Talk:JL-2: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 02:53, 22 September 2009

Military history: Technology / Weaponry / Asian / Chinese Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force
	Asian military history task force
	Chinese military history task force

China Start‑class

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Inaccuracy.

The JL-2 was not launched in 2001, it wasn't anywhere near operational until 2004-2005. I cannot cite my source, as it is not public domain, but it should be noted. The launch that eportedly occured in 2001 was a rehashing of the JL-1 to assure the PLAN of the working status of the archaic mod-Golf in anticipation of future testing. Also note that the mod-Golf and the mod-Romeo up in the NSF both test multiple systems, and are very frequently refitted to accomodate them.

Actually, it wasn't successfully test launched in 2001. They did actually try to launch it. I may not have worded that quite appropriately. Jaguitar (talk) 22:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, it should be noted that the JL-2 is the first weapon in the PLAN arsenal that has the potential to strike US soil from the safety of the Bohi Gulf, leaving the launching platform inaccesible to conventonal retaliation - and due to the stated 'first strike' mentality of the PLA(AF/N)'s nuclear arsenal controllers/leaders in the case of conflict with the US, this creates a substantial threat to US defense. This weapon, along with the North Korean and Iranian weapon programs, led to the further development of the US Balistic Missile Defense system (tested in Hawaiian waters last year with the JSNDF).Jaguitar (talk) 19:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Capability - over-estimate

The JL-2's range is thought to be up to 8,000 km, according to the US DOD intelligence which should be the most accurate reference. It's definitely not 12,000 km or greater. Even the US Navy's most advanced SLBM only has a range of up to 11,000 km. At 8,000 km, the JL-2 cannot reach the US Mainland from the Chinese coast. They got to sail past Japan to get there. Please do not exaggerate the JL-2 capability. Heilme (talk) 15:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still see some editors reverting back to 12,000 km range. Once again this is not true. Please check the reference - US DOD report on China's military 2008 - in the very last page of this reference. -Heilme (talk) 01:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Intelligence" -- over-estimate

You wrote:"...according to the US DOD intelligence which should be the most accurate reference..." This statement is puzzling at best. And based on what track record of accuracy are you making that statement about the US DOD's intelligence? In recent times, the DOD's annual reports have been as reliable as your neighborhood theme park's fortune- teller machine. They have been repeatedly proven wrong on almost every major aspect of China's military development. Instead, the most reliable sources have been the "leaks" of information from the Internet. The DOD's woefully inaccurate assessments are most obvious in their drastic revisions from year to year that seem laughably incongruent with data from preceding years. So, I would treat DOD's "intelligence" accuracy with a hefty grain of salt and NOT accord it any authoritative value simply because it comes from a big name dept. called the DOD.

@@ Line 14: / Line 14: @@
 The JL-2's range is thought to be up to 8,000 km, according to the US DOD intelligence which should be the most accurate reference. It's definitely not 12,000 km or greater. Even the US Navy's most advanced SLBM only has a range of up to 11,000 km. At 8,000 km, the JL-2 cannot reach the US Mainland from the Chinese coast. They got to sail past Japan to get there. Please do not exaggerate the JL-2 capability. [[User:Heilme|Heilme]] ([[User talk:Heilme|talk]]) 15:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 ::I still see some editors reverting back to 12,000 km range. Once again this is not true. Please check the reference - US DOD report on China's military 2008 - in the very last page of this reference. -[[User:Heilme|Heilme]] ([[User talk:Heilme|talk]]) 01:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
+::"Intelligence" -- over-estimate
+You wrote:"...according to the US DOD intelligence which should be the most accurate reference..." This statement is puzzling at best. And based on what track record of accuracy are you making that statement about the US DOD's intelligence? In recent times, the DOD's annual reports have been as reliable as your neighborhood theme park's fortune- teller machine. They have been repeatedly proven wrong on almost every major aspect of China's military development. Instead, the most reliable sources have been the "leaks" of information from the Internet. The DOD's woefully inaccurate assessments are most obvious in their drastic revisions from year to year that seem laughably incongruent with data from preceding years. So, I would treat DOD's "intelligence" accuracy with a hefty grain of salt and NOT accord it any authoritative value simply because it comes from a big name dept. called the DOD.