where even the most basic needs depend
on highly engineered services, it doesn't take much to demolish those
infrastructures and reduce the US economy and society to third world
status. (In that Nat. Geog. book, pg 71, China's DF-31A ICBM range
can cover the whole of the US.)
In summary China does not need a large nuclear arsenal to feel secure.
She just needs enough nuclear capability to be taken seriously that
another party (aka the US) cannot threaten a pre-emptive nuclear
strike to blackmail China into toeing the US line. In conventional
arms all China needs is the capability to defend against a real threat
to her security up to the First Island Chain. At present the US still
thinks she can sail her Carrier Battle Groups in the "international
waters" off China's coast to show who is boss. China has to grin and
bear it so as not to upset that illusion and invite trade retaliation.
But I believe even the most ardent supporters of USN power among
participants in this newsgroup realise how foolhardy and fatal to the
carrier group a similar sail by can be in the event of a real shooting
war.
Now we come to the present state of affairs of the US military
vis-avis' China. The title of this thread is China's modern
submarines. My first post addressed that. The second part is China
isn't too worried about US military technical superiority. I would
think that Chinese strategic planners are looking in amazement as how
the US is spending herself into bankruptcy with ever more complex
weapons that have no real mission. Super carriers for fighting
piracy? For relief work in naturaql disasters? For bombing hapless
countries like Iraq, Afghnaistan and Iran? To scare China? Well
we've gone one round on that already.
William Black
"PaPaPeng" <PaPa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:pl8ev35t7hms9av9b...@4ax.com...
> You mean their invasion and rout of the greatly weakened Japanese
> Kwangtung Army at the end of WWII? Yes the Russians can invade
> Manchuria again via that Siberian Railway route. The problem is
> Russia's current population is only 141 millions (CIA Factbook.)
> China's is 1.3 billions. Take away 1 billion and the .3 billion rump
> is still more than double Russia's manpower. Russia is no threat to
> China.
So everything in modern war is about numbers...
I'll bet that's a comfort to all those dead Arab soldiers.
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
PaPaPeng
<willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"PaPaPeng" <PaPa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:pl8ev35t7hms9av9b...@4ax.com...
>
>> You mean their invasion and rout of the greatly weakened Japanese
>> Kwangtung Army at the end of WWII? Yes the Russians can invade
>> Manchuria again via that Siberian Railway route. The problem is
>> Russia's current population is only 141 millions (CIA Factbook.)
>> China's is 1.3 billions. Take away 1 billion and the .3 billion rump
>> is still more than double Russia's manpower. Russia is no threat to
>> China.
>
>So everything in modern war is about numbers...
>
>I'll bet that's a comfort to all those dead Arab soldiers.
The same argument that India cannot fight a conventional war against
China, the US or Russia. India has the manpower but not the
industrial base (or money) to arm with modern weapons and to replace
those lost through attrition in a high intensity modern war. She will
lose a conventional arms fight. But any invader rash enough to occupy
a defeated India will face an intractable quagmire that will make Iraq
and Afghanistan look like a stroll through a ghetto. By the way there
aren't thousands of dead Arab soldiers. There are tens of thousands
of dead Arabs because the few that are armed with just AK 47s, RPGs
and IEDs cannot fight in strength against a US war machine that has
long range heavy weapons, tanks and aircraft.
tankfixer
PaPa...@yahoo.com says...
> On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 23:05:26 -0700, tankfixer
> <paul.c...@us.kat.army.mil> wrote:
>
> >In article <m6edv3pt333jlcqeg...@4ax.com>,
> >PaPa...@yahoo.com says...
> >
> >> The tortoured landforms on mainland China are unsuitable for
> >> mechanized warfare until almost 800 miles inland on China's northern
> >> (Yellow River) plains.
> >
> >
> >You may wish to study the operations of the Soviet Army in Manchuria in
> >1945....
>
>
> You mean their invasion and rout of the greatly weakened Japanese
> Kwangtung Army at the end of WWII? Yes the Russians can invade
> Manchuria again via that Siberian Railway route. The problem is
> Russia's current population is only 141 millions (CIA Factbook.)
> China's is 1.3 billions. Take away 1 billion and the .3 billion rump
> is still more than double Russia's manpower. Russia is no threat to
> China. Neither is Japan - population 127 millions and Japan's lack of
> natural resources precludes her from fighting any modern general war
> against another country.
I would refer you to the fact they invaded with mechanised armies arcoss
terrain the Japanese and now you discount as suitable for such forces.
>
> China isn't crazy enough to take over Russia in a general war either.
> There is no such thing as a little local war between giant countries
> be this Russia or the US. China defeating Russia is the easy part.
> But even China's enormous manpower cannot defend Russia against every
> country that shares a border with Russia and beyond. Surely no country
> in the world will ever let a China (or any other country) hold Russian
> territory. Russia's territory is too vast and inhospitable. Ergo
> there will never be a war between Russia and China. Its suicide.
You assume that China's population would support your fantisy war.
>
> When you really get into the fundamentals of total warfare as had been
> fought in WWII (and now) it is not wonder weapons nor brilliant
> battles that win. It was manpower and the ability to replace losses
> in materiel and men that mattered. In this time and day no one can
> fight a conventional war with China. Certainly not within or near
> China's borders. China is no longer the postrate giant of just 60
> years ago. Don't (US) put too much faith in an overwhelming nuclear
> strike either. The lethal zone of a nuclear bomb is under twenty
> miles in diameter. In other than China's northern plain that lethal
> zone is much reduced by the hilly terrain over much of the rest of
> populated China. The nuke blast effects on the outskirts will be
> shielded and deflected by high ground. In a nuclear exchange there
> will be more than enough survivors in China to rebuild quickly and
> completely. To give you an idea of the inherent resilience of Chinese
> society each of China's 23 provinces (inclusive of Taiwan) has the
> the territorial size, population and integrated economy to be a major
> country anywhere else in the world. On the other hand, a high
> technology country like the US, where even the most basic needs depend
> on highly engineered services, it doesn't take much to demolish those
> infrastructures and reduce the US economy and society to third world
> status. (In that Nat. Geog. book, pg 71, China's DF-31A ICBM range
> can cover the whole of the US.)
The starving peasants can rebuild nothing when your industrial centers
are ruined.
Do you think they will continue to take orders from Beijing ?
China has not the numbers of missles to do what you claim she can.
>
> In summary China does not need a large nuclear arsenal to feel secure.
> She just needs enough nuclear capability to be taken seriously that
> another party (aka the US) cannot threaten a pre-emptive nuclear
> strike to blackmail China into toeing the US line. In conventional
> arms all China needs is the capability to defend against a real threat
> to her security up to the First Island Chain. At present the US still
> thinks she can sail her Carrier Battle Groups in the "international
> waters" off China's coast to show who is boss. China has to grin and
> bear it so as not to upset that illusion and invite trade retaliation.
> But I believe even the most ardent supporters of USN power among
> participants in this newsgroup realise how foolhardy and fatal to the
> carrier group a similar sail by can be in the event of a real shooting
> war.
Oil,Remeber where Chine gets hers...
>
> Now we come to the present state of affairs of the US military
> vis-avis' China. The title of this thread is China's modern
> submarines. My first post addressed that. The second part is China
> isn't too worried about US military technical superiority. I would
> think that Chinese strategic planners are looking in amazement as how
> the US is spending herself into bankruptcy with ever more complex
> weapons that have no real mission. Super carriers for fighting
> piracy? For relief work in naturaql disasters? For bombing hapless
> countries like Iraq, Afghnaistan and Iran? To scare China? Well
> we've gone one round on that already.
It would appear from that paragraph that you view China's submarines
useful for only one purpose, agression, since submarines are useless for
relief efforts and a carrier group is....
Don Ocean
I guess I was not there.. But I did go to College on the Korean Bill of
rights. ;-p Wanna see where I was wounded on my ass with a Chinese axe?
Maybe you can kiss it and make it well. ;-p
just like you rob casinos right.
Oh that would be a boghopping asshole like you.. I am American of Swiss
descent! Stealing old ladies purses and knocking off Casino's would be
your craft! Not mine. 400 years of Military family!
> and the china of 1950 isn't the china of today.
That is correct.. The soldiers they field will be from area's that are
100 years in the past.. They are hitech equiped and well trained..
Something not done in the 50's. And there are now 500 million more of
them! We were at a standoff with the Chinese in 1959. The Straights were
covered by 1910 Krupp Naval cannon that could hit anything gridmarked in
one shot! They still have that, backed up by thousands of antiship missiles.
>
> and that debt. they aren't going to toss 14 trillion in investments.
Nope! They just may have bought South America.
Where does your tic tac toe level of Military knowledge come from
snyway? ;-/
>
>
Don Ocean
Aren't you the fellow that leans over and pisses into his own boots?
Your hearing is probably affected by your cell mate sticking his dick in
your ears when you turn your head! ;-p
Don Ocean
Thats a joke... The undermanned Japanese were ill supplied and the War
was basically over. It was a walk in the park.. Most of the Japanese
Officers committed HariKari!
William Black
"tankfixer" <paul.c...@us.kat.army.mil> wrote in message
news:MPG.226147fd5...@nntp.earthlink.net...
>> China isn't crazy enough to take over Russia in a general war either.
>> There is no such thing as a little local war between giant countries
>> be this Russia or the US. China defeating Russia is the easy part.
>> But even China's enormous manpower cannot defend Russia against every
>> country that shares a border with Russia and beyond. Surely no country
>> in the world will ever let a China (or any other country) hold Russian
>> territory. Russia's territory is too vast and inhospitable. Ergo
>> there will never be a war between Russia and China. Its suicide.
>
> You assume that China's population would support your fantisy war.
It's reasonable to assume that the Tibetan population wouldn't, and would
consume even more military resources than is currently necessary to keep
then under the jackboot's heel. If China was in a shooting war whoever was
doing the shooting would be making damn sure the Tibetans had a plentiful
supply of firearms and explosives...
Don Ocean
Excellent logic. China is definitely the big dog in these modern times.
America would be wise to take on the Neutral role that the Swiss have.
We have much more to gain by peaceful trade than by warfare. It is good
to have a military that is capable of inflicting such grievous
retaliatory damage that none will bother us. France, Germany and England
demolished their world standing by warfare in WWI. You would think that
we would learn from that. But I suppose the war profiteers still
instigate foolish for us but profitable for them actions. Tsun tsu
makes a lot of sense.
Don Ocean
> "PaPaPeng" <PaPa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:pl8ev35t7hms9av9b...@4ax.com...
>
>> You mean their invasion and rout of the greatly weakened Japanese
>> Kwangtung Army at the end of WWII? Yes the Russians can invade
>> Manchuria again via that Siberian Railway route. The problem is
>> Russia's current population is only 141 millions (CIA Factbook.)
>> China's is 1.3 billions. Take away 1 billion and the .3 billion rump
>> is still more than double Russia's manpower. Russia is no threat to
>> China.
>
> So everything in modern war is about numbers...
Yes it is... Read Von Klausowitzes Infantry Tactics.. It is numbers of
personal and logistics.. All important.
>
> I'll bet that's a comfort to all those dead Arab soldiers.
As for the Jews and the Arabs.. You don't have a clue as to the real
story. Most were preemptive strikes. Kind of like the USS Liberty false
flag operation. If America stops bribing the big Arab and Persian
countries and stops funding Israel.. There just could be a Helluva a
calamity in the ME. I personally could care less about either..America
is first for me!!!!
>
>
William Black
> William Black wrote:
>> "PaPaPeng" <PaPa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:pl8ev35t7hms9av9b...@4ax.com...
>>
>>> You mean their invasion and rout of the greatly weakened Japanese
>>> Kwangtung Army at the end of WWII? Yes the Russians can invade
>>> Manchuria again via that Siberian Railway route. The problem is
>>> Russia's current population is only 141 millions (CIA Factbook.)
>>> China's is 1.3 billions. Take away 1 billion and the .3 billion rump
>>> is still more than double Russia's manpower. Russia is no threat to
>>> China.
>>
>> So everything in modern war is about numbers...
>
> Yes it is... Read Von Klausowitzes Infantry Tactics.. It is numbers of
> personal and logistics.. All important.
I know I'm going to regret this, but...
I assume you mean Carl von Clausewitz's book 'On War' (Von Krieg).
He doesn't actually mention either numbers or logistics as being terribly
important.
Indeed his classical dialectical approach to military analysis that has been
so heavily critized in the past seventy years or so mainly because of this.
>> I'll bet that's a comfort to all those dead Arab soldiers.
>
> As for the Jews and the Arabs.. You don't have a clue as to the real
> story. Most were preemptive strikes. Kind of like the USS Liberty false
> flag operation. If America stops bribing the big Arab and Persian
> countries and stops funding Israel.. There just could be a Helluva a
> calamity in the ME. I personally could care less about either..America is
> first for me!!!!
Oh, I'm sorry...
I didn't realise...
You're mad...
PaPaPeng
<willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"tankfixer" <paul.c...@us.kat.army.mil> wrote in message
>news:MPG.226147fd5...@nntp.earthlink.net...
>> In article <pl8ev35t7hms9av9b...@4ax.com>,
>> PaPa...@yahoo.com says...
>
>>> China isn't crazy enough to take over Russia in a general war either.
>>> There is no such thing as a little local war between giant countries
>>> be this Russia or the US. China defeating Russia is the easy part.
>>> But even China's enormous manpower cannot defend Russia against every
>>> country that shares a border with Russia and beyond. Surely no country
>>> in the world will ever let a China (or any other country) hold Russian
>>> territory. Russia's territory is too vast and inhospitable. Ergo
>>> there will never be a war between Russia and China. Its suicide.
>>
>> You assume that China's population would support your fantisy war.
>
>It's reasonable to assume that the Tibetan population wouldn't, and would
>consume even more military resources than is currently necessary to keep
>then under the jackboot's heel. If China was in a shooting war whoever was
>doing the shooting would be making damn sure the Tibetans had a plentiful
>supply of firearms and explosives...
Again its a numbers thing. There are at most 2 1/2 million Tibetans
in all of China. Tibet itself is one big empty rock pile. Lots of
places to hide but nothing to eat and little if any water. In the
recent riots why do you think more than a hundred rioters in Lhasa
voluntarily turned themselves in when warned to give up or be treated
more harshly if caught later. In that Nat Geog Atlas Lhasa's
population is given as 123,000 including non ethnic Tibetans. This
total barely fills a sports stadium and it is the largest population
center in Tibet. A house to house search is easily done in a day.
Non Han male youths with fire in their bellies number perhaps a few
thousands or a lot less. Carry the wrong ID or none at all and he's
toast. Try organizing an armed insurrection of Tibetan youth as you
propose. Its a non starter. For a guy your age and education do try
to avoid vacuous thinking like jackboots, evil, commie and such. In a
battle the bullet doesn't give a damn what your feelings are. All
that matters are do you have the resources to win it.
PaPaPeng
<paul.c...@us.kat.army.mil> wrote:
>The starving peasants can rebuild nothing when your industrial centers
>are ruined.
>Do you think they will continue to take orders from Beijing ?
>China has not the numbers of missles to do what you claim she can.
Until the most recent 20 years China was under de facto global trade
embargo for the better part of two centuries. She fed herself,
although hunger, pestillence and societal turmoil were constant
reminders. Even the worst you can do today cannot equal the
deprivations of those times. I go back far enough to remember them
first hand.
The question then is who can survive the nuclear winter and recover
fastest. China must have undergone at least a dozen equivalents of
nuclear winters in her long 2500 to 4000 year history depending on how
far back you want to go. Even as far back as 500 BC battlefield
casualties alone numbered more than a million from both sides (read
the annotations and modern analyses to Sun Tzu's The Art of War.) Yet
there never developed in the Chinese psyche the equivalent of the
holocaust or "end of the world" mythologies so common in all other
civilizations in particular the Judeao Christian and the Hindu
civilizations. This is because there never arose a civilizational
dispair that after each episode of military or natural disaster that
China would disappear from the earth. Each time China came back
stronger and bigger than before. Can the US which is barely 300 years
old and mostly urbanized survive the shock of an overwhelmingly
destructive nuclear retaliation? China can. More than 80 per cent of
Chinese are farmers. Practically all are farmers at heart. So long
as there is enough to eat everything else is possible.
Before you accuse China of belligerence do read the opening statements
of Sun Tzu
1. Sun Tzu said: The art of war is of vital importance to the State.
2. It is a matter of life and death, a road either to safety or to
ruin. Hence it is a subject of inquiry which can on no account be
neglected.
The Kaiser and now Bush 43 never read Sun Tzu. The consequences to
Germany and now to the US is too well known and you can draw your own
conclusions. China's leaders have also lived through China's tough
times and not one of them will seek glory through military aggression.
The negative consequences will not spare anyone no matter how highly
placed. Bush's hubris is that he thought America is so strong that
there will not be any consequences. He's wrong and his place in
history as being grossly wrong cannot be papered over.
No the US has nothing to fear from a miitary attack from China. China
in the meantime will develop the means to ensure that the US does not
have a military option to attack China either. The challenge from
China will be the access to the resources and friendship of the rest
of the world that is not already tied to US interests. This is one
fight the US and G7 is not winning.
Jeffrey Hamilton
>
> It won't be long until Taiwan either capitulates to Mainland China or the
> mainland will take it by force. America has been too busy being sold
> out by Jewish and Oil interest to mind the store. China has very carefully
> outmaneuvered American Idiotic leadership. It is probably too
>
I snipped all kinds of *shite*.
Are *You* seriously saying the U.S. is being led by *Jewish interests* ?
Cite please.
Have you actually looked at whom really benefits from these loose and lax,
business laws ?
Why do you say only the *Jews* benefit ?
Could you please tell us how we have been benefited, by these *laws* ?
cheers.....Jeff
PaPaPeng
wrote:
Plus Manchuria is far away from the strategic centers of power and
industry in China. Invading Manchuria does nothing except lead a
foreign army into a trap. The US took pains to hold off the Mao's Red
Army so that the Japanese surrenderd only to KMT officials.
Generalisimmo Chiang fell into a trap of his own making by sending his
best troops to Manchuria where their numbers could only hold garrison
towns and were unable to venture out. The only supply line was the
railways. When the Red Army cut those railways panic set in and
Chiang's troops rushed to evacuate. Many divisions were left behind
and surrendered enmasse along with all their equipment. These KMT
troops were disgusted enough with China's Civil War under Chiang to
switched sides. It was the vast captured arsenal that enabled the Red
Army to proceed to fight conventional positional warfare with Chiang
and to Red victory within a year. Had Chiang kept his best troops
near him on shortened defence lines around Peking China's Civil War
could have easily lasted another decade with perhaps Chiang winning in
the end through receiving massive US Aid. That's what-if history.
Underlying this is the fact that China's Civil War had already been
fought over thirty years. That's the kind of timeline any war with
China will involve. You (tankfixer) had only five years in Iraq.
Don't even think about it (an unecessary war with China.)
Jeffrey Hamilton
"Don Ocean" <oc...@amerion.com> wrote in message
news:65n3spF...@mid.individual.net...
>
> It won't be long until Taiwan either capitulates to Mainland China or the
> mainland will take it by force. America has been too busy being sold
> out by Jewish and Oil interest to mind the store. China has very carefully
> outmaneuvered American Idiotic leadership.
So let's cut to the chase, _YOU_ hate Jews,. correct ?
The rest of your $hite is gobbly-gook of course, *I* only need a little
while to recognize a *JEW HATER*, (enter my killfile) bye-bye !
... cheers ...Jeff
tankfixer
willia...@hotmail.co.uk says...
>
> "tankfixer" <paul.c...@us.kat.army.mil> wrote in message
> news:MPG.226147fd5...@nntp.earthlink.net...
> > In article <pl8ev35t7hms9av9b...@4ax.com>,
> > PaPa...@yahoo.com says...
>
> >> China isn't crazy enough to take over Russia in a general war either.
> >> There is no such thing as a little local war between giant countries
> >> be this Russia or the US. China defeating Russia is the easy part.
> >> But even China's enormous manpower cannot defend Russia against every
> >> country that shares a border with Russia and beyond. Surely no country
> >> in the world will ever let a China (or any other country) hold Russian
> >> territory. Russia's territory is too vast and inhospitable. Ergo
> >> there will never be a war between Russia and China. Its suicide.
> >
> > You assume that China's population would support your fantisy war.
>
> It's reasonable to assume that the Tibetan population wouldn't, and would
> consume even more military resources than is currently necessary to keep
> then under the jackboot's heel. If China was in a shooting war whoever was
> doing the shooting would be making damn sure the Tibetans had a plentiful
> supply of firearms and explosives...
I truely believe the government in Beijing is in for a rude suprise
soon.
tankfixer
tankfixer
says...
Thank you for confirming you are a blithering twit...
I wasn't sure before.
tankfixer
says...
So you havn't studied it but dismiss it out of hand ?
Your loss..
eatfastnoodle
> "Don Ocean" <oc...@amerion.com> wrote in message
>
> news:65n3spF...@mid.individual.net...
>
>
>
> > the mainland will take it by force. America has been too busy being sold
> > out by Jewish and Oil interest to mind the store. China has very
> > carefully outmaneuvered American Idiotic leadership. It is probably too
> > late to make any needed corrections in our military stance. 2 Bush's and
> > a Billy-Bob have insure that. I do hope we have military leaders that
> > are boondoggling the needed equipment for the questionable future of our
> > country.
>
Submarines are really really useful for blockade, especially against a
tiny island whose lifeline depends on trade. Also as the article
mentioned, submarines are useful in term of making America thinking
twice between intervening and making any intervening forces much more
cautious than normally would be. With its foreign trade cut off and
much less hope of getting help from America, how long do you think
Taiwan can stand on her own feet even if we assumes no direct military
assault from China takes place?
Don Ocean
Sadly correct. And factual. China will get Taiwan back. And we can't
stop it in our present situation. Bush has been ready to sell Taiwan out
ever since he first made office.
Don Ocean
I see your hearing has improved.. Whatta numbnuts.. Why don't you
read Sun Tzu over the weekend and maybe look over the CIA webpage on
China and then maybe you can make a viable try for intelligent
conversation. PapaPeng is a Saint for his patience with you. Kind of
like handling a Downs Syndrome child.
Don Ocean
It is good to understand how battles are lost.. But much more productive
to know how to win!
Don Ocean
> "Don Ocean" <oc...@amerion.com> wrote in message
> news:65pq41F...@mid.individual.net...
>> William Black wrote:
>>> "PaPaPeng" <PaPa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:pl8ev35t7hms9av9b...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>> You mean their invasion and rout of the greatly weakened Japanese
>>>> Kwangtung Army at the end of WWII? Yes the Russians can invade
>>>> Manchuria again via that Siberian Railway route. The problem is
>>>> Russia's current population is only 141 millions (CIA Factbook.)
>>>> China's is 1.3 billions. Take away 1 billion and the .3 billion rump
>>>> is still more than double Russia's manpower. Russia is no threat to
>>>> China.
>>> So everything in modern war is about numbers...
>> Yes it is... Read Von Klausowitzes Infantry Tactics.. It is numbers of
>> personal and logistics.. All important.
>
> I know I'm going to regret this, but...
>
> I assume you mean Carl von Clausewitz's book 'On War' (Von Krieg).
>
> He doesn't actually mention either numbers or logistics as being terribly
> important.
He actually does.. Such as what it takes for a siege against entrenched
forces
>
> Indeed his classical dialectical approach to military analysis that has been
> so heavily critized in the past seventy years or so mainly because of this.
>
>>> I'll bet that's a comfort to all those dead Arab soldiers.
>> As for the Jews and the Arabs.. You don't have a clue as to the real
>> story. Most were preemptive strikes. Kind of like the USS Liberty false
>> flag operation. If America stops bribing the big Arab and Persian
>> countries and stops funding Israel.. There just could be a Helluva a
>> calamity in the ME. I personally could care less about either..America is
>> first for me!!!!
>
> Oh, I'm sorry...
About what?
>
> I didn't realise...
Thats a fact!
>
> You're mad...
Mad? I haven't a clue as to what your alluding. Do you always drift off
like this? ;-p
>
Don Ocean
Our business laws prevail in the ME? Thats amazing..Because it appears
nothing else of ours prevails there. And yes the fucking Jews have sold
us out over and over again.
Don Ocean
Thats a complement. I have never liked those that sold America out.
That of course isn't biased only to the Jews that have murdered
Americans. I am not happy with their half Brethren, the Arabs either..
Your quite welcome to toss around the over used "AntiSemite" phrase that
Is used on all the Jews don't like or agree with.
>
> ... cheers ...Jeff
Are you some more of Israels propaganda team?
Your probably welcome at their reunion.
>
>
tankfixer
Peng is a nationalist dupe.
Seems you may be too
tankfixer
Then don't discount the operation until you have studied it.
tankfixer
24g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, d12s...@gmail.com says...
> >
> > submarines aren't too useful for capturing land masses.
>
> Submarines are really really useful for blockade, especially against a
> tiny island whose lifeline depends on trade. Also as the article
> mentioned, submarines are useful in term of making America thinking
> twice between intervening and making any intervening forces much more
> cautious than normally would be. With its foreign trade cut off and
> much less hope of getting help from America, how long do you think
> Taiwan can stand on her own feet even if we assumes no direct military
> assault from China takes place?
How long would the government in China last without any trade ?
Or oil...
Blockades can work both ways
Don Ocean
My dues are well paid. I still give that fellow credit for his extreme
patience with you. Your the kind of fool that if put in a position of
leadership would get his troops killed for nothing.
Don Ocean
It has been run at the war college innumerable times. Only fools
would gamble against such odds. The remaining survivors would not have
much to look forward to. I play to win and when I win..It must be worth
it. My great Nation of America fortunately thinks the same way.
Don Ocean
That would require open warfare.. We blockaded Japan in 1940 and
recieved Pearl Harbor in return.. Nice..Huh?
tankfixer
You havn't read much of his blather have you ?
tankfixer
says...
The US did not blockade Japan in 1940 or 1941...
But you are correct, if China blockaded Taiwan that would be an act of
war.
Taiwan would be justified if her response were to make it hard to ship
oil into China or good out..
Jeffrey Hamilton
eckshully, PaPaPeng is a *communist dupe* I believe.
I haven't quite figured out where this Ocean fellow is coming from yet. So
I'll read a few more of his post's before I decide if the *killfile* is
necessary.
cheers.....Jeff
Jeffrey Hamilton
Well since you brought up Tibet, why exactly is China in Tibet ?
What was the rational for invading Tibet anyway ?
I personally didn't feel China was ready for primetime yet anyway. The
olympics and such, but of course *big business* just see's $$$$ whenever
they think of 1.3 billion people. So freedom and people's rights are the
casualty and that is unfortunate indeed.
cheers....Jeff
Ray O'Hara
> In article <ft8bbh$dll$1...@registered.motzarella.org>,
> willia...@hotmail.co.uk says...
> >
> > "tankfixer" <paul.c...@us.kat.army.mil> wrote in message
> > news:MPG.226147fd5...@nntp.earthlink.net...
> > > In article <pl8ev35t7hms9av9b...@4ax.com>,
> > > PaPa...@yahoo.com says...
> >
> soon.
i agree, the party will be gone sooner than later.
tianamen sq is still there below the surface.
any military adventure will big losses would not go over well.
William Black
"Jeffrey Hamilton" <bbere...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
news:av_Jj.46815$dA2....@read2.cgocable.net...
> eckshully, PaPaPeng is a *communist dupe* I believe.
> I haven't quite figured out where this Ocean fellow is coming from yet. So
> I'll read a few more of his post's before I decide if the *killfile* is
> necessary.
Believes that the Jews run America, believes that China is invulnerable,
if he also thinks Iraq was a crime done in support of Israel he's somewhere
to the right of the Cato Institute.
That's David Duke/Institute of Historical Review country, the deeply odd
people...
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
Jack Linthicum
wrote:
> "Jeffrey Hamilton" <bberesf...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
But the heart of a now disconnected base of the Republican party,
wandering in the wilderness with a bunch of "ustabes" in "command".
Moses (Charlton Heston) is dead!
Don Ocean
Your an idiot Jeffrey, So ..Please do kill file me.. Your not ready for
honest assessment of China. Maybe you should ask PapaPeng about the
Kuemoi/Matsu (sic) invasion attempt 1958. Harry Truman about shit his
pants when China sent troops into Korea circa 1950-51. China will do
warfare over what it considers its legacy. Korea had a thousand year
protection pact with China. Vietnam,Cambodia,Thailand were all once part
of China and did also have a pact with China. Except they warred among
themselves and filed to aid China during the Dynasty wars. You did note
how very carefully we avoided getting too close to China's borders
during the Vietnam conflict. Didn't you Jew boi's steal American
submarine propeller technology and sell it to Russia and China? Thats a
fact...Huh? ;-p
>
>
Don Ocean
> "Jeffrey Hamilton" <bbere...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
> news:av_Jj.46815$dA2....@read2.cgocable.net...
>
>> eckshully, PaPaPeng is a *communist dupe* I believe. I haven't
>> quite figured out where this Ocean fellow is coming from yet. So
>> I'll read a few more of his post's before I decide if the
>> *killfile* is necessary.
>
> Believes that the Jews run America, believes that China is
> invulnerable, if he also thinks Iraq was a crime done in support of
> Israel he's somewhere to the right of the Cato Institute.
Damned! PapaPeng is right on all counts.. And your a Propagandist for
AntiAmerican ZionisNazi's! ;-p All I read of his posts was factual.
Obviously your a fool that cannot face hard cold facts and would get
good men killed by being so foolish.
As for David Duke.. Most of us have only heard bits and pieces about him
and have no actual knowledge of him. But from your radical antiAmerica
babble.. Maybe he is your opposite and a real American.
>
Don Ocean
> In article <65qib6F...@mid.individual.net>, oc...@amerion.com
> says...
>> tankfixer wrote:
>>> In article <46a01c1f-3062-4717-b6fe-4377b22e1019@
>>> 24g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, d12s...@gmail.com says...
>>>
>>>
>>>>> submarines aren't too useful for capturing land masses.
>>>> Submarines are really really useful for blockade, especially against a
>>>> tiny island whose lifeline depends on trade. Also as the article
>>>> mentioned, submarines are useful in term of making America thinking
>>>> twice between intervening and making any intervening forces much more
>>>> cautious than normally would be. With its foreign trade cut off and
>>>> much less hope of getting help from America, how long do you think
>>>> Taiwan can stand on her own feet even if we assumes no direct military
>>>> assault from China takes place?
>>> How long would the government in China last without any trade ?
>>> Or oil...
>>> Blockades can work both ways
>> That would require open warfare.. We blockaded Japan in 1940 and
>> recieved Pearl Harbor in return.. Nice..Huh?
>
> The US did not blockade Japan in 1940 or 1941...
That was a typo.. The word was to be *Embargo* And it was oil
specifically. Perhaps you should read the transcripts of the
Japanese/American negotiations that broke down on December 5th 1941.
>
> But you are correct, if China blockaded Taiwan that would be an act of
> war.
> Taiwan would be justified if her response were to make it hard to ship
> oil into China or good out..
Taiwan is in Range of hundreds of 19 " Krupp Naval cannon in fixed
positions. The only thing that has kept Taiwan intact is the fact that
China considers them wayward and will eventually return to the fold ...
And the American Fleet that has patrolled those straights for as long as
I can remember. Taiwan is a string of Islands... Some are only inhabited
by Sentry posts. The military might of Taiwan is extremely limited.
tankfixer
mary.p...@rcn.com says...
>
> "tankfixer" <paul.c...@us.kat.army.mil> wrote in message
> news:MPG.22618b857...@nntp.earthlink.net...
> > In article <ft8bbh$dll$1...@registered.motzarella.org>,
> > willia...@hotmail.co.uk says...
> > >
> > > "tankfixer" <paul.c...@us.kat.army.mil> wrote in message
> > > news:MPG.226147fd5...@nntp.earthlink.net...
> > > > In article <pl8ev35t7hms9av9b...@4ax.com>,
> > > > PaPa...@yahoo.com says...
> > >
> >> I truely believe the government in Beijing is in for a rude suprise
> > soon.
>
>
> i agree, the party will be gone sooner than later.
> tianamen sq is still there below the surface.
> any military adventure will big losses would not go over well.
Tibet was the end of the fuse.
And it has been lit.
August may be a very interesting month this year.
tankfixer
It was oil and steel.
And I have read them, a number of times.
Japan was not going to give up her dreams of an empire in Asia.
>
> >
> > But you are correct, if China blockaded Taiwan that would be an act of
> > war.
> > Taiwan would be justified if her response were to make it hard to ship
> > oil into China or good out..
>
> Taiwan is in Range of hundreds of 19 " Krupp Naval cannon in fixed
> positions. The only thing that has kept Taiwan intact is the fact that
> China considers them wayward and will eventually return to the fold ...
> And the American Fleet that has patrolled those straights for as long as
> I can remember. Taiwan is a string of Islands... Some are only inhabited
> by Sentry posts. The military might of Taiwan is extremely limited.
19inch Krup Naval Cannon ?
Did we wander into alt.history.whatif ?
Taiwan is a large island well offshore with a few smaller associated
islands very near the mainland.
Get thee a map
tankfixer
bbere...@cogeco.ca says...
Yes, that would be a more correct term for our friend PaPaPeng.
He will go far in party leadership, once he comes of age and actually
goes to China.
> I haven't quite figured out where this Ocean fellow is coming from yet. So
> I'll read a few more of his post's before I decide if the *killfile* is
> necessary.
He wavers between lucid though and broken and stupid giberish.
tankfixer
says...
Go back to ironing your Brown shirt son.
tankfixer
says...
> Korea had a thousand year protection pact with China.
> Vietnam,Cambodia,Thailand were all once part
> of China and did also have a pact with China.
And all gained their freedom.
There is no love lost on the Chinese in any of those countries.
Jeffrey Hamilton
"William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fta87h$80g$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
Hi William. yep I had forgotten about another thread where he went off on an
anti-Jewish diatribe and when I questioned him on it, he basically accused
me of being a closet-Jew.
He states he's a Swiss-American, obviously very, very Germanic/Swiss !
Oh well, I've introduced him to my *killfile* and long may he enjoy it.
cheers Jeff
Jeffrey Hamilton
"Jack Linthicum" <jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:fcf57ce3-3385-41f9...@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
I guess they'll now be able to pry that gun, out of his dead fingers.
cheers....Jeff
PaPaPeng
<willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"Jeffrey Hamilton" <bbere...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
>news:av_Jj.46815$dA2....@read2.cgocable.net...
>
>> eckshully, PaPaPeng is a *communist dupe* I believe.
>> I haven't quite figured out where this Ocean fellow is coming from yet. So
>> I'll read a few more of his post's before I decide if the *killfile* is
>> necessary.
Jeff. You don't have to agree with me on anything. But if you read
my stuff there will be enough facts that will gnaw at your ability to
maintain a pure as driven snow attitude on war with China or any other
country. That's good enough. You are cannon fodder and don't need to
think much.
>
>Believes that the Jews run America, believes that China is invulnerable,
>if he also thinks Iraq was a crime done in support of Israel he's somewhere
>to the right of the Cato Institute.
>
>That's David Duke/Institute of Historical Review country, the deeply odd
>people...
Wee Wille. That's one of the weakest rebuttals any one can give. All
you have done is confess your personal hangups. That's the same as
firing blanks. What you say adds nothing to the body of opinions on
how a major conflict can happen and how that conflict can be resolved
by force of arms or through diplomacy.
The only point worth arguing in this time and day is can any country
including the US do another Iraq '03? I'd like to hear from you and
the likes of tankfixer the circumstances where the US will go to war
with China or Iran or any other mid sized country over the next decade
or two. Embargo China? Over What? Without this premise for conflict
everything else about military hardware and tactics is moot.
The best any American rightwinger came up with was to protect
democracy and preserve independence for Taiwan. "Democracy for Iraq"
trashed the first premise for good. The recent elections in Taiwan
trashed the second premise for God fearing clean living Americans
defending Independence for Taiwan. So now the US is left with a dozen
supercarriers to do anti-piracy and disaster relief work. That is
unless the incoming US president thinks it a good idea to use Iraq as
a bomb dumping ground or to start another major war. Good luck.
Suffice to say these are not the defence issues China has to worry
about to any extent in the foreseeable future. China can continue to
build up military capability at her own measured pace and in harmony
with her evaluation of her defence needs. And just to spoil your day,
no Chinese aircraft carriers for that ridiculous fleet to fleet battle
so beloved by tankfixers.
As an ethnic Indian (and color neutral ethnic Britisher by your own
claim) you, Wee Willie, do have real anxiety problems with China. It
is also understandable that you wish to see the US humble China so
that India benefits by default. Do read up the background material
first in India’s China War by Neville Maxwell
http://www.centurychina.com/plaboard/uploads/1962war.htm .
J Nehru put India in an intractable strategic position by claiming and
occupying Chinese Tibetan territory. Read Maxwell. I don't have the
time to go over the same arguments on the claims by both India and
China. But note this. India has prohibited the opening for
settlement by desperate land hungry Indians the disputed territories.
This is tacit recognition that there will be a day of reckoning and a
(hypothetical) large Indian population in Arunachal Pradesh will be a
nightmare impossible for any Indian government to resolve.
Then we come back to this submarine thingy. The USN submarine force
is based on boomers, to launch SLBM in case of a nuclear war. They
operate in open ocean in deep waters. They operate alone and avoid
contact with other vessels, submerged or afloat. They cannot hold
station to enforce a shipping embargo. The other half of the USN sub
force is attack submarines. These are large fast submarines whose
design mission is to hunt enemy boomers and sink them before they can
launch their SLBMs. As I explained in my first post of a few days ago
these USN attack submarines are too large to operate in the shallow
continental shelf waters off China. The deepest depth is just around
twice the length of the attack submarine, meaning most of it is less
deep. A crash dive means promptly hitting the seabed with a bone
jarring thump. High speed escape creates surface waves that make the
sub easy to target. It is also a misuse of naval assets. Ergo you
don't have the assets for a submarine enforced shipping embargo
anywhere off China for something like the 200 miles breadth of the
continental shelf.
So what about International Waters? By this the implication is that
if the ship does not turn back or whatever the USN sub will sink it?
Well come back with arguments how this would not violate god knows how
many international laws and national laws then talk. Otherwise the
USN is committing common piracy.
Let's assume the USN will do it anyway, in deep international waters
where USN attack submarines can operate. Modern VLCCs are humongous.
They are also double hulled. It will take quite a number of torpedoes
to sink one if that is at all possible. Crude doesn't burn easily.
The pollution it creates to countries not involved in the war needs to
be addressed. If it comes to this kind of slugging match I had posted
a month or more ago about arming VLCCs with mobile self contained
truck based missile systems lashed to the deck. These can take care
of surface and airborne attacks. There is more than enough deck space
to carry one or two ASW helicopters too. If the VLCC can be attacked
with torpedoes it is also within range for the sumbarine to be
attacked by ASW helicpters and by ship deck based ASW weapons. Don't
forget a VLCC isn't just going to turn turtle for some time yet no
matter how many torpedo hit it takes. Therefore the VLCC may be an
eventual loss but there is time to sink the sub as well. Its an
win-loss equation that sub attack aficionados should give some thought
to.
Jeffrey Hamilton
If the Tibetans are smart, they will continue to upstage China with small
but organized protests, about continued Chinese agression and occupation of
their country.
The atheletes of the world_will_speak out, especially if it (protests)
happens when the worlds eyes are on them in Beijing Olympics.
My advice to Tibetans is *be patient, be smart*.
cheers......Jeff
La N
It was rough seeing the recent issue of Maclean's Magazine in the
supermarket queue - a policeman wielding a club or machete or something,
ready to plonk it on a Tibetan buddhist's head in the street ...;(
- nil
La N
Heston was a bit of an enigma in his lifetime, having in his earlier years
been a part of the civil rights movement, marching with MLK et al. Anyway,
he was good in SOYLENT GREEN and looked pretty good in a toga in some other
movie ...;p
- nil
Richard Casady
>Crude doesn't burn easily.
Really? It varies from one oil field to another, but crude averages
25% gasoline.
Casady
PaPaPeng
<bbere...@cogeco.ca> wrote:
>
>Well since you brought up Tibet, why exactly is China in Tibet ?
>What was the rational for invading Tibet anyway ?
>I personally didn't feel China was ready for primetime yet anyway. The
>olympics and such, but of course *big business* just see's $$$$ whenever
>they think of 1.3 billion people. So freedom and people's rights are the
>casualty and that is unfortunate indeed.
>
> cheers....Jeff
>
First I didn't bring up Tibet. It has nothing to do with submarine
warfare under discussion. But it does give me a platform to educate
my readers about Tibet issues so I take some trouble to do so.
Whenever one of my detractors is at a loss for factual rebuttals he
brings up Tibet, communism, democracy, human rights, Taiwan
Independence, etc. as a cheap way of implying "he's evil" into an
otherwise weak argument.
Well Tibet was incorporated into the Chinese Empire by the Yuan Mongol
Dynasty (1271-1368). This event preceeds the English settlement of
North America in the 1600s by more than 200 years. Since the 1370s
Tibet had local autonomy to a greater or lesser degree over the
centuries. But at no time did Tibet ever function as an independent
state with its own tax collection authority, national army, diplomatic
corps and other instruments of state. The Dalai Lama's insurrection
in the 1950s was therefore a clearcut rebellion that any central
government would be compelled to put down.
Now the DL is of high enough rank that even if captured he could not
be executed or ill treated. Such a dignitary would have been put
under house arrest and eventually rehabilated politically and allowed
to resume his role as head of the Tibetan Buddhist establishment.
But the DL escaped to India and for 30 years tried his best to refight
the war using Cold War antaginists to attack China. With Nixon's
visit to China CIA support was shut down (though not entirely.) By
the late 80s even he recognized that his (DL's) cause was lost and he
changed his tune. By then it was too late.
To the Chinese it is very obvious that depending on whom the DL is
speaking to he sings a different tune. But there is one consistent
theme. Everytime when a breakthrough for talks seems imminent the DL
will throw a wrench in the works. This wrench currently is his
refusal to say clearly in public that he does not support Tibet
Independence (he's acceeds to saying this) and does not support Taiwan
Independence (he remains adamantly silent on this.) To everyone else
in the world this refusal to make a clear statement on Taiwan
Independence seems a ridiculously minor point over which to hold up a
major resolution of the DL's return to Tibet.
Aah. But there is a method to this madness.
The DL knows that once he is back in Tibet what can he achieve? A few
months of utter happiness for his Tibetan followers then what? The
Tibetan Buddhist high lamas already established in Tibet aren't going
to roll over and let (DL) him lord over them. Other than a few
personal retainers the DL's "government in exile" certainly will not
be allowed into Tibet, not until the DL's presence have to be proved
harmless first anyway. The DL will have to find some modest
accommodations, not the Potola and not a major monastary. And worst
of all his return is no longer an international issue. His
moneymaking machine grinds to a halt. He cannot be greeted at the
equivalent of "Head of State" level as heads of states of countries he
visits now accord him. Diplomatic protocol disallows this. By
actually being allowed to return to Tibet this good life and the whole
road show disappears.
China is more than happy with this pantomine. The DL balks on this TI
issue and he stays outside Tibet. China gains nothing with his
return. The DL has nothing to offer China except uncertainty and
Tibetan instability. The DL is in good health and can keep this
charade up for another 20 years. That's perfectly acceptable. With
his passing the problem goes away.
PaPaPeng
Wishful thinking is the purview of Americans. GWB is the epitome of
this of this malady.
PaPaPeng
<bbere...@cogeco.ca> wrote:
>
>If the Tibetans are smart, they will continue to upstage China with small
>but organized protests, about continued Chinese agression and occupation of
>their country.
Don't bet on it. There is a very short attention span on any issue
that appears on front page. The Tibet issue has practically
disappeared from the news. Pelosi is the only politician rash enough
to rush to the Dalai Lama's side. She'll have reason to rue her
enthusiasm in the months to come.
>
>The atheletes of the world_will_speak out, especially if it (protests)
>happens when the worlds eyes are on them in Beijing Olympics.
This addresses your concern.
http://in.news.yahoo.com/indiaabroad/20080405/r_t_ians_sp/tsp-stay-away-from-beijing-olympics-says-6ecd056.html
Stay away from Beijing Olympics, says global sports body
Sat, Apr 5 10:12 PM
Beijing, April 5 (Xinhua) Boycott has been taken out from our
dictionary long time ago and there will be no boycott in any Olympic
Games, said Association of National Olympic Committees (ANOC)
president Mario Vazquez Rana here Saturday.
'We say no to any boycott...that's our logo,' Rana told a news
conference before the opening of the 16th ANOC meeting, which will
focus on the preparation of Beijing Olympics starting Aug 18.
'If any politician pushes a boycott, he is making an error. That's for
the benefit of our athletes, we oppose any boycott not only in Beijing
but also all Olympic Games,' he said.
'As far as we know, every athlete is eager to participate in the games
and the opening ceremony, ' he added.
'We want our athletes to have the greatest freedom of expression but
that should be under the rules of the Olympic Charter.'
Rana also disclosed that there are at least 200 items on the ANOC's
meeting agenda. The meeting will start Monday and end Wednesday.
ANOC affiliates the national Olympic committees (NOCs) recognised by
the International Olympic Committee (IOC). There are 205 NOCs to date,
according to ANOC's official website.
In Singapore, IOC president Jacques Rogge voiced his satisfaction with
China's preparations for the Games.
'We are happy with the preparations in Beijing. We just had the visit
to Beijing by the IOC Coordination Commission for the Beijing 2008
Olympic Games led by Hein Verbruggen,' he said.
'We now just have 127 or 128 days before the beginning of the Beijing
Olympic Games, and we are pleased for what the Beijing Organising
Committee has done.'
Rogge stressed that the Beijing Games will be one of the best in the
world and the IOC does not support the idea by someone to boycott
them.
Earlier in the day, Rogge also said at a dialogue session at a local
junior college that the air pollution in the Chinese capital presents
no danger to the health of athletes competing in the August Olympics.
Rogge, who arrived here Friday night on a three-day visit to check on
how the state is preparing for the inaugural Youth Olympic Games in
2010, also witnessed with Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong a
signing ceremony for the host city contract.
>
>My advice to Tibetans is *be patient, be smart*.
Good advice. I love anyone, Tibetan riffraff included, who's smart
and patient.
>
> cheers......Jeff
>
Dean A. Markley
and do operate in littoral waters. And as for an embargo (do you mean
blockade?), subs would not enforce it unless rules of engagement
specifically said they could fire. There's also a possibility they
could lay mines. As for your VLCC comments, that just shows ignorance
of tactical situations. Such a VLCC armed with a few SAMs or even helos
is useless without the ability to detect an attacker. My bet would be a
spread of MK48 torpedoes would explode under the keel of said VLCC and
crack it in half.
Dean
Dean A. Markley
that you are not just an illiterate but a racist illiterate to boot.
Welcome to the killfile.
John Mianowski
...
> My bet would be a spread of MK48 torpedoes would explode under the keel of said VLCC and
> crack it in half.
...& a pretty small spread, at that.
JM
PaPaPeng
wrote:
>
>It was rough seeing the recent issue of Maclean's Magazine in the
>supermarket queue - a policeman wielding a club or machete or something,
>ready to plonk it on a Tibetan buddhist's head in the street ...;(
>
>- nil
>
Haven't seen the MacClean's mag photo. But if its anything like the
blue camo uniform shown on this link
[Nepalese police clashed with protesters in Kathmandu, Nepal, on
Friday during a rally against Chinese actions in Tibet
http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2008/03/14/world/20080314-TIBET_4.html]
they are NEPALESE police, not Chinese.
I had been on the lookout for riot photos to see what actually
happened in Lhasa and so far found nothing to suggest that the Chinese
police over reacted. Don't forget every foreign visitor to China,
including those in Lhasa, have digital cameras and cellphone cameras
that can capture scenes out of any possible means of censorship by
Chinese authorities. Digital photos and videos can be transmitted
immediately anywhere in the world and be published in mainstream
media within hours. If you have come across such sources do post them
to prove your point.
Do watch this MSNBC video closely.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23632331#23632331
The announcer keeps referring to events in Tibet. But the caption
says the video was taken in Dehra, India. The uniforms and ethnicity
of the police there are clearly Indian. Yet in many news magazines
and TV news broadcasts use these photos, taken a day before riots
happened in Lhasa, as from inside Lhasa. Quite a few editors had also
cropped these photos from Nepal and from India to eliminate youthful
male rioters massing to cause mayhem, and of course any reference to
the photos and video grabs as being from outside China. A number of
news media were made to apologise misattribution. But to the general
non Chinese public the image of them being in Tibet is of course
already etched in acid.
Its more than a week now, enough breathing space for the unvarished
facts to be presented. Prove your point.
William Black
"PaPaPeng" <PaPa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:549iv31sb688rk8gn...@4ax.com...
> I had been on the lookout for riot photos to see what actually
> happened in Lhasa and so far found nothing to suggest that the Chinese
> police over reacted.
Over eighty are dead...
No dead cops so far...
How many do they have to kill before it's 'over reacting'?
William Black
> The only point worth arguing in this time and day is can any country
> including the US do another Iraq '03? I'd like to hear from you and
> the likes of tankfixer the circumstances where the US will go to war
> with China or Iran or any other mid sized country over the next decade
> or two. Embargo China? Over What? Without this premise for conflict
> everything else about military hardware and tactics is moot.
I don't think they would.
I would like to think that the system in China will destroy ityself through
its own contradictions reasonably quickly.
China's problem is that they're growing a generation of people whoa re rich
through their own actions and are self employed and not employed directly by
the crooked clique who run the 'private industry' there.
That means that they're outside the control of the central committee.
In time these rich people will destroy the current system, because it's in
the interests of their children to do so and they have the spare reources
to do so as well.
> J Nehru put India in an intractable strategic position by claiming and
> occupying Chinese Tibetan territory.
I have news.
Nehru is dead, and has been for some considerable time...
<bollocks about submarine blockades snipped, people don't do blockades with
submarines>
> If it comes to this kind of slugging match I had posted
> a month or more ago about arming VLCCs with mobile self contained
> truck based missile systems lashed to the deck. These can take care
> of surface and airborne attacks. There is more than enough deck space
> to carry one or two ASW helicopters too.
Still insane then...
Tankers cannot fight.
In wartime what they do if they get involved in surface combat is...
Sink...
William Black
> Well Tibet was incorporated into the Chinese Empire by the Yuan Mongol
> Dynasty (1271-1368). This event preceeds the English settlement of
> North America in the 1600s by more than 200 years. Since the 1370s
> Tibet had local autonomy to a greater or lesser degree over the
> centuries. But at no time did Tibet ever function as an independent
> state with its own tax collection authority, national army, diplomatic
> corps and other instruments of state. The Dalai Lama's insurrection
> in the 1950s was therefore a clearcut rebellion that any central
> government would be compelled to put down.
What about from 1919 to 1951?
The reality is that Tibet has about as much right to autonomy as Poland,
and for exactly the same reasons...
> Such a dignitary would have been put
> under house arrest and eventually rehabilated politically and allowed
> to resume his role as head of the Tibetan Buddhist establishment.
Is that sentence as chilling as it sounds to me?
> China is more than happy with this pantomine.
China is deeply embarrassed by the whole issue and wishes everyone would
shut up.
I thought the performance in London today was masterful.
The police reduced the torch procession to a sort of moving multi layer
cordon that looked ridiculous.
The senior cops being interviewed later could almost not stop giggling about
it.
The whole thing was reduced to farce, complete with the Chinese ambassador
being forced to turn up in secret and only run through Chinatown...
tankfixer
willia...@hotmail.co.uk says...
>
> "PaPaPeng" <PaPa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:549iv31sb688rk8gn...@4ax.com...
>
> > I had been on the lookout for riot photos to see what actually
> > happened in Lhasa and so far found nothing to suggest that the Chinese
> > police over reacted.
>
> Over eighty are dead...
>
> No dead cops so far...
>
> How many do they have to kill before it's 'over reacting'?
>
He acts like the Chinese government isn't controlling all th einternet
outlets from the country and searching any tourist who leave...
tankfixer
willia...@hotmail.co.uk says...
>
> "PaPaPeng" <PaPa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:neshv3p5iuvtf24vd...@4ax.com...
>
> > The only point worth arguing in this time and day is can any country
> > including the US do another Iraq '03? I'd like to hear from you and
> > the likes of tankfixer the circumstances where the US will go to war
> > with China or Iran or any other mid sized country over the next decade
> > or two. Embargo China? Over What? Without this premise for conflict
> > everything else about military hardware and tactics is moot.
>
> I don't think they would.
>
> I would like to think that the system in China will destroy ityself through
> its own contradictions reasonably quickly.
I must agree with you here William.
Tibet is but the most recent sign of unrest in China.
>
> China's problem is that they're growing a generation of people whoa re rich
> through their own actions and are self employed and not employed directly by
> the crooked clique who run the 'private industry' there.
>
> That means that they're outside the control of the central committee.
>
> In time these rich people will destroy the current system, because it's in
> the interests of their children to do so and they have the spare reources
> to do so as well.
It will start in the cities more open to the west, the shipping centers.
>
> > J Nehru put India in an intractable strategic position by claiming and
> > occupying Chinese Tibetan territory.
>
> I have news.
>
> Nehru is dead, and has been for some considerable time...
And IIRC it was China hat initiated hostilities....
tankfixer
willia...@hotmail.co.uk says...
>
> "PaPaPeng" <PaPa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:5a4iv39ss0hvuq637...@4ax.com...
>
> > Well Tibet was incorporated into the Chinese Empire by the Yuan Mongol
> > Dynasty (1271-1368). This event preceeds the English settlement of
> > North America in the 1600s by more than 200 years. Since the 1370s
> > Tibet had local autonomy to a greater or lesser degree over the
> > centuries. But at no time did Tibet ever function as an independent
> > state with its own tax collection authority, national army, diplomatic
> > corps and other instruments of state. The Dalai Lama's insurrection
> > in the 1950s was therefore a clearcut rebellion that any central
> > government would be compelled to put down.
>
> What about from 1919 to 1951?
>
> The reality is that Tibet has about as much right to autonomy as Poland,
> and for exactly the same reasons...
>
Amen
> > Such a dignitary would have been put
> > under house arrest and eventually rehabilated politically and allowed
> > to resume his role as head of the Tibetan Buddhist establishment.
>
> Is that sentence as chilling as it sounds to me?
There is much farming to be done in China....
tankfixer
PaPa...@yahoo.com says...
Yes and eastern Europe will never throw off it's communist master
peacefully either....
TMOliver
"tankfixer" <paul.c...@us.kat.army.mil> wrote ...
> , oc...@amerion.com says...
>> >>
>> Taiwan is in Range of hundreds of 19 " Krupp Naval cannon in fixed
>> positions. The only thing that has kept Taiwan intact is the fact that
>> China considers them wayward and will eventually return to the fold ...
>> And the American Fleet that has patrolled those straights for as long as
>> I can remember. Taiwan is a string of Islands... Some are only inhabited
>> by Sentry posts. The military might of Taiwan is extremely limited.
>
> 19inch Krup Naval Cannon ?
>
> Did we wander into alt.history.whatif ?
>
> Taiwan is a large island well offshore with a few smaller associated
> islands very near the mainland.
> Get thee a map
>
It appears that "ocean" has slipped his cable and cast off any contact with
reality he might have earlier possessed (unlikely given the flow of maudlin
swill from his cardboard tower swathed in Charmin-soft headed illogic).
"19 inch Krupp Naval Cannon" rings a particular psychotropic note on the
(im)balance scale, where dan has been teetering on the edge, and has finally
simply fallen off into the void.
I do hope the folks at Krupp are able to effectively market those tubes.
After all, even the heathen Chinee have backed away from coast artillery
(although they did once have a number of ex-Us Army 105s, left behind by the
Kuomintang when the Generalissimo and his followers departed for Formosa,
emplaced and in action shelling Quemoy and Matsu).
TMO
PaPaPeng
<deanm...@comcast.net> wrote:
>You don't know much about submarines and torpedoes do you? USN subs can
>and do operate in littoral waters.
Sure you can. The real question is, "Are you willing to take the
loss of an attack sub in exchange for a (Chinese) cargo ship or two?"
Once you explode a torpedo against one your presence and location is
known. Do expect to be attacked in return by shore based defenses
within the half hour. There is nowhere a submarine can go in one
hour that cannot be intercepted by an aircraft or surface warship and
be sunk in return. That littoral depth limits the options your sub
has to escape detection and interception. Forget about Hollywood
style sub vs. sub heroics.
Then there is this equation. A VLCC has a crew of only a dozen souls.
Most will likely survive a hit. The ship and cargo is easily
replaceable. China will have the world's largest shipbuilding
capacity by 2010. Now is no small potatoes either. Can your sub and
its crew be replaced as easily?
One more teaser. Lose one in Chinese waters and I am sure China will
be more than delighted to recover that sub and return all found bodies
for the fancy military funerals you are so good at. China gets to
keep the sub though.
I left this point out in my earlier post on VLCCs. The VLCC double
hull will likely be the equivalent of space armor in a tank. It will
take the torpedo hit and explode that with or without breaching the
inner hull. There isn't enough kinetic energy in a torpedo to breach
the outer hull first before exploding inside the crude cargo. Someone
more knowledgeable about naval architecture may want to take this up.
Yep. Your spread of torpedoes may well break the back of the VLCC,
etc. But no spectacular broken back ship rising in a column of water
(too damn heavy.) As postulated earlier, enough of the ship remains
afloat to launch countermeasures before going down. Yep. It will be
interesting to test our theories with a real fully loaded VLCC.
>And as for an embargo (do you mean
>blockade?), subs would not enforce it unless rules of engagement
>specifically said they could fire. There's also a possibility they
>could lay mines. As for your VLCC comments, that just shows ignorance
>of tactical situations. Such a VLCC armed with a few SAMs or even helos
>is useless without the ability to detect an attacker. My bet would be a
>spread of MK48 torpedoes would explode under the keel of said VLCC and
>crack it in half.
>
>Dean
A VLCC's mission is to carry cargo safely to its destination. The VLCC
has no business seeking combat. It can't anyway. At cruising speed
(27.5 knots) it can only travel in a straight line and a turn takes
miles and lots of time to execute. In the kind of blockade scenario
you envision the ability to plough through that blockade and deliver
the cargo is the requirement. That's where shipboard defenses come in.
On this more later.
Your conventional solution to protect this cargo would be to provide a
naval escort. That will require naval ships and personnel plus all
the naval supporting and base facilities. That means symmetrical
global naval assets and facilities to mirror US overseas bases.
Not on your life. We don't need a 21st century version of the Cold
War. The conventional navy based solution costs too much in money,
materiel and in manpower. No sane government wants a Chinese base
that will be magnets for US bombs in a conflict. They are of dubious
value anyway as the chances are these money black hole facilities will
never be used in a war that won't happen. Even contemplating such a
naval build up will send alarm signals to the US, to India and to many
other countries. Still China is building two overseas facilities now,
one at Gwandar, Pakistan and another in Myanmar. These serve more as
terminal ports for overland energy pipelines into western and south
western China. They secondarily serve as naval ports of call, not
bases. This modest naval capability is to counter nuisances like
piracy, India or some other small navy that might think it profitable
to hinder Chinese ships in the absence of Chinese naval units. It is
not at all flattering to class India as a nuisance value. But this is
to address Wee Willie's boast that the INS is the third (or second?)
largest navy in the world and can blockade Chinese African-Gulf oil
shipments and mega container ships anytime.
So now we come back to shipboard defenses.
The likelihood of a USN blockade of Chinese shipping is infinitesimal.
So why expend effort and money on single use specialist equipment for
a practically non existent threat? But should the threat arise my
solution is a very cheap, effective and ultra quick way to provide
defensive capability to shipping. And if this cheapie solution
doesn't work try something else. It costs peanuts to implement and to
undo. It is certainly a lot better than sail an unarmed ship and
thereby encourage the US to make uncalled for threats.
The land based self contained mobile missile systems include both
antiaircraft and anti-ship systems. All that stuff needs is a company
sized contingent to man them. The VLCC doesn't need to seek combat.
The attacker will come to the ship. The VLCC doesn't need fancy
sensors to locate the enemy. The enemy has to come within its own
attack sensors and weapons range. A shipboard truck (or tracked
vehicle) mounted sensor and missiles can outrange the airborne ones
any day of the week seeing that they are designed to protect an
armored column from sneak attacks. Similarly, if attacked by an over
the horizon anti-ship missile, the VLCC can return the compliment to
where that missile came from. Does the enemy (you) want to risk the
loss of or damage to a high cost naval asset to sink a low cost one
for one? Not likely.
Now this is all conjecture. But it will give you enough pause for
thought whether you (the US) can just threaten death and destruction
that cavalierly. If you can't then I have won the argument. The
important point is China will not be provoked into an arms race to
meet every threat however unlikely. (On the other hand we are quite
happy to see you spend your country into bankruptcy on weapons system
that will never be used. Reagan did that to Gorbachev. You are doing
it all by yourself this time round.)
One last kicker. There are already land pipelines from Russia and
Central Asian oilfields and gas fields into China that are out of
reach of US arms. More are already under construction. A shipping
blockade will not be able to strangle China.
The US has already entered into a recession that is expected to worsen
in the coming months and will last at least two years. It is the
economic equivalent of a shipping blockade. If you read wider you
will find articles saying that Asia, with China as the focal economy,
will survive this recession with relatively light damage. The key
phrase is "Decoupled Economy" meaning Asia's economic growth is no
longer dependent on the US economy. The coming months will be a good
test of what a proposed US blockade can do to China.
======================
>There's also a possibility they could lay mines.
I was hoping this issue would come up as introducing it myself would
break up the flow of whatever argument I was making.
This is the armchair admiral speaking. The problem is how to defend
China's vast coastal waters effectively and of course very cheaply and
pronto in times of hostile tensions. It should use existing equipment
to avoid costly R&D, lead times, manufacturing costs and of course
stocking costs for equipment that has no other use except go bang in
the highly unlikely event of a threatened war.
My solution is to seed the costal waters with anchored submerged
standard shipping containers. These are large enough that no ship and
no submarine can ignore even a single one. Even an empty container or
cable can do serious damage to a propeller or a sub's control surface.
There is more than enough volume in a container to house underwater
sensors, decoy signals generators, anti-sub spooks, etc. Of course
arming a few with explosives makes them even more compelling as a
deterrent. For a hostile sub to detect and avoid each and every
container makes nonsense of any submerged mission in the container
minefield.
There must be gadzillions of containers in China at any one time. If
more is needed, at $5000 a pop, they're small change. The new M/V
Emma Mærsk they can carry up to 15,200 containers. We can therefore
estimate that an average modern containership can load up 12,000
containers, usually within three days, and just dump them overboard in
less time to seed the minefield. Four to five ships should be more
than enough to set up the minefield in a few days to protect all
Chinese waters.
The container minefield need not even be dense or secret. All it
needs is to create a nautical slalom course that an enemy submarine or
carrier group wouldn't even think of trying to breach. The China
littoral zone minefield will enable PLAN ships to maneuver where no
enemy ship will dare follow. To facilitate normal shipping China can
lay an obstacle free shipping channel within range of shore based
artillery and missile defenses without compromising naval security.
Since the PLAN will know which container is armed with explosives and
which are neutral clearing the mines once the crisis is over will be
easy. The idea is not to sink ships. The idea is to neutralize the
enemy aka the USN submarine force or the carrier group from blockading
Chinese waters.
I like it. Give it your best shot to shoot it down.
PaPaPeng
<willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>I would like to think that the system in China will destroy ityself through
>its own contradictions reasonably quickly.
>
>China's problem is that they're growing a generation of people whoa re rich
>through their own actions and are self employed and not employed directly by
>the crooked clique who run the 'private industry' there.
>
>That means that they're outside the control of the central committee.
>
>In time these rich people will destroy the current system, because it's in
>the interests of their children to do so and they have the spare reources
>to do so as well.
Compared with the mess in India and in the G7 countries you are
welcome to bask in your dream world and we in ours. In the end all
that matters is how happy we are in our everyday lives.
Richard Casady
>A VLCC's mission is to carry cargo safely to its destination. The VLCC
>has no business seeking combat. It can't anyway. At cruising speed
>(27.5 knots) it can only travel in a straight line and a turn takes
You misspelled 15 kts. Container ships are faster. The largest marine
engine is just under 100 000 HP and they use them in both tankers and
boxboats. Tankers are bigger and slower.
Casady
tankfixer
tmoliv...@hot.rr.comFIX says...
>
> "tankfixer" <paul.c...@us.kat.army.mil> wrote ...
>
> > , oc...@amerion.com says...
> >> >>
> >> Taiwan is in Range of hundreds of 19 " Krupp Naval cannon in fixed
> >> positions. The only thing that has kept Taiwan intact is the fact that
> >> China considers them wayward and will eventually return to the fold ...
> >> And the American Fleet that has patrolled those straights for as long as
> >> I can remember. Taiwan is a string of Islands... Some are only inhabited
> >> by Sentry posts. The military might of Taiwan is extremely limited.
> >
> > 19inch Krup Naval Cannon ?
> >
> > Did we wander into alt.history.whatif ?
> >
> > Taiwan is a large island well offshore with a few smaller associated
> > islands very near the mainland.
> > Get thee a map
> >
> It appears that "ocean" has slipped his cable and cast off any contact with
> reality he might have earlier possessed (unlikely given the flow of maudlin
> swill from his cardboard tower swathed in Charmin-soft headed illogic).
Is that a nice way to say he is all wet.....
>
> "19 inch Krupp Naval Cannon" rings a particular psychotropic note on the
> (im)balance scale, where dan has been teetering on the edge, and has finally
> simply fallen off into the void.
It's entirely possible Krupp built such a cannon, in 1890 or so...
This is more than likely what he is thinking of...
http://www.7is7.com/otto/travel/photos/20041205/xiamen_kruppcannon.html
Looks a bit long in the tooth though.
tankfixer
PaPa...@yahoo.com says...
> Do expect to be attacked in return by shore based defenses
> within the half hour.
>
What shore based defenses ?
Jeffrey Hamilton
"La N" <nilita20...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vt8Kj.18432$9X3.8017@edtnps82...
>
> "Jeffrey Hamilton" <bbere...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
> news:Tb8Kj.50407$612....@read1.cgocable.net...
>>
>> "Jack Linthicum" <jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:fcf57ce3-3385-41f9...@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Apr 6, 6:21 am, "William Black" <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>> "Jeffrey Hamilton" <bberesf...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> news:av_Jj.46815$dA2....@read2.cgocable.net...
>>>>
>>
>> I guess they'll now be able to pry that gun, out of his dead fingers.
>>
>> cheers....Jeff
>>
>
> Heston was a bit of an enigma in his lifetime, having in his earlier years
> been a part of the civil rights movement, marching with MLK et al.
> Anyway, he was good in SOYLENT GREEN and looked pretty good in a toga in
> some other movie ...;p
>
> - nil
raise over his head, the optics were all wrong.
cheers....Jeff
Jeffrey Hamilton
> On Sun, 6 Apr 2008 11:21:42 +0100, "William Black"
> <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Jeffrey Hamilton" <bbere...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
>>
>>> eckshully, PaPaPeng is a *communist dupe* I believe.
>>> I haven't quite figured out where this Ocean fellow is coming from yet.
>>> So
>>> I'll read a few more of his post's before I decide if the *killfile* is
>>> necessary.
>
Agreed. You certainly got that part right.
>But if you read
> my stuff there will be enough facts that will gnaw at your ability to
> maintain a pure as driven snow attitude on war with China or any other
> country. That's good enough. You are cannon fodder and don't need to
> think much.
Read some more history PaPaPeng.
Canadians are never cannon fodder, as a matter of fact they have a tendency
to turn the other guys troops into cannon fodder. They have done this with
great regularity throughout their history.
Check out what they did to the Chinese troops in Korea.
That is what you call cannon fodder.
cheers...Jeff
Jeffrey Hamilton
waiting for.
The athelete's will go to the Olympics but some for sure will speak out if
the atrocities in Tibet continue.
Don't you think it's about high time China got out of Tibet anyway ?
China will never be ready for primetime until she gets out of Tibet.
cheers....Jeff
Fred J. McCall
:
He's been corrected on this before, as well as many of the other
fantasy aspects of his 'system'.
It's really not worth the trouble to continue to do so. One just
continues to hope that the Chinese leadership is in better touch with
reality than our PingPowPoo...
--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine
Jeffrey Hamilton
> On Sun, 6 Apr 2008 03:07:13 -0400, "Jeffrey Hamilton"
> <bbere...@cogeco.ca> wrote:
>
>>
>>Well since you brought up Tibet, why exactly is China in Tibet ?
>>What was the rational for invading Tibet anyway ?
>>I personally didn't feel China was ready for primetime yet anyway. The
>>olympics and such, but of course *big business* just see's $$$$ whenever
>>they think of 1.3 billion people. So freedom and people's rights are the
>>casualty and that is unfortunate indeed.
>>
>> cheers....Jeff
>>
> First I didn't bring up Tibet. It has nothing to do with submarine
> warfare under discussion. But it does give me a platform to educate
> my readers about Tibet issues so I take some trouble to do so.
>
>>
> Dynasty (1271-1368).
Actually China and Tibet were incorporated into the Mongol empire but do
continue.
This event preceeds the English settlement of
> North America in the 1600s by more than 200 years.
Yeah so ?
>Since the 1370s
> Tibet had local autonomy to a greater or lesser degree over the
> centuries. But at no time did Tibet ever function as an independent
> state with its own tax collection authority, national army, diplomatic
> corps and other instruments of state.
According to wiki: Khubilai prohibited Mongols from marrying Chinese, but
left both the Chinese and Tibetan legal and administrative systems intact.
Tibet never adopted the Chinese system of exams nor Neo-Confucian policies.
> The Dalai Lama's insurrection
> in the 1950s was therefore a clearcut rebellion that any central
> government would be compelled to put down.
>
> Now the DL is of high enough rank that even if captured he could not
> be executed or ill treated. Such a dignitary would have been put
> under house arrest and eventually rehabilated politically and allowed
> to resume his role as head of the Tibetan Buddhist establishment.
>
Had they caught him they would have killed him, as sure as the sun also
rises.
Fifty years in exile still hasn't broken the Dalai Lamas will has it ?
Fascinating stuff, which is why China has to get out and get over it. China
needs to realize it isn't going to dominate other countries by force and
threats. Those days are over. The sooner China gets with the program, the
sooner it will be accepted within the world as a viable nation, but not
until.
cheers....Jeff
Jeffrey Hamilton
"William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ftbi8v$3fa$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
it. Losing face is a huge thing to the oriental mind. With enough pressure
they just might do the right thing and let this ancient land be it's own
country again.
cheers...Jeff
PaPaPeng
Yep. The PLA didn't have many heavy weapons or advanced arms then.
They had to fight with the tools they had and indeed the casualties
were extremely high. But they stopped the mighty US war machine on
its tracks and kept the UN-US forces below the 38th Parallel. Having
the DPRK as the buffer since 1953 is easily worth more than a 100 PLA
divisions on the ground. It kept the US from directly interfering on
Chinese soil when China was militarily weak. The lesson learned is
not to refight the last war. The lesson learned is that China must
develop its military capabilities so that it need not take such
casualties to fight the next war. I believe you will agree China has
already achieved this happy state of affairs.
As for the fighting spirit of Canadians Canada does indeed have some
of the best soldiers in the world. The fact remains Canadian armed
forces have no ability to decide anything in a general war in any
foreign land. My arguments in this newsgroup defaults to the fighting
abilities of US military forces who do and who are indeed the only
force that keeps real shooting wars going in the world.
Now before you jump in again to defend the US do read the latest Tom
Dispatch
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174915/ira_chernus_the_general_and_the_trap
as to where the US armed forces are in the scheme of things.
PaPaPeng
Thanks. It wasn't a mistake as I am aware that tanker speed is
slower. But I was focussed on container ships and missed this
difference entirely.
PaPaPeng
<bbere...@cogeco.ca> wrote:
>>
>> What about from 1919 to 1951?
>>
The DL was born in 1935. As a 4 year old (1939) he was recognized as
the reincarnation. He reigned from 1950 when he was aged 15
http://www.dalailama.com/page.14.htm. He fled Tibet in 1959 when he
was 24. The DL couldn't have formed any clear or firm ideas about
Tibet Independence in that period since his education must have been
religious and for the most part of that period he was a minor. He
was badly advised by his handlers to be the figurehead for the
rebellion against Beijing. The DL would have been unsophisticated and
quite unaware of the long term political consequences of his actions
and statements. But as a captive of his exhalted position he had to
maintain whatever public position his lama handlers advised him to.
Of course the DL is his own man now. But he cannot refute his past
positions. As said in my earlier post about there being a Method to
this Madness, both the DL and China are quite happy to continue the
charade.
Dalai Lamas can claim reincarnation. There has never been a case
where one claimed reverse reincarnation, least of all claim precedence
back to specifics like 1919. There was no such thing as an
independent Tibet then. Not even the current DL claims that Tibet was
independent back in 1919. He can't anyway as in the latest
incarnation (pun intended) of his Tibet policy demands Independence
has been renounced. So Jeff and like minded people. Can you quit
shoving your words and desires he had never uttered into the DL's
mouth.
>> The reality is that Tibet has about as much right to autonomy as Poland,
>> and for exactly the same reasons...
Well the UN and its members inclusve of the US, UK and Canada have
categorically accepted that Tibet is an integral part of China.
You'll have to resolve that diplomatic recognition first before
arguing that Tibet deserves to be independent. Of course if a
rebellion succeeds then TI becomes a fact. But a state of good
standing in the international community cannot actively support such a
rebellion to dismember a brother state. There's a lot of hypocrisy
going on and its not China's.
The next question is "Is there any hope of a Tibetan rebellion
succeeding?" Not a lama's prayer of a chance. And you and everyone
else know that. The only useful purpose your support for TI serves is
a lever with which to irritate China as there is little else with
leverage that you can use against China that won't also damage your
real interests and expose your hypocrisy. Well its an irritant that
China will have to bear with as responding to it will ensue far less
favorable consequences than ignoring the irritant. Nothing vital to
China is at stake. China is still whupping you where it matters.
PaPaPeng
<bbere...@cogeco.ca> wrote:
>
>Had they caught him they would have killed him, as sure as the sun also
>rises.
Nope. The commies didn't even execute captured Japanese although they
had far more reason to do so and had irrefutable proof of specific
Japanese atrocities. Above a certain rank even the enemies of the
CPC, high ranking members of the CPC who fell out of favor, were not
executed. Quite a few were killed by the Red Guards, but there was
never an execution order. The same with the Gang of Four who truly
deserved death for the chaos they caused. They died in jail of
natural causes.
PaPaPeng
Bet your bottom dollar. Tibet will be a forgotten issue in a month's
time. The only countries (attitudes) that matter to China and the US
and Russia. Russia is friendly for the foreseeable mid term. The US
is in disarray. Iraq of course and Bush is hoping nothing will
explode in his face so that he can sneak out quietly and leave the
problem for the next US President to handle. Stanger things have
happened. The once "no hope" MacCain is even leading in some polls
while the Democrats can't even come up with a suitable electoral
platform. MacCain wins by default.
>
>The athelete's will go to the Olympics but some for sure will speak out if
>the atrocities in Tibet continue.
Not a chance. The IOC and its affliates have said in no uncertain
terms that political activity by atheletes is banned in IOC venues.
Any athelete can of course say what he wants outside the IOC although
exactly what that was is not defined. If you qualify to represent
your country at the Olympics would you want to risk your whole
atheletic career to support a slogan that will ruin your career.
Don't forget no one remembers the name of a second place winner. A
sloganeer won't even make it past the entrance gate.
>
>Don't you think it's about high time China got out of Tibet anyway ?
If that makes you happy go ahead. I don't waste time on
impossibilities.
>
>China will never be ready for primetime until she gets out of Tibet.
Yeah. Like Liberace Chinese will go crying to the bank.
>
> cheers....Jeff
>
Andrew Swallow
[snip]
> Bet your bottom dollar. Tibet will be a forgotten issue in a month's
> time. The only countries (attitudes) that matter to China and the US
> and Russia.{snip}
The system does not work that way. If it did we would not be talking
about Tibet at the moment. The Tibetans will keep bring Tibet up.
There is one way of removing Tibet from the Western headlines,
cancel the Olympics. Everyday China will lose more face.
Andrew Swallow