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.

 

USAF bombing Chinese Navy

page: 4
3
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 14 2007 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackWidow23
With a suprise blitzkrieg, the chineese pushed back the americans for all of a few weeks. After that, we counterattacked, recaptured every inch of territory that was taken, and blunted every single following offensive by the chineese. We recaptured Seoul and crossed into NK for a SECOND time. No, we did not lose the war at all. Not to mention that chineese casualties were five times more than US casualties because China likes to send out human waves to get mowed down. Backed by the NATO? Sure we were. You were backed by the soviet union. You had 250,000 more troops than we did, and after the initial rush we STILL pushed China back.

Here is the way I see the inevitable second stalemate: There is no way that the US can defeat china in an all out war in that area. If China throws itself into the war, a few CVBGs cant absorb the rocket rain, I agree.

If you want to talk full blow war however, there is no way that China's power stretches beyonds its borders. China would lose a war ANYWHERE but INSIDE CHINA ITSELF. No way USA can carry out an invasion, no way china can leave.

As for the limited conflict that IS IN FACT this topic, taking out most if not ALL cruise missiles launched by china is a simple matter of setting up SAMS and CIWS behind mountains in Taiwan. Unless your weapons can see through mountains, you cant TOUCH strategically based defenses, I doubt they would even be DETECTED. The reason is simply physics. The missiles would have to pass over the mountains, than literally turn around and fly back towards the side of the mountain facing away from china, and THAN hit a SAM site or AAA site WITHOUT being shot down.

Too bad USA is out of range of China weapons? Works both ways. As soon as china has weapons in range, those weapons are in range of US weapons. The USA also has the best ballistic missile defense in the world (except maybe S-400) with the PAC-3 on a ground based system.

All that is needed to counter chineese ballistic missiles is the Patriot missile. Ten of them, hiding behind Taiwan, would take out most BMs while ship based missiles would crush the rest.

Super planes? Even our F-15Cs and New Advanced F-18"G" as I like to call it (JHMCS, radar focusing weapons) would match PLAAF in the air easily, if not obliterate all of it.

You also overestimate chinas "waves". If you are talking about landing craft, they would be mowed down by guided missiles. If you are talking about warships, than you VASTLY overestimate china. The US has the largest and most powerful navy on the planet. If war starts, it will go into overdrive production JUST LIKE CHINA's navy will. There is no way the chineese navy can outmatch the USN at this time, so the "boat waves" you speak of do not currently exist.

If any of this information is wrong please correct me


[edit on 13-3-2007 by BlackWidow23]





If China uses boat waves, it is most likely to be hundreds of thousands of small missile boats under the missile and rocket rains, not big fighter ships. Of course, the American military power, which America completely rely on to contruct global hegemony, is impressive. But that is exactly why thinking all different ways outside the box to challenge and bash America is so much fun.




posted on Mar, 14 2007 @ 08:57 PM
link   
Ahh, I think I see what you are saying.

What missiles are these small boats equipped with?



posted on Mar, 14 2007 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Luketao
Chinese missile rains would take care of Taiwanese defenses. The Yu Mountain in Taiwan cannot help much to hide American carrier ships, since it is a small island and China can easily launch land based ballistic missiles to hit the ships without crossing Taiwan. Also for ballistic missiles, they can easily overcome the terrain, and they change orbits in the midway.


[edit on 13-3-2007 by Luketao]



You launch ballistic missiles at carriers and you risk a nuclear war.
What if the Straits are heavily mined? If push comes to shove I doubt doubt the Taiwanese would think twice about saturation mining the the entire west coast!



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 01:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
1) So that it is not exposed to enemy interdiction
2) It is not an asset that can be afforded to be lost on th ground/100mil$+ scrap on the tarmac..


What is the use of a 100million + platform when it does not achieve a 100% avalability at the battle front. Even with re-fueling any force more than 1000km away from the action is a large time to be in the air and coming back and forth from a battle. The F-15 platform was seen in much the same way as the F-22 or the B-2 but you spend money on a platform in combat and the best combat situation is closer to the battle front

Kadena is the closet airbase and the one which they are deployed on (as opposed to your opinion about somewhere different). They already deployed them there and if survivability or feasibility of your situation was possible they would have plated them on Guam or Japan


And it can only achieve sorties when it is operating from a secure location.


Yes because its a vital asset which does not go into battle but waits at the perimeters unlike the F-22


I don't know. Why would you be even willing to wonder if they'd wait or not.


Wait for a conventional SRBM?. Why wouldn't they, its not threatening to americans secondary response nor does it affect MAD. Dont forget American has the upper hand in nuclear weapons

This is a TACTICAL ENVIROMENT



Then you could extend the analogy tactical nuclear exchanges as well:


Daedalus3,

Let me emphasis this point, NO NUCLEAR WEAPONS HAVE BEEN LAUNCHED


Thats just the same as saying that the US or israel for that matter would have lanuched a volley of nuclear weapons at Iraq simply because they lanuch a missile. Same situation but no nuclear return




Detecting ballistic launches..


No county has that capbility



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 02:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlackWidow23
recaptured every inch of territory that was taken


You were at the Yalu river before, you were then at the 38th parallel the next month and ended it there.

How did you "recaptured every inch of territory that was taken"?


Not to mention that chineese casualties were five times more than US casualties because China likes to send out human waves to get mowed down.


Just like the Sabres got 792 victories in 1953 but after the war it was proven be something close to 370. Same with the ground war. The Marines at the battle of Chosen dam claimed to have fought and killed a chinese divisions , but had to retreat after a few days of fighting. It later turned out to be only a regiment.

China only rotated under 2 million Chinese soldiers into korea only two years after an almost $100 civil war against the worlds most technologically advanced fighting force with the worlds largest Navy and Army. Quite a achievement to battle with even forces. At most stages of the war America and her allies had more ground troops in Korea. They rotated more troops and suffered roughly the same amount of causalities


Human waves - There was never such a thing, only propaganda from Americans to show people that the eastern communist horde. Chinas tactics were based on infiltration and most battles the chinese troops which have already made it to the second line before they started their attacks at night with bungles which gave the illusion that there was a horde of chinese soldiers because there was fire coming from all directions. The chinese tactics would be to hug the enemy to avoid Americas firepower and use lots of troops with automatics and grenades. It was extremely effective as demonstrated by the longest retreat in American history


If china used human hordes why did they beat the American trained KMT army of more than 500,000 even when it had even numbers of armed troops and suffered much less casualties?




You were backed by the soviet union.


We had 2 soviet air divisions which did SQUAT compared to the South Koreans (which provided more troops than America) and 20 other nations



You had 250,000 more troops than we did, and after the initial rush we STILL pushed China back.


You mean you had 250,000 more troops


China never attacked Seoul in force, all it used was a few advanced divisions to do recon while the main body of Chinese soldiers were on the 38th parallel. Thats the reason why the US counter-attacked after retreating they took Seoul easily while couldn't pass the mountains near the 38th parallel the PLA was being rested at



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 02:03 AM
link   
CW,

What makes you think that most of the USAF assets would be placed within range of the theatre ballistic missiles China has. The B-2 from Guam, the B-52's and B-1's from Diego Garcia would be well out of the range of the majority of the missiles. Couple that with THAAD and PAC-3's you would have a resonable defence that far out.

Also, as I have mentioned before, If China were to attack US territory, whats to stop the B-2's from taking out the 3 Gorges dam? Its the biggest target in the country IMHO and the flooding that insues would wipe out a huge chunk of your airable land.



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 02:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
The B-2 from Guam, the B-52's and B-1's from Diego Garcia would be well out of the range of the majority of the missiles.


Because I was referring to only ONE FIGHTER. I'm assuming that the F-22 is deployed on Kadena for a reason and not on Guam or somewhere far away so it can be "safe". Stationing fighters out of 180 total fighters going to be brought means something


If China were to attack US territory, whats to stop the B-2's from taking out the 3 Gorges dam?


A nuclear response



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 02:24 AM
link   
Nuclear responce perhaps, but who knows if the missiles would hit if the US can perfect its ABM shield.

At any rate the I doubt the F-22's woul dbe put into a position so easily attacked. They do have the speed and the range to be stained further back for safety and still allow plenty of time on station.



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 02:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite

What is the use of a 100million + platform when it does not achieve a 100% avalability at the battle front. Even with re-fueling any force more than 1000km away from the action is a large time to be in the air and coming back and forth from a battle.

It just needs to be in the area of question when there is a tactical engagement in progress. It does not need to provide fleet air defense. The carrier based assets are meant for that. It may be required for deep interdiction/B-2 escort and that can be effected from anywhere.

If you think the Americans are stupid enough to build 150 mill $ platforms and then keep them open to chinese bombardment then they might as well operate B-2s, B-1Bs, and all high value assets from close in AFBs, and save Trans Pacific fuel costs.





Kadena is the closet airbase and the one which they are deployed on (as opposed to your opinion about somewhere different). They already deployed them there and if survivability or feasibility of your situation was possible they would have plated them on Guam or Japan


The deployment on Kadena is for N Korean posturing and is also a part of a regular foreign shores deployment rotational program. It has no relevance with Taiwan.



Yes because its a vital asset which does not go into battle but waits at the perimeters unlike the F-22


I AM talking about the F-22, which I doubt will be used for any air defence or
fleet defence in the straits. I see them mainly as deep interdiction primaries
or escorts.




This is a TACTICAL ENVIROMENT.


and that does NOT automatically negate the possibility of nuclear exchange.



Daedalus3,
Let me emphasis this point, NO NUCLEAR WEAPONS HAVE BEEN LAUNCHED



No they've been dropped..
and no ballistic projectiles conventional or otherwise have ever been fired in anger between countries with nuclear capabilities; i.e. the victim has a nuclear response option or the attacker has a known nuclear capability.
e.g:
1)Iraqis fired on the Israelis and here Iraqis were known to be a non-nuclear weapons state.
2)Russians fired on the Pakistanis knowing that the Pakistanis had no nuclear capability.

etc. etc..

So there was never any ambiguity in the nature of the warhead.. NEVER.. this was purely because of the known nuclear ability/inability of the parties involved and NOT because of the 'range' of the projectile.

Besides NO ballistic projectiles with ranges exceeding 1000km have ever been fired in anger.



Thats just the same as saying that the US or israel for that matter would have lanuched a volley of nuclear weapons at Iraq simply because they lanuch a missile. Same situation but no nuclear return


If you think the US views Iraq and China in the same capacity then..well..

Iraq was never even nuclear-capable..I've made my point in the previous quote response; Iraq could not have launched nuclear Scuds and the Israelis knew that.
If the attack had turned out to be bio-chem then the Israelis may very well have responded with N-bombs but I think there were too many American forces on the ground for that.


Detecting ballistic launches..


get back to you on that..
very hungry now..



[edit on 15-3-2007 by Daedalus3]



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 04:49 AM
link   
China has very little modern aircraft. Most of their fleet it's most popululus aircraft is still averion of the Mig-21 known as the J-7. They are modernising, but even so, that's only to the level of Su-27/ SU-30 aircraft. Their missle technology is alo not as great as america's. F-22 would most definitly beable to take airsuperiority over the taiwanese islands and the taiwan straight. Mainly because because of the low on station times many of the chinese fighter aircraft would have because of their Air Defense background and the small CHinese tanker fleet.

American B-2 could stage from whiteman's AFB proberly since they have the range and F-117 would proberly stage from guam or Yokota AFB near tokyo. America has the advantage of a massive airlift and tanker support, as well as international support from the Brits, Aussies and proberly the Japanese or south korean's, though such support might be hard to find fromthe koreans and japanese because they come under threat from both the North Korens and the Chinese

However, in all of this don't forget that the americans will also have superhornets and proberly by the china gets it's nerve up aand has the tech to do it, it is quite possible that america may be using F-35C's.

One last thought, if china takes it's time to get some decent ampibious forces, by that time, their very gradual shift to capitalism could of ended up making invading taiwan useless because of the isolation it would create from the rest of the world , Who knows



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 01:18 PM
link   
CW sorry I should have clarified.

What I meant is that the US regained all SK territory and started to push back 50 or so miles into NK. It ended at the 38th Paralell because both China and the US decided that the war was going NOWHERE fast.

Also, as far as MiG alley goes, there were 370 CONFIRMED kills. There were hundreds more probables (you see a wing break off of the MiG but dont see a chute, so its not a "confirmed" kill)

Soviet troops in korea numbered over 40,000.

"The most technilogically advanced nation in the world" Yes this was true, but we must remember that the only thing that was really different about the US fighting force was jet aircraft. The F-86 and MiG-17 were almost equal in performance, all things considered (rate of climb, turning radius). Most of the rest of the force was WWII equipment (except the new, bigger bazooka). Shermans and Chaffee light tanks, M1 garands and .30 machine guns, just like WWII. The only other new thing was da bomb.

Let us also not forget the huge terrain training advantage chineese troops had; training in the mountains all the time.

Thats the problem with american weapons: They are all made to fight a war in the USA or europe. Open fields, bombed out houses, not jungles, deserts or mountains.



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by warset
that's how that F-117 got shoot down back then in yogoslovia, the radar only picked it up for a few seconds, and the next thing you know, it's rest in pieces


Not according to Wesley Clark and 'other NATO people'.


But there have been problems with the aircraft's radar-absorbing skin, which can be damaged by moisture and bad weather.

news.bbc.co.uk...



One F-117 has been lost in combat, to Serbian/Yugoslav forces. On March 27, 1999, during the Kosovo War, the 3rd Battalion of the 250th Missile Brigade under the command of Colonel Zoltán Dani, equipped with the Isayev S-125 'Neva-M' (NATO designation SA-3 'Goa'), downed F-117A serial number 82-806 with a Neva-M missile. According to Wesley Clark and other NATO generals, Yugoslav air defenses found that they could detect F-117s with their "obsolete" Soviet radars operating on long wavelengths. This, combined with the loss of stealth when the jets got wet or opened their bomb bays, made them visible on radar screens. The pilot survived and was later rescued by NATO forces. However, the wreckage of the F-117 was not promptly bombed, and the Serbs are believed to have invited Russian personnel to inspect the remains, inevitably compromising the US stealth technology.[9]

www.answers.com...



THE LOST JET
Stealth Gives Plane Mask, but Not Cloak, Experts Say

The exact cause of the F-117's loss has yet to be determined, but senior
Pentagon officials, speaking on condition that they not be identified,
said the plane was tracked for a time by Yugoslav military radar and
probably was hit by a Russian-made SA-3 surface-to-air missile.
American military officials have not disclosed the operating conditions
of the plane at the time it was lost, or how long it had been visible on
radar.

But private military experts say that under the right conditions,
stealth aircraft can be detected in a variety of ways, including with
certain radars. Still, they said, the planes have great advantages over
conventional warplanes without such "low-observability technology."

"No one ever said the F-117 was an invisible plane that could not be
shot down," said John E. Pike, a military affairs analyst with the
Federation of American Scientists. "It would be obviously incorrect to
say this represents a failure of the technology.

The F-117 operates more effectively when American forces know the
position of enemy radars so the plane can find its way through holes in
a defense screen, he said, and tightly placed or unexpected radars
operating at certain frequencies can detect the plane
.


www.netwrx1.com...


The last paragraph does in my opinion much to expose the fact that it's a weapon system like any other that must be operated within quite specific environments to become effective; war rarely provides such and it's probably why these plans are being withdrawn while the B-52's keeps getting rebuilt nearly 50 years later.

Stellar



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite
China only rotated under 2 million Chinese soldiers into korea only two years after an almost $100 civil war against the worlds most technologically advanced fighting force with the worlds largest Navy and Army.


Just a few 'corrections' i feel i have to make. There are many to be made on this thread but i feel you are one of the few who have the knowledge to appreciate the effort; that and i don't really have time.


Very much a achievement but in my opinion the US army were fighting with it's hands tied behind it's back and still did relatively well. If the USAF were allowed to start a strategic bombing campaign against China ( and especially the bridges over the Yalu) god knows i don't see how the US army could have landed itself in the desperate position it did.


Quite a achievement to battle with even forces. At most stages of the war America and her allies had more ground troops in Korea. They rotated more troops and suffered roughly the same amount of causalities


Actually there was NOTHING even about it as the Chinese fought without any support worth calling such. To fight a modern army they did without that support makes one wonder how they survived contact at all and the impression i got was that the Chinese infantry gave a great account of themselves even if they had to resort to using massed bodies of infantry to make up for the tank and artillery forces they lacked.


Human waves - There was never such a thing, only propaganda from Americans to show people that the eastern communist horde.


I agree in that the term is employed in the wrong way ( propaganda to dismiss such attacks as useless and stupid ) but i can't agree that the Chinese did not sometimes use their infantry in massed attacks to punch holes or turn flanks...


Chinas tactics were based on infiltration and most battles the chinese troops which have already made it to the second line before they started their attacks at night with bungles which gave the illusion that there was a horde of chinese soldiers because there was fire coming from all directions.


Infiltration for sure but infiltration with massed formations which were sometimes discovered and ripped to shreds by artillery general fire support. If you are fighting with infantry only this is unavoidable and if anything it shows what the Chinese army are capable of without even employing a modern mechanized army... I have battle descriptions of German troops fighting the very same way against Russian forces ( and this was in 1941 when they basically won the war in the first six weeks) and i have always wondered what people thought the second world war was all about. In the end there is always infantry and when artillery fails you, or time does not allow for slow reduction, in goes the massed infantry to fight and die just like they did in 1916.


The chinese tactics would be to hug the enemy to avoid Americas firepower and use lots of troops with automatics and grenades. It was extremely effective as demonstrated by the longest retreat in American history


Longest retreat? You sure?


If china used human hordes why did they beat the American trained KMT army of more than 500,000 even when it had even numbers of armed troops and suffered much less casualties?


Because the South-Koreans did not want to fight at all and were pressed to do so against North-Korea force that knew they were fighting a just war to take back their country from the American imposed southern regime?

I hope this does not com across the wrong way and do keep the good responses coming. If i find the time i might destroy a few myths myself.


Stellar



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackWidow23
Ahh, I think I see what you are saying.

What missiles are these small boats equipped with?



You should ask CIA your questions... They shall have lots of intelligence about Chinese weapons.



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackWidow23
Ahh, I think I see what you are saying.

What missiles are these small boats equipped with?



You should ask CIA your questions... They shall have lots of intelligence about Chinese weapons.



posted on Mar, 16 2007 @ 01:03 AM
link   
China White, are you kidding me? Go check the casualties that the US caused compared to it's losses. I mean geeze, do you have any comprehension of the massive political problem or the fact that the army was just as tied as it is in Iraq today by the government. A REAL war with the US would be nothing like what happened in Vietnam and the stuff that you show is hardly impressive next to mass US hardware.
I have no hatred or disrespect towards china and am not some ultra-nationalistic flag waving American who sees America as the worlds only country. I have more family in Europe/middle east and came from over there myself. It's just odd that someone as intelligent and well versed as you, who seems to know what they are talking about tries to down play the US strength so much and prop up the PLA.
The US would win this senseless conflict hands down without sending in troops if they were allowed to go full out with out both hands and legs tied up like in Iraq/Nam. Not to discredit the PLA, because the US would have NO chance of invading china, nor should these 2 countries go to war. I'm a big supporter of friendship and democracy, but I'm just pointing out what I see...I'm not sure what propaganda you look at, but try to see it from both sides. Once again no disrespect meant here.


[edit on 16-3-2007 by Morkoc96]



posted on Mar, 16 2007 @ 01:09 AM
link   
What legs are tied in Iraq??
As far as I can see all the tying up has been self-inflicted.


And you've got to be kidding yourself if you think the US will win hands down..
really


[edit on 16-3-2007 by Daedalus3]



posted on Mar, 16 2007 @ 01:31 AM
link   
The bit about ballistic launch detection..
Its got something to do with the fact a launch causes a heat plume against the comparatively cooler backdrop of the earths curvature. This detection is done using a combination of space based and terrestrial thermal sensor systems.
Acoustics and seismic sensors may also be used.



posted on Mar, 16 2007 @ 04:32 PM
link   
Some things to consider. . .

It would be very challenging for China to mobilize a sufficient invasion force without catching the US's attention.

You don't have to destroy Chinese airfields--you just send hundreds of Tomahawks carrying submunitions to liter the major airfields. Enough to give the US time to clear the strait and further position themselves. Airfields are big and immobile (probably mostly accounted for). China would have to operate hundreds of aircraft around the clock to keep the US out--you can't hide that degree of activity.

US aircraft from all over the world (refueling/ferrying) would be participating. Chinese aircraft would be operating from vulnerable airfields. You may sink a carrier, but are you going to bomb Japan too?

If China nukes a carrier, US nukes China's Navy as well. Ruining the whole point of China's attack. Not to mention using Nukes on any hint of a Chinese sub as well.

The US carriers don't have to just sit in Silkworm range. It can operate outside that envelope. Aircraft can be refueled in mid-air when necessary.

Using satellites is probably one of the better ways to track US carriers. If China takes out US satellites, and the US rams satellites into theirs. . .
How do you pinpoint a carrier out in the Pacific? Yes China could probably keep a carrier away from Taiwan, but not its aircraft. What if the US secures a space in ocean guarded by attack subs? How does China approach that?

It's hard enough to cross a body of water and invade a land mass. Even if China got the jump on the US/allies. I don't think it could prevent the US from cutting the supply line to the ground force.

China would have to defeat the US Navy / USAF AND maintain a strong enough Navy and Airforce itself in order to protect whatever it gained in Taiwan.

That's asking for too much.

If North Korea premptively attacked S. Korea, It would have to trust that. . .
1 The US wouldn't nuke N. Korea-and wouldn't play brinkmanship
2 China would commit to its own destruction just to back up N Korea

That's asking too much of N Korea.



posted on Mar, 17 2007 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
If you think the Americans are stupid enough to build 150 mill $ platforms and then keep them open to chinese bombardment then they might as well operate B-2s, B-1Bs, and all high value assets from close in AFBs


Dont you think that possiblity would have been VERY CLEARLY thought over BEFORE they deployed them within range of chinese missiles?. So within minutes of the battle starting they will then begin to move their fighters thousands of kilometers somewhere else, the question beckons, why didn't they deploy it there in the beginning?the answer is that Kadena is in a strategic location which offers FLEXIBILITY, which is a word much used in modern military operations. Maybe keeping key assets like tankers "always" ready might like interesting but they take space, they are slow and there is limited areas where they could be located


Why would they deploy million dollar or even billion dollar ships near "danger" because of the price?




The deployment on Kadena is for N Korean posturing and is also a part of a regular foreign shores deployment rotational program. It has no relevance with Taiwan.


The F-22 fighters for Norh Korea?, A aircraft with a primary role of air superiority deployed about 3000-4000 km away with limited ground attack capbilities primed against a airforce with old style MiG-29s which I suspect has no operational missiles?.

Or against a air force 1000km away in which the government is taking aggressive stances against and claiming of a re-armament?.


and that does NOT automatically negate the possibility of nuclear exchange.


We are talking about countries with long founded nuclear programs and almost MAD capbilties, Not a regional contest between two newly founded nuclear powers


no ballistic projectiles conventional or otherwise have ever been fired in anger between countries with nuclear capabilities


WMD are much like nuclear weapons, Why didn't the israelis "nuke" the iraqis since their WMD program is well known. It is much the same situation as to what you are saying.



1)Iraqis fired on the Israelis and here Iraqis were known to be a non-nuclear weapons state.
2)Russians fired on the Pakistanis knowing that the Pakistanis had no nuclear capability.


It doesn't matter if they were nuclear or not, all that mattered was that it had a payload which would have been as or more devastating than a nuclear warhead. I dont know of any occasion the russians fired on the pakistanis but do shre



So there was never any ambiguity in the nature of the warhead.. NEVER.. this was purely because of the known nuclear ability/inability of the parties involved and NOT because of the 'range' of the projectiles



Thats why they changed from full blown nuclear war towards "nuclear escalation". Simply because the danger is to high.

This is what your telling me,

China fires a SRBM at a US airbase and before the content of the missile is known the US lanuches a full blown nuclear war or a nuclear missile in exchange?.

The SRBM does not endanger Americans MAD capability nor does it threaten Americas ability to wage war.




If the attack had turned out to be bio-chem then the Israelis may very well have responded with N-bombs but I think there were too many American forces on the ground for that.


But why didn't they respond before the missile hit?




new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join