China Has Thousands of Missiles for 1 Goal: Sink Aircraft Carriers and Win a War : technology

[–] Pathfinder@lemmygrad.ml 16 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (2 children)

In fact, one must assume that China’s threat to US warships will be even greater than what the Houthis are able to do.

Whoa, what brilliant military insight this sage geopolitical analyst possesses. China - a nation of 1.4 billion people that has unparalleled productive capacities and is nearly America’s peer in military tech - MIGHT pose a bigger threat to US warships than a (very based) small, relatively impoverished country that was until recently the victim of a decade-long genocidal war.

[–] yogthos@lemmygrad.ml 7 points 6 days ago

behold the power of western intellect

[–] PanArab@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

Saudi Arabia did commit war crimes but it wasn’t genocidal. The only intent was to support their preferred faction in Yemen and prevent Iran from having an ally on its border.

Saudi Arabia is big and diverse and so is Yemen. But the two countries’ people are more alike than different and intermarry more than they do with any other country.

I am not denying or excusing what happened. As far as I know though the ICC or ICJ never ruled it was a genocide.

[–] Pathfinder@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 4 days ago

I was under the impression that KSA was intentionally blocking food imports which was leading to famine conditions. I am admittedly not as familiar with the war between KSA and Ansarallah as I am with what is happening in Gaza, so I am open to correction if I’m wrong.

[–] miz@lemmygrad.ml 36 points 1 week ago

America Has Thousands of Missiles for 1 Goal: Make Lots of Money for Raytheon

[–] Comprehensive49@lemmygrad.ml 33 points 1 week ago (1 children)

How dare the devious Chinese use missiles to defend their coasts! That's unfair to the US military's expensive toys! /s

The author's proposed solutions are to deploy hypersonic missiles (which China has more of while the US still doesn't have any ready), drones (which China leads the world in), and long-range ballistic missiles (which China has more of, and also look too much like nukes).

[–] yogthos@lemmygrad.ml 28 points 1 week ago (1 children)

That's kind of the crux of it, Chinese industrial power is order of magnitude larger than the US. On top of that, China would be fighting on their land while the US would be forced to ship weapons half way across the world. Even with support from their puppets in Japan, Korea, and the Philippines it's clearly a losing game.

[–] miz@lemmygrad.ml 20 points 1 week ago (1 children)

and in shipbuilding it's 200:1

[–] cayde6ml@lemmygrad.ml 4 points 1 week ago

"But that's SEE-SEE-MY-PEE-PEE propaganda, you evile Ten-Key!"

[–] AlbigensianGhoul@lemmygrad.ml 29 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Failure to do this will mean that the Americans have effectively ceded the South China Sea, parts of the East China Sea, the Taiwan Strait, and even the Yellow Sea to the People’s Republic of China.

Once that happens, the Chinese then move with great speed to push their power beyond that First Island Chain all the way to the Third Island Chain (which includes Hawaii), and it’s a whole new ballgame.

It's interesting how they never properly analyse how a war with China would play out outside of Chinese waters. It's almost as if China (or any other country, really) would never bother waging war against the USA outside its own territory.

[–] yogthos@lemmygrad.ml 21 points 1 week ago

Oh yeah, even when they discuss a nuclear war they just conveniently assume the US would be spared for some reason.

[–] ComradeSalad@lemmygrad.ml 14 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Its also impractical and entirely opposite to the decades long Chinese naval strategy. China doesn't have an effective blue water navy anywhere near the strength of the US', and the PLAN would get sent to the ocean floor the second they attempted to break out towards the second island chain.

Almost because their naval strategy is focused around a green water navy centered on maintaining superiority of China's coastline and everything within the first island chain. Leaving US naval assets unable to maintain supply lines to Taiwan and the Philippines, with any vessels they send getting swarmed my smaller craft and AShM's.

[–] 666@lemmygrad.ml 5 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Not a blue water navy but China has quite a few submarines. That I would imagine would be the counter to massive fleets.

[–] ComradeSalad@lemmygrad.ml 5 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Huge fleets operate with submarine escorts along with substantial anti submarine escorts and assets. Ie: helicopters with dipping sonars, planes with sonar bouys, destroyers with anti submarine load outs, etc.

Submarines are mainly only good for striking isolated contacts.

[–] 666@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

Yes...but what if you had like...a lot of them. /s

Joking, but it does seem China is heavily invested in building submarines specifically. I was curious if they had a doctrine against American naval power involving submarines. Despite what you said, I'd imagine submarines can carry a sizable missile platform and strike from far, far longer distances now. Striking convoys, trade-routes, etc in order to cut off supply to the "huge fleet". Of course they'd be protected but even the best equipment like you mentioned doesn't always stop 15 missiles from all different directions going at mach jesus. Houthi's managed it while on land.

[–] MasterDeeLuke@lemmygrad.ml 5 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Yeah it makes sense, when your opponent is a stretched global empire like the US, submarines offer the most bang for buck. The trouble the US had finding that one Russian sub that was right of the coast of Florida a little bit ago also proves that modern sub detection isn't all powerful.

[–] cayde6ml@lemmygrad.ml 8 points 1 week ago

I've read that China really is trying to develop a blue water navy, and is seriously challenging the U.S. more than was expected. I'm not saying that makes it equivalent to the U.S. though.

Then again, that argument could at least partially be fearmongering from the Amerikkkan imperialist rather than actual policy goals and actions.

Playing Devil's Advocate, while China would and should obviously make it's priority the first island chain, wouldn't it be "better" to have a dedicated force or plan to also attack from and reinforce from the second island chain if the opportunity presents itself?

And I assume that the chance of the U.S. taking Taiwan are less than 1 percent?

[–] redtea@lemmygrad.ml 10 points 1 week ago

Can you imagine hearing the same thing about China ceding the Gulf of Mexico?

[–] Ram_The_Manparts@hexbear.net 21 points 1 week ago

xi-lib-tears

[–] deathtoreddit@lemmygrad.ml 20 points 1 week ago

Fly high, oh Dongfeng, fight for your own country

Make Amerika know it'll be blown up so badly

[–] senseamidmadness@lemmygrad.ml 19 points 1 week ago

Quite a lot of cope in this article even as it acknowledges China as a threat to US naval power...in self-defense.

Technology