China's Carrier Killer Missile Sent to The South China Sea?

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 11:40 AM
link   
The internet is seeing rumors that China has deployed its much debated DF-21 or carrier killer missile to the South China Sea. If this is true, it would be a super escalation of tensions in the region. There is a lot of doubt about the missile, which is famed to be able to close on its target at Mach 10 and be able to take out a US carrier. Many have speculated if the missile even exists as it has never been fully tested. However if it is real, can US missile defenses stop it?

thediplomat.com...




posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 11:52 AM
link   
MORE WARS effects. Getting close to the point of no return, smh. SO much intelligence going into destruction yet all the intelligence could of figured out the
1. HOME WORLD MANY COME FROM
2. HOW TO RETURN TO IT.
Instead this is seeming like a potential grave site based on POWER influence. These carrier missiles here a nuke there chem from them germ from them and what is left reminds 1 of a kingdom I tried hard to escape from only to see it running full strength here.



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 12:01 PM
link   
I'm not into rumors.

Do Vietnam and the Philippines have Carriers?
I mean those are the two countries china has been threatening.



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by travis911
 


I see it as problematic to any invading forces but not "a super escalation of tensions". Iran and China has all the rights to protect their interests and territory. Escalation of tensions is the taking aggressive or controversial steps this is none of that...



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Panic2k11
 


Except the islands in question are claimed by about six different countries, and are extremely mineral rich. There have been shooting incidents between China and Vietnam in the recent past, and tensions are running high in the area.



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 11:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Agree, but taking simple defensive static actions and posture is not escalation in my book. A non static defensive posture is for example moving carrier into an unstable region, and so an escalation because it does prompt an immediate buildup of defenses.
edit on 5-7-2012 by Panic2k11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 11:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Panic2k11
 


Except that the only American presence in the Spratly Islands(the disputed islands) is an American oil company that was invited in to assist with developing the oil fields. There are no carriers involved, and I don't believe that there are any carriers even in the area at this particular moment. I think the nearest one is Nimitz, and she's in Hawaii for RIMPAC. Well, there's the George Washington which is based in Japan, but the US is staying out of the Spratly Islands dispute. It's between the countries claiming them, and not us.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by Panic2k11
 


Except the islands in question are claimed by about six different countries, and are extremely mineral rich. There have been shooting incidents between China and Vietnam in the recent past, and tensions are running high in the area.


Problem is China is Bonkers
they seem to have claimed the sea almost up to the boarders of most other countries
have you even seen the map of the territorial dispute from china, its a bloody joke



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 12:44 AM
link   
Gee China in the South China Sea, what sounds so bad about that! At least their near their own country! Something we really can't say about our own country!



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 02:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Panic2k11
reply to post by travis911
 


I see it as problematic to any invading forces but not "a super escalation of tensions". Iran and China has all the rights to protect their interests and territory. Escalation of tensions is the taking aggressive or controversial steps this is none of that...

You mean like claiming 90% of your rivals territorial waters as your own and then bullying them into accepting it?
edit on 9-7-2012 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 02:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by LaEuro
Gee China in the South China Sea, what sounds so bad about that! At least their near their own country! Something we really can't say about our own country!


Look at the map above, when did America claim another countries territorial waters as their own?



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


Is anything new in that ? How did the US get Texas and Cuba ? It is not fair but it is the norm...

Might is right, that does not change easily in large systems, like international politics, even if in the last 100 years it has got a bit more political correct. Credits may be given (as reprehensions), in this to things like the UN are part of the reason for improvement (even with all its imperfections).

PS: Did you noticed the scheme on how nations got to extends their national control of sea regions ? Very funny "Although the United States helped shape the Convention and its subsequent revisions, and though it signed the 1994 Agreement on Implementation, it has not signed the Convention." see wikipedia

edit on 9-7-2012 by Panic2k11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 10:30 AM
link   
reply to post by illusive man
 


All territorial claims are jokes before anyone opposes them, and how seriously they are is dependent not on the claim but on the resources used to secure it, you can look to the Territorial claims in the Arctic and others, most of all territorial claims are unfair but that one is exceptionally a good way to demonstrate that the legality of the system was fixed not only to protect the stronger player but chronology.



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Panic2k11
 


Great, now show me proof that the US has taken 90% of Cuba's territorial waters or admit you are wrong. Thanks.



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 10:26 PM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


What do you define as take ? When I mean take I mean have control over, and it is an historical fact that the Cuba's history is interlinked with the US attempts to become an international player in the Age of Imperialism.


In the 1820s, when the rest of Spain's empire in Latin America rebelled and formed independent states, Cuba remained loyal. Although there was agitation for independence, the Spanish Crown gave Cuba the motto La Siempre Fidelísima Isla ("The Always Most Faithful Island"). This loyalty was due partly to Cuban settlers' dependence on Spain for trade, their desire for protection from pirates and against a slave rebellion, and partly because they feared the rising power of the United States more than they disliked Spanish rule.



After the Spanish-American War, Spain and the United States signed the Treaty of Paris (1898), by which Spain ceded Puerto Rico, the Philippines, and Guam to the United States for the sum of $20 million. Under the same treaty, Spain relinquished all claim of sovereignty over Cuba. Theodore Roosevelt, who had fought in the Spanish-American War and had some sympathies with the independence movement, succeeded McKinley as U.S. President in 1901 and abandoned the treaty. Cuba gained formal independence from the U.S. on May 20, 1902, as the Republic of Cuba. Under Cuba's new constitution, the U.S. retained the right to intervene in Cuban affairs and to supervise its finances and foreign relations. Under the Platt Amendment, the U.S. leased the Guantánamo Bay naval base from Cuba.


From Wikipedia

It is clear that before the Cuban Revolution, Cuba was mostly a puppet of the US (during that at the time the US was directing its strategy toward control of the South American region), one needs not examine things in detail it suffices to look an how South American nations evolved (negative and positive periods) to note how the US has been not only a very strong driver, if not imposer of policies, that have been mostly negative and subversive.

Look how South America thrived during WWII, when the US influence on the region had to become not only diplomatically conscientious but even promoter of growth. I'm not painting the US as very distinct to other world powers but the Anglo-American influence in the world's history evolution surpasses all other forces in negative influence and lasting scars. From South America, to China. Even the continued problems in Europe today in relation to the establishment and proper evolution of the EU can clearly be traced to this same players.

Some state that it was because of the Anglo-American compact that Europeans are not speaking German or have succumbed to the Stalin's Communism. The fact is that the compact was at the core of both evils evolution, Germany could have been stopped during the escalation of Spain's Civil War and Stalin's power was itself boosted by the needs of the compact to respond to a Germany out of control.



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 11:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Panic2k11
 


This is what I define as take, did we tell Cuba we own 90% of their territorial waters so we can steal the resources? Or does Cuba's territorial waters extend to about halfway bewteen themselves and Florida?

Now look at the map I provided, what do you think of China's proposed territorial waters, is that 50-50?

You can try to turn this into a bash the US thread all you want, but I will redirect you back on topic. Just admit you are wrong and move on.



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 12:49 AM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


You are making it as China centric issue (as in unique), when in fact it was a common practice, as states developed. China as a late comer to the game (in many aspect not only defining territorial waters) is defending their own interests. This can only be seen as an exotic stance because today there are very few instances of a nation actively affirming "new" territorial claims. It mostly occurs in newly formed states.

A broader view is provide in the South China Sea Islands Wikipedia's article.

This is similar to any other active claims and will be resolved by common sense and cooperation of force. I expect that as African nations become more capable of self management there will be many new similar conflicts. This is nothing new or unique (as you make it sound, even if unintentionally) but has been occurring since the concept of state evolved.

I still do not understand why China did not a) propped up Vietnam as a puppet state b) annexed it (even using a pseudo democratic subterfuge like a referendum to satisfy the international community). Annexations are extremely complicated, after the dust of WWII was settled, but China proved that they are indeed possible if you are strong enough (or insignificant enough). In any case that time has passed...

I'm not bashing the US I'm clarifying for you (and those that are reading) that a) this type of issue is not unique. b) that China's position is being intentionally contextualized as aggressive d) that the US interference is not without motivation. States do not act based in benevolence, they act by self interest. To that I gave examples, if you look into the subject you will find many more territorial conflicts that are frozen in time, unresolved, but as nations finds themselves in a position of power they will tend to act on them, especially if new profitably extractable resources are found.

I'm not in support of China's claims, but I understand them and the need for "China's Carrier Killer Missile" being in place. More than any non-regional force interference.

edit on 13-7-2012 by Panic2k11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 05:24 AM
link   
it is what it is China has the right to place it's anti ship ballistic missile where ever it wants in it's territory is it a sign of highten tension of South China Sea area yeah I believe, but can it take out an Nimitz Aircraft carrier I dunno guess we won't know until the SHTF.

but i read article that this missile relies on alot of other systems to work as intended if you break the chain don't think it would work.

but if China can track a CSG and bypass all the defenses then it could take out one, but that still leaves 10 other carriers plus all the other amphibious carriers, submarines etc etc.
edit on 8-8-2012 by kyoiism because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 06:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ophiuchus 13
MORE WARS effects. Getting close to the point of no return, smh. SO much intelligence going into destruction yet all the intelligence could of figured out the
1. HOME WORLD MANY COME FROM
2. HOW TO RETURN TO IT.
Instead this is seeming like a potential grave site based on POWER influence. These carrier missiles here a nuke there chem from them germ from them and what is left reminds 1 of a kingdom I tried hard to escape from only to see it running full strength here.


No, that "kingdom" was the state mental health hospital.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 06:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by travis911
The internet is seeing rumors that China has deployed its much debated DF-21 or carrier killer missile to the South China Sea. If this is true, it would be a super escalation of tensions in the region. There is a lot of doubt about the missile, which is famed to be able to close on its target at Mach 10 and be able to take out a US carrier. Many have speculated if the missile even exists as it has never been fully tested. However if it is real, can US missile defenses stop it?

thediplomat.com...


The only "escalation of tension" came when the US decided to place it's military occupation forces in the client states of Japan and South Korea. If the US abandoned it's Asian imperialist attitude, the tensions would go away.

Of course, whenever the US causes something, they'll just blame it on someone else.





new topics
top topics
 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join