Chinese admiral "sink 2 carriers"

[Kapitan]

So what do you guys think on this ? IMHO if they did that i dont think Trump would stand for it and there would be absolutely no negotiation from the United States just one crap load of tomahawks B2's and anything else that can go destined for China.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=12184587&fbclid=IwAR3DtzPzrURHvqpp3J5NbDtc5yjeKCe3dPz0jtzxN iJ1omXFL0U88SlOtxQ

[Rockstar]

I'm sure the citizens of China demand Xi Jinping to heed the counsel of his generals and start sinking aircraft carriers right away. After all, generals know what's best. :03:


There are way too many defenses to penetrate in order to sink a carrier. So I don't think there's a snowballs chance in hell for anyone to claim it was an accident. Therefore if they did, it was done intentionally. And I gotta feeling there would be such backlash and an unstoppable surge in this country for vengeance. We would demand total war and turn China into a barren waste land whatever the cost. And while we were at it we should go after that little fat man in N.K. too. Oh and I say we capture the Chinese general who dreamed up the idea and string him up by his family jewels (if he has any)

And just you know I would volunteer to push the button to make it happen. :lurk:

[Skybird]

I absolutely expect the Chinese to be capable to sink the hearts at the very centre of the American naval strategy - or become able to do so in the very near future. Carriers simpyl are too difficult to defend against a determined and technologically as advanced enemy, so when things turn serious for sure, I always bet my money against them. They are dinosaurs, and only political policing tools and weapons against weaker, inferior enemies.

However, Xi Jining'S recent speech is fa rmroe concerning. It does not happen that often that the enforced reunificationwith - or better: violent subjugation of - Taiwan is being demanded by a Chinese head of everything in such crystalclear, uncompromised, diplomatically relatively unhidden words. Maybe it is to make sure that bigmouth Donald gets the message in his own language. But the tone already has become rougher before Trump.

With America saying farewell to its role as world policeman and cravinbg for isolationism, if I were a Taiwanese, I would be deeply worried for the future of my country and the freedom and well-being of my next of kin.

The military balances in that reigon are shgifting, and against the US. And I cannot see America having a realistic plan to stop this trend with all needed determination. Its loosing the war over platform numbers, and bases, and technological lead: the gap in the latter - as far as it still may or may not exist, that is - is shrinking rapidly.

Personally I doubt that the US will accept to go to all out war against China in defence of Taiwan and other states in that region. Nor can I see it winning such a war. China will raise more and more pressure and launch more and more provocations - and strengthen its military stand throughout the region all the time.


That the West still "invests" in China and helps to make it that strong an enemy that it can chase the West out of Asia if it wants, and dominate and dictate the world market, is one of the biggest modern monuments for the stupidity of Western man. I think Germany even still pays them development aid (at least it still did 3 or 4 years agoi when I last time have read about it).

[Jimbuna]

Read the article earlier this morning on FB of all places.

Whether a carrier can be defended against a determined saturated multi-weapon/platform attack is open for debate but what is plainly obvious is the fact that should that happen on Trumps watch, everything would be finely balanced and determined by what advice his military leadership advise and whether or not he chooses to heed or ignore that advice.

I think it inevitable Taiwan will eventually be forced to succumb to China and I doubt the US would risk a nuclear exchange as a result.

I do agree with Sky though when you consider much of the Chinese control and wealth is provided from the west at grass roots level.

[Kapitan]

Read the article earlier this morning on FB of all places.

Whether a carrier can be defended against a determined saturated multi-weapon/platform attack is open for debate but what is plainly obvious is the fact that should that happen on Trumps watch, everything would be finely balanced and determined by what advice his military leadership advise and whether or not he chooses to heed or ignore that advice.

I think it inevitable Taiwan will eventually be forced to succumb to China and I doubt the US would risk a nuclear exchange as a result.

I do agree with Sky though when you consider much of the Chinese control and wealth is provided from the west at grass roots level.


Well Jim you must read the papers early than the rest of us or you have a crystal ball if so why arent you laying on a beech some where with your private yacht?


Well news in China has just announced it isnt ruling out force to reunify Tiawan and China

https://news.sky.com/story/china-not-ruling-out-military-force-as-it-seeks-inevitable-reunification-with-taiwan-11596648?fbclid=IwAR2h8FGwyHIC77DGxM_1j8hPPLoyq7VA Y4bT3uRA9xOMBdgkevMcJ-fxJdQ

[Kapitan]

Not only that could we afford a war on two fronts Iran also playing up and likely could ally with China in any real war.

http://en.brinkwire.com/news/iran-wont-let-us-carrier-approach-territorial-waters/

[Jimbuna]

Well Jim you must read the papers early than the rest of us or you have a crystal ball if so why arent you laying on a beech some where with your private yacht?


Well news in China has just announced it isnt ruling out force to reunify Tiawan and China

https://news.sky.com/story/china-not-ruling-out-military-force-as-it-seeks-inevitable-reunification-with-taiwan-11596648?fbclid=IwAR2h8FGwyHIC77DGxM_1j8hPPLoyq7VA Y4bT3uRA9xOMBdgkevMcJ-fxJdQ

Pretty good beach in my home town but wouldn't advise being there atm unless you have brass balls.

Would a diecast yacht count? :03:

[mapuc]

Reading this thread and the other thread about China, some scenes from books written by Tom Clancy popped up in my head.

Markus

[Bleiente]

Get used to it - China is the coming world power.
The US can age in dignity or wear out under the pressure of the dragon.
Oh yes - in this context, Mexico is one of the allies of China.
Not that the activities of the inglorious Presidents Nixon and Trump still block the (US) Americans from migrating to better economies.


:Kaleun_Salute:


Nchtrag:
Danke für den Hinweis Sky. :haha:

[Skybird]

"The pressure of the kite."

:D

Dragon. - A kite is a toy, a paper thing you let fly at the end of ay line.

[Catfish]

China, or lets say its current dictatorship, obviously doubts a US retaliation, and up to until something really happens it us just testing how far it can go. I have not heard the EU saying something about that at all, of course..

[mapuc]

Another word that comes into my mind is.

High risk Poker.

(I'm not so good at poker-phrases)

China seems to be making an all-in, in their poker game with USA and its allied and they hope USA and its allied are bluffing.

Markus

[succerpunch]

Honestly I think that the whole NATO Pact or America coming to defend other countries in times of war is just a joke. America will never risk nuclear war but if China sinks two American Aircraft Carriers then I do believe that America will shoot first (or second depending how you look at it) and ask questions later.

[ikalugin]

The issue for the US is that PRC is most definitely a nuclear power (unlike say DPRK which is a solid maybe).

This means that many military tools that US has gotten used to using (long range cruise missiles strikes, stealth bomber strikes, etc) and which US would need to break up a determined Chinese opposition are very dangerous to use, as their use may be interpreted by an adversary as a first strike against its nuclear forces (is so called damage limitation strike) and thus would warrant a nuclear response early in the conflict, which may be undesirable.

There is a great deal of scholarship on this topic nowadays, you may be interested in it here or in the parallel thread.

P.s it is rather surprising to me that the whole nuclear aspect is being ignored here.

[Skybird]

Throughout the cold war the public debate focusse don nuclear escalation over the war, with nukes being used by NATO first and at the end when conventional defence breaks down.

That a war indeed most likely would have been started with tscticla nukes used by the USSR to take out NATO air bases and C3I nodes was almost completely ignored.

And this since the first scenario obviously makes no sense, while the second, from a standpoint of military logic, does.


Whether China or the US would go nuclear over the south Chinese Sea, is questionable. However, it would be a bluffing game being played. And bluffs can go wrong. The danger is not an intention by either side to use nukes, but that escalation happens accidentally, due to misinterpretation of a conventional enemy attack as a nuclear strike. You would know only after impact whether it was a nuclear or conventional warhead. In my reasoning, it makes no sense to allow the enemy to land the first blow.

[Commander Wallace]

The issue for the US is that PRC is most definitely a nuclear power (unlike say DPRK which is a solid maybe).

This means that many military tools that US has gotten used to using (long range cruise missiles strikes, stealth bomber strikes, etc) and which US would need to break up a determined Chinese opposition are very dangerous to use, as their use may be interpreted by an adversary as a first strike against its nuclear forces (is so called damage limitation strike) and thus would warrant a nuclear response early in the conflict, which may be undesirable.


There is a great deal of scholarship on this topic nowadays, you may be interested in it here or in the parallel thread.

P.s it is rather surprising to me that the whole nuclear aspect is being ignored here.


It was always known that Soviet doctrine called for the use of long range strategic bombers to localize and attack convoys transiting the Atlantic Ocean to attack convoys including aircraft carriers on their way to Europe during an outbreak of war. The survive ability of ships under a determined cruise missile attack is debatable. This doctrine wasn't lost on U.S planners who can easily do the same thing with the variety of bombers at it's disposal.

There fore, using what the Chinese Admiral has said, the lone Chinese Carrier could also be destroyed just as easily and there is little to nothing the Chinese could do to protect it against a concerted American attack.

Further, the deployment of drones armed with high speed weapons that can intercept bombers may make the use of expensive strategic assets like bombers, impractical. Drones could also be used in a concerted attack as well on their surface ships, including their lone carrier and military installations .

With regards to how China views the use of weapons against them, That is their dilemma to ponder. The U.S has more experience than any other power in the world with modern carrier operations. The U.S also has more experience in how to protect those assets including ASW operations. while there is no doubt the PLA is developing a military capability, they are not a blue water force such as the U.S.

Nuclear forces were never mentioned as a mature, rational govt. would never think of using them in these modern times. The U.S outnumbers China with the variety and number of nuclear weapons it can field and the Chinese would do well to remember that.

If China wants to play in a world arena, it needs to put on it's " big boy pants ." China is doing little more than sabre rattling. While rattling a sabre makes noise, drawing it does not. Something to think about.

[Rockstar]

Agree, we have learned many lessons over the years and know how to wage war. Everyone thinks China is some mythical 'dragon' that's going to consume the planet shooting laser beams out its butt. Sure regional boundaries change, whats new? There's nothing magic about the rise of China. They also have just as many problems if not more due to its size as any other nation here on earth.

The way I see it the elimination of term limits and establishment of authoritarian/strongman rule was probably due to the Chinese Communist political elite feeling just a tad bit insecure right now. Couple that with little party generals talking smack trying to stir up nationalist fervor might be an attempt to take the minds of the common folk off the everyday problems they face. Maybe it isnt such a magical time in China right now either. Problems become clear in many developing countries where authoritarianism is rising. Time will tell.

China and 'lingxiu' can kiss my lily white butt.

[ikalugin]

Nuclear forces were never mentioned as a mature, rational govt. would never think of using them in these modern times. The U.S outnumbers China with the variety and number of nuclear weapons it can field and the Chinese would do well to remember that.This perception is not only wrong, it is dangerous, as it undermines credibility of deterrence.


Not only could nuclear armed states have reasons to use nuclear weapons first in general (for dammage limitation for example) and plan for it specifically (as documented by the US NPR for example), there are many, many ways a conventional war may push for use of nuclear weapons, for example via entanglement.
And then there is a whole group of scenarios where one side mis-perceives something of another.


I would suggest starting with this brief by Acton&co:
https://carnegieendowment.org/2018/10/29/inadvertent-escalation-and-entanglement-of-nuclear-command-and-control-capabilities-pub-77620
I can link more papers later.


p.s. there are many other mis-perceptions here, for example regarding the Soviet intentions and plans for the naval warfare, but they are less important.

[mapuc]

In our discussion we seems to have forgot one major factor

The power of the media in USA and in other Western countries.

I remember what an Iranian once said to me.

If a war between us and USA should break out, the only thing we have to do is sink one of their carrier or damage it real good, thereafter we can lay back and let the media in USA win the war for us.

Markus

[ikalugin]

Or maybe US public would be outraged and would demand blood, who knows.


Which is why you should develop significant conventional and nuclear capabilities to reliably deter US.

[Mr Quatro]

This is good that we discuss the possibilities of China's war like stance to Taiwan and the new islands they are fortifying in the South China Sea, but we have someone else doing this everyday. The U.S. Naval War College in Rhode Island.

They even study the new threat's of cyber warfare, which we as a whole should be more concerned about. Taking out one of two carriers would entail a complete and devastating warfare on us all of which nothing would ever be the same again. :o

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_War_College


The Naval War College (NWC or NAVWARCOL) is the staff college and "Home of Thought" for the United States Navy at Naval Station Newport in Newport, Rhode Island.[4] The NWC educates and develops leaders, supports defining the future Navy and associated roles and missions, supports combat readiness, and strengthens global maritime partnerships.

The Naval War College is one of the senior service colleges including the Army War College, the Marine Corps War College, and the Air War College. Additionally, the U.S. Department of Defense operates the National War College.

[Commander Wallace]

This perception is not only wrong, it is dangerous, as it undermines credibility of deterrence.


Not only could nuclear armed states have reasons to use nuclear weapons first in general (for dammage limitation for example) and plan for it specifically (as documented by the US NPR for example), there are many, many ways a conventional war may push for use of nuclear weapons, for example via entanglement.
And then there is a whole group of scenarios where one side mis-perceives something of another.


I would suggest starting with this brief by Acton&co:
https://carnegieendowment.org/2018/10/29/inadvertent-escalation-and-entanglement-of-nuclear-command-and-control-capabilities-pub-77620
I can link more papers later.


p.s. there are many other mis-perceptions here, for example regarding the Soviet intentions and plans for the naval warfare, but they are less important.


I am completely dumbfounded as to your logic and reasoning.

quote: Not only could nuclear armed states have reasons to use nuclear weapons first in general (for dammage limitation for example)

That would ensure a full retaliatory response so in fact, that is the basis for deterrence.

With regards to a conventional conflict having the potential for going nuclear- Just don't do it or there will be real consequences. If various governments are smart enough to know a conventional war could go further with a nuclear exchange, then they are smart enough to know not to try.That's deterrence. I hope that's the thinking within the U.S, anyhow.

It's that simple.


By the way, Russia deploying hyper-sonic weapons and nuclear torpedoes just to name a couple weapon systems isn't a threat to peace or deterrence ?

As the saying in Russia goes, " it's not the wolves in Gorky park you need to be afraid of, it's the ones you don't see. "


* Thanks for the link by the way. There is a lot of reading there *

[August]

Exactly. Damage Limitation as a theory isn't really workable when it comes to limiting the full nuclear arsenal of countries like the US or China. Even limiting it by half still means there will be enough left over to turn an aggressors country into a glass floored self lighting parking lot which is probably why the gambit has never been tried.

[ikalugin]

Wallace (this is the 2nd draft),


First of all nuclear weapons are not only used to deter a nuclear war, they are used to deter a large scale war in general. This is why there were no large scale wars between the great powers after WW2 and why nuclear weapons are viewed as being an extremely cost effective defense investment by the small countries, such as DPRK.
This is, ofcouse, now very inconvenient for the global hegemon, as said sole super power could not leverage it's military and military-industrial advantage to coerce even minor nuclear powers (ie DPRK). This is why US refuses (on official level) to accept being in the state of mutual vulnerability with anyone (including Russia).

However this does create problems, as without a potent conventional military the threshhold for nuclear usage becomes very low (and the deterrent itself becomes unstable, but that is a separate issue), which is why PRC (and Russia) were and are investing in conventional arms.


Now, dammage limitation. Because nuclear escalation is a highly likely product of a large scale conventional war due to various reasons (entanglement, desire of a weaker beligent to use nuclear weapons as a force multiplier, etc) it makes perfect sense for the stronger beligent to conduct dammage limitation strikes, as this would decrease the dammage it would take from (inevitable) nuclear endgame.


This is why in the official US policy there is no "no first use" pledge, in fact it is now considered to be normal to conduct first nuclear use in response to non nuclear actions by the adversary, ie cyber attacks.
This, coupled with the expressed desire to have more "usefull" nuclear weapons and poor quality of the US policy documents (such as the NPR) is very concerning.



As to the new delivery systems, they are second strike systems and their renewed development (the HGV development has been ongoing since the original star wars were announced) has been triggered by the US ABM and first strike weapons efforts, the Status-6/Poseidon nuclear powered UUV in particular, as it bypasses the US ABM system all together.
On the other hand US has been pursuing first strike weapons for quite some years now, even though many of those are sold under "modernisation" brand, for example the forward deployed B-61-12.


You are welcome, if you would like I can send a much longer and in depth PDF on that topic your way.

[ikalugin]

Back on topic, to repeat my point.


It is very difficult for the US to defend Taiwan against the PRC not only due to the local conventional balance of forces, or because there may be escalation due to various reasons in general, but also because the tools US is reliant on to win wars (deep strikes by cruise missiles and stealth bombers) carry significant risks of nuclear escalation, as their use would most likely be interpreted as a first strike effort by the US against the Chinese detterent.

[Catfish]

Up to recently nuclear deterrence worked, so placing a few ballistic missiles on Taiwan directed at China might be a strong and appropriate answer. But the west is weak and will not do anything, also because we let China own a lot of our territory, and economy.

If anyone read chinese papers lately, they will use whatever they think will make China "great". Even if there is nucelar deterrence working there can be no doubt they will launch their missiles at the slightest felt advantage. Their party leaders and military absolutely do not care for their own people, human beings or civilians, let alone foreigners. The scientific advantage and "modern" look cannot hide that China is one of the worst dictatorships, and they now celebrate that their way is obviously superior to that of "the West". And who could blame them, with Trump or brexit, or the EU doing nothing.

And deterrence.. well. Just of all Russia is working hard to make a "local, "limited" nuclear strike "socially acceptable", internationally. China will not even be that reluctant.

[ikalugin]

That is a bit harsh.


Also, what do you mean by:
And deterrence.. well. Just of all Russia is working hard to make a "local, "limited" nuclear strike "socially acceptable", internationally. China will not even be that reluctant.
this?
The various strike options have existed for decades by now.

[August]

This is why in the official US policy there is no "no first use" pledge, in fact it is now considered to be normal to conduct first nuclear use in response to non nuclear actions by the adversary, ie cyber attacks.


Just who considers a first strike a "normal" response?

[Mr Quatro]

Most people will just laugh at prophecy, but this one keeps coming back as a point of reference when discussing China and the USA going to war.

Seems that this particular prophet from Romania prophesied that America would go to war with China and then Russia would sneak attack America to protect China.

Dumitru can't be questioned about his prophesy anymore due to I think he passed away in 1997.

https://z3news.com/w/dumitru-duduman-china-russia-attack-america/


In April 1996, prophetic Christian minister Dumitru Duduman received a vision of a coming attack on America coming from both China and Russia. Dumitru Duduman was a Romanian native who came to America and founded the Hand of Help Ministries. He received many visions and dreams during his life. He went home to be with the Lord in May 1997.

The vision shared below is just one of many that Dumitru Duduman received.

Dumitru's vision edited:

I saw a great light. A dark cloud appeared over it. I saw the president of Russia, a short, chubby man, who said he was the president of China, and two others. The last two also said where they were from, but I did not understand. However, I gathered they were part of Russian controlled territory. The men stepped out of the cloud.

The Russian president began to speak to the Chinese one. “I will give you the land with all the people, but you must free Taiwan of the Americans. Do not fear, we will attack them from behind.”

A voice said to me, “Watch where the Russians penetrate America.”

I saw these words being written: Alaska; Minnesota; Florida.

Then, the man spoke again, “When America goes to war with China, the Russians will strike without warning.”

[Catfish]

^ I really hope mankind gets its things together and leaves earth, as a united mankind of research, science and common sense, not as a nation.

Then the superpower leaders of the world can finally kill each other, since this seems to be what is driving them since the creation of 'nations'. The chinese lifetime leader or Putin or Kim were bad enough, but with a loose cannon like Trump on the other hand.. lmao.

And the people who left for other worlds can tell them to kill, poison, expose each other to nuclear radiation and altogether f.. each other up as much as they want.

One can dream :03:

[Aktungbby]

^ I really hope mankind gets its things together and leaves earth, as a united mankind of research, science and common sense, not as a nation.

Then the superpower leaders of the world can finally kill each other, since this seems to be what is driving them since the creation of 'nations'. The chinese lifetime leader or Putin or Kim were bad enough, but with a loose cannon like Trump on the other hand.. lmao.

And the people who left for other worlds can tell them to kill, poison, expose each other to nuclear radiation and altogether f.. each other up as much as they want.

One can dream :03:https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/73/HAL9000_Case.svg/220px-HAL9000_Case.svg.png (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HAL9000_Case.svg) http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2584994&postcount=8210 (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2584994&postcount=8210)
:hmmm: SOMEHOW IN LINE WITH MY OWN THOUGHT IN ANOTHER THREAD TODAY

[ikalugin]

Just who considers a first strike a "normal" response?
NYT take on the problem:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/16/us/politics/pentagon-nuclear-review-cyberattack-trump.html
This is not exactly news worthy anymore due to it being a year old problem.

Final draft quote:
The United States would only consider the employment of nuclear weapons in extreme circumstances to defend the vital interests of the United States, its allies, and partners. Extreme circumstances could include significant non-nuclear strategic attacks. Significant non-nuclear strategic attacks include, but are not limited to, attacks on the U.S., allied, or partner civilian population or infrastructure, and attacks on U.S. or allied nuclear forces, their command and control, or warning and attack assessment capabilities.Note that this is not actually Trump administration specific (as NYT bias may imply), this trend in policy has been developed under Obama administration.
But then NPR is fairly flawed as a policy document (E2D is one of the biggest memes it includes).


As to the Russian nuclear policy, a few years ago it has been significantly changes, due to the growing power of our non-nuclear forces and introduction of the non-nuclear deterrence concept.

[August]

NYT take on the problem:




All that article says is that it's an option (one of many) that hasn't even been approved by the administration. That is anything but "normal".
However I would support the policy in extreme circumstances. I think if you or any other country tries to take us out through a strategic attack then we should use any means we have at hand to stop you and make sure that you never try it again.

[Mr Quatro]

All that article says is that it's an option (one of many) that hasn't even been approved by the administration. That is anything but "normal".
However I would support the policy in extreme circumstances. I think if you or any other country tries to take us out through a strategic attack then we should use any means we have at hand to stop you and make sure that you never try it again.

No way will America (presently headed by President Donald Trump) allow an image on the national news of a USN Aircraft carrier, with over 5,000 men and women personnel onboard, to be seen smoldering in smoke in the South CHina Sea or even off the coast of Iran without demanding instant justice :yep:

[Commander Wallace]

All that article says is that it's an option (one of many) that hasn't even been approved by the administration. That is anything but "normal".
However I would support the policy in extreme circumstances. I think if you or any other country tries to take us out through a strategic attack then we should use any means we have at hand to stop you and make sure that you never try it again.

No way will America (presently headed by President Donald Trump) allow an image on the national news of a USN Aircraft carrier, with over 5,000 men and women personnel onboard, to be seen smoldering in smoke in the South CHina Sea or even off the coast of Iran without demanding instant justice :yep:

^ Very much agreed. :yep:

I would only add, the weapons the U.S has at it's disposal are well know. What of the weapons as yet unknown that may become known in short order were war to break out ?