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

Your insistance that these bombs are strategic weapons will not prevent them from destroying Chinese military bases.

I understood it. It has several errors, but they are not significant, so I skipped over them.

I'll address the errors now if you like.

Our nuclear cruise missiles have a 5kt yield setting. And Trump is about to create some 5kt SLBM warheads.

Modern primaries have an unboosted yield of .3kt and a fully-boosted yield of 10kt.

Not plastic explosives. At least, not in the sense that the term is used for explosives like semtex and C4.

The explosives may have a plastic binder, but that plastic is rigid.

That is incorrect. The plutonium always fully collapses. The yield varies from .3kt to 10kt solely by adjusting the amount of D-T gas that is injected into the primary.

 

You misread my statement. I did not say that the US does not have that capability

You are missing the point. Obviously if China "forces" us into a conventional or nuclear war we will go to war.
The point is that Carriers will not help us avoid annihilation in the case of nuclear war.

Carriers can not get out of range of subs and can not operate out of range of modern hypersonic or ballistic missiles such as the Chinese DF-26 (aka Carrier Killer)

Ability to win a conventional war has nothing to do with nuclear deterrence. That is the point. The second point - which goes to your second statement - is that there is no "winning" a nuclear war with a nuclear superpower.

I suppose if we are talking China - a hundred or so warheads is somewhat survivable (not really though). China would fire more than 100 regardless and if we are talking Russia - we would have to endure more than 1000 (which is total annihilation) .

This has nothing to do with whether or not spending hundreds of Billions of dollars on Carriers is justified or whether or not they are obsolete in relation to the question of nuclear war. Carriers do not help us avoid becoming Red. It is our nukes that do that.

This a denial/ non acceptance of the "MAD" doctrine. We can debate this doctrine if you like but, it really has no relevance to the question of carriers other than with respect to the fact that Carriers do not help us avoid a nuclear war.

You misread my statement - I did not accuse you of falsehood. I was referring to a falsehood being perpetuated by others.

 

It's not like China has many long range subs. And whatever subs they do have would spend a war desperately hiding from American subs.

Sure they can. Those missiles have a finite range, and the ocean is big.

We have nuclear weapons for nuclear deterrence. Our conventional weapons are for deterring a conventional war.

China only has about 100 warheads that can reach us.

The carriers aren't there for nuclear war. They are there to deter conventional war. And also to provide a peacetime show of strength if we want to flex our muscles at someone.

I apologize.

 

I do not know why you are going on like this ? Carriers can not conduct "long range" operations. An F35 has a range of 1200 nautical miles which is 10% further than the F/A -18. This means the Carrier must be within roughly 500 miles. This is not "long range" for a Sub. Sub's which have popped up undetected near Carriers btw.

Same goes for missiles. The DF has a range of thousands of miles and Russia's hypersonic missiles have a range of greater than 500 miles.

Your claim that China has only 100 warheads that can reach us is complete speculation. We have no clue how many China has. Regardless - 100 Chinese nukes hitting the US ends life as we know it in the US for a long long time. I am guessing you have not really studied this much.

Carries do serve a purpose in the case of conventional war - against non nuclear superpowers. This is the whole point. We are not going to be attacking the Chinese homeland with Carriers. We are not going to be attacking the Russian Homeland with Carriers.

Since we will not be doing this - as this risks nuclear war against the homeland - or at minimum having our Carriers nuked .. they simply have no purpose in this respect. This is then just paper tiger muscle flexing .. and everyone knows it.

What does that leave us then ? A few nations in the middle east and perhaps Venezuela. We don't need 18 Carriers to project power on these nations. The idea that we need these carriers for some conventional attack on China is nonsensical falsehood to justify continued feeding of money into the pockets of the international financiers and national oligarchs that own the Military Industrial Complex and the Banks.

 

I am not aware of any arguments that carriers are needed (or even useful) for a conventional strike against the Chinese mainland.

I expect that in a conventional war with China, carriers would primarily be used to interdict Chinese vessels far from China's shores.

If your argument is that we should spend less on carriers and more on subs and stealth bombers, I agree, but I don't think carriers are entirely useless.

 

1) My argument was never that carriers were entirely useless.
2) The idea that Carriers are not useful for a conventional strike on the mainland of a nation is woefully misguided.
3) More on subs and stealth bombers is a waste of time with respect to a conventional strike on the Chinese homeland for the exact same reason spending on carriers is a waste of time -as outlined in every previous post.

 

Subs and stealth bombers are very useful weapons that even an advanced enemy will never be able to counter.

Stealth bombers armed with anti-ship missiles (or even just traditional bombs) can rid the seas of enemy surface ships.

Stealth bombers with their bomb bays filled with a ton of air-to-air missiles can rid the skies of enemy warplanes.

Stealth bombers carrying traditional bombs (or ground attack missiles) can fly over enemy countries and destroy military and industrial targets.

Attack submarines can hunt down and sink enemy submarines.

 

The only response to nuke use by China would be to destroy China. Mutually Assured Destruction. If they took out our carriers, our subs would have to start launching.

 

We only have 11 active carriers, with two more under construction, and two more in planning stages.

 

They are counting Marine Corps amphibious assault ships as aircraft carriers.

 

And you continue to completely miss the point. I agree with everything you say (sans the "enemy will never be able to counter" comment - "Never" is a long time - and these are all countered by nukes)

You just do not seem to understand that we will not be attacking the Chinese homeland with subs and stealth bombers because if we do they will nuke us into the Stone age.

 

If China starts a war with us, we will very much be attacking the Chinese homeland with stealth bombers.

If China then uses nuclear weapons against us, we will use nuclear weapons against them, on a much larger scale.

100 warheads are not going to set us back to the stone age. We'd survive and rebuild.

 

China is not going to start a nuclear war with the US and if there is a nuclear war the stealth bombers are not going to make a difference. We are fully capable of nuking China into the stone age with our ballistic missiles and subs - no need to send "stealth bombers" or "aircraft carriers as it would be pointless to do so. That is the whole point being made here.

People survive being knocked back into the stone age - they are just in the stone age.

Your understanding of a mass nuclear attack is wanting methinks. I get that people want to live in the "necessary illusion" fantasy that we are unassailable but - this is simply not the case. This bed time story propaganda, in which so many believe, serves merely to justify the 1 Trillion dollar military spend.

MAD is more true now than it was back in the 80's when the doctrine was coined = "Mutually Assured Destruction".

The first thing that happens in a nuclear exchange with China is our satellites are taken out. Next there are a number of air bursts high up which fry electronic systems and wipe out the power grid = We are already in the stone age and not a single nuke has hit US soil.

The "Starfish Prime" detonation was 1.4 megatons. This detonation cased electrical damage, knocked out 300 Street lights, and damaged the microwave link such that phone service from Kauai and other Hawaiian Island was disrupted. Three low earth orbit satellites were disabled immediately and a total of 6 over time.

The problem is that Hawaii was 900 miles away from the detonation = a blast diameter of 1800 miles.

This article is talking about a possible EMP attack from North Korea

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/news/a28425/emp-north-korea/

This is the effect of a relatively small blast 0.1 megatons - a Megaton blast is a whole different story. I tend to concur with the authors that one small blast from N.Korea would not mean the end of the world but, that is not what we are talking about here.

China will not be using a 0.1 MT firecracker - nor will they be using a 1.4 MT warhead such as the Starfish Prime test. China will explode numerous 5 megaton warheads and the vast majority areas exposed will be far closer than 900 miles. Good luck being in a northern region during the middle of winter when power and communication are gone .. and we are not talking a power outage for a few hours or days - we are talking many many months if not years. In addition - the electronics today are much more sensitive to EMP than back in the 60's (most of which did not exist back then). Cars/Trucks and other electronic systems of all types get fried.

So then - communication is gone, no power, no transportation - and no help is on the way for a long long time. The chaos would be massive - apocalyptic even.

But wait. hold on here. The non high altitude EMP blast nukes have not hit yet. In darkness and silence we wait for those.

The Hiroshima blast was roughly 14 Kilotons. This was a Fission bomb (splitting the atom). We don't use "Fission bombs". We use "Fusion Bombs" (fusing the atom). A 5 MT fusion bomb is roughly 400 Times the power of the Hiroshima bomb - and we are not just getting hit with one.

The Castle Bravo test contaminated over 7000 sq miles of ocean. Radioactive ash falling on fishermen 90 miles away cause acute radiation sickness and killed one. Divide 7000 in to the area of the continental US and you get roughly 450 such blasts would contaminate every square inch.

China however is not going to be targeting Wyoming. The number of deaths from the blast itself will be large but this is nothing compared to the deaths from the after effects. Drinking water is contaminated (sans the bottled water supply that was not destroyed which will be worth its weight in Gold and gone within a day or two for the vast majority). In areas as far as 100 miles from ground zero you will not be able to venture outside for a week or two due to radiation levels above safety levels ... but you have to go out because you have no drinking water and no food .. and no help is coming.

There is no gas to heat your home if its winter, there is no gas at the gas station and even if there was the pump does not work because the electricity is out and this assumes the electronics in your car survived.

Worst of all - there are millions of starving dehydrated people all wanting the little amount of stuff that you have and there are no police to protect you.

Wipe out 100 US cities of populations 500,000 or more off the map and let me know what is left. Lincoln Nebraska - population 265 thousand is 72 on the list of the most populous cities in the US.

The US gold reserve - vaporized
Wall Street - vaporized
Major bridges over waterways - vaporized
Most of the tall buildings in every major city center - vaporized

Oh .. but we will just rebuild - yeah that's it. The hole left from the Castle Bravo test was over a mile in diameter and ... wait for it ... 250 Feet Deep. That is a 25 Story building in reverse - and that is just the Hole ... the "Completely vaporized zone"

Sure .. we will just rebuild - that's the ticket. Where are we going to "relocate" New York, Philly, LA, Miami, Houston and so on ? Nebraska ? please riddle me that one .. who is going to rebuild it, with what resources and what equipment ? It is all gone dude.

Stone age- No communication, no heat, no power, no gas, no water, no food, no transportation - its complete chaos, everyone is killing each other over scarce resources and no one is coming to help.

 

Actually stealth bombers do make a difference in a nuclear war. They are one leg of the nuclear triad.

But stealth bombers also make a huge difference in a NON-nuclear war.

When loaded with a ton of air-to-air missiles in their bomb bay, they can clear the skies of enemy fighters.

When loaded with traditional bombs and missiles, they can clear the seas of enemy surface ships and destroy all sorts of ground targets in the enemy's homeland.

China would not survive the complete destruction of their 800 largest cities.

A hundred warheads is hardly going to destroy all of the resources and equipment in America.

 

Well no shart Sherlock .. of course China would not survive - this is getting dumb and dumber. Your responses reek of abject denial of the obvious.

I never claimed 100 warheads would destroy all the resources and equipment in America... what kind of brain dead response is this and what part of - The US would be annihilated - as in life as we know it would be over and the US as we know it would be over - do you not understand ?

 

The US would not be annihilated. The US as we know it would not be over. Not with 100 warheads. We would survive and rebuild.

Not that our survival changes anything regarding war strategy. We are willing to wage nuclear war with an enemy even when it does mean our demise.

 

This fantasy land "necessary illusion" you (and a whole slew of others in this nation) are clinging to is what is responsible for our demise.
This incessant tendency to ignore reality to uphold myth is costing us trillions of dollars and impairing our long term economic and military security.

If you disagreed with the impact of a 100 warhead nuclear strike that would be one thing. To live in complete denial of this impact and pretend life as we know it would still exist is some kind of deranged metal state akin to a form of mind control.

 

No such myth. That money is funding our military security. We need to be able to defeat our adversaries.