Reverse Engineering by the Chinese

www.consortiumnews.com...

And heres a little piece about W-88's designs headed to China under Regan / Bush term in office....


www.fas.org...

Oh and more about china gaining W-88 tech during clintons period.....

www.fas.org...=%22china%20w-88%20secret%22

and a report for congress about nuclear theft by china and its damage to the US national interests.


So - China was a threat, is a threat, and yet is lauded with most favored nation status by the USA goverment....hahaha their greed puts you all in peril for a few more bars of gold...

Fool you once, shame on them. Fool you twice, shame on you.

Thank you very much, Darknight.

First, I all-ready provided references. Don't be a twit.
Two, no, you're still a twit. The AEGIS Missile - Defence system.
Or are you referring to the independent ships that are -APART- of the AEGIS system?
We're talking software, protocols, etc.
And, lastly, because I'm on my third red-eye, I managed to pull something you won't immediately refute as bull#, which I imagine you'll do to any source that doesn't suit you.
washingtontimes.com...



FYI: I'm not going to deal with Chinese-Nationalists who insult my country, and support their own like it's on some sort of pedestal.
It's true, China has an envious high-rise in their economical status, and thanks to military theft, military as well.
However, they are not Gods, they are not superior to the U.S., as of yet or in the future as far as I can see, nor The Economist and its supporting Professors.

I respect China, though the ignorant way you support it does the nation a dishonour.

Originally posted by Cruelapathy
I managed to pull something you won't immediately refute as bull#

Let me take a quick look

- American article with american views
- No reference to a source (excluding "According to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials.") .
Immigration will catch those red communsit devils
- Written by Mr. Gertz
- Not one shread of edvidence
- Written by a journalist with journalistic knowledge
- Lastly, how come these accusations are only reported by Mr. Gertz?

Heres his site [url=http://www.gertzfile.com/gertzfile/]You might be drowling over the prospect of reading all those articles aye?[irl]

I'm not going to deal with Chinese-Nationalists who insult my country

Unless your so emotionally insecure that you take everything as a insult. I would like to see where i insulted your ego

Originally posted by Cruelapathy
The AEGIS Missile - Defence system.

You mean the radar? PAR?

The chinese radar operates on C- band while the AN/SPY-1 operates on L-band. The FCS is also different. How does anything on the chinese ship or system make make use of american technology?

Originally posted by chinawhite

They did steal technology to miniaturse warheads, such as the configuration of the W-88.

What technology?????


How would that help in miniatursing warheads?. The offical american stance is that no technology was transfered, only "susposed" papers from a Mr Wen Ho Lee who was not charged with spying

The configuration of a warhead is very important for miniaturisation, you again display a complete lack of knowlege about the subject

How is a simple piece of paper a piece of technology?. And what other technology. You seem to ahve left big chunks of information out..... Only a piece of paper?

Got no idea what you're talking about, maybe if you thought before you typed ( I know very hard for you ), you might make more sense to the people you're adressing.

Ignorance is Bliss, while stupidty might be a blessing in your case.

Gotta love this, you start your post by cririsizing me for abusiing you ( which I wasn't, just stating fact ) then you end your post with blatant abuse. Are you schizophrenic ?Why should anyone take what you say seriously ?


[edit on 10-9-2006 by rogue1]

The configuration of a warhead is very important for miniaturisation

So the layout is the most important thing?. Than looks like i can master it on paint

How would you know?. Since the technical data of a nuclear bomb has been mastered by china in the 60's why would they need a american configuration when there designs are quite different

You might like to check the dimensions and yield of each missile/warhead to check why china needed to know the american con

Originally posted by rogue1
you again display a complete lack of knowlege about the subject

Coming from a 20ish armchair general selling shoes in china?. Please, i would like to take my chances.

Gotta love this, you start your post by cririsizing me for abusiing you

you might like to check what i was replying to.

Originally posted by chinawhite

Originally posted by Cruelapathy
I managed to pull something you won't immediately refute as bull#

Let me take a quick look

- American article with american views
[Oh, I'm sorry. Did I pull up an English article because I speak English? Damn, I'm a fool. I guess that means every article for evidence on this site is bull# then, right?

- No reference to a source (excluding "According to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials.") .
Then read the Popular Mechanics magazine- September Issue- I referenced earlier. Oh right, it's American. Clearly it's against you.
Immigration will catch those red communsit devils
- Written by Mr. Gertz
I do apologize-- Although this does not illegitimize the article, I did not read past the first several paragraphs. I did not mean to include an article which attacked any nation or ethnicity.
- Not one shread of edvidence
As said, read the magazine. Or use any Google site. I'll grab more. Just to amuse you.
- Written by a journalist with journalistic knowledge
... WTF are you on?
- Lastly, how come these accusations are only reported by Mr. Gertz?
Because he's a journalist, and he reports things in his own article?

I'm not going to deal with Chinese-Nationalists who insult my country

Unless your so emotionally insecure that you take everything as a insult. I would like to see where i insulted your ego

I don't recall saying you insulted my ego, I said you insulted my country. I realize English is some folk's here second, or even third language. Sometimes more! But I didn't even say the word ego.
Grow up, quote what I said, and bitch about it, IF I said it.

www.popularmechanics.com...
www.christusrex.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

Now, I'm sorry. These are all illegitimate as sources because they are in English.
But hopefully they'll entertain you enough to come back with a response which,
A. Attacks something I've actually said or done, not been accused of.
B. Provides your own sources, and please, be it something I can read. Chinese = No.
C. Recall America has no reason to bitch about Chinese stealing our technology. You're an enormous economic asset, so to do so without provocation and an actual circumstance is uselessly defacing our relations.

This is true. Deal with it.

It is my perception that both partys in this discussion about technology transfers are missing the mark by a long shot.

Technology transfers is not a new buisness..nor a buisness of flag waving..on the side of both partys...in this dispute or others...in history past.

I will remind both sides that in the years before WW2 the secret of unleaded gasoline is what permitted the horspower ratings of our automobile engines to be increased substantially. Not just automobile engines but airplane engines.
In ceratain photos you see during WW2 pilots of German fighter planes are sitting in their planes with the cockpits in the rearward open position...awaiting orders. The fuel logos on the side of the cocpit are for the companys of Shell and Standard oil..there were others but I dont recall the names...mostly these two come to mind immediately. These are western companys..not German companys.
It was the General Electric company among others who helped the Nazis with thier factory production ..electrically to get back on line..even to produce war materials after the Nazis came to power.

On the other side of the Pacific Ocean ..we have the Japanese..building Aircraft Carriers, Submarines , Aircraft, Battleships, Cruisers, destroyers etc etc..all the elements of a modern navy and army. This could not possibly have been done without Western help and knowhow. There were only two major nations with Aircraft carriers and submarines and the ability to export this know how. Loans were made to Japan to aid in this modernization. Japan reniged on the loans in the 1930s and shook off her handlers..they became independent...as did eventually Germany....not allowed in this game. How do you call in the repo man when a nation renigs on their loans?? Think this one through very carefully.

What do some of you think is implied in the title "Most Favored Nation Trading Status"??

Some of you might want to check out some books by Anthony Sutton..

Wall Street and the Russian Revolution.
Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler
National Suicide Military Aid to the Soviet Union

What you are particularly intrested in is the cycle of loans to these foreign nations to buy American technology and know how.

THese American companys dont particulary care as their profits are increased as well as the value of thier stock. If it means they have to transfer a bit of technology above or below the table to be gaurannteed entrance in the next loan cycle ..than so be it. These companys and banks are not particularly loyal to a country but to their profits. They will transfer the technology.

I dont happen to think the Chinese stoled anything per se...even the warhead designs. I believe certain people in politics made this information available to them by looking quietly the other way. Same with other technology transfers. They were quietly facilitated by someone here.

Remember something people...the Japanese ..in their hey days..the 1970s/1980s..were doing the exact same thing you claim the Chinese are doing. STealing technology...even if it meant patent infringements/violations. THe Japanese ..our allies..were running quite a spy operation in this country and got caught several times..one of them almost making huge public news but it got squelched quickly. Massive Face was save for them.

Do I think the Chinese are stealing alot of technology from this country..yes I do. I also think influential people in our government are allowing much of this for reasons or politics...economics/profit...for the various political partys. What I also know is that this is not a new phenomonon...it goes back to the days of the Romans and before..for lucre...filthy lucre.

If you want something to remain a secret .a design etc...in this country..dont put it on computer. Dont put it in a patent form. Spys have looted the patent office.
Definitely "dont" tell anyone in government..state, local, or federal.

Government people have a history of selling thier souls for lucre...better yet they sell the souls of others for lucre..

In his book "From Major Jordans Diarys" Major George Racey Jordan speaks of being a commander of an airbase in Great Falls , Montanna during WW2. What he had at his base were many high powered Soviet officials there to coordinate shipments of war material to Russia which was at that time our ally. A airborne delivery pipeline was established from Great Falls, Montanna through Canada through Alaska and over Siberia and into Russia. This pipeline delivered much technology and hard goods to the Russians. This is why occasionally ..even to this day...you hear of Airplane wreckage being discovered along with bodies dating back to WW2. Quite a number of aircraft were lost maintaining this pipeline to Russia.

What Major Jordan began to realize was that during the war...The Russians were getting material and information of the most sensitive type shipped to them. What he found after opening some diplomatic mail was blue prints for the shipyard layouts of The Electric Boat Shipyard in the state of Connecticut. The blue prints of this entire factory.

What was more disturbing was the amout of processed uranium powder being transported from America to Russia and research materials in the nuclear field...at at time when this material was in very short supply here in America. The full extent of this Major Jordan was to learn only after the war.

Every time there was a bottle neck or a delay in the deliverys to Russia the Russian laison would call direct to the White House and get ahold of the Presidents man..at that time a man named Harry Hopkins. Things would happen ..strings would be pulled and the Russians would get what they wanted.

If you people think this same scenerio would not happen with the Chinese today??..guess again!! Especially when billions of dollars in loan payments are at stake to Western banks. What ...why you dont think the Chinese built what they have today on thier good name...do you?? The capital and know how was imported from outside China...it is still going on.
My point is that some of you on both sides of this ocean need to wake up.

This same bunch of people who financed China today ..financed Japan and later Korea...after WW2 and the ground was carefully prepared by war...they also dumped Japan and Korea by the wayside when thier costs in thesse location got to high verses the profit potential. They will do the same with China when it goes the same direction...they will look for where the new investment location is...if they have to start a war to prepare the ground for thier new investments.

Do not despair...you can be assured that when the dust settles from the next world war ..I can assure you that none of these buisnesses or manufacturers will be on trial. Nor will any of the banking institutions who made the loans to facillitate these technology transfers ..which will kill so many of our finest blood of both sides.....be on trial either.

My point is that some of you need to really wake up when you are waving the flags ..on both sides of this "opinion."

THanks,
Orangetom

www.popularmechanics.com...

Now i see where you got your opinion from. Its a exact copy of the articles contention. Will go into it further tomorrow

Originally posted by Cruelapathy
Did I pull up an English article because I speak English?

No, You pulled out a article written by a right wing american writier. It just happened to be in english

Popular Mechanics magazine

Could you give a scan. Its quite difficult to get hold of older magazines

Or use any Google site.

You can actually stop using googled articles but instead focus on governemnt reports which include the following

- Picture
- Statments by important officals (chinese or american)
- Documented use of the systems in chinese service

Because he's a journalist, and he reports things in his own article?

These ones
"steal night-vision technology, restricted electronic components, embargoed components for precision-guided missiles, radar and electronic warfare, and communications systems"

He does not even mention a specific system

I don't recall saying you insulted my ego

Your ego about chinese needing to reverse engineer american equipment. I see that and this "And, lastly, because I'm on my third red-eye" as your ego of being a american

Maybe im not in tone with

www.christusrex.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

Both of these refer to the Cox report. That same report also accuses all chinese in america of being spys or being capable of them, it had a objective and was racially profiling all chinese into one group.

Also, you can quote the Cox report instead of using a interpreted version your posting now

Originally posted by chinawhite

The configuration of a warhead is very important for miniaturisation

So the layout is the most important thing?. Than looks like i can master it on paint

How would you know?. Since the technical data of a nuclear bomb has been mastered by china in the 60's why would they need a american configuration when there designs are quite different

You might like to check the dimensions and yield of each missile/warhead to check why china needed to know the american con

AS I said a complete lack of knowlege. Sure CHina could make big cumbersome weapons it, to miniaturise them into small compact powerful wepaons is several generations different. Obviously you come from the crowd which think all nuclear weapons are the same
You seem to imply China uses different designs, please elaborate, where do you get you ultra top secret information from. FYI, thermonuclear weapons are of teh Tellar-Ulam configuration which is by far the most efficient. You're saying CHina uses something different, please tell.

Originally posted by rogue1
you again display a complete lack of knowlege about the subject

Coming from a 20ish armchair general selling shoes in china?. Please, i would like to take my chances.

Take your chances with what ? Shooting your mouth off without nknowing a thing about what you're talking about - yep you're really credible.

Gotta love this, you start your post by cririsizing me for abusiing you

you might like to check what i was replying to.

Doesn't change the fact that you're a hypocrit

Woo-Hoo!
Quote-posts are getting pretty good.
To keep up, look up my replies in the last 'quote' section, I inadvertently stuck them in beneath your comments.

Originally posted by chinawhite

www.popularmechanics.com...

Now i see where you got your opinion from. Its a exact copy of the articles contention. Will go into it further tomorrow

-------------------I'm waiting.

Originally posted by Cruelapathy
Did I pull up an English article because I speak English?

No, You pulled out a article written by a right wing american writier. It just happened to be in english

-------------------First, prove he's right-wing. For some guy blitheringabout evidence, you're just throwing words around. Second, does it matter if he's right-wing? Third. Yes. It is f@cking English, that's the lanuage I speak unless you would like Arabic, German, or Latin. (Or Japanese, but I could never do that beyond Hiragana. xD)

Popular Mechanics magazine

Could you give a scan. Its quite difficult to get hold of older magazines

-------------------SEPTEMBER ISSUE IS THIS MONTHS ISSUE.

Or use any Google site.

You can actually stop using googled articles but instead focus on governemnt reports which include the following

- Picture
- Statments by important officals (chinese or american)
- Documented use of the systems in chinese service

-------------------The government doesn't bitch about it's 'economial allies' very much, so not only is the stuff scarce, but we have this thing called freedom of the press where our journalists usually cover everything. PS. Try looking up poor fellows ran over by tanks in the late nineties. Oh wait! Your government blocks anything anti-Establishment.

Because he's a journalist, and he reports things in his own article?

These ones
"steal night-vision technology, restricted electronic components, embargoed components for precision-guided missiles, radar and electronic warfare, and communications systems"

He does not even mention a specific system

-----------------First, it's generally hard to name systems, which are confidential for a reason. Second-- Read the Popular Mechanics article, most ae shown in there. If it's for our military, and ours alone, and it's not being sold out to foreign nations, you're usually not going to be getting too far into specs.

I don't recall saying you insulted my ego

Your ego about chinese needing to reverse engineer american equipment. I see that and this "And, lastly, because I'm on my third red-eye" as your ego of being a american

Ego? Do you know what the definition of ego is?
And what the hell is that about my ego as an American? Again, do you know what a red-eye flight is?

Maybe im not in tone with

www.christusrex.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

Both of these refer to the Cox report. That same report also accuses all chinese in america of being spys or being capable of them, it had a objective and was racially profiling all chinese into one group.

...What?
If -CHINA- stole something, -CHINA- stole it. ..It's not as though we're naming individuals here. They stole it FOR China. As for -all- Chinese Americans? No, they are saying Chinese Americans in America re spying. Not all of them, but that the spies are Chinese-American.

Also, you can quote the Cox report instead of using a interpreted version your posting now

What the Hell is interpreted version? Picking up on articles people, both government, jjournalist, and individual have written?

[edit on 10-9-2006 by Cruelapathy]

Originally posted by Cruelapathy
First, prove he's right-wing.

I guess you dont follow his writing around much?.

Maybe you should try to read some of his articles and books before you shot your mouth about, what is and what isn't.

I recommend this books Treachery (americas firends are arming our enemies) and The China threat (this book is self explanitory)

Second, does it matter if he's right-wing? Third. Yes. It is f@cking English

Really, in english?

And does it matter if hitler was facist?. Oh sure as hell does not. What he said was right and all jews shall die. We should analize his work and believe him without edvidence?. I got a even better idea. Lets read from the book of Normans and believe what joseph smith said. Does it matter if Bill Gertz is right wing?. Sure doesn't, he only has agendas and books to sell

The government doesn't bitch about it's 'economial allies' very much, so not only is the stuff scarce

Lets imagine were in a trial for an "accused" murderer. I do not have a realiable witness, i have no edvidence and i have traced my argument for an article written by one Bill Gertz. How far do you think im going to get in the American legal system with this information?

- Picture
- Statments by important officals (chinese or american)
- Documented use of the systems in chinese service

I thought what i listed was basic edvidence. Guess not since the this are scarce. I guess its scarce to when your government believes it shall invade a nation like iraq, guess everything is scarce

Your government blocks anything anti-Establishment.

My Government



Don't assume anything

First, it's generally hard to name systems, which are confidential for a reason.

So, where did they get there hands on this confidential information?

They stole it FOR China.

They said they stole it for china. What im asking is why china would need american technology?

What the Hell is interpreted version?

And interupted version is when a journalist reads a report like the Cox report and summerizes it in her own words or thoughts. The Cox report was written by one person but the articles you read have been changed to agree with the writier



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

With the quote "China's aggressive military buildup" at the very begining of the article sets the tone in which the author will talk about. Why does he use the word agressive?. Because his interupting them as an american with an american view. Throughout the whole article its tone is agressive and tries to shift blame onto china. The unlining meaning is about chinas military spending and the first quote underlines that best.

The article focuses on a Taiwanese citizen called Ko-Suen Moo. The only thing he did do was try to ship an F-16 engine. The other non-sense was a suppose list of equipment he was planning to buy.

Now lets talk about the F-16 engine, F110-GE-129

The things you read are for the mass media. Why do you think he has not provided any edvidence he was under the control of the PRC government. Why do you think he was a known taiwanese arms broker. Why is it that word of mouth is just accepted. Why hasn't there been a diplomatic protest?. Why do they only mention a airport in china, this is most definately Hong Kong since they made mention of the fact that it had relaxed export restrictions. Where would it be shipped to?.

Why does china already have two engines which out-perform the engine in question?. Why has both these engines been tested on aircraft and would cost billions to re-design and refit a INFERIOR engine?(In very low quantity). Why would china redesign their aircraft so a inferior engine can be fitted into the aircraft?

WS10A Turbofan Engine was formally design certificated and named “ Taihang

Russia Signed AL-31 Engine Deal with China

Apart from that, China can get information on the F-16 from a number of sources

- Venezuela was offering to ship their F-16s to china
- Pakistan is a loyal friend and has been claimed to have shipped one to china (which has been denied and never confirmed)
- Israel will sell things for nothing
- Indonesia will likey trade for weapons
- etc...

parts for the F-14

Unless he was planning to ship the parts to china for an non-existant fleet of F-14 fighters. I do belileve that iran would be the destination of these parts.

_ BLack hawk engines _

thermonuclear weapons are of teh Tellar-Ulam configuration which is by far the most efficient.

Of course they would be in the Teller-Ulam configuration. Thats how most countries detonated H-bombs. China detonated the same configuration in 1967.

Now, anything else which you claim to make it different?

Originally posted by rogue1
AS I said a complete lack of knowlege.

Like i have said,

Coming from a 20ish armchair general selling shoes in china?. Please, i would like to take my chances. You would have some to know this knowledge how?

Sure CHina could make big cumbersome weapons it, to miniaturise them into small compact powerful wepaons is several generations different.

Here is a complete list of china's nuclear test, yield, year etc

China might have been fitting its ICBMs with massive monster warheads but it had a lot of other smaller warheads for its MRBM and its IRBM. The reason why large warheads were fitted to the ICBMs where to compensate for its inaccuracy not because china could only design warheads that big

How would basic confriguration matter?. Since china already has mastered the Teller-Ulam confirguration (which refers to a H-bomb). I do not see where china would need an american design to work on since there was no system information or details how it actually worked. It basically showed where the urainian was located, trigger. One of the claims made by china was the fact that a almost identical sketch could be found on the W-88 page at FAS.org

Doesn't change the fact that you're a hypocrit

How so?

Provocation is the word used

well i been beaten to the punch but to reiterate for the igorant who can only justify theft as one of the reasons for the reversed positions of chinese and american economic and cultural momentum....the same people who helped fake the cold war with russia while hitching their economic horse to the industrial growth back then is doin the same now with China. As far as I know, countries cant just print money and get rich (well thats debatable when u consider the the history of banking)....so that means for economic growth, there has the be, in Chinas case a huge influx of foreign money....in short, we've been given many things....amongst those things is technology in which we can put our newfound wealth to use with that will benefit not only China but those investors as well. Seeing as how corportate and political america are one and the same its safe to say we didnt have to steal anything. Besides be happy, only because of this are u able now to get products with work quality that matches or surpasses the standards you'd find anywhere else for a fraction of the cost.

Just to put my 2 cents into this...about

Originally posted by chinawhite
They said they stole it for china. What im asking is why china would need american technology?

If you believe China is technologically advanced or independent just because of recent improvements...you might be quite wrong.

Firstly...who helped China get it's nukes??
Who gave them their first Jet Fighters?
Tanks?
Main Army Rifle??
Mostly all technologies until the late 80's...

Second, for how long??
Long...long time, so it's not only US modern tech they need but any modern tech, since as you well recall, almost all their military is outdated and is just starting to modernize.

With the quote "China's aggressive military buildup" at the very begining of the article sets the tone in which the author will talk about.

One question on that...are there "friendly" buildup? What's the need for a buildup, invasion of Vietnam?? Unlikely...so trying to play it like nothing happens is just foolish..

Why does he use the word agressive?

Any buildup of any country would be considered agressive (agressive as in buying and upgrading massive amounts of hardware) Maybe you'd like to let me know about a "peaceful" purposed buildup...

The article focuses on a Taiwanese citizen called Ko-Suen Moo. The only thing he did do was try to ship an F-16 engine.

And that is not enough?? He had to be smuggling nukes to get your attention I guess...

The things you read are for the mass media.

Mass media preferable to government controlled media...like in a certain country I know

Why do you think he has not provided any edvidence he was under the control of the PRC government.

Evidence? So you'd need the PRC to recognize for it to be real??

Where would it be shipped to?.

Well that would be pretty obvious, wouldln't it? It's not like Mainland China is THAT far away...

Why has both these engines been tested on aircraft and would cost billions to re-design and refit a INFERIOR engine?

Because chinese engines would be very different, and getting a modern foreign engine would provide technologies that though not better in overall performance, could help further make BETTER the chinese engines, it's called R&D...

Why would china redesign their aircraft so a inferior engine can be fitted into the aircraft?

They wouldn't...would be used for R&D.

Venezuela was offering to ship their F-16s to china

Offer that hasn't happened

Pakistan is a loyal friend and has been claimed to have shipped one to china (which has been denied and never confirmed)

And even more loyal to the US now, technology transfer is unlikely at best...

Israel will sell things for nothing

That'd be the day...Israel selling US parts to China...

Indonesia will likey trade for weapons

Only point I could possible agree, Indonesia's allegiance to the US is shaky...

Unless he was planning to ship the parts to china for an non-existant fleet of F-14 fighters. I do belileve that iran would be the destination of these parts.

Possibly, but what parts of the F-14 where they??

Originally posted by Ioseb_Jugashvili
so it's not only US modern tech they need but any modern tech

This is in the present tense not in the past tense. I'm asking what technology the Chinese military/government needs from america. What other sources of high technology is there

Russia
France
Germany
Japan
Britain
Israel
Australia.

The list is never ending in military products and dual use technology. America is not the only source of technology. The technology they ahve is not the greatest and does not exactly fit in with chinese military doctrime. As of now, china is exploring new military technologies based on light manuver warfare and power projection beyond its boarders. Its been focusing on high-pricision, high speed force multiplers like the Kh-XX series of missiles and massive russian LGBs. The end result of this program to be able to restrict taiwanese independence (which has already been practically forced since the '06 elections there).

One of the mroe practical uses of american technology would be to aquire the knowledge of their capabilities so if a war erupts, this will be known. Dont assume china wants all the american goodies.

One question on that...are there "friendly" buildup?

They had the choice of saying "China's aggressive military buildup" or chinas military modernisation. Why do you suppose they choose the former?. And why build up?. Once a new system enters service, the older system gets replace by more than a 1:1 ratio. The military also has been downsizing for a number of years already

A country is going through modernisation after years of buying and spending absolutly nothing. This moderisation was set off by the taiwan strait missile crisis when the US sent two carriers there and china was powerless to stop them in '96.

And the only country this actively threatens is taiwan. But considering taiwan has no formal relations with america, i do not see this as a problem and shouldn't concern you since america acknowledges the one china policy

Mass media preferable to government controlled media

By defination, the american media is not controlled. But no media outlet there is outwardly different from each other. Presently one view and one prespective. China may be governement controlled but it works because it keeps anyone and everyone from posting their opinions and creating havoc

Evidence? So you'd need the PRC to recognize for it to be real

A picture will also do. But if you can get the PRC to reconize it, that would be a great bonus. If your going to believe one person without any edvidence and not the other, how can you say your better informed with a mass media based news agency?

getting a modern foreign engine would provide technologies that though not better in overall performance, could help further make BETTER the chinese engines, it's called R&D

Can you name some advantages, say over the AL-31FN-M1?

And the US is the only source of these engines?. Simply put it, china has many sources from every area of the globe which is easier to get than from a taiwanese broker charging 1/3 the price of a complete Su-27. Considering the engines the russians make a better suited to chiense conditions and as i see it, just as advanced. There is no reason why china would want to buy a extremely expensive engine and reverse engineer it for domestic use and be completely outclassed by a cheaper and more powerful engine

The WS-10A supposedly already makes use of the CFM-56 core which is also found on commerical 737s and the B-1B bomber engine. Like i have been saying before, the engine is no use to china at this point, for service or RnD. If this was 20 years ago that might have been the case, but as of now china has access to better engines and technology

[Venezuela] Offer that hasn't happened
[Pakistan]And even more loyal to the US now, technology transfer is unlikely at best...
[Israel]That'd be the day...Israel selling US parts to China...

[Venezuela] Chavez Says May Hand U.S. F-16 Jets To Cuba, China

[Pakistan] Why the restrictions on their use of your loyal pakistani friends?
Heres a thread

[Israel] umm... I guess your not that informed. Do a simple search with the words china israel technology

Possibly, but what parts of the F-14 where they??

Hard to say, no edvidence or names of parts or een a source

Isn't it frustating

Originally posted by chinawhite

thermonuclear weapons are of teh Tellar-Ulam configuration which is by far the most efficient.

Of course they would be in the Teller-Ulam configuration. Thats how most countries detonated H-bombs. China detonated the same configuration in 1967.

Now, anything else which you claim to make it different?

LOL and what is your point ? The most advanced designs of the US and Russia are very very different from the large warheads of the 50's and 60's. The fact that you think all the designs are the same shows your lack of knowlege again. Once again do some reading. The Chinese were nowhere near the yield to weight ratio of a W-88 hence they had to steel the technology. The design is far far more complex than a simple diagram as you seem to think LOL.

Originally posted by rogue1
Coming from a 20ish armchair general selling shoes in china?. Please, i would like to take my chances. You would have some to know this knowledge how?

LOL once again with the insults and not even a different one, obviously wit isn't one of your strong points.

China might have been fitting its ICBMs with massive monster warheads but it had a lot of other smaller warheads for its MRBM and its IRBM. The reason why large warheads were fitted to the ICBMs where to compensate for its inaccuracy not because china could only design warheads that big

Chinese warheads have a poor yield to weight ratio, they are not what you'd call advanced, well not unitl they started stealing american technology.

How would basic confriguration matter?. Since china already has mastered the Teller-Ulam confirguration (which refers to a H-bomb). I do not see where china would need an american design to work on since there was no system information or details how it actually worked. It basically showed where the urainian was located, trigger. One of the claims made by china was the fact that a almost identical sketch could be found on the W-88 page at FAS.org

LMAO, if you think that diagram is a blueprint for building a bomb then you really do know nothing. There was far nore technical information stolen, stuff which could actually be used. I find it laughable that you think a picture is some kind of blueprint for a W-88. If this doesn't highlight your conpletel lack of knowlege I don't what else could. I feel like I'm speaking to a child, oh hang on I am - I forgot you're a school kid.

Doesn't change the fact that you're a hypocrit

How so?

Provocation is the word used

HOw so, read my previous posts, it's obvious to everybody else, then again comprehension isn't one of your strong suits now is it.

Originally posted by rogue1
The most advanced designs of the US and Russia are very very different from the large warheads of the 50's and 60's.

Is this suppose to be a joke?

You said as if the W-88 feature the Teller-Ulam configuration as if it was something unqie. Now you posted some lines which completely divert peoples attention to what you mentioned just a few posts up.

The warheads might have been differenet but most of the H-bombs were in the Teller-Ulam configuration. Thats a fact you cannot change

LOL once again with the insults and not even a different one, obviously wit isn't one of your strong points.

Dont play the insult card. If you get insulted by me using friendly language its your program. Tell me where is my agressive tone or abusive language?. It your in china selling shoes its not my problem, thats a fact and there is no other way of saying it more politely. If you claimed to be knowleadgable in a subject while you clearly are not, I will state what you ahve told me

Chinese warheads have a poor yield to weight ratio, they are not what you'd call advanced

You use a ratio of thrust to weight to describe the throw weight of a missile. You dont use that to compare a warhead. If that was the case, chinas warhead would have a higher expolisve power to weight ratio over a american warhead considering their power and relatively small size. If we use the diameter of a missile and its throw weight to work out its weight

That justs assuming our estimates are correct since there is no OFFICAL CHINESE DATA WHICH YOU COULD HAVE CALCULATED FROM

well not unitl they started stealing american technology.

WHich you ahve yet to be proven

There was far nore technical information stolen

Have you even read the Cox report?

You might like to know that the CIA believes it was a informant sent by the PRC government itself that gave them the infromation about the W-88 and other warheads to the americans. The Cox report mentions specific articles and not "technical information" like you have tried to pass off

HOw so, read my previous posts

Very obvioius

Im not aware if you actuallyu read my list of tests but china had been testing a large number of sub-megaton "light" weight warheads for quite a while. Most notably on the little Q-5 fighter which can carry only 2 tonnes maximum on 10 pylons. The standard service weight is only 1 ton. The JL-1 missile also has a small warhead

(#19) 26 September 1976 200 kT Atmospheric -- Fission;
Partial failure of fusion;
"special weapon"
(#18) 23 January 1976 Below 20 kT Atmospheric -- Fission
(#17) 27 October 1975 Below 10 kT (2.5 kT) Underground -- Fission
(#16) 17 June 1974 200 kT-1 MT Atmospheric -- Thermonuclear
(#15) 27 June 1973 2-3 MT Atmospheric Air (H-6 bomber) Thermonuclear
(#14) 18 March 1972 100-200 kT Atmospheric Air (H-6 bomber) Possibly trigger device, containing Pu, for thermonuclear warhead
(#13) 7 January 1972 8-20 kT Atmospheric Air (Q-5 bomber) Fission;
Possibly containing Pu
(#12) 18 November 1971 15-20 kT Atmospheric Ground (tower-mounted) Fission;
Possibly containing Pu

Originally posted by chinawhite
This is in the present tense not in the past tense.

In the present tense China is buying modern equipment from foreign countries, and the only indigenous technology they have somewhat advanced are missiles, surface to surface basically.

I'm asking what technology the Chinese military/government needs from america. What other sources of high technology is there

It's not only from the USA, but from other countries they need and want technology from. China has no stealth capability, carrier, chobham armor, modern SSN, modern SSBN..etc,etc.

The list is never ending in military products and dual use technology. America is not the only source of technology.

Never stated it was the only place they can acquire technology from.

The technology they ahve is not the greatest and does not exactly fit in with chinese military doctrime.

Agreed, China's doctrine of quantity over quality has nothing to do with western standards.

As of now, china is exploring new military technologies based on light manuver warfare and power projection beyond its boarders.

Only place chinese power is going to be projected (big IF) is taiwan. The technologies they are exploring are basically needed to not get slaughtered if Taiwan opposes the "one" china policy.

Its been focusing on high-pricision, high speed force multiplers like the Kh-XX series of missiles

As I said, the only field they have a visible comparison to western standards, if not somewhat superior. The technologies are all russian though, which proves my point. .

The end result of this program to be able to restrict taiwanese independence (which has already been practically forced since the '06 elections there).

Yep, agreed on that, though if Taiwan doesn't feel like it at last moment, China is in for one big battle.

One of the mroe practical uses of american technology would be to aquire the knowledge of their capabilities so if a war erupts

If war erupts, USA would not plan to occupy, and in open battle China would not have much to do...

Dont assume china wants all the american goodies.

Sure they want them, and almost got them, that's why a USA bomb landed on an embassy in Yugoslavia...by "accident".

They had the choice of saying "China's aggressive military buildup" or chinas military modernisation. Why do you suppose they choose the former?

Why? Rate of modernization and the kind of equipment acquired are obviosuly intended to deter the US from getting into a fight for Taiwan. That's why it's "agressive". Not to forget the means of getting it...

And why build up?

Number of missile systems posted pointing at Taiwan could give you a hint, or extensive deployment of Anti-Ship weaponry, when Taiwan doesn't have really that big a navy...

The military also has been downsizing for a number of years already

Sure, downsizing the load of crappy equipment (unless you can vouch for Mig-21's...)

A country is going through modernisation after years of buying and spending absolutly nothing.

Nothing? Well...if you can call buying nothing having a load of old tanks and ships nothing...ok

This moderisation was set off by the taiwan strait missile crisis when the US sent two carriers there and china was powerless to stop them in '96.

China as of now is still powerless to do much against two or more carrier groups.

And the only country this actively threatens is taiwan.

And the US should it choose to vouch for Taiwan.

But considering taiwan has no formal relations with america

Only if Taiwan is taken peacefully, military action is a nono

3) to make clear that the United States decision to establish diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China rests upon the expectation that the future of Taiwan will be determined by peaceful means;

(4) to consider any effort to determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means, including by boycotts or embargoes, a threat to the peace and security of the Western Pacific area and of grave concern to the United States;

(5) to provide Taiwan with arms of a defensive character; and

(6) to maintain the capacity of the United States to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or the social or economic system, of the people on Taiwan.
(c) Nothing contained in this Act shall contravene the interest of the United States in human rights, especially with respect to the human rights of all the approximately eighteen million inhabitants of Taiwan. The preservation and enhancement of the human rights of all the people on Taiwan are hereby reaffirmed as objectives of the United States. i do not see this as a problem and shouldn't concern you since america acknowledges the one china policy

So no gov relations, yet the US mantains a stance that will not tolerate agression, and will continue to sell weapons to Taiwan…so much for “not a problem” Source: Taiwan Relations Act

By defination, the american media is not controlled. But no media outlet there is outwardly different from each other. Presently one view and one prespective. China may be governement controlled but it works because it keeps anyone and everyone from posting their opinions and creating havoc

? One view and one perspective? Maybe in Cuba…China…and that’s about, it, though there might be other countries out there with “one view”. Rest of the world normally has more than one view and perspective, with many new agencies with different stances, going from totally Right Wing to Inflamatory.
It works in China to keep everyone from speaking their mind? Well…it figures, what would happen if people did?? More so, according to your position on that, if you were chinese, you shouldn’t be here speaking your mind, since it creates “havoc”…you really made me smile…

A picture will also do. But if you can get the PRC to reconize it, that would be a great bonus. If your going to believe one person without any edvidence and not the other, how can you say your better informed with a mass media based news agency?

A picture? And pictures of activities like that shown? Really?? PRC to recognize…come on, it was sarcasm, no country, democratic or not would recognize such activities…pleaaseee…

Can you name some advantages, say over the AL-31FN-M1?

Mmm…well if you read carefully my post you might have noticed I said overall performance would be better in the Russian engine, yet some technology unknown to China could lie in that engine, and be applied to new engines. As to the specific of the inner workings of the engines, neither you or me know it, so trying to measure technology is pointless…

And the US is the only source of these engines?. Simply put it, china has many sources from every area of the globe which is easier to get than from a taiwanese broker charging 1/3 the price of a complete Su-27.

Well, if that price was being charged and someone was buying it means there was interest after all…

Considering the engines the russians make a better suited to chiense conditions and as i see it, just as advanced.

I only said there could be some technology that might be useful from actually disarming an “enemies” engine.

Chavez Says May Hand U.S. F-16 Jets To Cuba,

Did I read correctly? May? Cuba?

Why the restrictions on their use of your loyal pakistani friends?

My loyal pakistani friends? So you’re assuming I’m from the USA? I see…well restrictions could be because there is a delicate balance of power in the region, and Pakistan needs the F-16’s, they wouldn’t just hand one over to China…

] umm... I guess your not that informed. Do a simple search with the words china israel technology

Technology for J-10 Fighter ( a real threat for Typhoon and Raptor…or F-16’s for the case… ) and Us Spy Plane technology…about it…