US should destroy Chinese Navy Now!!!

Yes, so 'fake' that one of their diesel subs popped up, undetected, in the middle of a US navy exercise.
How embarrassing was that?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ercise-leaving-military-chiefs-red-faced.html

 

So you are calling on the US to commit an unprovoked act of nuclear genocide without warning?

I would hope after that occurs the entire world bands together to wipe the United States out, disarm us, and prevent us from ever unifying again.

 

"genocide"???

The U.S. can destroy the Chinese ICBM force while killing no more than 6,000 Chinese. Less than the number of Chinese killed in mining accidents annually.

How is that genocide by any stretch of the imagination?

- - - Updated - - -

You do know that is pretty easy to do when the U.S. Navy is not on guard for any potential incursion like that (as in you know peacetime) AND most especially when the other side (the Chinese in this case) know full well that the current rules of engagement doesn't allow the U.S. to fire on any of their submarines?

 

What are you talking about. They had strong holds in every major city, and IOI check points and fire bases along the border. They saw the very first tank roll in.

You know you can be banned from the forum for making things up, right?

 

You'd have to target command and control in order to prevent their use (which means striking Beijing) plus you act as if Chinese military bases are not located near major cities.

 

Their ICBMs are not last I heard.

And most modern nuclear war fighting beliefs are that you do not target political/military leadership because they have to remain intact to order a cessation of hostilities.

 

...we targeted Iraqi military and civilian leadership on day one of airstrikes against Iraq.

 

Thankyou for a proper reply

 

With very precise CONVENTIONAL weapons strikes.

But the U.S. isn't going to start nuking 5 million civilians just to wipe out (potentially) leadership targets.

 

Are you reading life through a mirror? What liberal would advocate a war with China? That's a crazy rightwing notion. You people love your useless trillion-dollar grand invasions.

 

But we'll nuke the millions of people that live in the coastal cities where their boomer bases are?

 

No need to do that.

Their submarines can all be destroyed easily in port (with conventional cruise missiles) or at sea (with conventional torpedoes or antisubmarine missiles).

From what I've read every Chinese SSBN that heads out to sea has at least one American SSN (attack submarine) trailing it. They each have standing orders to sink them without warning if their missile tubes are flooded.

In contrast, no American SSBN has ever been trailed for a long period (and that by an elite, legendary Soviet submarine commander in the 1970s).

 

You do know China has modern SAM systems capable of engaging cruise missiles, yes?

How many American cities are you willing to gamble again?

 

And it assumes a sneak attack on the part of the US, sort of like what Japan did at Pearl Harbor.

 

I might ask you the same thing. I was referring to the Gulf War. To what are you referring?

Maybe that's true if you were in Kuwait City, but that's not where I was.

 

There very well might be a China-US war over the status of the South China sea, but it will be at a time and place of our choosing, not China's. Another thing to watch, is the continuing internal war in China. It's an open question as to which faction will win out. Knowing what I do of Chinese history, I opine that the "good life/isolationists" capitalists will win out.

 

Sneak attacks are perfectly viable military strategies. Note, if their attack had gone as planned, the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor would've began about half an hour after their declaration reached the Secretary of State in Washington D.C. This would've been technically within the rules of war but still have preserved all the benefits to the Japanese of a surprise attack.

Some thing if an American declaration reached the Chinese leadership about 60 seconds before our warheads dropped onto their targets.

- - - Updated - - -

Modern SAM systems against cruise missiles are even less reliable than what you accuse ABMs of being.

Four.

 

Bull(*)(*)(*)(*). I'm convinced at this point that you have no (*)(*)(*)(*)ing clue what you are talking about. Half the effort spent on SAM's systems in the last 30 years has been to make them effective against cruise missiles.

 

And they are still not reliable. Effective yes. If they can properly get targeting locks. But not reliable. Because cruise missiles fly at extremely low altitude making both target acquisition and the available window for SAMs to engage to be extremely short.

You do know that no SAM system in the world has ever worked as effectively as its designers and advocates claim.

 

You do know modern radar systems have been specifically designed to negate the effect of nap of the earth approaches right?

 

So much for those Republican doves attacking Hillary as a warmonger huh?

 

"specifically designed" does not mean "reliable" or "effective" in practice.

 

Except that US nuclear policy has always been, and continues to be, "No First Use."

Are you suggesting that the US abrogate that policy?

 

The U.S. has never had a "Nof First Use" policy regarding nuclear weapons.

 

is this for real? Its good your not in charge....calm down now