News Russian and Chinese military reaching out

  • Thread starter Thread starter Astronuc
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Military Russian
AI Thread Summary
Chinese warships have made their first port call in Iran, marking a significant development in military cooperation between the two nations. This event coincides with U.S. and Canadian jets intercepting Russian aircraft, highlighting ongoing tensions in international airspace. The discussion reflects a broader sentiment that such military maneuvers are routine and often serve as provocations rather than genuine tests of defense capabilities. Participants express skepticism about the effectiveness of these displays of military strength, suggesting they are more for show than a demonstration of real power. Concerns are raised regarding the potential for China and Russia to form a stronger alliance, which could pose a long-term challenge to Western influence. The dialogue also touches on the implications of military spending and the evolving geopolitical landscape, particularly in relation to U.S. defense capabilities compared to those of Russia and China. Overall, the conversation emphasizes the complexities of international relations, the historical context of military posturing, and the potential for future instability as nations navigate their strategic interests.
  • #101
Deadly Russian rocket system spotted in Ukraine for first time
http://news.yahoo.com/osce-says-spots-deadly-russian-rocket-system-ukraine-094835284.html

The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, which is monitoring a ceasefire in eastern Ukraine, reported that its monitors had seen a mobile TOS-1 'Buratino' weapons system for the first time.

The Buratino is equipped with thermobaric warheads which spread a flammable liquid around a target and then ignite it. It can destroy several city blocks in one strike and cause indiscriminate damage.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #102
A very nasty weapon.
 
  • #103
nsaspook said:
Russia had to withdraw then because we invested billions in proxy warriors and weapons to drag them into a 'Vietnam' that many believe (and I agree) started the end of the Cold War. I would hope our relationship with the Taliban then has taught us a lesson

I would dare say that hopes of such learning have been dashed.

I grew up in the Vietnam days and believed that lessons had been learned. Only to be rudely disabused of this notion in 2003.
 
  • #104
The Middle East-is-Vietnam time warp theme is not uncommon, unfortunately.

Kerry pressed on: “When I fought in Vietnam, I used to look at the faces of the local population and the looks they gave us. I’ll never forget it. It gave me clarity that we saw the situation in completely different ways.”

“This isn’t Vietnam!” Netanyahu shouted.
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/118751/how-israel-palestine-peace-deal-died

The Iraq war was many things, but it was not a Cold War proxy fight.
 
  • #105
nsaspook said:
A very nasty weapon.
...
Just another slow tracked target for an air force with air superiority and smart weapons.
 
  • #106
mheslep said:
Just another slow tracked target for an air force with air superiority and smart weapons.

True that, and that's why Russia makes thousands of cheap deadly 'fire and forget' tracked weapons. You can't hit them all and if they fire first the damage is done.
 
  • #107
mheslep said:
The Middle East-is-Vietnam time warp theme is not uncommon, unfortunately.http://www.newrepublic.com/article/118751/how-israel-palestine-peace-deal-died

The Iraq war was many things, but it was not a Cold War proxy fight.
That is true. Saddam was a US client. When he lost US support no other major power stepped in.

Did you know that the US aided Saddam in several gas attacks against the Iranian army?
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/08/cia-files-us-aided-iraq-with-iran-gas-attacks.html
 
  • Like
Likes CalcNerd
  • #109
The U.S. restored formal relations with Iraq in November 1984, but the U.S. had begun, several years earlier, to provide it with intelligence and military support (in secret and contrary to this country's official neutrality) in accordance with policy directives from President Ronald Reagan. These were prepared pursuant to his March 1982 National Security Study Memorandum (NSSM 4-82) asking for a review of U.S. policy toward the Middle East.
http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

The US started providing support to Iraq in 1982, primarily because of the Iran situation.
 
  • #111
Russian Ships Near Data Cables Are Too Close for U.S. Comfort
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/26/w...resence-near-undersea-cables-concerns-us.html

That's always been a potential vulnerability.

Citing public remarks by the Russian Navy chief, Adm. Viktor Chirkov, Admiral Ferguson said the intensity of Russian submarine patrols had risen by almost 50 percent over the last year. Russia has increased its operating tempo to levels not seen in over a decade. Russian Arctic bases and their $2.4 billion investment in the Black Sea Fleet expansion by 2020 demonstrate their commitment to develop their military infrastructure on the flanks, he said.

Russia is also building an undersea unmanned drone capable of carrying a small, tactical nuclear weapon to use against harbors or coastal areas, American military and intelligence analysts said.
 
  • #112
If the Russians have the technology to deploy long distance undersea drones it's pretty much certain (Imo), that the US does too.
It's likely within the capability of China as well even if they don't have anything at the moment like that.
 
  • #114
Astronuc said:
What we have here is a difference of opinion.

We will see how serious they are if they react like the USSR did during patrols inside bogus limits to navigation.

 
  • #115
China faces mounting pressure over maritime claims
http://news.yahoo.com/china-faces-mounting-pressure-over-maritime-claims-142102494.html
WASHINGTON (AP) — Pressure on China over its claims to most of the strategic South China Sea went up a couple of notches this week. First the U.S. sent a warship, in its most direct challenge yet to Beijing's artificial island building. Then, over Chinese objections, an international tribunal ruled it had jurisdiction in a case brought by the Philippines on maritime claims.

China summons US ambassador to protest ship near reef. Seriously?
http://news.yahoo.com/us-navy-sail-near-reefs-claimed-china-201643906--politics.html#
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #116
Some of media is going nuts over this, to the extent of predicting it's a trigger for WW3.
I sincerely doubt it.
All I see is China protesting that a military presence in the area violates (what they say is), a long standing territorial claim,
while US demonstrates that it does not recognise the claim and has every right to sail in international waters.
Just a bit of sabre rattling on both sides with PR benefits for the Govt both in China and in US.
No actual military engagement or even a threat of such from either.
Yet both govts can say to their public that they are 'doing something about it', while actually doing nothing at all of any real importance.
 
  • #117
rootone said:
Yet both govts can say to their public that they are 'doing something about it',

It was only late in life that I realized how many acts are motivated by this.
 
  • #119
and show them off ...
MSM had been reporting that Russian cruise missiles had been landing uselessly in remote parts of Iran, implying that the Russian tech was shambolic.

More likely they asked Iran if it was OK to blast a couple of uninhabited mountains, just to be sure those things work.
 
Last edited:
  • #121
China just made yet another provocative move in the disputed South China Sea, according to Business Insider
http://news.yahoo.com/china-just-landed-first-plane-192200315.html

On January 4th, Vietnam formally accused China of violating its sovereignty and a recent confidence-building pact on Saturday by landing a plane on an airstrip Beijing built on an artificial island in a contested part of the South China Sea, according to Reuters.
 
  • #122
I don't see how landing a plane on a runway is any more provocative than building a runway in the first place.
Why would they build a runway if there was no plan to use it?
(I gather it was a civilian aircraft which landed, although that's probably not very relevant.)
 
  • #123
"Currently five countries with competing claims in the region have built airstrips in the contested Spratly Islands."

I bet you won't see sensationalist articles about those other countries though. These articles are so amazingly biased. Compared to the damage the US has done to world-stability, those artificial islands are doing next to nothing.

A breakdown of the US moral code:
Morally justified and necessary for world stability: What we and our allies do
Heinous acts of brutality detrimental to world stability: What everyone else does
 
  • #124
HomogenousCow said:
"Currently five countries with competing claims in the region have built airstrips in the contested Spratly Islands."

I bet you won't see sensationalist articles about those other countries though. These articles are so amazingly biased. Compared to the damage the US has done to world-stability, those artificial islands are doing next to nothing...
What in particular do you find sensational or biased about this Reuters article? Do you have a preferred reference on the disputes over the islands in the S. China sea?
 
Last edited:
  • #125
Chinese military aircraft trespass into Japan, Korea airspace
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-N...pass-into-Japan-Korea-airspace/6781454430627/

SEOUL, Feb. 2 (UPI) -- Two Chinese military aircraft flew into South Korean and Japanese airspace, and Japan's Self-Defense Force fighter jets scrambled to intercept the planes.
The South Korea-identified airspace overlaps with China's, and China did not notify Seoul of its flight plans, South Korea said.
The two planes flew southwest of South Korea's Jeju Island, and after leaving KADIZ entered Japan's Air Defense Identification Zone, or JADIZ.

So now Japan and Korea will have to reciprocate.
 
  • #128
I'm beginning to see a pattern developing here. :frown:
 
  • #129
1oldman2 said:
I'm beginning to see a pattern developing here. :frown:
Yeah, look on Jane's and see who else is buying Sukhoi's .
 
  • #130
Russia wants to fly over US with advanced digital camera
http://news.yahoo.com/russia-seeks-fly-over-us-high-powered-digital-083532712--politics.html

"One of the advantages of the Open Skies Treaty is that information — imagery — that is taken is shared openly among all the treaty parties," she said at a joint hearing of the House Foreign Affairs and Armed Services committees in December. "So one of the advantages with the Open Skies Treaty is that we know exactly what the Russians are imaging, because they must share the imagery with us."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #132
HomogenousCow said:
"Currently five countries with competing claims in the region have built airstrips in the contested Spratly Islands."
I had no idea.

China's claim seems bogus to me. But since the most powerful nations consistently disregard international "law," it appears that force of arms will carry the day.
 
  • #134
Quiz: Without looking at a map or other aid, how close were the recent NATO military exercises in Estonia to St. Petersburg?
 
  • #135
Hornbein said:
In 2003 US warplanes flew over Indonesia. It was front-page news there. The US claimed it was an accident.
Not the same thing. The US asked permission, and the US and Indonesia relationship is not hostile.
http://articles.latimes.com/2003/jul/05/world/fg-indo5
 
  • #136
Hornbein said:
Quiz: Without looking at a map or other aid, how close were the recent NATO military exercises in Estonia to St. Petersburg?
Relevant quiz: how many times have NATO forces transgressed the Russian mainland, and how many times in the 20th and 21st centuries have Russian forces invaded eastern europe, attacked Finland in division strength, attacked Georgia, annexed territory, cyber attacked Baltic neighbors?
 
Last edited:
  • #137
  • #138
Astronuc said:
... Beijing Claims
...
Well, the Guardian claims that Beijing claims. Other sources, as reference in the article, claim China does not yet have the capability.
 

Similar threads

News US, Japan eye China after ships barred
Replies
7
Views
2K
News What is the impact of Russia and China's growing influence in Latin America?
Replies
2
Views
5K
News Military is pulling choppers out of the bone yard
2
Replies
71
Views
11K
ECONOMICS: It's stupid to be afraid (Lee Kuan Yew to Der Spiegel)
Replies
6
Views
4K
News Are We Funding Our Enemies Through Oil Purchases?
Replies
3
Views
3K
News New Hampshire voters worried about U.S. image
Replies
2
Views
3K
News Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of Energy Independence
3
Replies
133
Views
27K
News ROFLMAO happy new year from bill blum
Replies
10
Views
3K
The Truth about 911 gutting the disinformation, LETS GET IT ON
3
Replies
109
Views
63K
UFO BRIEFING DOCUMENT SHOWS BEST AVAILABLE EVIDENCE
Replies
2
Views
6K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top