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.

 

China launches new type of sub, American intelligence "suprised"

page: 16
0
<< 13  14  15    17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 8 2004 @ 09:29 PM
link   
Yes they do. They add a great deal of info which proves your are talking out of your arse.

you didnt state that you meant the continetal US, you where degrading China for being less "superior". It clearly doesn't, it has at least 150. Most, if not all can hit American targets, not all can hit the US, but most can obliterate any military you may have as far as Hawaii.

Plus, if you actually took the time to read the articles I posted, you would see that since the 1980's, china has been constructing thousands of kilometres of underground tunnels in several mountain ranges, which can withstand several high MT nuclear hits.

What is the purpose of said tunnels?

To quote one chinese official, "to guarantee a valid detterent and second strike capability". The chinese may have 20 of their ICBMS on show in silos, where you can take your snazzy sat photos, but hidden in those mountains are hundreds of the very same rockets on mobile launchers. In recent parades, China has demonstarted that it has vastly more ICBM's than was thought.
Plus, they have the industrial capacity to produce hundreds of missiles each year at their missile plants.................why would they only have 20?

The rest of the missiles are mostly mid-range, and can easily attack any hostile targets in Asia, middle east, pacific or Australia.

Seems like they are a lot better armed than your State run propaganda lets on Westy, hey?




posted on Aug, 8 2004 @ 11:14 PM
link   
Oh wow thats clever! They "claim" to have tons more ICBM's "hid"! Geez, we could claim to have a secret base full of Alien spaceships under the Rockies, doesn't make it so!!!



posted on Aug, 8 2004 @ 11:17 PM
link   
Dont be a dick.... no one is "claiming" anything. it is fact, it has been documented by both western intelligence and western media, and China has been quite open about the fact it is constructing these tunnels.

Why dont you actually f*cking read the info I provide, or are you one of Westy's friends who thinks they know it all and dont need to actually pay attention to anything that anyone else says?



posted on Aug, 9 2004 @ 01:42 AM
link   
The reason china wont produce more nukes is cost to build them and to maintain them. Like the US we have the ability to produce more nuke but we aren't. Your terminology that, they have the capability to make more so they have more isn't always true. Do you know how many secret tunnels and bases the US has underground, it doesn't mean we are hiding some secret nukes there are different treasons to build tunnels. Also what is china going to use for targeting its nukes, those 2 satellites that it has up which aren't even fully operational, because they need one more



posted on Aug, 9 2004 @ 03:59 PM
link   


The reason china wont produce more nukes is cost to build them and to maintain them. Like the US we have the ability to produce more nuke but we aren't. Your terminology that, they have the capability to make more so they have more isn't always true. Do you know how many secret tunnels and bases the US has underground, it doesn't mean we are hiding some secret nukes there are different treasons to build tunnels. Also what is china going to use for targeting its nukes, those 2 satellites that it has up which aren't even fully operational, because they need one more


I didn't argue that capability is the only proof. They have at least 150 missiles of ranges from 2000km-to about 10000k. Proof enough they can nuke the sh*t out of American interests in the Pacific, and to a lesser extent, your "homeland".

And as for your targeting theory.....how do you suppose they launched ballistic missiles before guidance satelites? Hmm...........

Perhaps the missiles have guidance of their own? They would gyroscopic stabilizers and on board flight control systems to guide the missile to its target...no sat's required at all. Wake up......



posted on Aug, 9 2004 @ 10:15 PM
link   
During the early 50 and early 60 the theory was saturation to throw all of your nukes without that much accuracy and it will do the same damage. In today's world most US bases and US military silos are able to withstand anything but a direct hit and a near hit wont do. China needs to be able to have precision if it wants to damage the US ability to strike back plus china would get...up too ever heard of MAD.



posted on Aug, 9 2004 @ 10:17 PM
link   
Westpoint, you do not need laser guided accuracy when you have a 50 megaton warhead. Most US bases are on the surface, not ubder mountains and as such would be obliterated.



posted on Aug, 10 2004 @ 02:28 AM
link   
50 megaton warhead china doesn't even have anything close to that. And try putting that on a missile good luck. The important US bases and silos are secretly build underground they are the bases that you don't know about cuz their very job is to be able to survive a hit and still operate.



posted on Aug, 10 2004 @ 07:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
50 megaton warhead china doesn't even have anything close to that.


- don't be so litteral Westy. What did 'we' have before satellite navigation?


The important US bases and silos are secretly build underground they are the bases that you don't know about cuz their very job is to be able to survive a hit and still operate.


- Yeah but shame your nation just got toasted huh?

You banter this nuclear stuff back and forth so easily. I suggest you consider the shock of less than 3000 dead in 9/11 compared to several million in a nuclear strike.

So what if 'your' military 'survive' long enough to annihilate 'them', we all end up screwed anyway.

The fact is that even a 'limited' nuclear 'exchange' by a modern ICBM type weapons on any two of the world's major cities (never mind on more) would cause global social and economic damage on a scale unimaginable now.

We can't actually use those weapons is the fact of the matter.



posted on Aug, 10 2004 @ 07:15 PM
link   

So what if 'your' military 'survive' long enough to annihilate 'them', we all end up screwed anyway.


Yes MAD still works cuz both sides would suffer, but china would be glowing brighter
I guess until the US missile defense is ready around 2020-2025 to stop a large scale of ICBM's.



posted on Aug, 13 2004 @ 12:28 AM
link   
China is only concern with Taiwan. Those subs can be very effective for blockading. China can take out Taiwan's defense easily, just gotta worry about U.S.A Carriers and Subs. That's where the subs come in. The bad part for the U.S is the offensive they have to make.



posted on Aug, 13 2004 @ 07:16 AM
link   
Ahh...the chine subs will be sunk before they know what hit them, the US has surface ships nuclear subs and patrol aircraft. When you have this much cover going after a sub which has to surface it will be caught at one point or another.



posted on Aug, 13 2004 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
We can't actually use those weapons is the fact of the matter.


That is a sane conclusion, but you never know what those Zionist Cabal in Washington will do. Just remember how 9/11 happened.



posted on Aug, 13 2004 @ 12:16 PM
link   
Yeah trust the chicoms with weapons. They sure do have a good track record with how they use them. Bottom line is if china attacks Taiwan not only the US would intervene most major power would turn against china.



posted on Aug, 13 2004 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Yeah trust the chicoms with weapons. They sure do have a good track record with how they use them.


- Well we were talking nuclear so where did China ever use a nuclear weapon then Westy? How many countries has China invaded or attacked in the last 30yrs?

I wouldn't be so rash with my accusations if I were you.


Bottom line is if china attacks Taiwan not only the US would intervene most major power would turn against china.


- No, the actual bottom line is that instead of making idiotic threats to one another we should be acting in ways calculated to reduce tensions rather than like a bunch of pathetic idiotic adolescent bragging youths with more testosterone than sense.

The old saying 'young, dumb and full of cum' is fine for a nations soldier requirement but hardly the level at which diplomacy should be conducted IMO. Thankfully it usually isn't. Usually.



[edit on 13-8-2004 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Aug, 13 2004 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Well we were talking nuclear so where did China ever use a nuclear weapon then Westy? How many countries has China invaded or attacked in the last 30yrs?


What is your point that the US shouldn't have used nukes in WWII? And ask Tibet about china not invading countries for the purpose of taking them over not for the purpose of taking a dictator out. Bush has always said china can have Taiwan as long as it does it diplomatically to me this is a diplomatic solution and not as you claim a threat by our President.


[edit on 14-8-2004 by WestPoint23]



posted on Aug, 14 2004 @ 01:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Yeah trust the chicoms with weapons. They sure do have a good track record with how they use them. Bottom line is if china attacks Taiwan not only the US would intervene most major power would turn against china.


China will not attack Taiwan with out Formal Independence, or Foriegn troops occupying Taiwan. U.S has agree with One China Policy and Bush has stated that Taiwan will not recieve help from the U.S if they defer from the Status Quo with out both sides agreeing



posted on Aug, 14 2004 @ 01:43 AM
link   
America is never out gunned. That is why the red team uses low grade tatics to win every war game at the war college. You cannot ever defeat us head to head.



posted on Aug, 14 2004 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Deadallready
America is never out gunned. That is why the red team uses low grade tatics to win every war game at the war college. You cannot ever defeat us head to head.
WHAT !
are you blind?
your never outgunned?
what about the cold war?
now you cant say you weretn out gunned there, 10-1 fighter ratio is outgunned son.
also being outgunned doesnt mean defeat. take battle of britain or trafalgar. much larger force was destroyed by a smaller force and also china has the largest colection of military aircraft availiable in the world.



posted on Aug, 14 2004 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
50 megaton warhead china doesn't even have anything close to that. And try putting that on a missile good luck. The important US bases and silos are secretly build underground they are the bases that you don't know about cuz their very job is to be able to survive a hit and still operate.

so you deem the pentagon not important ?
or nelis AFB?
or guantanimo bay?
please tell me what defines an "important" base? all military bases are important you fool
other wise they wouldnt build them!



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 13  14  15    17  18 >>

log in

join