What's new

The U.S. just sent a carrier strike group to confront China

LOL. So far the US responses for these were no response.


'Israel must be wiped out': Iran launches two missiles with threat written on them in Hebrew as the country ignores criticism of its ballistic weapon tests
  • Ballistic missiles were test-fired in Iran's eastern Alborz mountain range
  • Claims that the words 'Israel must be wiped out' were written on the side
  • Launches took place while US Vice President Joe Biden was visiting Israel
  • See more news from Iran at www.dailymail.co.uk/iran
By Julian Robinson for MailOnline and Associated Press

Published: 21:01 EST, 9 March 2016 | Updated: 04:00 EST, 10 March 2016

3205CD0E00000578-3483465-image-a-71_1457521776887.jpg


32024A2300000578-3483465-image-a-66_1457521747403.jpg


20160309_14575801005604.jpg



North Korea fires short-range missiles a day after showing off nuclear warhead
North Korea fires two short-range ballistic missiles into sea | World news | The Guardian
_88649912_88649907.jpg

20160309_14575791197182.jpg


20160309_14575791189124.jpg


Russian Boomers Set to Conduct Largest Live-Fire Drill in 25 Years
Russian Boomers Set to Conduct Largest Live-Fire Drill in 25 Years | The National Interest Blog

Russia%20sub.jpg

Well, you just have to give credit to these two small counties for being tough nuts to crack.
 
That's true, many Chinese people on line respect their tough will and attitude for standing firm for their stance.

I think Saddam's fate must have given them cold sweat. You either go for nuke or "nude".
 
Gentlemen, please allow me to reiterate what I said previously, freedom of navigation is not an exclusive US's rights.
 
See, you are making the same mistake. China doesn't claim the entire SCS as their territorial waters. If what US wants is not "Innocent Pass" in SCS, what exactly US wants from China, what the fuss is all about?

I have been telling you I do not think there will be even a single shot fired in SCS, why you keep telling me you are willing to fight? There is no point. US would not even engage NK or Iran, why they want to fight with China now?

China is not interested being a police in he world. So your last paragraph is not relevant.

I don't really know what you are thinking, on one hand, you said "China will guarantee US FON in SCS" on the other hand, you said China doesn't claim the entire SCS as their territorial water......You do realise those two don't actually go together. It's never about what US want from China, it's about what you guys are doing, drawing the American back in to Asia. On one hand, you bitched about the American interventionistism, on the other, you did not realise China is the reason why the other country want the US back in.

LOL, the US did not engage in NK and Iran because it did more good to the American to leave it as it is, give me a reason why NK or Iran needed to be engage? It was because NK and Iran which allow the US to station troop in South Korea and Saudi Arabia. So, you are suggesting that US should invade NK and Iran to get rid of the threat to SK and Saudi so they will invite US to leave and stop buying American Weapon??

And finally, that final paragraph is what actually matters, China did not have world-wide reach, which means beside their intermediate area, they would have to rely on US to have their trade route open. So what would you think will happen if China further antagonize US in SCS? US can give you SCS, they can also close off all the choke point around it. It always matters as China have no protection outside their intermediate area. It's that simple.

When you are talking about war, you need to ask yourselves are you ready for it. For people like you, you talk about war as if you are playing Call of Duty. If you are questioning whether or not US have a stomach to go to war with China, you should also ask if China have the stomach to go to war with US? You cannot simply just ask one side and think you get the answer. War fought in both ways, and you do not just go to war because only one side have been thinking about it, while the other not.
 
Last edited:
I don't really know what you are thinking, on one hand, you said "China will guarantee US FON in SCS" on the other hand, you said China doesn't claim the entire SCS as their territorial water......You do realise those two don't actually go together. It's never about what US want from China, it's about what you guys are doing, drawing the American back in to Asia. On one hand, you bitched about the American interventionistism, on the other, you did not realise China is the reason why the other country want the US back in.

LOL, the US did not engage in NK and Iran because it did more good to leave it as it is, give me a reason why NK or Iran needed to be engage? It was because NK and Iran which allow the US to station troop in South Korea and Saudi Arabia. So, you are suggesting that US should invade NK and Iran to get rid of the threat to SK and Saudi so they will invite US to leave and stop buying the American Weapon??

And finally, that final paragraph is what actually matters, China did not have world-wide reach, which means beside their intermediate area, they would have to rely on US to have their trade route open. So what would you think will happen if China further antagonize US in SCS? US can give you SCS, they can also close off all the choke point around it. It always matters as China have no protection outside their intermediate area. It's that simple.

The ”Freedom Of Navigation" in US Navy term is one thing, and it is an entire different thing in common sense. You are confused because your don't know if you should think like a military officer or think with common sense. America's "Pivot to Asia" policy is not the result of China's action in SCS, and its prior to it. You do realize the timeline, don't you?

I am not suggesting US to invade ANY country without UN's mandate. You are not making sense here.

I don't think it is China that is antagonizing US in the SCS. They are not taking new reefs, and they simply want to make their holdings a little defensible. Vietnam has been doing this all these years why US did not say a thing? SCS is not something up to US to give or take. Chinese had been there way before there was even a country called USA. It is illegal to seal the international water way in peace time. As simple as that.

Chinese do not want the war with any country, and they have a quarter century track record to show. I have been saying I do not believe there will be a single shot fired in SCS. It is you who keeps talking about war as if war is the only way you know how to solve the problem.
 
Last edited:
Nice Pictures.

I don't know, If more than Half of Philippines people have a Positive view about China Influence (54%)

Majority People, Especially in Asia, Latin American, Africa, and Eastern Europe have Positive view about China Influence.
and the Trend is Keep Rising today from Several years ago :-)

View attachment 297652
LOL
Vietnam and Japan :D
@Nihonjin1051, so much of hatred towards China. ;)

Is China ready for an 'all out' war against US ?

We do not need to land on mainland China to make the SCS empty of Chinese military presence. If China want a fight, the PLA is useless. This will be navy vs navy. The DF-21D is not going to help. We can sink enough Chinese ships that it will make China abandon those fake islands.
Hahahahahaha.......
I wonder where they get these delusional drugs!
 
The ”Freedom Of Navigation" in US Navy term is one thing, and it is an entire different thing in common sense. You are confused because your don't know if you should think like a military officer or think with common sense. America's "Pivot to Asia" policy is not the result of China's action in SCS, and its prior to it. You do realize the timeline, don't you?

LOL, there are only one term and meaning for Freedom of Navigation. And that is according to UNCLOS. Every nation have the right to enjoy passage to high seas. The FON is created by UN, not US, nor was it US Military (Which does not actually ratified the UNCLOS) to determined.

I did not say US pivot to Asia is started because of SCS, I said China is the root cause why US starting the Pivot.

I am not suggesting US to invade ANY country without UN's mandate. You are not making sense here.

Then do tell what is the word "Engage" means?

How more engage you want the US to be with the North Korean and Iranian? We have talked about it, we have dangled a carrot in front to lure them, we have tried Sanction. Do tell me what you mean by "Engage" if you are nt talking about Military Operation of any sort?

I don't think it is China that is antagonizing US in the SCS. They are not taking new reefs, and they simply want to make their holdings a little defensible. Vietnam has been doing this all these years why US did not say a thing? SCS is not something up to US to give or take. Chinese had been there way before there was even a country called USA. It is illegal to seal the international water way in peace time. As simple as that.

Dude, it's not about peacetime when you "talked" about US to go to war with China. That is the whole point, you are saying US is not prepared for war with China, and there will not be any flash point. I am simply telling you what will US do if US indeed go to war with China, are you prepared to accept these consequence?

US constantly go to war, the question is not whether or not US are prepared for it, the question is, would China have the stomach for it. Or do you expect US to go to war with China and China is still treated like Peacetime?
 
Unfortunately US doesn't have the technology to launch nukes from trains while China and Soviet Union can. China is not living under the mercy of United States.

Technology to launch ICBMs from trains is not an advanced tech. Instead, Rail-mobile missiles are easier to design than road capable missile of same range.

The reason why USA does not prefer Rail-mobile missiles is because its rail network is very limited. USA is a large country, but unlike China ,whose population is concentrated along coasts, its population is spread all over the country. In case of USA, air travel is cheaper than rail because of distances involved.

Apart from that, rail-mobile missiles have 1-D mobility compared to 2-D mobility of road-mobile missiles thus making it easier to track rail-mobile missiles compared to road-mobile missile; and both road and rail mobile missiles have less survivability than Silo missiles. Off course all three missiles fall short of SLBMs who have maximum stealth of any kind of missiles. This is the reason it is unwise to have rail mobile missiles, if you could have road mobile missiles.
 
LOL, there are only one term and meaning for Freedom of Navigation. And that is according to UNCLOS. Every nation have the right to enjoy passage to high seas. The FON is created by UN, not US, nor was it US Military (Which does not actually ratified the UNCLOS) to determined.

I did not say US pivot to Asia is started because of SCS, I said China is the root cause why US starting the Pivot.



Then do tell what is the word "Engage" means?

How more engage you want the US to be with the North Korean and Iranian? We have talked about it, we have dangled a carrot in front to lure them, we have tried Sanction. Do tell me what you mean by "Engage" if you are nt talking about Military Operation of any sort?



Dude, it's not about peacetime when you "talked" about US to go to war with China. That is the whole point, you are saying US is not prepared for war with China, and there will not be any flash point. I am simply telling you what will US do if US indeed go to war with China, are you prepared to accept these consequence?

US constantly go to war, the question is not whether or not US are prepared for it, the question is, would China have the stomach for it. Or do you expect US to go to war with China and China is still treated like Peacetime?

You may want to check what it means in Navy term "FONOP".

I said US would not engage NK or Iran, it simply means US did not want to go to war with. How did you arrive the conclusion that I suggest US to invade NK or Iran? Would you not to put your words in my mouth?

Of course everyone know Pivot to Asian means Pivot to China. With or without SCS issue, US is determined to contain China. What is new? By the way, what do you mean by "what you guys are doing drawing US back to Asia"?

My statement was if US doesn't want to go to war with China, this high profile FONOPS in SCS is meaningless, because you are not going to stop China from building on their islands as it is not against international law. When did I talk about China wants to go to war with US?

I do not think either side is ready to go to war in SCS, nor is there a need. Personal point of view, I do not think "constantly go to war" is something to be proud of.
 
Last edited:
Gentlemen, please allow me to reiterate what I said previously, freedom of navigation is not an exclusive US's rights.
That's right, we will see China exercising this same right more often as her navy continues to grow. To the disappointment of some people's wishes, despite the big eye-catching headline, Stennis CSG did not enter within 12 nautical miles of contested islands.


Stennis Carrier Strike Group Exits South China Sea Days after Arriving | Military.com


stennis-strike-group-600x400.jpg

The John C. Stennis Strike Group synchronizes the capabilities of multiple ships and squadrons to provide coordinated forward presence around the globe. Our forces, up to 10 ships and 70 aircraft, are mission flexible and ready to engage. (US Navy photo)

byline_military_icon.png
Mar 08, 2016 | by Hope Hodge Seck
Days after its much-heralded arrival in the region, the John C. Stennis Carrier Strike Group has passed out of the South China Sea, officials announced on Monday.

The strike group, which includes the USS Stennis, Arleigh-Burke class guided missile destroyers USS Chung-Hoon, USS Stockdale, and USS William P. Lawrence, and Ticonderoga-class guided-missile cruiser USS Mobile Bay, arrived in the South China Sea on March 1.

Its appearance in the region came amid rising tensions over China's decision to deploy HQ-9 surface-to-air missiles to the disputed Woody Island in the Paracel Island chain, a move that numerous U.S. officials have described as militarization of the region against international policy.

Navy officials, however, have maintained that the ships were in the area only for standard operations and that their presence was neither intended as a show of force nor as a formal confrontation of Chinese naval forces.

The Stennis strike group completed routine operations in the South China Sea for five days and then transited into the Philippine Sea through the Luzon Strait, Navy officials said in a news release. During the strike group's transit through the region, it conducted daily flight operations with Carrier Air Wing 9 and completed a replenishment-at-sea, stocking up on supplies and fuel from the fast combat support ship Rainier.

According to the release, ships from the Chinese People's Liberation Army (Navy) remained in the vicinity of the strike group as it transited thought the sea, but bridge-to-bridge communications between the two navies remained professional.

A spokesman for U.S. Pacific Fleet, Lt. Cmdr. Matt Knight, told Military.com he did not believe any ships within the strike group came within 12 nautical miles of contested islands, which would have signaled a formal freedom of navigation operation within territorial seas.

The Navy conducted two "innocent passage" operations within the last six months. Last October, the guided-missile destroyer Lassen passed near the contested Subi reef and other regions within the Spratly islands. And in January, the guided-missile destroyer Curtis Wilbur passed within 12 nautical miles of Triton Island in the Paracels.

The commander of U.S. Pacific Command, Adm. Harry Harris, told lawmakers last month that he supported continued freedom of navigation operations in order to assert U.S. rights and discredit territorial overreach in the region.

Knight said the transit of the Stennis and other ships in the strike group through the South China Sea was not linked to rising tensions in the region.

"This is a routine patrol of a U.S. carrier strike group," he said. "Our ships and aircraft operate routinely throughout the Western Pacific, including the South China Sea, and have for decades. This patrol was conducted in accordance with international law, and the United States will fly, sail, and operate anywhere international law allows."

Knight added that Pacific Fleet ships sailed a total of 700 days in the South China Sea over the course of 2015.

"We do have a fairly continuous presence there," he said. "We've been doing this for decades."

Other ships, including the Ticonderoga-class guided-missile cruiser Antietam and amphibious dock landing ship Ashland, also conducted routine operations within the South China Sea within the last week, according to official Navy releases.
 
Technology to launch ICBMs from trains is not an advanced tech. Instead, Rail-mobile missiles are easier to design than road capable missile of same range.

The reason why USA does not prefer Rail-mobile missiles is because its rail network is very limited. USA is a large country, but unlike China ,whose population is concentrated along coasts, its population is spread all over the country. In case of USA, air travel is cheaper than rail because of distances involved.

Apart from that, rail-mobile missiles have 1-D mobility compared to 2-D mobility of road-mobile missiles thus making it easier to track rail-mobile missiles compared to road-mobile missile; and both road and rail mobile missiles have less survivability than Silo missiles. Off course all three missiles fall short of SLBMs who have maximum stealth of any kind of missiles. This is the reason it is unwise to have rail mobile missiles, if you could have road mobile missiles.
1. Rail-Mobile missile is not advanced tech. But to have Rail-Mobile missiles is not easy because regular railways cannot support launching ballistic missiles. To keep tens of thousands of railways supporting missile launching can cost huge amount of money. There are huge segments of Chinese railways which can support this.

2. United States (222,932 km) still have more railways than China (121,000 km). Just they are out of date and most are used for cargos.

3. Movement of Rail-Mobile missiles have much wider range than Road Mobile missiles. With High Speed Railways, Missiles batteries can be deployed anyway in China within one day while Road Mobile Missiles may take weeks.

In China, superhighways and High speed rails are all prepared for large scale wars comparable to WWIII, not just for business. Many segments of super highways can be used as wartime airfields while there are many segments of High speed rails for mobile missile launching. When China Constructs large scale infrastructures, WW III is always in mind.
 
You may want to check what it means in Navy term "FONOP".

I have checked, but you may want to check the UNCLOS definition of Freedom of navigation

I said US would not engage NK or Iran, it simply means US did not want to go to war with. How did you arrive the conclusion that I suggest US to invade NK or Iran? Would you not to put your words in my mouth?

Then what do you mean by go to war with?

Are there any third party country US can "Go to war with" North Korea? Maybe the US should fight a war with North Korea in China :lol:.

Dude, you do know "go to war with means you want an invasion by either North Korean "invade" the south, or the American "invading" North. Otherwise there are no way to "go to war with" someone without invading a country.

We are not talking about fighting a war in the video game..

Of course everyone know Pivot to Asian means Pivot to China. With or without SCS issue, US is determined to contain China. What is new? By the way, what do you mean by "what you guys are doing drawing US back to Asia"?

What did China do in the past 60 years?

Dispute in Arunachal Pradesh
Dispute in Taiwan
Dispute in South China Seas
Dispute in East China Seas


My statement was if US doesn't want to go to war with China, this high profile FONOPS in SCS is meaningless, because you are not going to stop China from building on their islands as it is not against international law. When did I talk about China wants to go to war with US?

That's funny, if US does not want to go to war with China over the SCS, then whatever they do is "meaningless"?

Did China plan on going to war with anyone then? If not, then would it be also "Meaningless" for China to have a military force? OR if China are not plan on going to war with anyone else, then would it be meaningless too to "militarize" those island?

man, you are funny.

I do not think either side is ready to go to war in SCS, nor is there a need. Personal point of view, I do not think "constantly go to war" is something to be proud of.

Then maybe you should not talk about How US are not willing to go to war with China over SCS then? If you admit China is not ready to go to war themselves.

What US may do or may not do is not in your concern. Would it be anyway shape or form you can control. If you want to talk about war, okay, let's talk about war. If you don't, then you should shut up about which ever side not ready for war.

1. Rail-Mobile missile is not advanced tech. But to have Rail-Mobile missiles is not easy because regular railways cannot support launching ballistic missiles. To keep tens of thousands of railways supporting missile launching can cost huge amount of money. There are huge segments of Chinese railways which can support this.

2. United States (222,932 km) still have more railways than China (121,000 km). Just they are out of date and most are used for cargos.

3. Movement of Rail-Mobile missiles have much wider range than Road Mobile missiles. With High Speed Railways, Missiles batteries can be deployed anyway in China within one day while Road Mobile Missiles may take weeks.

In China, superhighways and High speed rails are all prepared for large scale wars comparable to WWIII, not just for business. Many segments of super highways can be used as wartime airfields while there are many segments of High speed rails for mobile missile launching. When China Constructs large scale infrastructures, WW III is always in mind.

US had the technology to launch ICBM on train, they shelved it because they found out it does not do much (You cannot intercept ICBM Once launch anyway) and the cost

Minuteman Mobility Test Train - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
I have checked, but you may want to check the UNCLOS definition of Freedom of navigation

US had the technology to launch ICBM on train, they shelved it because they found out it does not do much (You cannot intercept ICBM Once launch anyway) and the cost

Minuteman Mobility Test Train - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I didn't say that US didn't have this technology. The US railway is not compatible with this technology. If US wants to deploy missile trains, it needs to modify its railway network compatible for launching ICBM.

The deployment of railway ICBM depends on security and nuclear strategies. On Security strategies, US pursues absolute safety while China pursues mutual destruction. On nuclear strategies, China pursues No First Strike strategy while US doesn't. Railway ICBM fits China security and nuclear strategies while keeping warheads at minimum for destructive second strike. Railway ICBM saves China huge chunk of money in maintaining Nuke warheads compared to US and Russia.
 
Back
Top Bottom