China sub stalked U.S. fleet

[[email protected]]

China sub stalked U.S. fleet
By Bill Gertz
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published November 13, 2006

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A Chinese submarine stalked a U.S. aircraft carrier battle group in
the Pacific last month and surfaced within firing range of its
torpedoes and missiles before being detected, The Washington Times has
learned.
The surprise encounter highlights China's continuing efforts to
prepare for a future conflict with the U.S., despite Pentagon efforts
to try to boost relations with Beijing's communist-ruled military.
The submarine encounter with the USS Kitty Hawk and its
accompanying warships also is an embarrassment to the commander of
U.S. forces in the Pacific, Adm. William J. Fallon, who is engaged in
an ambitious military exchange program with China aimed at improving
relations between the two nations' militaries.
Disclosure of the incident comes as Adm. Gary Roughead, commander
of the U.S. Navy's Pacific Fleet, is making his first visit to China.
The four-star admiral was scheduled to meet senior Chinese military
leaders during the weeklong visit, which began over the weekend.
According to the defense officials, the Chinese Song-class
diesel-powered attack submarine shadowed the Kitty Hawk undetected and
surfaced within five miles of the carrier Oct. 26.
The surfaced submarine was spotted by a routine surveillance
flight by one of the carrier group's planes.
The Kitty Hawk battle group includes an attack submarine and
anti-submarine helicopters that are charged with protecting the
warships from submarine attack.
According to the officials, the submarine is equipped with
Russian-made wake-homing torpedoes and anti-ship cruise missiles.
The Kitty Hawk and several other warships were deployed in ocean
waters near Okinawa at the time, as part of a routine fall deployment
program. The officials said Chinese submarines rarely have operated in
deep water far from Chinese shores or shadowed U.S. vessels.
A Pacific Command spokesman declined to comment on the incident,
saying details were classified. Pentagon spokesmen also declined to
comment.
The incident is a setback for the aggressive U.S.-China military
exchange program being promoted by Adm. Fallon, who has made several
visits to China in recent months in an attempt to develop closer ties.
However, critics of the program in the Pentagon say China has not
reciprocated and continues to deny U.S. military visitors access to
key facilities, including a Beijing command center.
In contrast, Chinese military visitors have been invited to
military exercises and sensitive U.S. facilities. Additionally,
military intelligence officials said Adm. Fallon has restricted U.S.
intelligence-gathering activities against China, fearing that
disclosure of the activities would upset relations with Beijing.
The restrictions are hindering efforts to know more about China's
military buildup, the officials said. "This is a harbinger of a
stronger Chinese reaction to America's military presence in East
Asia," said Richard Fisher, a Chinese military specialist with the
International Assessment and Strategy Center, who called the submarine
incident alarming.
"Given the long range of new Chinese sub-launched anti-ship
missiles and those purchased from Russia, this incident is very
serious," he said. "It will likely happen again, only because Chinese
submarine captains of 40 to 50 new modern submarines entering their
navy will want to test their mettle against the 7th Fleet."
Pentagon intelligence officials say China's military buildup in
recent years has produced large numbers of submarines and surface
ships, seeking to control larger portions of international waters in
Asia, a move U.S. officials fear could restrict the flow of oil from
the Middle East to Asia in the future.
Between 2002 and last year, China built 14 new submarines,
including new Song-class vessels and several other types, both diesel-
and nuclear-powered.
Since 1996, when the United States dispatched two aircraft carrier
battle groups to waters near Taiwan in a show of force, Beijing also
has bought and built weapons designed specifically to attack U.S.
aircraft carriers and other warships. "The Chinese have made it clear
that they understand the importance of the submarine in any kind of
offensive or defensive strategy to deal with a military conflict," an
intelligence official said recently.
In late 2004, China dispatched a Han-class submarine to waters
near Guam, Taiwan and Japan. Japan's military went on emergency alert
after the submarine surfaced in Japanese waters.
Beijing apologized for the incursion. The Pentagon's latest annual
report on Chinese military power stated that China is investing
heavily in weapons designed "to interdict, at long ranges, aircraft
carrier and expeditionary strike groups that might deploy to the
western Pacific."
It could not be learned whether the U.S. government lodged a
protest with China's government over the incident or otherwise raised
the matter in official channels.

[Greasy Rider @ invalid.com]

On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 11:34:37 -0800,
postulated :
>China sub stalked U.S. fleet
>By Bill Gertz
>THE WASHINGTON TIMES
>Published November 13, 2006
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>A Chinese submarine stalked a U.S. aircraft carrier battle group in
>the Pacific last month and surfaced within firing range of its
>torpedoes and missiles before being detected, The Washington Times has
>learned.

(snipped)

That is disturbing news if it is true.

[Michael Wise]

In article >,
wrote:

> China sub stalked U.S. fleet
> By Bill Gertz
> THE WASHINGTON TIMES
> Published November 13, 2006
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
>
> A Chinese submarine stalked a U.S. aircraft carrier battle group in
> the Pacific last month and surfaced within firing range of its
> torpedoes and missiles before being detected, The Washington Times has
> learned.


How does the Washington Times no whether or not the sub had been
detected? Just because a sub surfaced near Mother does not mean we did
not know it had been there...and/or would divulge such information to
the general public anyway.


--Mike

[Harry Andreas]

In article >,
wrote:

> China sub stalked U.S. fleet
> By Bill Gertz
> THE WASHINGTON TIMES
> Published November 13, 2006
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> A Chinese submarine stalked a U.S. aircraft carrier battle group in
> the Pacific last month and surfaced within firing range of its
> torpedoes and missiles before being detected, The Washington Times has
> learned.

Where's the evidence that the US fleet did not detect it?
For all the WT knows there was a LA class sub sitting 500 yards astern
the Chinese sub the whole time.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

[Kyle Boatright]

"Harry Andreas" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> wrote:
>
>> China sub stalked U.S. fleet
>> By Bill Gertz
>> THE WASHINGTON TIMES
>> Published November 13, 2006
>>
>>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> A Chinese submarine stalked a U.S. aircraft carrier battle group in
>> the Pacific last month and surfaced within firing range of its
>> torpedoes and missiles before being detected, The Washington Times has
>> learned.
>
> Where's the evidence that the US fleet did not detect it?
> For all the WT knows there was a LA class sub sitting 500 yards astern
> the Chinese sub the whole time.
>
> --
> Harry Andreas
> Engineering raconteur

Even better, the Chinese probably don't know if they were detected either.
Making no public comment is a very clever move by the Navy. Maybe the
Chinese got close to a nuke carrier with a sub and it didn't get detected.
On the other hand, maybe it was detected and tracked for a week beforehand.

The Chinese will probably never know. Which would make it that much harder
for them to decide how to use their subs if a conflict erupted...

[Ricardo]

Kyle Boatright wrote:
> "Harry Andreas" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>In article >,
wrote:
>>
>>
>>>China sub stalked U.S. fleet
>>>By Bill Gertz
>>>THE WASHINGTON TIMES
>>>Published November 13, 2006
>>>
>>>
>>
>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>>A Chinese submarine stalked a U.S. aircraft carrier battle group in
>>>the Pacific last month and surfaced within firing range of its
>>>torpedoes and missiles before being detected, The Washington Times has
>>>learned.
>>
>>Where's the evidence that the US fleet did not detect it?
>>For all the WT knows there was a LA class sub sitting 500 yards astern
>>the Chinese sub the whole time.
>>
>>--
>>Harry Andreas
>>Engineering raconteur
>
>
> Even better, the Chinese probably don't know if they were detected either.
> Making no public comment is a very clever move by the Navy. Maybe the
> Chinese got close to a nuke carrier with a sub and it didn't get detected.
> On the other hand, maybe it was detected and tracked for a week beforehand.
>
> The Chinese will probably never know. Which would make it that much harder
> for them to decide how to use their subs if a conflict erupted...
>
>
>
>
Of course, the balancing thing is that until America provokes a conflict
with China, she won't know either!

It was in July when we were told of the despatch of the US aircraft
carrier USS Bonhomme Richard to the Pacific - just one of 41 vessels
and 160 aircraft - as a 'warning' to China!

I'm sure China really appreciated that - if they had done something
similar the USA would still be cowering in its bunkers.

Ricardo

--
"Quick to judge, quick to anger, slow to understand
Ignorance and prejudice, and fear, walk hand in hand ..."

[Diamond Jim]

"Ricardo" > wrote in message
o.uk...
> Kyle Boatright wrote:
>> "Harry Andreas" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>In article >,
wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>China sub stalked U.S. fleet
>>>>By Bill Gertz
>>>>THE WASHINGTON TIMES
>>>>Published November 13, 2006
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>>A Chinese submarine stalked a U.S. aircraft carrier battle group in
>>>>the Pacific last month and surfaced within firing range of its
>>>>torpedoes and missiles before being detected, The Washington Times has
>>>>learned.
>>>
>>>Where's the evidence that the US fleet did not detect it?
>>>For all the WT knows there was a LA class sub sitting 500 yards astern
>>>the Chinese sub the whole time.
>>>
>>>--
>>>Harry Andreas
>>>Engineering raconteur
>>
>>
>> Even better, the Chinese probably don't know if they were detected
>> either. Making no public comment is a very clever move by the Navy. Maybe
>> the Chinese got close to a nuke carrier with a sub and it didn't get
>> detected. On the other hand, maybe it was detected and tracked for a week
>> beforehand.
>>
>> The Chinese will probably never know. Which would make it that much
>> harder for them to decide how to use their subs if a conflict erupted...
>>
>>
> Of course, the balancing thing is that until America provokes a conflict
> with China, she won't know either!
>
> It was in July when we were told of the despatch of the US aircraft
> carrier USS Bonhomme Richard to the Pacific - just one of 41 vessels and
> 160 aircraft - as a 'warning' to China!
>
> I'm sure China really appreciated that - if they had done something
> similar the USA would still be cowering in its bunkers.
>
> Ricardo
>
> --
> "Quick to judge, quick to anger, slow to understand
> Ignorance and prejudice, and fear, walk hand in hand ..."

You don't have a clue! The USS Bonhomme Richard is an Amphibious Assault
Ship, not an aircraft carrier. It carries a battalion of Marines,
helicopters, landing craft, and occasionally a few AV-8 Harriers (called the
jump jet by some). I doubt China is worried about being invaded by just one
battalion of Marines.

[Ricardo]

Diamond Jim wrote:
> "Ricardo" > wrote in message
> o.uk...
>
>>Kyle Boatright wrote:
>>
>>>"Harry Andreas" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>In article >,
wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>China sub stalked U.S. fleet
>>>>>By Bill Gertz
>>>>>THE WASHINGTON TIMES
>>>>>Published November 13, 2006
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>A Chinese submarine stalked a U.S. aircraft carrier battle group in
>>>>>the Pacific last month and surfaced within firing range of its
>>>>>torpedoes and missiles before being detected, The Washington Times has
>>>>>learned.
>>>>
>>>>Where's the evidence that the US fleet did not detect it?
>>>>For all the WT knows there was a LA class sub sitting 500 yards astern
>>>>the Chinese sub the whole time.
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>Harry Andreas
>>>>Engineering raconteur
>>>
>>>
>>>Even better, the Chinese probably don't know if they were detected
>>>either. Making no public comment is a very clever move by the Navy. Maybe
>>>the Chinese got close to a nuke carrier with a sub and it didn't get
>>>detected. On the other hand, maybe it was detected and tracked for a week
>>>beforehand.
>>>
>>>The Chinese will probably never know. Which would make it that much
>>>harder for them to decide how to use their subs if a conflict erupted...
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Of course, the balancing thing is that until America provokes a conflict
>>with China, she won't know either!
>>
>>It was in July when we were told of the despatch of the US aircraft
>>carrier USS Bonhomme Richard to the Pacific - just one of 41 vessels and
>>160 aircraft - as a 'warning' to China!
>>
>>I'm sure China really appreciated that - if they had done something
>>similar the USA would still be cowering in its bunkers.
>>
>>Ricardo
>>
>>--
>>"Quick to judge, quick to anger, slow to understand
>>Ignorance and prejudice, and fear, walk hand in hand ..."
>
>
> You don't have a clue! The USS Bonhomme Richard is an Amphibious Assault
> Ship, not an aircraft carrier. It carries a battalion of Marines,
> helicopters, landing craft, and occasionally a few AV-8 Harriers (called the
> jump jet by some). I doubt China is worried about being invaded by just one
> battalion of Marines.
>
>
I was merely quoting a press release at the time! It's not my fault if
US Government agencies get their arses in a twist with facts - I was
just passing it on. Presumably this is the same group that the Chinese
have been shadowing and the relevant aircraft carrier is the Kitty Hawk.
The fact that America is sufficiently frightened of China to send 41
naval vessels of any type to "warn" them sends its own message.

To quote from my original posting:

"China, which has a rampant economy, has raised military spending by
more than 10 per cent a year for 15 years. That has given the People's
Liberation Army a bristling array of high-tech weaponry, including
carrier-killing weapons. They threaten the vessels that have kept the
Pacific a United States lake for more than half a century and that could
block China's long-cherished dream of snuffing out the small democratic
breakaway state of Taiwan.

Mr Schmidt suggested that the growing rivalry had parallels with the
dreadnought-building race between Britain and Germany in the years
before the First World War. He said the Chinese, after watching this
summer's demonstration of American power, had probably concluded: "Yes,
we see how powerful you are and that is going to make us work twice as
hard."

"Michael Pillsbury, a China expert who advises Donald Rumsfeld, the
defence secretary, and who helped to craft the hedging strategy said:
"There is no real explanation for why China is doing all this, what the
limit is, or how much longer it will go on. What is the purpose of it?""

Proof of American inability to understand 'the real world' is in Michael
Pillsbury's comment: "There is no real explanation for why China is
doing all this, what the limit is, or how much longer it will go on.
What is the purpose of it?"

The reason is patently obvious: the Chinese will not tolerate American
bullying or intimidation and seek to defend themselves in event of
attack - or perhaps they are ready to take on the role of the 'world's
policeman'. "

By the way, the AV8 Harrier was called the "jump-jet" by its British
inventors.

Ricardo

--
"Quick to judge, quick to anger, slow to understand
Ignorance and prejudice, and fear, walk hand in hand ..."

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 15:48:52 GMT, Ricardo >
wrote:


>I was merely quoting a press release at the time! It's not my fault if
>US Government agencies get their arses in a twist with facts - I was
>just passing it on.

It may be"'fact" that a Cbinese sub surfaced within it's weapon range
from a U.S. carrier. What is not "fact" is the question of its
detection (or lack thereof). You also might ask, "why?" If they did
get there undectected why would they disclose this capability? They
just gave away some intel that they didn't have to. The CHICOMS tend
to play stuff close to the vest. This doesn't really track.

Presumably this is the same group that the Chinese
>have been shadowing and the relevant aircraft carrier is the Kitty Hawk.
>The fact that America is sufficiently frightened of China to send 41
>naval vessels of any type to "warn" them sends its own message.

If we have increased naval activity in WESTPAC I doubt we are trying
to "warn" the Chinese. More likely we are looking at the North
Koreans.

Like it or not China is, today, a "player" on the world stage. They
have not not been expansionistec, externally, since about the 12th
Century. So there's not much of a "track record" on a national basis
that we can look at. Maybe they are going to follow the "Japanese
Model" and act like Japan did after the U.S. forced the opening of
Japanese ports in the mid-19th Century. Maybe they'll pick some other
model.

While they might look with suspician at us, they REALLY don't trust
the Russians, with whom they have a VERY long border and who, in the
past, forced some territorial concessions upon them. They have never
been happy with that and there is some evidence that they would like
the land back.

Bill Kambic
Haras Lucero, Kingston, TN
Mangalarga Marchador: Uma Raça, Uma Paixão

[Ricardo]

wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 15:48:52 GMT, Ricardo >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>>I was merely quoting a press release at the time! It's not my fault if
>>US Government agencies get their arses in a twist with facts - I was
>>just passing it on.
>
>
> It may be"'fact" that a Cbinese sub surfaced within it's weapon range
> from a U.S. carrier. What is not "fact" is the question of its
> detection (or lack thereof). You also might ask, "why?" If they did
> get there undectected why would they disclose this capability? They
> just gave away some intel that they didn't have to. The CHICOMS tend
> to play stuff close to the vest. This doesn't really track.
>
> Presumably this is the same group that the Chinese
>
>>have been shadowing and the relevant aircraft carrier is the Kitty Hawk.
>>The fact that America is sufficiently frightened of China to send 41
>>naval vessels of any type to "warn" them sends its own message.
>
>
> If we have increased naval activity in WESTPAC I doubt we are trying
> to "warn" the Chinese. More likely we are looking at the North
> Koreans.
>
> Like it or not China is, today, a "player" on the world stage. They
> have not not been expansionistec, externally, since about the 12th
> Century. So there's not much of a "track record" on a national basis
> that we can look at. Maybe they are going to follow the "Japanese
> Model" and act like Japan did after the U.S. forced the opening of
> Japanese ports in the mid-19th Century. Maybe they'll pick some other
> model.
>
> While they might look with suspician at us, they REALLY don't trust
> the Russians, with whom they have a VERY long border and who, in the
> past, forced some territorial concessions upon them. They have never
> been happy with that and there is some evidence that they would like
> the land back.
>
> Bill Kambic
> Haras Lucero, Kingston, TN
> Mangalarga Marchador: Uma Raça, Uma Paixão

Much the same as Mexico and the USA!

--
"Quick to judge, quick to anger, slow to understand
Ignorance and prejudice, and fear, walk hand in hand ..."

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 16:47:03 GMT, Ricardo >
wrote:

>> While they might look with suspician at us, they REALLY don't trust
>> the Russians, with whom they have a VERY long border and who, in the
>> past, forced some territorial concessions upon them. They have never
>> been happy with that and there is some evidence that they would like
>> the land back.
>>
>> Bill Kambic
>> Haras Lucero, Kingston, TN
>> Mangalarga Marchador: Uma Raça, Uma Paixão
>
>Much the same as Mexico and the USA!

Indeed. But that has nothing to do with a Chinese sub shadowing a
U.S. carrier.


Bill Kambic
Haras Lucero, Kingston, TN
Mangalarga Marchador: Uma Raça, Uma Paixão

[Harry Andreas]

In article >, wrote:

> Like it or not China is, today, a "player" on the world stage. They
> have not not been expansionistec, externally, since about the 12th
> Century.

Except for the Spratleys, which are roughly equidistant from Philippines,
Vietnam, and Indonesia, but a LONG way from China.
Perhaps because it's called the South China Sea they think that everything
in it belongs to them?

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

[Diamond Jim]

"Ricardo" > wrote in message
.uk...

SNIP!
SNIP!
SNIP!

> I was merely quoting a press release at the time! It's not my fault if US
> Government agencies get their arses in a twist with facts - I was just
> passing it on.

The press in US is not controlled by the government nor is it a government
agency.

If you mean the US Navy, as the origin of the press release, I would wager
that it contained the correct information.

The US press in its efforts to "sell the news", is not noted for its
accuracy in reporting. If a few facts are left out, distorted, or
sensationalized, it doesn't really matter to them as long as it SELLS!

[DDAY]

----------
In article >, Ricardo
> wrote:

> "China, which has a rampant economy, has raised military spending by
> more than 10 per cent a year for 15 years. That has given the People's
> Liberation Army a bristling array of high-tech weaponry, including
> carrier-killing weapons. They threaten the vessels that have kept the
> Pacific a United States lake for more than half a century and that could
> block China's long-cherished dream of snuffing out the small democratic
> breakaway state of Taiwan.

Er... maybe not.

There's a lot of hyperbole about the "Chinese defense buildup." If you read
the aviation press, there have been some pretty good articles in recent
issues of Combat Airpower about the Chinese air force. In short, the
aviation geeks are not impressed. The Chinese have bought a fair amount of
new equipment, but they are also wedded to a lot of old and inferior
equipment as well. And their flight hours are awful, averaging something
like 40-60 per year. In other words, their pilots are getting in an average
of about one hour of flight time a week.

As far as the Chinese navy is concerned, people make a big deal out of their
purchase of some modern Russian destroyers. But how many did they actually
buy? Four? It's not a lot. One would think from the hyperbole that they
now have a massive navy. They don't. It's not much bigger than it was ten
years ago.




D

[Ricardo]

DDAY wrote:
> ----------
> In article >, Ricardo
> > wrote:
>
>
>>"China, which has a rampant economy, has raised military spending by
>>more than 10 per cent a year for 15 years. That has given the People's
>>Liberation Army a bristling array of high-tech weaponry, including
>>carrier-killing weapons. They threaten the vessels that have kept the
>>Pacific a United States lake for more than half a century and that could
>>block China's long-cherished dream of snuffing out the small democratic
>>breakaway state of Taiwan.
>
>
> Er... maybe not.
>
> There's a lot of hyperbole about the "Chinese defense buildup." If you read
> the aviation press, there have been some pretty good articles in recent
> issues of Combat Airpower about the Chinese air force. In short, the
> aviation geeks are not impressed. The Chinese have bought a fair amount of
> new equipment, but they are also wedded to a lot of old and inferior
> equipment as well. And their flight hours are awful, averaging something
> like 40-60 per year. In other words, their pilots are getting in an average
> of about one hour of flight time a week.
>
> As far as the Chinese navy is concerned, people make a big deal out of their
> purchase of some modern Russian destroyers. But how many did they actually
> buy? Four? It's not a lot. One would think from the hyperbole that they
> now have a massive navy. They don't. It's not much bigger than it was ten
> years ago.
>
>
>
>
> D
Check on their recent submarine acquisitions, diesel and nuclear.

Ricardo

--
"Quick to judge, quick to anger, slow to understand
Ignorance and prejudice, and fear, walk hand in hand ..."

[Glenn Dowdy]

"Harry Andreas" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> wrote:
>
>> Like it or not China is, today, a "player" on the world stage. They
>> have not not been expansionistec, externally, since about the 12th
>> Century.
>
> Except for the Spratleys, which are roughly equidistant from Philippines,
> Vietnam, and Indonesia, but a LONG way from China.
> Perhaps because it's called the South China Sea they think that everything
> in it belongs to them?
>
Aren't the Spratleys sitting on top of some nice oil reserves?

Glenn D.

[Ricardo]

Glenn Dowdy wrote:
> "Harry Andreas" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>In article >,
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Like it or not China is, today, a "player" on the world stage. They
>>>have not not been expansionistec, externally, since about the 12th
>>>Century.
>>
>>Except for the Spratleys, which are roughly equidistant from Philippines,
>>Vietnam, and Indonesia, but a LONG way from China.
>>Perhaps because it's called the South China Sea they think that everything
>>in it belongs to them?
>>
>
> Aren't the Spratleys sitting on top of some nice oil reserves?
>
> Glenn D.
>
>
Oh, dear, not another WMD and the need to remove an evil leader
situation coming up! (All in the interests of spreading "democracy and
freedom", of course, albeit at the point of a gun!)

Ricardo

--
"Quick to judge, quick to anger, slow to understand
Ignorance and prejudice, and fear, walk hand in hand ..."

[DDAY]

----------
In article >, Ricardo
> wrote:


> Check on their recent submarine acquisitions, diesel and nuclear.

Uh huh. How many? Two? Three?




D

[Ricardo]

DDAY wrote:
> ----------
> In article >, Ricardo
> > wrote:
>
>
>
>>Check on their recent submarine acquisitions, diesel and nuclear.
>
>
> Uh huh. How many? Two? Three?
>
>
>
>
> D
http://www.heritage.org/Research/AsiaandthePacific/wm1001.cfm

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040716-123134-8152r.htm

Have a look - and think about it!

Ricardo
--
"Quick to judge, quick to anger, slow to understand
Ignorance and prejudice, and fear, walk hand in hand ..."

[Harry Andreas]

In article >, "Glenn Dowdy"
> wrote:

> "Harry Andreas" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Like it or not China is, today, a "player" on the world stage. They
> >> have not not been expansionistec, externally, since about the 12th
> >> Century.
> >
> > Except for the Spratleys, which are roughly equidistant from Philippines,
> > Vietnam, and Indonesia, but a LONG way from China.
> > Perhaps because it's called the South China Sea they think that everything
> > in it belongs to them?
> >
> Aren't the Spratleys sitting on top of some nice oil reserves?

Yes. And certain nearby countries have a much more valid claim on it than
China. I think the Philippines probably need it more in many ways than
Big Red.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

[Perro Blanco]

--
When you discover that "they" really are out to get you, you may realise
that you're not quite as paranoid as you thought you were.

"Harry Andreas" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Glenn Dowdy"
> > wrote:
>
>> "Harry Andreas" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >,
>> >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Like it or not China is, today, a "player" on the world stage. They
>> >> have not not been expansionistec, externally, since about the 12th
>> >> Century.
>> >
>> > Except for the Spratleys, which are roughly equidistant from
>> > Philippines,
>> > Vietnam, and Indonesia, but a LONG way from China.
>> > Perhaps because it's called the South China Sea they think that
>> > everything
>> > in it belongs to them?
>> >
>> Aren't the Spratleys sitting on top of some nice oil reserves?
>
> Yes. And certain nearby countries have a much more valid claim on it than
> China. I think the Philippines probably need it more in many ways than
> Big Red.
>
> --
> Harry Andreas
> Engineering raconteur

Sounds great. America could then solve its oil problems by re-colonising the
Philippines 60 years after they left, without having to invent any fantasies
about WMDs!

--
When you discover that "they" really are out to get you, you may realise
that you're not quite as paranoid as you thought you were.

[DDAY]

----------
In article >, Ricardo
> wrote:

>>>Check on their recent submarine acquisitions, diesel and nuclear.
>>
>> Uh huh. How many? Two? Three?

> http://www.heritage.org/Research/AsiaandthePacific/wm1001.cfm
>
> http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040716-123134-8152r.htm
>
> Have a look - and think about it!

Well, The Heritage Foundation says the answer is--four. And also accuses
the US Navy of ignoring the threat. That's kinda funny, actually, because
the submarine service would be jumping all over this if it's true. I have a
glossy brochure that they produced over a decade ago warning about all the
submarines that the Russians were launching, and that didn't happen.

Something that frequently gets lost in the hype about Chinese "force
modernization" is that in many cases they are not really increasing their
numbers. They're simply replacing badly outdated equipment. Their sub
fleet is ancient, so they're modernizing it.

Don't believe all the hype. Yeah, they're building weapons, but it's not at
a great rate.



D

[fudog50]

This is why I am happy to still be serving and attached to a "Carrier
Strike Group". i get to see the real truth. After 25 years nothing
has changed, just the players. After returning from the last cruise in
August on Lincoln, the status quo has not changed. People not in the
know tend to take what CNN, WT and other media org.'s publish as
"real". They do not publish "untruths", but rarely ever tell the whole
story. That being said, the most truthful comment read here so far is
that beyond a "shadow" of a doubt there was at least an LA class on
their ass the whole time waiting for an external hatch to open. Those
in the know realize there are "joint ops", acts of aggression and acts
of war. A sub trailing our fleet and allowing us to practice trailing
and getting valuable signature data was a joint op, beneficial to us
and was not an act of war or aggression. Opening a door is...this has
been going on for 30 years, Chinese and Russian,,enough said.


On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 03:40:13 GMT, "DDAY"
> wrote:

>----------
>In article >, Ricardo
> wrote:
>
>>>>Check on their recent submarine acquisitions, diesel and nuclear.
>>>
>>> Uh huh. How many? Two? Three?
>
>> http://www.heritage.org/Research/AsiaandthePacific/wm1001.cfm
>>
>> http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040716-123134-8152r.htm
>>
>> Have a look - and think about it!
>
>Well, The Heritage Foundation says the answer is--four. And also accuses
>the US Navy of ignoring the threat. That's kinda funny, actually, because
>the submarine service would be jumping all over this if it's true. I have a
>glossy brochure that they produced over a decade ago warning about all the
>submarines that the Russians were launching, and that didn't happen.
>
>Something that frequently gets lost in the hype about Chinese "force
>modernization" is that in many cases they are not really increasing their
>numbers. They're simply replacing badly outdated equipment. Their sub
>fleet is ancient, so they're modernizing it.
>
>Don't believe all the hype. Yeah, they're building weapons, but it's not at
>a great rate.
>
>
>
>D
>