U.S. Missiles Deployed Near China Send a Message

I posted a thread about this a little while ago...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Looks like they have been spotted in Eastern seas. Maybe headed towards Gulf by now (Arabian).

I think they are over there for backup on an Iranian strike. They are the perfect platform as they have Special Forces troops to get eyes on targets (coastal defenses, ADA, SAM sites, radars etc)

Then they can take out those targets and make it a little easier for the IAF to ingress/egress.

It is a hell of a lot of missiles in a small package, and with Special Ops troops, it makes these subs formidable weapons systems.

Ultimate SCUD launchers.

Originally posted by LieBuster
So what happens when this credit your running on runs out.

I would be more concerned about the interdependent world economy.

There is an old saying that still rings true today: "When America sneezes, the rest of the world catches a cold." - I assure you tha this still rings true today.

China could produce atomic bombs jast as fast as GM makes cars and more than likly for about the same cost so you realy don't what to give China the Toyota treatment

Do not confuse your own envious wishes with reaity. You obviously do not know anything about weapon procurment, and the stages it takes to build just 1 atomic weapon. Pssst, It takes several years and lots of planning.

[edit on 8-7-2010 by West Coast]

reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas


Whats China going to do?

Stop selling to the US?
Yeah let's try that and cut off over 305 billion a year. Lets see their growing economy eat that.

These submarines are impressive and a good example of flexible thinking. Its not a symbol of a coming conflict though.

The fact that they are there is a threat for China to behave with regards to Taiwan. This threat had been previously supplied with US Carrier air groups.

Recently China has invested in a huge number of coastal cruise and anti-ship missiles . This makes it difficult to just sail a carrier into the taiwan straight and sail up and down looking mean. It has neutralised that threat to an extent.

The deployment of this 'Arsenal Sub' is the countermeasure. It can lurk around for months; or leave. You don't know either way so the threat is maintained regardless.

Move and counter-move. The game continues. Next China will invest in ASW and better attack subs. They have already started.

At the same time they are gaining Taiwan through purchase rather than conflict. Trouble is unlikely unless the Chinese leadership suffers big unrest and needs a nationalist diversion. Or the Taiwanese govt inflicts an intolerable loss of face.

reply to post by SLAYER69


You're right. However, if every thousandth person in China and India just bought one extra thing a week, they could make up the deficit in no time

The point I attempted to make earlier was that I'm not so sure China places the same value on things that we do. Some there may. The ones that are allowed to be "capitalists." But if push came to shove and we got in their face like we appear to be doing here...well I'm just not sure we're judging it from the same value system.


[edit on 7/8/2010 by ~Lucidity]

I have a feeling these subs and cruise missiles are not for China, but for someone else who has been a pain lately.

Originally posted by justwokeup
These submarines are impressive and a good example of flexible thinking. Its not a symbol of a coming conflict though.

The fact that they are there is a threat for China to behave with regards to Taiwan. This threat had been previously supplied with US Carrier air groups.

Recently China has invested in a huge number of coastal cruise and anti-ship missiles . This makes it difficult to just sail a carrier into the taiwan straight and sail up and down looking mean. It has neutralised that threat to an extent.

The deployment of this 'Arsenal Sub' is the countermeasure. It can lurk around for months; or leave. You don't know either way so the threat is maintained regardless.

WRONG.

Obviously you fail to understand how a Carrier battle group functions. The US navy doesn't need to or acts in that manner. Carriers do not need to be brought in that close to be affective so that they as many here believe are sitting ducks.


You do realize the US has their own subs right?

[edit on 8-7-2010 by SLAYER69]

It is like chess. you set them up to move the way you want them to. whether it is Taiwan, Iran, North Korea, there is a reason we are moving them there, and it is not to threaten them directly. It is more of a gentle nudge. more like a "who's side are you on" kind of statement. we want no part of a war with china, and as dumb as barry is, I believe he is smart enough not to start poking the dragon.

China will need us so long as there economy is based on exports. Until the day China imports more than they export (become a consumer based economy like many rich western nations) they will need us more than we ever needed them.

I should probably elaborate on this a bit more. China will always need the US, and the US reliance on China will probably grow quite significantly in the future, this is because of an interdependent world economy.

With that said, and if current growth trends of the past and even present continue, the US will still be numero uno for some time.

Ponder this, if the US grows annually at 3% (which is based off of growth trends) till the year 2030, the US economy will equal roughly $30 trillion (give or take a few) If China were to just "catch up," It would take China growing at 12% yearly just to match the US economy by 2030. (from now till then)

This would require China to grow faster than it currently is, over a long sustained period. This will not happen. Even now, Chinas current growth rate is unsustainable. There is absolutely no chance of China's economy growing at double-digit rates in the 2020s. It has never been done, and for reason. Its unsustainbale. Nations like Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea would still be growing at that rate if it were possible.


[edit on 8-7-2010 by West Coast]

reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas


i dont have a link for you...sorry but google there underground submraine base (i know sounds weird) but its built in to a cave on a coast so they definately have there subs safty as a priority.

i THINK they have some boomers of there own but not many or not that advanced but that dosent mean they aren't trying

links: www.npr.org...
www.gearthblog.com...
www.telegraph.co.uk...
www.janes.com...

[edit on 8-7-2010 by KilrathiLG]

all i can say is this

China isn't changing their economy inwards for nothing.

There's plenty enough customers in China and in India to replace EASILY the US.

And once the US is replaced, China can use their holdings of US dollar as an economic nuclear armageddon on the US.

Of course not all is good in China, their economy is not that strong and changing it for inward consumption might take some time, but they will achieve it... and once that happens, bye bye US.

arent they facing a houseing crisis something like 30% drop expected? i mean thats going on everywhere,but still it shows even there economy isnt fool proof!

patrick.net...

www.scribd.com...

[edit on 8-7-2010 by KilrathiLG]

No need to be rude friend. If my conclusions are wrong counter with facts. I've an open mind. I may have missed something.

Thought process:

I'm fully aware how powerful a carrier is. So is everybody else including those who mean us ill. A carrier is enormously powerful. However carrier aircraft are not enormously long ranged as a rule. The publicly acknowledged combat radius of an F-18 is about 300 miles (more with drop tanks but that reduces payload, and obviously can be airborne refuelled).

Moreover, the amount of damage you can inflict is dependent on the tempo of operations you can generate. This is related to the logistics of it. Range plays a part.

If China launched an massive attack on Tiawan across the 110 miles of water you would need to move your carrier into a position where it could come under missile attack. Granted AEGIS ships are impressive but not infallible. Every defence system has a limit at which its swamped. I don't think politically that would be contemplated. Losing a carrier would be a political disaster as well as a human tragedy.

The SSN accompanying a battle group provides some land attack ability but its limited. Thats not what its there for.

This new system provides a credible deterrent threat without being exposed. Or without necessarily actually even being there. Like I said, its impressive.


Like I said, if I'm flawed my thinking i'm happy to learn.

[edit on 8-7-2010 by justwokeup]

reply to post by justwokeup


i agree with you completely,carriers are not immortal beasts there tough and powerful but every one that don't like America dreams of killing a carrier! research the Falklands war betwen Argentina( i think?) and the uk. Thats the first time nuclear subs have been used in combat directly agaisnt other naval targets,and as a side note ill go look for the link but at one time they had an Argentinian carrier in there sights and you better belive they could have sunk it i forget why they didn't(probably politics) im confident that if any thing gets a carrier it will be a sub. unless some one starts throwing nukes at our battle group

militaryhistory.suite101.com...
www.shortnews.com...
en.wikipedia.org...
www.timesonline.co.uk...

dont mean to hyjack the thread just posting links

[edit on 8-7-2010 by KilrathiLG]

reply to post by LittleSecret


Well, buying our debt, is a whole lot different than buying our country.

While I certainly can agree with you to an extent I still see the U.S. reneging on that debt to China, due to policy, both foreign and domestic.

Nonetheless it will definitely be an interesting thing to watch in the coming days.

reply to post by ~Lucidity


They would need something much more tenable than a submarine of the coast of China, to get the United Nations, involved in sanctioning America.

If you're referring to just China cutting off trade relations it will hurt them more than it will hurt us, we do not need their goods, they need our purchasing them.

Who wants good built in a sweat shop sold by Kathy Lee Griffin?

No thanks.

Buy American.

reply to post by tankthinker


China has been heavily involved in acquiring our technology for decades.

Whether the news reporter is biased or not is irrelevant because it is fully documented.

I highly suggest a great book for anyone interested in knowing how the Chinese operate.

The Tao Of Spycraft: Intelligence Theory And Practice In Traditional China

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8b15fd3404a7.jpg[/atsimg]

Amazon Review :

In The Tao of Spycraft, for the first time anywhere Ralph Sawyer unfolds the long and venerable tradition of spycraft and intelligence work in traditional China, revealing a vast array of theoretical materials and astounding historical developments.

Encompassing extensive translations of relevant portions of theoretical military manuals previously unknown in the West (such as the T'ai-pai Yin-ching, Hu-ling Ching, and Ping-fa Pai-yen), the book spans centuries to trace the development and expansion of agent concepts, insertion and control methods, recruitment, and covert practices such as assassination, subversion, and sexual entrapment and exploitation, going on to explore counter-intelligence and all aspects of military intelligence, including objectives, analysis and interpretation.

But The Tao of Spycraft is more than an examination of military tactics, it also provides a thorough overview of the history of spies in China, emphasizing their early development, ruthless employment, and dramatic success in subverting famous generals, dooming states to extinction, and facilitating the rise of the first imperial dynasty known as the Ch'in.

The cases discussed-particularly those exploiting women and sex-not only became part of China's general mindset over the ages, but coupled with the theoretical writings remain the basis for the study and teaching of contemporary spycraft methods and practices as the PRC trains and aggressively deploys thousands of agents throughout the world, including the United States.

The Chinese deny even having spies who operate against America.

But anyone with a brain knows that is a complete lie on their part.

Being a Communist Government they are fully aware of propaganda uses.

Then again all Government's know how to use that against an enemy.

reply to post by LittleSecret


True strength isn't the ability to buy someone else's debt. It's the ability to print the currency in which the debt is sold.


Whose the greater fool?

They guy buying it or the guys printing and selling it?

reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas


I didn't mean the UN. I meant just China. We're in their grips. Seriously. Just take my silly batter example. We'd be on our knees in a few weeks if they cut off our supply. We aren't tooled to make them anymore. We could be but it wouldn't be fast enough.

And who's to say all the electronic goods they've been shipping us for decades don't contain a chip they can trigger by satellite to disable. They have clearly demonstrated mastery over our satellites, if only in their ability to shoot them down. They don't need a whole military. And again, they have known this and they planned this. Don't kid yourselves that they need us. It's quite the opposite.

The reason why the Brits didn't sink the Argentinian aircraft carrier was because they didn't want the bad PR for the huge loss of life that would have happened. After HMS Conqueror sank the General Belgrando, the Argentinian Navy's ships decided to stay home.

As far as these modified Ohios are concerned, you have to consider what you can't see. I'll take any and all bets that there is at least one fast attack sub with them. Even if there isn't anybody looking for them will get more than they bargined for. They still carry a full compliment of torpedos and the Ohios are the quietest subs on the planet.

reply to post by ohioriver


That is of course a modern example of how vulnerable our defense are.

Ultimately, a well trained, motivated individual can attain anything.

Which is why the Chinese are usually so successful.

Life is either a daring adventure or nothing. Security does not exist in nature, nor do the children of men as a whole experience it.

Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than exposure.

Helen Keller

Security is a Utopian dream sold as a means to fabricate an excuse for funding.

reply to post by mrsdudara


There is always a submarine out in the coastal waters of some country or another.

It does not always mean imminent warfare is about to break out at any second.

It does however mean the political saber-rattling is at a high threshold.

reply to post by West Coast


That is correct that China needs us in regards to product sold.

We also need them with regards to the Military Industrial Complex.

Without them being a political and military threat budgets would disappear in the Pentagon, and ultimately, none of the General's would get their toys.