It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

China state paper warns of war over South China Sea unless U.S. backs down

page: 9
19
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 28 2015 @ 01:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
They had no interest in anything in that area until the resources were found. Then suddenly it was all about history.


Isnt that always the way with these things?

Us Brits can sympathise with BS excuses like that over islands.
edit on 28-5-2015 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 28 2015 @ 01:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Greathouse

Why can't we just launch sorties from the Philippines? What strategic advantage does china have? All of their ships would be sunk before they get there. Hell, they'll be lucky to even get those out of their home waters with out getting sunk in a all out engagement. Don't underestimate what our navy has under the surface.

Also why not use satellites and other assets in the area to do the targeting of Chinese aircraft for S2A missiles...launched from subs and subsurface drones. We were launching Aim-9x's out of sabot rockets launched from torpedo tubes back in 06. For all we know we might have a movable picket/screen of drones and subs that can launch S2A missiles from underwater and take out whole sorties of Chinese aircraft before they get very far. It's not like the Chinese have a lot of options and flexibility as to where they launch their sorties from. Wouldn't be surprised if the navy has entire systems to make the submarine or submersible drones into stealthy undersea SAM sights. And they wouldn't have to expose themselves either. Just float the sabot rockets out swim way and dive and let the satellites or other assets take over and do the launching and targeting.

Big surprises are in store for the Chinese navy I have a feeling if they really wanted to go at it.




edit on 28-5-2015 by BASSPLYR because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 01:47 PM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR

That's part of what will happen. But you want as much flexibility as you can get, which means carriers.



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 01:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Oh don't get me wrong. I never had any opposition to carriers. I think US carriers are safer than people suspect. I have the exact same opinion regarding them that you do in this thread. Carriers are fantastic for projection and flexibility. It will give us many more strategies than the Chinese.



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 02:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Actually the distances for China are far greater than anyone else. Historically the two leading causes of defeat are.


Number one is leadership

Number two is logistics.


I believe the most deciding factor for China will be logistics. I imagine a campaign similar to the island hopping during World War II. Isolate the bases deny supplies and let them wither on the vine.



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 02:35 PM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR

Carriers are projections of power. And they are targets I will remind you the US lost 11 aircraft carriers in World War II.



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 03:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Greathouse

Things have changed vastly since WW2. Carriers today have some surprises. Nobodies getting close to a US carrier if we don't want them to. Yes I know you can always look up some instance on line where some sub surfaced right in the middle of the US carrier force and it was a "total surprise." But ever stop to think that we let them, you know to give them a false sense of reality. While at the same time underhauling them and getting just about all the info on their subs and tech we could ever want. It's sorta like when a fighter plays that he's got some weakness but really doesn't so that is your strategy to exploit said weakness and failure ensues. The USA is really good at that tactic.



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 03:55 PM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR

Capabilities to sink carriers have changed drastically since World War II also. It's a plain simple fact if there's a big Naval war carriers will be sunk. What amazes me the most about these discussions. Is that for some reason many people think this will be decisive in a war.

Well it won't,....people have died and countries have lost ships in every major Naval war throughout history. ( that's exactly why war sucks and should be avoided at all cost.)



The point I've been trying to make Is.

The Navy knows carriers can be sunk. Why on earth would the Navy risk aircraft carriers to confront an enemy surrounded on three sides, 200 nautical miles away from the Philippines, that has Vietnam on the other side, Bernei , and Malaysia to the south, and Taiwan to the north?


It just make's makes absolutely no sense.


Aircraft carriers are great weapons platforms. They have both range and maneuverability which increases the types of tactics they can employ.

But they're also major assets that are not risked needlessly. Sure carriers are in the Persian Gulf but Iran doesn't have DF-21C's.


edit on 28-5-2015 by Greathouse because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 04:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Greathouse




Capabilities to sink carriers have changed drastically since World War II also. It's a plain simple fact if there's a big Naval war carriers will be sunk. What amazes me the most about these discussions. Is that for some reason many people think this will be decisive in a war.


Have to go with the real world guys like Mr. Zaphod on the ACs. Accordingly, the ACs can be crippled with repeated strikes and eventually sunk but a single Yakhont or Oniks or DF-21 ASCM might not be able to sink the AC. One question arises is in Falklands war a single Exocet missile sunk the UK destroyer........now what is size proportion of that destroyer to the AC and then we can find some real reasoning on the "sinking the AC" potentials.

ASCMs armed with a good size tactical nuke even detonating at a distance, might be able over turn AC making it sink by taking immense amount of water quickly. A tactical nuke with a direct hit should sure make a hole big enough for sinking the ACs or might even break it into many pieces.
edit on 28-5-2015 by victor7 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 04:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Greathouse

The point of carriers is to have a mobile platform to move strike assets closer to their targets, without worrying about baying rights. They were initially designed to fight the Soviet Navy, so why wouldn't they be used against China?

Yes they can be sunk, or mission killed, but in a major war you use every tool in the arsenals. The F-117 could be shot down but their still used them.



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 04:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Greathouse

the df-21 is a nuclear weapon though. I'm sure they could put a conventional warhead on it, since it would be asinine to use a nuclear weapon over some stupid islands. And if they did go nuclear over some stupid little islands the usa can always show them the light. That's gotta be good for instant conversions of general populace to a new paradigm.

It would have to be launched from far away, probably the mainland which gives us time to counter it. Can't put it on one of the islands in some forward deployed position. That would be obvious and a easy first strike target. And it requires a lot of support equipment. But even being nuclear it's dependent on receiving info from satellites for guidance. I'm sure we can blind the satellites they would use for the communication and targeting. And once it's making re-entry what's to stop us from zapping it? But more importantly, if it's not nuclear and the thing can't aim very well cause communications between it and the satellite are shut down or impeded what's the best it can hope for? TO entertain the sailors on the US ships with it's splashdown? Maybe create a cool and refreshing mist to spray the sailors with? Don't believe the US when we say there is "no defense" against the df-21. sure we never thought of how to deal with something like that. It's our bat, our ball and our game. We practically invented it.


edit on 28-5-2015 by BASSPLYR because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 04:32 PM
link   
a reply to: victor7

I never said it had to sink it. All a DF-21 has to do is damage a carrier so it can no longer conduct flight operations.


But you're negating my question. Why risk it in the first place when the disputed islands are virtually surrounded by land air bases?



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 04:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Greathouse

The point of carriers is to have a mobile platform to move strike assets closer to their targets, without worrying about baying rights. They were initially designed to fight the Soviet Navy, so why wouldn't they be used against China?

Yes they can be sunk, or mission killed, but in a major war you use every tool in the arsenals. The F-117 could be shot down but their still used them.


And again there are land bases well within range of the disputed islands on the north south east and west. These bases are far closer than China's. You even said earlier that the farther the planes have to go the less effective they will be. That doesn't count for US plains station on land nearby?



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 05:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Greathouse

Cause maybe these days the carriers aren't going to be at any risk even in the south seas of being attacked by china. You know the old electronic trick up the sleeve. Not much is going to be targeting anything we don't want targeted. That's going to be a new doctrine across all branches. We are going to control more than just the airspace. Maybe even control what will and won't be allowed to propagate though it. Lights out.



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 05:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Greathouse

So you want to go into a major fight with one hand tied behind your back? If China is losing the fight you think they're not going to go for land bases? Why not leave the subs and other surface ships at home too then?
edit on 5/28/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 05:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

You aren't fighting with One hand behind your back. Because carriers are not needed. The same goals can be achieved in the South China Sea without risking a aircraft carrier.


Please don't add any other variables I am discussing one specific detail. It will not further the debate if we take it off tangent.



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 05:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Greathouse

You keep saying land bases are enough, I was simply saying leave the Navy out of it completely then.

You are too fighting one hand behind your back without them. It limits your options drastically. And what happens when missiles start dropping on your base? They're going to hammer them and push your forces back. Then you wind up in the same boat of having to fly a long way to get to the fight.



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 05:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I never addressed the rest of the Navy you did. I only stated that aircraft carriers shouldn't and won't be risked needlessly.

You're funny sometimes. I know you know I am right about this Navy's do not put capital assets in harm's Way unless absolutely necessary.


I am a little amazed by your stubborn refusal and repeated attempts to switch issues. I agree with you about the capabilities of the aircraft carriers. But I've noticed whenever anyone has even a slightly different opinion than yours. You rarely if ever agree with them on anything.


I'm pretty much done with this discussion zap.


Have a nice day!



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 05:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Greathouse

If you think the Navy isn't going to use the carriers in almost any fight that they can reach, you don't know nearly as much as you think. Why even have them if the first time they might actually be risked your going to leave them at home?

If you raised points I could agree with I would. You haven't.



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 06:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Your problem is your head it's to big. You think you know everything and you have a multitude of groupies that hang on your back and tell you you do.

You repeatedly confirm that your opinion is the only one that counts and everyone else's is meaningless.

If you think the Navy will send $6 billion ships with 6000 men on them into harms way when they don't need to. I might not know as much as I think because I thought you knew somewhat what you were talking about?

Your refusal to agree to that certain fact makes me wonder.



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join