America Vs China

[Prince]

Originally Posted by wehrmacht [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The US on the books strategy for dealing with nuke attacks is to absorb the first wave and just let whoever is targeted die. China can't use a strategy like that because it only takes one MIRV warhead to take out their entire population of 1 billion. This is why China is much easier to kill in any war with technology past WW2.



Anyone with WMD's can due to the map below. If you say "without nukes", there are still plenty of weapons just as effective against that.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

hows that any different than the us?

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Beastro]

China can't use a strategy like that because it only takes one MIRV warhead to take out their entire population of 1 billion.

Keep say it, but it's bullshit until you describe exactly how one warhead would kill a billion people when it's insufficient to wipe out even a single city.

Besides, warheads aren't commonly targeted at population centers, they are sanely targeted at the enemies war make capabilities. It just so happens many of them fall within population centers.

The Soviet Union varied from that because of their different take on a nuclear exchange. They didn't think it would end after the first exchange and prepared weapons to be fired after that to keep the enemy down.

They also looked on the world differently and had pretty much every capital, NATO or neutral regardless. The SU would be hurting and the turd world would become a threat potential threat post-WWIII and since all those countries are centered completely around their capitals, nuking them would keep them out of the picture.

The Typhoon Class SSBNs were built to this premise, they'd remain under the Arctic ice during the main exchange and then only surface and fire their SLBM months later to attack NATO as they tried to rebuild.

The US on the books strategy for dealing with nuke attacks is to absorb the first wave and just let whoever is targeted die.

This is result of Kennedy, McNamara and the Democrats dismantling of the SACs anti-ballistic missile defence projects in the early 60s and them later cutting into the new attempts at it when Bush was in power.

They're also responsible for the shift from manned bombers to ICBMs which reduced the reaction time during a nuclear crisis from days and hours to 5 minutes.

[Beastro]

Fucking lack of an edit button on here...

Anyone with WMD's can due to the map below. If you say "without nukes", there are still plenty of weapons just as effective against that.

How to deploy? How to deploy?

Bio and Chemical agents are often more trouble than they're worth anyway and are more effective as a defensive weapon than an offensive on.

[Juda]

Originally Posted by Beastro [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Sigh....

1: Scars, how? It would fuck up civilization and gut out almost every city, turning them into plague hole, but what scars to the planet exactly?

2: Pretty much every single war they fought before the Great War. Unilateralism and refusal to be bound up in alliances was central to American foreign policy before the 20th Century (The US looked on them as a web European powers used to drag each other into wars they didn't want to be in).

3: China and the US go to war, they're both fucked economically. One buys too much from the other while the others trade lanes will be shutdown asap.



All modern wars are quick due to the fact that modern warfare is geared towards the massive outpouring of munitions.

Every modern war conventional war has either ended quick and decisively or both sides wound up expending all their munitions and could only continue when their backers rushed to resupply them (The Abrab-Israeli wars).


Both in the infancy of their development. The mainstay of China will remain rip off Russian designs for quite some time.

The only problem is America is shooting themselves by slack on aircraft development and will rely on aircraft whose design history began in the 60s and were developed a decade after that.



America is over committed and under funded while the Chinese are still decades from training their military to be of Western quality.



A single warhead wouldn't even destroy a single city.



How to deploy?

"Things" is not the answer.



Has been for the last two centuries.



All Chinese subs currently in service are only glorified diesel subs, they can't run over 20 knots for long without destroying their engine machinery.

Chinese metallurgy is notoriously poor in quality.



Launch a ballistic missile, start a nuclear war.

its not a ICBM its a fuckin carrier killer you know that most powerful navy you once knew now all sunk to the bottom cause a few missles

[Beastro]

Originally Posted by Juda [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

its not a ICBM its a fuckin carrier killer you know that most powerful navy you once knew now all sunk to the bottom cause a few missles

There's more ballistic missiles types than the ICBMs.

The US may recognize a SRBM/MRBM launch as not a threat to CONUS but India and Russia will immediately shits their pants and launch because they don't know wtf the thing is heading for.

Russian and India launch, Pakistan and NATO then launch.

It takes a good 20-30 minutes to know where a ballistic missile is going. You have only 5 to order you're to get your ready and flying before the enemies land. Even less with the shorter ranges missiles so you fire ASAP.

Solely relying on ballistic missiles has always been retarded and one of the greatest fuck ups in the history of nuclear deterrence was the shift to soley relying on them instead of a mixed force with bombers which are both harder to hit, give you a greater reaction time to prevent a crisis from going to war and have thinking human beings behind them.

FYI, there's no such thing as a ballistic missile "self-destruct system", once they're fired WWIII begins.

Of course, all this is beside the fact that we have yet to see these Chicom missiles in action. They are after all, ballistic: Once the CBG makes even the slightest turn the missile will just plop harmlessly into the sea miles from the carrier.

The US keeps a close eye on missile launches from every country and in war time conditions, bar a ballistic launch triggering a nuclear exchange, every CBG in range will alter course.

You can counter that the US GSP sat system will get knocked out right off the bat and you'd be right... just like China's equivalent will be and without it there's no way the Chinese will even know where the US carriers are much less fire off missiles at them.

And of course, we haven't yet touched upon the fact that the USN is arming their escort ships with ABM systems as we speak.

Cut out the dick waving and state facts.

[bman8810]

Originally Posted by Ronas [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

1. Use of Nukes wouldn't really be put into play, to me i believe they are there just to scare the other nations but neither countries would use them (Well maybe the US because they are stupid and arrogant) due to one bomb pretty much blasting away 1/5 of the world, and leaving behind scars on the planet that wouldn't regen for over 1000 years.

I'm just going to go ahead and assume you were exaggerating and don't really believe those claims. If you really did, you would believe that we destroyed 40% of the world during WW2.

A picture of Hiroshima now:
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Prince]

just fyi the nuclear weapons the US, Russia etc have nowadays are pretty different from the two bombs that were dropped on Japan in WW2.

[Prince]

For instance, Fat man had a blast yield of 21 kilotons of tnt (88 terajoules of energy) and little boy had a yield of 13-18 kt TNT (54-75 TJ). Modern nuclear weapons (using the B83 as an example) have blast yields of up to 1.2 Megatons (1,200 Kilotons) of TNT, equivalent to 5,000 terajoules of energy. There's a pretty big difference between the impact that one of these bombs would have if detonated compared to the long term effect of fat man + little boy on Japan.

[naez]

yea bros we create mini black holes by shooting particles at each other. i think we're gonna do a bit better than 1940s before silicon wafers

[bman8810]

Originally Posted by Prince [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

For instance, Fat man had a blast yield of 21 kilotons of tnt (88 terajoules of energy) and little boy had a yield of 13-18 kt TNT (54-75 TJ). Modern nuclear weapons (using the B83 as an example) have blast yields of up to 1.2 Megatons (1,200 Kilotons) of TNT, equivalent to 5,000 terajoules of energy. There's a pretty big difference between the impact that one of these bombs would have if detonated compared to the long term effect of fat man + little boy on Japan.

You are referring to two different types of bombs. The first type of bomb you are referring to is an atomic bomb and relies solely on fission. The second type of bomb you are referring to is a thermonuclear bomb which utilizes both fusion and fission.

Also, 1954 was the first testing of a hydrogen bomb; i.e. a thermonuclear bomb. It released the equivalent (approximately) of 10 megatons of TNT. As such, the 1/5th of the earth claim is still far from accurate.