PLAN Type 035/039/091/092 Submarine Thread
- Thread starter crobato
- Start date
Re: PLAN submarines Thread II
Interest, looks like drive shift noise was a problem back then. Also it appears some in-fighting in research institution on damping methodologies. Other than then, xinhuanet was trying very hard not to give any real information, which make this guy's bio very difficult to follow.
Interest, looks like drive shift noise was a problem back then. Also it appears some in-fighting in research institution on damping methodologies. Other than then, xinhuanet was trying very hard not to give any real information, which make this guy's bio very difficult to follow.
Re: PLAN submarines Thread II
This sounds like the American military industrial complex covering their behinds with China in preparation for budget fights and politics ahead.
There is no way for China to come remotely close to say Russia in terms of being a nuclear threat. Given China's very limited naval power and long range airpower, I would say that they are not even at the level of Britain or France in terms of nuclear capabilities.
This sounds like the American military industrial complex covering their behinds with China in preparation for budget fights and politics ahead.
There is no way for China to come remotely close to say Russia in terms of being a nuclear threat. Given China's very limited naval power and long range airpower, I would say that they are not even at the level of Britain or France in terms of nuclear capabilities.
Re: PLAN submarines Thread II
I disagree with this statement. China has plenty of ICBMs, while britain and france have none. They dont have as many as russia or the USA, but IMO china could have much more ICBM if they wanted to.
I disagree with this statement. China has plenty of ICBMs, while britain and france have none. They dont have as many as russia or the USA, but IMO china could have much more ICBM if they wanted to.
Re: PLAN submarines Thread II
IMHO, I`m inclined to presume if a country has one nuclear weapon can be delivered & bombed on other`s city. It`s enough horrible. As in WW2, US can produce more A-bomb if wanted and need, however, just two, and already been too excessive to force Japanese surrender. It is really a stategetic weapon, like Queen in the Chess, whether you can utilize it efficiently is the key to warfare not the relatively minor numbers you own.
IMHO, I`m inclined to presume if a country has one nuclear weapon can be delivered & bombed on other`s city. It`s enough horrible. As in WW2, US can produce more A-bomb if wanted and need, however, just two, and already been too excessive to force Japanese surrender. It is really a stategetic weapon, like Queen in the Chess, whether you can utilize it efficiently is the key to warfare not the relatively minor numbers you own.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
Re: PLAN submarines Thread II
The British and French have plenty of SLBM, which does the same job as ICBMs and are in fact arguably better as with SLBMs, you can hit a target from a much closer range, giving them less time to try to mount an intercept (if they had the ability at all), and you can even hit them from a completely unexpected threat axis and deny them even the opportunity to try an intercept by avoiding their ABM covered region/approach vector.
I would also have to disagree with Kei3000's comparison with nuclear deterrent to the queen in Chess. In Chess, the queen is the most powerful and often used piece on the board. If nukes were used remotely as often, we would all be glow in the dark piles of bones.
In Chess, nuclear weapons are like the right hook of the player. It is almost never used, and whenever it is used, what the pieces on the board does or have accomplished is rendered entirely moot and pointless and all established rules are thrown out the window.
The British and French have plenty of SLBM, which does the same job as ICBMs and are in fact arguably better as with SLBMs, you can hit a target from a much closer range, giving them less time to try to mount an intercept (if they had the ability at all), and you can even hit them from a completely unexpected threat axis and deny them even the opportunity to try an intercept by avoiding their ABM covered region/approach vector.
I would also have to disagree with Kei3000's comparison with nuclear deterrent to the queen in Chess. In Chess, the queen is the most powerful and often used piece on the board. If nukes were used remotely as often, we would all be glow in the dark piles of bones.
In Chess, nuclear weapons are like the right hook of the player. It is almost never used, and whenever it is used, what the pieces on the board does or have accomplished is rendered entirely moot and pointless and all established rules are thrown out the window.
Re: PLAN submarines Thread II
Reasonable, I agree.
What I think is the availability to nuclear weapons plays more important roles regarding to numbers.
If a terrorist just only has one, it will be more terrible than those nuclear power nations.
Reasonable, I agree.
What I think is the availability to nuclear weapons plays more important roles regarding to numbers.
If a terrorist just only has one, it will be more terrible than those nuclear power nations.
Re: PLAN submarines Thread II
Prove your last sentence, here is sinodefenseforum, not as free as yahoo or google where you can say anything without proof.