Observing the Massive Naval Preparations in the Pacific, page 1

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 10 times

Topic started on 20-3-2008 @ 06:49 AM by JanusFIN

Observing the Massive Naval Preparations in the Pacific

informationdissemination.blogspot.com

There are some major military movements taking place in Asia right now, and it should come to no surprise to anyone that the US Navy is about to have more ships at sea in the Pacific than any other time in recent memory, including all 4 available Carrier Strike Groups.

In our observations of the Tibet blogger feeds, or even more interesting the hackers in Tibet feeding information out in some very tech savvy clever ways through the Chinese firewalls, there are a lot of reports that...

(visit the link for the full news article)

Mod Edit - Headline: Please use the original story headline from your source.

[edit on 3/20/2008 by JacKatMtn]

reply posted on 20-3-2008 @ 06:49 AM by JanusFIN

Does nobody knows more about this?

4 Carrier Groups in same region... Usually not good sign, if its not the change in patrol duty. Are some of them heading back to states after change, or why they gather to pacific now?

Pushing North Korea, or maybe Chinese, or is it maybe to some naval war game session?

Does somebody know more about this?

informationdissemination.blogspot.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply posted on 20-3-2008 @ 06:53 AM by Throbber

First i've heard of it.

If the U.S intends to do something about the situation in Tibet, they seem to be in a good position to take things seriously.

Let's just hope this doesn't turn apes##t and we end up with WW3.

*starts digging*

[edit on 20-3-2008 by Throbber]

reply posted on 20-3-2008 @ 06:59 AM by JanusFIN

There is a list of ships in the joining groups, does somebody have a friend over there?

This was news to me too, and I post it here right away when I get the post. US Congress give the recent medal to Dalai Lama, and maybe there are some security back ups, witch are not public included.

Interesting indeed!

reply posted on 20-3-2008 @ 07:03 AM by Throbber

I saw the list, and i can't help but remember the discussion just last night about the allied nation's preferred method of dealing with heavy fortifications.

i.e; the carrier spam.

17 Carriers seems like plenty of spammage to me.

At this moment in time i believe we can only speculate as to the true nature of the deployment, but in all honesty if they aren't positioned to deal with China, that still leaves 17 carriers sitting in the middle of the pacific twiddling their thumbs.

I for one believe they are there for a purpose, but i think it's probably best if i wait for more details to emerge before i start panicking.

I'll remember your name if it turns out we're right about this Janus.

reply posted on 20-3-2008 @ 07:06 AM by IchiNiSan

Taiwan is going to hold elections, the usual drill of mingling in by the States to show their muscles. No big news. Maybe more interesting to ask is why 4 CSG instead of the usual 1 or 2 symbolic ones.

reply posted on 20-3-2008 @ 07:09 AM by JanusFIN

reply to post by Throbber

Now im really loosing my counts...

How many Strike Carriers US have today?

I had a something like number 13 in my mind...

reply posted on 20-3-2008 @ 07:10 AM by Throbber

reply to post by IchiNiSan

Well, the more symbolic ones would attract attention.

Which just makes it more and more curious as to the nature of the deployment.

I agree with your assertion on the Taiwan Elections, as i feel it holds some value.

p.s; apologies for being something of an asshole last night, i wasn't exactly pleased about the fact that the Chinese people don't support the idea of Tibetan Independance.

reply posted on 20-3-2008 @ 07:12 AM by Throbber

reply to post by JanusFIN

My apologies, i'm not entirely familiar with the ship types of those listed.

I suppose i was thinking to myself for a moment that 17 carriers would be something that would be perceived as an open threat if deployed in a position like that.

I wouldn't have been entirely surprised if it was 17 though.

reply posted on 20-3-2008 @ 07:15 AM by Throbber

Hang on a sec - they have subs there too?

That's a damn warfleet that is.

reply posted on 20-3-2008 @ 07:15 AM by Harlequin

reply to post by Throbber

If the U.S intends to do something about the situation in Tibet, they seem to be in a good position to take things seriously

tibet is part of china - so what exactly would the USA do? thats like saying would come to the aid of california if it wanted to break away from teh USA.

[edit on 20/3/08 by Harlequin]

reply posted on 20-3-2008 @ 07:16 AM by JanusFIN

I should educate myself, we all should. Does somebody know the right answer for this:

How many operational Carriers US have today?

If you have list of them, it would be useful when study these issues... Thanks.

reply posted on 20-3-2008 @ 07:19 AM by Throbber

reply to post by Harlequin

It would be in the interests of the American Government to deploy some sort of precautionary force in case something dastardly is amiss over in China atm - and of course, the build up of troops on the Tibetan/India border might be cause for concern, at least for the Indians.

What's the latest on Indian/Chinese political relations?

edit; i ask due to the strategic nature of the Tibetan landscape.

@ Janus: From what wikipedia can tell me, the U.S currently has 12 aircraft carriers, with 2 decommissioned, 2 under construction and 2 planned.

Not exactly the kind of spammage i had in mind.

[edit on 20-3-2008 by Throbber]

[edit on 20-3-2008 by Throbber]

reply posted on 20-3-2008 @ 07:22 AM by IchiNiSan

reply to post by Throbber

I do believe (hope) this will go over in a whistle after the Taiwanese elections, like all the many previous times. Interesting is to see how China this time is not really mobilizing openly our forces to show our muscles. I do believe we don't need to anymore if the more sensible Ma wins. Maybe I will fly over to Taipei to meet up with some friends during their election period.

Ps reply: This is quite surprising to hear, anyhow, apologies accepted, we all were more emotional than we should have been, including me.

reply posted on 20-3-2008 @ 07:23 AM by JanusFIN

reply to post by Harlequin

I see China and Tibet only as one option, there are many posibility in region:

- North Korea nuclear talks are always hot, and Japan is really afraid of them.
- Burma: Myanmar, is in middle of coup crisis, and just few months ago there were riots, and Thailand, Malesia and other nations near by was asked to join to countermeasures.
- Indonesia... Always the Oil.
- Taiwan... Elections.

We need more information, but interesting to see where MSM turns really their heads in coming weeks.

reply posted on 20-3-2008 @ 07:25 AM by Throbber

reply to post by IchiNiSan

You might find it surprising, but tbh i understand the nessecity for Tibet to be under Chinese control due to the aforesaid strategic nature of the location, which is why i asked about Chinese/Indian political relations.

I took such a strong position because as far as i can see, if the Chinese supported Tibetan independance they could have it, but instead the one thing that could possibly happen to stop Free Tibet from occuring has happened.

Kinda like when you wake up in the morning, step outside your door, and all of a sudden the heavens open up and you're drenched in seconds.

reply posted on 20-3-2008 @ 07:27 AM by 44soulslayer

Originally posted by Harlequin
reply to post by Throbber

If the U.S intends to do something about the situation in Tibet, they seem to be in a good position to take things seriously

tibet is part of china - so what exactly would the USA do? thats like saying would come to the aid of california if it wanted to break away from teh USA.

[edit on 20/3/08 by Harlequin]

Considering your signature Harlequin, you of all people should know why China is fighting Tibet to control it. "Theory of Oligarchic collectivism" ring a bell to you?

War is the only way by which China can continue its barbaric regime.

reply posted on 20-3-2008 @ 07:29 AM by JanusFIN

reply to post by Throbber

4 from 12 is very, very much! When we count 3 has places in Middle-East, and 3 have to rest and regroup, its all the power US have heading to same region.

Do you remember that last time US visited the region, China drives their new attack sub to middle of carrier groups?

Maybe its all about checking the devices, and test for some new anti-sub measures: A big naval game, like good old soviet times.

reply posted on 20-3-2008 @ 07:34 AM by Throbber

reply to post by JanusFIN

I remember hearing about that, yes, i remember thinking to myself about how cheeky the Chinese must have been to even consider that.

Still, i'm of the consideration that 4 aircraft carriers are more than enough to handle any possible retaliation from China if they do choose to do anything about it if the Allied forces step in.

The part about the american submarine presence had me interested though - hopefully they aren't loaded with warheads.

reply posted on 20-3-2008 @ 07:45 AM by JanusFIN

Three acts of war:

Attack, Defence, and Bluff.

When looking the situation in middle-east, and still growing rhetoric towards Iran and Syria, I see this more like a bluff. No matter what come up in near future.

Open huge preparations in totally different part of the world, even close to attack and to open war, maybe even couple of bombs dropped somewhere... And suddenly all the eyes are turned there.

Then, "from the night", a joint attack to Middle-East, when they least wait it!

Always when great operations are coming to D-Day, there are huge bluff in diplomacy, troop deployments, and preparations.

War is not a joke, not a game, its serious business with high bets.

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >> ^^TOP^^