SirWinkler

World War III.

128 posts in this topic

There's a difference though between interdependence and MAD; interdependence is "our economies are intertwined so war isn't very fun for anybody!" and MAD is "If we go to war, most people will die!"

 

The worst weapons of mass destruction that existed during WWI were chemical, and could only be effectively deployed within artillery or mortar range (i.e. at the front lines).  MAD, as such, didn't exist prior to nor during WWI, or even WWII. Even then, decision-makers prior to WWI each vastly overestimated how quickly their nation would defeat their enemy, and much of the carnage then was due to their eagerness to attack without regard to the advent of such new defensive technologies as the machine gun; but this is not what MAD is. MAD didn't truly exist until nations gained the capability to truly destroy one another simultaneously; this occurred with the advent of the nuclear weapon and its proliferation into the hands of more than one nation (the Soviets tested their first bomb in 1949, and probably took a couple more years to build up enough of them to do grievous harm to the West).

 

Today, the major powers possess globally-reaching nuclear-tipped ICBMs with combined explosive power to destroy the entire surface of the Earth many times over, and it is fear of this that makes today's situation very different from that of a century ago.

 

And if, for whatever insane reason, a war broke out between the US and China, it would take more than dislike for India to jump into that bloodbath; they would need some credible guarantee that they wouldn't wind up glassed, and of course there can be no such guarantee.

 

Well for one the US and India could solve the MAD problem by either making nuclear weapons obselete (via intercepting satellites or Iron Dome like systems) or striking those nuclear missile silos and subs straight out of the blue when war is declared.

 

The Israelis did really well with the Iron Dome. It intercepted a lot of Hamas rockets fired from the Gaza or the West Bank (and they fired thousands). We just need to up the scale for an Iron Dome missile or star wars like satellite system (which the US can easily pour billions of dollars to DARPA to work it out) and the threat of nuclear annihilation would be moot (at least most of it)

And the US can do some backroom politics with Modi to make sure India joins the war (the allies does the same with Italy in world war 1)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well for one the US and India could solve the MAD problem by either making nuclear weapons obselete (via intercepting satellites or Iron Dome like systems) or striking those nuclear missile silos and subs straight out of the blue when war is declared.

 

The Israelis did really well with the Iron Dome. It intercepted a lot of Hamas rockets fired from the Gaza or the West Bank (and they fired thousands). We just need to up the scale for an Iron Dome missile or star wars like satellite system (which the US can easily pour billions of dollars to DARPA to work it out) and the threat of nuclear annihilation would be moot (at least most of it)

And the US can do some backroom politics with Modi to make sure India joins the war (the allies does the same with Italy in world war 1)

 

I agree that Iron Dome is pretty ballin', and bodes well for the future of missile interception, but there are also budgetary/political barriers to implementing such a system to cover an area much larger than tiny Israel. It's going to be a while, I think, before any large country has a functioning SDI, though I think you're right that it will happen eventually. I'd expect the US or China to be first to try, because the former wishes to maintain ascendancy and the latter wishes to claim it. As long as China's economy continues to grow, I'd expect them to be the first to set one up, then the US when we have a Sputnik moment about it.

 

But until such a system is a fait accompli for at least one major power, MAD will still be an important deterrent, and who gets an SDI first could radically affect the outcome of any potential war, if they were to bring it online long enough before anyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are giving india too much credit.I am from India and we are still growing.And I said that China will put troops in through Pakistan,but I know india has expertise in mountain warfare.didn't know of American bases.Ok,no mad nation would bring in nukes until it is on bream of surrender.And of Russia,let's say they join china(maybe they wanna get Ukraine)so,they send some troops into Korea.They are backed with their great rocket artillery.They put up a major part on there border.Many eu troops are overseas,but they still outnumber Russia's.China will send much of it's navy,to open up oil supply.It will also send more of it's troops to India with Russian aid.Israeli attacks on Hamas enrage Middle East.They stop supply to United States who are supporting Israel.(sorry I am not an expert on the Middle East affairs)America sends it's navy and army to Arabia.Pakistan starts preparation for pipelines providing land route for oil supply.India with eu soldiers starts pushing back joint Sino-Pak forces.Both sides now putting sanctions on each other.Us and eu withdrawing aid to Africa for war fund,millions of Africans dead in Famine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are giving india too much credit.I am from India and we are still growing.And I said that China will put troops in through Pakistan,but I know india has expertise in mountain warfare.didn't know of American bases.Ok,no mad nation would bring in nukes until it is on bream of surrender.And of Russia,let's say they join china(maybe they wanna get Ukraine)so,they send some troops into Korea.They are backed with their great rocket artillery.They put up a major part on there border.Many eu troops are overseas,but they still outnumber Russia's.China will send much of it's navy,to open up oil supply.It will also send more of it's troops to India with Russian aid.Israeli attacks on Hamas enrage Middle East.They stop supply to United States who are supporting Israel.(sorry I am not an expert on the Middle East affairs)America sends it's navy and army to Arabia.Pakistan starts preparation for pipelines providing land route for oil supply.India with eu soldiers starts pushing back joint Sino-Pak forces.Both sides now putting sanctions on each other.Us and eu withdrawing aid to Africa for war fund,millions of Africans dead in Famine.

 

Not going to happen:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Seventh_Fleet

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Third_Fleet

 

and that's only the US Pacific fleet. I did not count the South Korean Navy, Taiwanese Navy, and Japanese Navy who will try actively to block China in a world war 3 scenario.

 

China is severely bottled up if you look at the map of the world. The US practically encircles China with their allies and Naval bases. China may have a rapidly growing Navy but the US is actively trying to build new and higher quality ships which China cannot contend:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zumwalt-class_destroyer

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_R._Ford-class_aircraft_carrier

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Littoral_combat_ship

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did not say they win.Okay what do you think will happen?

China's navy will get quickly ****blocked by the joint US-US Asian allies navy. Without their supplies China would slowly starve as they grow increasingly desperate to win the war, whether they will win the war before they are starved out/gets thrown in a revolution is another matter

 

the same cannot be said to Russia though

Edited by Ax3hunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not going to happen:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Seventh_Fleet

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Third_Fleet

 

and that's only the US Pacific fleet. I did not count the South Korean Navy, Taiwanese Navy, and Japanese Navy who will try actively to block China in a world war 3 scenario.

 

China is severely bottled up if you look at the map of the world. The US practically encircles China with their allies and Naval bases. China may have a rapidly growing Navy but the US is actively trying to build new and higher quality ships which China cannot contend:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zumwalt-class_destroyer

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_R._Ford-class_aircraft_carrier

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Littoral_combat_ship

As i pointed out early the US is unlikely to bottled up China.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As i pointed out early the US is unlikely to bottled up China.

 

I agree; as much as I think tactical-capability discussions are moot because of MAD, I should point out that there's been hullabaloo lately about Chinese anti-ship missile capabilities:

http://warontherocks.com/2014/07/chinas-most-dangerous-missile-so-far/

 

Ground-to-sea weaponry should be taken into account.

Edited by Elsuper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suggest this site- http://www.globalfirepower.com/

Quite useful.

I love this site and it is very useful, but it does ignore some important facts (like the Chinese anti-ship ballistic missile), its a good starting point but it is missing a lot of information that can and will change the ranking for example

most of the Australian navy is neglected, the worst off are our submarines, thought they are considered one of the, if not the most advance conventional submarine in the world, due to the complexity, defence cuts etc they have became unfit for deployment, and due to the lack of man power if they were fit for deployment we could only field one submarine out of 12 subs. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As i pointed out early the US is unlikely to bottled up China.

 

The Chinese is bottled up geographically if you look at the world map. And besides, the US has been developing Laser technology as a replacement for the CIWS in point defense (nothing is going to escape that defense system if it's locked on to target)

 

Several Aircraft Carriers might be destroyed by this super range missile but it won't totally cripple the US fighting capacity in the Long Run (a war between the major powers right now would gear every nation to total war footing) and morale since the public knew at this point the war with China is going to be very bloody (and protests would be violently curbed since it's total war)

 

EDIT: The Laser system has already been deployed in the field

 

http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=80172

Edited by Ax3hunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Chinese is bottled up geographically if you look at the world map. And besides, the US has been developing Laser technology as a replacement for the CIWS in point defense (nothing is going to escape that defense system if it's locked on to target)

 

Several Aircraft Carriers might be destroyed by this super range missile but it won't totally cripple the US fighting capacity in the Long Run (a war between the major powers right now would gear every nation to total war footing) and morale since the public knew at this point the war with China is going to be very bloody (and protests would be violently curbed since it's total war)

 

EDIT: The Laser system has already been deployed in the field

 

http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=80172

Of cause but they are only "bottled up" as long as China's neighbours go alone and help contain china. As i pointed out early in an event of a war, they wont.

Yes the US has been and so has the Chinese, Russian and Europeans, currently funding for the new Laser technology has been cut and due to be cut once again in 2015. its a similar story with the European. progress in these "new age" weapons have been slowed and due to become even more slower due to spending cuts.

For example the amazing Boeing YAL-1, the Funding for the Boeing YAL-1 was cut in 2010 and the program was canceled in December 2011. its the similar story to a lot if not most US "new age" weapons systems....

And the current "new age" weapons systems like LaWS just arent designed to engage incoming missiles, large aircraft, ships, or submerged objects. Funding for anything more advance seems to alway gets canceled in the end.

In the long run which is more expensive? building a Missile or a whole Aircraft Carrier? In the long run it will be more costly for the US who have to replace the men and Aircraft Carrier compared to the Chinese who simply replace a Missile with another one?

Now these missile have 3 ranges of which the longest range would mean China can deploy and hit anything up to the coast of the US, meaning the whole Pacific would be vulnerable to this missile and moving troops even trade would be massively vulnerable.

Yes you can hit a few with laser weapons, but when deployed in mass like they are intended to, you'll hit a few before being hit yourself.

As for morale, ill be more worried about the US than China, In China there is a growing tied of nationalism, uniting the nation against Japan, but this can be turned around to US saying the Europeans or Foreign powers are back to dominate us, the counties will become very fanatic, the US on the other hand as we saw with Wars since 1945, can go a few years before civil unrest begins to rise.

Edited by Ahovking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suggest this site- http://www.globalfirepower.com/

Quite useful.

Indeed. I love that site. There is a more detailed one somewhere.

I love this site and it is very useful, but it does ignore some important facts (like the Chinese anti-ship ballistic missile), its a good starting point but it is missing a lot of information that can and will change the ranking for example

most of the Australian navy is neglected, the worst off are our submarines, thought they are considered one of the, if not the most advance conventional submarine in the world, due to the complexity, defence cuts etc they have became unfit for deployment, and due to the lack of man power if they were fit for deployment we could only field one submarine out of 12 subs.

GFP is strictly a numbers ranking. They make it quite clear that technology is not taken into account.

The Chinese is bottled up geographically if you look at the world map. And besides, the US has been developing Laser technology as a replacement for the CIWS in point defense (nothing is going to escape that defense system if it's locked on to target)

 

Several Aircraft Carriers might be destroyed by this super range missile but it won't totally cripple the US fighting capacity in the Long Run (a war between the major powers right now would gear every nation to total war footing) and morale since the public knew at this point the war with China is going to be very bloody (and protests would be violently curbed since it's total war)

 

EDIT: The Laser system has already been deployed in the field

 

http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=80172

China's navy is currently larger than the US navy. And as stated by Ahovking, their anti ship missiles are concerning.

Of cause but they are only "bottled up" as long as China's neighbours go alone and help contain china. As i pointed out early in an event of a war, they wont.

Yes the US has been and so has the Chinese, Russian and Europeans, currently funding for the new Laser technology has been cut and due to be cut once again in 2015. its a similar story with the European. progress in these "new age" weapons have been slowed and due to become even more slower due to spending cuts.

For example the amazing Boeing YAL-1, the Funding for the Boeing YAL-1 was cut in 2010 and the program was canceled in December 2011. its the similar story to a lot if not most US "new age" weapons systems....

And the current "new age" weapons systems like LaWS just arent designed to engage incoming missiles, large aircraft, ships, or submerged objects. Funding for anything more advance seems to alway gets canceled in the end.

In the long run which is more expensive? building a Missile or a whole Aircraft Carrier? In the long run it will be more costly for the US who have to replace the men and Aircraft Carrier compared to the Chinese who simply replace a Missile with another one?

Now these missile have 3 ranges of which the longest range would mean China can deploy and hit anything up to the coast of the US, meaning the whole Pacific would be vulnerable to this missile and moving troops even trade would be massively vulnerable.

Yes you can hit a few with laser weapons, but when deployed in mass like they are intended to, you'll hit a few before being hit yourself.

As for morale, ill be more worried about the US than China, In China there is a growing tied of nationalism, uniting the nation against Japan, but this can be turned around to US saying the Europeans or Foreign powers are back to dominate us, the counties will become very fanatic, the US on the other hand as we saw with Wars since 1945, can go a few years before civil unrest begins to rise.

On the other hand, China can't even seem to get a single aircraft carrier operational and there's no doubt in my mind that Japan would inevitably be involved on the US side. Same with SK. And America has a habit of stirring ******** up in nations we are at war with. Tibet would be the center of that. I don't see China holding any sway in our homeland.

The issues China would face would just as costly or more. Don't expect the more advanced and heavily armed US navy to go on the defensive. We have the capability by ourselves to strike them in multiple locations across the globe at the same time, while they still can't figure out how modern warships work.

All in all, a war between super powers would be MAD. It isn't even worth arguing who would win, because honestly, there is no winning when both sides are left in smoldering craters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

China's navy is currently larger than the US navy. And as stated by Ahovking, their anti ship missiles are concerning.

Want to know something even more concerning? The US military dismisses it, Its the J-20 all over again, underestimating the Chinese advancements, the US military ensured congress at the earliest, China will have a 5 gen prototype by 2020 and wont be in action till late 2040s, a few months later china unveiled a advance prototype of the J20, that could be in action as soon as 2020.

They need to stop underestimating their potential adversaries.

 

On the other hand, China can't even seem to get a single aircraft carrier operational and there's no doubt in my mind that Japan would inevitably be involved on the US side. Same with SK. And America has a habit of stirring ******** up in nations we are at war with. Tibet would be the center of that. I don't see China holding any sway in our homeland.

Do you know any news about the Chinese having issues keeping the aircraft carrier operational? because i havent heard anything?

But again it is their first carrier and even then its old and properly only really fit for training pilots and scaring neighbouring asian counties.

In a war Japan would jump in so would the US no question about that, China is South Korea's biggest and most important economic partner, And with South Korea fearing Both China And Japan equally, i would imagine them staying neutral, but if they had to choose, they would properly go with the US.

As i point out earlier, South Asia is no threat, they cant afford a war with China nor do they have faith the US will fight on their behalf or even turn up, in a event of a war they would either stay neutral or back China.

In the End you would Have US, Japan, and south Korea against China, North Korea and Russia.

Why Russia? what a perfect opportunity to cave out a Russian dominated area of Asia, and return Russian greatness to Asia.

 

The issues China would face would just as costly or more. Don't expect the more advanced and heavily armed US navy to go on the defensive. We have the capability by ourselves to strike them in multiple locations across the globe at the same time, while they still can't figure out how modern warships work.

How would it be more costly deploying defensive weapons like the "carrer killer" and fighting a war on the same continent compared to the USA which has to send troops on boats and supplies though open seas making them vulnerable to the "Carrer killer". Half of every ship they deploy to Asia could possibly not make it, it would be massively more expensive for the US.

And no one is expecting the more advanced and heavily armed US navy to go on the defensive, the Chinese arent stuptent, they know it will be them on the defensive, since the 1980s they been developing defensive weapons, most of Chinese most modern new military toys arent for conquering but to defeat a in coming conquer.. like the "carrier killer" it would make the risk of deploying an Carrier anywhere near China to high, moving troops in large numbers would be a too big of a risk as well, it wont win wars but it would take the advantage away from the US.

 

All in all, a war between super powers would be MAD. It isn't even worth arguing who would win, because honestly, there is no winning when both sides are left in smoldering craters.

I agree, which is why proxy wars will become the new norm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

China has had that pile of crap aircraft carrier for years. It remains inoperable.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_aircraft_carrier

Russia wouldn't get involved. They have no reason to. They wouldn't take such a risk just for fun or for anything in Asia. Their goals lie in the opposite direction.

Neither Korea's could possibly remain neutral when both are US/China proxies. China would immediately have NK invade the south given our military presence there.

And proxy wars are already the norm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of cause but they are only "bottled up" as long as China's neighbours go alone and help contain china. As i pointed out early in an event of a war, they wont.

Yes the US has been and so has the Chinese, Russian and Europeans, currently funding for the new Laser technology has been cut and due to be cut once again in 2015. its a similar story with the European. progress in these "new age" weapons have been slowed and due to become even more slower due to spending cuts.

For example the amazing Boeing YAL-1, the Funding for the Boeing YAL-1 was cut in 2010 and the program was canceled in December 2011. its the similar story to a lot if not most US "new age" weapons systems....

And the current "new age" weapons systems like LaWS just arent designed to engage incoming missiles, large aircraft, ships, or submerged objects. Funding for anything more advance seems to alway gets canceled in the end.

In the long run which is more expensive? building a Missile or a whole Aircraft Carrier? In the long run it will be more costly for the US who have to replace the men and Aircraft Carrier compared to the Chinese who simply replace a Missile with another one?

Now these missile have 3 ranges of which the longest range would mean China can deploy and hit anything up to the coast of the US, meaning the whole Pacific would be vulnerable to this missile and moving troops even trade would be massively vulnerable.

Yes you can hit a few with laser weapons, but when deployed in mass like they are intended to, you'll hit a few before being hit yourself.

As for morale, ill be more worried about the US than China, In China there is a growing tied of nationalism, uniting the nation against Japan, but this can be turned around to US saying the Europeans or Foreign powers are back to dominate us, the counties will become very fanatic, the US on the other hand as we saw with Wars since 1945, can go a few years before civil unrest begins to rise.

 

while yes it is true about the spending cuts has lead to some dissapointing products (F-35 and NLOS artillery is one of a few) there are several US "New age" weapons that is off in the field and has been successfully deployed in the field.

 

Take the LCS for example. It has issues while in the testing phase and has been reduced from the original 55 ships to 32 ships (which is still a lot for such a ship) but the US Navy still gets it. True there are several congressional hearings about the problems with the LCS but overall the LCS has avoided the pitfall that is the NLOS and not having constant issues like the F-35.

 

Another example would the Virginia class submarine. It is first designed in the 1990s to be a replacement for the Seawolf submarine which is aging. All seems to be going well until 2005 when congress decided that despite the cost overruns they want to speed up production from 1 to 2 ships per year beginning in 2012. Some people is concerned about the new production rates like the house armed services committee Ronald' O Rourke stating that if production were the remain as planned 'production for scale for submarines would continue to be limited and poor'

 

But what no one expected is this (excerpt from wikipedia): The Virginia Class Program Office received the David Packard Excellence in Acquisition Award in 1996, 1998, 2008, "for excelling in four specific award criteria: reducing life-cycle costs; making the acquisition system more efficient, responsive, and timely; integrating defense with the commercial base and practices; and promoting continuous improvement of the acquisition process".[47]

 

and this: http://defense-update.com/20120503_mississippi_delivered.html

 

so despite frequent congressional hearings, and the budget not up to specifications. The shipyards that make the Submarine is producing ships like wildfire and delivered it's 9th submarine ahead of schedule

 

while it is true that the LaWS is not meant to engage incoming missiles. It's currently being deployed for field testing and works at destroying drones and small attack craft.

 

A while aircraft carrier is definitely more expensive to build than the missile. But the Aircraft Carrier has capabilities the missile don't like say attacking the multiple YJ-12 missile sites via it's attack aircraft via AGM's, smart bombs, and cluster bombs. Rendering the threat moot

 

and if you decided to point out about SAMS and AA guns. There is this thing the pilots of the US Air Force has been training during their training process, it's called evasive maneuvers, and deployment of flares and chaff which are designed to fool missiles. True some planes will be shot down by Chinese SAMS and AA guns. But i think most of the US Fighter Pilots will be A okay at the least.

 

And besides this is total war. The US won't give a bat's eye to anyone protesting about the war and would violently curb them. The people know that a war with the major powers would lead to millions of casualties. The current problem with the US in a war is the media overblowing stuff making the US look weak during Iraq and Afghanistan (really compared to a real war. The casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan is tiny) 

Edited by Ax3hunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the End you would Have US, Japan, and south Korea against China, North Korea and Russia.

 

I'm not convinced that anyone would pile on because of the devastation they would risk for themselves, not without an explicit treaty commitment (and maybe not even then; what value is a piece of paper in the face of a mushroom cloud?). One grand strategy lesson to be learned from WWII is that whoever suffers the least destruction on their home soil (in that case, the US) is better-placed to dominate the peacetime afterward. Another one from the post-WWII era is that gaining territory can be more trouble than it's worth, so what's the incentive to fight when the risks are high and the gains are few? It would be better in most cases for a 3rd party to sit back and let the main combatants weaken one another (a bit like the US did in both world wars).

 

which is why proxy wars will become the new norm.

 

Pretty much all armed conflict between major powers has been by proxy since 1945; this norm is definitely established already.

 

Guys, what about cyberwarfare? No one's talking about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not convinced that anyone would pile on because of the devastation they would risk for themselves, not without an explicit treaty commitment (and maybe not even then; what value is a piece of paper in the face of a mushroom cloud?). One grand strategy lesson to be learned from WWII is that whoever suffers the least destruction on their home soil (in that case, the US) is better-placed to dominate the peacetime afterward. Another one from the post-WWII era is that gaining territory can be more trouble than it's worth, so what's the incentive to fight when the risks are high and the gains are few? It would be better in most cases for a 3rd party to sit back and let the main combatants weaken one another (a bit like the US did in both world wars).  Pretty much all armed conflict between major powers has been by proxy since 1945; this norm is definitely established already. Guys, what about cyberwarfare? No one's talking about it.

Yeah, we are already in a cyber war with China and anyone with computer smarts who doesn't like the US government.

But this type of warfare is so extremely vast, that it's hard to even define enemies.

Another note, in an all out military war between superpowers today, communications and satellites are the first things to go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Pretty much all armed conflict between major powers has been by proxy since 1945; this norm is definitely established already.

 

Guys, what about cyberwarfare? No one's talking about it.

 Ohhh this one i have no idea. China might get an upperhand in cyberwarfare but then again. The US intelligence agencies are capable of doing several nasty stuff as the media has reported

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, the US won the last total war scenario by piling on unprecedented debt, but the US is currently already saddled with unprecedented debt (and the Chinese only own 10% of that, so supposing a war resulted in de facto cancellation of the debt owed to the Chinese, it would not meaningfully change the situation).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

China has had that pile of crap aircraft carrier for years. It remains inoperable.

The subject was covered very well political, military analyzers and ex military officers by "the Diplomat" and "The Strategist".

As analyzers say, they were never intended to be used or deployed but to be studied, the Chinese couldn't get their hands on a modern Carrier, and instead of developing Carrier tec from scratch they Bought Used ones, in affect they went from 50 years behind everyone to just a gen behind everyone in a matter of a few years, Plus in the past, China was limited to what it could do, it couldn't buy Carriers as it would draw to much attention (Remember before 2008 china was trying to play it low key and fly under the rader), and at the same time its own industries weren't developed enough.

Today ofcause the story is different, 3 Carriers are currently being build, although how modern they are(judging the J20 they will be pretty modern) we dont know but we do know by 2020-2030 china should have 3 built and another 5 plained.

Russia wouldn't get involved. They have no reason to. They wouldn't take such a risk just for fun or for anything in Asia. Their goals lie in the opposite direction.

Neither Korea's could possibly remain neutral when both are US/China proxies. China would immediately have NK invade the south given our military presence there.

Russia is turning east, as the economic opportunity are greater and make Russia lest vulnerable to US, Nate sanctions. But also with the Return of Russian nationalism, Russia is trying to reinsert itself as a great power, in Europe you go Ukraine, South America Russia is opening up old Russian Base and in Asia redeployment of new units and plains to build a great Asia naval force.

"Russia looks East, not West. It sees Asia’s potential markets, eyes its potential battlefields, and seeks a role for itself as a broker, a visionary, and a leader.

Russia’s Asia policy rests upon three pillars. The first is economic ties. Russia’s number one trade partner is China with an annual turnover of nearly $90 billion. Japan and South Korea jointly account for another $60 billion.

The second pillar of Moscow’s Asia policy is military power.

The third pillar of Russia’s Asia policy is geopolitical strategy. Its basic target is China, where Russia has two approaches: managing China and allying with China." - Sergey Radchenko

while yes it is true about the spending cuts has lead to some dissapointing products (F-35 and NLOS artillery is one of a few) there are several US "New age" weapons that is off in the field and has been successfully deployed in the field.

 

Take the LCS for example. It has issues while in the testing phase and has been reduced from the original 55 ships to 32 ships (which is still a lot for such a ship) but the US Navy still gets it. True there are several congressional hearings about the problems with the LCS but overall the LCS has avoided the pitfall that is the NLOS and not having constant issues like the F-35.

 

Another example would the Virginia class submarine. It is first designed in the 1990s to be a replacement for the Seawolf submarine which is aging. All seems to be going well until 2005 when congress decided that despite the cost overruns they want to speed up production from 1 to 2 ships per year beginning in 2012. Some people is concerned about the new production rates like the house armed services committee Ronald' O Rourke stating that if production were the remain as planned 'production for scale for submarines would continue to be limited and poor'

 

But what no one expected is this (excerpt for wikipedia): The Virginia Class Program Office received the David Packard Excellence in Acquisition Award in 1996, 1998, 2008, "for excelling in four specific award criteria: reducing life-cycle costs; making the acquisition system more efficient, responsive, and timely; integrating defense with the commercial base and practices; and promoting continuous improvement of the acquisition process".%5B47%5D

 

and this: http://defense-update.com/20120503_mississippi_delivered.html

 

so despite frequent congressional hearings, and the budget not up to specifications. The shipyards that make the Submarine is producing ships like wildfire and delivered it's 9th submarine ahead of schedule

 

while it is true that the LaWS is not meant to engage incoming missiles. It's currently being deployed for field testing and works at destroying drones and small attack craft.

 

A while aircraft carrier is definitely more expensive to build than the missile. But the Aircraft Carrier has capabilities the missile don't like say attacking the multiple YJ-12 missile sites via it's attack aircraft via AGM's, smart bombs, and cluster bombs. Rendering the threat moot

 

and if you decided to point out about SAMS and AA guns. There is this thing the pilots of the US Air Force has been training during their training process, it's called evasive maneuvers, and deployment of flares and chaff which are designed to fool missiles. True some planes will be shot down by Chinese SAMS and AA guns. But i think most of the US Fighter Pilots will be A okay at the least.

 

And besides this is total war. The US won't give a bat's eye to anyone protesting about the war and would violently curb them. The people know that a war with the major powers would lead to millions of casualties. The current problem with the US in a war is the media overblowing stuff making the US look weak during Iraq and Afghanistan (really compared to a real war. The casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan is tiny)

LCS has limited Uses, Its not even a game changer. Its a step but a step towards a door, thats already been locked.

The LCS wouldn't be able to stop the "Carreir Killer" nor is it a game changer.

and the The Virginia Class sounds like Australian Collins-class, its won award and recognised international as well but the bloody thing would be usefully in a battlefield and even if it would work wouldn't make turn the tide of war.

The problem is how will the Aircraft Carrier get anywhere near YJ-12 missile sites when the range for these "carrer killers is up to and surpassing 12,000km, they would be hit before they get close enough to the site. Also is these YJ-12 missile are deployed on mobile launchers making them just about impossible to hit, and as soon as smart bombs, and cluster bombs all the normal anti-missile defences kick in to shoot most down.

The US has literary no defence or any way to stop/prevent or shoot down "carrier killers" and any possible candidate are bing cut.

And yes this is total war, China would likely deploy the CSS-4 Rockets(Currently in limited numbers by choice)with the YJ-12/DF-21 and hit any where from 5-8 Carriers within the first few Hours. The CSS-4 Rockets have global range and with no to limited defence, any navel ship in dock or out in the sea is a sitting duck. Honestly the US needs to stop cutting these advance programs.

But i actually agree, In a total War, i doubt anyone, Chinese or America would be having any protesting problems.

Also, the US won the last total war scenario by piling on unprecedented debt, but the US is currently already saddled with unprecedented debt (and the Chinese only own 10% of that, so supposing a war resulted in de facto cancellation of the debt owed to the Chinese, it would not meaningfully change the situation).

Good Point, 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would debt matter at the point of war?

And if Russia is so concerned about Asia, why are they taking over eastern europe?

I don't doubt Russia would be involved, but militarily speaking, I think they would do everything they could to stay out of it.

Also, 3 aircraft carriers, by 2020? We have 16, 10 active, more planned and an army of destroyers against their little rubber ducks. They have a ways to go.

And this doesn't even touch on the rest of NATOs naval capacity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the Xinhua News Agency reported that the DF-21D was “still in the research stage” and not yet operational as of July 2011. Secondly, the missile may not be able to single-handedly destroy its target. The warhead is believed to be enough to inflict a "mission kill" to make a carrier unable to conduct flight operations, while other missiles would follow to actually destroy the ship. Thirdly, there is the problem of finding its target. The DF-21D has a range estimated between 1,035 to 1,726 mi (1,666 to 2,778 km), so a carrier battle group would need to be located through other means before launching. Over-the-horizon radars could detect ships, but their exact locations could be off by miles. Chinese recon satellites would be able to look for and locate a battle group. Recon aircraft and submarines could also look for them, but they are vulnerable to the carrier's defenses. Finally, the missile may have a hard time hitting its target. To hit ships moving at 34 mph (30 kn), the DF-21D has radar and optical sensors for tracking. These are supposed to make it accurate, but the missile has not yet been tested against a moving target, let alone ones at sea against clutter and countermeasures. The "kill chain" of the missile requires processing and constantly updating data of a carrier's location, preparing the launch, programming information, and then firing it. How often this is trained is not known, and the U.S. military's AirSea Battle concept involves disrupting an enemy's kill chain.[29] Some U.S. analysts believe that the DF-21D doesn't fly any faster than Mach 5.[30]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would debt matter at the point of war?

 

Debt matters because extended, to-the-death conflicts are funded through bonds (see WWI, WWII). The more debt a nation already has, the less confidence prospective creditors will have that their bonds will be paid back, which means they either buy fewer bonds or the government has to issue them at higher interest rates, only compounding the debt problem until eventual currency collapse, default, or both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now