Tag Archives: Missile

Fact Check : China Threatens West With Waterloo In SCS?

Did China Threaten West With Waterloo In South China Sea?

Did China threaten the West with a repeat of the Battle of Waterloo in the South China Sea?

Find out what is this Chinese threat going viral on social media, and what the FACTS really are…

 

Claim : China threatens West with Battle of Waterloo in South China Sea!

In the viral poster being shared on social media, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying is seen warning Western powers – Don’t Let It Become Your Waterloo! with a hypothetical scenario.

It was originally posted sometime in July 2020, but was “reactivated” in May 2021 during heightened tensions with the West.

WARNING ISSUED TO WESTERN ALLIES IN SOUTH CHINA SEA

Don’t Let It Become Your Waterloo!

The scenario :

  • An attack by US, UK, Australia & Japanese naval forces will be met with electronic disabling of all ships and planes making them sitting targets…
  • US & allies missiles will fail to fire & if they do may explode mid air or re-directed to return to base!
  • The Chinese will give them one warning to withdraw or be sunk!
  • WATERLOO REPLAYED IN 60 MINUTES OF LESS

 

China threatens West with Waterloo in South China Sea : Complete BS

While it may excite pro-China netizens, this is yet another piece of “fan fiction”, like US Navy withdrawing from South China Sea or Mark Zuckerberg’s Not Pretty China Wife.

Fact #1 : Hua Chunying Never Threatened Waterloo

Anyone who checks Hua Chunying’s official Twitter account can confirm that she never posted such a threat.

She may be sarcastic and controversial in her remarks, but she is the official spokesperson for the Chinese Foreign Ministry.

Such an overt threat of military action against the US, UK, Australia and Japan, will be seen as an official declaration of hostile intent by China.

It would certainly free the West to ramp up their support of Taiwan, and to actively prepare for hostilities with China.

Fact #2 : Chinese Censors Would Not Have Allowed Such Fake News, Unless…

Such a fake post would not be allowed to be shared on social media, especially Chinese microblogs, without the expressed permission of the Chinese government.

Chinese censors actively and quickly remove all references to anything remotely critical of the Chinese government, like the 1989 Tiananmen Square protest and massacre, or the Hong Kong protests.

We should also not forget that they quickly clamped down on Dr. Li Wenliang when he tried to warn his fellow doctors about COVID-19, forcing him to sign a letter promising not to do it again.

So it would only be possible for any Chinese-related fake news to be spread so widely, with the tacit approval of the Chinese government.

Fact #3 : EMP Weapons Can Disable Ships + Planes, But…

EMP (Electromagnetic Pulse) weapons can be used to disrupt or destroy electronics on ships and planes, but they are not magical weapons as claimed in the post :

  • High-Altitude EMP (HEMP) weapons detonate nuclear warheads in the stratosphere to disrupt electronics in a wide area.
  • Non-Nuclear EMP (NNEMP) weapons that use high explosives to deliver a much smaller electromagnetic pulse.
  • High-Powered Microwave (HPM) weapons like magnetrons and vircators – think of them as primitive versions of the ion cannons you see in Star Wars.

A Chinese HEMP weapon would destroy electronics in a very large area (including their own), so it won’t be deployed close to their own coast. This is something they would deploy against the US homeland.

An NNEMP missile would be something the Chinese would use against a carrier group, affecting a relatively small area – several dozen kilometres. However, these missiles would require constant targeting data, or the carrier group could simply move out of danger in mere minutes.

HPM weapons are still rather primitive with very short range. They also cannot target mass targets like EMP weapons.

Fact #4 : Disabled Missiles Won’t Return To Base

We applaud the writer for his/her creativity, but unlike regular mail, missiles don’t come with a return address.

Missiles disabled by EMP weapons, or electronic jammers, will just lose direction or fall harmlessly out of the sky.

They won’t, however, fly back to their base like homing pigeons. Neither can the Chinese reprogram them to return to base…

Fact #5 : China Is The Aggressor Here

While the writer warns of reprisals if the US, UK, Australia and Japan attack, the fact of the matter is – China is the aggressor in the South China Sea.

Whatever may have happened in the past, the US, UK, Australia and Japan are not the ones illegally building artificial islands, or militarising them, or threatening harm to passing ships and planes.

There is no danger of the US, UK, Australia or Japan attacking China. No one in the right mind would believe in such nonsense.

Rather, the danger lies in Chinese overreach in the South China Sea sparking a war, like how Hitler’s overreach with the invasion of Poland started World War 2.

Arguably, only an attack on Taiwan would draw the Western powers (sans Japan) to intervene militarily, and a military occupation of the Senkaku Islands would force Japan and the US to respond militarily.

Fact #6 : China Would Be The French At Waterloo

It’s not certain why China would warn the Western powers and Japan that they would face their own Battle of Waterloo.

In the Battle of Waterloo, it was Napoleon who attacked the allied forces from Prussia, the UK, the Netherlands, Hanover, Brunswick and Nassau.

In this fan fiction, China would be the French at Waterloo, fighting against the allied forces from the US, UK, Australia and Japan.

Is the writer suggesting that China is bound to lose against the allied forces? Interesting…

 

Help Support My Work!

If you would like to support my work, you can do so via bank transfer /  PayPal / credit card.

Name : Adrian Wong

Credit Card / Paypal : https://paypal.me/techarp
Bank Transfer : CIMB 7064555917 (Swift Code : CIBBMYKL)

Thank you in advanced! 

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Fact Checks | AerospaceTech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

If you like our work, you can help support our work by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or even donating to our fund. Any help you can render is greatly appreciated!


Can Donald Trump Really Blame Iran For Rocket Attack?

Donald Trump just accused Iran of the rocket attack on the US embassy in Baghdad, threatening retaliation!

Take a look at the picture of three rockets he posted, and find out what the facts really are!

 

Donald Trump : Iran Responsible For Rocket Attack On US Embassy

Even in the waning days of his Presidency, Donald Trump isn’t quite done with Iran.

In a new threat against the Islamic Republic of Iran, Trump posted a picture of three unfired rockets, which he claimed were from Iran.

Our embassy in Baghdad got hit Sunday by several rockets. Three rockets failed to launch. Guess where they were from: IRAN. Now we hear chatter of additional attacks against Americans in Iraq…Some friendly health advice to Iran: If one American is killed, I will hold Iran responsible. Think it over.

As Trump isn’t a very popular president outside of his fanatical base (no kidding), there is much skepticism about his post.

Some have pointed out that the rockets have English markings and could be American-made. Others wonder if these are even rockets – they look more like large versions of a rifle cartridge than rockets.

 

Rocket Attack On US Embassy : A Quick Primer

Before we look into the veracity of Trump’s claims, here’s a quick primer on the rocket attack on the US embassy in Baghdad, Iraq.

At around 8:30 PM on Sunday, 20 December 2020, approximately 21 rockets were fired on the US embassy in Baghdad.

Only about half of the rockets hit the embassy compound, while the others missed and hit an Iraqi apartment complex and vehicles near the embassy.

Photo Credit : Reuters/Landov

In the end, two buildings and a gym in the embassy, vehicles outside the embassy and a generator at the apartment complex, were damaged.

There was only one injury – an Iraqi soldier – no one else died or were injured by the attack.

 

Is Iran Responsible For Rocket Attack On US Embassy?

Unfortunately, the answer isn’t quite so simple as yes or no, Iran did or did not fire those rockets at the US embassy in Baghdad.

Let’s take a look at the facts…

Fact #1 : Those Are 107 mm Haseb Rockets

The Haseb is an Iranian copy of the Chinese Type 63-2 – a spin-stabilised 107 mm rocket with a high-explosive (HE) warhead.

The entire rocket weighs about 18 kg, with an 8 kg cast TNT warhead and a Chinese MJ-1 (Jiàn-1) impact and graze fuse.

Fact #2 : Iran Manufactures + Uses 107mm Haseb Rockets

Haseb rockets are manufactured by Iran’s Armaments Industries Group (AIG), and used by Iranian forces as a short-ranged barrage weapon.

In this picture, IRGC commandos are seen loading a Type 63 rocket launcher mounted onto a pickup truck.

Fact #3 : The English Markings Are Genuine

Some sharp-eyed netizens noticed that rockets have English words on them, instead of Farsi or Arabic words :

107mm ROCKET
LOT : 573
DATE : 2016
N.W : 18kg
R.No. : 2103

This has led to suggestions that the rockets may be fake, or made by Americans themselves, or replicas of the real rockets used in a false flag operation.

Here you can see the actual rockets (on the left) and inert replicas of the Haseb rockets. No doubt they look very similar.

However, there is really no need for the US military to purchase replicas even for a false flag operation. Many Haseb rockets have been captured over the years.

The English markings do not mean they are American-made. The Haseb rocket is also made for export by Iran’s Armaments Industries Group (AIG), and so uses English markings.

The inert replica above has English markings, because the real Haseb rockets have English markings.

Fact #4 : Haseb Rockets Have A Very Short Range

Haseb rockets have a very short range – up to 9 kilometres, and are not very accurate.

That means they would have to be fired very close to the Baghdad Green Zone in order to have a reasonable chance of hitting the US embassy inside.

Any suggestion that Iranian forces fired them inside Baghdad itself would be ludicrous. Even if Iran wanted to strike at the Americans, they would use an allied militant group to make attribution difficult.

Fact #5 : Attribution Is Difficult

The Haseb rockets are not exclusively used by Iranian forces. They are exported to Iranian auxiliary forces and allied militant groups like the Hezbollah.

So it would not be possible for the United States to directly attribute the rocket attack to Iran, unless they capture the people who actually fired the rockets.

It could also be a rogue militant group, or even a false flag action by a rival nation-state. After all, numerous examples of the Haseb rocket have been captured by other militant groups and even countries like Israel.

In fact, Gen. Frank McKenzie, who leads the US Central Command and once warned that American forces imminent threat from Iran specifically told The Wall Street Journal,

I do not know the degree to which Iran is complicit. We do not seek a war, and I don’t actually believe they seek one either.

Even Iran-backed Kataib Hezbollah described the rocket attack on the US embassy as “undisciplined“.

Fact #6 : We Don’t Know Who Owned Those Rockets

The three Haseb rockets that Donald Trump posted were obviously not fired.

But whether they “failed to launch” as Trump claimed, or were simply captured unfired, is unknown. Trump likely can’t tell the difference.

Unless the rocketeers were captured together with these three rockets, it would be impossible to also attribute the rocket attack to any particular group, never mind Iran.

Even so, the mere possession of these rockets does not mean that they actually launched that particular attack.

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Cybersecurity | AerospaceHome

 

Support Tech ARP!

If you like our work, you can help support us by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or even donating to our fund. Any help you can render is greatly appreciated!