Chinese "super missile" could threaten U.S. Pacific dominance

[Legionnaire]

[Alphex]

Originally Posted by Darth Elecian

Oh lawd, another lolbushistheantichristcomment which has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand, which is how the new Chinese missile can take out an aircraft carrier.

Ahem i believe the main artivle was talking about keeping the US away form the Chinese coast. Believe me there are many insecure nations on that side of the world because of what Bush started doing...

[jimmy]

This is a powerful weapon even if would take a 100 of them to sink a carrier. The bottom line is that all it needs to do to render a carrier useless is tear up the flight deck. But that's okay because our carriers are only one vector available to us to exert military force.
I think if you look at this from a big picture perspective, the Chinese would have been better served if they kept this missle secret instead of putting it a parade.
I don't have any special info or anything like that and this is total speculation on my part but I am CERTAIN that this will result, if it has not already happend, in the launching of orbital weapons platforms designed to take up positions over our carrier groups. These missles have to enter orbit to reach their target. If anyone thinks that the US will sit on our thumbs and not take advantage of this provocation to do this they are dilusional. So at the end of the day the Chinese will have a credible threat to our Carrier groups. So what. We will still have the ability to park 100 million tonnes of soverign US territory anywhere we want and no one is going to stop us.

[Kaliban]

Iwant to know why we haven't heard from Zyv on this...makes one wonder

[Sabcat]

The struggle for influence if economic, the missile is China is saying "we are the economic powerhouse in the Pacific and we have the military capability to defend that dominance". The biggest market for China is the US, the biggest supplier of capital to the US is China. China are about as likely to fire missiles at US ships as I am.

[DanDesade]

Note* i've seen others numbers about military expenditure similiar to this, they're about the same so this is accurate enough

I cannot imagine america should be to concerned about the rise of china, their military expenditure is laughable in comparrison

There is actually a Realist i had to learn about in class that said if everyone had nukes the world would be more peaceful. i've yet to hear any DoDs respond positevly to the suggestion

[Legionnaire]

Originally Posted by DanDesade

if everyone had nukes the world would be more peaceful.

Quite right. Because when everybody would be finished with the nuke partying it would be peaceful.

Oh, and also Mars is peaceful.

[Zyvexal]

Originally Posted by DanDesade

Note* i've seen others numbers about military expenditure similiar to this, they're about the same so this is accurate enough

I cannot imagine america should be to concerned about the rise of china, their military expenditure is laughable in comparrison

There is actually a Realist i had to learn about in class that said if everyone had nukes the world would be more peaceful. i've yet to hear any DoDs respond positevly to the suggestion

And yet, Russia is still 10 years ahead of the United States in missile technology, so either you guys are REALLY dumb, or you're not spending the money in the right places.

Besides, what makes you think that your media really knows how much these other countries spend on their militaries?

Also, Margaret Thatcher isn't a realist.

* Zyvexal points to sig.

also, anyone else find this incredibly stupid or was it just me?

U.S. officials deny Chinese pressure kept it away, and say they will not be told by Beijing where they can operate.


"We reserve the right to exercise in international waters anywhere in the world," Rear Adm. Daniel Cloyd, who headed the U.S. side of the exercises, said aboard the carrier during the maneuvers, which ended last week.

That's like a kid who was beaten up and had his toy taken away getting off the ground with a nosebleed saying "I didn't want it anyway".

[DanDesade]

Originally Posted by Zyvexal

And yet, Russia is still 10 years ahead of the United States in missile technology, so either you guys are REALLY dumb, or you're not spending the money in the right places.

Besides, what makes you think that your media really knows how much these other countries spend on their militaries?

Also, Margaret Thatcher isn't a realist.

* Zyvexal points to sig.

also, anyone else find this incredibly stupid or was it just me?



That's like a kid who was beaten up and had his toy taken away getting off the ground with a nosebleed saying "I didn't want it anyway".

First, I'm Autralian so i hope your not including me in those you've decided to call dumb. That said, Military expenditure does not just mean R&D and active deployment. it also includes vet entitlements, Logistics, Units of analysis and stratedgy etc etc. thus, those numbers indicate the size of the military establishment, inclusive of all concerns and sundry.

2ndly, I could care less about what the media decides to publish. its bound to be bias.

And i wasn't refering to thatcher i was talking about Waltz who is a defensive realist, as opposed to offensive or classical. I learnt about him the other day in my foreign defense policy class. I'm doing a Bachelor of International and Global Studies (BIGS) at the University of Sydney, and am doing an American Foreign Policy unit at the moment

[Zyvexal]

Originally Posted by DanDesade

First, I'm Autralian so i hope your not including me in those you've decided to call dumb. That said, Military expenditure does not just mean R&D and active deployment. it also includes vet entitlements, Logistics, Units of analysis and stratedgy etc etc. thus, those numbers indicate the size of the military establishment, inclusive of all concerns and sundry.

2ndly, I could care less about what the media decides to publish. its bound to be bias.

And i wasn't refering to thatcher i was talking about Waltz who is a defensive realist, as opposed to offensive or classical. I learnt about him the other day in my foreign defense policy class. I'm doing a Bachelor of International and Global Studies (BIGS) at the University of Sydney, and am doing an American Foreign Policy unit at the moment

firstly, I call everyone dumb, so please don't feel left out. Secondly, so by saying all that about military expenditure, you're refuting your previous statement by essentially suggesting that all that military expenditure doesn't necessarily mean a superior military by any means. thirdly (your secondly), you say that you don't care about what the media decides to publish, but here you are quoting them, sounds a bit contradictory and/or hypocritical. Fourthly, why in the one hundred and eighty two hells would they have a class on American Foreign Policy? They might as well have a class on the thought processes of college students who are stoned out of their minds.

also, I'm afraid being an Australian doesn't excuse you from terrible spelling and grammar. Especially not when you spell your country/continent/island "Autralia"