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.

 

U.S. vs. China

page: 44
1
<< 41  42  43    45  46  47 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 05:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Not really, all the defenses are really just mobile and the stationary ones are just sensors nothing more.
An amphibios force could land and hold a beach head on american soil.



for about 5 mins maybe, oh yes and Bin Laden is living in Vegas.




posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 09:05 AM
link   
America has all the firepower it needs for defense, but the thread here is about offense..Imagine what a simultaneous sabotage of say 20 airbases would lead too..the enemy could always engage the services of fidayeens ...they're out ther by the dozen to hire..hell most of htem are doing whatever they want..some cash, intel, coercion will go a long way..



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by unbomber

Originally posted by darktone
off topic

there's a joke about china that if they jump
at the same time we will be experiencing
earthquake with a magnitude of 7 and if they
piss at the same time, they will flood the world


How racist is that?


Whoa there!! maybe India and china jumped togther and lo! we had a tsunami!!



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
for about 5 mins maybe, oh yes and Bin Laden is living in Vegas.

So care to tell me some stationary defenses the US has?
Amphib forces would have no trouble if they dodged the fleets or destroyed thier cariers.



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by rogue1
for about 5 mins maybe, oh yes and Bin Laden is living in Vegas.

So care to tell me some stationary defenses the US has?
Amphib forces would have no trouble if they dodged the fleets or destroyed thier cariers.



The US has an extensive defensive system. If you're looking for extensive hardened coastal defenses, you won't find them. For one, they're ugly - and they don't work that well.

The US has the US coast guard to monitor all waters around the US, and if an attack were detected aircraft from US Air Force and Air National guard bases would intercept any attack at sea. The US also has the capability to move massive amounts of personell and weapons from their bases to wherever they're needed via aircraft or road/rail.



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Starwars51
The US has an extensive defensive system. If you're looking for extensive hardened coastal defenses, you won't find them. For one, they're ugly - and they don't work that well.

The US has the US coast guard to monitor all waters around the US, and if an attack were detected aircraft from US Air Force and Air National guard bases would intercept any attack at sea. The US also has the capability to move massive amounts of personell and weapons from their bases to wherever they're needed via aircraft or road/rail.

Yeah but thats what i mean the US is mobile which is a curse and a blessing.
Stationary weapons are useless and people think china just has these and nothing else.
Yeah but moveing that kind of personel takes days not hours.
The aircraft can be shot down, the navy can be sunk.
No country alone could do it but joined together wouldnt be difficult.



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by Starwars51
The US has an extensive defensive system. If you're looking for extensive hardened coastal defenses, you won't find them. For one, they're ugly - and they don't work that well.

The US has the US coast guard to monitor all waters around the US, and if an attack were detected aircraft from US Air Force and Air National guard bases would intercept any attack at sea. The US also has the capability to move massive amounts of personell and weapons from their bases to wherever they're needed via aircraft or road/rail.

Yeah but thats what i mean the US is mobile which is a curse and a blessing.
Stationary weapons are useless and people think china just has these and nothing else.
Yeah but moveing that kind of personel takes days not hours.
The aircraft can be shot down, the navy can be sunk.
No country alone could do it but joined together wouldnt be difficult.


I think you're greatly underestimating the capacity for the Air Mobility Command to move people and machinery from one point to another point in this country. The US has an (active) inventory of 514 C-130's, 20 C-141's, 126 C-17's, and 126 C-5's. When you consider that the US has the cabilty (and does) track every ship of every navy in the world, that wouold give more than enough time to move massive defenses into place anywhere in the US. Think about it this way, the C-5's and C-17's could move well over 500 M1A2 Abram's from anywhere in the US to anywhere else in the US in 1 day. The remainder of the Aircraft, along with all of the commercial airliners that would be commondered could move hundreds of thousands of troops in a day as well.



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Starwars51
I think you're greatly underestimating the capacity for the Air Mobility Command to move people and machinery from one point to another point in this country. The US has an (active) inventory of 514 C-130's, 20 C-141's, 126 C-17's, and 126 C-5's. When you consider that the US has the cabilty (and does) track every ship of every navy in the world, that wouold give more than enough time to move massive defenses into place anywhere in the US. Think about it this way, the C-5's and C-17's could move well over 500 M1A2 Abram's from anywhere in the US to anywhere else in the US in 1 day.

No i understand that air mobilitly can win a war but not a battle.
Remember you can move them in a day but they wont be ready for combat that day and so you have 24+ reaction time.
Simple speed man, heavy planes move slower.


The remainder of the Aircraft, along with all of the commercial airliners that would be commondered could move hundreds of thousands of troops in a day as well.

Yeah but can you mobilise hundreds of thousands of troops in a day or less?
No the enemy will be nicely secured there but most likely unless with some MAJOR and i mean MAJOR back up they will be totaly screwed.



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 11:22 AM
link   
China and the US have no intention on war unless both are willing to blow up the planet in general. Both know that a war between them will only lead to a nuke fight.



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

No i understand that air mobilitly can win a war but not a battle.
Remember you can move them in a day but they wont be ready for combat that day and so you have 24+ reaction time.
Simple speed man, heavy planes move slower.

Yeah but can you mobilise hundreds of thousands of troops in a day or less?
No the enemy will be nicely secured there but most likely unless with some MAJOR and i mean MAJOR back up they will be totaly screwed.


How long do you think it will take a country to move an attack force across the ocean? I gurantee it will take far longer than it will take the US to prepare. This is not 1940 anymore, the US (and some other countries) have the cability to track any signifigant movement anywhere in the world. Not to mention that the US would see the buildup in preperation for an attack even before the ship's sailed.

There is simply no way to launch an amphibious attack on the US without the US finding out and being extremely well prepared. Also, if faced with a foreign invasion force the US would most likely use nuclear weapons.



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Any proof?
Yes now but remember thats only iraq there are a hell of a lot more humvees than in iraq.
Even still the iraqi's are using RPG's the chinese have for more powerful weapons.


China can destroy humvees, I'm sure. That's what the armor in Iraq is for, not Abrams. I fail to see what point you're trying to make. China can destroy Abrams at will? Well, that would make every tank in the world useless.


The governments are the country and also many middle eastern are afraid of america comeing in "freeing" them.
BTW is that trying to say we euroopeans are all cowards??


The governments aren't scared, so I guess the people aren't.


OKAY STOP WITH THE COASTAL DEFENSES!
Look what i am trying to say is that these defenses move yes thats right, they dont stay in one place......


Something meant to attack the American navy is a costal defense. It doesn't matter if China can move them around. They can't out run a missile. They can't move out of range. They can't move any signifcant distance.


Your training is not hard to beat, your navy has the tech but no real practicle exsperience apart from shelling a shore or launching thomahawks.


And China's navy has what, exactly? Nothing at all.

Your insults of America's training are unfounded. It's just biased European trash.


Thats even more overconfident, you think the US is going to send the entire US fighter force to china! HA HA!
Aww man seriosly no one is THAT crazy , could you imagine the outcry!
"sir we sent our fighters to deal with the threat..."
"how many fighters.?"
"Every one sir"
"so we have no air power to defend us?"
"no...."


The ony nation that COULD even come close to bombing America would be Russia, and quite frankly, I doubt they have the range, either. China can't even reach Australia yet. America does not need planes to defend the American mainland. Patriots and such would stop whatever limited attempt someone else made.


Yeah and how long does that take? Pretty long, and with a little help from korea they could launch a good shot at alaska


What are they going to fire at?


Well there are sites that would show how things dont exist like anti hoax sites, why wouldnt they...exsplain your "logic"


A hoax has to be commonly believed. People don't just make sites saying that the Mongols didn't use hand guns.


Well lets put it this way , I heard that one incident off the news and the only other one was off austrilia, and that was just a scrapeing and they could still carry on. (That BTW was from a person who works at faslane naval base which if anyone new about subs is the main sub base of the UK.

There are many subs, and they are deployed very often just as much as the US.


So, this isn't even just what was just released to the public, its just what you specifically have heard. That's not an argument, and someone you may or may not know isn't a reliable source, either. And sorry, but with the UK's funding, and the slow dismantling of their military, I find it hard to believe your subs are used as often as American.


What that you wont believe anything unless it is US based or US cheering?


I just like to see credible sources. America wouldn't want to order more of a plane that costs billions, and could be detected.


Yeah sure they cant, what about SF? Or even a simple sub hitting the bases?


America and Japan have the best anti-sub force in the world.


Yeah thats why the pound is worth almost twice as much as the US dolar?
Europe can afford and infact one of its countries is the richest in the world.


Germany, the largest economic power in Europe, has a smaller GDP per capita then Arkansas, one of the weakest states in America.

A strong Euro hardly means anything about the European economies. The strong Euro is HURTING their economies because they rely on exports. Germany and France have economies that may shrink from time to time, higher debt than America, and almost twice the unemployment (a figure thats growing over there).

Europe couldn't finance a war like America.

America has the highest GDP per capita in the world.


Do you think they have onnly one set of them?
Thats it the mighty force has only one set of units...wow


America has a lot more cruise missiles then they have defenses. China doesn't have a whole lot, anyway. They aren't a mighty force.


What, dont you think they developed a counter to the counter? Mobile defenses change and B2 bombers cant be on station every hour


You clearly didn't get what I was saying. The defenses will always be one step behind the offensive. The B-2 is the most advanced offense there is.


Technocally every weapon is offensive and defensive so your argument is about as useless as the underwater hairdryer.


A Patriot is a weapon, and not offensive. It's not used to attack enemy forces. It's used to prevent enemy missiles from hitting us.



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Yeah but moveing that kind of personel takes days not hours.
The aircraft can be shot down, the navy can be sunk.
No country alone could do it but joined together wouldnt be difficult.


HOw many countries are we talking about exactly ? Actually better yet name a country which has a blue water amphibious force which could travel thousands of miles over open ocean unscathed.
There isn't one except for the US Navy. So your argument is doesn't hold any weight.



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 03:32 PM
link   
Russia during its heigh couldn't deploy huge numbers of troops like America. China doesn't even have bombers that can hit Australia yet, but somehow they're supposed to threaten the American mainland...?



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Starwars51
How long do you think it will take a country to move an attack force across the ocean? I gurantee it will take far longer than it will take the US to prepare. This is not 1940 anymore, the US (and some other countries) have the cability to track any signifigant movement anywhere in the world. Not to mention that the US would see the buildup in preperation for an attack even before the ship's sailed.

You cant find a fleet if you dont know where it is.
You may be prepared but like i said there is no force alone that could do this but it is possible for an invaion force to get a beachead BUT like i said unless the enemy had airsuperiority then they would be wiped out.



There is simply no way to launch an amphibious attack on the US without the US finding out and being extremely well prepared. Also, if faced with a foreign invasion force the US would most likely use nuclear weapons.

They can find out but might not know where it is.
Like all things intel is sketchy at best all the time.



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
China can destroy humvees, I'm sure. That's what the armor in Iraq is for, not Abrams. I fail to see what point you're trying to make. China can destroy Abrams at will? Well, that would make every tank in the world useless.

No not useless just evened with mobile infantry like every tank is.
Remeber a tank isnt invincible.



The governments aren't scared, so I guess the people aren't.

So let me...you think because our governments arent groveling at your feet we are not afraid of a mad US force going where and doing what it likes?



Something meant to attack the American navy is a costal defense. It doesn't matter if China can move them around. They can't out run a missile. They can't move out of range. They can't move any signifcant distance.

They can move and to find them you need something to see them right?
Remove that something and you cant hit them.



And China's navy has what, exactly? Nothing at all.

They have a green water navy and are growing, if your going to place the timescale with the F22 going to be built then i would say they'ed have a kilo or 2.


Your insults of America's training are unfounded. It's just biased European trash.

Really, so the fact that an ex leuitenant in my unit who served with the americans and royal navy says diffrent?
Or how a US navy destroyer didnt want to be seen being led by the british (minesweepers) so steamed ahead and was hit by one?



The ony nation that COULD even come close to bombing America would be Russia, and quite frankly, I doubt they have the range, either. China can't even reach Australia yet. America does not need planes to defend the American mainland. Patriots and such would stop whatever limited attempt someone else made.

It doesnt matter who or if someone is going to attack its the fact that no one in the pentagon would allow the US to NOT have an airforce guarding them.




What are they going to fire at?

US cities?



A hoax has to be commonly believed. People don't just make sites saying that the Mongols didn't use hand guns.

They could but i can see this not haveing any effect on the thread shall we discontinue this question?



So, this isn't even just what was just released to the public, its just what you specifically have heard. That's not an argument, and someone you may or may not know isn't a reliable source, either. And sorry, but with the UK's funding, and the slow dismantling of their military, I find it hard to believe your subs are used as often as American.

That is one incident damming them if it does not exist then it only strengthens my position.
We actually spend most money on the navy and we have many submarines, you may find it hard to believe but our subs are used just as much as america.



I just like to see credible sources. America wouldn't want to order more of a plane that costs billions, and could be detected.

The raptor CAN be detected same with the B2, so your screwed there..



America and Japan have the best anti-sub force in the world.
[/qutoe]
Bold statement any facts to back that up?



Germany, the largest economic power in Europe, has a smaller GDP per capita then Arkansas, one of the weakest states in America.

luxemburg has the best GDP in the world.
$48,900 per capita


A strong Euro hardly means anything about the European economies. The strong Euro is HURTING their economies because they rely on exports. Germany and France have economies that may shrink from time to time, higher debt than America, and almost twice the unemployment (a figure thats growing over there).

Also the europe isnt the UK the UK is part of it.


Europe couldn't finance a war like America.

Yeah and most likely we wouldnt wage a war like america too.


America has the highest GDP per capita in the world.

Really?
What is it right now?



America has a lot more cruise missiles then they have defenses. China doesn't have a whole lot, anyway. They aren't a mighty force.

...You are totaly underestimateing them....also the logistical nightmare of getting EVERY missile the US have since you think thats what they would do (why?) woulsnt happen.



You clearly didn't get what I was saying. The defenses will always be one step behind the offensive. The B-2 is the most advanced offense there is.

No the most advanced is the pilot behind the weapon since a B2 can only fight in the air, a pilot can fight on the ground and in the sea.



A Patriot is a weapon, and not offensive. It's not used to attack enemy forces. It's used to prevent enemy missiles from hitting us.

The patriot is a SAM, you can use it to destroy enemy fighters flying doesnt matter if they are attacking or not.
Every weapon is a defensive and an offensive weapon.



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
HOw many countries are we talking about exactly ? Actually better yet name a country which has a blue water amphibious force which could travel thousands of miles over open ocean unscathed.
There isn't one except for the US Navy. So your argument is doesn't hold any weight.

....Look back, read then comment.
I said there is no country able to do this, there is a chance a co alition could do this.
The US navy relies heavily on carrier force.
Take out the carrier (which can be done, wait till thursday and remind me to find out the name of the ship and class of the frigate. Which moved the nimitz off course.
Also the UK and many western countries could do it easily.

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
Russia during its heigh couldn't deploy huge numbers of troops like America. China doesn't even have bombers that can hit Australia yet, but somehow they're supposed to threaten the American mainland...?

Umm look at their army then and look at american and NATO forces, much smaller size.
I think you seem to think with just aircraft on the mind, you dont need a bomber to hit a country.
They could hurt the US main land by a number of diffrent techniques.

[edit on 24-1-2005 by devilwasp]



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 04:27 PM
link   

No not useless just evened with mobile infantry like every tank is.
Remeber a tank isnt invincible.


Why is it that you seem to try and push the exception as the rule?


So let me...you think because our governments arent groveling at your feet we are not afraid of a mad US force going where and doing what it likes?


I don't think European governments are scared because they haven't shown any sign of being scared. The American military won't be turned on them anytime soon.


They can move and to find them you need something to see them right?
Remove that something and you cant hit them


We have far too many means to find them. China can't remove them. If we could overfly Russia during the Cold War, we can overfly China.


They have a green water navy and are growing, if your going to place the timescale with the F22 going to be built then i would say they'ed have a kilo or 2.


We'll have most of the F-22's by 2010. China's navy wouldn't have made any significant improvements by then.


Really, so the fact that an ex leuitenant in my unit who served with the americans and royal navy says diffrent?
Or how a US navy destroyer didnt want to be seen being led by the british (minesweepers) so steamed ahead and was hit by one?


It's not a reliable source because it can't be backed up with anything.


It doesnt matter who or if someone is going to attack its the fact that no one in the pentagon would allow the US to NOT have an airforce guarding them.


There's no logic to that. Besides, that's what the National Guard is for.


US cities?


So, China can launch an attack on American cities. Then America just lets loose an even greater attack on Chinese cities.


That is one incident damming them if it does not exist then it only strengthens my position.
We actually spend most money on the navy and we have many submarines, you may find it hard to believe but our subs are used just as much as america.


I guess that's why a number of your ships are being discarded, right? You have a declining military budget all across the board.


The raptor CAN be detected same with the B2, so your screwed there..


Yet China can magically attack the US mainland...

You haven't given any proof of this super radar that supposedly everyone has that can detect billion dollar planes


Bold statement any facts to back that up?


Ever heard of P-3's? How about the fact that America has the best subs in the world?


luxemburg has the best GDP in the world.
$48,900 per capita


Ok, now let's go take a look at the economies in the EU that matter, like the UK's, France', and Germany's. Let's also take a look at the third rate economies in the EU, like Poland.


Really?
What is it right now?


40,000.


...You are totaly underestimateing them....also the logistical nightmare of getting EVERY missile the US have since you think thats what they would do (why?) woulsnt happen.


How about you start giving sources? How about we start seeing names of actual weapons here.


The patriot is a SAM, you can use it to destroy enemy fighters flying doesnt matter if they are attacking or not.
Every weapon is a defensive and an offensive weapon.


I can't argue with stupidity.



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by Starwars51
How long do you think it will take a country to move an attack force across the ocean? I gurantee it will take far longer than it will take the US to prepare. This is not 1940 anymore, the US (and some other countries) have the cability to track any signifigant movement anywhere in the world. Not to mention that the US would see the buildup in preperation for an attack even before the ship's sailed.

You cant find a fleet if you dont know where it is.
You may be prepared but like i said there is no force alone that could do this but it is possible for an invaion force to get a beachead BUT like i said unless the enemy had airsuperiority then they would be wiped out.


You're missing the point. We know where every fleet is. You cannot hide a fleet, or even a sizeable boat on the ocean (at least not from the US). It's just that simple.



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
Why is it that you seem to try and push the exception as the rule?

What , you think tanks are invincible and the exception is an antitank man?



I don't think European governments are scared because they haven't shown any sign of being scared. The American military won't be turned on them anytime soon.

Says who?
Once your finished in the middle east who's to know where you will go..



We have far too many means to find them. China can't remove them. If we could overfly Russia during the Cold War, we can overfly China.

UAV's are an option and most likely nothing to counter it so you have it there.
Air flights are risky since you spend money on photographing a spot mabye 100 miles wide at the cost of millions per flight.



We'll have most of the F-22's by 2010. China's navy wouldn't have made any significant improvements by then.

2010 is 5 years away, in 5 years you can seriosly up your navy strength.



It's not a reliable source because it can't be backed up with anything.

Apart from actually being on the ship and haveing the ships names and the mine sweepers names?
Dude you dont believe anything unless its on a book or website.



There's no logic to that. Besides, that's what the National Guard is for.

There is its called not putting all your eggs in one basket!
The national guard is to support the army , not to be the sole defender of the country!



So, China can launch an attack on American cities. Then America just lets loose an even greater attack on Chinese cities.

Like the US wont be bombing cities?



I guess that's why a number of your ships are being discarded, right? You have a declining military budget all across the board.

Yeah surface ships, subs are a diffrent matter.
The older tridents are being axed sometime in the next 4 years and being replaced by the new astute class and the newer trafalgers will be serving on.
The switsture class will stay on.



Yet China can magically attack the US mainland...

Yes, and not magically.....ask the CIA how they managed to try and assasinate the cuban pres.....and failed i might add..........


You haven't given any proof of this super radar that supposedly everyone has that can detect billion dollar planes

If you know stealth doesnt make you invisible just harder to find, also a rapier AND a type 42 destroyer (if i am not mistaken) tracked a B2 over scotland...


Ever heard of P-3's? How about the fact that America has the best subs in the world?

P-3's are like anycraft good but by no means the best.
America has the best subs got to admit but they wouldnt be able to just surround japan and guard it.



Ok, now let's go take a look at the economies in the EU that matter, like the UK's, France', and Germany's. Let's also take a look at the third rate economies in the EU, like Poland.

I am not talking about the EU but europe instead.



40,000.

Luxemburg =US$48,900



How about you start giving sources? How about we start seeing names of actual weapons here.

Exscuse me sources to what the number of US thomahawks in stock?
Its a simple fact that getting those missiles would be near improbable in time!



I can't argue with stupidity.

Its called logic, you get a gun for self defense acording to you its a defensive weapon but it is also an offensive weapon if you attacker has one.
Same logic any weapon can be used for defensive or offensive purposes , fact.


You're missing the point. We know where every fleet is. You cannot hide a fleet, or even a sizeable boat on the ocean (at least not from the US). It's just that simple.

Not really, you can hide a fleet since the US cant have a satalite following a ship since the satalite is faster and doesnt have a chance of staying above it.
You cant get other ships to find them since they only have a limited range, a carrier could find them but can be destroyed so they would have to be careful.
It is my friend, why do you think navy is still there if they could just find ships by satalite or by air?


[edit on 24-1-2005 by devilwasp]

[edit on 24-1-2005 by devilwasp]



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

There is its called not putting all your eggs in one basket!
The national guard is to support the army , not to be the sole defender of the country!


Actually, no. The primary mission of the National Guard (Army and Air) is to defend the United States homeland from attack (hence the name). It's only utilized elsewhere in limited numbers and can be recalled at any time.




Not really, you can hide a fleet since the US cant have a satalite following a ship since the satalite is faster and doesnt have a chance of staying above it.
You cant get other ships to find them since they only have a limited range, a carrier could find them but can be destroyed so they would have to be careful.
It is my friend, why do you think navy is still there if they could just find ships by satalite or by air?



Yes, a single sattelite cannot follow a ship. But if you have, lets say, a hundred sattelites is is easy to follow ship movements anywhere in the world. Not to mention ship born radar (the Aegis class destroyers have the most advanced radar system in the US inventory) and sonar nets position around the world (primarily near Russia/China). The navy exists because it is far easier to postion forces in a forward location when you have international waters available. It avoids the headaches of basing/flyover rights associated with land-based assets.

And to answer your question about cruise missile inventories, the US Air force has an active inventory of abot 1,300 conventional capable ALCM (most can be assumed to have conventional warheads), 460 Advanced Cruise Missiles (W-80 Thermonuclear). The Navy doesn't publish numbers in inventory, but they should have well over 1,000 TLAM's, which are nuclear and conventional capable.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 41  42  43    45  46  47 >>

log in

join