Chinese carrier weapon

[Steel_Tomb]

http://www.rightsidenews.com/200907075369/homeland-security/chinese-develop-special-qkill-weaponq-to-destroy-us-aircraft-carriers.html

How credible is this? How could the US counter such a threat? It seems that the days of the carrier as we know it might be coming to a close with technology such as this. From what I read in the article it has a low RCS and unpredictable flight path that missile systems can't track it... making the Aeigis system redundant against these.

What do you think?

[Raptor1]

It's simple, if your carrier can't withstand them, you just have to find and kill them before they can launch

Besides, anything can be countered by something else, it's just a matter of time

Carriers don't become obsolete until you can match their capabilities with something else

[Jimbuna]

Should be interesting to see what antidote is invented....a vastly improved Aegis system perhaps.

[Skybird]

The carrier doctrine has not been tested by an equal enemy since WWII. It is a peacetime weapon to be used for political intimidation ("world policeman"), or in small wars against inferior enemies ("Vietnam").

In a modern war against an equal enemy, I would expect submarines to be the deciding weapon, comparable to how carriers took over the dominant role from battleships in WWII. With today's lethality of weapons and guiding precision, staying undetected in order to not becoming a target constantly wins in importance.

That the concept of CBGs would survive a war with the Soviet Union, already was not certain during the cold war.

Technology is widespread nowadays. there is Russia, China, India as major competitors, although currently a war between them and the US and/or NATO appears to be unlikely. Regarding these nations, we live in a moment of fragile balance that by it's very balance opens a window of opportunity. That America uses it to form close ties with these three blocks is the most important priority beside preventing proliferation of WMDs. More and more, even the relations between the US and Europe are second to America's interest in India, China and Russia. It appears to me that Obama has understood this. As a European I may like that or I may like it not - but that's how things are nevertheless. Europe isn't as important for America anymore. The global balances are shifting to the pacific region.

[Rilder]

Basically the deal is, when the aliens land, we will be declared as uncivilized barbarians and slaughtered wholesale.

[Max2147]

That's what we built the SM-3 for.

Actually, since it needs external guidance to hit a moving target that can change direction, the best way to defeat an ASBM would probably be through some form of ECM to mess with the guidance system.

[Letum]

Would carriers really be of use in a war of super powers anyway?

[Jimbuna]

Would carriers really be of use in a war of super powers anyway?

They would still be useful in delivering tactical nuclear ordnance deep into enemy held territory by means of their airwings.

[Skybird]

They would still be useful in delivering tactical nuclear ordnance deep into enemy held territory by means of their airwings.

If they survive long enough. A submarine with nuclear missiles has better chances.

[Jimbuna]

If they survive long enough. A submarine with nuclear missiles has better chances.

But would they have the same range and numbers/varieties of ordnance that said airwing could carry?

Remember, I'm making reference to tactical nukes here, not strategic or ICBM.

[Steel_Tomb]

Does anyone still actually have nuclear tipped fish? I thought they were all gone, replaced in favour of cruise missiles and conventional fish.

[Skybird]

But would they have the same range and numbers/varieties of ordnance that said airwing could carry?

Remember, I'm making reference to tactical nukes here, not strategic or ICBM.

1. For example the old TLAM had a range of 2500 km. It carried submunition warheads, nuclear warheads (wiki says 200 kt), or fragmentation warheads.

2. Airwings can't take off from 4000 m below sea level.

3. If the duel is modern CBG versus modern SSN, I bet my money on the SSN. Even more money I would bet if the sub is a modern SS and the CBG runs into it. Defending a CBG versus a Gotland or 212 trapping the CBG in transit must be a nightmare.

[Jimbuna]

1. For example the old TLAM had a range of 2500 km. It carried submunition warheads, nuclear warheads (wiki says 200 kt), or fragmentation warheads.

2. Airwings can't take off from 4000 m below sea level.

3. If the duel is modern CBG versus modern SSN, I bet my money on the SSN. Even more money I would bet if the sub is a modern SS and the CBG runs into it. Defending a CBG versus a Gotland or 212 trapping the CBG in transit must be a nightmare.

I take your point about the below sea level launch platform but still consider an airwing capable of carrying a far superior number of weapons and capable of penetrating closer to the target before launch (less chance of intercepting the incoming and putting all your eggs in one basket........one or two subs as opposed to a few dozen aircraft).

How embarrassing if an old Iranian (ex Soviet/Chinese or whatever) gets lucky and takes out your sub.

Better to get in there with stealth equipped assets or fighter and ecm units, take out the radar and fighters in your path, then sit on the first banger like Dr Strangelove :DL

[Letum]

What kind of tactically achievable objectives might there be after the
ICBM/Submarine strategic exchange is fully complete?

I readily confess ignorance on the topic, but I don't see what is left to do
after the destruction of all major cities on both sides and the depletion
of most strategic weapons.

Isn't anything a carrier could do after that just flogging a dead horse?

[Max2147]

Short of nuclear war, the CVBG is still much more useful than the submarine. A submarine can still only control a small bit of water - its sensors can't detect anything too far away. A CVBG can dominate a large swath of ocean, thanks to its long range aircraft and their radars.

[Skybird]

You guys don't get my point. You always depend on the carrier surviving. Which is not too likely in a war against an equally strong and advanced enemy, like Russia has been, and china is becoming. All the things an airwing can do, is just dust and shadows, if the carrier gets taken out. The threat potential and diversity of mission profiles of a carrier airwing is only an undisputed reality during peacetimes, or in wars against inferior enemies for whom carriers are simply out of reach. In a real tough war, however, carriers are primary targets. If the carrier is on the bottom of the sea, all diversity of mission profiles possible for an airwing is just history.

A submarine is superior in remaining undetected, eventually it has a strategic capability, it has the advantage in duelling with a carrier battle group, it is a great intel gathering platform, and it leaves you the option to deny responsibility for a strike you conducted.

I am aware of all the nice things a carrier airwing can do - as long as the carrier is alive. If there would be a hot war and me being your enemy, I would bring all heaven and hell into motion to take out your carriers at the very beginning, if not even before the beginning. and if my submarines can achieve that, it means they are sophisticated enough to duel it out with your subs on equal terms as well.

What I imagine is a submersible carrier full of autonomous intelligent drones that beat me in chess every time I play against them! ;)

[PeriscopeDepth]

You guys don't get my point. You always depend on the carrier surviving. Which is not too likely in a war against an equally strong and advanced enemy, like Russia has been, and china is becoming. All the things an airwing can do, is just dust and shadows, if the carrier gets taken out. The threat potential and diversity of mission profiles of a carrier airwing is only an undisputed reality during peacetimes, or in wars against inferior enemies for whom carriers are simply out of reach. In a real tough war, however, carriers are primary targets. If the carrier is on the bottom of the sea, all diversity of mission profiles possible for an airwing is just history.

A submarine is superior in remaining undetected, eventually it has a strategic capability, it has the advantage in duelling with a carrier battle group, it is a great intel gathering platform, and it leaves you the option to deny responsibility for a strike you conducted.

I am aware of all the nice things a carrier airwing can do - as long as the carrier is alive. If there would be a hot war and me being your enemy, I would bring all heaven and hell into motion to take out your carriers at the very beginning, if not even before the beginning. and if my submarines can achieve that, it means they are sophisticated enough to duel it out with your subs on equal terms as well.
You forget the ocean is a pretty big place to look. Even the Soviets had trouble tracking them during the height of their power. And in the event of war, both sides space based assets are not untouchable as they once were.

PD

[Aramike]

Clancy's book, Red Storm Rising had a great tactical assessment of carriers in a relatively modern era.

The difference between a CVBG and a submarine is that a CVBG can actually CONTROL a large area of sea AND land, whereas a sub can only control a small area of sea. Sure, that control is negated if the carrier is destroyed, but so goes the fortunes of any weapon in any war. However, carriers are quite heavily protected and somehow my gut feeling is that the capabilities of this Chinese missile are a bit overstated.

[PeriscopeDepth]

However, carriers are quite heavily protected and somehow my gut feeling is that the capabilities of this Chinese missile are a bit overstated.
The point is (IMO) they greatly reduce the effectiveness of the CSG without even being fired. Drawing a 2000KM circle around Chinese ASBM sites and saying a carrier can't go there would render the sortie rate of a carrier pretty near useless for fighting a near peer opponent.

The ASBM may be effective, it may not be. But the same can be said of SM-3, and my bet is we aren't going to gamble with a carrier.

PD

[Steel_Tomb]

I remember reading that a South African diesel sub managed to "sink" a US carrier in exercises without being detected by the escorts. The Iranians have Skyval (sp?) am I correct, I honestly can't see a viable deterrent against such a fast weapon for the moment. In a narrow straight like the Gulf a carrier is a very vulnerable asset, but subs are in shallow water there so any aicraft with MAD's can pick them up no matter how quiet they are.

Remeber in Red Storm Rising the USS Enterprise gets its arse kicked by a squadron of Bears after they go chasing decoys. Carriers are good for peacetime, but in war against a well equiped foe I quite seriously doubt the ability of them to survive a sustained attack, especially against say multiple submerged contacts.

[Raptor1]

Skyval (sp?)

Shkval

[PeriscopeDepth]

I remember reading that a South African diesel sub managed to "sink" a US carrier in exercises without being detected by the escorts. The Iranians have Skyval (sp?) am I correct, I honestly can't see a viable deterrent against such a fast weapon for the moment. In a narrow straight like the Gulf a carrier is a very vulnerable asset, but subs are in shallow water there so any aicraft with MAD's can pick them up no matter how quiet they are.

Yes, but during an exercise each team has a specific area to search. There is no predefined area targets can be in during a real war. In a real war against Iran, the CSG would be staying well south of the Straits of Hormuz. There just isn't a reason to stick your <insert name of an appendage you value> into a hornet's nest.

PD

[roman2440]

The ASBM is an interesting twist in carrier warfare, though it isn't the carrier killer its made out to be. At max range it still takes 12 minutes to target, and a carrier in war time should be moving at quite a clip. This kind of weapon requires a direct hit to be effective, and thusly with the ranges involved would require some advanced guidence in the terminal phase. From what I've read this requires some form of sensor being placed on the carrier from another asset - likely which could easily be removed by force with everything a CVBG has available.

Carriers bring to the table a whole host if abilities that a SSN doesn't. They both have their uses in an even sided knock down drag out fight between superpowers. Yes carriers are prime targets, but they are also very highly defended.

About the most interesting development that I expect will come out of the refinement of ASBMs is the decentralization of the supercarrier. By that I mean we might see new smaller carriers (kinda like the escort carrier of WWII) or possibly carrier/sub combos. These, if built and utilized as a network, would bring the same capabilities of a single larger carrier but not be as vulnerable to detection/loss. But this all hinges upon how much a threat these missiles are seen to be, which all boils down to their reliability and effectiveness.

[Skybird]

I remember reading that a South African diesel sub managed to "sink" a US carrier in exercises without being detected by the escorts.
Yes. A whole flotilla of over a dozen ships was "sunk" by that boat. But I never have read about the excercise conditions, though.

A German 212 also "sunk" a carrier while it cruised somewhere in the North Sea, which made some high-ranking Navy-heads rolling, it was said, although the owners of these heads probably are not responsible for the "disaster". And the last time I heared of that Swedish Gotland that the Navy had "leased" with it's crew is several months ago, but back then the Swedish captain said they were running circles around the Yanks without them being able to even note it, not to mention to fight it off. That means: at that time the US Navy had been chanceless against it.

These new ultrasilent SS boats like Gotland, 212 and the like, are real beasts. Your only advantage as a skimmer is that they depend on you running into them, since they lack the speed of SSNs.

[Skybird]

The ASBM is an interesting twist in carrier warfare, though it isn't the carrier killer its made out to be. At max range it still takes 12 minutes to target, and a carrier in war time should be moving at quite a clip.

The Chinese system includes live data tracking via a network of satellites, I learn from the article. And 12 minutes the missle only takes at maximum firing range.

Don't minimise that system too early, else eventually you might learn a nasty surprise.

About the most interesting development that I expect will come out of the refinement of ASBMs is the decentralization of the supercarrier. By that I mean we might see new smaller carriers (kinda like the escort carrier of WWII) or possibly carrier/sub combos. These, if built and utilized as a network, would bring the same capabilities of a single larger carrier but not be as vulnerable to detection/loss. But this all hinges upon how much a threat these missiles are seen to be, which all boils down to their reliability and effectiveness.

Sounds expensive. Thus sounds unrealistic in present America's harsh financial reality of debts over debts over debts.

[PeriscopeDepth]

The ASBM is an interesting twist in carrier warfare, though it isn't the carrier killer its made out to be. At max range it still takes 12 minutes to target, and a carrier in war time should be moving at quite a clip. This kind of weapon requires a direct hit to be effective, and thusly with the ranges involved would require some advanced guidence in the terminal phase.

You're assuming the Chinese don't have the chutzpah to nuke a CSG. But yes, a sensor cueing the ASBM is the weakness of the system. A good discussion of that took place here:
http://www.informationdissemination.net/2009/03/plan-asbm-development.html

PD

[Jimbuna]

Yes. A whole flotilla of over a dozen ships was "sunk" by that boat. But I never have read about the excercise conditions, though.

A German 212 also "sunk" a carrier while it cruised somewhere in the North Sea, which made some high-ranking Navy-heads rolling, it was said, although the owners of these heads probably are not responsible for the "disaster". And the last time I heared of that Swedish Gotland that the Navy had "leased" with it's crew is several months ago, but back then the Swedish captain said they were running circles around the Yanks without them being able to even note it, not to mention to fight it off. That means: at that time the US Navy had been chanceless against it.

These new ultrasilent SS boats like Gotland, 212 and the like, are real beasts. Your only advantage as a skimmer is that they depend on you running into them, since they lack the speed of SSNs.

An Australian Collins class was also credited with the same success on a joint exercise involving the US a year or two back.

[goldorak]

But would they have the same range and numbers/varieties of ordnance that said airwing could carry?

Remember, I'm making reference to tactical nukes here, not strategic or ICBM.


Submarines can launch TLAM with tatical nuclear warheads no ?
Its more cost effective to have a sub launch 20 TLAM from somewhere in the pacific undetected.

[PeriscopeDepth]

Submarines can launch TLAM with tatical nuclear warheads no ?
Its more cost effective to have a sub launch 20 TLAM from somewhere in the pacific undetected.
TLAM-N was taken out of service in the early 1990s and is no longer carried by US subs. However, I don't know whether taken out of service means:
1) Either warhead and/or cruise missile may have been destroyed to comply with treaties governing tactical nuke cruise missiles.
2) They may have been stored. In who knows what condition/shelf life and whether the warheads are still on them or elsewhere.

PD

[Jimbuna]

Submarines can launch TLAM with tatical nuclear warheads no ?
Its more cost effective to have a sub launch 20 TLAM from somewhere in the pacific undetected.


I wasn't aware they still had them...as far as I was aware, the BGM-109A Tomahawk Land Attack Missile - Nuclear (TLAM-N) with a W80 nuclear warhead was withdrawn from service as part of the Intermediate - Range Nuclear Forces Treaty :hmmm:

[TheSatyr]

What is with you people's fascination with tactical nukes? NO NUKES should ever be used...by any one...in any circumstances.

You seem to think tactical nukes can be used with impunity...they can't. The first time a tactical nuke goes off,you can expect someone to launch ICBMs at whoever used the tac nuke. Simple reasoning,any one willing to use tactical nukes would be considered also willing to use ICBMs. It WILL escalate. Only a fool would consider nukes a viable option for any military reason.

The use of any kind of nuke by any one would be flat out suicide.

The only ones that I can see ever using a nuke would be a terrorist organization. Terrorists have nothing to lose. Nations do.

[goldorak]

What is with you people's fascination with tactical nukes? NO NUKES should ever be used...by any one...in any circumstances.

You seem to think tactical nukes can be used with impunity...they can't. The first time a tactical nuke goes off,you can expect someone to launch ICBMs at whoever used the tac nuke. Simple reasoning,any one willing to use tactical nukes would be considered also willing to use ICBMs. It WILL escalate. Only a fool would consider nukes a viable option for any military reason.

The use of any kind of nuke by any one would be flat out suicide.

The only ones that I can see ever using a nuke would be a terrorist organization. Terrorists have nothing to lose. Nations do.

I don't know, india and pakistan are much more likely to engage in nuclear warfare than usa and cina for instance or even russia and cina.
On the other hand, if a terrorist organization were to detonate a nuclear weapon, against whom do you retaliate ? :hmmm:

[Skybird]

On the other hand, if a terrorist organization were to detonate a nuclear weapon, against whom do you retaliate ? :hmmm:
Nations raising, financing and supporting them.

[Jimbuna]

Nations raising, financing and supporting them.

Precisely....and there is a better than even chance it might be Iran.

Of course, if it were NK they.........oh, forget it, they don't have any money to feed themselves never mind finance anyone :DL

[Schroeder]

Y

A German 212 also "sunk" a carrier while it cruised somewhere in the North Sea, which made some high-ranking Navy-heads rolling, it was said, although the owners of these heads probably are not responsible for the "disaster".

Wasn't that an old 206? I thought it was so embarrassing because it was one of the oldest diesel boats we use.

[goldorak]

Nations raising, financing and supporting them.

That's a very dicey proposition. Lets say as a matter of exemplification that a terrorist group were to be able to steel nuclear material from Russia.
Russia is not a country on the "axis of evil".
It does not finance or condone international terrorism, so what happens when such a device explodes. Do you really retaliate against Russia ?
Terrorist groups are not linked to any one country, they are decentralized so what are you going to do. Wage war against 10 countries because they happen to support on a political (let alone military) level so called terrorist groups.

[goldorak]

Wasn't that an old 206? I thought it was so embarrassing because it was one of the oldest diesel boats we use.

Imagine then what a Type 212 can do. :shucks:

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

I wasn't aware they still had them...as far as I was aware, the BGM-109A Tomahawk Land Attack Missile - Nuclear (TLAM-N) with a W80 nuclear warhead was withdrawn from service as part of the Intermediate - Range Nuclear Forces Treaty :hmmm:

The land-based variant was withdrawn, the Yankees insisted that sea-based weapons shouldn't be counted and got their way. It is one of the reasons many Russians are so bitter about INF - because come on, how easy it is for those sea based Tomahawks to be deployed in a way to give the US its INF missile ability back...

Later, IIRC in 1991 some kind of agreement happened, then the TLAM-Ns were withdrawn.

What is with you people's fascination with tactical nukes? NO NUKES should ever be used...by any one...in any circumstances.
You seem to think tactical nukes can be used with impunity...they can't. The first time a tactical nuke goes off,you can expect someone to launch ICBMs at whoever used the tac nuke. Simple reasoning,any one willing to use tactical nukes would be considered also willing to use ICBMs. It WILL escalate. Only a fool would consider nukes a viable option for any military reason.
The use of any kind of nuke by any one would be flat out suicide.
The only ones that I can see ever using a nuke would be a terrorist organization. Terrorists have nothing to lose. Nations do.
This is good old MAD theory. One must wonder how many nations really subscribe to it any more.
It is probably true, considering our indoctrinated nuke antipathy, that anyone that has crossed his mental barriers and used a nuke is probably more likely to launch ICBMs, but frankly, if I really believe that, I'll probably be more reluctant to provoke him (if he has ICBMs as well).
Ultimately, while nuclear deterrence depends on everyone pushing a fierce face that this is the position they'll be taking, it is far from clear that anyone will take such a step should some leader be "brave" and step into the unknown world.

The ASBM is an interesting twist in carrier warfare, though it isn't the carrier killer its made out to be. At max range it still takes 12 minutes to target, and a carrier in war time should be moving at quite a clip.

It can only be moving at 30 knots or so, which is about 1000 yards/minute. In 12 minutes it can only move within a 12km circle. That's not a very large area to search. If you knew its course, even better - a carrier will waste minutes just trying to alter its vector.

[Max2147]

This is good old MAD theory. One must wonder how many nations really subscribe to it any more.
It is probably true, considering our indoctrinated nuke antipathy, that anyone that has crossed his mental barriers and used a nuke is probably more likely to launch ICBMs, but frankly, if I really believe that, I'll probably be more reluctant to provoke him (if he has ICBMs as well).
Ultimately, while nuclear deterrence depends on everyone pushing a fierce face that this is the position they'll be taking, it is far from clear that anyone will take such a step should some leader be "brave" and step into the unknown world.
Tactical nukes are a dicey topic because nobody really knows what will happen when you use them.

ICBMs are comforting in away, because everybody knows how they work. If you use them against a nuclear nation, they'll reply with an all-out nuclear strike. Simple.

With tactical nukes, it's not that clear. Will they respond with tactical nukes of their own? Will they launch a limited nuclear strike? Or will they jump straight to Armageddon, do not pass Go, do not collect $200?

I remember a professor telling us about how he participated in a wargame in the Reagan Administration. One side tried a limited ICBM strike, leaving out certain targets. The hope was that such a strike would not provoke an all-out retaliation from the other side.

They immediately received a message from the other side, reading "May you burn in Hell as you burn on Earth." You can guess what happened next.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

One understands the value of deterrence, but one must wonder how do people justify retaliation in these scenarios when deterrence fails and they've just eaten a limited strike.

You can't justify it in deontological ethics.

You can't justify it by saving your own people, since if the other guy thinks like you, he's just going to shoot off what didn't go the first time upon seeing your counterstrike.

Even if he doesn't, or he has no more nukes, it isn't like you are going to be bringing much back - you are just kicking the table over and cheaply killing some of his guys. Does it even make you feel better? The guy who shot first arguably had better motives than you!

Once deterrence fails and you've taken a major hit, arguably the right move in the ethical and self-preservation front is to say "Ah, that was a gutsy move. I thought I put on a fierce enough face. OK, I don't like this at all but you win."

[Buddahaid]

If the carrier is rendered obsolete, why is China building one and developing carrier based aircraft? Seems the US would have a big jump in regard to stealth weapons anyway.

Buddahaid

[Tchocky]

To an enemy with lots of fast ASuW missiles, like the Sunburn and this new one, a CVBG looks more like a big fat target than anything else.
With China buying up S-300 systems to defend the SSM launch sites, I can see a potential conflict being rather nasty.

[Letum]

If the carrier is rendered obsolete, why is China building one and developing carrier based aircraft?

I don't think anyone is claiming carriers are obsolete, just that they are
obsolete in the case of a war between the world's super-powers.


They are certainly very useful in other situations, Iraq being a good example.

[Max2147]

One understands the value of deterrence, but one must wonder how do people justify retaliation in these scenarios when deterrence fails and they've just eaten a limited strike.

You can't justify it in deontological ethics.

You can't justify it by saving your own people, since if the other guy thinks like you, he's just going to shoot off what didn't go the first time upon seeing your counterstrike.

Even if he doesn't, or he has no more nukes, it isn't like you are going to be bringing much back - you are just kicking the table over and cheaply killing some of his guys. Does it even make you feel better? The guy who shot first arguably had better motives than you!

Once deterrence fails and you've taken a major hit, arguably the right move in the ethical and self-preservation front is to say "Ah, that was a gutsy move. I thought I put on a fierce enough face. OK, I don't like this at all but you win."
You're right in terms of what's ethical and logical.

However, I think irrational factors such as ego and revenge would come into it as well. That was what happened in the wargame I was talking about. Once a certain number of nukes were in the air, the side that was about to be on the receiving end basically said "screw you guys" and launched everything they had. It wasn't going to save them, but they weren't going to let the other guys get away with nuking them.

[Max2147]

To an enemy with lots of fast ASuW missiles, like the Sunburn and this new one, a CVBG looks more like a big fat target than anything else.
With China buying up S-300 systems to defend the SSM launch sites, I can see a potential conflict being rather nasty.
That's why a US CVBG would be absolutely insane to enter the Taiwan Straits.

If the US chooses to fight to defend Taiwan against a Chinese invasion, they will do so from carriers stationed behind the island and from faraway airbases like Guam and Okinawa. Anything on Taiwan itself or in the Straits (aside from subs) will be pounded into oblivion by missiles from the Chinese mainland.

[Skybird]

One understands the value of deterrence, but one must wonder how do people justify retaliation in these scenarios when deterrence fails and they've just eaten a limited strike.

You can't justify it in deontological ethics.

You can't justify it by saving your own people, since if the other guy thinks like you, he's just going to shoot off what didn't go the first time upon seeing your counterstrike.

Even if he doesn't, or he has no more nukes, it isn't like you are going to be bringing much back - you are just kicking the table over and cheaply killing some of his guys. Does it even make you feel better? The guy who shot first arguably had better motives than you!

Once deterrence fails and you've taken a major hit, arguably the right move in the ethical and self-preservation front is to say "Ah, that was a gutsy move. I thought I put on a fierce enough face. OK, I don't like this at all but you win."Maybe you misinterpret the meaning of deterrance and MAD.

The deterrance simply lies in that you threaten to take revenge.

[CaptainHaplo]

Is it a problem - no.

Why you ask. 2 reasons.

First, you do recall we have an ABM system that can hit "evading" ballistic targets.... Its the Aegis Theatre Ballistic Missile Defense System (or some such). There are something like 6 cruisers at this standard of the Aegis system. You can bet if we send a carrier group toward China it will have one with them.

Second - they may have a system they think will work - on paper. But - did you notice they said that the sources USUALLY only talk about systems that are past the test phase. Its not been tested - because to test it, the chinese would have had to send up a missile on a ballistic trajectory, then have the dummy warheads hit a "target" area. Think our missile watchers are so asleep they would miss such a thing?

"Oh - china just launced a ICBM. Thats nice - I'm gonna go get more coffee. Its probably a test anyways. See you when I get back - maybe..."

Its a nice theory - but take the Shkval torpedo - we knew about it right after the test. And that test ground was a lot more PRIVATE than the wide open upper atmosphere.

[Letum]

The deterrance simply lies in that you threaten to take revenge.


That is not enough.

You threats have to be believed.

Potential enemies must believe that you would carry out the retaliation
threats, despite it being illogical and unethical to do so for the reasons
Kazuaki pointed out.

The MAD mechanic only appears and works when everyone believes
that everyone else follows the MAD mechanic (over and above logic
and ethics).

MAD has a fragile existence born of a kind of circular reasoning.

Fortunately, it isn't MAD that is the main deterrent against using Nukes
anymore. MAD was born when there where only two major nuclear
powers: The USSR and the USA (and a few smaller NATO members).
Both sides had enough weapons to ensure the total destruction of the
other side. MAD was the only option.

Now there are more Nuclear armed countries and none of them have
the capability to utterly destroy every single other nuclear armed
country. Even if several countries are destroyed and they do not launch
MAD counter attacks, there is a good chance that other countries not
attacked or not completely destroyed will get nervous and start getting
preemptive. There is a good chance nukes will fly your way, even if no
one takes part in a post-strike MAD retalliation.

[JSF]

Kill their satellites first and the missle is useless.

[Skybird]

That is not enough.

You threats have to be believed.



No, they must worry you. A revenge on a scale that does not worry you, may take place or not - but you would not care anyhow.

It's not a question of ethics. It's a question of fear.

[Letum]

Can you worry about threats you don't believe in?

[Skybird]

Can you worry about threats you don't believe in?
If I don't fear them - no.