Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Would the U.S. Still Lose the Naval War of 2015?
Real Clear Defense ^ | July 2, 2013 | Harry Kazianis

Posted on 07/08/2013 1:48:59 PM PDT by neverdem

Over the last few days I have begun the exhausting, yet wonderful process of moving. Considering the fact I have not moved in twelve years and I am relocating from a suburban single-family home to a small apartment urban setting in Washington D.C. I have some tough decisions to make on what to keep and what to trash.

In going through my endless collection of foreign policy, national security and defense articles (I print everything) I found quite the gem that needless to say made the save box. Instead of cleaning out our soon-to-be former home, I decided to take a small break (please don't tell my wife) and travel down memory lane.

The article in question is one you may know. From the Winter 2010 edition of Orbis, James Kraska's "How the United States Lost the Naval War of 2015" was always a piece that I have gone back to over and over again. In fact, the article was one that sparked my interest in anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) and the DF-21D. Several years back, myself and fellow CSIS:PACNET WSD Handa scholar Daryl Morini had planned to write a follow-up piece -- but alas -- other projects always seemed to get in the way (I am still willing if you are my friend!).

The article creates a fictional scenario where China "sinks" a U.S. carrier. The scenario itself is rather, well, interesting:

"Americans woke up to a different world the day after the attack. The war was over almost as soon as it had started. Outmaneuvered tactically and strategically, the United States suffered its greatest defeat at sea since Pearl Harbor. The incident—could it really be called a 'war'?—had been preceded by a shallow diplomatic crisis between the two great powers. No one in the West expected the dispute to..."...

(Excerpt) Read more at realcleardefense.com ...


TOPICS: Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Politics/Elections; US: District of Columbia
KEYWORDS: china
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-87 next last

1 posted on 07/08/2013 1:48:59 PM PDT by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: warsaw44

read


2 posted on 07/08/2013 1:51:00 PM PDT by warsaw44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Zer0 will surrender to any and all Islamic or socialist/Marxist powers that declares war on the US.

It’s not even a question one has to answer. It is a given.


3 posted on 07/08/2013 1:57:29 PM PDT by Vaquero (Don't pick a fight with an old guy. If he is too old to fight, he'll just kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

BM


4 posted on 07/08/2013 1:58:45 PM PDT by al baby (Hi Mom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vaquero


5 posted on 07/08/2013 1:59:31 PM PDT by Iron Munro (The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

It depends on how independent and nasty individual Naval commanders get.


6 posted on 07/08/2013 2:01:46 PM PDT by BwanaNdege ("To learn who rules over you simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize"- Voltaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Japan and India are definitely preparing for the time when the USN may not be the top dog in Asia.

http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-05-29/news/39602234_1_indian-ocean-south-china-sea-comprehensive-convention

I have felt that the USN’s over reliance on supercarriers is an Achilles’ heel that the Chinese were bound to exploit. The scenario discussed in this article is a bit far fetched, but not totally unreasonable.


7 posted on 07/08/2013 2:03:08 PM PDT by Ronin (Dumb, dependent and Democrat is no way to go through life - Rep. L. Gohmert, Tex)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BwanaNdege

You’re damned right!


8 posted on 07/08/2013 2:03:27 PM PDT by laplata (Liberals don't get it. Their minds have been stolen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: BwanaNdege

Remember William Tell’s second crossbow bolt (arrow).


9 posted on 07/08/2013 2:03:36 PM PDT by BwanaNdege ("To learn who rules over you simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize"- Voltaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

China “sinks” a U.S. carrier.

One? We have many more not to mention lots of Boomers still active. Someone sinks one of our CVN’s I surmise they will get more than a proportional response (as soon as NObama leaves office that is).


10 posted on 07/08/2013 2:04:12 PM PDT by Resolute Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Skimmed the article. Interesting, but losing a single ship, even a nuclear carrier, ≠ losing a war.
11 posted on 07/08/2013 2:04:38 PM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

Remember several years back there was an article reporting that a Chinese sub got behind a US Carrier and we didn’t know?


12 posted on 07/08/2013 2:11:06 PM PDT by EQAndyBuzz (The reason we own guns is to protect ourselves from those wanting to take our guns from us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: warsaw44
read

Unfortunately, that rarely happens in freeperland.

13 posted on 07/08/2013 2:11:50 PM PDT by Jacquerie (To restore the 10th Amendment, repeal the 17th.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: warsaw44

American Aircraft carriers don’t sail alone.

So ‘just’ sinking the carrier still leaves the rest of the fleet.

So I don’t see the Chinese rescuing American sailors. I see the fleet rescuing the rest of the sailors and any Chinese approaching being sunk.


14 posted on 07/08/2013 2:12:22 PM PDT by Pikachu_Dad (Impeach Sen Quinn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
losing a single ship, even a nuclear carrier, ≠ losing a war.

Wars are lost in the White House and Congress.

15 posted on 07/08/2013 2:14:27 PM PDT by null and void (Republicans create the tools of oppression, and the democrats gleefully use them!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

It depends on who the president is at the time. If it is Obastard, you can guarantee that his response will be to run away and try to figure out why we made the Chinese do it.


16 posted on 07/08/2013 2:16:37 PM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (Inside every liberal and WOD defender is a totalitarian screaming to get out.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
The article creates a fictional scenario where China "sinks" a U.S. carrier.

How about a fictional scenario where the Chinese launch an SLBM off Catalina Island prior to an economic summit...?

17 posted on 07/08/2013 2:19:14 PM PDT by papertyger (Blessed are the flexible for they shall not be broken....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pikachu_Dad

That’s just what I was thinking.


18 posted on 07/08/2013 2:19:42 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (America's Party - 'We're partisans only for principle.' www.SelfGovernment.US)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Barring political surrender, the Chinese navy (the PLAN) would not fair well in blue water operations against the USN.

That is not to say that a cake walk is a given.

The Chinese could very well deliver some serious blows, especially with a surprise attack, but everything after that would go down hill for them. First, they would have no choice but to come out and fight. Their supply of oil and their exports would suddenly become USN property, and only defeating the USN in blue water operations would get them their stuff back.

USN attack submarines would be waiting, as would USN task forces made up of multiple carrier strike groups. Their satellites would be blinded, and many of ours might be lost, but we would still have long range recon, they would not.

You can’t win blue water Naval engagements against aircraft carriers except with nuclear submarines and/or other aircraft carriers. They don’t yet have nearly what it takes in those departments. If the Chinese mainland makes operating our carriers too dangerous, then we step back and make them come to us to get their trade routes back, advantage USN.

USAF long range support would also appear at the second island ring, perhaps even the Taiwan, if a war had started and the Chinese hadn’t seized it yet.


19 posted on 07/08/2013 2:19:43 PM PDT by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

I think the author needs to go back to reading his Star Trek Generation comics (or just give up the closet space to his wife).

I just don’t see that scenario playing out. Despite the military’s deep cuts and pandering to political correctness, I still think it has a little more fight in it than presented in the article.


20 posted on 07/08/2013 2:19:47 PM PDT by Thorliveshere (Tais deau sá taghdedaul!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-87 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson