Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

China’s Army posts “Preparing for war!”

Options
1910121415

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 4,177 ✭✭✭Fandymo


    Back away peacefully, then pump money into the opposition, possibly assassinate the party leader who wanted back into China and install a puppet leader.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    The fact remains that the US were supporting Ukraine before February 24th with financial and training assistance, which can be verified. That directly contradicts your statement that there was no western intervention(you subsequently decided in reply to use the term direct intervention and it is true that they did not directly engage militarily)

    I originally said intervention, assuming (incorrectly it seems) that posters would be aware that it meant direct intervention, the same way that the US would intervene in the case of Taiwan. You chose to talk about military financial support to Ukraine before the conflict..

    You're oversimplifying the manner in which China improved economically, considering the markets that Asia provided to them, as did Europe. Yes, American foreign policy shifted on economic terms, but their military/diplomatic position of containment regarding Chins has never shifted, and that bears direct consequences on the overall region. (As evidenced by American military bases or funding within most Asian nations surrounding China).

    Come on. "They" is used as a simplification for easy use of discussions. As for the rest, I notice that you're not terribly concerned with the differences between different Chinese administrations, as Xi was very different to Hu Jintao or Jiang Zemin.. instead it's "China" and they're all counted as responsible even to the point of references to Mao's policies complimenting modern China as if nothing has changed.

    And I never said that certain administrations were all of the discussion. You introduced the angle of different administrations representing different angles/policies of American influence.. but as I said before, American foreign policy has a template which has been mostly been followed regardless of what administration is involved. Some aspects were shifted, such as the economic support of China in the hopes of encouraging closer relations, but at the same time, US fleets continued to make tours of the region, and American military personnel (and hardware) continued to be rotated in/out of Asia.

    For an easy time of it, we can use they for China or the US, because few of us want to go into the detail of assigning this and that to particular administrations.. especially when in both cases, foreign policy has remained largely the same for decades.



  • Registered Users Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    Japan’s defence ministry said five missiles launched by China during its drills near Taiwan had fallen into Japan’s exclusive economic zone, which extends 200 nautical miles – or 370km – from Japan’s coast. Tokyo has protested to Beijing.

    This whole petulant exercise doesn't seem to be all that well thought out. Winding up one neighbour is bad enough!



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,381 ✭✭✭Yurt2


    Beijing would do well to remember that Japan has a mutual defence treaty with the US who backstop their security.

    If the so much as hit a Japanese fishing vessel we have entered a new world.

    Yet we'll have f*cktards here and elsewhere honking like geese about tension raising and gameplaying from the US with the PRC firing their sh*tty missiles all over the shop.



  • Registered Users Posts: 273 ✭✭Labaik


    Wow. A drop in the ocean compared to the U.S regime changing coup loving democracy bombing utopia.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 273 ✭✭Labaik


    Its a shame the U.S isn't consistent in what countries sovereignty it wants to protect. They support and arm Israel who are just as bad as Russia or China. They also support the Saudi's. The most despotic regime on the face of the earth. If your going to go act like the World police surely you cannot pick and choose what nations you wish to protect.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Have we casualty estimates yet on China's war on fish and other marine life?



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,381 ✭✭✭Yurt2


    Who gives a f*ck. All people want now is Russian troops in body bags stacked on trucks heading back towards the border.

    Israel and Saudis have their rap sheets but enjoy an esteem in the world community that Russia will never enjoy for a generation or more.

    Russia is a leper nation only supported by political cranks and losers.



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,381 ✭✭✭Yurt2


    If they were aiming for tuna they'd miss anyway.

    Their much vaunted hypersonic megaweapon missed it's target by hundreds of kilometres the last time it was tested.

    The real reason tankies hate the American "military Industrial complex" is that it actually produces gear that works and hits targets. Unlike the poundshop crap from autocrat countries.

    Post edited by Yurt2 on


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,116 ✭✭✭archer22


    Pelosi is a total hypocrite, a quick internet search shows she is a supporter of Israeli policies in the Palestinian territories including settlement building.

    She has also issued statements condemning the BDS movement. So she's no big fan of people who make moral decisions on where to spend their money either.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 81,979 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    a quick internet search shows she is a supporter of Israeli policies in the Palestinian territories including settlement building.

    How quick?



  • Registered Users Posts: 12,258 ✭✭✭✭TheValeyard


    I think we can agree that Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Israel are at the top of the list for extraordinary d1ckheadedness behaviour and generally acting the cnut. But just because one country is acting the prick, it doesnt excuse other countries getting away with it nor does it become some sort of 'gotcha' comment if another country with a questionable past is helping stop the bully boy club.

    Quite simply. China has no business or legitimate claim over Taiwan anymore. That ship has long sailed away. And regardless of americas past horrors (and there have been quite a few) America is in the right here when it comes to Ukraine and China.

    A day of reckoning will have to come at some stage for Saudi Arabia, Iran and Israel, but at the moment, I think we can all agree that the actions of Russia and China are entirely unjustified and weirdly, America is correct here.

    Fcuk Putin. Glory to Ukraine!



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,170 ✭✭✭MFPM


    It's customary to provide evidence when making statements like you have here...



  • Registered Users Posts: 601 ✭✭✭WJL


    The Chinese..are they really a grand bunch of lads..



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,170 ✭✭✭MFPM


    I suppose because the US have continually ignored the decisions of the democratic will of people in numerous countries, they accept the democratic will of the people when it suits their interests thus it's relevant to point out that hypocrisy.



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,381 ✭✭✭Yurt2


    Oh look "the cavalry" has arrived.

    And by cavalry, someone totally hasn't switched accounts.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,116 ✭✭✭archer22


    Ok she did in 2017 vote against a house resolution that would condemn "UN security council resolution 2334" which called Israeli settlement building a violation of international law.

    But she has expressed

    Ironclad support for Israel.

    supported their 2014 slaughter in Gaza.

    And strongly condemned the BDS movement.

    The 3 above alone makes her very much a hypocrite.



  • Registered Users Posts: 10,019 ✭✭✭✭AbusesToilets


    Hypersonic missiles just continually strike me as utterly pointless weapons in the majority of situations. They might have their use case in instances of counterterrorism strikes where time is a critical factor. I don't see their real value in any period of peer level conflicts, even if they're nuclear armed. Every nuclear power has second strike capability, in which case it doesn't really matter if you attack first, you're still going to guarantee your own obliteration



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,910 ✭✭✭Gusser09


    I'd imagine the Russians are watching China with great interest.



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 22,518 CMod ✭✭✭✭Ten of Swords


    @Labaik do not post in this thread again



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,208 ✭✭✭thomil


    There's actually method to that madness, and that's to reduce the time that air defence has to react, especially when it comes to naval warfare. Most anti-ship missiles currently in use, like Exocet or Harpoon fly at high subsonic speeds, while staying close to the surface, in order to reduce the time that a target ship has to launch their own surface to air missiles, engage with their CIWS weapons (Phalanx, Goalkeeper, RIM-121, etc.) or launch countermeasures. Against subsonic missiles, these systems are relatively effective. They do however struggle against supersonic missiles like the Russians introduced in the 1990s. A hypersonic sea-skimming missile would be able to cross the 50 or so kilometres where the ship's air search radar can detect even low-flying targets in no time, giving the target ship no chance to defend itself.

    There are of course ways to defeat these weapons, but you'll need long range radar or AEW aircraft like the E-2D Hawkeye or the E-8 Wedgetail to even have a chance of detecting these missiles far enough ahead of time to bring surface to air missile to bear against them.

    Good luck trying to figure me out. I haven't managed that myself yet!



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,374 ✭✭✭SortingYouOut


    Crazy the last few months how many potentially earth shattering decisions that impact all of us have been made by such a small number of people. Then we're all ranting about China this and Russia that, or the US etc...

    Would sicken your hole as the majority of the people in these countries are just trying to live a life.

    Entertaining though being able to class them all as sides.

    Beverly Hills, California



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Japan could likely demolish China's military all by itself. It doesn't need American support considering the state of the Japanese navy, and airforce. Beijing would be utterly retarded to go to war with them, especially now that their newest government is far more supportive of Japan going openly militant again.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,570 ✭✭✭snotboogie


    I would say Chinese backed North Korea are far more despotic than Saudi Arabia.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Someone refresh my memory, has dictator xi an important conference coming up this Autumn/Winter sometime, when he tries to extend his reign?

    Perhaps Pelosi's motive, or part of it, is to embarrass him before than in the hope it emboldens a more reasonable or acceptable challenger.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    I wouldn't.

    Saudi Arabia affect far more people and nations than N.Korea stuck in their hole. Also far more foreigners end up living in SA than in N.Korea..

    N.Korea are of very limited concern. Saudi Arabia have their fingers in many pies.



  • Registered Users Posts: 10,019 ✭✭✭✭AbusesToilets


    What you're staying is correct, but the issue with these missiles is that they are produced in incredibly low numbers, and incredibly high cost. Which means any Nation isn't going to have a huge number with which to dedicate against any critical infrastructure, which is needed if you're going to actually knock something out. For example they're not going to knock out Guam's air base with one hypersonic missile with a conventional warhead, they're going to need multiples of it. Anything that could be accomplished by using such a missile in such a fashion, can likely be done better more cheaply with conventional cruise missiles.

    They're not a war-winning weapon, and would likely precipitate a massive retaliation. They're weapons of opportunity, whose most likely value for the Chinese would be in trying to target a carrier.



  • Registered Users Posts: 22,275 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    I cant believe this topic isnt even a trending post on boards.ie



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,570 ✭✭✭snotboogie


    I think you need to look up the definition of despot



  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Why?

    The Saudi royal family have complete power along with the wealth to reinforce their position.

    So perhaps you should write more than a single sentence, if you want to be clear on your pov.. for the the rest of us, that is. In any case, your own sentence/phrasing categorised both nations as being despotic so you opened that door first.



Advertisement