China test anti-satelite weapon

[Tonington]

Not to mention giving us a platform to continue advancing upon...

 

[I think not]

Ah, the "official" excuse. And there's a bridge between North Shore and Stanley Park in Vancouver I'd like to sell you.

As much as I'd rather live here than anywhere, when my country fμkcs up, it gets no excuses out of me. I don't whine about anti-Canadianism when people point out its faults, I email the appropriate parts of my gov't and tell them what I think so they become aware of people knowing they fckd up.

People have every right to propagate their personal opinions, but they must remember that they aren’t facts. Their ideas are merely personal ideas unsubstantiated by evidence. They can speculate that aliens built the pyramids, the moon landings were faked and that there was a nefarious plot perpetuated by a super secret cabal of American government officials and aircraft industry elites that was bent on cancelling the Arrow. The fact reamains, while the Arrow, a marvel of Canadian engineering, was extremely expensive to build and absolete in the Cold War era.

I would call it Canadian soldiers killing Afghan police. Mistakes happen, but it ("friendly" fire) seems to happen frequently with the US. But, the issue isn't that Canada isn't perfect.

I know, the issue is that the US isn't perfect. It always is. HAs it ever coccured to anyone that while increasing the forces on the ground the chances of a "friendly fire" increase drastically? It isn't as if the US hasn't killed its own forces in friendly fire.

The issue is that the US is out for no-one but itself no matter what or who has to suffer in the meantime and are remarkably similar to China.

The US is nowhere near what China will be. Stick around a few decades and watch.

It wasn't even going to get into WW2 until the JIN attacked Pearl Harbor. Perfectly content to see Europe fall into the hands of Nazis; and Australia, NewZed, etc, go to the Japanese, otherwise. "The hell with Europe and Oz. It ain't our fight."

Yes, I've heard this argument before by those who have probably never opened a book and read history. It's late, some day I'll make the effort and type a long post, at which point I will ache to read any rebuttals.

 

[L Gilbert]

Not to mention giving us a platform to continue advancing upon...

Yeah. And with continual upgrades would still be in the air as one of the best aircraft around. As a matter of fact, a lot of aircraft manufacturers now use the delta wing design or a modification of it.

 

[I think not]

The Arrow was a multipurpose jobbie: bomber, fighter, interceptor, and attack. At a potential 2.5 mach it would have danced around anything else in the air at the time. The Starfighter (F-104) was damned quick but it only reached 2.3 mach and itr wasn't manoverable enough to serve as a fighter and not big enough to serve as a bomber.

The Avro was an interceptor aircraft (of course fighter and attack, that's what interceptors are, but it wasn't a bomber. And it's maximum speed was Mach 2.0.

The F-4 Phantom had a max speed of Mach 2.2, a higher operational ceiling and four times the operational range.

 

[I think not]

And one last comment regarding this Arrow business. What did the US have to gain by cancelling the Arrow? Was it economic? Political? Where are the gains of forcing an ally to cancel a lethal weapon such as the Avro Arrow. Someone has to explain it to me.

 

[L Gilbert]

[/font]

People have every right to propagate their personal opinions, but they must remember that they aren’t facts. Their ideas are merely personal ideas unsubstantiated by evidence. They can speculate that aliens built the pyramids, the moon landings were faked and that there was a nefarious plot perpetuated by a super secret cabal of American government officials and aircraft industry elites that was bent on cancelling the Arrow. The fact reamains, while the Arrow, a marvel of Canadian engineering, was extremely expensive to build and absolete in the Cold War era.

That's only a fact in your mind. As usual, anyone else's facts don't matter. As I said, it's extremely likely the Arrow would still be flying these days so how could it have been obsolete way back then?

I know, the issue is that the US isn't perfect. It always is. HAs it ever coccured to anyone that while increasing the forces on the ground the chances of a "friendly fire" increase drastically? It isn't as if the US hasn't killed its own forces in friendly fire.

So, fine. The USA is perfect and everyone else sux. Happy?
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Why is it that the USA seems to be the leader in "friendly" fire?

The US is nowhere near what China will be. Stick around a few decades and watch.

That's an unbiased opinion. :roll: According to a member of the empire builders, "we are the good guys". rofl Yup. History repeats itself. Oh, please, USA, save our planet. Become our "Big Brother" (George Orwell, 1984).

Yes, I've heard this argument before by those who have probably never opened a book and read history. It's late, some day I'll make the effort and type a long post, at which point I will ache to read any rebuttals.

I am not looking for long posts; some credible links would suffice. I suppose I should mention that Pearl Harbor wasn't the only reason: there was also the fact that Germany had killed a few civilians; and the fact that American interests were endangered. Either way, it had nothing to do with being the good guy but simply being self-defensive. A thoroughly selfish attitude, but it is a typical and expected attitude.

 

[L Gilbert]

At any rate, I can't see where Junior's US is any better than China. They just have different glitches.

 

[I think not]

That's only a fact in your mind. As usual, anyone else's facts don't matter. As I said, it's extremely likely the Arrow would still be flying these days so how could it have been obsolete way back then?

It's a fact in my mind you mean when you exclude political scientists and historians from both sides of the border? Did they all miss this grand conspiracy?

So, fine. The USA is perfect and everyone else sux. Happy?
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Why is it that the USA seems to be the leader in "friendly" fire?

The US is by no stretch of the imagination perfect, we have our fair share of blunders, phuckups and intentional bullying all over the world. Stay focused, we're talking about the Arrow.
We probably are the "leader" in friendly fire, we also have more troops on the ground. The point I was trying to make earlier when a Canadian shot an Afghan police officer was that mistakes happen. Canadians are not impervious to mistakes. Increase your troop levels, see what happens.

That's an unbiased opinion. :roll: According to a member of the empire builders, "we are the good guys". rofl Yup. History repeats itself. Oh, please, USA, save our planet. Become our "Big Brother" (George Orwell, 1984).

Of course it's a biased opinion, as is yours.

I am not looking for long posts; some credible links would suffice. I suppose I should mention that Pearl Harbor wasn't the only reason: there was also the fact that Germany had killed a few civilians; and the fact that American interests were endangered. Either way, it had nothing to do with being the good guy but simply being self-defensive. A thoroughly selfish attitude, but it is a typical and expected attitude.

Sorry but when it comes to history, I don't do links. When I'm in the mood, I'll elaborate.

 

[I think not]

And one last comment regarding this Arrow business. What did the US have to gain by cancelling the Arrow? Was it economic? Political? Where are the gains of forcing an ally to cancel a lethal weapon such as the Avro Arrow. Someone has to explain it to me.

And I would appreciate an answer to my question.

 

[earth_as_one]

Are you REALLY that .........naive?

The Chinese have been stealing American nuclear weapons and missile technology for at least 15 years...........long before Bush.

They have been sinking increasing billions into the military, and becoming increasingly belligerent........for decades.

Defense has very little to do with it...........they want Taiwan back.

They are flexing their muscle.

Before Bush, a Chinese diplomat threatened to turn Los Angeles to ash over Taiwan.

The Chinese are very, very dangerous.

Meanwhile, we continue to sell them the rope they will hang us with.

Sure China is potentially dangerous. So is Russia and the USA.

The USA and Russia have nuke ICBMs. China has nuke ICBMs. The USA and Russia can shoot down satellites. Soon, China will be able to shoot down satellites. The biggest problem I have with this test is the debris it left behind.

My point isn't to defend possessing nuke ICBMs or the ability to shoot down satellites. I see this as about balance. Whatever one country possesses, others must have for their own security and to keep the peace. If any country gets the ability to destroy others without fear of being destroyed themselves, then some idiot will use that advantage to start a war. The US invasion/occupation of Iraq is an example.

I see arms races as a waste of resources. If mankind put the same level of effort into solving our problems as we do in creating better ways to kill each other, we'd have solved poverty, disease, global warming and the current mass extinction event.

No I'm not going to get upset when one nation acquires the same military ability as other nations. The time to bitch and complain about the militarization of space was 30 years ago when Russia and the USA crossed that line. Now that its been crossed, China is just being prudent crossing the same line.

I think a fundamental difference between our viewpoints is that I see all people as equals, whereas you see conflicts in terms of "US vs Them". You see the US as part of "us" and China as part of "them", whereas, I see the "earth as one".

No I don't trust China's leaders. But I don't fear or hate the people of China. They aren't that different from us. Like us they want peace and prosperity.

Nations aren't evil but individuals within a nation can be threats to peace. Right now the biggest threat to peace are the leaders of Israel/US and their adversaries. Lebanon and Iraq are phases. Eventually the conflict will lead to nuclear holocaust. Americans and Israelis aren't inherently evil, but they have responsibilty for the actions of their leaders.

If I must choose sides, then I will always choose the side of the innocent, the oppressed and those who suffer injustice. Freedom and justice lead to peace. I'm critical of Israel and the US because their leaders are the biggest source of the oppression and injustice which is a root cause of innocent suffering and war.

I don't have near the same level of concern about China's leaders. For a very long time, their leaders have demonstrated patience. Eventually China and Taiwan will reunite because it will be in their mutual interest. China appears willing to resolve differences with other nations through diplomacy. China has made progess resolving internal injustice and oppression. That nation appears moving in the right direction.

I'm not saying China isn't a potential threat or doesn't have problems. Far from it. But China's leaders are more focused inward than outward. If China becomes more belligerent then I'll become more concerned about China.

 

[tamarin]

"China appears willing to resolve differences with their neighbors through diplomacy"
The Tibetans agree. And most likely will congratulate you for your insight.

 

[darkbeaver]

And one last comment regarding this Arrow business. What did the US have to gain by cancelling the Arrow? Was it economic? Political? Where are the gains of forcing an ally to cancel a lethal weapon such as the Avro Arrow. Someone has to explain it to me.

If we reform the question a bit and remove the asumptions built into it we come to a different perspective.

Let's rebuild the question without the assumption.

Where are the gains of forcing Canada and its competitive areospace industry to cancel a potentially lethal weapon and competing product such as the Avro Arrow?

I hope that;s helped you a bit.:wave:

 

[earth_as_one]

"China appears willing to resolve differences with their neighbors through diplomacy"
The Tibetans agree. And most likely will congratulate you for your insight.

How many years ago was that? Is China China currently fighting Tibetan insurgents? Have Tibetans been ethnically cleansed off their land? Do millions of them live in refugee camps?

Admittedly, China has problems. Tibet is one of them:

China rules out Tibet autonomy

CBC News (Canada)
May 23rd, 2004

BEIJING - China issued a policy paper on Tibet Sunday, dismissing the
Dalai Lama's call for greater Tibetan autonomy as untenable.

In the last two years, the Tibetan government-in-exile has sent two
delegations to Beijing, hoping to convince Chinese authorities to give
Tibet greater autonomy.

As the Tibetan spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama has travelled the world,
speaking out on the issue.

To the dismay of many younger, more radical Tibetans, the Dalai Lama
long ago gave up claims to Tibetan independence even though Tibet was
never directly controlled by Beijing until the Communist invasion in 1950.

His aim was to gain greater practical autonomy for Tibet similar to that
enjoyed by former British colony Hong Kong.

But the Chinese government, in a white paper, or policy paper, said
that's not going to happen. It claims Tibet has always been part of
China, so doesn't deserve the kind of autonomy Hong Kong has.

The paper also says that Tibet, before direct Chinese rule, was "even
darker and more backward than medieval Europe," and has only benefited
from being more integrated into China.

Many Tibetans disagree. They say decades of Chinese repression of
Tibetan culture, language and religion, along with Han-Chinese migration
into Tibet, is threatening to extinguish their culture.

The policy paper says a number of Tibetan and other ethnic-minority
citizens in Tibet directly participate in the administration of state
affairs, and some serve in leading positions.

http://www.studentsforafreetibet.org/article.php?id=260

I'd rather live in Tibet than Gaza or Iraq. But that's not saying much....

 

[L Gilbert]

The Avro was an interceptor aircraft (of course fighter and attack, that's what interceptors are, but it wasn't a bomber. And it's maximum speed was Mach 2.0.

The F-4 Phantom had a max speed of Mach 2.2, a higher operational ceiling and four times the operational range.

I didn't say it did 2.5 M, I said it had a potential of 2.5M. Pay attention. I admit I may have been wrong about the bomber bit but I was going by memory. And at least I can admit when I may be wrong, unlike others here. My ego isn't that sensitive and I'm not scared of being wrong.

http://www.vectorsite.net/avarrow.html

http://gateway.uvic.ca/schoolnet/digicol/pearkes/avro.html

So if one is a proponent of the cancellation of the program there was no political pressure involved in the cancellation. If a body opposed the cancellation, there was political pressure. Seems to me to be debatable either way.
Why would everything concerning the Arrow be destroyed instead of stuck in a museum, or dismantled to be used elsewhere, or just plain archived? Even old x-planes are kept. There are a few Blackbirds still around. And U-2s. The issue doesn't make sense unless there was political pressure to eliminate anything to do with the Arrow.

At any rate, why this was brought up was because the US has cost us unnecessarily, it has killed its "friends", it has performed many terrorist acts, stomped the piss out of human rights, etc. So no-one has shown where China and the USA are that much different except in politics: one purports to be democratic (while being totalitarian), and the other purports to be communist (and fails at that).

 

[I think not]

I didn't say it did 2.5 M, I said it had a potential of 2.5M. Pay attention. I admit I may have been wrong about the bomber bit but I was going by memory. And at least I can admit when I may be wrong, unlike others here. My ego isn't that sensitive and I'm not scared of being wrong.

http://www.vectorsite.net/avarrow.html

http://gateway.uvic.ca/schoolnet/digicol/pearkes/avro.html

I've been wrong many times, that's how I motivate myself to learn, when I have been proven wrong. Potential is speculative at best, but since you are quoting Andrew Chaikin, in the vectorsite, I'll concede, because I am not aware of the technical details.

So if one is a proponent of the cancellation of the program there was no political pressure involved in the cancellation. If a body opposed the cancellation, there was political pressure. Seems to me to be debatable either way.
Why would everything concerning the Arrow be destroyed instead of stuck in a museum, or dismantled to be used elsewhere, or just plain archived? Even old x-planes are kept. There are a few Blackbirds still around. And U-2s. The issue doesn't make sense unless there was political pressure to eliminate anything to do with the Arrow.

From your own link;

In reality, this conspiracy theory, like all good conspiracy theories, is long on emotions, contrived arguments, and convictions, but short on hard evidence. Conspiracy theorists claim the US defense secretary told his Canadian counterpart that Canada would be better off to drop the Arrow and purchase US hardware, while one Diefenbaker cabinet member much later insisted that the US was highly supportive of the program, calling the conspiracy theory "nonsense".

and

Interestingly, while the Canadians were working on the Arrow, the Americans were working on a conceptually similar long-range, high-performance interceptor, the North American "F-108 Rapier". The Rapier never got beyond the mockup stage, being cancelled in September 1959. The same logic that worked against the Arrow worked against the Rapier, with the same results. Whatever the facts of the case, it is hard not to sympathize with those who dream of the CF-105 thundering on patrol over Canada's snow-covered north.

At any rate, why this was brought up was because the US has cost us unnecessarily, it has killed its "friends", it has performed many terrorist acts, stomped the piss out of human rights, etc. So no-one has shown where China and the USA are that much different except in politics: one purports to be democratic (while being totalitarian), and the other purports to be communist (and fails at that).

The US doesn't have any friends, it has interests, much like the rest of the world.

 

[MikeyDB]

ITN

No friends....just "interests"?

Who cares.

 

[MikeyDB]

If you look closely at the American flag what you'll find is..what everyone's thought for a long time was stars is actually sheep...

The U.S. moaned and threatened and made dire predictions in its efforts to coerce Canada into signing onto the American ICBM "shield"..... for what?

So Canada could invest in something that China has proven it can circumvent any time it chooses?

Americans...Baaaaa Baaaaa baaaaa

Raytheon, Carlyle, General Electric....the war machine will continue to trumpet fear and doom...because America doesn't need "friends" it wants investors for its "interests"...

More crap from the Kingdom of Crap...the United States of Paranoia

 

[tamarin]

Earth, Tibet remains a snapshot of what is happening to many Pacific island nations as Chinese immigration and business investment accelerates. With a massive population base, China can easily export its influence by exporting its people. The recent completion of a major Chinese railway project to Tibet sounds the death knell for the latter's culture.

 

[earth_as_one]

Earth, Tibet remains a snapshot of what is happening to many Pacific island nations as Chinese immigration and business investment accelerates. With a massive population base, China can easily export its influence by exporting its people. The recent completion of a major Chinese railway project to Tibet sounds the death knell for the latter's culture.

I can't dispute any of your points. But the biggest problem I see right now results from imbalance. The US is the only military super power. China's movement toward an economic super power restores balance.

China's continued growth relies on increased trade, not military acquisition.

I don't think Tibet's culture will ever disappear. The Dalai Lama has spread Buddhism globally. Tibetan culture will evolve as China's government matures and comes to see Tibetan culture as something worth perserving. The Chinese government already knows people travel to Tibet to see Tibet, not Beijing.

Example:
Chinese Tibet tourism site:

Pureness, Holy Tibet, Mysterious Land, Adventure.
(be patient)
http://www.tibettour.org/chinatibettoursite/moban/index.asp

The railway has made Tibet more accessible.

You might find some of these first hand Tibet travel accounts amusing!
http://www.kenexner.com/tibet.shtml

An accessible Tibet will have positive and negative consequences. Certainly Tibetans will be overwhelmed by foreigners but their living standard will increase substantially.

Also China's growth will the biggest factor in climate change and the current mass extinction.

As I see it, China's growth contributes to balance. I would not favor Chinese world domination over American domination. Imbalance leads to extremism. Balance leads to compromise.

 

[earth_as_one]

The US doesn't have any friends, it has interests, much like the rest of the world.

I disagree. Americans have many friends over the world. But their government has made them many enemies. I welcome Americans to Canada. That's called being a good host. Every American tourist who spends his American dollar to buy a Canadian dollar contributes to our prosperity. Our trade is mutually beneficial. I am proud that Canada and the US share the world's longest undefended border. That also says something about Americans...