Chinas new aircraft carrier

Discussion in 'World Events' started by Buddha12, Aug 26, 2012.

  1. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member


    Let me rise my argument with citable facts, instead of citationless premises like all the rest.

    I would not call 48, 1 megaton submarine borne ICBM with =/>8000 km range lacking in retaliatory capability.* That enough to take out every city in the USA beyond 600,000 people**, that 25 cities at least!*** If we assume just one warhead per city (sense its assumed these missiles carry single warhead ~1 megaton yields) that is every city we have down to 385,000 people (Minneapolis sized an bigger), potentially only every city as small or smaller than Wichita Kansas would be spared! Our nation would be ruined, just the top 3 biggest of those cities represent nearly 20% of the USA GDP**** The top 25 cities have at least 35 million people (10% of our population) and we could only hope 30% of them die with the first day, there suffering will be shortest, up to 60% will die in total.***** That is ~20 million people or 3% of our population in a day and another 6% over time. And that is the direct performance of a full scale Chinese attack with best of their present inventory (only ~20% of their estimated at least 240 bombs)!******

    Its likely that our economy would completely shut down, considering how much outside those cities is reliant on those cities for trade and processing of goods, the amount of resources need to help the millions of survivors and mindless shear panic across the USA that might just cause every employe in the country to try loot for sullies and run for the hills in lue of precieved possible second attacks. With the federal government likely obliterated and without large cities there no telling how political power would play out. Millions of people would be reduced to common denominators of murdering each other for food and shelter: at the very least New Orleans Flooded Race Wars anywhere close to these cities and at the most Mad Max Post-Apocalyptic Anarchy within a year in many places of the USA!

    The truth of the matter is that China already has enough nuclear bombs and in counterstrike ready sumbarines and trucks to acheive MAD with the USA. Sure we could unleash 20 times what they can on them, and killing billions everywhere (including in the USA) from nuclear winter, but that only prevents them from stiking the USA directly with at least conventional attack. MAD means they can fuck with us every which way that won't make it probable of the USA at least countering with a conventional attack that could escalate. God forbid they ever get enough nukes and delivery systems in service to make a first strike against the USA viable! We might very well be right back to a cold war if they do and playing Russian roulette with humanities future.

    *4 type 094 submarines with at least 12 JL-2 each, already in active service.

    **Assuming an underestimate of 500 km^2 of damage per bomb. 25% of people in a city within 13 miles (covering 1359 km^2) of an air burst 1 MT will be injured by blast effects alone, thermal radiation will likely burst anything made of wood alight within 8 miles (~500 km^2), and anyone exposed will die from at least fourth degree burns. Derived from the book "The Nuclear casebook" Phillips and Ross (1984). Not to mention any survivors are likely to leave the now highly radioactive city for dozen of miles around.


    ****From "World Urbanization Prospects: The 2009 Revision Population Database"

    *****Assuming the same performance as Hiroshima which was grossly less powerful per square km^2 of city

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    This is simply sickening. What a total distorted engagement with the world we have.

    As for war with the USA, all the Chinese need to do is use current technology to create a super-flu that appears to be natural and let it go into the US. Do that year in and year out for a few decades. Sure, maybe they take a hit now and again just as the British used to do when allowing German subs to sink some of their boats.

    Or, they could simply sell US Bonds.

    OR.... maybe they'll lead the charge against Statism and usher in a bright Asian future based on Capitalism and free trade and really win the hearts and minds of the world - like we used to do.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. superstring01 Moderator

    We? I'm sorry. You're comparing American worldview with the halcyon, peaceful worldview of . . . what nation? What global power?

    You're assuming such a disease wouldn't also wipe out Chinese populations which--given Chinese poverty and lackluster infrastructure--would place far more of a societal burden on China than us. And even IF China survivde such an engagement, it would certainly cause massive social unrest on her borders, with those nations that have even LESS infrastructure than China, thus occupying Chinese resources again--more than American.

    To whom? Exactly. Name the party who'd snatch them up. What's your game plan? Where you going with this pal?

    You do realize that at the first sign of belligerence those bonds would simply be left unpaid. It's the USA is the one who owes China money. It's not China who has the USA by the balls, it's the USA who has China by the balls. The USA would simply null-and-void any commitment to paying those bonds. Now, I'm not presupposing repercussions on the USA, but you do realize that it's mostly Chinese imports that are sub-planting American-made goods, right? The ripple effects would destroy the global economy, but China would only guarantee her largest buyer ceased buying and ceased paying on those debts. If I owe you $100 and I refuse to pay you back, who's hurt more, immediately?

    So, in your little dream scenario where China is the "good guy" and would never summarily arrest and execute its own people. Shit. Nope. That doesn't work.
    So, in your little dream scenario where China wouldn't act belligerently towards Vietnam, Taiwan, South Korea, Japan the Philippines, Indonesia or India . . . shit. That doesn't work either.

    Yeah. I JUST can't wait until all you crybabies about the USA see how China acts when she's able to project her power. The dream world you live in where the Chinese are good, individual-respecting, human-rights loving, caring, charitable people would be amusing if it weren't so blatantly ignorant.

  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    It has become abundantly clear that you do not understand even the basics of how nuclear strategy works. It is not a matter of precisely how destructive China's arsenal is. It is a question of whether China's aresenal could credibly survive a first-strike by America's arsenal with enough capabilities left over to still inflict unacceptable losses on the USA. It is not, at present, although China is working hard to make it so.
  8. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Oh then do explain to me than, citations and facts would be nice.

    Hum lets see they got at least 4 nuclear submarines and 15 mobile land base launchers, are you telling me its likely we can find and hit all of those at once? Certainly it possible but do you think any of our politicians would be willing to risk it? And exactly what is unacceptable losses: is just one or two USA cities leveled acceptable?

    Oh certainly they are scale up their nuclear arms, just 10 years ago they did not even have any ballistic missiles submarines in service. I've laid the evidence clearly that China already has a deterrent arsenal despite your ad hominems that it does not, they are capable of a counterstrike at present, what they likely want is a first strike arsenal, their goal is most likely to become the Next USA so they can go around bullying whom ever they want.
  9. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    I've already explained such repeatedly - apparently you don't want to hear it - but here is a good citation:

    That article is about 6 years old now and so is slightly dated - its publication is credited with causing a greater emphasis on survivability of existing arsenals by both China and Russia - but it covers the basic strategic considerations quite nicely.

    It is not known that those subs are actually operational - only that they have been constructed. China has previously had issues of this type - they had two nuclear subs, but never got them truly operational. Even if the subs are operational, that is still short of them being truly battle-capable. This is a new, untested capability for China that they have no experience deploying or operating - or defending in a hostile setting, or obscuring from hostile intelligence. Basically, the effectiveness is unknown at this point. Moreover, those missiles are only capable of hitting small portions of North America from anywhere near China - they would need to travel a great distance across the Pacific Ocean (during which time they'd be subject to detection and countermeasures - before they could target the bulk of the US land mass.

    It's a question of intelligence, for sure, which is difficult to assess. Suffice it to say, though, that the USA has lots of intelligence capabilities and a pointed interest in knowing where these things are at all times, as well as a massive arsenal more than capable of stealthily targetting a hell of a lot more than 15 mobile launchers and 4 subs. Even if two or three missiles do avoid destruction and get launched at the USA, that is exactly the sort of limited scenario that US missile defenses are designed to cope with. The odds that the USA could successfully carry out a first strike are simply far too high for Chinese decision makers to feel any level of confidence in threatening nuclear escalation.

    That all depends on the scenario. I do not think that the USA would countenance an unprovoked nuclear first strike on China. The larger diplomatic and political downsides to that are huge, even if the strike is itself successful. But we are addressing a scenario in which China is trying to leverage nuclear threats to enable far-flung aggression - in that scenario, and with the stakes including a threatened nuclear attack on the USA, the risks come into proportion. To that: losing a city or two is far preferable to allowing China to hit 20-30 targets, no? But, again, the point is that China is in no position to threaten to do that - even the most devestating strike that China could possibly launch agains the USA could not hope to come close to preventing a massive retaliatory strike that would completely devastate China.

    It's more a matter of surviveability than size of the force per se - that's why they want the subs. It's more difficult to track and tdisable a sub than a land-based launch system or bomber fleet. And to be clear, I do expect that China will make sufficient investments in their arsenal to achieve a credible retaliatory capability by 2015-2020 or so. But even that would only create a MAD scenario, which still does not enable China to pursue threats of nuclear escalation to enable foreign aggression.

    There is no realistic chance of them achieving such. The US arsenal is simply too advanced, distributed, hardened and downright huge for anyone to achieve nuclear primacy vis-a-vis the USA.
  10. superstring01 Moderator

    Which--to bolster your point--ignores three points that I think you're aware of:
    • They'd have to simultaneously annihilate every Ohio class subs within fast-striking distance of China--submarines that are the most advanced on the planet, submarines that are likely within "hundred(s) of kilometers" and not "thousands"; then destroy the far-off boomers in the Atlantic and Arctic oceans.
    • Simultaneously destroy the the fast-strike nuclear bases at Diego Garcia, Turkey, Alaska and Hawaii and possible--though never disclosed--nuclear fast-strike bases in South Korea (which both the US and Korean government would want kept secret and kept in place for obvious reasons); as well as the further bases in Northern Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, the UK, and the continental US.
    • Destroy the nuclear launch capable British submarine kept in the Pacific who would retaliate against a strike against the USA because: (a) the Brits are our allies and (b) China would have to neutralize the US nuclear bases in Italy, Germany, Turkey, the UK and the British base at Diego Garcia (in order to prevent an American strike from those facilities).

    Even if China were to execute a "first strike" against the USA, she'd need to wipe out every base and every sub on Earth with launch capability. Unlikely and it's unlikely any serious number of Chinese nukes would reach their target (considering her current stockpiles, delivery methods, American counter-measures and the [well known] extremely-high dud-rate of nukes in general) before the fast-response capabilities of American bases near China executed a full strike of the Chinese mainland.

  11. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    "Dated" is certainly what this articles is, for example:

    "China has been trying to develop a new missile for its future ballistic missile submarine as well as mobile ICBMs (the
    DF-31 and longer-range DF-31A) to replace its current ICBM force. The U.S. Defense Department predicts that
    China may deploy DF-31s in a few years, although the forecast should be treated skeptically: U.S. intelligence
    has been announcing the missile's imminent deployment for decades."

    Well well today they already have at least 60 of them all mobile and at least 48 out at sea somewhere cruising under the ocean, certainly not in a limited exposed area of northern china that we can target and strike.

    China has had a boomer testbed operational since 1987, the Type 092, it had the first Type 094 out at sea since 2004 and has had four of them out since 2010. There no way you can tell if they aren't battle-capable, they have had over 20 years of experience with this kind of submarine. The D-31A can hit anywhere in the USA (see map) and the JL-2 can be launch from the aforementioned subs in the pacific and hit anywhere in the USA, They have had these types of missiles with this range operational since 2007.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    If just one of their subs got through that would be 12 missiles not 2-3. More so our ballistic missile defenses in untested against real targets that can deploy decoy balloons and other countermeasures.

    They don't need to threaten nuclear escalation, take a look at the military issues china has at present: arguing over some rocks in the ocean with Japan, Vietnam, Philippines. If china choose to use military force over these USA has to ask it self if it worth going in there, sure we would most likely win in a conventional war and a nuclear war with china, but are we willing to take the risk?, I would say we are pretty hesitant now. China is scaling up its forces such as it could comfortable assert its self and we would not only hesitate to respond but would not at all. And never would china need to verbally retract its present nuclear policy, the threat is merely one of physical reality that china even at present is too economically and militarily powerful for the USA to consider fucking with directly.

    Consider the real life scenarios similar to the above but with the USA and the Soviet Union, say the Cuban missiles crisis when the USA had in fact far greater striking power against the soviet union, but just the possibility of a few million USA casualties from a few soviet missiles was enough to force a purely diplomatic solution, a solution that forced us to forever accept Castro in Cuba. Likewise we are presently in a position with china, with just its present nuclear arms to consider diplomatic solutions and compromises to even any sign of possible outbreak of conflict between them, diplomacy would have to fail below any level we have ever seen to force us to strike them first to try to take out all their nukes and risk any countervalue strike.

    Again with the threats, China does not need to make any verbal threats, all it needs presently is enough forces to make sure the USA won't counter attack against any military moves in the south chinese sea. Look at North Korea, we haven't invaded them them despite there open development of nuclear weapons and blatant attempts to blackmail us into giving them aid and treated, why?, simply because they could kill hundreds of thousands of South Koreans and Japanese (not even USA people!) with a conventional counterstrike of explosives and nerve gas. One does not need weapons parity with an opponent like the USA, one only needs enough weapons and targets to get the USA to not risk fighting.
  12. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Let me remind you of the scenario that you proposed, and to which I have been responding:

    If you have now conceded that such a scenario is not realistic or likely, then we are agreed.


    I'd respond by asking where the double-standard is coming from - apparently this situation is too risky for the USA despite the likelihood of prevailing, but somehow not too risky for China to pursue in the first place because... they are likely to lose?

    If a state of MAD prevents the USA from entering into confrontation with China, then it likewise prevents China from entering into confrontation with the USA. Right? Or is China supposed to be irrational or somehow differently motivated than the USA?

    And likewise, the USA is too economically and militarily powerful for China to consider fucking with directly. So where is the basis for your claim that they are in a position to be belligerent and assertive?

    I reject the accuracy of that narrative and the associated assertions of fact and expectation.

    Again with the double standard - doesn't the USA already have enough forces to make sure that China won't make any military moves in the South China Sea in the first place? How is it that an inferior arsenal permits China to be belligerent, but a superior arsenal prevents America from responding to that? You aren't making sense.

    Why doesn't this logic apply to China as well? How is it that America's superior arsenal is supposed to be insufficient to deter China from risking confrontation, but not the other way around?
  13. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    Just out of curiosity, should tensions rise the US would in all likelihood resume those nuke flights where they approach relatively close and then return home with bombers carrying nukes, thus if the shit hits the fan the nukes are released. B-2 Spirits could get close enough while avoiding detection, it could carry 18 free fall nukes, so assuming you can switch those out with the equivalent number of cruise missiles, AGM-129 nuclear tipped missiles with up to 150 KT of power.

    If you release those over China, for one they are low observable so they have some stealthy characteristics. But on top of that, 18 of those detonating in the atmosphere can unleash an incredible electromagnetic pulse.

    Such a pulse would prove difficult to deal with even for hardened structures, and certainly the response would be so disorganized that it proves ineffective. Ie, one facility fires off a missile, then an hour later another facility receives the same order and fires their's, and so on. Instead of coordinating their strikes each individual launcher would probably be disorganized, thus allowing for easier countermeasures.

    And because of the nature of the attack, high altitude cruise missiles dropped by a stealth bomber that goes undetected, the Chinese would have a serious problem confirming it was US in the early minutes of the attack.

    Repeated strikes from B-2's in the same way, every 6 hours could create a near perpetual EMP storm over China, which would incapacitate and retaliatory response.

    The question is what would we do about the submarines. If enough time is given to plan it, I don't see any reason why the Sea wolfs could not handle them.

    In this scenario civilian loss of life is kept to a minimum, especially if it is done on a cloudy day which minimizes the nuclear flash. Ironically the fallout would prove more of a danger to the US then China.

    Of course there are flaws with the plan. For one thing finding the mobile nukes is a serious issue. Another is that there will be no point to this plan if Chinese fighters are already in the air.
  14. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    No I was not saying the Chinese would verbally say such a thing, it was a hyperbole, gee what nation would actually speak that way (except for north korea)? China once it amass as reasonable water navy could readily take islands in the south chinese sea and we would not likely attack them, disagree?

    Ideally they won't pursue such action, but there rapid military build up does beg the question: why? why would they build up their military if they weren't looking to start bullying USA style?

    A state of MAD did not prevent the Soviets and USA from clobbering proxy states, and thus my argument is backed by history: MAD does not prevent war, it only prevents direct war, thus it keeps us from directly stopping the other. Heck all the Chinese want maybe to take a few islands and the sea rights of them, many of which uninhabited, there is a high chance we would not risk an escalating or any kind of war with them over that. The Chinese aren't messing with us directly if they do these actions, it would be us that force to mess with them directly if we want to stop them.. or we could just try to selling huge amounts of arms to the surrounding states so they can defend themselves against Chinese aggression, just like we are doing now!

    And so your not even going to try to build a counter argument?
  15. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Yes, I disagree. I have already stated such and given my reasons for that, multiple times now.

    The Soviet analogy is not particularly useful, because the USSR never had a blue water navy to speak of. We can agree that it is unlikely that China or the USA will attempt to invade the other's country. But the history of the USSR gives us no precedent whatsoever for how nuclear balance will or will not affect naval confrontations.

    Challenging American control of the high seas, or attempting to revise the maritime system in the South China Sea by force, are both direct challenges to the American-backed world order.

    Begs the reverse question (for about the tenth time now): why is it that China is going to be willing to risk confrontation with a superior power, but the USA is not going to risk confrontation with an inferior power? It does not add up, and your continued refusal to answer this simple question has now reached the point where I am no longer interested in listening to you repeat yourself and evade direct questions. This interaction is now at an end. You have not convinced anyone of anything except that you lack a serious grasp on the issues in question and exhibit poor rhetorical skills. Thanks for playing.
  16. R1D2 many leagues under the sea. Valued Senior Member

    If I could afford a "ship like this" I would.

    On another note.
    If the chinese do make there ship. I wonder what type of capability's it will have. The chinese government are well know for lies.
    But any air craft carrier is more dangerous imo with stealth type aircraft. I wonder if they have those.
  17. kmguru Staff Member

    How about India?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


Share This Page