• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

World War III is near, long speech by Chinese Defense minister

Ok, I stopped reading when the author said this:

"The signs have been there all along. In the Falklands War, the Argentine Air Force, which ain't exactly the A Team, managed to shred the British fleet, coming in low and fast to launch the Exocets. And they did all this hundreds of miles off their coast, with no land-based systems to help."

What the hell?

Agentina sank 3 British ships and shot down one British plane.

Britain sank 3 Argentine ships, and shot down literally dozens of planes, and killed hundreds more men.

Also, of course the Argentine didn't have land based systems to help....

THEY WERE USING AN AIRFORCE.

The first British ship was sunk by fighters scrambled when the Argentine radar air-craft spotted the forward part of the British battle group.

The other two ships were sunk in a similar manner.

It's not like they just hopped-up in bi-planes and scored!

http://www.yendor.com/vanished/falklands-war.html
 
http://www.falklandswar.org.uk/ships.htm

Actually here's a better link.

The reason that so few Argentine ships were damaged, compared to British ships, was that Argentine withdrew their Navy, and resorted to using mostly land-based Aircraft.

The British Navy still whomped the Argentines as you can clearly see.
 
"If the Argentines could do that with 1980 technology, think what the Chinese, Iranians or North Koreans could do in 2003 against a city-size floating target like a US carrier.

If your local library has copies of Jane's Weapons Systems, check out the anti-ship missile section. The top of the line in standard weaponry might still be the old US Harpoon, but you don't need anything that fancy. Anti-ship missiles are easy to make and use, because surface ships are very slow, have huge radar signatures, and can't dodge."

And this statement is also untrue and ... well...stupid.

First, 1980s isn't bad in technology, our Tanks were designed in 1980s, our M-16s were designed in the 1960s.

Etc.

Secondly, a ship may not be able to dodge an anti-ship missile, but it sure as hell can shoot one down. The faster your missile, the better chances you will hit the ship, thus, they need to be fast.

Real fast.

The Soviets liked to make theirs about Mach 3...the Chinese are trying the same...we have such.

Thus...a country like "Zimbawae" won't be making any Anti-Ship Missiles that will destroy a ship AT war. (Maybe if you shoot it when no one is looking because it's a time of peace...)

But Zimbabwae maybe able to buy such a missile and get lucky!

Argentina didn't get lucky, they bought good stuff, from the British ironically.
 
FreeMason said:
http://www.falklandswar.org.uk/ships.htm

Actually here's a better link.

The reason that so few Argentine ships were damaged, compared to British ships, was that Argentine withdrew their Navy, and resorted to using mostly land-based Aircraft.

The British Navy still whomped the Argentines as you can clearly see.
Click to expand...

Well you also have to remember that in a defensive strategic war the defender will always have the upper hand. Especially in primitive war technology inregards to todays technology. However, I cant tell you right now that if Argentina ever wanted to tussle with GB the argentinians would be signing their own death warrants.
 
Yeah Skil, but I think you can see from the link, the Argentines weren't even using "out of date technology" they were using high-end stuff they bought from Britain prior to the war, and they were getting shot down left and right.

The British lost 34 aircraft.

The Argentines lost 98.

The man's point in that russian article was totally erroneous...
 
I also don't want to over "buff" the Navy.

I don't think our Carriers are as vulnerable as the guy purports either.

He thinks you can just "rush a Carrier".

They have battle groups that form a tight zone of defense both an air-net and through BPMDS (Basic Point Missile Defense Systems) and this would prove difficult to deal with if you were an opposing Navy.

Especially in a Naval War, where the number of Carriers in a Battle Group won't be 1 or 2, but 10.

And the Number of Escort Ships would be as high as 100.

That said, even in WW2 we lost tons of Carriers.

They are not gods that are indefeatable...ships are going to sink in battle, even carriers.

The question is, who wins the battle, and this guy seems to not even address that issue.
 
FreeMason said:
"If the Argentines could do that with 1980 technology, think what the Chinese, Iranians or North Koreans could do in 2003 against a city-size floating target like a US carrier.

If your local library has copies of Jane's Weapons Systems, check out the anti-ship missile section. The top of the line in standard weaponry might still be the old US Harpoon, but you don't need anything that fancy. Anti-ship missiles are easy to make and use, because surface ships are very slow, have huge radar signatures, and can't dodge."

And this statement is also untrue and ... well...stupid.

First, 1980s isn't bad in technology, our Tanks were designed in 1980s, our M-16s were designed in the 1960s.

Etc.

Secondly, a ship may not be able to dodge an anti-ship missile, but it sure as hell can shoot one down. The faster your missile, the better chances you will hit the ship, thus, they need to be fast.

Real fast.

The Soviets liked to make theirs about Mach 3...the Chinese are trying the same...we have such.

Thus...a country like "Zimbawae" won't be making any Anti-Ship Missiles that will destroy a ship AT war. (Maybe if you shoot it when no one is looking because it's a time of peace...)

But Zimbabwae maybe able to buy such a missile and get lucky!

Argentina didn't get lucky, they bought good stuff, from the British ironically.
Click to expand...

Umm.. let me correct you here on something if I may. Although certain weapons like the M16 and others were developed in earlier years well the M16 has been still proven to be very effective becaus eof the new technology we have fro it (ie infrared scopes, 12x scopes, laser optics, and etc etc). Furthermore the F-14 was developed in the 70s and is still one of the elite fighter jets in todays world of warfare. Its not the weapon itself its what we(with technology) can do with it. I remember I did a simulation at a war institution. Just to give you a little background we gave israel about 75 F-14 that we used in the early 80's. Well I did a aerial combat war game scenario with 10 isreali f-14 and with 2 of our modern f-14's. Well needless to say because of modern weapons systems and technology our 2 f-14's decimated all 10 of the other f-14's within 2min. Just because something was made years ago doesnt mean we cant make it better with imporved technology. So in concordance wit that our enemies may even have the same weapon but without the same technology we have applied to it then it renders them inadequate to our playing field. I hope this all made sense.
 
FreeMason said:
I also don't want to over "buff" the Navy.

I don't think our Carriers are as vulnerable as the guy purports either.

He thinks you can just "rush a Carrier".

They have battle groups that form a tight zone of defense both an air-net and through BPMDS (Basic Point Missile Defense Systems) and this would prove difficult to deal with if you were an opposing Navy.

Especially in a Naval War, where the number of Carriers in a Battle Group won't be 1 or 2, but 10.

And the Number of Escort Ships would be as high as 100.

That said, even in WW2 we lost tons of Carriers.

They are not gods that are indefeatable...ships are going to sink in battle, even carriers.

The question is, who wins the battle, and this guy seems to not even address that issue.
Click to expand...

Actually our battle groups can see every vessel in the water due to satellite imagery. So if a swarm of hostile fishing boats were on approach our battle groups would sink all their ships before they could even put a carrier in their sights not to mention the way a naval group travels the carrier is in the middle with the other ships fanned out for miles.
 
SKILMATIC said:
Umm.. let me correct you here on something if I may. Although certain weapons like the M16 and others were developed in earlier years well the M16 has been still proven to be very effective becaus eof the new technology we have fro it (ie infrared scopes, 12x scopes, laser optics, and etc etc). Furthermore the F-14 was developed in the 70s and is still one of the elite fighter jets in todays world of warfare. Its not the weapon itself its what we(with technology) can do with it. I remember I did a simulation at a war institution. Just to give you a little background we gave israel about 75 F-14 that we used in the early 80's. Well I did a aerial combat war game scenario with 10 isreali f-14 and with 2 of our modern f-14's. Well needless to say because of modern weapons systems and technology our 2 f-14's decimated all 10 of the other f-14's within 2min. Just because something was made years ago doesnt mean we cant make it better with imporved technology. So in concordance wit that our enemies may even have the same weapon but without the same technology we have applied to it then it renders them inadequate to our playing field. I hope this all made sense.
Click to expand...

Let's just keep in mind here we're not actually debating eachother since I know I agree with you.

That said, yes there are good additions to the M-16 improving its life span, as well as with the F-14, but both systems are atually being looked to be replaced.

Like-wise the M1A1 needed an upgrade to the M1A2 and its variations for various purposes.

Our technology is being upgraded, but it is not like the 1980s is the "Age of Sail" as the author would make it seem...
 
FreeMason said:
Yeah Skil, but I think you can see from the link, the Argentines weren't even using "out of date technology" they were using high-end stuff they bought from Britain prior to the war, and they were getting shot down left and right.

The British lost 34 aircraft.

The Argentines lost 98.

The man's point in that russian article was totally erroneous...
Click to expand...

O I totally agree with you. I never disagreed did I?
 
SKILMATIC said:
Actually our battle groups can see every vessel in the water due to satellite imagery. So if a swarm of hostile fishing boats were on approach our battle groups would sink all their ships before they could even put a carrier in their sights not to mention the way a naval group travels the carrier is in the middle with the other ships fanned out for miles.
Click to expand...

I don't know about this, I've never seen any real evidence to suggest there actually is "live satellite feed". Due to the nature of how high-resolution images are captured from Space. However, I wouldn't rule it out, I'm not the one in Space Command or any other form of intelligence gathering either.

So my information on Military Satellites is limited to what I know about how every other form of Space Remote Sensing works.

And no, you never disagreed, but it seems we both are building off eachother's last statements to keep piling on the info, being no contender happens to challenge us at this moment.
 
FreeMason said:
Let's just keep in mind here we're not actually debating eachother since I know I agree with you.

That said, yes there are good additions to the M-16 improving its life span, as well as with the F-14, but both systems are atually being looked to be replaced.

Like-wise the M1A1 needed an upgrade to the M1A2 and its variations for various purposes.

Our technology is being upgraded, but it is not like the 1980s is the "Age of Sail" as the author would make it seem...
Click to expand...

I TOTALLY AGREE. And I am suprised you know such an improvement such as the A2. Now becsue of this addition our tanks can fire approxiamtely 2-3000shells instead of the usual thousand. To give everyone some perspective the most foreign tank which is the T-72 has a firing life span of only 100shells.
 
I never even thought to consider the firing life-span of a Tank's barrel, I'm pretty biased against tanks due to their susceptibility to air-craft, and thus never pay too much attention to them.

However, the Russian's T-90 and developing T-95 look to replace the T-72 in full and the T-95 has a stated armor equivalent of 1000mm of Steel against a Sabo round.

Not to mention the more tried technical marvels such as the Leopard II.

I suppose you meant that the most common enemy tank will be the T-72, since they became the Soviet Union's primary export following after Bullsh|t.

Either way, I've been told most of our doctrine is moving from Tank to Air//Infantry movements, due to the changing nature of warfare from large scale conflicts to multiple regional conflicts.
 
FreeMason said:
I don't know about this, I've never seen any real evidence to suggest there actually is "live satellite feed". Due to the nature of how high-resolution images are captured from Space. However, I wouldn't rule it out, I'm not the one in Space Command or any other form of intelligence gathering either.

So my information on Military Satellites is limited to what I know about how every other form of Space Remote Sensing works.

And no, you never disagreed, but it seems we both are building off eachother's last statements to keep piling on the info, being no contender happens to challenge us at this moment.
Click to expand...

Well now you know. Actually we have developed a satellite system to give our battle groups state of the art imagery feed anywhere they want. With the help of laser, sonar, infrared, and radar technology our satellites can easily and expediately allocate any possible target in or near the hostile zone. Its a system known as TERRA which is an EOS(earth observing system) system. However, thats just one program that I know of. NASA right now has a lockdown of it. The professionals at lockheed and boeing have been trying to develpoe their own system over the years which they have but the DoD hasnt yet bought into it.
 
FreeMason said:
I never even thought to consider the firing life-span of a Tank's barrel, I'm pretty biased against tanks due to their susceptibility to air-craft, and thus never pay too much attention to them.

However, the Russian's T-90 and developing T-95 look to replace the T-72 in full and the T-95 has a stated armor equivalent of 1000mm of Steel against a Sabo round.

Not to mention the more tried technical marvels such as the Leopard II.

I suppose you meant that the most common enemy tank will be the T-72, since they became the Soviet Union's primary export following after Bullsh|t.

Either way, I've been told most of our doctrine is moving from Tank to Air//Infantry movements, due to the changing nature of warfare from large scale conflicts to multiple regional conflicts.
Click to expand...

Again you are right on. I ma glad to have another person who knows what they are talking about.
 
Yeah...it'd be kind of interesting to see what a full scale war would look like these days, with the level of technology we have achieved.

WW2 they were still basically shooting by eye and had absolutely no ability to relocate promptly, to resupply efficiently, or to evacuate immediately.

Every other war following WW2 were regional conflicts with rules established by politicians, thus, not a great example of unleashed technology.

I am probably crazy with boredom but a war between the US and China (let's throw in Russia, Germany and Japan for good measure because they'll probably need the help...hell, the entire Korean peninsula too,though none except Russia is a plausible ally to China).

It'd be good for America.

It'd help these veggie eating peaceniks to have to go see what a real war is, before they complain about the extremely well done job by our boys in Iraq.

Besides, life's getting really mundane ... This, or go to Mars, or something...someone needs to snap in this world eventually...it probably would be China, but they'd be on the short end of the stick.
 
FreeMason said:
(a CIWS maintenance man once told me a rough estimate of the actual rate of fire but I've forgotten it).
Click to expand...

Close in weapons system right? That sucker is bad. I wasn't gonna mention little things like that with this little debate with the K-girl. There is no way planes and boats could get close to a fleet on alert. The very thought is laughable. Only if the little boats had our high end anti-ship missiles to launch. Which I think is alluded to in the report. The guy that wrote Kelzies link has been playing too many games like you suggest. He admits to playing D&D. Just to let you know. If you think you can out debate Kelzie into admitting she's wrong or changing her mind, give it up. Have I told you the ones about economic liberals or meat eating chimps...
 
I was surprised by the racial aspects of the speach. The chinese are a

superior people than the germans? Coming from a communist this is really

strange.
 
FreeMason said:
And no, you never disagreed, but it seems we both are building off eachother's last statements to keep piling on the info, being no contender happens to challenge us at this moment.
Click to expand...

Arrogant fool. Give me some speedos, swim goggles, fins, and a 2x4" with a nail in it and I'll sink a carrier. For I am teacher, of the colossal brain, commander in chief of the monkey army, master of smack and copy/paste, scourge of the French, herald of Canuck, lord master of all I survey. For your stinking Naval conflict, I have breed monkeys with dolphins. Defend against fish with opposable thumbs. Flee.
 
SKILMATIC said:
I ACTUALLY FOUND THIS ARTICLE VERY INTERESTING. I also kinda found it odd that a Russian based newspaper(the exile) would post such a story. Also van Ripen is a general in the marine corps not a admiral in the navy which kinda makes this war game useless since someone of no afluence in the navy wants to experiment with a navy war game. Also why would someone count this war game even credible since even the Russians think this guy is a total a$$hole and that lives for the chance to make the brass look bad in a war game?
Click to expand...

It was just the first info I found. There are many other articles. The military has a website for it too. The airforce and army were involved as well. The military website lists all the divisions that participated.


SKILMATIC said:
Also this war game was done with the US naval fleet without any air support which is a fallacy in its own cause its all predicated on air support from carrier battle groups. And it was done with 1940's technology with 1940's naval fleet. This war game has no predication on todays naval fleet. First off if a bunch of little fishing boats were maneuvering around our modern big sitting ducks then they would be greeted by each of the ships defenses ranging from 12in guns to 50cal machine guns pointed right at these little fishing boats. Not to mention we have guided missle cruise ships that can level a place the size of Yankee stadium and can deliver a missle the size of MOAB to hit within a meter of homeplate. I am sure a fishing boat that can be seen will be no problem. Also with air support this little war game will be even more tantilising.

Also this war game makes me laugh as it never describes exactly how these little vessels are able to sink these big sitting ducks as they call them. What do these fishing boats have? A bunch of torpedos strapped to it? If so then the general must have known all he needed to do was swarm this boat with machine gun shells and chances are this little fishing vessel wouldnt last very long.

However, maybe I am the only military guy who has common sense?

Or maybe I read the wrong link?
Click to expand...

See above about the lack of air support. I have no idea why they screwed up so bad. But it happened. I'm sure there are other articles that detail how the fishing ships brought down our boats.
 
teacher said:
Close in weapons system right? That sucker is bad. I wasn't gonna mention little things like that with this little debate with the K-girl. There is no way planes and boats could get close to a fleet on alert. The very thought is laughable. Only if the little boats had our high end anti-ship missiles to launch. Which I think is alluded to in the report. The guy that wrote Kelzies link has been playing too many games like you suggest. He admits to playing D&D. Just to let you know. If you think you can out debate Kelzie into admitting she's wrong or changing her mind, give it up. Have I told you the ones about economic liberals or meat eating chimps...
Click to expand...

Holy crap. What is with you people. I was not running the game. I was not the person who ignored the fishing ships. You people can sit there and spout off all the technical superiority we have all day long, but the fact is IN THIS SITUATION, it didn't do jack ****. It's not my fault. I didn't cook the information. There are tons of other websites out there that say the exact same thing as this guy is saying.
 
teacher said:
(mod mode)



Careful. :smash:



(mod mode)


(teacher is not a moderator in real life. He is too smart, good looking, and well groomed for that. Mod mode impersonations are meant for humor purposes only).
Click to expand...

I wasnt implying she was stupid I was implying stupidity is also a bad thing to have along with arrogance.

Arrogant fool. Give me some speedos, swim goggles, fins, and a 2x4" with a nail in it and I'll sink a carrier. For I am teacher, of the colossal brain, commander in chief of the monkey army, master of smack and copy/paste, scourge of the French, herald of Canuck, lord master of all I survey. For your stinking Naval conflict, I have breed monkeys with dolphins. Defend against fish with opposable thumbs. Flee.
Click to expand...

BWHAHAHAHAA!

It was just the first info I found. There are many other articles. The military has a website for it too. The airforce and army were involved as well. The military website lists all the divisions that participated.
Click to expand...

Well I found it very interesting in the aspect of our 5 divisions(aka branches) the only credible branch that should be participating in that war game wasnt even in there which shouldve been the navy. I have also read some other articles about war games peope played and supposedly claimed they beat our military but they were rigged without certain elements in our military. Which is why it is very hard to find foreign war games that were designed specifically to be fair.

See above about the lack of air support. I have no idea why they screwed up so bad. But it happened. I'm sure there are other articles that detail how the fishing ships brought down our boats.
Click to expand...

Well yes but in an actual naval fleet there will be air superioirity which will make this fishing boat tale a hoax. Also the reason why I implied torpedoes is because I read a similar article and thats what these small boats used. However, even then these small boats were neutralized very quickly. Also I would love to have heard the number of these small boats used. I remember we played a similar war game like this and attached them with long range anti-ship missles(that has a range of 500miles) and the small vessle fleet had over 5000 ships based off the coasts of southeast asia. Needless to say our naval fleet was able to stay about 700miles away and decimate the whole fleet before they were even able to get in range.

Holy crap. What is with you people. I was not running the game. I was not the person who ignored the fishing ships. You people can sit there and spout off all the technical superiority we have all day long, but the fact is IN THIS SITUATION, it didn't do jack ****. It's not my fault. I didn't cook the information. There are tons of other websites out there that say the exact same thing as this guy is saying.
Click to expand...

Well in this situation in case you didnt know there was no technical sh!t to help us becasue there simply wasnt any at this time frame. The early 40's was an era of mechanisms not tech. So in actuality this war game doesnt really have any credibility to todays naval fleet. However, it was interesting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom