• TheOubliette@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    A plane with no weapons circled near some islands and dipped a toe into a tiny sliver of Japanese airspace - over water - in a single pass. Check the map.

    China is full of shit about it being unintentional, they’ve been playing grey zone games for quite a few years now and the nations around them have caught on.

    Your intellectual insight is to claim that this flight path was entirely designed around that one pass entering Japanese airspace? Perhaps you can share your spy recordings where they say, “surely this is how we will advance our cause”.

    I’d argue missile deployment is exactly proportional to an unplanned breach of airspace by a military asset.

    That flight path with a toe dip into airspace over ocean vs. missiles designed to carry nukes. Do you not understand the difference between offensive nuclear weapons and maybe hearing a plane flying offshore?

    It’s historically a pretty good idea to build up your defense when a neighbor is brandishing their military on your borders

    Are you afraid of that plane and its flight path? You’re using language as if it is a weapon and threat.

    • Gustephan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Lol, fuck off tankie. I’m not interested in debating apologists asking for asinine burdens of proof and resorting to childish personal attacks in their first response to my words. Go whine about me on grad or to your handler.

      • TheOubliette@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Sounds like you have no counterarguments. And I did not issue any personal attacks, though clearly your comment is just a hackneyed attempt at insulting someone with a realistic political understanding. Or do you think it is a personal attack to lightly make fun of absurd claims? One can only guess.

        • Gustephan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          I do have one counterargument. Get ratio’d, dumbass. To be clear, that is a blatant personal attack made because I have no respect for you or your suspiciously pro chinese shit-takes. You make the claim that a y-9 military Reconnaissance plane isn’t threatening because the lethal part of the weapon systems they enable are not physically located on said plane. How the fuck do you think target acquisition and guidance for mid to long range weapons works? Weapons like the Chinese df17, which is comparable to the US typhon system and already in position to fire on Japan. Any opinions about that one? Does Japan not have the same right to territorial defense as China? Enlighten me with your “realistic political understanding”

          • TheOubliette@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            You sound upset and are not saying particularly coherent things. It’s okay if you want to take some time to collect yourself, I don’t care about the timeline on which you respond.

            For example, you seem upset about perceived personal attacks even though I made none, but seem giddy to be insulting me. Ask yourself if this is correct and good behavior and if you believe you are following the golden rule. Presumably you were taught these things growing up.

            Re: it being a reconaissance plane, this is still not an actual offensive weapon nor is it comparable to something banned because it was meant for nukes.

            Re: DF17s, if your argument is that parity is justified then you would presumably justify Chins increasing the size of its military and weaponry about 10X and establishing several large bases circling the US, right? Or would you interpret this as a threatening escalation that must be met with even more weapons and capabilities encircling China?