China's Defense/Military Breaking News Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

vesicles

Colonel
LOL the americans werent fighting the insurgents in the initial campaigns. bush would have been delighted if someone had told him that the fact that the US is 50 years ahead of iraqi farmers in terms of military technology aint gonna help them one bit.

Well, first of all, American technology helped U.S. ALOT in all conflicts involved. That is why US is the sole military superpower.

I agree with you 100% that the advancement of weapon systems does not guarantee one wins a battle or a war. I don't think anyone doubts that winning a war needs A LOT more than advanced weapon systems. But I thought, in this post, we are only comparing how effective a piece of equipment functions from a pure engineering/scientific point of view.

To me, only looking at how it performs in combact does not do justice to the advancement in technology. The trend of technological advancement tells us where we should go in the future. Some of the best weapon systems, however, do not perform well in combat because of some "human-factors" involved. Should we abandon that technology entirely and go back the obselete technology that happens to win that battle?

In the case of Iraq war, and American technology did not entirely solve the problem in Iraq. Should we go back to the old tech that Iraqis were using since they were so effective?
 
Last edited:

Troika

Junior Member
Any comparing is just relative and wont reflect how effect a weaons system will be during conflict, years or not, take for example "JSMDF has superior anti-sub ability to PLAN", which is definitely true, but all the airborn Japanese antisub system(which is the main core of JSMDF antisub capability) wont be affective during any conflict since the fact is Japan cant reach air superiority over China, thus the Chinese subs are protected and shielded from that threat.

Red herring. I am comparing weapon systems. You are comparing comprehensive war-fighting capability. It's apples and oranges. It's like saying since you are looking at ecology, molecular biology is a useless study. Like it or not, studying the components is one of the vital paths to looking at the big picture. It is also what you are doing when you claim that "Japan cant reach air superiority over China". On what do you base that, other than comparing Japanese fighters and Chinese ones? Presumably you may add SAMs and training and C4I, but without considering the actual systems you have no ways of making that judgement at all.

I don't recall me claiming anywhere that individual systems is the be-all and end-all of comparison
 
Last edited:

crobato

Colonel
VIP Professional
In the case of Iraq war, and American technology did not entirely solve the problem in Iraq. Should we go back to the old tech that Iraqis were using since they were so effective?

In the end, we did go back to that technology called more-boots-on-the-ground.
 

coolieno99

Junior Member
Well, first of all, American technology helped U.S. ALOT in all conflicts involved. That is why US is the sole military superpower....
During WW 2, both Germany and Japan were technologically superior to U.S. in many areas. Germany developed the Me-262 jet fighter, V-2 ballistic missile, thermobaric explosives, superior tanks, ... etc. Japan's aircrafts, subs, naval guns, ship and air-launch torpedoes, ... etc easily outperformed American counterparts. Americans won the battles in WW 2 by simply overwhelming their enemies using greater quantities of weapons(and not necessarily better).
 

vesicles

Colonel
During WW 2, both Germany and Japan were technologically superior to U.S. in many areas. Germany developed the Me-262 jet fighter, V-2 ballistic missile, thermobaric explosives, superior tanks, ... etc. Japan's aircrafts, subs, naval guns, ship and air-launch torpedoes, ... etc easily outperformed American counterparts. Americans won the battles in WW 2 by simply overwhelming their enemies using greater quantities of weapons(and not necessarily better).

That is excatly my point, advancement of weapon technology is not equal to winning a war. I think we are absolutely clear on that. Your reference about WWII proves my points nicely. For that, I thank you.:)

That is why looking at the outcome of a battle says nothing about the weapon technology used. My original point was: performace of a weapon in actual combat cannot be used to indicate the advancement of the technology involved in making such a weapon because too many factors can determine the performace of a weapon in combat. As we are discussing technologies (from a pure engineering/scientific point of view) invloved in making weapon systems in this thread, bringing up examples of actual battles can hardly prove anything about the technological advancement of weapon systems invloved.

I understand weapons are made to fight actual battles. It is pointless if we actually completely ignore their effectiveness and influence in combat. however, there is simply no way for anyone to predict an outcome of a battle beforehand, or even analyse the effectiveness of one weapon in combat afterward, because of the complicated factors mentioned by many posters including myself. What we can only do, in my opinion, is to look at the technology and evaluate the capability of a weapon system. To do that, we need to be fair and approach this from a scientific perspective. Afterall, we are discussing science and engineering here Let's not forget that the technologies used in making advanced weapon systems are indeed developed by those nerds wearing glasses and labcoats (like myself).

So let's be scientific and eliminate those variables!!
 
Last edited:

crobato

Colonel
VIP Professional
An article about China's hacker culture. It reads almost like the show Ghost in the Shell.


-------


For years, the U.S. intelligence community worried that China’s government was attacking our cyber-infrastructure. Now one man has discovered it’s worse: It’s hundreds of thousands of everyday civilians. And they’ve only just begun.

By Mara Hvistendahl Posted 04.23.2009 at 10:34 am

Some pictures by Scott Henderson.

Goodwell: Founder of the Green Army, with a membership of as many as 3,000, Goodwell is perhaps China’s most famous hacker, directly or indirectly responsible for hacking countless foreign Web sites Courtesy Scott Henderson

Xiao Tian: In the male-dominated world of hacking, Xiao Tian, leader of a female hacker group called the China Girl Security Team, is a rarity. Her 2,200-plus-member group is responsible for several defacements. Courtesy Scott Henderson

Withered Rose: His group, NCPH, built viruses that may have stolen classified U.S. documents. Withered Rose represented the Sichuan Military Command in a hacker competition against other provinces—and won. courtesy Scott Henderson

Quote:

"There were localized clubs, whose members saw one another regularly. There were fleeting groups, whose sites appeared and disappeared in a matter of weeks. There were kid hackers, femme-fatale hackers and hacker wannabes (although most hackers are simply computer-savvy 20-somethings -- what Henderson calls "normal guys"). One group penned a theme song. Henderson recognized early on that such publicity ploys were not the work of the state. "If this was some secret government-run organization," he says, "it was the most horribly run secret government organization in the universe."

Instead, Chinese hackers work in small, competing crews, he found. During moments of crisis, like the 2001 EP-3 collision, the groups band together into coalitions called "Chinese emergency conference centers." The Red Hacker Alliance, often described in the Western press as a monolithic group, is in fact a loose association allowing disparate cells to coordinate their efforts.

But the largest unifying characteristic is nationalism. In a 2005 Hong Kong Sunday Morning Post article, a man identified as "the Godfather of hackers" explains, "Unlike our Western [hacker] counterparts, most of whom are individualists or anarchists, Chinese hackers tend to get more involved with politics because most of them are young, passionate, and patriotic." Nationalism is hip, and hackers -- who spearhead nationalist campaigns with just a laptop and an Internet connection -- are figures to revere."


Comments---

From China, where I've lived for four years, this assessment looks spot-on. Hackers are pervasive, their imprint inescapable. There are hacker magazines, hacker clubs and hacker online serials. A 2005 Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences survey equates hackers and rock stars, with nearly 43 percent of elementary-school students saying they "adore" China's hackers. One third say they want to be one. This culture thrives on a viral, Internet-driven nationalism. The post-Tiananmen generation has known little hardship, so rather than pushing for democracy, many young people define themselves in opposition to the West. China's Internet patriots, who call themselves "red hackers," may not be acting on direct behalf of their government, but the effect is much the same.

Continued on the link

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Last edited:

challenge

Banned Idiot
hamas agents ordered weapons from China

Hamas agents ordered weapons from China
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


JERUSALEM ?Israel has evidence that the Hamas regime has been ordering weapons and military equipment directly from China.

Israeli officials said the Hamas regime in the Gaza Strip has sent agents to Beijing to negotiate weapons deals with state-owned Chinese companies. In 2008, they said, Chinese-origin extended-range rockets were acquired and sent to the Gaza Strip via Iran.

"We now believe that Hamas has been dealing directly with Chinese suppliers, rather than through Iran," an official said.

During the war in the Gaza Strip in early 2009, Hamas fired scores of Chinese-origin 122 mm and 170 mm rockets, with ranges of up to 40 kilometers, into Israel.

Officials said Hamas has been using agents from Europe, Israel and the West Bank to help facilitate the Chinese weapons procurement. On April 26, a Palestinian man from the West Bank city of Hebron was indicted on charges of trying to purchase weapons for Hamas.

Saadi Jamjum, a 33-year-old car dealer, was alleged to have traveled to China for Hamas in March 2009. The indictment said Jamjum was asked by a Hamas agent, identified as Raid Abu Hatlah, to purchase 60 telescopic rifle sights, 2,000 M-16 rifle magazines, 2,000 additional gun clips, 1,000 radios, 400 mobile phones and dozens of listening devices.

The indictment said the Chinese weapons were to have been shipped to the Gaza Strip via cargo registered as containing toys. To enhance the credibility of the shipment, Jamjum was ordered by Abu Hatlah, a resident of the Gaza Strip, to purchase thousands of dollars of toys from a Chinese factory.

The Chinese suppliers of the weapons allegedly ordered by Jamjum were not identified.

Officials said Hamas has sought to diversify its military suppliers in wake of the 22-day war with Israel. So far, Iran and Hizbullah have been virtually the sole suppliers to the Hamas regime
 

crobato

Colonel
VIP Professional
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


May 13th, 2009
China's 'secure' OS Kylin - a threat to U.S offensive cyber capabilities?

Posted by Dancho Danchev @ 6:23 am

Suddenly, one of the countries starts migrating to a hardened operating system of its own, and by integrating it on systems managing the critical infrastructure it successfully undermines the offensive cyber warfare capabilities developed by adversaries designed to be used primarily against Linux, UNIX and Windows.

That’s exactly what China is doing right now with their hardened OS Kylin according to Kevin G. Coleman, Senior Fellow and Strategic Management Consultant with the Technolytics Institute who presented his viewpoint in a hearing at the U.S. – China Economic and Security Review Commission."

Read more on the link above.
 

ABC78

Junior Member
Hey guys I found this video on You Tube "Chinese Military Expert Dennis J. Blasko Speaks at Whittier". I found to be interesting and informative. What do you guys think?

Part 1
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Part 2
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top