TO TAKE TAIWAN, FIRST KILL A CARRIER

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

[Don Joe]

"I suspect the sinking of an American carrier would simultaneously terrify every suburban female in America who automatically votes Democrat and elicit en masse cries of outrage from them along the lines of 'What are we doing over there in the first place? Seven thousand dead!! And for what? Bring our boys home! Now!' And that's all it would take to terminally undermine our national resolve."

It won't matter. It'll all be over except for the aerial radiation surveys before they're able to paint their first "NO WAR!" posters.

[bonesmccoy]

BS. If the PLA forces were stupid enough to destroy Taiwan's resources, you can kiss North Korea and Beijing goodbye.

Shanghai would go too. Because we know there are docks in Shanghai that can front load tanks on the carrier ships for invasion to Taiwan.

In another thought, I question if this is actually an attempt to garner more funding for obsolete Naval technologies. The reality is that the United States can pound China from bases in South Korea, Japan, the Philippines, and Central Asian states.

[Redcloak]

As I recall, the Russians were doing SigInt work. They were trying to provoke a response from the Kitty Hawk's defense systems. (Just as we do when we skim the edge of their airspace with our reconnaissance planes) The captain played it correctly by not lighting up the Russians with his radar. He let them buzz around harmlessly and sent them home empty handed.

[rmmcdaniell]

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.

Where have you been since 9-11? We have a president who embraces the political correctness of the left and says that Islam is a religion of peace. We change the name of our military operation to avoid offending anyone, and we make sure we don't damage any mosques even though the terrorists may be hiding in them. We refuse to check Islamic men when they board our civilian aircraft, but strip search our 90 year old cripples. He is pussy-footing around the saudi's eggshells when he should be stomping on them. It increasingly looks like Afganistan will be the first and last military operation of this so-called war on terror. I think the aftermath of 9-11 has PROVED that we are unwilling to do what it takes to defend ourselves.

[Don Joe]

"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."

What are you smoking? They demanded that kind of money, and Bush threw a tiny fraction of it at 'em, which, with their "face" oriented culture was a direct slap to the face.

China lost face by getting that payment, bigtime. They lost a hell of a lot more face than they would have if Bush flat-out refused to pay them at all.

They stood there and demanded Fort Knox, and we tossed a pair of nickels at 'em and said "shove it up your a$$" as we turned away and left.

[pepsionice]

The race is on...will capitalism convert China so far west that they don't want to invade Taiwan or will communisism exist to such a degree that it will disregard world review of China?

[No.6]

I don’t fully understand why China didn’t take Taiwan while Clinton was in office – he would have weighed all options and done nothing. With that in mind, the only real deterrent China had for those 8 years was the Taiwanese Defense Force!

It is my opinion that the Chinese were counting on another four years of RAT in the White House.

[Don Joe]

"no one has yet come up with an effective defense"

Poppycock.

There's a very effective defense. It's called "massive retaliation". Also known as "deterrence". If China decides to go for broke, we break them.

[ClearCase_guy]

You forgot the missile subs. We have 50 or 60 of em and one boat could pretty much wipe North Korea off the map.

Indeed. The subs are always a factor. A few on this thread have mentioned a possible 3 front war (Iraq, Korea, Taiwan). Although the US would probably not respond this way, I'd like to see a massive nuking of N Korea and China. Then the President could go on TV and explain "We found ourselves in the midst of a 3-front war. We didn't want to be. Now we aren't. Don't f*** with the US."

[Lake]

>>AFTER we paid them over 1 million US Dollars to get the plane back.

No. China was asking $1 million, but the US sent in a &30,000 check which China rejected, so actually the US got the plane back for free, yes, free use of their facilities, fuel and all other things.

[Jeff Head]

What wasn't mentioned in the article was the new torpedo developed by the Russians, which will likely end up in the Chinese arsonal

Go to the link about my series of novels above. The premise I posit for the fictional novel is that the Chinese indeed develop a superior, long range, supercavitating device and employ it with devastating effectiveness against us.

[Jeff Head]

If they are fast enough, and the supercavitating weapons are ... they don't need to. The entire premise is that they get there bfore the vessel has the chance to turn out of the way.

The larger the ship, the more slowly it makes a turn to avoid something coming at it. A supercavitating device moving at severeal hundred miles per hour ... theoretically close to the speed of sound ... can get to the ship from a fairly long distance before the ship can move out of the way.

[Orangedog]

Agreed. Firearms are considered very effective, even though bullets can't track their targets. Those torpedos were not designed to take out fast attack subs or PT boats. They were made to take out relatively slow ships, like Aegis cruisers and lumbering giants, such as carriers. A supercarrier IS the most effective way to project power, but they were never built for any kind of evasive action.

[tet68]

I always felt we should have given them twice what they asked and said ,"Keep the change ! "

[Charles Martel]

Actually, the "Squall" was developed as a close-range "knife fight" weapon for combat between submarines. Those boats are fast and maneuverable enough to warrant use of a supercavitating hyper-speed weapon. By the time the sonarman hears it, it's too late to evade it.

Another issue is that the torpedo's design limits its potential for maneuvering. Turn a bit too much "sideways" and the bubble collapses, destroying the torpedo. The thing would have the turning radius of a Bonneville Salt Flats racer at 200+ mph.

The design also creates an enormous amount of noise, so any submarine using such a weapon would get one shot before Hell rained down on it. Now, if we were to build a similar toy with "swim-out" capability, that would really turn subsurface warfare on its ear.

[virgil]

If the Chinese attacked Taiwan and sunk a US carrier, how do you think Japan would react? Or all of the Pacific rim countries? China would be isolated. And they could just kiss the Panama Canal privleges good bye. We won't stand for that. America will protect its interests. Don't expect Europe to help though. They may sink the carrier with a lot of expenditure and a few lies, but we will hurt them where it counts. We'll send them back to the stone age from whence they recently came. Wal-Mart might have a problem though. Actually I think this article is floating about because there is also a big defense bill floating about in Congress right now.

[DB]

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

They would be sitting targets on boats.

[DB]

How many people on an aircraft carrier? 7,000+

If they did a surprise attack and took it out you don't think we would go all the way? It would be Pearl Harbor all over again. The enemy would be fully known unlike the Taliban. It would be a well identified country to fully go after.

[DB]

If they sank one of our carriers and killed 7,000+ Americans and successfully took Taiwan that hardly means the war is over.

It would just be the beginning.

[zarf]

A conventional attack will be met by a conventional attack. I think it's ridiculous to assume we would go nuclear if we are not attacked with nukes.

We lost 3000 in September we didn't go nuclear.....