If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BBC)   US flies nuclear bombers over China. It's been nice knowing you. Most of you. Some of you   (bbc.co.uk) divider line 130
    More: Scary, flight plans, air defence, Senkaku in Japan, East China Sea, B-52, Diaoyu in China  
•       •       •

10432 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Nov 2013 at 2:36 PM (51 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



130 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-11-26 03:09:38 PM  
We did not fly over China, subtard.
 
2013-11-26 03:09:40 PM  
6inchmove.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-11-26 03:10:56 PM  

Cowthulu: Unarmed for a bomber like that means that the codes have not been uploaded and doesn't mean that the plane did not have any nuclear weapons onboard. It just means if the pilots wanted to they could not use the weapons.


B-52s don't routinely carry nukes. Just the SAC ones do, and there are few of those left. Strategic bombing is something of a fantasy; you can't escort Buffs all the way to their targets, and any modern air defense system would make short work of them. Buffs are still a very effective weapon against defenseless ground forces, but that doesn't describe China or Russia.
 
2013-11-26 03:11:17 PM  
While China has a lot of people if it where to go to war we would quickly leave China a country where people are wearing next to nothing because its hot like an oven.
 
2013-11-26 03:15:26 PM  
Everybody seems to overestimate China's military. The combined forces of Vietnam, India, the Philippines, Taiwan, Korea and Japan could probably take them, even WITHOUT U.S. support. Those countries do multi-national exercises with the U.S. and each other just for that reason. The biggest reason for U.S. presence in the western Pacific is to ensure those countries (who are or can be major trading partners) don't get individually bullied by China; it's not because of some head-to-head conflict between the U.S. and China.
 
2013-11-26 03:15:27 PM  
Think Falklands, but with moss and plants instead of sheep farmers, and oil instead of sheep.

Uninhabited islands.  Japanese sovereignty claimed since 1895.  China not interested in them until oil found nearby.

This would be a good time for a game of rock-paper-scissors.
 
2013-11-26 03:15:56 PM  

tuxq: Read up on the defensive uses of HAARP. There's a reason we stopped giving a damn about an orbit-based anti-missile platform ("Star Wars")

Personally, I won't be losing any sleep over a threat from China or any other b*tch a*s country that thinks they can challenge the United States of America.


/'Murica!
//I acknowledge my own arrogance, thank you very much.


You need to watch the documentary 'Red Dawn' (2012). If the fricking North Koreans could invade us, the Chinese could too!


/pretty sure the B52s in Guam are packing nuclear cruise missiles 24/7. They just deny officially deny it.
 
2013-11-26 03:16:32 PM  
This may be the end of modern civilization. Nobody will be bombed back to the stone age but you may need to turn your watch back about a hundred-thousand years.
 
2013-11-26 03:17:08 PM  

Cubicle Jockey: slayer199: So let me get his straight...they're having a dispute over less than 3 square miles of islands?

More accuirately, they is a dispute over who owns the rights to the nearby oilfields. They will fall into the Exclusive Economic Zone of whomever owns the islands, which noone gives a shiat about otherwise.


This.  Plus maybe fishing rights.
 
2013-11-26 03:18:17 PM  

slayer199: So let me get his straight...they're having a dispute over less than 3 square miles of islands?

How about we bomb them back into the ocean and we call it a day.


They're having a dispute over control of oil reserves, and also over who has the biggest pecker.
 
2013-11-26 03:19:03 PM  

Cowthulu: Unarmed for a bomber like that means that the codes have not been uploaded and doesn't mean that the plane did not have any nuclear weapons onboard. It just means if the pilots wanted to they could not use the weapons.


Huh?

Lemme guess....5 years in the Women's Auxialliary Balloon Corps?

If you had ever served, you'd konw that actual nuclear weapons are almost NEVER loaded on aircraft deployed for routine training flights in peacetime, especially over international territory.  It's not about "codes" or unauthorized use.  There's way too much risk of loss or compromise in the event of a crash or other problem.
 
2013-11-26 03:20:05 PM  
Based on that map, the area of ocean in question is being defended twice, and so should be quite safe. I don't know what the big deal is here.
 
2013-11-26 03:24:44 PM  

Cubicle Jockey: which noone gives a shiat about otherwise.


I do.
 
2013-11-26 03:25:13 PM  

Serious Post on Serious Thread: vygramul: Lee Jackson Beauregard: Scenario 1:

    * China:  "Them islands is ours!"
    * Obama:  "Send in the B-52s."
    * Morans:  "How come 0bama provoke China how come?"

Scenario 2:

    * China:  "Them islands is ours!"
    * Obama:  "Let's wait for diplomacy to work."
    * Morans:  "How come 0bama betray our ally Japan how come?"

This.

So vote Repubican?


Both Decisions Are Wrong So Vote Republican!

BDAWSVR!
 
2013-11-26 03:27:19 PM  

Amphibious Rodent: [news.bbcimg.co.uk image 464x261]

Yeah, I'd say those are worth starting WW3 over.

/hot


psst! There's oil under there! That's why everyone in the region really cares about them!
 
2013-11-26 03:27:39 PM  

SovietCanuckistan: Where were the lines drawn after WW2? Japan jumped into the American sphere faster than a Go-Bot in a Zero, so anything agreed to back then should hold now. China is a little late to the game, but they have been working out....


Japan has held claim to the Senkakus since 1895. The U.S. controlled them between 1945 and 1972, when they turned them back over to Japan. Nobody cared about it until they started looking at oil and gas development in the East China Sea in the late '60s. Actual "ownership" is murky, and a matter for lawyers, hinging on China's disputed claim of prior ownership from the 1500s, and the wording of the treaties that settled matters after WWII. China and Taiwan claim they're part of Taiwan (of course, China claims that Taiwan is part of China). Japan doesn't recognize Taiwan's government, so they say there's nothing to talk about. Sort of the way the U.K. feels about the Falklands, only without actual islanders to have a sayso. And Japan doesn't lose a proximity argument; the islands are the same distance from Okinawa as they are from Taiwan, and twice that far to mainland China.
 
KIA
2013-11-26 03:28:11 PM  
Step 1: Fly 50-year old planes over contested islands
Step 2: ??? (doesn't matter, they're 50-year old planes)
Step 3: Claim moral victory
 
2013-11-26 03:28:23 PM  

This text is now purple: Transubstantive: zedster: nuclear bombers? really? We tried nuclear planes, they didn't work

Is this serious?  I just can't tell anymore.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pluto


That and more http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_aircraft
 
2013-11-26 03:28:31 PM  
Fallout 4 is going to be a reboot?
 
2013-11-26 03:29:59 PM  

KIA: Step 1: Fly 50-year old planes over contested islands
Step 2: ??? (doesn't matter, they're 50-year old planes)
Step 3: Claim moral victory


How do you think we planned on getting rid of Iran's nukes?
 
2013-11-26 03:30:57 PM  
Heh, sounds like sovereign citizens. Don't acknowledge their rules and deny their jurisdiction and claim. They are remaining seated when asked to rise.

I realize the Japanese are evil people the Chinese hate to no end but maybe they should just leave them alone since they don't have a very large landmass. You already have enough, China.
 
2013-11-26 03:31:30 PM  

mbillips: And Japan doesn't lose a proximity argument; the islands are the same distance from Okinawa as they are from Taiwan, and twice that far to mainland China.


China likely considers Okinawa to be Chinese.

\Okinawa isn't historically part of Japan or China
 
2013-11-26 03:35:16 PM  

This text is now purple: mbillips: And Japan doesn't lose a proximity argument; the islands are the same distance from Okinawa as they are from Taiwan, and twice that far to mainland China.

China likely considers Okinawa to be Chinese.

\Okinawa isn't historically part of Japan or China


Well, by the same standards Virginia isn't historically part of the U.S.
 
2013-11-26 03:35:32 PM  
Just wait, the day will come when China starts thinking about reclaiming the Amur region and maybe a chunk of Siberia from the Russians.
 
2013-11-26 03:35:35 PM  

slayer199: So let me get his straight...they're having a dispute over less than 3 square miles of islands?

How about we bomb them back into the ocean and we call it a day.


Why don't we invade and call it our own Private Idaho?
 
2013-11-26 03:42:25 PM  
Unarmed bombers fly over islands actually claimed by Japan.
 
2013-11-26 03:43:07 PM  

This text is now purple: mbillips: And Japan doesn't lose a proximity argument; the islands are the same distance from Okinawa as they are from Taiwan, and twice that far to mainland China.

China likely considers Okinawa to be Chinese.

\Okinawa isn't historically part of Japan or China


China thinks the Ryukyus should be "independent." Which is to say, under Chinese economic and military domination if not direct political control. Okinawa was first conquered by the Japanese in 1609 and was a subject kingdom up until the 1870s, so it depends on what you mean by "historically."
 
2013-11-26 03:43:56 PM  
1.  Unarmed bombers
2.  Routine training flight.
3.  Not China, Senkaku islands.


Thanks for playing Fark's Most Unnecessarily Alarmist Headline of the Day.
 
2013-11-26 03:45:08 PM  
Iraq 1
Afghanistan
Iraq 2
North Korea
(still maybe)
Iran
China
 
2013-11-26 03:49:58 PM  

Prophet of Loss: Iraq 1
Afghanistan
Iraq 2
North Korea (still maybe)
Iran
China


You forgot Libya, Syria, and, if you believe Fark armchair admirals, Russia.
 
2013-11-26 03:54:09 PM  

slayer199: So let me get his straight...they're having a dispute over less than 3 square miles of islands?

How about we bomb them back into the ocean and we call it a day.


Just wait a little while-- global warming will take care of this problem very soon.  No island, no dispute!
 
2013-11-26 03:55:50 PM  
The bigger the bomber, the smaller the penis. Or does that only apply to monster trucks.
 
2013-11-26 03:59:56 PM  
Nothing a team of bulldozers can't fix.
 
2013-11-26 04:06:01 PM  
img.fark.net

If only there was some way we could divide the territory up between the two countries.
 
2013-11-26 04:08:45 PM  

Ambitwistor: tuxq: Read up on the defensive uses of HAARP. There's a reason we stopped giving a damn about an orbit-based anti-missile platform ("Star Wars")

[1-media-cdn.foolz.us image 363x310]


Good grief, this. Last week I took about a day doing the research on that crap of a conspiracy. I couldn't stop laughing the entire time.

/kicker was at the end, when I looked up the credentials of the guy who wrote the book. Bought a degree for $4k off a Sri Lankan online university that even the Sri Lankan government doesn't recognize. The other degree is honorary.
 
2013-11-26 04:14:18 PM  

vygramul: Serious Post on Serious Thread: vygramul: Lee Jackson Beauregard: Scenario 1:

    * China:  "Them islands is ours!"
    * Obama:  "Send in the B-52s."
    * Morans:  "How come 0bama provoke China how come?"

Scenario 2:

    * China:  "Them islands is ours!"
    * Obama:  "Let's wait for diplomacy to work."
    * Morans:  "How come 0bama betray our ally Japan how come?"

This.

So vote Repubican?

Both Decisions Are Wrong So Vote Republican!

BDAWSVR!


You just solved the mystery of the Welsh language. Turns out they are a remnant of an ancient civilization that invented Acronyms and Text-Speak. The civilization fell when everyone started pronouncing the acronyms and text-speak for every day use.
 
2013-11-26 04:16:18 PM  
i1182.photobucket.com
 
2013-11-26 04:23:23 PM  
Really, 87 comments?

www.beldar.org
 
2013-11-26 04:52:09 PM  

Eddie Adams from Torrance: It's not like China can attack us.. we're their best customer.

It would like WalMart launching SCUDs against the local trailer park.


It's not like China could attack us... period. They have no strategic bombers that could reach us, their Navy would have to get past our Navy, our air force, and hell, some of our Army units. And that is prior to landing. (I imagine an A-10 or a Apache could really get the better of a troop transport that strayed close enough to land.)

Now, if they would like to duke this out with Nuclear weapons, they could hit us. Our retaliation would be terrible. Heck, we might not even retaliate with nukes. We'd bomb them into oblivion with conventional weapons just so we can drag their leaders through the streets and hang them.
 
2013-11-26 05:06:13 PM  
P-3 combat record vs. J8 fighter: 1-0

I see what yu did there & laughed heartily !
 
2013-11-26 05:06:32 PM  

Evil Twin Skippy: Eddie Adams from Torrance: It's not like China can attack us.. we're their best customer.

It would like WalMart launching SCUDs against the local trailer park.

It's not like China could attack us... period. They have no strategic bombers that could reach us, their Navy would have to get past our Navy, our air force, and hell, some of our Army units. And that is prior to landing. (I imagine an A-10 or a Apache could really get the better of a troop transport that strayed close enough to land.)

Now, if they would like to duke this out with Nuclear weapons, they could hit us. Our retaliation would be terrible. Heck, we might not even retaliate with nukes. We'd bomb them into oblivion with conventional weapons just so we can drag their leaders through the streets and hang them.


I always though that the problem was actually Russia? Like, they would  step in if we got aggressive with China?
 
2013-11-26 05:06:52 PM  

washington-babylon: vygramul: Serious Post on Serious Thread: vygramul: Lee Jackson Beauregard: Scenario 1:

    * China:  "Them islands is ours!"
    * Obama:  "Send in the B-52s."
    * Morans:  "How come 0bama provoke China how come?"

Scenario 2:

    * China:  "Them islands is ours!"
    * Obama:  "Let's wait for diplomacy to work."
    * Morans:  "How come 0bama betray our ally Japan how come?"

This.

So vote Repubican?

Both Decisions Are Wrong So Vote Republican!

BDAWSVR!

You just solved the mystery of the Welsh language. Turns out they are a remnant of an ancient civilization that invented Acronyms and Text-Speak. The civilization fell when everyone started pronouncing the acronyms and text-speak for every day use.


+1 Internets to you, sir!
 
2013-11-26 05:07:06 PM  

Some Bass Playing Guy: FTA: "The aircraft, which were unarmed"

They're not "nuclear bombers" if they're not carrying nukes.


3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-11-26 05:11:54 PM  

Some Bass Playing Guy: FTA: "The aircraft, which were unarmed"

They're not "nuclear bombers" if they're not carrying nukes.


As far as I'm concerned, it's not whether they're carrying nukes but whether they're powered by nuclear reactors.
 
2013-11-26 05:19:12 PM  

Some Bass Playing Guy: FTA: "The aircraft, which were unarmed"

They're not "nuclear bombers" if they're not carrying nukes.



And miss the obvious troll-like headline?

They should have used this as the stock photo:

img.fark.net
 
2013-11-26 05:22:45 PM  
copiouscope.files.wordpress.com

Obligatory?
 
2013-11-26 05:33:46 PM  

This text is now purple: slayer199: So let me get his straight...they're having a dispute over less than 3 square miles of islands?

Macau is around that size. China sure seemed interested in getting Macau back.


Didn't hurt that Macau is like China's version of Las Vegas.
 
2013-11-26 05:37:36 PM  
On your mark

Get set

....
 
2013-11-26 05:43:11 PM  
Of all the things to send over? B-52s? The planes that SAMs could easily shoot down since the 1960's? Yeah. The brass in Beijing are p*ssing themselves now, I bet.

How come Fatty Dingdongs in Best Korea can get a B2 show but all the Chinese get are Grampa's bombers?
 
2013-11-26 05:43:49 PM  

vpb: I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed. But I do say no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops. Uh, depending on the breaks.


Suddenly glad I haven't moved out of the semi-safe zone yet (yes, I actually checked the government projection maps).
 
Displayed 50 of 130 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report