WILL CHINA'S AIRCRAFT CARRIER VARYAG BE AT SEA BEFORE INDIA'S INS VIKRAMADITYA?

[ChineseTiger1986]

@chinese members
are you guys also building a 90000+ ac

Super CVN after 2015

 

[KS]

^^ yeah right, even India, with all the IQ disadvantage it has, has finally figured out the importance of carreirs, hence makes its masse strip/die of hunger in order to save some $$$ renting Ruskies' second-hand attacking subs and buying Made-by-Ruskis carrier/s...it speaks volumns.

Ahhhh! missed you and your IQ theories so much.

 

[Dragon Emperor]

Economical agenda yes but not imperialist millitary agenda. China in its thousands of years history never invaded and occupy far away lands. It is hardwork to look after itself already, why bother trying to add more weight on to its shoulders by having to look after countries in other parts of the world? That I believe is America's duty and it is in their interests to do so, but not ours (Chinese).

True. Japan and USA are the two countries that have history of invading many countries and causing deaths to hundreds of thousands of civillians in other people's countries, something China has never done. Even in Chinese war with India(1960s? forgot the date) and Vietnam(1979?), there is almost 0 civillian casualties killed by PLA troops.

 

[IND151]

Carriers have zero military value. Stealth fighters and bombers can't even use them. One bomb and planes can't takeoff nor land. They do however create a lot of good paying jobs for the Chinese and Russians economy. I think they are more of a government jobs program and for saber rattling.

YouTube - C-130 Hercules on an Aircraft Carrier!!

 

[gambit]

True. Japan and USA are the two countries that have history of invading many countries and causing deaths to hundreds of thousands of civillians in other people's countries, something China has never done. Even in Chinese war with India(1960s? forgot the date) and Vietnam(1979?), there is almost 0 civillian casualties killed by PLA troops.

What China does is export communism, a failed ideology and political system, that does nothing but create poverty and misery, and in doing so, killed millions. The communists simply does not like the fact that there could be, and have had, some who were willing to stand up against communism. Now that China largely abandoned communism, it is very convenient that you boys speak about China as if China is innocent of the blood that was spilled in the name of communism.

 

[gambit]

Carriers have zero military value. Stealth fighters and bombers can't even use them. One bomb and planes can't takeoff nor land. They do however create a lot of good paying jobs for the Chinese and Russians economy. I think they are more of a government jobs program and for saber rattling.

1996 was how long ago? F-18 E/F give me a break, they're slow and clumsy, even F-18 C pilots are laughing at them. Low max speed of Mach 1.8, low range of 700 km, (both of these are lower than a Mig-21 btw), low weapons load, you kidding? Maybe F-18 E/F can destroy Japan but send 1 here and the USN has 1 less plane to do maintanance on, send 10 and they'll have 10 less, send 100 and they'll have to replace the carrier.

the future is about missiles, unmanned planes, stealth fighters, nontraditional weapons including electromagnetic, kinetic and information, and space.

China's Navy is still weak compared to even the Japanese Navy. That is even more reason why China needs 4 Carrier Battle Groups, with each CVBG having at least 4 Air Defence Destroyers attached. China also has low numbers of SSNs. Sure, China shouldn't follow USSR's footsteps, but abandoning the development of superpower military will cause China to be continued to be bullied by USA Imperialistic Agenda.

Can you boys be consistent with your arguments? Is the aircraft carrier still has some military value or not? I see silly claims from those who have at best two years of conscripted military service and most likely in low level and low tech jobs at that.

 

[gambit]

Mafia bosses don't fight muscular people directly. They get their cronies and minions to surround them and scare them and insult them and push them around, but don't dare fight them.

Mafia bosses however love beating up small weak people and forcing them to pay protection fees and maybe even have some of his cronies live in their house.

You must be describing China.

 

[gambit]

but if China continues, it will eventually allow it to bully someone else with its imperialistic agenda ..right ?

China, as proven by the behaviors of the members here, is just as racist a society as the Yamato's. A militarily dominant China in Asia is very probable, if not inevitable. The question for Asia is what will the smaller Asian countries do? Silently submit to China's rise, or learn from WW II and unite, even in an unofficial alliance, their militaries and assert their independence. If unchecked, China will plunge Asia into another race-based war.

 

[Rayzee]

What China does is export communism, a failed ideology and political system, that does nothing but create poverty and misery, and in doing so, killed millions. The communists simply does not like the fact that there could be, and have had, some who were willing to stand up against communism. Now that China largely abandoned communism, it is very convenient that you boys speak about China as if China is innocent of the blood that was spilled in the name of communism.

What? China exporting communism? Might I remind you that it was the Lenin who started communism, succesfully leading a revolution in Russia who then proceeded to lure as much as the world into a Communist system, not the Chinese.

And China has spilt blood in attrocious ways destroying culture in the Cultural Revolution, but this was IN China. He was talking about America spilling blood ABROAD through offensive operations, very different situations.

 

[Rayzee]

China, as proven by the behaviors of the members here, is just as racist a society as the Yamato's. A militarily dominant China in Asia is very probable, if not inevitable. The question for Asia is what will the smaller Asian countries do? Silently submit to China's rise, or learn from WW II and unite, even in an unofficial alliance, their militaries and assert their independence. If unchecked, China will plunge Asia into another race-based war.

Stop the hate against China, you have no evidence that suggests China is developing it's weapons to aim at the Asian minor countries. More then likely, China is developing weapons so it's as modernized as the Japanese Self defense force, USA armed forces and others so it can hold it's own. Most likely the thought is too modernize the army as much as possible to make it not cost effective to engage in a war with China, not too impose military dominance towards Asian minors.

What will other Asian countries do? They will engage in diplomacy with China, thats what and they will benefit. It is not China who will plunge Asia into war, it is the american paranoia.

How dare those chinese build modern weaponry.... it must be for war and not self defense.... Such reasoning is rediculous

 

[Dharmocol]

Among military superpowers such as USA , China and Russia, it has little value but a face-lifting gadget, but to deal with third-rate wannabes such as “India”, try park 2 Carrier Groups in front of Mumbai and watch how fast M. Singh could run, well, he tries to run, in his advanced age?

I will like u give u an advice which ur Chinese bunch re iterate's every time-first have it,then bark about it.

Any way it's good that PLAN does not have nutcraks like u,because if they had they must have lost both the AC's on the 1st day itself

P.S-Parking infront of Mumbai port is not free,u have to pay the money for 1000's of brahmos,thats not a cheap missile to be wasted on ur AC's.

^^ yeah right, even India, with all the IQ disadvantage it has, has finally figured out the importance of carreirs, hence makes its masse strip/die of hunger in order to save some $$$ renting Ruskies' second-hand attacking subs and buying Made-by-Ruskis carrier/s...it speaks volumns.

R u talking about second hand u high IQ Martian boy,so what is varyag actually,it seems ur brain is fresh as it is not at all used,anyway dont sell it in the market,it will sell for even less than groundnuts.

 

[gambit]

What? China exporting communism? Might I remind you that it was the Lenin who started communism, succesfully leading a revolution in Russia who then proceeded to lure as much as the world into a Communist system, not the Chinese.

And China has spilt blood in attrocious ways destroying culture in the Cultural Revolution, but this was IN China. He was talking about America spilling blood ABROAD through offensive operations, very different situations.

Yes you might...But it is irrelevant since China served as the Soviets' stooge in Asia and exported communism to Southeast Asia. You are telling me that you have never heard of the Vietnam War? I know I am debating with youngsters here but never thought history classes is that lacking.

 

[gambit]

Stop the hate against China, you have no evidence that suggests China is developing it's weapons to aim at the Asian minor countries. More then likely, China is developing weapons so it's as modernized as the Japanese Self defense force, USA armed forces and others so it can hold it's own. Most likely the thought is too modernize the army as much as possible to make it not cost effective to engage in a war with China, not too impose military dominance towards Asian minors.

What will other Asian countries do? They will engage in diplomacy with China, thats what and they will benefit. It is not China who will plunge Asia into war, it is the american paranoia.

How dare those chinese build modern weaponry.... it must be for war and not self defense.... Such reasoning is rediculous

Here is reality for you...

The Epoch Times | The CCP&#039s Export of Communist Party Culture

The CCP has always spread its culture using labels that evoke positive images but confuse reality; for instance, it has attached the label of "patriotism" to "supporting the CCP" instead of "supporting China." This has prevented the greater body of nationalistic Chinese people from voicing objection to the CCP by insinuating that that anyone who voices resentment toward their government is voicing disapproval of the Chinese nation.

Recently, the party has further spread its culture overseas under the label of "maintaining cultural tradition, cultural security and the independence of Chinese culture." Anybody who is familiar with the Cultural Revolution knows that China's traditional culture has in fact been wholly transformed in order to spread CCP culture. From the very beginning, the CCP never truly intended to promote Chinese traditional culture at all, but only used it as a means to promote itself and cover up its destruction of true traditional culture. However, we should not forget that the CCP has not been beyond reaping the benefits of the label "traditional culture" whenever possible. Two primary examples of this are the CCP's rejections of the ideals of Western democracy and religious freedom in the name of "protecting traditional culture."

Though the CCP has claimed a policy of "peace, cooperation, development," its true purpose has been to refuse democracy, freedom and human rights, and instead maintain its dictatorship.

The Chinese boys here extended that reasoning to be that China has a 'Mandate of Heaven' to be ruler and master of Asia and to speak for ALL Asians because of innate superior Chinese IQ. Any Asian who dared to challenge or even criticize China's policies and politics in anyway made the person being a 'sell-out' to the white man. The false dichotomy here is: China or else.

 

[gpit]

Hey buddy, that mentality was what led to the result of the Vietnam War; pun intended.

Friend, it's more than just that.

Propaganda, American-style
...

In 1921, the famous American journalist Walter Lippmann said that the art of democracy requires what he called the "manufacture of consent." This phrase is an Orwellian euphemism for thought control. The idea is that in a state such as the U.S. where the government can't control the people by force, it had better control what they think.. The Soviet Union is at the opposite end of the spectrum from us in its domestic freedoms. It's essentially a country run by the bludgeon. It's very easy to determine what propaganda is in the USSR: what the state produces is propaganda.

In totalitarian societies where there's a Ministry of Truth, propaganda doesn't really try to control your thoughts. It just gives you the party line. It says, "Here's the official doctrine; don't disobey and you won't get in trouble. What you think is not of great importance to anyone. If you get out of line we'll do something to you because we have force." Democratic societies can't work like that, because the state is much more limited in its capacity to control behavior by force. Since the voice of the people is allowed to speak out, those in power better control what that voice says--in other words, control what people think. One of the ways to do this is to create political debate that appears to embrace many opinions, but actually stays within very narrow margins. You have to make sure that both sides in the debate accept certain assumptions--and that those assumptions are the basis of the propaganda system. As long as everyone accepts the propaganda system, the debate is permissible.

…

The Vietnam War is a classic example of America's propaganda system. In the mainstream media--the New York Times, CBS, and so on-- there was a lively debate about the war. It was between people called "doves" and people called "hawks." The hawks said, "If we keep at it we can win." The doves said, "Even if we keep at it, it would probably be too costly for use, and besides, maybe we're killing too many people." Both sides agreed on one thing. We had a right to carry out aggression against South Vietnam. Doves and hawks alike refused to admit that aggression was taking place. They both called our military presence in Southeast Asia the defense of South Vietnam, substituting "defense" for "aggression" in the standard Orwellian manner. In reality, we were attacking South Vietnam just as surely as the Soviets later attacked Afghanistan.

Consider the following facts. In 1962 the U.S. Air Force began direct attacks against the rural population of South Vietnam with heavy bombing and defoliation . It was part of a program intended to drive millions of people into detention camps where, surrounded by barbed wire and armed guards, they would be "protected" from the guerrillas they were supporting--the "Viet Cong," the southern branch of the former anti-French resistance (the Vietminh). This is what our government calls aggression or invasion when conducted by some official enemy. The Saigon government had no legitimacy and little popular support, and its leadership was regularly overthrown in U.S.-backed coups when it was feared they might arrange a settlement with the Viet Cong. Some 70,000 "Viet Cong" had already been killed in the U.S.-directed terror campaign before the outright U.S. invasion took place in 1972.

Like the Soviets in Afghanistan, we tried to establish a government in Saigon to invite us in. We had to overthrow regime after regime in that effort. Finally we simply invaded outright. That is plain, simple aggression. But anyone in the U.S. who thought that our policies in Vietnam were wrong in principle was not admitted to the discussion about the war. The debate was essentially over tactics.

Even at the peak of opposition to the U.S. war, only a minuscule portion of the intellectuals opposed the war out of principle--on the grounds that aggression is wrong. Most intellectuals came to oppose it well after leading business circles did--on the "pragmatic" grounds that the costs were too high.

Strikingly omitted from the debate was the view that the U.S. could have won, but that it would have been wrong to allow such military aggression to succeed. This was the position of the authentic peace movement but it was seldom heard in the mainstream media. If you pick up a book on American history and look at the Vietnam War, there is no such event as the American attack on South Vietnam. For the past 22 years, I have searched in vain for even a single reference in mainstream journalism or scholarship to an "American invasion of South Vietnam" or American "aggression" in South Vietnam. In America's doctrinal system, there is no such event. It's out of history, down Orwell's memory hole.

If the U.S. were a totalitarian state, the Ministry of Truth would simply have said, "It's right for us to go into Vietnam. Don't argue with it." People would have recognized that as the propaganda system, and they would have gone on thinking whatever they wanted. They would have plainly seen that we were attacking Vietnam, just as we can see the Soviets are attacking Afghanistan.

People are much freer in the U.S., they are allowed to express themselves. That's why it's necessary for those in power to control everyone's thought, to try and make it appear as if the only issues in matters such as U.S. intervention in Vietnam are tactical: Can we get away with it? There is no discussion of right or wrong.


...



Enjoy reading?

 

[cera]

@gambit. You must be blind to ignore that your government is killing people everyday, capitalist boy. It is really unfortunate that your knowledge is just limited to the tech area; it does not stop you from being brain-washed. Regarding ideology, don't make your judgement too early. When China becomes #1, you will see a sea change in this world.