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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by chinawhite
Simply put it, why would the US allow a submarine to come within five miles to a carrier?
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by kozmo
Now to address your questions regarding the proliferation of military and nuclear secrets under the Democrats.
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.
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.
Originally posted by kozmo
My additional condemnation of current Democrat constituents results from their unintelligable condemnation of the war on Terror.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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 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.
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
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
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.
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?