Comments:Chinese submarine "embarrasses" U.S. Navy

O.k., excuse my militaristic naivety, but, don't we really only need a nuke and a system to deliver it to protect ourselves well-enough? Fephisto 17:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That's what we used to think, before Vietnam. The problem is that we really don't want to nuke someone, since it would trigger a nuclear war, and we still need a conventional military to protect ourselves from threats. In the case of China, they don't want to invade us so much as they want to invade our ally Taiwan, and I doubt the American people would sanction nuclear activity over an invasion of Taiwan. The fact is that the circumstances under which we would actually use a nuke are extremely serious, and everyone else knows it. That's why people still challenge nuclear-armed countries--sure, we could have nuked Hanoi during the Vietnam War, but the international community, not to mention the American people, wouldn't have tolerated such an action.--72.130.143.25 20:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess that's a point; but as a sidenote, if China invades Taiwan, won't there be substantial backlash from Japan/South Korea/etc.? Fephisto 18:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but Japan's constitution forbids the use of offensive military force and South Korea can't spare any significant force from the DMZ, so militarily the US is China's main worry.--72.130.143.25 07:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Re; The bastards
Nuke 'em

Ending the "superpower" myth
Even though the U.S. lost to China in the Korean War and the Vietnam War, it still pretends to be a "superpower" capable of establishing its will anywhere in the world. The recent submarine demonstration should be taken in context with the recent 10% devaluation of the dollar in response to a threat of "diversification" of Chinese currency reserves, and indicates that the U.S. would be devastated in economic and naval conflicts as well as in land warfare. The Chinese space launches, like all national space programs, can be taken primarily as not-so-subtle demonstrations of ICBM capabilities. While U.S. commentators claim to have absolute knowledge of every one of the 72 nuclear missiles they say China has, who believes them?

The U.S. has a chance to admit that the "superpower" era is over and start pulling back from pointless warfare on the far side of the globe on its own, and then maybe we could actually repair the economy with all that energy. But if we don't admit it now, we'll admit it once the Chinese begin the invasion of Taiwan. 70.15.116.59 17:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Dammit, I'm American, and even I agree with this. Fephisto 18:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

"the U.S. lost to China in the Korean War and the Vietnam War" a) We didn't lose the Korean War. At the very worst it was a draw. b) We lost to the North Vietnamese Army in the Vietnam War, not China. Our economy is hurting, but the Democrats will fix that when they gain presidential office. I am worried though that they'll cut military funding too much. This is a clear demonstration that we shouldn't cut military funding so much as spend it more wisely and save money. Please please please let the democrats see the difference between cutting budgets and saving money. 129.64.208.19 17:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * a) China said we could have South Korea, but don't go north of the 48th parallel. The modern day border is... around the 48th parallel.  b) While there are different takes on Vietnam, many emphasize the importance of Chinese supplies and even Chinese troops in NVA uniforms.  Both wars made it clear that on land, China had a passable level of technology and an unlimited supply of manpower.  While the former has gone up and the latter down, I think the probable result of a conventional land war in their sphere of influence is still pretty clear. 70.15.116.59 00:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Confused
The wiki article on the Type 039 submarine says that the incident happened on "October 26, 2006". This is the same incident right? Did it happen a year ago? Or were there two identical incidents dealing with the same chinese sub and the kittyhawk? The recent news posts don't really cite a date beyond the article's publication. When did this happen? 129.64.208.19 17:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

This is not news
This "news" came from a tabloid the Daily Mail. This happened one year ago.

No checks and balances here.


 * Well, for one, YOU could be part of the checks and balances. *gasp*.  Yes, I know, actually doing something to rectify the problem rather than complain about it!  Why don't you 'be bold' and actually edit the article, or at least post something in the collaboration section?  Fephisto 01:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Reported last year?
Seems to be old news. See:

http://wpherald.com/articles/2134/1/US-submarine-security-to-be-reviewed/Navy-admits-failure-to-detect-Chinese-sub.html