Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

China owned port to host Chinese Submarines in L.A. Harbor

page: 1
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 10:41 PM
link   
www.congress.org...


To:
Sen. Wayne Allard

March 18, 2006

Senator Allard,

We have been asked to sign a "Breach of Security Petition", sent to us by Jonathan Moseley, Exec. Director of the "U.S. Seaport Commission, PO Box 921, Frederick , MD 21705. The Petition states that the China Ocean Shipping Company (COSCO) and the Red Chinese have a base of operations at Pier J in Long Beach, CA. Cosco plans to operate modern "Tusunami Class" submarines, which can enter L.A. Harbor at Pier J and threaten the National Security of the U.S. The Petition demands that the 109th Congress pass Legislation to restore Pier J to U.S. control at once. Allowing the Red Chinese Army to operate at Pier J has breached the security of the USA.

We are VERY concerned about this. Why would China (COSCO) need submarines in their cargo fleet!!! Do they want to park them at pier J on America's own west coast!


Boulder , CO


I had mixed feelings about the UAE ports deal, but no question we should not be hosting nuclear capable Chinese subs. What do they need to do over here anyway? Are they protecting Mexico or something?




posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 10:45 PM
link   
They are protecting themselves in case of an attack from the USA on their mainland. If the US attacks China, those sub will destroy as many cities as they are capable of. And all the star wars project will not be able to catch a lot of those missiles because I think that those subs will already be near the coast so the missiles will be able to fly low and the system will not be able to lock them...

Just my 2 cents.



posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 11:00 PM
link   
www.eagleforum.org...

This occured quite a few years ago I believe, the transfer of ownership with the lease of the port by the Chinese. It is insanity to think we would allow two Chinese subs in our backyard however. After a little searching, are these the actual submarines?

www.afpc.org...

Seems like the media per usual is throwing in a neocon angle also...

www.newswithviews.com...



posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo
I think that those subs will already be near the coast so the missiles will be able to fly low


Since there are no "Star Wars" projects of than those of Lucasfilm, et al... I just have to say one thing. When a ballistic missile is launched from the other side of the world you would get a path like this:



But when the missile is launched much closer you end up with an arc like this:



Make sense? It can't "fly low" to its target. It would still have to go in a parabolic arc, no matter where it is launched from.



posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 11:25 PM
link   
Why the missile don't go in a straight line?
--
like this -- -------------
---
--- ---
instead of this -- -- ?

Why going up high when you can stay low, under the radar signature?

[edit on 19-3-2006 by Vitchilo]



posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 11:32 PM
link   
That wouldn't exactly help if a building was in the way that wasn't an intended target, or what not. If you have an obsticle in your way, going up is the only real method.

EDIT: Okay...going further on that after reading CMD's post.

Figure it this way. Coverage is expanded if something goes straight down, you explained this last night in fact much like doppler effect.

It's mainly about timing on the warhead which is onboard (from the extent of my knowledge). Not only that, but 80% of the time the missile goes to the altitude where it isn't possible to be shot down by ground targets.

[edit on 3-19-2006 by Shugo]



posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 11:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo
Why going up high when you can stay low, under the radar signature?


Take a rock, ball, pen, ruler, or anything really. Throw it as hard as you can parallel to the ground. See how far it goes and mark the spot. Take the same object, stand in the same spot as last time, and throw it at a 45 degree angle. See which goes farther.

The point of a ballistic missile is that it follows a ballistic path, which is parabolic arc.



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 01:21 AM
link   
I'd like to get more solid info on this, it seems pretty iffy.

First of all, I've never heard of a "Tsunami class" submarine, in the Chinese Navy or any other for that matter.

Secondly, one of the links esdad71 posted claims these are 18,000 ton submarines copied from a European design. Which would be difficult since the Europeans have never built any subs close to that size. In fact the only submarine class I am aware of that displaces in the area of 18,000 tons is the US Ohio class. The only class larger are the 33,000 ton Russian Typhoons. The largest sub class in the PLAN is the Type 94 at only 9,00 tons, and it's not in service yet.

Something smells very fishy about this story. Boomers don't do port calls. And the idea that submarines would "threaten the security of the US" from port is idiotic. The whole point of submarines as offensive weapons is that your opponent can't find them (hopefully) - staging an attack from a submarine surfaced and docked is possibly one of the worst uses of a sub I can imagine.



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 01:54 AM
link   
Where are all the Bush haters that shutdown the last port deal as a threat to US security? Why are they not whining about China? You always notice that the left are quite lenient towards communists.

I also see no reason why a sub in LA can't target the US east coast, am I wrong about this?



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 02:15 AM
link   
This happened in the late 90's

www.papillonsartpalace.com...

Months after this, the Clin..ur..administration also sold nuclear technology to China. This would later be applied in Iran with the Chinese and Russian scientists that were bought in to work with them in their nuclear projects. Iran I believe possesses at least one nuclear weapon. or we would not have been waiting this long.

www.milnet.com...



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 02:38 AM
link   
Chinese (or any foreign military vessels) need specific permission when they enter ANY port in the US, and in the case of nations where we have not-quite-friendly relationships with, such visits are usually big affairs. Ownership of a port doesn't change that.

This letter is based on a misconception.



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 05:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo
They are protecting themselves in case of an attack from the USA on their mainland. If the US attacks China, those sub will destroy as many cities as they are capable of. And all the star wars project will not be able to catch a lot of those missiles because I think that those subs will already be near the coast so the missiles will be able to fly low and the system will not be able to lock them...

Just my 2 cents.


I see it more like they are planning to attack the U.S.

I agree with getting all our ports back....

We should have never sold our ports to a Chinese company....all freaken Chinese company are owned by the CCP......

We should have never allowed China to take control of the Panama canal either....

This is really sad.... Ports in the U.S. being controlled by the Chinese Communist Party.......



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 05:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid
...................
Make sense? It can't "fly low" to its target. It would still have to go in a parabolic arc, no matter where it is launched from.


You are right cmdrkeenkid, but if what the Chinese government has in mind is an invasion of the U.S. then there is a reason for them getting their hands on that port.... I should have known it was done under Clinton's administration....

The Panama canal is owed by the Chinese and some U.S. ports are under control of the Chinese, which Clinton also hurried up to give to the CHinese before he left office.....



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 05:32 AM
link   
There *IS NO* "Tsunami class missile sub" used by the Chinese. They have the Xia class that is in service, and the Type 094 that is still in testing. Irregardless, even if they DO own a pier at a US port, they can't just sail any ship they want into it and say "This is our pier, we can put anything we want here." It still has to be cleared by the gov't, Customs, Coast Guard, and sailed in under command of a pilot from the port. This is a case of fear mongering at its highest, and people that don't know better trying to show that they do.



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 05:39 AM
link   
i think there is a little misunderstanding here, probably the submarine they are talking about is the Xia, which was modernized beginning in 1995, it is equiped with the Julang-1, also known as the Giant Wave or Tsunami.

i think that's what they are talking about.

BTW Zaphod58, you really think that if the CCP wants to try to invade the U.S. they are going to go ask for permission? i think not.

[edit on 20-3-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 06:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib

The Panama canal is owed by the Chinese and some U.S. ports are under control of the Chinese, which Clinton also hurried up to give to the CHinese before he left office.....


The Panama Canal is owned by the Chinese? I thought it was owned by Panama.



The Panama Canal is defined by law to be an inalienable patrimony of the Republic of Panama; it may therefore not be sold, assigned, mortgaged, or otherwise encumbered or transferred.


Source: Wikipedia



[edit on 20-3-2006 by koji_K]



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 07:17 AM
link   
And muaddib, have you ever actually LOOKED at the forces China could bring to bear?
An invasion by them would last 2 days. They would have NO air support, NO ressuply, they would have to choose between armor and infantry, etc.
It is not possible for China to sucessfully invade the US. The distances involved make it a joke logistically.



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 12:57 PM
link   


BTW Zaphod58, you really think that if the CCP wants to try to invade the U.S. they are going to go ask for permission? i think not.


And you think they can just pull up a missile sub to a US dock without permission, and not end up sunk? I think not.

This is just silly scaremongering for the extremely gullible.
It doesn't even make any sense...



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 03:39 PM
link   

China company grabs power over Panama Canal

By Rowan Scarborough

Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott recently wrote to Defense Secretary William S. Cohen that a Chinese shipping company is gaining broad authority over the Panama Canal and could deny passage to U.S. ships.
"It appears that we have given away the farm without a shot being fired," the Mississippi Republican said in the Aug. 1 letter requesting Mr. Cohen's security assessment.

It was the first time a congressional leader has raised questions about growing Chinese influence over one of the world's most strategic waterways. Until now, warnings were being raised primarily by a handful of conservative lawmakers, led by Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, California Republican, who plans a fact-finding trip to Panama on Monday.

The focus of concern is Hutchinson Whampoa Ltd., a giant Hong Kong-based shipping firm with ties to China's leadership and its armed forces, the People's Liberation Army (PLA).

Under circumstances the U.S. Embassy in Panama called unusual, the government in 1997 awarded Hutchinson a 25- to 50-year contract to run the two major ports on the canal's Atlantic and Pacific entrances.

Moreover, conservatives assert that Panama gave Hutchinson broader powers in legislation known as "Law No. 5."


Excerpted from.
www.tysknews.com...


Port control

But more sinister to many Republican eyes is the fact that a Hong Kong company, Hutchison Whampoa, won the right to control a port facility at each end of the canal after a somewhat murky bidding process.

The Clinton administration denies that the firm has links to the Chinese government, but President Clinton did nothing to calm the controversy when he commented: "I think the Chinese will in fact be bending over backward to make sure they run it in a competent able and fair manner".
The State Department later stressed that Hutchison Whampoa will not in fact be "running" the canal, just two of its ports.


Excerpted from.
news.bbc.co.uk...


China does own the two major ports at both ends of the Panama canal.


[edit on 20-3-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
And muaddib, have you ever actually LOOKED at the forces China could bring to bear?
An invasion by them would last 2 days. They would have NO air support, NO ressuply, they would have to choose between armor and infantry, etc.
It is not possible for China to sucessfully invade the US. The distances involved make it a joke logistically.


If there is indeed any thought of invading the U.S. the Chinese will not go at it alone.

i find it quite disturbing that people would just refer as "blowing some smoke" or some other comment when Chinese officials have been known as saying that a war with the U.S. is inevitable and that the Chinese must win it by attacking first...

Not only that but we have had chinese officials saying they are ready to nuke parts of the U.S. if the U.S. tries to help Taiwan maintain it's independence, among some other things. But hey, who cares if China's military has been upgrading for years now, and who cares if chinese officials threaten to nuke and attack the U.S. right?....





new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join


Help ATS Recover with your Donation.
read more: Help ATS Recover With Your Contribution