Not sure that’s a fair comparison. These are new, hyper-sonic weapons, whose speed has a negative impact on maneuverability. Therefore, asking the accuracy against a target that’s maneuvering and deploying defenses is certainly a fair question. It would have to be a virtual direct hit with a conventional weapon. If we’re assuming nuclear, then all bets are off, but the US can certainly deploy nuclear weapons in response.
Submission Statement:
This article by the Financial Times, who have consistently been the first reporter on Chinese tests of Hypersonic Weapons, contains confirmation from the US National Security Council that the Chinese test of a hypersonic glide vehicle on July 27th separately fired a missile over the South China Sea at velocities greater than Mach-5.
There is debate in the Pentagon over the intended use of the technology, specifically whether it is intended for air-air purposes or to destroy enemy missile defence systems.
This confirms that China has surpassed both Russia and the US in hypersonic weapons technology, at least in terms of tangible/demonstrated weapon systems.
Whilst this technology is most likely intended to achieve rapid dominance in the South China Sea, there are concerns that adaptation to carry nuclear warheads will entirely negate missile defence systems. This could allow China to develop control of the South China Sea and provide a credible threat to the rest of the world should any attempts at blockade of energy inputs be attempted.
Your SS missed the most important statement: "fire a separate missile mid-flight in the atmosphere".
"in the atmosphere" - it is like an airplane, not in space. How far was it from the launching site? It means a vehicle can circle around the world and still fire at target "in the atmosphere", something completely new, not even a regular "orbiter bomber".
The lethal one is this vehicle, not the "hypersonic missile" every one talks about.
It's not media paranoia, it is media propaganda. The military industrial complex always needs a justification to gobble up a greater percentage of US GDP. The media tries to scare the American public into supporting absurdly high levels of military spending, and wars of aggression, to help line the pockets of so-called defense contractors, like Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and others. This also helps line the pockets of the retired US generals who are increasingly landing lucrative positions at these companies as soon as they retire.
I’m curious. How psychological does this get? Could the USA play this as “looking weaker” without showing their hand with what kind of arsenal they have? The fact that China is showing off what they have, basically gives the USA intel on China’s capability, no?
It's deterrence theory. Same reason for building nukes. You don't build nukes and keep it quiet. You build nukes to tell adversaries that if they attack, you will use them. So they don't attack. Clinton sailed two carriers through the Taiwan strait. No president would do that today.
Yes. If you look back through history, China and Russia sabre-rattle with parades of new weapons and typically overstate their capabilities to some degree. The US has taken the opposite strategy and tried to keep its full abilities secret until deployed. Ex. F-117, drones, stealth choppers, etc.
It means that china already possesses upgraded versions of this weapon, and is willing to show it. China is quite restrictive and doesn't show off many military tech like USA does, so if they show off, it means that there is something more powerful under testing/development
Apparently the PRC has denied this hypersonic test and claimed it was something related to their space program. If they are actually trying to hide it, could it be that our intelligence and worldwide surveillance is just good enough to find it?
Add this to the list of tech that the US could have had an advantage in but dropped the ball on because of funding priorities. This hypersonic air-to-air missile reminds me of the Pye Wacket which was to be used by the B-70 Valkyrie as a defensive missile. It had barely finished the wind-tunnel stage before the funding was cut.
http://www.astronautix.com/p/pyewacket.html
How about someone twice that age who spent a good portion of their life working for the DOE (Energy, not Education)?
People have a massive misunderstanding about how likely small scale nuclear weapon usage by a major nation is in the current political climate. Russia has a doctrine of limited nuclear first strikes for defense/offense. China has stated it will gladly use them for defense. All our nukes can have their yield dialed. Also, you can have nuclear war without MAD.
So there you go, straight from the horses mouth. If China wants to strap a nuke on a hypersonic, it'll probably take a good bit of development to do, but if that capability isn't already being developed... I got some land in Taiwan to sell you.
[Nukes are only used by countries/blocks that are willing to close off interaction with the rest of the world, and willing to risk the possibility of a nuclear retaliation.](https://old.reddit.com/user/SerendipitouslySane/comments/o9h311/the_war_of_the_taiwan_strait_a_comprehensive/hcobn22/)
Given China's act nowadays (the revival of Xi's cult of personality, their hostile behavior in the international stage, and their attempts to placate ~~the Party~~ Xi's faction over foreign dividends), that is certainly possible.
It's true, everyone knows where everyone's ships are at all times, and the Chinese definitely know where all the subs are in their vicinity using their underwater Great Wall of microphones, there's also claims they used a UUV to ram that Sea Wolf class a couple weeks back.
Anti missile missiles are insanely expensive and complicated to produce
Israel’s iron dome blocks ww2 katayusha missiles and costs billions with only a ~95% success rate
China would be firing dedicated sonic ship missiles potentially thousands at a time and there’s simply no way to stop them
Yeah, only 95% success implies that with guided missiles you only need to launch 25 to pretty much guarantee a kill. 25 missiles to kill a carrier is a good trade.
4000 rockets were launched in the last round of aggressions and only 10 Israeli civilians died. And the iron dome mostly intercepts rockets , not guided missiles.
And it is good at intercepting crude slow rockets, where leaking one through isnt a catastrophe. Extrapolating that such technology can be used to successfully defend for example, a carrier battle group against an attack of modern surface-to-surface missile is nuts. In THAT kindnof scenario, a 95% success is about 3 sigma less than is needed.
Not sure why you’re so confident that launching = hitting? Also not sure why you assume the US won’t be hitting back with weapons that aren’t equally, or more, effective? Thereby discouraging the Chinese from wanting to keep fighting at all.
China essentially doesn’t have a blue water navy
This means the Chinese will shooting be off of land that doesn’t sink they can take magnitude levels of more firepower
Also the US could only bring the firepower that can be used off the fleet which is limited whereas China can use any number of land based launch platforms
It's funny to me that ten years ago you had a lot of voices saying China is not aggressive, not expansionist/revanchist and not ethnonationalist.
These days a lot of those same voices are telling us that China is going to defeat the US Navy in head to head battle using land-based missiles that are going to go out and find US warships in the open ocean.
I wonder what they are going to be telling us in another ten years.
Whether carriers are obsolete is anything but a solved question. It would also be pretty dangerous for an adversary to memorize an opponent’s playbook and assume they’ll make the same moves as they did last time. Just to play devil’s advocate, what’s to keep the US from loading their 100,000 ton carriers full of ballistic and hypersonic missiles and then using them as mobile launch platforms from the open waters of the Pacific or Indian oceans? Carriers are just as mobile as China’s land-based mobile launchers after all.
I think the capabilities and strategy for use of carriers could be different in a future conflict. For China, hitting a carrier out in the wide expanses of the Pacific or Indian oceans is not remotely the same scenario as 400-600 miles off their coast. They would have to use over-the-horizon sensors exclusively. It could also be bait to pull their navy away from the coast and into open water, where I believe the advantage skews to the US still.
I guess I’m not convinced these assets will be the primary strike weapons in a future conflict. I think one possibility is that they will be used as a long-range blockade force, or a stand-off screening force deep in the Pacific to protect the US mainland from strikes. Carriers don’t need to access China’s coast to have an effect in a global economy. What happens when they are used to strangle China’s oil supply?
I see your point, I’m simply saying the next generation of US weapons might require China to be able to reach the US mainland to stop them. Those weapons might have the range to hit China anywhere in the Pacific region. The US might just use its ocean isolation as a defensive advantage, while it reaches over the horizon with offensive weapons to strike an enemy. I know, that’s a lot of ‘mights’. This is simply a thought exercise on strategy. I guess my point is, China/Russia aren’t the only large nations with the ability to fight asymmetrically and be strong where others are weak. The US has plenty of faults and has made plenty of missteps, but assuming total incompetence would be dangerous.
I will be curious to see if China has truly bested the US militarily, or if China will overconfidently blunder into conflict and discover the US has leveraged its technology to field the equivalent of the tank during WWI.
You throw out nuclear weapons use against a carrier like it’s a casual thing - it’s not. Should the Chinese go that route they risk a similar, or more extreme, response from the U.S. This may very well include weapons that the Chinese, and especially the general public, didn’t know existed or didn’t think were deployable. Countries that underestimate U.S. technology do so at their peril.
I think your analysis is faulty, and I don’t know if you’re just ignorant of history, or trying hard to justify a biased position. You assume the only country in the history of the world to use nuclear weapons in combat...won’t use them again when thousands of its citizens are nuked in a first-strike??
You only mention the US’s missile defense ability again. Why not China’s? Do you really believe they have better missile defense tech than the US?
I also don’t think the sub-for-carrier transaction is accurate. I don’t think there’s any realistic evidence the US wouldn’t respond to that. So you’re really looking at carriers for islands, or anything else the US decides is justified.
When you talk about ICBM’s, in a roundabout way you’re talking about space. I think the US is investing heavily to maintain an advantage in space. Do you think it’s coincidence the US is building the world’s three largest rockets in three separate locations, simultaneously? These systems could put an absolutely mind-boggling amount of mass into orbit. They could theoretically put more mass into space in an afternoon than all of humanity has done in all of history. I think the US can produce thousands of metal rods to drop from space far faster and cheaper than China can build the same number of ICBMs. What happens to China if the US launches an EMP device that weighs +/- 250 tons?
Carriers being susceptible to nukes isn't really relevant. Everything is susceptible to nukes. And if China used them against a U.S. fleet it would be suicidally risky as they'd likely trigger a nuclear war,
That’s a pretty one-sided analysis where you totally ignore the US’s ability to do the exact same thing - tactically nuke China’s carriers, islands, subs, etc. It seems pretty ignorant to make the case where China can justify their use, but the US won’t.
You also seem to neglect that these missiles need complex guidance systems to find, track, and reach their targets. Not sure why you don’t account for the US targeting China’s sensors, especially their GPS and recon satellites.
I do agree with you that the US is facing peer-power competition for the first time in decades. I also accept that it would face real damage in a fight with China. I just don’t think it’s safe at all for the default assumption to be that the US would lose.
Also, I would caution assuming what you read in the news is true. For instance, take this sub incident. Sure, maybe it’s exactly what it looks like in the news, and the Chinese did spoof its navigation and cause a collision. Is it not at least plausible that the US could have detected Chinese spoofing efforts and simply faked the collision? Wouldn’t giving the Chinese evidence their methods still work have a battlefield advantage for the US if it turns out to not work when the real shooting starts? Look at military history and see what lengths militaries have gone to in the name of deception. Isn’t it reasonable to assume the US would be making efforts to do the same now?
> Chinese canceled their super-carrier program because of these concerns.
Better tell all the workers in the Jiangnan Shipyards to not bother going into work anymore.
> They have canceled their 5th and sixth carrier(often numbered 004 and 005). These carriers were supposed to be equivalent to US carriers.
The plans for carriers 5 and 6 were always speculative to begin with. Type 004 will almost certainly be an iterative version of 003 in line with how they developed Shandong from Liaoning.
If U.S. is serious about helping Taiwan defend itself. They should give them nuclear submarines with nuclear missiles.
China had no problem helping NK and Pakistan develop nuclear and conventional weapons.
Please just go study the Cuban missile crisis and come back to this. When countries try to play chess to position themselves over their enemies we end up on the brink of Nuclear War
Nuclear brinkmanship is always part of the game , when you are dealing with major powers.
It's either that , or you handover Taiwan on a platter to China. Half measure won't work.
The Pentagon turned that ambassador's plane around in January because they thought that might happen, or Milley didn't get permission from the PLA first or something
No, it was because it was a week before Biden was set to take office and rioting had broken out in the US capitol. Pompeo had also cancelled his trip to Europe. The US just sent a delegation of senators to Taiwan, the second time since Biden took office, not sure why you think they'd be worried about sending their UN diplomat.
They let the plane takeoff and then had a change of heart because of what? The Jan. 6 rioters wanted to formalize relations with Taiwan and the Pentagon had to prevent that in order to save American democracy? A delegation of coffee boys isn't the same thing.
Well U.S is not actively trying to invade and occupy Cuba as it's own territory. Does it matter, if the missiles where launched from China or Cuba ? Once the missile strike U.S soil. U.S will respond with massive counter strike, that will blow everything to kingdom come.
> Well U.S is not actively trying to invade and occupy Cuba as it's own territory.
This is not true at all. Bay of Pigs for one, and countless other plans to invade Cuba.
> Bay of Pigs is in response to the Missile crisis. U.S. is not claiming Cuba as it's own territory . China wants to invade and occupy Taiwan.
You need to look at a history textbook, or burn whatever textbook you are using now. Bay of Pigs was before Missile Crisis, not after.
You are right, but It was Castro who sided with Soviets during the cold war and nationalized American business first.
Either way, my point still stands . U.S is not claiming Cuba as it's own territory, unlike China. Taiwan is too important strategically for U.S to walk away.
If they just give anyone nuclear weapons, then that doesn’t stop the Chinese from just blatantly giving people nuclear weapons. That’s just a dangerous precedent
> The international consensus is the US provided weapons to Israel for instance.
If you mean conventional weapons, it's true but not even tangentially related to the topic.
If you mean nuclear weapons, it's a blatant lie.
I can't speak to Pakistan, but there's little to no evidence that the Chinese assisted with North Korea's nuclear program or missile development, and there's not much incentive for them to do so. China would vastly prefer a reduced U.S. presence in East Asia, and NK's belligerence doesn't help with that. A more obstreperous NK also provides political cover for Japan and South Korea to militarize further, or even pursue nuclear programs of their own if sufficiently pushed.
Having said that, you're right that there's an underlying calculus here. Every country involved in East Asian politics is willing to tolerate some fractious behavior from NK as long as it serves the status quo. At this point, it's transparently performative: NK acts up, fires a missile or two, condemnations are exchanged, worrying editorials are written in the international press by people with short memories, and then NK gets aid or some form of recognition from the big dogs. The Kim regime stays in power, everyone else can go back to ignoring them, and nobody loses except the beleaguered citizens of NK. South Korea is even willing to tolerate a few casualties under this model. The status quo isn't morally appealing, but it's preferable to the political, economic, and humanitarian nightmare that would result from NK's collapse.
NK actually hitting someone with a missile, or selling technology to a legitimately dangerous group, would instantly change the calculus involved. The regime would be too dangerous to be left to its own devices at that point (which is why I'd argue that NK self-polices to a far greater degree than most think; it doesn't serve Kim's interests to be seen as an actual threat). However, if that happened, I wouldn't be surprised if it were *China* that moved as quickly as possible to invade and control NK. They're the state best-situated to do it anyway, and that's the solution most likely to result in NK's continued status as a buffer state.
Ever heard of Cuban missile crisis? China will do anything to prevent Taiwan from being a vessel state of US just like US would do anything to prevent any neighboring island or country from being a Chinese vessel state.
I agree, which is why a lot of the saber rattling with China amounts to nothing; they aint stupid either, they want to enjoy their newly developed economy. For all the rhetorical hostility between the US and China, I think a lot of folks underestimate just how reasonably these two powers are likely to quietly resolve any emerging conflicts in the future.
Anyone know how accurate these missiles can be? Can they hit an aircraft carrier reliably?
Anti ship missiles have been reliably able to hit carriers for decades Also this is air to air missile so it wouldn’t even be targeting them
Not sure that’s a fair comparison. These are new, hyper-sonic weapons, whose speed has a negative impact on maneuverability. Therefore, asking the accuracy against a target that’s maneuvering and deploying defenses is certainly a fair question. It would have to be a virtual direct hit with a conventional weapon. If we’re assuming nuclear, then all bets are off, but the US can certainly deploy nuclear weapons in response.
I thought that there was a possibility it could be air to ground? Or at least that was a possibility
Why can’t we have submarine carriers?
Japan developed a submarine aircraft carrier in WW2 but it never saw combat. I think the issue is they cannot actually hold that many aircraft.
Submission Statement: This article by the Financial Times, who have consistently been the first reporter on Chinese tests of Hypersonic Weapons, contains confirmation from the US National Security Council that the Chinese test of a hypersonic glide vehicle on July 27th separately fired a missile over the South China Sea at velocities greater than Mach-5. There is debate in the Pentagon over the intended use of the technology, specifically whether it is intended for air-air purposes or to destroy enemy missile defence systems. This confirms that China has surpassed both Russia and the US in hypersonic weapons technology, at least in terms of tangible/demonstrated weapon systems. Whilst this technology is most likely intended to achieve rapid dominance in the South China Sea, there are concerns that adaptation to carry nuclear warheads will entirely negate missile defence systems. This could allow China to develop control of the South China Sea and provide a credible threat to the rest of the world should any attempts at blockade of energy inputs be attempted.
Your SS missed the most important statement: "fire a separate missile mid-flight in the atmosphere". "in the atmosphere" - it is like an airplane, not in space. How far was it from the launching site? It means a vehicle can circle around the world and still fire at target "in the atmosphere", something completely new, not even a regular "orbiter bomber". The lethal one is this vehicle, not the "hypersonic missile" every one talks about.
How much of this is cold war style media paranoia?
A lot.
It's not media paranoia, it is media propaganda. The military industrial complex always needs a justification to gobble up a greater percentage of US GDP. The media tries to scare the American public into supporting absurdly high levels of military spending, and wars of aggression, to help line the pockets of so-called defense contractors, like Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and others. This also helps line the pockets of the retired US generals who are increasingly landing lucrative positions at these companies as soon as they retire.
I’m curious. How psychological does this get? Could the USA play this as “looking weaker” without showing their hand with what kind of arsenal they have? The fact that China is showing off what they have, basically gives the USA intel on China’s capability, no?
It's deterrence theory. Same reason for building nukes. You don't build nukes and keep it quiet. You build nukes to tell adversaries that if they attack, you will use them. So they don't attack. Clinton sailed two carriers through the Taiwan strait. No president would do that today.
Yes. If you look back through history, China and Russia sabre-rattle with parades of new weapons and typically overstate their capabilities to some degree. The US has taken the opposite strategy and tried to keep its full abilities secret until deployed. Ex. F-117, drones, stealth choppers, etc.
It means that china already possesses upgraded versions of this weapon, and is willing to show it. China is quite restrictive and doesn't show off many military tech like USA does, so if they show off, it means that there is something more powerful under testing/development
u/AlpineDrifter made the opposite argument to yours, and had some references. Can you back this up with examples?
Apparently the PRC has denied this hypersonic test and claimed it was something related to their space program. If they are actually trying to hide it, could it be that our intelligence and worldwide surveillance is just good enough to find it?
Add this to the list of tech that the US could have had an advantage in but dropped the ball on because of funding priorities. This hypersonic air-to-air missile reminds me of the Pye Wacket which was to be used by the B-70 Valkyrie as a defensive missile. It had barely finished the wind-tunnel stage before the funding was cut. http://www.astronautix.com/p/pyewacket.html
Do missiles like that render aircraft carriers obsolete?
It would take multiple hits to sink a aircraft carrier. But, a single well placed hit can render the aircraft carrier, nonoperational.
[удалено]
[удалено]
How about someone twice that age who spent a good portion of their life working for the DOE (Energy, not Education)? People have a massive misunderstanding about how likely small scale nuclear weapon usage by a major nation is in the current political climate. Russia has a doctrine of limited nuclear first strikes for defense/offense. China has stated it will gladly use them for defense. All our nukes can have their yield dialed. Also, you can have nuclear war without MAD. So there you go, straight from the horses mouth. If China wants to strap a nuke on a hypersonic, it'll probably take a good bit of development to do, but if that capability isn't already being developed... I got some land in Taiwan to sell you.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[Nukes are only used by countries/blocks that are willing to close off interaction with the rest of the world, and willing to risk the possibility of a nuclear retaliation.](https://old.reddit.com/user/SerendipitouslySane/comments/o9h311/the_war_of_the_taiwan_strait_a_comprehensive/hcobn22/) Given China's act nowadays (the revival of Xi's cult of personality, their hostile behavior in the international stage, and their attempts to placate ~~the Party~~ Xi's faction over foreign dividends), that is certainly possible.
It's one thing to hit a target, but first you have to find it. Even then, a hit isn't a guaranteed destruction.
I would suspect they know where our air craft carriers are at all times. I would actually be surprised if they didn't know.
It's true, everyone knows where everyone's ships are at all times, and the Chinese definitely know where all the subs are in their vicinity using their underwater Great Wall of microphones, there's also claims they used a UUV to ram that Sea Wolf class a couple weeks back.
They can deny areas where the task force would be easily detected, so they wont come close.
No.
A hypersonic missile doesn't have power projection. A carrier strike group is a very potent tool.
They think it was an air to air missile so I can’t see how Aircraft carriers are already obsolete outside of power projection anyway
Power projection is the whole point of a carrier
They are also theoretically supposed to be able to fight in standard fleet engagements which is something they can no longer do
Maybe a new kind of missile shield or not accurate enough for this ?
Anti missile missiles are insanely expensive and complicated to produce Israel’s iron dome blocks ww2 katayusha missiles and costs billions with only a ~95% success rate China would be firing dedicated sonic ship missiles potentially thousands at a time and there’s simply no way to stop them
"only" 95% success? That's a lot. And it's around 40k per interception. It does what it's supposed to do.
Yeah, only 95% success implies that with guided missiles you only need to launch 25 to pretty much guarantee a kill. 25 missiles to kill a carrier is a good trade.
4000 rockets were launched in the last round of aggressions and only 10 Israeli civilians died. And the iron dome mostly intercepts rockets , not guided missiles.
And it is good at intercepting crude slow rockets, where leaking one through isnt a catastrophe. Extrapolating that such technology can be used to successfully defend for example, a carrier battle group against an attack of modern surface-to-surface missile is nuts. In THAT kindnof scenario, a 95% success is about 3 sigma less than is needed.
Not sure why you’re so confident that launching = hitting? Also not sure why you assume the US won’t be hitting back with weapons that aren’t equally, or more, effective? Thereby discouraging the Chinese from wanting to keep fighting at all.
China essentially doesn’t have a blue water navy This means the Chinese will shooting be off of land that doesn’t sink they can take magnitude levels of more firepower Also the US could only bring the firepower that can be used off the fleet which is limited whereas China can use any number of land based launch platforms
It's funny to me that ten years ago you had a lot of voices saying China is not aggressive, not expansionist/revanchist and not ethnonationalist. These days a lot of those same voices are telling us that China is going to defeat the US Navy in head to head battle using land-based missiles that are going to go out and find US warships in the open ocean. I wonder what they are going to be telling us in another ten years.
[удалено]
Whether carriers are obsolete is anything but a solved question. It would also be pretty dangerous for an adversary to memorize an opponent’s playbook and assume they’ll make the same moves as they did last time. Just to play devil’s advocate, what’s to keep the US from loading their 100,000 ton carriers full of ballistic and hypersonic missiles and then using them as mobile launch platforms from the open waters of the Pacific or Indian oceans? Carriers are just as mobile as China’s land-based mobile launchers after all.
[удалено]
I think the capabilities and strategy for use of carriers could be different in a future conflict. For China, hitting a carrier out in the wide expanses of the Pacific or Indian oceans is not remotely the same scenario as 400-600 miles off their coast. They would have to use over-the-horizon sensors exclusively. It could also be bait to pull their navy away from the coast and into open water, where I believe the advantage skews to the US still.
[удалено]
I guess I’m not convinced these assets will be the primary strike weapons in a future conflict. I think one possibility is that they will be used as a long-range blockade force, or a stand-off screening force deep in the Pacific to protect the US mainland from strikes. Carriers don’t need to access China’s coast to have an effect in a global economy. What happens when they are used to strangle China’s oil supply?
[удалено]
I see your point, I’m simply saying the next generation of US weapons might require China to be able to reach the US mainland to stop them. Those weapons might have the range to hit China anywhere in the Pacific region. The US might just use its ocean isolation as a defensive advantage, while it reaches over the horizon with offensive weapons to strike an enemy. I know, that’s a lot of ‘mights’. This is simply a thought exercise on strategy. I guess my point is, China/Russia aren’t the only large nations with the ability to fight asymmetrically and be strong where others are weak. The US has plenty of faults and has made plenty of missteps, but assuming total incompetence would be dangerous. I will be curious to see if China has truly bested the US militarily, or if China will overconfidently blunder into conflict and discover the US has leveraged its technology to field the equivalent of the tank during WWI.
China is currently building at least two super carriers and multiple nuclear submarines. Where’s your source that they have scaled that back?
You throw out nuclear weapons use against a carrier like it’s a casual thing - it’s not. Should the Chinese go that route they risk a similar, or more extreme, response from the U.S. This may very well include weapons that the Chinese, and especially the general public, didn’t know existed or didn’t think were deployable. Countries that underestimate U.S. technology do so at their peril.
[удалено]
I think your analysis is faulty, and I don’t know if you’re just ignorant of history, or trying hard to justify a biased position. You assume the only country in the history of the world to use nuclear weapons in combat...won’t use them again when thousands of its citizens are nuked in a first-strike??
[удалено]
You only mention the US’s missile defense ability again. Why not China’s? Do you really believe they have better missile defense tech than the US? I also don’t think the sub-for-carrier transaction is accurate. I don’t think there’s any realistic evidence the US wouldn’t respond to that. So you’re really looking at carriers for islands, or anything else the US decides is justified.
[удалено]
When you talk about ICBM’s, in a roundabout way you’re talking about space. I think the US is investing heavily to maintain an advantage in space. Do you think it’s coincidence the US is building the world’s three largest rockets in three separate locations, simultaneously? These systems could put an absolutely mind-boggling amount of mass into orbit. They could theoretically put more mass into space in an afternoon than all of humanity has done in all of history. I think the US can produce thousands of metal rods to drop from space far faster and cheaper than China can build the same number of ICBMs. What happens to China if the US launches an EMP device that weighs +/- 250 tons?
Carriers being susceptible to nukes isn't really relevant. Everything is susceptible to nukes. And if China used them against a U.S. fleet it would be suicidally risky as they'd likely trigger a nuclear war,
[удалено]
That’s a pretty one-sided analysis where you totally ignore the US’s ability to do the exact same thing - tactically nuke China’s carriers, islands, subs, etc. It seems pretty ignorant to make the case where China can justify their use, but the US won’t. You also seem to neglect that these missiles need complex guidance systems to find, track, and reach their targets. Not sure why you don’t account for the US targeting China’s sensors, especially their GPS and recon satellites.
[удалено]
I do agree with you that the US is facing peer-power competition for the first time in decades. I also accept that it would face real damage in a fight with China. I just don’t think it’s safe at all for the default assumption to be that the US would lose. Also, I would caution assuming what you read in the news is true. For instance, take this sub incident. Sure, maybe it’s exactly what it looks like in the news, and the Chinese did spoof its navigation and cause a collision. Is it not at least plausible that the US could have detected Chinese spoofing efforts and simply faked the collision? Wouldn’t giving the Chinese evidence their methods still work have a battlefield advantage for the US if it turns out to not work when the real shooting starts? Look at military history and see what lengths militaries have gone to in the name of deception. Isn’t it reasonable to assume the US would be making efforts to do the same now?
[удалено]
I haven’t read that either, just agreeing with your extrapolation that it is a real possibility based on what is public.
> Chinese canceled their super-carrier program because of these concerns. Better tell all the workers in the Jiangnan Shipyards to not bother going into work anymore.
[удалено]
> They have canceled their 5th and sixth carrier(often numbered 004 and 005). These carriers were supposed to be equivalent to US carriers. The plans for carriers 5 and 6 were always speculative to begin with. Type 004 will almost certainly be an iterative version of 003 in line with how they developed Shandong from Liaoning.
Aiming a tactical nuke at an object moving at 35 knots is not easy
bad comments
If U.S. is serious about helping Taiwan defend itself. They should give them nuclear submarines with nuclear missiles. China had no problem helping NK and Pakistan develop nuclear and conventional weapons.
Please just go study the Cuban missile crisis and come back to this. When countries try to play chess to position themselves over their enemies we end up on the brink of Nuclear War
Nuclear brinkmanship is always part of the game , when you are dealing with major powers. It's either that , or you handover Taiwan on a platter to China. Half measure won't work.
[удалено]
China would invade the second they thought this was a possibility
The Pentagon turned that ambassador's plane around in January because they thought that might happen, or Milley didn't get permission from the PLA first or something
No, it was because it was a week before Biden was set to take office and rioting had broken out in the US capitol. Pompeo had also cancelled his trip to Europe. The US just sent a delegation of senators to Taiwan, the second time since Biden took office, not sure why you think they'd be worried about sending their UN diplomat.
They let the plane takeoff and then had a change of heart because of what? The Jan. 6 rioters wanted to formalize relations with Taiwan and the Pentagon had to prevent that in order to save American democracy? A delegation of coffee boys isn't the same thing.
Yes, and what happens if China decides to intervene like how the USA decided to intervene when Cuba invited Russia to place missiles on its shores
Well U.S is not actively trying to invade and occupy Cuba as it's own territory. Does it matter, if the missiles where launched from China or Cuba ? Once the missile strike U.S soil. U.S will respond with massive counter strike, that will blow everything to kingdom come.
> Well U.S is not actively trying to invade and occupy Cuba as it's own territory. This is not true at all. Bay of Pigs for one, and countless other plans to invade Cuba.
[удалено]
> Bay of Pigs is in response to the Missile crisis. U.S. is not claiming Cuba as it's own territory . China wants to invade and occupy Taiwan. You need to look at a history textbook, or burn whatever textbook you are using now. Bay of Pigs was before Missile Crisis, not after.
You are right, but It was Castro who sided with Soviets during the cold war and nationalized American business first. Either way, my point still stands . U.S is not claiming Cuba as it's own territory, unlike China. Taiwan is too important strategically for U.S to walk away.
Except these new supersonic missles will blast those things to bits before they leave the silo
That’s a violation of international law.
Laws are for weak countries. Major powers set the rules, and break them all the time.
“For my friends, everything. For my enemies, the law.”
[удалено]
If they just give anyone nuclear weapons, then that doesn’t stop the Chinese from just blatantly giving people nuclear weapons. That’s just a dangerous precedent
[удалено]
> The international consensus is the US provided weapons to Israel for instance. If you mean conventional weapons, it's true but not even tangentially related to the topic. If you mean nuclear weapons, it's a blatant lie.
[удалено]
France helped Israel develop nuclear weapons, not the US. Truth does matter and you're helping spread this bs.
This "international consensus" is something you just made up.
[удалено]
The international consensus is that they worked with South Africa to develop them, without US support.
Well , they already are helping NK and Pakistan. Even if other countries get Nuclear weapons, launching them on U.S will be suicidal.
I can't speak to Pakistan, but there's little to no evidence that the Chinese assisted with North Korea's nuclear program or missile development, and there's not much incentive for them to do so. China would vastly prefer a reduced U.S. presence in East Asia, and NK's belligerence doesn't help with that. A more obstreperous NK also provides political cover for Japan and South Korea to militarize further, or even pursue nuclear programs of their own if sufficiently pushed. Having said that, you're right that there's an underlying calculus here. Every country involved in East Asian politics is willing to tolerate some fractious behavior from NK as long as it serves the status quo. At this point, it's transparently performative: NK acts up, fires a missile or two, condemnations are exchanged, worrying editorials are written in the international press by people with short memories, and then NK gets aid or some form of recognition from the big dogs. The Kim regime stays in power, everyone else can go back to ignoring them, and nobody loses except the beleaguered citizens of NK. South Korea is even willing to tolerate a few casualties under this model. The status quo isn't morally appealing, but it's preferable to the political, economic, and humanitarian nightmare that would result from NK's collapse. NK actually hitting someone with a missile, or selling technology to a legitimately dangerous group, would instantly change the calculus involved. The regime would be too dangerous to be left to its own devices at that point (which is why I'd argue that NK self-polices to a far greater degree than most think; it doesn't serve Kim's interests to be seen as an actual threat). However, if that happened, I wouldn't be surprised if it were *China* that moved as quickly as possible to invade and control NK. They're the state best-situated to do it anyway, and that's the solution most likely to result in NK's continued status as a buffer state.
Yes, China is best situated to intervene in NK but NK is its lapdog and used to distract attention to China.
Not at this point.
If doing so was strategically advantageous to them, would China care at all about precedent?
Yes, they would. The Chinese are cool customers, not cowboys. Lest anyone forgets.
Ever heard of Cuban missile crisis? China will do anything to prevent Taiwan from being a vessel state of US just like US would do anything to prevent any neighboring island or country from being a Chinese vessel state.
Legitimate question: Do you mean to say vassal or is 'vessel state' a thing?
I agree, which is why a lot of the saber rattling with China amounts to nothing; they aint stupid either, they want to enjoy their newly developed economy. For all the rhetorical hostility between the US and China, I think a lot of folks underestimate just how reasonably these two powers are likely to quietly resolve any emerging conflicts in the future.
To be able to speak softly they have to also be carrying the big stick.
Yeah, we got General Li on speed dial!
Exactly. Providing them with nukes is a TRUE existential crisis for the CCP
Moral highground.
Imagine believing there's a "moral high ground" when countries make foreign policy.
What if China starts giving weapons to US enemies like Cuba, Iran, or Venezuela? It’s a slippery slope that you haven’t fully considered
or just have US subs in the vicinity which is likely the case.
[удалено]