What's new

China threatens US arms companies

The trump card for China is to sell weapons such as J-10 and missles to Iran,
and/or to diplomaticly cover Iran in the UN by vetoing any further sanction.

If Iran gets C-803 alike anti-ship missiles , the US 7th fleet in Persian Gulf which
is about 300km away from Iran border if i remember well, is fucked!

If Iran goes nuclear, both Israel and the US Middle East oil filed are fucked!

Let the US sell arms to tw. See who calls whose bluff. :toast_sign:
 
Last edited:
The trump card for China is to sell weapons such as J-10 and missles to Iran,
and/or to deplomatic cover Iran in the UN by vetoing any further sanction.

If Iran gets C-803 alike anti-ship missiles , the US 7th fleet in Persian Gulf which
is about 300km away from Iran border if i remember well, is fucked!

If Iran goes nuclear, both Israel and the US Middle East oil filed are fucked!

Let the US sell arms to tw. See who calls whose bluff.

This is exactly the trap Uncle has set for the PRC. Well, it's heartening (if I were Uncle) to see the jingoistic diaspora spring for it.

Of course there are "options". You didn't even mention Hugo Chavez.

But IMO, Iran is the main drama and Taiwan is but a side show. Whether the US sells 100, 200, or 1000 PAC-3s make no real difference, except on Taiwan's Forex reserve. Doing a deal on Taiwan in exchange for "selling out" Iran makes the PRC look cowardly, short-sighted, and selfish.

PRC is better off "being honest" with Iran and get the h#ll out of the "six party talk" lest anyone harbours any illusions, and Iran then must adjust accordingly ...

I am not saying that the PRC should be carrying water for Iran on all occasions especially when the latter can't even seem to be able to stop wagging its tongue. But some things are more than bargaining chips if you try to see far enough beyond the horizon ...
 
This is exactly the trap Uncle has set for the PRC. Well, it's heartening (if I were Uncle) to see the jingoistic diaspora spring for it.

Of course there are "options". You didn't even mention Hugo Chavez.

But IMO, Iran is the main drama and Taiwan is but a side show. Whether the US sells 100, 200, or 1000 PAC-3s make no real difference, except on Taiwan's Forex reserve. Doing a deal on Taiwan in exchange for "selling out" Iran makes the PRC look cowardly, short-sighted, and selfish.

PRC is better off "being honest" with Iran and get the h#ll out of the "six party talk" lest anyone harbours any illusions, and Iran then must adjust accordingly ...

I am not saying that the PRC should be carrying water for Iran on all occasions especially when the latter can't even seem to be able to stop wagging its tongue. But some things are more than bargaining chips if you try to see far enough beyond the horizon ...

Well, Hugo is for child's play. Do you really think the hermano could do sth serious to the yanks given its backyard geo location? Iran however is the key of the Middle East!

Face it, without serious comittment and long term calculation, was China really that dumb to have invested 100 bilion worth of contracts in Iran?

After "taking care of" Iran, with both Iraq and Afghanistan in his hand, uncle sam would virturally cut off entirely China's land access to the Middle East and Caspian Sea energy resources. In Chess term, it's called "dead checkmate"!

Don't kid yourself. Do you really think China would let Iran go underwater??

The current tw arms sale is not severe though, that's why boycotting related companies involved and suspending the current millitary dialogue appear sufficient.

Had it my way, a delegation would be sent to Tehran already to kick start presales negotiation of HQ 9 anti-air missiles. Yanks would think twice then on his tw deal. Nevertheless, anything beyond standard weaponaries would almost centainly ask for China's serious counter measures via Iran Card (another one is DPRK of course, albeit with some negative repercussions to China as well).

Make no mistakes. This kind of tit-for-tat tactics are exactly what yanks are afraid of! Anything short of that are for ladies. Remeber what Ruskis did to respond Poland missle defence shield pact? Strategic bomber flied by Alaska plus threatening arming Iran!

NO questions asked. Just watch.
 
Last edited:
Well, Hugo is for child's play. Do you really think the hermano could do sth serious to sam? Iran however is the key of the Middle East!

Face it, without serious comittment and long term calculation, was China really that dumb to have invested 100 bilion worth of contracts in Iran?

After "taking care of" Iran, with both Iraq and Afghanistan in his hand, uncle sam would virturally cut off entirely China's hand access to Middle East and Caspian sea energy resource. In Chess term, it's called "dead checkmate"!

Don't kid yourself. Do you really think China would let Iran go under the water??

The current tw arms sale is not severe though, that's why boycotting related company and suspending current millitary dialogue appear sufficient. Nevertheless, anything beyong standard weaponaries would ask for China's counter measure via Iran Card. NO questions asked. Just watch!


Hear hear Speedo. I am glad you get it. It's better to lose face than to lose substance. And it's better to lose substance than to lose spine - entirely!

But we never know who is in the cockpit up in CCPland these days. I sure hope the PRC sees Iran as a "commitment" as opposed to some "card".

And Mr. Najad needs to flap less and do more (personal 2 cents anyway). It's been months since we heard the "H" word out of his mouth. For that we are eternally grateful to his highness. It's probably a good thing that the Greens are keeping him humble ...

And I might add that your "dead checkmate" goes way beyond oil. An oil embargo would have been an act of war anyways ... From today's Asia Times :

"It is not China's veto power in the Security Council over sanctions against Iran that matters, but that China's balanced and perceived fair diplomacy could be an influence on Iran. The key to China's diplomacy is to hold a firm line on non-proliferation while avoiding prejudging Iran's nuclear intentions. China emphasizes Iran's right to develop peaceful nuclear programs, while urging Iran to put its nuclear program under the watch of the IAEA. China's position on a peaceful solution to Iran's quest for nuclear power benefits all, instead of just protecting its oil supply, as perceived by many. That is why China's approach is shared by some Muslim and Arab countries, including Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, Jordan and Indonesia.

China has to think of the impact of its endorsement of, or failure to, block economic sanctions against Iran. It also has to consider the impact of sanctions - or the blocking of sanctions - on its other energy partners such as Sudan, Venezuela and Angola. Siding with Western powers against Iran because of concerns about its pursuit of nuclear technology could set a dangerous precedent that could damage China's relations with southern developing countries.
- Kaveh L Afrasiabi "
 
Last edited:
The trump card for China is to sell weapons such as J-10 and missles to Iran,
and/or to diplomaticly cover Iran in the UN by vetoing any further sanction.

If Iran gets C-803 alike anti-ship missiles , the US 7th fleet in Persian Gulf which
is about 300km away from Iran border if i remember well, is fucked!


If Iran goes nuclear, both Israel and the US Middle East oil filed are fucked!

Let the US sell arms to tw. See who calls whose bluff. :toast_sign:
It will be nothing more than an Iranian wet dream. If it come down to military confrontation, the USN will stay out of the gulf and will destroy those missile batteries. You are talking from ignorance.
 
It will be nothing more than an Iranian wet dream. If it come down to military confrontation, the USN will stay out of the gulf and will destroy those missile batteries. You are talking from ignorance.

yeah right. 7th fleet will stay out of the gulf forever, and each missle launcher will have a beeper on its belt toether with a giant SOS sigh on its head, waiting to be identified and destroyed by hostile forces, eh?

take a walk!
 
It will be nothing more than an Iranian wet dream. If it come down to military confrontation, the USN will stay out of the gulf and will destroy those missile batteries. You are talking from ignorance.

No one doubts that USN and USAF will win however the deck is cut. But at what cost politically, if not militarily?

If war was a "cake-walk" with no consequences, then there wouldn't be a "six-party" meeting discussing it, would there?
 
No one doubts that USN and USAF will win however the deck is cut. But at what cost politically, if not militarily?

If war was a "cake-walk" with no consequences, then there wouldn't be a "six-party" meeting discussing it, would there?
The political aspect of this potential conflict is a different issue, one that is wide open to interpretation. I do not have much interests in it. This is about the technical aspect of a military conflict between Iran and US. Naval air operations would have the USN stay out of the confines of the gulf and remain outside of Iran's reach while still able to attack Iranian forces directly. Remember that B-2s flown from CONUS to Yugoslavia. As the Iranian military engages the USN, other forces will be on alert and ELINT will give US clues on where they are. People like that other guy should believe that we learned far more from Desert Storm than the Iranians can.
 
The political aspect of this potential conflict is a different issue, one that is wide open to interpretation. I do not have much interests in it. This is about the technical aspect of a military conflict between Iran and US. Naval air operations would have the USN stay out of the confines of the gulf and remain outside of Iran's reach while still able to attack Iranian forces directly. Remember that B-2s flown from CONUS to Yugoslavia. As the Iranian military engages the USN, other forces will be on alert and ELINT will give US clues on where they are. People like that other guy should believe that we learned far more from Desert Storm than the Iranians can.

Maybe China cannot unified with Taiwan.

But American empire doesn't make wet dream of invading Iran! US Army will have greater loss than in Vietnam.
 
Well china is much bigger and more powerful than Taiwan. A $6.4bn deal shouldn't worry China. I think china is over reacting on a lot of things nowadays.

No country is threatening china. Sanctions would create problems for china. US doesn't need china, it can find other countries to meet its need which are usually cheap goods. But china needs US to sell its goods. After all export to countries like US are china's only income.
 
Well china is much bigger and more powerful than Taiwan. A $6.4bn deal shouldn't worry China. I think china is over reacting on a lot of things nowadays.

No country is threatening china. Sanctions would create problems for china. US doesn't need china, it can find other countries to meet its need which are usually cheap goods. But china needs US to sell its goods. After all export to countries like US are china's only income.

I don't think it is over reaction and those big guys in the office must have something to do.

Obviously the sanction thing is saying to Boeing, kind of warning not to sell F16 to Taiwan otherwise it may lose orders from civil aviation in China. There are companies inside and outside of China that can't wait to see Boeing being sanctioned and repelled from the ever growing market. airbus is one of them.

China almost exports an India each year and of which the US accounts about 10% less important than the EU, Japan and maybe the Asean. So the conclusion is that the US dose not matter that much to China.

By the way which one is Obama?
the US president or his number one enemy with a big beard in Afghanistan?





(just joke)
 
Last edited:
Maybe China cannot unified with Taiwan.
Of course Taiwan can be under the PRC's control, either by force or by persuasion. I advocate the PRC attack Taiwan now.

But American empire doesn't make wet dream of invading Iran! US Army will have greater loss than in Vietnam.
No one is talking about invading Iran. We are talking about crippling the Iranian military's ability to project its power beyond Iranian borders.
 
Come on. We can't real do that. Openly selling anti-ship missiles to Iran is ,how to say, over the line.

But economic sanction harms no one(in China and Europe) and is the right way to teach the arrogant Americans how to behave responsibly. Iran should be the back up solution to the possible F16 deal.
 
Openly selling anti-ship missiles to Iran is ,how to say, over the line.

It doesn't have to be open. Also the US could have sold the patriot to Taiwan without publicising it if they just want to make a buck.

I think US havn't moved on Iran yet because of what they could do in Iraq and Afghanistan. Wait and see after US withdraws from afghanistan in 2011. If a strike should happen do you think it is before or after 2012 election?

I think the US is more concerned about Iran exporting terrorism than about its military.

regards,
 
Back
Top Bottom