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.

 

Can China Invade Taiwan?

page: 26
1
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 19 2004 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
Does anyone here work for a petroleum company? If so, I need some help. I'm planning to fold in oil companies somehow into mix.

In order to explore a large untapped oil and natural gas reserve, what kind of an expedition would it send?

hmm probably a small team first with a mixture of geoligists and chemists,bioligists and other such scientists.
then go in with a larger team that wil see if its worth building a way of moveing the reasources out and getting them outa the ground,sea,rock.etc.
no offence but this sounds like the book by tom clancy but only replace russia wi US/UK/UN , "the bear and the dragon"




posted on Sep, 19 2004 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
In order to explore a large untapped oil and natural gas reserve, what kind of an expedition would it send?

hmm probably a small team first with a mixture of geoligists and chemists,bioligists and other such scientists.
then go in with a larger team that wil see if its worth building a way of moveing the reasources out and getting them outa the ground,sea,rock.etc.
no offence but this sounds like the book by tom clancy but only replace russia wi US/UK/UN , "the bear and the dragon"

I am not writing a novel, I'm writing a fictional analysis. Besides, Tom Clancy is a dumbass so don't worry, I don't stoop to his level.


I will have many of the petroleum company people get killed, tho.



posted on Sep, 19 2004 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo

I am not writing a novel, I'm writing a fictional analysis. Besides, Tom Clancy is a dumbass so don't worry, I don't stoop to his level.



Erm OK, Why ?
Don't tell me you dislike him because his books don't include pictures.


a fictional analysis is what politically correct terminology for story telling; like calling a garbage man a waste management technician ( no offense if there are any garbos on ATS ).

[edit on 19-9-2004 by mad scientist]



posted on Sep, 19 2004 @ 12:08 PM
link   
madscientist,


In no future war will the military be able to ignore poison gas.
It is a higher form of killing.

Professor Fritz Haber, winner of the Nobel Prize for Chemistry, inventor of chemical warfare, 1923.


I'm more worried that the U.S. and others will find a way to disable nukes all over at a distance. Then we would see a real war. There have been some attempts in this direction, but I've not heard of any breakthroughs yet.

Bode



posted on Sep, 19 2004 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
I am not writing a novel, I'm writing a fictional analysis. Besides, Tom Clancy is a dumbass so don't worry, I don't stoop to his level.



Really now, Clancy is in all likelyhood one of the more informed military fiction writers. The Hunt For Red October was actually held up briefly becuase the military debated classifiying parts of it because he uncovered alot of hush hush stuff through open source literature. I am a proud owner of a first edition of that book. That being said, what is exactly your beef? Is it because the American military always come out on top?



posted on Sep, 19 2004 @ 12:31 PM
link   
no just some of the stuff does seem a bit crazy BUT he can back it up with facts that make you think, really good at doing that.
anyway i can understand if you dont like him its your opinion and i respect it.
hmm so your going to kill most of the company team,cool , in a sorta sadistic way but cool.



posted on Sep, 19 2004 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
Really now, Clancy is in all likelyhood one of the more informed military fiction writers. The Hunt For Red October was actually held up briefly becuase the military debated classifiying parts of it because he uncovered alot of hush hush stuff through open source literature. I am a proud owner of a first edition of that book. That being said, what is exactly your beef? Is it because the American military always come out on top?


I hardly call a novel like Bear and the Dragon a, where the Chinese are shown as being unable to do the simpleest thing and the "good guys" shown as impeccable and inhumanely perfect insofar that they don't even lose one man until the last page, yeah, that's a good novel. I mena, where's the reality of humanity in this? Or is Clancy's world occupied with with LANTIRN, GPS, and Catholics and humans are secondary?

It's more his style of writing and his political and religious beef that I have a problem with. He is just an awful writer and extremely screwed up in the head.

Hunt for Red October was his only good book, I have always realized that. Beyond that,


Oh yeah, get rid of the "you want America to lose" crap. It's getting REALLY old.



posted on Sep, 19 2004 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
no just some of the stuff does seem a bit crazy BUT he can back it up with facts that make you think, really good at doing that.
anyway i can understand if you dont like him its your opinion and i respect it.
hmm so your going to kill most of the company team,cool , in a sorta sadistic way but cool.


Well, these guys want the oil so their stocks can rise and they can get rich and fat.

They deserve to be punished.



posted on Sep, 19 2004 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
Oh yeah, get rid of the "you want America to lose" crap. It's getting REALLY old.


Now Now simmer down....... I never said you want America to lose. I said "Is it because America always comes out on top" a little bit differnet. But really, he an American author who is a HUGE proponent of the American military. he was one of the few that predicted that the US would kick butt in GWI (everyone else predicted doom and gloom 10,000 body bags etc). What else would he write about. As Devilwasp pointed out he does back up his claims. Nuff said. We all have our opinions and we are all entitled to them....



posted on Sep, 19 2004 @ 12:50 PM
link   
some of things though are rather far fetched you have to admit.
also the fictional analysis thing i would say its good. it would give a simulation of what would/could/should might/will/never happen.
bye/goodbye/adio ahhhhhh i cant stop it!!

[edit on 19-9-2004 by devilwasp]



posted on Sep, 19 2004 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
I mena, where's the reality of humanity in this? Or is Clancy's world occupied with with LANTIRN, GPS, and Catholics and humans are secondary?


Well he does write technothrillers not romance novels. You sound like your more of a Mills & Boon type.




It's more his style of writing and his political and religious beef that I have a problem with. He is just an awful writer and extremely screwed up in the head.


So awful infact that he's sold millions of books and had several movies made - I wish I was a bad writer




Hunt for Red October was his only good book, I have always realized that. Beyond that,


You should've read Red Storm Rising the best fictional account I've ever come across of what a war between Nato and the Warsaw pact may have been like. An excellent book.
It's interesting that the trigger for the war was soviet muslims sabotaging the USSR's biggest refinery.



posted on Sep, 19 2004 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by mad scientist


You should've read Red Storm Rising the best fictional account I've ever come across of what a war between Nato and the Warsaw pact may have been like. An excellent book.
It's interesting that the trigger for the war was soviet muslims sabotaging the USSR's biggest refinery.

oh yeah tis a good book. recomend it.



posted on Sep, 19 2004 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
You should've read Red Storm Rising the best fictional account I've ever come across of what a war between Nato and the Warsaw pact may have been like. An excellent book.
It's interesting that the trigger for the war was soviet muslims sabotaging the USSR's biggest refinery.


I read it, liked it only for it's action-value. Beyond that, it was rather flawed. I mean how does World War III last that long and it ends the way it did?

That was a dream-story, the kind of ending to World War III we all want but know can never happen. Albert Einstein even once said, World War IV would be fought with sticks and stones.

Meaning World War III would not have ended as happily as it did in Red Storm Rising.

FLAME AWAY!!!



posted on Sep, 19 2004 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by mad scientist
So awful infact that he's sold millions of books and had several movies made - I wish I was a bad writer



Umm, it's called name-value. Write a good book like Hunt for Red October, everyone reads everything that comes afterward.

And yeah, he still is a bad writer. Success definitely went to his head and he knows anything with Tom Clancy written across the cover will sell.

Take NetForce. He wrote none of it, only "produced" the story, had someone else write it. But because it had his name across it, BAM! More cash.

Sorry, but Clancy is not great at what he does. At least not anymore.

I wish you luck in being a bad writer!



posted on Sep, 19 2004 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
Now Now simmer down....... I never said you want America to lose. I said "Is it because America always comes out on top" a little bit differnet. But really, he an American author who is a HUGE proponent of the American military. he was one of the few that predicted that the US would kick butt in GWI (everyone else predicted doom and gloom 10,000 body bags etc). What else would he write about. As Devilwasp pointed out he does back up his claims. Nuff said. We all have our opinions and we are all entitled to them....


So, the American military is not America?


Not different at all! America military comes out on top, America wins. American military comes out on the bottom, America loses.



posted on Sep, 19 2004 @ 08:54 PM
link   
sure, airpower and sea power is vital and important to the defense of taiwan, but lets say we get this on the offensive, even with a UN backed invasion, china boasts 2.5 million man actively, U.S has tops 600,000 or somting plus 700,000 reserves, but those 600,000 are stretched across the world and god knows where the rserves are. even with the British, French, Candians, italians and germans, i dont think its enough to topple the chinese numerical strength, we'd have to use massive air campaigns, and hope the chinese never used nukes..........................



posted on Sep, 19 2004 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by imAMERICAN
sure, airpower and sea power is vital and important to the defense of taiwan, but lets say we get this on the offensive, even with a UN backed invasion, china boasts 2.5 million man actively, U.S has tops 600,000 or somting plus 700,000 reserves, but those 600,000 are stretched across the world and god knows where the rserves are. even with the British, French, Candians, italians and germans, i dont think its enough to topple the chinese numerical strength, we'd have to use massive air campaigns, and hope the chinese never used nukes..........................


China has various kinds of missiles to take out those fighters, when the battle field is so close to Mainland China. It cost much less and much faster to produce a capable missile than a airplane.



posted on Sep, 19 2004 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by zcheng

China has various kinds of missiles to take out those fighters, when the battle field is so close to Mainland China. It cost much less and much faster to produce a capable missile than a airplane.



Exactly why thousands of cruise missiles would be used to take out your air defence.



posted on Sep, 19 2004 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by mad scientist
Exactly why thousands of cruise missiles would be used to take out your air defence.


Chinese tactical missiles will take out those platforms to lauch such cruise missiles.


Of course, you can still lauch them at the rock bottom of the Pacific.



posted on Sep, 19 2004 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by zcheng

Originally posted by mad scientist
Exactly why thousands of cruise missiles would be used to take out your air defence.


Chinese tactical missiles will take out those platforms to lauch such cruise missiles.


Of course, you can still lauch them at the rock bottom of the Pacific.


China might find this difficult as they can barely project any power even 100km off shore. Besides your 'tactical missiles' inventory depends on how much Russia decides to sell to you



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join