Yup. No reason to account for human error, incompetence, hardware/software glitch and/or the element of surprise (rolling eyes)
Yup. No reason to account for human error, incompetence, hardware/software glitch and/or the element of surprise (rolling eyes)
JTsyo
Lifer
- Nov 18, 2007
- 12,048
- 1,142
- 126
I guess we would need to know how many missiles attacks there have been since WW2 on US ships. If it's less than 5, this incident would be significant.
I'm sure the US military has gotten very good at detecting ballistic missile launches, especially from that portion of the world. With enough warning, you might be able to move far enough that the missile couldn't track you.
GTaudiophile
Lifer
- Oct 24, 2000
- 29,767
- 33
- 81
Oh guys, don't worry. Obama will soon cut all military R&D funding in favor of more welfare programs for illegals.
Meanwhile, Chinese spies (and Bill Clinton?) working at American defense companies will continue to sell secrets to China, allowing them to catch up with relative ease.
Meanwhile, Chinese spies (and Bill Clinton?) working at American defense companies will continue to sell secrets to China, allowing them to catch up with relative ease.
StageLeft
No Lifer
- Sep 29, 2000
- 70,150
- 5
- 0
A) your dad sounds like an idiot
B) ICBMs are a many-decade old weapon. You really think the US' military is broadsided by something like this? It has no counter? Aegis systems and others are impotent? No military in the world can competently compete with the US'. Period, end of story.
B) ICBMs are a many-decade old weapon. You really think the US' military is broadsided by something like this? It has no counter? Aegis systems and others are impotent? No military in the world can competently compete with the US'. Period, end of story.
- Oct 30, 2000
- 42,589
- 5
- 0
Originally posted by: silverpig
Some dudes in caves have rendered the army essentially useless
Always because of politicians.
Turn the military lose to fight and they will win.
Handicap them by rules that benefit the opponent and you have a unnecessary loss of life.
jman19
Lifer
- Nov 3, 2000
- 11,225
- 664
- 126
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Originally posted by: silverpig
Some dudes in caves have rendered the army essentially useless
Always because of politicians.
Turn the military lose to fight and they will win.
Handicap them by rules that benefit the opponent and you have a unnecessary loss of life.
You get the loss of life either way, it's just a matter of who is dying.
silverpig
Lifer
- Jul 29, 2001
- 27,703
- 12
- 81
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Originally posted by: silverpig
Some dudes in caves have rendered the army essentially useless
Always because of politicians.
Turn the military lose to fight and they will win.
Handicap them by rules that benefit the opponent and you have a unnecessary loss of life.
*shrug*
What's the counter for the roadside bomb again?
The US military may be powerful, but it certainly isn't invincible. A war against China would not go as well as Iraq. Some ships would be lost.
jman19
Lifer
- Nov 3, 2000
- 11,225
- 664
- 126
Originally posted by: silverpig
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Originally posted by: silverpig
Some dudes in caves have rendered the army essentially useless
Always because of politicians.
Turn the military lose to fight and they will win.
Handicap them by rules that benefit the opponent and you have a unnecessary loss of life.
*shrug*
What's the counter for the roadside bomb again?
The US military may be powerful, but it certainly isn't invincible. A war against China would not go as well as Iraq. Some ships would be lost.
Killing the people who put the bombs there?
Or not occupying a country
Oceandevi
Diamond Member
- Jan 20, 2006
- 3,085
- 1
- 0
Originally posted by: silverpig
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Originally posted by: silverpig
Some dudes in caves have rendered the army essentially useless
Always because of politicians.
Turn the military lose to fight and they will win.
Handicap them by rules that benefit the opponent and you have a unnecessary loss of life.
*shrug*
What's the counter for the roadside bomb again?
The US military may be powerful, but it certainly isn't invincible. A war against China would not go as well as Iraq. Some ships would be lost.
drone vehicles, carpet bombing, killing the mine layers...
Schadenfroh
Elite Member
- Mar 8, 2003
- 38,416
- 4
- 0
1. Can NATO ballistic missile launch detection systems tell what a medium / long range ballistic missile is tipped with? IE a nuclear warhead versus HE when the ballistic missile type could carry either? If not, then the minute they launched loads of things like that during a war, one might expect a nuclear retaliation as I doubt the US will wait around for them all to hit and see what happens before responding. The US can wipe out all of China with nuclear weapons, China cannot wipe the entire US out (although they can certainly do severe damage).
2. I seriously doubt (although acknowledge the possibility) that the Chinese will be able to develop something this accurate (to hit a moving aircraft carrier (I assume that is the only thing that anyone can hope to hit with a medium-range BM)) over the next decade. Medium-Range Ballistic missiles are not that precise, they can only hit in the general vicinity of stationary targets. Usually they do not need to be that precise since their primary function is nuclear war. Their bast strategy would likely to be launching many of them in hopes that one will hit.
3. China will not risk war with the US in the foreseeable future and the US certainly does not want war with them. China would take a fatal economic hit from the ensuing NATO and Asian embargo (Japan and South Korea would undoubtedly be drawn into this as well. The Chinese would need to eliminate US operations in those countries) and the debt the US owes to them would almost certainly never be payed back.
2. I seriously doubt (although acknowledge the possibility) that the Chinese will be able to develop something this accurate (to hit a moving aircraft carrier (I assume that is the only thing that anyone can hope to hit with a medium-range BM)) over the next decade. Medium-Range Ballistic missiles are not that precise, they can only hit in the general vicinity of stationary targets. Usually they do not need to be that precise since their primary function is nuclear war. Their bast strategy would likely to be launching many of them in hopes that one will hit.
3. China will not risk war with the US in the foreseeable future and the US certainly does not want war with them. China would take a fatal economic hit from the ensuing NATO and Asian embargo (Japan and South Korea would undoubtedly be drawn into this as well. The Chinese would need to eliminate US operations in those countries) and the debt the US owes to them would almost certainly never be payed back.
This threat would be nothing new...
Look at the two very different strategies taken by the US and the USSR. The US went with Super Carriers in order to keep seas open, while the USSR went with submarines outfitted with anti-ship cruise missiles to prevent ships from entering seas. For decades the US operated it's carriers despite the Soviets threat of cruise missiles and other weapons designed to sink carriers. The Nimitz class carrier is outfitted for defenses against cruise missiles and other threats.
I believe we tested our ballistic missile defense last year when we shot a Satellite using a missile shot from a destroyer or cruiser, I forget but it was shot from a ship that regularly patrols with carriers.
Look at the two very different strategies taken by the US and the USSR. The US went with Super Carriers in order to keep seas open, while the USSR went with submarines outfitted with anti-ship cruise missiles to prevent ships from entering seas. For decades the US operated it's carriers despite the Soviets threat of cruise missiles and other weapons designed to sink carriers. The Nimitz class carrier is outfitted for defenses against cruise missiles and other threats.
I believe we tested our ballistic missile defense last year when we shot a Satellite using a missile shot from a destroyer or cruiser, I forget but it was shot from a ship that regularly patrols with carriers.
Deeko
Lifer
- Jun 16, 2000
- 30,213
- 12
- 81
Originally posted by: silverpig
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Originally posted by: silverpig
Some dudes in caves have rendered the army essentially useless
Always because of politicians.
Turn the military lose to fight and they will win.
Handicap them by rules that benefit the opponent and you have a unnecessary loss of life.
*shrug*
What's the counter for the roadside bomb again?
The US military may be powerful, but it certainly isn't invincible. A war against China would not go as well as Iraq. Some ships would be lost.
Of course - China is an emerging superpower, Iraq is a shitstain in the middle east. That doesn't mean we don't still have military superiority over them.
1.) Depends on if China wants us to be able to detect that or not. The signature of a conventional BM warhead is different than a nuclear one. The thing is that most ballistic missiles are being developed with countermeasure technology to thwart our systems... so if they would be willing to give that up to assure us the missiles they were firing at us weren't nuclear... debatable. Probably not.
A launch of a few of these would probably not incite a nuclear retaliation however as the Chinese government could take other steps, and the number of missiles launched would probably not be of the numbers (or general impact area) to incite a US nuclear response.
2.) Yeap
3.) Yeap, for those and many other reasons.
Are you guys really debating what would happen in a real war with China? Seriously?
We would all be carbon particles. There would be no ships sinking.
China holds the largest per-warhead megaton average in the world. We hold the most accurate ICBMs.
World over.
We would all be carbon particles. There would be no ships sinking.
China holds the largest per-warhead megaton average in the world. We hold the most accurate ICBMs.
World over.
Not really. China's ICBM fleet is small, and vulnerable to US counterforce measures. Sure some would survive US counterforce attack (or be launched preemptively), but to say that we would be carbon particles is not accurate. China does not have the capability to destroy the US through nuclear means, it only has the capability to make such a war completely unpalatable. (which of course for them is just as good)
Why do you think we started working on the Patriot and anti-missle defenses?
Why does everyone want to do away with our anti-missle/ICBM defense systems?
The russians have an under water missle that is nuclear capable designed to take out aircraft carriers and large naval ships. Iran also has a similar device they tested a while back, they just dont have the nukes (Not yet anyway).
Why does everyone want to do away with our anti-missle/ICBM defense systems?
The russians have an under water missle that is nuclear capable designed to take out aircraft carriers and large naval ships. Iran also has a similar device they tested a while back, they just dont have the nukes (Not yet anyway).
http://www.upiasia.com/Securit...stockpile_rising/7074/
Many of the missles have 3 warheads each.
This would destroy us, and most likely cause nuclear winter. Our "missle defense" thus far is a joke, and would not contain a launch from China.
Arkaign
Lifer
- Oct 27, 2006
- 20,736
- 1,379
- 126
Skoorb, good on ya for mentioning Aegis. It's continually improving.
Ocguy, I don't want to get into it in great detail right now, but China (as of ~2006, when I did my last heavy research) doesn't have enough quick-delivery devices or modern-enough ICBMs to be anywhere near an equal threat in terms of Nuclear arsenals, as issues such as TTL, fuel system readiness, and so forth are a logistical nightmare for them. In a flash confrontation, they would be lucky to get us with a few warheads, if any. Our boomers would pepper their continent before most of their obsolete missiles could even leave ground.
With a few years of particularly hard dedication, they could overcome these limitations, but I don't think either of us are headed towards that stage. We are too interdepependent upon each other, unlike the USSR v USA cold war where we operated largely separated economically.
Ocguy, I don't want to get into it in great detail right now, but China (as of ~2006, when I did my last heavy research) doesn't have enough quick-delivery devices or modern-enough ICBMs to be anywhere near an equal threat in terms of Nuclear arsenals, as issues such as TTL, fuel system readiness, and so forth are a logistical nightmare for them. In a flash confrontation, they would be lucky to get us with a few warheads, if any. Our boomers would pepper their continent before most of their obsolete missiles could even leave ground.
With a few years of particularly hard dedication, they could overcome these limitations, but I don't think either of us are headed towards that stage. We are too interdepependent upon each other, unlike the USSR v USA cold war where we operated largely separated economically.
You're right, our missile defense IS a joke and would not contain a launch from China. Their forces are still small, and extremely vulnerable to counterforce strikes however as they have a lack of hardened silos, ballistic missile submarines, etc. Several dozen missiles, each with a few warheads, is simply insufficient to turn the US to 'carbon particles'. That's if they all got off the ground, which is highly unlikely.
In fact, from a purely statistical standpoint China is the one major nuclear power that we could, in theory, fight a nuclear war with and win. I'm not suggesting we ever try it for about a zillion different reasons which should all be obvious, but still.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter