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.

 

China's Lasers Versus America's Satellites

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 30 2006 @ 12:18 PM
link   

AFAIK it's generally accepted that country's airspace extends to as high as country's air defences can have effect on..


No it is not, look up the norm and accepted "behavior" in space, in peace time.


So if China has laser that can shoot down satellites it has right to shoot those satellites down, especially if those are military satellites.


Again bull, the US and the Russia have had the capability to do just that for decades yet we aren't shooting down satellites left and right that cross our country. Again in a war this could change but last I checked the Chinese were not engaged in a war... or are they? Hmm...




posted on Sep, 30 2006 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by BitRaiser
I strongly suspect we will see some hightened, non-publisized NASA activity as and when US spy satellite research finds ways of doing with laser blinders.


I would indeed suspect that as well.



posted on Sep, 30 2006 @ 02:19 PM
link   
I feel that China has a lot to do with why we invaded Iraq. Yes it was about oil and stratigic land control because Iraq if controled by China would be very bad for us. Weather we like it or not we must have control of oil and land to control countries like China and Russia from having too much control over world trade. Iraq would be a good back door into China.



posted on Sep, 30 2006 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by RetinoidReceptor
K4rupt, to say any country is invincible would be a lie. But to say China can win a war against the US is also a lie. Maybe when they are the ones who stop reverse engineering Russian and US technology, then I may start to believe you.

Now if someone said, Russia and the US, I would not say the US would definitely win. But China...sorry they are way too overestimated at the moment. Someone on here actually called them a superpower, I know crazy


And I read your source. Their whole basis for saying that the US would not be able to win is because of Afghanistan and Iraq (which are different types of battle).

And the only one who was worth quoting was a governor of Tokyo.

Oh well believe what you must.


Well, you can believe what you want as well.

The officials ofTHe U.S.' Eastern Asian allies have growing apprehension that the U.S. cannot defeat China in a war... I'm sure those officials aren't idiots, I'm sure they know the U.S.'s military capabilities just as well as you do.

Why try to pass their apprehensions off like it isn't anything or try to pass them off as unreliable idiots?

You're right, believe what you must.


Again bull, the US and the Russia have had the capability to do just that for decades yet we aren't shooting down satellites left and right that cross our country. Again in a war this could change but last I checked the Chinese were not engaged in a war... or are they? Hmm...


Um... These Chinese lasers are not meant for "shooting down American satellites." It just blinds spy satellites spying over its territory... nothing to cry "WAR" over now is it?

I guess Americans can't live without an "enemy."





[edit on 30-9-2006 by k4rupt]



posted on Sep, 30 2006 @ 09:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by RetinoidReceptor
When your economy is developing, it will of course grow faster than developed countries. America is like the 40 year old man, and China is the pubescent boy. Of course China is going to grow much faster than America.


Why should China grow faster than the USA based on the age of the country? The two issues are not connected at all beside the fact that it might in theory be easier to grow a economy from some kind of perceived lesser status.


Is that after considering the 700 million impoverished people in the country?


Actually China last had that many people living in abject poverty a rather long time ago :

econ.worldbank.org...:20634060~
pagePK:64165401~piPK:64165026~theSitePK:469382,00.html

Comparing official poverty standards is probably a bad idea but the question remains why there are so many millions of American who are not sure where there next meal will come from.


Actually the "USSR" (which can now safely be called Russia),


Well i like to still call it the USSR as so little has really changed...


does not have a "massive strategic advantage". In fact the USA has a massive strategic advantage against both Russia and China.


Well i checked out the actual weaponry being deployed by both sides and based on that Russia holds a clear and 'massive' advantage. Have you actually looked at the weapons deployed and studied their strengths and weaknesses or are you just taking the word of those who tell the truth only because it can not be avoided sometimes?



www.foreignaffairs.org...



posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 11:47 AM
link   



When your done reading and digesting that a few weeks/months from now i wont mind have a proper discussion but until then your probably best advised learning what i have already forgotten.

Stellar


Economics 101, a smaller economy will grow at a faster rate than a developed country.

And just because you do not like the CFR does not mean what they post is untrue. That article is filled with facts, unless you can contradict, do not stick your nose up at it, just because you think they are "satanic"

And thanks but no thanks, I do not want to be as "educated" about these things as you. I would like to know what I am talking about



posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 11:51 AM
link   



Why try to pass their apprehensions off like it isn't anything or try to pass them off as unreliable idiots?


I wouldn't pass them of as idiots if they didn't only quote a governor from Japan and said that other countries were apprehensive as well because of the problems the US has in Iraq and Afghanistan. Which is an idiotic statement if you are basing it on these two guerilla wars and the US has to play babysitter amongst warring factions.

So, I do not see how just because the US is having problems at stopping extremists kill civilians, etc. and warring factions in a country they could not defeat China.

But hey



posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Economics 101, a smaller economy will grow at a faster rate than a developed country.

And thanks but no thanks, I do not want to be as "educated" about these things as you. I would like to know what I am talking about

Originally posted by RetinoidReceptor


Are you serious? The economy of the People's Republic of China is the FOURTH largest economy in the world (poised to surpass Germany by 2009) and is the second largest in the world when measured by Purchasing Power Parity. China is, no doubt, a DEVELOPED nation. They are FAR from a "small" economy and even farther from being an "indeveloped nation." Retinoid, I'm starting to think you lack common knowledge of the PRC.


I wouldn't pass them of as idiots if they didn't only quote a governor from Japan and said that other countries were apprehensive as well because of the problems the US has in Iraq and Afghanistan. Which is an idiotic statement if you are basing it on these two guerilla wars and the US has to play babysitter amongst warring factions.

So, I do not see how just because the US is having problems at stopping extremists kill civilians, etc. and warring factions in a country they could not defeat China.

But hey


Okay, I'm having doubts you even READ my article.

"The overwhelming assessment by Asian officials, diplomats and analysts is that the U.S. military simply cannot defeat China."

"It has been an assessment relayed to U.S. government officials over the past few months by countries such as Australia, Japan and South Korea."

It's not JUST the governor of Japan, SIR, that thinks the U.S. is incapable of defeating China. It's aa QUOTE: OVERWHELMING assessment by ASIAN OFFICIALS, DIPLOMATS, and ANALYSTS. I'm sure, lol I may be wrong Retinoid, that these officials, diplomats, and analysts are just as aware of the United State's military capabilities as you are. I'm sure they didn't miss the logic you used.

But you're right you know, who cares what these officials, diplomats, and analysts think... as long as Retinoid thinks otherwise, the U.S. is INVINCIBLE against China!





[edit on 1-10-2006 by k4rupt]

[edit on 1-10-2006 by k4rupt]



posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by RetinoidReceptor
Economics 101, a smaller economy will grow at a faster rate than a developed country.


Based on what assumptions exactly?


And just because you do not like the CFR does not mean what they post is untrue.


This is true and it's why i would not mind addressing each of their claims in turn if you are willing to put your money on one or two. ...


That article is filled with facts,


The article is filled with lies, deception and misinformation in general.


unless you can contradict, do not stick your nose up at it, just because you think they are "satanic"


I have in pasted addressed many of the claims in this article on ATS and i think i even provided you links to some of it earlier. I KNOW their a satanic bunch if only in the sense that they seem to revel in death, destruction and general organized disorder.


And thanks but no thanks, I do not want to be as "educated" about these things as you. I would like to know what I am talking about


Oh i think i could teach you a thing or two about strategic nuclear weapons if you gave me half a chance... Any interested in becoming slightly less ignorant or will you just hide from a reality that can actually be proven to exist.

Stellar



posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 09:32 PM
link   
I think the people who see this as a threat to america and their "honor" and all that stuff must apparently be quite ignorant.

In first place the usa is the major agressor on this globe.. so maybe it's a good idea to improve those perceptive skills of yours.

In regards to all the money done with warfare economics.. I wonder if it is true that the 4 most powerful countries in the NATO/UNO (I'm not sure) are actually exactly those countries who make most money through weapon sales.

At least that's what Nicholas Cage says at the end of the "Lord of War" movie. ;p

Can anyone clear me up?



posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by k4rupt

Are you serious? The economy of the People's Republic of China is the FOURTH largest economy in the world (poised to surpass Germany by 2009) and is the second largest in the world when measured by Purchasing Power Parity. China is, no doubt, a DEVELOPED nation. They are FAR from a "small" economy and even farther from being an "indeveloped nation." Retinoid, I'm starting to think you lack common knowledge of the PRC.


China is not even close to being a developed country my friend, nothing is wrong with nationalism, but you are ''slightly'' exaggerating. At least according to Western standards. Apparently, your Chinese countrymen agree with my assertion.

China Daily - China to become 'developed country' in 2080

Neither is China in its current state able to defeat a Western coalition, don't be silly. Why do I say a Western coalition? Because America could count on support of most Western countries should China go at war with the US, and believe me such a coalition, with its state-of-the-art equipment and huge amounts of nuclear weaponry would be invincible. However, if it does come to war (which I believe will happen in a time frame of 10 years), nuclear weapons will probably not be used untill a later phase of the war.

Nevertheless, the US is in a very difficult position. On one hand they need China to carry the burden of its economy; to ensure Americans can continue to live the lives they do, but on the other hand China is growing rapidly and taking over the role of superpower. Right in front of their eyes China is developing into a growing threat, both economically and militarily. China is a country really to be feared, especially by its neighbors, should it become stronger than the US.

So what is the solution to the problem? I don't know. A war would mean the imminent and immediate collapse of the world economy; the threat would no longer exist as China's is mainly dependent on the Western world, which buys its cheap export goods. If the Western world would survive the nuclear threat of China, we could build up our lives again, yet fighting, and recovering (from) such a large scale war would take a huge toll. China's economy would be crushed, and thus its military (look at the former Soviet Union).

In addition, a war with China would prevent a 2nd civil war in the United States from happening, as there wouldn't be time to concentrate on homeland trouble - the survival of America would be seen as more important to the majority of people.

What would happen if the US would not provoke war? Well, the situation would not change pretty much for a certain period of time. However, the US wouldn't and cant let this happen as they would gradually lose power and its economy will collapse anyway. The question is not 'if' anymore, but 'when', and is the US going to wait for it to happen?

From a purely objective perspective, the choice to engage in war with China would be a much better option than refrain and allow China to grow.

Before I get labeled as anti-Chinese. I'm not. I communicate with Chinese students every day and I pretty like most of them, however, I do not see a possibility of long term peaceful relations between the West and China. Better prepare for a new era of conscription.



posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mdv2
China is not even close to being a developed country my friend, nothing is wrong with nationalism, but you are ''slightly'' exaggerating. At least according to Western standards. Apparently, your Chinese countrymen agree with my assertion.

China Daily - China to become 'developed country' in 2080


It would be "an advanced developed" nation by 2080. It is, by all necessary means, quite a developed nation... even in that article it states China is a "primary developed country." It's just not as developed compared to the United States or other Western nations that have, oh say, exploited, humiliated China and other poorer countries during the colonial age?


Neither is China in its current state able to defeat a Western coalition, don't be silly. Why do I say a Western coalition? Because America could count on support of most Western countries should China go at war with the US, and believe me such a coalition, with its state-of-the-art equipment and huge amounts of nuclear weaponry would be invincible. However, if it does come to war (which I believe will happen in a time frame of 10 years), nuclear weapons will probably not be used untill a later phase of the war.


How are you so sure that there even WOULD be a Western coalition? No other Western nation has stated it would defend Taiwan in case of an invasion... Even stating support of the Iraq war would be political suicide for any European politician.
lol, I believe such a coalition would only exist in your dreams.


Nevertheless, the US is in a very difficult position. On one hand they need China to carry the burden of its economy; to ensure Americans can continue to live the lives they do, but on the other hand China is growing rapidly and taking over the role of superpower. Right in front of their eyes China is developing into a growing threat, both economically and militarily. China is a country really to be feared, especially by its neighbors, should it become stronger than the US.


"Treat a man like an enemy and he will become your enemy."



In addition, a war with China would prevent a 2nd civil war in the United States from happening, as there wouldn't be time to concentrate on homeland trouble - the survival of America would be seen as more important to the majority of people.


... A second civil war in the U.S.? What in God's name are you talking about?


What would happen if the US would not provoke war? Well, the situation would not change pretty much for a certain period of time. However, the US wouldn't and cant let this happen as they would gradually lose power and its economy will collapse anyway. The question is not 'if' anymore, but 'when', and is the US going to wait for it to happen?


From a purely objective perspective, the choice to engage in war with China would be a much better option than refrain and allow China to grow.


Why am I not surprised at all?

So you're saying that the U.S. HAS to defeat China militarily to ensure that you Americans will live happily on top of the world as you have always had? To ensure that no one would oppose anything you guys do?

Most people look for ways to avoid war, you however, look FOR war to stop a growing China... a nation that has every right to grow and develop as the West has for centuries.


Before I get labeled as anti-Chinese. I'm not. I communicate with Chinese students every day and I pretty like most of them, however, I do not see a possibility of long term peaceful relations between the West and China. Better prepare for a new era of conscription.


Ridiculous... Now you're trying to pass yourself off as NOT an Anti-Chinese? YOU, who say that we must destroy China so that it won't develop and grow? You who support a war against China simply because it is developing?

Forget about the hundreds of millions of Chinese lives that would be lost in such a war, as long as the U.S. remains on top, it'd be worth it right?

... and you try to pass yourself as NOT an Anti-Chinese...

What gives ANY NATION the right to invade another nation simply to prevent it from growing... F'ing ridiculous...






[edit on 8-10-2006 by k4rupt]



posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by osram
I think the people who see this as a threat to america and their "honor" and all that stuff must apparently be quite ignorant.

In first place the usa is the major aggressors on this globe.. so maybe it's a good idea to improve those perceptive skills of yours.


True true...


In regards to all the money done with warfare economics.. I wonder if it is true that the 4 most powerful countries in the NATO/UNO (I'm not sure) are actually exactly those countries who make most money through weapon sales.


Not inaccurate at all! The nations who talk about peace and human rights most are also the one's that seem to benefit most by perpetual conflict....


At least that's what Nicholas Cage says at the end of the "Lord of War" movie. ;p

Can anyone clear me up?


I hear it's a great movie and i will eventually get to seeing it.


Stellar



posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by osram
I think the people who see this as a threat to america and their "honor" and all that stuff must apparently be quite ignorant.




Really? Hmmmm, let me see. Supposedly the United States is a major "super" power in the world. Correct? Now, to me, maybe I'm just a bit naive
, when someone "blinds" your satellite in space, for whatever reason, it's a statement and it's certainly not one of friendship.



posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 05:42 PM
link   
Cool, I'm going to use a red laser pointer and put it in Chinese tourist eyes. They could be spying for the Chinese government and reporting in US soil. It seems China says it is ok, so I think it will be ok for me to do this. I've got to protect my country from that agressor red laser pointer country known as China.

The great country who gave us North Korea as we know it. Got to love China for the millions killed after the Korean war for the support and defense of that regime. Yep the USA is the bad guy in the world not the Chinese war crime of propping up North Korea.

Compare South Korea to North Korea. Who would you want as a neighbor?

Then ask yourself who defended which country?



posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 06:11 PM
link   
Is it just me, or is it true that the country/person that calls themself the biggest and/or badest are also always the wussiest?? Owww, they stopped us from illegally spying!! How dare they?

Seriously, WTF?



posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by sbob
Cool, I'm going to use a red laser pointer and put it in Chinese tourist eyes. They could be spying for the Chinese government and reporting in US soil. It seems China says it is ok, so I think it will be ok for me to do this. I've got to protect my country from that agressor red laser pointer country known as China.


This has GOT to be a joke...

Anyone understand what I mean by American ignorance?

Sigh... just another check on the "best" things I've seen here at ATS.



The great country who gave us North Korea as we know it. Got to love China for the millions killed after the Korean war for the support and defense of that regime. Yep the USA is the bad guy in the world not the Chinese war crime of propping up North Korea.


China defended NK because the US was coming dangerously close to the Chinese border. What the hell was the US military doing on the opposite side of the world anyways? It's China's backyard, and the United States was coming ridiculously close to it.

If China, for example, were to invade Cuba, I can guarantee you the U.S. would send support for Cuba regardless of whether they like or dislike the Cuban gov't. No nation wants a 'rival' anywhere near it's borders.

[edit on 8-10-2006 by k4rupt]



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 05:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by k4rupt
It's just not as developed compared to the United States or other Western nations that have, oh say, exploited, humiliated China and other poorer countries during the colonial age?


Don't pretend as if China doesn't use similar strategies as Western countries did three ages ago to secure its economic growth. China is currently cultivating Africa, slightly less aggressive, yet quite similar.


Originally posted by k4rupt
How are you so sure that there even WOULD be a Western coalition? No other Western nation has stated it would defend Taiwan in case of an invasion...


Every western country is aware of the fact that China will rather sooner than later become a threat as soon as it doesn't need Western countries anymore. Guess why the US supports the strategically important located Taiwan. Guess why it does support Japan, guess why it has troops in South Korea, I can tell you it's not to protect South Korea from Mad Kim:


The United States needs to keep a strong military presence in Asia to deter any future threats from China, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said in an interview published Wednesday.

''I never believed that weakness was your first choice,'' Rumsfeld told the Washington Times in outlining the U.S. military strategy.

China is reaching out to the world economically while it is increasing its defense budget by ''double-digit'' percentages annually, Rumsfeld was quoted as saying.

Rumsfeld said China is investing in building up its missile forces as well as information warfare technologies and intelligence activities.


Like you said, the US would support Taiwan, should China make an attempt to occupy it. This would inevitably mean war between the US and China. Off topic: China has no right at all to annex Taiwan; believe me that Western powers will line up behind the US and not behind China.


Originally posted by k4rupt
"Treat a man like an enemy and he will become your enemy."


Of course, but China doesn't act differently:


"If the Americans draw their missiles and position-guided ammunition onto the target zone on China's territory, I think we will have to respond with nuclear weapons," Maj Gen Zhu told an official briefing for foreign reporters.

...

The US is currently Taiwan's biggest arms supplier and has indicated it would defend the island in the event of a Chinese invasion.

....

"We will never tolerate the 'Taiwan independence'," the spokesman said.





Originally posted by k4rupt
... A second civil war in the U.S.? What in God's name are you talking about?


You don't have clue have you? As soon as the economic bubble bursts chaos will break out immediately. If you still don't understand it I'd suggest to read Kotlikoff's report (tip: use google).


Originally posted by k4rupt
So you're saying that the U.S. HAS to defeat China militarily to ensure that you Americans will live happily on top of the world as you have always had? To ensure that no one would oppose anything you guys do?


Exactly. China should not become more powerful than Western countries should the West would keep its position on top of the chain. There's no way the US is going to listen to Chinese commands. Again, seen from an objective perspective, I didn't say I 'd be a champion of war between China and the US, did I?


Originally posted by k4rupt
Ridiculous... Now you're trying to pass yourself off as NOT an Anti-Chinese? YOU, who say that we must destroy China so that it won't develop and grow? You who support a war against China simply because it is developing?

Forget about the hundreds of millions of Chinese lives that would be lost in such a war, as long as the U.S. remains on top, it'd be worth it right?

... and you try to pass yourself as NOT an Anti-Chinese...

What gives ANY NATION the right to invade another nation simply to prevent it from growing... F'ing ridiculous...


Take some Ritalin and stop making dirty insinuations. Did I say it is morally the best way to solve the problem? It's in my opinion the only way of maintaining Western global power. However, I'm open to suggestions from you how the Western world could maintain power without stopping China from becoming more powerful? I can tell you already, it's not possible, as China's economy will grow beyond that of the west (until the US and thus, the world economy collapses) than it's game over for China.



[edit on 9-10-2006 by Mdv2]



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 05:45 AM
link   
Mdv2 so let me get this straight...I agree with you about Taiwan. The West including Japan and many other Asian countries will line up with the US if China decides to "annex" it. But what are you talking about that the US economy will collapse and then the world's will too? Obviously I know that if the US economy "crashes" it will be a domino effect, that is why I don't think it will collapse. There are still enough investors in all countries investing.

You are right though, China will become a threat to Western supremacy. And that means US and Europe.



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by RetinoidReceptor
Mdv2 so let me get this straight...I agree with you about Taiwan. The West including Japan and many other Asian countries will line up with the US if China decides to "annex" it. But what are you talking about that the US economy will collapse and then the world's will too? Obviously I know that if the US economy "crashes" it will be a domino effect, that is why I don't think it will collapse. There are still enough investors in all countries investing.

You are right though, China will become a threat to Western supremacy. And that means US and Europe.


Care to elaborate Retinoid? I don't understand what you exactly mean by your assertion that the domino effect would not cause a global economic collapse as I think exactly that reason will cause the global crash.

The fact that major central banks are getting rid of their Dollar reserves is only one of the many reason that countries are preparing for the collapse. Of course no official would say that publically as it would result in chaos, but we are in the first phase of the collapse.

A crash of the dollar would mean a global crash, no matter how many investors are prerpared to invest or not. The Dollar is depreciating for years and no change seems to be going to happen any time soon. The Iranian bourse would not be crucial, yet it would exellerate the current situation, which is in no one's interest, except of those willing to see Western power fall (not China, but rogue states and terrorists).

That's my personal opinion, you don't have to agree
; time will tell.

Besides, do you really think those FEMA detention camps are solely intended for the goals the government claims they are for?


"official story" is, under the auspices of Homeland Security, FEMA is maintaining these facilities in the "event of a mass influx of illegal immigrants or in case of national emergency". National emergency however is undefined.


I don't believe it's for the first purpose. If that was the truth they wouldn't construct them all over the country e.g. Alaska. They would concentrate them in the Southern states, right where the illigal immigrants are coming from.

National emergency? I cannot think of any other reason than a violent rebellion of citizens, for what other purpose would you have to lock people up? There's no need for detaining people in case a nuclear attack takes place, yet it makes sense to detain citizens when they become aggressive... When would an entire population start to rebel? When people cannot buy bread anymore, which would be exactly the case when the Dollar collapses.




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join