Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

U.S. struggling on China-war planning : top USAF officer

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 06:27 PM
link   
Uhh..who said anything about this actually meaning a war is coming for oil? Huh? What drug are ya'll on?

The U.S. has a war plan for every country on this Earth. It's simple defense.

However, the fact of the matter that we are struggling with it is interesting, meaning that if it ever did happen, we will be better prepared. Why? Struggling through things means they take more time on planning. More time on planning = better fought war.

-wD




posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stealth Spy
IMO the US has the capacity to strike China without getting struck itself. China is only a mid grade power as yet and its air force and navy are no match for even a quarter of the respective forces.


Mid grade? The US cannot win an offensive war against China without using nukes. They just won't be able to land on China's coast. If India or any other country tries to help, they will also become targets.



Besides China is not Russia and neither has Russia's tech level or its level of weaponry.


5 years later, China's offensive capabilities would be at least on par with Russia if not better.



China has just 30 low-tech ICBM's and the US is sufficiently prepared to fend off those. Check out the US's anti-missile systems


Those are the black programs. Low tech? google for Chinese MARV ICBMs. China just recently tested the Jl-2 for use on its SSBNs, and it has a longer range than all of India's ICBMs. Don't think 30 ICBMs are enough? 10 nukes are enough to win any nuclear war. If you think PAC-3s can shoot down ICBMs, then China's S-300s and advanced S-300s (on par with PAC-2s at least, if not PAC-3s) can also shoot down ICBMs.



The US cannot survive a Russian attack but can take a Chinese nuke attack with ease.

If the US attacks a nuclear country like China it will not be the end of the world but the end of China with an unscratched USA.


You mean the US can absorb 30 ICBM hits, with kids dying of radiation poisioning and many of its military and economic facilites destroyed and still end up unscratched? Suuuuurrrreeee....




If the US strikes first with all its delivery systems and all its force it might finish China's air, ground and sea defences within a week.

China will be defeated before it can think of a retaliation.


And China won't be launching ICBMs back immediately?



Why do you think the US is the worlds larger spender of defence for over a decade by faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar ?


Research on many things require a lot of funding. Lets take stealth for an example. The US spends 10x dollars on it(algebra,sorry), and the Chinese only need to spend x dollars on it 10 years down the line. That is why the US military isn't 6 times better than the PLA even though it spends 6 times as much.

[edit on 1-7-2005 by Stealth Spy]



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 08:48 PM
link   
All I have to say about not being able to shoot down ballistic missiles is this.

USS Lake Eerie CG70. Four shootdowns of incoming ballistic missiles, 1 miss due to a software failure in the missile. I live less than 200 miles from the test range they were shooting at. Trust me, I know this fact well, as Lake Eerie is homeported 10 miles away from where I live.



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 08:53 PM
link   
Oh and by the way, great job quoting an article that only went up to 1998 Chinawhite. The Aegis THAAD project has moved WAY ahead in that time ais capable of bringing down incomeing warheads. The ABL has fired, and is mounted in the plane and is starting to fly. The missile defense tests in Kwajelin aren't going as well, but they've had successful hits during tests.



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Oh and by the way, great job quoting an article that only went up to 1998 Chinawhite. The Aegis THAAD project has moved WAY ahead in that time ais capable of bringing down incomeing warheads. The ABL has fired, and is mounted in the plane and is starting to fly. The missile defense tests in Kwajelin aren't going as well, but they've had successful hits during tests.


quoting a 1998 article???

it goes to 2002.....



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
All I have to say about not being able to shoot down ballistic missiles is this.

USS Lake Eerie CG70. Four shootdowns of incoming ballistic missiles, 1 miss due to a software failure in the missile. I live less than 200 miles from the test range they were shooting at. Trust me, I know this fact well, as Lake Eerie is homeported 10 miles away from where I live.


china had recently "testfired" a 9600km SLBM. does this give china the ability to fire ICBM from submarines?



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 10:46 PM
link   
Actually it's 2001, my mistake. "In December 2001" But again, do you have ANY idea how much things change in 4 years? And what does an article talking about how we spent money have to do with shooting down missiles? If you read it it says the 100 missiles woudn't stand a chance against hundreds of incoming RUSSIAN warheads. It mentions ABL, and the interceptor that they are testing in Kwajelin, but not THAAD, which is very succesful. 80% so far, against an INBOUND warhead. That means that 8 out of 10 targets would survive, and that's only going to go up as they work out any bugs in the system. So what exactly does this have to do with not being able to shoot down an ICBM? ABL will do the job, THAAD will do the job, and if they can work out the bugs, the other system (I can't remember what they call it) will do the job too.



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 10:49 PM
link   
Well if it was fired from a sub, then I'd have to say YES. Duh! Otherwise it wouldn't be a SUBMARINE Launched Ballistic Missile.



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Actually it's 2001, my mistake. "In December 2001" But again, do you have ANY idea how much things change in 4 years? And what does an article talking about how we spent money have to do with shooting down missiles? If you read it it says the 100 missiles woudn't stand a chance against hundreds of incoming RUSSIAN warheads. It mentions ABL, and the interceptor that they are testing in Kwajelin, but not THAAD, which is very succesful. 80% so far, against an INBOUND warhead. That means that 8 out of 10 targets would survive, and that's only going to go up as they work out any bugs in the system. So what exactly does this have to do with not being able to shoot down an ICBM? ABL will do the job, THAAD will do the job, and if they can work out the bugs, the other system (I can't remember what they call it) will do the job too.


jesus. has this system even been deployed yet??



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 10:51 PM
link   
THAAD? It's a simple software upgrade to the AEGIS system. You plug a disk in so that the radar will track the faster ICBM warhead on the way down. Lake Eerie uses the same missile to hit them that ALL the Aegis cruisers are switching to.

ABL is in flight testing, and is getting ready to do the first airborne shot. The first is flying, the second is being modded, the third and fourth are almost completed if they aren't already.



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
THAAD? It's a simple software upgrade to the AEGIS system. You plug a disk in so that the radar will track the faster ICBM warhead on the way down. Lake Eerie uses the same missile to hit them that ALL the Aegis cruisers are switching to.

ABL is in flight testing, and is getting ready to do the first airborne shot. The first is flying, the second is being modded, the third and fourth are almost completed if they aren't already.


you need to deploy more than 1 system to give coverage to the whole of america.. maybe around 1000.(am i right?).



Flight phases

The following flight phases can be distinguished:

* boost phase - 3 to 4 minutes (for a solid rocket shorter than for a liquid-propellant rocket); altitude at the end of this phase is 150 -200 km, typical burn-out speed is 7 km/s

* midcourse phase - ca. 25 minutes - suborbital flight in an elliptic orbit, i.e. the orbit is part of an ellipse with vertical major axis; the apogee (halfway the midcourse phase) is at an altitude of typically ca. 1200 km; the semi-major axis is between one half of the radius of the Earth and the radius; the projection of the orbit on the Earth's surface is a great circle - the missile may release a few independent warheads, a large number of decoys, and chaff

* re-entry phase (starting at an altitude of 100 km) - 2 minutes


does the pariot missiles shoot them down in the re-entry phase



Zaphod58 remeber what were talking about. i am trying to disprove the americans can shoot down chinese ICBM..all you've given me is some missile/program that has not enterd service



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 11:21 PM
link   
Whatever Chinawhite. Do you know long it will take them to deploy THAAD? Not very. All you need is 4-5 ships per coast to cover most if not all of it.

But as usuall, you're right. You're ALWAYS right. We don't have the capability to do anything but fly the B-2 into China, and we can't shoot down sattelites, or missiles, or anything else.



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
THAAD? It's a simple software upgrade to the AEGIS system. You plug a disk in so that the radar will track the faster ICBM warhead on the way down. Lake Eerie uses the same missile to hit them that ALL the Aegis cruisers are switching to.

ABL is in flight testing, and is getting ready to do the first airborne shot. The first is flying, the second is being modded, the third and fourth are almost completed if they aren't already.


THAAD is no simple upgrade of any system.





THAAD has nothing to do with the Aegis system.

www.globalsecurity.org...



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 11:24 PM
link   
You're right, I forgot the name of the Aegis program. My mistake.



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 11:29 PM
link   
The systems being developed and tested now will and cannot stop more then a few ICBM‘s coming at the US, they will improve in the future but as of now we would not be able to shoot down most of the Chinese ICBM’s. The systems as of now are not designed to handle mass number of warheads they are designed for countries like N. Korea that may have 5 or less nuclear missiles.



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy

Originally posted by ulshadow

Originally posted by chinawhite
this war is going to be fought for oil or other resources.

[edit on 29-6-2005 by chinawhite]


So every war the US got into is about oil? sad really


sorry Vietnam didnt have ani oil, they did have a lot of rice.
. but in anicase who knows wat we will fight for, maybe bananas.


Actually, there are large oil reserves off the cost of Vietnam, one of the reasons we were there (besides the stopping the spread of communism thing) was to protect the assets of oil companies. If you think oil isn't important, spend a week without it or any of the things it brings you and you might think twice about how important it is for the government to protect it. Now, having said that, it is criminal of the U.S. government for not doing everything in its power to outlaw unesessary low gas mileage vehicles and promote the adoption of renewable energy resources (not nukes).

Ahh, why bother, as soon as the end times arrive, all those God fearing "good" Christians will ascend into heaven and leave the rest of us to eat each other.

One more thing. China has needs that will eclipse those of the U.S. in the near future. They also have a serious imbalance in the number of men vs women (MILLIONS OF MEN WHO WILL NOT BE ABLE TO FIND A WIFE) since they ruthlessly abort girls. Now what is the totalitarian government of China going to do with all of these guys who can't get laid and start to get restless? They are going to give them AK's, and send them east and south to get the resources they need, while at the same time eliminating a large group of undesireables who just may get ideas about who should be running the country.

[edit on 1-7-2005 by CaptAvatar]



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 11:35 PM
link   
Actually, any Aegis with the SM-3 has a chance of hitting an inbound ICBM. There's no way we'll be able to stop all of them, but even stopping a few, or most of them will be a pretty big deal.



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 11:54 PM
link   
China's Multi-level Air Defense Network
www.newsmax.com...



This was published in a chiense article but can't find the rest

Early 1995, China's media reported that a Great Wall project for China's strategic missile force was completed after 10 years of construction in a "famous" mountain range in North China. Look at the topographic maps and read the news reports caref ully, it can be deduced that the underground tunnel network is in the famous Tai-Hai Mountain Range between Hebei and Shanxi provinces. According to the news reports, "tens of thousands" of Army engineers spent over 10 years there digging tunnels.

Normally, a company of soldiers (about 100 men) can dig about 100 meters of tunnel per month (based on the news reports about railroad tunnel construction) without using any advanced tunnel drilling machinery. So the "tens of thousands" of Army engineers (= hundreds of companies) over the 10-year period would have constructed an underground tunnel network of thousands of kilometers inside the Tai-Hei Mountain Range to hide some of China's strategic missiles. I guess it was called the "Great Wall" projec t not without a reason for the Great Wall is at least 5,000 kilometers long.

Like other known mountain ranges housing underground tunnel networks for China's strategic missiles, the Tai-Hei Mountain Range has many steep cliffs and canyons with large big elevation changes over a short distance between 1,000 and 2,000 meters. So yo u can easily dig tunnel networks with over one kilometer thick earth-cover in mountain ranges.

A typical 500-kiloton nuclear warhead in U.S. or Russian arsenals can `dig' a big hole 70m deep and 300m wide on the ground, and that is more than enough to destroy a missile silo or even an airport. If specially hardened for the earth-penetration purpos e, it may create a huge crater sphere 200 meters in diameter underground. Taken into account of the rupture zone around the crater and the likely penetration depth of warheads, at least three 500-kiloton warheads will have to land on the same spot sequen tially in order to penetrate the 1-kilometer thick earth cover and destroy the tunnel underneath. Even with the monster 20-megeton warhead on Russia's single-warhead SS-18, at least two warheads have to land on the same spot.

Moreover, one would destroy less than 300 meters of a tunnel using three warheads. Assuming the underground tunnel network under the Tai-Hei Mountain Range is only 1,000 kilometer long, one would need to use 10,000 (ten thousand) 500-kiloton warheads in order to make sure the tunnel network is completely destroyed. This is the VERY unlikely case in which you know the exact layout of the entire tunnel network. AND this is just one of several missile sites in China.

EDIT: Seekerof this wasn't from a article

[edit on 1-7-2005 by chinawhite]



posted on Jul, 2 2005 @ 12:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
The systems being developed and tested now will and cannot stop more then a few ICBM‘s coming at the US, they will improve in the future but as of now we would not be able to shoot down most of the Chinese ICBM’s. The systems as of now are not designed to handle mass number of warheads they are designed for countries like N. Korea that may have 5 or less nuclear missiles.


you are correct westpoint. nicely put.

a limited system to deter rouge countries from launching attacks againest the US



posted on Jul, 2 2005 @ 01:49 AM
link   

China has just 30 low-tech ICBM's and the US is sufficiently prepared to fend off those. Check out the US's anti-missile systems


I heard China currently only has about a dozen ICBMs.





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join