China tests missile air defence system

[Mikethedyke]

The cyberspace is free, everyone can talk all sort of gibberish, so let them having the fun.

I love your avatar, can you post an enlarged version of it? =) I wanna hang it on my wall for giggles when I'm solving a hard problem. As motivation =P

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

I love your avatar, can you post an enlarged version of it? =) I wanna hang it on my wall for giggles when I'm solving a hard problem. As motivation =P

This one or the previous one?

 

[TEXAS BATTLESTAR]

How did you get to the US?
My family came right after the fall of Saigon through my grandfather's small fishing boat. We sailed south to Singapore for a week before entering a refugee camp in a US military base in Ft. Chaffey, AK before finally settling to Texas.

You bet.


Loyalty based upon what?

Racial background, culture, history, and geopolitics.

 

[TEXAS BATTLESTAR]

Gambit - "My opinion -- for the original questioner -- is that the PLA's EW capability is not on par with US in technology. But technology is one leg of the triad. Any acquisition of US EW technology that is not accompanied by commensurate training programs to take advantage of those superior capabilities would be a waste of money. Experience gained by going up against allies with different techniques and tactics will enhance the training programs. The PLA never had the diversity available like those we experienced in NATO where member countries had their own companies developing different hardwares and softwares which finally enhances techniques and EW combat tactics".


Not exactly. Those NATO members countries are just interested in financing their military industry just like the US is, NOT winning an outright war. Remember the US foreign policy when it comes to combat is not to lose more than 5,000 troops in a short amount of time. If that happens the public would be anger by such a large loss of their sons and daughters lives over seas. That's why the Pentagon has been so technically focus on machines and high tech equipment to cut down on the chances of losing American lives, instead of strategy. Just look at Vietnam, first two Iraq wars, and Afghanistan as an example.

 

[gambit]

Not exactly.

Yes, it is 'exactly'.

Those NATO members countries are just interested in financing their military industry just like the US is, NOT winning an outright war.

And China does not? Basically, you are putting forth the ridiculous argument that preparation for war, even in the interest of self defense, is primarily just to keep weapons manufacturers busy. I wonder how this argument applies to state own weapons manufacturers like Norinco.

Remember the US foreign policy when it comes to combat is not to lose more than 5,000 troops in a short amount of time. If that happens the public would be anger by such a large loss of their sons and daughters lives over seas. That's why the Pentagon has been so technically focus on machines and high tech equipment to cut down on the chances of losing American lives, instead of strategy. Just look at Vietnam, first two Iraq wars, and Afghanistan as an example.

Really...??? Care to show a credible source for that claim? I know that supporting one's argument with sources is a difficult concept to grasp with the Chinese members of this forum, and of their supporters, but at the very least the (rhetorical) question should be asked anyway.

The main goal of any war is to win. Very close to the main goal is to win with as little loss to one's own forces as possible. I see nothing wrong with that concept. Of course, given the Chinese government's little regard for the human lives of its own forces, American affinity for superior technology in warfare in the interest of keeping our soldiers, airmen, and sailors alive for as long as possible must be very alien to you.

 

[Mikethedyke]

This one or the previous one?

The one you're using now! =D

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

The one you're using now! =D

Yeah, it was a gif originally, but i don't know how to make it works on my avatar.

 

[The_Assassin]

The Chinese posters are writing such stupid crap without any substantial content that a thread with a potential to discuss some good points has been reduced to a crap. Mods are requested to look into the thread and remove irrelevant comments. Do the chinese know anything other than supporting each others Bu!! Sh!t comments ??.

 

[S10]

The Chinese posters are writing such stupid crap without any substantial content that a thread with a potential to discuss some good points has been reduced to a crap. Mods are requested to look into the thread and remove irrelevant comments. Do the chinese know anything other than supporting each others Bu!! Sh!t comments ??.

You complain of people posting crap, and yet you spill more crap? Do you smear poop all over yourself while complaining toddlers are crapping their pants?

 

[TEXAS BATTLESTAR]

Yes, it is 'exactly'.


And China does not? Basically, you are putting forth the ridiculous argument that preparation for war, even in the interest of self defense, is primarily just to keep weapons manufacturers busy. I wonder how this argument applies to state own weapons manufacturers like Norinco.




Really...??? Care to show a credible source for that claim? I know that supporting one's argument with sources is a difficult concept to grasp with the Chinese members of this forum, and of their supporters, but at the very least the (rhetorical) question should be asked anyway.

The main goal of any war is to win. Very close to the main goal is to win with as little loss to one's own forces as possible. I see nothing wrong with that concept. Of course, given the Chinese government's little regard for the human lives of its own forces, American affinity for superior technology in warfare in the interest of keeping our soldiers, airmen, and sailors alive for as long as possible must be very alien to you.

Apparently you have ignore history and paying more attention to technology might. What ever happen to strategy?

Really...??? Care to show a credible source for that claim?

You mean you can't read between the lines? You have to have a stone cut proof of everything to feel credible? Try looking up on the history of US involvement of the Asian conflicts and tell me if the American people could stomach such another adventure? You're acting childish by questioning the initiative of the intent of the topics to get away as witty, but that don't work on me pal.


And China does not? Basically, you are putting forth the ridiculous argument that preparation for war, even in the interest of self defense, is primarily just to keep weapons manufacturers busy. I wonder how this argument applies to state own weapons manufacturers like Norinco.

What about the cost to the tax payers? Inflation went up over the years and you want the tax payers to continue industrial defense manufacturing at any cost?

 

[gambit]

Apparently you have ignore history and paying more attention to technology might. What ever happen to strategy?

Perhaps I paid more attention to history than you have? Many attributed the Mongols' success to their cavalry and their archery skills. The Gatling gun compelled armies to redraw their tactics, offensive and defensive, which inevitably affects their war strategies. How about aviation with just airships for reconnaissance, let alone attacks from the third dimension? Knowing how enemy forces arrayed is not the same thing as being able to attack those arrays. But show me a single instance where either capability was outright rejected because they could not contribute to the war effort. A newly promoted general or admiral or marshal or warlord or whatever the title does not and never have guarantee new thinking that will result in new tactics and strategies. But a new weapon will ALWAYS present opportunities for creative minds regardless of rank to come up with new tactics that will inevitably affect the overall war strategy. Did you once mentioned that you were in the Army? Which one? If you were, I find this shortsighted argument from you curious.

You mean you can't read between the lines? You have to have a stone cut proof of everything to feel credible? Try looking up on the history of US involvement of the Asian conflicts and tell me if the American people could stomach such another adventure? You're acting childish by questioning the initiative of the intent of the topics to get away as witty, but that don't work on me pal.

YOU set the tone by citing a figure...

Remember the US foreign policy when it comes to combat is not to lose more than 5,000 troops in a short amount of time.

So the burden is upon YOU to provide a credible source for that claim. Where from that 5,000 casualty figure? How 'short' is short? If you expect the readers to read 'between the lines', meaning infer your argument, then do not have such concrete figures and cite such specific policies.

Did 'they', meaning the pundits, not predicted Vietnam War type of casualties for Desert Storm?

Here is an insightful bit from a mid-grade US Army officer, Paul Yingling...

Officership Discussion with LTC Paul Yingling | Center for a New American Security

However, Yingling stressed junior officers should not wait for institutional adaptation. Instead veterans should better integrate first-hand combat experience into the central dialogue regarding the future of American forces.

To prepare forces for war, the general must visualize the conditions of future combat. To raise military forces properly, the general must visualize the quality and quantity of forces needed in the next war. To arm and equip military forces properly, the general must visualize the materiel requirements of future engagements. To train military forces properly, the general must visualize the human demands on future battlefields, and replicate those conditions in peacetime exercises.

The Vietnam War experience continues to serve, not as a deterrent or even a persuasive argument against US military 'adventure', but that IF the US is going to war, for reasons outside this discussion for now, it must go to war with overwhelming capabilities and forces, under clear political objectives. It was the lack of a clear political objective in Viet Nam that led to the prolonged war and that 50,000+ US casualty figures. If the distaste for higher than 5,000 casualty is real, then Desert Storm would have never happened simply because of the pundits' dire prediction. Heck...Am willing to bet that the PLA's leadership quickly and quietly withdrew their own dire predictions for Iraq.

What about the cost to the tax payers? Inflation went up over the years and you want the tax payers to continue industrial defense manufacturing at any cost?

Here is your argument for all to see...

Those NATO members countries are just interested in financing their military industry just like the US is, NOT winning an outright war.

The crux of your argument here is that governments have a military just to keep arms manufacturers busy. Throwing in NATO and US is just a cheap way of slandering the two. Not to add any sense to the discussion. NORINCO is a state owned industry. Explain to the readers as to why is China an exception to your slander. Is it because China's economy will never experience inflation? That would be a good laugh.

 

[axisofevil]

Better than you vietcoms.

You are a Vietnamese hiding behind American flag. That says everything about you.

What does it say? To me it shows a person who loves America and is willing to die for this great country ....not like you! What you say speaks volumes of you and your type......get out of my country and stop milking it.....we don;t want you here...

 

[TEXAS BATTLESTAR]

Perhaps I paid more attention to history than you have? Many attributed the Mongols' success to their cavalry and their archery skills. The Gatling gun compelled armies to redraw their tactics, offensive and defensive, which inevitably affects their war strategies. How about aviation with just airships for reconnaissance, let alone attacks from the third dimension? Knowing how enemy forces arrayed is not the same thing as being able to attack those arrays. But show me a single instance where either capability was outright rejected because they could not contribute to the war effort. A newly promoted general or admiral or marshal or warlord or whatever the title does not and never have guarantee new thinking that will result in new tactics and strategies. But a new weapon will ALWAYS present opportunities for creative minds regardless of rank to come up with new tactics that will inevitably affect the overall war strategy. Did you once mentioned that you were in the Army? Which one? If you were, I find this shortsighted argument from you curious.




YOU set the tone by citing a figure...


So the burden is upon YOU to provide a credible source for that claim. Where from that 5,000 casualty figure? How 'short' is short? If you expect the readers to read 'between the lines', meaning infer your argument, then do not have such concrete figures and cite such specific policies.

Did 'they', meaning the pundits, not predicted Vietnam War type of casualties for Desert Storm?

Here is an insightful bit from a mid-grade US Army officer, Paul Yingling...

Officership Discussion with LTC Paul Yingling | Center for a New American Security

The Vietnam War experience continues to serve, not as a deterrent or even a persuasive argument against US military 'adventure', but that IF the US is going to war, for reasons outside this discussion for now, it must go to war with overwhelming capabilities and forces, under clear political objectives. It was the lack of a clear political objective in Viet Nam that led to the prolonged war and that 50,000+ US casualty figures. If the distaste for higher than 5,000 casualty is real, then Desert Storm would have never happened simply because of the pundits' dire prediction. Heck...Am willing to bet that the PLA's leadership quickly and quietly withdrew their own dire predictions for Iraq.


LOL...quit blaming on the politics! You know dam well the Vietnam War was not going well for as the US Generals would like to foresee it. Eight years and with all modern war tech and not a single inch of North Vietnam land was taken, much less disturbance of the Viet Congs continuing to conduct operations underground.

Here is your argument for all to see...


The crux of your argument here is that governments have a military just to keep arms manufacturers busy. Throwing in NATO and US is just a cheap way of slandering the two. Not to add any sense to the discussion. NORINCO is a state owned industry. Explain to the readers as to why is China an exception to your slander. Is it because China's economy will never experience inflation? That would be a good laugh.

It's cheaper for the Chinese to produce high tech gear than it is in the West. It cost the west too much money to do the same amount of military as it is in China, therefore more burden for the tax payers.



But show me a single instance where either capability was outright rejected because they could not contribute to the war effort. A newly promoted general or admiral or marshal or warlord or whatever the title does not and never have guarantee new thinking that will result in new tactics and strategies. But a new weapon will ALWAYS present opportunities for creative minds regardless of rank to come up with new tactics that will inevitably affect the overall war strategy.

(These are examples when two sides has the same technology)

1.Napoleon square formation! This allows infantryman a chance to withstand the frontal brunt of a charging cavalry with fixed bayonets in rows of two or more in a square formation.

2. Colonel Chamberlain "door hinge charge" downhill with fixed bayonets that derail the Confederate forces in Little Round Top at the battle of Gettysburgh.

3. General Grant utilizing both naval and army theater to bombard Confederate fortresses at the battle of Vicksburg. First time a combine use of forces to coordinate together in a single campaign.

4. Alexander the Great outflanking his opponent King Darius at the battle of Gaugamela. He uses cavalry to hide his infantry and draw away his enemy cavalry away from the front line. He then makes hard turn in which his hidden infantry now battles King Darius cavalry, mean while he turns straight towards the enemies exposed flank.

5. Hannibal of Carthage at the battle of Cannae. Hannibal with a smaller forces was able to draw the larger Roman army into a trap formation by engulfing the Roman forces on all sides and thus the word 'annihilation' was invented. Look it up it's pretty neat what he did.

Ask you if I ever was in the US Army? Yes, I was. My M.O.S. was 21-D (corps of engineer) detachment from Ft. Rucker, Alambama during the mid '90s, and my rank was O-1 (2nd Lieutenant). And what about you?

 

[gambit]

It's cheaper for the Chinese to produce high tech gear than it is in the West. It cost the west too much money to do the same amount of military as it is in China, therefore more burden for the tax payers.

This has nothing to do with the argument that defense is just to keep arms manufacturers busy. Not for defense of country. Try again, Lieutenant.

(These are examples when two sides has the same technology)

Not talking about technological parity and you missed the point completely. Am asking about the greater issue when it comes to the introduction of a technology that WILL enhance the warfighting effectiveness of a military. For example...Show me who rejected the scope as a mean of seeing the enemy from long distance. Show me who rejected artillery. Show me who rejected the airplane.

Ask you if I ever was in the US Army? Yes, I was. My M.O.S. was 21-D (corps of engineer) detachment from Ft. Rucker, Alambama during the mid '90s, and my rank was O-1 (2nd Lieutenant). And what about you?

SSGT USAF. Used to fix jet fighters for a living. Then I was recruited to USAF SpecOps SIGINT program. Got out in '92. I have a good friend in Enterprise.

 

[TEXAS BATTLESTAR]

This has nothing to do with the argument that defense is just to keep arms manufacturers busy. Not for defense of country. Try again, Lieutenant.

Yes it is. Then explain to me why all the buildup of obsolete and expensive war toys such as carriers, bombers, and fighters when we needed body armor for the ground troops over in Iraq? Because all the armed forces are competing for tax payers dollars, they are shooting for over killed tech toys that are irrelevant in the long term not about the right strategy for defense. Apparently you have not seen the politics going on in the brass, Sargent.

Not talking about technological parity and you missed the point completely. Am asking about the greater issue when it comes to the introduction of a technology that WILL enhance the warfighting effectiveness of a military. For example...Show me who rejected the scope as a mean of seeing the enemy from long distance. Show me who rejected artillery. Show me who rejected the airplane.


War fighting effectiveness comes with competent of leadership and preparedness of troops in all aspects of combat, not on enhancement of machines. Yes technological war machines will always evolve but the strategy, tactics, and good commander will always rule the battlefield. For every new piece of technology there is always a downside to it, such as maintenance time, and how many skillful people it takes to conduct it, thus adding cost to the overall budget that are needed for drill and training of current forces.

SSGT USAF. Used to fix jet fighters for a living. Then I was recruited to USAF SpecOps SIGINT program. Got out in '92. I have a good friend in Enterprise.

Cool! Were you at the first Iraq war?