China Thread

#3,301
#3,301
85SugarVol said:
Certainly.

But Japan wouldn’t be looking to take the fight to the Chinese mainland either. Vicious strikes against the Chinese, with no intention of holding territory would be the order of the day.

Why did we ultimately deploy atomic weapons?
Click to expand...
it was cheaper than invading and ended up doing less damage than the alternative.

I don't really see Japan as the "nuke" option for China.
 
#3,303
#3,303
Our ships are so hard to sink now because of compartmental construction. A lesson the russians apparently still have not learned based on the articles i have read...and ukraine sinking their pride and joy with 2 cruise missiles of a small nature.

I would bet that chinese ships are built similar to ours since we allow them to steal all of our tech, particularly at the university level and from within private defense contractors. Fortunately, they likely use inferior materials and half assed methods in building ships just like everything else made in their country. Another factor never mentioned in the fearmongering articles about their navy now technically having more "ships" than ours is the fact that the overwhelming majority of their ships are the much smaller variety...as in actually "boats" rather than "ships" which may be helpful in rivers and shallow waters etc...but they are not bluewater worthy ocean faring ships like battleships, destroyers, carriers etc. Last i read, they had exactly 1 aircraft carrier actually in service for example. Same as India. 2000 little boats is not a formidable navy. Its a bloated coastguard. Sadly our own navy is not nearly what it used to be either...and a war with china is a nightmare scenario. I have no desire for war with them or anyone else. Theres a lot of fearmongering going on pertaining to chinas capabilities though...dont even get me started on their "stealth" fighters with forward canards lmao...bet that is hard to spot on radar...
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, norrislakevol and EasternVol
#3,304
#3,304
marcusluvsvols said:
Our ships are so hard to sink now because of compartmental construction. A lesson the russians apparently still have not learned based on the articles i have read...and ukraine sinking their pride and joy with 2 cruise missiles of a small nature.

I would bet that chinese ships are built similar to ours since we allow them to steal all of our tech, particularly at the university level and from within private defense contractors. Fortunately, they likely use inferior materials and half assed methods in building ships just like everything else made in their country. Another factor never mentioned in the fearmongering articles about their navy now technically having more "ships" than ours is the fact that the overwhelming majority of their ships are the much smaller variety...as in actually "boats" rather than "ships" which may be helpful in rivers and shallow waters etc...but they are not bluewater worthy ocean faring ships like battleships, destroyers, carriers etc. Last i read, they had exactly 1 aircraft carrier actually in service for example. Same as India. 2000 little boats is not a formidable navy. Its a bloated coastguard. Sadly our own navy is not nearly what it used to be either...and a war with china is a nightmare scenario. I have no desire for war with them or anyone else. Theres a lot of fearmongering going on pertaining to chinas capabilities though...dont even get me started on their "stealth" fighters with forward canards lmao...bet that is hard to spot on radar...
Click to expand...

I am afraid are past the point of assuming our tech lead anymore. Sure they will still steal whatever, but we are getting left behind while our nation goes in the gutter. $31T in debt and hardly a thing to show for it other than cities which are becoming sewers, ignorant leaders and electorate.

us-losing-tech-race-to-china
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols and AM64
#3,305
#3,305
85SugarVol said:
Just an interesting anecdote that speaks to the indestructible nature of these vessels.

The USS America was a Kitty Hawk class (Forrestal sub-class) supercarrier. She was built in the early 1960’s based on designs from the early 1950’s.

In 2005 the US Navy took her 300 miles off the Carolina coast and fired on her for 4 weeks in a live exercise attempting to sink her. She would not go down.

They eventually resorted to detonating explosives at and below the water line to simulate massive direct hits. She persisted.

Ultimately, naval demolition teams boarded her and strategically placed explosives deep within. It was only then that she slipped 17,000 feet beneath the surface.

A final tidbit - many vessels break apart and tumble when subjected to the crushing pressures of those depths.
America rests on the sea floor upright on her keel, in one piece, deep beneath the waves.
Click to expand...
I am not willing to rely any assumption on anything I/we depend on to be infallible is enough for our protection. The Titanic was unsinkable, right up until it wasn't. WW1 was the war to end all wars. War loves to destroy hubris. there have been plenty of un-sinkable ships, or ships that the enemy wasn't supposed to be able to sink with the weapons of the time.

I think it was the Bismark the British kept trying to use modern aircraft to damage or sink after it blew up the Hood. but the German AA was able to neutralize them. then whether by intent, or necessity the Brits turned to Swordfish, older planes that were "too slow". they ended up being incredibly effective, because they could fly slow, they could fly low, below the modern Bismark's field of fire, and were finally able to cripple the Bismark. It is possible to be "too good" in war.

and that's not really my point, the Chinese don't have to sink a carrier to render it un-operational. They damage the flight deck, and a couple of the catapults, and it doesn't matter if the hull is still sea worthy. our shipyards can barely keep our fleet sea-worthy as is. we are at peace. how are they going to be able maintain normal usage, AND repair battle damage? Do we have enough carriers where we can keep an operational force against China, rotate out carriers for multiple month repairs?

think the Germans in WW2. best equipment, but didn't have the industrial capacity to maintain their forces.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols and AM64
#3,306
#3,306
LouderVol said:
it was cheaper than invading and ended up doing less damage than the alternative.

I don't really see Japan as the "nuke" option for China.
Click to expand...
Sure it was cheaper. But it wasn’t about damage concerns.

Death laid waiting on that doorstep. Death for 10’s of thousands of Americans. Let China walk up and ring that doorbell.

Not following your last sentence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols
#3,307
#3,307
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols
#3,310
#3,310
#3,311
#3,311
85SugarVol said:
Sure it was cheaper. But it wasn’t about damage concerns.

Death laid waiting on that doorstep. Death for 10’s of thousands of Americans. Let China walk up and ring that doorbell.

Not following your last sentence.
Click to expand...
yeah, death is part of that cheaper equation.

the last line was I don't think China is afraid to go deal with Japan, and I don't think Japan is anywhere close enough of a threat to even nuke at this point. except as a staging area for someone else I don't think Japan is a major concern for China.
 
#3,314
#3,314
LouderVol said:
yeah, death is part of that cheaper equation.

the last line was I don't think China is afraid to go deal with Japan, and I don't think Japan is anywhere close enough of a threat to even nuke at this point. except as a staging area for someone else I don't think Japan is a major concern for China.
Click to expand...
Fair. Human cost is usually of great importance to us. I read “cheaper” as strictly financial.

I don’t think China is going to nuke Japan.

I do think China will eff around and pull Japan into a serious conflict. And if that happens - China will become real concerned with Japan, real quick.

Japan is a sleeping giant. The true tiger of the western Pacific.
 
#3,316
#3,316
LouderVol said:
I am not willing to rely any assumption on anything I/we depend on to be infallible is enough for our protection. The Titanic was unsinkable, right up until it wasn't. WW1 was the war to end all wars. War loves to destroy hubris. there have been plenty of un-sinkable ships, or ships that the enemy wasn't supposed to be able to sink with the weapons of the time.

I think it was the Bismark the British kept trying to use modern aircraft to damage or sink after it blew up the Hood. but the German AA was able to neutralize them. then whether by intent, or necessity the Brits turned to Swordfish, older planes that were "too slow". they ended up being incredibly effective, because they could fly slow, they could fly low, below the modern Bismark's field of fire, and were finally able to cripple the Bismark. It is possible to be "too good" in war.

and that's not really my point, the Chinese don't have to sink a carrier to render it un-operational. They damage the flight deck, and a couple of the catapults, and it doesn't matter if the hull is still sea worthy. our shipyards can barely keep our fleet sea-worthy as is. we are at peace. how are they going to be able maintain normal usage, AND repair battle damage? Do we have enough carriers where we can keep an operational force against China, rotate out carriers for multiple month repairs?

think the Germans in WW2. best equipment, but didn't have the industrial capacity to maintain their forces.
Click to expand...
This all assumes China poses a credible threat to our carriers at range.

What has China actually demonstrated?
They have demonstrated they can hit a scale model of one of our supercarriers (stationary, in the desert) at ~1200 miles.

Hitting one of carriers (moving) behind multiple levels of layered integrated defense is another proposal entirely.
 
#3,317
#3,317
85SugarVol said:
Fair. Human cost is usually of great importance to us. I read “cheaper” as strictly financial.

I don’t think China is going to nuke Japan.

I do think China will eff around and pull Japan into a serious conflict. And if that happens - China will become real concerned with Japan, real quick.

Japan is a sleeping giant. The true tiger of the western Pacific.
Click to expand...
they are a retired giant. go look at their age demographics, they are UGLY. they have one of THE oldest populations out there.

Average age in Japan 48
Average age in US 32

that is a BIG difference. Even big parts of Europe have a similar problem with an aging population.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#3,318
#3,318
85SugarVol said:
This all assumes China poses a credible threat to our carriers at range.

What has China actually demonstrated?
They have demonstrated they can hit a scale model of one of our supercarriers (stationary, in the desert) at ~1200 miles.

Hitting one of carriers (moving) behind multiple levels of layered integrated defense is another proposal entirely.
Click to expand...
again, its war. a lot of weird, ugly stuff happens all the time. Ukraine without a navy to speak of, sunk Russia's flagship.
there is a reason we are giving Ukraine some equipment, to make sure our stuff actually works. You can design it all you want, test it in controlled settings, and then you can unleash the hell of war on it and find out something that should be very good is not worth much.

when was the last time a carrier took a direct hit? When was the last time we actually got to see them stand up to something designed and intended to kill them. When was the last time our naval yards had to make repairs to actual battle damage?

There are three or four layers here, any one part failing screws us.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and VolStrom
#3,319
#3,319
85SugarVol said:
Fair. Human cost is usually of great importance to us. I read “cheaper” as strictly financial.

I don’t think China is going to nuke Japan.

I do think China will eff around and pull Japan into a serious conflict. And if that happens - China will become real concerned with Japan, real quick.

Japan is a sleeping giant. The true tiger of the western Pacific.
Click to expand...

Yep. Japan has one of the best navy's in the world. Very advanced, and larger than France and England's navy's combined.
 
#3,320
#3,320
LouderVol said:
they are a retired giant. go look at their age demographics, they are UGLY. they have one of THE oldest populations out there.

Average age in Japan 48
Average age in US 32

that is a BIG difference. Even big parts of Europe have a similar problem with an aging population.
Click to expand...
Which might be a problem if they were looking to conquer, and hold, territory.

They’re not.
 
#3,321
#3,321
LouderVol said:
again, its war. a lot of weird, ugly stuff happens all the time. Ukraine without a navy to speak of, sunk Russia's flagship.
there is a reason we are giving Ukraine some equipment, to make sure our stuff actually works. You can design it all you want, test it in controlled settings, and then you can unleash the hell of war on it and find out something that should be very good is not worth much.

when was the last time a carrier took a direct hit? When was the last time we actually got to see them stand up to something designed and intended to kill them. When was the last time our naval yards had to make repairs to actual battle damage?

There are three or four layers here, any one part failing screws us.
Click to expand...
Sunk Russia’s flagship? I think you’re mistaken.

But you introduce yet another variable for the Chinese to deal with - the fog of war. No fog out there in the desert to shoot through.

And our layered defenses are redundant in many ways, but they are not dependent - if one fails, they do not all fail.
 
#3,322
#3,322
norrislakevol said:
Yep. Japan has one of the best navy's in the world. Very advanced, and larger than France and England's navy's combined.
Click to expand...
Japan has both the economic and technological wherewithal to field an incredibly impressive naval force - just like they did with the Imperial Navy.

They need to stop pussyfooting around and get down to it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#3,323
#3,323
LouderVol said:
they are a retired giant. go look at their age demographics, they are UGLY. they have one of THE oldest populations out there.

Average age in Japan 48
Average age in US 32

that is a BIG difference. Even big parts of Europe have a similar problem with an aging population.
Click to expand...

In many ways Japan followed our path of economic and industrial growth to prosperity and the downward run to ruin. The increased Japanese cost of living and related cost of labor saw them lose markets to other Asian nations. While working in Japan in the 70s, I saw the exchange rate go from near the 300yen/dollar mark to well below 200yen/dollar - it's been well under 100yen/dollar at times since then (the Chinese won't let that happen with their currency unless it somehow favors them). If not for CCP manipulation of everything and inherent Chinese greed and graft, we could probably even build the Chinese into financial ruin, but they will see to it that nothing changes in China - the privileged stay privileged and the rest stay impoverished and without a voice.
 
#3,324
#3,324
LouderVol said:
again, its war. a lot of weird, ugly stuff happens all the time. Ukraine without a navy to speak of, sunk Russia's flagship.
there is a reason we are giving Ukraine some equipment, to make sure our stuff actually works. You can design it all you want, test it in controlled settings, and then you can unleash the hell of war on it and find out something that should be very good is not worth much.

when was the last time a carrier took a direct hit? When was the last time we actually got to see them stand up to something designed and intended to kill them. When was the last time our naval yards had to make repairs to actual battle damage?

There are three or four layers here, any one part failing screws us.
Click to expand...

One of the best lessons in military history has probably been that of extremely expensive tanks vs Ukraine's little drones with mini bombs and little drones directing artillery on expensive tanks.
 
#3,325
#3,325
85SugarVol said:
Japan has both the economic and technological wherewithal to field an incredibly impressive naval force - just like they did with the Imperial Navy.

They need to stop pussyfooting around and get down to it.
Click to expand...

Japan has been mulling over changing their constitution that limits the Japanese military to absolute self defense into something more offensive. When it happens, China can take credit for the change; and if things continue down the path that seems inevitable, hopefully China will take some big hits from Japan, too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 85SugarVol
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top