Meanwhile in China

[bolverk 29813]

 

[Parliament 14368]

WTF is wrong with you China?

[SmokeyTheBear 5569]

Just trying to prove they have the biggest Wang in the area

[atomheartbevo 90041]

1 hour ago, BabaYaga said:

The Chinese DF-17 is operational and capable of hitting bases in Guam, Japan, and Korea and would difficult if not impossible to intercept multiple incoming missiles.  It's a ground-based by design, but there's nothing stopping them from strapping it do a large bomber as we are doing with the B-52.  

The Chinese are not going to be sending missiles into American, Japanese, and Korean territory.  If it reaches that point, we are liable to be targeting their leadership.  In Beijing.

12 minutes ago, Parliament said:

WTF is wrong with you China?

They have a lot of problems at home.  It's a good distraction until they can right their ship.

[Brisketexan 105569]

5 minutes ago, SmokeyTheBear said:

Just trying to prove they have the biggest Wang in the area

Hey Wang....

[Dahobbs 17807]

1 hour ago, BabaYaga said:

The Chinese DF-17 is operational and capable of hitting bases in Guam, Japan, and Korea and would difficult if not impossible to intercept multiple incoming missiles.  It's a ground-based by design, but there's nothing stopping them from strapping it do a large bomber as we are doing with the B-52.  

The US has successfully tested options (including glide based), but they neither operational nor in production (later this summer)

Again, there is a pretty significant difference between hypersonic boost-glide missiles and the type of hypersonic weapons we have tested. Yes, China's missiles can hit faraway targets at highspeed in the much the same sense that any ballistic missile can. The glide capability gives it some maneuverability to evade static air defenses, but in general these weapons aren't hugely different from existing ballistic missiles. China's DF-17 is a threat to be certain, but as is its more conventional longer range ballistic missiles.  

[Brisketexan 105569]

The DF-17?  How does it match up against the EM-50?

[VirginiaLonghorn 4808]

4 hours ago, JesusSweatDuck said:

They're just making shit up and pandering to their own base

Well, they do have more panders than anyone else …

[BabaYaga 15371]

16 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

The Chinese are not going to be sending missiles into American, Japanese, and Korean territory.  If it reaches that point, we are liable to be targeting their leadership.  In Beijing.

31 minutes ago, Parliament said:

Probably not, but in the event of a sea battle, carrier groups are in real trouble - hence the outcome of the mock simulation we ran over the battle in which we lost.  The point about Japan/Korea are not shelling cities, but rather taking out military bases/ports that would be used to stag attacks.  

[BabaYaga 15371]

14 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

the type of hypersonic weapons we have tested

Tested.  Not produced or deployed.

[YGIFS 19453]

12 minutes ago, VirginiaLonghorn said:

Well, they do have more panders than anyone else …

But I think their problem is getting the panders to keep procreating. 

[Dahobbs 17807]

1 minute ago, BabaYaga said:

Probably not, but in the event of a sea battle, carrier groups are in real trouble - hence the outcome of the mock simulation we ran over the battle in which we lost.  The point about Japan/Korea are not shelling cities, but rather taking out military bases/ports that would be used to stag attacks.  

Lost? There was a recent set of wargames on a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. The US won all the scenarios except the "doomsday" scenario that was heavily weighted in favor of China, and even there China failed to achieve all of its strategic objectives. 

[Dahobbs 17807]

2 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Tested.  Not produced or deployed.

Yes. I agree. But we have tons of hypersonic missiles that we have deployed. They are called ballistic missiles. Introducing a new one that doesn't provide new capabilities isn't going to be a priority. 

[atomheartbevo 90041]

3 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Probably not, but in the event of a sea battle, carrier groups are in real trouble - hence the outcome of the mock simulation we ran over the battle in which we lost.  The point about Japan/Korea are not shelling cities, but rather taking out military bases/ports that would be used to stag attacks.  

They can try and go after carriers, but we will sink their entire navy, we will put their land-based comms and Air Force out of commission, we will shut down all of their harbors, shut down their economy, etc. and the list goes on for a very long time.

That's what this always circles back to - if it reaches that point, their economy is done, which means hundreds and hundreds of millions of Chinese are out of work, in the streets, starving, and really fucking pissed off, and vastly outnumbering the Chinese military and security apparatus.  It won't be that they can try and get Russia and India to make up for the US/Japan/South Korea, it's that they won't be able to ship a single thing out of those ports.

China's government as it exists today, does so because of instability in the 1910s-1940s, and Xi for all of his being a student of history, knows that prior to its mostly-current incarnation, China had existed as a 2,000+ year monarchy.  It didn't take that much instability to bring that monarchy down, and the same holds true for Xi and his government.   

[BabaYaga 15371]

1 minute ago, atomheartbevo said:

They can try and go after carriers, but we will sink their entire navy, we will put their land-based comms and Air Force out of commission, we will shut down all of their harbors, shut down their economy, etc. and the list goes on for a very long time.

That's what this always circles back to - if it reaches that point, their economy is done, which means hundreds and hundreds of millions of Chinese are out of work, in the streets, starving, and really fucking pissed off, and vastly outnumbering the Chinese military and security apparatus.  It won't be that they can try and get Russia and India to make up for the US/Japan/South Korea, it's that they won't be able to ship a single thing out of those ports.

China's government as it exists today, does so because of instability in the 1910s-1940s, and Xi for all of his being a student of history, knows that prior to its mostly-current incarnation, China had existed as a 2,000+ year monarchy.  It didn't take that much instability to bring that monarchy down, and the same holds true for Xi and his government.   

We will?  Probably.  But, like the beforementioned Swedish diesel sub of the same build that the Chinese have that broke through a carrier group and scored direct hits on a carrier?  I'm not saying the Navy is a match, but to defend Taiwan, the Navy has to operate within range of land-based weapons and in the waters off the coast of Taiwan.  They can mine the straights, but short of operating air defenses off carriers, Chinese weapons can hit bases in Guam, Japan, and Korea.  Basically every US base in the Indo-Pacific Command region.

Failed miserably

Of course you have other scenarios stating the exact opposite.  Either way, at that point we're in WWIII and everyone is going to be in for a world of hurt

[BabaYaga 15371]

20 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Yes. I agree. But we have tons of hypersonic missiles that we have deployed. They are called ballistic missiles. Introducing a new one that doesn't provide new capabilities isn't going to be a priority. 

So there is a significant difference in supposed tested weapons, that are neither deployed nor produced, which at the same time are not a priority....

The difference and reason for the delays are the atmosphere.  Glide-based options (which we are testing) and ICBMs go out and above the atmosphere.  To go Mach5+ generates so much heat the shielding and guidance systems need significant protection (as the warheads are not designed to be nuclear), so their accuracy must be precise.  This is why conventional cruise missiles have a much slower speed

[Dahobbs 17807]

1 minute ago, BabaYaga said:

So there is a significant difference in supposed tested weapons, that are neither deployed nor produced, which at the same time are not a priority....

The difference and reason for the delays are the atmosphere.  Glide-based options (which we are testing) and ICBMs go out and above the atmosphere.  To go Mach5+ generates so much heat the shielding and guidance systems need significant protection (as the warheads are not designed to be nuclear), so their accuracy must be precise.  This is why conventional cruise missiles have a much slower speed

What? 

Look, the US has tested glide-based hypersonic weapons. We've done it for years. We've fielded hypersonic weapons for decades. Powered hypersonic weapons are unique and provide novel capabilities. We are, at least as far as is publicly known, the only country to have demonstrated not 1, but two different powered hypersonic weapons. Those are a priority, but also an incredibly difficult problem because scram/ramjets really don't like maneuvers. 

[BabaYaga 15371]

3 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

What? 

Look, the US has tested glide-based hypersonic weapons. We've done it for years. We've fielded hypersonic weapons for decades. Powered hypersonic weapons are unique and provide novel capabilities. We are, at least as far as is publicly known, the only country to have demonstrated not 1, but two different powered hypersonic weapons. Those are a priority, but also an incredibly difficult problem because scram/ramjets really don't like maneuvers. 

Which is my point.  Tested, but not produced or deployed....

[Dahobbs 17807]

8 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Which is my point.  Tested, but not produced or deployed....

We have deployed hypersonic weapons for decades. 

[JesusSweatDuck 17814]

53 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

But I think their problem is getting the panders to keep procreating. 

Well their real problem is the panders demographic make up is not ideal for procreation.

[BabaYaga 15371]

23 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

We have deployed hypersonic weapons for decades. 

Then by this metric any country with ballistic missiles has as well.  

[Dahobbs 17807]

15 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Then by this metric any country with ballistic missiles has as well.  

Yes. That's why glide based systems aren't that revolutionary. They are a little bit more survivable than a standard ballistic missile, but given that ballistic missiles are already incredibly difficult to intercept (and essentially impossible for ICBMs), there is marginal benefit. 

Edited February 13, 2023 by Dahobbs

[immamac 43556]

The only weapon I'm interested in is one that can have an aggressor completely offline before they even know to retaliate. Leave us to deal with the dead man's switch vs a detectable and retaliatory strike. 

[FartingMonk 3608]

1 hour ago, BabaYaga said:

We will?  Probably.  But, like the beforementioned Swedish diesel sub of the same build that the Chinese have that broke through a carrier group and scored direct hits on a carrier?  I'm not saying the Navy is a match, but to defend Taiwan, the Navy has to operate within range of land-based weapons and in the waters off the coast of Taiwan.  They can mine the straights, but short of operating air defenses off carriers, Chinese weapons can hit bases in Guam, Japan, and Korea.  Basically every US base in the Indo-Pacific Command region.

Failed miserably

Of course you have other scenarios stating the exact opposite.  Either way, at that point we're in WWIII and everyone is going to be in for a world of hurt

Not all diesel subs are built the same.

[BabaYaga 15371]

14 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Yes. That's why glide based systems aren't that revolutionary. They are a little bit more survivable than a standard ballistic missile, but given that ballistic missiles are already incredibly difficult to intercept (and essentially impossible for ICBMs), there is marginal benefit. 

You are fixated on the speed.  They are revolutionary in that they maintain that speed on a much flatter trajectory, have significant in-flight maneuverability, and are much harder to detect and intercept.  Ballistic missiles follow a fairly predictable arc.  These do not.  The military obviously sees this as a benefit as they are investing billions into them.  Including glide based options

[Dahobbs 17807]

1 minute ago, BabaYaga said:

You are fixated on the speed.  They are revolutionary in that they maintain that speed on a much flatter trajectory, have significant in-flight maneuverability, and are much harder to detect and intercept.  Ballistic missiles follow a fairly predictable arc.  These do not.  The military obviously sees this as a benefit as they are investing billions into them.  Including glide based options

Yes, they can provide some benefits. The glide based hypersonic weapons provide substantially less benefits than a powered hypersonic weapon. We are developing both because our military spends a lot of money to develop all sorts of weapon systems. The more innovative, and capable hypersonic weapons are the powered ones. That's what I'm trying to emphasize. The revolutionary benefits are associated with powered hypersonic weapons, not glide based weapons. 

[atomheartbevo 90041]

1 hour ago, BabaYaga said:

We will?  Probably.  But, like the beforementioned Swedish diesel sub of the same build that the Chinese have that broke through a carrier group and scored direct hits on a carrier?  I'm not saying the Navy is a match, but to defend Taiwan,

1 hour ago, BabaYaga said:

Either way, at that point we're in WWIII and everyone is going to be in for a world of hurt

China can't move their ports, they can't move their economy.  China's military cannot handle hundreds of millions of out-of-work Chinese on the verge of starvation.  

The US, by itself, can destroy their economy.  Japan and South Korea and anybody else joining in will make it much worse for them.

They aren't going to war with us.

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

4 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

China's military cannot handle hundreds of millions of out-of-work Chinese on the verge of starvation.

[Parliament 14368]

1 hour ago, BabaYaga said:

We will?  Probably.  But, like the beforementioned Swedish diesel sub of the same build that the Chinese have that broke through a carrier group and scored direct hits on a carrier?  I'm not saying the Navy is a match, but to defend Taiwan, the Navy has to operate within range of land-based weapons and in the waters off the coast of Taiwan.  They can mine the straights, but short of operating air defenses off carriers, Chinese weapons can hit bases in Guam, Japan, and Korea.  Basically every US base in the Indo-Pacific Command region.

Failed miserably

Of course you have other scenarios stating the exact opposite.  Either way, at that point we're in WWIII and everyone is going to be in for a world of hurt

 

 

2 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

They can try and go after carriers, but we will sink their entire navy, we will put their land-based comms and Air Force out of commission, we will shut down all of their harbors, shut down their economy, etc. and the list goes on for a very long time.

That's what this always circles back to - if it reaches that point, their economy is done, which means hundreds and hundreds of millions of Chinese are out of work, in the streets, starving, and really fucking pissed off, and vastly outnumbering the Chinese military and security apparatus.  It won't be that they can try and get Russia and India to make up for the US/Japan/South Korea, it's that they won't be able to ship a single thing out of those ports.

China's government as it exists today, does so because of instability in the 1910s-1940s, and Xi for all of his being a student of history, knows that prior to its mostly-current incarnation, China had existed as a 2,000+ year monarchy.  It didn't take that much instability to bring that monarchy down, and the same holds true for Xi and his government.   

We, the Brits, India and maybe Australia would set up a giant pontoon party in the Arabian Sea.  Every oil tanker heading to China would be turned around and/or appropriated.  

But it's a fair question to ask if the American people would tolerate the kinda losses the US would sustain.  (Some war games say two carriers.)  That right there is what could save China, not fast missiles or silent subs.

[atomheartbevo 90041]

15 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

They have around a million soldiers.  If we stop selling them food, and stop buying their stuff, and a huge chunk of their factories start failing as American/Japanese/Korean companies cut ties with them, what's the million-man army going to do for the hundreds of millions who find themselves in a world of shit?  

I suppose the government can try and weld them into their apartments to keep them from protesting, can print up money to give them, but it still won't bring food in, and printing money won't help their investments/economy, especially as we freeze their assets.

2 minutes ago, Parliament said:

But it's a fair question to ask if the American people would tolerate the kinda losses the US would sustain.  (Some war games say two carriers.)  That right there is what could save China, not fast missiles or silent subs.

We don't even have to physically blockade their ports.  Just block their ships and goods from entering American, Japanese, and Korean ports, along with other friendly nations (Canada, Australia, etc, and India and Vietnam will probably join the dogpile, as well as a chunk of the EU).

Take the struggles they went through with COVID, take the problems caused by the Suez Canal fiasco with the single Evergreen cargo ship, and magnify that many, many times. Russia showed that we can do quite a bit to a country that we aren't at war with, that is a blip on our economic radar, and whose big exports are oil & gas and food/lumber (and we didn't buy much fro them).

We can destroy their economy without firing a single shot.  Even just blocking their goods from America and seizing all of their investments would do it.

Edited February 13, 2023 by atomheartbevo

[Dahobbs 17807]

23 minutes ago, Parliament said:

 

 

We, the Brits, India and maybe Australia would set up a giant pontoon party in the Arabian Sea.  Every oil tanker heading to China would be turned around and/or appropriated.  

But it's a fair question to ask if the American people would tolerate the kinda losses the US would sustain.  (Some war games say two carriers.)  That right there is what could save China, not fast missiles or silent subs.

What those wargames really suggested is that, based on the current range of our carrier aircraft, we should not move our carriers in position to do much besides support operations from afar. The most recent wargames where the US was always victorious (usually fairly quickly) showed that our carriers weren't even a factor other than immediately ending up on the bottom of the sea. One of the things we know we need, and is a focus point for the Navy's F/A-XX program, is much longer ranges to keep our carriers safe from land based missiles.   

[atomheartbevo 90041]

And if we simply shut off Chinese exports/imports with the US, Japan, South Korea, Australia, Canada, a part of the EU, Vietnam, India, and if we freeze their assets in those countries, all without firing a single shot at China, then if China attacks us militarily, the American public will be fine with whatever response we send their way.

I don't think a lot of people realize just how much China relies on other countries, particularly the US, to keep their economy going and their people fed.

 

[Parliament 14368]

58 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

The most recent wargames where the US was always victorious (usually fairly quickly) showed that our carriers weren't even a factor...   

So what WAS the factor?  Cruise missiles from Taiwan?

[Dahobbs 17807]

22 minutes ago, Parliament said:

So what WAS the factor?  Cruise missiles from Taiwan?

Our airfields in the region, our submarines, and land based defenses in Taiwan. If you really want one factor, is because what China was attempting to do in this wargame, an amphibious invasion of Taiwan, is incredibly hard to accomplish over 100 miles of ocean against modern weaponry. This is especially true when China is relying on modified cruise-liners as their troop transports. 

Edited February 14, 2023 by Dahobbs

[Parliament 14368]

How much damage did Chinese missiles do to our assets on the Taiwanese island?

[Dahobbs 17807]

10 minutes ago, Parliament said:

How much damage did Chinese missiles do to our assets on the Taiwanese island?

You can read the results here:https://www.csis.org/analysis/first-battle-next-war-wargaming-chinese-invasion-taiwan

A lot. Total allied combat aircraft loses varied between a handful (oddly enough this  was the most pessimistic overall scenario) and 645. US only loses were less, but did make up the majority of loses in pretty much every scenario. Pretty much all friendly aircraft losses were do to missile strikes on staged aircraft at our airbases (and carriers). Assets on Taiwan itself were mostly destroyed in the opening salvos. It is our assets in Japan and the Philippines that provided the most support for the US (in terms of airpower).  

Edited February 14, 2023 by Dahobbs

[Bevo 13634]

1 hour ago, atomheartbevo said:

I don't think a lot of people realize just how much China relies on other countries, particularly the US, to keep their economy going and their people fed.

What do you think our inflation rate would be during a war with China?

[atomheartbevo 90041]

11 minutes ago, Bevo said:

What do you think our inflation rate would be during a war with China?

If the Chinese start killing American soldiers, sailors, and Marines, you think the public won't be willing to tolerate it?

[Bevo 13634]

4 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

If the Chinese start killing American soldiers, sailors, and Marines, you think the public won't be willing to tolerate it?

The public will tolerate it right up until the next election.

[Schulz2.0 29039]

58 minutes ago, Bevo said:

The public will tolerate it right up until the next election.

The inflation on cheap plastic shit? Fentanyl?

[Bevo 13634]

10 hours ago, Schulz2.0 said:

The inflation on cheap plastic shit? Fentanyl?

Unfortunately, I think a better way to look at it is "What's not made in China?" All our womenz would be nekkid in the streets without Chinese clothing and our football team wouldn't have footballs. Our children wouldn't have balloons at the park. And Panda Express would close. And no more fortune cookies. And yes we wouldn't be able to shoot up grizzlies with Fentanyl to make stupid tik tok videos.

[Orange&White 5554]

26 minutes ago, Bevo said:

Unfortunately, I think a better way to look at it is "What's not made in China?" All our womenz would be nekkid in the streets without Chinese clothing and our football team wouldn't have footballs. Our children wouldn't have balloons at the park. And Panda Express would close. And no more fortune cookies. And yes we wouldn't be able to shoot up grizzlies with Fentanyl to make stupid tik tok videos.

Where will we get our cargo planes full of rubber dogshit?

[YGIFS 19453]

Hong Kong?  

[Bevo 13634]

38 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

Hong Kong?  

Yep that's China's too.

[YGIFS 19453]

Yeah, I know...but the movie quote specifically states "Outta Hong Kong".  Was just running with the gag.  I'm sure the screenwriter's workshopped the line as "rubber dog shit outta the Special Administrative Region of Hong Kong!" but it was 1986.  Screenplay was completed (interestingly enough) right at the time the UK and China inked the deal to transfer the colony in 1997 (1984).  

[Ghost of LL 15604]

18 hours ago, BabaYaga said:

We will?  Probably.  But, like the beforementioned Swedish diesel sub of the same build that the Chinese have that broke through a carrier group and scored direct hits on a carrier?  I'm not saying the Navy is a match, but to defend Taiwan, the Navy has to operate within range of land-based weapons and in the waters off the coast of Taiwan.  They can mine the straights, but short of operating air defenses off carriers, Chinese weapons can hit bases in Guam, Japan, and Korea.  Basically every US base in the Indo-Pacific Command region.

Failed miserably

Of course you have other scenarios stating the exact opposite.  Either way, at that point we're in WWIII and everyone is going to be in for a world of hurt

Can we please stop with this nonsense?  China is not going to war with the United States.  And that means that China is not invading Taiwan.

For the reasons stated above, it is just not rational for China to start a war with the United States.  It has no path to victory against the United States and its allies.  And the cost of any war to China would be too catastrophic to undertake willingly.

China itself seems to recognize this.  For all its bullying of the Philippines and Vietnam in the South China Sea, take a look at their behavior during this balloon kerfuffle.  The Chinese foreign ministry was unusually apologetic at the outset.  While they've since become a bit more accusatory toward the United States' decision to shoot down the balloon, they've been consistently de-escalatory throughout the entire episode.

[BabaYaga 15371]

4 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

they've been consistently de-escalatory throughout the entire episode.

They just moved two dozens ships into the Taiwan strait and their planes entered Taiwanese airspace a day ago.  

[Ghost of LL 15604]

5 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

They just moved two dozens ships into the Taiwan strait and their planes entered Taiwanese airspace a day ago.  

And as I said--they're going to continue bullying the lies of the Philippines and Vietnam and Taiwan.  But they're not fucking with the United States.  And thanks to Biden's "gaffe," they now know pretty unequivocally that a hostile act against Taiwan would incur a military response from the United States.

[956 Worldwide 34912]

History is littered with wars started by regimes that rationally should have known better. Even more with wars that got stumbled into before the rational people could stop it. 
 

Place your faith in the Split Atom and Doctrine of Holy Deterrence. Rationality of the Communist Party is a false idol! 

[Deej 77168]

4 hours ago, Bevo said:

And no more fortune cookies.

The largest manufacturer of fortune cookies is in New York. I think we'll be fine.