Chinese officials warned US bomber during 'routine' East China Sea flyover

[gambit]

Your mental gymnastics, jumping from a vague spin that "Iraq had "hired" China" to suggest Chinas modern air defense must or even just could therfore somehow be as terrible as Iraqs because "applied Vietnamese plumber logic",...

Nowhere have I made any comparison between Saddam Hussein era Iraq and today's China. It is YOUR mental gymnastics that made such a leap.

http://www.nytimes.com/1987/05/19/world/war-in-gulf-spurs-china-s-arms-export-role.html

China also agreed to sell arms to Iraq in 1981 and 1982, during the earlier stages of the Iran-Iraq war. The arms that have been delivered since then include bombers and tanks.

The new report indicates that China has moved up in the ranks of arms exporters partly as a result of these sales and partly because third world nations with large debt burdens now have less interest in buying costly, advanced weapons from the West.

The issue -- that you and your fellow Chinese consistently avoided -- is the PLA reforms to the lines of the Western militaries, notably to the US.

We can have identical machine guns, fighter jets, and tanks, but if our combat doctrines differs, our fighting methods, which includes the deployments of those identical weapons, will also differs. In the end, one way will prevail, and in the aftermath of Desert Storm, your China saw the end of its PLA as a credible fighting force. If the weaponry of the PLA at the time of Desert Storm was so superior to what China sold to Iraq and Iran, along with the war doctrines to the respective militaries, then what prompted the radical changes to the PLA ?

Am Air Force, so I will stick with airplanes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Air_Force#1990s_.E2.80.93_Persian_Gulf_War_and_no-fly_zones
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Liberation_Army_Air_Force#Aircraft_inventory

As everybody can see, the combat aircraft inventories of the respective air forces are quite different. However, their performances can be quantified and have been analyzed. Given the fact that both militaries have nearly identical concept of (inflexible) centralized command and control structures, if one fails, and one did failed spectacularly, the other practitioner will be forced to reassess its commitment to those ideas and institutions that made up that inflexible centralized command and control structures. Your China's PLAAF knew of nothing else. The rapid defeat of the Iraqi Air Force was seen as a complete defeat of what the PLAAF believed to be a successful airpower doctrine and have exported that doctrine. Without even a contender air force, the ground forces will be seen as defeated.

You may not like the phrasing that 'Iraq hired China', implying even consultancy role for China, and continues to deny what every military in the world acknowledged to have happened, but that denial will get you nowhere except to serve as an intellectual lollipop. So far, that 'Vietnamese plumber logic' have patched many holes your fellow Chinese made in this forum when they do not know what the hell they are talking about.

 

[Globenim]

Nowhere have I made any comparison between Saddam Hussein era Iraq and today's China. It is YOUR mental gymnastics that made such a leap.

That either a new peak in Gambits history of blatant dishonesty or the most amazing mental gymnastics to spin this into "nowhere making a a comparison" of what Saddam had in Iraq and today's China

Are you sure the Chinese air defence is like the one Saddam had in Iraq? You know sometimes this kind of gambling can get you into cages VCs used to use for the the US pilots.

Are you sure it is not ? Remember, Iraq hired China.

Sure. You never even thought of it. Thats me making the leaps and you just going along with it for half a dozen posts until you realized you never made the point in first place, when you lost you way in the muddy argument trying to defend the statement and your "knowledge" and third party "knowledge" backing it up, that didn't quite exist as we now know

The issue -- that you and your fellow Chinese consistently avoided

Was addressed for a second time in the section you deleted.

another non sequitur implying any change in Chinas doctrines proofs anything prior must be universally not space or time bound or otherwise situative simply "worthless" to dilute the argument

Its not related and supporting your Iraq China narrative and is just a dodge to a peripheral open ended argument about the PLA that leaves room for speculation which you of course immediately filled up with the same old worthless biased opinions again. You just want to skip over the "hiring China" spin nonsense you tried to grasp for at first.

 

[samsara]

WHY do you folks still keep on talking about the years of 1980s with regard to hardware & technology?

That era is so "ancient" today in terms of technological progress! What value to refer or infer indeed from the much already outdated era?

 

[Deino]

WHY do you folks still keep on talking about the years of 1980s with regard to hardware & technology?

That era is so "ancient" today in terms of technological progress! What value to refer or infer indeed from the much already outdated era?

Even more since Chinese-Iraqi cooperation on whatever during that time is completely irrelevant to the topic: violating or entering an ADIZ !??

 

[gambit]

That either a new peak in Gambits history of blatant dishonesty or the most amazing mental gymnastics to spin this into "nowhere making a a comparison" of what Saddam had in Iraq and today's China

Sure. You never even thought of it. Thats me making the leaps and you just going along with it for half a dozen posts until you realized you never made the point in first place, when you lost you way in the muddy argument trying to defend the statement and your "knowledge" and third party "knowledge" backing it up, that didn't quite exist as we now know

The point that you missed was not me comparing today's China to yesterday's Iraq, but that today's China is uncertain about US capability BECAUSE of what happened in Desert Storm. The PLA may have reformed, but its reformation was in response to a potential adversary where recently it erred in estimation, and erred spectacularly. Whatever air defense the PLA may have in those islands in the SCS, there is no way the PLA is certain that its air defense is secured against US. That is what you missed and (wrongly) thought that I was comparing today's China against yesterday's Iraq.

Was addressed for a second time in the section you deleted.

Its not related and supporting your Iraq China narrative and is just a dodge to a peripheral open ended argument about the PLA that leaves room for speculation which you of course immediately filled up with the same old worthless biased opinions again. You just want to skip over the "hiring China" spin nonsense you tried to grasp for at first.

Absolutely it is related.

===
https://www.uscc.gov/sites/default/files/Research/CapabilitiesoftheChinesePeople'sLiberationArmytoCarryOutMilitaryActionintheEventofaRegionalConflict.pdf

There is a discernable historical evolution within these 'military strategic guidelines." Under Mao Zedong, the PLA was directed to prepare for "The People's War -- protracted, large-scaled land warfare that envisioned Russian or even U.S. forces being drawn deep into Chinese territory, enveloped, and slowly destroyed through attrition. The demise of the Soviet Union and subsequent demonstration of U.S. military capabilities in DESERT STORM convinced Chinese leaders the time has come to dramatically rethink Mao's guidance. Deng Xiaoping and his successors have promulgated "military strategic guidelines" focused on fighting small-scale, regional conflicts along China's periphery.

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/what-scares-chinas-military-the-1991-gulf-war-11724

In 1991, Chinese military officers watched as the United States dismantled the Iraqi Army, a force with more battle experience and somewhat greater technical sophistication than the People’s Liberation Army (PLA). The Americans won with casualties that were trivial by historical standards.

This led to some soul searching. The PLA hadn’t quite been on autopilot in the 1980s, but the pace of reform in the military sector had not matched that of social and economic life in China. Given the grim performance of the PLA in the 1979 Sino-Vietnamese War, as well as the collapse of the Soviet Union, something was bound to change. The Gulf War provided a catalyst and direction for that change.
===

Note the highlighted about the Iraqi Army being allegedly more 'technical sophistication' than the PLA. Whether that statement is true or not is besides the point. Simply put, the PLA did not change unless it was forced to change, and Desert Storm was that compelling reason. Unlike what you claimed that China sold Iraq nothing more than old trucks, China sold Iraq bombers, and with those hardware, ideas on how to use them.

Getting back to the point of this thread. In a shooting fight, the current PLA may face an adversary it had never faced before, while the US have plenty of experience in facing adversaries that the PLA advised. The Korean War is no longer applicable. This is the SCS, not the Korean peninsula.

 

[52051]

The patheticness of the american troll with a F-22 icon (wonder why he has not banned yet, almost all his crap posts are of trolling intention) is overwhemling in this post, whats his point?

Even if his fake news source were true, what he try to show is US is so fucking brave in the following scenario: China tell the US you cannot go into your house because your house is mine, the US replys no, I can go to my house, it is not your house... WTF?

So basically China say whats mine is mine and what yours is subject to dispute, and the US agree on this, and this prove the US STRONK?

The point that you missed was not me
This led to some soul searching. The PLA hadn’t quite been on autopilot in the 1980s, but the pace of reform in the military sector had not matched that of social and economic life in China. Given the grim performance of the PLA in the 1979 Sino-Vietnamese War, as well as the collapse of the Soviet Union, something was bound to change. The Gulf War provided a catalyst and direction for that change.
===

Note the highlighted about the Iraqi Army being allegedly more 'technical sophistication' than the PLA. Whether that statement is true or not is besides the point. Simply put, the PLA did not change unless it was forced to change, and Desert Storm was that compelling reason. Unlike what you claimed that China sold Iraq nothing more than old trucks, China sold Iraq bombers, and with those hardware, ideas on how to use them.

Getting back to the point of this thread. In a shooting fight, the current PLA may face an adversary it had never faced before, while the US have plenty of experience in facing adversaries that the PLA advised. The Korean War is no longer applicable. This is the SCS, not the Korean peninsula.

The problem with your logic or the lack of it is:

A learn something from B != A is less capable/inferior to B

An example is, for instance, I maybe 1000x more smarter than a simple minded viet such as you, but on someday when I drunk I may even try to waste some of my time on learn from your English spelling or something, but even if I do, that doesn't imply I am not 1000x more knowledgeable in my area of research (applied mathematics) or my area of ex-job (high performance computing) or my current job (algorithmic trading).

Get it?

So even if you can prove China do try to learn something from the US army in desert storm, that doesn't imply China army is less capable than the US army, hope my layman term explanation is simple enough to enlighten a simple mind such as you.

 

[Star Expedition]

USA is very naughty.

 

[Oldman1]

it's useless for me to argue because we simply can't reciprocate by patrolling US west pacific coast as yet but we all know that US is never the one who would like to play by the rule that why it didn't want to sign the UNCLOS. This certainly is an wake up call for Chinese general staffs to learn on how to answer to US provocation.

Dude when Russians send ships and planes we don't do what China does which is trying ram into their planes or warn them to stay out of ADIZ in claim of airspace. ADIZ stands for what? Air Defense Identification Zone. Not IMAN. It's My Airspace Now.

 

[LeGenD]

if they could detect then they could shoo it too. The thing is they decided not to.

Easier said than done.

 

[samsara]

Aside from being easy or not, they are not in war situation at present, why SHOOT then? Just warning or complaint is sufficient! China ain't a maddog nation that shoot at will, but once it needs to shoot it will shoot for sure. The past performances in the Korean Peninsula and other borderline skirmishes give guarantee to this.

At the end of the days all of these provocations are just heavy noises like the USA's much bragged CSG patrols in the South China Sea. I'd mentioned much earlier in its thread to witness on how long the CSG could sustain its burning cost there ha ha ha and it's soon revealed that such pompous demonstration was just shortlived.

Now no more headline about the USA's CSG FONOP patrol in the South China Sea. The mainstream media is deadly quiet So, just be patient and let the eyes and ears opened widely lol