New Century China Forum: China's Missile Defence Test - New Century China Forum

Jump to content

  • (2 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

China's Missile Defence Test

#1 User is online   Sampanviking 

  • Tai Pan
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Root Admin
  • Posts: 3,840
  • Joined: 10-December 06

Posted 20 January 2010 - 12:46 AM

Although we have been discussing this in respect of various different contexts, we have not yet opened a dedicated thread.

We all now the details, but there are many question marks as to the main underlying purpose. Many have talked about a response to the Taiwanese purchase of PAC3 Missiles, but my own feeling was that this was primarily aimed at India and about rendering its Agni III series obsolete even before it is ready.

Peter J Brown however in ATOL has raised a question with regard to Taiwan that does however warrant further attention:

http://www.atimes.co...a/LA20Ad01.html

Quote

The test was a direct response to the US Department of Defense decision on January 6 to sell weapons, including the Patriot III anti-missile system, to Taiwan, Li said in a commentary at the Res Communis web site [1]. Since the sale would integrate Taiwan into the Theater Missile Defense System (TMD) of the US, the Chinese government thought it harmed the sovereignty of China and violated the principle in international law,


Now is this a true assessment? and if so what are the possible ramifications?
New Century China Forum:
Challenging Consensus! Standing for a New World Order!
Proud of China! Proud to be Chinese!



#2 User is offline   Red Fox Ace 

  • Dealer
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Administrators
  • Posts: 1,828
  • Joined: 02-January 07
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:International relations, foreign policy, and military affairs. I also compose music for soundtracks and like to write fiction. ;)

Posted 20 January 2010 - 12:56 AM

Quote

Since the sale [of Patriot PAC-3]would integrate Taiwan into the Theater Missile Defense System (TMD) of the US, the Chinese government thought it harmed the sovereignty of China and violated the principle in international law



First of all, the United States has sold Patriot to Taiwan before - 18 years ago. That was then, so how would this be different now?



Secondly, the sale of Patriot wouldn't "integrate" Taiwan into America's theater missile defense system, unless there was a lot of shared radar coverage and information networking. Not sure about that - maybe we need more details later.



Third, Taiwan is arguably already "integrated" into American networks and thus China's sovereignty has been violated many times over the past 2 decades, if we want to use that argument - the sale of Link-16/JTIDS and MIDS information sharing systems, for instance, I believe, may hook up Taiwan's data and information into those of the United States' already. This is 10-15 year old news.
Life isn't worth living unless you have something worth dying for.

#3 User is offline   Roger604 

  • Dealer
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Red Guards
  • Posts: 1,860
  • Joined: 02-May 07

Posted 20 January 2010 - 03:24 PM

I think Taiwan is only a tangential motivation for the ABM test. There are two aspects:

Firstly, the ABM test shows that Taiwan is indefensible, even if Taiwan develops a nuclear weapon and missiles to deliver them.

Secondly, informationalization of the military is a relatively new thing. An arms package that includes integrating ROC military with US and Japan would be particularly threatening on a military level, and it is also a violation of former treaty understandings between PRC and US.

The TRA says that the US will continue to supply arms to Taiwan for defense. But integration of ROC military wholesale would go beyond mere supply of arms for Taiwan to defend itself -- integration with US network is not just a "good" to the ROC military it is also a "service."

PRC's relations with US since the 70's have been based on the understanding that US will not have official dealings with Taiwan except for TRA. When US goes beyond what TRA allows, the understanding is broken.
0

#4 User is offline   Red Fox Ace 

  • Dealer
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Administrators
  • Posts: 1,828
  • Joined: 02-January 07
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:International relations, foreign policy, and military affairs. I also compose music for soundtracks and like to write fiction. ;)

Posted 20 January 2010 - 04:28 PM

View PostRoger604, on Jan 20 2010, 10:24 AM, said:

Firstly, the ABM test shows that Taiwan is indefensible, even if Taiwan develops a nuclear weapon and missiles to deliver them.



Odds are that if Taiwan developed a nuclear capability, it wouldn't be via ICBM. It could be stand-off missiles or bombs delivered via attack aircraft, or cruise missiles launched from Taiwanese submarines. Perhaps even the rocket bombardment systems on Jinmen and Matsu islands.
Life isn't worth living unless you have something worth dying for.

#5 User is online   Sampanviking 

  • Tai Pan
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Root Admin
  • Posts: 3,840
  • Joined: 10-December 06

Posted 20 January 2010 - 05:34 PM

Quote

Secondly, the sale of Patriot wouldn't "integrate" Taiwan into America's theater missile defense system, unless there was a lot of shared radar coverage and information networking. Not sure about that - maybe we need more details later.


Is I think the critical question? Is this a standard part of what constitutes PAC3 rather than missile hardware?
New Century China Forum:
Challenging Consensus! Standing for a New World Order!
Proud of China! Proud to be Chinese!



#6 User is offline   Roger604 

  • Dealer
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Red Guards
  • Posts: 1,860
  • Joined: 02-May 07

Posted 20 January 2010 - 05:51 PM

If Taiwan develops nuclear weapons, it would at first only have primitive weapons, which are only suitable for ballistic missile. Miniaturization for cruise missile comes later. WW2-style air dropped bombs are not useful at all.

This is why the very issue of Taiwan developing any offensive capability like ballistic missile is considered destabilizing. That's one big step toward nuclear deterrence.

Without an ABM, that kind of weapon would be effective against mainland China. But with an ABM, it is no longer effective. Mainland China is a lot more secure against potential Taiwan nukes now.

Cruise missiles are less effective than ballistic missiles. China has no problem defending against even a very large cruise missile attack. It had this capability even before ABM. The technology involved in ABM are a step higher than air defense.

The only way Taiwan could have a nuclear deterrence now is if it deployed a fleet of SSBN armed with MIRVs and decoys to defeat mainland China's ABM. That is considerably more difficult than simply building a basic short range ballistic missile and putting a basic nuclear weapon on it.
0

#7 User is offline   Red Fox Ace 

  • Dealer
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Administrators
  • Posts: 1,828
  • Joined: 02-January 07
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:International relations, foreign policy, and military affairs. I also compose music for soundtracks and like to write fiction. ;)

Posted 20 January 2010 - 06:59 PM

If we back out a bit, and look at the big picture, China's always objected to US arms sales to Taiwan in any form - TRA or not, sovereignty or not.



So the idea that Patriot integrates Taiwan into a US defense umbrella, thus "violating Chinese sovereignty," is only a little bit more gasoline on top of a fire that's already been burning for decades. Would it really make that much difference from Beijing's view, Washington's, or Taipei's?
Life isn't worth living unless you have something worth dying for.

#8 User is offline   Roger604 

  • Dealer
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Red Guards
  • Posts: 1,860
  • Joined: 02-May 07

Posted 22 January 2010 - 12:53 PM

There have been reports that China conducted a short-range missile defense test in December 2009. This suggests that China may be fielding a three-tiered missile defense system: one phase for orbital targets like satellite, one phase for exoatmospheric targets like MRBM and one phase for atmospheric targets like SRBM.
0

#9 User is offline   Harley-One 

  • Edi Lifetime Achievement Award
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Bannerman
  • Posts: 2,056
  • Joined: 19-January 08

Posted 24 January 2010 - 03:51 AM

View PostSampanviking, on Jan 20 2010, 05:34 PM, said:

Is I think the critical question? Is this a standard part of what constitutes PAC3 rather than missile hardware?


i hate to brag but india is but child's play to china. her acnes mean bugger all to beijing because long before indian missiles can even reach the foothills of the himalayas never mind crossing it, china have already had a system in place to deal with a threat hundreds of times greater than india can ever throw at us -- namely the soviet threat. now my honest to truth opinion is this: yes, it was over taiwan's pac-iii. the reason is because the sales amounted to a direct insult on our faces and i'm speculating beijing ain't about to lose face over it. she responded with her abm as a tit for tat instead but, in the end, my opinion is that america still come out ahead because -- they've forced us to let them in on just a tat more of what we have under our sleeves.





Just for the funs of it.

edisonone
0

#10 User is offline   wdl76 

  • Enforcer
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Red Guards
  • Posts: 851
  • Joined: 01-March 07
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Aus

Posted 27 January 2010 - 05:51 AM

View PostHarley-One, on Jan 24 2010, 02:51 PM, said:

i hate to brag but india is but child's play to china. her acnes mean bugger all to beijing because long before indian missiles can even reach the foothills of the himalayas never mind crossing it, china have already had a system in place to deal with a threat hundreds of times greater than india can ever throw at us -- namely the soviet threat. now my honest to truth opinion is this: yes, it was over taiwan's pac-iii. the reason is because the sales amounted to a direct insult on our faces and i'm speculating beijing ain't about to lose face over it. she responded with her abm as a tit for tat instead but, in the end, my opinion is that america still come out ahead because -- they've forced us to let them in on just a tat more of what we have under our sleeves.


By the time they worked it out, China probably has a counter system to beat ASAT weapons ;)

http://www.atimes.co...a/LA22Df01.html

Quote

India targets China's satellites
By Peter J Brown

The goals for India's anti-ballistic missile (ABM) and ballistic missile defense (BMD) programs may be shifting to accommodate an anti-satellite (ASAT) weapon more quickly than previously planned, and this could radically alter the agenda of US Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who is currently in the middle of a three-day visit to India.

"Memories in New Delhi run deep about how India's relative tardiness in developing strategic offensive systems [nuclear weapons] redounded in its relegation on 'judgment day' [when the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was signed in 1968] to the formal category of non-nuclear weapons state," said Sourabh Gupta, senior research associate at Samuels International Associates in Washington, DC.

"With its early support of the former US president George W Bush's ballistic missile defense program and its current drive to




develop anti-ballistic missile/anti-satellite capability, New Delhi is determined not to make the same mistake twice," added Gupta. "If and when globally negotiated restraints are placed on such strategic defensive systems or technologies - perhaps restraints of some sort of ASAT testing/hit-to-kill technologies - India will already have crossed the technical threshold in that regard, and acknowledgement of such status [will be] grand-fathered into any such future agreement."

After watching China's moves since the highly controversial satellite shootdown which China undertook in January 2007, India has now openly declared its desire to match China.

"There is no reason to be surprised. India is anxious to be seen as not lagging behind China - ergo - if China has an ASAT program, India can do it, too. That's all there is to it." said Uzi Rubin, a defense consultant and former head of Israel's missile defense organization.

China was not specifically mentioned by V K Saraswat, director general of India's Defense Research and Development Organization (DRDO), when he announced at the 97th Indian Science Congress earlier this month that India had begun to develop an anti-satellite capability. He declared that India is "working to ensure space security and protect our satellites. At the same time, we are also working on how to deny the enemy access to its space assets."

There is no doubt as to the identity of the "enemy" in question.

"The Indians are engaged in a major active missile defense program which, because of the technological affinity between missile defense and ASAT, could eventually grow up to the latter," said Rubin. "India, like all countries with their own space assets, is aware that ASAT is a double-edged sword and that if they embark on a program, they will legitimize the Chinese program and endanger their own national satellites."

As for Saraswat's statement - "India is putting together building blocks of technology that could be used to neutralize enemy satellites" - Rubin almost downplays it entirely.

"His is quite a tepid statement, I wouldn't make much of it," said Rubin.

On the other hand, Subrata Ghoshroy, research associate in the Working Group in the Science, Technology, and Global Security Program at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has met senior former India Space Research Organization (ISRO) officials who were eager to let it be known that India has the capacity to respond.

"There are growing ties between ISRO and the Indian Ministry of Defense and the two are beginning to feed off each other," said Ghoshroy.

What Saraswat did was, in effect, to inject a powerful destabilizing element into the South Asian strategic equation at a time when the US is determined to do everything in its power to bolster regional stability.

When US Defense Secretary Robert Gates planned his trip to India this week, the last thing Gates probably expected to contend with was the possibility that New Delhi might be accelerating its timetable for the development of an ASAT weapon. Writing in the Times of India in advance of his visit, Gates made no mention whatsoever of space, anti-missile activities or ASAT weapons in particular, although there are certainly space-related items on the agenda.

What Gates avoided entirely was any mention of the US acting as a solid partner and supporter of India's ASAT program. While that might well be the case, it could be argued that in the interest of regional stability, the US might at least be rethinking how it will proceed in these matters in light of mounting concerns over the situation in Pakistan where China obviously enjoys significant leverage.

China's decision this month to proceed with a well-publicized test of its midcourse missile interceptor technology - just a few days after Pradeep Kumar, India's Defense Secretary, departed from Beijing - certainly has sent a strong message, while doing the US a favor in terms of providing the US with a timely excuse for allowing India to go ahead with its plans.

However, the US cannot have it both ways in the end. Courting India as a favored client for major arms purchases one moment, and as a strategic hedge against China, and then trying to promote regional stability the next moment is not a very coherent way to make meaningful progress in South Asia. The dilemma for the US is considerable.

Saraswat was quite careful in his choice of words, and went out of his way this time to assure any interested parties, including Gates, that no actual ASAT tests were now planned by India.

Saraswat has good reason to be very careful about his choice of words. A day after the US Navy cruiser USS Lake Erie shot down an errant US spy satellite in February 2008, for example, former Indian president APJ Abdul Kalam - one of the key players in India's nuclear and missile programs - told reporters at a DRDO-sponsored International Conference on Avionics Systems in Hyderabad that India has, "the ability to intercept and destroy any spatial object or debris in a radius of 200 kilometers. We will definitely do that if it endangers Indian territory".

Saraswat, on the other hand, was less specific at the time. And while seeming to agree with Kalam's statement, he did not do so with absolute certainty.

"It is just a matter of time before we could place the necessary wherewithal to meet such requirements," Saraswat said. "We can predict and can always tackle such challenges."

India's position at the time of the China's ASAT test in January 2007 is hard to ignore. Pranab Mukherjee, India's external affairs minister, appealed for a more reasoned and less destabilizing approach by all nations as their military activities in space intensified.

"The security and safety of assets in outer space is of crucial importance," said Mukherjee. "We call upon all states to redouble efforts to strengthen the international legal regime for peaceful uses of outer space. Recent developments show that we are treading a thin line between current defense-related uses of space and its actual weaponization."

The same theme surfaced in a speech last year about the Indo-US Civil Nuclear Agreement given by Shyam Saran, special envoy to the prime minister on climate change, at the Brookings Institution in Washington DC last March, when Saran briefly mentioned ASAT weapons.

"India is one of a handful of countries with significant space capabilities. We have a large number of communications and resource survey satellites currently in orbit. Although this does not fall strictly within the nuclear domain, the need to ensure the peaceful uses of outer space, is important for nuclear stability and international security," said Saran.

"We welcome [US President Barack Obama's] intention to join multilateral efforts to prevent military conflict in space and to negotiate an agreement to prohibit the testing of anti-satellite weapons. This is an area of convergence on which we would be happy to work together with the US and contribute to a multilateral agreement."

In early 2010, India's objectives are very clear.

"From a political/diplomatic angle, the guiding principle of India's missile defense/ASAT policy is not much different from China's - ie, maintain a basic political commitment to the non-weaponization of space, or, at minimum, the non-deployment of space-based offensive capabilities in global disarmament talks while assiduously cultivating the domestic technical capability to use space-based resources for strategic missile defense purposes," said Gupta.

At this point, nobody believes that some sort of magic firewall separates ongoing work on ABM and ASAT systems in a growing number of countries around the world.

"As for the linkage between BMD and ASAT, the linkage is very obvious - many Low Earth Orbit satellites orbit no higher than the ceiling of large BMD interceptors (like the US-built SM3, which was used by the US to shoot down a satellite in February, 2008) which are designed to take out very fast targets with km/sec closing speeds. Some modifications are necessary of course to take into account the greater closing speeds, but nothing drastic," said Rubin.

Saraswat knew this all too well back in 2008 when he admitted that India's efforts to deploy a missile defense system had been given a substantial boost by radar technology for tracking and fire control which the DRDO developed jointly with Israel and France. (See China can't stop India's missile system, Asia Times Online, Jan 16, 2009.)

"Israel is playing a major role in the ABM program. One can read from the open literature that they are helping India upgrade the Green Pine radar to act as the so-called Long-Range Tracking Radar (LRTR) that India has deployed and used during its ABM system tests," said Ghoshroy. "The Israelis are also reportedly providing UAV-type [unmanned aerial vehicles] platforms for forward-deployment of radars. I would not be surprised if BMC3 [battle management, command, control, and communications] expertise for the ABM system is also shared with India."

Rubin disagrees with this assessment.

"As for the question of an Israeli-Indian link in missile defense, I'm not aware of such a link since the US banned the sale of [the] Arrow [missile interceptor]," said Rubin. "If the US lifts the ban then [US defense contractors] Lockheed Martin and Raytheon will see to it that Israel is squeezed out. Anyway, the Indians have embarked on their own program."

According to Gupta, Israel's primary role is two-fold: sale of off-the-shelf defensive platforms at the present time to cover gaps in India's defense preparedness, such as the "Phalcon" phased array radar system slowly giving way to joint research and development projects in the future, such as the short-range naval anti-missile system.

"Other point radar and anti-missile defenses currently in the pipeline include aerostat (blimp/balloon-based) radars to provide coverage in sparse border areas as well as a medium-range anti-aircraft system,' said Gupta. "India's government sector defense research and development unit has a particularly poor track record in developing air-defense systems. Given Israel's immense defense-industrial sophistication in radars and avionics, the relationship between the two parties is likely to remain more in the supplier-purchaser mode rather than the joint collaborator mode."

For India, Israel is all about access to cutting-edge platforms and technologies without the unpleasant compromises to India's much cherished strategic autonomy that similar systems from the US entail.

"Though Israel with US co-development assistance has made immense strides in its strategic anti-missile capabilities, the Israeli-Indian anti-missile defense conversation has mostly concentrated on plugging gaps in the area of point defenses. Theater and strategic defenses particularly have been a lesser focus," said Gupta. "Also, the conversation has mostly been a bilateral one, and not a [trilateral] one, except [when] US technologies are embedded within Israeli systems."

More than anything else, the US is trying to open doors, not close them, as far as defense sales to India are concerned. However, India has enjoyed a long-term and relatively stable relationship with the Russians, and while that relationship has been a bit rocky of late, India may see the Russians as more reliable - and perhaps more affordable - than others standing in line.

"The Russians will come in much cheaper than the US and possibly, also the Israeli systems. For example, the Russian ABM system S-300-PMU2 is much less expensive and better performing than the US's PAC-3 or THAAD systems," said Ghoshroy.

According to Gupta, while India is increasingly open to distributing its near-term procurement needs according to the quality of the bids, India remains reticent to the extreme in broadening its procurement of strategically salient items beyond its trusted Russian sales partner.

"This calculation will change only slowly even as US defense suppliers slowly build up a relationship of trust starting with sales of platforms and moving gradually perhaps thereafter towards co-licensing/development with its Indian private defense sector partners," said Gupta.

What India really wants is for its ASAT-related technology to evolve quite quickly because India senses that China's lead is steadily increasing.

"India's anti-missile system is still embryonic. They do not yet have an infrared sensor that will be absolutely necessary for tracking and final homing," said Ghoshroy. "The Chinese obviously got that technology since they were able to track and hit their satellite."

Peter J Brown is a satellite journalist from the US state of Maine

0

#11 User is offline   Harley-One 

  • Edi Lifetime Achievement Award
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Bannerman
  • Posts: 2,056
  • Joined: 19-January 08

Posted 31 January 2010 - 05:18 AM

View Postwdl76, on Jan 27 2010, 05:51 AM, said:

By the time they worked it out, China probably has a counter system to beat ASAT weapons ;)

http://www.atimes.co...a/LA22Df01.html


Hell! Remember what this Chinese Admiral (or was it Airforce General) said only not too long ago??? Militarization of space is in the works... That mean the real Starwars... India's means of transportation is still on oxen's and elephant backs...





Just for the funs of it.

edisonone
0

#12 User is offline   rhino123 

  • Sorry, I'm just looking for the John!
  • Pip
  • Group: Approved Member
  • Posts: 2
  • Joined: 22-August 07

Posted 06 February 2010 - 12:14 PM

View PostHarley-One, on Jan 24 2010, 03:51 AM, said:

i hate to brag but india is but child's play to china. her acnes mean bugger all to beijing because long before indian missiles can even reach the foothills of the himalayas never mind crossing it, china have already had a system in place to deal with a threat hundreds of times greater than india can ever throw at us -- namely the soviet threat.


Lol... I agreed with you in this one. But come to think of it, some Indian general said a few weeks (or months) ago that India is able to neutralise the whole of China in 96hours and Pakistan in 48hours... almost simultaneously... I am beginning to wonder what would prone that general in saying that?
0

#13 User is offline   Renmin 

  • Street Dealer
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Red Guards
  • Posts: 690
  • Joined: 15-December 06
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:PRC

Posted 06 February 2010 - 04:22 PM

View Postrhino123, on Feb 6 2010, 07:14 AM, said:

Lol... I agreed with you in this one. But come to think of it, some Indian general said a few weeks (or months) ago that India is able to neutralise the whole of China in 96hours and Pakistan in 48hours... almost simultaneously... I am beginning to wonder what would prone that general in saying that?
More likely Arrogance?? Many generals just talk that way. I dont even think India has that many nukes
五星红旗迎风飘扬, 胜利歌声多么响亮; 歌唱我们亲爱的祖国, 从今走向繁荣富强.歌唱我们亲爱的祖国, 从今走向繁荣富强.
越过高山,越过平原, 跨过奔腾的黄河长江; 宽广美丽的土地, 是我们亲爱的家乡, 英雄的人民站起来了! 我们团结友爱坚强如钢.

五星红旗迎风飘扬, 胜利歌声多么响亮; 歌唱我们亲爱的祖国, 从今走向繁荣富强. 歌唱我们亲爱的祖国, 从今走向繁荣富强
我们勤劳,我们勇敢, 独立自由是我们的理想; 我们战胜了多少苦难, 才得到今天的解放! 我们爱和平,我们爱家乡, 谁敢侵犯我们他就叫他死亡!

五星红旗迎风飘扬, 胜利歌声多么响亮, 歌唱我们亲爱的祖国, 从今走向繁荣富强. 歌唱我们亲爱的祖国, 从今走向繁荣富强.
东方太阳,正在升起, 人民共和国正在成长; 我们领袖毛泽东, 指引着前进的方向. 我们的生活天天向上, 我们的前途万丈光芒.

五星红旗迎风飘扬, 胜利歌声多么响亮; 歌唱我们亲爱的祖国, 从今走向繁荣富强. 歌唱我们亲爱的祖国, 从今走向繁荣富强

看, 是中华人民共和国在前进!
0

#14 User is offline   Harley-One 

  • Edi Lifetime Achievement Award
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Bannerman
  • Posts: 2,056
  • Joined: 19-January 08

Posted 06 February 2010 - 11:48 PM

View Postrhino123, on Feb 6 2010, 12:14 PM, said:

Lol... I agreed with you in this one. But come to think of it, some Indian general said a few weeks (or months) ago that India is able to neutralise the whole of China in 96hours and Pakistan in 48hours... almost simultaneously...


Yeah, I read that too. I call that [ Texas hold 'em Hocus Pocus ] New Delhi style :D :D :D ...

It would amount to the very exact same as what was once Mao's chest thumping of the 50's and 60's when he suggested that the Americans was but a paper tiger -- something I doubt if deep in he himself believes...

They (Indians) still have memories of the 62's border war embedded deep in their mind... They need to feed into the Indian public's frenzy as to how powerful the Indian military machine is as compared to China's in order to boost moral in all fronts in India and what better a specimen than a foe you've once fought fang and tooth as a subject chest thump :P :P :P ...

It's [a face] thingy, rhino... I mean with your being a nephew of Mr. Lee Kwan Yew's and all, you of all people should know the frame of mind and the mentalities which makes an Indian tick because you have a few of them in government positions in Singapore... Yes, rhino, it has to do with the face-saving thingy <_< ...

In other words some mad dog barking because [of the recent saber rattlings over what's Arunachal Pradesh ], a disputed region in the Himalayas being contested between Beijing and New Dehli -- in other words -- Indian bluff's I call them...

Piece of cake, rhino... They are simply a piece of cake and they are but child's play to us...





Just for the funs of it.

edisonone
0

#15 User is online   Sampanviking 

  • Tai Pan
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Root Admin
  • Posts: 3,840
  • Joined: 10-December 06

Posted 07 February 2010 - 12:05 AM

Well I'm not so sure <_< I mean several million Indians on the Chinese border, lots of Vindaloo the turn round, trousers down and bend over before letting rip :D

Chinese casualties could be incalculable!
New Century China Forum:
Challenging Consensus! Standing for a New World Order!
Proud of China! Proud to be Chinese!



#16 User is offline   Harley-One 

  • Edi Lifetime Achievement Award
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Bannerman
  • Posts: 2,056
  • Joined: 19-January 08

Posted 07 February 2010 - 03:26 AM

View PostRenmin, on Feb 6 2010, 04:22 PM, said:

More likely Arrogance?? Many generals just talk that way. I dont even think India has that many nukes


We must understand that in this game of bluff that the Indians have one card they believe wholeheartedly is an ace in the hole for them: America!

They (Indians) used to play Russia against us, now they are using the Americans as a counter weight to deal with us. I mean how discouraging!

Unless we mean what we say and say what we mean in this world, nobody is going to take us serious because they expects that we are full of mortadellas and baloney's...

I mean Golly, if and when the Russian coast guard can fire at us (Chinese freighter in stormy sea for the sports of it) and we won't return fire; or if some Admiral of some Navy are daring enough to act God and go full steams ahead towards the Taiwan Straight with two aircraft carriers and we are not daring to enough to go Bay of Pig with them then that speaks volumes as to what even a little guy as Vietnam is thinking its capable of doing with us...

I mean jeez, if Kim Jong Ill Sr. had the balls to fire into the 38th; sinks ships; hold the USS Peblo indefinitely while Jong Ill Jr. fires their Nodongs and Oodongs into the Sea of Japan and in defiance military threats from America, thumbs his nose at them by testing their nukes, then why can't we do same?

Ironically, rather than blocking these advances as Kim does, we turn around and sign mammoth deals with Boeing and with Airbus worth billions and billions of USD and we seal these deals with an idiotic Jacky Chan handshake and smile...





Just for the funs of it.

edisonone
0

#17 User is offline   Red Fox Ace 

  • Dealer
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Administrators
  • Posts: 1,828
  • Joined: 02-January 07
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:International relations, foreign policy, and military affairs. I also compose music for soundtracks and like to write fiction. ;)

Posted 07 February 2010 - 03:50 AM

View PostHarley-One, on Feb 6 2010, 10:26 PM, said:

we turn around and sign mammoth deals with Boeing and with Airbus worth billions and billions of USD



Last time I checked, Chinese airlines benefited from having Boeing and Airbus passenger aircraft, so what's your complaint? I highly doubt that Chinese airlines would be able to find suitable wide-body passenger aircraft from any other source.
Life isn't worth living unless you have something worth dying for.

#18 User is offline   Harley-One 

  • Edi Lifetime Achievement Award
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Bannerman
  • Posts: 2,056
  • Joined: 19-January 08

Posted 07 February 2010 - 04:09 AM

View PostRed Fox Ace, on Feb 7 2010, 03:50 AM, said:

Um.....do you know what the Bay of Pigs was? I don't see how it relates....





Last time I checked, Chinese airlines benefited from having Boeing and Airbus passenger aircraft, so what's your complaint? I highly doubt that Chinese airlines would be able to find suitable wide-body passenger aircraft from any other source.


Expected roll out 2015... That's only 5 years away...
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2010-02...ent_9436933.htm
When will the Boeing and the Airbuses be deliver??? 2015-2020???

Mean time, I'll double the ARJ-21's (already out and flying) if I have to
http://en.wikipedia....ile:Joy_air.jpg
I would never buy from someone who just whacked me over the head with a baseball bat...

Matter of principle!





Just for the funs of it.

edisonone
0

#19 User is offline   Red Fox Ace 

  • Dealer
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Administrators
  • Posts: 1,828
  • Joined: 02-January 07
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:International relations, foreign policy, and military affairs. I also compose music for soundtracks and like to write fiction. ;)

Posted 07 February 2010 - 04:45 AM

View PostHarley-One, on Feb 6 2010, 11:09 PM, said:

Expected roll out 2015... That's only 5 years away...
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2010-02...ent_9436933.htm
When will the Boeing and the Airbuses be deliver??? 2015-2020???

Mean time, I'll double the ARJ-21's (already out and flying) if I have to
http://en.wikipedia....ile:Joy_air.jpg
I would never buy from someone who just whacked me over the head with a baseball bat...

Matter of principle!




Neither of these aircraft would provide the long cross-ocean range of the 747-8, the 777 Worldliner, or the 787 Dreamliner.




If Chinese airlines failed to purchase from Boeing or Airbus, they would be unable to conduct long-range routes to North America or Europe.
Life isn't worth living unless you have something worth dying for.

#20 User is offline   Harley-One 

  • Edi Lifetime Achievement Award
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Bannerman
  • Posts: 2,056
  • Joined: 19-January 08

Posted 07 February 2010 - 05:43 AM

View PostRed Fox Ace, on Feb 7 2010, 04:45 AM, said:

Neither of these aircraft would provide the long cross-ocean range of the 747-8, the 777 Worldliner, or the 787 Dreamliner.




If Chinese airlines failed to purchase from Boeing or Airbus, they would be unable to conduct long-range routes to North America or Europe.


Have you not heard? Air China, China Eastern, both principle routes are losing their pants and needed government bailouts. Japan Airliners is in the crappers, all these are trans oceanic routes... Not a big deal that is. Domestic market is where all the bread is. Besides, C919, though sometimes before it make it to the market is designed to compete with both Boeing 737 and Aairbus meaning trans-Pacific... Debuts in 2015. I rode on an China Eastern B-737 all the way from Vancouver to Shanghai Pudong International Airport and again Vancouver to Beijing Capital and this is one of the planes the C919 is projected to compete.





Just for the funs of it.

edisonone
0

Share this topic:


  • (2 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users