Posted on 07/09/2002 6:25:15 AM PDT by Tai_Chung
Would a Carrier Battle Group be deployed in the first place? And -
Didn't our "big sticks" get taken down a notch or two - LORAL guidance technology, W-88 warhead, ..., etc?
Our former president would have tucked his tail at this point.
If China is really serious about taking out the carrier they won't use the weapons mentioned they will simply nuke it.
That's sort of like saying:
TO MAKE T-REX STEAK, FIRST KILL A T-REX ...
While possible, it isn't something that I'd like to try.
The same can be said of China. If they were planning military action, the time to do would have been when Clinton was President. They (unlike Hillary) most likely kept the records of their payments to the Clintons and could have blackmailed him, assuming of course if he had wanted to oppose them. I am not sure he would have.
We have a new President now, one that would oppose any attempt to take Taiwan by force.
The use of weapons of mass destructions would just mean the end of life as they know it.
Sinking a carrier would probably kill about 2823 sailors... the same number as the WTC collapse. I would have thought our response to THAT would have been "horrific", but here we are with a relatively bloodless coup in Afghanistan (a government that likely had little to do with the actual attack). I'm not sure if our nation lacks the self-defense mechanism to retaliate, or if that we were stayed by the lack of a national target in the wake of 9-11. I guess China would find the answer to that one if they were inclined towards sinking a carrier.
Personally, I think they understand SunTzu and Pearl Harbor well enough to try to find the best alternative to sinking our ships: finding a way to make sure that we won't want to use them at all.
Instead of driving us from the region, it would make the American defense of Taiwan a top priority. Having lost one carrier, the USA would devote far more to defending Taiwan.
Big mistake by China if they do this, this means they are miscalculating American will, the same way the Japanese did in 1941.
Because the PRC can't currently "take Taiwan" even if the United States doesn't lift a finger or send any carriers at all.
Not enough sealift, dubious ability to achieve air superiority over Taiwan (and again, EVEN IF THERE IS NO U.S. INVOLVEMENT AT ALL).
Taiwan has more troops and is better armed than the Germans in Normandy in WWII.
Do you mean like Bush did when the Chincom brought down our survelience plane? The chin were laughing their heads off at us during that time, especially AFTER we paid them over 1 million US Dollars to get the plane back. Its called air piracy and Senor Bush bitched up to them muy pronton.
A lot, lot, LOT less than that. Any modern US carrier is going to take a heck of a long time to sink. On each of the CVs the US lost in WWII, most, or in some cases, almost ALL, of the crew was rescued.
More like 200-800 sailors killed, methinks.
And I suspect pretty much the entire projectable power of the PRC will be consumed in sinking one carrier (or trying to). We've got more where those came from; the PRC won't.
You are right on the mark regarding how a Chinese attack would be timed and executed, but I have to say that I believe that with our current level readiness, they could very well take Taiwan in such a turn of events. They know that they will only get one chance to cripple our ability to project power in the region. If their forces are concentrated and deployed appropriately, taking out one carrier and much of it's battle group is very likely. What wasn't mentioned in the article was the new torpedo developed by the Russians, which will likely end up in the Chinese arsonal. I can't remember the exact method this torpedo uses, but somehow, it can create a pocket (or many pockets) of air around it's outer surface, allowing it to travel much faster than our ships could effectively respond to a torpedo attack. They're first move would likely be to disable or destroy some of our key satellites which monitor the region. Everything would escallate very quickly from there, because if our satellites over that region go out, our forces there would immediately go on their highest level of alert. As you stated, North Korea would likely invade the South just before that, and if we were also heavilly engaged in Iraq at that time, our forces would be taxed at or possibly beyond their limit. We were able to fight on two major fronts in WW2, but only after most of our production capabillity was shifted to war-time economics. What we have in our favor is that our milliary is MUCH more efficient now than it was in the 1940's. Mass boming has been replaced with surgical air strikes and enormous ground forces, ala D-Day, would not be required to deal with China. The question is, how much of our millitary would be needed to effectively deal with simultanious conflicts in Iraq, North Korea, and Taiwan and do we have enough to fight on three fronts at the same time?
Why? Because we lost a ship in a war? Because this violates the "no one is allowed to shoot at Americans" rule?
I agree with your broader point that such an act would galvanize American opinion. Whether this would guarantee the defeat of a Chinese attack on Taiwan, however, is unclear. Presumably the Chinese would be moving very rapidly, in the hope of presenting us with a fait accompli. They would also try to preserve operational surprise, probably by launching an attack from the springboard of their regular exercises in the area.
A U.S. carrier might conceivably become a target if one were loitering in the vicinity when China moved, but otherwise I don't imagine they would risk the provocation. If no U.S. forces were immediately on hand, the Chinese might realistically hope to have completed the job before we could react. It would be interesting to know whether our subs are routinely covering the Taiwan straight in enough strength to seriously interdict an amphibious movement.
Need to consider the weight margins of the newest carriers...makes me nervous.
In general, the fact that China has ICBMs makes it more important to continue on with Anti-ICBM R&D in my opinion, especially if it all starts out with a conventional attack by China, and our response to it.
No, the American people would clamor for the extermination of Communist China. Don't think so? We're pretty much on our way to eradicating militant Islam for knocking down two buildings.
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.