Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

China Newspaper Says.....

page: 6
15
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by xXxinfidelxXx
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 


Are you not aware that China pretty much owns the US? Even if that was false, China has something that the US will never have: millions upon millions of compliant possible-conscriptees that will pretty much do whatever they're told out of fear. What they lack in technology (and not by much, mind you), they absolutely make up for in sheer numbers. Just look at the Vietcong in the Vietnam war. No matter how many the US killed, there would always be 5 more to replace every single KIA. Couple that with a world-class special operations outfit which nobody seems to be talking about (kinda reminds me of JTF-2
) and you have a recipe for disaster for the US. If war did break out between the only two remaining superpowers than the bankers would decide the victor anyways and it is pretty clear that a collapse of the US has been in the works for 200 years now, it doesn't seem unlikely that the States would not prevail in such a war, and neither would anyone else, given the likelihood that they may use nukes when no other option is available to them (just look at Hiroshima. That one wasn't even really justified, but they played it up like there was no other option), causing retaliation and full on holocaust-proportion casualties. (no fear-mongering intended here, just theorising out loud I guess you could call it)


China owns the U.S??? To help you cut through the media hype heres a link.From China Daliy

www.chinadaily.com.cn....[edit by]edit on 14-1-2013 by rockymcgilicutty because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 09:20 AM
link   
reply to post by rockymcgilicutty
 


I said "pretty much." Enough that if they decided to call in their debts, the States would be severely hindered in it's ability to continually fund it's warfighting capacity, which is already pretty much running aground due to their attempt to police the world and spread themselves way too thin. Maybe if they pulled out of Iraq and the Stan tomorrow they would have better odds, but I don't see that happening any time soon.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 09:21 AM
link   
reply to post by LeLeu
 


Your confusing nation building with all out war, try not to do that. If we fight a war with China we aren't trying to nation build. Do you understand the difference? No checkpoints to be blown up at, no governments to prop up. Just military engagements. Its apples and oranges. When we are guests in someone else's house we "try" not to break things. However if we aren't your guests we will blow your house down.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by xXxinfidelxXx
reply to post by rockymcgilicutty
 


I said "pretty much." Enough that if they decided to call in their debts, the States would be severely hindered in it's ability to continually fund it's warfighting capacity, which is already pretty much running aground due to their attempt to police the world and spread themselves way too thin. Maybe if they pulled out of Iraq and the Stan tomorrow they would have better odds, but I don't see that happening any time soon.


Yes.you said pretty much.I guess 8% in your opinion is pretty much.


U.S forces spread pretty thin,because of Iraq and Afganistan and maybe if we pulled out we would have better odds??Have you read a newspaper since 2011.We pulled out of Iraq, and we have a whopping number of 66,000
troops in Afganistan.I understand that if you only get your info from one side you can be misled.

I myself look at all sides of the News CNN, MSNBC, BBC,Aljazeera and yes I will say it FOX.I myself want to hear both sides of the story,before I form a opinion.Then on top of both sides,I do a little research.Because I don't take anything that any of them say for granted.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by rockymcgilicutty
 


Hate to break it to ya, but US forces are still in Iraq, regardless of whether or not the media is still covering it. I take my information from people who actually go there (ie.Chris Hedges, Robert Fisk, etc.) over any of those news agencies any day of the week. Also, the number of US Forces in Afghanistan as well as Iraq have been butressed by an extensive redeployment of Academi (formerly Blackwater), who are paid with US tax-payer dollars that were intended to be put towards the military, and they cost alot more to operate. I am not here expecting you to change your opinion on the issue as I am fully aware that that does not happen here. Those that come to ATS with a certain opinion also leave with that same opinion and I can count on 1 hand the amount of times I've seen anyone admit that they were wrong, so feel free to grasp your red white and blue security blanket until it turns to ash. I really could care less whether or not you realize it, but Rome is burning yet again, except this time it seems most people can't see the flames. Good luck. You're gonna need it.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by Kashai
 


China is beyond outclassed militarily in this region by the U.S. Navy. Add to this the ability of the USAF to strike anytime anywhere and it makes China appear to be just Bitching about Energy.

China is well aware that should it take any military action agaist Japan the U.S. is obligated to defend Japan. China is also aware that it could not even come close to winning such a battle.

It makes one wonder just exactly what they are up to.

Split Infinity




You're another uneducated American citizen and you probably vote Republican (right?) because only an American would believe the rubbish you're spewing here. China is the only country in the world which has successfully build a missile capable of destroying a aircraft carrier.

Before you deny they have such a capability ( The Pentagon already confirmed the Chinese have a missile like this in 2010 and its called DF-21D an anti-ship ballistic missile, the only one of its kind in the world) America has no equivalent to this missile.

I'm not underestimating the US military its powerful, but its not as strong as you're been lead to believe. The US military is stretched and you only have one and half million active trained personnel. China has about three to four million trained men in service. To operate technology you need soldiers and its soldiers not technology that wins wars at the end of the day.

The American navy has better ships than the Chinese navy, but China has better missile technology, so the US advantage will be very slight.

The Chinese Air force has more fighter jets than the United States, but the standard of fighter in the United States been slightly better. But the fact Chinese anti--plane batteries are state of the art, the Chinese will be no pushover.

This is what Chinese poorly equipped army did to your country then and i bet there was people like you around then who thought America been a superpower would destroy China in matter of weeks.

www.youtube.com...


Pentagon also to this day can not break Chinese encryption codes, while the Chinese break American codes with ease every day. This video is a bit over dramatic, but its genuine showing of the Chinese military of today and for me clearly shows you're been unrealistic about the military strengths of other countries outside the United
States.

www.youtube.com...
edit on 14-1-2013 by Backfire because: (no reason given)
edit on 14-1-2013 by Backfire because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by xXxinfidelxXx
reply to post by rockymcgilicutty
 


Hate to break it to ya, but US forces are still in Iraq, regardless of whether or not the media is still covering it. I take my information from people who actually go there (ie.Chris Hedges, Robert Fisk, etc.) over any of those news agencies any day of the week. Also, the number of US Forces in Afghanistan as well as Iraq have been butressed by an extensive redeployment of Academi (formerly Blackwater), who are paid with US tax-payer dollars that were intended to be put towards the military, and they cost alot more to operate. I am not here expecting you to change your opinion on the issue as I am fully aware that that does not happen here. Those that come to ATS with a certain opinion also leave with that same opinion and I can count on 1 hand the amount of times I've seen anyone admit that they were wrong, so feel free to grasp your red white and blue security blanket until it turns to ash. I really could care less whether or not you realize it, but Rome is burning yet again, except this time it seems most people can't see the flames. Good luck. You're gonna need it.


The point of your original reply (that you are trying to wiggle out of).Was that U.S forces were spread to thin, because of forces deployed in Iraq and Afganistan.Now stick to your original statement.Or pat yourself on the back for wiggling out of it.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 11:47 AM
link   
Chia is in a quandry....the people of chia want more freedom, and democracy, along with a better standard of living.
The goverment of China hasnt much choice but to rattle it saber and try to get an antagonistic situation going ....this will stall the peoples desire for more say in goverment, as they"prepare to counter outside aggression."
The claims China makes are false one, but the reasons are at home not where they claim.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by HenryNorris
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


50 years is nothing to China.

China owned them long before that. They are the traditional owners.


They're islands located miles from China and Japan coast, so there was bound to be disputes over these when oil was discovered there.

The fact these Islands also have been uninhabited, therefore one side hasn't got a stronger case then the other for control of them.

History is clearly on the Chinese side. They claim them since early history Japan took them as part of their empire, but lost the islands when Japan lost World war 2 ( then America took control) America gave them back to Japan in 1972

Personally i think Japan are to blame here they nationalized the Islands, they knew the Islands were been claimed by China too ( they kickstarted this disagreement Japan) But the fact Japan will not even admit their is a dispute or talk with China ( a joint sharing of the Islands perhaps?) no Japan says they belong to us negotiations on these islands not going to happen. No wonder China is pissed off with them.

I'm not a Chinese supporter i prefer to live in a world were citizens decide how they live their lifes. But Japan was clearly in the wrong here.
edit on 14-1-2013 by Backfire because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by Nettlas

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by Nettlas

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by Kashai
 


China is beyond outclassed militarily in this region by the U.S. Navy. Add to this the ability of the USAF to strike anytime anywhere and it makes China appear to be just Bitching about Energy.

China is well aware that should it take any military action agaist Japan the U.S. is obligated to defend Japan. China is also aware that it could not even come close to winning such a battle.

It makes one wonder just exactly what they are up to.

Split Infinity




China is not exactly outclassed military wise. The chines womens army has more soldiers enlisted than the entire US population, and that is only their womens army.
edit on 14-1-2013 by Nettlas because: (no reason given)


Outnumbered and outclassed are two different things. What exactly will those huge numbers of women soldiers do against US forces? Are they going to grow wings and fly into the air and catch missiles? Shoot laser beams out of their eyes to attack our Navy?


umm, no. I think airplanes will do, growing wings will take to long. And lasers I don´t think will do either, I think more like missiles, ordinary missiles, not laser missiles either. The fact is, the US has been going around the world showing their army´s strenght now for about 70-80 years or so almost non-stop. we have a pretty clear picture of what the US army is capable of. But China hasn´t done that, we have no idea what they have in store for the world if a global conflict would errupt. We wouldn´t know if they outclassed the US for example in tech. Just think of it ok, we don´t know. It is still a verry closed country and they could very well have developed tech that surpass the US and also in number of airplanes, ships etc etc. Numbers in manpower they already have, so why wouldn´t they also have outnumbered the US in airplanes, ships, subs etc. Just because you say no it doesn´t make it a fact. And what I say is not a fact either, but it is a possibility. Don´t say stuff for a fact when you can´t possibly be knowing it for a fact.


So the large women army is going to be flying planes? Interesting. I guess that makes their larger force useless, since they do not have as many aircraft, nor do they have aircraft as advanced. What airplanes are these women piloting and can you cite me a source saying they are equal to or superior than US planes?


Did you even read my whole reply?



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 12:18 PM
link   
Although unofficially, China has long ago warned that a direct Sino-US confrontation would become nuclear with China initiating nuclear strikes against US mainland. I don't think they have a problem repeating it and officially, if necessary. The US will not enter into a war of agression with a country that can launch nuclear strikes on US mainland and has intentions of doing so.

I doubt China is serious about the islands either.

They are simply showing that there is a new sheriff in town. This isn't lost on anyone who matters, including the US government.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by Taikun
Another Gulf of Tonkin incident waiting to occur? I will not rule out a false flag from the Chinese this time around, for a full scale military grab for the islands. U.S. will join Japan, where Russia will back China. A world war in the making.


China would not start a war any time soon. My belief is that they are trying to intimidate the other Pacific nations. The US would back Japan with the full might of our military, and China would be in ruins within weeks. Russia would never back China, and if they did they too would be annihilated, it would take most likely a few months for both nations to surrender, with almost no US casualties. Both countries combined could not dent the US Navy, they would be blockaded, bombed, and become withering hulks. They would be forced to repay huge reparations, and would be a huge coup for the US and the US economy.

Never happen.


Clearly somebody has no idea what they are talking about.


Remember those 12,000+ estimated nuclear warheads that Russia have? Do you think Russia isn't going to use them if they are invaded?

Russia has a couple nuclear submarines, one of which spent two weeks in the waters around Florida without the U.S. noticing. That submarine carried 10 ICBMs which release 8 nuclear warheads per missile.

If Russia had ordered it to fire, the U.S. would be a smoking ruin now.



China could bring 20-40 million soldiers into a war if the need arose. They also has Inter-Continental Ship Killing Missiles. They fire them, and your $9b carriers are blown to pieces.


Sure, the U.S. could defeat Russia or China in a one on one (It would be hugely destructive though, and cost both sides millions of lives) but facing the both of them at the same time? Nah.

Way I see it; there are 3 Superpowers. Russia, China and U.S.
If conflict breaks out between two of them, it will be a Pyrrhic victory and the other Superpower will take Top Dog.

E.G. U.S. and China war, the devastation would leave the other broken and Russia would become No. 1.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Trajan

Remember those 12,000+ estimated nuclear warheads that Russia have? Do you think Russia isn't going to use them if they are invaded?

Russia has a couple nuclear submarines, one of which spent two weeks in the waters around Florida without the U.S. noticing. That submarine carried 10 ICBMs which release 8 nuclear warheads per missile.

You think Russia is going to use a portion of the nukes in their arsenal?? Mutually assured destruction man. A nuclear war is out of the question as far as I'm concerned. Why should it even be on the table that there's weaponry which not only wipes out cities, but completely irradiates the earth and atmosphere, making regions uninhabitable for decades to thousands of years??? To start a nuclear war you'd have to literally be completely insane.

Unfortunately.... there are insane people and psychopaths in power who would love nothing more than to destroy our planet.



If Russia had ordered it to fire, the U.S. would be a smoking ruin now.

Smoking ruin... and an irradiated one that nobody else could inhabit. Say goodbye to all the natural resources, wildlife, beautiful landscapes, & everything else that makes the earth worth living on.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Raelsatu
 


This topic is on a clash of Super Powers, and if you're Russia or China and you see the U.S. coming a knocking, you're going to use everything you got to win the war.

MAD, sure. But what happens when Russia or China (China have already said if they come to war with the U.S. they will fire nuclear weapons without hesitation) sees that they are going to lose anyway, and decide to take the West with 'em?

For me and you, logical people, we can see the stupidity of nuclear weapons. But the planet isn't run by logical people or we wouldn't be fighting wars in the first place, now would we?



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 02:42 PM
link   
China and Russia would not start a nuclear war or World War Three. There would be a warning sign that nobody would miss if a war was about to take place. Namely all the Russian and Chinese government workers here in the Unite States would be leaving. That would be all those government workers at our colleges and university and even our nuclear sites. Start has Russian nuclear scientist in all our programs and classes in order to observe and watch to make sure we are not building nukes or experimenting with them in ways were not supposed to. And how about all the Confucius Centers across the US they are ran by Chinese Government workers not by US citizens.

When the mass exodus begins then watch out for all out war. And Russia kicking out USAID is not the same as a mass exodus of foreign government workers. USAID is a program that only runs social propaganda wars through media and social networks not weapons of mass destruction observation programs.

And cyber war really has to make you wonder who the teams are. Take the new map from Kaspersky of Red October. What countries are not being attacked? The UK,Canada and China. Are they working together to hack other countries? Are they linked in spying on the world for financial gain? Financial gain will make friends out of enemies if the profit is good. Look at the US Military Complex profit is God. McCain wanted to arm Libya to the hilt only months before they were invaded.

Mass exodus is the warning sign of World War Three





posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Raelsatu

Originally posted by Trajan

Remember those 12,000+ estimated nuclear warheads that Russia have? Do you think Russia isn't going to use them if they are invaded?

Russia has a couple nuclear submarines, one of which spent two weeks in the waters around Florida without the U.S. noticing. That submarine carried 10 ICBMs which release 8 nuclear warheads per missile.

You think Russia is going to use a portion of the nukes in their arsenal?? Mutually assured destruction man. A nuclear war is out of the question as far as I'm concerned. Why should it even be on the table that there's weaponry which not only wipes out cities, but completely irradiates the earth and atmosphere, making regions uninhabitable for decades to thousands of years??? To start a nuclear war you'd have to literally be completely insane.

Unfortunately.... there are insane people and psychopaths in power who would love nothing more than to destroy our planet.



If Russia had ordered it to fire, the U.S. would be a smoking ruin now.

Smoking ruin... and an irradiated one that nobody else could inhabit. Say goodbye to all the natural resources, wildlife, beautiful landscapes, & everything else that makes the earth worth living on.




Actually that's a myth mate. Many countries will not feel any pain really from a nuclear attack, the countries hit with nuclear weapons will have to deal with serious domestic problems ( people in those hot areas will have diseases, there will be food shortages, the water supply will be cut to homes, you name it. Honestly it will be really bad for those countries who've got hit with nuclear weapons. But its truly a nonsense to believe the rest of the world will not go on as normal after a nuclear war,

Climate changes from a nuclear war, there is still a debate what would happen there? Personally i think it would take millions of nukes to change our climate.

A nuke blast is only devastating within a mile or two miles radius ( its the nuclear fallout that will get people who are just outside the blast area.

5,000 nukes will do lot of damage tpo countries like Russia and the United States, but its very unlikely Africa would be effected by this war for example



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Backfire
 


A myth?? Millions you say?...


In a new study of the potential global impacts of nuclear blasts, an American team found even a small-scale war would quickly devastate the world's climate and ecosystems, causing damage that would last for more than a decade.

Speaking at the American Geophysical Union's meeting in San Francisco yesterday, Richard Turco of UCLA said detonating between 50 and 100 bombs - just 0.03% of the world's arsenal - would throw enough soot into the atmosphere to create climactic anomalies unprecedented in human history.

He said the effects would be "much greater than what we're talking about with global warming and anything that's happened in history with regards volcanic eruptions".

According to the research, tens of millions of people would die, global temperatures would crash and most of the world would be unable to grow crops for more than five years after a conflict.

In addition, the ozone layer, which protects the surface of the Earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation, would be depleted by 40% over many inhabited areas and up to 70% at the poles.


So to say that 5000 nukes detonated would only affect the region of explosion is nonsense.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Raelsatu
reply to post by Backfire
 


A myth?? Millions you say?...


In a new study of the potential global impacts of nuclear blasts, an American team found even a small-scale war would quickly devastate the world's climate and ecosystems, causing damage that would last for more than a decade.

Speaking at the American Geophysical Union's meeting in San Francisco yesterday, Richard Turco of UCLA said detonating between 50 and 100 bombs - just 0.03% of the world's arsenal - would throw enough soot into the atmosphere to create climactic anomalies unprecedented in human history.

He said the effects would be "much greater than what we're talking about with global warming and anything that's happened in history with regards volcanic eruptions".

According to the research, tens of millions of people would die, global temperatures would crash and most of the world would be unable to grow crops for more than five years after a conflict.

In addition, the ozone layer, which protects the surface of the Earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation, would be depleted by 40% over many inhabited areas and up to 70% at the poles.


So to say that 5000 nukes detonated would only affect the region of explosion is nonsense.


What there saying is still only a theory. I could find a dozen (just as good) opposing theories. But the fact is your believe is still only a myth.

We do know for a a 'fact' human beings pollute the air with nasty stuff everyday, yet still we experience day and night and blue skies. The climate will fight back even after a nuclear war.

The worry from Nuclear war is dust and nitrogen our air actually likes nitrogen and hundreds of tons of dust going into the atmosphere from nuclear blasts, ok does have a slim change of mildly changing the climate. But, realistically i think 5,000 nuclear explosions would not be enough to do it.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Backfire
 


Are you honestly willing to take that chance?? Again, to do something like that you'd have to be insane. Just to defeat somebody in a war, you take a chance to completely destroy life on this planet & cause our extinction. Not to mention irradiate the land and atmosphere....

I don't even see how you could call it a myth. It's a theory. It's still a very valid possibility, and one that I'd be cautious about. 5000 nukes... you think that won't destabilize the globe?? Do you any evidence or facts to support that? I'd be far more inclined to believe that many nukes would be the end of us.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 05:07 PM
link   
I understand this may be a huge incident in regarding relationships between Japan and China...

But stuff like this happens every day.

Russia constantly sends un-armed bombers or planes into UK airspace... testing our response times. Purely to keep everyone on there toes.

I bet my last 2 pennies that this happens in other countries as well all the time.

However in respect to that

Great thread and very interesting read





new topics

top topics


active topics

 
15
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join