China to target U.S. aircraft carriers

I saw how well they got done in the Soviet Union. China has merely learned how to combine capitalism with totalitarianism, as Fred pointed out.

You just wait, China White; as soon as the Illuminati finally get around to implementing your country's system over here, we'll kick your butts in every aspect!!

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
I saw how well they got done in the Soviet Union. China has merely learned how to combine capitalism with totalitarianism, as Fred pointed out.

You just wait, China White; as soon as the Illuminati finally get around to implementing your country's system over here, we'll kick your butts in every aspect!!

yeah ok... you keep on waiting

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
I saw how well they got done in the Soviet Union. China has merely learned how to combine capitalism with totalitarianism, as Fred pointed out.

You just wait, China White; as soon as the Illuminati finally get around to implementing your country's system over here, we'll kick your butts in every aspect!!

That is if you really believe if there is such thing as the Illuminati.

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
I saw how well they got done in the Soviet Union. China has merely learned how to combine capitalism with totalitarianism, as Fred pointed out.

Well, China may not offer much choice with a one party system, but then again, the US isn't much better with a two party system that offers no real choice either.

China to target U.S. aircraft carriers I don't think so.

What would they use to defend their country with thousands of missiles,bombers,and the other 11 carrier battle groups bearing down on them.

Originally posted by Jezza
What would they use to defend their country with thousands of missiles,bombers,and the other 11 carrier battle groups bearing down on them

It is unlikely that the USN could get more than 5 CBG to the region and that is a best case scenario and a long shot. The others would have to stay on station elsewhere. 2 to 3 is more likely.

That being said, as I said before, its not like they are going to place them in the Taiwan Straight. They will be well back hence the term "standoff"

I still think this is all bluster and brag. I have to laugh at the general in the article who accused the US of vainglory. What do you call a plan to start a nuclear war just to grab a little bit of island turf for nationalistic pride?

The real question is, is China prepared to become a smoking glass crater all for the sake of regaining Taiwan? I personally don't think the Chinese are that stupid. Are they?

Though used primarily to describe WWII, the above can be said of all wars.
The Aircraft Carrier was the weapon to supplant the long reign of the battleship as the titan of the seas. Even during WWII, our production of battleships continued, despite the obvious mastery of the seas which the Aircraft Carrier was introducing.
It may now be the sunset of this large bastion of mobile airpower. I hope we have learned from prior lessons.
The loss of a single Carrier in some future conflict with China would mean the lives of some 5,000 crewmen in a flash. The impact on our ability to project power would also be a factor.
The 'smoking crater' that might subsequently be the former location of Beijing.......is hopefully sufficient deterrent. But I think not.

Originally posted by Ambient Sound
The real question is, is China prepared to become a smoking glass crater all for the sake of regaining Taiwan? I personally don't think the Chinese are that stupid. Are they?

The Chinese are not afraid of the US, rightly or wrongly - in my opinion wrongly - and considering the smoking glass crater argument: China has enough nukes to turn a couple of your cities into glass as well, something you can't afford either. If you ask me, the US postering is but mere words. It is a bit hard for the US to first give Taiwan's seat in the UN to China under Nixon, which came down to effectively withdrawing the recognition of Taiwan, then come back onto that position and defend an unrecognized country that the US has refused to recognize since January 1, 1979. Bush's words to come are hollow.

In a country like China, population decrease is irrelevant, infact if you blow up 100 million people with barely no fallout, I'd actually be pretty happy, that way they would losen the one-child policy and our population would bounce right back and there'll be millions more young people.

As a Chinese general said, America cares much more about LA than Taipei.

China is prepared to be set back two decades from the retrieval of Taiwan if no other resolution is possible, we're prepared to sacrifice, is the American people prepared to sacrifice as well for the rice grain size of an island?

Originally posted by COWlan
In a country like China, population decrease is irrelevant, infact if you blow up 100 million people with barely no fallout, I'd actually be pretty happy, that way they would losen the one-child policy and our population would bounce right back and there'll be millions more young people.

but if u launch more nukes, u be wiping out the whole population along with its culture and history that lasted for thousands of years. in anicase who knows how much we would risk.

Originally posted by Jezza
China to target U.S. aircraft carriers I don't think so.

What would they use to defend their country with thousands of missiles,bombers,and the other 11 carrier battle groups bearing down on them.

It is their intention to destroy American assets in that region, and then make it clear to the U.S. that they will attack the U.S. mainland with ICBM's if we attempt any retaliation.

China has to improve its ICBMs in order to threaten the US. The main thing keeping China from being a larger threat is its lack of ability to project its military power. If China can take Taiwan quickly by surprise, without the use of nuclear weapons I don't think that the US has the military resolve to try to re-take it. This would require a major amphibious landing and massive airstrikes to do. China doesn't have that capability at this time. If they were to try it now it would be a slaughter. 4 or 5 attack subs and a Surface Action Group woul eliminate the Chinese Navy in a hurry. I don't think that you would even need a carrier group. The Air Force deploys to Guam and then to Taiwan. 35 to 40 F-15s, 25 to 30 F-16s and a couple of AWACs would eliminate the Chinese Air Force. Tomahawk their coastal airfields to make their fighters have to operate from further inland and the Chinese lack of tankers would play a large role. I understand that the loss of lives is viewed differently by the Chinese but the loss of equipment is what would hurt.

I reside on Guam, and I can tell the armed forces are being realigned to confront a possible China / Korea conflict. 12 F-15 Fighters as well as 12 B-2 / B-52 Bombers are currently assigned to Andersen AFB. Three Nuclear Submarines are currently assigned to Naval AirStation, and a CBG is to be added before the end of the year.

The military is prepping for such a scenario. Don’t think that because the Army is currently tied down in Iraq that the U.S. stance towards Taiwan has weakened. Remember, the USN and USAF currently play a minimal role in that conflict. In all honesty, the only thing hampering military efforts at this given point in time is the US Army’s ability to maintain such a high tempo for an extended period.

Now, in regard’s the US running if we lose a carrier, your nuts. Industrial America would awaken to replace and expand upon the loss. Jobs would be created and the economy would prosper. Think WWII. Also, if we were to be placed with a “Clear and Present Danger”, the ranks of the military would swell.

Taiwan is to important to abandon. It’s manufacturing and trade zones play a very important role in the World Economy. To give it to China (along with the technology) is asinine.

Believe me people, the US is salivating at the mouth hoping to duke it out with China. It would repair our image, create jobs, boost moral and revitalize the coalition.


[edit on 28-6-2005 by crisko]

Actually, at least the B-2s are on temporary duty on Guam. The last I heard both the -2s, and -52s were there primarily to support Afghanistan/Iraq and the ROK/US exercises. They aren't going to permanently station a B-2 or F-117 squadron outside the US except for TDY situations, even if it IS a US territory. Too much risk, and too much high security equipment they would have to place out there with them, in an area where they could be hit by a first strike before getting off the ground to keep them out there permanently.

They are rotating them in and out every 12 months, no...they are not supporting the Middle East.

And yes, the US would, has and still does station Bomber's outside the mainland.

The runway on Andersen drops off a cliff into the ocean. During the Vietnam War, dozens of B-52's were assigned here. They were so loaded down bombs that they didn't take off per say, but dropped off the cliff.

This base was designed with bombers in mind, as it has the largest runway in the Pacific.

Andersen used to be a part of SAC. Bombers have been permenantly assigned here before.

[edit on 28-6-2005 by crisko]

I know that. I've been to Anderson. My father was there several times during Vietnam. I didn't say they wouldn't station bombers there. I said they wouldn't station the B-2 there on a permanent basis. They were ORIGINALLY there to support the Middile East operations. I remember when they were first deployed there before we went into Afghnistan. They had B-2s, B-52s, and B-1s all out there flying missions into Afghanistan. The B-2 will NOT be permanently stationed outside the US mainland. There is no reason to, because they can fly them out of Whiteman to anywhere in the world in a matter of hours, and they're a lot better protected there. There has not been a case of a high tech (SR-71, U-2, F-117, B-2) being stationed outside the US on a permanent basis that I am aware of. There have been extended deployments of 6-8 months, but not a permanent stationing.

Ahh, your getting things confused.

At the start of the Afghan war a B-2 ocassionally stopped here, but usually they went on to Diego Garcia.

President Bush ordered 24 (12-B52s & 12-B-2s) bombers out here Specifically to show a presence angainst NK.

It was all over CNN

EDIT: The Article doesn't state B-2's, but trust me, they are clearly visible on the flight line. They are rotated in and out with the B-1's.


[edit on 28-6-2005 by crisko]

Originally posted by FredT

Originally posted by Jezza
What would they use to defend their country with thousands of missiles,bombers,and the other 11 carrier battle groups bearing down on them

It is unlikely that the USN could get more than 5 CBG to the region and that is a best case scenario and a long shot. The others would have to stay on station elsewhere. 2 to 3 is more likely.

That being said, as I said before, its not like they are going to place them in the Taiwan Straight. They will be well back hence the term "standoff"

Summer Pulse 2004; the USN deployed 7 CSGs at one time, throughout the entire world. They could probably deploy 8 or 9 at one time, if they needed too.

[edit on 28-6-2005 by NWguy83]

Originally posted by NWguy83
America has 11 carriers, China has admitted it could only disable/destroy 3 of them (for now).

Sorry, I meant 12 not 11.