XT
July 19, 2006, 5:09pm
41
They have…since at least the early 80’s IIRC. If they were to launch them at a US fleet they MIGHT damage or even sink a ship (maybe 2). They probably wouldn’t like what would happen to them in retaliation from that pissed off task force though…
-XT
XT
July 19, 2006, 5:13pm
42
From Wiki (if anyone is interested):
The HY-2 Haiying (Chinese: 海鹰; pinyin: hǎiyīng; literally “Sea Eagle”), known in Western media as the Silkworm missile, is an anti-ship cruise missile made by the People’s Republic of China and still used by many countries in the Middle East. Since the 1980s, the Silkworm has been superseded in the Chinese military by the far more sophisticated Yingji series.
…
The Silkworm was developed at the Institute of Mechanics under Tsien Hsue-shen, a Chinese scientist who did his graduate studies at MIT and Caltech, before being deported by the United States in 1955 after being suspected of Communist ties. A book about this scientist’s life was written by Iris Chang, entitled “Thread of the Silkworm.”
The Silkworm gained fame in the 1980s when it was used by both sides in the Iran-Iraq War; both countries were supplied by China. More recently, the missile was used by Iraq in the 2003 Iraq War.
So, they have had it at least since the Iran/Iraq war.
-XT
Not only isn’t that a rebuttal, but it’s not even very impressive sarcasm.
Shodan
July 20, 2006, 1:57pm
44
What’s to rebut?
“Section 4 of the [U.S.] Arms Export Control Act requires that military items transferred to foreign governments by the United States be used solely for internal security and legitimate self-defense,” says Stephen Zunes, professor of politics at the University of San Francisco.
“Since Israeli attacks against Lebanon’s civilian infrastructure and population centers clearly go beyond legitimate self-defense, the United States is legally obliged to suspend arms transfers to Israel,” Zunes told IPS.
The opinion of a politics professor at University of San Francisco is hardly legally binding. And it is very far from self-evident that Israel’s actions go beyond “legitimate self-defence”.
So this is his opinion, and doesn’t establish much except that it is his opinion.
IOW, cite?
Regards,