^ You've made good points, but (1) I don't think I'm "overly" concerned, and (2) I'm not kissing a Chinese asshole--even as a figurative collective.

10/9/2007 12:52:35 AM

1) Well, I would go so far as to say that posting this thread qualified as "overly concerned," since current American policy towards the PRC and Taiwan strikes me as being perfectly sufficient, if not even overly defensive.

2) God only knows I'm not accusing you of being too beholden to good diplomatic relations with China. Remember that even discussing the matter too much in certain government circles can, in and of itself, be perceived as belligerent.

My point was to say that it is in both of our interests to be almost overly nice to each other, because even a frank assessment of our relationship, too often discussed in those same circles, seems awfully negative -- too much so for the kind of diplomatic arrangement we want to have with the PRC at the moment. As long as we both play the fawning game, we can both keep on getting richer. We just have to make sure that we apply the wealth we gain more competently than they do.

10/9/2007 12:59:15 AM

So it looks like after a page and a half of GrumpyGOP spelling things out for hooksaw, we've come back to what I basically said on page 1...

Quote :

"I was pointing out how unfounded your paranoia is. We should keep an eye on China, like anyone else, but they are not especially or particularly a threat, even with spending money on their military. ... The fact of the matter is, by actions, China is not a threat, compared to any other country out there, and are lesser of a threat than a good chunk of other countries as well. Not to mention that GINORMOUS list of economic reasons why China wouldn't piss us off (and we them). "

10/9/2007 2:18:59 AM

^ Man, STFU. You always post some stupid, condescending bullshit. You are not nearly as smart as you obviously think you are.

And among other objections I have to your posts, I'm not paranoid, asshole. I have simply been discussing the legitimate concerns that I and others share about China's military buildup. Resident TSB know-it-alls can poo-poo these concerns but it means little. At least Grumpy was relatively cordial and put a good bit of thought into his posts--why don't you try this sometime?

10/10/2007 1:48:16 AM

Pentagon Makes Official Protest to China

Quote :

"WASHINGTON (AP) — The Pentagon issued a formal protest to China on Wednesday over its refusal to permit a U.S. Navy aircraft carrier to make a planned Thanksgiving port visit to Hong Kong. 'We are expressing officially our displeasure with the incident,' Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell told reporters. He said a Chinese military officer who is Beijing's defense attache in Washington was called to the Pentagon to accept the protest from a Pentagon Asia policy official. Morrell called it an 'a formal protest, an official protest, complaint,' for refusing port entry for the USS Kitty Hawk and its accompanying battle group [emphasis added]. Also, the Chinese foreign minister met with President Bush on Wednesday and blamed the incident on 'a misunderstanding.' The Kitty Hawk, which has its home port near Tokyo, was forced to return early to Japan when Chinese authorities at the last minute barred the warship and its escort vessels from entering Hong Kong harbor. Hundreds of families of sailors aboard the Kitty Hawk had flown from Japan to spend Thanksgiving weekend in Hong Kong, but had to return home after China refused the port entry. Later Chinese officials said the Kitty Hawk could enter the port, but by then the carrier had left the area and did not return. On Tuesday, two of the Navy's top admirals said that China's refusal was surprising and troubling. 'This is perplexing. It's not helpful,' Adm. Timothy Keating, commander of U.S. Pacific Command, told reporters in a videoteleconference from his headquarters at Camp Smith, Hawaii. He also called it distressing and irritating but later said it should not be viewed as 'calamitous.' 'It's not, in our view, conduct that is indicative of a country that understands its obligations as a responsible nation,' he said, adding that he hopes it does not indicate a lasting blockage of port visits. China's foreign minister, in the meeting with Bush, blamed 'a misunderstanding' for the refusal to allow a flotilla of U.S. warships to make a port call in Hong Kong for a Thanksgiving holiday visit. Bush raised the issue with Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi when he visited the Oval Office for talks about North Korea, Iran and other issues. The incident added an unusual twist to China-U.S. relations, strained in recent months by disputes over trade and Iran's nuclear program. 'Foreign Minister Yang assured the president that it was a misunderstanding,' White House press secretary Dana Perino said. She said she could not explain the nature of the misunderstanding. The aircraft carrier USS Kitty Hawk and members of its strike group, including a nuclear submarine, were scheduled to dock in Hong Kong for a four-day visit. At the same time hundreds of sailors' families had flown to the city to spend the holiday with loved ones, dozens of Americans living in Hong Kong had prepared turkey dinners for those without relatives. Hong Kong has long been a favored port of call for the U.S. military but Beijing's approval has been required since July 1, 1997, when Britain handed this former colony back to China. Hong Kong's Marine Department, which handles logistic arrangements for ships docking in Hong Kong's deep-water port, said it had not received the documentation it normally would receive from other agencies clearing the arrival of foreign military ships."

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jZZKrQszTnCrVHedQoazSUulMrvAD8T6S1L80

Probably not a big, big deal--but still. . . .

BTW:

1. I saw JCASHFAN's post concerning this in the other China thread. What's new, though, is the Pentagon's official protest to China (from AP 26 minutes ago).

2. I consider LoneSnark's China thread to be an economic thread and mine to be a military thread. The issues are, however, certainly not mutually exclusive, so there could be some overlap. I think there's room for both threads.

[Edited on November 28, 2007 at 3:01 PM. Reason : .]

11/28/2007 2:55:15 PM

bttt by request

5/5/2008 1:34:32 PM

the chinese airforce consists of the following:


78 Su-27s



100 Su-30MKKs



800 J-7 and J-8



60 Tu-16



200 Mi-17



200~250 indigenous Z-9






i'm pretty sure we could wipe that entire non stealth fleet out with a dozen or so of these:

5/5/2008 3:48:30 PM

What the most over-budget and expensive combat plane in US history

5/5/2008 4:07:55 PM

^and i'd gladly pay for dozens more. and even so, you're wrong

the modern air combat of the united states consists of f-18 superhornets/b-1 and b-2 bombers/ f-22 raptors/ Joint Strike Fighters and a fleet of UAVs

of course we aren't mentioning the unknown aircraft that could be flying around (remember the f117's which are retired, flew for 8 years without anybody knowing other than the commanders and the pilots flying them)


i <3 our military capability

5/5/2008 10:46:02 PM

Secret Sanya - China's new nuclear naval base revealed

Quote :

"China is constructing a major underground nuclear submarine base near Sanya, on Hainan Island off its southern coast, Jane's can confirm."

Quote :

"The extent of construction indicates the Sanya base (also known as Yulin) could become a key future base for People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) aircraft carriers and other power-projection ships. In December 2007, perhaps in concert with a major PLAN exercise the previous month, the PLA moved its first Type 094 second-generation nuclear ballistic missile submarine (SSBN) to Sanya. An underground submarine base and the positioning of China's most advanced sub-surface combatants at Sanya would have implications for China's control of the South China Sea and the strategically vital straits in the area. Further satellite imagery suggests the construction of Sanya has been supported by a gradual military build-up in the Paracel Islands over the last 20 years, and the transformation of the Chinese-occupied features in the Spratly Island group into assets that could support a range of military operations."

http://www.janes.com/news/security/jir/jir080421_1_n.shtml

China's Military Budget Reported at $59 Billion
Sharp Buildup Raises Concern in U.S.

Quote :

"BEIJING, March 4 -- China announced Tuesday that it will again sharply increase its military spending this year, budgeting a 17.6 percent rise that is roughly equal to last year's increase. Disclosure of plans for a $59 billion outlay in 2008 followed a Pentagon report Monday that raised questions about China's rapidly increasing military budget, and came less than three weeks before a presidential election in Taiwan, the self-governed island over which China claims sovereignty. A spokesman for the Chinese legislature said the country's decade-long military buildup does 'not pose a threat to any country,' but he warned that relations with Taiwan were at a 'crucial stage' and that the island would 'surely pay a dear price' if it were to take steps that China viewed as a declaration of independence."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/04/AR2008030401345_pf.html

[Edited on May 6, 2008 at 12:51 AM. Reason : .]

5/6/2008 12:49:32 AM

Fuck'em up like this

[Edited on May 6, 2008 at 12:59 AM. Reason : ,]

5/6/2008 12:59:20 AM

is there anybody that could make a formidable oppenant to this? ->

5/6/2008 8:29:32 AM

oh, and this guy cleans house after the power plants and sam sites are knocked out by the above..

5/6/2008 9:19:50 AM

chinese building submarines:




^i failed earlier to mention the j-10's the chinese are developing

they look very similar to the eurofighter, and i'm sure they dogfight well. too bad they won't barely get a shot off before they get shot down over 100 miles away with these:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Aim_120_amraam_missile_20040710_145603_1.4.jpg


China's missiles might be able to take out U.S. satellites:



i hope they aren't able to shoot the iss down if we ever got into a war

5/6/2008 11:20:49 AM

"If Wal-Mart were an individual economy, it would rank as China's eighth-biggest trading partner, ahead of Russia, Australia and Canada," Xu said.

[Edited on May 6, 2008 at 11:25 AM. Reason : 2004]

5/6/2008 11:24:19 AM

you are correct. Chinas greatest weapon by far at the moment is there economy. and we're the primary funders of it.

5/6/2008 1:23:42 PM

Keeping it real...

Quote :

"hooksaw: Is the United States burying its head in the sand like we did during Japan's military buildup prior to World War II?"

No.

I think China has stopped burying its head in the sand like everyone but the USSR did during our military buildup after World War II. (The one continuing to this day.)

Even if China's military spending is at the Pentagon's high estimate, what's to fear? That's about a fifth as much as the United States spends defending a population one quarter the size of China's.

Who's afraid of the big, bad Commie bear?

[Edited on May 7, 2008 at 12:40 PM. Reason : ...]

5/7/2008 12:39:05 PM

either way, no one is going to pick a straight up fight with the united states anytime soon
no way in hell anybody would have a chance to take us down 1v1.

it'll come down to economic and political warfare for years, and then at best it'll turn into an arms race unless we've been completely decapitated as a military.

5/7/2008 12:54:43 PM

If this is an arms race... we're winning. Seriously, we could currently crush China's ability to make war if it came to it.

What you could worry about is maybe if China beefed itself up to make it into an actual 2-sided arms race.

So imagine that all of a sudden the projections put us at a 80/20 chance of winning against China (in conventional warfare) after huge sudden technical advances by them. For this to happen after decades of 99%-ish confidence we could win against any power in the world...

I'd be worried about an overreaction from us. I'm not kidding, I think our leaders would flip.

5/7/2008 1:25:40 PM

I'd be worried about an overreaction from us.


just like we did in the 80's vs. Russia. wow some people can stare history in the face and not learn

5/7/2008 3:06:26 PM

I fear them much more in the realm of cyber-warfare and taking down our satellites. They have the ability to compete with us in hacking and shit like that and they've demonstrated that they have the ability to knock out satellites. Obviously, this doesn't give them an advantage because we can do the same things at least as well. But I think taking out our networks and our satellites would level the playing field a lot. We'd still have the firepower to take them out, but it would be much more costly to do so without our satellites which are arguably the strongest part of our military. Intel counts for so much in warfare and we have the best in the world by far but they're vulnerable.

5/7/2008 5:13:18 PM

Quote :

"I think China has stopped burying its head in the sand like everyone but the USSR did during our military buildup after World War II. (The one continuing to this day.)"

I think it's more like the Chinese thought that they had a good military until they saw our forces completely dismantle the Iraqis during the first Gulf War. That, and now China actually has the money to build a real military instead of the backwards force that they used in the 1970s and 1980s.

All this talk about superior military forces is a bit goofy. Sure, if we were fighting in some middle battlefield than yes, we would trounce the Chinese. However, the potential military scenarios dramatically distort things whether it be the invasion of Taiwan (significant disadvantages given that its right off their coast) or Korean War II (where we could throw them back with the help of the ROK). There's no way China could invade the United States, and we certainly won't have the sufficient forces to invade their mainland.

5/7/2008 5:16:45 PM

man, i want to drop some knowledge on this thread...i'll have to wait until i get my laptop fixed and get regular internet access again.

5/7/2008 11:08:46 PM

yes, unit to unit we outclass them 10x over.

their capability to shoot down satellites would not cripple us given the fact that our massive network would be tough to locate and really destroy them all. even if they did hit them all our fleet of AWACs and other radars might be enough to keep that at a minimal

their submarines if armed properly and given they can avoid our sonar and advanced underwater laser imagery could perhaps sneak up on the pacific coast and take out a few of our cities on the pacific

hopefully we would be able to anticipate this threat by using the missle defense properly and patriot missles

cyberwarfare, again it's hard to say if they -really- have the skills it takes to get into our pentagon or centres of war knowledge and know what we are doing.

+ with our clear airforce advantage and aircraft carrier groups, again i just don't see any conventional warfare from them being effective enough to cause damage b4 we've forced them to surrender


bottom line: it'll come down to nukes or biological warfare

5/7/2008 11:18:28 PM

^ BTW, nice pics above, Rat.

5/8/2008 4:47:32 AM

Quote :

"I'd be worried about an overreaction from us. just like we did in the 80's vs. Russia. wow some people can stare history in the face and not learn"

first sentence does not agree with second

5/8/2008 4:02:57 PM

it's sarcasm. that's exactly my point. we did not overreact and we have no reason to believe we would overreact again.

if he was saying that we will overreact like we theoretically did vs. iraq, then maybe he does have a point. but the usa picks its targets pretty well given its history of wars throughout the centuries, i doubt we'd preempt and invasion of china over some misscommunication

5/8/2008 4:12:03 PM

as far as wars against asian countries goes, usa is 1-1-1, but those were all against small-assed countries. a war against china is unpredictable.

5/8/2008 6:18:10 PM

^lol, 1-1-1, i've never heard it put that way b4.

ww2 = usa wins
vietnam = tie (b/c russia was involved, but that's another thread in itself)
korean = wait, which one was the loss? i guess vietnam you're counting as a loss. yeh well, we didn't lose the war, we simply didn't accomplish 100% objectives..

5/8/2008 6:26:20 PM

Quote :

"vietnam = tie (b/c russia was involved, but that's another thread in itself)"

no, not because Russia was in via proxy

militarily, we thrashed the bejeezus out of the enemy there. it was completely one-sided in that regard. however, that's not how you measure "winning" or "losing" a war. that's a matter of who gets what they wanted and who doesn't.

and I'd argue that labeling Vietnam as a "tie" is a pretty rose-tinted view

[Edited on May 8, 2008 at 8:36 PM. Reason : well, ok, maybe from a big-picture standpoint of curbing Communist expansionism]

Quote :

"too bad they won't barely get a shot off before they get shot down over 100 miles away with these: "

AMRAAM isn't gonna hit shit from 100 miles away.

[Edited on May 8, 2008 at 8:38 PM. Reason : asdfasd]

5/8/2008 8:36:02 PM

N. Vietnam won the vietnamese war for the same reasons we won the american revolution. During the american revolution the England was pretty much Top Dawg in military strength, tactics, and technology. They literally beat the jebezzus out of the colonials in most regular battles.

However because of

the unpopularity of the war at home and the logistical costs; they finally gave up.

5/8/2008 9:34:32 PM

we were never aiming to rule vietnam as a colony, we were defending south vietnam from a communist take over. lol

no history classes taught on tww i see



[Edited on May 8, 2008 at 10:01 PM. Reason : c]

5/8/2008 9:56:52 PM

AIM-120C-5


Range: 65 miles

not 100 miles, but damn neaar far enough to keep yourself safe. drop 2 of those shits and turn around with afterburners on back to base. you'll never even see the target on radar.. lol

[Edited on May 8, 2008 at 10:03 PM. Reason : .]

5/8/2008 10:00:11 PM

Quote :

"remember the f117's which are retired, flew for 8 years without anybody knowing other than the commanders and the pilots flying them"

so there was nobody to fix them? and nobody fix the equipment that got pulled off them? and no civilian contractors? and no support personal for all the above?

5/8/2008 10:00:54 PM

no

5/8/2008 10:02:10 PM

^^^ in the arena where the AMRAAM competes, a mile or two is a big deal. the difference between 65 and 100 miles is, like, earth-shattering.

Listing a "max range" for a missile isn't really telling the whole story, anyway. There's the max kinematic range, the max effective range, the no-escape range, etc...the ranges vary widely based on speed and altitude of the launching aircraft and the target, and what aspect they're employed from (head-on, beam, rear-quarter). then there's stuff like A-pole and E-pole, which have to do with missile range, missile speed and acceleration, range at which the seeker goes active, etc...and that isn't even counting differences in seeker/guidance sophistication, maneuverability at various ranges (i.e., speeds), and data-linking.

In short, the max range of a missile is very important, but there is a LOT of other stuff that is important in determining who gets killed. The fighter guys have this shit memorized and broken down into engagement "timelines" for all sorts of scenarios. As an attack/SEAD guy, my knowledge is more focused on SAMs, although I haven't even logged on to my SIPRnet account in like 6-8 months, probably, and even there, not all of the data is available for these missiles (AMRAAM, Adder, and whatever shit the Chinese have cooked up that I don't remember offhand). Even if my knowledge was totally up to date, it's not like I'd be talking about specifics on here...but the AMRAAM is a very, very good missile. I don't know if it's a world-beater at the moment, though.

(although then you get into "well, how many of the latest versions do we actually have, and how many of whatever latest and greatest BVR missile does Country-X have).



Without having seen ANY numbers relating to this aspect of either machine, I will go out on a limb and say that I doubt ANYTHING will touch the F-22/latest AMRAAM version combo.

[Edited on May 8, 2008 at 10:39 PM. Reason : ^^^]

5/8/2008 10:38:37 PM

Quote :

"it's sarcasm. that's exactly my point. we did not overreact and we have no reason to believe we would overreact again. if he was saying that we will overreact like we theoretically did vs. iraq, then maybe he does have a point. but the usa picks its targets pretty well given its history of wars throughout the centuries, i doubt we'd preempt and invasion of china over some misscommunication"

In the 80s, we were clearly winning. We didn't know this at the time (iron curtain anyone), but I think the #1 difference is that the unknowns at that time were much greater than a future scenario.

Imagine the pentagon produces this scenario:
In a projected war with China,
The US wins up until 2017 if we take first strike, but
beginning 2021 China wins either way

I don't think this would ever happen. If they even got strong enough, then it would just result in a mutually assured destruction scenario like before. hopefully. Someone in the government has clearly thought about this thoroughly, but we can not know what their conclusion is.

My claim is that it's troubling that someone in our government may find it to somehow be "profitable" (for the US of course) to launch major military action against some world power - something that could not have happened in the 80s.

But it's great that you find historic connections so direct and clearcut. Really is.

5/8/2008 10:58:26 PM

cool info guis

5/8/2008 11:02:57 PM

I like how you told us we basically didn't know our standing during the cold war (true, because when the Soviet Union collapsed, everyone tossed a collective WTF) and then proceed to speculate on future scenarios with China.

In all honesty, pentagon planning at this point is pretty suspect given by how well they've been able to handle a 19th century population using marxist guerrilla tactics the past five years.

I also think getting into an arms race with China is entirely pointless because they will eventually surpass us in technology. The sheer statistics of their country guarantee this.

The only way to positively engage and enact change in China and other totalitarian regimes around the world is through economic means and by providing a model as to how a free society should be.

Two things we won't ever do.

5/9/2008 3:36:46 PM

^ I agree with almost all of this.



China will be very strong until about 2025-2030.

5/9/2008 3:42:46 PM

bump

3/15/2010 9:43:03 AM

Bump

8/7/2010 7:28:09 PM

I assume the bump is over the new anti-ship missile.

Quote :

"Chinese 'Carrier-Killer' Missile Could Reshape Sea Combat China is developing an unprecedented new missile that is designed to be launched from land with enough accuracy to penetrate the defenses of even the most advanced moving aircraft carrier from a distance of more than 900 miles, sources say. Initial reports on the new missile suggest it could reshape conflicts at sea, but U.S. weapons experts told FoxNews.com that it's no game-changer, nor a revolutionary threat to America's aircraft carriers -- which are the center of U.S. Pacific defense strategy. "Some have called it a game-changer. I would dispute that claim," said Toshi Yoshihara, an associate professor at the U.S. Naval War College. When complete, the Dong Feng 21D -- a version of which was displayed last year in a Chinese military parade -- would give China the ability to reach and hit U.S. aircraft carriers well before the U.S. can get close enough to the mainland to hit back. A nuclear bomb could theoretically sink a carrier, too, assuming its sender was willing to raise the stakes to atomic levels. The conventionally armed DF 21D's uniqueness is its ability to hit a powerfully defended moving target with pinpoint precision. "The emerging Chinese anti-ship missile capability, and in particular the DF 21D, represents the first post-Cold War capability that is both potentially capable of stopping our naval power projection -- and deliberately designed for that purpose," said Patrick Cronin, senior director of the Asia-Pacific Security Program at the nonpartisan, Washington-based Center for a New American Security. ..."

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/08/06/chinese-carrier-killer-missile-game-changer-expert-says/

8/7/2010 7:39:35 PM

called the "carrier killer." I think I read that is different than traditional anti-ship missiles because it is ballistic...(is that the right word)? its high-arcing and comes in supersonic, instead of a sea-skimmer.

8/7/2010 8:39:51 PM

Is this really a new threat though? The United States has been worried about at least for a decade the possible threat these sorts of cruise missiles posed to carrier battle groups. Silkworms, Exocets, and now a new generation of missiles have always posed a threat to any of our fleets working near hostile shorelines. The only thing we've lucked out on is that up until this point, we haven't fought a nation with significant enough quantity and capability to use them effectively.

8/8/2010 1:48:38 PM

this is much more than a cruise missile. it's basically a ballistic trajectory with a look down capability. stuff raining down from above can't be targeted like a cruise missile coming in along the water. plus the warhead approaches mach 10, which even when it is detected only gives seconds to engage. there has never been a threat as bad as this to a carrier. 2 or 3 of them could put one on the bottom...the same can't be said about an exocet

8/8/2010 2:06:40 PM

^ Somebody finally gets it.

I swear that it never ceases to amaze me how some of you can find a way to dismiss or ignore any threat, no matter how serious it may be. And even if the missiles in question don't represent a "new threat" (they do and very much so), China sure as hell won't be using them to air mail us candy and good wishes.

"SO WHAT?!!1"

8/8/2010 6:16:59 PM

I must be missing the point of this thread. Or does it not have a point. Is the US only supposed to have the best weapons and technology, along with our close allies? Or is it just further fear mongering over the evil communists.

8/8/2010 6:25:03 PM

^ See my post above yours.

There's missing the point and then there's actively seeking to miss it.

8/8/2010 6:30:02 PM

Quote :

"Or is it just further fear mongering over the evil communists."

So, I guess that is the point of the thread. Just making sure.

Last I checked, China wasn't an enemy of ours. Just because they have missiles that can take out ships, doesn't some how make them a thread of ours. Surely, they're allowed to protect their border, even if it is from us.

You want to represent this as a threat. A threat to whom exactly? Whether you like it or not, we don't have a right to a monopoly on having the best weaponry in every aspect of military use. I don't see any threat or any problem with them having this weaponry. If our military has a problem with it, then they should throw more money down the drain and figure out a way to protect their ships from it.

8/8/2010 6:44:07 PM