Americans afraid of China

[Batcat]

[/HEADING]
[HEADING=3]Dayton3​

But NOT the way you tend to think they are afraid.

I was reading an old (several years ago) international policy magazine and came upon an interview with a mid ranking officer in the U.S. military. The issue of course U.S./China competition and relations.

He was asked point blank if he (and others) were "afraid" of China. His answer was very interesting.

He said he was NOT afraid the U.S. would lose a war with China.

He said he WAS afraid the U.S. would WIN a war with China.
When asked to explain he said that in order to win a war with China the U.S. might have to kill tens of millions or even hundreds of millions of Chinese. He said he "didn't sign up to commit mass murder on a scale that dwarfs Hitler".

Nuclear weapons today are a deterrent (assuming they are controlled by sane men).

If we have an all out nuclear war with any nation our nukes will have failed their purpose.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

A war with China or Russia is not in our best interest, nor theirs, however, you are sometimes dragged into it whether you want to be or not.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Your information is terribly outdated.
They already have roughly 100 ICBMs and are building 350-400 more siloses.

China’s nuclear missile silo expansion: From minimum deterrence to medium deterrence

This summer, two nongovernmental organizations—our own included—disclosed construction of what appears to be hundreds of new missile silos in central China. How many silos? Why is China building so many? What does it mean for Chinese nuclear policy? And what to do about it?

thebulletin.org

400 DF-41s with up to ten MIRVs each - is something 4000 nukes.

And yes, don't forget about possibility of Russian "Li Xi-Qings" - it's not difficult to paint Chinese stars on the wings of the Russian Tu-95s with Kh-101s. Russian planes, Russian ordnance, Russian pilots but Chinese responsibility.

Bears are completely obsolete.

 

[frigidweirdo]

This falls under the 14 points of Fascism.

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause​

The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial, ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

If you read the Powell Doctrine, which the US has used for a long time, it's there too.

"7. Is the action supported by the American people?"

Powell Doctrine - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[frigidweirdo]

Right.

Of course, never mind that most of those the US was protecting during the post-Yugoslavia Wars were Muslims. As was Kuwait. As was the Northern Alliance, the leaders of which the US had been supporting for decades.

This is what is known as "cherry picking", and building a false narrative based on selective fact hunting, and ignoring any facts which do not agree with the theory. Most of us who are honest call such things "Conspiracy Theories".

But your own hatred of Muslims is noted.

I'm a little confused here.

Why did you write "But your own hatred of Muslims is noted."

The rest of your post seems to make sense. But then I get to the bottom and I'm now confused as to everything else you've written.

 

[Silver Cat]

Nuclear weapons today are a deterrent (assuming they are controlled by sane men).

If we have an all out nuclear war with any nation our nukes will have failed their purpose.

There are four basic types of the deterrence:
Type I - against direct nuclear attack against our nuclear forces;
Type II - against extremely provocative actions but not attack against the US nuclear forces;
Type III - ability to fight a limited nuclear war;
Type IV - ability to prevent a suicidal attack.

Each of them needs specific tools, weapons and algorithms.

 

[Batcat]

There are four basic types of the deterrence:
Type I - against direct nuclear attack against our nuclear forces;
Type II - against extremely provocative actions but not attack against the US nuclear forces;
Type III - ability to fight a limited nuclear war;
Type IV - ability to prevent a suicidal attack.

Each of them needs specific tools, weapons and algorithms.

Let’s hope and pray we never see nukes used in a conflict.

However nuclear weapons are probably the reason we haven’t had WWIII yet.

 

[Silver Cat]

Bears are completely obsolete.

Depends on your goals. They are good for mopping out remains of the enemy's civilisation by gravity bombs, or for sneaky strikes with their long-range stealth cruise missiles like Kh-101.

 

[Silver Cat]

Let’s hope and pray we never see nukes used in a conflict.

Actually we have to do much more than just hope and pray - to make better alliances, to invent and produce better nukes, to buy real ABD and ability to alleviate and recuperate after the nuclear attack, etc...

However nuclear weapons are probably the reason we haven’t had WWIII yet.

May be. May be not. The weapons itself decides nothing. It is ability and decisiveness to use it what matters.
To have deterrence we need to have credible possibility of an attack. And to have a credible possibility we need to have realistic plans.

 

[Silver Cat]

There are no arms limitations treaties with China. The only ones they have signed are the non-proliferation and partial test ban treaties. So even bringing up treaties where there are none is rather pointless.

And you are not grasping the concept of MAD at all. These weapons are not aimed at other weapons, but at major cities as a form of mutual-terror to ensure they are never used. "If you nuke us, we nuke you" is how it goes. And nobody is going to be wasting more than a couple on actual missile sites. The majority will be going to major residential and industrial centers. In the US that would be LA, New York, Seattle, DC, and the like.

There is no point in Russia or anybody nuking largely empty farmland in the Dakotas. Those are all "first use weapons", and are the ones that will be launched first because they can not go anywhere. And missiles are not as easy to "kill" as you think. Especially since the size of warheads has shrunk in the last half century. The missile silos the US has are scattered over almost 10,000 square miles of land. An attacker would literally have to land one on top of each silo to take them out, and no country has that many nukes to throw around, and still have any for more important targets.

Once again, you are simply showing that you do not understand most of these things you are trying to sound authoritative about. MAD does not work on the basis of "First decapitating strike", that line of thought died in the 1960's when ICBMs first came into widespread use. Now, it is all about "If you launch at us, we will launch back at you". Satellites have made it so that nations that have these know within minutes if an attack is inbound, and where it is going to hit. Therefore they can launch any missiles even close to the targets and the inbounds will hit nothing. Meanwhile the return volley will destroy their nation.

Of course, those weapons are targeted at other weapons. The first goal of any sane government is to protect their own citizens, not to kill enemy's civilians. And the best way to protect them is to destroy enemy's nukes before they were started.
There are plans of counter-force strikes, there are plans of counter-value strikes, there are combined plans.

And the question of the possibility of victory depends mostly on your definition of this word and predetermined level of acceptable losses.

 

[hjmick]

I have no idea why we would be afraid of men with peckers the size of a Vienna Sausage

You've been checking the penis' of Chinese men?

You need a new hobby...

 

[Mushroom]

And the question of the possibility of victory depends mostly on your definition of this word and predetermined level of acceptable losses.

Really? You post some pretty pictures from Twitter, without any context or reference?

How about I post a picture of a tree? It gives as much context as an uncredited map without any reference given than anything else. That could be the Soviet targets in the 1980s, where the cheapest gasoline is, or the places with the best tacos for all we know.

 

[Mushroom]

There are four basic types of the deterrence:
Type I - against direct nuclear attack against our nuclear forces;
Type II - against extremely provocative actions but not attack against the US nuclear forces;
Type III - ability to fight a limited nuclear war;
Type IV - ability to prevent a suicidal attack.

Actually, if you are talking about nukes the only one that matters is that if they are used, they all get used. The idea of a "limited nuclear exchange" pretty much went out the window by the 1980's. Because war planners on both sides realized that the moment one is used, the other side responds with even more. Then the first side responds again with even more to surpass the first counter-strike, and soon almost all are on their way to targets.

I think the last time a "limited nuclear strike" was talked about seriously was Sir John Hackett in "The Third World War" in 1979. Where the Soviets launch 2 nukes at the UK, and in response get 2 nukes from the UK, France, and US at two of their cities. But that was already becoming an obsolete theory, and why by the time of "Red Storm Rising" in 1986 the author ended the book with the Soviet nukes being stopped by an internal coup before they could be launched. Because Tom Clancy knew like most of us by then that once the nukes started, there was likely no stopping them all from being used.

The problem is that China did not go through a half century long Cold War, and does not seem to realize this. They are still working off of a 60 year old playbook and thinking it applies in the 21st century. When the other two major players ripped it up decades ago and realized it was unworkable.

 

[Silver Cat]

Really? You post some pretty pictures from Twitter, without any context or reference?

How about I post a picture of a tree? It gives as much context as an uncredited map without any reference given than anything else. That could be the Soviet targets in the 1980s, where the cheapest gasoline is, or the places with the best tacos for all we know.

Do you see this three big red spots? Those are ICBMs.
The new Russian SLBMs are quite precise (they have satnav at every RV), for example, RSM-54 Sineva (SS-N-23 Skiff) never missed its target more than 17 meters. With 100kt warheads - it's quite good to destroy siloses.
Flight time of RSM-56 Bulava from Northern Pole to the most southern silo - bit less than 7 minutes.

Talking about SBIRS... It was supposed to have more than 30 satellites, in fact there are less than 10, and don't ask me, how many of them are still active... There are plenty of windows to use for launch, and plenty of possibilities to sabotage the system.

The best time of Launch on Watch even in better times and at demonstrative trainings was 7 minutes. Under any realistic circumstances it will be more than 15 minutes. The Russians have more than enough of time for the counter-force strike.

 

[Hang on Sloopy]

You've been checking the penis' of Chinese men?

You need a new hobby...

Lol. Since they seem to be your favs, you know better than I son

 

[hjmick]

Lol. Since they seem to be your favs, you know better than I son

I like Chinese food, but that's as far as it goes... and it has to be American Chinese food... I won't go native.

 

[Batcat]

Actually we have to do much more than just hope and pray - to make better alliances, to invent and produce better nukes, to buy real ABD and ability to alleviate and recuperate after the nuclear attack, etc...


May be. May be not. The weapons itself decides nothing. It is ability and decisiveness to use it what matters.
To have deterrence we need to have credible possibility of an attack. And to have a credible possibility we need to have realistic plans.

If Putin views Biden as weak he may push too hard.

It takes just one nuke to ruin your entire day plus things may rapidly get out of hand after the first nuke.

 

[Silver Cat]

Actually, if you are talking about nukes the only one that matters is that if they are used, they all get used. The idea of a "limited nuclear exchange" pretty much went out the window by the 1980's. Because war planners on both sides realized that the moment one is used, the other side responds with even more. Then the first side responds again with even more to surpass the first counter-strike, and soon almost all are on their way to targets.

You see - the other side won't respond with "even more" if you destroy almost all her nukes. And yes, there is no need in the second counter-value attack if the enemy surrendered after the first counter-force attack.

I think the last time a "limited nuclear strike" was talked about seriously was Sir John Hackett in "The Third World War" in 1979. Where the Soviets launch 2 nukes at the UK, and in response get 2 nukes from the UK, France, and US at two of their cities.

Ok. Let's play the game: the UK, without direct order from the USA, decided to play their own, independent game and get involved into the Russian-Ukrainian conflict. Russia destroyed their HMNB Clyde (with two Vanguards) by the nuclear Kinjal and the single Vanguard by an attacking submarine. The UK became a nonnuclear state and surrender. Russia won, the UK lost, all other prefer not-escalation strategy.

But that was already becoming an obsolete theory, and why by the time of "Red Storm Rising" in 1986 the author ended the book with the Soviet nukes being stopped by an internal coup before they could be launched. Because Tom Clancy knew like most of us by then that once the nukes started, there was likely no stopping them all from being used.

Did you read the Russian respond on "Red Storm Rising"? - "The Nuclear Tankmen"?
Almost the same situation, NATO-WP war in 1982, the Russians are good, the Yanks and Brits are bad, and there is an active usage of tactical nukes by both sides in the Central and Western Europe.

The problem is that China did not go through a half century long Cold War, and does not seem to realize this. They are still working off of a 60 year old playbook and thinking it applies in the 21st century. When the other two major players ripped it up decades ago and realized it was unworkable.

It's not a problem. What is the real problem is that China's strategy became more and more "Russificated".

 

[Silver Cat]

If Putin views Biden as weak he may push too hard.

It's not a really big problem to seems weak. Even being weak is normal. What is a problem - is being weak and provocative simultaneously.

 

[Likkmee]

SSDG