China's Blitzkrieg on U.S. Carrier

[anarchy 99]

USA got absolutely donkey punched in the Korean war by the PLA, the imperialist pigs thought they could invade china, they came right up to the border of china from north Korea, once that happened we entered the war and started the humiliation of the US military and drove the scumbags back. The 8th US army got a pants down spanking. It was the worst military defeat given to the US military.
We f**ked the snot outta them. Completely humiliated them and made a complete and utter mockery of their 'invinsible' military and their superpower status.

 

[amalakas]

USA got absolutely donkey punched in the Korean war by the PLA, the imperialist pigs thought they could invade china, they came right up to the border of china from north Korea, once that happened we entered the war and started the humiliation of the US military and drove the scumbags back. The 8th US army got a pants down spanking. It was the worst military defeat given to the US military.
We f**ked the snot outta them. Completely humiliated them and made a complete and utter mockery of their 'invinsible' military and their superpower status.

Have you got any idea the amount of losses suffered by the PLA during that war?

Do you think this practice will work today too? What do you hope that you will be thrown to the lions so PLA can half meet its objectives ?

what do you think this the 50's. Lessons have been learned and learned good.


take it down a notch with the hubris here ok?

It means not purely balistic.



For you who claim as aviation expert, it is not acceptable if you dont know what quasi ballistic means. And no, it is not must always from wikipedia



Do you realize that no spec of this weapon released by PRC?

But you can explain why you think that a butterfly flapping its wings is equally reliable with chaff?

I never said I don't know what it is, all I said is you looked it up in wikipedia!!!

as for all the rest you are saying ...ever .. the only thing they do is provide me with more comedy.

I heard wikipedia is very large... go find something more to entertain us .. go now..


and while you are in there, look up sarcasm.. that was the butterfly thing !!

 

[gambit]

You are talking as if you know exactly what and how DF-21D works right?

The DF-21D works under real physics. Not 'Chinese physics'. Not 'Indonesian physics'.

Tell us how effective and reliable the chaff bloom is, against modern radar?

If it is true as you said that ship could be hidden from EM view effectively by chaff, then we dont need stealth ship, no need phalanx, etc, just rely on chaff

The laugh is on you. Chaff is a RESPONSIVE or ACTIVE measure. Being low radar observable is passive.

An EM shield is like a physical shield. You can see the shield. You just cannot see the man behind the shield. But if you can see the shield then at least you know there is a man behind that shield.

That is not 'stealth' works. Being well camouflaged is 'stealth'. Instead of 'low radar observable' it is 'low visual cues observable'.

I cannot dumb it down any further than that for you. If you cannot understand it, it is because you have no aviation and military experience at all. Let me guess, now you are going to say that you have military 'study'?

 

[amalakas]

The DF-21D works under real physics. Not 'Chinese physics'. Not 'Indonesian physics'.


The laugh is on you. Chaff is a RESPONSIVE or ACTIVE measure. Being low radar observable is passive.

An EM shield is like a physical shield. You can see the shield. You just cannot see the man behind the shield. But if you can see the shield then at least you know there is a man behind that shield.

That is not 'stealth' works. Being well camouflaged is 'stealth'. Instead of 'low radar observable' it is 'low visual cues observable'.

I cannot dumb it down any further than that for you. If you cannot understand it, it is because you have no aviation and military experience at all. Let me guess, now you are going to say that you have military 'study'?

I think the inherent difficulties of a ballistic missile approach to hitting a moving target have been
thoroughly exhausted.

China has fielded the weapon, however there is a very large BUT here.

To date there hasn't been a live testing of the weapon on an actual target that meets the target of intend profile. i.e. a ship.

this is not common, as both the US and USSR/Rusia, always conduct tests of weapons that are semi public.
this of course serves its purposes, no such thing from the chinese though.

 

[gambit]

I think the inherent difficulties of a ballistic missile approach to hitting a moving target have been
thoroughly exhausted.

China has fielded the weapon, however there is a very large BUT here.

To date there hasn't been a live testing of the weapon on an actual target that meets the target of intend profile. i.e. a ship.

this is not common, as both the US and USSR/Rusia, always conduct tests of weapons that are semi public.
this of course serves its purposes, no such thing from the chinese though.

The problem here is that these yahoos have no understanding of the idea 'proof of concept'.

Can a ship be sunk? That 'proof of concept' was proven with Billy Mitchell back in 1921 and it was with manned aircrafts filled with bombs.

Can an aircraft carrier be sunk? If a ship can be sunk, then why not an aircraft carrier? It is another type of ship. And yes, WW II proved that such a ship can be sunk.

But here is where it gets tricky...

A WW II era aircraft carrier is not the same in design as post WW II aircraft carriers. WW II era carriers were conversions from cruisers, tankers and even supply oilers. Today's aircraft carriers are specifically designed with the needs of naval aviation as primary and the ship's survivability to continue that mission is equally important.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/19/science/earth/19ship.html

The U.S.S. Oriskany, known as the Mighty-O, was commissioned in 1950 and served in Korea and Vietnam. The ship was sunk by the Navy in May 2006 under a pilot program to convert decommissioned vessels into artificial reefs.

It literally took months to plan on how to strategically placed explosives INSIDE the ship in order to sink it. And the ship allowed people to do it at that.

So has the 'proof of concept' of a ship sinking via a ballistic missile attack instead of manned aircrafts and bombs been performed?

The only 'proof of concept' we are certain so far about this subject is that of nationalistic blather from the Chinese crowd. They definitely proved they can yak up a storm about it.

 

[danger007]

The first point to make is that (unless it is using a nuclear warhead) it is going to need terminal guidance to fine tune the warhead’s trajectory as it reenters the Eearth’s atmosphere. This is true regardless of how well China needs the position of the target carrier—the only target worthwhile shooting at. Consider the scenario China’s military must assume: as soon as a DF-21D is launched (and hence detected by US early warning satellites) every carrier anywhere near the missile takes off at maximum speed in some random direction. If the DF-21D is launched at maximum range (again something China’s military planners would need to assume), each ship could be some 13 km away from where it was a the time of launch. The DF-21D would have to correct for that change sometime during its flight. The most logical place to correct for those changes are sometime after the end of the boost phase since the target carriers—the only targets worth shooting at—can zig and zag at anytime.

each mechanism for changing the warhead’s trajectory will require its own target tracking system. Ideally, you want to make changes in trajectory as early as possible since the longer you have to accelerate to the new trajectory, the lower the magnitude of the required trajectory (and, among other things, the more control you have over the final result). If the DF-21D warhead uses infrared sensors—putting aside the question of whether or not China has the required technology for a moment—then it will have to use them during the coast phase of its trajectory. Otherwise, the heat of reentry will blind the sensor if it tries to use them after it reenters the atmosphere, say something like 50 km altitude to pick a round number.

At these altitudes, the warhead cannot use aerodynamic surfaces to change its direction. So it will need thrusters—little rocket engines—to change its direction. Of course, China does has plenty of experience with fine tuning trajectories with small thrusters from its satellite insertion operations. The most likely method China might use for such a platform is a “bus” that holds the warhead while little thrusters change its position. What sort of thrust would they need? Assuming the warhead makes its corrections as the warhead passes below 100 km altitude in order to minimize the time the target has for changing its direction (again, I’m pulling these numbers out of thin air) it would have enough umph to change the velocity of the warhead/bus combination by 0.6 km/s. (This is calculated by assuming the thrusters need to change the direction of the warhead by 13 km in the 22 seconds the warhead has between when it passes 50 km—the minimum altitude I assume it can still use IR sensors). That, in turn, requires a little more than three G’s (three times the acceleration of gravity). That is probably about the requirements needed for China’s ASAT weapon tested in January 2007. So that seems possible.

If the warhead shuts down its IR sensor as it passes 50 km altitude, it is about 22 seconds before impact. It is too much to hope that the carrier can change its direction or even its speed in those few remaining seconds so the we can expect; the George H. W. Bush displaces 100,000 tons! That means the warhead can “safely” extrapolate the position the carrier will be 22 seconds after its tracker shuts down. During those 22 seconds, the Bush could travel 370 meters, which is about the length of the Bush (333 meters) but five times the beam of the Bush (77 meters). How likely a hit will be will depend on two things: how accurately the tracking system can determine the position and velocity and how finely it can tune its acceleration to match the desired trajectory.

If, for some reason, China relies solely on aerodynamic surfaces for maneuvering then it will have to wait until it gets even closer to the Earth’s surface for really effective control. Let’s assume it needs to wait until its 30 km above the Earth’s surface before the warhead’s fins “bite.” Of course, it could have stored the needed maneuvers from an IR sensor that shut down several seconds before it started maneuvering. On the other hand, it could use a radar to track the target since 50 km is well within the range of most radars mounted on fighter jets today.

At 30 km, the warhead is 13 seconds before impact. If it has to do all its maneuvering to cover the 13 km assumed miss distance, than it will need to change its velocity by nearly 1 km/s. That, in turn, will need an acceleration of 7 G’s. That is certainly possible achieve using only aerodynamic surfaces (SCUD warheads probably had nearly 10 Gs of transverse acceleration as they corkscrewed during their reentry during the first Gulf War). However, it needs to be very finely tuned and that seems the hardest point. No matter what, it would require considerable testing to develop.

 

[danger007]

http://www.defence.pk/forums/chinese-defence/202125-chinese-sac-blends.html

he he

 

[antonius123]

The DF-21D works under real physics. Not 'Chinese physics'. Not 'Indonesian physics'.

I dont know what you mean as "chinese physics nor indonesian physics, since your language always substandard.

But I can guess as follow:
Indonesian physics = chinese physics;
Chinese physics result in high tech achievement like fastest bullet train, fastest super computer, sophisticated DF-21D, very advance ABM, etc.

While vietnam physics is no where

The laugh is on you. Chaff is a RESPONSIVE or ACTIVE measure. Being low radar observable is passive.

An EM shield is like a physical shield. You can see the shield. You just cannot see the man behind the shield. But if you can see the shield then at least you know there is a man behind that shield.

That is not 'stealth' works. Being well camouflaged is 'stealth'. Instead of 'low radar observable' it is 'low visual cues observable'.

I cannot dumb it down any further than that for you. If you cannot understand it, it is because you have no aviation and military experience at all. Let me guess, now you are going to say that you have military 'study'?

It is you that are idiot here ..

I am not asking if EM shield will work like stealth works, again you are demonstrating idiocy and poor reading comprehension problem

I am asking you: how effective and reliable the chaff bloom is, against modern radar?

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/chines...-blitzkrieg-u-s-carrier-20.html#ixzz23Ro7221D

Since you claim that: under that EM umbrella, the ship is effectively hidden from EM view.

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/chines...-blitzkrieg-u-s-carrier-20.html#ixzz23RoDIsFM

This is more superb and effective than Stealth Technology to hide the object from enemy's weapon guided by radar! also more effective than Phalanx to protect the ship from missile, regardless how different they work!

If the super duper chaff is not that effective, then your claim that chaff is the effective counter measure for DF-21D => FAILED

How idiot you are

 

[amalakas]

The first point to make is that (unless it is using a nuclear warhead) it is going to need terminal guidance to fine tune the warhead’s trajectory as it reenters the Eearth’s atmosphere. This is true regardless of how well China needs the position of the target carrier—the only target worthwhile shooting at. Consider the scenario China’s military must assume: as soon as a DF-21D is launched (and hence detected by US early warning satellites) every carrier anywhere near the missile takes off at maximum speed in some random direction. If the DF-21D is launched at maximum range (again something China’s military planners would need to assume), each ship could be some 13 km away from where it was a the time of launch. The DF-21D would have to correct for that change sometime during its flight. The most logical place to correct for those changes are sometime after the end of the boost phase since the target carriers—the only targets worth shooting at—can zig and zag at anytime.

each mechanism for changing the warhead’s trajectory will require its own target tracking system. Ideally, you want to make changes in trajectory as early as possible since the longer you have to accelerate to the new trajectory, the lower the magnitude of the required trajectory (and, among other things, the more control you have over the final result). If the DF-21D warhead uses infrared sensors—putting aside the question of whether or not China has the required technology for a moment—then it will have to use them during the coast phase of its trajectory. Otherwise, the heat of reentry will blind the sensor if it tries to use them after it reenters the atmosphere, say something like 50 km altitude to pick a round number.

At these altitudes, the warhead cannot use aerodynamic surfaces to change its direction. So it will need thrusters—little rocket engines—to change its direction. Of course, China does has plenty of experience with fine tuning trajectories with small thrusters from its satellite insertion operations. The most likely method China might use for such a platform is a “bus” that holds the warhead while little thrusters change its position. What sort of thrust would they need? Assuming the warhead makes its corrections as the warhead passes below 100 km altitude in order to minimize the time the target has for changing its direction (again, I’m pulling these numbers out of thin air) it would have enough umph to change the velocity of the warhead/bus combination by 0.6 km/s. (This is calculated by assuming the thrusters need to change the direction of the warhead by 13 km in the 22 seconds the warhead has between when it passes 50 km—the minimum altitude I assume it can still use IR sensors). That, in turn, requires a little more than three G’s (three times the acceleration of gravity). That is probably about the requirements needed for China’s ASAT weapon tested in January 2007. So that seems possible.

If the warhead shuts down its IR sensor as it passes 50 km altitude, it is about 22 seconds before impact. It is too much to hope that the carrier can change its direction or even its speed in those few remaining seconds so the we can expect; the George H. W. Bush displaces 100,000 tons! That means the warhead can “safely” extrapolate the position the carrier will be 22 seconds after its tracker shuts down. During those 22 seconds, the Bush could travel 370 meters, which is about the length of the Bush (333 meters) but five times the beam of the Bush (77 meters). How likely a hit will be will depend on two things: how accurately the tracking system can determine the position and velocity and how finely it can tune its acceleration to match the desired trajectory.

If, for some reason, China relies solely on aerodynamic surfaces for maneuvering then it will have to wait until it gets even closer to the Earth’s surface for really effective control. Let’s assume it needs to wait until its 30 km above the Earth’s surface before the warhead’s fins “bite.” Of course, it could have stored the needed maneuvers from an IR sensor that shut down several seconds before it started maneuvering. On the other hand, it could use a radar to track the target since 50 km is well within the range of most radars mounted on fighter jets today.

At 30 km, the warhead is 13 seconds before impact. If it has to do all its maneuvering to cover the 13 km assumed miss distance, than it will need to change its velocity by nearly 1 km/s. That, in turn, will need an acceleration of 7 G’s. That is certainly possible achieve using only aerodynamic surfaces (SCUD warheads probably had nearly 10 Gs of transverse acceleration as they corkscrewed during their reentry during the first Gulf War). However, it needs to be very finely tuned and that seems the hardest point. No matter what, it would require considerable testing to develop.

Hey my off the top of my head calculations were approx correct. I am glad.

I dont know what you mean as "chinese physics nor indonesian physics, since your language always substandard.

But I can guess as follow:
Indonesian physics = chinese physics;
Chinese physics result in high tech achievement like fastest bullet train, fastest super computer, sophisticated DF-21D, very advance ABM, etc.

While vietnam physics is no where





It is you that are idiot here ..

I am not asking if EM shield will work like stealth works, again you are demonstrating idiocy and clueless again

I am asking you: how effective and reliable the chaff bloom is, against modern radar?

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/chines...-blitzkrieg-u-s-carrier-20.html#ixzz23Ro7221D

Sine you claim that: under that EM umbrella, the ship is effectively hidden from EM view.

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/chines...-blitzkrieg-u-s-carrier-20.html#ixzz23RoDIsFM

This is more superb than Stealth Technology!

By your claim, we do not need stealth technology anymore as even the big object like ship could be EFFECTIVELY hidden from EM view.

If the super duper chaff is not that effective, then your claim that chaff is the effective counter measure for DF-21D => FAILED

How idiot you are

you are the biggest comedy stunt since the blues brothers ....

 

[gambit]

I dont know what you mean as "chinese physics nor indonesian physics, since your language always substandard.

From you?

But I can guess as follow:
Indonesian physics = chinese physics;
Chinese physics result in high tech achievement like fastest bullet train, fastest super computer, sophisticated DF-21D, very advance ABM, etc.

While vietnam physics is no where

I am here as an American. My ethnic origin is irrelevant.

It is you that are idiot here ..

I am not asking if EM shield will work like stealth works, again you are demonstrating idiocy and clueless again

I am asking you: how effective and reliable the chaff bloom is, against modern radar?

Do you even understand the words 'chaff bloom'?

Sine you claim that: under that EM umbrella, the ship is effectively hidden from EM view.

This is more superb than Stealth Technology!

By your claim, we do not need stealth technology anymore as even the big object like ship could be EFFECTIVELY hidden from EM view.

If the super duper chaff is not that effective, then your claim that chaff is the effective counter measure for DF-21D => FAILED

How idiot you are

This tells me that you do not understand how radar works, its advantages, its disadvantages, its weaknesses, and how it is employed with ALL those things.

 

[Banglar Lathial]

US is scaling down its forces in the Middle East and building up its forces in the Pacific and by 2025, US will have new weapon systems that will negate all advantages that China has such as their Carrier Killer Missile.

Sir, on what basis can you make predictions about future American weapon systems with certainty when future remains uncertain? Is it unbiased, on your part, to proclaim unseen, unheard of American 'future weapons' as certainties without considering that Chinese economic, scientific, industrial and military-industrial growth is multiple times that of USA's?

By 2025, 60% of all US forces will be in the Pacific. And not only that, South Korea, Japan, Australia, Philippines, Vietnam, Taiwan, Thailand, Singapore and others are all US allies and will join forces to fight China and with years of buying Arms from USA, all of them will very lethal foes to China.

South Korea=Cowering in fear of North Korea.
Australia=Kangaroo land=No military
Taiwan=Chinese. Both agree on it. They only differ on the form of government.
Singapore can not change balance of power anywhere on earth due to size constraints.
Japan=Lost cause because the people have lost will to remilitarize, they have accepted subservience to Americans. If they want to remilitarize, they must expel Americans. As it stands, Japan's population is declining, with no reversal in sight.

Any China vs USA war in 2025, will look like what happened to Iraq during the Gulf War, when all of the American Arab Allies joined forces to fight Saddam.

Sir, let's not try to make bombastic Indianesque claims about the future when future remains uncertain.

1. Saddam Hussein's Iraq was isolated by all Arab and Muslim countries as well, on all sides.
2. Saddam Hussein's Iraq never possessed nuclear bombs, ICBMs, nuclear submarines, or 80+ destroyers, frigates and major surface combatants as today's China. In 2025, these numbers are likely to rise further.
3. Saddam Hussein's Iraq was defeated by the use of not only sorties flying out from airbases in neighbouring countries, but also about half of American carrier battle groups in their inventory.
4. Saddam Hussein's Iraq had a population that was less than 1/12 of USA's, and less than 1/30 of all the other countries that fought against it. In China's case, China still outdoes USA+'potential allies' most of whom are cowering in fear of North Korea.
5. Saddam Hussein's Iraq could not design, and build any major weapons system for its ground, air or naval forces on its own. Chinese industry, on the other hand, has exceeded USA's by a huge margin in many instances. China's steel production, for example, during the last year was more than the next 10 countries' steel output combined, as an example.
6. USA could not stop SCUD ballistic missiles fired by Saddam Hussein's Iraq, which had comparatively little experience in developing, designing, and deploying indigenous ballistic and cruise missiles of various ranges and features, and comparatively little industrial basis to mass produce them.
7. China has sufficient thermonuclear weapons to eliminate all USA economic centres, as well as those of any 'allies' that commit itself to any American aggression against China. Saddam Hussein's Iraq had no such capability.

 

[antonius123]

From you?


I am here as an American. My ethnic origin is irrelevant.

But your knowledge demonstrating vietnam physics level

Do you even understand the words 'chaff bloom'?

Yes, so?

What make you think that the chaff bloom is so effective in hiding the ship for so long againts modern radar? Why do you think this is a much better way to protect the ship than Phalanx?

This tells me that you do not understand how radar works, its advantages, its disadvantages, its weaknesses, and how it is employed with ALL those things.

As I said, I do not say those have the same way of works, you idiot.

I am asking you the effectiveness of the chaff compared to other kind of protection (stealth, phalanx, etc); because you said the chaff can hide the ship EFFECTIVELY therefore will make DF-21D impotent.

I bet you dont know or cannot answer?

Hey my off the top of my head calculations were approx correct. I am glad.




you are the biggest comedy stunt since the blues brothers ....

Sorry I dont deal with a cheerleader at the moment.

 

[j20blackdragon]

The first point to make is that (unless it is using a nuclear warhead) it is going to need terminal guidance to fine tune the warhead’s trajectory as it reenters the Eearth’s atmosphere. This is true regardless of how well China needs the position of the target carrier—the only target worthwhile shooting at. Consider the scenario China’s military must assume: as soon as a DF-21D is launched (and hence detected by US early warning satellites) every carrier anywhere near the missile takes off at maximum speed in some random direction. If the DF-21D is launched at maximum range (again something China’s military planners would need to assume), each ship could be some 13 km away from where it was a the time of launch. The DF-21D would have to correct for that change sometime during its flight. The most logical place to correct for those changes are sometime after the end of the boost phase since the target carriers—the only targets worth shooting at—can zig and zag at anytime.

each mechanism for changing the warhead’s trajectory will require its own target tracking system. Ideally, you want to make changes in trajectory as early as possible since the longer you have to accelerate to the new trajectory, the lower the magnitude of the required trajectory (and, among other things, the more control you have over the final result). If the DF-21D warhead uses infrared sensors—putting aside the question of whether or not China has the required technology for a moment—then it will have to use them during the coast phase of its trajectory. Otherwise, the heat of reentry will blind the sensor if it tries to use them after it reenters the atmosphere, say something like 50 km altitude to pick a round number.

At these altitudes, the warhead cannot use aerodynamic surfaces to change its direction. So it will need thrusters—little rocket engines—to change its direction. Of course, China does has plenty of experience with fine tuning trajectories with small thrusters from its satellite insertion operations. The most likely method China might use for such a platform is a “bus” that holds the warhead while little thrusters change its position. What sort of thrust would they need? Assuming the warhead makes its corrections as the warhead passes below 100 km altitude in order to minimize the time the target has for changing its direction (again, I’m pulling these numbers out of thin air) it would have enough umph to change the velocity of the warhead/bus combination by 0.6 km/s. (This is calculated by assuming the thrusters need to change the direction of the warhead by 13 km in the 22 seconds the warhead has between when it passes 50 km—the minimum altitude I assume it can still use IR sensors). That, in turn, requires a little more than three G’s (three times the acceleration of gravity). That is probably about the requirements needed for China’s ASAT weapon tested in January 2007. So that seems possible.

If the warhead shuts down its IR sensor as it passes 50 km altitude, it is about 22 seconds before impact. It is too much to hope that the carrier can change its direction or even its speed in those few remaining seconds so the we can expect; the George H. W. Bush displaces 100,000 tons! That means the warhead can “safely” extrapolate the position the carrier will be 22 seconds after its tracker shuts down. During those 22 seconds, the Bush could travel 370 meters, which is about the length of the Bush (333 meters) but five times the beam of the Bush (77 meters). How likely a hit will be will depend on two things: how accurately the tracking system can determine the position and velocity and how finely it can tune its acceleration to match the desired trajectory.

If, for some reason, China relies solely on aerodynamic surfaces for maneuvering then it will have to wait until it gets even closer to the Earth’s surface for really effective control. Let’s assume it needs to wait until its 30 km above the Earth’s surface before the warhead’s fins “bite.” Of course, it could have stored the needed maneuvers from an IR sensor that shut down several seconds before it started maneuvering. On the other hand, it could use a radar to track the target since 50 km is well within the range of most radars mounted on fighter jets today.

At 30 km, the warhead is 13 seconds before impact. If it has to do all its maneuvering to cover the 13 km assumed miss distance, than it will need to change its velocity by nearly 1 km/s. That, in turn, will need an acceleration of 7 G’s. That is certainly possible achieve using only aerodynamic surfaces (SCUD warheads probably had nearly 10 Gs of transverse acceleration as they corkscrewed during their reentry during the first Gulf War). However, it needs to be very finely tuned and that seems the hardest point. No matter what, it would require considerable testing to develop.

Copy and pasted from this source.

Geoffrey Forden • DF-21 Delta: Some Early Thoughts

 

[danger007]

Responding to the Emerging Threat of Chinese DF-21D (CSS-5 MOD 4) A...

take a look...

Copy and pasted from this source.

Geoffrey Forden • DF-21 Delta: Some Early Thoughts

so?????????? whats your point????

 

[j20blackdragon]

7. China has sufficient thermonuclear weapons to eliminate all USA economic centres, as well as those of any 'allies' that commit itself to any American aggression against China. Saddam Hussein's Iraq had no such capability.

China will be pretty much untouchable by 2025.

Nukes have always been the bottom line.

DF-21D and J-20 are just toys to mess around with small countries like the Philippines.