Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: FrodeMk3 on September 25, 2008, 05:17:02 PM
-
I know everyone's pretty wrapped up in the bailout/credit crisis right now, but some other things' are happening at this moment:
Pakistani troops fire on US helicopters at border By FISNIK ABRASHI, Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 37 minutes ago
KABUL, Afghanistan - Pakistani troops fired at American reconnaissance helicopters near the Afghan-Pakistan border Thursday, and ground troops then exchanged fire, the U.S. military said.
ADVERTISEMENT
No injuries were reported, but the incident heightened tensions as the U.S. steps up cross-border operations in a volatile region known as a haven for Taliban and al-Qaida militants.
Two American OH-58 reconnaissance helicopters, known as Kiowas, were on a routine afternoon patrol in the eastern province of Khost when they received small-arms fire from a Pakistani border post, said Tech Sgt. Kevin Wallace, a U.S. military spokesman. There was no damage to aircraft or crew, officials said.
U.S. Central Command spokesman Rear Adm. Greg Smith said Pakistan and American ground troops exchanged fire after Pakistani forces shot at the helicopters.
He said a joint patrol of Americans and Afghan border police was moving about a mile and a half inside Afghanistan with the helicopters above them. The ground troops reported that Pakistani forces fired toward the helicopters and when they saw that happen, they fired off suppression rounds toward the hilltop.
They did so, Smith said from Centcom headquarters in Tampa, Fla., "to make certain that they (the Pakistanis) realized they should stop shooting."
The Pakistani border patrol forces then shot back down on the joint location of the U.S.-Afghan patrol. "The whole thing lasted five minutes," Smith said.
The Pakistani military, however, said its troops fired warning shots after the helicopters crossed "well within" Pakistani territory.
"On this, the helicopters returned fire and flew back," the Pakistani military said in an English-language statement.
And in New York, Pakistan's new president, Asif Ali Zardari, said his military fired only "flares" at foreign helicopters that he claimed strayed across the border from Afghanistan.
Zardari said his forces fired only as a way "to make sure that they know that they crossed the border line."
"Sometimes the border is so mixed that they don't realize they have crossed the border," he told reporters before he began a meeting with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
The Pakistani military said the matter was "being resolved" in consultations between the army and the NATO force in Afghanistan. A NATO statement said the militaries were "working together to resolve the matter."
The U.S. has stepped up attacks on suspected militants in the frontier area, mostly by missiles fired from unmanned drones operating from Afghanistan. The incursions — especially a ground raid into South Waziristan by American commandos Sept. 3 — have angered many Pakistanis.
Pakistani army spokesman Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas said last week that Pakistani field commanders have previously tolerated international forces crossing a short way into Pakistan because of the ill-defined and contested nature of the mountainous frontier.
"But after the (Sept. 3) incident, the orders are clear," Abbas said. "In case it happens again in this form, that there is a very significant detection, which is very definite, no ambiguity, across the border, on ground or in the air: open fire."
On Wednesday, Pakistan's army said it had found the wreckage of a suspected surveillance drone in South Waziristan, but denied claims by Pakistani intelligence officials that troops and local people shot down the aircraft.
In Washington, Defense Department spokesman Bryan Whitman said the coalition immediately requested an explanation from Pakistan for what he described as a "troubling" incident.
"It would be fairly hard to mistake a helicopter flying in that region as anything but ISAF or U.S.," Whitman said.
He said militants have always tried to exploit the border region.
"It's a challenge along the border and that's why we continue to look for ways to improve our coordination," Whitman said.
Asked how Pakistani forces could mistake U.S. helicopters for enemy forces — especially since Taliban and al-Qaida forces don't have aircraft — Whitman said: "Only Pakistan can articulate their intent."
Pakistani civilian leaders have condemned the cross-border operations by U.S. forces, which have been authorized by President Bush, while the army has vowed to defend Pakistan's territory "at all cost."
"We will not tolerate any act against our sovereignty and integrity in the name of the war against terrorism," Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani told journalists Wednesday. "We are fighting extremism and terror not for any another country, but our own country. This is our own war."
Pakistan's tribal areas have become a breeding ground for Taliban and al-Qaida militants, who are launching attacks inside Pakistan but also across the border into Afghanistan, where the levels of violence have reached record heights since the ouster of the Taliban from power in the U.S.-led invasion in 2001.
More than 4,600 people — mostly militants — have died this year in insurgency-related violence in Afghanistan, and the levels of violence in the eastern Afghanistan are 30 percent higher compared to the same period last year, officials say.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080925/ap_on_re_as/as_afghanistan (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080925/ap_on_re_as/as_afghanistan)
It's hard to have a case of mistaken identity, when the only Aircraft in the area are American...They had to know what they were doing.
-
You are forgetting it's SOP for the Pakistanis to do such things. Do you forget the decades of artillery matches near Kashmere with Indian forces. Also on that border the political and family affiliations of those Pakistani troops may be local, meaning they like Bin Lauden...........there may have been a hash mule train hiding in a nearby ravein that they were protecting.
-
You are forgetting it's SOP for the Pakistanis to do such things. Do you forget the decades of artillery matches near Kashmere with Indian forces. Also on that border the political and family affiliations of those Pakistani troops may be local, meaning they like Bin Lauden...........there may have been a hash mule train hiding in a nearby ravein that they were protecting.
Oh, so the Afghani's fly their dope in Kiowa's?
-
Well, we shouldn't be there. This is not a moral statement on my part. Realistically, we don't have the resources or will to change the people of the most backwards regions on Earth in any meaningful way. I don't think anyone does. We will continue spending lives and billions we can't afford to lose ever there, and in Mesopotamia, until we get tired of the mess and depart with nothing gained. Like the Soviet Union.
-
Hmmmmmm....neutron nuke the country......B52's carpet bomb seed grass.......10,000 american bison....yummmy. Alexander would be proud........
-
Pakistan Regular Army may be shooting at US troops.
Source: http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/09/the-us-isnt-in.html
Who really shot that Predator down:
http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/09/this-much-we--1.html
---
Before the wingnuts pipe up and accuse me of disloyalty, may I please state that I am in favor of expanding the war on terror into Pakistan, and telling Islamabad to go shove off.
We learned lessons from Cambodia. It is not possible to do this in secret. It is time to understand that if Pakistani regulars oppose us, if they give away our position to irregulars in the mountains, or sabotage gear, or take up arms directly against US and UK troops, even unmarked special forces - then Pakistan will have all its aid cut off, and the US Navy can blockade the ports of Pakistan and there will be starvation and riots in the streets in weeks.
-
Well, we shouldn't be there.
No, we must be there. Ask any US troops you know who came back from Afghanistan. Until we go into Pakistan, Osama bin Laden (dead or not dead, who knows) and other Al queda have safe refuge. Taliban has a home.
It's war. It's on. The only thing that will work is extermination. Without it, they will regroup and try and get nukes from Pakistan. Pakistan is a freaking power keg.
-
Hmmmmmm....neutron nuke the country......B52's carpet bomb seed grass.......10,000 american bison....yummmy. Alexander would be proud........
We are not going to do that bustr, and you know it. And on just how many fronts to we want to spend billions we can't afford and have young men dying to try to make pissed-off Muslims behave? Ain't going to happen.
The whole War on Terror situation, it can be compared to what you might do if a hornet got into your house and stung you. Several rational things...you might simply screen your windows and shut your doors so hornets couldn't get in. Or you might find their nest nearby and exterminate them. Well, judging by our immigration policy, the U.S. isn't seriously trying to use the first option from my analogy. And the latter option, genocide is off the table, thank God. No matter how many jokes Right-wingers make about, "nukem all" ain't going to happen.
Getting back to my analogy, or policy as it stands, is akin to going to the hornets nest, stirring it up, and using a twenty-pound sledgehammer to try and smash the individual hornets (but only the "bad" hornets who actually sting you first). While simultaneously telling the hornets we have only their interest in mind and irrationally hoping that if we implore long enough, they will convert themselves to grasshoppers.
-
No, we must be there. Ask any US troops you know who came back from Afghanistan. Until we go into Pakistan, Osama bin Laden (dead or not dead, who knows) and other Al queda have safe refuge. Taliban has a home.
It's war. It's on. The only thing that will work is extermination. Without it, they will regroup and try and get nukes from Pakistan. Pakistan is a freaking power keg.
When we go into Pakistan, we have another war with an entire people who hate us, who are willing to die to kill a few of us because we are in their country, and whose children will grow up hating us and willing to die to kill us. And when the bogeyman flees to another backwards country with the same conditions, do we open up another un-winnable front?
Just how much of the world do you think the U.S. can try to occupy before it drives our economy to the breaking point and yields an intolerable body count?
-
When we go into Pakistan, we have another war with an entire people who hate us, who are willing to die to kill a few of us because we are in their country, and whose children will grow up hating us and willing to die to kill us. And when the bogeyman flees to another backwards country with the same condition, do we open up another un-winnable front?
Just how much of the world do you think the U.S. can try to occupy before it drives our economy to the break point and yields an intolerable body count?
I'm kinda wondering what this bailout deal will do to our taxdollar usage in the Middle East...700 Billion's alotta money. I wonder if they'll have to cut back on the war, in some places...?
-
Pakistan Regular Army may be shooting at US troops.
Source: http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/09/the-us-isnt-in.html
Who really shot that Predator down:
http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/09/this-much-we--1.html
---
Before the wingnuts pipe up and accuse me of disloyalty, may I please state that I am in favor of expanding the war on terror into Pakistan, and telling Islamabad to go shove off.
We learned lessons from Cambodia. It is not possible to do this in secret. It is time to understand that if Pakistani regulars oppose us, if they give away our position to irregulars in the mountains, or sabotage gear, or take up arms directly against US and UK troops, even unmarked special forces - then Pakistan will have all its aid cut off, and the US Navy can blockade the ports of Pakistan and there will be starvation and riots in the streets in weeks.
We agree on something. :O
:D
If we didn't learn anything else from Vietnam, I'd hope we at least learned that allowing the enemy to have a safe haven across an international border is a very bad idea.
-
I'm kinda wondering what this bailout deal will do to our taxdollar usage in the Middle East...700 Billion's alotta money. I wonder if they'll have to cut back on the war, in some places...?
They will just borrow more from China I'm guessing. /sigh
-
Remember the father of Pakistans atom bomb gave the technology to Iran and sold portions to Iraq. Pakistans Army does not want the Muslim extreemists to gain power. It is very plausable they would try to launch a nuke. The army would be out of a job and a country after the strategic reponse.
The rank and file militairy along Pakistans tribal boarders come from those regions. During actions against the tribes in the past they would call thier family and freinds and give tactical information. Thats why the core Pakistani militairy was unable to get Ben Laudin. I think Washington has accepted that the tribal areas will have incidents like this.
The most important thing is to keep the core Pakistani Militairy as the secular balance between the extreem religious Muslims and the moderate Muslims who want to run a country and not a Jihad. Pakistan has no oil so their nukes are why we have befreinded them. A surgical tactcal strike is the unspoken stick behind our back.
-
If we didn't learn anything else from Vietnam, I'd hope we at least learned that allowing the enemy to have a safe haven across an international border is a very bad idea.
Yes...the strategy in Vietnam WAS pissing in the wind, because we never tried to strike a killing blow to the enemy's means of making war.
However, putting a 100% effort into the Vietnam war might ultimately have led to a nuclear or at least large-scale conventional confrontation with China, surely an even worse outcome than the one we got. So perhaps we should have called the whole thing off before we started.
-
Just how much of the world do you think the U.S. can try to occupy before it drives our economy to the break point and yields an intolerable body count?
I agree, we don't want every man, woman and child in Pakistan hating us. We don't want a Saigon situation, where women and kids strap bombs and run at US servicemen. We don't want to occupy ANY of this land.
We want to destroy Islamic radicalism.
I've looked at the situation economically, historically, from all these angles. BushCO and his torture took away America's moral high ground. Destroyed it completely. Pictures from Abu Gharib are on every Islamic radical website. Lindsay what's her face, with her cigarette dangling from her mouth, laughing at some insurgent's noodle while he has a bag over his head. It probably created a new generation of terrorist.
But if we stop at the Afghan border, we may as well leave Afghanistan as well, because the Taliban won't stop. They aren't stopping. The Rand Corporation estimates Al Queda is reaching pre-9/11 strength again. They will keep at this.
Pakistan should be helping. We have them money. Alot of money. They pretended to help. They didn't.
Now, we want to go into the land and wipe out certain houses. As precise as we can, but we can't always get it just so. So Pakistan regulars need to know, very clearly - kill one of us - we kill 100 of you.
I don't want regional escalation either. But inaction won't work.
And both Obama and McCain know this. Obama will continue to press into Afghanistan and Pakistan. He'll draw down from Iraq, and you can look at my posts on this website going back years. I said - just take the Iraqi oilfields. Protect the roads.
The oil is ours. We paid for it in blood. We came to take it from Iraq, and we mean to have it. We have NASCARs to fuel up, and I want cheap gas and to break OPEC's back.
Unlike most Bush haters, I hate him not because he's Republican (cause he sure isn't conservative). I hate him because he's a terrible leader. He makes bad decisions. He surrounds himself with crappy subordinates. Rummy totally botched the handling of the Iraq war. We went into Baghdad to get Saddam and to get the papers in the oil ministry. Nothing else. We shoulda stayed outta there.
-
However, putting a 100% effort into the Vietnam war might ultimately have led to a nuclear or at least large-scale conventional confrontation with China, surely an even worse outcome than the one we got. So perhaps we should have called the whole thing off before we started.
I disagree, with respect.
The Chinese in the late 1960s are not the Chinese of today. They couldn't field a fleet of subs. The tech they bought from the Russians was crap. Many of the nukes would not have gotten off the launch pad, and probably not detonated had they made it across the Pacific.
They were in no mood to fight the US.
Today - much different story.
-
Yes...the strategy in Vietnam WAS pissing in the wind, because we never tried to strike a killing blow to the enemy's means of making war.
However, putting a 100% effort into the Vietnam war might ultimately have led to a nuclear or at least large-scale conventional confrontation with China, surely an even worse outcome than the one we got. So perhaps we should have called the whole thing off before we started.
I don't think we needed to worry about China, China and Vietnam aren't exactly friendly with each other as evidenced by the border war in '79 (?). The two borders we needed to cross to get to the NVA and VC havens was Cambodia and Laos anyways.
-
They will just borrow more from China I'm guessing. /sigh
Hold that thought for a moment, and read this:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Pakistani_relations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Pakistani_relations)
If what it says is true, then we might NOT be able to borrow, If China's that friendly with Pakistan. I don't think that any overt conflict between the U.S. and Pakistan would result in large-scale Chinese involvement, but-The Chinese might call in all of the bonds' we've gotten with their backing to date. On top of the bailout, It could be economically ruinous, to say the least.
-
Hold that thought for a moment, and read this:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Pakistani_relations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Pakistani_relations)
If what it says is true, then we might NOT be able to borrow, If China's that friendly with Pakistan. I don't think that any overt conflict between the U.S. and Pakistan would result in large-scale Chinese involvement, but-The Chinese might call in all of the bonds' we've gotten with their backing to date. On top of the bailout, It could be economically ruinous, to say the least.
If the Chinese call in the bonds, we have to pay them in dollars. We don't have the money. We have to get the US treasury to print it. Dollar dives, inflation soars. We become Israel in the 1950s, Weimar Germany in the late 1920s. A whopper junior will cost 8 bucks. The minimum wage will stay the same as it is today. Depression = on.
China is sitting on $500B in dollars already. They lose. What can they buy for that money? US businesses. US real estate.
It's like playing a game of Civilization. They don't go to war with us. They simply buy us out.
I say we sell them Texas first.
-
Hold that thought for a moment, and read this:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Pakistani_relations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Pakistani_relations)
If what it says is true, then we might NOT be able to borrow, If China's that friendly with Pakistan. I don't think that any overt conflict between the U.S. and Pakistan would result in large-scale Chinese involvement, but-The Chinese might call in all of the bonds' we've gotten with their backing to date. On top of the bailout, It could be economically ruinous, to say the least.
Would China call in all the bonds knowing that they would become virtually worthless since the US would have to print money to pay them? Just a hunch, but I'd say the Chinese are smarter than that. If they did call in the bonds and US inflation went through the roof, who would they find to buy all the junk they sell to us every year? Again, just a hunch but I think the Chinese are smarter than that.
-
I say we sell them Texas first.
I say we sell them NY first, Texas has to much oil. :D
-
Chinese indutry hasn't been doing good last few years I think. So there probably worried about themselves rather than sabatoging the US.
Oh yeah, Drone predator went down. Looks like were looking at something :O
-
If ever there was a case to be made for an organism collapsing in on itself from its own mass then China is the case to study. They will collapse as sure as they sun rises, sooner rather than later. The thing we living in the REST of the world need to start planning for is on how to get the hell out of the way when it happens.
-
I say we sell them NY first, Texas has to much oil. :D
hey.. Fuggedaboudit.
-
hey.. Fuggedaboudit.
You could move to Texas if we sold NY. :devil
-
No thanks. The crap they call pizza out there is reason enuff.
-
Ok, move to Nebraska then and eat pizza from this place. You have to eat at the original one at 35th and Holdrege in Lincoln first though.
http://www.valentinos.com/locations.php?cityReq=Lincoln
-
No thanks. The crap they call pizza out there is reason enuff.
I like the BBQed-goat and jalepeno pizza, TYVM.
-
*shudder*
-
Here, I would have to pose a different sort of question to you all, in regards to China; We all assume that China wants a large, Western-style economy just because...they like the toys, or whatever. But suppose that they are willing to go back to the privations' of life as they knew it after the revolution, and what they lived like right up until the '70's...If it meant the destruction of the U.S. economy, and the way we live? What we see of China, is usually their bigger cities. They spiffed up Beijing as much as they could for the Olympics, but it was still dirty. A large part of rural China lives without power, running water, etc. much like they did before the revolution. If China's leaders are willing to permit that, I don't doubt that they would subject their population to any kind of retrograde move in lifestyle if it meant crippling us economically.
The potential for it is there, if you look at the way they treated Olympic protesters...China's still as ruthless as it was in '89 in Tianemen square.
-
Frodo,
China needs land and resources. Check their operations in africa. Currently 700,000 chinese live there under different pretences.
-
Frodo,
China needs land and resources. Check their operations in africa. Currently 700,000 chinese live there under different pretences.
I guess that I'm trying to infer that they have a loftier goal than mere self-sufficiency...and that they are even willing to deprive themselves of their current standard of living, if they see an oppurtunity to take us out of superpower status.
I think that once we fall, we won't be able to get back on top before someone else takes the number one spot-And looking at how China's been doing these last few years, I believe that they could bounce back easier than we could.
I do know that their ever-growing industry and populace will consume more and more...That's why they were so quick to jump back in and get the contracts for the Iraqi Oilfields restarted. Because, of course, they want their oil.
-
I disagree, with respect.
The Chinese in the late 1960s are not the Chinese of today. They couldn't field a fleet of subs. The tech they bought from the Russians was crap. Many of the nukes would not have gotten off the launch pad, and probably not detonated had they made it across the Pacific.
They were in no mood to fight the US.
Today - much different story.
Really? What class of SSN, SSBN, and SLBM, do the Chinese currently have operational? Which ones do they have operational that can compare with USN Seawolf and Virginia class SSNs, Ohio class SSBNs, and the Trident-ll D5 SLBM?
Ill give you a hint. The answer is less then one. They dont have an operational SLBM system and they are two to three generations behind us in SSN development. While there are some reports they have successfully mirved a few of their DF-5 ICBMs its believed most, if not all, are single warhead capable. This is a volatile liquid fuel ICBM of a type that has to be actually fueled before it could be launched. So they have 24 nuclear weapons they can hit us with as long as we were nice enough to give them time to fuel them first and providing the 1960s design actually works.
A single USN Ohio class SLBM, of which we have 14, has the capability of launching 24 D5 SLBMs each of which has the capacity to deliver 10 independently targeted warheads that blow at 475 kt, "Hiroshima was 16 kt". They have a range of 7,000 miles and a CEP of 120 meters. In other words anyone of our 14 SSBNs is capable of delivering up to 240 warheads each one approx 30 times more powerful then the Hiroshima bomb and we can put each one in a baseball infield from 7,000 miles away. These SSBNs are so quiet and invincible even our own SSNs cant find them. They are black holes in the ocean.
The USA also has over 500 solid fueled Minuteman-lll ICBMs each one limited by SALT agreements to deliver one nuclear warhead in the 335 kt range with a CEP of about 350'. It has about the range of the SLBMs but its not quite as accurate. We cant put it in an infield and can only put it in a ballpark.
But it gets better. We have about 1,300 B-61 gravity nukes our Jabos can deliver and that blow at 350 kt. We have about another 550 of the same type thats designed for our bombers to drop. We have another 320 ,150 kt, warheads on the business end of Tomahawk cruise missiles. And lastly we have another 1,800 nukes of the same power that are delivered in air launched cruise missiles. Altogether America has about 10,000 nuclear weapons of which over 5,000 would be OTW to China with just one phone call.
Do the math. The Chinese would much prefer to shoot their own 24 nukes at themselves, "and who knows how many actually work", then they would shoot them at America. At least that way theres a chance some small part of their society would survive.
-
If the Chinese call in the bonds, we have to pay them in dollars. We don't have the money. We have to get the US treasury to print it. Dollar dives, inflation soars. We become Israel in the 1950s, Weimar Germany in the late 1920s. A whopper junior will cost 8 bucks. The minimum wage will stay the same as it is today. Depression = on.
China is sitting on $500B in dollars already. They lose. What can they buy for that money? US businesses. US real estate.
It's like playing a game of Civilization. They don't go to war with us. They simply buy us out.
I say we sell them Texas first.
I say we should donate them a large portion of our nuclear arsenal... all at once.
-
Really? What class of SSN, SSBN, and SLBM, do the Chinese currently have operational? Which ones do they have operational that can compare with USN Seawolf and Virginia class SSNs, Ohio class SSBNs, and the Trident-ll D5 SLBM?
Ill give you a hint. The answer is less then one. They dont have an operational SLBM system and they are two to three generations behind us in SSN development. While there are some reports they have successfully mirved a few of their DF-5 ICBMs its believed most, if not all, are single warhead capable. This is a volatile liquid fuel ICBM of a type that has to be actually fueled before it could be launched. So they have 24 nuclear weapons they can hit us with as long as we were nice enough to give them time to fuel them first and providing the 1960s design actually works.
A single USN Ohio class SLBM, of which we have 14, has the capability of launching 24 D5 SLBMs each of which has the capacity to deliver 10 independently targeted warheads that blow at 475 kt, "Hiroshima was 16 kt". They have a range of 7,000 miles and a CEP of 120 meters. In other words anyone of our 14 SSBNs is capable of delivering up to 240 warheads each one approx 30 times more powerful then the Hiroshima bomb and we can put each one in a baseball infield from 7,000 miles away. These SSBNs are so quiet and invincible even our own SSNs cant find them. They are black holes in the ocean.
The USA also has over 500 solid fueled Minuteman-lll ICBMs each one limited by SALT agreements to deliver one nuclear warhead in the 335 kt range with a CEP of about 350'. It has about the range of the SLBMs but its not quite as accurate. We cant put it in an infield and can only put it in a ballpark.
But it gets better. We have about 1,300 B-61 gravity nukes our Jabos can deliver and that blow at 350 kt. We have about another 550 of the same type thats designed for our bombers to drop. We have another 320 ,150 kt, warheads on the business end of Tomahawk cruise missiles. And lastly we have another 1,800 nukes of the same power that are delivered in air launched cruise missiles. Altogether America has about 10,000 nuclear weapons of which over 5,000 would be OTW to China with just one phone call.
Do the math. The Chinese would much prefer to shoot their own 24 nukes at themselves, "and who knows how many actually work", then they would shoot them at America. At least that way theres a chance some small part of their society would survive.
arrrr! damn wog navy amounts to a one legged chinaman with an eyepatch in a rowboat with a molting parrot...
arrrr! ;)
ummm... there are those pesky kilo's they keep surfacing in the middle of our battle groups...
but... ARRRRRRRR!!
-
The Chinese would probably supply the Pakistani's, (since they are a client state anyway) and fight any war with us by proxy. The question in my mind is if the Pakistani's would employ any of their nuclear devices. I don't really think that they would, especially if the fighting was on their own turf...However, one might "dissapear" into the nether regions' of the terrorist world.
-
arrrr! damn wog navy amounts to a one legged chinaman with an eyepatch in a rowboat with a molting parrot...
arrrr! ;)
ummm... there are those pesky kilo's they keep surfacing in the middle of our battle groups...
but... ARRRRRRRR!!
Were averaging about what? 10 or 20 Kilos a day popping up in the middle of CV groups?
That would be funny wouldn't it? Especially considering the CVNs are 3 times faster then the Kilos. Its not a bad package the Russians delivered for the PLAN, far better then they themselves could make, but Diesel SSKs are not a real good fit for the vastness of The Pacific Ocean. They are slow, have limited endurance, and a limited weapons load.
The Chinese would probably supply the Pakistani's, (since they are a client state anyway) and fight any war with us by proxy. The question in my mind is if the Pakistani's would employ any of their nuclear devices. I don't really think that they would, especially if the fighting was on their own turf...However, one might "dissapear" into the nether regions' of the terrorist world.
Proxy or any other way we would be really, really, pissed off and come looking for answers. In no way whatsoever could the Chinese afford the possibility of such a conflict with America.
-
The kilo's fit the chinese 'brown water' aspirations for Taiwan.. and actually forced us to stop patrolling the Formosa straight. They are a hideous problem for our force projection into the western pacific. The bastards know where we gotta go, stake the place out and wait like gawdamed VC in spider holes...
The Kilos are a problem. It's a cheap trade for them.. 1 CV for 1 kilo... they'd leap at that chance.
-
The kilo's fit the chinese 'brown water' aspirations for Taiwan.. and actually forced us to stop patrolling the Formosa straight. They are a hideous problem for our force projection into the western pacific. The bastards know where we gotta go, stake the place out and wait like gawdamed VC in spider holes...
The Kilos are a problem. It's a cheap trade for them.. 1 CV for 1 kilo... they'd leap at that chance.
Remind me again why "we have to" go into the Formosa straight?
Then remind me again where all those zillions of $$ for ASW assets went?
-
Rich, I ain't trying to argue with yah.. I'm just pointing out the Kilo is a heluva threat and has forced changes in where and how the CG groups project power. The Formosa Straight was and remains a flash point.. it's the route the Chinese will would use to invade Taiwan and up until the appearance of the Kilos in Chinese hands we patrolled it routinely. We don't any more. An appearance of a Kilo force in the persian gulf would be a game changer... according to a guy I know over at the NRL the damn things are shallow and constrained water nightmares for the US Navy.
The Chinese have made it a major priority to field counters to put at extreme risk our ability to project force in what the chinese consider 'their' sphere of influence with billions being spent annually on naval firepower focused on making us pay dearly to contest it... underestimating them would be a fools move. But, I'm just an armchair admiral.. aside from some low classification contract work with the NRL I'm outta the loop on what they got and have only limited knowledge of what we can do about it.
<S!>
-
Really? What class of SSN, SSBN, and SLBM, do the Chinese currently have operational? Which ones do they have operational that can compare with USN Seawolf and Virginia class SSNs, Ohio class SSBNs, and the Trident-ll D5 SLBM?
Ill give you a hint. The answer is less then one.
Huh. How interesting.
However, if you re-read my post, you'll see that I said the Chinese willingness to fight is different than it was then. I didn't say anything about the sub fleet, I said it was crap in the 1960s, I didn't say it could match the USN today. You read that in, before you went off on that sub tangent.
The Chinese ICBM fleet is not crap today. They would not back down from a full scale confrontation with the US Military. Let's hope neither of us ever get proven wrong on that, but from people I know in the US government, some of whom attended the Beijing olympics, and having been to Hong Kong myself - twice - I can tell you, the Chinese do not fear the west.
-
Hmmm...I'd think that since China could supply/assist Pakistan via overland routes, the Naval equation's would most likely be constrained to the Pakistani Navy, anyway.
-
Huh. How interesting.
However, if you re-read my post, you'll see that I said the Chinese willingness to fight is different than it was then. I didn't say anything about the sub fleet, I said it was crap in the 1960s, I didn't say it could match the USN today. You read that in, before you went off on that sub tangent.
The Chinese ICBM fleet is not crap today. They would not back down from a full scale confrontation with the US Military. Let's hope neither of us ever get proven wrong on that, but from people I know in the US government, some of whom attended the Beijing olympics, and having been to Hong Kong myself - twice - I can tell you, the Chinese do not fear the west.
Then please name the systems they have that could force us to back down? Here, http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/china/df-5.htm , let me help you. This systems that they developed in the 1970s is roughly comparable to our Titan program "we" developed in the '50s.
I think its swell youv been to Hong Kong and have furthered developed your "pulse of the Chinese nation" by knowing people who went to the Beijing Olympics. But neither one will mean much should you put in a resume with JANEs Defense as a strategic special weapons analyst.
Whether they fear us or not its a mathematical certainty that even with a small % of our strategic deterrent we could turn every inch of China into a radioactive wasteland. BTW "then" they sent a vast human wave to fight us in Korea. And the only reason they did is because a spy in the highest Levels of the British Govt. had reported back to Mao that Harry Truman had promised the Brits that under no circumstances would we use atomic weapons in The Korean war. Unless you can introduce some facts here Equis this entire subject is becoming pointless and silly. Your not making any kind of case to back up your assertions, not even a bad case. some of whom attended the Beijing Olympics,
:lol
Our navy is more then capable of dealing with any threat of SSKs. We have a tremendous amount of experience in ASW which begins in not putting the CVN into a bad position to begin with. We never went the SSK route because they are slow, have very limited range, weapons load, and are very vulnerable when they have to recharge their batteries. They are a threat in coastal waters but we have many assets capable of finding them and killing them including new technologies and ships coming out right now. Heres one of them http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/lcs-mods.htm
I dont know where you got that "one Kilo for one CVN" formula of yours. You do realize that China has never fought a modern naval war dont you? I just dont understand why you consider a SSK designed in the 1980s is such an indomitable and unprecedented threat to what is, by far, the most powerful and capable navy in all of recorded history.