I suppose the Japanese should buy those Chinese J7 then. Even when you got your entire unit wipe out you can still tell yourself the other side is losing more money than you.
We all know the Pentagon hides flaws in all its systems.
What was that vulnerability again?
Oh, right, just spray the sky with missiles and maybe you’ll get lucky. :rolleyes:
Ever see the US night attack on Iraq at the start of the war? How many triple A were blindly fired into the air. How many US jets were hit? Not many and certainly none were shot down. So it’s ignorant to say that’s how the F-117 was shot down. The sky wasn’t filled with SAMs like triple A over Baghdad. Oh, I know… you were watching too much of that Vietnam movie were they just fired SAMS like fireworks, right?
Chinese needs to outsource their paint jobs with pakistanis, they seems to do lot better in terms of asthetics than chinese themselves :D.
That’s what you call “superficial.”
Wow, this forum must’ve set some new record. Haven’t seen a nationalistic ego driven post from India in this thread for a while. :diablo:
Must be the failure at Davos.
Looks like China will get first hand experience at enhancing its anti-stealth technology.
Really… this is just show from the hawks in Japan. The F-22 is just too damn expensive. And like the F117, someone’s gonna find a vulnerabilty to take it down. A quarter of a billion everytime one goes down…whew! I wouldn’t want to see that bill at the end of the month.
Nothing unique if you’ve been to an airshow.
would anybody be able to find these 3 supposedly under construction carriers using google earth?hudong shipyard did someone say they were being built at?
Google Earth maps are not anywhere near real time. I live across the street from a school and they’ve been placing portables in the yard over the last couple years. So I checked out my house on Google Earth and I would estimate that photo to be at least a year old. I hear some shots can be three years old at least.
If you increase the number of powers with the veto the likelyhood of a resolution being vetoed increases, That is what would make the UN irrelevent as NOTHING would happen.
Ultimately, for the time being the UN needs the US to have the veto for the simple reason that it keeps the US within the UN system.
The US needs the UN more than Americans themselves would like to believe. It may be a corrupt bribing system for others nations, but the US needs the illusion that the world is behind whatever they do. Without it, the US looks like a traditional Western colonial power and that could rally nations against US interests. Then watch the pouting and whining.
I don’t know why the US worries about others having veto power. One veto calls off everything and the permanent security council is already and if the Group of Four are included will continue to be stacked in favor of the US.
I’ve read that too. None of the new members will have veto power.
I believe that the countries are submitting a joint bid – so they all “pass” or they all “fail”, because they won’t accept any of them not getting in. Otherwise there wouldn’t be a point in having the group in the first place. The bid is stronger for having so many countries with different traditional allies in, but the flaw is that one of them may be strongly objected to.
I believe you’re correct about the joint bid. They’re just going to have to make a deal or dump the bid and start over with something more “acceptable.” The ironic thing here is that I’ve read in articles that the US wants Japan but doesn’t want India. Strange you don’t hear Indians complaining about a direct act against them.
I am sure you will be the one laughing at yourself. “En sa se b~e l^`e chicken.”
:diablo:
What happened to the ship numbers being painted over? Last I heard the PLAN was painting over the numbers to hide the number of ships.
Perhaps we should make a time machine and go see what its like in the future, and compare the IN and PLAN.
I’m sure the Vietnamese invented one 4000 years ago. 😀
Really depends on whether you’re talking about fantasy or reality.
Another pointless thread.
I thought that China had said that a while ago.
Plus given that the “group of four” includes Japan, how can the PRC fulfill that promise if it still doesn’t want Japan to get in?
China does support India as a permanent member of the Security Council but the nationalist drama queens love to make China’s rejection of Japan’s part in the Group of Four out to be a rejection of India.