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 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.
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
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
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.
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
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
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?
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
Originally posted by rogue1You still hvae provided no proof that the the US would hvae sunk the submarine. Still waiting.
“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.”
Now how hard is itto understand, the difference between a warzone and a peaceful area.
Pointless example, the fighter had crossed into the airspace of a NATO country, yet they still didn't shoot it down.
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.
You also take it out of context
Sure if I could be bothered looking.
You should listen to your own advice.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
- 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.
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 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 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.
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
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.
Originally posted by rogue1
I have so comperehensively whipped his ass in debate that he dare not write something, which I could take apart.
Originally posted by rogue1
No it is your interpretation and using a dictionary is not going to tell me anything LOL.
Not in international peaceful waters. Sorry but you are wrong. US carriers have been overflown many times
You still do not understand the difference oh well.
Erm, looks like you've tied yourself into knots. unpiloted planes fon't often land by themselves
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 see it has set a precedent, the Mig-23's were engaging in the same tpye of provocation
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.
Well in teh other thread about Iranian UAV taking pics of some carrier. A former RN sailor who served in the Gulf said that.
You should listen to your own advice 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.
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]
Originally posted by wildcat
I voted him for ATS award because of this -
www.abovetopsecret.com...
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."
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]
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]
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
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]
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.
LOL - i detect some jealousy as can be seen by the way he has made me the topic of discussion in this thread.
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.
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
Wildcat brang you up to this discussion or iskander beforehand. Dont shift blame
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 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.
Blame for what, you're the one who turned it into a discussion about me, not anyone else.