What is Digg?353 Comments
- inactive, on 04/01/2009, -1/+69If there was ever a war between the US and China... everyone loses.
- jerkychew, on 04/01/2009, -16/+68Wow, who let the GOP talkbots in here?
Virtually every superpower outside of the US got their weapons FROM the US at some point.
The Middle East got a ton of weapons from the Reagan administration. Yet I don't hear anybody mentioning that, all we're going to talk about is Clinton Clinton Clinton.
I love the people calling Obama a pussy and saying he's handing us to China on a silver platter - Um, the guy's only been in office what, two months? I haven't seen anything yet to show whether he's "another Jimmy Carter" or not - How bout we comment on what he's done AFTER he's done it, and not make ***** up ahead of time?
Speaking of pussies, I hear the last guy in office wasn't a pussy.. No sir, he'd send in the troops and hoo boy yee haw, we're gunna go git sum!
How'd that turn out, by the way? - christoast, on 04/01/2009, -2/+52kill weapons are the WORST
- SammyJr, on 04/01/2009, -2/+49Why would China want to attack their best customer? Their economy would collapse overnight without Wal-mart shoppers.
In all seriousness, global trade really is the best way to peace. If you have a profitable business arrangement with someone, you don't spoil it with violence. For the same reason, I think we should be trading with Iran. - BohicaTwentyTwo, on 03/31/2009, -5/+39Meanwhile Russia is building more nuclear subs designed to hunt and kill carriers.
- pearcewg, on 03/31/2009, -35/+65The fact that we gave or sold them missile and guidance technology during the 1990s makes my blood boil so badly.
I know this is old news and water way under the bridge, but ex President Clinton should be charged with treason for materially improving China as a strategic threat to the United States.
Hopefully he will be charged, but the damage is done. And we ALL might pay dearly for it.
Most telling, from the article:
"The Navy's reaction is telling, because it essentially equals a radical change in direction based on information that has created a panic inside the bubble. For a major military service to panic due to a new weapon system, clearly a mission kill weapon system, either suggests the threat is legitimate or the leadership of the Navy is legitimately unqualified. There really aren't many gray spaces in evaluating the reaction by the Navy…the data tends to support the legitimacy of the threat." - inboxnews, on 03/31/2009, -10/+40The size of the missile enables it to carry a warhead big enough to inflict significant damage on a large vessel, providing the Chinese the capability of destroying a U.S. supercarrier in one strike. (fta)
- Chahrlie5, on 03/31/2009, -22/+49China to Clinton: "THANKS!"
- PandaBearShenyu, on 04/01/2009, -5/+32I don't know about you, but it seems like the U.S. Navy wants a couple billion dollars in funding from the new government.
Yes, take your information from a Chinese military blog, because all the top secret information will naturally be posted there.
Americans in general need to understand that if you don't attack China, China won't attack you, it's because you all fly your satellites over head and constantly have your surveillance ships and planes sitting just outside of Chinese waters, looking in 24/7, that we have to develop this type of technology to tell you to ***** off. - avengingturnip, on 03/31/2009, -6/+31The real value of this for the Chinese is that if it ever comes time to invade Taiwan the American navy will have to stand so far back it will be essentially powerless.
Goodbye global power projection. Hello, southeast Asian hegemon. - waluum, on 03/31/2009, -3/+27One word: Phalanx
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=&se ... - GawtMilk, on 04/01/2009, -2/+25Funny, this sounds like policy by press release. The website's URL is even .../forthemedia/...
In other news, another $400,000,000 has been granted to Lockheed-Martin for development of an anti-anti-aircraft carrier missle missle. - andreegal, on 04/01/2009, -14/+37It's only ok when America does it.
- Liability, on 04/01/2009, -2/+24
Meanwhile, the Earth is still spinning around the Sun. - PandaBearShenyu, on 04/01/2009, -7/+26From the perspective of a Chinese person, let me tell you that we have zero need to attack the U.S.
Over the past 200 years or so, Western powers have come into this country and torn it to shreds, going so far to turn a whole nation into opium addicts and then leaving the shell of the former empire to be invaded and raped by the Japanese. This is the REASON China needs a military strong enough to stand toe to toe with the world's best, so its people are ensured that this ugly part of our history will never be repeated again.
The sooner Americans and the rest of the world understands this, the sooner you will all stop being paranoid and lose sleep over China gaining more abilities to defend itself. The world will be peaceful when every country can defend its own soverignty to the maximum against all weapons. - normlsparky, on 04/01/2009, -6/+25How is China's development of a new weapon system even remotely equivalent to Obama "handing our country to them on a platter"?
- twoheadedboy00, on 03/31/2009, -8/+26ah yes, wingnut bluster encouraging the release of nuclear weapons. Such an enlightened opinion.
Although, I would agree that any attack on a US carrier should be met with an overwhelming response.
I just don't see why you advocate killing millions of civilians in response to a strike on a purely military target. - Titan615, on 04/01/2009, -0/+16This is precisely why we developed CIWS. Such as Phalanx. In order to get through all the layers of protection that we surround our carriers with it would have to be one hell of a missile.
Phalanx is so effective it has been modified and is being used in Iraq to shoot down Mortar and other indirect weapons over our bases. (Except they use explosive tracer rounds instead). It called C-RAM.
And another thing, Carriers are normally in battlegroups with AEGIS equipped warships that could shoot one of these missiles down from hundreds of miles away. And on top of that they've made improvements to the system that allows Standard RIM-161 missiles to shoot down ballistic missiles and satellites I believe.
Chinese super-weapon? Not really.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegis_combat_system
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-161_Standard_miss ...
- indymike, on 04/01/2009, -0/+16Frankly, this whole US vs. China thing is stupid. A war of that magnitude would shatter both economies and require really awful weapons because of the size of the geography and populations of both nations. The only winners in this war will be whatever species evolves to replace humans.
- fabkebab, on 04/01/2009, -1/+17I was disappointed to read that it was a "kill" weapon as opposed to some other type - I felt the need to write a "text" comment to express my horror
- inactive, on 04/01/2009, -4/+20China to Nixon: "THANKS"
- GawtMilk, on 04/01/2009, -3/+18"If the Third World War is fought with nuclear weapons, the fourth will be fought with bows and arrows."
- Lord Mountbatten - PandaBearShenyu, on 04/01/2009, -2/+17Thanks for your warning, although I can rest assured that we won't blow up your carriers unless your carriers start parking themselves at Taiwan and firing missiles at us first.
Korean War, Vietnam War, Sino Indo War
All three wars fought by China in recent times, all three times, troops were mobilized after AMPLE warning beforehand, either it was to tell America to stop advancing towards the border, or to tell Indians to get back behind their own borders.
Also, if it's a game of turning our cities into parking lots, I doubt America would escape unharmed. IN a modern nuclear war, even if you don't get hit, you'll eventually die of cancer after being horribly mutated. I don't see WWIII as a contest of seeing who has a bigger bomb. YOu, who has already forgotten history, are treating war as a game that you can play on your Xbox, and propagating the same thought process that'll eventually lead humanity to once again fight another world war. Shame on you. - Updesh, on 04/01/2009, -5/+20PandabearShenyu: Who does China need to defend itseld against, which country other than the US or Russia even has the capability to threaten China. Maybe people would be less paranoid about China if they had not supplied Nuclear weapons technology to Pakistan (as a way of keeping India indirectly under threat) or weapons to North Korea (threatening Japan), or directly pointed missiles at Taiwan and threatened them with invasion. Fact is the Beijing governent can't be trusted because they are not representatives of their people or answerable to them, should they wish to start a war or "defend" themselves who can complain. Beijing already has enough defensive weapons, they have a nuke and 3 million men under arms, no one will attack China, so the only need for this weapons and others like it, is to extend Beijing's reach and power and to have enough of an arsenal that should Beijing decide to invade Taiwan the US won't stop them
- MouserUK, on 04/01/2009, -1/+15Against a large missile travelling at Mach 10?
That's 3.4 km per second. Even if the shot was on target it would be unlikely to destroy it in time. - Railz, on 04/01/2009, -0/+14
"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."
- Albert Einstein - geauxtig3rs, on 04/01/2009, -0/+13Hooray for rational thought!
money is the root of all peace accords. - CedEx, on 03/31/2009, -2/+15But the question is, why does the US want anything to do with Taiwan in the first place? The only reason the US is interested in Taiwan is for strategic purposes.
I think the world would be better if countries projected their power within their own borders. I wouldn't want my neighbour setting up shop in my backyard just so he could keep an eye on me. - draculthemad, on 04/01/2009, -1/+13If we detect a ballistic missile launch from china, its likely carrier assets are shortly going to be the least of their worries.
The df-21 is a nuclear-capable launch platform, after all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DF-21
This also depends on a satellite network thats would be among the first casualties in any real throwdown. As long as they keep the range on it short enough to protect their own territorial waters its simply a deterrent.
I would think this is to prevent any thought of us using carriers to launch a conventional attack against their mainland.
(Given the last 8 years, can you blame them?)
If they start developing longer range versions though, it may be an attempt at a first-strike platform. That would make the cuban missile crisis look like an argument over lunch money. - avengingturnip, on 03/31/2009, -1/+13I am not casting judgment on policy one way or another except for noting that America's commitment to defend Taiwan will be toothless.
- inactive, on 04/01/2009, -0/+12I see your anti-anti-aircraft carrier missile missile and raise you with my anti-anti-anti-aircraft carrier missile missile missile!
- vsaint, on 04/01/2009, -1/+13Holy *****...that sounds just like the roman empire.
- Stormwern, on 04/01/2009, -3/+15Hard to take the high ground when America spends as much on military as the rest of the world combined.
- MakanGuru, on 04/01/2009, -3/+15"The Roman Empire produced few exportable goods. Material innovation, whether through entrepreneurialism or technological advancement, all but ended long before the final dissolution of the Empire. Meanwhile the costs of military defense and the pomp of Emperors continued. Financial needs continued to increase, but the means of meeting them steadily eroded. In the end due to economic failure, even the armor of soldiers deteriorated and the weaponry of soldiers became so obsolete to the extent that the enemies of the Empire had better armor and weapons as well as larger forces."
Taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_of_the_Roman_ ...
Sound familiar? - indymike, on 04/01/2009, -1/+12Old submariner jokes:
What do you call a surface ship? Target.
What's wrong with an aircraft carrier? They only sink once.
Seriously: nothing to see here. The US deterrent is underwater and has been for decades because the carrier is a big easy target for strategic nukes. Even a US fast attack sub has substantial deterrent capability with Tomahawk and VLS. In other words: if we put the carrier in play, we're in mop-up mode. - inactive, on 04/01/2009, -2/+13What in the ***** are you on about?
- jonr, on 04/01/2009, -0/+11Kill Weapon? There are categories?
- inactive, on 04/01/2009, -2/+13They could steal the ship by having automatic chinese man lauchers. doesn't matter if a couple die.
Plenty more where that came from! - gaoshan, on 04/01/2009, -1/+12A "kill weapon"?! OMG!!! All this time I thought they were working on a happy missle.
- Memitim, on 04/01/2009, -0/+11Yeah, that's an impressive payload for an anti-ship missile, but it's still just hardware dick waving for the sake of fear mongering. Don't get me wrong, I like seeing new weapons as much as the next joker, particularly Naval weapons being a Navy vet myself, but I maintain a realistic outlook regarding their coolness factor versus what they actually add to the battlefield. In this case, not a whole lot since carriers are just floating targets anyhow. Just ask General Paul Van Riper what he thinks of all of these insanely expensive high-tech toys.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_ ... - inactive, on 04/01/2009, -14/+24Just ***** PROPAGANDA! US needs spend to less money on the military!!
- jsmith39, on 04/01/2009, -0/+10I read this book back in 2005:
http://www.amazon.com/Future-War-Technology-Domina ...
One of the central points of Friedman's book was that inevitably all weapon platforms (tanks, bombers, aircraft carriers) become obsolete, primarily because the end up costing more to protect than you're getting out of them. His main point was that the days of aircraft fleets are numbered simply because as missile technology progresses we hit the point where one side can spend a few million (if that) overwhelming a carrier fleets defensive capability and easily destroy tens if not hundreds of millions worth of equipment.
If you're interested in the subject, the book is incredible. - runningraleigh, on 04/01/2009, -0/+10"Ships currently have no defense against a ballistic missile attack."
That is complete *****. The Aegis system is capable of tracking and destroying incoming ballistic missiles. That's what it was designed for. Unless carriers are operating alone, and they never do, there is at least one cruiser nearby with the Aegis system onboard. - inactive, on 04/01/2009, -1/+10Such areas would be Korea, the Straits of Mallaca, Vietnam, India etc.
Oh, and China's not going to attack America. Not now, not for the next two decades. At least. The Chinese economy is totally dependent on demand in the American economy, NOT Chinese demand. They blow up an aircraft carrier, and you can say bye-bye to all the growth that China's experienced since Deng Xiaoping came to power. - PandaBearShenyu, on 04/01/2009, -7/+16Notice that China's big weapon advancements recently have all been defensive weapons. Whereas America is ever busy preparing new offensive weapons that are ever more efficient at killing people.
next time you go outside and walk, take a look around you and look at all the people near you, and think about what it'd be like if an American missile flew in at Mach 2 speed and burned everything in a hellfire. This is what your country have been inventing since World War II, not China. Don't dehumanize and trivialize war by discussing it as if it's a political game. - jsmith39, on 04/01/2009, -0/+9I'm sitting here trying to think of the last time in human history that civilizations rose and fell without engaging in hostilities within their own borders and with the their neighbors. You know, I'm not coming up with a single example.
War is rarely a sane proposition, but humans are even more rarely sane. - kmoed, on 04/01/2009, -0/+9The bad grammar army, the most deadly and feared of all!
- jsmith39, on 04/01/2009, -0/+8So the idea that we should continue to defend Taiwan simply because it's a 'fledgling' democracy goes right out the window when ***** gets scary?
Nice... - annenk38, on 04/01/2009, -3/+11Well, they can start by scrapping the surface vessels of the US Navy. The savings from the fuel expenditures alone should be enough to balance the budget. The first effective use of anti-ship missiles during the Falklands (30 years ago!) should have been a wake-up call for the top brass at the Pentagon.
- mabsark, on 04/01/2009, -0/+8Actually, they're both spinning around each other.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 359 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is