China demands war - Sino- Filipino Vietmamese WAR?

Welcome to Philippines Defense Forces Forum. We hope you enjoy your visit.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Pages:
1
…
10
11
12
…
15

China demands war - Sino- Filipino Vietmamese WAR?; China said "The Dragon’s Teaching"
Tweet Topic Started: Sep 29 2011, 02:25 PM (7,898 Views)
ni84	Oct 8 2011, 06:57 AM Post #101
Posts: 2,503 Group: Elite Member #7,006 Joined: August 16, 2011	Long range strategic deterrence is the key so that China will not further its adventurism.
	We shall not fail or falter; we shall not weaken or tire...Give us the tools and we will finish the job. Sir Winston Churchill, BBC radio broadcast, 1941 We'll settle this the old navy way: first guy to die, loses. President Thomas 'Tug' Benson, Hot Shots! Part Deux Raketnye voyska strategicheskogo naznacheniya Rossiyskoy Federatsii 15,000 nukes and enough for another 40,000


Xwolf	Oct 8 2011, 07:02 AM Post #102
Member Posts: 334 Group: Regulars Member #6,890 Joined: July 6, 2011	giving respect to the Chinese might they still cant afford a Major war with any country yet in their current situation and condition. limited conflict yes but an all out war? maybe in 2-5yrs time. so why waste time? lets get it on baby!
	-I love the smell of Napalm in the morning.-


InkognitoAce	Oct 8 2011, 07:09 AM Post #103
Member Posts: 347 Group: Regulars Member #6,889 Joined: July 6, 2011	Xwolf Oct 8 2011, 07:02 AM giving respect to the Chinese might they still cant afford a Major war with any country yet in their current situation and condition. limited conflict yes but an all out war? maybe in 2-5yrs time. so why waste time? lets get it on baby! An armed conflict with the Philippines won't be a "major war" for China: they'll just sink our vintage ships and shoot down our tora tora planes - with ease. That'd leave us paralyzed and totally incapable of patrolling and defending our territory.
	"Once abolish the God, and the government becomes the God." (G. K. Chesterton) "Justice forbids, and reason itself forbids, the State to be godless; or to adopt a line of action which would end in godlessness, namely to treat the various religions (as they call them) alike, and to bestow upon them promiscuously equal rights and privileges." (Pope Leo XIII)


Xwolf	Oct 8 2011, 07:19 AM Post #104
Member Posts: 334 Group: Regulars Member #6,890 Joined: July 6, 2011	Absolutely and that's the plan, so uncle sam can send us those shiny new toys were dying to get! (come on guys i'm just pulling you're legs). Seriously we need to counter that balance by creating a military based ideology in terms weapons manufacture center as a defense HUB in SE Asia. With us leading the way for defense and stability in the region we could now return to our former glory.
	-I love the smell of Napalm in the morning.-


ni84	Oct 8 2011, 09:12 AM Post #105
Posts: 2,503 Group: Elite Member #7,006 Joined: August 16, 2011	Xwolf Oct 8 2011, 07:02 AM giving respect to the Chinese might they still cant afford a Major war with any country yet in their current situation and condition. limited conflict yes but an all out war? maybe in 2-5yrs time. so why waste time? lets get it on baby! They might not hit the US but they can certainly wipe us out here in Asia. If the prospect economic recovery is by going to war with a major power at the expense of our nations survival and safety then the US can bury itself and not drag other nations with them.
	We shall not fail or falter; we shall not weaken or tire...Give us the tools and we will finish the job. Sir Winston Churchill, BBC radio broadcast, 1941 We'll settle this the old navy way: first guy to die, loses. President Thomas 'Tug' Benson, Hot Shots! Part Deux Raketnye voyska strategicheskogo naznacheniya Rossiyskoy Federatsii 15,000 nukes and enough for another 40,000


paratorpe	Oct 8 2011, 10:13 AM Post #106
Member Posts: 879 Group: Regulars Member #4,250 Joined: February 26, 2008	As of now, all we can do is to buy defensive hardware. If you want to get back at them, its better to deploy special forces in the Xianjing province muslim majority population, Mongolia, and Tibet, then arm them to stage rebellion. Similar to failed Jabidah of Marcos time.
	Modernization should prioritize: Patrol Ships with air/sub/ship detection, fast & lightly armed for Navy. Surface Attack Aircraft with anti ship/sub attack capability for Airforce. SAM with Radars, Close AA battery capable of shooting ground targets too for Army. This triangle defense will work together and protect us from external threats.


Mckoyzzz	Oct 8 2011, 02:27 PM Post #107
Ipsa Scientia Potestas Est Posts: 2,780 Group: PDFF Mod Group Member #6,962 Joined: July 28, 2011	ni84 Oct 8 2011, 06:40 AM If Asia is a "Nuclear Free Zone", why do we allow nuclear powered and potentially nuclear armed ships into our ports and give them all the needed support. If Asia is truly Nuclear Free why is that nations like Japan and South Korea maintain the capability to go nuclear. If we truly want a nuclear weapons free zone then we must follow New Zealand. Did you know that the US has been asking New Zealand to lift it's nuclear band on naval ships. Just a small correction mate, it's not ASIAN but SOUTHEAST ASIAN Nuclear-free-zone Treaty... Nuclear energy/power and nuclear weapons are the two sides of the coin. You can have a nuclear power plant without nuclear weapons, which the latter clearly is to kill and destroy. I THINK (because I haven't read the whole treaty) the treaty only bans nuclear weapons but not nuclear energy used for PEACEFUL purposes. Article 1: © "nuclear weapon" means any explosive device capable of releasing nuclear energy in an uncontrolled manner but does not include the means of transport or delivery of such device if separable from and not an indivisible part thereof; Article 4: 1. Nothing in this Treaty shall prejudice the right of the States Parties to use nuclear energy, in particular for their economic development and social progress. Article 4 Section 2: (b) prior to embarking on its peaceful nuclear energy programme, to subject its programme to rigorous nuclear safety assessment conforming to guidelines and standards recommended by the IAEA for the protection of health and minimization of danger to life and property in accordance with Paragraph 6 of Article III of the Statute of the IAEA; The complete text of the Treaty is here: http://www.asean.org/2082.htm
	"Do not condemn the judgment of another because it differs from your own. You may both be wrong -- Dandemis"


arnie	Oct 8 2011, 03:01 PM Post #108
Member Posts: 663 Group: Regulars Member #6,597 Joined: April 22, 2011	Both CTBT and NPT are discriminatory treaties, designed by select groups of countries to stop other nations to challenge their nuclear might. I am not trying to advocate nukes here but if these guys are serious about nuke free world, they should abandon and dismantle their nukes first.



ni84	Oct 8 2011, 06:14 PM Post #109
Posts: 2,503 Group: Elite Member #7,006 Joined: August 16, 2011	It is good that India did not sign the NPT. I say the Philippines must have the option to withdraw from the agreements that limits our military options.
	We shall not fail or falter; we shall not weaken or tire...Give us the tools and we will finish the job. Sir Winston Churchill, BBC radio broadcast, 1941 We'll settle this the old navy way: first guy to die, loses. President Thomas 'Tug' Benson, Hot Shots! Part Deux Raketnye voyska strategicheskogo naznacheniya Rossiyskoy Federatsii 15,000 nukes and enough for another 40,000


sb00163	Oct 8 2011, 06:29 PM Post #110
Member Posts: 105 Group: Regulars Member #5,543 Joined: February 11, 2009	[/QUOTE] Similar to failed Jabidah of Marcos time. Quote: that's the main reason why the Malaysian's are supporting the rebels in the south... A copycat of the failed Philippine foreign policy of the 1950's - 1970's...



1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)


Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · General Military and Law Enforcement · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
…
10
11
12
…
15