The next big US Naval war

[JakeStarkey]

The U.S. certainly would use one for defensive purposes, I think. And I believe we would in an offensive situation if we could take out the enemy's capability with one strike, saying afterwards, "We won, so what?" When push comes to shove, the great majority of Americans simply do not care what the rest of world thinks if the part of the rest of the world is disturbing their creature comforts or watching Jeopardy. Sad to say, most Americans simply are not concerned about the moral considerations of using nukes against folks they see as the bad guys.

Example. Let the Taliban or al-qaeda get one or several of the Paki's nukes, and our citizens would be clamoring for a nuclear strike against the bad guys.

 

[BolshevikHunter]

Ah the nuclear genie. Using nuclear warheads in a naval battle would only occur as a last ditch effort. Using nukes agains a non-nuclear force would make the user a pariah in the international scene. Using nukes against a nuclear power invites a similar response so both navies would be wiped out. Nukes are most effective as a deterrent and if they are used, they are used in defeat. China has nuclear capability and they have ICBM's capable of reaching the US. Any war we have with China will be constrained to the theater of operations and not the Chinese mainland because they can reach over the Pacific and touch us back. However this thread is about naval combat and I can forsee in 2040 the evening of the field.

What do you think about a possible mutual agreement to not use Nukes as long as neithers Country is invaded? Say maybe the Taiwan situation being settled with a Naval battle minus Nukes? ~BH

I think there already is a tacit agreement among the world governments that nukes are not going to be used. A battle over Taiwan will be non-nuclear. It would also have a very disturbing result to the American people too. Even though our military is top of the line a war with China stretches our interior lines. China will be operating in their backyard with land based missiles and aircraft. We can only project so much power over the Pacific with refueling aircraft and aircraft carriers. The bases we do have that can reach the theater are far away from the US. In a study by RAND in which everything went the US way we would still lose considerable refueling assets and may not be able to sustain an airwar for more than a day or two because of the losses. And every day that order of battle is geting better for the Chinese. In 10 years they will be in a lot better position to control the battlefield if they choose to go that way.

I agree, Being in their backyard would present some serious problems for us. ~BH

 

[rightwinger]

If China and the United States went to war, I have a feeling a lot more then a Navy would be in use. Although, I do not know if China and the US would ever get into it, doesn't seem beneficial to the Chinese, but I guess it could be. I honestly wonder if a war would get us out of this recession/depression/oppression or whatever we are in currently.

A war does not benefit either side. Ain't gunn a happen

 

[JakeStarkey]

Not in the near future as things are now.

 

[Trajan]

If China and the United States went to war, I have a feeling a lot more then a Navy would be in use. Although, I do not know if China and the US would ever get into it, doesn't seem beneficial to the Chinese, but I guess it could be. I honestly wonder if a war would get us out of this recession/depression/oppression or whatever we are in currently.

A war does not benefit either side. Ain't gunn a happen

uh huh, thats what they said when they signed the Washington naval agreement ( the 5 power treaty), attempting to keep a parity and peace amongst several nations.

 

[rightwinger]

Xiamen is Chinas largest port city anywhere near Taiwan, its approx. 140 miles as the crow flys.

IF china ever decided to take Taiwan, they would like napoleon and the English channel or Germany ala operation sea-lion in ww2, have to gain control of the sea to safely make landfall and maintain a beachhead.

The Chinese would smother the region with land based air power,hoping to create the air umbrella they would need to make landfall with naval invasion forces.

The Taiwanese would respond by attempting to keep their air battle at least at stasis, and we would deploy as many Carriers as we could while maintaining others at other parts of the world to sppt. them. Since we have 12 and 4 at least are in port on a rotating basis at all times that leaves 8.

I would guess we would be all hands on deck and put 6 in the region ( assuming NOTHING else is going on anywhere else) to buttress Taiwan’s ability to deny air superiority. We would be I suspect ferry in aircraft to Taiwan to replace losses. ( I expect that the japanese would sppt. Taiwan as well).

At some point in time, the Chinese might gain parity, or an advantage which they may feel would be enough to send in the troops, while the air battle over head would go on, there would be every effort to sink as many transports as possible, by ship to ship gunfire and stand off missiles etc. , hence a naval battle. And unless the Chinese had sunk all of our carries or forced us to retire, they would have to support the beachhead via a sea-lane. Naval forces again would then, along with air cover be paramount. Sink the transports or there sppt. and you win.

Good summary

China lacks the capability for an amphibious invasion D day took thousands of landing craft and transports. There would be no surprise like D Day. Satellites would tip it off weeks in advance. Aircraft and missiles would sink hundreds of invasion craft

It is not worth it to china. Give it fifty years and Taiwan will beg to join China

 

[BolshevikHunter]

If China and the United States went to war, I have a feeling a lot more then a Navy would be in use. Although, I do not know if China and the US would ever get into it, doesn't seem beneficial to the Chinese, but I guess it could be. I honestly wonder if a war would get us out of this recession/depression/oppression or whatever we are in currently.

A war does not benefit either side. Ain't gunn a happen

Damn good way to get out from under all that debt though. ~BH

 

[Cain]

If China and the United States went to war, I have a feeling a lot more then a Navy would be in use. Although, I do not know if China and the US would ever get into it, doesn't seem beneficial to the Chinese, but I guess it could be. I honestly wonder if a war would get us out of this recession/depression/oppression or whatever we are in currently.

A war does not benefit either side. Ain't gunn a happen

? I do not see how that is possible. If one side conquers and takes control of another side, then they have gained material, and land. So wouldn't it be positive for whomever ends up the victor, considering the conditions of his victory?

 

[BolshevikHunter]

Xiamen is Chinas largest port city anywhere near Taiwan, its approx. 140 miles as the crow flys.

IF china ever decided to take Taiwan, they would like napoleon and the English channel or Germany ala operation sea-lion in ww2, have to gain control of the sea to safely make landfall and maintain a beachhead.

The Chinese would smother the region with land based air power,hoping to create the air umbrella they would need to make landfall with naval invasion forces.

The Taiwanese would respond by attempting to keep their air battle at least at stasis, and we would deploy as many Carriers as we could while maintaining others at other parts of the world to sppt. them. Since we have 12 and 4 at least are in port on a rotating basis at all times that leaves 8.

I would guess we would be all hands on deck and put 6 in the region ( assuming NOTHING else is going on anywhere else) to buttress Taiwan’s ability to deny air superiority. We would be I suspect ferry in aircraft to Taiwan to replace losses. ( I expect that the japanese would sppt. Taiwan as well).

At some point in time, the Chinese might gain parity, or an advantage which they may feel would be enough to send in the troops, while the air battle over head would go on, there would be every effort to sink as many transports as possible, by ship to ship gunfire and stand off missiles etc. , hence a naval battle. And unless the Chinese had sunk all of our carries or forced us to retire, they would have to support the beachhead via a sea-lane. Naval forces again would then, along with air cover be paramount. Sink the transports or there sppt. and you win.

Good summary

China lacks the capability for an amphibious invasion D day took thousands of landing craft and transports. There would be no surprise like D Day. Satellites would tip it off weeks in advance. Aircraft and missiles would sink hundreds of invasion craft

It is not worth it to china. Give it fifty years and Taiwan will beg to join China

At the same time, In no way will China ever just let go of such a vast economic prize, and in reality, current asset. ~BH

 

[rightwinger]

If China and the United States went to war, I have a feeling a lot more then a Navy would be in use. Although, I do not know if China and the US would ever get into it, doesn't seem beneficial to the Chinese, but I guess it could be. I honestly wonder if a war would get us out of this recession/depression/oppression or whatever we are in currently.

A war does not benefit either side. Ain't gunn a happen

? I do not see how that is possible. If one side conquers and takes control of another side, then they have gained material, and land. So wouldn't it be positive for whomever ends up the victor, considering the conditions of his victory?

Name a scenario where either side can conquer the other

 

[Trajan]

Xiamen is Chinas largest port city anywhere near Taiwan, its approx. 140 miles as the crow flys.

IF china ever decided to take Taiwan, they would like napoleon and the English channel or Germany ala operation sea-lion in ww2, have to gain control of the sea to safely make landfall and maintain a beachhead.

The Chinese would smother the region with land based air power,hoping to create the air umbrella they would need to make landfall with naval invasion forces.

The Taiwanese would respond by attempting to keep their air battle at least at stasis, and we would deploy as many Carriers as we could while maintaining others at other parts of the world to sppt. them. Since we have 12 and 4 at least are in port on a rotating basis at all times that leaves 8.

I would guess we would be all hands on deck and put 6 in the region ( assuming NOTHING else is going on anywhere else) to buttress Taiwan’s ability to deny air superiority. We would be I suspect ferry in aircraft to Taiwan to replace losses. ( I expect that the japanese would sppt. Taiwan as well).

At some point in time, the Chinese might gain parity, or an advantage which they may feel would be enough to send in the troops, while the air battle over head would go on, there would be every effort to sink as many transports as possible, by ship to ship gunfire and stand off missiles etc. , hence a naval battle. And unless the Chinese had sunk all of our carries or forced us to retire, they would have to support the beachhead via a sea-lane. Naval forces again would then, along with air cover be paramount. Sink the transports or there sppt. and you win.

Good summary

China lacks the capability for an amphibious invasion D day took thousands of landing craft and transports. There would be no surprise like D Day. Satellites would tip it off weeks in advance. Aircraft and missiles would sink hundreds of invasion craft

It is not worth it to china. Give it fifty years and Taiwan will beg to join China

thank you.


they lack the ability NOW. And until their invasion forces entered Taiwanese waters, any action by us, or them would be seen as ...?

 

[westwall]

When was the last US ship sunk in combat? When was the last ship on ship naval battle?

Persian Gulf 1988 the US Navy attacked Iranian naval craft in Operation Praying Mantis. It marked the first occasion that US naval forces fired ship to ship missiles. The last US naval vessel sunk i believe is the USS Sarsi back in 1952. We have of course had the USS Stark hit by an Iraqi Exocet but thankfully it didn't sink. Just remember, After the carnage of WWI the "experts" said there would not be another major war, the experts have also said that aircraft no longer needed guns for air to air combat, that tanks were obsolete, and I can go on and on with experts telling us that "never again" will something happen. So yes history says you are wrong and your type of thinking is what leads to armies having to relearn how to fight all the time because the experts said it wouldn't happen again. The cost for that mentality is far too much blood and suffering.

westwall is shifting his argument from big naval war claims to individual engagements. History says you are wrong, westwall. No one can field a fleet against us and survive, and no non-nuclear power can ever sail a fleet against a power that can deliver nuclear weapons.

Please, westwall, consider history.

History is littered with people saying something would never happen again. Nuclear weapons were supposed to be an end to war. Remember that? Try telling the 120,000 plus Americans who have died in the various wars since the end of WWII that they are still alive because "pundits" said there could no longer be war because of nuclear weapons.

You sir, are hoist on your own petard.

 

[westwall]

China is building an brown water navy not a blue water navy. their whole focus is control of China sea, the eastern Indian Ocean and far western Pacific basin. They do not seek to push their military power any farther than that at present. Although they are building an aircraft carrier their main focus is on subs. Diesel subs are so quiet they can penetrate our ASW forces protecting our carriers. They are also focusing on missile technology. In the naval war that can occur when the Chinese take Taiwan our carrier task force must stay hidden behind Taiwan and cannot come any closer to stay out of missile and sub range. Even then one of their subs could sneak out and sink a a carrier.

Surface to surface combat between the US and anyone is impossible for the forseeable future. As our naval forces are reduced by budgetary pressures over the next 30 years that impossibility changes to possibility and then probability if other nations decide to commit money to naval forces. I can see other countries anti ship capabilites and sub technology make our navy obselete. If our navy ventures into another area of the world the mission approaches a suicide mission. As a country we cannot maintain a 12 or 13 carrier navy. That will have to be cut in half in the next 20 years because we just cannot afford it. As our preeminance declines other navies become more powerful and the possibility of conflict becomes more realistic.

You need to get out more my friend.....


http://defensetech.org/2010/05/12/its-springtime-for-chinas-blue-water-navy/

China's Navy Today

The Chinese Navy is Going Blue Water

Why Does China Need a Blue Water Navy? | The Brussels Journal

Time for China’s Blue Water Navy

 

[westwall]

To have a big naval war you need two equivalent powers. Nobody is close to the US. Last big one was US vs Japan. Who else but the US has carrier task forces?

See Operation Praying Mantis above.

Is that really the best you could come up with?

Do you understand what a major naval battle is?

Yes I do and you didn't specify the size of the battle did you? No, you were so confident that the last ship to ship action was WWII that you were shocked that one had occured after that. Don't worry, you have to actually study military history to know about the little stuff that is the springboard for the big stuff.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Persian Gulf 1988 the US Navy attacked Iranian naval craft in Operation Praying Mantis. It marked the first occasion that US naval forces fired ship to ship missiles. The last US naval vessel sunk i believe is the USS Sarsi back in 1952. We have of course had the USS Stark hit by an Iraqi Exocet but thankfully it didn't sink. Just remember, After the carnage of WWI the "experts" said there would not be another major war, the experts have also said that aircraft no longer needed guns for air to air combat, that tanks were obsolete, and I can go on and on with experts telling us that "never again" will something happen. So yes history says you are wrong and your type of thinking is what leads to armies having to relearn how to fight all the time because the experts said it wouldn't happen again. The cost for that mentality is far too much blood and suffering.

westwall is shifting his argument from big naval war claims to individual engagements. History says you are wrong, westwall. No one can field a fleet against us and survive, and no non-nuclear power can ever sail a fleet against a power that can deliver nuclear weapons.

Please, westwall, consider history.

History is littered with people saying something would never happen again. Nuclear weapons were supposed to be an end to war. Remember that? Try telling the 120,000 plus Americans who have died in the various wars since the end of WWII that they are still alive because "pundits" said there could no longer be war because of nuclear weapons.

You sir, are hoist on your own petard.

Once again, westwall has shifted his argument and hoisted himself on his own petard. The false suggestion 120K dead Americans (service personnel) who have died since 1945 in no way means that we should use nuclear weapons.

Consider history, westwall.

 

[JakeStarkey]

See Operation Praying Mantis above.

Is that really the best you could come up with? Do you understand what a major naval battle is?

Yes I do and you didn't specify the size of the battle did you? No, you were so confident that the last ship to ship action was WWII that you were shocked that one had occured after that. Don't worry, you have to actually study military history to know about the little stuff that is the springboard for the big stuff.

You have read history, westwall, but not really studied it. Your examples don't support your thesis.

If you would argue that incidents will occur from time to time, then your thesis would fit the facts.

 

[Cain]

A war does not benefit either side. Ain't gunn a happen

? I do not see how that is possible. If one side conquers and takes control of another side, then they have gained material, and land. So wouldn't it be positive for whomever ends up the victor, considering the conditions of his victory?

Name a scenario where either side can conquer the other

Well, in the past Germany was conquered by the Allies, same for Japan and Italy.

I would suppose if India/US/Canada and some of Europe (mainly UN I suppose) combined a force to fight China, China would eventually lose, I mean, size only has so much to do, and now a days when technology is the key, I doubt anyone could match a force the US could pull together with its alliances/connections.

I am not saying we can, or cannot, I am simply saying a war could have a positive affect if it played out a victory that changed the nation.

 

[rightwinger]

? I do not see how that is possible. If one side conquers and takes control of another side, then they have gained material, and land. So wouldn't it be positive for whomever ends up the victor, considering the conditions of his victory?

Name a scenario where either side can conquer the other

Well, in the past Germany was conquered by the Allies, same for Japan and Italy.

I would suppose if India/US/Canada and some of Europe (mainly UN I suppose) combined a force to fight China, China would eventually lose, I mean, size only has so much to do, and now a days when technology is the key, I doubt anyone could match a force the US could pull together with its alliances/connections.

I am not saying we can, or cannot, I am simply saying a war could have a positive affect if it played out a victory that changed the nation.

It would involve tens of millions of deaths. The US doesn't have the stomach for it. China also has nukes

US can't be invaded

 

[westwall]

westwall is shifting his argument from big naval war claims to individual engagements. History says you are wrong, westwall. No one can field a fleet against us and survive, and no non-nuclear power can ever sail a fleet against a power that can deliver nuclear weapons.

Please, westwall, consider history.

History is littered with people saying something would never happen again. Nuclear weapons were supposed to be an end to war. Remember that? Try telling the 120,000 plus Americans who have died in the various wars since the end of WWII that they are still alive because "pundits" said there could no longer be war because of nuclear weapons.

You sir, are hoist on your own petard.

Once again, westwall has shifted his argument and hoisted himself on his own petard. The false suggestion 120K dead Americans (service personnel) who have died since 1945 in no way means that we should use nuclear weapons.

Consider history, westwall.

I never advocted the use of nuclear weapons. The claim is that because we have a huge navy and have nuclear weapons there will never be another major fleet action and that is a ridiculous statement. When WWII ended the pundits, like you and rightwinger, all claimed that war was obsolete because of nuclear weapons. Go ahead look it up. Obviously they were wrong as are you. I am rephrasing nothing. I am merely pointing out what others, like you, said in 1946 and how they were very, very wrong.

 

[westwall]

Is that really the best you could come up with? Do you understand what a major naval battle is?

Yes I do and you didn't specify the size of the battle did you? No, you were so confident that the last ship to ship action was WWII that you were shocked that one had occured after that. Don't worry, you have to actually study military history to know about the little stuff that is the springboard for the big stuff.

You have read history, westwall, but not really studied it. Your examples don't support your thesis.

If you would argue that incidents will occur from time to time, then your thesis would fit the facts.

I understand history quite well. Clearly your statements indicate you don't. My thesis is that some time in the future there will be a major fleet action. It may involve the US and it may not. I hope it doesn't. History tells us however, that if the US is still a major power when it does come then odds are we will eventually be involved in it. The one thing that we can do is maintain a large effective navy like the British did during the 18th and 19th centuries. That way at least we don't have to deal with the vast majority of small navies as they will know enough to leave us alone (provided we actually use our power when neccessary to show we are still willing and able to use it when needed).

It's the head in the sand attitude that leads to force reductions which then leads to pissant nations biting the ankles because they can now get away with it.