Americans afraid of China

[Silver Cat]

Letting an ally get nuked, then doing nothing is not "deterrence". In fact, it is the exact opposite of deterrence and is known as "capitulation".

Yes. And likely, that in 2025-30 the USA will lost the Credible First Strike Capability (against China), and, therefore, Deterrence Type II. And that means, that there will be a choice between suicide and capitulation in any really tension situation. And when previous administrations faced that choice - you know what did they choose.

 

[Silver Cat]

May be, we don't understand what is the nature of deterrence. But much more likely, it's freaking Xiden and his flock doesn't understand it.
There is no sort of declaration that can prevent aggression against the USA or their allies. We need a real, credible treat and capability to fight and win a nuclear war.

 

[Mushroom]

View attachment 601398


May be, we don't understand what is the nature of deterrence. But much more likely, it's freaking Xiden and his flock doesn't understand it.
There is no sort of declaration that can prevent aggression against the USA or their allies. We need a real, credible treat and capability to fight and win a nuclear war.

And please tell us, exactly what "ground based missiles" does the US even have to deploy?

Because the last time I looked, the US has not used any in around 30 years. Has none in inventory, and is not even working on developing any new ones.

And once again, you delusionally talk about "winning" a nuclear war.

Nobody "wins" such a war. Only a complete moron would even think such a thing was possible. There are only different degrees of losers.

 

[Dayton3]

And please tell us, exactly what "ground based missiles" does the US even have to deploy?

Because the last time I looked, the US has not used any in around 30 years. Has none in inventory, and is not even working on developing any new ones.

And once again, you delusionally talk about "winning" a nuclear war.

Nobody "wins" such a war. Only a complete moron would even think such a thing was possible. There are only different degrees of losers.

any war is winnable.

 

[Silver Cat]

And please tell us, exactly what "ground based missiles" does the US even have to deploy?

For example (just as a temporary solution) Typhon MRC.

Because the last time I looked, the US has not used any in around 30 years. Has none in inventory, and is not even working on developing any new ones.

And once again, you delusionally talk about "winning" a nuclear war.

Nobody "wins" such a war. Only a complete moron would even think such a thing was possible. There are only different degrees of losers.

Oh, man... Do you see the difference between two tragic situation:
- The USA lost 3 million people, China lost 300 million people, peace treaty is signed on the terms of America;
- The USA lost 300 million, China lost 3 million, peace treaty is signed on the terms of China;
- Both USA and China lost 30 millions, peace treaty is signed on the terms of Russia and India?

 

[bambu.]

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".

Ah yes, ye olde "them or us" scenario.
They start a war, to enslave the world...like Germany and Japan tried to do...they deserve every bad thing that happens to them.
Tokyo was fire bombed.
Japan was nuked, twice.
It's what has to be done to stop "them".
When China invades Australia, the only way to stop it will be to turn Beijing and Shanghai into ash.
Shooting invading Chinese troops one at a time would result in certain defeat.
That policy failed in Afghanistan.
Best way to stop Russia from invading Ukraine and the rest of Europe is to tell Russia Moscow will be turned into ash if it tries to do so.

So, the simple choice could be...kill 300million people in China, or see China win the war and enslave all Americans, the Chinese President move into the White House and the Chinese flag fly above it.

 

[Mac-7]

And that means, that there will be a choice between suicide and capitulation in any really tension situation.

Doesnt china face the same choice?

 

[bambu.]

Doesnt china face the same choice?

Mommy dearest told me some time ago...
"the next war will be 'one flash and you're ash'."

 

[Mac-7]

Mommy dearest told me some time ago...
"the next war will be 'one flash and you're ash'."

Do you think chinese people immune to nuclear bombs?

if so you are wrong

 

[Mushroom]

any war is winnable.

What, after a nuclear exchange?

If the US and China exchanged 100 nukes each, both would have lost.

That is like saying there can be a "winner" in a duel with flamethrowers at 10 paces.

 

[Silver Cat]

Doesnt china face the same choice?

Depends on stakes. Rabbit usually runs faster than fox, because rabbit can lose its life, and fox can lose only its dinner.
Talking about Chinese military presence somewhere in Africa - yes, there China can't escalate.
Japan killed more than 30 million of Chinese men, women and children in the previous war, and China may decide that 30 (or even 300) millions is an acceptable price for prevention of further Japan militarization. For the USA 30 millions for the "freedom" of Japan may be unacceptable price. Therefore, China will be able to attack Japan and be almost sure, that the USA won't attack Chinese cities (because if they attack Chinese cities - China will attack American cities, and kill more than 30 millions of Americans). They may consider it as a lesser evil.

 

[Mushroom]

For example (just as a temporary solution) Typhon MRC.

No, that is not what was asked. I asked what the US has to deploy that is a ground based missile.

And you showed me something that only exists on paper.

And holy hell, you are aware that the SM series is a ground to air missile, right? This in the Navy is called the SM-6. This is primarily an attempt to create another ABM system, akin to AEGIS Ashore but mobile.

In fact, the SM-6 actually uses the same missile as the SM-2. It is simply a more "fire and forget" system as they took the active seeker targeting system from an AIM-120 AMRAAM air to air missile and stuck it into it. This is opposed to the SM-2, which is guided to the target from the launching vessel itself.

So not only do you present as a system that can be fielded something that only exists on paper, you bring up yet another air defense system.

You really do not know how all this works, that is so freaking obvious. You just pull this random crap out of your ass, then expect people to just believe it without question. Of course, what should I expect from somebody who's entire research ability seems to be restricted to twitter posts.

 

[Mushroom]

Do you think chinese people immune to nuclear bombs?

Of course he does. He thinks nobody will dare try to nuke China. That all nations will automatically realize their obvious superiority and bow down to whatever they demand.

That they can launch nukes at anybody, and they will not dare to respond. That every single system they have made or are trying to make are absolutely unstoppable, will work perfectly every time, and nothing can stop them.

The disconnect SC has with reality is absolutely amazing. And is actually one of the closest in here that I would think might actually be a "paid shill".

 

[Mac-7]

Japan killed more than 30 million of Chinese men, women and children in the previous war, and China may decide that 30 (or even 300) millions is an acceptable price for prevention of further Japan militarization.

If so that would reveal a troubling amount of ignorance and paranoia

which may exist because thanks to communist propaganda WWII is as recent in china as if it were yesterday

as long as china is ruled by crazy maoists the threat of war exists

because they are expansionist

which will test the will of free people everywhere

 

[Silver Cat]

What, after a nuclear exchange?

If the US and China exchanged 100 nukes each, both would have lost.

That is like saying there can be a "winner" in a duel with flamethrowers at 10 paces.

Ok. Let's play the game (year 2010).
1. China do something extremely provocative (for example, invade Taiwan) and use nuclear weapon against them (1 million Taiwanese are dead).
2. The USA attack Chinese nuclear forces - 5 millions of Chinese are dead, and 5 millions nore will die soon. 90% of Chinese nukes are destroyed.
3. The USA say: "Ok. You can launch your SLBMs and destroy one or two American cities. We can accept it. But then we'll destroy your whole country, we'll burn down every city, every town and every village. Surrender now and save some of your people. "
4. China surrendered, the USA won. Almost flawless victory. Or China attacked, USA lost two cities, destroyed China and sign a new peace treaty with their leftovers in the radioactive ruins of Beijing. Not that flawless, but still a victory.

 

[Mushroom]

1. China do something extremely provocative (for example, invade Taiwan) and use nuclear weapon against them (1 million Taiwanese are dead).
2. The USA attack Chinese nuclear forces - 5 millions of Chinese are dead, and 5 millions nore will die soon. 90% of Chinese nukes are destroyed.

To start with, this once again shows your extreme ignorance and obsession./ What makes you think that only the US would nuke China if China nuked Taiwan? Because I can think of at least two other nations off the top of my head that would more than likely join in and nuke China as well.

You see, this is your biggest failure. For some idiotic reason, you think that the entire world is a vacuum, and only the actions of China and the US have any impact. And that for fear of retaliation the US would not react to anything that China did. And that is why you will always fail, it is called an almost sociopathic disconnect with reality.

Here is a much more realistic response. China nukes Taiwan. After a quick conference as a show of support and clear condemnation the US decides to respond with 2 nukes on industrial or port cities in response. Followed by France and the UK doing the same thing to drive home their own message that such will not be tolerated.

If you can count, that is six nukes on six cities, by three nations. For some reason you seem to completely forget that there are other nuclear powers out there, and they are US allies and not Chinese allies. Both of which also have long standing interests in that very region of the world, and would react just as strongly if not even more so than the US would.

If course you also believe that if Might China nuked Japan, the US would not do a damned thing but simply run away because China is so mighty.

 

[Silver Cat]

No, that is not what was asked. I asked what the US has to deploy that is a ground based missile.

And you showed me something that only exists on paper.

And holy hell, you are aware that the SM series is a ground to air missile, right? This in the Navy is called the SM-6. This is primarily an attempt to create another ABM system, akin to AEGIS Ashore but mobile.

In fact, the SM-6 actually uses the same missile as the SM-2. It is simply a more "fire and forget" system as they took the active seeker targeting system from an AIM-120 AMRAAM air to air missile and stuck it into it. This is opposed to the SM-2, which is guided to the target from the launching vessel itself.

So not only do you present as a system that can be fielded something that only exists on paper, you bring up yet another air defense system.

You really do not know how all this works, that is so freaking obvious. You just pull this random crap out of your ass, then expect people to just believe it without question. Of course, what should I expect from somebody who's entire research ability seems to be restricted to twitter posts.

Actually, a ground based Tomahawk was tested in 2019. Yes, it still needs nuclear warheads back, but it's not a really big problem.
SM-6 can be used as a short range ballistic missile and later its range will be increased.
There are plenty of other systems that must be developed now to keep the Credible First Strike Capability.

 

[Mushroom]

Actually, a ground based Tomahawk was tested in 2019. Yes, it still needs nuclear warheads back, but it's not a really big problem.

Ground based Tomahawk was a thing for just under a decade. The BGM-109G GLCM was in service from 1983 to 1991, then removed as per the INF treaty.

And no, the system was not "tested" in 2019, it was proposed that in response to the Russians returning to making ground based missiles the US would look at doing the same. But none have been made, none have been tested. All the old GLCM launchers were destroyed decades ago in keeping with the INF, and all that exists is on paper a proposal from 2019 to 2020 to rush out a newer version of the GLCM and a ground based SM-6 "as early as 2023". It is now 2022, and nothing has been done yet other than on paper.

Do you really think the US can put into the field two completely new and untested systems in a year? I don't, and I have been watching the US defense industry for decades.

Unless of course you are for some reason confusing something completely different. Which would not surprise me at all as you seem so very confused about things like this.

Are you maybe confusing the possible return of the GLCM with a Marine Corps proposed system to field land based launchers that are armed with Tomahawk anti-ship missiles? You know, they are not the same thing at all, right? And that is actually a revisiting of an old system that has been requested as the US has not had any kind of ground based anti-ship missiles in decades. And other countries are looking at it with interest, including Taiwan. To be honest, I can't really see the Marines having more than say 3 batteries of that at most. But it would probably be a popular item for overseas sale.

SM-6 can be used as a short range ballistic missile and later it's range will be increased.

Oh big whoop-de-doo.

Yes, that is a theoretical possibility. As it is a possibility for the sea based system.

But wait, the sea based system has that as an ultimate "last chance" capability against surface ships. On the ocean. With a flat surface, and no obstructions like buildings, trees, mountains, etc.

And the SM-6 is not a nuclear system. It has a 140 pound warhead. That's it, just 140 pounds. Do I even have to express the stupidity of making an entire system based on the idea of creating a ballistic missile that only has a bursting charge of 140 pounds? At that small of a warhead, the range does not even matter. A WWII P-51 could drop bigger bombs than that missile can loft.

Oh, and for anything other than fixed target it would be worthless, as it could not even use its standout feature of the active tracking warhead. As it is designed to track moving targets on a flat plane with no clutter or obstructions. You know, like ships on the ocean. Where a 140 pound charge might actually do at least some good, and the tracking warhead is actually of use. Before even thinking of trying to use the SM-6 as a ground based ballistic missile, it would make a hell of a lot more sense to simply revive the LRLAP program than something as idiotic as a ballistic missile with a 140 pound charge.

 

[Silver Cat]

Ground based Tomahawk was a thing for just under a decade. The BGM-109G GLCM was in service from 1983 to 1991, then removed as per the INF treaty.

And no, the system was not "tested" in 2019, it was proposed that in response to the Russians returning to making ground based missiles the US would look at doing the same. But none have been made, none have been tested. All the old GLCM launchers were destroyed decades ago in keeping with the INF, and all that exists is on paper a proposal from 2019 to 2020 to rush out a newer version of the GLCM and a ground based SM-6 "as early as 2023". It is now 2022, and nothing has been done yet other than on paper.

It was tested.

DOD Conducts Ground Launch Cruise Missile Test

On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 2:30 p.m. Pacific Daylight Time, the Department of Defense conducted a flight test of a conventionally-configured ground-launched cruise missile at San Nicolas Island,

www.defense.gov

Do you really think the US can put into the field two completely new and untested systems in a year? I don't, and I have been watching the US defense industry for decades.

Unless of course you are for some reason confusing something completely different. Which would not surprise me at all as you seem so very confused about things like this.

Are you maybe confusing the possible return of the GLCM with a Marine Corps proposed system to field land based launchers that are armed with Tomahawk anti-ship missiles? You know, they are not the same thing at all, right? And that is actually a revisiting of an old system that has been requested as the US has not had any kind of ground based anti-ship missiles in decades. And other countries are looking at it with interest, including Taiwan. To be honest, I can't really see the Marines having more than say 3 batteries of that at most. But it would probably be a popular item for overseas sale.



Oh big whoop-de-doo.

Yes, that is a theoretical possibility. As it is a possibility for the sea based system.

But wait, the sea based system has that as an ultimate "last chance" capability against surface ships. On the ocean. With a flat surface, and no obstructions like buildings, trees, mountains, etc.

And the SM-6 is not a nuclear system. It has a 140 pound warhead. That's it, just 140 pounds. Do I even have to express the stupidity of making an entire system based on the idea of creating a ballistic missile that only has a bursting charge of 140 pounds? At that small of a warhead, the range does not even matter. A WWII P-51 could drop bigger bombs than that missile can loft.

Oh, and for anything other than fixed target it would be worthless, as it could not even use its standout feature of the active tracking warhead. As it is designed to track moving targets on a flat plane with no clutter or obstructions. You know, like ships on the ocean. Where a 140 pound charge might actually do at least some good, and the tracking warhead is actually of use. Before even thinking of trying to use the SM-6 as a ground based ballistic missile, it would make a hell of a lot more sense to simply revive the LRLAP program than something as idiotic as a ballistic missile with a 140 pound charge.

It can be designed and produced. I don't sure, that even it will work, there are plenty of other problems, like with the full devastation of nuclear weapons industry.

80 pits by 2030 won't happen, NNSA boss reaffirms. But 'acceleration' is in the works.

The leader of the National Nuclear Security Administration this week reasserted that a legal requirement to produce dozens of nuclear weapon cores by 2030 is not achievable, but suggested tactics

www.postandcourier.com

May be, it's too late, the USA will lose the credible first strike capability against China, as soon as 2030 (or earlier). And then, China (or Shanghai Pact) will capture Taiwan, and, may be, South Korea and Japan, too. May be, the USA can do something to keep it. But if the USA want to keep it - they need to act now.
There is no chance, that empty declarations, without the real nuclear superiority and credible attack capability can deter China (or anybody else).

 

[Mushroom]

It was tested.

Big whoop-de-doo. That was 2019. What has been done in the three years since?

Nothing.

Well, other than the Marines then doing a test a bit later that was similar, with an anti-ship Tomahawk.

In reality, as this is about as important as launching a Minuteman missile form a C-5, or operating a C-130 from a carrier.