China’s H-20 long-range stealth bomber will start operating in 2025

China will reveal its H-20 stealth bomber in 2019. The H-20 will be similar to the US B-2 bomber. It will be slower with a heavy focus on stealth capabilities.

The expectation are
* a maximum take-off weight of at least 200 tonnes
* payload of up to 45 tonnes.
* wide estimates of flight ranges of 8500 kilometers or even over 12000 kilometers
* H-20 could enter service by 2025.

Onc the H-20 is shown in 2019, analysts will look atthe aircraft’s geometry to estimate just how the stealthy it really is. Exposed engine inlets and indiscrete tail stabilizers and other flaws would indicate flaws in stealth. External analysis cannot provide a full assessment. The quality of the radar-absorbent materials and the finesse of the manufacturing (avoiding seams, protruding screws) has a major impact on radar cross-section.

China’s CJ-10K cruise missiles have a range of over nine hundred miles.

167 thoughts on “China’s H-20 long-range stealth bomber will start operating in 2025”

  1. We were also told that railguns were a rubbish idea that could never work… until the Chinese started working on them. And then we were told that lasers were a stupid idea that had been completely disproved by the Russians decades ago…

    Reply
  2. We were also told that railguns were a rubbish idea that could never work… until the Chinese started working on them.And then we were told that lasers were a stupid idea that had been completely disproved by the Russians decades ago…

    Reply
  3. 200 tons, 200,000 kg takeoff mass? That’s pretty impressive. Especially since America’s B–2 flying wing only has a 170 metric ton TKO weight, fully loaded. Bombs, fuel, pilots and 2 days of rations (LOL). I do wonder, who are China’s enemies that she needs to threaten with stealth bombers? Might sound a bit naïve to ask it, but is it really? India certainly isn’t Expansionist enough, or Militarily Adventurist enough to be a credible “enemy” to contemplate stealth bombing. Oh, maybe those Spratley Islands then? For China to have a dark black secret flying squirrel … which it can threaten lessor sovereignty claimants such as The Philippines, Vietnam, Taiwan and Japan? Sure. Maybe. Russia? Russia is in exactly the same quandary it has been in for decades: economic morass. Largest country on Earth by far, needing precisely NO more land-grab area. Not particularly threatened by ANY of her neighbors. Not even really by the US. The Bear. Bears — if left alone — are largely innocuous. And The post-Soviet Bear is particularly so. The Dragon though, now that’s a mythical creature of remarkable caprice. America? We steam around the world with our silent deadly subs, our huge carrier groups, our Air Force wings and our plenipotent Marines, Seals, Rangers and regular Armed Forces … and we don’t give a dill pickle about China’s claims to sovereignty on a handful of critically unimportant islands in the middle of the South China Sea. We pilot our naval groups within the Internationally Recognized limits, all the time. Maybe we’re the “need”? Dunno. I’m sure China can do it. She has a fine aeronautical development enterprise. And when the world is growing less enamored by her prodigeous industrial output… Internal consumption certainly greases the economic wheels. Just as it does here in the US. Just saying, GoatGuy

    Reply
  4. 200 tons 200000 kg takeoff mass? That’s pretty impressive. Especially since America’s B–2 flying wing only has a 170 metric ton TKO weight fully loaded. Bombs fuel pilots and 2 days of rations (LOL). I do wonder who are China’s enemies that she needs to threaten with stealth bombers? Might sound a bit naïve to ask it but is it really? India certainly isn’t Expansionist enough or Militarily Adventurist enough to be a credible “enemy” to contemplate stealth bombing. Oh maybe those Spratley Islands then? For China to have a dark black secret flying squirrel … which it can threaten lessor sovereignty claimants such as The Philippines Vietnam Taiwan and Japan? Sure. Maybe. Russia? Russia is in exactly the same quandary it has been in for decades: economic morass. Largest country on Earth by far needing precisely NO more land-grab area. Not particularly threatened by ANY of her neighbors. Not even really by the US. The Bear. Bears — if left alone — are largely innocuous. And The post-Soviet Bear is particularly so. The Dragon though now that’s a mythical creature of remarkable caprice. America? We steam around the world with our silent deadly subs our huge carrier groups our Air Force wings and our plenipotent Marines Seals Rangers and regular Armed Forces … and we don’t give a dill pickle about China’s claims to sovereignty on a handful of critically unimportant islands in the middle of the South China Sea. We pilot our naval groups within the Internationally Recognized limits all the time. Maybe we’re the eed””?Dunno. I’m sure China can do it. She has a fine aeronautical development enterprise. And when the world is growing less enamored by her prodigeous industrial output…Internal consumption certainly greases the economic wheels. Just as it does here in the US.Just saying””””GoatGuy”””””””

    Reply
  5. China also does not have a great track record fighting wars against capable opponents, outside of China’s own internal fighting. Really, China has a record worse than the French. The Mongols, way back. The Brits in the Opium Wars where they took Hong Kong from you. The Japanese. Hell in the early post WW2 days the Russians would roll in and smack you around for fun. What were the Chinese losses vs UN losses in the Korean war?

    Reply
  6. Except for that part where Japan was ransacking your nation during the Shino-Japanese War that spilled into WW2 and in the end why is China not a territory of Japan? The US.

    Reply
  7. China also does not have a great track record fighting wars against capable opponents outside of China’s own internal fighting. Really China has a record worse than the French. The Mongols way back. The Brits in the Opium Wars where they took Hong Kong from you. The Japanese. Hell in the early post WW2 days the Russians would roll in and smack you around for fun. What were the Chinese losses vs UN losses in the Korean war?

    Reply
  8. Except for that part where Japan was ransacking your nation during the Shino-Japanese War that spilled into WW2 and in the end why is China not a territory of Japan? The US.

    Reply
  9. If you get hacked its your fault A hacker doesn’t have magical powers, a computer is just a device that follows a bunch of rules created by YOU (the user) and the people who built the computer A hacker finds a loophole In these set of rules that allow them to issue commands that they aren’t supposed to So the equivalent would be a guest entering your house and agreeing to follow a bunch of rules but the rules are poorly written so that the guest finds a loop hole or rules that contradict each other to pick up your wallet and walk away

    Reply
  10. To steal military secrets is a normal part of government function, not appreciated but also understandable. To steal technologies from private companies and individuals to support state owned industries is not. To try to steal territorial waters from their neighbors can only be seen as an abuse of power and leads to a very real concern of what kind of country China will be in the future, whether we really want to help them rise or do everything we can to prevent it as a response. To steal from your biggest export trade partner and talk openly about supplanting them is just plain stupid. I don’t think I could put it more simply than that.

    Reply
  11. If you get hacked its your fault A hacker doesn’t have magical powers a computer is just a device that follows a bunch of rules created by YOU (the user) and the people who built the computer A hacker finds a loophole In these set of rules that allow them to issue commands that they aren’t supposed toSo the equivalent would be a guest entering your house and agreeing to follow a bunch of rules but the rules are poorly written so that the guest finds a loop hole or rules that contradict each other to pick up your wallet and walk away

    Reply
  12. To steal military secrets is a normal part of government function not appreciated but also understandable. To steal technologies from private companies and individuals to support state owned industries is not. To try to steal territorial waters from their neighbors can only be seen as an abuse of power and leads to a very real concern of what kind of country China will be in the future whether we really want to help them rise or do everything we can to prevent it as a response. To steal from your biggest export trade partner and talk openly about supplanting them is just plain stupid. I don’t think I could put it more simply than that.

    Reply
  13. Nope You can claim any island anywhere as long as you claimed it first, it is through these rules that the UK controls the Falklands and the US controls various islands around the earth the concept is called overseas territories, feel free to google the term The islands in question were first discovered and claimed by China so therefore it belongs to China just like the falklands belong to the UK despite the falklands being 100 mi from the coast of argentina

    Reply
  14. All the wars you are citing as old wars that have no relevance to modern day. And involved a technologically inferior opponent vs a vastly superior one. For example the Opium wars were won because the British had iron clad boats a single iron clad could destroy a infinite number of enemy ships. We saw this in the civil war also, the handful of iron clads single handedly won numerous battles. The Chinese won the Korean war, they had only people armed with submachine guns and bugles, no trucks, no air superiority, no air support, no artillery, no radio communications, no naval support They had no supply lines either no additional ammo, they could sustain a few months of fighting at most so they needed to outthink the opponent In this few months they would not only have to force the US to retreat but would have to continuously fight and win and siece enemy supppliwers But against all odds they forced the US to retreat, US troops kept getting pincered, kept getting ambushed, flanked, outmaneuvered At every turn the Chinese predicted the troop movements of the Americans and maneuvered their soldiers to devastate American troops

    Reply
  15. Nope You can claim any island anywhere as long as you claimed it first it is through these rules that the UK controls the Falklands and the US controls various islands around the earththe concept is called overseas territories feel free to google the termThe islands in question were first discovered and claimed by China so therefore it belongs to China just like the falklands belong to the UK despite the falklands being 100 mi from the coast of argentina

    Reply
  16. All the wars you are citing as old wars that have no relevance to modern day. And involved a technologically inferior opponent vs a vastly superior one. For example the Opium wars were won because the British had iron clad boats a single iron clad could destroy a infinite number of enemy ships. We saw this in the civil war also the handful of iron clads single handedly won numerous battles.The Chinese won the Korean war they had only people armed with submachine guns and bugles no trucks no air superiority no air support no artillery no radio communications no naval supportThey had no supply lines either no additional ammo they could sustain a few months of fighting at most so they needed to outthink the opponent In this few months they would not only have to force the US to retreat but would have to continuously fight and win and siece enemy supppliwersBut against all odds they forced the US to retreat US troops kept getting pincered kept getting ambushed flanked outmaneuvered At every turn the Chinese predicted the troop movements of the Americans and maneuvered their soldiers to devastate American troops

    Reply
  17. The combined French, UK, and German armies are easily more powerful than China’s or Russia’s individually. People do not realize the French have arguably the 3rd most powerful navy in the world, you can rank them right in the same category as China and Russia, but with a real aircraft carrier. They are the only non-US nation to have a nuclear powered aircraft carrier group. The UK probably has the 5th most powerful navy. Between the French and UK they have 8 SSBM subs and a bunch (I think its in the 10-20 range) of cruise missile ships and subs. The US has the largest navy by a large margin, double the air power of any individual nation and has nearly double the space launch capability than every other nation combined, in terms of tonnage per year. China cannot compete with any of that at the moment, maybe in 30 years we can revisit and see if China is anywhere close. 1 billion brainwashed drones can only do as much and be as creative as the programmers (PRC leadership) can feed them the code for.

    Reply
  18. First, to claim a land or island you have to establish a permanent settlement or history of use. Second, China’s “claim” revolves around a 13th century map, from a time when China was not unified and also was at least partially conquered by foreign powers numerous times since the questionable map was supposedly produced. Also, since the maps production, the UK controlled that region of China and actually established the first official claim. Third, since the UK initial official claim, China was also partially controlled by Japan for 10-20 years in the 1920s to 1940s. It has the US to thank for why it no longer is. The US defeated the Japanese and all of their controlled lands became the property of the US. The US got to decide how to give it back because it won. Just as the USSR subsumed everything it took from Nazi Germany into the USSR. China’s claims on the South China Sea are like Italy trying to make a modern claim on all the lands of the Roman Empire. Or the UK saying all lands of the 18th and 19th century they once ruled, are now again under UK rule. If your nation at one point in history fails and losses land, you do not get to suddenly have it back just, you better have a military to back it up. China can claim what it want’s but the rest of the world finds it absurd and does not have to listen, especially the US, which will continue to sail its navy as close as it want’s to any such claims. China is still 20 years behind the US military, and as long as SpaceX keeps things up, they could be 30 years. People underestimate the power SpaceX (currently, 10 years ahead of anyone) brings to the table militarily in today’s age.

    Reply
  19. Thats why 1 million Chinese and 1 million N. Koreans were killed and only 33k from the US? The only thing that prevented China’s total annihilation was US goodness and a possible Russian nuclear threat. US had nukes at China’s doorstep, China was 10 year from a nuke. If N. Korea and China won, they would have managed to take S. Korea. The didn’t, so they lost. N. Korea attacked S. Korea with China’s help and failed to take it, China and N. Korea were killed at insane rates when the US got involved, while the US sustained 1/30th the casualties of either nation that was the initial aggressor, not the other way around.

    Reply
  20. No they did not. Technically it ended in a stalemate, because the US didn’t want to blow China into oblivion and risk a nuclear war with Russia. The war was started over communist N. Korea under direction of the Soviet Union trying to assert dominance over the whole of the Korean Peninsula. If the US/UN allied forces lost then South Korea would today be under control of communist since the 1950s. Since that is not the case, it means China, Russia and N. Korea failed and lost. The US and S. Korea did not attack and were not trying to assert dominance over the N. Korea to begin with. The goal was to preserve a democratic S. Korea, which was a success. Allied US/UN/S.Korean forces killed the commies at 3 to 1, even with Russians helping in secret and China flooding in. After US/UN involvement they killed the N. Koreans and Chinese at 10 to 1 ratios. I would call that victory.

    Reply
  21. The combined French UK and German armies are easily more powerful than China’s or Russia’s individually. People do not realize the French have arguably the 3rd most powerful navy in the world you can rank them right in the same category as China and Russia but with a real aircraft carrier. They are the only non-US nation to have a nuclear powered aircraft carrier group. The UK probably has the 5th most powerful navy. Between the French and UK they have 8 SSBM subs and a bunch (I think its in the 10-20 range) of cruise missile ships and subs. The US has the largest navy by a large margin double the air power of any individual nation and has nearly double the space launch capability than every other nation combined in terms of tonnage per year. China cannot compete with any of that at the moment maybe in 30 years we can revisit and see if China is anywhere close. 1 billion brainwashed drones can only do as much and be as creative as the programmers (PRC leadership) can feed them the code for.

    Reply
  22. First to claim a land or island you have to establish a permanent settlement or history of use. Second China’s claim”” revolves around a 13th century map”” from a time when China was not unified and also was at least partially conquered by foreign powers numerous times since the questionable map was supposedly produced. Also since the maps production the UK controlled that region of China and actually established the first official claim. Third since the UK initial official claim China was also partially controlled by Japan for 10-20 years in the 1920s to 1940s. It has the US to thank for why it no longer is. The US defeated the Japanese and all of their controlled lands became the property of the US. The US got to decide how to give it back because it won. Just as the USSR subsumed everything it took from Nazi Germany into the USSR. China’s claims on the South China Sea are like Italy trying to make a modern claim on all the lands of the Roman Empire. Or the UK saying all lands of the 18th and 19th century they once ruled are now again under UK rule. If your nation at one point in history fails and losses land you do not get to suddenly have it back just you better have a military to back it up. China can claim what it want’s but the rest of the world finds it absurd and does not have to listen especially the US which will continue to sail its navy as close as it want’s to any such claims. China is still 20 years behind the US military and as long as SpaceX keeps things up they could be 30 years. People underestimate the power SpaceX (currently”” 10 years ahead of anyone) brings to the table militarily in today’s age.”””

    Reply
  23. Thats why 1 million Chinese and 1 million N. Koreans were killed and only 33k from the US? The only thing that prevented China’s total annihilation was US goodness and a possible Russian nuclear threat. US had nukes at China’s doorstep China was 10 year from a nuke. If N. Korea and China won they would have managed to take S. Korea. The didn’t so they lost. N. Korea attacked S. Korea with China’s help and failed to take it China and N. Korea were killed at insane rates when the US got involved while the US sustained 1/30th the casualties of either nation that was the initial aggressor not the other way around.

    Reply
  24. No they did not. Technically it ended in a stalemate because the US didn’t want to blow China into oblivion and risk a nuclear war with Russia. The war was started over communist N. Korea under direction of the Soviet Union trying to assert dominance over the whole of the Korean Peninsula. If the US/UN allied forces lost then South Korea would today be under control of communist since the 1950s. Since that is not the case it means China Russia and N. Korea failed and lost. The US and S. Korea did not attack and were not trying to assert dominance over the N. Korea to begin with. The goal was to preserve a democratic S. Korea which was a success. Allied US/UN/S.Korean forces killed the commies at 3 to 1 even with Russians helping in secret and China flooding in. After US/UN involvement they killed the N. Koreans and Chinese at 10 to 1 ratios. I would call that victory.

    Reply
  25. only around 180k Chinese troops lost And war isn’t about human lives, war is about economics In any war videogame there are tanks, planes, trucks etc… that you can build The value of a Chinese subsistence farmer is how much $1 USD over a lifetime? This is a guy whose government invested nothing in him other than giving him a gun and some basic training The value of a US soldier who ate and lived 10 times better, attended years of government schooling to die in Korea who if he had lived would pay out millions over a lifetime of working The Chinese lost people because that is the only unit they used and they were just worthless illiterate peasants The US lost planes, lost equipment, lost supplies, lost tanks, lost trucks, consumed endless amounts of fuel, lost bombs, lost missiles etc… Using a F-22 (That will burn 3000 gallons of jet fuel) to drop a $500,000 tomahawk on a single subsistence farmer means the US loses See your grocery store? that gallon of milk? it takes 3000 of those filled with jet fuel to fly the F-22 for 2 hours. China was the big winner in the war, they spent a handful of worthless illiterate peasants with stunted growth and poor health and traded them for well fed, well educated us soldiers given the best healthcare available, tanks that were built from digging massive holes into the ground and sending men to extract tons of ore that were then laboriously melted down and manufactured and assembled to form a tank, various equipment that costed a mountain of labor and resources to produce. The Chinese also captured high tech us equipment to reverse engineer. Remember at this point the only weapon that China had the technology to build was submachine guns. China also gained from all the supplies left behind by the US’s frantic retreat when they overextended into North Korea Overall the Korean war was a war that massively benefited China. There are many numerous war simulation videogames where the player has resources th

    Reply
  26. Chinese military tactics are akin to those of Zapp Brannigan. “When I am in command, son, every mission is a suicide mission” “I sent wave after wave of my own men at them until they reached their (kill) limit and shut down. Kif, show them the medal I won.

    Reply
  27. No only 3 (French, Spanish and English) but I can use Google. Un ni ma de dan, loop naai, vyser si voko, va te faire foutre, yavj boovoo saa, and poshol ti nahoo.

    Reply
  28. only around 180k Chinese troops lostAnd war isn’t about human lives war is about economics In any war videogame there are tanks planes trucks etc… that you can build The value of a Chinese subsistence farmer is how much $1 USD over a lifetime? This is a guy whose government invested nothing in him other than giving him a gun and some basic trainingThe value of a US soldier who ate and lived 10 times better attended years of government schooling to die in Korea who if he had lived would pay out millions over a lifetime of workingThe Chinese lost people because that is the only unit they used and they were just worthless illiterate peasants The US lost planes lost equipment lost supplies lost tanks lost trucks consumed endless amounts of fuel lost bombs lost missiles etc… Using a F-22 (That will burn 3000 gallons of jet fuel) to drop a $500000 tomahawk on a single subsistence farmer means the US loses See your grocery store? that gallon of milk? it takes 3000 of those filled with jet fuel to fly the F-22 for 2 hours. China was the big winner in the war they spent a handful of worthless illiterate peasants with stunted growth and poor health and traded them for well fed well educated us soldiers given the best healthcare available tanks that were built from digging massive holes into the ground and sending men to extract tons of ore that were then laboriously melted down and manufactured and assembled to form a tank various equipment that costed a mountain of labor and resources to produce. The Chinese also captured high tech us equipment to reverse engineer. Remember at this point the only weapon that China had the technology to build was submachine guns. China also gained from all the supplies left behind by the US’s frantic retreat when they overextended into North Korea Overall the Korean war was a war that massively benefited China. There are many numerous war simulation videogames where the player h

    Reply
  29. Chinese military tactics are akin to those of Zapp Brannigan. When I am in command son” every mission is a suicide mission”” “”””I sent wave after wave of my own men at them until they reached their (kill) limit and shut down. Kif”””” show them the medal I won.”””””””

    Reply
  30. No only 3 (French Spanish and English) but I can use Google. Un ni ma de dan loop naai vyser si voko va te faire foutre yavj boovoo saa and poshol ti nahoo.

    Reply
  31. >you have to establish a permanent settlement or history of use No you don’t the US claimed midway island in 1859 The first attempt at settlement was 1871 and it failed The US claimed wake island and to this day claims it despite having no permanent population, the island itself has no fresh water sources ————————————- So already in your first sentence you have LIED China’s claim is based on we discovered and claimed it first. Therefore it is ours, and yes the historical documents show this Everything else you listed regarding various foreign powers claiming to owning it is irrelevant, because china was there first Also you realized that China claimed these islands before the British developed boats capable of crossing the ocean In fact the Chinese discovered Australia and Africa The rules for islands is if the island is uninhabited you can claim it otherwise it belongs to the people living there. Therefore these islands have been part of china since the moment they were discovered.

    Reply
  32. You realize that war is more than just foot soldiers, the us lost artillery, lost planes, lost tanks, lost trucks, lost supplies The US burned billions worth of fuel to fight a war on the other side of the earth. Wasted thousands upon thousands of bombs China didn’t lose anything except illiterate peasants and it wasn’t 10 to 1 it was 180k Chinese deaths vs 30k US deaths The 30k US deaths are a far bigger loss because the US invests in its citizens, in the form of infrastructure, world class education, world class nutrition, world class health care The 180k Chinese peasants that died received nothing more than a couple of cups of rice over their childhood -> adulthood once they reached adulthood they provide for themselves by barely growing enough food thru subsistence farming If these 180k peasants lived, they wouldn’t have done anything except grow enough food to feed themselves and would have never done anything useful At their age, teaching them how to read and do basic addition wouldn’t be possible. But the 30k americans that died, many would have gone on to get masters, phd’s many would have become engineers, or developed useful management skills etc…

    Reply
  33. >you have to establish a permanent settlement or history of useNo you don’t the US claimed midway island in 1859 The first attempt at settlement was 1871 and it failed The US claimed wake island and to this day claims it despite having no permanent population the island itself has no fresh water sources ————————————-So already in your first sentence you have LIEDChina’s claim is based on we discovered and claimed it first. Therefore it is ours and yes the historical documents show this Everything else you listed regarding various foreign powers claiming to owning it is irrelevant because china was there first Also you realized that China claimed these islands before the British developed boats capable of crossing the ocean In fact the Chinese discovered Australia and Africa The rules for islands is if the island is uninhabited you can claim it otherwise it belongs to the people living there. Therefore these islands have been part of china since the moment they were discovered.

    Reply
  34. You realize that war is more than just foot soldiers the us lost artillery lost planes lost tanks lost trucks lost supplies The US burned billions worth of fuel to fight a war on the other side of the earth. Wasted thousands upon thousands of bombsChina didn’t lose anything except illiterate peasantsand it wasn’t 10 to 1 it was 180k Chinese deaths vs 30k US deaths The 30k US deaths are a far bigger loss because the US invests in its citizens in the form of infrastructure world class education world class nutrition world class health care The 180k Chinese peasants that died received nothing more than a couple of cups of rice over their childhood -> adulthood once they reached adulthood they provide for themselves by barely growing enough food thru subsistence farmingIf these 180k peasants lived they wouldn’t have done anything except grow enough food to feed themselves and would have never done anything useful At their age teaching them how to read and do basic addition wouldn’t be possible.But the 30k americans that died many would have gone on to get masters phd’s many would have become engineers or developed useful management skills etc…

    Reply
  35. US suffered 33,686 battle deaths, ~25k after Chinese involvement. UN estimates of Chinese soldiers killed is in excess of 400k, China claims only 118k, but has no records to back it up. At best its 4 to 1 at worst its 14 to 1. In terms of aircraft 108 US F-86 Sabres were lost to air combat while they shot down 792 MiG-15s piloted by the N. Koreans, Russians and Chinese. That is a 8 to 1 kill ration in the skies. Yes the US was underprepared, but China had Soviet support and got slaughtered. The US bomed N. Korea to the point where it was almost complete rubble. The US did great economically in th years after the war, so the costs were not that high. Losing 792 planes is expensive for poor countries like N. Korea and 1950s China. I trust the USAF figures more than the Soviet or Chinese figures. In the US people can ask questions and casualties are accurately reported because the families of the fallen demand it. In the USSR and China people just disappeared. Most people on earth would prefer to live in S. Korea over China or N. Korea.

    Reply
  36. US suffered 33686 battle deaths ~25k after Chinese involvement. UN estimates of Chinese soldiers killed is in excess of 400k China claims only 118k but has no records to back it up. At best its 4 to 1 at worst its 14 to 1. In terms of aircraft 108 US F-86 Sabres were lost to air combat while they shot down 792 MiG-15s piloted by the N. Koreans Russians and Chinese. That is a 8 to 1 kill ration in the skies. Yes the US was underprepared but China had Soviet support and got slaughtered. The US bomed N. Korea to the point where it was almost complete rubble. The US did great economically in th years after the war so the costs were not that high. Losing 792 planes is expensive for poor countries like N. Korea and 1950s China. I trust the USAF figures more than the Soviet or Chinese figures. In the US people can ask questions and casualties are accurately reported because the families of the fallen demand it. In the USSR and China people just disappeared. Most people on earth would prefer to live in S. Korea over China or N. Korea.

    Reply
  37. Hence why stalin barely sent any aid seeing the fight as a lost cause The Chinese also had no supplies, every soldier started with 80 bullets and 5 grenades and their only way to resupply was to kill the enemy and take their supplies they didn’t have enough food to survive a week, they had to fight and they had to win The Chinese managed to beat the US by maneuvering the main group around the US, then sending a small group to infiltrate past the tanks so that they could assault the artillery guarded by light infantry they would surround them then charge tricking the US soldiers into thinking that the line was broken so the US would retreat right into the ambush the hands of the main group that was already entrenched The Chinese predicted every troop movement and slaughtered the americans like pigs, the Chinese generals laughed at the stupid americans In addition the Chinese worked with North Korea to purposely lure the US deep into North Korea to stretch supply lines and to position themselves to inflict maximum casualties they fled leaving their valuable artillery and numerous supply depots behind So China won, they achieved their goal while humiliating the US They won a war deemed by every military expert deemed impossible small arms defeating combined arms with air and sea dominance They did something historically deemed impossible by WW1 and WW2 generals China gained massive prestige The US lost far more materially than China China basically lost nothing, the foot soldiers they lost essentially costed them nothing. It would be the equivalent of the US ordering all their bears and deers to attack mexico. In the end the US is the big loser, the Chinese have the greatest tactics they invented the book on war If you look at the Annual Warrior Competition, 2009 – Jordan: General Intelligence Directorate 2010 – United States: United States Marine Corps Force Reconnaissance 2011 – Austria: EKO Cobra 2012 – Germany: GSG 9 2013 – China: Snow Leop

    Reply
  38. China’s claims are more plausible while 1 mil plus Chinese soldiers did participate the vast majority saw no action The first wave was only 300k soldiers, and the first wave pushed the US past the 38th parallel The first wave then retreated to the 38th when their supplies ran out. So the actual number of Chinese who actually fought was only 300k Furthermore there was no way for the US to count enemy bodies, since the US overextended and was sent on a retreat abandoning their artillery and supplies This isn’t the first time either, the US has been caught lying numerous times gulf of Tonkin resolution, Iraq WMD’s, these are the same clowns that claim that Mao killed 50 million without a shred of evidence They also lied about the human wave attacks, which in actuality never existed numerous generals have spoke about the various battles ————– And the US did lose, the US’s goal was to take north korea not just defend south korea, in fact they crossed the 38th parallel and reached the Yalu river The Korean war in a nutshell, a 10 foot tall guy on the sidewalk walks into a house goes upstairs, walks all the way into the master bedroom gets attacked by a 1 foot tall guy then runs screaming dropping his wallet and runs out of the house then declares himself the winner, claims that he had no intention of entering the house and wanted to stay on the sidewalk ————————— The vast majority of military historian’s or strategist’s all agree that the US lost And the soviet’s didn’t do anything other than send a couple of fighter jets that got shot down the Chinese only had light infantry, while the US had combined arms and air control as well as radio communications. There are numerous battles in WW1 and WW2 that light infantry lost against combined arms The US was using a strategy of artillery leading, where tanks formed a shield while artillery flanked by light infantry would advance, planes would sight enemy troops and direct art

    Reply
  39. Hence why stalin barely sent any aid seeing the fight as a lost cause The Chinese also had no supplies every soldier started with 80 bullets and 5 grenades and their only way to resupply was to kill the enemy and take their supplies they didn’t have enough food to survive a week they had to fight and they had to winThe Chinese managed to beat the US by maneuvering the main group around the US then sending a small group to infiltrate past the tanks so that they could assault the artillery guarded by light infantry they would surround them then charge tricking the US soldiers into thinking that the line was broken so the US would retreat right into the ambush the hands of the main group that was already entrenched The Chinese predicted every troop movement and slaughtered the americans like pigs the Chinese generals laughed at the stupid americans In addition the Chinese worked with North Korea to purposely lure the US deep into North Korea to stretch supply lines and to position themselves to inflict maximum casualties they fled leaving their valuable artillery and numerous supply depots behindSo China won they achieved their goal while humiliating the US They won a war deemed by every military expert deemed impossible small arms defeating combined arms with air and sea dominance They did something historically deemed impossible by WW1 and WW2 generals China gained massive prestige The US lost far more materially than China China basically lost nothing the foot soldiers they lost essentially costed them nothing. It would be the equivalent of the US ordering all their bears and deers to attack mexico. In the end the US is the big loser the Chinese have the greatest tactics they invented the book on warIf you look at the Annual Warrior Competition 2009 – Jordan: General Intelligence Directorate2010 – United States: United States Marine Corps Force Reconnaissance2011 – Austria: EKO Cobra2012 – Germany: GSG

    Reply
  40. China’s claims are more plausible while 1 mil plus Chinese soldiers did participate the vast majority saw no action The first wave was only 300k soldiers and the first wave pushed the US past the 38th parallel The first wave then retreated to the 38th when their supplies ran out. So the actual number of Chinese who actually fought was only 300k Furthermore there was no way for the US to count enemy bodies since the US overextended and was sent on a retreat abandoning their artillery and supplies This isn’t the first time either the US has been caught lying numerous times gulf of Tonkin resolution Iraq WMD’s these are the same clowns that claim that Mao killed 50 million without a shred of evidenceThey also lied about the human wave attacks which in actuality never existed numerous generals have spoke about the various battles ————–And the US did lose the US’s goal was to take north korea not just defend south korea in fact they crossed the 38th parallel and reached the Yalu riverThe Korean war in a nutshell a 10 foot tall guy on the sidewalk walks into a housegoes upstairs walks all the way into the master bedroom gets attacked by a 1 foot tall guy then runs screaming dropping his wallet and runs out of the housethen declares himself the winner claims that he had no intention of entering the house and wanted to stay on the sidewalk—————————The vast majority of military historian’s or strategist’s all agree that the US lostAnd the soviet’s didn’t do anything other than send a couple of fighter jets that got shot downthe Chinese only had light infantry while the US had combined arms and air control as well as radio communications. There are numerous battles in WW1 and WW2 that light infantry lost against combined arms The US was using a strategy of artillery leading where tanks formed a shield while artillery flanked by light infantry would advance planes would sigh

    Reply
  41. Tho obviously that only applies to small unclaimed islands and reefs.Pararcel and sorstly islands are a while different issue. They were used by Chinese annually for their festival. Then France and China had a war and France recognised them as chinese territory. Then later Germany tried to take it but did not suceed. Japan however did take it and returned all stolen islands.But the spratley was not officially named as one of the territories to be returned back. The chinese say that Japanese returning the island back to them was implied but there is no clear paper stating that specifically. So today that lack of paperwork is the cause of many opportunitinstic disputes and legal claims.

    Reply
  42. Anyways this was back in 1947. When UNCLOS and ezz did not even exist until a few decades later. And in 1947, those islands were officially unclaimed so you can’t steal an island if its unclaimed and well outside a foreign countries’ border I feel that both Chinese media and western media hide facts deliberately. The western media doesn’t like to talk about the fact that their ally, Taiwan today FULLY backs the legality of china’s claim. And China is unwilling to talk about how weak their claim actually is according to beuacratic protocols, and instead shout out “might is right and not realising how fascist and selfish that is.

    Reply
  43. Anyways my point was those islands weren’t stolen from Other countries as they were outside those countries’s 15 mile boundaries and officially had no soveringty according to the global public. and this was back in 1947. When UNCLOS and ezz did not even exist until a few decades later.And in 1947, those islands were officially unclaimed so you can’t steal an island if its unclaimed and well outside a foreign countries’ border I feel that both Chinese media and western media hide facts deliberately. The western media doesn’t like to talk about the fact that their ally, Taiwan today FULLY backs the legality of china’s claim. And China is unwilling to talk about how strong their claim is and instead shout out “might is right and not realising how fascist and selfish that is.

    Reply
  44. It’s not waters perse but the islands and reefs.Technically those islands are beyond the 15 mile natural borders of Vietnam, Philippines china, Taiwan, etcChina “claimed” islands outside of its neighbour’s borders that was not claimed by anyone in 1947……… Most of those reefs and islands are well outside of Phillipines and Vietnam’s borders. Countries are entitled to everything with 15 miles from their boundaries. Since those islands are well outside of those boundaries……….so if unclaimed in 1947. They are up for grabs. But until 1947, no one had claimed it officially as no one cared. France, America, britian had already claimed the sizable Pacific Islands even when already inhabited. China sinply claimed the left over scraps in 1947 first. Not even the American who controlled Phillipines had recognised those islands as fillipino territory by 1947…….. So they were unclaimed, and China indeed had the first official claim. Even TAIWAN today recognises the Legality of china’s dash claims of 1947 fully despite being enemies. Taiwan even rejected the un tribunal decision to invalidate china’s claim. But regardless, The problem with china claim was that it wasn’t a new claim. But one that states historical ownership. That is hard to validate without showing proof hence the claim is not valid and ruled groundless by the un tribunal. Granted it’s more a beuacratic loophole to deprive china of its claim. But it’s still legally sound.

    Reply
  45. >China had the government records of a 4th world nation during the Korean war. Yo expect them to know how many actually died

    They did keep count, they counted every soldier and kept track of their positions and hence where able to defeat combined arms with just light infantry

    >Ever heard of “lend lease

    You act like Lend lease came from the goodness of the American heart, lend lease was just as the name implied loans. They forced Russia to pay trillions during the USSR collapse in the 1990’s bankrupting Russia
    .
    The US lent trillions to the KMT in the hopes of permanently enslaving China into decades of debt slavery.

    >China still can’t produce a comparable aircraft

    The J-20 currently beats both the F-35 and the F-22

    The J-20 has superior avionics to the 1980’s tech in the F-22, a superior stealth coating and has metamaterials embedded in the frame to absorb radiation as well as metamaterial antennas so it has a longer detection range, and is capable of communicating and relaying information to other platforms

    The J-20 helmet is similar to the advance helmet of the F-35

    The J-20 currently is running on the WS-10B a engine with a thrust weight ratio of 9 compared to the F-119 with a thrust weight ratio of 10

    The difference is pretty negligible as seen in the Zuhai airshow the J-20 had enough thrust to perform every single maneuver that the F-22 is capable of doing

    And by 2019, the J-20 will be equipped with the WS-15 and will have more power than the F-22

    The F-35? US generals already admitted that it was no match for the J-20, then claimed the F-35 was better because of superior sensor fusion which the J-20 already has

    >SpaceX is 10-20 years beyond

    At what? putting stuff into space?

    Look up Wikipedia 2018 in spaceflight

    China has 23 long march launches this year, SpaceX has launched 15 so far

    In terms of space travel China is leading, they are preparing to land on the dark side of the moon as well as building a experimental structure that will grow potatoes and silkworms on the moon as well as preparing for a moon base
    >Nuclear aircraft carriers

    Powering them with nuclear power is not cost effective, if so we would powering cruise ships with them

    There are many cruise ships larger than aircraft carriers

    But the US insists on throwing money down the drain

    Reply
  46. China had the government records of a 4th world nation during the Korean war. Yo expect them to know how many actually died? China as it is is not a nation without the US beating down everyone during WW2. Ever heard of “lend lease” or all the weapons and supplies given to the USSR during WW2. Russia would be Nazi Germany (Russia stayed afloat because of US supplies) and China (look it up the US saved China) would be Japan without the US. At the moment China is 30 years behind the US (F-22 is 20 now and China sill can’t produce a comparable aircraft, the B-2 is nearly 30). SpaceX is 10-20 years beyond anyoe and the BFR is a game changer militarily, BTFW its hypersonic and has a 100+tn payload (Tungsten in LEO at Mach 15), 100 tons dropped from orbit could kill 5-10 million in Beijing. When China has one nuclear powered aircraft carrier, then they will be the equivalent of France.

    Reply
  47. Hence why stalin barely sent any aid seeing the fight as a lost cause The Chinese also had no supplies, every soldier started with 80 bullets and 5 grenades and their only way to resupply was to kill the enemy and take their supplies they didn’t have enough food to survive a week, they had to fight and they had to win The Chinese managed to beat the US by maneuvering the main group around the US, then sending a small group to infiltrate past the tanks so that they could assault the artillery guarded by light infantry they would surround them then charge tricking the US soldiers into thinking that the line was broken so the US would retreat right into the ambush the hands of the main group that was already entrenched The Chinese predicted every troop movement and slaughtered the americans like pigs, the Chinese generals laughed at the stupid americans In addition the Chinese worked with North Korea to purposely lure the US deep into North Korea to stretch supply lines and to position themselves to inflict maximum casualties they fled leaving their valuable artillery and numerous supply depots behind So China won, they achieved their goal while humiliating the US They won a war deemed by every military expert deemed impossible small arms defeating combined arms with air and sea dominance They did something historically deemed impossible by WW1 and WW2 generals China gained massive prestige The US lost far more materially than China China basically lost nothing, the foot soldiers they lost essentially costed them nothing. It would be the equivalent of the US ordering all their bears and deers to attack mexico. In the end the US is the big loser, the Chinese have the greatest tactics they invented the book on war If you look at the Annual Warrior Competition, 2009 – Jordan: General Intelligence Directorate 2010 – United States: United States Marine Corps Force Reconnaissance 2011 – Austria: EKO Cobra 2012 – Germany: GSG 9 2013 – China: Snow Leop

    Reply
  48. Hence why stalin barely sent any aid seeing the fight as a lost cause The Chinese also had no supplies every soldier started with 80 bullets and 5 grenades and their only way to resupply was to kill the enemy and take their supplies they didn’t have enough food to survive a week they had to fight and they had to winThe Chinese managed to beat the US by maneuvering the main group around the US then sending a small group to infiltrate past the tanks so that they could assault the artillery guarded by light infantry they would surround them then charge tricking the US soldiers into thinking that the line was broken so the US would retreat right into the ambush the hands of the main group that was already entrenched The Chinese predicted every troop movement and slaughtered the americans like pigs the Chinese generals laughed at the stupid americans In addition the Chinese worked with North Korea to purposely lure the US deep into North Korea to stretch supply lines and to position themselves to inflict maximum casualties they fled leaving their valuable artillery and numerous supply depots behindSo China won they achieved their goal while humiliating the US They won a war deemed by every military expert deemed impossible small arms defeating combined arms with air and sea dominance They did something historically deemed impossible by WW1 and WW2 generals China gained massive prestige The US lost far more materially than China China basically lost nothing the foot soldiers they lost essentially costed them nothing. It would be the equivalent of the US ordering all their bears and deers to attack mexico. In the end the US is the big loser the Chinese have the greatest tactics they invented the book on warIf you look at the Annual Warrior Competition 2009 – Jordan: General Intelligence Directorate2010 – United States: United States Marine Corps Force Reconnaissance2011 – Austria: EKO Cobra2012 – Germany: GSG

    Reply
  49. China’s claims are more plausible while 1 mil plus Chinese soldiers did participate the vast majority saw no action The first wave was only 300k soldiers, and the first wave pushed the US past the 38th parallel The first wave then retreated to the 38th when their supplies ran out. So the actual number of Chinese who actually fought was only 300k Furthermore there was no way for the US to count enemy bodies, since the US overextended and was sent on a retreat abandoning their artillery and supplies This isn’t the first time either, the US has been caught lying numerous times gulf of Tonkin resolution, Iraq WMD’s, these are the same clowns that claim that Mao killed 50 million without a shred of evidence They also lied about the human wave attacks, which in actuality never existed numerous generals have spoke about the various battles ————– And the US did lose, the US’s goal was to take north korea not just defend south korea, in fact they crossed the 38th parallel and reached the Yalu river The Korean war in a nutshell, a 10 foot tall guy on the sidewalk walks into a house goes upstairs, walks all the way into the master bedroom gets attacked by a 1 foot tall guy then runs screaming dropping his wallet and runs out of the house then declares himself the winner, claims that he had no intention of entering the house and wanted to stay on the sidewalk ————————— The vast majority of military historian’s or strategist’s all agree that the US lost And the soviet’s didn’t do anything other than send a couple of fighter jets that got shot down the Chinese only had light infantry, while the US had combined arms and air control as well as radio communications. There are numerous battles in WW1 and WW2 that light infantry lost against combined arms The US was using a strategy of artillery leading, where tanks formed a shield while artillery flanked by light infantry would advance, planes would sight enemy troops and direct art

    Reply
  50. China’s claims are more plausible while 1 mil plus Chinese soldiers did participate the vast majority saw no action The first wave was only 300k soldiers and the first wave pushed the US past the 38th parallel The first wave then retreated to the 38th when their supplies ran out. So the actual number of Chinese who actually fought was only 300k Furthermore there was no way for the US to count enemy bodies since the US overextended and was sent on a retreat abandoning their artillery and supplies This isn’t the first time either the US has been caught lying numerous times gulf of Tonkin resolution Iraq WMD’s these are the same clowns that claim that Mao killed 50 million without a shred of evidenceThey also lied about the human wave attacks which in actuality never existed numerous generals have spoke about the various battles ————–And the US did lose the US’s goal was to take north korea not just defend south korea in fact they crossed the 38th parallel and reached the Yalu riverThe Korean war in a nutshell a 10 foot tall guy on the sidewalk walks into a housegoes upstairs walks all the way into the master bedroom gets attacked by a 1 foot tall guy then runs screaming dropping his wallet and runs out of the housethen declares himself the winner claims that he had no intention of entering the house and wanted to stay on the sidewalk—————————The vast majority of military historian’s or strategist’s all agree that the US lostAnd the soviet’s didn’t do anything other than send a couple of fighter jets that got shot downthe Chinese only had light infantry while the US had combined arms and air control as well as radio communications. There are numerous battles in WW1 and WW2 that light infantry lost against combined arms The US was using a strategy of artillery leading where tanks formed a shield while artillery flanked by light infantry would advance planes would sigh

    Reply
  51. Hence why stalin barely sent any aid seeing the fight as a lost cause

    The Chinese also had no supplies, every soldier started with 80 bullets and 5 grenades and their only way to resupply was to kill the enemy and take their supplies they didn’t have enough food to survive a week, they had to fight and they had to win

    The Chinese managed to beat the US by maneuvering the main group around the US, then sending a small group to infiltrate past the tanks so that they could assault the artillery guarded by light infantry they would surround them then charge tricking the US soldiers into thinking that the line was broken so the US would retreat right into the ambush the hands of the main group that was already entrenched

    The Chinese predicted every troop movement and slaughtered the americans like pigs, the Chinese generals laughed at the stupid americans

    In addition the Chinese worked with North Korea to purposely lure the US deep into North Korea to stretch supply lines and to position themselves to inflict maximum casualties

    they fled leaving their valuable artillery and numerous supply depots behind

    So China won, they achieved their goal while humiliating the US

    They won a war deemed by every military expert deemed impossible small arms defeating combined arms with air and sea dominance

    They did something historically deemed impossible by WW1 and WW2 generals

    China gained massive prestige

    The US lost far more materially than China

    China basically lost nothing, the foot soldiers they lost essentially costed them nothing. It would be the equivalent of the US ordering all their bears and deers to attack mexico.

    In the end the US is the big loser, the Chinese have the greatest tactics they invented the book on war

    If you look at the Annual Warrior Competition,

    2009 – Jordan: General Intelligence Directorate
    2010 – United States: United States Marine Corps Force Reconnaissance
    2011 – Austria: EKO Cobra
    2012 – Germany: GSG 9
    2013 – China: Snow Leopard Commando Unit
    2014 – China: Snow Leopard Commando Unit
    2015 – Russia: SOBR
    2016 – Lebanon: Black Panthers
    2017 – China: Sky Sword Unit of the PAP

    China has won it more than any other country, not because Chinese soldiers are stronger or because they have superior equipment.

    But they have more brainpower, and tactics.

    And the IQ statistics back this, the Chinese average 105 IQ, roughly 7 points higher than the US

    And in 2018 1/3rd of all science research papers are now being written by someone of Chinese descent

    The Chinese dominate US research despite being what 3% of the population?

    The Chinese know how to fight, its the US that has a reputation for incompetence their own warships running into each other, hilarious defeats in Korean and Vietnam, numerous F-16 crashes, a helicopter just crashed into a us carrier, 17 F-22 damaged by a hurricane, F-35 crash in South Carolina the pentagon by the way has ordered that the entire F-35 fleet grounded

    Reply
  52. China’s claims are more plausible while 1 mil plus Chinese soldiers did participate the vast majority saw no action

    The first wave was only 300k soldiers, and the first wave pushed the US past the 38th parallel

    The first wave then retreated to the 38th when their supplies ran out.

    So the actual number of Chinese who actually fought was only 300k

    Furthermore there was no way for the US to count enemy bodies, since the US overextended and was sent on a retreat abandoning their artillery and supplies

    This isn’t the first time either, the US has been caught lying numerous times gulf of Tonkin resolution, Iraq WMD’s, these are the same clowns that claim that Mao killed 50 million without a shred of evidence

    They also lied about the human wave attacks, which in actuality never existed numerous generals have spoke about the various battles

    ————–

    And the US did lose, the US’s goal was to take north korea not just defend south korea, in fact they crossed the 38th parallel and reached the Yalu river

    The Korean war in a nutshell, a 10 foot tall guy on the sidewalk walks into a house

    goes upstairs, walks all the way into the master bedroom gets attacked by a 1 foot tall guy then runs screaming dropping his wallet and runs out of the house

    then declares himself the winner, claims that he had no intention of entering the house and wanted to stay on the sidewalk

    —————————

    The vast majority of military historian’s or strategist’s all agree that the US lost

    And the soviet’s didn’t do anything other than send a couple of fighter jets that got shot down

    the Chinese only had light infantry, while the US had combined arms and air control as well as radio communications.

    There are numerous battles in WW1 and WW2 that light infantry lost against combined arms

    The US was using a strategy of artillery leading, where tanks formed a shield while artillery flanked by light infantry would advance, planes would sight enemy troops and direct artillery, naval fire and aerial bombs

    In addition the US had the best weapons and spent more money on the military than every other country combined. They had absolute air dominance.

    Too bad the only thing the US didn’t have was a functioning brain

    They were fooled by the Chinese, the Chinese purposely sent radio communications claiming that they had 2 million soldiers at the border knowing that the americans would intercept the communications but believe that it was a bluff since they knew that the americans had read the art of war and in reality they only had 20,000 this was all carefully detailed by the US generals they believed 20,000 Chinese troops were there with only light infantry when the reality was 80,000

    Stalin himself was furiously against Chinese intervention he was convinced that the Chinese troops would get slaughtered by ground and sea artillery and bombs from the air before they could even make contact

    Reply
  53. US suffered 33,686 battle deaths, ~25k after Chinese involvement. UN estimates of Chinese soldiers killed is in excess of 400k, China claims only 118k, but has no records to back it up. At best its 4 to 1 at worst its 14 to 1. In terms of aircraft 108 US F-86 Sabres were lost to air combat while they shot down 792 MiG-15s piloted by the N. Koreans, Russians and Chinese. That is a 8 to 1 kill ration in the skies. Yes the US was underprepared, but China had Soviet support and got slaughtered. The US bomed N. Korea to the point where it was almost complete rubble. The US did great economically in th years after the war, so the costs were not that high. Losing 792 planes is expensive for poor countries like N. Korea and 1950s China. I trust the USAF figures more than the Soviet or Chinese figures. In the US people can ask questions and casualties are accurately reported because the families of the fallen demand it. In the USSR and China people just disappeared. Most people on earth would prefer to live in S. Korea over China or N. Korea.

    Reply
  54. US suffered 33686 battle deaths ~25k after Chinese involvement. UN estimates of Chinese soldiers killed is in excess of 400k China claims only 118k but has no records to back it up. At best its 4 to 1 at worst its 14 to 1. In terms of aircraft 108 US F-86 Sabres were lost to air combat while they shot down 792 MiG-15s piloted by the N. Koreans Russians and Chinese. That is a 8 to 1 kill ration in the skies. Yes the US was underprepared but China had Soviet support and got slaughtered. The US bomed N. Korea to the point where it was almost complete rubble. The US did great economically in th years after the war so the costs were not that high. Losing 792 planes is expensive for poor countries like N. Korea and 1950s China. I trust the USAF figures more than the Soviet or Chinese figures. In the US people can ask questions and casualties are accurately reported because the families of the fallen demand it. In the USSR and China people just disappeared. Most people on earth would prefer to live in S. Korea over China or N. Korea.

    Reply
  55. and yes China has a history of use, Chinese fisherman have fished the area and have had temporary settlements for years

    Reply
  56. >you have to establish a permanent settlement or history of use No you don’t the US claimed midway island in 1859 The first attempt at settlement was 1871 and it failed The US claimed wake island and to this day claims it despite having no permanent population, the island itself has no fresh water sources ————————————- So already in your first sentence you have LIED China’s claim is based on we discovered and claimed it first. Therefore it is ours, and yes the historical documents show this Everything else you listed regarding various foreign powers claiming to owning it is irrelevant, because china was there first Also you realized that China claimed these islands before the British developed boats capable of crossing the ocean In fact the Chinese discovered Australia and Africa The rules for islands is if the island is uninhabited you can claim it otherwise it belongs to the people living there. Therefore these islands have been part of china since the moment they were discovered.

    Reply
  57. >you have to establish a permanent settlement or history of useNo you don’t the US claimed midway island in 1859 The first attempt at settlement was 1871 and it failed The US claimed wake island and to this day claims it despite having no permanent population the island itself has no fresh water sources ————————————-So already in your first sentence you have LIEDChina’s claim is based on we discovered and claimed it first. Therefore it is ours and yes the historical documents show this Everything else you listed regarding various foreign powers claiming to owning it is irrelevant because china was there first Also you realized that China claimed these islands before the British developed boats capable of crossing the ocean In fact the Chinese discovered Australia and Africa The rules for islands is if the island is uninhabited you can claim it otherwise it belongs to the people living there. Therefore these islands have been part of china since the moment they were discovered.

    Reply
  58. You realize that war is more than just foot soldiers, the us lost artillery, lost planes, lost tanks, lost trucks, lost supplies The US burned billions worth of fuel to fight a war on the other side of the earth. Wasted thousands upon thousands of bombs China didn’t lose anything except illiterate peasants and it wasn’t 10 to 1 it was 180k Chinese deaths vs 30k US deaths The 30k US deaths are a far bigger loss because the US invests in its citizens, in the form of infrastructure, world class education, world class nutrition, world class health care The 180k Chinese peasants that died received nothing more than a couple of cups of rice over their childhood -> adulthood once they reached adulthood they provide for themselves by barely growing enough food thru subsistence farming If these 180k peasants lived, they wouldn’t have done anything except grow enough food to feed themselves and would have never done anything useful At their age, teaching them how to read and do basic addition wouldn’t be possible. But the 30k americans that died, many would have gone on to get masters, phd’s many would have become engineers, or developed useful management skills etc…

    Reply
  59. You realize that war is more than just foot soldiers the us lost artillery lost planes lost tanks lost trucks lost supplies The US burned billions worth of fuel to fight a war on the other side of the earth. Wasted thousands upon thousands of bombsChina didn’t lose anything except illiterate peasantsand it wasn’t 10 to 1 it was 180k Chinese deaths vs 30k US deaths The 30k US deaths are a far bigger loss because the US invests in its citizens in the form of infrastructure world class education world class nutrition world class health care The 180k Chinese peasants that died received nothing more than a couple of cups of rice over their childhood -> adulthood once they reached adulthood they provide for themselves by barely growing enough food thru subsistence farmingIf these 180k peasants lived they wouldn’t have done anything except grow enough food to feed themselves and would have never done anything useful At their age teaching them how to read and do basic addition wouldn’t be possible.But the 30k americans that died many would have gone on to get masters phd’s many would have become engineers or developed useful management skills etc…

    Reply
  60. only around 180k Chinese troops lost And war isn’t about human lives, war is about economics In any war videogame there are tanks, planes, trucks etc… that you can build The value of a Chinese subsistence farmer is how much $1 USD over a lifetime? This is a guy whose government invested nothing in him other than giving him a gun and some basic training The value of a US soldier who ate and lived 10 times better, attended years of government schooling to die in Korea who if he had lived would pay out millions over a lifetime of working The Chinese lost people because that is the only unit they used and they were just worthless illiterate peasants The US lost planes, lost equipment, lost supplies, lost tanks, lost trucks, consumed endless amounts of fuel, lost bombs, lost missiles etc… Using a F-22 (That will burn 3000 gallons of jet fuel) to drop a $500,000 tomahawk on a single subsistence farmer means the US loses See your grocery store? that gallon of milk? it takes 3000 of those filled with jet fuel to fly the F-22 for 2 hours. China was the big winner in the war, they spent a handful of worthless illiterate peasants with stunted growth and poor health and traded them for well fed, well educated us soldiers given the best healthcare available, tanks that were built from digging massive holes into the ground and sending men to extract tons of ore that were then laboriously melted down and manufactured and assembled to form a tank, various equipment that costed a mountain of labor and resources to produce. The Chinese also captured high tech us equipment to reverse engineer. Remember at this point the only weapon that China had the technology to build was submachine guns. China also gained from all the supplies left behind by the US’s frantic retreat when they overextended into North Korea Overall the Korean war was a war that massively benefited China. There are many numerous war simulation videogames where the player has resources th

    Reply
  61. only around 180k Chinese troops lostAnd war isn’t about human lives war is about economics In any war videogame there are tanks planes trucks etc… that you can build The value of a Chinese subsistence farmer is how much $1 USD over a lifetime? This is a guy whose government invested nothing in him other than giving him a gun and some basic trainingThe value of a US soldier who ate and lived 10 times better attended years of government schooling to die in Korea who if he had lived would pay out millions over a lifetime of workingThe Chinese lost people because that is the only unit they used and they were just worthless illiterate peasants The US lost planes lost equipment lost supplies lost tanks lost trucks consumed endless amounts of fuel lost bombs lost missiles etc… Using a F-22 (That will burn 3000 gallons of jet fuel) to drop a $500000 tomahawk on a single subsistence farmer means the US loses See your grocery store? that gallon of milk? it takes 3000 of those filled with jet fuel to fly the F-22 for 2 hours. China was the big winner in the war they spent a handful of worthless illiterate peasants with stunted growth and poor health and traded them for well fed well educated us soldiers given the best healthcare available tanks that were built from digging massive holes into the ground and sending men to extract tons of ore that were then laboriously melted down and manufactured and assembled to form a tank various equipment that costed a mountain of labor and resources to produce. The Chinese also captured high tech us equipment to reverse engineer. Remember at this point the only weapon that China had the technology to build was submachine guns. China also gained from all the supplies left behind by the US’s frantic retreat when they overextended into North Korea Overall the Korean war was a war that massively benefited China. There are many numerous war simulation videogames where the player h

    Reply
  62. US suffered 33,686 battle deaths, ~25k after Chinese involvement. UN estimates of Chinese soldiers killed is in excess of 400k, China claims only 118k, but has no records to back it up. At best its 4 to 1 at worst its 14 to 1. In terms of aircraft 108 US F-86 Sabres were lost to air combat while they shot down 792 MiG-15s piloted by the N. Koreans, Russians and Chinese. That is a 8 to 1 kill ration in the skies. Yes the US was underprepared, but China had Soviet support and got slaughtered. The US bomed N. Korea to the point where it was almost complete rubble. The US did great economically in th years after the war, so the costs were not that high. Losing 792 planes is expensive for poor countries like N. Korea and 1950s China. I trust the USAF figures more than the Soviet or Chinese figures. In the US people can ask questions and casualties are accurately reported because the families of the fallen demand it. In the USSR and China people just disappeared. Most people on earth would prefer to live in S. Korea over China or N. Korea.

    Reply
  63. Chinese military tactics are akin to those of Zapp Brannigan. “When I am in command, son, every mission is a suicide mission” “I sent wave after wave of my own men at them until they reached their (kill) limit and shut down. Kif, show them the medal I won.

    Reply
  64. Chinese military tactics are akin to those of Zapp Brannigan. When I am in command son” every mission is a suicide mission”” “”””I sent wave after wave of my own men at them until they reached their (kill) limit and shut down. Kif”””” show them the medal I won.”””””””

    Reply
  65. No only 3 (French, Spanish and English) but I can use Google. Un ni ma de dan, loop naai, vyser si voko, va te faire foutre, yavj boovoo saa, and poshol ti nahoo.

    Reply
  66. No only 3 (French Spanish and English) but I can use Google. Un ni ma de dan loop naai vyser si voko va te faire foutre yavj boovoo saa and poshol ti nahoo.

    Reply
  67. The combined French, UK, and German armies are easily more powerful than China’s or Russia’s individually. People do not realize the French have arguably the 3rd most powerful navy in the world, you can rank them right in the same category as China and Russia, but with a real aircraft carrier. They are the only non-US nation to have a nuclear powered aircraft carrier group. The UK probably has the 5th most powerful navy. Between the French and UK they have 8 SSBM subs and a bunch (I think its in the 10-20 range) of cruise missile ships and subs. The US has the largest navy by a large margin, double the air power of any individual nation and has nearly double the space launch capability than every other nation combined, in terms of tonnage per year. China cannot compete with any of that at the moment, maybe in 30 years we can revisit and see if China is anywhere close. 1 billion brainwashed drones can only do as much and be as creative as the programmers (PRC leadership) can feed them the code for.

    Reply
  68. The combined French UK and German armies are easily more powerful than China’s or Russia’s individually. People do not realize the French have arguably the 3rd most powerful navy in the world you can rank them right in the same category as China and Russia but with a real aircraft carrier. They are the only non-US nation to have a nuclear powered aircraft carrier group. The UK probably has the 5th most powerful navy. Between the French and UK they have 8 SSBM subs and a bunch (I think its in the 10-20 range) of cruise missile ships and subs. The US has the largest navy by a large margin double the air power of any individual nation and has nearly double the space launch capability than every other nation combined in terms of tonnage per year. China cannot compete with any of that at the moment maybe in 30 years we can revisit and see if China is anywhere close. 1 billion brainwashed drones can only do as much and be as creative as the programmers (PRC leadership) can feed them the code for.

    Reply
  69. First, to claim a land or island you have to establish a permanent settlement or history of use. Second, China’s “claim” revolves around a 13th century map, from a time when China was not unified and also was at least partially conquered by foreign powers numerous times since the questionable map was supposedly produced. Also, since the maps production, the UK controlled that region of China and actually established the first official claim. Third, since the UK initial official claim, China was also partially controlled by Japan for 10-20 years in the 1920s to 1940s. It has the US to thank for why it no longer is. The US defeated the Japanese and all of their controlled lands became the property of the US. The US got to decide how to give it back because it won. Just as the USSR subsumed everything it took from Nazi Germany into the USSR. China’s claims on the South China Sea are like Italy trying to make a modern claim on all the lands of the Roman Empire. Or the UK saying all lands of the 18th and 19th century they once ruled, are now again under UK rule. If your nation at one point in history fails and losses land, you do not get to suddenly have it back just, you better have a military to back it up. China can claim what it want’s but the rest of the world finds it absurd and does not have to listen, especially the US, which will continue to sail its navy as close as it want’s to any such claims. China is still 20 years behind the US military, and as long as SpaceX keeps things up, they could be 30 years. People underestimate the power SpaceX (currently, 10 years ahead of anyone) brings to the table militarily in today’s age.

    Reply
  70. First to claim a land or island you have to establish a permanent settlement or history of use. Second China’s claim”” revolves around a 13th century map”” from a time when China was not unified and also was at least partially conquered by foreign powers numerous times since the questionable map was supposedly produced. Also since the maps production the UK controlled that region of China and actually established the first official claim. Third since the UK initial official claim China was also partially controlled by Japan for 10-20 years in the 1920s to 1940s. It has the US to thank for why it no longer is. The US defeated the Japanese and all of their controlled lands became the property of the US. The US got to decide how to give it back because it won. Just as the USSR subsumed everything it took from Nazi Germany into the USSR. China’s claims on the South China Sea are like Italy trying to make a modern claim on all the lands of the Roman Empire. Or the UK saying all lands of the 18th and 19th century they once ruled are now again under UK rule. If your nation at one point in history fails and losses land you do not get to suddenly have it back just you better have a military to back it up. China can claim what it want’s but the rest of the world finds it absurd and does not have to listen especially the US which will continue to sail its navy as close as it want’s to any such claims. China is still 20 years behind the US military and as long as SpaceX keeps things up they could be 30 years. People underestimate the power SpaceX (currently”” 10 years ahead of anyone) brings to the table militarily in today’s age.”””

    Reply
  71. Thats why 1 million Chinese and 1 million N. Koreans were killed and only 33k from the US? The only thing that prevented China’s total annihilation was US goodness and a possible Russian nuclear threat. US had nukes at China’s doorstep, China was 10 year from a nuke. If N. Korea and China won, they would have managed to take S. Korea. The didn’t, so they lost. N. Korea attacked S. Korea with China’s help and failed to take it, China and N. Korea were killed at insane rates when the US got involved, while the US sustained 1/30th the casualties of either nation that was the initial aggressor, not the other way around.

    Reply
  72. Thats why 1 million Chinese and 1 million N. Koreans were killed and only 33k from the US? The only thing that prevented China’s total annihilation was US goodness and a possible Russian nuclear threat. US had nukes at China’s doorstep China was 10 year from a nuke. If N. Korea and China won they would have managed to take S. Korea. The didn’t so they lost. N. Korea attacked S. Korea with China’s help and failed to take it China and N. Korea were killed at insane rates when the US got involved while the US sustained 1/30th the casualties of either nation that was the initial aggressor not the other way around.

    Reply
  73. No they did not. Technically it ended in a stalemate, because the US didn’t want to blow China into oblivion and risk a nuclear war with Russia. The war was started over communist N. Korea under direction of the Soviet Union trying to assert dominance over the whole of the Korean Peninsula. If the US/UN allied forces lost then South Korea would today be under control of communist since the 1950s. Since that is not the case, it means China, Russia and N. Korea failed and lost. The US and S. Korea did not attack and were not trying to assert dominance over the N. Korea to begin with. The goal was to preserve a democratic S. Korea, which was a success. Allied US/UN/S.Korean forces killed the commies at 3 to 1, even with Russians helping in secret and China flooding in. After US/UN involvement they killed the N. Koreans and Chinese at 10 to 1 ratios. I would call that victory.

    Reply
  74. No they did not. Technically it ended in a stalemate because the US didn’t want to blow China into oblivion and risk a nuclear war with Russia. The war was started over communist N. Korea under direction of the Soviet Union trying to assert dominance over the whole of the Korean Peninsula. If the US/UN allied forces lost then South Korea would today be under control of communist since the 1950s. Since that is not the case it means China Russia and N. Korea failed and lost. The US and S. Korea did not attack and were not trying to assert dominance over the N. Korea to begin with. The goal was to preserve a democratic S. Korea which was a success. Allied US/UN/S.Korean forces killed the commies at 3 to 1 even with Russians helping in secret and China flooding in. After US/UN involvement they killed the N. Koreans and Chinese at 10 to 1 ratios. I would call that victory.

    Reply
  75. >you have to establish a permanent settlement or history of use

    No you don’t the US claimed midway island in 1859

    The first attempt at settlement was 1871 and it failed

    The US claimed wake island and to this day claims it despite having no permanent population, the island itself has no fresh water sources
    ————————————-

    So already in your first sentence you have LIED

    China’s claim is based on we discovered and claimed it first.

    Therefore it is ours, and yes the historical documents show this

    Everything else you listed regarding various foreign powers claiming to owning it is irrelevant, because china was there first

    Also you realized that China claimed these islands before the British developed boats capable of crossing the ocean

    In fact the Chinese discovered Australia and Africa

    The rules for islands is if the island is uninhabited you can claim it otherwise it belongs to the people living there.

    Therefore these islands have been part of china since the moment they were discovered.

    Reply
  76. You realize that war is more than just foot soldiers, the us lost artillery, lost planes, lost tanks, lost trucks, lost supplies

    The US burned billions worth of fuel to fight a war on the other side of the earth. Wasted thousands upon thousands of bombs

    China didn’t lose anything except illiterate peasants

    and it wasn’t 10 to 1 it was 180k Chinese deaths vs 30k US deaths

    The 30k US deaths are a far bigger loss because the US invests in its citizens, in the form of infrastructure, world class education, world class nutrition, world class health care

    The 180k Chinese peasants that died received nothing more than a couple of cups of rice over their childhood -> adulthood once they reached adulthood they provide for themselves by barely growing enough food thru subsistence farming

    If these 180k peasants lived, they wouldn’t have done anything except grow enough food to feed themselves and would have never done anything useful

    At their age, teaching them how to read and do basic addition wouldn’t be possible.

    But the 30k americans that died, many would have gone on to get masters, phd’s many would have become engineers, or developed useful management skills etc…

    Reply
  77. only around 180k Chinese troops lost

    And war isn’t about human lives, war is about economics

    In any war videogame there are tanks, planes, trucks etc… that you can build

    The value of a Chinese subsistence farmer is how much $1 USD over a lifetime? This is a guy whose government invested nothing in him other than giving him a gun and some basic training

    The value of a US soldier who ate and lived 10 times better, attended years of government schooling to die in Korea who if he had lived would pay out millions over a lifetime of working

    The Chinese lost people because that is the only unit they used and they were just worthless illiterate peasants

    The US lost planes, lost equipment, lost supplies, lost tanks, lost trucks, consumed endless amounts of fuel, lost bombs, lost missiles etc…

    Using a F-22 (That will burn 3000 gallons of jet fuel) to drop a $500,000 tomahawk on a single subsistence farmer means the US loses

    See your grocery store? that gallon of milk? it takes 3000 of those filled with jet fuel to fly the F-22 for 2 hours.

    China was the big winner in the war, they spent a handful of worthless illiterate peasants with stunted growth and poor health and traded them for well fed, well educated us soldiers given the best healthcare available, tanks that were built from digging massive holes into the ground and sending men to extract tons of ore that were then laboriously melted down and manufactured and assembled to form a tank, various equipment that costed a mountain of labor and resources to produce.

    The Chinese also captured high tech us equipment to reverse engineer.

    Remember at this point the only weapon that China had the technology to build was submachine guns.

    China also gained from all the supplies left behind by the US’s frantic retreat when they overextended into North Korea

    Overall the Korean war was a war that massively benefited China.

    There are many numerous war simulation videogames where the player has resources that they can use to build different things, from ships to planes, to tanks, to foot soldiers etc…

    The foot soldier in most of these games tends to be the most inexpensive and trading them for higher value assets like tanks are winning exchanges just like in chess trading a couple of pawns to take down a rook or a knight is a good trade

    Reply
  78. Chinese military tactics are akin to those of Zapp Brannigan. “When I am in command, son, every mission is a suicide mission” “I sent wave after wave of my own men at them until they reached their (kill) limit and shut down. Kif, show them the medal I won.”

    Reply
  79. The combined French, UK, and German armies are easily more powerful than China’s or Russia’s individually. People do not realize the French have arguably the 3rd most powerful navy in the world, you can rank them right in the same category as China and Russia, but with a real aircraft carrier. They are the only non-US nation to have a nuclear powered aircraft carrier group. The UK probably has the 5th most powerful navy. Between the French and UK they have 8 SSBM subs and a bunch (I think its in the 10-20 range) of cruise missile ships and subs. The US has the largest navy by a large margin, double the air power of any individual nation and has nearly double the space launch capability than every other nation combined, in terms of tonnage per year. China cannot compete with any of that at the moment, maybe in 30 years we can revisit and see if China is anywhere close. 1 billion brainwashed drones can only do as much and be as creative as the programmers (PRC leadership) can feed them the code for.

    Reply
  80. First, to claim a land or island you have to establish a permanent settlement or history of use. Second, China’s “claim” revolves around a 13th century map, from a time when China was not unified and also was at least partially conquered by foreign powers numerous times since the questionable map was supposedly produced. Also, since the maps production, the UK controlled that region of China and actually established the first official claim. Third, since the UK initial official claim, China was also partially controlled by Japan for 10-20 years in the 1920s to 1940s. It has the US to thank for why it no longer is. The US defeated the Japanese and all of their controlled lands became the property of the US. The US got to decide how to give it back because it won. Just as the USSR subsumed everything it took from Nazi Germany into the USSR. China’s claims on the South China Sea are like Italy trying to make a modern claim on all the lands of the Roman Empire. Or the UK saying all lands of the 18th and 19th century they once ruled, are now again under UK rule. If your nation at one point in history fails and losses land, you do not get to suddenly have it back just, you better have a military to back it up. China can claim what it want’s but the rest of the world finds it absurd and does not have to listen, especially the US, which will continue to sail its navy as close as it want’s to any such claims. China is still 20 years behind the US military, and as long as SpaceX keeps things up, they could be 30 years. People underestimate the power SpaceX (currently, 10 years ahead of anyone) brings to the table militarily in today’s age.

    Reply
  81. Thats why 1 million Chinese and 1 million N. Koreans were killed and only 33k from the US? The only thing that prevented China’s total annihilation was US goodness and a possible Russian nuclear threat. US had nukes at China’s doorstep, China was 10 year from a nuke. If N. Korea and China won, they would have managed to take S. Korea. The didn’t, so they lost. N. Korea attacked S. Korea with China’s help and failed to take it, China and N. Korea were killed at insane rates when the US got involved, while the US sustained 1/30th the casualties of either nation that was the initial aggressor, not the other way around.

    Reply
  82. No they did not. Technically it ended in a stalemate, because the US didn’t want to blow China into oblivion and risk a nuclear war with Russia. The war was started over communist N. Korea under direction of the Soviet Union trying to assert dominance over the whole of the Korean Peninsula. If the US/UN allied forces lost then South Korea would today be under control of communist since the 1950s. Since that is not the case, it means China, Russia and N. Korea failed and lost. The US and S. Korea did not attack and were not trying to assert dominance over the N. Korea to begin with. The goal was to preserve a democratic S. Korea, which was a success. Allied US/UN/S.Korean forces killed the commies at 3 to 1, even with Russians helping in secret and China flooding in. After US/UN involvement they killed the N. Koreans and Chinese at 10 to 1 ratios. I would call that victory.

    Reply
  83. Nope You can claim any island anywhere as long as you claimed it first, it is through these rules that the UK controls the Falklands and the US controls various islands around the earth the concept is called overseas territories, feel free to google the term The islands in question were first discovered and claimed by China so therefore it belongs to China just like the falklands belong to the UK despite the falklands being 100 mi from the coast of argentina

    Reply
  84. Nope You can claim any island anywhere as long as you claimed it first it is through these rules that the UK controls the Falklands and the US controls various islands around the earththe concept is called overseas territories feel free to google the termThe islands in question were first discovered and claimed by China so therefore it belongs to China just like the falklands belong to the UK despite the falklands being 100 mi from the coast of argentina

    Reply
  85. All the wars you are citing as old wars that have no relevance to modern day. And involved a technologically inferior opponent vs a vastly superior one. For example the Opium wars were won because the British had iron clad boats a single iron clad could destroy a infinite number of enemy ships. We saw this in the civil war also, the handful of iron clads single handedly won numerous battles. The Chinese won the Korean war, they had only people armed with submachine guns and bugles, no trucks, no air superiority, no air support, no artillery, no radio communications, no naval support They had no supply lines either no additional ammo, they could sustain a few months of fighting at most so they needed to outthink the opponent In this few months they would not only have to force the US to retreat but would have to continuously fight and win and siece enemy supppliwers But against all odds they forced the US to retreat, US troops kept getting pincered, kept getting ambushed, flanked, outmaneuvered At every turn the Chinese predicted the troop movements of the Americans and maneuvered their soldiers to devastate American troops

    Reply
  86. All the wars you are citing as old wars that have no relevance to modern day. And involved a technologically inferior opponent vs a vastly superior one. For example the Opium wars were won because the British had iron clad boats a single iron clad could destroy a infinite number of enemy ships. We saw this in the civil war also the handful of iron clads single handedly won numerous battles.The Chinese won the Korean war they had only people armed with submachine guns and bugles no trucks no air superiority no air support no artillery no radio communications no naval supportThey had no supply lines either no additional ammo they could sustain a few months of fighting at most so they needed to outthink the opponent In this few months they would not only have to force the US to retreat but would have to continuously fight and win and siece enemy supppliwersBut against all odds they forced the US to retreat US troops kept getting pincered kept getting ambushed flanked outmaneuvered At every turn the Chinese predicted the troop movements of the Americans and maneuvered their soldiers to devastate American troops

    Reply
  87. If you get hacked its your fault A hacker doesn’t have magical powers, a computer is just a device that follows a bunch of rules created by YOU (the user) and the people who built the computer A hacker finds a loophole In these set of rules that allow them to issue commands that they aren’t supposed to So the equivalent would be a guest entering your house and agreeing to follow a bunch of rules but the rules are poorly written so that the guest finds a loop hole or rules that contradict each other to pick up your wallet and walk away

    Reply
  88. If you get hacked its your fault A hacker doesn’t have magical powers a computer is just a device that follows a bunch of rules created by YOU (the user) and the people who built the computer A hacker finds a loophole In these set of rules that allow them to issue commands that they aren’t supposed toSo the equivalent would be a guest entering your house and agreeing to follow a bunch of rules but the rules are poorly written so that the guest finds a loop hole or rules that contradict each other to pick up your wallet and walk away

    Reply
  89. To steal military secrets is a normal part of government function, not appreciated but also understandable. To steal technologies from private companies and individuals to support state owned industries is not. To try to steal territorial waters from their neighbors can only be seen as an abuse of power and leads to a very real concern of what kind of country China will be in the future, whether we really want to help them rise or do everything we can to prevent it as a response. To steal from your biggest export trade partner and talk openly about supplanting them is just plain stupid. I don’t think I could put it more simply than that.

    Reply
  90. To steal military secrets is a normal part of government function not appreciated but also understandable. To steal technologies from private companies and individuals to support state owned industries is not. To try to steal territorial waters from their neighbors can only be seen as an abuse of power and leads to a very real concern of what kind of country China will be in the future whether we really want to help them rise or do everything we can to prevent it as a response. To steal from your biggest export trade partner and talk openly about supplanting them is just plain stupid. I don’t think I could put it more simply than that.

    Reply
  91. Nope You can claim any island anywhere as long as you claimed it first, it is through these rules that the UK controls the Falklands and the US controls various islands around the earth

    the concept is called overseas territories, feel free to google the term

    The islands in question were first discovered and claimed by China so therefore it belongs to China just like the falklands belong to the UK despite the falklands being 100 mi from the coast of argentina

    Reply
  92. All the wars you are citing as old wars that have no relevance to modern day. And involved a technologically inferior opponent vs a vastly superior one. For example the Opium wars were won because the British had iron clad boats a single iron clad could destroy a infinite number of enemy ships. We saw this in the civil war also, the handful of iron clads single handedly won numerous battles.

    The Chinese won the Korean war, they had only people armed with submachine guns and bugles, no trucks, no air superiority, no air support, no artillery, no radio communications, no naval support

    They had no supply lines either no additional ammo, they could sustain a few months of fighting at most so they needed to outthink the opponent

    In this few months they would not only have to force the US to retreat but would have to continuously fight and win and siece enemy supppliwers

    But against all odds they forced the US to retreat, US troops kept getting pincered, kept getting ambushed, flanked, outmaneuvered

    At every turn the Chinese predicted the troop movements of the Americans and maneuvered their soldiers to devastate American troops

    Reply
  93. If you get hacked its your fault

    A hacker doesn’t have magical powers, a computer is just a device that follows a bunch of rules created by YOU (the user) and the people who built the computer

    A hacker finds a loophole In these set of rules that allow them to issue commands that they aren’t supposed to

    So the equivalent would be a guest entering your house and agreeing to follow a bunch of rules but the rules are poorly written so that the guest finds a loop hole or rules that contradict each other to pick up your wallet and walk away

    Reply
  94. To steal military secrets is a normal part of government function, not appreciated but also understandable. To steal technologies from private companies and individuals to support state owned industries is not. To try to steal territorial waters from their neighbors can only be seen as an abuse of power and leads to a very real concern of what kind of country China will be in the future, whether we really want to help them rise or do everything we can to prevent it as a response. To steal from your biggest export trade partner and talk openly about supplanting them is just plain stupid. I don’t think I could put it more simply than that.

    Reply
  95. China also does not have a great track record fighting wars against capable opponents, outside of China’s own internal fighting. Really, China has a record worse than the French. The Mongols, way back. The Brits in the Opium Wars where they took Hong Kong from you. The Japanese. Hell in the early post WW2 days the Russians would roll in and smack you around for fun. What were the Chinese losses vs UN losses in the Korean war?

    Reply
  96. China also does not have a great track record fighting wars against capable opponents outside of China’s own internal fighting. Really China has a record worse than the French. The Mongols way back. The Brits in the Opium Wars where they took Hong Kong from you. The Japanese. Hell in the early post WW2 days the Russians would roll in and smack you around for fun. What were the Chinese losses vs UN losses in the Korean war?

    Reply
  97. Except for that part where Japan was ransacking your nation during the Shino-Japanese War that spilled into WW2 and in the end why is China not a territory of Japan? The US.

    Reply
  98. Except for that part where Japan was ransacking your nation during the Shino-Japanese War that spilled into WW2 and in the end why is China not a territory of Japan? The US.

    Reply
  99. 200 tons, 200,000 kg takeoff mass? That’s pretty impressive. Especially since America’s B–2 flying wing only has a 170 metric ton TKO weight, fully loaded. Bombs, fuel, pilots and 2 days of rations (LOL). I do wonder, who are China’s enemies that she needs to threaten with stealth bombers? Might sound a bit naïve to ask it, but is it really? India certainly isn’t Expansionist enough, or Militarily Adventurist enough to be a credible “enemy” to contemplate stealth bombing. Oh, maybe those Spratley Islands then? For China to have a dark black secret flying squirrel … which it can threaten lessor sovereignty claimants such as The Philippines, Vietnam, Taiwan and Japan? Sure. Maybe. Russia? Russia is in exactly the same quandary it has been in for decades: economic morass. Largest country on Earth by far, needing precisely NO more land-grab area. Not particularly threatened by ANY of her neighbors. Not even really by the US. The Bear. Bears — if left alone — are largely innocuous. And The post-Soviet Bear is particularly so. The Dragon though, now that’s a mythical creature of remarkable caprice. America? We steam around the world with our silent deadly subs, our huge carrier groups, our Air Force wings and our plenipotent Marines, Seals, Rangers and regular Armed Forces … and we don’t give a dill pickle about China’s claims to sovereignty on a handful of critically unimportant islands in the middle of the South China Sea. We pilot our naval groups within the Internationally Recognized limits, all the time. Maybe we’re the “need”? Dunno. I’m sure China can do it. She has a fine aeronautical development enterprise. And when the world is growing less enamored by her prodigeous industrial output… Internal consumption certainly greases the economic wheels. Just as it does here in the US. Just saying, GoatGuy

    Reply
  100. 200 tons 200000 kg takeoff mass? That’s pretty impressive. Especially since America’s B–2 flying wing only has a 170 metric ton TKO weight fully loaded. Bombs fuel pilots and 2 days of rations (LOL). I do wonder who are China’s enemies that she needs to threaten with stealth bombers? Might sound a bit naïve to ask it but is it really? India certainly isn’t Expansionist enough or Militarily Adventurist enough to be a credible “enemy” to contemplate stealth bombing. Oh maybe those Spratley Islands then? For China to have a dark black secret flying squirrel … which it can threaten lessor sovereignty claimants such as The Philippines Vietnam Taiwan and Japan? Sure. Maybe. Russia? Russia is in exactly the same quandary it has been in for decades: economic morass. Largest country on Earth by far needing precisely NO more land-grab area. Not particularly threatened by ANY of her neighbors. Not even really by the US. The Bear. Bears — if left alone — are largely innocuous. And The post-Soviet Bear is particularly so. The Dragon though now that’s a mythical creature of remarkable caprice. America? We steam around the world with our silent deadly subs our huge carrier groups our Air Force wings and our plenipotent Marines Seals Rangers and regular Armed Forces … and we don’t give a dill pickle about China’s claims to sovereignty on a handful of critically unimportant islands in the middle of the South China Sea. We pilot our naval groups within the Internationally Recognized limits all the time. Maybe we’re the eed””?Dunno. I’m sure China can do it. She has a fine aeronautical development enterprise. And when the world is growing less enamored by her prodigeous industrial output…Internal consumption certainly greases the economic wheels. Just as it does here in the US.Just saying””””GoatGuy”””””””

    Reply
  101. China also does not have a great track record fighting wars against capable opponents, outside of China’s own internal fighting. Really, China has a record worse than the French. The Mongols, way back. The Brits in the Opium Wars where they took Hong Kong from you. The Japanese. Hell in the early post WW2 days the Russians would roll in and smack you around for fun. What were the Chinese losses vs UN losses in the Korean war?

    Reply
  102. We were also told that railguns were a rubbish idea that could never work… until the Chinese started working on them. And then we were told that lasers were a stupid idea that had been completely disproved by the Russians decades ago…

    Reply
  103. We were also told that railguns were a rubbish idea that could never work… until the Chinese started working on them.And then we were told that lasers were a stupid idea that had been completely disproved by the Russians decades ago…

    Reply
  104. 200 tons, 200,000 kg takeoff mass? That’s pretty impressive. Especially since America’s B–2 flying wing only has a 170 metric ton TKO weight, fully loaded. Bombs, fuel, pilots and 2 days of rations (LOL).

    I do wonder, who are China’s enemies that she needs to threaten with stealth bombers?
    Might sound a bit naïve to ask it, but is it really?

    India certainly isn’t Expansionist enough, or Militarily Adventurist enough to be a credible “enemy” to contemplate stealth bombing. Oh, maybe those Spratley Islands then? For China to have a dark black secret flying squirrel … which it can threaten lessor sovereignty claimants such as The Philippines, Vietnam, Taiwan and Japan? Sure. Maybe.

    Russia? Russia is in exactly the same quandary it has been in for decades: economic morass. Largest country on Earth by far, needing precisely NO more land-grab area. Not particularly threatened by ANY of her neighbors. Not even really by the US. The Bear. Bears — if left alone — are largely innocuous. And The post-Soviet Bear is particularly so. The Dragon though, now that’s a mythical creature of remarkable caprice.

    America? We steam around the world with our silent deadly subs, our huge carrier groups, our Air Force wings and our plenipotent Marines, Seals, Rangers and regular Armed Forces … and we don’t give a dill pickle about China’s claims to sovereignty on a handful of critically unimportant islands in the middle of the South China Sea. We pilot our naval groups within the Internationally Recognized limits, all the time. Maybe we’re the “need”?

    Dunno. I’m sure China can do it.
    She has a fine aeronautical development enterprise.
    And when the world is growing less enamored by her prodigeous industrial output…
    Internal consumption certainly greases the economic wheels.

    Just as it does here in the US.
    Just saying,
    GoatGuy

    Reply
  105. We were also told that railguns were a rubbish idea that could never work… until the Chinese started working on them.

    And then we were told that lasers were a stupid idea that had been completely disproved by the Russians decades ago…

    Reply

Leave a Comment