China and US at it again

[bush_cheney2004]

China has a long way to go if it wants to match U.S. and allied power in the region. This story from 2010 bears repeating:

How America used 3 stealth subs to show China who's still the boss of the Pacific

The appearance of the USS Michigan in Pusan, South Korea, the USS Ohio in Subic Bay, in The Philippines and the USS Florida in the strategic Indian Ocean outpost of Diego Garcia not only reflects the trend of escalating submarine activity in East Asia, but carries another threat as well. …

Between them, the three submarines can carry 462 Tomahawks, boosting by an estimated 60 percent — plus the potential Tomahawk strike force of the entire Japanese-based Seventh Fleet — the core projection of U.S. military power in East Asia. …

http://theweek.com/articles/578815/how-america-used-3-stealth-subs-show-china-whos-still-boss-pacific

[xul]

No, I mean the entire South China Sea, Chinese "fighter jets" pose little threat to the USN's sub force, inversely, said runways and aircraft carrier(s) are very much vulnerable to said sub force.

The US has no need to start a war with the Chinese, as the Chinese are quick to back down when confronted with the slightest show of force. Unlike Putin's Russia, the Chinese have little leverage to bring to a political poker game.

You make that sound like a bad thing...........the use of the USN's Pacific submarine force proved vital in defeating that last Asian power intent on Empire building, a Empire defended by the use of tiny islands.

That's exactly it, the game was played by the Americans, and then, the Chinese backed down. How long will the current Chinese Government and military leaders survive with a continual loss of face?

The Chinese today don't have the capabilities of the Allies during the Second World War in countering a modern submarine threat. And no, a surface fleet today can survive when pitted against land based aircraft and ASM....

When was the last time the Chinese have won a war?

If you trully believe what you said here, why just call Obama and advise him to use these subs?

[bush_cheney2004]

If you trully believe what you said here, why just call Obama and advise him to use these subs?

Obama is already using "these subs". In China's own backyard, the U.S. is still the boss.

[xul]

The subs of WW2 were actually surface ships that could operate submerged for a few hours at a time. They had a maximum speed of less than 10 knots under water and the faster they went the shorter their endurance. They also had to see their target to attack it. Today's subs do not. Today's nuclear subs are true underwater craft that only need to surface when they run out of food and are as fast under water as most surface ships. Even faster in rough weather.

That's ture, but the technology for detecting subs is also more advanced than ww2.

The disadvantage of a sub, nuclear or not, is that its communication resorts are limited. When a sub submerged into water, all radio communication resorts are blocked except long wave radio transmitter. But the transmitting rate of long wave radio is very low, a sub only can receive a few words per minutes. A towed array sonar does give a sub the resort to detect other subs and ship from very long distance, but it so do for surface warships if the array sonar is equipped. Not like radar, a sonar system isn't always reliable. It depends on the condition of the sea and the terrain of the seabed.

Edited October 31, 2015 by xul

[bush_cheney2004]

...The disadvantage of a sub, nuclear or not, is that its communication resorts are limited. When a sub submerged into water, all radio communication resorts are blocked except long wave radio transmitter.

U.S. submarines also have communications methods that do not rely on RF (radio) communications....while submerged. China will copy this someday, as usual.

[xul]

Obama is already using "these subs". In China's own backyard, the U.S. is still the boss.

There are rabbits eating flowers in my backyard everyday. Such activity doesn't make them my boss.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkfnZVwXcLw

[xul]

U.S. submarines also have communications methods that do not rely on RF (radio) communications....while submerged. China will copy this someday, as usual.

I said: not with the rate which a surface ship has

You can browse internet on a ship or on an aeroplane, but in a sub, no way.

Edited October 31, 2015 by xul

[xul]

China will copy this someday, as usual.

I read from some Chinese military fans websites, that each year Chinese fishing boats fish out a lot of USN spying sonar devices from the seabed of Chinese EEZ， which US warships and subs accidentally dropped into sea when they used their version of freedom of navigation across Chinese EEZ.

Edited October 31, 2015 by xul

[Derek 2.0]

If you trully believe what you said here, why just call Obama and advise him to use these subs?

As mentioned above, Obama need not advice on the usage of the USN's submarine force.

[Derek 2.0]

That's ture, but the technology for detecting subs is also more advanced than ww2.

That is very true, but the Chinese don't have said technology, with them being reliant on namely purchased/copied Russian technology (and doctrine) from the 70s and 80s, which at the time, said Soviet technology wasn't a vast improvement over what the Allies used in the later stages of WW II and into the 1950 (perhaps early 60s).

The disadvantage of a sub, nuclear or not, is that its communication resorts are limited. When a sub submerged into water, all radio communication resorts are blocked except long wave radio transmitter. But the transmitting rate of long wave radio is very low, a sub only can receive a few words per minutes.

The American Charles A. Lockwood devised a work around for said "disadvantages" in the 1940s........

A towed array sonar does give a sub the resort to detect other subs and ship from very long distance, but it so do for surface warships if the array sonar is equipped.

A sub with a towed array has the advantage, in the majority of cases, over a surface warship with a towed array......even than, to effectively (and with a degree of safety) hunt a submarine, one would need a minimum of three or more surface warships (in addition to helicopters and MPAs) with tails to triangulate a sub. Even then though, the submarine, by its very nature, will likely detect the surface vessels long before they detect it, as such, it can choose to leave or attack the surface force then leave at its choosing.

But the point is moot, as the Chinese only have a fraction of the ASW assets that the Soviets had, and then, the Soviets weren't particularly good at ASW. As such, the Chinese would find it challenging to contend with the sub force of Vietnam, let alone the Japanese or Americans.

Not like radar, a sonar system isn't always reliable. It depends on the condition of the sea and the terrain of the seabed.

Pirated Russian sonars in the hands of the Chinese aren't always reliable, let alone that good when they do work. American (submarine based) sonars, and the sailors that operate them, are very reliable and work better than advertised.

[xul]

Before our American friends turn this thread into an U.S. war technology ad, let me write a script of an American horse opera

--In a remote small village called Lawless--

--Uncle Sam(would-be sheriff of the village)--

Who reported the trespass?

--Filipino--

Me, sir.

--Uncle Sam points his gun to a Chinese who is digging on lawn---

Stop! Hangs up!

--The Chinese ignores him--

--Uncle Sam jumps 3 feet off the ground--

Stop! Stop!

--The Chinese is still digging--

--Filipino--

Sir,...

--Uncle Sam--

Don't worry. Look at this gun, American latest technology, most advanced. If I pulled the trigger, he would disappear like smoke.

--Uncle Sam hammers the hood of his car making it dented--

Stop! Stop! Stop!!!!!!

The Chinese is still digging.

--Uncle Sam to the Filipino--

Don't fear him. I'll walk directly passing him. You will see he can't stop me.

--Filipino--

Be careful sir! Make sure your gun isn't a water gun....

Edited November 1, 2015 by xul

[xul]

I think there are too many China and U.S. Let's discuss something more universal:

I think Canadian should understand, "international law" isn't like the domestic laws which we are familiar.

Firstly, there isn't a neutral law enforcement to enforce the so-called international laws. Maybe someone thinks the U.S. is the enforcement but it isn't. Let's see what U.S has done to the world. Wherever U.S. intervened, we see wars, refugees, chaos and the rise of ISIS. If the U.S. was the police, it would be the most lousy police ever.

Secondly, there isn't a fair or neutral judge to bring justice according so-called international law. If Saddam Hussein bought his case(hiding nuclear weapon, accused by U.S.) to some international law court like Filipino did to China, do you really think the court dared to give him justice or even just accept his case? We all have seen on TV or newspaper that the so-called UN investigators or something just use vague words in their reports though they found nothing to support what U.S alleged, because they or their country feared U.S. retaliation.

Thirdly, an UN warranted action may be political correct for most Canadian but exactly it is not always correct. Have you ever watched a Sci-Fi movie? If not, go to Best Buy to get some to stretch your mind a bit further:

Let's assume there is a mischievous Alien kid, Darth Vader, who stole his father's starship Death Star and come to earth to annihilate human being for fan.

At this point, I guess some of our war-loving American friends will stand up: Don't worry Canadian, we Americans, the guardian of the galaxy , having the most advanced war technology, will take on this alien for you.

But since Darth Vader is an alien with far more advanced war technology than the most advanced war technology of human in his hands, you can imagine that when he just presses the smallest button on the console before him, the Pentagon has become Peng-Ta----Gone

So, we have to face choice. Vader offers human being to let UN select a country for him to destroy.

At this point, I guess again that some Canadian will shout, "China, the most selfish...etc nation in the world, should be destroyed."

That's OK. But since China has veto power in UN and it is selfish, that means it rather let others die for itself than die for others , the proposal is invalid.

So UN votes and chooses Canada instead.

Then Vader tells Canadian, "You can choose to obey UN's decision and sacrifice youself to save those who vote you to die, or defy the UN decision so I'll will kill them all but save you."

So which is your choice?

Edited November 2, 2015 by xul

[Argus]

I think there are too many China and U.S. Let's discuss something more universal:

I think Canadian should understand, "international law" isn't like the domestic laws which we are familiar.

Firstly, there isn't a neutral law enforcement to enforce the so-called international laws. M

Which you seem to believe means the Imperialist Chinese can invade their neighbors and steal their territory with impunity as long as they wave a bigger sword at everyone. You are not alone. Apparently the imperialist Chinese government believes the same thing. But building some sand dunes and keeping other countries from drilling for oil ten or twenty miles off their own coasts are quite different accomplishments.

[bjre]

Which you seem to believe means the Imperialist Chinese can invade their neighbors and steal their territory with impunity as long as they wave a bigger sword at everyone. You are not alone. Apparently the imperialist Chinese government believes the same thing. But building some sand dunes and keeping other countries from drilling for oil ten or twenty miles off their own coasts are quite different accomplishments.

So, you are here just for repeat what mainstream media said.

[bjre]

Hitler believes that when a lie repeated 1000 times, it becomes truth.

[bjre]

Mainstream media has repeated those lies much more than 1000 times.

[bush_cheney2004]

In 2012, China granted permanent residency to about 1200 emigres, the majority were of Chinese descent. In contrast, the United States granted permanent residency ("green cards") to about 1,000,000 foreign nationals...from around the world.

I guess all the mainstream media lies are working. China may want to work on better media exposure.

[xul]

Which you seem to believe means the Imperialist Chinese can invade their neighbors and steal their territory with impunity as long as they wave a bigger sword at everyone. You are not alone. Apparently the imperialist Chinese government believes the same thing. But building some sand dunes and keeping other countries from drilling for oil ten or twenty miles off their own coasts are quite different accomplishments.

I have said many times that you can not accuse China stealing or invading the islands without proving that other parties have already own it first, especially they have already done the same thing that China is doing now. .

I think your and other China-accusers just didn't realize that your posts have ironically justified the stands of China----if people deem that China is always wrong just because China is China and entirely ignore the evidence in favour of China, why China should trust and count on them giving China justice?

The debate between China and U.S. is another story. The difference is that China thinks that those American spy ships and aerocrafts don't suit for freedom navigation term but U.S. thinks they do. China never protest any American warship or aeroplane simply transits via South China Sea.

USS Lassen didn't merely transit via South China Sea. Before its departure, CNN-kinds had already announced its task's purpose -- provocating and challenging China. So its action can't be considered as a simple transit.

Edited November 2, 2015 by xul

[xul]

The so-called transits of US nuclear subs via NW Passage serves as the same purpose as USS Lassen's task.

http://www.nauticapedia.ca/Articles/NWP_Transits_Underwater.php

It seems like U.S. has determined to make sure that each year they make at least once transit. On this debate, arguing who is correct according "international law" is totally fruitless, because U.S. has its own version of international law. Maybe China's way is more effetive on this issue----just move in bulldozers and build some dams and water gates, then see how Uncle Sam's 21st Century most advanced war technology to deal with these post stone-aged mansonry

Edited November 2, 2015 by xul

[bjre]

In 2012, China granted permanent residency to about 1200 emigres, the majority were of Chinese descent. In contrast, the United States granted permanent residency ("green cards") to about 1,000,000 foreign nationals...from around the world.

I guess all the mainstream media lies are working. China may want to work on better media exposure.

There are far more freedom of speech in China than in US and in Canada.

There are too many pro-US, pro-capitalism, pro-democracy, pro-freedom pro-every-thing-of-western-world literatures in Chinese mainstream media, even when US economy is not in a good shape and too many negative event happened in US.

There is almost no pro-Communism, pro-China literatures in US and Canada mainstream media, even when too many achievements happened in China in the recent 30 years, even when from toys to iPhone to 60 inch LED TV, almost everyone use somethings from China.

That fact clearly shows that people in China enjoy much more freedom of speech than in US and in Canada.

Edited November 2, 2015 by bjre2

[The_Squid]

I'm enjoying this thread.... to summarize: lots of semi-coherent arguments about who's dick is bigger.... some history lessons... some revisionist history... some pro-commie propaganda and a lament that there isn't more... and TimG arguing in favour of the United Nations!!

[TimG]

TimG arguing in favour of the United Nations

To clarify: my argument is:

when territories are disputed you can:

1) start a war;

2) go to the ICJ for mediation under the terms of UNCLOS;

3) agree to disagree and do nothing;

China is clearly only interested in 1) and the consequences will be bad for China's relationships with its neighbors.

2) the ICJ is not useless when it is mediating disputes between nations because the UN is only option available.

3) is the most common resolution between civilized countries (e.g. Canada and US).

[Argus]

So, you are here just for repeat what mainstream media said.

And you just repeat whatever the Chinese government said.

At least the media is independent, and considerably less corrupt.

[Argus]

Hitler believes that when a lie repeated 1000 times, it becomes truth.

The Chinese imperialist communists seem to have taken this as a guide to their propaganda.

[Argus]

I have said many times that you can not accuse China stealing or invading the islands without proving that other parties have already own it first, especially they have already done the same thing that China is doing now. .

International law already grants countries economic rights to the waters going out 200 nautical miles. The Chinese are ignoring this and threatening smaller neighbours out of greed and avarice, projecting imperialist power in an attempt to steal other people's territory.