|
Maybe not with carriers, probably with submarines, unless the water is too shallow. bewbies posted:Well, no one is "sure" of anything, to include the Chinese, but it isn't just "the media" that is concerned about it. Every military and intelligence service with equities in the matter is assuming China's ASBM capability is legitimate. Well we already know that targeting land-based installations would be a substantial escalation from the Chinese, but haven't they had the ability to strike land targets for some time now? I was mostly talking about anti-ship missiles. How have their attempts at ISR upgrades been going? The first island chain is completely controlled by the US and their allies which would seem to be a huge problem for the ability of the Chinese to sense what's going on beyond their littorals during wartime. poo poo, the US and Japan have had a network of undersea sensors stretching from South Korea to Andaman & Nicobar for a while now that completely seals the Chinese in that nobody ever talks about, meaning it would be hard for the Chinese to gather intelligence even via submarines.
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 02:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 14:57 |
|
|
Targeting a moving ship at sea in the vast expanses of the ocean is a difficult task, it requires a multitude of supporting assets ranging from Over the horizon radar stations and high endurance maritime surveillance aircraft, to orbital assets such as Electro optical imaging satellites, Synthetic Aperture radar satellites, and the communications satellites to send all that data to a command centre in order to tie an image together to form a killchain. It requires all that to occur at considerable speed in order to have a picture that is not out of date as the ship moves. The Chinese military is aware of the targeting capabilities that need to be acquired in order to support a robust kill chain for an AShBM and they have been acquiring each one of those. In the orbital regime: http://www.popsci.com/china-to-launch-worlds-most-powerful-hyperspectral-satellite http://www.popsci.com/gaofen-4-worlds-most-powerful-geo-spy-satellite-continues-chinas-great-leap-forward-into-space In terms of maritime patrol aircraft and High Altitude Long Endurance drones: http://www.popsci.com/y-8q-chinas-submarine-hunting-plane-has-giant-stinger http://www.popsci.com/closer-look-chinas-divine-eagle-drone OTH radars: http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/china/oth-b.htm Specific command organisation to rapidly process targeting data: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Liberation_Army_Rocket_Force The actual task of making a booster rocket, separating a warhead at the appropriate stage and having it target and maneuver onto a ship sized target is less troublesome than creating a hit to kill space based interceptor. The speeds of approach and precision required are far lower. There was an rudimentary Anti Ship Missile capability that the Soviet Union developed 40 years ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-27_Zyb#R-27K, albeit one that relied on a nuclear warhead. Now, technology has advanced enough in 40 years that a conventional AshBM is a viable technology. Quite frankly, any nation that has the capabilities to create a hit to kill anti-satellite interceptor should have no insurmountable problems in manufacturing an anti-ship ballistic missile. These combined targeting and missile capabilities are exceptionally complex, but they are physically possible and China has invested a lot of time, effort and resources into acquiring them as an asymmetric counter to US power projection. They saw the effects that airpower and precision strike wreaked in Gulf War 1 and acquired the capabilities to prevent that massing of forces and sortie factory from being set up in their backyard. They saw, made notes and acquired the requisite capabilities to prevent that. In terms of foreign policy influence. These capabilities solidify the deterrent for any warmonger policymaker to view 'bombing China' as an acceptable option in the range of diplomatic options, it takes the kinetic option off the table for those policymakers. Because there is no chance of any general or POTUS selling a war with China as a 'Short, easy war' In terms of day to day activity. There's very little difference that these capabilities make to day to day operations, because no one intends to go to war with each other. There has been plenty of posturing over questionable claims from all the claimants in the SCS area but no one has shot anyone, no one has killed anyone, not a single ship has been stopped from conducting its freedom of navigation and it is in the best interests of all claimants to keep it that way. Most of all China, as 80% all the shipping in the SCS is Chinese trade. War with the United States would be the worst possible thing that could happen to China and CCP leadership is acutely aware of that. There is no intention to utilise that capacity to conduct an out of the blue attack when every single policy goal that China has, can be achieved without the use of military force. In terms of national strategy, those capabilities are seen as more as a deterrent from foreign military (US) intervention ( specifically a US blockade of the SCS and malacca straights), to keep the other side non kinetic whilst the real heavy lifting tools of diplomacy get to work; i.e. economic incentives.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 03:15
|
|
|
Mr Crustacean posted:Targeting a moving ship at sea in the vast expanses of the ocean is a difficult task, it requires a multitude of supporting assets ranging from Over the horizon radar stations and high endurance maritime surveillance aircraft, to orbital assets such as Electro optical imaging satellites, Synthetic Aperture radar satellites, and the communications satellites to send all that data to a command centre in order to tie an image together to form a killchain. It requires all that to occur at considerable speed in order to have a picture that is not out of date as the ship moves. I wish that there was a way to independently verify the capabilities of these Chinese weapons beyond what the Chinese government says, although I suppose you can't independently verify the capabilities of any military weapon period, including those of the USA. I did notice one of those articles acted as if the Chinese had developed a functional manned scramjet but I remember when that story broke earlier this year and it turned out that the only evidence of its existence was an article in a Chinese aviation magazine that was subsequently pulled, so I don't know. I think that the problem of Chinese intelligence-gathering capabilities even with those tools is still present. Anti-access can be a two-way street, and the deployment of those surveillance aircraft would require Chinese air superiority over the Western Pacific, which they will not have, and relying entirely on satellite imagery to conduct a missile strike (assuming that US and Chinese satellites would even still be over the pacific in a shooting war) would mean a pretty significant amount of intelligence decay in the span it takes for the missile to be launched and arrive at its target; enough that any target could conceivably just move out of the way. Unless the Chinese can actually consistently and reliably gather intelligence from beyond the First Island Chain, they would have significant difficulty even locating enemy ships to sink, much less actually doing it. This isn't entirely me armchair-clancying either; the absolute US/Japanese dominance of the First Island Chain vexes Chinese military planners constantly and their frustration at being so boxed in has been driving their military doctrine for years now. quote:In terms of foreign policy influence. "Bomb China" hasn't been a viable foreign policy option since the Korean War and that was even before the Chinese acquired nuclear weapons. They don't need ASBM's to take this option off the table. quote:In terms of national strategy, those capabilities are seen as more as a deterrent from foreign military (US) intervention ( specifically a US blockade of the SCS and malacca straights), to keep the other side non kinetic whilst the real heavy lifting tools of diplomacy get to work; i.e. economic incentives. Ehh, do Chinese land-based anti-ship missiles have the range to attack the strait of Malacca?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 04:00
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:"Bomb China" hasn't been a viable foreign policy option since the Korean War and that was even before the Chinese acquired nuclear weapons. They don't need ASBM's to take this option off the table. Unleash Chang!
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 04:19
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:I think that the problem of Chinese intelligence-gathering capabilities even with those tools is still present. Anti-access can be a two-way street, and the deployment of those surveillance aircraft would require Chinese air superiority over the Western Pacific, which they will not have, and relying entirely on satellite imagery to conduct a missile strike (assuming that US and Chinese satellites would even still be over the pacific in a shooting war) would mean a pretty significant amount of intelligence decay in the span it takes for the missile to be launched and arrive at its target; enough that any target could conceivably just move out of the way. Unless the Chinese can actually consistently and reliably gather intelligence from beyond the First Island Chain, they would have significant difficulty even locating enemy ships to sink, much less actually doing it. I feel you're overestimating how fast ships move. Any ship will still be in a tiny bubble of a few nautical miles of its location when launched. If the missile receives no external input during its transit its still going to go through its regular target acquisition and course adjustment to impact the target. The theoretically most externally guided missile would still have to do its own internal target motion analysis within the last few moments to hit a carrier reliably. Modern fire control is very adaptive.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 04:21
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:I am anti-China and not worried about Chinese missiles at all, hypersonic or not. The media loving loves hyping up Chinas missile arsenal in particular due to a combination of uncritical acceptance of CCP propaganda and the fact that hyping up anything but the opaque Chinese missile program is a nonstarter. What suburb are you from anyway? MR...Burnaby expat? I remember being you...when i was in grade loving 10.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 04:39
|
|
|
All this China talk has me laughing. If you want to see something hilarious, then do a search in the archives of me mentioning the word China from like 10 years ago here in TFR. It was a lot of mindless babbling. Hopefully if you find some of it, you will be kind enough to see the humor and foresight equally. Today, I honestly believe that if china were to engage us it would be any more passive form of attack. Something along the lines of high altitude nuclear detonation. For the purpose of EMP affect. If someone turned off the lights in America for 90 days this place would flat fall apart.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 05:28
|
|
|
Nah, they'd just steal information about everyone that's ever applied for a security clearance.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 05:58
|
|
|
M_Gargantua posted:I feel you're overestimating how fast ships move. Any ship will still be in a tiny bubble of a few nautical miles of its location when launched. If the missile receives no external input during its transit its still going to go through its regular target acquisition and course adjustment to impact the target. The theoretically most externally guided missile would still have to do its own internal target motion analysis within the last few moments to hit a carrier reliably. Modern fire control is very adaptive. How vulnerable is that to conventional countermeasures without external input? Barring some sort of colossal leap (you might even say....a great leap forward?) in Chinese capabilities in this hypothetical scenario I am fairly confident that the Chinese would be mostly blind beyond the First Island Chain in a shooting war. Even if conventional countermeasures aren't particularly effective the US can blow up Chinese satellites just as easily as the Chinese can blow up US satellites.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 06:06
|
|
|
B4Ctom1 posted:All this China talk has me laughing. If you want to see something hilarious, then do a search in the archives of me mentioning the word China from like 10 years ago here in TFR. It was a lot of mindless babbling. From the article that first reported the newest Chinese missile test and the reporting source of what started this off: quote:Adm. Cecil Haney, commander of the U.S. Strategic Command, said Jan. 22 that the new hypersonic glide vehicle is among an array of high-technology missiles and weapons, both nuclear and conventional, being developed and deployed by Beijing. So, yeah, there's also a theoretical worry of them being used to deliver nuclear payloads (or at least this is one way to interpret the statement) against particular targets.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 08:22
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:How vulnerable is that to conventional countermeasures without external input? Obv most specifics are classified but hypersonic missiles are bad juju in a highly agile fighter, let alone a big slow boat. There are options like CIWS and ABMs (or f35 mounted lasers :grover:) for defense but anti shipping missiles are a lot cheaper than carriers and even a crappy pk will get results sooner or later.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 08:28
|
|
|
inkjet_lakes posted:Heard my first ever sonic boom last night after the RAF QRA went to help an airliner: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-36188979 Yeah the Facebook meltdown was pretty funny. They screamed over here (Doncaster) and I thought it was a thunderstorm! Yesterday someone posted a photo on FB supposedly from the Tiffie pilot saying, 'don't worry, we're safe from the French' or some poo poo. 
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 11:21
|
|
|
China has played a gradual territorial grab really well, but I don't think they are interested in open hostilities with the US/Allies, more of just having a significant deterrent to open hostilities over the considerable assets they have already claimed, of which a working ballistic missile capable of picking off carriers in addition to strikes on bases/fuel depots/whatever would be really handy in addition to the island bases/a few small carriers/half decent subs. If China miscalculates and pushes too far it could be a messy war, but I think it will largely stay cold due to that. That said, the potential ramifications of a working system are a bit scary- regardless of China's stated no first use policy. This wouldn't be potentially a weather satellite launch, or sunlight glinting off clouds that looked like ICBM launch plumes, they would be definite missile tracks headed towards targets, and the recipient wouldn't know if they were nuclear until it was potentially too late to retaliate properly. This would unbalance MAD, and that's a poo poo thing because while the self correction in MAD is normally pretty good the failure mode is catastrophic.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 13:09
|
|
|
Popping a tac nuke at a carrier wouldn't unbalance MAD. Also what the gently caress does "unbalancing MAD" even mean.
|
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 14:16
|
|
|
Mr Crustacean posted:
Could you list for me known demonstrations of a precision strike by a non-US medium range or greater ballistic missile? I'll believe that China can hit a carrier with a ballistic missile after they have shown that they can hit a non-moving land based target to within, say, 10 meters at ~1000 nmi. It's not as easily as you think and in many ways the hit-to-kill space based interceptor is much more straight forward. Anyway, this is exactly the threat that the SM-3 BMD is designed to defend against. The first step of which would be knocking out the recon sats being used to track the battle groups. Which we have demonstrated we can do a variety of ways. So, we're back to AshBM tech being only viable as a first strike weapon which makes it not so useful politically because it requires a scenario where China has to be the aggressor. e: Saturating an area with nukes is hardly the same thing.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 14:32
|
|
|
Neither China nor Russia are dependent on satellites for ISR over blue water. Also the decision to engage and destroy satellites in orbit is going to be one with political ramifications similar to that of launching a nuclear weapon.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 14:40
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:Also what the gently caress does "unbalancing MAD" even mean. The classic security dilemma where if you have a perfectly good missile shield all of a sudden nuclear weapons become viable without the fear of retaliation. MAD only works if both sides are pretty sure a war will annihilate everyone. As soon as one looks winnable all the international relations people theorize that the country that thinks they'll win will go for it.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 14:46
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:Popping a tac nuke at a carrier wouldn't unbalance MAD. In this context I think it is puttting another nuclear power in a situation where they have to fire their nukes before confirming if your missile has a nuke on it for fear of losing their nuclear retaliatory capability to that missile. Why this would invalidate the existence of SLBMs as a retaliatory weapon and hence unbalance MAD I have no idea.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 14:50
|
|
M_Gargantua posted:The classic security dilemma where if you have a perfectly good missile shield all of a sudden nuclear weapons become viable without the fear of retaliation. MAD only works if both sides are pretty sure a war will annihilate everyone. As soon as one looks winnable all the international relations people theorize that the country that thinks they'll win will go for it. That's a decent explanation of MAD, but it has nothing to do with "unblancing MAD". MAD is a binary state; either it exists or it does not. You do not require a balance of forces to ensure MAD. As an example, a nuclear power could completely devote itself to a second-strike counter-value force, while the opponent goes full on counter-force first-strike. The balance of forces will be completely different but the end result can still be MAD. Smiling Jack fucked around with this message at 15:02 on May 4, 2016 |
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 14:57
|
|
|
bewbies posted:Also the decision to engage and destroy satellites in orbit is going to be one with political ramifications similar to that of launching a nuclear weapon. Riiiight? If China wants to attack US BG's with Anit-ship BMs in any way then how is it not already a shooting war that's escalated? What scenario are you possibly envisioning? e: As far as China's blue water ISR assets able to provide real-time targeting data for a Ballistic Missile launch not being reliant on sat recon. Uh, with what totally passive US force are you envisioning? Murgos fucked around with this message at 15:22 on May 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 15:19
|
|
|
Murgos posted:Riiiight? If China wants to attack US BG's with Anit-ship BMs in any way then how is it not already a shooting war that's escalated? What scenario are you possibly envisioning? I'm honestly not sure what you're asking with either of these questions, could you rephrase?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 15:25
|
|
|
DesperateDan posted:China has played a gradual territorial grab really well, but I don't think they are interested in open hostilities with the US/Allies, more of just having a significant deterrent to open hostilities over the considerable assets they have already claimed, of which a working ballistic missile capable of picking off carriers in addition to strikes on bases/fuel depots/whatever would be really handy in addition to the island bases/a few small carriers/half decent subs. If China miscalculates and pushes too far it could be a messy war, but I think it will largely stay cold due to that. China is certainly not going to voluntarily to engage in open conflict with the United States, it would be an incredibly destructive and horrifically damaging act for themselves and it would go against 40 years of military non intervention in terms of foreign policy. The current, peaceful free trading global environment is the basis by which China has managed to lift itself out of abject poverty and the CCP are aware that it benefits them most of all to continue it. You have to look at the possible political scenarios in which a conflict could erupt and in none of them is 'launch a unilateral first strike on the United States' a credible scenario. You seem to have confused the possible MAD destabilsing aspects of hypersonic weapons with the perceived threat from Chinese conventional ballistic missile capabilities. In terms of China's conventional ballistic missile force, it is comprised of SRBMs and MRBMs. The only nukes they have are employed on ICBMs, which have a different flight profile compared to the conventional SRBMs and MRBMs. This combined with a declared no first use policy and the storage of warheads separate from their missiles allows them to have a conventional ballistic missile capability, whilst reassuring other actors that they will not be under nuclear attack. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_first_use Hypersonic weapons provide a dual role: in facilitating MAD, by being able to penetrate a missile shield and ensure the delivery of their payload, so no side is invulnerable to another. But they can also play a destabilising role for MAD, where they could potentially be used for a decapitating first strike, destroying the other nation's weapons before they could launch theirs. Both Russia and China are worried about US developments in missile interception technology and how that may diminish the credibility of their nuclear deterrents. Less so for the US and Russia as they both have a very large amount of warheads on missiles and a credible SSBN retaliatory capability. However, for China, the issue is particularly profound because of the very small size of their nuclear arsenal, it is deliberately a minimally sized retaliatory only nuclear capability. Only around 300 nuclear weapons, compared to around 5000 nukes that the US and Russia each possess. And especially because China does not currently have a credibly survivable SSBN 2nd strike capability. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_first_use The concerns about US missile shield development and the possible placing of THAAD sites in South Korea have raised huge concerns for China and they feel that they have been forced to MIRV their existing missiles and expand their warhead/missile count in order to maintain the credibility of their deterrent. The development of hypersonic missiles also acts to enhance the credibility of their deterrent, as well as enhance their conventional ballistic missile capabilities Murgos posted:Could you list for me known demonstrations of a precision strike by a non-US medium range or greater ballistic missile? I'll believe that China can hit a carrier with a ballistic missile after they have shown that they can hit a non-moving land based target to within, say, 10 meters at ~1000 nmi. It's not as easily as you think and in many ways the hit-to-kill space based interceptor is much more straight forward. That particular ancient Soviet era AShBM https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-27_Zyb#R-27K, was made over 40 years ago. It achieved a rough 400 metre CEP with vacuum tubes and analogue circuits. Technology has advanced immensely in the last 40 years, allowing a conventional version to be credible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pershing_II This was a US ballistic precision strike capability which was employed and validated over 30 years ago, achieving a 30 metre CEP. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9K720_Iskander This is a current Russian made world class ballistic precision strike capability, which has been employed and been validated in combat. It has a CEP of less than 10 metres and has the capability to engage moving targets via it's optical guidance system. Precision strike ballistic missile capabilities are real, they are credible. The physics behind them is credible and other nations are also capable of doing the same math as we can. Mr Crustacean fucked around with this message at 16:26 on May 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 15:56
|
|
|
As usual, TFR has blazed right past the most important variable in all of this nonsense. Who started this war and what is their objective? Is China trying to topple/conquer the United States? Is the US trying to kick off a Chinese regime change? Or is China militarizing those islands and shooting at any ships they've decided are violating Chinese sovereignty hundreds of miles out to sea? Or maybe they decided to try to invade some neighbors like Vietnam again. Anyway, unless this is defined you're all just arguing past each other because you all have your own pet scenario in your heads.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 16:34
|
|
|
Millions of scenarios, each more credible than the last!
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 16:40
|
|
|
Wouldn't it be more about increasing the number of scenarios which go well for them so that they can confidently do things which would provoke those scenarios? That'd mean the real important part is which scenarios it would be pivotal in.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 16:55
|
|
|
Godholio posted:As usual, TFR has blazed right past the most important variable in all of this nonsense. Would you like to play a game? FALKEN'S MAZE BLACK JACK GIN RUMMY HEARTS BRIDGE CHECKERS CHESS POKER FIGHTER COMBAT GUERRILLA ENGAGEMENT DESERT WARFARE AIR-TO-GROUND ACTIONS THEATERWIDE TACTICAL WARFARE THEATERWIDE BIOTOXIC AND CHEMICAL WARFARE GLOBAL THERMONUCLEAR WAR Mazz fucked around with this message at 17:21 on May 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 17:17
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:Wouldn't it be more about increasing the number of scenarios which go well for them so that they can confidently do things which would provoke those scenarios? That'd mean the real important part is which scenarios it would be pivotal in. This is a key argument. Which scenario's China would feel comfortable risking a limited shooting war over. The economic stress between them, Taiwan, the Koreas, Japan, The Philippines, (and personally I think Singapore although they get left out a lot), is very real. Territorial control over the South China seas is of immense economic value, and shifts in the control of them will put pressure on the other nations. You have pivotal questions around the re-nationalization of Taiwan. If they don't rejoin the mainland when if ever can we suppose china will force the issue? China has been posturing with the Senkaku islands for years now, at what point will they feel comfortable with landing military force on them? Japan will oppose it, an independent Taiwan will oppose it. But on the opposite side, Japan will only oppose military moves like that if it feels the US will support it. If US foreign policy commits to not involving a shooting war then China can seize the islands and no country will risk stopping them. Open warfare is a remote possibility because of the posturing for regional seizure in bloodless conflict. The theoretical results of combat heavily influence which routes are seen as feasible.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 17:48
|
|
|
China deploys folk singer to disputed Spratly Islands.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 18:02
|
|
|
Godholio posted:A-10 tooling was destroyed before most people here were born. Perhaps, but we can rebuild him.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 18:28
|
|
|
Godholio posted:As usual, TFR has blazed right past the most important variable in all of this nonsense. That's another thing; I can't think of an actual war that China could, you know, win once the full might of the US military arrives. Even if the Chinese pull off a perfect first strike how much time has that bought them? I think RAND suggested a week or so? They would have to accomplish all of their objectives (whatever they are) in that span of time or else it's over. A Chinese attempt to conquer Taiwan is a common scenario but it would involve the largest and most complex amphibious operation in history against an enemy that has been preparing for it for half a century, and that is even without any US intervention whatsoever, which is unlikely considering American submarine dominance.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 18:55
|
|
|
Quick, we need to retaliate to this blatant act of war. Someone send Paul Stookey to China.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 19:01
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:That's another thing; I can't think of an actual war that China could, you know, win once the full might of the US military arrives. Even if the Chinese pull off a perfect first strike how much time has that bought them? I think RAND suggested a week or so? They would have to accomplish all of their objectives (whatever they are) in that span of time or else it's over. It depends on how you define "win" - assuming non-nuclear (in which case we all lose), China lacks the naval power to keep us out of the Pacific, and the US lacks the manpower to occupy China. Nobody really wins, it just stalemates.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 19:14
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:That's another thing; I can't think of an actual war that China could, you know, win once the full might of the US military arrives. That is kind of the whole central idea of Chinese strategy...preventing the buildup of forces in the first place. PRC hopes that they have the firepower to essentially deny freedom of action to the navy and air force in the western Pacific, US and friends hope this is not so, because we cannot operate without air and naval supremacy.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 19:22
|
|
|
bewbies posted:That is kind of the whole central idea of Chinese strategy...preventing the buildup of forces in the first place. PRC hopes that they have the firepower to essentially deny freedom of action to the navy and air force in the western Pacific, US and friends hope this is not so, because we cannot operate without air and naval supremacy. The US hasn't had to operate without air and naval supremacy for some time but that doesn't mean that they can't do it. Denying freedom of action isn't the same as denying action period and I highly doubt that US and allied forces would be passive in this scenario. Not to mention, if a week or so has passed and the bulk of the US navy has been moved to the western pacific I don't see what the Chinese could do at that point. Sink the entire US Navy with ASBM's, assuming that they haven't already been blinded past the First Island Chain? The US would 100% win a drawn out conflict, and that is really really bad for China because it would mean they would need to accomplish all of their objectives in a very short period of time, before the full might of the US military can be turned to them, and that is simply not going to happen.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 19:37
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:The US hasn't had to operate without air and naval supremacy for some time but that doesn't mean that they can't do it. Denying freedom of action isn't the same as denying action period and I highly doubt that US and allied forces would be passive in this scenario. China doesn't need to be able to win a drawn out conflict with the US and they certainly don't want to have one. They just want to be able to make a shooting war painful enough for the US that we think twice before meddling with them and the area they claim as a sphere of influence. If China can't meaningfully harm the US military, we can do whatever we want right on their doorstep. If China has the capability to sink a carrier if they want to, we have to think "is it really worth risking a carrier over some rocks in the South China Sea" even if we know we'd eventually win the conflict that would result.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 19:44
|
|
|
B4Ctom1 posted:Today, I honestly believe that if china were to engage us it would be any more passive form of attack. Something along the lines of high altitude nuclear detonation. For the purpose of EMP affect. Ah yes, the classic 'One weird trick for destroying America, they don't want you to know about. It drives the Great Satan wild'. Since, as you correctly point out, it would destroy America, although more though mass starvation etc than fireballed cities, I've never understood why America doesn't massively retaliate in this scenario. It's like people think a devastating EMP attack doesn't count for some reason, so the perpetrator wouldn't be annhilated in return.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 19:45
|
|
|
Godholio posted:As usual, TFR has blazed right past the most important variable in all of this nonsense. In my EMP fantasy I see them as passive aggressors and saviors. They provide a complete reset of the American government as it is purged and then rebuilt in it's intended form (whatever that would end up being). Then as an olive branch, they offer aid, and a request that we consider reopening trade ASAP. With the proof that they are not evil being purely based on that they could have, but refused to, set foot on US soil with anything beyond requested aid.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 19:45
|
|
|
B4Ctom1 posted:In my EMP fantasy I see them as passive aggressors and saviors. Is...is this a fantasy of the PRC nuking America and then building a new US government? And you're treating it as a good thing?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 19:51
|
|
|
So a good solid six months ago I referenced a SEAD modernization concept paper, the version for public release was finally published today. For whoever wants some neck-deep military futures writing, have at! bewbies fucked around with this message at 19:55 on May 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 19:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 14:57 |
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Is...is this a fantasy of the PRC nuking America and then building a new US government? And you're treating it as a good thing? You seem to be confused. "Oh noes, my things, and my stuff! How can I Facebook now!?" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_electromagnetic_pulse#Weapon_altitude versus "WHARRGARBL the end of the world aaahhhhhh" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_warfare
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 19:54
|
|