Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Chinese sub surprises 7th fleet, within range of sinking the Kitty Hawk.

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 14 2006 @ 11:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3

Originally posted by darksided
..but China is advancing faster than the DoD was previously aware.


Can you elaborate on this point?


Well, there just seem to be a lot of details missing. For example, there is no advantage at all, and in fact it would be operationally stupid beyond words, for a chinese submairne to surface for no reason next to a US carrier battle group.

It is far more likely the USN forced the sub to surface than the sub surfaced on its own, but that would not be the slant the story was written with, meaning the story appears to be a fictional account of an actual event where the details are scetchy.

Also, Okinawa is 350 miles from China. In order for the submarine to approach in any attempt to avoid detection, it would take at least 6 days. That is easier said than done in a Song. The Song speed would be limited under those conditions.

The Kitty Hawk Strike Group for the exercise included the USS Kitty Hawk, the guided-missile cruisers USS Cowpens (CG 63) and USS Shiloh (CG 67); guided-missile destroyers USS Curtis W. Wilbur (DDG 54), USS John S. McCain (DDG 56), USS Fitzgerald (DDG 62), USS Stethem (DDG 63), USS Lassen (DDG 82), USS Mustin (DDG 89), USS Halsey (DDG 97); the high-speed vessel Swift (HSV 2) and submarines USS Seawolf (SSN 21) and USS Asheville (SSN 758).

Depending upon the exercises, which do typically focus on ASW with the JMSDF, it is plausible the submarines were nowhere near the strike group, which means it is plausible the normal ASW defense a submarine provides wouldn't be available.

But even then, the Chinese were able to deploy some sort of intelligence capability, whether satellite or some other system, to track the task force and position the submarine in a position that ultimately placed it within 7km of the CSG.

It is a lot easier said than done, even in peacetime, to position a littoral submarine probably travelling no faster than 3-5 knots in strike position of the largest Carrier Strike group in the world (which is probably doing between 12-18 knots btw) 350 miles from the submarines support network, and if the story is to believed, did so without being detected.

I don't know if I believe that last part, but I do think the US Navy needs to take notice. A nuke sub, like a Russian Akula or Sierra, could do that pretty easy. A conventional sub playing the role of an advesary in an exercise accomplishes this regularly in exercises, but a Chinese sub 350 miles off the coast using intelligence collection and blue water recon techniques able to pull it off in an older Song class SSK?

That is pretty impressive.

While I believe the USN probably tracked the submarine at some point and forced it to surface, the fact that it surfaced 7km from the CSG says alot about current Chinese operational capability.




posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 12:10 AM
link   
agreeing with above post.
i find it hard to believe that a sub snuck up on a naval fleet. (or at least in a threatening manner)
it's not as though a cruising fleet is "sleeping". they are always on guard and pinging.
there is not off time on cruises. something smells fishy.


[edit on 21/12/2012 by zooplancton]

[edit on 21/12/2012 by zooplancton]



posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by zooplancton
agreeing with above post.
i find it hard to believe that a sub snuck up on a naval fleet. (or at least in a threatening manner)
it's not as though a cruising fleet is "sleeping". they are always on guard and pinging.
there is not off time on cruises. something smells fishy.


I don't know if I agree with the comment the fleet would be on guard and pinging. The USN would get into some hot water if they started blasting their active sonars off the coast of Japan.

But in reality, against a Song, the USN shouldn't need to blast out its sonar to find and track the sub. Considering it was a major exercise involving over 100 JMSDF ships, I could see the Navy not being on full alert for possible chinese submarines. A Song off Okinawa wouldn't be a good bet, until of coarse, it happened.



posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 12:43 AM
link   
As the paper indicated, it was spotted ONLY when it was five miles from the aircraft carrier. The paper also states what spotted it. The notion that it was tracked when it left habour is pure speculation based on absolutely nothing. Unless anyone has anything BUT facts, the rest are make believe stories

The chinese submarine came up when it wanted to come up. Not to forget this happened one month ago when the US was holding some sort of military exercise. Simply put it, why would the US allow a submarine to come within five miles to a carrier?

Heres something from 2001


China's navy floats a warning to Taiwan

HONG KONG - A Chinese submarine intentionally surfaced in the vicinity of Japanese waters recently after a stealthy drill, staging a show of the Chinese navy's ability to dodge Japan's reconnaissance and sending a warning to the United States, Japan and even Taiwan.

Around 8am on November 12, a Japanese Marine Self-Defense Force P-3C spotted a Chinese attack submarine heading west on the surface of international waters 25 miles east of Satamisaki, a port town of Kagoshima prefecture on Kyushu Island. The sub sailed through the Osumi Strait between Kyushu and Tanegashima, a tiny southern Japanese island.



And 2006

- Chinese submarine intentionally surfaced
- Chinese submarine then spotted by a routine surveillance flight by one of the carrier group's planes.



Never intentionally surfaces?


[edit on 15-11-2006 by chinawhite]



posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 01:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by thelibra
Still, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and try to steer this towards an adult discussion and not something out of an after-school special. I'll give it one more post. If I see more crap like the line above, I'm done with this thread, or at least your replies to it.


I bet he's honored to have you lower your standards by stooping down to to his level to give him another shot at being lifted to your lofty heights of political sophistication.

Or maybe you should get off your high horse and stop acting like you're doing everyone a favour just by being here?



posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 07:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite
Simply put it, why would the US allow a submarine to come within five miles to a carrier?


Good question, Chinawhite.

My guess is that they didn't so much "allow it", but rather the sub was just resting on the ocean floor and needed to surface at a really inconvenient time. From what I understand those "Songs" run silent except when the diesel generator gets used, and I think they only have to use it once a month or so. And it's really, really hard to find a sub that's just sitting there on the ocean floor doing nothing. It would certainly not be unlike China to have a sleeper sub just sitting at the bottom, observing and awaiting the next report schedule to raise their wire.



Originally posted by chinawhite
HONG KONG - A Chinese submarine intentionally surfaced in the vicinity of Japanese waters recently after a stealthy drill, staging a show of the Chinese navy's ability to dodge Japan's reconnaissance and sending a warning to the United States, Japan and even Taiwan


Alternately, though, it could have been they had to surface for air, electricity, reports, or some technical problem. Considering China's rather severe lack of a free press, it wouldn't surprise me that a spin was put on the surfacing to turn an accident into "a warning". It still, though, shows an alarming ability to evade detection, but then, they're submarines, stealth is what they're built for.



Originally posted by MouseOnMars
Or maybe you should get off your high horse and stop acting like you're doing everyone a favour just by being here?


(sniff) (sniff) Someone smell troll dung?

Hey, Mouse, you've been here, what, two days?
How about you learn the lay of the land before you go starting something.





[edit on 11/15/2006 by thelibra]



posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 07:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by thelibra

Originally posted by kozmo
No, I'm an Independent. I'm just sick of seeing Republicans parrot Limbaughesque bullsh-t and trying to demonize an entire half of the population with short nonsense 1984ish newspeak phrases.

I don't know, to be honest. I really didn't pay much attention to politics when Clinton was in office. Did he? Would you mind giving me some non-partison links, timetables, or something to that effect to back those allegations up? And if he did do those things, would you be willing to consider that, at the time, they may have seemed like a good idea at the time? Would you say those are good reasons to currently condemn the entire Democratic party and its constituants?

That'd be swell. In a perfect world, I'm sure it would work that way. It's a pity you haven't quite reached the stage of deep thought where you can consider there might just be an alterior motive for giving them military technology we've already deemed obsolete. Certain items require certain parts, in specific amounts, to be processed at specific types of facilities.

Now say your enemies (or potential enemies) want access to this technology. What do you do? Do you leave them be, and let them figure out their own, very secret, very hard to trace process, and perhaps even come up with new and brilliant innovations along the way?

Or, do you give them tried and true and obsolete plans where you can trace how much they have and where they are producing it, based upon the market purchases of the needed items and locations of the possible facilities, while simultaneously snipping any little brilliant innovations they may have had along the way right out of the picture. And then, to top it off, they think you're doing them a favor! More to the point, since it's your technology, you've already had plenty of time to figure out how to counteract it as well.

So I can see some situations where the trade of military technology, while not neccessarily a "good thing", is sometimes the best choice of a lot of bad choices.

Again, I'm not a Democrat, but I think it's amusing you consider a "dove" to be a repulsive term. God forbid anyone attempt peaceful relations, eh? Next thing you know you'll be saying "human rights" with that same little sneer.

Now, I would be interested in continuing this discussion if you can talk like an adult. Otherwise, I'm done.


Thelibra...

My apologies... I am also an Independent and for a moment I was fearful that you were going to enter into some liberal tirade. Now, as you can see, I am conservative without apologies; however, not to be confused with Republican. My revulsion to "Doves" as you put it, isn't the notion or desire for peace. I believe that we are all doves in that respect. That being said, it is the overall approach to achieving peace that makes me separate those of us who want or desire peace from those that I refer to as "Doves". Those are the folks that cannot see the forest for the trees and often ignore the fact the war is often the only path to peace. Think of WWII and I believe you will understand my meaning.

Now to address your questions regarding the proliferation of military and nuclear secrets under the Democrats...

www.washingtonpost.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink">Clinton gives China satellite technology

www.fas.org..." target="_blank" class="postlink">Clinton and Loral

www.fas.org..." target="_blank" class="postlink">Military Technology Transfer to China Under Clinton

www.businessweek.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink">More on the scandal

I could continue linking for days and days on this. For more information, might I suggest a Google search on "Clinton China Loral Hughes Motorola". I believe you find over 80,000 docuemtns related to this.

Continuing forward... You had intimated that perhaps there was a good reason for the technology transfer. Hmmmmm, that all depends on who you were at the time and your definition of "Good reason". Some reasonable evidence points to high-level pay-offs and buy-outs; both within our government and within the defense industry. Again, there is such a wealth of information on the matter, I cannot do the research for you. It is there, you read it and determine for yourself. Now, "Would [I] say that is a good reason to condemn current Democrats?" Answer: Yes. Those same poeple who had oversight are currently serving in offical capacity. To be fair, the same can be said for the likes of Cheney, Rumsfeld or Ashcroft.

My additional condemnation of current Democrat constituents results from their unintelligable condemnation of the war on Terror. I'm sorry to inform you that the party has been hi-jacked by leftover hippies from the '60s. There is no substance to their rants. They are clearly bankrupt on ideas; it is not about what THEY STAND FOR - it is merely about what they are against! Intelligent people VOTE FOR POLICY, unintelligent people vote against things. What I am saying is that without thinking about the repercussions, they simply rationalize their vote as being against something they don't agree with without taking into account that what they end up with might be worse! Clearly a juvenile approach to foreign policy!

On a final note, the technology that China wound up with was our NEWEST, MOST ADVANCED technology available. It was NOT obsolete! Until this transfer took place, China couldn't even get a rocket off the launch pad, let alone guise it along a course to a target. Warheads? China's warheads were much to large to even contemplate putting on the tip of a missile - until they got a hold of our war head design. To make matters worse, they obtained our MULTIPLE warhead technology. Given all of these facts, you'll have to pardon me if I seem to believe that national security does NOT belong in the hands of Democrats.



posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by kozmo
Thelibra...

My apologies... I am also an Independent and for a moment I was fearful that you were going to enter into some liberal tirade.


I'm sorry too. I got overheated and was rather emotional a few days ago. I've since given up partisan bickering. Friends?



Originally posted by kozmo
That being said, it is the overall approach to achieving peace that makes me separate those of us who want or desire peace from those that I refer to as "Doves". Those are the folks that cannot see the forest for the trees and often ignore the fact the war is often the only path to peace. Think of WWII and I believe you will understand my meaning.


True enough. Sometimes wars are neccessary, and even when they aren't, sometimes they just flat out happen because of reasons completely outside the realm of right and wrong. And sometimes good things come out of it, even though on the micro scale, usually more bad happens than good. For instance, WWII when the Axis were defeated, that was a very good thing, but in the process, over 62 million people died (a little less than 4% of the Earth's population at the time), god only knows how many were wounded, and how many families were ripped apart. That was back when the destructive technology was, at its height only good enough to level a few square miles of landscape at a time.

At the height of the Cold War, it was a common joke that there were enough nukes floating around to blow the Earth up four times over. While that may or may not have been an exageration, it did a lot to instill the idea that the next war between Superpowers will almost certainly result in a much higher death toll, collateral damage, and probably short-term destruction of the global economy with long-term consequences lasting decades. And that's a conventional warfare estimate, it doesn't even take into effect Nuclear/Biological/Chemical effects.

So, whereas we might regret a war in someplace like Iraq, we dread a war with China. It's not that people like me would do anything to avoid a war with China, it's just a realistic assessment of pros and cons. Because of just how bad a war between the U.S. and China could conceivably be, both powers are equally hesitant to go to war, but have much to gain by posturing themselves as enemies or potential enemies.

Before the fall of the Berlin wall, I used to imagine the best kept secret in the world was that the US government and the USSR were actually on friendly terms, but that their public condemnation and competition towards each other acted as an excellent catalyst to keep their respective peoples motivated and to get military funding approved. Neither really wanted an all out war, the damage too all involved is just inconceivable, but the occasional scare or brushfire battle keeps everyone on their toes. Perhaps that's not really the way it is or was, but if I were a member of the Superpowers Club, it's how I'd roll.

So, hopefully you see my viewpoint a bit more clearly now. It's not that I don't recognize the reality of war, but rather, it better suits my interests not to have the U.S. and China at war with one another.


Originally posted by kozmo
Now to address your questions regarding the proliferation of military and nuclear secrets under the Democrats.


That's a lot of info. Interesting. I never knew about all that. Of course, I'll still have to read it and look into it before passing judgment, but I certainly can't blame you for lack of supporting evidence.



Originally posted by kozmo
Continuing forward... You had intimated that perhaps there was a good reason for the technology transfer. Hmmmmm, that all depends on who you were at the time and your definition of "Good reason". Some reasonable evidence points to high-level pay-offs and buy-outs; both within our government and within the defense industry.


Now THAT is absolutley possible. I did a lot of looking into what happened with government contractors over the last two decades, and how we ended up with, for instance, the Coalition for Government Procurement. If you really care to read up on the details, it's in RATS. I think the search words you would find it under are "hard evidence government contractors". What I found was scary enough, what found me was scarier. I can't really say more on this subject except there's just some things you have to either accept as a dark shadow of Big Defense or all-out fight against it, and I'm not in a position to fight the DoD, so I accept sometimes they have to do...shady things. At least they're technically on "our side", that's what gets me to sleep at night anyway.


Originally posted by kozmo
Now, "Would [I] say that is a good reason to condemn current Democrats?" Answer: Yes. Those same poeple who had oversight are currently serving in offical capacity. To be fair, the same can be said for the likes of Cheney, Rumsfeld or Ashcroft.


Ah. Well, then it seems like, rather than Democrats specifically, you are referring to individuals who give their party a bad name. It's just like I can't logically condemn all Republicans for the actions of the Bush administration (though, to be honest, that didn't stop me before a few days ago).

And I think that was kind of the point I was trying to make. We are, I hope, entering into a slightly more enlightened political age (or at the very least, a fad), where more an more people are focusing less on partisan politics, and more upon the actions of the individuals, and the real issues at hand. Otherwise, it's too easy to just flat out condemn both parties for the actions of the few over the many. And remember, ultimately, the many are the voting public as well, so if you're mad at a handful of corrupt Democrats, by all means, please expose their dirt. But it's hardly fair to demonize my Democrat friends, neighbors, and relatives just because they voted Democrat. There's a saying. "All politics is local". People who vote Democrat typically aren't doing so because they want better defense policy, but rather better domestic policy. Also, "better" is subjective since any time you have more than one person trying to decide how a dollar should be spent, you'll have at least three different opinions.


Originally posted by kozmo
My additional condemnation of current Democrat constituents results from their unintelligable condemnation of the war on Terror.


This is, I feel, an unfair assessment of the Democratic stance. It is not that they are against the war on Terror, but rather how it is being waged. Which unfortunately is translated by the Republican party into them being against the War on Terror. It's much easier to accuse them of that than to address the competence of how that war is waged. Sort of how anyone who even remotely disagreed with how the Iraq war was being handled is just blanketly assumed by the GOP to want to "cut and run".



Originally posted by kozmo
They are clearly bankrupt on ideas; it is not about what THEY STAND FOR - it is merely about what they are against! Intelligent people VOTE FOR POLICY, unintelligent people vote against things.


Not always. I'll agree that being contrary for the sake of contrariness or because you don't like someone is bad. But sometimes the "right" path is not always clear cut. Sometimes you only know that something is "wrong", and only have an idea of a direction to go, rather than a specific destination.

While I will fully agree that I would (usually) rather know where I'm going, rather than where I'd rather not be, sometimes we are forced to decide based on the latter. The people, Republicans, Democrats, and Independents alike, have voiced their opinion as a nation that they do NOT like the way things have gone. They may not know, or agree, on what they DO want, but it was simply one of those times.

And, whether or not it was the "intelligent" or "right" choice according to the White House or anyone else is irrelevant. The Government exists to serve the wishes of the people, and sometimes, regardless of policy, they have to be reminded of that fact. This was, in my opinion, and in the opinion of most fellow voters, one of those times.



Originally posted by kozmo
On a final note, the technology that China wound up with was our NEWEST, MOST ADVANCED technology available. It was NOT obsolete!


Really? Are you sure it wasn't just the newest most advanced technology currently in use? After all, the military typically runs on technology 20-50 years behind the "real" technology level we're capable of. I just can't imagine them doing that for any reason other than a joint research project.


Originally posted by kozmo
Until this transfer took place, China couldn't even get a rocket off the launch pad, let alone guise it along a course to a target. Warheads? China's warheads were much to large to even contemplate putting on the tip of a missile - until they got a hold of our war head design. To make matters worse, they obtained our MULTIPLE warhead technology. Given all of these facts, you'll have to pardon me if I seem to believe that national security does NOT belong in the hands of Democrats.


Fair enough, and if that's the way it went, and there wasn't a damn good reason for the exchange, then bad on them. But it's also been six years since the last time Democrats had any real power. There was a time when six years was nothing, but we've seen the entire world change since then, and with it, the attitudes and actions of a lot of people. If either party were to be condemned to not run the government, based upon stupid decisions during a different administration, we would never have the same political party run a second time.



posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 11:30 AM
link   
I'd rather be friends with China than not. However, they don't view us as such. We are competing in the most important game of all. Survival. Not survival of the human race, but survival of our way of life.

To quote a cheezy yet entertaining movie Starship Troopers "its simple numbers, they have more"

I view china as a pure and solid threat. Sure our economies are practically based off of one another, but both of us could survive without the other.

One thing that I didn't like at all about the presidential race of 2004 was that not one single important long term issue was brought up. It was all short-sighted junk. The issue I am specifically looking at is: How is the US going to remain competitive with emerging superpowers such as the EU and China? It was never addressed.

As for the sub surfacing, don't be alarmed, the swedes IIRC did the same thing with their electric/deisel subs a year ago. China's army is indeed significant, however they cannot project power. I won't be considerably alarmed until that happens. And when they are able to project power, I will be building a shelter, buying ammo and supplies, and prepare for the worse. Because when super powers clash, 1 of 2 things happens. One collapses under its own weight much like General Motors, or there is an armed conflict.



posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by thelibra
My guess is that they didn't so much "allow it", but rather the sub was just resting on the ocean floor and needed to surface at a really inconvenient time.


That could well have been what happened, but the information we have shows that the chinese submarine was shadowing the American carrier as well as no past history of chinese submarines resting on the sea floor which is extremly deep near okinawa.


It still, though, shows an alarming ability to evade detection, but then, they're submarines, stealth is what they're built for.


With this new news, i suspect the US is severely lacking in ASW capabilties. The old notion of the US being very capable at ASW operations might still be the myth from the cold war era when they had free reign tracking the extremely nosiy soviet submarines



posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite
That could well have been what happened, but the information we have shows that the chinese submarine was shadowing the American carrier as well as no past history of chinese submarines resting on the sea floor which is extremly deep near okinawa.


Hmmm... Well, errr... maybe they were going to bake a pie and just needed to borrow a cup of sugar... After all, China's pretty strict on their rations, and a little sugar goes a long way towards pleasing a crew full of hungry people.




Originally posted by chinawhite
With this new news, i suspect the US is severely lacking in ASW capabilties. The old notion of the US being very capable at ASW operations might still be the myth from the cold war era when they had free reign tracking the extremely nosiy soviet submarines


Well, I dunno... Our government's tech is never as advanced as people believe, but a lot more advanced than they could ever admit to. I think that the same could be said about China as well though I -think- we still hold a technological advantage overall. That may not be the case by the time our children run the world, though. Especially if China plays the next 10 years right.



posted on Nov, 16 2006 @ 02:28 AM
link   
The problem with the US navy is that they have no modern day experience with operating against diesel boats - so why do you think everyone is making AIP diesel boats


they run far quieter than a nuke boat - believe the propaganda if you wish , but even a 20 year old diesel boat is quieter on batteries than any nuke boat is. ever.


The us navy have leased an AIP boat from sweden - and still can`t find it *most* of the time.


The deep is one very big place - if a CBG can be lost at sea and need a RORSAT to locate it , then in comparison a sub isn`t going to be found if they don`t want to.



posted on Nov, 16 2006 @ 06:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite
As the paper indicated, it was spotted ONLY when it was five miles from the aircraft carrier. The paper also states what spotted it. The notion that it was tracked when it left habour is pure speculation based on absolutely nothing. Unless anyone has anything BUT facts, the rest are make believe stories


I think we should be careful and not treat details in the story as fact either. The only thing that appears factual is a submarine surfaced within 5 miles of the largest carrier battlegroup in the world, and that by itself shouldn't need any justification of merit as it should be self evident to everyone the advancements in Chinese submarine capability.

Please feel free to speculate why the sub surfaced chinawhite, I can't imagine the submarine captain intentionally unzipped his fly and showing off in such a scenario isn't exactly China's way of doing business, so I think it is safe to say there are details missing.

This story appers to be a political story and the Washington Times has simply become the political vehicle for the story, not a defacto journal of integrity on a military event. Either this is a way of going after funding after a new election, or it is an internal Navy political struggle and someone is trying to embarrass Admiral Roughead and timed this leak to coincide with his visit to China. After all, Roughead has perhaps the best position in the US Navy as the Commander of the Pacific Fleet, and many had to be passed over for him to get that position, who probably hold a grudge.



posted on Nov, 16 2006 @ 03:10 PM
link   
Most AIP's do not offer you the range, speed, endurance and to an extent payload capabilities that nuke boats do. It's fine to have AIP subs if you're going to fight a defensive and limited coastal war on your turf but for a fast deployable GLOBAL sea force based around strike groups it's not the way to go.

And I just have one more point, making assumption about USN ASW capabilities from this incident (which we don't even know all the details of) is premature.



posted on Nov, 16 2006 @ 09:25 PM
link   
Right..
Darksided,
so its the n/w intelligence of the PLAN/PLA is the bit that the Dod had underestimated?
The bit about using various recon methods to put a 5 kt speed vessel in the vicinity of a 15kt speed battlegroup?

The incident in 2001 with Japan, was also under similar doubt. One set of media reports claimed that the chinese slipped through while the other set claimed that the JMSDF had seen them long ago, and had forced them to surface.

Are we still in consensus that it was indeed a Song?
I doubt it was a Yuan.. Have they been even operationalised yet?
What about a Type 636? More plausible?

Also nitpicking on the grammar:
Every sub 'intentionally' surfaces; there aren't any gremlins blowing ballasts!
The question remains on whether the surfacing was forced or independant.


EDIT: As far as we know, any Song variant does NOT have AIP.
What also comes to mind though, is the fact that the very same carrier group was buzzed by a Su-27,Su-24 duo a few years back. Coincidence?





[edit on 16-11-2006 by Daedalus3]



posted on Nov, 16 2006 @ 09:49 PM
link   
A response came from the chinese authority in response to this new report claim the report to be a false news, no such incident has happened.



posted on Nov, 16 2006 @ 10:20 PM
link   
The wash times article says that US officials declined to comment:



A Pacific Command spokesman declined to comment on the incident, saying details were classified. Pentagon spokesmen also declined to comment.
source


do you have a source on the decline warset?



posted on Nov, 16 2006 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
The incident in 2001 with Japan, was also under similar doubt. One set of media reports claimed that the chinese slipped through while the other set claimed that the JMSDF had seen them long ago, and had forced them to surface.


Daedalus3,

there was two incidents that happened in 2001. One was a Han class submarine which was forced to surface and the other the one i posted



posted on Nov, 16 2006 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite
The Chinese submarine came up when it wanted to come up. Not to forget this happened one month ago when the US was holding some sort of military exercise. Simply put it, why would the US allow a submarine to come within five miles to a carrier?


What exactly would they do to prevent it ? Sink it
They are not at war and in international waters, they cannot prosecute the PLAN sub, they could conceivably make it uncomfortable fro the crew with active pinging, but that;s about it.
Besides the US gets most of it's goods made in China, why upset the economy over an incident.

[edit on 16-11-2006 by rogue1]



posted on Nov, 17 2006 @ 02:14 AM
link   
The US admiral, William J. Fallon, actually indicated that if the Americans were looking for a submarine, there could have been "could well have escalated into something that was very unforeseen". The interuptation of that is very simple.

How would one stop a fighter like soviet bear coming into soviet airspace. I do believe that if it was detected it would have been sunk





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join