It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is this the design of China's currently building aircraft carrier?

page: 3
9
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 22 2018 @ 12:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: muzzleflash

Again, OK, sure. I'm out.


Why is it such a big deal to hear a dissenting view, especially one that is good news for everyone if it was possible??

And it's just an assessment on China getting a new carrier, which is extremely likely to happen no matter what.

I'll put it in cave man terms - A carrier is a big giant penis, like the bishop in chess. But technology is funny, the biggest best penis might be a computer virus in tomorrow's battlefield. Which is funny because a biological virus is shaped like a bishop too.

A biological weapon.... Could be the penis to kill all penises, literally. We'd all get sick n die.

This carrier group can't be kept near Taiwan. Anytime it's anywhere near there or Korea/Japan it's a missile magnet.

It's great for the Chinese African colonies. I betcha it'll be seeing action over there to protect bases and colonies from locals random incidents.

They'll throw money around everywhere to win in Africa. They saw where we don't resist much.

There isn't even a political backlash against their African exploit. It's because we're imperialist too so it's super hypocritical and an easy bluff to call.

In 500 years Africa could be a mainly Han Chinese area. Earth could be mainly Han Chinese if they built a bioweapon that they were naturally immune to and none of the rest of us are.

Ahhhh..... Bioweapons.....
What a horrible possibility....

I'm glad they want the carrier. Throw money everywhere... Party, be rich n corrupt. That's acceptable when the alternative is WMD and MAD.

Will this carrier be a casino too? That'd be such an awesome vacation in 2029 lol.
edit on 6/22/2018 by muzzleflash because: Deleted an apostrophe.




posted on Jun, 22 2018 @ 12:05 AM
link   
Nvr mnd.
edit on 6/22/2018 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2018 @ 12:09 AM
link   
a reply to: muzzleflash

Bioweapons, in the modern era, have the massive potential to boomerang. And that'd suck.

Disagreeing isn't a problem. You'll find Zaph and I disagree on things. We just give each other some respect, acknowledge we can be wrong and sometimes just agree to disagree.



posted on Jun, 22 2018 @ 12:31 AM
link   
a strong economy means a strong military, keep buying their goods. I wonder who those ships will be facing off someday.



posted on Jun, 22 2018 @ 12:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: muzzleflash

I have no problem with dissenting opinions, as has been seen many times. I have issues with people that announce that they know better than the people that have access to far more data than they do, because they read a lot.


I didn't say that.

Data doesn't win by itself. Anyone could make a random guess and be right. Look at the Titanic, they actually did say it was unsinkable, lol.

Any guy with common sense on the street would likely agree that any ship we build can and eventually will break.

There's no reason to
1) Think my opinion and guessing is not equal to anyone else,

But there is a reason to
2) Tolerate a dissenting view that was perfectly respectful and friendly in delivery and rebut.


I do have fun arguing about it. It's really fun picking a theory and arguing for it.

I'm actually sorta terrified by how much yall are perturbed by me choosing to talk about a topic you loved (military stuff) with you (someone I've seen a thousand times).

What is it Zaphod. Is it classified top secret?
Is it because I'm a jackass half the time? Who isnt? I'm not mad at anyone. I'm pretty sure I somehow irked everyone and I honestly didn't see that coming and didn't mean to do that.

But if changing my opinion about the value of the ship is the requirement in a long list of required opinions, to win your respect than I'm not sure I'm up to the task.

I could pull rank and say since I'm formally trained in history, philosophy, science and debate; and henceforth have an expert opinion on the form of argument, specifically the part where you deviated to judging the messenger when you should be listening to the message, and that you were in error good Sir.

But did I do that? No, I don't think labelling a messenger and then letting that cloud the view of the the message, which was about a Chinese carrier of all things, is a proper way to find the truth.



posted on Jun, 22 2018 @ 12:43 AM
link   
a reply to: muzzleflash


I could pull rank and say since I'm formally trained in history, philosophy, science and debate; and henceforth have an expert opinion on the form of argument, specifically the part where you deviated to judging the messenger when you should be listening to the message, and that you were in error good Sir.


Pulling rank? Sir, you know not with whom you are speaking. Good night and thank you for the late night chuckle.



posted on Jun, 22 2018 @ 12:43 AM
link   
I don't wanna go to bed thinking I wasted all my time.

I wanted to go to bed thinking I had friends I could disagree with for fun conversation.



posted on Jun, 22 2018 @ 12:50 AM
link   
a reply to: muzzleflash

I'm a disagreeable ass all the time. You're good by me.



posted on Jun, 22 2018 @ 12:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: anzha
a reply to: muzzleflash


I could pull rank and say since I'm formally trained in history, philosophy, science and debate; and henceforth have an expert opinion on the form of argument, specifically the part where you deviated to judging the messenger when you should be listening to the message, and that you were in error good Sir.


Pulling rank? Sir, you know not with whom you are speaking. Good night and thank you for the late night chuckle.


Well yall made judgements on me and I said that rhetorically to make a point that everyone fancies their own opinion above all else, with irony and cynicism.

I agree that I have no idea who you are.

Do you know who I am? That would be Awkward.



posted on Jun, 22 2018 @ 12:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: muzzleflash

I'm a disagreeable ass all the time. You're good by me.


Heheh Thx!

I've been having fun too!



posted on Jun, 22 2018 @ 12:53 AM
link   
a reply to: muzzleflash
So what was the argument again? Ships can be sunk by missiles?



posted on Jun, 22 2018 @ 01:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: mightmight
a reply to: muzzleflash
So what was the argument again? Ships can be sunk by missiles?



Ships can just hit a rock the wrong way and flip over.

Oh and torpedoes.



posted on Jun, 22 2018 @ 03:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: CharlesT

originally posted by: muzzleflash
a reply to: anzha

I'm not sure building carrier fleets is China's best buy.

It just feels like a massive oversight and waste of resources.

I think more cheaper smaller vessels with the latest missile, drone, and electronics kits would give them twice the power for half the price.


One of these days, if not already, every carrier from every country will be as good as obsolete in a global conflict because of missile technology. They are a big red bulls eye floating around just waiting to be blown to hell by a ballistic or supersonic missile.


A hard to find big target that in the case of the American Super Carriers have surprising speed and evasive mounevring ability. Also I am a believer that drone swarm defenses can greatly extend the relevancy of CAGs. Just like tanks the carrier is going nowhere soon. But I’m also one of the “kooks” that thinks the 4 Iowa class battleships should be brought back into service...
edit on 6/22/2018 by BigDave-AR because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2018 @ 03:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: muzzleflash
Ok in 1979 China invaded North Vietnam, it was the Sino-Vietnamese War.

People always remark about how impressive China's ground forces are - but this short conflict shows the reality.

Yes China's Navy and Air Force stayed out of the conflict for the most part due to tensions with the Soviets and because the Vietnamese air defense was robust.

However if you look at the numbers, the Chinese armor got ripped up in guerilla ambushes and they were paying a heavy toll against the very experienced - well trained - battle hardened Vietnamese.

It ended in a near stalemate and China realized they weren't going to risk a protracted and costly conflict.


Chinese troops had less battle experience whereas the Vietnamese had been fighting France, themselves, the US and then themselves again.... and it was even worse since Vietnam was no longer split and the expierence of each side was folded into there already effective tactics against a singular invading force. If “half of Vietnam” could bring the US to a slog the whole country had a very good chance of blunting the Chinese advance.
edit on 6/22/2018 by BigDave-AR because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2018 @ 10:02 PM
link   
The Chinese just opened a tender for a nuclear powered ice breaker. Why is this pertinent?

The expectation is that they will follow, once the ice breaker is complete, with a nuclear powered aircraft carrier. Perhaps that will be the CV04 class.

china-defense.blogspot.com...



posted on Jun, 23 2018 @ 10:42 PM
link   
a reply to: muzzleflash


There's no reason to
1) Think my opinion and guessing is not equal to anyone else,


Come on dude, you certainly are entitled to voice your opinion, but others are equally entitled to disagree with it or dismiss it if it doesn't have an argument. Too often things like that are used as justification to say anything, no matter how absurd or lacking in evidence it is, and a random guess is certainly not the same as an educated guess.

No, you’re not entitled to your opinion

I think we need to shift to something more like "You are only entitled to what you can argue for.” That's one of the things that I live my life by.
edit on 23/6/18 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2018 @ 11:32 AM
link   
a reply to: C0bzz

I did argue a point but was dismissed as an "armchair general" by all the ranking real life generals posting in here.

That's a pretty offensive thing to call someone in order to dismiss their comments as worthless and denigrate their character.

Go back to page 1 and look at it.

Can't believe you're gonna defend an ad hominem attack by claiming I didn't argue anything.



posted on Jun, 24 2018 @ 12:01 PM
link   
a reply to: muzzleflash

May I make the suggestion that you don't mere assert, but provide data to back up your statements? Then when folks around here counter (and they quite possibly will) that you have your factual refutations ready. Rather than just restating your opinion.

We've had problems with people coming in and loudly beating their chests saying something over and over in the belief doing so will make it so.

Referring to folks as 'armchair generals' is, well, really, an ad hominem attack as well. I'm not a fan of doing such things and attempt not to. It can be hard and I do fail to live up to my own standards now and then.



posted on Jun, 24 2018 @ 02:09 PM
link   
a reply to: anzha

Data on what? Something that doesn't exist? I provided data on actual history to show that China isn't this unstoppable machine that people are so determined to believe it is.

I'm the skeptic here, remember that.



posted on Jun, 24 2018 @ 02:41 PM
link   
a reply to: muzzleflash

You are the skeptic. You're also the odd man out. Outsiders often come in and bombast about how they know oh-so-much, yet present little to nothing that is examinable. Stating something doesn't make it so.

There's plenty of data out there that may support your thesis. Or at least allow you to present it in a manner to be examined. Continuing to NOT present data you believe supports your thesis will get you labeled as a kook or a troll. Then be not worth engaging or, potentially, worth getting rid of.

I'd like to think you could be a potentially worthwhile member of the forum. I'd strongly suggest changing your tact.

You might say I'm...skeptical though. I've been online for nearly 30 years now. And let's just say all of this has happened before and all of this will happen again. The cycle rarely breaks.

Prove me wrong, good sir.




top topics



 
9
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join