maddogdrivethru.net

Open all night
It is currently Fri Dec 14, 2018 12:37 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 20 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Tales of the South China Sea
PostPosted: Tue Aug 16, 2011 4:35 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2008 12:33 pm
Posts: 20944
Location: LV-426
Reputation points: 15927
Better still, can we identify which treasury notes were sold to China and simply declare them void?

_________________
"Fuck the king." - Sandor Clegane

"And the story was whatever was the song what it was." - Dire Straits


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Tales of the South China Sea
PostPosted: Tue Aug 16, 2011 4:40 pm 
Offline
Staff Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 6:42 pm
Posts: 4965
Location: North Atlantic Treaty Organization
Reputation points: 3538
mdiehl wrote:
Better still, can we identify which treasury notes were sold to China and simply declare them void?

what i said a while ago 8-) ...it would be default though....just the world plus our allies would have to stand up and be counted(your favourite situation Diehl.... 8-) )


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Tales of the South China Sea
PostPosted: Tue Aug 16, 2011 4:45 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2008 12:33 pm
Posts: 20944
Location: LV-426
Reputation points: 15927
It would be a default. I'm OK with defaulting on US debts to the PRC, a nation whose trade barriers, theft of US intellectual property, currency fixing, and ongoing cyberwarfare attacks on the USA make any form of US economic retaliation against them justifiable, appropriate, and warranted. Hell, I'd cut off food shipments to 'em too.

_________________
"Fuck the king." - Sandor Clegane

"And the story was whatever was the song what it was." - Dire Straits


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Tales of the South China Sea
PostPosted: Tue Aug 16, 2011 5:16 pm 
Offline
Staff Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 6:42 pm
Posts: 4965
Location: North Atlantic Treaty Organization
Reputation points: 3538
mdiehl wrote:
It would be a default. I'm OK with defaulting on US debts to the PRC, a nation whose trade barriers, theft of US intellectual property, currency fixing, and ongoing cyberwarfare attacks on the USA make any form of US economic retaliation against them justifiable, appropriate, and warranted. Hell, I'd cut off food shipments to 'em too.

You gotta admit though, the krauts and frogs and dagos are just a little bit less evil? 8-)

seriously, off-shoring jobs to China has been a meta-geo-strategic mistake of the American business class...this is where i reluctantly agree with Diehl....
how many billions of goods and services do we sell to them?

so let's gather allies in the South China Sea armageddon? ....a formal alliance with commie Vietnam, let's do it.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Tales of the South China Sea
PostPosted: Tue Aug 16, 2011 5:50 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2008 12:33 pm
Posts: 20944
Location: LV-426
Reputation points: 15927
Quote:
You gotta admit though, the krauts and frogs and dagos are just a little bit less evil?


No. The Chinese are dicks no doubt about it, but the frickin krauts... who thought that letting them back on their feet was a good idea?

Quote:
so let's gather allies in the South China Sea armageddon? ....a formal alliance with commie Vietnam, let's do it.


I'm rather more enamored of the idea of avoiding any such alliances. It will inevitably mean that the US does all the work and carries the tax bill. I have in mind something more like our relationship with Europe in 1915. Sell arms to any nation near China that wants to buy said arms. I can see money to be made in that, and no "Imperial Entanglements" as it were.

_________________
"Fuck the king." - Sandor Clegane

"And the story was whatever was the song what it was." - Dire Straits


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Tales of the South China Sea
PostPosted: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:32 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:50 pm
Posts: 31639
Location: West coast of the east coast
Reputation points: 20000
See my answers in blue.

NATO wrote:
knuckles_95 wrote:
China just sailed it's first carrier recently so we better be careful before they build more and overrun us militarily :roll:.

Can we do a Pearl Harbor a la Dec 41 on China? They don't have a fleet equivalent to what US had 12/7/41
will they dare go nuclear if we try? Doubt it. Anyone know what China's ICBM max. range is?
can we take out their hackers who have been successfuly practicing for years hacking into our world? There lies my biggest concern. They probably have had the most aggressive, state-sponsored hacking program for some years now. If you consider Borel's dactylographic monkey theorem, and China's population (1,339,724,852 (2010 census), the odds of some Chinaman piercing critical US computer networks does not seem as daunting, now does it?
Are our best Pentagon/IT minds thinking abt it, planning it? I'm sure they have considered and established contingency plans for everything from that, to an invasion of little green men from Mars
Can we suppress their ICBMs? Most likely those targeting CONUS, but doubt it for our SE Asian allies and US military bases in the region
Or will one or two or three slant SLBMs get through to San Fran, LA and Seattle?
Can we explain to our friends: sorry, no more chinese food takeout other than your local denizens? I'm sure we will manage somehow:


Image

_________________
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.
- misattributed to Alexis De Tocqueville

No representations made as to the accuracy of info in posted news articles or links


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Tales of the South China Sea
PostPosted: Wed Aug 17, 2011 10:50 am 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 9:26 am
Posts: 11537
Reputation points: 6762
China has 66 ICBMs of which I believe only 44 that can reach the US.

20 with a 13,000 km range (Dongfeng 5)
24 with a 11,000 km range (Dong Feng 31)

The DF-5 I believe is only fitted with a conventional warhead due to technical difficulties and they are located in Central China in silos so I believe they can only barely reach the US if at all. It's a 3 stage rocket that has to moved out in the open and fueled for 2 hours before it can be launched so we would have advance knowledge long before they are ready to launch.

The DF-31A is a mobile ICBM with a singular nuclear and takes up to an hour to fuel. In order to hit the US it would have to get pretty close the coast


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Tales of the South China Sea
PostPosted: Sun Apr 10, 2016 2:36 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:50 pm
Posts: 31639
Location: West coast of the east coast
Reputation points: 20000
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2016 ... china.html

Quote:
Japan Sends 'Destroyer' to South China Sea in Message to China

Apr 08, 2016 | by Richard Sisk

The 646-foot flattop that Japan lists as a destroyer and China calls a helicopter carrier will join training exercises in the South China Sea next week to send a "strong message" to Beijing on its sovereignty claims over disputed islands and reefs, an official said.

The first deployment of Japan's Maritime Self-Defense Forces warship Ise outside of Japan's home islands will include a port stop at Subic Bay in the Philippines, where about 5,000 U.S. troops and 3,500 Filipino troops began the Balikatan 2016 live-fire exercises earlier this week that will continue through April 15.

Defense Secretary Ashton Carter, along with officials of Japan, Australia, Vietnam and other regional nations, was expected to stop in the Philippines next week to observe the Balikatan exercises ahead of his April 10-12 meetings in India to bolster military cooperation and sales.

In a news conference earlier this week at Camp Aguinaldo, headquarters of the Philippines' Armed Forces, Lt. Gen. John A. Toolan, commander of U.S. Marine Forces, Pacific, said that there were "a couple of things he (Carter) is very interested in" -- an apparent reference to the first firing in the Philippines of the High Mobility Rocket System (HIMARS) made by Lockheed Martin Corp.

The stepped-up ground, air and naval exercises by the U.S. and its allies in the region reflected the growing tensions brought on by China's aggressive actions and construction of artificial islands and airstrips in the South China Sea.

Japan's maritime forces said that the Ise, which left port in Japan late last month, will also participate in the Komodo naval exercises with regional allies led by Indonesia later this month.

In meetings with President Barack Obama in Washington, D.C., last week, Chinese President Xi Jinping warned that China would not accept violations of its sovereignty in the South China Sea in the name of "freedom of navigation."

Carter has frequently warned that China is "self-isolating" by its actions in the South China Sea. Last month, the secretary said that he was "re-assessing" the invitation for Chinese warships to attend the bi-annual RIMPAC, or Rim of the Pacific, naval exercises scheduled to begin in June off Hawaii because of its actions in the South China Sea.

Last Sunday, the Japanese submarine Oyashio and two surface warships arrived at Subic Bay. It was the first port visit by a Japanese submarine to the Philippines in 15 years.

The scheduled arrival in the Philippines of the Ise was "aimed at promoting friendly relations, but it also includes a strong message to keep China in check," a senior Japanese Defense Ministry official was quoted as saying by Japan's Yomiuri Shimbun newspaper.

The Ise can carry 11 SH-60J/K Seahawk anti-submarine helicopters but Japanese media have frequently noted that the Ise could easily be adapted to serve as a platform for U.S. Marine MV-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft and the F-35B, the vertical takeoff and landing Marine version of the Joint Strike Fighter.

Referring to the Balikatan exercises and the "freedom of navigation" naval exercises by the U.S. and its allies in the South China Sea, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei said that "a provocation so fear-mongering and untimely is likely to boomerang on the initiators," adding that military exercises should "promote regional peace, stability and development, instead of the contrary," according to Xinhua, China's state news agency.

Hong also said that "Japan once illegally occupied China's islands in the South China Sea during World War II. We are on high alert against Japan's attempt to return to the South China Sea through military means."

Under Japan's pacifist 1946 Constitution, which was drafted by the U.S., Japan's military was limited to "self-defense" but legislation passed last year with the backing of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe allowed Japan to participate with allies in "collective security."

Critics charge that the Ise, which resembles U.S. amphibious assault ships carrying Ospreys and jump jets, was listed as a "destroyer" to get around the prohibitions on Japan's military participation in "offensive" operations.

-- Richard Sisk can be reached at Richard.Sisk@Military.com.


_________________
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.
- misattributed to Alexis De Tocqueville

No representations made as to the accuracy of info in posted news articles or links


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Tales of the South China Sea
PostPosted: Sun Apr 10, 2016 5:47 pm 
Offline
buck private
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 8:01 am
Posts: 16330
Reputation points: 13228
Nice to see somebody has balls.

Obama was going to send Kerry and his yacht, but Kerry's busy in Europe explaining why Islamists aren't dangerous to your health.

_________________
“Political Language… is Designed to Make Lies Sound Truthful… and to Give an Appearance of Solidity to Pure Wind.” — George Orwell


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Tales of the South China Sea
PostPosted: Tue Feb 20, 2018 3:14 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:50 pm
Posts: 31639
Location: West coast of the east coast
Reputation points: 20000
https://warisboring.com/how-defensible- ... and-bases/

Note: the linked article has a number of photos, which I am not going to post here, so reading the article at the link might be more useful

Quote:
How Defensible Are China’s Island Bases?

Not very


February 19, 2018 Robert Farley

China has built some islands in the South China Sea. Can it protect them?

During World War II Japan found that control of islands offered some strategic advantages, but not enough to force the United States to reduce each island individually. Moreover, over time the islands became a strategic liability, as Japan struggled to keep them supplied with food, fuel and equipment.

The islands of the SCS are conveniently located for China, but do they really represent an asset to China’s military? The answer is yes, but in an actual conflict the value would dwindle quickly.

Installations
China has established numerous military installations in the South China Sea, primarily in the Spratly and Paracel Islands.


In the Spratlys, China has built airfields at Subi, Mischief and Fiery Cross, along with potential missile, radar and helicopter infrastructure at several smaller formations. In the Paracels, China has established a significant military installation at Woody Island, as well as radar and helicopter facilities in several other areas.

China continues construction across the region, meaning that it may expand its military presence in the future.

The larger bases — Subi, Mischief, Fiery Cross and Woody Island — have infrastructure necessary for the management of military aircraft, including fighters and large patrol craft. These missiles, radars and aircraft extend the lethal reach of China’s military across the breadth of the South China Sea.

Missiles
Several of the islands serve as bases for SAM systems — including the HQ-9, with a range of 125 miles, and perhaps eventually the Russian S-400 — and ground-launched cruise missiles, or GLCMs. These missiles serve to make the South China Sea lethal for U.S. ships and aircraft that do not have stealth capabilities, or that do not enjoy a layered air-defense system.

The SAM installations, buoyed by networks of radars, can effectively limit the ability of enemy aircraft to enter their lethal zone without significant electronic-warfare assistance. The GLCMs can add another set of launchers to China’s A2/AD network, although not necessarily with any greater effectiveness than missiles launched from subs, ships or aircraft.

But it is an open question how survivable the missile installations would be in a conflict.

Land-based missiles survive air attack because they can hide among hills, forests and other natural cover. There is no effective natural cover on the islands that China has created, and even man-made defensive installations may not survive concerted attack.

Moreover, missile launchers depend upon an at least somewhat robust logistical network for fuel, power and munitions, which China may not be able to reliably provide during a shooting war.

Airfields
The four largest military installations in the SCS have extensive facilities for the operation of military aircraft. This includes advanced fighters, but more importantly patrol, electronic-warfare and advanced early-warning aircraft.

The ability to use these airfields effectively extends the reach of China’s A2/AD bubble, enabling the transmission of targeting data to missile launchers at sea and in mainland China. The fighter aircraft themselves serve to make the skies over the SCS even more lethal than they otherwise would be, as well as threaten U.S. ships at a distance with cruise missiles.

But in conflict, the durability of an airfield depends on the availability of materials and equipment to execute repairs after an attack. It is not obvious that the islands China has created in the South China Sea will be robust enough to continue in operation after U.S. missile and bomb attacks.

Although the larger islands have aircraft shelters, it is an open question whether these shelters could long survive a concerted U.S. attack.

Radars
SAMs, GLCMs and combat aircraft depend on accurate targeting data for effectiveness.

The most important contribution that the SCS islands may offer to the Chinese military is through the radar installations that China has established on many of the islands. These installations, while individually vulnerable, help to provide a much fuller picture of the battle space than China would otherwise enjoy. Together, they significantly enhance the lethality of China’s defensive networks.

That said, the radars themselves are vulnerable to a wide array of U.S. attacks. These include kinetic methods such as missiles (launched from submarines, stealth aircraft or other platforms), electronic warfare, cyberattacks and even special-forces raids.

In a conflict, China could quickly lose access to the radar network that it has established. Still, the network offers a relatively low-cost way of complicating the job that the U.S. military faces in penetrating the SCS.

Logistics
All the military capabilities of China’s SCS islands depend upon secure communications with mainland China. Most of the islands constructed by China cannot support extensive logistics stockpiles, or keep those stockpiles safe from attack.

In a shooting war, the need to keep the islands supplied with fuel, equipment and munitions would quickly become a liability for presumably hard-stretched Chinese transport assets. Assuming that the PLAN and PLAAF would have little interest in pursuing risky, expensive efforts at resupplying islands under fire, the military value of the islands of the SCS would be a wasting asset during a conflict.

Unfortunately for China, the very nature of island warfare, and the nature of the specific formations that China has determined to support, make it difficult to keep installations in service in anything but the very short term.

Ships versus forts
As Lord Horatio Nelson may have quipped, “a ship’s a fool to fight a fort.” But there are situations in which ships have a major advantage over forts.

China’s islands in the SCS are not mobile, and are not large enough to hide much in the way of military equipment and material. The United States will be able to meticulously map the military installations on each of the islands in the SCS, and will probably be able to track shipments of military equipment to the islands. This will make the islands extremely vulnerable to attack from ships, subs and aircraft, as missiles will not require real-time targeting data.

One positive step for the United States would be to reverse the decision to “retire in place” the Advanced Gun System on the Zumwalt-class destroyer. Making available a munition for this gun would enable the Zumwalts to strike Chinese island installations at range, potentially causing serious, practically irreparable damage at a relatively low cost. Otherwise, the islands will suck up cruise missiles that might effectively be used on more juicy targets.

The islands of the SCS have some military relevance, but are more important as a political claim to waterways and undersea resources. Militarily, they represent a thin crust on China’s A2/AD system. Under certain conditions this crust could disrupt U.S. freedom of action, but it won’t be hard for the U.S. Air Force and Navy to punch through.

This article originally appeared at The National Interest.


Should the US be looking for war against China?
I think not.

But perhaps someone should blow the dust off War Plan Yellow and see if it needs updating. ;-)

_________________
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.
- misattributed to Alexis De Tocqueville

No representations made as to the accuracy of info in posted news articles or links


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 20 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group