Posted on 08/22/2010 5:39:42 AM PDT by TigerLikesRooster
This is only in part due to the weakness of the leader.
The main reason is because the US Navy is stretched thin and would be unable to win a decisive victory against overwhelming Chinese numerical and logistical superiority in the Western pacific.
Strecthed thin? I was not aware we were fighting any naval wars at the moment. What patch of international waters should the ChiComs be allowed to order us out of next because our Navy is stretched thin?
I honestly don’t think that if we took a member of the Chinese Politburo and installed them as President of the US., they could do any better at weakening America.
I’m simply stating reality here. We have 11 Carrier battle groups. At any given time only about 4-5 can be operationally deployed.
Our navy has been used to provide air-support for 2 continuous wars for the last decade. Wear and tear alone is drastically decreasing the shelf life of ships and naval air assets.
Now on top of that natural usage degradation, we have the fact that the operational fleets at any given time are divided across the entire world.
We need at least 1 fleet to stand down the Russians in Europe.
We need at least 1 fleet in the Persian gulf to keep Iran in it’s place.
What it effectively means that at any given time, we might be able to operationally deploy 2, at the most 3 carrier fleets in the far east. But if we deployed 3, it would leave both coasts of the CONUS wide open.
So if we assumed 2 Carrier groups against China, it means 2 fleets with roughly 200 air defense missiles total. A typical Chinese naval air strike package from any one of it’s 3 Fleets could involve up to 100 strike/heavy bombers carrying 400-600 ASCMs.
Meaning, if our fleet defense was 100% effective, the PLAN can still overwhelm and neutralize both USN fleets with sheer numbers of ASCMs and delivery vehicles. And that’s not even counting PLAN submarines, surface forces, or the potential ASBMs that they might be fielding.
That is what I mean by stretched thin.
I have to call BS on that. I have been in Iraq since 2004. I spent two years next to the largest aitfield in the country. I have yet to see my first Navy plane in Iraq. My point is that the Navy is not actually fighting a nvaval war at the moment and they cannot stand up to the ChiCom Navy? Do we just give them the entire west Pacific if the Navy does have to fight a naval war at some point? It takes not only ships but also “cojones” to defend freedom of navigation, something our leadership is apparently lacking.
“Do we just give them the entire west Pacific if the Navy does have to fight a naval war at some point? “
That is basically what is happening. At some point, China’s industrialization was going to make them powerful enough to challenge our dominance in the western pacific. We are now at that point.
From what I have read their Navy is nowhere near ready to challenge us besides, I thought this was what our nuke subs were for. They touch one of our carriers, we nuke them
“From what I have read their Navy is nowhere near ready to challenge us besides, I thought this was what our nuke subs were for. They touch one of our carriers, we nuke them”
The 2 key assumptions of the current strategic paradigm in the Western Pacific is being challenged.
1. The USN will retain naval dominance in the Western pacific.
This is in highly in doubt now due to the sheer number of modern platforms the PLAN and PLAAF are fielding, along with U.S weakness in logistics in that theater.
2. Even if the USN looses the opening rounds, the U.S can still use nuclear blackmail to ensure that the conflict goes our way.
It is still the case because China can currently only throw about 150 nuclear warheads our way. Meaning, in the worst scenario, both sides go nuclear. The U.S would lose about 50% of it’s population but China would be completely destroyed.
However, over the next couple of years, if China can get it’s delivery systems to the point where it can throw say 300 warheads on the CONUS, then nuclear blackmail is off the table for the U.S. We cannot afford to loose 99% of the U.S population in a nuclear exchange with China.
It is our enemies thinking our leaders would have the will to use nukes that has kept us from having to use them since WW 2. That will is obviously missing now and that is why we are being challenged and chose to back down. Why didn’t the ChiComs challenge Bush like this? It is not because of the “sheer number of modern platforms the PLAN and PLAAF are fielding, along with U.S weakness in logistics in that theater”. I think that is false. The USSR Navy had way more stuff to fight us with than PRC does now or will have in the forseeable future. It was the nuke threat and the belief we would use nukes that kept the USSR in check. Ironically, I believe “peaceful” Obama’s weakness makes us more likely to have to employ desperate measures than would be the case if we had a credible “war hawk” POTUS in office.
I disagree with that opinion.
When Bush first came to power, China didn’t have near the kind of conventional military power that it know commands. Back in 2000, it had no operational AWACS, no tankers, no LACMs, and no NOSS or SOSUS networks to track our assets with.
Also on the nuclear front, they only began deploying MIRV capable ICBMs(DF-31,DF-31A) in 2007-2008 as Bush was leaving office.
No doubt that Obama is a coward when faced with a real opponent. However, there is also little doubt that China has beefed up their military capabilities substantially over the last decade.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.