Effectiveness of China's Air Defence?

bladerunner said:

Quite some time ago I was reading on howthe Chinese were beefing up the Iraq's air defence system in the wake of GW1. This also involved the laying of fibre optics and possibly supplying the Iraqis with those laser dazzler unit thingys.

Click to expand...

bladerunner said:

Quite some time ago I was reading on howthe Chinese were beefing up the Iraq's air defence system in the wake of GW1. This also involved the laying of fibre optics and possibly supplying the Iraqis with those laser dazzler unit thingys.
My question is , how well did the Iraqi air defences perform in GW2 after this chinese help.

Click to expand...

plawolf said:

Smells like a rhetorical questions to me.

Would it have made the slightest difference at all what C&C systems the Iraqis used when you consider the sheer disparity in the quantity and quality of forces on both side in GWII? If you were trying to make a point, you could not have picked a less convincing example.

Incidentally, since you brought this this up, I also remember reading about this many years ago, and iirc, the Americans went to a lot of trouble to seek out and destroy as much of that fiber-optic network as they could during Desert Fox.

It seems someone in the pentagon thought those systems were important enough to destroy, why would that be the case if they were as useless as you seem to want to imply?

Click to expand...

siegecrossbow said:

Just want to say that you and ZTZ are finally "fighting" on the same sides .

Click to expand...

How did the U.S. troops seek out and destroy the fiber-optics network? I assume that they were buried. What types of weapons were used to neutralize the network?

Click to expand...

plawolf said:

plawolf said:

Military attacks on Chinese cities - population centers, would be considered a war crime by many, maybe even an act of terrorism (9/11 was targeting economic infrastructure was it not?) and would certainly be seen as a strategic strike by China, and would invite reciprical Chinese counter against American population centres. You start bombing cities, you start WWIII. Even if America had the stomach for such carnage, the consequences would force the rabid wardogs to be put on their leash. If you don't want a hypothetical to go nuclear, you should forget about targeting civilan infrastrue.

Click to expand...

THe two Chinese Colonels publication of "Unrestricted Warefare"no doubt with the tacit approval of the Politburo reflects the tactics involved in "asymetric warfare"in which the PLA are more than willing to use.They also acknowledge this would result in the bluring of the boundaries between the militarty and civilian spheres.

In which case I feel the US. is more than justified in retaliating by targeting civilian or dual use infrusture by what ever means possible.Smart bombs and guided missiles should see minimal civilian casulties, (but invariably the odd rocket/ bomb could go astray). THat means Ports and dockyards and whatever wherever they maybe should be attacked, winding their clocks back as far as possible, using conventional means BECAUSE........

(We had an earthquake hear last night pt7)its knocked out power and communications) being in a rural area ive got my own generator, and using a satellite delivered internet service which is working slowly, the normal broadband is down so i am unable to refresh my memory by dowloading the summarised translated version of "Unrestricted Warfare" so im a little unsure with some aspects of there writing

However in response to your usage of terrorism I think the Pla are ok with that, as they are prepared to use it themselves. as well as the use of 5th columinsts.

Another aspect is the acknowlgement that fewer battle deaths but maximum casulties is far better,because it puts a greater strain on the infrasturcture in providing care. As a example I think they inferred would be prefareable to blind half a million people, than kill a few thou.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

bladerunner said:

plawolf said:

plawolf said:

THe two Chinese Colonels publication of "Unrestricted Warefare"no doubt with the tacit approval of the Politburo reflects the tactics involved in "asymetric warfare"in which the PLA are more than willing to use.They also acknowledge this would result in the bluring of the boundaries between the militarty and civilian spheres.

In which case I feel the US. is more than justified in retaliating by targeting civilian or dual use infrusture by what ever means possible.Smart bombs and guided missiles should see minimal civilian casulties, (but invariably the odd rocket/ bomb could go astray). THat means Ports and dockyards and whatever wherever they maybe should be attacked, winding their clocks back as far as possible, using conventional means BECAUSE........

(We had an earthquake hear last night pt7)its knocked out power and communications) being in a rural area ive got my own generator, and using a satellite delivered internet service which is working slowly, the normal broadband is down so i am unable to refresh my memory by dowloading the summarised translated version of "Unrestricted Warfare" so im a little unsure with some aspects of there writing

However in response to your usage of terrorism I think the Pla are ok with that, as they are prepared to use it themselves. as well as the use of 5th columinsts.

Another aspect is the acknowlgement that fewer battle deaths but maximum casulties is far better,because it puts a greater strain on the infrasturcture in providing care. As a example I think they inferred would be prefareable to blind half a million people, than kill a few thou.

Click to expand...

Of course everything that we are discussing is strictly hypothetical.

In the unlikely even that an enemy force invaded and occupied the U.S. soil and the professional soldiers are being exhausted I expect the common American people to fight back with equal fervor.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

siegecrossbow said:

Hey TPhuang I've heard about the rumor that the S-300 that the Russians exported to China can't lock on to Russian planes. Is this true? If so has the Chinese modified the missiles so that they could lock-on to any non-Chinese planes? (They'd have a hard time deploying them along the Northern borders if that were the case lol).

Click to expand...

bladerunner said:

THe two Chinese Colonels publication of "Unrestricted Warefare"no doubt with the tacit approval of the Politburo reflects the tactics involved in "asymetric warfare"in which the PLA are more than willing to use.They also acknowledge this would result in the bluring of the boundaries between the militarty and civilian spheres.

In which case I feel the US. is more than justified in retaliating by targeting civilian or dual use infrusture by what ever means possible.Smart bombs and guided missiles should see minimal civilian casulties, (but invariably the odd rocket/ bomb could go astray). THat means Ports and dockyards and whatever wherever they maybe should be attacked, winding their clocks back as far as possible, using conventional means BECAUSE........

(We had an earthquake hear last night pt7)its knocked out power and communications) being in a rural area ive got my own generator, and using a satellite delivered internet service which is working slowly, the normal broadband is down so i am unable to refresh my memory by dowloading the summarised translated version of "Unrestricted Warfare" so im a little unsure with some aspects of there writing

However in response to your usage of terrorism I think the Pla are ok with that, as they are prepared to use it themselves. as well as the use of 5th columinsts.

Another aspect is the acknowlgement that fewer battle deaths but maximum casulties is far better,because it puts a greater strain on the infrasturcture in providing care. As a example I think they inferred would be prefareable to blind half a million people, than kill a few thou.

Click to expand...

That book proposes some very radical methods of assymetrical warfare; I think it'd be a bit of a stretch to think China will attack obvious US civilian targets (maybe satellites and communications via missiles and hacking respectively) but I doubt they would have the resolve to be the first to directly attack population centres or such.

The US on the other hand... well they could probably attack what civilian-military targets that their planes and cruise missiles could reach (assuming they have air superiority for the former) such as factories or shipyards as you said. But even then it'll be unwise to directly bomb cities which would definitely escalate things to excrement-hitting-fan level which I think was what plawolf was suggesting...


PS: What'd you mean by "the pla are ok with terrorism" thing? That would be assuming we're taking the whole book as part of PLA doctrine (which again I say is a big stretch), but even then the statement's kinda confusing. Are you implying that China won't be crying out foul play because they'd be commiting equal acts to the US? (again, I proclaim unlikeliness-ness on that)

Bltizo said:

PS: What'd you mean by "the pla are ok with terrorism" thing? That would be assuming we're taking the whole book as part of PLA doctrine (which again I say is a big stretch), but even then the statement's kinda confusing.

Are you implying that China won't be crying out foul play because they'd be commiting equal acts to the US? (again, I proclaim unlikeliness-ness on that)

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Yes , but purely my own opinionthat morally they shouldnt be able to

My recollection over some aspects of the book are rather hazy.

However i think the word terrorism was attached to a whole batch of scenarios, such as eco terrorism embarking on a way to create unusual weather patterns to cause mahem


I do think the book reflects PLA thinking, however i have heard of critique on the publication, suggesting that the not of the ideas are original , and have been around in concepts long before the colonels put it in writing

financial terrorism, (creating financial instability, the activities of Soros etc. an acknowledgment that they could be on the receiving end from this one

Click to expand...

Bltizo said:

PS: What'd you mean by "the pla are ok with terrorism" thing? That would be assuming we're taking the whole book as part of PLA doctrine (which again I say is a big stretch), but even then the statement's kinda confusing.

Are you implying that China won't be crying out foul play because they'd be commiting equal acts to the US? (again, I proclaim unlikeliness-ness on that)

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Yes , but purely my own opinionthat morally they shouldnt be able to

My recollection over some aspects of the book are rather hazy.

However i think the word terrorism was attached to a whole batch of scenarios, such as eco terrorism embarking on a way to create unusual weather patterns to cause mahem

financial terrorism, (creating financial instability, the activities of Soros etc. an acknowledgment that they could be on the receiving end from this one

Click to expand...