Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678910 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 145

Thread: Japan, U.S. at Odds Over China's Air Zone

  1. #31
    Officer of Engineers
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by winton View Post
    No leader can justify 1 retaliatory strike on its own let alone 24 hits over the complete annihilation of another country. Thats just out of touch.
    Horse Puckey. You're backtracking. 24 nukes is NOT turning the US into a wasteland.

    And it's 24 nukes, NOT 24 hits. It will be 8 hits. You aim 3 nukes per target. You know crap all about nuclear war.

    Quote Originally Posted by winton View Post
    Secondly, no one knows for sure what their exact number of warheads are.
    We know EXACTLY how much fissile materials they have. Enough for around 600 warheads. The Chinese stopped fissile material production in the 1990s, verified by the IAEA, when the PRC signed the NPT. Counting delivery vehicles and the units assigned to deliver nukes, the Chinese have anywhere from 100-250 nukes depending on which regiments you count as nuclear delivery or not.

    HOWEVER, they have ONLY 24 rockets that could hit the US.

    Let me write this again in case you tried to be smarter than you actually are. THE IAEA KNOWS EXACTLY HOW MUCH FISSILE MATERIALS THE CHINESE HAVE! THEY VERIFIED IT.

    Quote Originally Posted by winton View Post
    You're moaning about a different context here. Double Edge posed the hypothesis that the East China Sea was shallow. not sub friendly. More littoral. Less big ships

    Also, Japanese ships are armed with harpoons, whose effective range are alot less than the chinese equivalent.
    You have not read a thing we wrote. The Japanese are an integrated force. Hell, let me write it a way you understand. They are an AMERICAN force under Japanese command.
    Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 09 Dec 13, at 14:26.

  2. #32
    Banned Patron
    Join Date
    19 Nov 13
    Posts
    281
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    Horse Puckey. You're backtracking. 24 nukes is NOT turning the US into a wasteland.
    Its enough to turn the US into a radioactive wasteland.

    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    And it's 24 nukes, NOT 24 hits. It will be 8 hits. You aim 3 nukes per target. You know crap all about nuclear war.
    This is beside the point.

    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    We know EXACTLY how much fissile materials they have. Enough for around 600 warheads. The Chinese stopped fissile material production in the 1990s, verified by the IAEA, when the PRC signed the NPT. Counting delivery vehicles and the units assigned to deliver nukes, the Chinese have anywhere from 100-250 nukes depending on which regiments you count as nuclear delivery or not.
    researchers at georgetown uni would beg to differ.

    New U.S. Law Seeks Answers On Chinese Nuke Tunnels | Defense News | defensenews.com

    anyway, we are going way off topic here. My response to Double Edge was based on the specific context of his hypothesis.

  3. #33
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    10,908
    Quote Originally Posted by winton View Post
    Based on your hypothesis, if its shallow for the chinese subs, it'll be shallow for the Japanese subs et al. So that only leaves us with littoral ships of which china has plenty and Japan has too few and the US has diddly at the moment (or at least until they get their LCS together but then where to base those death traps?)
    Surface is possible if the air can be dominated. This then will contribute beneath the surface.

    China is posing a question about the air right now, how successful the answer to that question will be is going to take time to assess.

    When i look at the chinese littoral i get the impression that China is cramped and wants to push. China will do this in a number of areas, remains to be seen how successfully.
    Last edited by Double Edge; 09 Dec 13, at 14:46.

  4. #34
    Officer of Engineers
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by winton View Post
    Its enough to turn the US into a radioactive wasteland.
    Go suck a cigar. We have way more nuclear tests in Nevada than China has nukes and the US is still around.

    Quote Originally Posted by winton View Post
    This is beside the point.
    IT IS COMPLETELY ON POINT. YOU KNOW CRAP ALL!

    Quote Originally Posted by winton View Post
    Already debunked by every professional spook and the IAEA. Yeah, base your research on TV soap operas.

    Let me write it nice and slow so that it would sink in. THE IAEA VERIFIED EXACTLY HOW MUCH FISSILE MATERIALS THE CHINESE HAVE. V E R I F I E D.

    Do you know what that word means? V E R I F I E D?

    Quote Originally Posted by winton View Post
    anyway, we are going way off topic here. My response to Double Edge was based on the specific context of his hypothesis.
    Your exact words were

    Quote Originally Posted by winton View Post
    If we are going to indulge in this little fantasy, then the answer is, yes, cause the survivors of a US wasteland will still owe the survivors of a chinese wasteland.
    As usual, when you're shown you don't know your ass from your brain, you try to backtrack and cover your infantile stupidity.

    So here's some advice from a grown man to a fanboy. Shut the hell up and don't pretend to be the expert that you're CLEARLY ARE NOT.
    Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 09 Dec 13, at 14:46.

  5. #35
    Banned Patron
    Join Date
    19 Nov 13
    Posts
    281
    talking about nuclear war and 1000 warheads etc is all fanboy stuff, cause its use is UNFATHOMABLE.

    Also, who's pretending? I never said I was an expert. you did notice my exact words were that I would "indulge in this little fantasy." Such words shouldn't lead you to think that this was a serious discussion about nuclear weapons and fissile material where only experts need apply.

    I don't even know how relevant any of this is to the original point that you have dragged us away from.

  6. #36
    Global Moderator
    Military Professional
    Defense Professional
    Albany Rifles's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Apr 07
    Location
    Prince George, VA
    Posts
    9,019
    Winton,

    Understand when you are discussing nuclear weapons with the The Colonel (aka Officer of Engineers) you are discussing matters with a man who lead much of the work of the Canadian Forces in planning and employing/counteremploying nuclear weapons.

    So unless you can match his expertise you are going to be blown out of the water each time.

    The 'little flight of fantasy" you describe is never seen by those of us who have done some of the work and developed the cold, hard facts back in the day. We tend not to do "flights of fancy" as we are grounded in the reality of the Cold War.

    Just a word to the wise.
    “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
    Mark Twain

  7. #37
    Officer of Engineers
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by winton View Post
    talking about nuclear war and 1000 warheads etc is all fanboy stuff, cause its use is UNFATHOMABLE.
    WRONG AGAIN! We were to fight WWIII. Don't you think we thought out HOW we were going to do it?

    Quote Originally Posted by winton View Post
    I don't even know how relevant any of this is to the original point that you have dragged us away from.
    No, you're the one who made the idiotic stupid ill informed statements and continues to make them, pretending that you know more than you do.

    And for the record, you made the statement before you responded to Double Edge.

  8. #38
    Banned Patron
    Join Date
    19 Nov 13
    Posts
    281
    Quote Originally Posted by Albany Rifles View Post
    So unless you can match his expertise you are going to be blown out of the water each time.

    The 'little flight of fantasy" you describe is never seen by those of us who have done some of the work and developed the cold, hard facts back in the day. We tend not to do "flights of fancy" as we are grounded in the reality of the Cold War.
    Sure, but you and the colonel have to see my response to someone elses post about using nukes as a way to resolve debt in that context.

  9. #39
    Officer of Engineers
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by winton View Post
    Sure, but you and the colonel have to see my response to someone elses post about using nukes as a way to resolve debt in that context.
    And your response is completely idiotic. Countries at war don't care how much money each owed each other and there is no way for China to make the US a wasteland, not even a little.

    And what's more, the US already have China's money. China has the US's IOUs. If they goto war, you can bet your ass that the US would cancel those IOUs and China would be left with nothing/

  10. #40
    Military Enthusiast Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    15 Aug 03
    Posts
    5,349
    OOE.

    how did IAEA exactly verified the amount of fissile materials that China has? That is a state secret, is it not? China can produce more fissile materials without anybody knowing.

  11. #41
    Officer of Engineers
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Blademaster View Post
    how did IAEA exactly verified the amount of fissile materials that China has? That is a state secret, is it not? China can produce more fissile materials without anybody knowing.
    As an NPT member, China is obligated to open both her books and her plants to inspection. It wasn't easy. The Chinese had a different accounting system than the IAEA and it took years to get the two sets of books reconcile.

    If you can imagined, two sets of anal bean counters trying to resolve the differences. Forensic accounting is as anal as it gets.

    China can produce fissile materials under the NPT but that amount must be declared. How much of that amount is converted to weapons, however, is beyond the authority of the IAEA.

  12. #42
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    15 Dec 06
    Posts
    1,153
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    China can produce fissile materials under the NPT but that amount must be declared. How much of that amount is converted to weapons, however, is beyond the authority of the IAEA.
    So theoretically, they could have up to 600 warheads with everyone outside being none the wiser?
    Last edited by Firestorm; 09 Dec 13, at 19:32.

  13. #43
    Officer of Engineers
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Firestorm View Post
    So theoretically, they could have up to 600 warheads without everyone outside being none the wiser?
    But we are the wiser. For the longest time, we thought China had 300-1000 warheads.

    It was not until the IAEA got the final numbers right that we thought that we finally had a handle.

    Then the Chinese admitted that they were the smallest of the N5 and that forced a real hard look at our evals. Just because the Chinese have nuclear capable missiles does not mean that they are nuclear armed. The 1400 missiles alone facing Taiwan could use up all the Chinese fissile materials and then some.

    As a side note, I can see your heads already spinning with the implications, not just about China but every other nuclear weapons powers and wannable nuclear weapons powers.

  14. #44
    Defense Professional Dreadnought's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 May 05
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA.
    Posts
    14,728
    Quote Originally Posted by winton View Post
    Because the US would have to borrow the money from china to do it. Cold wars aren't cheap
    Nonsense!

    So you are stating that the US didnt topple Saddam and the Taliban without Chinese finacial backing?

    Please do explain.....I cant wait to hear this explanation.
    Last edited by Dreadnought; 09 Dec 13, at 21:58.
    Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

  15. #45
    Defense Professional Dreadnought's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 May 05
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA.
    Posts
    14,728
    Quote Originally Posted by winton View Post
    Based on your hypothesis, if its shallow for the chinese subs, it'll be shallow for the Japanese subs et al. So that only leaves us with littoral ships of which china has plenty and Japan has too few and the US has diddly at the moment (or at least until they get their LCS together but then where to base those death traps?)
    Death traps? Obviously you dont know jack about those ships. How many sailors have these "deathtraps" as you call them killed?

    I'll answer that for you.....NONE!

    And the US has plenty of bases even with shallow water ports to base them nearby.

    The LCS's draft is just over 14 feet. Hell, they could basically base them in almost any river in Asia as they did with the Asheville class boats during Vietnam . You dont need a full Naval installation to base them any more then the US Navy did for the PT boats of WWII that hid all throughout the island chains of the south pacific.

    Why? because they can refuel and resupply underway from the CVN's or repletishment ships. Hell, you could air drop them supplies if they had too just like delivering mail the way they used to to Navy ships underway.

    Singapor, The Phillipines, Japan, South Korea, hell even Taiwan etc if they wanted too..

    And they have already deployed to Asia and will continue to on rotational basis as more enter the fleet..
    Last edited by Dreadnought; 09 Dec 13, at 21:56.
    Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. U.S. Directly Challenges China's Air Defense Zone : B52 flies over
    By Defcon5 in forum East Asia and the Pacific
    Replies: 153
    Last Post: 01 Dec 13,, 05:02
  2. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 24 Nov 13,, 22:59
  3. Egypt courts China for Suez special zone
    By xinhui in forum East Asia and the Pacific
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05 May 10,, 06:15
  4. Tibetan monks ordered out of China's quake zone
    By troung in forum East Asia and the Pacific
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 22 Apr 10,, 16:31
  5. N.Korea to Set Up Special Economic Zone Near China
    By oneman28 in forum East Asia and the Pacific
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07 Mar 06,, 14:51

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •