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.

 

Chinese Nukes Aimed at US Cities

page: 14
0
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 9 2004 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo

Originally posted by Intelearthling
Yeah man, every time I get on this thread, I bust a gut laughing so hard! This thread would make a blockbuster comedy!


[edit on 9/9/04 by Intelearthling]


And you, zcheng, AMM, and MS would be the stars!

What an awesome cast!


Star hell! I'm gonna produce it and you're gonna be my assistant producer, so go get us some coffee and doughnuts, pronto!




posted on Sep, 9 2004 @ 11:51 PM
link   
Who's directing it? We need a crack director!

Can't pass up a great opportunity at first-rate military comedy!



posted on Sep, 10 2004 @ 12:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
Who's directing it? We need a crack director!

Can't pass up a great opportunity at first-rate military comedy!


Oh, I forgot to mention, that'll have to be me also. I'm not very camera friendly.

You know, we better get back on the subject of thread.

China? Ever wonder why their ships are called JUNKS?



posted on Sep, 10 2004 @ 02:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
American Mad Man - Best ignorance on the thread! A true slugger! And thinks he's general manager of ATS! And wants to go to war!


Please explain a single thing I said that was ignorant. Are you saying that when I said the US had a superior military to China I was Ignorant? Are you saying that if the US had been allowed to invade the north in 'nam we would not have won? are you saying that the UN did not achieve it's objectives in the Korean war (as in liberating the south)? Are you saying that China has superior technology to the US? Because these are the only things I have said. I admit that the Vietnam situation I presented is conjecture, but I think - given the facts - that it is hardly ignorance and at the most is opinion based in concrete fact.



And American Mad Man. Forgive my ignorance? What ignorance?


Your Ignorance of the Korean war. You believe that the US had a "draw" because it did not gain any ground in the Korean war, but our 'mission' if you will was simply to drive the north out of the south. The US held the 37th parallel, thus preserving South Koreas independence. You keep going on about how victory is awarded to those who achieve their objective. The US achieved it by driving out the invaders. So how is this a stalemate? We weren't trying to invade anyone. Please explain yourself.



posted on Sep, 10 2004 @ 02:57 AM
link   
feel like jumping in shouting "my dads bigger than yours" and running away giggling, at least thats how Kids in the playground act, and lets be honest, its simliar to this topic.

Im no peacnik, but surely its a known fact that War has no winners, everyone loses to some extent. Its who loses less that "wins".

As for education, well the US must have different text books as in the UK, I have always been taught the US lost in Vietnam as they failed to realise the lessons learnt by the French, British, et al in Korea, i.e. That to face an enemy on their own terrain, who do not care how many of their own die when you have an army made mainly of front line troops who have no wish to be there is a recipe for disaster.

After all, had the Vietnamese lost, they lost everything, their homeland and lives, and there is nothing more dangerous than backing someone into a corner, where they have no option but to fight or die.

Vietnam was a finacial military and public relations disaster for the US, and the rest of the world seems to be taught that.

But hey, as I said, is their really a glory in bragging about which enemy you have defeated ?

Oh and one last point, Communism isnt half as dangerous as you make out, its an ideal that will never fully work as it has been proven that all men cannot ever be equal, but dangerous ? not really. But what is worse, subjegating yourself under a communist regime where you know exactly what freedoms you can enjoy, or living in a false Eutopia where you think you are free to live how you wish, unless of course your rulers decree otherwise - like most of the Western World?



posted on Sep, 10 2004 @ 03:28 AM
link   
b

Originally posted by zcheng
Do you seriously mean China was defeated in China-India Conflict in 1962? If you do mean so, find other documents please.


I'll forgive you because obviously english is your second language. I used the Indo-Chinese war to demonstrate Chinese agression to a peaceful nation. I never said India beat China - read the post



As a matter of fact, China could have advanced to Hanoi if wanted. There was no obstacle before PLA of taking Hanoi. But PLA retreated. The goal of the conflict was not about occupation of Vietnam, but punishment. The goal was achieved and PLA retreated.


China retreated from Vietnam because they were getting their A$$ kicked, these guys have been fighting since WW2. China lost 20 000 soldiers in this 'police' action, taking Lang Son. What do you go to war for population control ?

What a great victory trying to protect Pol Pot with 20 000 lives.



posted on Sep, 10 2004 @ 06:31 AM
link   
American Mad Man,

Sorry, but now I'm actually afraid to even talk to you. You can really bring some heat to a discussion, lots of undue heat, but I should've realized that long ago!


I'll just say this. You can interpret history to your liking. You can say all the what-ifs you want about the Vietnam War, how we lost because we were never allowed to escalate. But get this, escalating was not an option. And guess what, the U.S. had a situation to handle, and they failed. So the excuses you give are some real s**ty ones because hindsight is always 20/20. If the U.S. had won the Vietnam War under the conditions it was fought under, we wouldn't be talking about it today. So the fact the U.S. did not invade North Vietnam isn't even relevant, because in the end, the U.S. had a situation to handle and they failed to come through. That's all that matters. U.S. wins war, none of this would be an issue, you wouldn't be saying your "ifs." Plus the U.S. never invaded the North, so we don't know for sure what would've happened. North never may have surrendered, like they say.

[edit on 10-9-2004 by sweatmonicaIdo]

[edit on 10-9-2004 by sweatmonicaIdo]



posted on Sep, 10 2004 @ 07:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by mad scientist
I'll forgive you because obviously english is your second language. I used the Indo-Chinese war to demonstrate Chinese agression to a peaceful nation. I never said India beat China - read the post

If it were aggression, why China unilaterally retreated at the height of victory, and even withdrawed behind the former line of control?



China retreated from Vietnam because they were getting their A$$ kicked, these guys have been fighting since WW2. China lost 20 000 soldiers in this 'police' action, taking Lang Son. What do you go to war for population control ?

What a great victory trying to protect Pol Pot with 20 000 lives.


China achieve the goal and retreated. The loss is to both sides.

At that time, Vietnam kicked the ass of US, and full support of Soviet Union. The soldiers of Vietnam were quite experienced and well equiped. Yet, China can still break their bone in about a month, before withdraw. The goal is not about aggression or occupation. When the goal was achieved, China withdrew.

[edit on 10-9-2004 by zcheng]



posted on Sep, 10 2004 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by zcheng

If it were aggression, why China unilaterally retreated at the height of victory, and even withdrawed behind the former line of control?


Umm, they didn't. They occupied 33000 square km's, the Aksai Chin DOES NOT belong to China. I wouldn't call that withdrawing. Do you constantly keep your head up your A$$.




China achieve the goal and retreated. The loss is to both sides.

At that time, Vietnam kicked the ass of US, and full support of Soviet Union. The soldiers of Vietnam were quite experienced and well equiped. Yet, China can still break their bone in about a month, before withdraw. The goal is not about aggression or occupation. When the goal was achieved, China withdrew.


No CHINA LOST 20 000 soldiers dead not to mention wounded, the Vietnamese lost considerably less. If you want to compare casualties the US lost 55000 KIA over 10 years the Chinese lost 20000 KIA over a few weeks. China withdrew because they were rapidly running out of body bags. China is hopeless, they probably only got to Lang Son because the Viets were runningn out of ammo. They withdrew



posted on Sep, 10 2004 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by mad scientist

Originally posted by zcheng

If it were aggression, why China unilaterally retreated at the height of victory, and even withdrawed behind the former line of control?


Umm, they didn't. They occupied 33000 square km's, the Aksai Chin DOES NOT belong to China. I wouldn't call that withdrawing. Do you constantly keep your head up your A$$.


India occupied the disputed 90000 square km's territory in the eastern side.
www.globalsecurity.org...


The Chinese have two major claims on what India deems its own territory. One claim, in the western sector, is on Aksai Chin in the northeastern section of Ladakh District in Jammu and Kashmir. The other claim is in the eastern sector over a region included in the British-designated North-East Frontier Agency, the disputed part of which India renamed Arunachal Pradesh and made a state. In the fight over these areas, the well-trained and well-armed troops of the Chinese People's Liberation Army overpowered the ill-equipped Indian troops, who had not been properly acclimatized to fighting at high altitudes.


Obviously you do not even have a head or a brain.


No CHINA LOST 20 000 soldiers dead not to mention wounded, the Vietnamese lost considerably less. If you want to compare casualties the US lost 55000 KIA over 10 years the Chinese lost 20000 KIA over a few weeks. China withdrew because they were rapidly running out of body bags. China is hopeless, they probably only got to Lang Son because the Viets were runningn out of ammo. They withdrew


US lost over 50000 and still could not achieve the goal. I do not have concrete data on the loss on both sides. Please present credible evidence to support your claim that "Vietnamese lost considerably less".

Another description of the war:


Sino-Vietnamese War 1979
Although communist China had backed North Vietnam in its struggle against South Vietnam and the United States, the Chinese and Vietnamese were traditional enemies; tensions between the two increased when Vietnam strengthened its ties with the Soviet Union, invaded Laos and Cambodia (Kampuchea) in late 1978, and expelled Chinese living in Vietnam. On February 17, 1979, some 120,000 well-equipped Chinese troops crossed the border into northern Vietnam in several places and seized control of several towns; they penetrated 25 miles into Vietnamese territory, encountering stiff resistance. Divisions from Vietnamese occupying forces in Cambodia arrived to reinforce the resistance, which was unable, however, to prevent the Chinese capture of Lang Son, a vital center in Vietnam's northern provinces, on March 3, 1979. About the same time, a separate Chinese force reached the coastal town of Quang Yen, some 100 miles from Hanoi, after several days of fierce fighting against Vietnamese units. Meanwhile, Vietnamese counteroffensives across the border into China's Yunnan province were repulsed. Declaring its punitive military operation against Vietnam a success, China began withdrawing its forces about March 6, 1979, and within two weeks they were all back on Chinese territory. Subsequently, there were many exchanges of fire along the Chinese-Vietnamese border and numerous talks to reach an accord, but no treaty or settlement was concluded.

I do not know how you think China lost the war.

[edit on 10-9-2004 by zcheng]

[edit on 10-9-2004 by zcheng]



posted on Sep, 10 2004 @ 08:53 AM
link   
OK Zcheng you're the expert, tell us what's going to happen to Taiwan if neither the US or Taiwan do anything to alter the current situation. In other words, the US does not do anything militarily or politically to inflame the status of Taiwan, and neither does Taiwan declare independence.

So.... it's all down to China.

What is China going to do?



posted on Sep, 10 2004 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Moley
OK Zcheng you're the expert, tell us what's going to happen to Taiwan if neither the US or Taiwan do anything to alter the current situation. In other words, the US does not do anything militarily or politically to inflame the status of Taiwan, and neither does Taiwan declare independence.

So.... it's all down to China.

What is China going to do?


Taiwan will maintain the status quo. China will concentrate on developing the economy and solve internal problem like corruption, underdevelopment of innerlands, etc. China will promote and deepen the interaction between the people in Taiwan Island and people in Mainland. China will not threat to use force for unification. With higher level of integration and understanding of people in mainland and taiwan, there will be no reason for war.

As long as Taiwan does not creeping toward Independence, China will not resort to war.



posted on Sep, 10 2004 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by zcheng

The Chinese have two major claims on what India deems its own territory. One claim, in the western sector, is on Aksai Chin in the northeastern section of Ladakh District in Jammu and Kashmir. The other claim is in the eastern sector over a region included in the British-designated North-East Frontier Agency, the disputed part of which India renamed Arunachal Pradesh and made a state. In the fight over these areas, the well-trained and well-armed troops of the Chinese People's Liberation Army overpowered the ill-equipped Indian troops, who had not been properly acclimatized to fighting at high altitudes.


Just to let you know, just because China thinks it has a claim does not mean that it's their's. No more comment necessary. After all you refuse to accept facts and just talk inuendo and BS.


US lost over 50000 and still could not achieve the goal. I do not have concrete data on the loss on both sides. Please present credible evidence to support your claim that "Vietnamese lost considerably less".

Once again you completely skip the point, China lost 20000 troops KIA over several weeks. That is the point, an appalling figure even by woeful Chinese standards.




Vietnam. On February 17, 1979, some 120,000 well-equipped Chinese troops crossed the border into northern Vietnam in several places


So China lost nearly 20% of her attacking force KIA, not to mention the wounded. I guess it was better than Korea where you lost 1 000 000+
KIA.



posted on Sep, 10 2004 @ 09:46 AM
link   
I say the U.S. invade China right now, just to satisfy American Mad Man, Mad Scientist and zcheng.

Those three are itchin' for war!



posted on Sep, 10 2004 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by mad scientist

Originally posted by zcheng
US lost over 50000 and still could not achieve the goal. I do not have concrete data on the loss on both sides. Please present credible evidence to support your claim that "Vietnamese lost considerably less".

Once again you completely skip the point, China lost 20000 troops KIA over several weeks. That is the point, an appalling figure even by woeful Chinese standards.


I know there was heavy losses on China side. I do not deny that. Now where is your evidence to you claim "Vietnamese lost considerably less".




Vietnam. On February 17, 1979, some 120,000 well-equipped Chinese troops crossed the border into northern Vietnam in several places


So China lost nearly 20% of her attacking force KIA, not to mention the wounded. I guess it was better than Korea where you lost 1 000 000+
KIA.


Please give the reference for your claims.

At one time, US had over 500,000 troops in Vietnam, yet still lost the war. What a shame! When you count the casulties in Korean war, do not omit other UN troops died and those of South Korean troops.


[edit on 10-9-2004 by zcheng]

[edit on 10-9-2004 by zcheng]



posted on Sep, 10 2004 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
I say the U.S. invade China right now, just to satisfy American Mad Man, Mad Scientist and zcheng.

Those three are itchin' for war!

I just what to show them the awefulness of war between US and China, thus avoiding the war. Obviously they think war is fun and joy.



posted on Sep, 10 2004 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
But get this, escalating was not an option.


And this is where I disagree, ok. I feel it was not only an option, but exactly what needed to be done to win the war.



And guess what, the U.S. had a situation to handle, and they failed. So the excuses you give are some real s**ty ones because hindsight is always 20/20. If the U.S. had won the Vietnam War under the conditions it was fought under, we wouldn't be talking about it today. So the fact the U.S. did not invade North Vietnam isn't even relevant, because in the end, the U.S. had a situation to handle and they failed to come through. That's all that matters. U.S. wins war, none of this would be an issue, you wouldn't be saying your "ifs." Plus the U.S. never invaded the North, so we don't know for sure what would've happened. North never may have surrendered, like they say.


OK, like I said - I agree that was a war where we lost. I never said otherwise. We agree on that, OK


But I think your argument of it isn't relevant is lame. How can any one with any understanding how a war is conducted say that not being able to go on the offensive isn't relevant? Yes, I understand it wasn't done, and thus we will never know if we would have won or just lost more men, but I don't think you can just dissmiss it and just say that it didn't matter. The fact is that it was THE critical aspect of the war. Thats all I am saying.



posted on Sep, 10 2004 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by zcheng

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
I say the U.S. invade China right now, just to satisfy American Mad Man, Mad Scientist and zcheng.

Those three are itchin' for war!

I just what to show them the awefulness of war between US and China, thus avoiding the war. Obviously they think war is fun and joy.


Not in the slightest. I don't think war should be waged just for the sake of it. The only thing I have said in regard to US/China war over Taiwan was that the US is the stronger military currently - especially in the air - and thus, an invasion of Taiwan would be thwarted by the US.

Saying we would win =/= I want war, ok?



posted on Sep, 10 2004 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
And this is where I disagree, ok. I feel it was not only an option, but exactly what needed to be done to win the war.


Do you even know the real reason why they never escalated the conflict? Watch "The Fog of War." Excellent documentary, very unbiased. It'll show just how misinformed most of us are and how many of us really don't understand the reality of politics/war. Johnson may have seemed to be a standard stupid, autocratic politician, but he had his legitimate reasons.



But I think your argument of it isn't relevant is lame. How can any one with any understanding how a war is conducted say that not being able to go on the offensive isn't relevant? Yes, I understand it wasn't done, and thus we will never know if we would have won or just lost more men, but I don't think you can just dissmiss it and just say that it didn't matter. The fact is that it was THE critical aspect of the war. Thats all I am saying.


But see, you're trying to provide a good excuse for us losing. You say we lost because we didn't go on the offensive. That may be true, but being the "American Mad Man," wouldn't you expect the U.S. to win even if we didn't go on the offensive?

Whenever you fight a war, whatever the odds, you are always supposed to win. If you hold no advantages, find a way to win. So to try to excuse the loss because we didn't go on the offensive is what's lame, because we should've won anyhow! You don't send men into combat to lose.

I'll say it again, hindsight is always 20/20. If America won the Vietnam War and never went on the offensive, you wouldn't be complaining that the U.S. never went of the offensive. Why? Because since we won, we never needed to.



posted on Sep, 10 2004 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Intelearthling

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
Who's directing it? We need a crack director!

Can't pass up a great opportunity at first-rate military comedy!


Oh, I forgot to mention, that'll have to be me also. I'm not very camera friendly.

You know, we better get back on the subject of thread.

China? Ever wonder why their ships are called JUNKS?


I should be director for starting the thread
...erm anyway...

Your knowledge in history is rather lacking. The term "junks" was coined by the West based off some pronounciation in Chinese. Also, at this time these "junks" were more powerful than the top of the line wooden western battleships or even flagships for that matter be it in size, crew, or virtually anything.

[edit on 10-9-2004 by Blackout]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join