What's new

Syrian Strikes Would Battle-Test Chinese Radars

So this some how proves we are the same 20 years later? I said our military industry didn't exist then and America's did. How is our miscalculating the outcome prove anything in this regard?

You know what the fact that you compare Chinese forces now, second in spending, 5th in exports of weapons, military experiences with countries around the world, and the largest force backed by an economy 2nd to the US to Iraq. I don't know what to tell you man.

Germans thought their tactics were the best, guess what, Nazi is illegal in Germany. Japanese thought they were invincible, crushed by the Russians. Russians thought their weapons were the best, as you said Desert storm happened. Reality is weird that way, nobody is on top forever, since the time of the Greeks and Romans.

You keep saying Chinese can't do this and can't do that due to this and that. But look at our progress, if we were really all that you say, we should have none of these things that we have. You can tell it's not easy to achieve because American allies have not achieved them.

Also this maybe hard for you to hear, US isn't the first superpower and won't be the last.

You guys call us 50 cents, but we don't work as hard as you man. Are you going to use this as a reason why American army is better too.

BTW, why do you keep bring up we never served in the army. Only idiots who can't get into a good college and get a nice job go into the military. Why the hell would I do that, so that I can be like you staring at men all day, no thanks.

Finally if you can find anything recent, that be great. If you look at Chinese military year by year, it changes so much. It's not like the US army where the changes are not that much on a year by year bases. You been on this forum enough you should know how many new equipments the PLA and branches get each year.



Chinese Han dynasty founding emperor lost every engagement to his rival XiangYu. At their last battle, he won decisively, forced XiangYu to commit suicide.

Today we are known as the Han.

Mao only used guerrilla warfare until late 40s. He almost never engaged. Today we are "communist."

You wanna rethink this losing every battle except one and guerrilla warfare dude.

Reality don't lie, Vietnam not a French colony and China not American puppet.
Since I was in, virtually all our equipment is new. They were just adopting the M1, the Bradley, Humvee, Kevlar helmet MRE's, blackhawks, Apache, Patriot, etc when I joined....and all of these have been replaced or upgraded since....you think we stand still?
 
So this some how proves we are the same 20 years later? I said our military industry didn't exist then and America's did. How is our miscalculating the outcome prove anything in this regard?
It proved the PLA leadership was naive and worst of all -- arrogant.

You guys call us 50 cents, but we don't work as hard as you man. Are you going to use this as a reason why American army is better too.
Yes. The old saying applies: The more you sweat in peace, the less you bleed in war.

BTW, why do you keep bring up we never served in the army. Only idiots who can't get into a good college and get a nice job go into the military. Why the hell would I do that, so that I can be like you staring at men all day, no thanks.
Then what are you doing among us lowlifes? :lol:

What you did was the oldest, cheapest, and most pathetic debating tactic any civilian can do in a military oriented debate. You have nothing relevant to contribute. Your arguments shredded. So you try to save face by insulting an entire class of people -- the military.

Finally if you can find anything recent, that be great. If you look at Chinese military year by year, it changes so much. It's not like the US army where the changes are not that much on a year by year bases. You been on this forum enough you should know how many new equipments the PLA and branches get each year.
The PLA can equip itself with all the new hardware it want and it would be of little help against US. The institutional memory of military affairs, from organization to combat, of the US military is the most extensive and intensive in the world.

In every area of human endeavor, there are always points in history where a particular field of endeavor is effectively severed from the past and a new chapter of its history begins. For warfare, it was when the bow and arrow came to be, then gunpowder, the machine gun, the airship, the heavier than air aircraft, the submarine, the aircraft carrier...And the list continues...

No different than when the steam engine came, then coal fired industry, the railroad, the transistor, and so on...

For home life, air conditioning changed how we migrate and settle in one place. The washing machine freed us, meaning women, a major burden of raising a family and greatly assisted the inclusion of women in the workforce.

For mass transit, it was the internal combustion engine that wrote the new chapter and established it as one of mankind's greatest inventions.

For energy, it was nuclear power. Solar have yet to be the equal of nuclear in terms of revolutionizing how we run the world.

For communication, it was the telegraph, wireless transmission, and even the typewriter was revolutionary.

Do you get the picture now? Do you ever study the history of technology at all?

But to get back to warfare, since the beginning of the 20th century, the US military have been either starting a new chapter or majorly contributing to a chapter another country started. Everything from hardware to doctrines. Even the much smaller Japan opened a new chapter in naval warfare starting with the defeat of the Russian Navy. China have contributed nothing.

The PLA's participation in the Vietnam War was, in the entire scheme of history, insignificant. The PLA broke no new grounds in technology or how to use forces. The PLA have little institutional memory of warfare simply because of history. The PLA came to be at the end of WW II while the US military have had a continuous history since the founding of its country back in 1776. The PLA is a pup while the US military is an adult wolf not yet its peak.

Desert Storm showed we can wring your neck with one shake.
 
Chinese weaponry had that chance -- Desert Storm. Was very...aaaahhhh...'effective'. :lol:

The PLA generals and admirals also have a chance to show off their warfighting acumen by predicting that even though the US and allies would win, the casualties for the alliance would be in the tens of thousands, several ships lost because of the Silkworm, and several squadrons' worth of fighters lost due to Soviet/Chinese supplied air defenses.

Everything came true...:lol:
comparing 1990- chinese weapons today would be like comparing USA in 1940s and in 1980s..
chinese only saw real development in 2000s after accumulating russian weapons and doing their own R&D in late 90s and 2000s..
besides that china is less likely to export any advance systems..
lastly USA will 1st take out these sites by its stealth fighters/bombers/cruise missles before doing any attacks making its useless..
but of course you all know that , its just being such a professional you seems to still ignore that china has lept very fastly during 2000s..most analyst thing that before end of next decade china will probably pass USA, as the are spending as much as USA in R&D

bring history is fine but not significant, as their was no china before 90s ..china was neither a super power which is lated to take over USA in absolute numbers in GDP by 2017 nor it had any military sources to digest any material..

if you are talking about history than you might also see how soviet union digested german technology and became a superpower , you should also see how in such a short term the german rose to power
the same goes for USA, its contribution to anything was short of any significance before the worldwar 1...
the rule of thumb is economy , need, man and money..if you get thses you will move forword..
surprisingly all USA intelligence reports accept these facts but professionals ignore it.

lastly we all know that china and USA both will go to any lengths to avoid conflict, so its seems that war between those countries in future is highly unlikley unless there is drastic political change in either country
 
comparing 1990- chinese weapons today would be like comparing USA in 1940s and in 1980s..
chinese only saw real development in 2000s after accumulating russian weapons and doing thrir own R&D in late 90s and 2000s..
besides that china is less likely to export any advance systems..
lastly USA will 1st take out these sites by its stealth fighters/bombers/cruise missles before doing any attacks making its useless..


but ofcourse you all know that , its just being such a professional you seems to still ignore that china has lept very fastly during 2000s..most analyst thing that before end of next decade china will probably pass USA, as the are spending as much as USA in R&D

So you think. There are weapons platforms in black projects that are still unheard of no doubt that are decades ahead of what most foreign military has of right now. China is all imitation not innovation. I mean look at the China uav and looks just like our Predator. Think of something new. Countries freaked out about the stealth helo used in Bin Laden raid and want access to it because nobody heard of it. Some examples.
 
It proved the PLA leadership was naive and worst of all -- arrogant.


Yes. The old saying applies: The more you sweat in peace, the less you bleed in war.


Then what are you doing among us lowlifes? :lol:

What you did was the oldest, cheapest, and most pathetic debating tactic any civilian can do in a military oriented debate. You have nothing relevant to contribute. Your arguments shredded. So you try to save face by insulting an entire class of people -- the military.


The PLA can equip itself with all the new hardware it want and it would be of little help against US. The institutional memory of military affairs, from organization to combat, of the US military is the most extensive and intensive in the world.

In every area of human endeavor, there are always points in history where a particular field of endeavor is effectively severed from the past and a new chapter of its history begins. For warfare, it was when the bow and arrow came to be, then gunpowder, the machine gun, the airship, the heavier than air aircraft, the submarine, the aircraft carrier...And the list continues...

No different than when the steam engine came, then coal fired industry, the railroad, the transistor, and so on...

For home life, air conditioning changed how we migrate and settle in one place. The washing machine freed us, meaning women, a major burden of raising a family and greatly assisted the inclusion of women in the workforce.

For mass transit, it was the internal combustion engine that wrote the new chapter and established it as one of mankind's greatest inventions.

For energy, it was nuclear power. Solar have yet to be the equal of nuclear in terms of revolutionizing how we run the world.

For communication, it was the telegraph, wireless transmission, and even the typewriter was revolutionary.

Do you get the picture now? Do you ever study the history of technology at all?

But to get back to warfare, since the beginning of the 20th century, the US military have been either starting a new chapter or majorly contributing to a chapter another country started. Everything from hardware to doctrines. Even the much smaller Japan opened a new chapter in naval warfare starting with the defeat of the Russian Navy. China have contributed nothing.

The PLA's participation in the Vietnam War was, in the entire scheme of history, insignificant. The PLA broke no new grounds in technology or how to use forces. The PLA have little institutional memory of warfare simply because of history. The PLA came to be at the end of WW II while the US military have had a continuous history since the founding of its country back in 1776. The PLA is a pup while the US military is an adult wolf not yet its peak.

Desert Storm showed we can wring your neck with one shake.

Desert storm, when it happened, the PLA generals wore this
pict566.jpg


All you can say is that they didn't know any better. However, the fact they were wrong would prove the key to massive modernization programs and military size cuts.

During the Napoleonic wars, the Prussians had no army corp structure and were vastly inferior to France, battle of Jena proved that. However a few decades later, the Prussians captured Napoleon the third.

Defeat is not always bad.

This is what we look like now

Soldiers_of_the_Chinese_People%27s_Liberation_Army_-_2011.jpg


obviously America made advances too, but did you go from industry that can barely make bullets, to industry that made us the 5th biggest exporter and have every indication of moving to third.

To say that because Vietnam war and Desert storm proved China was inferior, is not a fair assessment of Chinese military.

Some people have goals as officers and others to pay their college bill, that's fine, but you got to admit, it doesn't pay very well. Most people who have other options usually don't go into it.

And to be fair the reason I said it was not to discredit you, but the fact you keep bring up people not being in the army as if it's something that would discredit them, which isn't true.

Save face, save what face, this is a forum, an internet forum, a place to debate, it matters not at all to me be it personal life or professional life.

when did I say Vietnam showed China can win? Vietnam showed that Chinese military at that point was worthless. a decade of pointless revolution has robbed China of it's strength, not that it had much to begin with.

And Mao's guerrilla warfare is new. His using farmers rather than workers, his tactics of villages surrounding cities, his finishing off enemy forces rather than capturing or holding cities is in direct contrast to western theories. Also why he was pushed aside during parts of his career, and almost died. Before you said he copied, he didn't even read Marxist theories until about 1935ish, so that should tell you his western education.

You only see what you want to see. Just because you don't know doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Desert storm did show US can defeat China, in 1990s quickly and effectively. However, time has changed whether you believe it or not. We may not be equals, but it's also not that far apart anymore.


@Juice

You said it all, US went from helicopters to stealth helicopters. We went from running on 2 feet to helicopters, and approaching stealth. So you tell me who made the bigger leap. You went from largest economy to largest economy, we went from worse than africa to world's second largest.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't know why Gambit and other American men here bragging about Vietnam war, when almost 20 countries rape a small Vietcong country. Compare Vietnam war back then, the Vietcong weapon are old and very backward just like stick stone weapons. Lol who is in control of the country now? There is no Chinese or soviet army inside vietnam to help them fight, maybe few advisory. Vietcong kick the 20 other US allies out of Vietnam amazingly. Look back in the Koreans war, US and South Korean almost lost the war to NK in the '50 and if no allies jump in to help maybe NK has already unify Korea.
 
Bottom line, Americans are pussies. When the going gets tough they either bail and call it a tactical retreat, or resort to weapons of mass destruction, chemical included, the viets jungle monkies loved it.
 
At least it is within your lifetime. But then again, I do not see the Chinese members here let go of the Korean War and that was in your grandfather's time. How much has changed since then? :lol:

You need to get over whatever obsessions you have about China and Chinese.

Please...We are in Afghanistan. We kicked them out of power and installed our own guy. We buried many of them in their own caves. The only thing that saved and continues to save the Taliban are women and children. See if you can take Taiwan.

Well, in Vietnam the Americans had their own man in charge and were killing Vietcongs like flies and what happened in the end ? The Soviets had their own man in charge in Afghanistan and were killing Mujahideens like flies and what happened in the end ? The Taliban remains undefeated after 12 years of war and once you leave Afghanistan your man will be overthrown and the Taliban and their allies will take over again.

Now lets talk about Desert Storm. There are several factors that led to a amazing US victory and most of them comes down to the Iraqi's themselves rather then the Americans. First of all the US military at the time was pumped up by Ronald Reagan to fight the Soviets in the 1980's. That war of course never came and so that army was then unleashed against Iraq.

The Iraqi's just came out of a 8 year war against Iran that has been described as a repeat of WWI. That 8 year war (1980-1988) with Iran involved trench warfare, machine gun positions, no man lands, human wave attacks and the use of chemical weapons. And that's how the Iraqi's fought the Americans minus the chemical weapons. The Iraqi's had set up a layer defence on the southern border of Kuwait with mine fields, barbwire's, trenches, machine gun positions and artillery kill zones. There were 2 problems with this strategy. First he couldn't kept his frontline forces supplied this was already a fact even before the war started. There were units that where starving in their trenches and positions and defected to the otherside in Saudi Arabia even before a single bomb was dropped. And second he couldn't protect them from airstrikes and the USAF carpet bombed them with B-52's. So when the ground war started most of the Iraqi soldiers have already fled their position or came out of their trenches with their hands up, shell shocked and starving. The handful of units that bdid fought where no match to the coalition forces as they where poorly trained and used outdated and downgraded equipment that was 2 to 3 generations behind that of the coalition forces. This poor military planning comes from the fact that Saddam Hussein who has no military background of any kind was insisting to take total charge of the war effort just like at the beginning of the Iran-Iraq war. His meddling in military matters was perhabs the single biggest issue that was crippeling the Iraqi's war effort. And and top of that after the Iran Iraq war ended he had many of the competent officers and commanders removed or executed out of fear that their popularity amongst the troops and the population may become a threat to his rule. And in early 1989 there was talk about a possible coup by members of the air force and he had many of its commanders and officers arrested or executed. The Iraqi air force in the 2 years leading up to the Gulf War has barely flown and when they do they only fly in 2 by 2 formation never in large formations and they weren't allowed to have any contacts with the air defense units on the ground. In Iraq the air defense units and the air force were 2 seperate organizations. The Iraqi air force got beaten up badly in the first few nights and that's not a surprising fact if you know how poorly trained they are and that most of their planes where Soviet downgraded export only monkey models. So instead of fighting the coalition they fled to Iran. The highly integrated air defense system of the Iraqi's where created by French and Swedish companies. As they where a part of the coalition they gave details of the weakenesses of their systems that enable the coalition to easily defeat it.

You keep going on about the 1991 Gulf War but do not talk about America's military record since then which is far less impressive. In Yugoslavia 1999 after 78 days of bombing the US and its NATO allies couldn't suppress the Yugoslav air defense system despite the Yugoslav's lack of modern equipment and had virtually no air force to speak of. And after 78 day of bombing in the Kosovo area itself the USAF only managed to destroy 12 tanks. The war in Afghanistan since 2001 has now dragged on for 12 years and still the US is unable to defeat the Taliban. In Iraq after the 2003 invasion the US couldn't pacify that country despite fighting a 8 year war for about a trillion dollars. In 2011 it took the US and its allies 6 months to defeat the decrepit forces of Moammar Khaddafi in Libya.

The Chinese and Russian militaries and their commentators maybe wrong about the 1991 Gulf War but they were spot on when they said that America will end up in a quagmire in their wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan. While the US military and its political leaders together with the media and a majority of its people where suffering from uncontrolled primature ejeculation from their "victories".

Yes, in 1991 the US did amazingly well and the Iraqi's have made terrible mistakes but the world watched and has learned from both. So future battles won't be won so easily by the Americans.

And the price from the 1991 Gulf War is pretty high for the Americans too as about 300000 Gulf War veterans suffers from the Gulf War Syndrome that's probably caused either by depleted uranium or by exposure from low levels of biological agents. But eitherway those people cannot be curred and are still suffering today.

As for a war against China by the US. That's very unlikely because thats not the sort of war that the US fights. The Americans only fight against nations that don't have a real air force, navy, don't have any space capabilities and nevermind nuclear weapons. If the US doesn't even dare to fight Iran and North Korea head on what makes you think that the US will go to war against China ?

Its true that at this point the US has the best equipped and trained military on the planet but can the US afford to keep this military machine going for long as its ponzi scheme economy collapses at home ? I think not.
 
Please...We are in Afghanistan. We kicked them out of power and installed our own guy. We buried many of them in their own caves. The only thing that saved and continues to save the Taliban are women and children. See if you can take Taiwan.

buried??? :what: sir u r retired pilot am i right? thats y u dont know or may be your are avoiding truth due to patriotism ... it is the US who was taking about peace with taliban not the talibans ... who buried whom world KNOWS
 
Bottom line, Americans are pussies. When the going gets tough they either bail and call it a tactical retreat, or resort to weapons of mass destruction, chemical included, the viets jungle monkies loved it.
Yeah...Like how the PLA troopers remained behind the front lines in Viet Nam? Mao refused to commit troops when the NVA asked for it. When that going was got tough, the Chinese either stayed home or remained behind the front lines.
 
buried??? :what: sir u r retired pilot am i right? thats y u dont know or may be your are avoiding truth due to patriotism ... it is the US who was taking about peace with taliban not the talibans ... who buried whom world KNOWS

Gambit not a retired pilot or any General? he just a janitor for US jetliner, he rubbed and clean the Jet cabin too much all day long. Sometime sneak to the pilot room for some nap and now he become the Pilot amazing right.
 
what i said that gambit just speaks of history but then ignores it himself..
USA did similar jump in early 20th century, to become nothing country to world power

do you know what was situation of chinese economy and in 80s..there wasnt even a stock exchange in early 80s!!!!!!
now where do you think that 150 billion dollars plus budget is going when they dont have yet the huge operating cost that USA has of maintaining so much equipment
 
Desert storm, when it happened, the PLA generals wore this
pict566.jpg


This is what we look like now

Soldiers_of_the_Chinese_People%27s_Liberation_Army_-_2011.jpg
Fine...So you look like US. Any body can don body armor, have a sh1tload of 'tactical' gear, and drive around in Hummer clones.

But the point that you and the rest of the Chinese members here consistently avoid is -- institutional memory.

Institutional memory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Institutional memory is a collective set of facts, concepts, experiences and know-how held by a group of people. As it transcends the individual, it requires the ongoing transmission of these memories between members of this group. Elements of institutional memory may be found in corporations, professional groups, government bodies, religious groups, academic collaborations and by extension in entire cultures.

Institutional memory may be encouraged to preserve an ideology or way of work in such a group. Conversely, institutional memory may be ingrained to the point that it becomes hard to challenge if something is found to contradict that which was previously thought to have been correct. Institutional memory may have influence on organizational identity, choice of individuals, and actions of the individuals interacting with the institution.
The PLA have only a 50-60 yrs library of its own unique collection while the US have its own since 1776. When it comes to warfare in all of its entirety, from people to doctrines to technology, China's institutional memory regarding warfare ended at the same time the Americans revolted against the British. China was carved up into colonial pieces by superior military might from other countries and pretty much ruled that way until the end of WW II. The emergence of a new Chinese military effectively did a 'reset' on that history but essentially the PLA have no philosophical foundation for its doctrines. It had to import it from the Soviets. The major conflicts the PLA was involved in: Korea, Viet Nam, and then Viet Nam again, the PLA broke no new grounds in terms of doctrines and technology. New grounds mean something that gave pause to theorists, from civilian to military, as to how a military managed to gain a superior position over its adversary and compelled potential adversaries to reconsider their positions and relationships to this military.

Nazi Germany's blitzkrieg is an example. But the Confederacy's use of the submarine against the Union ships back in the American Civil War is not such an example, despite the fact that it was very much the first use of the submarine in a war. The reason is that the sub's use was limited and did not produce any tactical advantageous positions for the Confederacy in that conflict. Whereas with blitzkrieg, while itself is not a new concept, the Werhmacht's ability to use it effectively to conquer vast stretches of Europe wrote a new chapter in the evolution of high speed and high response 'maneuver warfare' when it comes to blending people, technology, and situations at the operational level, the strata that is most responsible for influencing an outcome of a war.

Go back even further, take a man (intelligence), a horse (mobility), and a bow and arrows (portability), and what would you have for an army? The philosophical question here is this: A dead combatant versus a severely wounded combatant, any different effect to the outcome of a battle (not a war)? Answer: No. The odds of being so disabled by a single arrow is good enough that a combatant's ability to continue the fight, regardless of how the movies may portray the heroes, is so diminished that he might as well be dead from a spear or a sword stab. Combine the man, the horse, and the bow and arrow, force all elements (combatants) into a cohesive and obedient organization and you just effectively hit the 'reset' button on warfare and that chapter remained the leading edge of warfare for centuries.

Since its founding, the PLA have contributed nothing so radical, nothing revolutionary or even evolutionary, to the history of warfare. Nothing in terms of doctrines and technology. And with Desert Storm, it was intellectually forced to abandon everything it knew about warfare.

The old saying goes: Appearances can be deceiving.

But the problem for the PLA here is that in order to deceive, one must have an already established intellectual foundation and capability to do the opposite of what one is portraying to observers, and the PLA have no such intellectual foundation and capability to deceive anyone of otherwise. It can only threaten and only those who are physically inferior can be cowed by such threats.

Do not confuse restraints by US with fear from US. The PLA can look as scary and threatening as it can, but we started the new chapter in the history book of warfare and we are writing into it, from individual soldiers equipment to tank maneuvers to 'stealth' to EW to aircraft carriers organization and many more, faster than the PLA can copy out. Some of the things that we wrote, many countries in the world will never achieve.

Some people have goals as officers and others to pay their college bill, that's fine, but you got to admit, it doesn't pay very well. Most people who have other options usually don't go into it.

And to be fair the reason I said it was not to discredit you,...
Please...:lol:...We will revisit your own words insulting the entire military establishment...

Only idiots who can't get into a good college and get a nice job go into the military. Why the hell would I do that, so that I can be like you staring at men all day, no thanks.
The fallacy here is that immediate presumption that a good college and a good job goes hand-in-hand, as in being an inevitable pair or an inevitable consequence, and that those who joined the military are essentially -- idiots.

If I am an employer, this is what I see:

- A 20 yr old Chinese man, most likely the only child and therefore a spoiled brat to boot, is mooching off ma and pa for his college education. Most likely the only job he have is part time to pay for his cell phone bill and a few restaurant outings with friends where everyone is meticulous on how much his/her share of the tabs. Other than that, he have no real responsibilities. He probably does not own a car.

- A 20 yr old American man enlisted in the USAF for two years. Out of that two years, eight months spent on basic military and some technical training. The rest he spent as a crew chief on a 40 mil$ F-15E where he went from 'ACC' for assistant crew chief to finally have his named painted as 'CC'. His signature says 'Yea' or 'Nay' on whether the aircraft can fly for the day and essentially, can theoretically send a man to his death. He can remove a higher ranked enlisted person off what he believes to be 'his' jet if he does not have confidence in that person to work on 'his' jet. He most likely will have a car. Or he may have something more daring like a sports motorcycle. Or if he is frugal enough, even both. They will probably will be used, but at least he is independent.

Most likely the American air force guy will take longer to complete his college degree since his military duties will take higher priority, from daily tasks that will force him to miss a few classes to even overseas deployments. But by the time he finally got his college degree, say two years later than the Chinese spoiled brat, he will have six years of high stress, increasing responsibilities, and diverse workplace experience to accompany his college degree. And since the USAF paid for his college, he is also not burdened with education related debts.

From an employer's perspective, who do you think is going to be perceived as the more responsible and intelligent?

If I was a chick, say a Chinese gal seeking a better life with more than just one child in the family, the Yank does look pretty good. :lol:

...but the fact you keep bring up people not being in the army as if it's something that would discredit them, which isn't true.
Of course it does...If the fool persists on making baseless assertions and insulting those who do have experience and tried to teach him something.

Save face, save what face, this is a forum, an internet forum, a place to debate, it matters not at all to me be it personal life or professional life.
Sure it does. Whenever a debate is engaged, a considerable intellectual and emotional investments are in play. I would not enter a debate with Stephen Hawkings (physics) or Thomas Sowell (economics) or even the local anonymous civil engineer maintaining the traffic lights. Would you be that foolish, even when there are so much electronic walls between them and you, hiding your face, leaving only the contents of your arguments to see? If you say no, then your electronic face is already valuable to you. You have imbued it with as much of your own character as possible, from personality to intellect to knowledge.

This is a military oriented forum. The discussions involved often have high technical contexts, not to say of things that are unique to military life. The length of your existence in this electronic world is entirely up to you but as long as you exists, whatever persona you created is just as valuable here as your real life is outside the Internet.

You tried to save your face by insulting an entire class of people -- the military -- when you found your arguments in shambles in the absence of relevant experience.

And Mao's guerrilla warfare is new. His using farmers rather than workers, his tactics of villages surrounding cities, his finishing off enemy forces rather than capturing or holding cities is in direct contrast to western theories. Also why he was pushed aside during parts of his career, and almost died. Before you said he copied, he didn't even read Marxist theories until about 1935ish, so that should tell you his western education.
Bullsh1t.

Guerrilla warfare is nothing new, not even what Mao relabeled as "The People's War". Many of the occupied European countries did it back in WW II. But if we should be generous to Mao, the only 'new' thing he may have espoused, not necessarily technically fleshed out, is that unlike discrete independent guerrilla units of old, the Chinese version should be coordinative in their tactics and methodical as to create favorable consequences for other units. We have yet to see it in action and most likely never will.

Desert storm did show US can defeat China, in 1990s quickly and effectively. However, time has changed whether you believe it or not. We may not be equals, but it's also not that far apart anymore.
Yes, you still are. If this is a race, we are 10 laps ahead with only one lap to go. But since this is not a race but the inexorable progress of life, particularly the military life, we are more like 30 yrs ahead of the PLA in terms of everything.
 
A radar is a radar. It is of no threat unless you have something to shoot down the enemy with. If Syria does not have SAMs and fighter aircraft in the air, then what can the radar do? It can only show where the enemy aircraft is and that's it.

I believe the SAM sites would be targeted by cruise missiles, so even if the missile is shot down, no loss of life occurs. Cruise missiles are way cheaper and expendable.

France would obviously be willing to do some SEAD and A2G missions to show off their Rafale.
 
Syria does have SAMs the Long range S-300
 

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom