China circled by chain of US anti-missile systems

China circled by chain of US anti-missile systems

www.chinadaily.com.cn

According to US-based Defense News, Taiwan became the fifth global buyer of the Patriot missile defense system last year following Japan, the Republic of Korea, the United Arab Emirates and Germany.

Quite a few military experts have noted that Washington's latest proposed weapon deal with Taiwan is the key part of a US strategic encirclement of China in the East Asian region, and that the missiles could soon have a footprint that extends from Japan to the Republic of Korea and Taiwan.

(visit the link for the full news article)

This theory, which is supported by many military analysts, sounds very plausible. In recent years, many countries on the Asian continent considered to be hostile towards the US have been successfully developing ballistic missiles capable of reaching the US. Since there is no way to ''remove these missiles'', the best one can do is creating a shield that is near to perfect and makes these missiles a considerably smaller threat.

The article goes by stating that India is next on the checklist to be persuaded to buy the Patriot PAC 3 systems. Although one of the analysts is of opinion that India is unlikely to cooperate, I doubt so. India sees China as a major strategic threat which is backing their arch-foe: Pakistan. It makes sense for the US to choose the Indian site, with which they already have strong (military) ties.

Israel has recently developed a very high quality missile defense system against short-range missiles (Iron Dome), which exemplifies the progress made in missile defense technology.

I wonder how much the US spends on missile defense technology.

www.chinadaily.com.cn
(visit the link for the full news article)

Originally posted by Mdv2

I wonder how much the US spends on missile defense technology.

According to wikipedia about $9.8 Billion in 2009 (up 8% over the previous year).

And no body believed me when I was saying the Chinese have to be run by some really dumb guys. They actually paid for us to do this.

It has to be a fairly uncommon thing for a nation to pay for itself to get destroyed. It could happen?

Originally posted by Subjective Truth
It has to be a fairly uncommon thing for a nation to pay for itself to get destroyed. It could happen?

Why? You want the US to destroy China or something?

Its common place for failing empires to attempt last ditch defensive procedures. Hadrians Wall didn't work for the Romans for too long either.. This will eventually get too costly and countries will eventually want them removed from their soil.

Nothing to see here.

Originally posted by Dermo

Originally posted by Subjective Truth
It has to be a fairly uncommon thing for a nation to pay for itself to get destroyed. It could happen?

Why? You want the US to destroy China or something?

Its common place for failing empires to attempt last ditch defensive procedures. Hadrians Wall didn't work for the Romans for too long either.. This will eventually get too costly and countries will eventually want them removed from their soil.

Nothing to see here.

Do I want it? Hmm yes and no. I think that we will go to war with them in the future and it might be in our own best interest to do it now because they may grow stronger. And you are right if things get bad enough here we will go to war in a big way. History has showed this over and over again.

Considering that war, all war, is and always will be about strategy, this move was genius.

Well since Poland will get it's missile system by early April.. ( I would say the missiles are already there ) I guess things are hotting up, and tensions are mounting..

To be honest I see these things as no different to the maginot line that was drawn up pre-WW2.. and will probably provide an equal level of defence today.

Originally posted by space cadet
Considering that war, all war, is and always will be about strategy, this move was genius.

The genius part is we made them pay for it. That has got to be a first if it happens.

Originally posted by Subjective Truth
And you are right if things get bad enough here we will go to war in a big way. History has showed this over and over again.

It may be time for people to start letting go of the old idea's of war, especially between superpowers.. Just because history has shown it doesn't mean it must be the case.

Noone wins a war between the US and China simply because if it happens after the next couple of decades, it'll be a war of US/EU verses BRIC which would undoubtedly end extremely badly.

Then again, precision strikes, electronic warfare, economic warfare and robotic warfare seem to be the near future of war.. possibly not such a bad thing.

Personally though, from reading your previous posts in other threads and running into you a few times - I really don't like your opinion on the use of force for imperial gains.. I think it is an extremely Cold War way of thinking and most of the rest of the world has moved on quite a bit. And your way of thinking creates a disdain for Americans in general, especially with what has happened in Iraq.

Then again, China needs someone whip it every so often while it expands into a wealthy superpower.. once it is as such, it will undoubtedly stabilize.. And the US is the only one currently up to the challenge.

[edit on 22/2/10 by Dermo]

Originally posted by Subjective Truth


The genius part is we made them pay for it. That has got to be a first if it happens.

You do realize that they could be used against anybody.

Just because they were made in the US, doesn't mean they cant be used against the US.

Lot of US soldiers died in Iraq , at the end of US Military Hardware.

reply to post by Dermo


I try and be a realist when it comes to war I think it sucks. But freedom is kept and gained down the barrel of a gun. And it pays to have the biggest guns. I also think if a country is telling you that they are going to attack you in my opinion war has already been declared.


I wish war did not exist but since it does I am going to see it for what it is. I also think we should fight wars to win and if we are not going to do that then don't fight them. Also wars will always be lost if it becomes a politically correct thing. War suck children and women and good people die on both sides it is the name of the game.


I hope this lets you have some insight into my views. I actually pray every night over my dinner for peace.

reply to post by Sean48


Good point and you are right just look at the ak-47.

reply to post by Subjective Truth


I do get what you mean, just sometimes your opinions seem detached and excessively crass but I respect the top end ideology even though at times it is very painful to listen to lol.

Peace down the barrel of a gun is a fair enough approach at our level of development towards a more integrated planet but the problem is that the Gun is visibly unstable, has a policy of global destabilization for its own gains and profits quite a bit from war..

And that is where the problem arises.

Check out the comments section of the article.

It has some nice patriotic ChiCom fervor.

*Chime in and tell them America could crush China, that'll get them going. Tell them that their system is corrupt/failing, their nation's power is waning and their life only improves because the West wants it to be so - and that could soon be changed. They like reading that sort of thing.

China has the power to destroy the US from the inside by taking out the technological infrastructure it so heavily relies upon, at which time the people will turn against each other. China need not fire a single shot. That being the case, flogging half baked missile systems to developing countries is more about maintaining the only export the US has and little to do with military strategy.

Biggest guns? That's almost funny.

reply to post by fumanchu


They are like 50 years behind us in whats important military tech. How do you figure they have the upper hand how many area 51's do they have?

What is "important military tech" and what use is all that crap when you have nation without water and power? Brute force means nothing in the information age my friend and thinking it does only shows who is behind the times.

reply to post by Mdv2


I'm confused, would they sell one to Iran lol

Man Iran should get one, that would reduce the Western threat sooooo much and we all can be sooooo excited, then I will be like OMG this is soooooo fair, but the I was like Eh the world was never fair and will never be fair.

Some people think that sooner or later we will eventually find ourselves in a nuclear war with those people, and so it is best to start it now whilst we still have the advantage.

Any future war fought against China would likely be a war of annihilation as the United States lacks the manufacturing base for a prolonged conventional conflict.

That is why any war with China would have to involve destroying their manufacturing capacity along with their military targets at the outset of the conflict.

What reduced number of nuclear missiles left could then be more easily dealt with using our anti-missile systems (they would not be so overwhelmed as they would be were they faced with a full arsenal). In theory anyways.

The United States would probably not be spared either. The whole affair would be horrible beyond imagination and [almost]everyone would wish it had never happened.