Chinese carrier weapon

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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 ?

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by goldorak

On the other hand, if a terrorist organization were to detonate a nuclear weapon, against whom do you retaliate ?

Nations raising, financing and supporting them.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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

[Schroeder]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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]

Originally Posted by Schroeder

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.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by jimbuna

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

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

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]

Originally Posted by Buddahaid

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]

Originally Posted by 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."

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.