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.

 

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

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 12:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite
I did not make that statement your talking about. I was refering to the fact that the Submarine wasn't detected earlier and would have been detected if they were engaged at an eariler distance and did not halt. I did not say they would sink the chinese submarine on detection.


Whatever, maybe you should have made that clear. Properly odered your thoughts. You still hvae provided no proof that the the US would hvae sunk the submarine. Still waiting.




I think when you can distinguish between a war zone and a peaceful area, you may be able to work out the difference by yourself.


PROOF, Please.

Even in peace time the American ADIZ has acknowledged that a threat will be shot down, what exactly are you looking for?. I can provide statements from NORAD indicating they are prepared to shoot down a threat if that is what your looking for


ERM, look up the Iran Iraq War
Gawd. You obviously didn't read or couldn't read my previous posts, where it clearly shows that at teh time of the Iran Air shootdown - the US NAvy was negaged in it's largest naval defence operations against the Iranians since WWII.
Now how hard is itto understand, the difference between a warzone and a peaceful area. You seem to have great trouble understanding the concept.




4 July 1989 A Soviet MiG-23 Flogger, piloted by Colonel Skurigin, took off from an airbase near Kolobzreg on the coast of the Baltic Sea in Poland, on a training flight. After take-off the pilot realized he was losing engine power. The pilot ejected and landed safely by parachute. The engine then regained power and the aircraft flew away to the West, guided by the autopilot. The fighter left the airspace of the East Germany and entered West German airspace where it was intercepted by a pair of USAF F-15s. The F-15s were denied permission to fire on the MiG and had to let it fly away. Eventually, after flying 900 km, the MiG-23 ran out of fuel and crashed into a house near Kortrijk, Belgium. An 18-year old man in the house was killed.


US fighters are prepared to shoot down threats coming their way


Pointless example, the fighter had crossed into the airspace of a NATO country, yet they still didn't shoot it down. You do know that teh Pacific OCean is international territory ? You understand that ?



Can you please provide some proof of them being with their useful range or had actually activated their cruise missiles. Its one thing when a Bear was making a pass on the american coast and was intercepted and then another is when they were making a bombing run on an american city. They would have been put on radar lock once entering the american ADIZ.


Erm what's your point. The point I'm making is that by your logic they should have been shot down because they were a threat well within missile firng range of missiles. The Americans woudn'y know if they were carrying or not - so would hvae to assume that all planes may hvae been armed. Yet they didn't shoot them down. The US ADIZ zone is only about 200km, Russian strategic air launched missiles had a range far exceeding this.


If they were considered a threat, they would have been shot down when it became a threat, the soviets never put their pilots so close to the american coast because of this reason


They came very close to teh coast and why woudn't they, the US skirted Soviet borders all the time.



You either cannot read or purposely left out the most relevant information. The Libyan planes fired on the F-14's first


My flight occured with MiG-23s not Su-17/22s. Dont be to quick and make accusations about my reading capabilities or try and call me a liar

A bottom in that link before indicated my event which describes nothing about missiles being fired nor was that theoffical US line


You also take it out of context, this was after the Gulf Of Sidra incident, whre the US NAvy had been fired on by the Libyansm therefore the precedent has been set. Completely different situation to the submarine. You cannot make a square peg fit into a round hole, no matter how much you try. Next.



I'm sure they did overfly carriers n the 1960's. Why are the 1960's so important to you ?


Your sure, or you have proof?


Sure if I could be bothered looking. I have no time so I'll use your tctics - You prove they didn't LOL.


Dates and quoting people right as both equally important. Close enough is not good enough. It was not the 1970's which implied all the way to 1976 theres a big difference in the incencity of the cold war during those periods which you made light of previously


You should listen to your own advice.




posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 03:09 AM
link   
Please dont spilt this in a lot of different sentences this time..



Originally posted by rogue1You still hvae provided no proof that the the US would hvae sunk the submarine. Still waiting.


Here is the whole extract from the article. Its clear to anyone what "escalated into something that was very unforeseen" meant. it meant the chinese sunk being sunk. They are the comments from the US admiral


“The fact that you have military units that would operate in close proximity to each other offers the potential for events that would not be what we would like to see -- the potential for miscalculation. Now it turns out that the aircraft carrier and its escorting ships were out doing some exercises. I am told they were not engaged in anti-submarine exercises, so they were not looking for submarines. But if they had been, and this Chinese submarine happened to come in the middle of this, then this could well have escalated into something that was very unforeseen.”


I have already told you to use Dictionary.com if you dont know what any of those meanings mean. And no, it does not mean picking flowers to go to grandmas house, its a statement about the possiblly of the chinese sunk being engaged.

Its much like the "line in the sand" type situation after you have challenged and warned people not to cross that line. I have a statement from the US admiral which indicates that the submarine would ahve been sunk and did not say it out right for PR reasons and the fact he was heading off the china that weekend. The incident also happened one month ago and he was trying to difuse tensions because he intends to improve relations between the chinese and americans by giving these exchanges.


If you suggest that after the submarine has been engaged, the aircraft carrier won't shoot at it? Why would they have escorts if they allow submarines to go where they please, why do you need a defence force if you allow other people to go where they please. A US aircraft carrier establishes an exclusive protective zone around itself and all entering craft have to report, the zone has already been set and this gives other planes and such warning that they will potentionall shot down.



Now how hard is itto understand, the difference between a warzone and a peaceful area.



I didn't ask from a story and dance, i asked what is the difference between these two in the USN rules of engagment. I am not looking for your explaination of things you think would happen, but the actual process the US goes about intercepting each fighter. Your making a point making a assumption that i'll believe what your posting.

The difference is simple and I know what the actual differences is myself, i want to know what you'll claim and what is the truth. If you claim there is a difference, you should be able to say such.

I like your notion about a warzone, they weren't activitly engaged in the war and were netural in that war. I know your refering to the tanker war, but the US has very little to do with the actual combat and mostly were engaging iranian missile boats.



Pointless example, the fighter had crossed into the airspace of a NATO country, yet they still didn't shoot it down.


Because it was un-piloted and more probaly hoping it landed safety so they could examine the fighter. If overflew german airspace and wasn't shot down because it was not considered a threat. If a Soviet plane did enter and was piloted and then engaged and still continued its course, it would have ended the same way as the Libyan fighters .What my point is, they were prepared to shoot down a fighter after they engaged in the rules of engagment. Your notion that no fighter was ever shot down has been disproved with the MiG-23 incident.

The Aircraft carrier maintains at defence perimiter around it, it does not allow any unauthorised entry and tracks all entry. Civillan aircraft do enter the carrier battle groups airspace, but the difference between authorised access and un-authorised access is simple to understand.



The point I'm making is that by your logic they should have been shot down because they were a threat well within missile firng range of missiles.



I did not make that point, i said that inclusive of the level of threat they posed to the American states. Those Bears would ahve been on radar lock once they were intercepted, and once they reached the ADIZ. But before they reached the ADIZ and tried to enter it, they were treated as a threat and begun to be engaged intercept manuvers like the picture JIMC5499 provided. Warning shots and fast passes to distract the bear pilots.

I had two combinations and did not say because they were in their useful range. The bear could have been making an attack and simulated run on a American city and DID NOT carry any weapons when making these runs. You dont activate your weapons on a training run because of the potentional of acidents or "Red Ocotober" type incident. The Bears were simply not shot down because they did not pose a threat and if they did pose a threat, they would ahve been engaged. But as i have said here and before, they did not challened the interceptors and returned in the other dirction after nearing the ADIZ. This is much in comparison to what you have tried to argue.

If the chinese submarine was detected much eariler like some posters suggest (when it left port even), it would have been engaged in stages and would be classed as Class A, Class B, Class C or even class D. This is from the most threatening to the least threatening. Tracking would obviously be the first stage (Part D), then Pinging the submarine lightly and then heavily (Part C). If it didn't divert course then depth charges would be dropped in its general location which would be Part B. Then if it didn't stop after that it would be sunk by a combination of depth charges (if they still apply), or torpedos which would be much better.




You also take it out of context



So you attacked my source first and did not work, now you tried to dismiss it?. Gez, how do you actually think you'll get away by analzing my owrding instead of what i have written, but i have noticed this through all the times we have had arguments. How is this "not in the context" of the discussion?. The 1981 was COMPLETELY DIFFERENT in approach and the rules of engagment appiles to EVERY situation and not pick and choose. The MiG-23 engagment was longer and had more warnings and mroe manuvers happen during that time. The US fighters can be engaged only when engaged as they dictate, but the commanding officer overrides this command. The rules of engagment are for the field personal.

None of these are war Zones like you proclaimed to be different.

Here is a comparison.

- Libyan jets spotted.
- Libyan jets approach carriers direction (contact initiated).
- Libyan jets continue to approach, F-14s begin intercept.
- Libyan jets continue their approach and comes within threatening distance.
- After warnings are dismissed, US jets are cleared for kill.

- Submarine jets spotted.
- Submarine approach carriers direction (contact initiated).
- Submarine continue to approach, Pinging begins.
- Submarine continues its approach and depth charges begin to be thrown.
- Submarine continues its approach and is sunk because the aircraft carrier already has a 200km "no fly" perimiter around it. (*note - no fly indicates no un-authorised entry).

Here is the cuban missile crisis senario.

- Submarine jets spotted.
- Submarine approach cubas direction while escorting the cargo ships.
- Submarine continue to approach, Pinging begins.
- Submarine continues its approach and depth charges begin to be thrown.
- Submarine is engaged without being engaged because the US .

All of these, display the rules of engagement and all of these are actual senarios or possible senarios. What is the difference between A B or C. There is no difference but a different level of threat. I would also like to mention that the incident posted about the Su-17 was a pefect example of the rules of engagment at work, the F-14 only fired back when they were engaged and even was allowed to do this even before the AEW commander even knew they were fired upon to give them clearance to fire.




Sure if I could be bothered looking.


I had provided my source at the begining of the discussion. You can provide yours now. I would also like to know about your claims about iranian overflights and such as you said you "heard" someone mention it before. You better be bothered looking becuase i have been bothered and gave you a source and argument. You claimed that the soviets overflew US carriers. And when you find them, you can answer these questions too.

- Did they fly over a carrier at 1000 feet or 50,000 feet.
- Were they detected before they overflew.
- And did they retreat before they were intercepted .

All these could have different senarios and different situations and cant just sterotype the situation and prsent it as fact, you know what the Where, what, when and why works and if you are trying to make that case, you sound provide proof how it works.



You should listen to your own advice.


The "i know you are but what am i" defence?. How childish is that. If you dont have any proof, you should tell people you dont ahve any poof instead of trying to divert the subject. if you want a disucssion, I will have a discussion with you, but if all you have to say is "looks whos talking" there is no point in me responding to these childish comments and use your tactics againest yourself.

I guess you dropped the Soviet aircraft argument pretty quickly as well. There was not alot you could ahve said about taht to indicate it was truthful or that the US actually knew when the russian aircraft arrived when they gave "immediate" orders of "alert fighters" yet they were proclaiming that the situation was un-threatning



posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 06:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite
I have already told you to use Dictionary.com if you dont know what any of those meanings mean. And no, it does not mean picking flowers to go to grandmas house, its a statement about the possiblly of the chinese sunk being engaged.


No it is your interpretation and using a dictionary is not going to tell me anything LOL. What could a dictinary possibly tell me what these unforseen circumstances might have been.



If you suggest that after the submarine has been engaged, the aircraft carrier won't shoot at it? Why would they have escorts if they allow submarines to go where they please, why do you need a defence force if you allow other people to go where they please. A US aircraft carrier establishes an exclusive protective zone around itself and all entering craft have to report, the zone has already been set and this gives other planes and such warning that they will potentionall shot down.


Not in international peaceful waters. Sorry but you are wrong. US carriers have been overflown many times and have never shot down any planes in a non-war zone. As for your supposed example of Libya, it has no meaning. The US had already beeen engaged by Lybian aircraft before and Lybia continued to be a hostile state toweards the US as can be seen from terrorist bombings as well. You are saying that China as well has tried to attack the US on previous occassions ?




Now how hard is itto understand, the difference between a warzone and a peaceful area.


I didn't ask from a story and dance, i asked what is the difference between these two in the USN rules of engagment. I am not looking for your explaination of things you think would happen, but the actual process the US goes about intercepting each fighter. Your making a point making a assumption that i'll believe what your posting.


^^^ LOL and the point of this bit of waffle is what ? You still do not understand the difference oh well.....not my problem.



I like your notion about a warzone, they weren't activitly engaged in the war and were netural in that war. I know your refering to the tanker war, but the US has very little to do with the actual combat and mostly were engaging iranian missile boats.


Gawd, are you stupid ? Gee well I guess blowing up Iranian boats is normal peacetime activity or having one of your warships almost blown in half by an antishipping missile. Seriously, I feel like I'm talking to an idiot.




Because it was un-piloted and more probaly hoping it landed safety so they could examine the fighter. If overflew german airspace and wasn't shot down because it was not considered a threat. If a Soviet plane did enter and was piloted and then engaged and still continued its course, it would have ended the same way as the Libyan fighters .What my point is, they were prepared to shoot down a fighter after they engaged in the rules of engagment. Your notion that no fighter was ever shot down has been disproved with the MiG-23 incident.


Erm, looks like you've tied yourself into knots, bringing up more and more irrelevant garbage.
BTW, unpiloted planes fon't often land by themselves LMAO - no really, I really did laugh when I read this.



I had two combinations and did not say because they were in their useful range. The bear could have been making an attack and simulated run on a American city and DID NOT carry any weapons when making these runs. You dont activate your weapons on a training run because of the potentional of acidents or "Red Ocotober" type incident.


Hmm, the US military didn't know if the Russian bombers were carryin weapons or not and as for a simulated attack run it would look no different from any approach of Soviet aircraft to teh US caostline.


The Bears were simply not shot down because they did not pose a threat and if they did pose a threat, they would ahve been engaged. But as i have said here and before, they did not challened the interceptors and returned in the other dirction after nearing the ADIZ.


No they didn't turn around normally they continued on their course to Cuba, there were in international airspace, teh US had no right to shoot them down by interantioanl law.



- Libyan jets spotted.
- Libyan jets approach carriers direction (contact initiated).
- Libyan jets continue to approach, F-14s begin intercept.
- Libyan jets continue their approach and comes within threatening distance.
- After warnings are dismissed, US jets are cleared for kill.


This is your probem you cannot look at the big picture. Us F-14's had already been engaged by Libyan fighters in a previous incident, where the fighters fired on teh F-14's. You see it has set a precedent, the Mig-23's were engaging in the same tpye of provocation, so teh US could have expected an attack, couple that with Qaddafi's anti-amercan stance then you have a situation whre that happened.
Now has CHina previously attacked the US ?


All of these, display the rules of engagement and all of these are actual senarios or possible senarios. What is the difference between A B or C. There is no difference but a different level of threat.


no tehy are actually all quite different, you don't take into consideration what was happening at the times these incidents took place. So they are not comaparble.



I had provided my source at the begining of the discussion. You can provide yours now. I would also like to know about your claims about iranian overflights and such as you said you "heard" someone mention it before.


Well in teh other thread about Iranian UAV taking pics of some carrier. A former RN sailor who served in the Gulf said that. From your previous comment " the difference from reading website to being there " - LOL, take your own advice, LOL.

- Did they fly over a carrier at 1000 feet or 50,000 feet.
- Were they detected before they overflew.
- And did they retreat before they were intercepted .

All these could have different senarios and different situations and cant just sterotype the situation and prsent it as fact, you know what the Where, what, when and why works and if you are trying to make that case, you sound provide proof how it works.




You should listen to your own advice.


The "i know you are but what am i" defence?. How childish is that. If you dont have any proof, you should tell people you dont ahve any poof instead of trying to divert the subject.


You should listen to your own advice



I guess you dropped the Soviet aircraft argument pretty quickly as well. There was not alot you could ahve said about taht to indicate it was truthful or that the US actually knew when the r


I did, maybe wishful thinking from you


The fact remains that you really don't what you are arguing about and it shows with all these examples you try and make relevent which aren't.

mod edit: corrected missing letter in quote tag

[edit on 19-11-2006 by UK Wizard]



posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 07:55 AM
link   
Wow, the pattern still persists.

No source is good enough for Rouge1 if the info it contains proves him flat wrong, and when he's asked for his sources, all we get is static.

Keep it up people.



posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by iskander

Wow, the pattern still persists.

No source is good enough for Rouge1 if the info it contains proves him flat wrong, and when he's asked for his sources, all we get is static.

Keep it up people.


i hvae to laugh at Iskander these days, the only time he ever repsonds to a post of mine is whicge about something. I have so comperehensively whipped his ass in debate that he dare not write something, which I could take apart.
Come Iskander why don't you contribute something, rather than whining, show some BALLS, oops sorry I forgot you're a girl - you know what I mean though.



posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
I have so comperehensively whipped his ass in debate that he dare not write something, which I could take apart.


You whipped his ass?, interesting, you just showed how you whipped his ass

Quote from you
"show some BALLS, oops sorry I forgot you're a girl - you know what I mean though. "



"Never argue with an idiot; He'll drag you down to his level and beat you by experience"







[edit on 19-11-2006 by chinawhite]



posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 06:20 PM
link   
First sign your losing a argument is when you restort to personal attacks

Quote rouge1
- Gawd, are you stupid ?
- I feel like I'm talking to an idiot

I see you dropped and did not pick up your argument about the Su-27 being allowed to fly over the US carrier when you realised I was questioning you for a source. When you quote me, can you make sure you put my words around the quote button


Originally posted by rogue1
No it is your interpretation and using a dictionary is not going to tell me anything LOL.


Its clear to anyone what "escalated into something that was very unforeseen" meant. it meant the chinese sunk being sunk. They are the comments from the US admiral about the reports that the chinese submarine

very unforeseen means a sudden unexpected development. Unless your going to say the chinese submarine surfaces and the crew does a dance, there is only one meaning when he combinded that with "But if they had been, and this Chinese submarine happened to come in the middle of this" means that they would have sunk the submarine as part of their exercises or treated that as a threat. If a chinese submarine has penerated the carrier battle grouops inner layer, they would have been attacked as stated by this comment about American battle group tactics

"If a submarine is detected after it penetrates to the inner screen the issue is getting weapons in the water, even if they are not accurately targeted. All and any efforts to distract the submarine from attacking the HVUs are made. Torpedo evasion maneuvers are also necessary." Which means a alert will be issued and all avaible weapons will be francitly thrown in the water. This is what Mr Fallon was meaning about the alert posture of the carrier group if the submarine was detected



Not in international peaceful waters. Sorry but you are wrong. US carriers have been overflown many times


Overflown means an aircraft, which you have yet to present some edvidence for. We are talking about a submarine underneath the aircraft carrier. You have made these statements yet you have absolutly no edvidence to suggest otherwise. You said the that the US carrier won't engage craft approching it.

US aircraft carriers have been flown around when the civillan aircraft was given permission to be flown around, and when they were flown near the carrier they wont flown over the top of the carrier. The difference between that and a situation where a submarine is ignoring warnings and has been fired upon and refuses to stop, just like the situation of the MiG-23. This just shows the rules of engagement, the Libyan aircraft did not fire on shot but refused to abide by the US aircraft and were shot down

Previous example
- Libyan jets spotted.
- Libyan jets approach carriers direction (contact initiated).
- Libyan jets continue to approach, F-14s begin intercept.
- Libyan jets continue their approach and comes within threatening distance.
- After warnings are dismissed, US jets are cleared for kill.

- Submarine jets spotted.
- Submarine approach carriers direction (contact initiated).
- Submarine continue to approach, Pinging begins.
- Submarine continues its approach and depth charges begin to be thrown.
- Submarine continues its approach and is sunk because the aircraft carrier already has a 200km "no fly" perimiter around it. (*note - no fly indicates no un-authorised entry).

You mentioned something about a previous incident 8 years ago and somehow set a "precident" for future engagements. That is pure non-sense, the rules of engagement doesn't take into account previous incidents and focuses on the threat leeel at that situation. They dont treat different countries aircraft differently, so they'll attack chinese aircraft because they were fired upon in the Korean war or vietnamese aircraft?. These are basic rules of engagement rules to abide by

Chinese and american armed forces aren't exactly friendly over the past decade and have/still are hostile because of a few incidents over that past decade



You still do not understand the difference oh well.


Its not about understanding anything, i dont believe you is closer to the truth. So you make statemetns like "its a warzone, dont you get it" does not consitute edvidence nor does that make it anymore believable if you put it that way. If you want to prove something, you should actually provide a source to state the difference between the two. Using a statement like "its a warzone, dont you get it" is not going to work.

I would the difference between the rules of engagement between a carrier on a routine military exercises and a naval vessel on a escort mission. I already know they were under orders not to fire until they are fired upon which caused the USS stark to be fired upon. Thats just one point i was going to make about their so called "warzone" metality you have. They wont there to engage other craft and were there for esort and protection duties which is much different from actually partaking in a warzone like a war in europe where naval crews and captains ahve free reign on their controls




Erm, looks like you've tied yourself into knots. unpiloted planes fon't often land by themselves


How did i tie myself in knots?. I said that rather than shooting it down and expoding the aircraft, they would have let the aircraft fly and run out of petrol so it would hopefully land safety. I dont know what you are trying to imply by that accusation

"Because it was un-piloted and more probaly hoping it landed safety so they could examine the fighter. If overflew german airspace and wasn't shot down because it was not considered a threat. If a Soviet plane did enter and was piloted and then engaged and still continued its course, it would have ended the same way as the Libyan fighters .What my point is, they were prepared to shoot down a fighter after they engaged in the rules of engagment. Your notion that no fighter was ever shot down has been disproved with the MiG-23 incident."

And it does give a prime example of rules of engagement, the fighter was not a threat and wasn't dealt with as a threat. They saw there was no pilot inside and were giving overriding commands by head quarters not to shoot it down.


the US military didn't know if the Russian bombers were carryin weapons or not and as for a simulated attack run it would look no different from any approach of Soviet aircraft to teh US caostline.


You can actually observe what variant was being flown and how many bombers were being flown at the same time. As i said before, the Bears would have to be escorted away when they reached the ADIZ (thats if they ever reached it). I know of the Bears attempts to go to the West coast of America through their pacific bases and were intercepted BEFORE they even reached the west coast. They were noramlly intercepted near Iceland and Alaska before they had the chance to come near the east coast. They also made trips down to cuba but these were monitored and did not come within range of the US coast

The Bombers did not make simulated attacks runs 200km and you are taking simulated attack runs to closely, they were flights to probe the American defense and to know their alert status which meant them making the flight to Alaska and making a quick break to see how fast they get inertcepted.

To know the difference between one Tu-95 coming towards America and one armed with nuclear weapons is much different, if they made threatening manuvers or tried to break away or open their bomb bays, they would have been shot at. But because they did not pose a threat, they were not dealth with. Again, this was at a different era from the one we are living in now. Flights by Tu-95 in the 80's were quite routine and tracked by the US. Fighters would be agressively manuvering over the Bears and would have had them on radar lock. The bears never made a threatening approach and were dealth with as if they did make one. The rules of engagement in the Cold war was set very clearly so incidents like this couldn't have happened. If you want to try and make a point about the bears making a simulated attack and being threatening you can reference something to prove your point instead of using this approach and trying to attack me into believing what you stated


You see it has set a precedent, the Mig-23's were engaging in the same tpye of provocation


Rules of engagement state, that you are only allow to engage when engaged. Like i have said before in this thread, it doesn't matter and does not take into account past incidents when you consider the ruels of engagment. All that matters is a case by case situation. China did fire on US aircraft in the Korean war. Would they be treated differently because of this mentality?. How about the vietnamese airforce, do people make them down as shoot to kill?

The Su-17 engaged in actual combat which lead to their downing. The MiG-23 did not and where there for a interception. they did not aim their missiles or target them at the F-14. This is clearly different situation from one which happened eight years beforehand. Dont try to divert this with "set the precident" for a future incident because thats has no backing at all. Like i have been saying in this thread, the RoE are set rules for case by case situation and does not factor in a past engagement between the forces a few years ago. And please dont associated this with some sort of make Libya look bad campaign because we are talking about a engagement between the fighters and not why they were there. Why were they attack in a non-warzone like you have claimed was the only area they would have been attacked. The rules of engagement stipulate quite clearly that you may only attack when you have been attacked and the MiG-23 were making intercept manuvers and did not pose an apparant threat to the American fighters and recieve permission to fire by the high command



posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 06:30 PM
link   
I guess you ran out of things to say at the end and tried to divert the last of these post so you didn't have to answer the,


Originally posted by rogue1no tehy are actually all quite different, you don't take into consideration what was happening at the times these incidents took place.


You made a statement that they are so different but you did not go further than that argument?. There might have been different situations but the classes of threat still exist and they are flexible enough to take these into consideration. The four classes a quite broad and each event is classed into different sections so they can apply as a basic guideline to all of the different circumstances the USN will facce. My situation below could apply to many different situations because they are broad enough

If the chinese submarine was detected much eariler like some posters suggest (when it left port even), it would have been engaged in stages and would be classed as Class A, Class B, Class C or even class D. This is from the most threatening to the least threatening. Tracking would obviously be the first stage (Part D), then Pinging the submarine lightly and then heavily (Part C). If it didn't divert course then depth charges would be dropped in its general location which would be Part B. Then if it didn't stop after that it would be sunk by a combination of depth charges (if they still apply), or torpedos which would be much better.

Class A, Class B, Class C, Class D are alert status like the US has with its terrorist alert and could mean a whole spectum of things to consider


Well in teh other thread about Iranian UAV taking pics of some carrier. A former RN sailor who served in the Gulf said that.


Unless you've going to give me a quote, i dont have a clue which thread your talking about. I which and found all my edvidence and quotes and not one time did i not give you a source for my argument.


You should listen to your own advice I did, maybe wishful thinking from you


Some type of response you have formulated

"The "i know you are but what am i" defence?. How childish is that. If you dont have any proof, you should tell people you dont ahve any poof instead of trying to divert the subject. if you want a disucssion, I will have a discussion with you, but if all you have to say is "looks whos talking" there is no point in me responding to these childish comments and use your tactics againest yourself."

This is exactly what i am talking about when i reference you to these examples. Your reply to Iskander summed up this behaviour exactly, i could reference other threads if you want me to


The fact remains that you really don't what you are arguing about and it shows with all these examples you try and make relevent which aren't.


I know perfectly well what i am arguing about. I reference i quote from the US admiral and his own wordings of events.

here is the soviet aircraft question you cant answer

Easily?. Have you operated a radar system on board a ship, or have you ever tried to detect a low flying aircraft. When the aircraft was most likey detected was when the "immediate" orders of "alert fighters". If they were tracked so far away, they wouldn't have panicked and the aircraft carrier wasn't put on alert.

I would like to note, that this un-threatening event put the carrier on a higher alert status because it was expected?. This was the same person who said that the russian fighters had a "suitable distance away" from the Kitty Hawk when this information was first released



posted on Nov, 20 2006 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite

Originally posted by rogue1
I have so comperehensively whipped his ass in debate that he dare not write something, which I could take apart.


You whipped his ass?, interesting, you just showed how you whipped his ass

Quote from you
"show some BALLS, oops sorry I forgot you're a girl - you know what I mean though. "



"Never argue with an idiot; He'll drag you down to his level and beat you by experience"




I voted him for ATS award because of this -

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Scroll down







[edit on 19-11-2006 by chinawhite]



posted on Nov, 20 2006 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by wildcat
I voted him for ATS award because of this -
www.abovetopsecret.com...



Because of what?



I'm still laughing over his boast
"whipped his ass in debate"

A debate is a organised form of discussion where each side as a stance on a issue. What Mr rogue1 does is get into a type of posting melee. He waits and looks over the grammer of the post a long time and tries to find something wrong with it, spilts it up into little sentences and resorts to name calling. Here is a recent example of it

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I can reference many threads he "whipped ass" in






[edit on 21-11-2006 by chinawhite]



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 04:38 AM
link   
Some of the comments in this thread really amazes me. It reminds me of the pre WII mentality which some of the western powers had; the Japanese Empire will never be a threat for western powers, the Japanese equipments are inferior and their soldiers small, incapable, subhuman yellow monkeys- no threat at all!

Now we have a Chinese submarine submerging within striking distance of a US CVBG; of course the Chinese were forced to submerge by the might of the US fleet, or the omnipotent US Navy was always AWARE and ALLOWED them to come and to submerge very near!

Really, you guys should read some of the ridiculous comments which western officers made concerning Japanese soldiers and their equipment just prior to WWII.

Paranoid Duck

[edit on 21-11-2006 by Paranoid Duck]



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 11:57 AM
link   
The idea that a Dem President (from several years back now) is the only one to have ever transferred (ultra high) tech related to nuclear sciences/weaponry/technology to the Chinese is rather silly; you'll find reports of the present Rep incumbent doing likewise.

One might even begin to ask how else are they going to make China seem any kind of serious credible 'threat' to the US public........to try to justify a further obscene bloating of (the already bigger than everyone else in the world put together) military budget, hmmmmm? -


The Bush administration has been "as bad, if not worse" than the Clinton administration when it comes to the transfer of sensitive technologies to the People's Republic of China (PRC), claims Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, a nonpartisan public-interest law firm. Fitton says the Bush administration even has "relaxed the rules put in place during the Clinton years." Specifically, he tells INSIGHT, the administration has allowed the transfer of "computer technology [whose] only practical purpose is for nuclear-weapon design."

www.findarticles.com...

- Naturally each side whether Dem or Rep would claim they did not specifically do such a thing and that these reports are unfounded, speculative or biased.

.....and since when just cos a media report says the US Navy was unaware of the sub does that become the absolute truth of the matter?
The truth is only really known to (some of) the sailors in the US & Chinese navy.

(.....and as for tech-transfer?
Not that long ago they were trying to convince people that selling Playstation2's was a terrible 'threat' cos they were so high tech that they could easily be adapted to aid China's nuclear missiles/threat.)

[edit on 22-11-2006 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite

Originally posted by wildcat
I voted him for ATS award because of this -
www.abovetopsecret.com...



Because of what?



I'm still laughing over his boast
"whipped his ass in debate"

A debate is a organised form of discussion where each side as a stance on a issue. What Mr rogue1 does is get into a type of posting melee. He waits and looks over the grammer of the post a long time and tries to find something wrong with it, spilts it up into little sentences and resorts to name calling. Here is a recent example of it

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I can reference many threads he "whipped ass" in






[edit on 21-11-2006 by chinawhite]


I only voted him for one thing. All this other stuff, not the reason why I voted him.



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite

Originally posted by wildcat
I voted him for ATS award because of this -
www.abovetopsecret.com...



Because of what?



I'm still laughing over his boast
"whipped his ass in debate"

A debate is a organised form of discussion where each side as a stance on a issue. What Mr rogue1 does is get into a type of posting melee. He waits and looks over the grammer of the post a long time and tries to find something wrong with it, spilts it up into little sentences and resorts to name calling. Here is a recent example of it

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I can reference many threads he "whipped ass" in






[edit on 21-11-2006 by chinawhite]


quote: Over 80% of German losses were suffered on the Eastern front. In a single battle for Moscow, Russians suffered more casualties then ALL of Allied forces for the entire duration of the war.

For every American soldier dead Japanese lost 15, while Russians lost 85.


And waht ? Bodies don't win a war You obviously haven't heard of lend lease. One example is that US Lend Lease aid made the Russian Army mobile with the supply of 400 000 studebaker trucks, without which they would not have been able to practice mobile warfare nearly as effectively. The Germans would hvae had plenty of time to regroup and counter punch otherwise.


quote: Actually South Korea started the war by invading the North and it is pretty hard to blame the North Koreans , Russians or Chinese for that...


You kidding right, I thought you were infromed, wel at least you say you are


All one has to do is to look into post war East and West Germany. The uprising of West Germans Wolverines had less to do with Nazi remnants, but with the fact that East Germans under Allied occupation were starving while West German received regular rations.

It's a historical fact, and documentary footage is plentifully which clearly recorded anti Ally forces demonstration by West Germans, with signs like "East Germans starve while West Germans eat."



LOL, you obviously didn't realise that East Germnay was uner Soviet occupation and they refused aid from teh west. Didn't they teach you history at school ? This is very basic stuff.


quote: While Western history records that Soviets built the "Iron curtain" in order to enslave the Germans, the reality is that West Germany was on the brink of chaos, and that especially in Berlin the people were storming into East Germany for the food rations.



LOl, I didn't see any West Germans being sht for trying to cross over to East Germnay, did you ? I think it is obvious from history adn the fact that my German relatives have told me as well, conditions under Soviet occupation in East Germnay were terrible. No one wanted t live there and many died in the attempts to escape to freedom in the west. Only an ignoramus and know nothing states otherwise.
Enough of thi Russia is great crap, it's just ridiculous most of your arguments.


quote: Not likely. Soviets had their own bomb by 1946, and in 1945 VVS air defenses were so dense that in order to mount a bombardment of mainland Russia, USAF would have been forced to mount an air raid the scale of which would have surely tipped the Russian off.


Once gain completely wrong the Soviets didn't have a first bomb until 1949 You said you were informed ?
Also the USAAF was massive and had bases encircling Rusia ie. In CHina, India, NOrth Africa, the missle East, Europe. They could have hit Russia form any points of the compass. Russia would have had the bulk of it's forces deployed in Eastern Europe as well.


quote: Since VVS was on constant full alert and patrolled the entire territory, including with radar equipped night fighters and radar installations, thew best USAF could do at that time is bomb a few non essential targets in Ukraine, and by non essential I mean civilian cities.



Complete bollox, where is your soiurce for this, or is this more of your infromed opinion ?


quote: The entire Soviet manufacturing industry was moved out of Luftwaffe reach by rail beyond Ural mountains during the war, so by bombing civilian (not industrial) cities in Ukraine US would have singed its own death warrant.



LOL the US could hit any target in Russia, you talk as thought they could only attack from Europe, onve again a complete lack of knowledge.


That's what rogue1 said. The guy he is qouting is iskander.



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 04:53 PM
link   
I dont know why you voted for that but all i see is personal attacks, nit-picking at wordings and him asking to prove things while he does provide sources himself.

EDIT: I just noticed that he recieved a warning, damn he "whipped ass" as he would put it

[edit on 22-11-2006 by chinawhite]



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite
I dont know why you voted for that but all i see is personal attacks, nit-picking at wordings and him asking to prove things while he does provide sources himself.

EDIT: I just noticed that he recieved a warning, damn he "whipped ass" as he would put it


LOL, if anyone is interested there are plenty of chinawhites posts I could u2u them detailing personal attacks directed towards me. The only person who seems to cares is chinawhite, LOL - i detect some jealousy as can be seen by the way he has made me the topic of discussion in this thread.
I especially laughed at how he lives for me to get a warning, the decides it to post it to this thread, if that isn't the act of a child then what is


Thanks for the vote wildcat. Also the last person you have to explain yourself to is chinawhite, so don't bother - he has a habit of getting way off topic, simple thing to do is not to bite.

[edit on 22-11-2006 by rogue1]



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
(.....and as for tech-transfer?
Not that long ago they were trying to convince people that selling Playstation2's was a terrible 'threat' cos they were so high tech that they could easily be adapted to aid China's nuclear missiles/threat.)

[edit on 22-11-2006 by sminkeypinkey]


hahahaha



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
LOL, if anyone is interested there are plenty of chinawhites posts I could u2u them detailing personal attacks directed towards me.


Post them here, I know your tricks, two seperate accounts completing each user, fake quotes and probaly fake U2U's aswell.

Seems like I dont get Warnings and you do, wonder why?


Why dont you answer my posts?

Since you proclaimed you can make people
"I have so comperehensively whipped his ass in debate that he dare not write something, which I could take apart. "



Rogue1, im not even trying to make you look bad in front of these people, its your own actions that are making you get warnings



LOL - i detect some jealousy as can be seen by the way he has made me the topic of discussion in this thread.


Wildcat brang you up to this discussion or iskander beforehand. Dont shift blame



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite



Originally posted by rogue1
LOL, if anyone is interested there are plenty of chinawhites posts I could u2u them detailing personal attacks directed towards me.


Post them here, I know your tricks, two seperate accounts completing each user, fake quotes and probaly fake U2U's aswell.


So you're saying that ATS is faking your posts ? Come on stop being so childish. And no I'm not going to post them here, it was a rhetorical statement, but if anyone does lol I will give them the relevant threads.


Seems like I dont get Warnings and you do, wonder why?


Hmm because no one cares about what you say.



Why dont you answer my posts?

Since you proclaimed you can make people
"I have so comperehensively whipped his ass in debate that he dare not write something, which I could take apart. "


Already hvae, you are just regurgitating the same stuff. I find repetition extremely boring.


Rogue1, im not even trying to make you look bad in front of these people, its your own actions that are making you get warnings


I think anyone can see that you are, it's incredibly obvious. But hey this is a typical statement from a child - kind of like in the playground. " Hey I'm not trying to mkae you look bad but ..... ". LOL get your hand off it.




Wildcat brang you up to this discussion or iskander beforehand. Dont shift blame


Blame for what, you're the one who turned it into a discussion about me, not anyone else. Are you so blind to what you write you cannotsee this - everyone else can.



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 10:33 PM
link   
Keep on talking and bragging about "whipping ass", I carefully read my post so you dont get the chance to talk about my wording, when thats taken out of the equation you have nothing else to say because thats all you do, attack the person


But please, make your excuses and create smoke screens to divert this to something else


Originally posted by rogue1
So you're saying that ATS is faking your posts ? Come on stop being so childish. And no I'm not going to post them here, it was a rhetorical statement, but if anyone does lol I will give them the relevant threads.


I'm saying you made fake quotes, use two accounts to complement each other and were in the process of faking U2U to people.

You wonder why Iskander doesn't respond to you?. Your on his ignore list as well as a lot of other people


I think anyone can see that you are, it's incredibly obvious. But hey this is a typical statement from a child - kind of like in the playground.


How is this a child statement
"Rogue1, im not even trying to make you look bad in front of these people, its your own actions that are making you get warnings"

Another reason why you should read the WHOLE post instead of nit-picking at my wording


A child also needs to be told how to attack, im sure you understand with all the warnings you get for "Time out". Quites down for a while then you spring right up again. A child needs to be told how to speak



Blame for what, you're the one who turned it into a discussion about me, not anyone else.



Are you willing to quote me on that




top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join