who say china is not copying

broadsword has china copied anything lately?

Lets not get into that shall we...
This is not a morality forum now is it??!

Hell... I used to copy on test when I was a kid!!..

Originally posted by chinawhite
broadsword has china copied anything lately?

None. Daedalus told me about China actually copying the J-7 from the MiG-21, but since then everything is either something produced under license or bought from Russia, so there is nothing to aruge about on China copying anything since the J-7.

Originally posted by W4rl0rD

Originally posted by chinawhite
broadsword has china copied anything lately?

None. Daedalus told me about China actually copying the J-7 from the MiG-21, but since then everything is either something produced under license or bought from Russia, so there is nothing to aruge about on China copying anything since the J-7.

in my veiw china may slowely shifting to inveting new tech on the bases of what he get from reverse eng.

In my view India is not manufacturing anything on their own, unlike China

Ah.. but it is..

All its ballistic missile systems are homegrown..No country gives another one ballistic technology..
Similarly its satellite launching capability, geosynch capability, ship building...
now shifting from destroyers to carriers..is completely indigenous..

Also There are many missile systems(nag,akash,trishul) which are completely indigenous..

Ah.. but it is..

All its ballistic missile systems are homegrown..No country gives another one ballistic technology..
Similarly its satellite launching capability, geosynch capability, ship building...
now shifting from destroyers to carriers..is completely indigenous..

Also There are many missile systems(nag,akash,trishul) which are completely indigenous..

Indian ballistic missiles constantly fail tests (at least the short range ones, I haven't heard of IRBMs coming from India).

China gave Pakistan M-11s or in Chinese Dongfeng-11s, shortrange ballistic missiles.

Originally posted by COWlan
Indian ballistic missiles constantly fail tests (at least the short range ones, I haven't heard of IRBMs coming from India).

China gave Pakistan M-11s or in Chinese Dongfeng-11s, shortrange ballistic missiles.

just prove it that indian b.missle is failed may i know that any thing happen it is only in one case is true that is early stages dont forget that long march cowlan whole village is destroyed by that failure.

source where is source just thoughts
something is burning ha cowlan

Originally posted by COWlan
Indian ballistic missiles constantly fail tests (at least the short range ones, I haven't heard of IRBMs coming from India).

Now where did you here that?!!
Short range ones are already deployed...

Have you heard of Agni..Agni I/II.. Ranges of 1500km+/2500km+..

Funny.. no wonder you thought in a nuclear scenario India stood no chance against China..
THe truth is its MAD all the way..

Originally posted by Daedalus3

Originally posted by COWlan
Indian ballistic missiles constantly fail tests (at least the short range ones, I haven't heard of IRBMs coming from India).

Now where did you here that?!!

Short range ones are already deployed...

Have you heard of Agni..Agni I/II.. Ranges of 1500km+/2500km+..

Funny.. no wonder you thought in a nuclear scenario India stood no chance against China..
THe truth is its MAD all the way..

the short ones are worth jack #.. very high CEP

and the angi II has small payload.

it wouldn't be M.A.D againest china india has only introduced the angi II
how much missles will u have 5??

Two thousand warheads (numbers vary from different reports, some say 800 some say 2000) vs Few hundred warheads, not that MAD is it. If its nuclear forces your talking about then no, China is well ahead of India in that part.

Originally posted by COWlan
Two thousand warheads (numbers vary from different reports, some say 800 some say 2000) vs Few hundred warheads, not that MAD is it. If its nuclear forces your talking about then no, China is well ahead of India in that part.

nuclear warheads hunderd or thousad they don't mater and same


we are not hear to compare india w/t china.indian cant be china we respect human.we dont want to be china.

how is misslie of india failed just CEP
can you describe what CEP of chines and pakistany missile.
[they both made in china]

Originally posted by mirza2003

Originally posted by COWlan
Two thousand warheads (numbers vary from different reports, some say 800 some say 2000) vs Few hundred warheads, not that MAD is it. If its nuclear forces your talking about then no, China is well ahead of India in that part.

nuclear warheads hunderd or thousad they don't mater and same


we are not hear to compare india w/t china.indian cant be china

we respect human.we dont want to be china.

how is misslie of india failed just CEP
can you describe what CEP of chines and pakistany missile.
[they both made in china]

India does not have hundreds of warheads. Maximum 80 warheads

max 80.. which source states that??

India's misslie capbilities..

missilethreat.com...

Estimates of india's stockpile as of 2000 range from 445 to 90 warheads.. assuming 100 as of now.. That assures MAD with China..
Infact 70 warheads assures MAD..
And all can be targeted to any part of China south of the 45th parallel..

Originally posted by Daedalus3
max 80.. which source states that??

India's misslie capbilities..

missilethreat.com...

Estimates of india's stockpile as of 2000 range from 445 to 90 warheads.. assuming 100 as of now.. That assures MAD with China..
Infact 70 warheads assures MAD..
And all can be targeted to any part of China south of the 45th parallel..

yes off course evan 70 ware head in north india could make mad chinaor worse if near eastern part of india

MAD is mutually assured destruction. 100 warheads don't assure destruction, MAD with CHina needs thousands of warheads if your talking about MAD, if you don't have that much then its just nuclear deterrence.

Originally posted by COWlan
MAD is mutually assured destruction. 100 warheads don't assure destruction, MAD with CHina needs thousands of warheads if your talking about MAD, if you don't have that much then its just nuclear deterrence.

We've done this before COWlan..

Last time you said one would need "multiple warheads" to destroy beijing..

Thats rubbish..

MAD is not about nuking evry single city, incinerating every single building/person and installation...

In order to cripple a country one needs to incapacitate its military/industrial/econmical and political infrastructure to such an extent that the country will need decades to get back on its feet..

All warheads possessed by India are in the 10s of kilotons yield range..
Some are even thermonuclear..
A warhead in 10s of kT yield is more than capable of crippling (not destroying) city.. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were estimated to be 10-20 kilotons..

Take countries like France and theUK for example..
They have only a couple of hundred warheads themselves..
By your theory thats not enough to destroy the then intended foe and target( USSR)..
Moreover, the US had ENOUGH nukes to destroy USSR..Even you must agree to that..
The French/Brit nukes would only serve to increase th radioactive clouds swirling around thus prolonging the return to noralcy and endangering themselves even..
The actual blunt force trauma would already have been achieved by the US nukes..


Actually, 'deterence' and 'MAD' are the same as agreed by both pro-nuke and anti-nuke groups..THe former being the term used by the anti-nuke grps while the latter a term being used by the pro-nuke groups..

This is clarified in the article below..

encyclopedia.lockergnome.com...

excerpt:

This MAD scenario was often known by the euphemism "nuclear deterrence" (The term 'deterrence' was first used in this context after World War II. Prior to that time, its use was limited to juridical terminology). In France, "deterrence" was translated as "dissuasion", and in Russia, it was translated as "terrorization"—a linguistic difference which highlights two particular interpretations of deterrence: one which is basically an extrapolation of rational politics, another which is based on pure emotional fear. These two notions of deterrence, and MAD, were often used interchangeably by both fans and foes of the doctrine, despite their apparent paradoxical intent.

Another article below determines the amount of warheads required for "assured destruction" of RUSSIA (not China) is a mere 51 warheads of 400 kiloton yield each..

Compare the size of Russia and the spread of its industries (military and commercial) to that of China..
A VAST difference..
China's entire infrastructure (again military and commercial) is completely concentrated west of the 105th vertical, i.e. west of Chengdu and Langzhou..
The region west of this has an arae roughly equivalent to that of India's..

Actually even lesser if one considers manchuria (above 45th parallel) again not possessing much infrastructural value...

A nuclear stike encompassing this region (bounded by everything east ofthe 105th vertical and south of the 45th parallel) would cripple China for sure..
Even you have to agree with that..

100 (even less) strategically targeted warheads of yields ranging from sub kiloton (0.3 to 0.5) yield as battlefield tactical nukes to the mid range 10s of kilotons (10 to 40) to the thermo nuclear yield (50 and above) are capable of achieving that crippling effect..

Don't get me wrong.. What I'm saying obv implies that a similar no. and yield of warheads are capable of crippling India as well..

Here's another excerpt from "theestimate.com"

Because the tests of May 11 were detonated simultaneously, overseas analysts could only estimate the combined yield, but it was widely agreed that the thermonuclear device could not have produced the claimed 43 to 45 kilotons. Initially some in the West believed that the weapon might have been a "boosted" device rather than a true thermonuclear device, but the consensus seems to ahve evolved that it was a two-stage thermonuclear device in which the first stage, a boosted primary device, functioned as planned but the second stage did not. The 45 kiloton test yield, it is estimated, could indicate a deployable yield for such a weapon of some 200 kilotons, since it was apparently not intended to test full yield.

This was as of May 1998..
Its June 2005 now..
The 200 kiloton and beyond yields seem achievable don't you think..
esp since India has the most aggressive enrichment program in the world as of today..
matched only by Israel maybe who haven't live tested as yet..
Other active programs are those of Pak and NK but its widely agreed that those countries do not have the raw materials and finances to support an enrichment program for long..

Other countries are foridden from such enrichment by the NPT..
(China included I think)

So you see MAD as it were is inevitable..

Originally posted by Daedalus3

Actually, 'deterence' and 'MAD' are the same as agreed by both pro-nuke and anti-nuke groups..THe former being the term used by the anti-nuke grps while the latter a term being used by the pro-nuke groups..

This is clarified in the article below..

encyclopedia.lockergnome.com...

excerpt:

This MAD scenario was often known by the euphemism "nuclear deterrence" (The term 'deterrence' was first used in this context after World War II. Prior to that time, its use was limited to juridical terminology). In France, "deterrence" was translated as "dissuasion", and in Russia, it was translated as "terrorization"—a linguistic difference which highlights two particular interpretations of deterrence: one which is basically an extrapolation of rational politics, another which is based on pure emotional fear. These two notions of deterrence, and MAD, were often used interchangeably by both fans and foes of the doctrine, despite their apparent paradoxical intent.

Another article below determines the amount of warheads required for "assured destruction" of RUSSIA (not China) is a mere 51 warheads of 400 kiloton yield each..

Compare the size of Russia and the spread of its industries (military and commercial) to that of China..
A VAST difference..
China's entire infrastructure (again military and commercial) is completely concentrated west of the 105th vertical, i.e. west of Chengdu and Langzhou..
The region west of this has an arae roughly equivalent to that of India's..

Actually even lesser if one considers manchuria (above 45th parallel) again not possessing much infrastructural value...

A nuclear stike encompassing this region (bounded by everything east ofthe 105th vertical and south of the 45th parallel) would cripple China for sure..
Even you have to agree with that..

100 (even less) strategically targeted warheads of yields ranging from sub kiloton (0.3 to 0.5) yield as battlefield tactical nukes to the mid range 10s of kilotons (10 to 40) to the thermo nuclear yield (50 and above) are capable of achieving that crippling effect..

Don't get me wrong.. What I'm saying obv implies that a similar no. and yield of warheads are capable of crippling India as well..

..

how did you figure that chinese industries are in chinas interior.
china has most of their industries on the whole coast of china.

MANCHURIA IS CHINAS INDUSTRIAL HEARTLAND located there are chinas most important cities and steel mills eg. shengyang, daqing, tianjing

external image

china has 250 citys now with populations close to 1 million each. and you would need at least 2-3 to cripple mega citys like beijing, shanghai or chongchin

*resized image*

[edit on 4-5-2005 by dbates]

As I said everything comes below the 45th parallel including all your manchurian industries..check the map..

Similarly everything comes east of chengdu (105th vertical) as well..
That means most of china's targets fall within half its actual landmass area..

All within Agni II's 3500+ km IRBM range..

Again in a city of 1 million you don't need to kill all 1 million at detonation..
Even if half a million die after the radioactive effects.. that city's as good as dead..

And WHERE did I say.. "all of China's industries are in the interior"..??


IT seems the 'finer' points of your post above were ...ahem... altered by a mod..

[edit on 4-5-2005 by Daedalus3]