|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jun 20, 2017 19:18:23 GMT
If the Soviet submarine K-129 was sunk while trying to provoke a nuclear war between the US and China, and the US had persuasive evidence of it, the Soviets could have been blackmailed into keeping the secret, yes? I'm not saying that's what happened. I'm just saying it's a possibility. Why China? They only ever had one sub of the same class. I read once that the K-129 tried over the radio to say it that was a Chinese sub. By '68 the Soviet Union had more advanced and safer-to-operate missile subs, but for such a scheme they would have needed one like the Chinese had in order to successfully blame the Chinese. They couldn't have hit the Western coast of the US, but they could have hit Pearl Harbor. The US would have retaliated and clobbered China, and the USSR would have been standing there looking innocent and uninvolved.
|
|
|
Post by progressiveelement on Jun 20, 2017 20:06:28 GMT
Why China? They only ever had one sub of the same class. I read once that the K-129 tried over the radio to say it that was a Chinese sub. By '68 the Soviet Union had more advanced and safer-to-operate missile subs, but for such a scheme they would have needed one like the Chinese had in order to successfully blame the Chinese. They couldn't have hit the Western coast of the US, but they could have hit Pearl Harbor. The US would have retaliated and clobbered China, and the USSR would have been standing there looking innocent and uninvolved. At the time K-129 sank, China's Golf had no missiles. It wasn't until a few months later it underwent a refit, and the missiles the Chinese equipped it with were of a different type. It would not be until the late 70s that it would be refitted again to have the ability to launch them while submerged.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jun 20, 2017 20:07:53 GMT
I read once that the K-129 tried over the radio to say it that was a Chinese sub. By '68 the Soviet Union had more advanced and safer-to-operate missile subs, but for such a scheme they would have needed one like the Chinese had in order to successfully blame the Chinese. They couldn't have hit the Western coast of the US, but they could have hit Pearl Harbor. The US would have retaliated and clobbered China, and the USSR would have been standing there looking innocent and uninvolved. At the time K-129 sank, China's Golf had no missiles. It wasn't until a few months later it underwent a refit, and the missiles the Chinese equipped it with were of a different type. It would not be until the late 70s that it would be refitted again to have the ability to launch them while submerged. If you poison this conversation with logic again, you will make a grown redneck cry.
|
|
|
Post by progressiveelement on Jun 21, 2017 0:25:10 GMT
At the time K-129 sank, China's Golf had no missiles. It wasn't until a few months later it underwent a refit, and the missiles the Chinese equipped it with were of a different type. It would not be until the late 70s that it would be refitted again to have the ability to launch them while submerged. If you poison this conversation with logic again, you will make a grown redneck cry. I haven't even mentioned that the Chinese one was actually built in China and would undoubtedly have its sound characteristics known to every US and Allied sub. And being a diesel/electric powered vessel, not a nuclear powered one, those vessels have to surface every now and then to recharge batteries. Nuclear-powered vessels never have to surface unless required. Pretending to be Chinese is not going to fool anyone even in 1968. The vessel that sank was actually a Golf II, so it could not be mistaken for a Chinese copy of an older model, sans missiles.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jun 21, 2017 0:43:08 GMT
If you poison this conversation with logic again, you will make a grown redneck cry. I haven't even mentioned that the Chinese one was actually built in China and would undoubtedly have its sound characteristics known to every US and Allied sub. And being a diesel/electric powered vessel, not a nuclear powered one, those vessels have to surface every now and then to recharge batteries. Nuclear-powered vessels never have to surface unless required. Pretending to be Chinese is not going to fool anyone even in 1968. The vessel that sank was actually a Golf II, so it could not be mistaken for a Chinese copy of an older model, sans missiles. I must confess, that what Erjen postulated not being anything close to reality is not what I would exactly call a surprise.
|
|
|
Post by progressiveelement on Jun 21, 2017 1:08:10 GMT
I haven't even mentioned that the Chinese one was actually built in China and would undoubtedly have its sound characteristics known to every US and Allied sub. And being a diesel/electric powered vessel, not a nuclear powered one, those vessels have to surface every now and then to recharge batteries. Nuclear-powered vessels never have to surface unless required. Pretending to be Chinese is not going to fool anyone even in 1968. The vessel that sank was actually a Golf II, so it could not be mistaken for a Chinese copy of an older model, sans missiles. I must confess, that what Erjen postulated not being anything close to reality is not what I would exactly call a surprise. Erj knows more than me about tanks, but I was into submarines before I really got into planes. 😇
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jun 21, 2017 1:28:26 GMT
I must confess, that what Erjen postulated not being anything close to reality is not what I would exactly call a surprise. Erj knows more than me about tanks, but I was into submarines before I really got into planes. 😇 My military knowledge is either pretty much 1939- 1945 or 1407 - 1650, anything outside of that and I am mostly lost.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jun 21, 2017 7:09:57 GMT
If you poison this conversation with logic again, you will make a grown redneck cry. I haven't even mentioned that the Chinese one was actually built in China and would undoubtedly have its sound characteristics known to every US and Allied sub. And being a diesel/electric powered vessel, not a nuclear powered one, those vessels have to surface every now and then to recharge batteries. Nuclear-powered vessels never have to surface unless required. Pretending to be Chinese is not going to fool anyone even in 1968. The vessel that sank was actually a Golf II, so it could not be mistaken for a Chinese copy of an older model, sans missiles. Proggy, I'm hardly accountable for flaws in someone else's plan. On September 11, 2001, it was not possible to make a cell phone call from an airliner in flight, but the bozos who put that story together overlooked this flaw, or perhaps they thought people wouldn't notice.
|
|
|
Post by progressiveelement on Jun 21, 2017 10:36:02 GMT
I haven't even mentioned that the Chinese one was actually built in China and would undoubtedly have its sound characteristics known to every US and Allied sub. And being a diesel/electric powered vessel, not a nuclear powered one, those vessels have to surface every now and then to recharge batteries. Nuclear-powered vessels never have to surface unless required. Pretending to be Chinese is not going to fool anyone even in 1968. The vessel that sank was actually a Golf II, so it could not be mistaken for a Chinese copy of an older model, sans missiles. Proggy, I'm hardly accountable for flaws in someone else's plan. On September 11, 2001, it was not possible to make a cell phone call from an airliner in flight, but the bozos who put that story together overlooked this flaw, or perhaps they thought people wouldn't notice. www.nytimes.com/2001/09/14/us/after-attacks-communications-new-perspective-issue-cell-phone-use-planes.html
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jun 21, 2017 17:46:20 GMT
Yes, Prog, I've seen this before. Wow. The New York Times. I'm impressed. I think the flight bound for Washington may have been shot down. If so, I think Dick Cheney may have ordered it. And I think the story about the passengers trying to take back the plane was BS. So there.
|
|
|
Post by progressiveelement on Jun 21, 2017 18:45:34 GMT
Yes, Prog, I've seen this before. Wow. The New York Times. I'm impressed. I think the flight bound for Washington may have been shot down. If so, I think Dick Cheney may have ordered it. And I think the story about the passengers trying to take back the plane was BS. So there. youtu.be/ZFdIJemhhtw😜
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jun 21, 2017 18:48:45 GMT
Yes, Prog, I've seen this before. Wow. The New York Times. I'm impressed. I think the flight bound for Washington may have been shot down. If so, I think Dick Cheney may have ordered it. And I think the story about the passengers trying to take back the plane was BS. So there. youtu.be/ZFdIJemhhtw😜 YouTube now, is it? Wait till Cine sees what a bad influence I've been on you.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jun 21, 2017 18:57:44 GMT
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jun 23, 2017 17:41:02 GMT
Damn, he's at it again. Of the six thumbs-down this video got, one of them was mine. Please try to remember that when the talking heads of the RFS board tell you that Erjen believes everything he sees on YouTube.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jun 23, 2017 17:52:31 GMT
tpfkar Why can't you let people think for themselves. On what other board can you push your dirty and sickening agenda?
|
|
|
Post by Jonesy1 on Jun 23, 2017 19:41:08 GMT
Damn, he's at it again. Of the six thumbs-down this video got, one of them was mine. Please try to remember that when the talking heads of the RFS board tell you that Erjen believes everything he sees on YouTube. So if you don't believe him would it be safe to assume that you posted this video for a laugh? Edit: Btw, did you ever get round to reading that Lord Of The World book you were talking about last year? (I think it was last year)
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jun 24, 2017 5:07:19 GMT
Damn, he's at it again. Of the six thumbs-down this video got, one of them was mine. Please try to remember that when the talking heads of the RFS board tell you that Erjen believes everything he sees on YouTube. So if you don't believe him would it be safe to assume that you posted this video for a laugh? Edit: Btw, did you ever get round to reading that Lord Of The World book you were talking about last year? (I think it was last year) Yes. Reminds me of ISIS beheading videos. You just can't trust videos by guys wearing ski masks. Are you talking about the book by Jules Verne that we discussed on another board? It couldn't have been last year. This site only goes back to February.
|
|
|
Post by Jonesy1 on Jun 24, 2017 7:40:07 GMT
So if you don't believe him would it be safe to assume that you posted this video for a laugh? Edit: Btw, did you ever get round to reading that Lord Of The World book you were talking about last year? (I think it was last year) Yes. Reminds me of ISIS beheading videos. You just can't trust videos by guys wearing ski masks. Are you talking about the book by Jules Verne that we discussed on another board? It couldn't have been last year. This site only goes back to February. It was the one by Robert Hugh Benson and it was on the old DB boards.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jun 24, 2017 7:50:02 GMT
Yes. Reminds me of ISIS beheading videos. You just can't trust videos by guys wearing ski masks. Are you talking about the book by Jules Verne that we discussed on another board? It couldn't have been last year. This site only goes back to February. It was the one by Robert Hugh Benson and it was on the old DB boards. Okay, that jogged my memory. Thanks very much for reminding me. I had forgotten all about it. We are being worked 49 hours and six days a week. Five hours tomorrow and everything I earn from it will go to Uncle Sam. I'm into chapter six of another book currently and I only get to knock out a page or two every few days.
|
|