TO TAKE TAIWAN, FIRST KILL A CARRIER

The Jamestown Foundation ^ | July 8, 2002 | Richard D. Fisher, Jr.

[gcruse]

Don't even think about going there.

Why do you think China is taking the Spratleys?
What do you suppose the troop buildup on the
border is for?  Do you think China can be
repelled from attacking Taiwan by jingoism
half a world away?

What American forces are stationed near
enough to Taiwan to do anything about
an attack from the mainland?   The PRC's
ability to airlift troops quickly enough
into Taiwan is the determinant of whether
or not they will present the US with
a fait accompli.

[LibKill]

China may or may not take Taiwan. Personally I hate communists and despise the arrogant, power-mad, 'leadership' of Peking.

What I meant by telling them "Don't go there", is that they could not kill several thousand Americans without getting a Nuclear kiss in return.

At least as long as we have a Texan in office.

[gcruse]

 they could not kill several thousand Americans without getting a Nuclear
kiss in return.

          I don't think we would be the first
          to go nuclear.  Shoot, look how
         we backed and filled when they
         brought down the spy plane.

        What really rankles is that we don't
         want to irritate the PRC by selling
        Taiwan the weapons they want and
        need to defend themselves, yet we
        can't maintain the massive US presence
       in that area needed as deterrence.
 

[Jeff Head]

We, the American people are funding this Chinese military build-up

I agree 100%.

We are blatantly doing this through products sold en masse to the American public. But American taxpayer monies also helped fund a lot of things in Russia (remember the big Ford truck plant?)

[Paulus Invictus]

Did you see the word "response?" That means if the Chicoms did take out one of our carriers, we would respond with nukes. No need to invade a barrn nuclear wasteland China would become.

[gcruse]

... if the Chicoms did take out
one of our carriers, we would respond with nukes.

And you know that because....

No need to invade a barrn nuclear wasteland China would become.

Once again you assume a nuclear first strike by the US.
That is the point  yet to be resolved.

[Poohbah]

Yes. They are designed to defeat Aegis. Coming in at supersonic speeds just inches above the water. Even if Phalanx hits them, the pieces still arrive on target. But, this if is very big.

In other words, in anything other than Sea State 0, you're going to lose a significant fraction of your missiles to...waves.

[Poohbah]

I disagree with your assessment of the "Second Battle of Taiwan."

You presume that the People's Republic of China could survive losing a major war in one (political) peace.

I think that losing a war would be likely to cause a military coup d'etat (historically, LOSING armies have been the ones to overthrow their own governments), and that said coup would lead to a revival of warlordism across all of China.

China needs about 20 years to build a Navy powerful enough to take on the US Navy in Chinese waters with a reasonable prospect of success. They will need another ten years after that to build enough amphibious assault sealift to execute a successful invasion of Taiwan. I don't think they HAVE 30 years left.

And even if the Chinese did take Taiwan, the US, as the dominant maritime power, would continue to rule the world ocean. China would discover that (a) we really don't need chew toys for our dogs THAT badly, (b) when your adversary owns every ocean OUTSIDE of the South China Sea and insists on closing all Chinese maritime trade, you have a big problem, and (c) life really sucks when you can't import food from the US of A.

Note that Britain's continenetal allies were all subdued by Napoleon in the period 1805-1809, but that Britain won the war. Same principle here--being the ultimate seapower means never having to say "armistice."

[gcruse]

 
In other words, in anything other than Sea State 0,
you're going to lose a significant fraction of your missiles to...waves.

Yeah, I'm sure that's it.  No worries, mate.
 
 

[Poohbah]

Let's review the physics, shall we? Flying at 2,000 MPH only a few feet above the ocean surface means that (a) the weapon doesn't have a lot of control authority for evasive maneuvers, (b) not a lot of TIME for said maneuvers, and (c) flying into a wave at those speeds is roughly akin to driving into a concrete wall at 200MPH, Mr. Earnhardt.

BTW, I did some checking around: the US Navy uses Vandal drones (essentially rebuilt Talos missiles) as test targets to simulate the SS-N-22. If anything, the Vandal is a tougher target (better autopilot, a bit faster, better endgame evasive maneuvers) than the Sunburn--and the Aegis system still bags it.

[gcruse]

 
BTW, I did some checking around: the US Navy uses Vandal drones (essentially rebuilt Talos missiles) as test targets to
simulate the SS-N-22. If anything, the Vandal is a tougher target (better autopilot, a bit faster, better endgame evasive
maneuvers) than the Sunburn--and the Aegis system still bags it.

That's the first good news I've heard regarding the Sunburn.  Thanks.

[Poohbah]

Contrary to popular belief, the Navy didn't spend the Clinton years just firing $2 million missiles at $10 tents and hitting camels in the fundament. There's been a LOT of study and analysis as to how technology is affecting naval warfare, and we've known that everyone's been trying to beat Aegis.

[Red Jones]

bump

[finnman69]

The United States likes vain glory; if one of its aircraft carrier should be attacked and destroyed, people in the United States would begin to complain and quarrel loudly, and the U.S. president would find the going harder and harder."

If one of our carriers gets sunk, whoever did it will eat tomahawks, B61s, and all kinds of other really nasty ordnance.

[Chemist_Geek]

Well those "nasty tempered" boys can't walk on water.

They would be sitting targets on boats.

For whom to shoot at them? I think the Duke is on to something. Although there has been a slight stiffening in American spine since September 12, 2001, we're nothing like the society we had on December 8, 1941.

Look at the breathless coverage every time an American soldier in Afghanistan gets a hangnail. While that only represents the media's view, can you imagine the weeks of broadcast tearful interviews and hagiographies of the 7,000 sailors killed after the PLAN sinks an American carrier? We'd never heard the end of it. If the soccer-moms think for even a second that their Jasons and Jessicas might be put in harm's way after that...

I am also concerned about the ROK and Japan... I believe that while fiercely independent, they would look to develop a modus vivendi with an aggrandized China. Their militaries are not enough to force the Chinese to leave them alone.

There was a post above which read that the Chinese had an eight-year-long opportunity to take Taiwan. The poster was correct; President Bush would not stand for it or a Chinese attack on an American carrier. But how would President Hillary Clinton react? Probably hold a Chinese buffet-style banquet...

OBTW: What's with all these Chinese buffet restaurants opening up around Detroit? It seems like every other block has these huge restaurants with a Chinese staff and fixed-price All-You-Can-Eat meals...

[Poohbah]

For whom to shoot at them?

Submarines, the Taiwanese military, et cetera.

Look at the breathless coverage every time an American soldier in Afghanistan gets a hangnail. While that only represents the media's view, can you imagine the weeks of broadcast tearful interviews and hagiographies of the 7,000 sailors killed after the PLAN sinks an American carrier?

Yup. And the national mood would demand revenge. And said revenge would be terrible.

We'd never heard the end of it. If the soccer-moms think for even a second that their Jasons and Jessicas might be put in harm's way after that...

Maybe you personally are a worthless, no-load, non-hacking waste of oxygen. If you are, please do not presume to speak for your fellow Americans.

[Chemist_Geek]

Maybe you personally are a worthless, no-load, non-hacking waste of oxygen. If you are, please do not presume to speak for your fellow Americans.

If you want to live in the past, go right ahead. Americans in general are not the same as their grandfathers and grandmothers. Just don't think that as you charge out against the Backstabbing Yellow Peril, that there will be an army behind you. There would be a brigade, maybe two.

America has changed the name of the retaliation against Al-Qaeda because the old name offends their allies! America won't take a serious step towards tighening security aboard its commercial airplanes! America approved a student visa for a terrorist killed in the September 11 attacks! All this, and you believe that there wouldn't be mass wimpiness amongst the soccer-moms and Nineties Guys?

Can it be fixed? Sure it can, but, the social liberals will fight that effort tooth and nail...

One final comment: before you throw around personal insults and invective, try cosidering that the moral is to they physical as three is to one. We would have the capability to retaliate and severly punish China for sinking an American carrier. Would the national mood, manipulated as it is by the social liberals in the media, have that done? Would we be as luck to have someone like President Bush in office at that time?

[Poohbah]

Yup, the "everyone after me is worthless" argument.

If you want to live in a state of fear, please report to the PRC embassy, drop trou, and grab your ankles.

[M Kehoe]

The Japanese made the same miscalculation that general Bin just made. You would think the Chicoms would have learned from history.

5.56mm

[green team 1999]

our secret weapon a los angeles class sub and hapoon antiship missiles.also mark-48 torpedoes
three subs can wipe out the chicoms navy in few days.