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/new...mXFL0U88SlOtxQ

[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.


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.

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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...dgkevMcJ-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-wo...torial-waters/

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Kapitan

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...dgkevMcJ-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?

[mapuc]

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

Markus

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.





Nchtrag:
Danke für den Hinweis Sky.

[Skybird]

"The pressure of the kite."



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.