Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

SUBMARINES: The Chinese Submarine Building Program
StrategyPage ^ | 5/24/04 | Sid Trevethan

Posted on 05/24/2004 5:27:29 PM PDT by LibWhacker

May 24, 2004: The Peoples Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) regards its submarine force as its first line naval force. Not without reason. Only the submarine force has nuclear powered ships. More importantly, Chinese submarines pose the most significant threat to hostile naval forces, especially U.S. Navy carrier battle groups. The Chinese submarine force is undergoing rapid conversion to modern propulsion, sensor and weapons technologies. At the same time, serious measures have been taken to reduce noise levels and increase the effectiveness of the crews.

The elite portion of the submarine force is its nuclear powered ships. Submarines are officially "ships" in the PLAN, rather than "boats" as in other navies. The Chinese nuclear submarine force was long mainly a paper threat. The original half a dozen nuclear submarines (5 Han attack boats and a single Xia which is nominally a ballistic missile sub) were the most noisy nuclear submarines ever built. Worse, they had terrible problems with radiation leaks in the reactor coolant system. The first of these subs was completed in 1974, but not operational until the 1980s because so many design and construction flaws had to be corrected. During the 1990s, an extensive program was undertaken to rebuild them all. Rumored to have been re-engined with French reactors (replacing the original German ones). U.S. Navy intelligence believes that, instead, the entire reactor coolant system was rebuilt. The Chinese subs had their electronics and sonar systems replaced with French equipment, and three may have been fitted with C-801 Ynng Ji 8 (Eagle Strike) ASCM (submarine launched cruise missile). Interestingly, the single Xia class sub, although used for missile launch trials, has never deployed with operational ballistic missiles, and apparently has been added to the force as an attack submarine. Supporting this theory are reports indicating the JL-1 and JL-1A ballistic missile (designed for Xia) never entered mass production nor were warheads manufactured for them.

Meanwhile, the first of the new 093 class SSN is nearing completion this year. A second of the 093 class has already been launched and two or more additional units are eventually expected to be built. These submarines, built with Russian technical advice, are similar to the Russian Victor III class. They have been modified to use the new Chinese land attack cruise missile (HN-3). The 093s are considered to be “very quiet.” A new missile submarine (type 094) has also begun construction. It is reportedly designed to use a sea based version of a land based ICBM (known as JL-2 in naval form). This missile could reach US targets from Chinese waters.

Potentially more significant is the rapidly expanding conventional submarine force. Typical of PLAN programs, there are parallel domestic and foreign weapons systems. Most famous, perhaps, is the purchase of four Russian Kilo class submarines, including two of the more advanced Project 636 types. More ominously, China ordered an additional eight units of this class, for simultaneous delivery in 2006, and it appears all will be delivered by 2007. These are superb submarines, quieter than most of the world’s nuclear submarines (when not recharging batteries with their diesel engines), and outfitted with very good sensors and torpedoes.

Less well understood are the newer domestic submarine classes. The first of these, called Ming, has completed production. But one of these boats was used to test a form of AIP (Air Independent Propulsion), and the final series of six was built to use the best sonar and torpedoes available and also reportedly use AIP. With a workable AIP, these subs could stay underwater for weeks, and be quieter than American nuclear subs.

The other domestic class is the Song. Subject to protracted development, it required a substantial redesign, so that the first ships produced were considered a subclass, called Song I. There are now six Song II, all with AIP, and all fitted to fire the same ASCM as the later Han SSNs (YJ-8). Often reported to be fired from separate tubes, in fact these missiles are torpedo tube launched weapons.

Taken together, these modern submarines represent a very significant capability. They are as quiet as the US Los Angelus class, and those with AIP do not have to use noisy diesel engines to recharge their batteries for weeks. The Song class subs are still building at a rate of one a year.

Finally, the PLAN continues to operate significant (but declining) numbers of Romeo class submarines. Copied from a Russian design, those still in service have also had new French sonar equipment installed. There are about 36 of these ships, but only about 21 active duty crews to serve them. The PLAN does not associate a crew with a specific submarine. Crews live ashore and are assigned a sub for a given mission. The Romeo class submarines might be significant as minelayers, as bait for anti-SSN traps, and as threats to merchant shipping.

A final note about the PLAN submarine force. Long thought to use inferior Chinese designed torpedoes, it is entirely equipped with Russian torpedoes. The Yu-1 torpedo is the Russian Type 53-51, the Yu-3 is the SET-65E, the Yu-4 is the SET-60, the Yu-5 is the TEST-71/96 and the Yu-6 is the Type 53-65 (which has been compared to the Mark 48). Only the newer boats are fitted to use the Yu-5 and Yu-6.


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: armsbuildup; china; chinese; chinesenavy; france; program; russia; submarine
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-94 next last
Oh, goody, gang . . . Let's stand by and allow another totalitarian dictatorship to become a superpower, the last Cold War was so much fun!

Sheesh, I sure hope the Pentagon is further along in its ABM development and deployment plans than it appears.

1 posted on 05/24/2004 5:27:30 PM PDT by LibWhacker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

Did Bill Clinton sell them the plans?


2 posted on 05/24/2004 5:32:53 PM PDT by boomop1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

Ain't the results of onesided 'freetrade' grand! ;->


3 posted on 05/24/2004 5:36:44 PM PDT by inflation (Cuba = BAD, China = Good? Why, should both be treated the way Cuba is?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker
This building program underwritten by trade with the United States of America.

To hear the economists tell it, China doesn't need these subs. She's soooooo friendly with the U.S. A.H.s!

4 posted on 05/24/2004 5:41:06 PM PDT by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: boomop1

I wonder if we'll ever know how much that traitor sold us out to the Chicoms? The SOB.


5 posted on 05/24/2004 5:42:59 PM PDT by LibWhacker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker
The PLAN does not associate a crew with a specific submarine. Crews live ashore and are assigned a sub for a given mission.
What brilliant PLANNING in the PLAN. Why allow a crew the time or training to become intimately knowledgeable of any one boat? A submarine is as unsophisticated and easy to operate as a pontoon raft--you just get in it and go ... if you want to die at some absurd depth because your hull breaches while being chased by self-propelled guided munitions ....

Apparently the Chicomms are afraid that entire ships will defect. We should mount plans to help them realize that fear.
6 posted on 05/24/2004 5:45:05 PM PDT by Asclepius (protectionists would outsource our dignity and prosperity in return for illusory job security)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head
"The Chinese submarine force is undergoing rapid conversion to modern propulsion, sensor and weapons technologies."

Tell the truth Jeff, you authored this article dincha'?

For those that don't know, our very own Jeff Head saw this some years ago and told about it in his Dragons Fury books.

Very scary, bro.

7 posted on 05/24/2004 5:48:38 PM PDT by knarf (A place where anyone can learn anything ... especially that which promotes clear thinking.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

Just using the tech they bought from Boner Bill.


8 posted on 05/24/2004 5:49:34 PM PDT by clintonh8r (Retrosexual Vietnam veteran against John Kerry, proud to be a "crook" and a "liar.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: boomop1

9 posted on 05/24/2004 5:51:16 PM PDT by Light Speed (John Kerry...........Leave no child awake)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

Has anyone heard anything about the "gas torpedo" that the ChiComs were supposedly developing? It would sure fit in with this story! The weapon was supposed to ride a cloud of bubbles, under water, at speeds around 200mph. The thrust of the report (maybe around 1998) was that a carrier group would be sitting ducks for such a weapon. I never heard another thing about it after the inital report.


10 posted on 05/24/2004 5:51:31 PM PDT by TalBlack ("Tal, no song means anything without someone else....")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: inflation; DoughtyOne

Pitiful situation. When I was in grad school 20 years ago, it seemed like a third of all the grad students around me in engineering and the sciences were Chicom nationals, almost all the sons and daughters of China's political elite. Not only have rats handed them our technology on a silver platter, we've been training our enemies for a generation now how to take that technology and run with it, improve upon it, and discover who knows what? Makes me sick.


11 posted on 05/24/2004 5:51:54 PM PDT by LibWhacker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

I got into a real good arguement with another on here a few weeks back who said that in NO WAY will the Red Chinese be able to attack the US. The fellow seemed to think that they could not sustain a two or three pronged attack aimed agianst us over the world.

Here is the plan as I would see it. They got at least 500 thousand so called advisors in East Africa..some reports that I have seen estimates over one million. So the use the help of the Muslims in the mid east to send off against the oil reserve nations cutting off oil supplies to us. Does anyone think that the Muslims wouldnt help them if it would come to killing American and Israel people?

They OWN both ends of the Panama canal. How many people they have down there is anybodys guess. I would not be shocked that the figure is around a half million or more. So they cut off the use of the canal. Then how many in Cuba. They have evidence that they are building bunkers in Cuba. What the "H" do they need bunkers in Cuba for? Then the island in the Carrib owned and run by the Lippo group as a "port" facility. Ya right. A port facility. And what is being stored amoungst the merch within some of those buildings?

Then comes North Korea. They need North Korea to settle down and shut up for now. Then when time is right look out. It isnt to far to run up the coast to the Bering Straights and across.

Point is. They can cut off our oil supply (one front), let North Korea start something on that peninsula (second front). Get it going around the Carib and South America and send em off through Mexico from Panama (third front). Think they need food? Nope. They eat everything. They'll simply use whats at hand leaving the locals to starve..as if they care. All they need is arms and the means to ship manpower over here..that is more manpower, as no doubt they'll have enough people salted within our boarders to disrupt the heck out of us.

This all takes time. And time they have had and will continue to have for a while. We are busy with the Iraq and Afganistan crisis. So they are busy doing what they need to do.

Can we sustain and fight a three front war?


12 posted on 05/24/2004 5:53:39 PM PDT by crz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

About all we can do is spout off on it. Just like those who cursed those who financed Germany and Japan, you and I will get the boobie prize of knowing we told folks so. Our trade policies and agreements, our illegal immigration fiasco and even the terrible policies that see radical middle-eastern nation's people immigrate here in huge numbers, will take us down on their own. I'd step on a hell of a lot of toes if I went on. I do consider it traiterous, sedicious and subversive.


13 posted on 05/24/2004 5:57:49 PM PDT by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: crz

You forgot the chinese port facilities in california! They have military personnel and probably nuclear weapons inside our own borders.

-Whine- they aren't military - they are civilians, will cry the leftist stooges. Only the ignorant would believe that just like the did about the "civilian" onership of comapnies that just happen to make military and missile control systems - thanks to clintoons and company.


14 posted on 05/24/2004 5:58:49 PM PDT by steplock (http://www.gohotsprings.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: steplock

It's not just the left that thinks china is our friend. A lot of people in the GOP love them to death.


15 posted on 05/24/2004 6:03:02 PM PDT by inflation (Cuba = BAD, China = Good? Why, should both be treated the way Cuba is?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

As this happens we are considering cutting our attack sub force by as much as a third:

http://www.murdoconline.net/archives/001298.html

We had better be careful. I know that "Cold War weapons" are out of fashion, but they can come in handy when fighting superpower wanabees.


16 posted on 05/24/2004 6:03:15 PM PDT by murdocj (Murdoc Online - Everyone is entitled to my opinion (http://www.murdoconline.net))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TalBlack

Yes, cavitating torpedoes. The Pentagon has a substantial and active program working on them. But so do a number of other countries, Russia mainly. I remember those articles well . . . But you're right, we don't hear much anymore.


17 posted on 05/24/2004 6:04:38 PM PDT by LibWhacker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker
Not only have rats handed them our technology on a silver platter, we've been training our enemies for a generation now how to take that technology and run with it, improve upon it, and discover who knows what? Makes me sick.

Why can't you wake up and realize the Republicans sell us out just as bad as the rats? Who was president 20 years ago when you were in grad school? What has Bush done to correct this problem?

18 posted on 05/24/2004 6:07:45 PM PDT by rmmcdaniell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: crz

Lots of people with their heads in the sand, that's for sure! What gets me is when folks claim China can't catch up anytime soon. I believe they're catching up very quickly. Worse is when people say the Chinese historically aren't known to be innovators and so will never be a threat to us. Insane.


19 posted on 05/24/2004 6:07:58 PM PDT by LibWhacker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: TalBlack
Has anyone heard anything about the "gas torpedo" that the ChiComs were supposedly developing? It would sure fit in with this story! The weapon was supposed to ride a cloud of bubbles, under water, at speeds around 200mph. The thrust of the report (maybe around 1998) was that a carrier group would be sitting ducks for such a weapon. I never heard another thing about it after the inital report.

The technology you are referring to is known as super-cavitation. Basically, if an object travels within an encapsulated bubble of air, in water, it overcomes a lot of the inherent water resistance and thus allows it to achieve capabilities that would normally not be possible under the fluid dynamic conditions of water. In this case a torpedo is 'blanketed' with many small air bubbles, reducing drag, and allowing it to go at speeds far beyond what is 'normal.'

The Soviets (and thereafter the Russians) started this branch. They came up with a torpedo system called the Shkval (Squall), where the weapon could go in a straight line at speeds 5-6 times faster than the fastest we had. However the initial weapon had a fatal flaw ....it could only travel in a straight line. Hence, it was at best a weapon fired after a US sub had fired at the Ruskie sub. Hence, that would probably force the US sub to stop guidance, and hence save the Ruskie sub.

They were originally meant to be fitted with a nuclear warhead, hence going in a straight line was never the main issue ....speed was.I do know that the USN is also working on some super-cavitation weapons ....most of them directed towards 'shooting' underwater mines and incoming torpedos, and to some extent coming up with super-fast torpedoes of our own (although our doctrine is more toward stealth and quietness than torpedoes that think they are rockets).

Hope that answers your questions.

20 posted on 05/24/2004 6:09:13 PM PDT by spetznaz (Nuclear missiles: The ultimate Phallic symbol.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: steplock

I thought that congress put a hault to those? I know that they were supposed to take over the Long Beach one but wasnt a stop put to the whole deal?

Nothin shocks me anymore. Dam polititions will sell their souls for a nickel.


21 posted on 05/24/2004 6:09:35 PM PDT by crz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

like the supersonic Silkworm missiles - maybe the govt is going by the old saying "if you don't see it or hear it, it can't hurt you?"

with these new weapons, it can almost be true ... you won't feel a thing when you are in a billion particles.


22 posted on 05/24/2004 6:09:45 PM PDT by steplock (http://www.gohotsprings.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: rmmcdaniell
What has Bush done to correct this problem?

Dubya can't do this on his own, not when half the Congress seems to hate the United States. He's not a dictator. In truth, Nixon opened the door to China, to cater to liberal historians and to assure his legacy . . . In other words, he caved to 'rat opinion. IMHO.

23 posted on 05/24/2004 6:13:06 PM PDT by LibWhacker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: knarf; jim macomber
The Chinese are arming in a major way for naval warfare. It does not take too much analysis to determine who their major adversary will be.

...and it is our money that is allowing them to fund this.

The Rising Sea Dragon in Asia.

This is one of the principle reasons I wrote the:


THE DRAGON'S FURY NOVEL SERIES

A techno-thriller series about America and World War III

24 posted on 05/24/2004 6:13:18 PM PDT by Jeff Head (www.dragonsfuryseries.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

093s appear to be a highly destablizing factor on the face of it. Because aggreements such as the SALT series do not include the PRC as a signatory, they can pretty much bulk up to their heart's desire limited only by their spend and their will. Meanwhile, the US are disarming in terms of ICBMs. How can we call the PRC a "competitive partner" with a straight face when they are behaving the way the USSR was behaving round about the early 1960s?


25 posted on 05/24/2004 6:15:40 PM PDT by GOP_1900AD (Stomping on "PC," destroying the Left, and smoking out faux "conservatives" - Right makes right!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

We got a friend in Japan..I hope. The Japanese see right through the Reds and are starting to re-arm. The faster the better as far as I am concerned. They have and can handle the Chinese.

Then the Aussies. As far as Tiawan is concerned-they are toast.

How long did it take the Red Chinese to march through Viet Nam or that area after we left and they got into a tussle down there? What was it? Three weeks? And we didnt do it in how long?


26 posted on 05/24/2004 6:16:45 PM PDT by crz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

Has President Bush given even ONE primetime speech about the threat that China poses?


27 posted on 05/24/2004 6:17:40 PM PDT by inflation (Cuba = BAD, China = Good? Why, should both be treated the way Cuba is?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker; All
These submarines, built with Russian technical advice, are similar to the Russian Victor III class.

And how were the Russians able to build such quiet submarines? Toshiba sold them computer controlled machine tools to fab their propellers. They were found guilty by an international court and sentenced to a meaningless fine. Click here

This single act has undoubtedly cost the taxpayers of this country billions in order to develop new methods of detecting Russian subs and could cost us our freedom in the future.

Boycott Toshiba forever!

28 posted on 05/24/2004 6:19:44 PM PDT by Rockitz (After all these years, it's still rocket science.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: murdocj
Great article and great blog you've got there, Murdocj. Thanks!

It's a given: The enemy will come at us asymmetrically. It's all he can do. If we give up the weapons that won the Cold War for us, he'll come back at us from that angle again. And then it'll be all over for us. We must keep the old while adjusting to the new, imho!

29 posted on 05/24/2004 6:21:57 PM PDT by LibWhacker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: TalBlack
For 200 MPH, it would have to be rocket powered. But then there could be no guidance communication between the torpedo and the launching sub, or cavitation sound from the target. Way too much noise.
30 posted on 05/24/2004 6:38:53 PM PDT by chainsaw (http://www.hanoi-john.org.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: spetznaz

"Hope that answers your questions."

Yes, thank you.

The article specifically spoke of the Chinese working to get this technology (on stratfore.com maybe?). It lit me up because I had always thought that if I were the Chicoms I would want to obviate the carrier groups that allow the US to project power the way we do.

I've been wondering ever since what the story was on the development. No mention was made about the torpedoes limitations as you have described. It sounded like one terrifying piece of ordinance.


31 posted on 05/24/2004 6:44:28 PM PDT by TalBlack ("Tal, no song means anything without someone else....")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker
The Peoples Liberation Army Navy (PLAN)...is undergoing rapid conversion to modern propulsion, sensor and weapons technologies.

Thanks but no thanks WalMart.

32 posted on 05/24/2004 6:46:47 PM PDT by Darheel (Visit the strange and wonderful.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: crz
"And we didnt do it in how long?"

We weren't "allowed" to win in Korea or Vietnam.

33 posted on 05/24/2004 6:48:29 PM PDT by Darheel (Visit the strange and wonderful.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: steplock

China is modernizing and helping N. Korea. Both are selling weapons, incl. radiologicals, to Middle Eastern states (along with our good friends, the French) . . . We better get our heads out soon, or the 60s and 70s will seem like a picnic. :-(


34 posted on 05/24/2004 6:54:31 PM PDT by LibWhacker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: inflation

If he gave such a speech, a very large percentage of the CEOs in the US, no matter what party they officially belong to, would immediately start to plan for his demise. My observation is as follows. It is an observation which comes from comparing the average CEO 100 years ago with ones today. 100 years ago, it was OK for a CEO to be a nationalist - an unashamed pro-USA, properly biggotted (in the good sense) nationalist. Today's CEO may not even be native born, let alone a citizen. And even if they are, they have to tow the globalist line in their circle of friends. They are punished in terms of career growth if they ever do or say anything that would come off as "old style conservative." This is Bush' dilemma. At a time in history where Clausewitzian geopolitics and anti globalism are needed, he has no freedom to act in the most geopolitically effective manner. He knows, and some of us know, that the politically incorrect direction is what is needed now more than ever. But the liberals, Leftists and the dispicable 3rd way amongst our own camp, will destroy Bush if he doesn't tow the utopian, suicidal, flacid line. In the twisted rule book of the anti Clausewitzians, it's OK to get all fired up about terrorists and rogue states. And indeed we should get fired up about them. But, in that twisted book, getting fired up about great powers simply flies in the face of Francis Fukuyama's Fractured Fairy Tales, and Thomas L. Freakman's Fast World of the Imagination. It implies the potential for great war and this simply cannot be faced.


35 posted on 05/24/2004 7:13:38 PM PDT by GOP_1900AD (Stomping on "PC," destroying the Left, and smoking out faux "conservatives" - Right makes right!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker
This is little more than silly school-girl hysteria on the part of the writer.....

10 Virginia-class subs of the US fleet could sink every other capital ship IN THE WORLD in just a few days.....with impunity. Not only that, our boats are at sea and we could put most of them at sea on VERY short notice. When you combine that with our integrated ASW system (airborne , shipborne and worldwide passive detection) it'd be little more than a turkey shoot.

Our domination of the seas will continue for at least a couple of decades even if no further systems are deployed. Any navy that dares challenges us will have a short, but exciting life.

36 posted on 05/24/2004 7:30:24 PM PDT by Mariner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mariner

Presumably the rest of the world knows this, so why are the Chinese spending billions on what would be "cannon fodder", according to you?

Just asking.


37 posted on 05/24/2004 7:56:16 PM PDT by ABrit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

More of them stayed here than left. And if they hadn't stayed, the US wouldn't be where it is today. I'm friends with the children of those that stayed and they're as patriotic as anyone. Their parents are greater successes here than they possibly could've been in China and they know it. They are not just the kids of China's political elite. It would be better for the US to attract those bright students and get them to stay rather than keep them out or drive them out. They would just go elsewhere to get a similar education and then go back to China. Even today, there are over 400,000 European researchers in the US because it's the best place to conduct high level research.

At Pfizer La Jolla where my brother works, over a 1/3 of the researchers are from outside the US. Many are Chinese nationals on their way to becoming US citizens and plenty are kids of Chinese nationals who emigrated here in the 70's. (The largest contingent are Canadians but I'm guessing you don't have a problem with them.) The US has acted as a brain drain on the rest of the world for decades and continues to do so. Good thing too or the US wouldn't have its huge technological lead. If you want to stop immigration, there are two groups that I'd go after before grad students: Muslims and illegals.

A family friend's life and career was stalled because a white fellow co-worker falsely accused him of selling secrets to the Chinese in order to get a promotion both had been considered for. A year long FBI investigation cleared him but his career at Raytheon was finished. He started multi-million dollar semi-conductor fabicration plants in China, Taiwan and the US a few years later. It's this type of BS that is causing a higher percentage of grad students (Chinese included) to go back to their country of origin rather than stay (as the majority used to).

Every country has talent that can improve upon technology. China has a billion people people to draw from and I'm not so myopic as not to give them credit for their inventions, developments or improvements even if they used other's technology. No one country is responsible for all development. The US even used Nazi and Imperial Japan's research after WWII.


38 posted on 05/24/2004 7:58:01 PM PDT by pragmatic_asian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: crz

The Red Chinese have never marched through Viet Nam. They tried a little 8 day incursion after we left......and were soundly trounced.


39 posted on 05/24/2004 7:58:36 PM PDT by Mariner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: ABrit

The reason the Chinese want a navy is becuase India wants a navy......and the Russians already have one.


40 posted on 05/24/2004 8:03:25 PM PDT by Mariner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: crz

"They OWN both ends of the Panama canal. How many people they have down there is anybodys guess."

But Panama itself is actually very pro-American. Not just the government but also the vast majority of the people love the US. They even dollarized their currency, that is they use the US dollar as their official currency.

Other countries aren't suicidal. If they were to try a full on invasion, the US has enough nukes to blow everyone up. There's no advantage for anyone to occupy the US. Without the US as the customer of choice for the world economy, the world would go into a depression that would make the Great Depression look like a lark.


41 posted on 05/24/2004 8:08:41 PM PDT by pragmatic_asian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Mariner
"The Red Chinese have never marched through Viet Nam. They tried a little 8 day incursion after we left......and were soundly trounced."

Yup. That's what I remember too.

42 posted on 05/24/2004 8:16:20 PM PDT by blam (Old diesel sub sailor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: pragmatic_asian
(The largest contingent are Canadians but I'm guessing you don't have a problem with them.)

You're jumping to conclusions, PA. I actually like Chinese people a lot. I'm married to a wonderful woman who is half-Chinese and we have a lot of Chinese friends, but unlike you, I can't say that I've noticed they are particularly patriotic, to say the least -- unless it's patriotic toward China -- just opportunistic (which, btw, I don't have a problem with). Many of them are thoroughly brainwashed and very touchy about any criticism of that dictatorship. They're here to make a buck and get an education at the best universities in the world and then go back and help their country. I've heard this reasoning from them over and over and over again. And let's not forget, China does require them to return after their education. We should be much more cautious in allowing foreigners to come here to study, imo (incl. Canadians).

43 posted on 05/24/2004 8:17:45 PM PDT by LibWhacker (What muslim rights?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

Let's stand by and allow another totalitarian dictatorship to become a superpower, the last Cold War was so much fun!"

Oh, I don't think the Chinese are interested in a cold war.

China Shipbuilding Industry Corporation (CSIC)
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/csic.htm

People's Liberation Army Navy
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/row/plan/



Report to Congress Pursuant to the FY2000 National Defense Authorization Act
ANNUAL REPORT ON THE MILITARY POWER OF THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA




..............Doctrine of Preemption and Surprise.
Chinese doctrine continues to emphasize surprise, deception, and shock effect in the opening phase of a campaign.
In addition to development or procurement of “Assassin’s Mace” weapon systems to counter intervening U.S. forces, China is exploring coercive strategies designed to bring Taipei to terms quickly.

Military Budget. In
March 2002, China announced a 17.5 percent or $3 billion increase in spending, bringing the publicly reported total to $20 billion.
Estimates of total spending range from $45 billion to $65 billion; annual spending could increase in real terms three- to four-fold by 2020.
For the fourth year in a row, contracts for advanced weapons systems from Russia were $ 2 billion--double the average annual figure throughout the 1990s.


44 posted on 05/24/2004 9:00:33 PM PDT by philetus (Keep doing what you always do and you'll keep getting what you always get)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: philetus


ANNUAL REPORT ON THE MILITARY POWER OF THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:GmG-lH3nQBwJ:www.defenselink.mil/pubs/20030730chinaex.pdf+chinese+military&hl=en


45 posted on 05/24/2004 9:01:53 PM PDT by philetus (Keep doing what you always do and you'll keep getting what you always get)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: TalBlack
Its called "sunburn" and they bought it from the russians.

Its not worth a crap though. Might be fast but the range is extremely limited. We had this discussion long ago with someone who knows a lot more than me.

He was some engineer of weapons systems specifically for the navy I think.

His main point was "yeah they might haul ass but they can't go beyong XX range...we can just sit back more than that XX range and hit them every time...Kind of like boxing with someone with 5 feet long arms"

46 posted on 05/24/2004 9:11:13 PM PDT by maui_hawaii
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker
Dubya can't do this on his own, not when half the Congress seems to hate the United States. He's not a dictator.

Whoa hold on a minute. Since when did the rats become a majority party in congress? Its not just a few RINOs who are blocking correction of our open borders and so called free trade policy, its more like 95% of the republican party. As I said both parties are equally responsible.

47 posted on 05/24/2004 11:37:29 PM PDT by rmmcdaniell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: inflation
Ain't the results of onesided 'freetrade' grand! ;->

Yes, indeed. This adds a whole new dimension to the term "free traitor" doesn't it?

48 posted on 05/24/2004 11:45:18 PM PDT by neutrino (Everybody, soon or late, sits down to a banquet of consequences. Robert Louis Stevenson.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: crz

Ok. WHY would they want to attack the US now?


49 posted on 05/24/2004 11:57:53 PM PDT by Cronos (W2K4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

50 posted on 05/24/2004 11:58:55 PM PDT by Fitzcarraldo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-94 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson