Chinese missile could shift Pacific power balance

[Donatello]

The only question is: does that doctrine allow USN carriers to run amuck into China’s core interest.

Obviously it shouldn’t.

If it does, and if the carriers are sunk, and if it therefore initiates a nuclear war, according to your hypothesis, would you like to exchange somewhat 50% of US with 99% of China? Who will be the last laughter? It’s definitely not USA, I guess.

Why would USA bomb it's own factories?

Why would China bomb it's own Market?


In any case, considering large amount of USA population is on Eastern seaboard or Western, USA will suffer badly.

China has 1 billion + people, so someone somewhere will be living.



In any case, China doesn't need to attack US heartland Majority of US forces are abroad anyway....alot of which are within the striking distance of not only China & Russian, but also Pakistan and India.

 

[Cheetah786]

An American carrier is listed as a strategic asset...sinking it will have the same effect as nuking an American base and will draw the same level retaliation.

I see guys like Ras are running Washington and to keep there passed superiority they are spending their way to bankruptcy.

 

[gambit]

Not this DF-21 nonsense again. The damn thing is barely in the testing stage. Do you people have any idea on how long it took an infantryman's rifle to go from testing to deployment, let alone a nuclear warhead capable missile?

 

[Hafizzz]

Not this DF-21 nonsense again. The damn thing is barely in the testing stage. Do you people have any idea on how long it took an infantryman's rifle to go from testing to deployment, let alone a nuclear warhead capable missile?

Anti-China Hawks in the west keep bringing up this nonsense. Please tell your US government to stop bullsh!tting.

 

[592257001]

An American carrier is listed as a strategic asset...sinking it will have the same effect as nuking an American base and will draw the same level retaliation.

So you are saying that by attacking an Ameican carrier, US will try to nuke China? Which would result in massive nuke retaliation in return?
Think with your head next time, 1 carrier=destruction of whole America? I don't think so

 

[Ras]

So you are saying that by attacking an Ameican carrier, US will try to nuke China? Which would result in massive nuke retaliation in return?
Think with your head next time, 1 carrier=destruction of whole America? I don't think so

China cannot destroy America...

BTW I can ask a return question..will China provoke nuclear war with America by trying to sink an American Carrier?

Remember a carrier is not just another ship...it contains more than 5000 people along with more than 100 aircrafts and probably nuclear weapons.

 

[CardSharp]

Remember a carrier is not just another ship...it contains more than 5000 people along with more than 100 aircrafts and probably nuclear weapons.

Then keep it where we can't see it. Ultimately the first step to provocation is yours by bring the damn thing around.

 

[chauism]

Remember a carrier is not just another ship...it contains more than 5000 people along with more than 100 aircrafts and probably nuclear weapons.

Hmmm....

Interesting, so the most powerful naval vassals will be transport ships and cargo ships.

Modern troopship is able to carry more than 10000 soldiers, so sinking that definitely result in nuclear retaliation according to your statement.

So the best defense against any attacks for naval ships is actually human shield???? Damn those military weapon contractors that lobbied the government to spend billions on AGEIS system where human shield will just simply do the trick.

 

[yangtomous]

China cannot destroy America....

I don't think so ,if a country they announce not first use nuclear it means they can destroy you after the attack.

BTW I can ask a return question..will China provoke nuclear war with America by trying to sink an American Carrier?....

you need to learn at what situation China need sink your carrier,China can't sink your carrier if there still has another solution.
so here is not will but why.why China need to destroy your carrier?
if US not do too excessive ,China would never want to destroy your carrier.more friends better than more enemy especially USA.

Remember a carrier is not just another ship...it contains more than 5000 people along with more than 100 aircrafts and probably nuclear weapons.

you are so clever,that if your carrier threat China ,it is a big threat .
For you how to deal with a big threat for your country?destroy it!

 

[RAHUL INDIAN]

The only question is: does that doctrine allow USN carriers to run amuck into China’s core interest.

what is this core interest..!! i do not think conveerting something into a core interest is a solution, because i think a word is not sufficient to make other country forget about its own interest there.

can u just tell me what all China says are its core interests and the dates when each of those were declared as core interests... if anyone can.

 

[TorontoNoctis]

Carrier is listed as a strategic asset because according to conventional Soviet tactics it would take a nuclear armed torpedo or nuclear cruise missile to destroy a carrier.

Have the Chinese changed that? Who knows. Since this anti-ship missile is using a launcher platform developed in the 60's and finished in the 80's, I would reserve judgment until seeing it. Mathematically it is possible -- calculate the vector of a carrier and launch a missile towards where the carrier will be in two minutes. But that is a long way from actually working.

Remember it would have to be a direct hit. Even a 500 lbs. bomb hitting just a few meters away from a carrier would not stop flight ops. Which is why the Russians used nuclear warheads.

P.S. Chinese may not like the fact that carriers can go through the South China sea, but laws of the sea going back hundreds of years guarantee free passage for ships. Territorial waters only extend 12 nautical miles beyond a coastline, and if modern fighter jets happen to go beyond that range and Chinese feel threatened by mere presence of a carrier, well that's unfortunate.

 

[CardSharp]

Carrier is listed as a strategic asset because according to conventional Soviet tactics it would take a nuclear armed torpedo or nuclear cruise missile to destroy a carrier.

Have the Chinese changed that? Who knows. Since this anti-ship missile is using a launcher platform developed in the 60's and finished in the 80's, I would reserve judgment until seeing it. Mathematically it is possible -- calculate the vector of a carrier and launch a missile towards where the carrier will be in two minutes. But that is a long way from actually working.

Remember it would have to be a direct hit. Even a 500 lbs. bomb hitting just a few meters away from a carrier would not stop flight ops. Which is why the Russians used nuclear warheads.

This is coming from a man who can't use the term economy of scale properly and thinks quantum mechanics has no practical application.

I'll take your analysis with a grain of salt thanks.

 

[TorontoNoctis]

This is coming from a man who can't use the term economy of scale properly and thinks quantum mechanics has no practical application.

I'll take your analysis with a grain of salt thanks.

Heh heh vendetta much eh?

Not only is your post vindictive, but also off topic. If you can't debate the issue, then be quiet. By the way, I did respond to the economy of scale point, and the quantum point I didn't even notice. Also it is laughable that you think China has a right to destroy a carrier simply because it is moving around where China doesn't like it.

 

[chauism]

Carrier is listed as a strategic asset because according to conventional Soviet tactics it would take a nuclear armed torpedo or nuclear cruise missile to destroy a carrier.

Have the Chinese changed that? Who knows. Since this anti-ship missile is using a launcher platform developed in the 60's and finished in the 80's, I would reserve judgment until seeing it. Mathematically it is possible -- calculate the vector of a carrier and launch a missile towards where the carrier will be in two minutes. But that is a long way from actually working.

Remember it would have to be a direct hit. Even a 500 lbs. bomb hitting just a few meters away from a carrier would not stop flight ops. Which is why the Russians used nuclear warheads.

P.S. Chinese may not like the fact that carriers can go through the South China sea, but laws of the sea going back hundreds of years guarantee free passage for ships. Territorial waters only extend 12 nautical miles beyond a coastline, and if modern fighter jets happen to go beyond that range and Chinese feel threatened by mere presence of a carrier, well that's unfortunate.

One possibility I can think of is the payload of the missile is consisted of cluster of munitions of self-guided Durandal type bombs. The purpose is to disable the aircraft launching and landing ability of aircraft carrier rather than sinking it. As soon as the runway of an aircraft carrier has been damaged beyond repair than the game is over.

 

[CardSharp]

Heh heh vendetta much eh?

Not only is your post vindictive, but also off topic. If you can't debate the issue, then be quiet. By the way, I did respond to the economy of scale point, and the quantum point I didn't even notice. Also it is laughable that you think China has a right to destroy a carrier simply because it is moving around where China doesn't like it.

I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings, but you just put words into my mouth. No where did I say China has the right to destroy the carrier if it traverses the south china sea. But surely even you can understand that such an action is undesirable given how diplomacy would evolve around such a provocation.