China to rule under the waves.

And since they're in the Chinese tech group they clearly can't comprehend the technology behind them.

Well, there's a hilariously overblown twist to what I said.

Saying 'they bought them' is actually not the same thing as saying 'they can't understand them'. It is just a simple statement on where they came from. I'm not building my own either, but I understand them.

Point of fact, there is no mysterious 'technology' behind them. They are just a refinement of the same drive systems that have powered missiles since Goddard, and likely always will.

There seems to be a conflation of 'more advanced weapon' with 'massive tech breakthrough'. Most more advanced weapons are only more advanced because the plants they are produced in have gone through an overhaul more recently. The most recent overhauling of anti-ship missile plants was in Russia. Doesn't make Russians geniuses or Chinese stupid, it's just what happened.
 
What about antiship ballistic missiles. Particullarly the DF-21D. A number of antiship MIRVs approaching at high hypersonic speed from space is a scenery any carrier commander cant like too much.

Interesting line from the article...

"Against an attack from the Mach 10 DF-21D without knowing the missile's launch point, the U.S. Navy's only way to evade it would be through electronic countermeasures."

Clearly a problem...except that it has been three decades since there has been any way to launch a ballistic missile from this particular planet without the US and Russian military knowing the exact launch point before the missile has cleared the first stage, so any 'without knowing the launch point it's terrible' can be pretty well ignored.

Do these missiles make ship captains sleep better at night? Absolutely not. But the 'missiles have made ships obsolete' argument was officially won in 1982...except that it wasn't. It continues to be won every time a new missile turns up...but it never really is. That's how the arms race is run.
 
I think the original comment is best viewed in the light "if it was that easy to do, wouldn't it have been done 50 years ago?"
 
and pretty high tech ones, wouldn't you say?

Yes, but Korea and China don't share technology anymore than China and the US does. I guess I'm misunderstanding your point.
 
Yes, but Korea and China don't share technology anymore than China and the US does. I guess I'm misunderstanding your point.


I think his point was that since they have a website they could easily be on the verge of a weapons breakthrough so the US should preemptively nuke them immediately, and the rest of the world should understand the necessity of such action.
 
I guess what I personally got out of your post was a reminder that Korea is more advanced than China. I'm missing the dots. Walk me through it.
 
It's still not clear what bearing Korean consumer goods have on Chinese military technology, even taking into account the fact that both countries as in Asia.
 
It's still not clear what bearing Korean consumer goods have on Chinese military technology, even taking into account the fact that both countries as in Asia.

You can use a Korean cell phone to set off an IED, but I don't think the Chinese military uses those.
 
I was trying to retort that it is well known Asians are just fine with high tech. I obviously failed at this. For this I apologize and offer my first born.
 
I was trying to retort that it is well known Asians are just fine with high tech. I obviously failed at this. For this I apologize and offer my first born.

You do realize that your first born has far more value to you than to anyone else, yes?

If I gave you my first born you would be pleading with me to take him back in a matter of minutes.
 
And you do realize that I don't actually have a first born, yes? MWAHAHAHA, GOT OFF SCOT FREE!
 
And you do realize that I don't actually have a first born, yes? MWAHAHAHA, GOT OFF SCOT FREE!

My first born's name happens to be Scott, and as I said you could have him for the five minutes you would need to decide to give him back. His views are even more extreme than mine, and backed by the vigor of a thirty year old instead of tempered by wisdom like mine are.
 
hi , me again . Chanced upon a book about submarines online and it says like USS Scorpion was sunk by the Soviets . What was the grapevine on that ? ı have seen the Wikipedia link , but ı try to avoid reading stuff as they happen to colour my questions just as am about to ask .

was it a torpedo that went wrong as ı read some years back on a gentleman's magazine -Esquire ı believe- and Americans found the wreck through sheer mathematical genius or was it some trigger happy Russkie with bouys deployed within 5 minutes ?
 
hi , me again . Chanced upon a book about submarines online and it says like USS Scorpion was sunk by the Soviets . What was the grapevine on that ? ı have seen the Wikipedia link , but ı try to avoid reading stuff as they happen to colour my questions just as am about to ask .

was it a torpedo that went wrong as ı read some years back on a gentleman's magazine -Esquire ı believe- and Americans found the wreck through sheer mathematical genius or was it some trigger happy Russkie with bouys deployed within 5 minutes ?

In a word...maybe, maybe, and maybe.

Maybe it got sunk by Russians.

Maybe it had a torpedo malfunction and detonate in the tube, or in the torpedo room.

Maybe it had a battery explosion.

Oddly enough I am wearing a CSI T shirt I got in Vegas, but that one is unsolved and never will be as far as I know.

For entertainment there is a novel called To Kill the Potemkin that is the fictional story of an American sub in a coldwar game of chicken with the first of the Soviet Alpha class...which was written by somebody that knew a lot about submarines and gave a very good rendition of the weirdness of their crews. They also knew all there was to know about the Scorpion, including the whole 'sunk by the Russians' mythos. Good fun read if you can find it.
 
Back
Top Bottom