China “Planned To Claim Kyushu Air Space”



It has emerged China’s newly expanded aerial kill zone was almost extended all the way up to the coast of the Japanese mainland – even as China announces successful tests of the world’s first “carrier killer” anti-ship ballistic missile.

According to Asahi, hard-line generals and military reseach institutes in China were pushing for an ADIZ extending out hundreds of kilometres from China’s EEZ, encompassing not only the Senkaku Islands but also extending up to the coast of Kyushu.


This represented a “political desire” on the part of some of China’s top leaders rather than any military necessity, it is said, but in the end the zone was extended from Chinese territorial waters instead, encompassing only parts of Okinawa, Taiwan and South Korea.

Even this generous compromise secured China massive international condemnation even from nations nowhere near its airspace, but the consequences of attempting to usurp control of the skies so close to Japan can only be guessed at.

In other – and perhaps far from unrelated – news, Japan’s air force is planning to increase its planned purchase of F-35s, whilst China has apparently just tested the world’s first ballistic anti-ship missile, the Dong Feng 21D, capable of eliminating aircraft carriers in one hit at a range of 3,000km.



    Post Comment »
    Sort by: Date | Score
    Avatar of Pyrus
    Comment by Pyrus
    06:47 13/01/2014 # ! Quality (+1.0)

    Is China trying to show its Dong to people again?

    Avatar of Erranty
    Comment by Erranty
    23:15 13/01/2014 # ! Neutral (0)

    At least it's not the Wong Wei incident again.

    Comment by Anonymous
    09:47 13/01/2014 # ! Neutral (0)

    More like they don't want our dong sticking half way around the world into their neighborhood. So here's something to chop it off...

    Avatar of ♦Diamond♦Dust♦
    14:09 13/01/2014 # ! Neutral (-0.2)

    China: Hey guys, look at my Dong.

    Comment by Anonymous
    16:15 13/01/2014 # ! Neutral (0)

    Ho yeah is pretty cool-- Oooh -_- there is no dong there...

    Comment by Anonymous
    04:29 16/01/2014 # ! Neutral (0)

    Nope, it's the Koreans.

    Comment by Anonymous

    I think we all know japanese have the smallest. lol.

    Comment by Anonymous

    frankly, if they can keep any war to 1:1 losses, they can beat anyone with their massive population

    Comment by Anonymous
    07:50 13/01/2014 # ! Neutral (+0.4)

    But they can't. Any enemy can simply destroy the Three Gorges Dam, and let the resulting massive flood not only kill millions downstream all along the Yangtze River, but cut China in half.

    They'll take what they can get from other countries via intimidation, but they know that in any major war, China will bleed.

    Of course, that assumes they mind killing millions of their citizens. They might not. But functioning economies are much more enjoyable to rule over, than shattered rubble.

    Comment by Anonymous
    22:40 14/01/2014 # ! Neutral (0)

    Hello, my name is a 1st world country that unlike you, i have weapons of mass destruction. if you try to attack i can guarantee you mutual assured destruction.

    Comment by Anonymous
    10:05 13/01/2014 # ! Neutral (0)

    Japan will have the Strike Freedom on standby for any nukes near its shores ;)

    Comment by Anonymous

    Nukes will fly? The age of total war/genocides have came and gone. Any war between major nations in the modern era, if they occur at all, will be diplomatic wars.

    Comment by Anonymous

    Hello, my name is Iraq. I would like to introduce you to my friend Afghanistan. We would like to disagree with your comment and question where you came up with such a boldly idiotic theory?

    Comment by Anonymous

    Iraq and Afghanistan are not major nations, not even regional powers much less global powers like US, China, Russia, UK.

    Comment by Dark Mage
    07:50 13/01/2014 # ! Good (+0.4)

    The thing is a war with the US would be 10 to one losses for them.

    Being in the Chinese military would quickly become synonymous with being cannon fodder or walking hamburger.

    Comment by Anonymous
    10:04 13/01/2014 # ! Neutral (+0.4)

    In this day and age most wars are fought via air and sea, whoever has superiority of the skies and oceans will win any battle. It's not like the old days where you had to put troops down to destroy stuff. The American airforce could wipe out what planes China has without too many issues, yes it would loose a few planes but as soon as air superiority is established and anti air defences in China rendered moot the battle would be pretty much won.

    Comment by Anonymous
    09:36 13/01/2014 # ! Neutral (+0.4)

    The first part happened, the reverse of the 2nd part also happened.

    It was called the Korean War. They fought us back then with WWI era rifles, no navy, no air force, just a whole lot of infantry causalities. Then the American population got sick of the much lower amount of causalities on our own side, and that was that.

    Comment by Anonymous
    03:09 14/01/2014 # ! Neutral (+0.2)

    Technology may have advanced, but the ability to bomb the hell out of the enemy already existed then, and it didn't solve the problem...

    Avatar of Tasche
    Comment by Tasche
    08:22 13/01/2014 # ! Neutral (+0.2)

    "Operation Human Shield" - South Park. XD

    Comment by Anonymous
    08:35 13/01/2014 # ! Neutral (+0.2)

    if they start a war we'll all going to lose for sure.

    anything in china will explode

    Comment by Anonymous
    10:12 13/01/2014 # ! Neutral (+0.2)

    You can't really compare. Technology has advanced so much since the Korean conflict.

    Comment by Anonymous
    15:36 13/01/2014 # ! Neutral (0)

    The thing is, China has to be aware of their situation. They have to know that if they instigate war, or if they join in on a war instigated by another party, it won't end until they sign a treaty that gives majority control of their resources to someone else. They have 90% of rare earth metals sitting in their territory, and they've been ever keen to point it out, and every civilized, developed country wants those resources. If China doesn't know that, then they're in for a world of trouble. And the US is very good at treaties that neuter countries on its watch list, and the British have damn good practice at it too.

    Comment by Anonymous
    00:30 16/01/2014 # ! Neutral (0)

    Any sort of war against China would be lost by the US not on the front, but at home. Consumer product prices would skyrocket, especially gadgets and electronics. Let's see how long the US population supports a war that kills their iPad and iPhone supply.

    Comment by Anonymous
    23:45 13/01/2014 # ! Neutral (0)

    You need to read Tom Clancy's Bear and the Dragon. Still very relevant today to this whole situation.

    Comment by Anonymous
    04:47 14/01/2014 # ! Neutral (0)

    US could wipe out half of china ships and artillery (not counting prime militar targets such as ammo factories, electric plants, and such) with drones alone, witout loosing ONE soldier

    Comment by Anonymous
    11:31 13/01/2014 # ! Neutral (0)

    1:1? China always used cheap and abundant human lives to defeat better armed enemies.

    Ten thousand of losses would cause an outrage in other countries but it is nothing to China.

    Comment by Anonymous
    23:46 13/01/2014 # ! Neutral (0)

    "The thing is a war with the US would be 10 to one losses for them."

    "Being in the Chinese military would quickly become synonymous with being cannon fodder or walking hamburger."

    "many part of China is still a 3rd wold"

    Wow. You lot really have no clue about their military forces, do you? If they would start a war, even the US will be really fucked hard.

    Comment by Anonymous
    13:26 13/01/2014 # ! Neutral (0)

    maybe 10:1 is possible but 1:1? hell no

    many part of China is still a 3rd wold

    Comment by Anonymous
    14:50 13/01/2014 # ! Neutral (0)

    If war with China did break out the Chinese population would probably use it to try and usurp the communist government in a MASSIVE revolt. Sure their massive population can be used against armies to overwhelm, but if ti turns on them it can be used against them.

    Comment by Anonymous

    But if america losses its carrier in japan the most likely course of action would be the us nuking the Chinese coast

    Avatar of Strength
    Comment by Strength
    10:15 14/01/2014 # ! Neutral (0)

    More like blockade Chinese goods and embargo any and all production. Yes, it would hurt the US economy undoubtedly, but it would DESTROY China's already unstable economy.

    Comment by Anonymous
    01:44 14/01/2014 # ! Neutral (0)

    Don't be silly. America would only nuke another country in this day and age if the impossible happened and an enemy nuke hit the continent.

    Comment by Anonymous
    19:39 16/01/2014 # ! Neutral (0)

    well if war did break out and we blockade chinese goods from the US, think of how many new factories we could open to replace those goods, we could actually increase the economic output by increasing jobs and lowing the unemployment rate... just saying..

    Comment by Anonymous

    Their massive population would be the good target for nuclear bomb.

    Comment by Anonymous
    16:58 13/01/2014 # ! Neutral (0)

    Not sure about that...

    Avatar of Strength
    Comment by Strength
    10:17 14/01/2014 # ! Neutral (0)

    What is it with all these kids talking about "Nuking" countries? That age is long gone, the only countries reckless enough to launch are potentially Pakistan and India against each other. Most other countries either lack the technological sophistication or just have better sense.
    More damage can be done by far by the economy than any bomb.

    Avatar of Tasche
    Comment by Tasche
    06:34 13/01/2014 # ! Quality (+1.0)


    China: "We got anti-ship ballistic missiles!"
    USA & UK: "We got Tridents and other nuclear sub-launched missiles bro."

    Comment by Anonymous
    09:17 13/01/2014 # ! Neutral (+0.4)

    @Tasche 06:34:

    Pulling out the nukes is not the best first-option, but there are less-extreme-yet-still-effective options.

    American President: "China has some new carrier-killer missiles, eh? Let's just sneak an 'upgrade' into their flight-control firmware, heh-heh-heh."

    Option A (subtle): the missiles "just happen" to narrowly miss their targets (US carriers).

    Option B: (less-subtle): the missiles detonate at launch time T minus 20.

    Avatar of Conduit
    Comment by Conduit
    19:32 13/01/2014 # ! Neutral (0)

    The chances of these missiles actually working are pretty damn slim. Hitting a stationary target a thousand miles away is incredibly difficult, hitting a moving target a thousand miles away is down right impossible without highly sophisticated hardware and software that quite frankly, the Chinese just don't have. The best China can do with their dongs is spray and pray.

    Comment by Anonymous
    21:01 13/01/2014 # ! Neutral (+0.4)

    You're wrong there actually. Just have 3+ satellites in the air that can guide the missile, have the ship focused on with the GPS-signal and there you go.
    Any nation that can built satellites, launch and control them and which also can built and launch ballistic missiles, ought to be able to pull it off.

    Avatar of Tere
    Comment by Tere
    22:01 13/01/2014 # ! Neutral (+0.2)

    It's ballistic. Do you know what that means? It means it has no way to significantly correct it's course once launched. It's fuel is gone, and it's control surfaces are not large enough to do much more than keep it's warhead pointed at the ground. It MIGHT be able to make a correction of a dozen meters or so, but that's about it. Anything more extreme would probably send the warhead tumbling erratically.

    Simply increasing the carrier's speed would be enough to avoid it, given the time a long-range ballistic weapon is in-route to the target. By the time the carrier has the least amount of time between launch and the missile getting to the target, the launch sites would be in range of fighter-bombers.

    Saturate the target? Then you'd have most of them destroying themselves via fratricide. Carriers are big, but not so big that you'd be able to safely target one with more than two ballistic missiles.

    This is a bluff, plain and simple. They might have a ballistic missile that hit a carrier. As long as that carrier just sits there and waits for it.

    Avatar of Conduit
    Comment by Conduit
    06:37 14/01/2014 # ! Neutral (0)

    @anon 21:01
    China does not have a satellite based tracking and guidance system, they've barely managed to put two basic spy satellites into orbit.

    Comment by Anonymous
    17:16 14/01/2014 # ! Neutral (0)


    Would you stop pulling this stuff out of your ass? It's embarrassing.

    China has its own satellite net for their version of the GPS system. So does Ruissa, actually, although it's much smaller than US and China's.

    Comment by Anonymous
    06:00 14/01/2014 # ! Neutral (0)


    That is not what ballistic means, lol. Well, it's what the word means literally, but ballistic missiles can correct course on reentry just fine. Stop embarrassing yourself.

    Comment by Anonymous
    04:53 15/01/2014 # ! Neutral (0)

    Aircraft Carriers have already been obsolete for several decades. Modern anti-shipping missiles already have the capacity to easily destroy CAGs despite escorts. Purpose manufacturing ballistic missiles is pure propaganda, and are far less efficient then cruise missiles and torpedoes.

    Also satellites are useless locating moving oceanic vessels. Satellites as their name implies are constantly orbiting the earth, which means they spend only scant minutes overlooking parts of the ocean. Satellites are great for finding static emplacements, docked vessels, etc.

    All in all, just China making a bunch a noise about something that is useless, against a problem that already has a solution. As usual.

    Comment by Anonymous
    04:53 16/01/2014 # ! Neutral (0)


    Where did you get this stuff from? Ever heard of geosynchronous orbit? It's so saturated with both military and civilian satellites that there's not enough antisatellite missiles in the world to take down 0.1% of them.

    Satellites have zero trouble locating and tracking large objects like carriers. Even tracking fast moving jets via atmosphere distortion, had been considered old tech since 2 decades ago.

    The last time any carrier battlegroup got "lost" was in WWII.

    Comment by Anonymous
    09:52 13/01/2014 # ! Neutral (0)

    Actually, these missiles are entirely domestically produced. Much of American military hardware, on the other hand, are made in China.

    Oh the irony...

    Avatar of Conduit
    Comment by Conduit
    19:13 13/01/2014 # ! Good (+0.6)

    Anon might want to check his facts before running his mouth. 100% of US military hardware is made domestically.

    Comment by Anonymous
    06:01 14/01/2014 # ! Neutral (0)

    Comment by Anonymous
    21:19 22/05/2014 # ! Neutral (0)

    Thats strange, since i know off many companies over here in Europe that have monopoly of delivering specific parts for the US military.
    ex. 148 parts of the Apache including most of its GPS system is made by Kitron, not talking about all those weapons you buy from Kongsberg... damn, even your president is protected by Norwegian "penguins"
    but you guys cant have an foreign missile in you fleets so you call it AGM-119 instead and if anyone asks is an domestic made missile even if its stands "made in Norway" on the side of it...

    Comment by Anonymous
    11:33 13/01/2014 # ! Neutral (0)

    Hacking. America have used it before to attack possible threats you know?

    Avatar of Tasche
    Comment by Tasche
    11:57 13/01/2014 # ! Neutral (+0.2)

    just saying; they have the arsenal to make any country think twice. Of course, nukes are out of the question. But any military action in that region probably be condemned to high heaven by the UN regardless of China's security council membership.

    Personally, i think its a lose-lose situation for China in the region. They need to sit down and have a time-out in the corner.

    Comment by Anonymous
    11:16 14/01/2014 # ! Neutral (0)

    There is absolutely NO point!

    Japan is done for, total radioaction there. Soon they will be ALL dead, and few years after... us too.

    Comment by Anonymous
    23:17 16/01/2014 # ! Neutral (0)

    I find irony in the fact that the only time we ever praise America in military investment is when China, Russia or any other non American friendly country invests in military too.

    Like seriously? What is it with the 'murica boner whenever it comes to military and weapons, yet whenever Iran or such pop up with investing into the same we shout warmongers and nationalists?

    Comment by Anonymous
    09:24 13/01/2014 # ! Neutral (0)

    Nukes are out of the question... for the main reason that all the fallout and radiation (clouds) would end up landing right on japan.
    china is pushing hard to find the breaking point...proverbial dont step over the line I drew in the sand...this is a powder keg with a long fuse but it will explode...

    Comment by Anonymous
    10:09 13/01/2014 # ! Neutral (+0.2)

    The technology exists to shoot down nukes before they come anywhere close to the coast of any country. This is why Obama sent that defense system thing near Hawaii when Kim Jong Un was threatening to nuke. The fallout wouldn't be that bad if it was shot down in the sea.

    Avatar of Conduit
    Comment by Conduit
    19:44 13/01/2014 # ! Neutral (0)

    Fallout would be nonexistent, you only get fallout from a full nuclear detonation, and shooting the missile down would not trigger a detonation.

    Comment by Anonymous
    04:26 15/01/2014 # ! Neutral (0)

    You don't get a radioactive fallout cloud, but if you breach the plutonium containment, you have raw plutonium leaking into the environment. If you know a damn thing about just how incredibly destructive raw plutonium is, you know that's some serious shit; sea landing or not.

    Comment by Anonymous
    09:50 13/01/2014 # ! Neutral (0)

    And not because they'll fire back? Oh right, I forgot 'Murica is immune to nukes...

    Post Comment »


Recent News

Recent Galleries

Recent Comments