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.

 

SCO Demands US And Its Allies To Name A Date To Leave Central Asia

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 05:36 PM
link   
China really has no reason to start a war with the US and every reason not to. If they want to win against the US all they have to do is wait. They have a HUGE population and a growing economy. I think WWIII will be fought between China and India if anything...




posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 06:23 PM
link   
As it turns out, it may not be up to us anyway.



Uzbekistan indicated Thursday that it was reconsidering the future of a U.S. air base it hosts, threatening a key support base for the U.S.-led efforts in neighboring Afghanistan.

The move, which throws into doubt the American military presence in the Central Asian nation, follows an increasing chill in relations between Washington and the authoritarian Uzbek leader Islam Karimov.

The Foreign Ministry said the air base at Karshi-Khanabad, which U.S. forces use to support operations and supply humanitarian aid to Afghanistan, was only intended for combat operations in Afghanistan during the overthrow of the Taliban regime after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.


Not that I think this is necessarily a bad thing. With AQ's bases of operation removed from Afghanistan, the US has little reason to be sticking it's nose into Central Asia anyway. And I don't like the idea of the US getting too cozy with a guy like Karimov.

[edit on 7/7/05 by xmotex]



posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 06:24 PM
link   
It's not up to Russia and China when we leave those countries. They are independant countries capable of making their own decisions. If they want to let us stay, and use THEIR bases for ops in Iraq and Afghanistan, then it's THEIR decision to make. If THEY ask us to leave it's a different story. So it's Russia and Chinas "backyard", it's also not their territory anymore. Those nations gained their independance from Russia when the USSR fell apart, so it's now entirely up to them what they do with their bases, and who uses them.



posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
Not that I think this is necessarily a bad thing. With AQ's bases of operation removed from Afghanistan, the US has little reason to be sticking it's nose into Central Asia anyway.


guess China wants to be the next one to stick its nose after America. we may not know until China does something yeeet.



posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 06:26 PM
link   


So it's Russia and Chinas "backyard", it's also not their territory anymore.


OK, remember that if the PLA & Russia start building big military bases in our backyard...


[edit on 7/7/05 by xmotex]



posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
[OK, remember that if the PLA & Russia start building big military bases in our backyard...


[edit on 7/7/05 by xmotex]


unless there are terrorists targeting Russia or China in the western hemisphere they pretty much have no reason to be here.



posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 06:31 PM
link   
They have one - keeping a big knife close to our throats.

Why do you think we want permanent bases so close to Russia?

It's not just to keep the Taliban at bay... and the Russians know it.



posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
[OK, remember that if the PLA & Russia start building big military bases in our backyard...



Uh, they already did. Cuba anyone? Did we go to war over it? No.



posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 06:43 PM
link   
So having those bases there was NOT to go after the Taliban, which we're still doing may I add, it was to get closer to Russia? Why? We're having training exercises with them for god sake! We wanted bases near them during the cold war, because we thought we were about to go to war with them any day. There is little or no tension between the two countries right now, or any sign of any building between them. We're inviting their generals to view some of our exercises and they're doing the same. Russia has been HELPING us with the War on Terror, now you're telling me that after two years, the Russian government is saying "Oh my god! The Americans have bases near us that they can use to attack us!"

As far as them putting bases in our backyard, if a country wants to invite them to put bases in their borders, more power to them. It's an internal decision. Will the US try to find ways to dissuade them, probably, ECONOMIC ways. We aren't going to go in and attack them and blow up their bases. Russia and China had the same opportunity but didn't say or do anything to stop those countries from inviting us in. They have no say in what those countries do with their bases, just as the US wouldn't if Russia and China put bases here. And for the record we didn't BUILD the bases. We added improvements to existing bases in the region.



posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 07:25 PM
link   


Cuba anyone? Did we go to war over it? No.


We instituted a blockade, and in fact got pretty darn close to a shooting war over Russian strategic bases in Cuba. As close as the Cold War ever got to turning hot.



So having those bases there was NOT to go after the Taliban, which we're still doing may I add, it was to get closer to Russia?


In reality, I think it was a bit of both. Also to get bases closer to Iran.
To the Russians though, I think they seem aimed squarely at them.



Why?


Because the Russians (and the Chinese) are among the chief critics of the US's seeming push for a hegemonic, unipolar world, one where the US calls the shots, and everybody else listens, or else. You don't think their ears perk up when the US talks about "full spectrum dominance" and describes itself as a "hyperpower"? Them's fightin' words




There is little or no tension between the two countries right now, or any sign of any building between them.


Read more Russian papers - they are very unhappy about NATO's eastward expansion, for one thing. Things between the US and Russia are not as hunky-dory as they seem from here. Not at all.


[edit on 7/7/05 by xmotex]



posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 07:35 PM
link   
We instituted a blockade, and in fact got pretty darn close to a shooting war over Russian strategic bases in Cuba. As close as the Cold War ever got to turning hot.

We instituted a blockade because Russia was trying to build MISSILE BASES in Cuba that would allow them to hit the US with no warning. We're flying aircraft out of the bases in Central Asia. It's one thing to have a missile that can hit DC in a matter of minutes with no warning, and an aircraft that flies at 500 knots over thousands of miles to hit a target.

Things can't be THAT bad between the two countries........

"VLADIVOSTOK — U.S. Navy ships arrived at port here for joint Navy exercises with the Russian Navy's Pacific Fleet, based in this city.

They will also be participating in celebrations for the city's 145th anniversary and U.S. Independence Day on July 4.

The U.S. delegation will hold a meeting with the fleet's commanding officers and the city mayor, and take part in a wreath-laying ceremony at the Pacific Fleet Battle Memorial, dedicated to Russian soldiers and sailors who died in World War II.

The American sailors will also take a tour of the city during their visit and play sports with their Russian counterparts.

The military exercises are scheduled for the end of the trip and will include the USS Curtis Wilber Missile Destroyer and the minesweepers the Patriot and the Guardian. The exercises will focus on communications and navigation."

Here's another one......
www.defensenews.com...

I don't think we'd be doing exercises with them if there was a chance that things would ratchet up between us and them, and we might be fighting them in the near or not too near future. I know that things aren't as hunky-dorey as they seem, but I don't think they're as bad as some people make out to be either.



posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
So what makes you think the second and thrid most powerful nations on the plnet are going to tolerate it. The "invincible shield of American machismo" I mentioned above? I don't think so, then again it's been a while since I was in kindergarten...

If you could step outside your neo-commie bubble and actually understand the military capabilites of both sides you would realise that the so called "No2" is infact noteven as close as the USSR was to the US during the early years of the cold war, militarily. The chinese get their tech from the Russians and the Russians put together all they can remember and puttogether in their limited capabilities, to say that they can credibly have greater technological or even scome close to the US technologically and in shear scale of military effeciency is absolute fallacy. The sheild you cynics call "American Machismo" is something w liek to call in America as "American Ingunity", the fact is that we are the best at what we do, no amount of caricaturising can ever change fact period.
Also what makes you sure thay wont tolerate it? None of them can afford to even talk back forget wage war agaisnt the US. Both China and Russia depend heavily on the US economy for their survival. Find out what your saying before you start rambling ignorance here !


Now, again, tackle this hypothetical: it's 2008, Canada and Mexico hate us, for whatever reason. They invite the Chinese and Russians to come set up military bases near their borders with the US.

This statement above is fact that you have absolutely no knowledge of anything realting to global politics or even the geo-political situation the world has taken in the lst 50 years!
Firstly, if Canada and Mexico were to openly hate the US then they would in all probability move to the side of the European Union and the UN, not with some Asian Country that is twice as far as Europe is. Also another fact is that the Chinese cannot support a base in N.America unlike the US because it is logistically and tactically too far out. How do you think they are going to supply their troops with arms and personel and other stuff? Send thm on the cargo ships along with throwaway chinese goods?
Also Bringing in China wont be in anyway help Canada or mexico safegaurd their country anymore than than it would by asking say the cubans to set up shop in Mexico. It will make them a target even more. Also with the deep reliance of Canada and Mexico on the US economy them hateing us will crippel them to penury, to say the least not to mention the fact of the military trouble it will bring to them.
So all in all you "hypothetical" situation cant and wont happen, Mexico and Canada are too deeply connected to the US and to make any moves that jepordises their present state will only make them break the bank.


The may not have tactical parity with us (yet, but the Chinese in particular are starting to catch up), but they do have enough ICBM's to reduce most of the good ole USA to ash, should it come to that.

The Chinese can presently only hit the weatern seaboard and that to not very accurately. As for the Russian their best bet is to go around the pole and with their reliablity I'd say only 40% of the missiles they fire make it past canada and only about 1% strike their targets if they are allowed to.
Another major fallacy is the fact that the chinese are catching up or some BS like that, so do you think we are going to just sit and wait and let them catch up? wont the US make any signifaicnt contribution to the developement of its own missile sheild and furthering its own credible detterence agaisnt any perceived threat? Will the Pentagon just twiddle their thumbs till they catch up?
Also to "catch up" as you say, they would need to actually do some reaserch and undertake a process called R&D wich the chinese are incapable of, they hope that the Russian coldwar commie scientists will keep churinig out cheap sustitutes to take on the recent developements in the US aresenal, but to state fact the Russians have still not been able to replicate US stealth technology which was was developed more than 60 years ago, so what makes you think that these chinese can do so when they buy most of their stuff form the Russians who couldnt match us?


PAC-3 can take out SCUDs, not ICBMs.
Ditto for the SM-3's. ("agies" is a C3I system, synthesizing data from sensors and platforms, NOT a missile)
OK, I'm not responding to you anymore, at least not till you graduate junior high...

Oh! so your going with the - "I dont know jack about stuff so Im just going to shoot insults and hope everybody thinks i actually know something" act, well thats a "mature" response isnt it?

Again, PAC-3 was developed in the year 1998 and is ment for the year 2008, do you think that the PAC-2 which was upgraded from the PAC-1 so that it could keep on shooting down cold war SCUDS ?
Why would any sane company build a missile system they hoped to use in 2008 to shoot down coldwar junk that was obsolete in the 90's itself ?
MAkes no sense atall, not that the PAC-3 cant do that heck the PAC-1 was good enough for that as it was used in the Gulf war but you knew that right?

The PAC-3 systems greatest advancement over the PAC-2 is its ability to destroy incomming ballistic missiles, which is what it was ment to do. If you knew about an ICBM you would know that an ICBM is almost exactly similar to a conventional ballistic missile before entering into its boost phase. You wouild knwo this if you had any information on the BPI role of the PAC-3.
As MDA improves its layered missile defense system, Aegis BMD will be able to integrate its tracking system with other new BMD tracking systems such as Space Based Infrared System-High (SBIRS-High) satellites, the Space Tracking and Surveillance System (STSS), or the Sea-Based X-Band Radar (SBX).
The Aegis Heavy Crusier in the US Navy is being developed to improve its role in BMD with the development of greater radar capability and tracking, also the improveents that are being made to the THAAD and the PAC-3 to take on faster and more greater manuvering in their sub orbital stage.
The present SM-3 though is not thought capable by some to take part in effective engagement of ICBMs, with the enhancements in the K-band radar and improved Aegis it will allow the SM-3 to effectively engage incomming missile to carry out BPI. Although recent tests have already proven your claims to be unfounded the Navy has started to improve upon the LEAP and the SPY-1E radar to incorporate greater infra-red tracking and trajectory trcking.
Also the US DOD has initiated the use of SBL and other non-conventional military weapons for effective multi-layered missile defence.

[edit on 7/7/05 by xmotex] link



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 01:42 AM
link   
Supprice YANKKY!!!!!!! www.vialls.com...



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 02:18 AM
link   
To IAF101:


Originally posted by IAF101
No we nuke them first and destabilize them permanently aka glass their .....
Also the Us can effectively nuke out all probable nuclear sites and have a wall of agies and PAC-3 and the eventual missile sheid to fend off what ever pitifull attempt they call reataliation!


It is impossible to totally nuke out every nuclear arsenal of both countries as they have mobile launchers and slbm nukes. Satellites also will not be able to keep track of all mobile launchers given the HUGE land area of both countries, they could be everywhere. Satellites may be able to detect a missile once it is launched but nuking it out at that moment will be too late.
SSBNs are much more difficult to detect.

America's missile shield is still far from being complete. if this nuclear exchange would occur NOW, that missile shield will not protect you entirely. Most missiles will still reach their target.

Lastly, what you are saying is that America is launching a first strike using nukes, are you serious?! As you are saying that the idea that "Canada and Mexico will be hosting chinese or russian bases" is based on ignorance of world geopolitics, so is your claim of a nuclear first strike by america.



Originally posted by IAF101
All we lose is cheap DVD players, toys and $1 shirts! That aint much, we can make them all at home but guess who aint laughing much when it is done ?



along with "throwaway" chinese goods in your later post. Do you have something against the chinese? Is it fueling your desire to see their country turned to glass?


Originally posted by IAF101
If attitude reflects fact then so be it! It is better to understand reality than to play the fiddle of condescension!



The US has a very strong military and no one denies that. Can it totally destroy china or russia, yes it can. Can it destroy them without even suffering a single "pitiful" retaliatory response (as you were saying), NO.
Attitude based on facts results to arrogance (at least you have something to back them up). Attitude based on fallacies is .....Never mind.



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by thaei
To IAF101:
It is impossible to totally nuke out every nuclear arsenal of both countries as they have mobile launchers and slbm nukes. Satellites also will not be able to keep track of all mobile launchers given the HUGE land area of both countries, they could be everywhere. Satellites may be able to detect a missile once it is launched but nuking it out at that moment will be too late.
SSBNs are much more difficult to detect.

You underestimate America, we practically let Russia have nukes, we maintain them, we secure them and we tag their scientists. What makes you say that the US doesnt have knowledge of all their nuclear sites? Also the moblie launchers need to be in working order to be effective, with present state of Russian military, even finding a working model launcher ready to go will be suprising. Did I say anything about the UCAVs and the UAV's? They are also part of the information network
Also in sheer number of nukes we still have the advantage, not to mention the delivery systems and tactical preparedness. Also with the multitude of bases and options at hand we can effectively glass china or russia. so their goes one of your points.
Now, ever since the cold war all of the erstwhile USSR weapons, silos and facilites have been researched by the NSA, not to mention that nearly many of Americas most formidable spy satellites are on that general region at all times.
The amount of intel that is received by the NSA and the CIA is phenominal. Plus to complement exsisting US satellites America has at its disposal private satellites that can churn out even more data up to the minute.
After the Cold war you dont think the US has sat idlelly by do you? With the US military the most effectively integrated military in the world, I cant see why we cant track and shoot down a missile as soon as it has been lauched. That confidence is what is key to building an effective missile sheild, that is why the US is pursuing setting up a sheild along those lines. That would be the first tier which would be followed by many more localised layers and finally supported by spacebased and other nonconventional weapons.
Another thing, you dont nuke an already launched missile, that would be a waste, instead the shoot it down with fighter intercept or PAC-3 and other KE weapons.
About those subs, do you think that 60 of Americas finest subs will be at port when the fireworks start, with nearly 15 years after the cold war's end the USN has moved beyond the envolope, transformed submarine warfare to near perfection. The development of projects in the USN is being carried out at rapid pace.
Agreed that the Russians have developed somethings after the Cold war and the Chinese have dilligently produced these Russian weapons enmasse with slave labour but the military spending in these countries is lacking especially Russia and even thought they have a good "brains on hire" programme with the Chinese it is mostly in aircraft and missile related technology that they concentrate while the USA looks to the future and has a more holistic approach to the military which is driven by strong financial support.


America's missile shield is still far from being complete. if this nuclear exchange would occur NOW, that missile shield will not protect you entirely. Most missiles will still reach their target.

If it were to occur now, Russias missiles will have only a 40-50% chance of making it past the poles and another 30-40% chance of getting past NORAD and THAAD without notice and 10-15% chance of hitting their targets sucessfully given the renowned Russian efficiency!

Now if we take china, most of their missiles can only hit our western seaboard, which is why the USN and MDA are working so closely to make the Pacific sterile. The Chinese have to get past the Aegis and the carriers off taiwan, also their navy is mostly littoral and cannot sustain a prolonged blue water conflict, their entire strategy is to make the enemy go as close to theri shore as possible and then swarm him with fire, no great military plan really, some of the chinese subs can take to the blue waters but they are mostly Russian cold war memorabilia that have been given fresh coats of paint . These "chinese junks" will mostly be used in semi- terrorist like strikes against the Carrier groups that are busy launching Tomahawk after tomahawk, to which the cali class subs should provide suffecient deterence. Also the Chinese air force cannot possibly break the cordon set up by nearly 6 CSGs.
Their classic " Sun Tsu- hit and hide" policy is no good if they are attaked first and more over by suprise.
Also with the B-2s and the B-52s their should be enough bombers for all chinese cities dont you think? Also not to mention the black projects that migh be called up in this rare time, I dont know what they are but I am sure they exsist.
Thus your assumption that the Russians and their more mendacious protege the Chinese will be hard pressed when the fireworks start.




Lastly, what you are saying is that America is launching a first strike using nukes, are you serious?! As you are saying that the idea that "Canada and Mexico will be hosting chinese or russian bases" is based on ignorance of world geopolitics, so is your claim of a nuclear first strike by america.

What i mean is very simple to understand, to the reasonably adept it would mean exactly what it says, which is , that if the US sees that an imminent confict with the Chinese and the Russians is ineviatable, then the US wont wait to find out what the Russian were cooking after the Cold war, it would most likely be a swift and unrelenting suprise attack, to declare war is foolsih as more would die leaving all sides struggling after the war, so to minimise casualities and the impact on humanity as a whole the US would see it as would most that the most logical choice would be to attack them First and that too hard because in the end people would die and it can either be be both of us or some of us and all of them, the latter would be the most logical military step as it would not only reduce the pressure on the world economy, of which America plays a very significant part and also on humanity as we can be assure that the spirit of freedom, liberty and justice prevail as the fundamental tennants of all humanity.



along with "throwaway" chinese goods in your later post. Do you have something against the chinese? Is it fueling your desire to see their country turned to glass?

I have no special feelings for China in perticular which would defer from any other third world neo-communist state.
Better turn to glass than live in the dust!



Can it destroy them without even suffering a single "pitiful" retaliatory response (as you were saying), NO.
Attitude based on facts results to arrogance (at least you have something to back them up). Attitude based on fallacies is .....Never mind.

Give America a few years and the answer to that question will be self evident.
Also, I totaly agree with what youve said:
"Attitude based on fallacies is .....Never mind"
Just getting rid of those fallacies for you.


*spelling



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 11:39 PM
link   
What Renoun Russian enefficiantcy, your mistaking that with USA Patriot Missile sheild, Rus SAM's are the ones that shot down over 3000 US planes in Vietnam man en.wikipedia.org...-wing_losses Now with Russia's new S-400 and S-500/600 (which have been built, Rus Military will keep saying thier under development just for DIS-information sake) U.S. wouldn't stand more than a week with Rus.



posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 06:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex


So it's Russia and Chinas "backyard", it's also not their territory anymore.


OK, remember that if the PLA & Russia start building big military bases in our backyard...


[edit on 7/7/05 by xmotex]


They tried once, Cuban Missile Crissis.

EDIT: Oops, someone said that.



[edit on 9-7-2005 by crisko]



posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 12:44 PM
link   
Firs of all the Mexican constitution forbids the deployment and residence of foreign troops on its soil. Next the Canadians are our allies and they would not let either Russia or China place bases on their soil.



posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by SiberianTiger
What Renoun Russian enefficiantcy, your mistaking that with USA Patriot Missile sheild, Rus SAM's are the ones that shot down over 3000 US planes in Vietnam man en.wikipedia.org...-wing_losses

Renouned Russian Inefficency would imply all the Russian Scuds that were either blew up on launch, ones which were so effectively wiped out by the US patriot system and one which didnt even go in the general direction they were fired in, also it implies about all the MIGs and Sukhois that crash on take off, it implies all the duds the Russians call Missiles.
The Russian SAMs were the ones Saddam had during the Gulf War, go find out how many the your SAMs scored and how many aircraft we lost during our SAM hunting operations in IRAQ!
Dont brag about that obsolete junk you Russins pass of as SAM, it isnt worth being even classified as Anti-Aircraft. Even Saddams IRAQ had more AAA then Russia has now!

Chew on this IVAN:


The Gulf War has demonstrated yet again the central importance of electronic warfare to the conduct of a modern air war. So overwhelming was the weight of the initial attack, that the Iraqi IADS (integrated air defence system) collapsed in hours, never to regain anything approaching a semblance of functionality.

Trashing Russian SAMs in IRAQ
US Air Victory over Vietnam

Dont even get me started on the Vietnam war and the crappy SA-12 and the Goa systems , you dont want me to go there. Trust me.
The Us has basically whipped every major Russian weapon and made it look silly, the Russians now just want to pawn off stuff to other countries and this is going to come back and trouble Russia in the long run.


Originally posted by SiberianTiger
Now with Russia's new S-400 and S-500/600 (which have been built, Rus Military will keep saying thier under development just for DIS-information sake) U.S. wouldn't stand more than a week with Rus.

The S-400 is an upgrade of the S-300 that most rouge nations in the world use today, the Iraqis had the S-300 and the S-400 is not seen as anything revolutionary compared to the S-300. With extended range other such gimmicks the s-400 is something to impress those rouge nations into parting with their money in a vain hope of circumventing American military might.
Even though the s-400 is very potent sytem it is effectively useless agaisn the likes of the B-2/F-117/F-22 etc. The S-400 batteries almost cry out for HARMs and JDAMS. Also with the proposed JASSA system any future system that the Russians have up their sleave!
One last thing, if the US does ever decide to nuke Russia, it would be over before the Russians can get hold of their "three briefcases" !!



posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 03:45 PM
link   
Your so AMPED UP in your pethetic attempt to DIS-credit Rus that you'l told about 3 MAJOR LIES in your post kid, 1. You stated Sadams scuds were blown up, listen up KID ONLY 2 SCUDS were EVER intersepted in Gulf War 1= (GF1) the other 28 hit thire target, i CAN SHOW 17 U.S. airforce crashes that happened between 1996-1998 so don't even start with me about crashes, why don't you yanks just post in chronilogical order how many Rus/ Sukhoi's-MiGs crashed between 91 and now and campare in chronilogical order US crashes between 1991 and now (2004-2005) you'll see it's almost EXACTLY the same amount, U.S. lost 37 planes in Gulf War 1 www.webcom.com... you claim Iraq has more AAA than Rus has now, your a lier now proove me now, and don't give me that US news crap show Rus Military saying we don't have as much as Iraq then you'll win the argument till then your just another Yank lier who's disproven, You said "don't even get you started about our SAM in Vietnam," read carefully KID "GET STARTED," we can even start a whole new thread if ya want?hahaha you lost OVER 3000 aircraft to our SAM's and AAA and MiG's in vietnam and that FACT FELLA, en.wikipedia.org...-wing_losses us will nuke us if we did have a war cuz they know now and for ever they can't take us on in a Conventional war, plus we see your nukes coming before they hit and we'll strike you DEAD, we have more nukes and ours have been and still are WWWAAAYYY more powerful than your, wanna debate that also?????

[edit on 9-7-2005 by SiberianTiger]

[edit on 9-7-2005 by SiberianTiger]




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join