Sinking US aircraft carriers will resolve tension in South China Sea, says Chinese admiral

Ok, you’ve had your say

Which is more than you deserve since no germans fought in that war

 

Once again that assumes our snowflake Congress gets on board with that.

 

Actually we heard warnings like this about Japan pre WW2 and weak minds ignored it.

 

God was on our side because the japanese navy almost won the war in the first 6 months

 

Hell, the greatest generation were snowflakes for those really did not want not involved in another european war, as in ww1. But were up to the challenge once japan attacked us.

In so far as china, you can thank the GOP, the Clinton DP and our big bankers and MNCs for enabling and enriching china, just so our elites could get that cents on the dollar labor, to max out their profits.

But our elites have always been the greatest danger to the american people and world peace. Max profit capitalism, and human greed found in human beings, is to blame for today's china. So thank your party, big banking and big corporations and the elites that own their common stock.

But will the elites have enough snowflakes to fight for their wealth? You seem to be concerned about it.

 

The first 6 months definitely looked like we were going to lose that war

 

The generation that fought WW2 were the exact opposite of today's snowflake generation. They were rugged individuals hardened by the depression not pampered children softened by socialist schools and overprotective parents with more dollars than sense.

 

There is no requirement to ask Congress for permission to launch nuclear weapons.

But if every American submarine base in the world were destroyed by an enemy attack, Congress would not hesitate to endorse a full nuclear retaliation if they were asked to do so.

 

If everything happens at once I'd agree but if a first strike was made on carriers this snowflake Congress may seek to negotiate rather than retaliate and we would meet China demands before it ever escalated to attacks on the U.S. mainland.

 

There is zero chance of that. If China starts a war, we'll give them a war, and Congress will back that war 100%.

 

I'd say it's more like 50% chance of that with Democrat snowflakes running congress.

 

After 911 many young Americans stepped up and signed up and went to fight. They were not soft and they were not snowflakes and there is now a good portion of a generation of American war years with a great deal of very unique experience in war. Americans will always become what we need to become when we need to become it. What is both fortunate and unfortunate is that a American fighting men and women in the technology they use is so far superior to any in any other part of the world that ability if you can do the work of a great many which leaves far too many Americans with the option of becoming snowflakes when under other circumstances they could have become something much more. Those of us who do not serve need always to be aware of this and grateful the brave men and women who stand on the wall for us.

 

We call them the greatest generation for a reason

 

I'm specifically talking about the snowflake congresscritters who now run Congress not the entire generation. Just like the hippie generation was not all hippies the snowflake generation are not all snowflakes.

 

Um, it's called seismography.

China has not conducted a nuclear weapons test since before Clinton went to China.

The US can conduct computer-modeling of nuclear weapon tests, but China cannot for two simple reasons.

One, they haven't conducted enough tests to have sufficient data for computer-modeling, and two, it requires a Cray Super II, or a Big Red or a Big Blue super-computer to do the modeling, and China has nothing comparable.

Russia does, because they have conducted enough tests, and because Clinton gave the Russians a Cray Super II.

You also need a Cray Super II or better to build terrain-guided cruise missiles.

Russia had cruise missiles, but before Clinton gave them a Cray Super II, none were terrain-guided like all US cruise missiles are.

There's a huge difference between launching a missile that flies a non-ballistic path, which is the definition of a cruise missile, and a terrain-guided cruise missile that can make course corrections, and change altitude and direction, because it receives telemetry from a satellite or other source.

I hope you're not going to compare a Kingbolt or Kazoo to an ACLM, because a Kingbolt flies about a mile above ground, then dives on the target. That's pretty much what all Russian cruise missiles do.

 

Oh, yes, we can. Nuclear infrastructure has a big foot-print.

Suffice to say your government sent me as a NATO observer on Druzba '86 to specifically observe Soviet nuclear field operations, because, like, I know what I'm doing.

That will be difficult to do, since the US has no tactical nuclear weapons.

The US does have variable yield nuclear warheads, but those are mainly gravity bombs.

Depending on the warhead, the minimum yield is 0.3 kt to 0.8 kt up to the maximum yield. Those are fission-fusion devices and the fusion fuel is either deuterium or a deuterium-tritium compound. Depending on the warhead, the fission trigger is either 8 kt or 12 kt. If you bleed off the fusion fuel, then all you have is the fission trigger.

Manipulating the plastic explosives so that the Plutonium only partially collapses allows you to get yields from the minimum to the maximum yield of the fission trigger.

To use those would require US aircraft to penetrate Chinese air defenses, and do it successfully.

Unlike Iraq, there will not be an AWACS or Hawkweye parked in the middle of China directing US aircraft.

And, they won't detect the launch of interceptor aircraft, or flights of interceptors or the launch of ground-based air defense missiles.

And, unlike Iraq, Chinese air defenses are not fixed, they're mobile. That means where ever they were when you started, they've moved and are someplace else.

Combat radius -- not to be confused with range -- is an issue, especially since all attack aircraft would have to be escorted by fighters.

That pretty much leaves you using only B-1s, B-2s and B-52s, and the B-52s will be extremely vulnerable as will the B-1s.

So, good luck with that.

 

Sure we do. In fact, Obama just had us develop a new line of tactical bombs with unprecedented accuracy that allows military objectives to be destroyed with minimal collateral damage.

http://fas.org/blogs/security/2013/09/b61-12holland/
http://fas.org/blogs/security/2013/10/b61-12hearing/
http://fas.org/blogs/security/2014/01/b61capability/
http://fas.org/blogs/security/2014/02/b61-12pictures/
http://fas.org/blogs/security/2014/03/b61-12integration/
http://fas.org/blogs/security/2014/04/b61-12features/
http://fas.org/blogs/security/2015/11/b61-12_cartwright/
http://fas.org/blogs/security/2016/01/b61-12_earth-penetration/

No problem.

B-2s are good.

Depending on when this hypothetical war occurs, B-21s could be available as well.

 

China Moon mission lands Chang'e-4 spacecraft on far side

They don't seem all that backward to me.

 

You can get a good estimate of China's nuclear weapons capability here:
http://fas.org/issues/nuclear-weapons/nuclear-notebook/

Download the "Chinese nuclear forces, 2018" PDF.

 

You did not understand the context of the post. The point was not that the US Navy did not have the capability to threaten Chinese vessels. One would have to be really stupid to suggest this and I am not a stupid fellow.

The point is that the US is not going to attack China. That there is no realistic threat to "China" from our Navy - due to the risk of nuclear war.

 

You are missing the point of the post.

1) it is claimed that hypersonic missiles can sink a carrier but this matters not - rendering inoperable and sinking achieve the same goal in the context of the post

2) The question being addressed is not about China forcing the US to withdraw. The question is whether or not our Navy is obsolete with respect to advanced missile and other technology and first and foremost - what the point of such a massive Navy is when there is little to attack = we can not realistically attack a nuclear superpower so what is the point of pretending otherwise.

 

China can nuke the US into the stone age.

Who is threatening to turn the US red? What a ridiculous comment. This is an attempt to justify our massive 1 Trillion dollar spend on the basis of an obvious falsehood - which is essentially what the Establishment is doing - just a different and less obvious falsehood as the one you have presented.

 

Um, the B61 is a variable yield strategic nuclear weapon, not a tactical nuclear weapon.

The fact that the Federation of Ass-Clown Scientists calls it a tactical nuclear weapon doesn't make it so.

The fact that it's delivered by aircraft doesn't make it a tactical nuclear weapon, either.

Which part of this did you not understand?...

 

I never said they were backward. I simply said there was no evidence to suggest they used any of the technology or information provided by the Clinton Administration in their nuclear weapons program.

I'm not defending Clinton's actions, I'm just paraphrasing what he said using his words. That's Clinton's logic and reasoning, not mine.

 

The US Navy does have that capability. They have lots of anti-ship weapons.

That depends. If we have a war with China we will certainly do so.

But it is true that we have no desire to go to war with China.

We will not hesitate to fight either a conventional war or a nuclear war with China if they make us do so.

Hardly obsolete. Our carriers just have to operate beyond the range of those missiles. That is easily done.

Our ability to win a conventional war with nuclear superpowers will deter those superpowers from going to war with us.

And it will win that war if deterrence fails and war breaks out anyway.

Nah. A hundred or so warheads would hurt us badly, but would not totally annihilate us.

And regardless, better dead than red.

"Better dead than red" was a Cold War slogan that meant that we found it preferable to die in a nuclear war than to capitulate to aggression.

No. It is a statement of our implacable willingness to unflinchingly accept nuclear war and all of its consequences.

I have presented no falsehood. Everything that I said is true.