Military Planners Conclude the Gerald R. Ford And Its Fleet Could Be Destroyed ‘With Certainty’

[Mushroom]

Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Vietnam, Korea, Libya, Syria, Somalia.....

Iraq, Korea, Syria, and Somalia, and Libya, were all UN operations. Afghanistan should be obvious. We were in both Korea and Vietnam for the same reason, we were allies with those countries.

As I said, apparently alliances mean nothing to you as you once again outright ignore the fact we had mutual defense treaties with both nations.

Iraq was a MASSIVE push over. What wasn't a push over was the occupation, but that was because Bush messed up by disbanding the military and the police, ridiculous decision. So Iran hired them instead. Great.

Iraq was a massive pushover? Wow, can tell who here does not live in reality.

So, the US can't just do whatever it wants within range of Chinese missiles.

Okinawa is 500 miles to China. That's a LONG WAY. It was 161 from Portsmouth to Normandy.

Not for aircraft it is not. You really do just make things up then repeat them endlessly, not even realizing that you were making the claim that there was no way bombers could reach China. I named three major air bases all within short range of China, and you seem to think 500 miles away is a huge distance for jet powered bombers.

The US doesn't give a flying fuck about "allies", if an ally is in danger but the US is going to have to lose it's Pacific fleet, it just won't engage. Look at the Ukraine.... is the US risking anything? Fuck no.

Uh-huh. And tell me, when exactly was the last time the US did not stand up and defend an ally? I can actually only think of a single time that has happened, and that was Vietnam.

 

[Mushroom]

America respects China's weapons and its abilities

To be honest, about the only thing impressive about the Chinese military is their ground forces.

Nothing in their naval or aviation capabilities is particularly impressive. It never has been, and likely never will be.

 

[Mushroom]

Did the US attack Iran? Nope.

Why would they?

Imagine, they had Iraq AND Afghanistan.... which country lies in between these two? Iran. There's only one real viable reason why the US stayed in Afghanistan, and that was to use a base to invade Iran.

Ahh, got it. You are a conspiracy theory nutcase.

No wonder what you cay makes little to no sense, it is not based on reality at all.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Iraq, Korea, Syria, and Somalia, and Libya, were all UN operations. Afghanistan should be obvious. We were in both Korea and Vietnam for the same reason, we were allies with those countries.

As I said, apparently alliances mean nothing to you as you once again outright ignore the fact we had mutual defense treaties with both nations.




Iraq was a massive pushover? Wow, can tell who here does not live in reality.



Not for aircraft it is not. You really do just make things up then repeat them endlessly, not even realizing that you were making the claim that there was no way bombers could reach China. I named three major air bases all within short range of China, and you seem to think 500 miles away is a huge distance for jet powered bombers.




Uh-huh. And tell me, when exactly was the last time the US did not stand up and defend an ally? I can actually only think of a single time that has happened, and that was Vietnam.

Haha, who controls the UN? You think some dude in the UN says "hey, we're going to invade Afghanistan"? No, it's the USA who says "we want a legitimate excuse to invade Afghanistan, let's use the UN for it"
Also costs the US less to fund the war by forcing allies to pay for bit, and pay for lives as well.

Why was the US allied with the capitalists in Korea and Vietnam? Er... because it opposed the spread of Communism. Simple as. They went to war, to oppose Communism. Without Communism in either country, they wouldn't have been allied with them.

The US had a mutual defense treaty AFTER the war. I can't find one from before the war.

Mutual Defense Treaty (United States–South Korea) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And I can't find a mutual defense treaty between the US and Vietnam at all.

Concerning Iraq, it took one month 11 days to completely destroy Saddam's Iraq. Look how long it's taking Putin.... he's going BACKWARDS.
Yes, it was a pushover. The Iraqi forces didn't just give up, but a war that quick... took 22 days to make it to Baghdad.

"You really do just make things up then repeat them endlessly, "

Fuck off. Can't be bothered. Conversation over.

 

[Kruska]

Did they consider the launch sites getting hit by cruise missiles, asking for a friend

Only if the USA would be in an ongoing war with China - by then the USN assets in and around the South China Sea would already rest on the bottom of the sea.
Any significant US strike onto China mainland will result in a Chinese nuclear counterstrike onto the US Mainland. China isn't some Iraq, Iran, Syria or Afghanistan, where the USA can do as they might like and please.
And the US government is very well aware of that.

The USA wouldn't act differently if China would launch significant attacks onto Mainland USA.

Also a right out war between China and the USA would provoke/tempt N-Korea to go for South-Korea - thus involving Japan as well. And unlike some Americans like to believe - Japan and S-Korea aren't interested into getting into a war at all. Which leaves solely the USA and maybe, just maybe Australia in the spotlight.

So forget these idiotic war game scenarios propagated here by some dumbfounds - if a military confrontation takes place it will be very limited and restricted - after that both sides will lick their wounds and the USA will hopefully understand that the South-China Sea is none of their business. (The USA isn't even an UNCLOS signatory) Take care off your migrant, social and economic issues in your own country first.

And this thread is about:

Military Planners Conclude the Gerald R. Ford And Its Fleet Could Be Destroyed ‘With Certainty’​

And not some full-out war between the USA and China

 

[ABikerSailor]

You started of with - ever been on a carrier.... your dick measurement games failed miserably.

And you are an obvious E-5 idiot - that all there is to you. And idiots wander into ignore -welcome

I asked if you'd ever been on a carrier because of the obvious bullshit you were spewing that would be readily apparent to ANYONE who has served on one. Plus you'd stated you'd been on them, so I simply asked which ones.

And, if you actually knew anything about the Navy, you'd know that one of the best ranks to be at is E-5, Second Class Petty Officer. You have almost as much authority as the LPO (Leading Petty Officer who is an E-6), but you don't have near the responsibility as it's the LPO who is responsible for the shop. Plus, E-5's are expected to know almost as much as the E-6 due to the needs of the service and they are expected to rise up in rank.

Cool.................an idiot put me on ignore....................color me shocked and hurt (not really as phosphor dots on a computer screen forming idiot opinions really don't have much effect on me).

 

[ABikerSailor]

Only if the USA would be in an ongoing war with China - by then the USN assets in and around the South China Sea would already rest on the bottom of the sea.
Any significant US strike onto China mainland will result in a Chinese nuclear counterstrike onto the US Mainland. China isn't some Iraq, Iran, Syria or Afghanistan, where the USA can do as they might like and please.
And the US government is very well aware of that.

The USA wouldn't act differently if China would launch significant attacks onto Mainland USA.

Also a right out war between China and the USA would provoke/tempt N-Korea to go for South-Korea - thus involving Japan as well. And unlike some Americans like to believe - Japan and S-Korea aren't interested into getting into a war at all. Which leaves solely the USA and maybe, just maybe Australia in the spotlight.

So forget these idiotic war game scenarios propagated here by some dumbfounds - if a military confrontation takes place it will be very limited and restricted - after that both sides will lick their wounds and the USA will hopefully understand that the South-China Sea is none of their business. (The USA isn't even an UNCLOS signatory) Take care off your migrant, social and economic issues in your own country first.

And this thread is about:

Military Planners Conclude the Gerald R. Ford And Its Fleet Could Be Destroyed ‘With Certainty’​

And not some full-out war between the USA and China

Wow..................now you're trying to take the focus off of what your original bullshit spewing self was talking about and reminding others to return to what the thread was started over. Way to go..............that's the mark of a cowardly idiot who is getting their ass handed to them.

And...................the military planners who concluded that the Gerald R. Ford could be destroyed were CHINESE planners, working a CHINESE war game, that was published by a CHINESE journal. You'd also stated that US planners came up with the same scenario, but when asked to provide links, you ran away scared.

And, you're probably not gonna see this since you did the pussy coward way of ignore, but I still had to correct the bullshit you were spewing so that others could see how full of crap you were. Oh................good job on getting rid of the photos you'd obviously grabbed from another website as part of your "proof". That also is another mark of an idiot coward who got caught in a bullshit story.

BTW............just gotta ask..............are you a Chinese or Russian propaganda operative? Your name sounds Russian, but you're speaking favorably for the Chinese. Maybe you're a hybrid of both?

 

[Mushroom]

Haha, who controls the UN?

As I said, a conspiracy theory nutcase. Thanks for proving it yet again.

Why was the US allied with the capitalists in Korea and Vietnam?

The decision for Korea was actually decided at the Moscow Conference of Foreign Ministers in 1945. In it the Soviet Union was to provide assistance to North Korea, the US to South Korea. What, you did not know that? There were no "Capitalists" in South Korea at the time, it has been ruled by Japan for almost 70 years by that point.

As for Vietnam, that was the 1954 Geneva Conference. That was the Peace Conference that ended the French-Indochina War, and as part of the agreement between France and Indochina, the colony was divided into four nations. Laos, Cambodia, South Vietnam and North Vietnam. North Vietnam was to be headed by the Viet Minh with assistance from the Soviet Union, and South Vietnam was to be headed by the former Nguyen Dynasty Emperor Bao Dai with assistance from the United States.

You really don't know history, do you? You literally just make crap up and expect everybody to be even more ignorant of history than you apparently are. The problem is, some of us actually know history.

So tell me, in both of the above cases, the nation that was advised and supported by the Soviet Union actually attacked and invaded their Southern neighbor. So why are you apparently so pissed at the US for helping to defend them? Why are you not screaming at the Soviet Union for two times encouraging hostile action against another country?

 

[Mushroom]

I asked if you'd ever been on a carrier because of the obvious bullshit you were spewing that would be readily apparent to ANYONE who has served on one.

Hell, I never served on a carrier and even I can see how much bullshit it is.

However, I did serve on the old USS Iwo Jima LPH-2. Which I can guarantee is a hell of a lot closer to a carrier than he is experienced on.

Which is especially ironic as that ship was longer, wider, and displaced more than the actual aircraft carrier my grandfather served on during WWII, the USS Suwannee CVE-27.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Haha, who controls the UN? You think some dude in the UN says "hey, we're going to invade Afghanistan"? No, it's the USA who says "we want a legitimate excuse to invade Afghanistan, let's use the UN for it"
Also costs the US less to fund the war by forcing allies to pay for bit, and pay for lives as well.

Why was the US allied with the capitalists in Korea and Vietnam? Er... because it opposed the spread of Communism. Simple as. They went to war, to oppose Communism. Without Communism in either country, they wouldn't have been allied with them.

The US had a mutual defense treaty AFTER the war. I can't find one from before the war.

Mutual Defense Treaty (United States–South Korea) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And I can't find a mutual defense treaty between the US and Vietnam at all.

Concerning Iraq, it took one month 11 days to completely destroy Saddam's Iraq. Look how long it's taking Putin.... he's going BACKWARDS.
Yes, it was a pushover. The Iraqi forces didn't just give up, but a war that quick... took 22 days to make it to Baghdad.

"You really do just make things up then repeat them endlessly, "

Fuck off. Can't be bothered. Conversation over.

The US doesn't control the UN, the UN usually acts in direct opposition to American wishes and interests. At best, using its security council veto, the US, like Russia and China, can block the UN's excesses.

 

[Silver Cat]

“He who defends everything, defends nothing”. The US and its allies can pick the time and places to attack. China needs to defend its entire coastline all the time. If China launches an attack against the US Navy, the entire world will turn against it and China’s economy will die.

Like the whole world turned against Russia, and it's economy died?

 

[AZrailwhale]

Haha, who controls the UN? You think some dude in the UN says "hey, we're going to invade Afghanistan"? No, it's the USA who says "we want a legitimate excuse to invade Afghanistan, let's use the UN for it"
Also costs the US less to fund the war by forcing allies to pay for bit, and pay for lives as well.

Why was the US allied with the capitalists in Korea and Vietnam? Er... because it opposed the spread of Communism. Simple as. They went to war, to oppose Communism. Without Communism in either country, they wouldn't have been allied with them.

The US had a mutual defense treaty AFTER the war. I can't find one from before the war.

Mutual Defense Treaty (United States–South Korea) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And I can't find a mutual defense treaty between the US and Vietnam at all.

Concerning Iraq, it took one month 11 days to completely destroy Saddam's Iraq. Look how long it's taking Putin.... he's going BACKWARDS.
Yes, it was a pushover. The Iraqi forces didn't just give up, but a war that quick... took 22 days to make it to Baghdad.

"You really do just make things up then repeat them endlessly, "

Fuck off. Can't be bothered. Conversation over.

The US and RVN were both members of SEATO, the Asian equivalent of NATO.

 

[Silver Cat]

Subs don't project force.

Some fools in the US Government think otherwise.

 

[Mushroom]

The US and RVN were both members of SEATO, the Asian equivalent of NATO.

Which pretty much dissolved when the US refused to support South Vietnam after North Vietnam violated the Paris Peace Accords in 1975 and resumed hostilities.

It was founded in 1954 by 8 member states. By 1975 Pakistan withdrew and South Vietnam ceased to exist. And the failure of the US to support South Vietnam in 1975 caused other nations to end support of the organization. It was finally killed in 1977.

 

[frigidweirdo]

As I said, a conspiracy theory nutcase. Thanks for proving it yet again.




The decision for Korea was actually decided at the Moscow Conference of Foreign Ministers in 1945. In it the Soviet Union was to provide assistance to North Korea, the US to South Korea. What, you did not know that? There were no "Capitalists" in South Korea at the time, it has been ruled by Japan for almost 70 years by that point.

As for Vietnam, that was the 1954 Geneva Conference. That was the Peace Conference that ended the French-Indochina War, and as part of the agreement between France and Indochina, the colony was divided into four nations. Laos, Cambodia, South Vietnam and North Vietnam. North Vietnam was to be headed by the Viet Minh with assistance from the Soviet Union, and South Vietnam was to be headed by the former Nguyen Dynasty Emperor Bao Dai with assistance from the United States.

You really don't know history, do you? You literally just make crap up and expect everybody to be even more ignorant of history than you apparently are. The problem is, some of us actually know history.

So tell me, in both of the above cases, the nation that was advised and supported by the Soviet Union actually attacked and invaded their Southern neighbor. So why are you apparently so pissed at the US for helping to defend them? Why are you not screaming at the Soviet Union for two times encouraging hostile action against another country?

Welcome to the ignore list.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The US doesn't control the UN, the UN usually acts in direct opposition to American wishes and interests. At best, using its security council veto, the US, like Russia and China, can block the UN's excesses.

There are five permanent members of the UN Security Council. They are the ones who control the UN. The US doesn't have total control, but it does use the UN to get what it wants.
The Invasion of Iraq, it used the UN to justify the unjustifiable, and the same with Afghanistan.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The US and RVN were both members of SEATO, the Asian equivalent of NATO.

And why was SEATO made?

Southeast Asia Treaty Organization - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Primarily created to block further communist gains in Southeast Asia,"

If you look you'll see that South Vietnam wasn't a member of SEATO.

"The Philippines and Thailand were the only Southeast Asian countries that actually participated in the organization."

 

[SavannahMann]

And if e.g. nuclear subs and their weaponry goes into action - the world goes boom. So it's a meaning less and totally outdated weapon system - kept alive to make the military industrial complex happy at all costs.

Well not exactly. The Ballistic Missile Submarines are what is called Second Strike weapons. They are designed to fire between two to three days after the world goes boom. The idea is that if our nation is struck by a sneak attack, and our command system breaks down, the missiles would be fired automatically.

According to Reports the British have the least expensive and easiest to manage system. The Prime Minister writes a letter instructing each Captain what to do. That letter is locked in the Submarine Safe. It is to be opened only when between two and three days have gone without contact and without the emergency signal. According to reports BBC Radio Channel 2.

This station broadcasts on Short Wave. And that is able to be heard hundreds of miles from London. So that gives the missile sub millions of square miles to hide in.

If nothing is heard from base, and nothing is heard from BBC-2, for two to three depending on the orders, days, then the Captain opens the letter orders from the Prime Minister. Nobody knows what those orders say, when the PM changes new orders are written and the original unopened orders are returned.

 

[Kruska]

Well not exactly. The Ballistic Missile Submarines are what is called Second Strike weapons. They are designed to fire between two to three days after the world goes boom. The idea is that if our nation is struck by a sneak attack, and our command system breaks down, the missiles would be fired automatically.

You are partially correct but you are citing an old or even outdated strategy/dogma. The present strategy is based on an immediate strike capability that due to distance reduction enables to circumvent defense systems and gains precious time - therefore allowing a nuclear first strike capability to knock out respective targets (foremost command & communication structure) and e.g. the enemies known nuclear launch sites. - if successful in regards to destruction and intimidation, it then is meant or thought to prevent nuclear retaliation strikes.

This concept in the meantime is beheld by all nations, especially those with the respective capabilities. China is presently enhancing this 'first strike" capability respectively the intimidation capability of such a first strike possibility.

And due to this known strategy - all nations involved have set a priority towards disabling that particular threat. E.g. there is more or less no possibility or chance left for an enemy sub (Boomer) to leave port without being followed up immediately and being constantly tracked. That is what this whole sub chase is all about.

But anyway - this isn't the tread topic - which was the possible destruction of a US carrier or part or an entire USN Task force roaming in and around the South-China -Sea.

 

[Kruska]

The US and RVN were both members of SEATO, the Asian equivalent of NATO.

SEATO is nowhere near NATO - neither in command nor in structure