Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Sandman_SBM on April 11, 2001, 07:17:00 PM
-
The Soviet Union sought to exercise a containment strategy in our region during the Cuban Missile crisis. The U.S. screamed foul and as you all know, the situation grew quite tense. The U.S. perceived the U.S.S.R. as the bad guy for encroaching in U.S. "territory".
At present the U.S. is exercising the same sort of containment strategy in the South China Sea. This time, it's Taiwan and not Cuba, and China perceives the U.S. as the bad guy encroaching on their "territory".
I'm having a hard time seeing the difference.
If it were a Chinese surveillance aircraft operating in international airspace next to North America, I'm pretty sure our reaction would be strikingly similar to that of China and our aircraft.
-
Never understood the continuing blockade against Cuba. (And especially when the US is trading with China).
Guess they're afraid that a Cuban team will win the World Series (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) (Only reasonable reason I can see).
Meanwhile, I'll continue to enjoy Cuban cigars and coffee on this side of the pond (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Daff
------------------
CO, 56th Fighter Group
www.56thfightergroup.org (http://www.56thfightergroup.org)
This is Yardstick, follow me"
-
Sandman,
1. We are not arming Taiwan with nuke rockets that can reach the Chinese mainland.
This was Kennedy's stated reason for the "Cuban Missile Crisis" as it is called.
THAT is the major difference. OFFENSIVE NUKES, not defensive anti-missile cruisers.
2. Many posters give a similar statement to this one of yours:
"If it were a Chinese surveillance aircraft operating in international airspace next to North America, I'm pretty sure our reaction would be strikingly similar to that of China and our aircraft."
This, I hope, is basically because the US and the other "powers" have kept intelligence gathering and surveillance so out of sight that the average citizen has no clue about how it is done, how often or how the nations react.
Just as ONE example, here's the tally from intercepting Soviet intelligence gathering aircraft out of Alaska alone (they were also intercepted in the GIUK gap out of Iceland and along the East Coast of the US during this same period.)
http://www.vfw.org/magazine/apr98/26.shtml (http://www.vfw.org/magazine/apr98/26.shtml)
"Intercepts grew gradually over the years, peaking in the 1980s. The largest number-33-of Soviet aircraft were intercepted in 1987. On June 16, 1988, two fighter pilots became the first to intercept three Soviet flights in one day. Capt. Richard Von Berckefeldt was the first pilot in Alaska to intercept 10 Soviet aircraft, earning him the Sustained Air Activity Medal (10 intercepts rated the medal). In the last year, 1991, of the Cold War, 15 Soviet planes were found in U.S. airspace."
Between 1961 and 1991, 306 intercepts of Soviet intruders were made. (The last occurred Sept. 20, 1991, by two F-15s out of Galena Airport.) Altogether, nearly 300 airmen took part in the flights. In the '60s, the 317th Fighter-Interceptor Squadron and rotating units of the Air Defense Command did the honors. Over succeeding decades, the 43rd, 18th and 54th Tactical Fighter squadrons boosted the tally.
Now, search all you like and see if the US ever shot at or shot down or even collided with a Soviet Intelligence Gathering Aircraft or a Soviet Commercial Airliner in our ADIZ (This is INTERNATIONAL AIRSPACE, btw) or our Territorial Airspace (12 miles).
I've never heard of or seen a report on such an incident.
Now, contrast this bit of information on shootdowns by Communist-led countries: (Note I've removed the shootdowns of aircraft that were or were arguably close to Territorial Airspace from the list. While these are examples of pointless brutality, they at least were outside the realm of protection by International Law.
http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/gustin_military/shotdown.html (http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/gustin_military/shotdown.html)
8 April 1950
An US PB4Y-2 Privateer, shot down over the Baltic Sea -- or over Latvia, depending on whether you believe the American or the Soviet version. After this, US aircraft were instructed to stay at least 20 miles from the coast.
6 November 1951
An US P2V-3 Neptune of VP-6 , shot down near Vladivostok by MiG-15s.
29 April 1952
A DC-4 of Air France was shot at by two MiG-15s when approaching Berlin. The aircraft was damaged and three passengers wounded.
13 June 1952
A RB-29 over the Sea of Japan, near Hokkaido.
7 October 1952
A RB-29 over the Kurile Islands.
18 January 1953
A P2V over Formosa Strait.
29 July 1953
An RB-50 over the Sea of Japan. Only one of the 17 crewmembers was rescued, but there are rumours that others were taken prisoners by the USSR.
27 January 1954
An RB-45 flying over the Yellow Sea with an escort of F-86 Sabres was attacked by eight MiG-15s; one MiG was shot down.
July 1954
A Cathay Pacific DC-4 was shot down by Chinese La-9 fighters near Hainan. 10 killed, 8 survived.
26 July 1954
Two AD Skyraiders, looking for survivors from the above mentioned DC-4, were attacked by two La-9s. Both La-9s were shot down.
4 September 1954
A P2V-5 off the Siberian coast. Of the crew of 10, one was killed.
7 November 1954
An RB-29 over the Sea of Japan, north of Hokkaido, lost with its crew of 13.
5 Februari 1955
Two MiG-15s shot down by USAF F-86 Sabres when they attacked an RB-45 over the Yellow Sea
17 April 1955
An RB-47 near Kamchatka, probably shot down by MiG-17s.
22 June 1955
A P2V-5 Neptune was attacked over the Bering Strait. The USA demanded $724,947; the USSR finally payed half.
10 September 1956
RB-50 over the Sea of Japan.
24 December 1957
An USAF RB-57 over the Black Sea.
4 July 1959 or 16 June 1959 ?
A P4M of VQ-1, attacked near to Korean peninsula by MiG-15s. Damaged, one wounded crewmember.
1 July 1960
An RB-47H over the Barentz Sea was downed by Vasili Poliakov. John McCone, the navigator and Bruce Olmstead (the co-pilot?) survived. The pilot, Bill Palm was killed, as were the other three crewmembers (the Elint operators).
5 June 1962
A Swedish ELINT DC-3 shot down over the Baltic.
16 June 1962 A Swedish Catalina looking for the DC-3 lost on June the 5th was shot down too.
27 April 1965
An ERB-47H was damaged by North Korean MiG-17s. It made an emergency landing at Yokota AB, with two engines out.
September 1965
An RB-57F, operated by Pakistan, damaged by an SA-2 over India.
14 December 1965 (1968?)
An RB-57F shot down by a SAM over the Black Sea, near Odessa. The two crewmembers remained missing. Jay Miller states that this happened in 1968; Robert Jackson that it was in 1965.
30 June 1968
A DC-8 over the Kurile islands was forced to land. It was carrying a load of US troops to Vietnam.
15 April 1969
An EC-121M over or near North Korea.
20 April 1978
Boeing 707 from Korean Air Lines. Flew over Murmansk while on a Paris-Anchorage flight. Hit by Su-15 interceptors, crash-landed on a frozen lake.
6 September 1983 October
A Boeing 747 of KAL, shot down over Sachalin by a Su-15. All 269 on board were killed.
24 February 1996
Two (civilian) US-registered Cessna 337 twin-engined aircraft, operated by Cuban exiles, shot down by Cuban MiG-29s.
Now you can add the collision by the F-8 with the EP-3 to the list.
So go ahead and search. Show me the list of surveillance or other aircraft we have shot at or shot down either in our ADIZ or our Territorial Airspace. I don't think you'll even find an instance of our interceptors colliding with anyone.
THAT'S the difference.
-
What Toad said. Big difference.
-
Toad, in your list of "communist crimes" you missed at least 2 important dates: October, 7th, 1959 and May, 1st, 1960.
Edit:
You wrote: "Note I've removed the shootdowns of aircraft that were or were arguably close to Territorial Airspace from the list. While these are examples of pointless brutality, they at least were outside the realm of protection by International Law."
So you must remove both Korean Boeings from your list.
Toad, US had strategic bombers carrying hydrogen bombs over Europe on constant airborn patrol for almost 20 years. Who could guarantee that a bird crossing our border doesn't carry such "presents"?
------------------
With respect,
Pavel Pavlov,
Commissar 25th IAP WB VVS
[This message has been edited by Boroda (edited 04-12-2001).]
-
Now back to the actual topic... several years ago the US of A FREAKED when Missiles of a nuclear nature where being shipped toward Cuba.
Now the US will put the same capability on the doorstep of China... maybe no nukes... yet... but simply making the chinese face the possibility and capability will sign and seal there retaking.
Taiwan is actually best watched... thing is handsomehunk americans PROMISED to send this stuff to Taiwan. Governments have never minded breaking a promise though (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
2 cents hehe
[This message has been edited by Argent (edited 04-12-2001).]
-
No... nukes or no nukes is not the issue... I'm looking at the strategy of containment. The nuke and the surveillance aircraft are simply tools.
[This message has been edited by Sandman_SBM (edited 04-12-2001).]
-
good list Toad,
i really was wondering how comes no ruskies
where shoot down.
But ther are 2 options left,
1. US bad at aiming
2. no ruskies at all to shoot at
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Gh0stFT
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM:
At present the U.S. is exercising the same sort of containment strategy in the South China Sea. This time, it's Taiwan and not Cuba, and China perceives the U.S. as the bad guy encroaching on their "territory".
I'm having a hard time seeing the difference.
The difference that should be clear to any reasonable person is that the U.S. is NOT hostile towards it's neighbors and does not have a rouge military with designs on world domination running the country.
The U.S.S.R. never used containment, like China they use(d) AGGRESSION.
Is there anyone that seriously thinks that China would hesitate to settle any one of the numerous land disputes they have with ALL Their neighbors if the U.S. were not in the picture to smack them down?
The ONLY thing keeping China in check is it's fear of U.S. retaliation. Should they get the drop on the U.S. in a first strike situation (currently not a worry), Earth will be renamed China.
Think before you post.
-
Sand,
You still fail to make your case.
The Soviet Union had already armed Cuba with many weapons systems; the US DID NOTHING. We weren't "containing" anything then.
It wasn't until the offensive nukes were otw that Kennedy took action. (Not that it did any good. Once the spotlight was off they brought the missiles in anyway. Later they brought nuke capable Mig-23's as well.)
In short, you have a faulty comparison here. It's never going to work for you. We ignored the military buildup in Cuba UNTIL the offensive nukes came. Compare that.
Second, you fail to reply about surveillance flights. Where's your list showing how the US reaction is/would be "strikingly similar to that of China?" Find any US intercepts "gone bad?"
Take your time, I'll wait.
Boroda, Powers was over the USSR, that's why it's not on the list.
October 7, 59?
Well, the list is so long I must have missed the two KAL's while editing. It was getting late. Think I'll leave them just to remind folks what fine fellows your leaders were.
Boroda, USSR had strategic bombers capable of carrying hydrogen bombs also. TU-95's Bear, even, I think. Who could guarantee that one of your Recon Tu-95's wasn't crossing our border carrying such "presents"?
Yet we never shot any of them down.
Guess we were not paranoid enough to figure that someone would be stupid enough to start WW3 with just one bomber ... or a civilian airliner. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/tongue.gif)
Argent, Aegis cruisers are air defense cruisers. They are not Scuds with nukes. There is no rational comparison here. Don't let that slow you down though. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/tongue.gif)
Ghost, there were plenty of "russkies" to shoot at. I'll wager our aircrews could have hit a bomber; they did pretty well on MiG's sent to intercept our recon platforms. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
It's much simpler than that. It's basic ideology.
-
Toad, October, 7th, 1959 - first SAM kill in history. An RB-57D heading to Beijing, deep over continental China. 3 S-75 missiles, all 3 hit the target. US admitted that "RB-57D was lost over Yellow sea".
About strategic bombers - you probably didn't get my point. US had them on CONSTANT AIRBORN PATROL over Europe, that means that several bombers (B-52s with 5 25megaton bombs) were cruising over Europe 24 hours a day, ready to head to the East, penetrate Soviet aircraft defence and drop their load onto our cities EVERY MINUTE.
Wonder what could happen if such a plane asked for emergency landing in Baltic republics or in Kaliningrad...
------------------
With respect,
Pavel Pavlov,
Commissar 25th IAP WB VVS
-
The ONLY thing keeping China in check is it's fear of U.S. retaliation. Should they get the drop on the U.S. in a first strike situation (currently not a worry), Earth will be renamed China.
More sabre rattling and chest thumping... yawn. This is not a pep rally, wite wai. In my opinion, a war between China and the U.S. will have no winner.
The difference that should be clear to any reasonable person is that the U.S. is NOT hostile towards it's neighbors and does not have a rouge military with designs on world domination running the country.
This statement is subjective. Some countries don't consider the U.S. to be as benevolent as we like to think we are.
Second, you fail to reply about surveillance flights. Where's your list showing how the US reaction is/would be "strikingly similar to that of China?" Find any US intercepts "gone bad?"
The point is... there are no surveillance aircraft off the coast of the United States. We enjoy a benign geography. Imagine if this were not the case. Imagine the U.S. reaction. That's my point.
The Soviet Union had already armed Cuba with many weapons systems; the US DID NOTHING. We weren't "containing" anything then.
The Soviet Union sought to arm Cuba with Nukes as a strategy of containing the U.S.
If our goal is strategic containment of China, Taiwan is if not necessary, at least beneficial to that goal in much the same way that the U.S.S.R considered Cuba necessary.
Sure... there are idealogical differences but the strategies strike me as similar.
Argent, Aegis cruisers are air defense cruisers. They are not Scuds with nukes. There is no rational comparison here. Don't let that slow you down though.
Really? Aegis crusisers are multi-mission ships capable of anti-ship, anti-sub, and strike warfare as well as anti-air.
sand
-
Daff,
Cuban cigar quality is not the worlds best anymore, drastically different than 20 years ago.
-
About strategic bombers - you probably didn't get my point. US had them on CONSTANT AIRBORN PATROL over Europe, that
means that several bombers (B-52s with 5 25megaton bombs) were cruising over Europe 24 hours a day, ready to head to
the East, penetrate Soviet aircraft defence and drop their load onto our cities EVERY MINUTE.
That is shear propaganda! The Russians had a fit when our minuteman missiles went online. Instead of the normal 8-10hr warm up time needed by by other ICBMs we could launch immediately. Those missiles negated any chance of a Russian 1st strike.
It also had the secondary benefit if making the Russians gear up there military even more thereby decimating there economy & hastening the final fall of socialism so that you sir may now enjoy the internet.
Have a pleasant day,
Flash
-
It also had the secondary benefit if making the Russians gear up there military decimating there economy & hastening the final fall of socialism so that you sir may now enjoy the internet.
Have a pleasant day,
Flash
LOL,"ooooh, Ouch OUch Ouch!"...that had to have hurt Borodo?
Correction, Flash, that COMMUNISIM, not SOCIALISM.
[This message has been edited by Ripsnort (edited 04-12-2001).]
-
Flashpan, it's not propaganda, it's sad truth. Ever heard about Palomares? Hehe, missiles (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) Khruschev made Americans wet their pants after the first sattelite and a 65-megaton bomb test.
Rip, Cuban cigars are too special for me to smoke, and I doubt that they changed since 1980. But we had mostly cheap ones. Cuban cigarettes (Ligeros, Partagas, Monte-Cristo) were great, black tobacco, super-strong, even stronger then French brands like Gitanes or "thick" Galuases (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
USSR NEVER armed Cuba with nukes. It placed it's own SOVIET missiles at Cuba. Just like US never armed Turkey with nuclear missiles.
Ripsnort, you are not right about socialism and communism. Don't mix communist party regin and communist social-economical formation.
------------------
With respect,
Pavel Pavlov,
Commissar 25th IAP WB VVS
-
Boroda,
Partagas and Monte Cristo is 'Cuban-seed' , we get them here in America as well. A bad cigar is one that never gets smoked...smoke your cubans, I will enjoy the Artero Fuentes I keep stocked. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
My comment about communism was a correction to Flash's statement, he said socialism, I corrected him and said "Commmunism"...and also noted you had no comment on your 'Freedom of the internet' you have now after the walls have fallen. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Origianly posted by Ripsnort
Correction, Flash, that COMMUNISIM, not SOCIALISM.[/b/]
Thanks Ripsnort, I stand corrected. The fingers were moving faster then the brain (seems to happen as you get older (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Origianlly posted by Boroda
Flashpan, it's not propaganda, it's sad truth. Ever heard about Palomares? Hehe, missiles Khruschev made Americans wet
their pants after the first sattelite and a 65-megaton bomb test.
Yes I am familiar with it. I was a cold war soldier with a high security clearance.
Little the soviets had that actually worried us. The poor quality of most of there systems made them ineffective. What worried us the most was the sheer volume of weapons that you had.
If a full nuclear exchange were to take place it was expected less the 30% of the soviet weaponry would be effective. Either due to the weapon missing (very likely) or failing to function (jury is still out on that one. we thankfully never got to find out).
That 30% would stil lay waste to much of the USA. On your end however our missles are extremlly accurate the soviet people would in all likely hood cease to exist.
I do not want to make this a "us vs them" thread. However the reality of our 2 systems has to be realized. The soviets chose to BS & bully there way around the world & with there own people. Further they either didnt tell our outright lied to there own people about the effectiveness of the military. That also helped there eventual demise.
The US conversly cant seem to keep a secret from its people for very long. It is the way of our country to have a large degree of disclosure to our people.
In the USSR the politbeaurue ran the country . In the US the people run the country.
In the USSR the military dictated to the people what must be done.
In the US the people dictate to the military what must be done.
2 vastly differant systems. The Soviet means of governing started with the revolution of 1917 I believe was the date.
The American system started in 1776 with our own revoulution.
The soviet system lasted till 1989 with huge loss to its own wellfare & impoverisong & oppresing its people.
The American system isnt just still here today but it is thriving with every year more countries trying to model our system.
So if you throw out all the facts... The last man (or country in this case) still standing is the winner.
Have a pleasant day,
Flash
-
Sandman, you insist that the fact it was nukes in Cuba is not the issue. However, up until those nukes were discovered, do you really believe there was no Soviet buildup in Cuba?
There most certainly was, proportionally much higher than ours with Taiwan. We did not cause a fuss at that point, because as Cuba's ally they have a right to defend them. We may not have liked it, but we accepted it.
The nukes are the issue, they are the only reason for the reaction that was obtained.
-
Flashpan, you suffer from the very same propaganda, but aimed at Blue side of map (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Speaking about economics - we had completely rebuilt the whole country after the most horrible war in history and launched a first sattelite 12 years later, and had a first man in space in 16 years.
As for technological "superiority" - Soviet engineers laughed almost to death when they recieved Muiniuteman missile that felt on Cuba after an unsuccessful launch (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) It was worse then stone-age engineering (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) Damn, USSR have built an effective missile defence system in early 70s, after performing a first successful "behind-horison" ICBM intercept in mid-60s, while America still is unable to make a single ABM!
------------------
With respect,
Pavel Pavlov,
Commissar 25th IAP WB VVS
-
Flashpan, you suffer from the very same propaganda, but aimed at Blue side of map
Well hell I know that! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) Its patriotism & national pride.
Speaking about economics - we had completely rebuilt the whole country after the most horrible war in history and launched
a first sattelite 12 years later, and had a first man in space in 16 years.
Yes you did but at what cost?
Adolf Hitler took a war ravaged country (that lost) and in 20 yrs had the strongest & most technically advanced army & airforce in the world.
Additionaly, where do you think the USSR would be after WWII if the US hadnt enacted the war powers act & supply your country with HUGE amounts of raw materials, food, weapons & aircraft? I'll tell ya where.... Stalingrad would have fallen shortly followed by Moscow. Stalin would have been hanged & the following 50yrs of fear from the cold war would have been abated. The USSR would not exist. Kinda ironic that the US made its own worst enemy....
As for technological "superiority" - Soviet engineers laughed almost to death when they recieved Muiniuteman missile that felt
on Cuba after an unsuccessful launch It was worse then stone-age engineering Damn, USSR have built an effective
missile defence system in early 70s, after performing a first successful "behind-horison" ICBM intercept in mid-60s, while
America still is unable to make a single ABM!
This is kinda funny... Its pretty much world known that the USSR is at least 20yrs behind the US technologicly.
Since the invention of the AK47 & Yak 3 the Soviets havent had a origianl idea. Nearly every "advance" they have had they either stole from a western power or bought some outdated technology.
I think we should agree to disagree. As you said I am a victim of my countries propoganda same as you. The only differance is in the this country we get for the most part the truth while in the USSR you got what they wanted you to know.
Good Day sir,
Flash
-
Pablo, USA had a fully operational ABM system, limited to 100 missiles by SALT, in 1975 with the Safeguard system, using Sprint and Spartan missiles. However the system was shut down by Congress for political reasons.
-
The point is... there are no surveillance aircraft off the coast of the United States. We enjoy a benign geography. Imagine if this were not the case. Imagine the U.S. reaction. That's my point."
Up until 1991 the USSR flew the same type of reconnaissance missions that we flew then and are flying now. As I posted, this resulted in over 300 intercepts in the Alaskan ADIZ area ALONE. There were also intecepts out of Iceland along the GIUK gap and out of our East Coast bases as the Soviet Aircraft flew down the coast to Cuba.
The *POINT* is that you will be unable to find an instance of us shooting at them, shooting them down or even colliding with one.
The *POINT* is that these aircraft were intercepted according to ICAO guidelines and identified and THAT'S ALL. There were no "international incidents"; in fact, only a relatively small part of the American public was even aware that this was happening on a routine basis.
Therefore, I submit to you that the *POINT* is that our "reaction" to reconnaissance aircraft flying just outside our territorial waters (12 miles) has already been clearly demonstrated to anyone who takes a bit of time to research the subject and it is benign.
-
Sandman: "This statement is subjective. Some countries don't consider the U.S. to be as benevolent as we like to think we are."
...and so YOUR immediately following statement is NOT subjective? ROFLMAO.
Ask yourself this: When the sh*t hits the fan, to what country do folks generally look for help?
"The Soviet Union sought to arm Cuba with Nukes as a strategy of containing the U.S."
Contain the US? Soviet arms in Cuba kept the US from conquering Canada or Mexico? Man, I bet the Canadians and Mexicans didn't know that!
Sand, they put nukes in Cuba because it gave them the ability to put nukes on targets in the US before we could even get our silo doors open. It simply was an enhancement of their "first strike" capability.
"Aegis crusisers are multi-mission ships capable of anti-ship, anti-sub, and strike warfare as well as anti-air.
So you're thinking if the Taiwanese got 3 Aegis cruisers they could conquer mainland China? Or even mount a credible threat to do so?
I can see where anti-ship, anti-sub and anti-air capabilites would be useful for deterring an assault on Taiwan by a much larger adversary.
Strike warfare? 3 shiploads of Tomahawks can take down all of mainland China? Get real. There's not enough of this stuff to be used offensively. There's not really enough to make a difference defensively.
Taiwan is asking for the Aegis system on Kidd-class destroyers, Apache helicopters, Patriot anti-missile systems, submarines and anti-submarine aircraft. Some offensive war machine there, huh?
This to counter the 300-400 nuke-capable missiles deployed in mainland China within 100 miles of Taiwan.
Tell me again that Taiwan is "containing" China? Yeah, you bet. Little Taiwan has 'em cornered. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif) China is most definitely a victim.
-
Originally posted by Boroda:
Toad, October, 7th, 1959 - first SAM kill in history. An RB-57D heading to Beijing, deep over continental China. 3 S-75 missiles, all 3 hit the target. US admitted that "RB-57D was lost over Yellow sea".
I think that one is listed on the page this way:
"October 1959
An RB-57D operated by the Chinese Nationalists was shot down over mainland China."
Since it was clearly in Chinese airspace, I had deleted it.
About strategic bombers - you probably didn't get my point. US had them on CONSTANT AIRBORN PATROL over Europe, that means that several bombers (B-52s with 5 25megaton bombs) were cruising over Europe 24 hours a day, ready to head to the East, penetrate Soviet aircraft defence and drop their load onto our cities EVERY MINUTE.
You probably didn't get my point, either. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
You guys had bombers with nukes up quite a bit as well. Not to mention the nukes in Cuban silos ready to go.
We just weren't paranoid enough to shoot down everything we could and then try to justify the paranoia by saying "hey, he could have been carrying a nuke!"
But if you want to justify taking out C-47's and shooting down 707's & 747's because they "could have been carrying nuke" in your airspace... and if you want to justify shooting down Recon platforms in INTERNATIONAL AIRSPACE because they "could have been carrying a nuke"...
well, whatever helps you sleep at night, I guess.
I'm glad we didn't murder your aircrews in International Airspace though.
-
However, up until those nukes were discovered, do you really believe there was no Soviet buildup in Cuba?
Never said that.
So you're thinking if the Taiwanese got 3 Aegis cruisers they could conquer mainland China? Or even mount a credible threat to do so?
Toad... You stated that the aegis cruiser are air defense cruisers. You're wrong. It's a multi-mission platform. You can argue the uses all you want. A Kidd class destroyer with SPY-1 or Aegis weapons system is not an aegis cruiser. An Aegis cruiser is the Ticonderoga class.
Tell me again that Taiwan is "containing" China?
You said it, not me. Go ahead and please continue both sides of the discussion.
Poof.
[This message has been edited by Sandman_SBM (edited 04-12-2001).]
-
Well, I hadn't really looked into what Taiwan was asking for until today. I had only heard the news blips.
The Washington Post article is the source for what I wrote above.
I don't blame ya for bolting the thread though. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
Toad, FYI the Russians been flying some of those surveillance missions again, as recently as last year. And as usual, the reaction was minimal. A couple of escorts. No collisions, no dramatics.
Sandman has some neat theories. Too bad the facts of the situtation don't fit them.
-
Yes, Funked, I heard they ran a few more. As you said it's no big deal to any normal country.
One of the things I have found most amazing in this EP-3 incident (on this and other BBS and in RL discussions with people) is how many people simply didn't know about intelligence gathering activities that are tasked against the US by foreign powers.
"I wonder how the US would react if...."
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif)
"Well, check the last 40 years to see how we DID react for a clue...."
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Pretty succky to agile Yak-9s shot down both by two lumbering single engine(Though it was a Major Wasp) but the big thing 15 tonnes of metal and designed to be divebombers chinese are fuc^ing pitiful.
-
From Rumsfield's briefing:
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Apr2001/t04132001_t0413ep3.html (http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Apr2001/t04132001_t0413ep3.html)
"Let me just make a comment about several other reconnaissance flights or, I should say, instances where one nation's aircraft landed at another nation's airport, but without permission and because of some sort of emergency.
On February 27, 1974, a Soviet AN-24 reconnaissance aircraft was low on fuel and made an emergency landing at Gambell Airfield in Alaska. The crew remained on the aircraft overnight. They were provided space heaters and food. They were refueled the next day and they departed. The crew was not detained and the aircraft was not detained.
On April 6, 1993, a Chinese civilian airliner declared an in-flight emergency and landed in Shemya, Alaska, in the United States. It was apparently a problem of turbulence; very, very severe turbulence to the point that two people died, dozens were seriously injured, and the plane made an emergency landing on the U.S. airfield. The aircraft was repaired and refueled without charge, and it departed.
On 26 March, 1994, Russian military surveillance aircraft, monitoring a NATO anti-submarine warfare exercise, was low on fuel and made an emergency landing at Thule Air Base in Greenland. It was on the ground about six hours, the crew was fed, the aircraft was refueled and it departed.
Now, I mention these to point out that reconnaissance flights have been going on for decades. They are not unusual. They are well- understood by all nations that are involved in these types of matters. And in similar situations, nations have not detained crews and they have not kept aircraft."
So there you go Boroda.