China not only must develop an anti-ship ballistic missile but it should develop a range of carrier killing weapons to protect the country’s strategic interests, says an editorial in China’s Global Times. The Naval War College’s Andrew Erickson writes that while the Global Times is not an official government mouthpiece, it is sponsored by and produced by the People’s Daily, which is the official community party paper.
The editorial says:
“For quite some time the intelligence agencies in the US and other Western countries have conjectured over China’s anti-ship missile capacity. China ought to convince the international community of its reliable carrier-killing capacity as soon as possible to end the speculation.
Since US aircraft carrier battle groups in the Pacific constitute deterrence against China’s strategic interests, China has to possess the capacity to counterbalance. Such capacity could inhibit US thoughts of keeping China in check through aircraft carriers, and therefore greatly reduce the possibility of confrontation between the People’s Liberation Army and US military forces in the Western Pacific.
While developing its anti-ship missile capacity, China should also let Westerners know under what circumstances will such weaponry be used.
China should let the world be well aware that no foreign aircraft carrier is allowed to do whatever it wants to do in China’s waters. China will never abuse its anti-ship missile capacity and launch strikes against foreign carriers without a justified reason.”
The editorial says China has no intention of changing the balance of power in the Western Pacific (which of course sounds like an official line), and is only trying to “enhance its national defensive strategy.” The editorial’s authors recognize that China is venturing into uncharted territory with a weapon classified as a “strategic deterrence,” and should carefully explore how to present its deterrence.”
That last bit most likely refers to what appropriate tests China should carry out with the ASBM, if they get the thing to work. I’m guessing the question is more of where, in what part of the Western Pacific, to demonstrate it; a touchy issue in and of itself.
Chinese strategists and policymakers must also carefully think through the implications of using the “carrier killer” in anything short of a major theater war. We are, after all, talking about a weapon that in a single strike could potentially kill more Americans than were killed in the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor or the 9–11 terrorist attacks. Chinese strategists are likely mindful of the American public’s reaction and America’s subsequent response to both those attacks.
– Greg Grant
{ 108 comments… read them below or add one }
An attack on an aircraft carrier carrying thousands of crew members would be an act of war…China needs to be more open with their military buildup and their countless spying and espionage activities around the world.
Good Morning Folks,
This article came from the CCP's People's Daily about a week ago, it can be found in todays 9/7/10 Sino Daily. It is meant for only the party faithful and domestic consumption only. The platform for this "miracle weapon" is the DF-21 D. The DF-21D in the Carrier Killer mode was to be tested on July 4th. during the big war games, it didn't happen. Hitting a moving object with a ballistic missile is rather hard and has yet to be done.
For those of you who are interested in this topic there was an excellent article published on another site about a month ago and was referred to by Greg in a previous article on this subject on DT that more or less covers all that need to be said about where the PRC is currently at and the technical problems that must be overcome.
A ballistic missile that can kill carriers is not going to happen soon, and the first to do this won't be the PRC.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
Anti-missile lasers and rail guns will be the new 'anti-aircraft' screen for the fleet. They will provide cover from these ballistic missiles.
Sending waves of sea skimming antiship missiles is still the most realistic way of overcoming a carrier.
As much news about China's military gets released, no average Chinese citizen will even think or care for war. Chinese economic interests are pretty much reinforced by China's own economic influence, not completely military.
For all the frightened Americans (I'm pretty sure anyone properly well-versed in this field wouldn't be 'frightened' in the first place), China… is basically unlikely to be a future enemy in the next two or three decades, at least not the China as it exists today. China is still very much a developing country and is much more concerned with domestic issues, and American resilience is the strongest of most Western countries, if not the entire world.
Just food for thought.
WHAT A BUNCH OF BULL CRAP!! PULL YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS AND LISTEN TO WHAT THE CHI-COM GENERALS ARE SAYING. THIS IS THE SAME KIND OF WEAK POSITION FROM MULLEN AND THE JOINT CHIEFS ( WE NEED CHINA TO BE MORE TRANSPARENT) THIS IS A GOD DAM JOKE!!! WHAT DOES HE WANT THEM TO DO RASIE THEIR DRESS AND SHOW EVERYTHING? THIS WAS NOT HOW THE COLD WAR WAS WON! IF CHINA WERE ARE FREIND NORTH KOREA WOULD NOT HAVE A BOMB AND WE HAVE FOUGHT THEM ONCE AND WILL GAIN SOON! TALK ABOUT NO STREET SMARTS!!
are you off your meds again???
… because all caps is always a sign of rationality (*rolls eyes*).
I agree that a reply to the post is needed, but spittle and bile do nothing to inform. You're hurting, not helping.
we were nuts to help china with there economy and trusting the peoples liberation army or peoples republic of communist red china , tnhewy foughT war with north vietnam over the sparatly islands why do we truts them so much after we vietnam veterans fought awar to keep south east asia free of communism of course this is acomp[letely new generation lbj must be turning in his grave
There needs to be plenty of soft power exercised by the US on the PRC to further neutralize tensions and be more independent of each other in terms of the economy.
If you indeed had tours in Vietnam, I'm honored by your service, but China today is very different from China of that era. As you said, this is a completely new generation, and diplomatic action can go a long way in slowly suppressing a country from being a threat.
The average chinese can't vote their leaders so what they think have few impact on the choices that their government do. In fact, the chinese government try to control what the chinese people think and even a democracy can be fooled in to a costly ill planed military adventure.
But Chinese people aren't controlled by the government, not one bit. Not many Chinese citizens frequent English websites that often so many Americans don't know this, but a lot of them have plenty of freedom in what they say on forums and chat rooms.
Also, my main point was that the Communist Party of the PRC wouldn't even care for an actual military adventure. They know their limitations in military and are much more focused on domestic and internal issues, which they have a lot of.
"Not many Chinese citizens frequent English websites that often so many Americans don't know this,"
Because the chinese government "Great Firewall" don't allow the chinese people to visit any site that can be critic to the chinese government. So how you can say that they are not controlled?
"and are much more focused on domestic and internal issues, which they have a lot of"
The very reason for start a war can be to distract the attention of the public to problems like corruption, the growing gap between rich and poor and violation of human rights. You never heard about the Falklands war?
Egads, somehow I have managed to circumvent the Chinese "Great Firewall" and find my way to this topic. What are the odds?
Seriously: unless you wish to frequent youtube, facebook, or pro-Tibet web-sites/blogs (or services that host such), you will find the Great Firewall to be more of a Great Sieve. The Chinese government finds it a hopeless task to quell online dissent in Chinese-language sites, let alone English-language sites.
As for starting a war: the CPC currently bases its legitimacy on its ability to grow the economy, employ its people, and raise the standard of living. Any war would bring a swift halt and reversal of investment in China and bring the economy to a grinding crash. As such, it is very much against the interests of the CPC to engage in aggression.
I would agree that it would be hard to envision any event that would lead to direct US-Chinese confrontation happening in the near future. It would be catastrophic for both countries and no one has anything to gain. And unlike the US, the Chinese have the ability to think and plan very long term when it comes to achieving desired political and economic gains (ie. unification with Taiwan, security of energy resources in South China Seas, etc.) due to their one party system. No need to rush and blunder into a conflict.
I can envision North Korea doing something stupid which leads to a conflict. I don't know if China would stand aside and let NK fight completely on their own.(maybe they would?)
I doubt that China would destroy their country and economy over NK.
I don't recall that China ever lost a war against the US.
China needn't worry.
True, but mostly due to U.S. discretion. If MacArthur had his way, Beijing would probably still be glowing today.
I make no value assessment on that, just stating a fact.
And how many wars since this glowing Beijing dream would also have employed nuclear bombs? Wouldn't this strategic attack on China have justified nukes as moral weapons? Would our current relations with China have been better or worse?
Again, my statement was factual, not normative.
AT THE TIMEOF THE KOREAN WAR, WE HAD THE ONLY NUKES IN TOWN.
I dont recall that the U.S. has ever lost a war with China either. Korea was a stalemate.
How about ROC v PRC?
Hunter78 what about the ROC v PRC? Have they fought a war yet ??
Yes, it ended or got suspended in 1949 after millions of casualties on both sides. That's a war. The ROC got decisively, though not totally defeated. The US was involved on the ROC side by proxy.
If you are talking about the Korean War, I look at it as a victory. South Korea today is
one of the strongest industrial nations in the World.
Try the Boxer Rebellion– although the US was but part of a coalition. After the Boxers were beaten, the Allies had a grand time plundering, raping, and massacring Chinese.
I don't recall that China ever win a war against anyone
I can see their desire to have that missle but I wonder about one with a 12,000 mi-20,000km range.What are they aiming to do-shoot Carriers in dock in San Diego?
What a bunch of arrogant windbags. Strategic interests? Like what, Taiwan? The Spratly Islands? China keeps laying claim to stuff that doesn't belong to them….they're all like "oh my god, century of humiliation….we get to do whatever we want now!!"
Good thing no other country's ever done that.
Next, they be trying to plant thier flag in Brooklyn!! WTF Mike? Listen, we have "other" business going on, so leave them alone…didn't work out too good for Michael did it? The double cross..the chi-coms aim to destroy us.
China is importing increasing amounts of raw materials- metal ores from places like Brazil, Chile, and Australia-oil from African countries with which they're trying to develop special relationships. Certainly securing their access to these resources is a strategic interest? If you think that the need to protect strategic interests qualifies as "laying claim to stuff that doesn't belong to them", do you also view the West's claims to have important strategic interests around the world as imperialism?
Trade ties with foreign countries are just that, trade ties. You don't need a massive blue-water capability in order to maintain trade with other nations…in fact most other countries do just that and nobody threatens this activity because the USN already guarantees freedom of the seas. If China wants to buy oil from the Middle East or from African countries, then nobody's stopping them.
At first I disagreed with that, but then thought about it. We pretty much do guarantee freedom of the seas, and most countries don't bother with much of a Navy because they don't have to. This has been the subject of some debate here, but I believe it's true. And since most of the free world, rhetoric aside, believes our Navy will work in their best trade interests, why does China feel they need a rival Navy to "deter" ours? I guess they may see a day where their "strategic interest" don't match ours, and they might have to go toe to toe. Taiwan seems the most likely place for that to blow up.
Would the US be perfectly content with a Chinese navy guaranteeing the freedom of the seas? Sure would save the US a lot of money in these troubled times.
Ignoring Taiwan, which is an obvious example, there has already been at least one other issue where America's and China's strategic interests don't dovetail:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spratly_Islands_disp…
Sorry to beat this drum in multiple comments here, but there are some commenters in this thread who keep insisting that economic issues will somehow be the counterweight to China's military ones and lead them to cooperate with the US. That ignores issues like the Spratlys, which *is* economic, and between China and other Pacific nations *has* already manifested in minor conflicts between ships and airplanes. Heck, there's actually been small confrontations between individual US and Chinese naval ships; Here's one example:
http://www.gmanews.tv/story/152832/China-sends-la…
It's too simplistic to view China's motivations through a strictly military lens, but it's equally simplistic and Pollyannaish to boot to view them through a stritcly economic-ties lens. The fact is that there are some economic/resource issues that can cause friction. And I bang the drum about the Spratlys because it's a prime example.
seems like we are preparing for war with each other. NK seems very volatile, and Taiwan is a very touchy situation too.
"While developing its anti-ship missile capacity, China should also let Westerners know under what circumstances will such weaponry be used."
That would unite everyone no matter who they are here in the USA and we would come together like never b4 we've done it b4 and we can do it again, don't play with fire unless your ready to get burned CH.
We should let them know if we see one balistic missile launch we will retaliate and rain down destruction on our so called friends.
They wanna play this game fine lets play!
John, if it were to come to that, we all lose. They dare do that and they will get a rain of ruin from the air the likes of which man has never seen. Thats wat Truman told the Japs, and here too it applies. They have made thier intentions known. Better get our "house" in order. Ricky-tic.
It's all about balance of power. A conflict is very unlikely, when you think through the repercussions in the totality of the world scene, there really isn't much in it for anyone. That being said maintaining deterrence is exactly how conflict is avoided not encouraged. Keeping them in check maintains peace. If the hawks in China suspect or can convince their side some sort of military adventurism can succeed, then the chance of conflict goes up. If we continue to develop and deploy systems that eliminate that mind set, peace is maintained.
one word… PINHEAD.
LOL @ americans freaking out about another country arming itself well enough to make a formidable defense when the USA arms themselves enough to make a formidable offense. Relax guys, the best way to not lose a war is to not get into one. By the way, a carrier killer missile has a relatively short range.
The average Wang is like the average Joe, both just want to live their life without much hassling.
LOL @ the rest of the world for being ignorant at Chinese encroachment
China is developing the Dongfeng 21 w/ increased range of 22000km-12400mi.Any way you look at it -that is a serious threat.
Man your just talking with no clue. Max range on of the D is 3000km. It's a 1500 mile missile. How useful would it be to shoot a missile at a carrier half way around the world?
Go to http://www.spacewar.com/reports/China_needs_carrier-kill... and read it for yourself'
Chops is right–went to the web site and it says they are developing that missle w/20,000 km. 12,400mi. range.
unfortuantely, that won't be based of the df 21. Look up the range of the missile in question. Its been on the net for at least 3 years now. 1500 miles max. Not trying to minmize their strategy, but it makes more sense to hit the ships as they approach. Especially since they don't have the assets to track our carriers abroad. They could certainly track them in the china sea though. What are they going to track the carriers with and maintain that lock even through re-entry? Last time i checked they were no where near a global hawk or a world wide distributed GPS constellation.
I guess spacewar is the definitive source no way they could have a typo.
The average Wang is not the one making extraterritorial claims. Their government – which isn't anywhere near as responsive to the "Average Wang" as western governments are – is. As I said in the other comment, look up the Spratley Islands dispute.
China is behaving reasonably. The more they shed the CHICOM dogma and try to solve real problems the more reliable they become. They have something to protect and the means to protect it. They have to have a plan if the USA, or anyone else, tries to choke off their maritime access to resources. At the same time, if the US is to operate carriers, they will have to protect them from all threats, nothing changes that.
A real danger lurks if China becomes powerful enough that it thinks it can take Taiwan by force and US won't intervene.
I can't see China sitting out a regime collapse in NK, at a minimum they will be hugely difficult about it.
If Chinese progress and US stagnation alter the balance of power, how will China act if they hold the advantage the US now holds?
China has a long way to go before they can even see parity with U.S. (or EU) power and capabilities. I don't just mean militarily, either.
I don't think there will be a fight for a long long long time between the US and china. There is more likely to be a single world government before that. We are too intertwined, we are their biggest customer… if im not mistaken we are their biggest trading partner in both exports and imports. The chinese people want to live the american dream more or less (too bad americans can't live that same dream), and the people generally like us. They listen to our music, emulate our fashion, watch our movies, and are becoming more and more westernized as time goes on. If it came down to a fight, we have enough strength to force a stalemate or win outright, not to mention our allies are pretty danged powerful. Russia probably wouldn't come to their aid as they historically do not like each other at all. We still maintain control of the seas despite these anti ship missiles, because they havent got a worthy deep water navy. They are building a deep water navy, but we can destroy chinese shipping virtually at will right now. Then they haven't the means to fund a war, and while we havent got any cash, if we were at war with china, we certainly wouldn't honor any debts to them… God, Im ranting. Long story short, don't worry about china.
Don't forget their oil–they currently have the capacity for 60 days of reserves.If a shooting war started they might be able to make it last 2-3 weeks.After that they won't get much because their oil shipments will be blockaded.
Canada is number one, and China is number 2.
http://dataweb.usitc.gov/scripts/cy_m3_run.asp
I heard China wanted to focus less on the importing and more on the exporting
These alleged "threats" have been made for the last 60 years by any number of our present and past potential advisaries…so far, none have been built, much less launched. Know why? The leadership of all those countries, while being murdering, totalitarian SOB's, had at least enough intelligence to know the consequences of such an attack: total unleashed war with everything we have to toss at them. The Chinese might not feel too worried about that, though…After all, they'd only lose, what…50,000,000 people? A small dent in their 1,000,000,000-people population. Then, maybe the rest of them would have enough rice to eat…Hmmmm…
Unbelievable the number of China apologists or I guess more accurately China "never do us any harmists" (I know that's not a word)
Does everyone forget that they are still a political dictatorship that BRUTALLY represses it own people and kills and imprisons millions every year. All the geniuses make the mistake of thinking logically about another nations intent when they have no idea what motivates a nation like China.
As MG Halvorsen speculates but fails to mention is that there is ACTUALLY a quote from a Chinese general that says, "We will trade 150 million dead with the Americans anytime that's 1/2 of your population but only 10% of ours"
I call for a complete rearmament and a rebuilding of our strategic forces to Cold War levels. But what will the world think? As Rambo said "F&^k the world" : )
I hear ya on that bobbymike!
“If Chinese progress and US stagnation alter the balance of power, how will China act if they hold the advantage the US now holds?”
I’d rather not find out…a country that large with a population that huge eventually needs to meet its energy requirements…by force if it has to.
You are chasing a position we can never recover. The Chinese have unleashed some constraints on their growth, and we may not always be able to out produce them.
I call for bobbymike to pay for this "complete rearmament".
Quit a non sequitur. Does that statement make sense from the refrigerator box you live in : )
"All the geniuses make the mistake of thinking logically about another nations intent when they have no idea what motivates a nation like China. "
Well, it's a good thing you are here to set us straight on that point, bobbymike! Do tell, what widely-regarded papers on Chinese internal and foreign policy have you published?
Did you notice that I did not include my speculation as to what I think China's foreign policy goals are? But I guess reading comprehension is not your strong suit.
Rebuilding strategic forces just for China? The USSR was a threat to the US 10x more than the PRC will be in the short future. We already have bases scattered around the Pacific, reliable allies which we can base our armed forces in, and 100x the amount of ICBMs China have (we have more than 5,000 and they have 150).
Even if China went on a massive military spending and modernization spree (more than now even), the US will still hold the advantage by a massive amount for the next 20 years. This doesn't take into account many defense improvements America is doing.
Your idea would rapidly alienate China now and cause problems for our future generations. China can't be socialist/authoritarian capitalist forever. It will change in the future.
Using an IRBM or ICBM in a conventional role is very risky and the PLA would have to balance risking a US nuclear release against killing (maybe) one CVN.
It would be better to rely on Subs and strike aircraft like the Soviets planned to do.
Essentially correct. But they have to bank on the United States being able to essentially know that the IRBMs lack the capability to hit continental targets that would justify missile throw. Also, if Americans do missile throw, who's the say the Russians won't freak out when a full wave of ICBMs comes their way? It's almost the same argument that has constrained American use of "conventionalized" ICBMs on the Ohios or hypothetically the Tomahawks on the SSGNs.
The United States had better work on leveraging NMD "technology" and know-how for the ASBM threat, because the Prince of Wales and Repulse could very well be re-enacted with USN vessels.
Iran already has a fairly mature anti-shipping capability dug into their section of the Persian Gulf coast. They're also unburdened with the need for ballistic missiles – less room to maneuver.
Oh, and India is pretty unlikely to start building up defenses against us; we're pretty close allies.
I'm inclined to think that Russia is sort of our friend also-but who knows.
Any country potentially involved against US has to consider methods to tamp down our fleet. To tip over a carrier is to tip over a fleet's mission from command to rescue. Many of the hot spots around Russia find US more on the other side than Russia's. I don't dismiss Russia as a possible ally, but we have to keep our guard up.
Yes, but the US is very close to India's hereditary enemy too. Pakistan.
I'm no rocket scientist nor is anyone else here I suspect. The US Navy did demostrate the ability to shoot down a satellite using a SM2 missle from an AEGIS class cruiser by re-programming some software on that system. Could not the same thing be done to shoot down a incoming Chinese missle aimed at a Carrier? Do anyone here know?
Supposedly the dongfeng21 was based on the Pershing Missle and an Aegis Cruiser can be modified to take it out.That was at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2221479/posts
The only scary issue is that you can throw more missiles by land than you can carry missiles by sea, and still expect to bombard land targets. The solution might have to be using long range missiles that would neutralize the DF21 from CONUS, Hawaii or the pacific…
"China should let the world be well aware that no foreign aircraft carrier is allowed to do whatever it wants to do in China’s waters."
Doesn't China claim the entire South China Sea?
To hear them tell it their waters extend to 50miles off the coast of Australia. LOL
As signatures to the UN Law of the Sea Treaty, their waters extend to 12nm from the low water mark, just like everyone else. Since we don't operate Carriers there, whats the problem? Their claims to the SCS and claims over the EEZ are both at odds to the Law of the Sea Treaty and other International Law, which probably explains while they have never pressed their claims in any court.
Their problem is what areas they lay claim to. Look up China's activities in the Spratly Islands dispute.
I'm willing to concede that most of the time, they are indeed willing to not be on the offensive and stay within their territorial boundaries. They don't have a whole lot of blue-water aspirations. The problem lays in the exceptions, and between Taiwan and the Spratleys, those are real problems that may indeed lead to real confrontations.
China attacking a U.S carrier = Shock and Awe in Bejing
Pedestrian is totally correct.
It needs to be understood China may be an economical superpower but military wise it is still developing. RAND & CASS Analysis are all controlled by the government to deploy FUD objectives to convince the American population to waste tax dollars on our military budget to build a force that we probably won't need for another 100 years.
China's navy has a slim chance of surviving a wave of SSNs and ASW direct strikes against there fleet since they barely even go to sea. There Air Force only has a moderate size of aircraft that are considered "modern" and there ground forces are still generations behind the West. You are being mesmerized by propaganda. Its not only on the American side but also on the PRC side as well. Read, learn, and educate. I am not being a patriot or loyalist specifically on this fourm but merely just stating what can be called "facts". I have yet to read about a weapon that the ChiComs have that can potenitally alter the Military Balance in the Far East/Wesetern Pacific/South China Sea
China seems to think that money is their best weapon until they build a blue water navy.Unfortunately they haven't learned tact and diplomacy yet.If they would stop trying to strong arm their neighbors they could work out some kind of agreements on the islands in the South China Sea that are so rich in oil and gas and minerals.If they continue antagonizing the world and stealing technology they will continue to be chastised by everyone and considered no better than the NKs.
When did China lose a war agains US ?????
Except chaos, what have US done in the world ???
Lol… are you being a smartass or are you REALLY that stupid?
What about the world where you live???
well, how abt saving China a$$ from the brutal Japanese?
If you have enough brain to do a little research. You'd know that US contribution to the world is by far overwhelmingly lopsided comparing to any nations or empires of human civilization. There is a very good reason why there are more Nobel prize winners in the US than all other countries combined. The US has more foreign students coming to study at its universities and colleges than any countries in the world. Many of the modern day conveniences are products of the USA. The Internet, which you used to log on and badmouth the US, is a brainchild of guess-who? Should I go on?
Aircraft carriers are the modern day battleship, and equally obsolete. They are big, lumbering, expensive targets. Submarines are the capital ships of the future, along with smaller agile surface ships.
How are we supposed to launch wave after wave of strike aircraft against targets on the other side of the Earth… Build even more bases on foreign soil?
Good Morning Folks,
All this argument about a carrier killer is bases on the DF-21 solid fueled missile. A simple question has the DF-21 had a successful test firing as a two/three stage weapon?
If so when and where. I can't find any verified test of the DF-21 other the as a single stage missile.
The DF-21 is the CRP's Swiss Army Knife missile. As a single stage weapon it is an IRBM,read threat to India, which has been tested but has no more the a 1,500 Km. range, depending on the warhead weight.
It can be a two stage missile or in it's full ICBM mode it is a three stage weapon and is also to be adaptable as the Jl-2 SLBM. It appears that the PRC's developmental model is The Russian Federations Bulava/Topol M which still are a long way from operational.
A note here the DF-21 launching areas is on the India-China border, the roads, barracks, support, fuel areas for liquid fueled weapons, motor pool buildings to support mobile missile launchers. This base can be clearly be seen in overhead views as well as the support, supply and vehicle and troop staging areas for the PLAN's 5th. Infantry Regiment. where the 2nd. Artillery Corps. has a HQ unit. Interestingly in it's ICBM/Nuclear mode from this location the DF-21 lacks the range to hit the United States.
It would seem logical that before you start trying to hit a moving carrier, you might want to start with an operational booster platform first.
Then there is the warhead, the last I saw was a proposed flechette scatter warhead that would litter the flight deck with sharp spikes and destroy the carriers radar. This should be even weird to to the folks who dream up this stuff.
Spacewars is fine site, I read it everyday, but as President Reagan once said: "Trust but verify."
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
Too SSS Are you for real, Just imagine the last 100 years of world history and the US did not exist, could China have filled in. In place of the US? I really don't think so.
He [sss] probably doesn't have time to reply because he's rushing to catch his flight home to Beijing.
You probally right
We can all thank Bill Clinton for "giving" the ChiComs the missile guidance technology in return for "campaign cash…"
Would any sane Chinese leader, Party member or military, ever not think that the US would retaliate with maximum, probably nuclear force by air and sea? Of course the US has contingency war plans for attacking sites in mainland China, and have for years. How many nuclear powered subs do we have in the Pacific? Armed to the teeth, on alert 24-7 for Godssakes.
I agree…we wouldn't be having this conversation had not a corrupt Bill Clinton given the Chinese guidance technologies…
Perhaps China should consider what would happen after they attack a carrier. It does not end there.
With their arrogant attitude I suspect that they think they could get away with sinking a carrier without repurcussions.Maybe they doudt the Presidents ability to act forcefully.I don't think I would make that mistake.There is no way the President could get away with not retaliating.
Good Afternoon Folks,
It appears that the ASBM topic has more then a little interest here. To those few who are truly interested in this topic, an article that appeared in the May 2009 issue of "Proceedings" may be on interest to you. The title is "On the Verge of a Game Changer" by Dr. Andrew S. Erickson an assn't proff at the Naval War Colleges school of "China Maritime Studies Institute" and David D. Yang of Rand Corp/Stanford University and a consultant in avionics/ software with Lockheed Martin Corp.
The technical interpretations in the article I assume were written by Mr. Yang and his associations with the defense industry must be considered. Recent writings on the Chinese ASBM issue are not as generous toward the PRC's technical abilities as Mr. Yang's are.
The technical arguments are somewhat dated and this may effect the writers conclusion some what, their presentation out lines the issue very well.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
When did the US win a war for CH ? Oh…Iremember now…WW2 with a small crew of 200 called the flyin tigers. If you've read Sun Tzu…you'ld know there is no strength in numbers .
If China has any problems makeing a missle that will kill an Americadn carrier perhaps they could round up bill clintons old crew from Loral. Mr. Schwarts the president of Loral at the time was the single biggest contributor tobill clintons political fund.
When china was having problems with ther balistic missle blowing up, Loral was given specialpermission by bill clinton to show the chinease what they were doing wrong. Now we have balistic missles pointed at the U.S. that Loral fixed so they would work properly. I bet if bill clinton got the right funding from china they could help kill our carries too .thanks bill
TRUE Records of Chinese atrocities in Tibet >>>>>
Over 1.2 million Tibetans died as a direct result of Chinese atrocities.
Over 6000 monasteries and institutes of learning have been destroyed.
Over 7000 Tibetan religious and historical literature have been destroyed.
Tibetan women (even KIDs) are subjected to gang RAPEs; forced abortion and sterilization by the chinese. 70% of Tibetans living in Tibet now are illiterate.
Arbitrary arrests, torture, intimidation and imprisonment without trial for Tibetans in their country by the chinese. Tibet has been divided into different parts and incorporated with Chinese provinces, thereby removing the existing Tibetan identity.Thousands of Tibetans are still in prisons in China. 6 Million Tibetans have been outnumbered by 7.5 Million Han Chinese inducted into Tibet, causing Tibetans to be minorities in their own country. The above ways are also used against the Xinjiang Uyghurs’ by the Han Chinese.
Xinjiang & Tibet are the two place where the Chinese make / develop nuclear weapons because if any nuclear accident occur, Uyghurs’ & Tibetans’ are the people who will suffer it all.
Checking FAS, there's more facilities in Xinjiang (Lop Nor) than Tibet. FAS is usually out of date though.
Actually I thought it was a typo till it said after giving the range—FAR BEYOND CHINESE WATERS.
So what are they going to target the ship with 12,000 miles away with?
Well, when it comes to British, German, Japanese, Australian, or any of a number of world Navies, we have very little problem letting them guarantee free trade, or at least helping us out. If anything we whine that they don't help enough.
The fact that China has no interest in joining the general alliance of the free world when it comes to international trade might speak to alternate intentions for their armed forces. I guess it's inevitable that a country that rises to a power that rivals or will rival that of the US to take an independent military stance. But it's still going to make us nervous.
If your talking about the Chinese Civil War from 1946 – 1950 I would not call that a loss for the U.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Civil_War