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: 45
1
<< 42  43  44    46  47  48 >>

log in

join
share:

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

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


No, I think that the anti-tank methods aren't anywhere near as effective as you try to say. None of the counters you talk about ever are. You're holding weapons to a double standard.

China's "mobile" SAM's are going to be invinsible, but America's navy, tanks and planes are all going to fail miserably everytime.


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


If this kind of paranoia exists overseas, then the Europeans have some real problems.


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.


Millions per flight? What are you smoking?


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


You can if you pump a ton of money into it. China isn't doing that.


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.


I don't believe something someone claims to have heard on the internet. Half the people on here claim to no industry insiders, or someone in the military who tells them this or that.


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!


The National Guard is not a support army. It's job is solely to defend the mainland of America. The military's is not.

Honestly, did America hold back in WW2? No.


Like the US wont be bombing cities?


It's doubtful at this time America would bombard cities unless provoked.


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.


You'll have significantly less ships.


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


Cuba is right off the coast of America. It's not even close to China. Is China going to train American rebels to try and launch a coup or something?


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...


Once again, I dealt with this in another topic. I've yet to see you give a source for any of these claims. This isn't an argument.


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.


The P-3's are the most advanced anti-sub technology that exists. Don't believe it? Go find something better.


I am not talking about the EU but europe instead


All of Western Europe is in the EU. It's not like Eastern Europe could help much.


Luxemburg =US$48,900


As I already said, go take a look at the real EU economic powers. You know, the ones who would actually have to finance any war Europe fought in.


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 asked for names of the Chinese super weapons you keep talking about, and I get this...?


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.


Not true. A gun isn't made solely to react. It inniates an attack. A SAM responds to an incoming threat. It's made for defense. Offensive weapons are the missiles they're shooting down.


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?


You don't need satellites to do it. We have our own bases all over the world to moniter everyone.




posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer

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


No, I think that the anti-tank methods aren't anywhere near as effective as you try to say. None of the counters you talk about ever are. You're holding weapons to a double standard.

China's "mobile" SAM's are going to be invinsible, but America's navy, tanks and planes are all going to fail miserably everytime.



A bit hypocritical to talk of double standards when the US will apparently "walk all over anything the Chinese can throw at them"...
Of course they won't... they will just hold a technological advantage in certain area's. They will actually be at a numerical disadvantage.



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


If this kind of paranoia exists overseas, then the Europeans have some real problems.


I think he was being sarcastic



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.


Millions per flight? What are you smoking?


The US is not going to risk flyovers... they have satalites that do the job anyhow... but so has China



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


You can if you pump a ton of money into it. China isn't doing that.


If you count 12-15% increases every year no "pumping in money"... than what exactly do you?
China's 2004 millitary budget was around $60,000,000,000. It will be 15% higher again this year and remember money goes much further in China... so double that total in real terms of spending.
You are looking at an equivalent budget of $120,000,000,000... and thats only what they are telling you about.



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.


I don't believe something someone claims to have heard on the internet. Half the people on here claim to no industry insiders, or someone in the military who tells them this or that.


Agreed... you can count on one hand the list of reliable sources



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!


The National Guard is not a support army. It's job is solely to defend the mainland of America. The military's is not.

Honestly, did America hold back in WW2? No.


Agreed



Like the US wont be bombing cities?


It's doubtful at this time America would bombard cities unless provoked.


The US in a war with China would not have the luxury of pin-point strikes etc. I see a more unrestricted form of warfare used when the stakes are this high.



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.


You'll have significantly less ships.


The submarine fleet is actually going to be roughly the same size... but capabilities are going to increase tenfold. The astute class is unmatched in the world... even by the next gen US subs



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


Cuba is right off the coast of America. It's not even close to China. Is China going to train American rebels to try and launch a coup or something?


Not exactly sure what you are implying here



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...


Once again, I dealt with this in another topic. I've yet to see you give a source for any of these claims. This isn't an argument.


I will find some links for you tommorow...



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.


The P-3's are the most advanced anti-sub technology that exists. Don't believe it? Go find something better.


Nimrod MRA4 is more capable than the Orion P3.... It's also quicker and more agile



I am not talking about the EU but europe instead


All of Western Europe is in the EU. It's not like Eastern Europe could help much.


Switzerland, Norway and Iceland are not members of the EU, though they do have a special trade agreement with EU countries.
Eastern and Central Europe can help out a lot more than you might think... They have quite a sizeable economy.



Luxemburg =US$48,900


As I already said, go take a look at the real EU economic powers. You know, the ones who would actually have to finance any war Europe fought in.


Norway and Luxemburg have a higher GDP than the US per head... but Norway is not part of the EU.



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 asked for names of the Chinese super weapons you keep talking about, and I get this...?


ICBM's



Theatre Missiles





Tanks



Anti-Tank







Fighters







Interceptors



Fighter/Bombers





Air to ground Missiles



Laser guided Bombs





Cluster bombs



Air to Air missiles





Surface to Air missiles





Anti-air













Artillery
















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?


You don't need satellites to do it. We have our own bases all over the world to moniter everyone.


No... the US has bases in certain countries as "guests"... certainly not enough to monitor everone and everything. That's why the US has satalities to begin with. China is probably keeping just as close a watch on US movements I can asure you.

[edit on 24-1-2005 by Lucretius]



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 11:50 PM
link   

A bit hypocritical to talk of double standards when the US will apparently "walk all over anything the Chinese can throw at them"...
Of course they won't... they will just hold a technological advantage in certain area's. They will actually be at a numerical disadvantage.


At this time America holds the tech and training edge, and its fairly large. It goes all across the board.

It's a lot more realistic to have faith in a B-2 bomber than an untested FT-2000, or any SAM for that matter. To think China has some magical radar that can detect stealth is ridiculous. America would know, and wouldn't be after more B-2's if they were useless. They wouldn't be spending so much cash on F-22's.


The US is not going to risk flyovers... they have satalites that do the job anyhow... but so has China


China has a handfull of satellites. America has 30. There's a huge difference. America does fly over. Remember the spy plane incident just a few years ago? How about Iran's complaints that they have planes flying over their airspace (of course all of their fancy SAM's have been useless).


If you count 12-15% increases every year no "pumping in money"... than what exactly do you?
China's 2004 millitary budget was around $60,000,000,000. It will be 15% higher again this year and remember money goes much further in China... so double that total in real terms of spending.
You are looking at an equivalent budget of $120,000,000,000... and thats only what they are telling you about.


Go take a look at what they're navy is getting. They're only getting a carrier or two, and a few more subs.


Nimrod MRA4 is more capable than the Orion P3.... It's also quicker and more agile


That all depends on who you ask.


Switzerland, Norway and Iceland are not members of the EU, though they do have a special trade agreement with EU countries.
Eastern and Central Europe can help out a lot more than you might think... They have quite a sizeable economy.


But they have very little extra cash. Considering their size, it's not really much, either. Their economies are also weak. Total GDP size means nothing.


Norway and Luxemburg have a higher GDP than the US per head... but Norway is not part of the EU.


As I've been saying, talk about the European nations that would have to fund a large scale war. They all have shrinking military budgets, growing debt, growing unemployment, and slow (if any) economic growth. The UK is sort of different. Its economy isn't in as bad of shape, but they still have a decreasing military budget.

Your assortment of pictures is pointless. I asked for the names of weapons, not pictures. A picture doesn't mean a damn thing.

Outdated technology isn't going to cut it against America. Hasn't that been proven already in places like Iraq and Kosovo?

The J-10 isn't a match for the F-22 at all. You can compare whatever you like. Neither are any of their fancy Flankers. They aren't even really a match for America's fourth generation fighters. They also have very few in number.

Chinese SAM's? How will they stand up against America's jamming capabilities, cruise missiles and stealth bombers? If we take a look at history, it won't be so good.

The Chinese navy? Outmanned and outgunned all around.

The Chinese army? Well, this is probably the closest they come to America, but man-for-man, and technology will go to America. No matter when its fought America will have more firepower, and more manueverability. If its during a time with FCS capability, China wouldn't stand a chance in hell. It'll be decades before they could match that. America's completely interconnected military will be too much.


No... the US has bases in certain countries as "guests"... certainly not enough to monitor everone and everything. That's why the US has satalities to begin with. China is probably keeping just as close a watch on US movements I can asure you.


America can moniter pretty much all major activity with its military presence everywhere, satellites, spy planes, spies, and god knows what else.

China has no real capability beyond their own shores besides maybe spies. They have so few satellites that they couldn't moniter all of America's forces yet. It'll be some time before they can come close to America here. America also has the capability to jam enemy GPS, and blind, if not shoot down enemy satellites.



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 12:52 AM
link   
nice pics lucretius...

I also wonder why soem of the vehicles have the inner rims painted white while the outer tyre is black..it looks extremely corny










As for the PLANAF, they have very good anti-ship capabilities, but that can be avoided by the US waging a war from far away with only stealth aircraft going in for close range attacks...
The PLAAF and the USAF will never really get to see each other; the USAF will not risk non-stealth aircraft over China...
unless the USAF attacks South eastern China, i.e. Xinhuang/Tibet..
That area is very sparsely populated and not too-well defended as well..A pincer war on the Chinese might give the US a chance...otherwise ist still a herculean task..
The real key is the PLAN;if the PLAN can sting the pacific fleet enough to disrupt its operations then the US will be in trouble..but that all depends on the Blue water capabilites of the PLAN..and its subs..It has to use them wisely..
all in all, the side which uses good intel and smart/vague tactics and strategies will slightly sway the battle in theri favour, otherwise its a quaqmire for the US..and a drain on the chinese...



[edit on 25-1-2005 by Daedalus3]



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 09:52 AM
link   
Your right Daedelus it does look stupid... considering they are going to be caked with mud in any scenario outright

even their APC's are painted



Though I must admit the new Chinese IFV is a fantastic piece of kit



Uses a fair bit of BMP-3 technology


As the photo shows, the new IFV resembles some features of the BMP-3, including the two-man turret. The main armament is a 100mm gun identical to the Russian 2A70 semi-automatic rifled gun, which is stabilised in two axes and can fire either 3UOF HE-FRAG (High Explosive-Fragmentation) rounds or 3UBK10 anti-tank guided missiles. The Russian design has an effective range of 4,000m for the HE-FRAG round, and the BMP-3 IFV carries 40 rounds, 22 of which are carried on the automatic loader. The max rate of fire is 10 rounds/min.

China has revealed its indigenous 100mm gun-fired laser beamriding anti-tank guided missile, which might also be based on Russian designs such as 3UBK10. The missile is believed to be capable of engaging tanks with explosive reactive armour (ERA) as well as slow, low-flying targets such as helicopters. Range is 100 to 4,000m. Hit probability is given as at least 0.8 with armour penetration of 600mm. Ammunition load is 8 rounds on BMP-3.

Like the BMP-3, the Chinese IFV is also fitted with a two-way stabilised 30mm coaxial automatic gun capable of firing AP (Armour-Piercing) and HE-FRAG rounds. Rate of fire is more than 300 rounds/min and range is 1,500 to 2,000m.



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 04:59 PM
link   
Why doesn’t any 1 ever show all the U.S power in photos...? I don’t have the skill to upload the pics threw ATS, I tried it once and it didn’t work-anyway that’s not the point of this post-

Look guys, the u.s has a massive radar system designed specifically, and ill repeat that again, SPECIFICALLY to detect any incoming enemy forces that threaten the continental North American coast or boarder, its called N.O.R.A.D, and its the North American Aerospace Defense Command

Now there’s several stations, one in Cheyenne MT, one in Canada and one in Alaska I believe-those will detect any forces approaching the boarder and they monitor 24/7/366 (on leap year lol) 365 any other year...

Now. We all know that since the Cold War ended, we have not been in ANY war where the enemy had the capability to threaten the continental usa, so its hard to even imagine what kind of defense we would have in a time of war.

Now when I referred to the nuclear strike on China, (which by the way, I don’t know what you are thinking, but, a retaliation of that magnitude, it doesn’t matter how "spread out" the Chinese are their country would be decimated and just a vapor spot, its common sense-and of course some people would survive-but 98% of the country [the people in power and what’s left of the military and infrastructure] would be destroyed) I meant that it would be in response to a Chinese nuclear strike on the USA after China fails to repel an invasion-now, of course its a possibility that China gets off a few hundred nukes, but in my post, I stated what "few" were remaining after the USAF bombing campaigns. And yes Russia, Japan and Korea would receive radiation, but in a nuclear war, Canada and Mexico and Latin America would also, and I don’t think many would care about other countries if they were being nuked.

And what is with everyone saying the USN would be sunk and/or destroyed, its bigger than Chinas, and we have carriers-to project not only sea power against China's, but we can project airpower also.. I just don’t follow that


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

What is this? An invasion force cant just "dodge the fleet or destroy the carriers" if its an invasion force that big that it has a massive navy with it for one, we would detect it a long while out-and as ive pointed out, in a time of war, there’d be many many battle groups, you cant "dodge" them... this isn’t red light, green light one two three...


"Yeah but that’s 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 moving that kind of personnel takes days not hours.
The aircraft can be shot down, the navy can be sunk.
No country alone could do it but joined together wouldn’t be difficult.""

Um, I want to focus on just one part of this: "The aircraft can be shot down, the navy can be sunk." Now I don’t follow this, your saying the defending navy which will be engaged (guess your not trying to "dodge" it anymore eh?) can be sunk (which will be quite large might I add, and which will have support from the mainland, be it Hawaii or America.) by the navy that’s trying to protect an invasion force... and which doesn’t have aircraft carriers (China).


""Quote: That’s even more overconfident, you think the US is going to send the entire US fighter force to china! HA HA!
Aww man seriously 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 only 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. ""

The U.S wouldn’t send every fighter it had to China obviously, the point is that it COULD, because we have the carriers that can project them to where we need them... Russia DOES have the range to TRY and bomb us, they have intercontinental bombers after all but that’s NOT the point... anyway...

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

Yeah, its not invisible, but then, you have to have radar systems working in order to detect them, which China wouldn’t have once we bombed the poop out of them, and by the way, they aren’t called stealth for a reason, yeah you can detect them, but by the time your radar did, and sent word to the anti-air, they wouldn’t be able to, because the anti-air systems would be gone already, and with the B-2s range, your anti-air would never reach it..

"The national guard is to support the army, not to be the sole defender of the country!""

And as its been stated before, the National Guard is as its name implies, to Defend the United States from attack. I believe there’s 700,000 in service today but im not sure of the exact numbers.



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by imAMERICAN

Now when I referred to the nuclear strike on China, (which by the way, I don’t know what you are thinking, but, a retaliation of that magnitude, it doesn’t matter how "spread out" the Chinese are their country would be decimated and just a vapor spot, its common sense-and of course some people would survive-but 98% of the country [the people in power and what’s left of the military and infrastructure] would be destroyed) I meant that it would be in response to a Chinese nuclear strike on the USA after China fails to repel an invasion-now, of course its a possibility that China gets off a few hundred nukes, but in my post, I stated what "few" were remaining after the USAF bombing campaigns. And yes Russia, Japan and Korea would receive radiation, but in a nuclear war, Canada and Mexico and Latin America would also, and I don’t think many would care about other countries if they were being nuked.



I dnot know exactly what you want to express here, are you trying to say if USA and China die together, USA still will be the winner?

Besides, 094 SSBNs will mount 16 JL-2 submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) with a maximum range of 8,000kms. Each of them would contain at least 3 bombs. One sub alone can at least project 48 nukes. By 2010, there will be at least ten 094 in service. Not mention 093, and other modified 092 subs. So, I dont know exactly you mean "few" will be left after USAF attack. Again, I still have to tell there are lots under ground launch bases moblized by underground railroad---you can argue with me about that, but I just dont think the are BS as some of you wish.

p.s. I dont think USA won't care if Russia or india or Pakistan will get involved since there all have nuke capability. I dont think America won't care either if Japanese will be killed together.
At the same time, I donot think those central America countries can do anything. Of course, sorry about Canada and Mexico.




[edit on 25-1-2005 by proteinx]

[edit on 25-1-2005 by proteinx]



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 07:32 PM
link   
Okay... this is posting American vs Chinese equipment

air supperiority

American F-22



Chinese SU-30



American F-15



Chinese Su-27



multirole

American F-16



Chinese J-10



American F-18



Chinese JH-7



Missiles - Short range

American Sidewinder



Chinese R-73



Missiles - long range

American AMRAAM



Chinese R-23




posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 07:39 PM
link   
Hi, can anybody find more information about Chinese type "F-22", heard its name is J12 or J13, and it is quitely said the initial fly will be in 2006 and it will be full service by 2010.



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 07:48 PM
link   
You mean the J-XX?

this is all the information I can find on it...






According to the reports of the Jane's Defence Weekly, China has already launched its next generation stealthy fighter aircraft programme, and Shenyang Aircraft Industry Co. (SAC) has been selected to head research and development of a new fighter for the PLA Air Force.

Development of the subsystems including the engine and weapon suite for the next generation fighter has been underway for some time, according to the report from Jane's. Images of the concepts show a twin-engine aircraft sharing some design traits with Lockheed Martin's stealthy F/A-22 "Raptor" multirole fighter such as the internal carriage of its weapons.

Meanwhile there isn't much public information about the programme. The aircraft, which could be designated as J-13 or J-14, is still going through initial concept work, the same stage as the USAF Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF) programme in the early 1980s, which later led to the F/A-22 Raptor. Sources within China's confirmed that the SAC is looking at a twin-engine, single-seat, single vertical tale fin design, but other design proposals has yet been ruled out.

As China has developed close ties with Russia's aerospace industry and has license produced many planes of formal Soviet designs, it can be predicted that the J-XX would include some, if not many Russian technologies and designs. China has been offered a 'joint development and production' of a new fifth-generation fighter by Russia -LFI. Russia has been trying to sell this concept both to China and India for some time, but neither of them has committed fully yet. According to Russian resources, the LFI will be able to counter U.S. second fifth-generation Joint Strike Fighter (JSF).

Stealth and thrust vectoring are two must-have features in all aircraft being designed in the 21st century. If is not clear that how much progress Chinese designers have made in these areas, and Chinese aircraft industry may have to take Western/Israeli/Russian helps to make the J-XX truly fouth-generation (or fifth-generation using the Russian standards). Once introduced, the J-12's immediate rival will be U.S. F/A-22, JSF and India's MCA (Medium Combat Aircraft).



posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 02:08 AM
link   
Well no nukes please..this is a purely conventional nuke debate...

Where did you get those release dates of 2010 for the J-12 proteinx ?

This article says that the J-12 is where the F-22 was in 1983..so they put a release date at 2015..

www.geocities.com...



posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 09:31 AM
link   



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 08:29 AM
link   
I believe that China is Americas greatest enemy as my history professor said years ago even many years before the breakup of the Soviet Union.We should launch pre-emptive strikes against Chinas above and below ground military bases an also against the major population centers and their water supplies with Red Mercury weapons which would completely destroy the regime and hundreds of millions of die hard communist bent on our destruction.The Red Mercury weapons would succeed in an complete mission success with no fallout to worry about.The time is coming and we cannot afford to be hit first!Kent Mc.csm



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 09:09 AM
link   
China does have a nice arsenal of mobile nuclear ICBMs (Thanks in part to the Clinton administration), but white-walled tire launchers (
nice touch) are no match for the......

[size=+1]The Peacekeeper(Look a meteor shower...no wait a nuclear warhead shower)

The Peacekeeper uses a "cold launch" of pressurized gas to throw the missile out of the silo before the engines come on. The result is an undamaged silo that you can put another missile into and launch another one.

Each missile has 10 warheads, that can each be programmed for their own target. The MK 21 warheads have a 300 - 450 KT rating vs. the 20 KT that was used in WWII. So despite the weapons small size, it packs a big punch. China is believed to have stolen quite a bit of this technology (Read the Cox Committee Report) and their newest delivery system has 3 individual warheads. This does put China in with the big boys, but they don't have as good of a delivery system as the US has, and they don't have nearly as many warheads. It is possible to take out China's launchers with a B2, but the odds of getting them all are slim. Best bet is to shake hands, and remind them we have little items like the peacekeeper to keep everyone in line.




posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by dbates
China does have a nice arsenal of mobile nuclear ICBMs (Thanks in part to the Clinton administration), but white-walled tire launchers (
nice touch) are no match for the......
...
yes the white tyres have been the topic of amusement in this thread..just check 5 or 6 six posts above this..They are absolutely hilarious..



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3

Originally posted by dbates
China does have a nice arsenal of mobile nuclear ICBMs (Thanks in part to the Clinton administration), but white-walled tire launchers (
nice touch) are no match for the......
...
yes the white tyres have been the topic of amusement in this thread..just check 5 or 6 six posts above this..They are absolutely hilarious..





posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 02:12 PM
link   
The white wall tires make a good target from a distance. Thanks China!!!



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kent
I believe that China is Americas greatest enemy as my history professor said years ago even many years before the breakup of the Soviet Union.We should launch pre-emptive strikes against Chinas above and below ground military bases an also against the major population centers and their water supplies with Red Mercury weapons which would completely destroy the regime and hundreds of millions of die hard communist bent on our destruction.The Red Mercury weapons would succeed in an complete mission success with no fallout to worry about.The time is coming and we cannot afford to be hit first!Kent Mc.csm


I am curious, the reason that China is America's greatest enemy is.............?

can you talk more about it.?



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 02:40 PM
link   


I am curious, the reason that China is America's greatest enemy is.............?

can you talk more about it.?


Easy, they are on track to 'potentially' overtake the U.S. in economic power and match the U.S. in military technology and projection potential within the next 40 years... At that time they will be able to challenge the U.S. face to face against each others interests. If their younger generations coming in power don’t wish to convert the 'government' they have to potential to pull off a S-U type madness and spread their beliefs against others wills.



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChrisRT



I am curious, the reason that China is America's greatest enemy is.............?

can you talk more about it.?


Easy, they are on track to 'potentially' overtake the U.S. in economic power and match the U.S. in military technology and projection potential within the next 40 years... At that time they will be able to challenge the U.S. face to face against each others interests. If their younger generations coming in power don’t wish to convert the 'government' they have to potential to pull off a S-U type madness and spread their beliefs against others wills.



I neeeeeeeeeed more clearification, what do you mean "convert" the "government", to what type? like the one in Iraq, name the ex-CIA middle man to handle Chinese government?

plus I: what, who, how and when, give you the right to convert other people's will according to what you like?

plus II: and the biggest question now is:

Who on earth right now is in maddness?????

So, the answer is obvious, US want to dominate the world, more accurately to say, few CEOs in US government want to dominate the world. Anyone who might challenge their will is defined 'enemy'.

Now, every one who claim American is fighting for freedom, please eat dog sh*t





[edit on 27-1-2005 by proteinx]




top topics



 
1
<< 42  43  44    46  47  48 >>

log in

join