What's new

PLA would lose 40% of its fleet to sink a US carrier

Status
Not open for further replies.
. .
this is very much on topic, as the thread is about a none existence event and a wet dream, which are by the way the indian speciality.

you know to a wimp or aka Indian throwing a stone at someone's back can be very 'honorable' and 'significant'.. but to the stronger ones killing and capturing ten thousands of inferior chickens we did not even mention it, but in some dusted books and journals lol

What you expect from a stupid coward?

Whatever start a thread if you want to discuss about it .

Now return back to topic ...... :lol: ....... PLA would lose 40% of it's fleet to sink a US carrier
 
.
We will sink all those US carriers dare they enter China territory. No one could win the war with China within 1500 KM from our coastal line.
 
.
Whatever start a thread if you want to discuss about it .

Now return back to topic ...... :lol: ....... PLA would lose 40% of it's fleet to sink a US carrier

it is a hypothethis, not even close to a touch of reality, whats left to discuss? the meaning of post such thread by the OP cannot be more explicit to troll :D
 
.
it is a hypothethis, not even close to a touch of reality, whats left to discuss? the meaning of post such thread by the OP cannot be more explicit to troll :D

The news is not created by the OP but by a Russian Analysts .

If you think the Russian analysts is trolling china , you can take the query to him .... :P
 
.
stupid question.



oh, poor stupid and dirty boy! what you described is the exact same as what happened during the Korean War. We did it.

Learn history. low caste moron.

And how many aircraft carriers did the US use in that war, you idiot, nonsensical Chinese brat?
 
.
The news is not created by the OP but by a Russian Analysts .

If you think the Russian analysts is trolling china , you can take the query to him .... :P

'A Russian analysts' how well authentic !! maybe Indians should not only buying all sorts of weapons from Russia, and also now the 'Russian Analysts'! based on which your grand strategies in dealing with China should be drawn upon``

do I have to complain to the Russians ? I guess not, its their right to be hypothetical about anything. but is it worth to discuss? lol, maybe to cheerleading Indians, you may fetch some org@m from it for your dry life``:D
 
.
Don't get mad kid, India can't produce a decent rifle until now. You know how PLA treat those captured Indian soldiers back 1962, we remove the bolt and returned the rifle to them. We know you guys can't produce rifle, even it is so after 50 years. You are too stupid to be China's enemy.

INSAS is better one for Indian Standards If any Doubts stand infront of a INSAS
 
.
We will sink all those US carriers dare they enter China territory. No one could win the war with China within 1500 KM from our coastal line.

China Coastal Line ..Does China Have Coastal Lines ..!! :

Even Chinese give big lose to defeat INS Vikky ..

Chinese are mad here they always thinking about Ship and It's size but missed it's Air Arm
 
.
@gambit - one more question on the same topic - I am reading that US defense forces are making strategic changes since the news about DF21D came about (though you spoke about the SM3 missile defense as part of the Aegis system as the primary defense for DF21D which was already in place before the news came out) - do you have an idea about it?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
@gambit - one more question on the same topic - I am reading that US defense forces are making strategic changes since the news about DF21D came about (though you spoke about the SM3 missile defense as part of the Aegis system as the primary defense for DF21D which was already in place before the news came out) - do you have an idea about it?
Those changes you read about are mainly theoretical and have yet to translate into clear operational policies, as in how close can a US fleet get without incurring increased tactical threat from the DF-21D. So just because there are still many unknowns about it, that does not mean we should be negligent, at least on paper, about the consequences should those unknowns are confirmed.

For example...What if the Chinese consistently fail to hit a moving ship in open water testing of the DF-21D despite its 'operational and deployed' status? What kind of operational policies can the USN derived from that? Do we still exercise extreme caution and not enter the region? Or do we continue to develop better defenses and retains our current operational policies to protect our allies and interests in Asia?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
No country can take on US militarily for at least next 30 years.
 
.
Come on, in America is not less mess.
Recently read that they hung bomb with nuclear warheads instead of the maquette and the aircraft flew for several hours over America and then found out that there was a bomb.
More recently fired one of the top commanders of the SNF for gambling.
A more recent inspection personnel of silo based missiles revealed gross incompetence.
It's just that I remember I heard about American nuclear forces for recently times.
That is funny speaking of gross incompetence.

After the Soviet empire fell apart, from incompetence at that, the former Soviet satellite states were barely surviving from lack of support. They called US and asked if we wanted to go shopping from among the many Soviet bases on their soil. Possession is 9/10th of the law. We got whole tanks, aircrafts, and even ICBMs. We also found that when the Soviets were in charge of nuclear fissionable materials on those bases, they were not under security protocols like how it is expected of a nuclear power. We found labs that stored chunks of enriched uranium in simple cabinets with only padlocks and not in safes. Nuclear weapons guarded by undertrained, overweight, and often hungover guards.

The possibilities of these things got on the underground market was so great that the US passed laws authorizing wholesale purchase. Like this one...

50 USC § 2364 - Purchase of low-enriched uranium derived from Russian highly enriched uranium | Title 50 - War and National Defense | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute
Congress urges the Secretary of State to encourage, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy, other countries to purchase low-enriched uranium that is derived from highly enriched uranium extracted from Russian nuclear weapons.
...Or this one...

42 U.S.C. § 2297c to 2297c-7 : US Code - Section 2297C TO 2297C-7: Repealed.
Section 2297c-7, act Aug. 1, 1946, ch. 724, title II, Sec. 1408, as added Pub. L. 102-486, title IX, Sec. 901, Oct. 24, 1992, 106 Stat. 2937, related to purchase of highly enriched uranium from former Soviet Union.
You want to talk about incompetence and embarrassment? Look at your own before going to US.

Indeed. Decades after the Korean war, US supported a military dictatorship in South Korea which ensured the success of its economy.
And what an economy it turned out to be compared to the sh1thole that is North Korea under support from China. South Koreans go to the North as tourists while North Koreans risked their lives to gain entry to the South as refugees.
 
. .
Status
Not open for further replies.

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom