China's first aircraft carrier 'starts sea trials'

Anthony W. · 08-10-11, 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

We should sink it if possible, China having a carrier is just bad news bears all around.

I think we could do it discreetly and blame it on North Korea. Hell, our attack subs are faster and probably quiet enough to avoid detection, even after the carrier group's run in with one of their nuclear subs (surfacing in the middle of the group - we didn't even know it was there).

No doubt something must be done about China. Any time a country designs a missile specifically to take out a carrier, I think we could call it a hostile act.

TLAM Strike · 08-10-11, 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anthony W.

Any time a country designs a missile specifically to take out a carrier, I think we could call it a hostile act.

These weren't for hunting crab poachers you know...

Just building a weapon is not Casus Belli, its the intent behind it that provides that.

Raptor1 · 08-10-11, 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anthony W.

No doubt something must be done about China. Any time a country designs a missile specifically to take out a carrier, I think we could call it a hostile act.

That would be rather impractical. Quite a few of the ASMs designed by the Soviet Union and Russia were made primarily for destroying aircraft carriers (Often with nuclear warheads too). Besides, the missile will stay the same even if you say it is designed for killing aircraft carriers or fish, it is only its effectiveness at either task that actually says anything about it...

Diopos · 08-11-11, 01:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anthony W.

...
No doubt something must be done about China. Any time a country designs a missile specifically to take out a carrier, I think we could call it a hostile act.

Very interesting logic. I have the right to possess an excelent "superweapon" (as a CVN) but you have no right to attempt to defend against it or counterbalance it. Extending this kind of "preemptive strike" logic in USA's overall strategic posture (military, diplomatic, trade/financial and technological) would probably result in "us against all" situations. Do the US really want that?

.

Jimbuna · 08-11-11, 06:13 AM

Do the Chinese have an effective means of protecting her?

TarJak · 08-11-11, 06:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimbuna

Do the Chinese have an effective means of protecting her?

Yeah a few years ago they built this great wall...

Growler · 08-11-11, 06:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimbuna

Do the Chinese have an effective means of protecting her?

hmm...

Wal*Mart, Target, 5 Below, Ace Hardware, Home Depot, Lowes...

Yeah, I'd say they do.

TarJak · 08-11-11, 06:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Growler

hmm...

Wal*Mart, Target, 5 Below, Ace Hardware, Home Depot, Lowes...

Yeah, I'd say they do.

CaptainMattJ. · 08-11-11, 12:11 PM

Special update:

The carrier has suffered a catastrophic malfunction and is now taking on gratuitous amounts of water. The cause is uncertain, however it might have something to do with a stray torpedo fired from the USS Spearfish in a completely unrelated exercise to see if The old boat could potentially sink a chinese carrier.

Bubblehead1980 · 08-11-11, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diopos

Very interesting logic. I have the right to possess an excelent "superweapon" (as a CVN) but you have no right to attempt to defend against it or counterbalance it. Extending this kind of "preemptive strike" logic in USA's overall strategic posture (military, diplomatic, trade/financial and technological) would probably result in "us against all" situations. Do the US really want that?

.

China claims a sovereign nation(Taiwan) as it's own and will no doubt try to take it back if/when they feel they can get away with.China is emboldened by their prosperity(sadly fueled by the US) and has no legitimate reason to build up it's military as it is doing, other than those pulling the strings in that nation plan on trying assert power in the region down the road, fueling another cold war that could get hot times.The sad irony of it, US lives will prob be lost to equipment paid for with money paid to China by the US.Damn Nixon for even visiting, damn Clinton for his involvement, should have kept these people in the dark ages for as long as possible, that's how you prevent a war, well one that will cost much anyway.

Oberon · 08-11-11, 02:32 PM

C'est la economy

Diopos · 08-11-11, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

China claims a sovereign nation(Taiwan) as it's own and will no doubt try to take it back if/when they feel they can get away with.China is emboldened by their prosperity(sadly fueled by the US) and has no legitimate reason to build up it's military as it is doing, other than those pulling the strings in that nation plan on trying assert power in the region down the road, fueling another cold war that could get hot times.The sad irony of it, US lives will prob be lost to equipment paid for with money paid to China by the US.Damn Nixon for even visiting, damn Clinton for his involvement, should have kept these people in the dark ages for as long as possible, that's how you prevent a war, well one that will cost much anyway.

China does not need CVs to deal with Taiwan it is too close to the mainland. A "prosperous" China has much to lose in case of a war.

.

Oberon · 08-11-11, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diopos

China does not need CVs to deal with Taiwan it is too close to the mainland. A "prosperous" China has much to lose in case of a war.

.

This is true, a good deal of the PRC trade is between Taiwan and the mainland. War is not in the PRCs best interest, particularly not a protracted war which it would be at the moment. So, I believe the latest estimate put it at about 2018 before the PRC will be at a technological parity with the forces on Taiwan and/or have enough forces to be able to withstand attrition rates. Even with a short war though Taiwan will fight like a tiger and PRC losses will be high, and more importantly for the PRC, the infrastructure of Taiwan will be badly damaged which will screw up their trade. The stock markets in Asia will go mental, and there is a risk of a conflict with the United States of America depending on who is in charge and what their approach to the Taiwan question is, so all in all it just isn't worth it for them.

Jimbuna · 08-11-11, 05:51 PM

Agreed...good assessment

Bubblehead1980 · 08-12-11, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diopos

China does not need CVs to deal with Taiwan it is too close to the mainland. A "prosperous" China has much to lose in case of a war.

.

No, but they need one to project power and it's the basis for building a powerful fleet than can do so in the future.

08-11-11, 06:13 AM	#5
Jimbuna Chief of the Boat Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: 250 metres below the surface Posts: 190,678 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 13	Do the Chinese have an effective means of protecting her? __________________ Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something. Oh my God, not again!!

08-11-11, 12:11 PM	#9
CaptainMattJ. The Old Man Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Sin City Posts: 1,364 Downloads: 55 Uploads: 0	Special update: The carrier has suffered a catastrophic malfunction and is now taking on gratuitous amounts of water. The cause is uncertain, however it might have something to do with a stray torpedo fired from the USS Spearfish in a completely unrelated exercise to see if The old boat could potentially sink a chinese carrier. __________________ A popular Government without popular information nor the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy or perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own Governors must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives - James Madison

08-11-11, 05:51 PM	#14
Jimbuna Chief of the Boat Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: 250 metres below the surface Posts: 190,678 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 13	Agreed...good assessment __________________ Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something. Oh my God, not again!!

08-11-11, 02:32 PM	#11
Oberon Lucky Jack Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 25,976 Downloads: 61 Uploads: 20	C'est la economy