News Can You Handle These Terrifying Stories?

[Townsend]

But I don't know what the Chinese have to offer and neither do you, my point and your point are merely speculation and nothing more. That being said, I have some comments about your post.

I guess you guys are unfamiliar with 'multiple warheads', 'multiple missiles', or the fact that it takes a carrier about 2 miles to really change course.

I some how don't think it is going to take that ship 2 miles to turn completely around, let alone change course.

Missiles are also capable of making adjustments based on course deviation themselves based on self positioning and changing course due to ecoded transmissions.

Sure, tomahawk cruise missiles which carry a comparatively small warhead, and many other air to air or surface to air missiles but what I am asking about is something capable of carrying a non-tactical nuclear warhead to a moving target. I find it very hard to believe such a thing exist or will ever. With a mass of about 32000 kg ICBMs do not have a lot of dexterity.

This is, in fact, the reason the USA was startled by the 1998 test firig by Pyongyang ... It showed evidence of telemetry contrary to the 1993 test.

Now, if Korea has managed to deliver this in 2008 they might not have been overly surprised but, word is, the Korean Missile is based on Chinese configurations.

I don't think I understand what you're trying to say here. So what if they have a missile that is capable of changing its course, that is not an internal guidance system capable of tracking a moving target. Not to mention that if the missile depends on another source to give guidance then it would be exceptional easy to defeat. They are called the HARMs, and they have been proven to be very effective against SAMs and your little missile is starting to sound a lot like a glorified surface to surface missile. Not something capable of defeating advanced defensive war system currently employed by US carrier battle groups.

Regards,

 

[danAlwyn]

Current guadance telemetry can be achieved by tracking a laser pointing at a target.

So, just what did they put into space? Did the Chinese put a non-lethal laser into orbit for targetting purposes?

I'm not actually sure if that would work. I thought that a laser-guided warhead was guided by the backscatter off the impact point of the laser. That means that the missile has to be approaching the same surface that the laser beam is scattering off of. In order to minimize approach profile though a non-ballistic missile approaches at as close to sea level as they can get it. So unless you're dropping missiles on targets from space (in which case, why do you need a warhead anyway?), the laser targeting system might not work well.

I don't think I understand what you're trying to say here. So what if they have a missile that is capable of changing its course, that is not an internal guidance system capable of tracking a moving target.

The question is really when is the last time they can update their course correction. Once the missile reaches the top of its trajectory and starts arcing downwards, you might only have a few minutes to react. That's hardly enough time to steer a carrier more than a mile or two from the point it would have been at. You may even have less time. And even a miss of a few miles would probably still destroy any carrier.


Besides, the Chinese have inherited the old Soviet system for sinking a carrier battle group that gets too close to shore. Calculate the total number, n, of surface to air and AR missiles carried by the carrier battle group. Then fire 2n missiles at them. This method has a fairly high chance of working despite all the defenses if a carrier group gets in close.

It's a standoff situation, and one that's going to be hard to resolve without a few test runs.

 

[The Smoking Man]

I'm not actually sure if that would work. I thought that a laser-guided warhead was guided by the backscatter off the impact point of the laser. That means that the missile has to be approaching the same surface that the laser beam is scattering off of. In order to minimize approach profile though a non-ballistic missile approaches at as close to sea level as they can get it. So unless you're dropping missiles on targets from space (in which case, why do you need a warhead anyway?), the laser targeting system might not work well.



The question is really when is the last time they can update their course correction. Once the missile reaches the top of its trajectory and starts arcing downwards, you might only have a few minutes to react. That's hardly enough time to steer a carrier more than a mile or two from the point it would have been at. You may even have less time. And even a miss of a few miles would probably still destroy any carrier.


Besides, the Chinese have inherited the old Soviet system for sinking a carrier battle group that gets too close to shore. Calculate the total number, n, of surface to air and AR missiles carried by the carrier battle group. Then fire 2n missiles at them. This method has a fairly high chance of working despite all the defenses if a carrier group gets in close.

It's a standoff situation, and one that's going to be hard to resolve without a few test runs.

Thanks Dan.

Great analysis!

 

[devil-fire]

IMO any nation-state would have to be run by the insane to actually Use a nuke on another nation-state that has nukes. i mean honestly here, if china and USA got into a full blown war it would be WW3 with nukes. i can't imagine a future situation that Only usa and china would be at war and i can't imagine a world after a full scale nuclear conflict. this is nothing new and has been said main times by many people during the cold war

but about china claiming to intend to use a nuke to defend its personnel if they are attacked while in taiwan, i don't see a really big issue here. china doesn't want the usa to interfere and they are saying with words whatever they have to so they don't have to do it with physical weapons later on.

i expect the chinese to make more threats although they wouldn't be crazy enough to carry them out to the full extent but i also expect the threats themselves will be enough to prevent a direct attack. what worrys me is what the usa will try to do besides a direct attack and what kind of response china will give.

for example, what if the usa allows all taiwan government officals political asylum?

what about trade sanctions?

what about a taiwan insurgency supplied by american training, leaked weapons and dollars?

i hope the usa dose not interfere because of freedom and democracy or for the sake of global peace because things could go bad for everyone in this case.

 

[vanesch]

IMO any nation-state would have to be run by the insane to actually Use a nuke on another nation-state that has nukes.

Now that is a worrysome statement

 

[MaxS]

Insanity is a point of view shared by a majority of the United States electorate (assuming the election wasn't rigged).

 

[GENIERE]

Insanity is a point of view shared by a majority of the United States electorate (assuming the election wasn't rigged).

The sentence has no meaning. It is a poorly structured statement proclaiming that 53,000,000 US citizens are insane and demeans the election process of the US. The poster should be banned from these forums.

 

[russ_watters]

Besides, the Chinese have inherited the old Soviet system for sinking a carrier battle group that gets too close to shore. Calculate the total number, n, of surface to air and AR missiles carried by the carrier battle group. Then fire 2n missiles at them. This method has a fairly high chance of working despite all the defenses if a carrier group gets in close.

Just out of curiosity, how many missiles do you think that is?

And what about CIWS and other defense systems?

This is an interesting debate, but all of it is predicated on the assumption that China would be able/willing to use a nuclear weapon.

 

[Art]

The sentence has no meaning. It is a poorly structured statement proclaiming that 53,000,000 US citizens are insane and demeans the election process of the US. The poster should be banned from these forums.

I believe the Bush administration demeaned the election process in the US with the voting irregularities in Florida leading to Bush's first term in office.
here's one of 43,400 links a quick google turned up on the subject http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/report/main.htm

 

[MaxS]

The sentence has no meaning. It is a poorly structured statement proclaiming that 53,000,000 US citizens are insane and demeans the election process of the US. The poster should be banned from these forums.

I guess you would also support any legislation doing away with the Bill of Rights, specifically the 1st ammendement dealing with freedom of speech. When is your next pro Patriot Act rally?

I have every right to express my disdain, as a human being, and a voting American Citizen, at the election process and its faults.

However if insanity is too strong a word allow me to substitute it for ignorance (Of history, context, geo-political climate, and many other aspects that are necessary for a voter to make a truly informed decision).

Or perhaps I could substitute insanity for non chalance and a lack of compassion (towards human beings living, and those who will some day soon inherit this earth).

 

[Townsend]

I guess you would also support any legislation doing away with the Bill of Rights, specifically the 1st ammendement dealing with freedom of speech. When is your next pro Patriot Act rally?

To do this takes an amendment to the constitution...or did I miss class on that day?

I have every right to express my disdain, as a human being, and a voting American Citizen, at the election process and its faults.

Yep, have at it...

However if insanity is too strong a word allow me to substitute it for ignorance (Of history, context, geo-political climate, and many other aspects that are necessary for a voter to make a truly informed decision).

One of the main reasons Madison was so opposed to direct democracy is the fact the the general public is not suited to govern itself directly. I agree with him and so it appears you do too. So what does that or what you just said have to do with anything?

Or perhaps I could substitute insanity for non chalance and a lack of compassion (towards human beings living, and those who will some day soon inherit this earth).

Perhaps, but your word applies to the general public including those who would agree with you and those who would be diametrically opposed to you. In other words, the non chalance would also apply to those who lack a basic understanding of macroeconomics or the concepts of true liberialism (not the contemporary meaning of the word liberialism, the real meaning aka conservative).

P.S. how do this things get so far off-topic? lol...

 

[MaxS]

Wow keep your semantics to yourself please


AS for being opposed to direct democracy, I suppose I am, in principle. I wish there were some way to make people take and pass at least a history test before being eligible to vote, but there is no ethical way to do so.

What if a man can't read for instance? Would it be a questionable decision to deny him the right to vote? I think it would.

What dismays me the most is the incredibly large number of people who DON'T exercise their right to vote.

 

[Townsend]

What if a man can't read for instance? Would it be a questionable decision to deny him the right to vote? I think it would.

What dismays me the most is the incredibly large number of people who DON'T exercise their right to vote.

Not voting can also be a powerful political statement, in case you didn't realize that.

If you take away the right for the man who cannot read to vote then how is the undereducated man suppose to have equal representation? Sounds to me like you need to read about the Jim Crow laws as they demonstrate why you cannot restrict the right to vote.

Regards

 

[Townsend]

Wow keep your semantics to yourself please

Ditto.

 

[MaxS]

Not voting can also be a powerful political statement, in case you didn't realize that.

If you take away the right for the man who cannot read to vote then how is the undereducated man suppose to have equal representation? Sounds to me like you need to read about the Jim Crow laws as they demonstrate why you cannot restrict the right to vote.

Regards

OK I won't make a lame jest about reading comprehension this time since I didnt word my statement very clearly, but suffice to say you basically just restated what I was trying to say when you said "how is the undereducated man suppose to have equal representation?" (we're in agreement)

I realize that with holding one's vote can be a political statement but it is also a forfeiture of the few small powers allowed to us as citizens to have a say in the government.

 

[danAlwyn]

Just out of curiosity, how many missiles do you think that is?

And what about CIWS and other defense systems?

Oh, I admit it's a hell of a lot. The US Navy builds their ships well, and they've been preparing for just such an assault for years. But as the components for guided missiles become cheaper and more common, they might no longer have the advantage.

For instance, the US Navy describes a typical carrier task force http://www.navy.mil/navydata/ships/carriers/powerhouse/cvbg.html They have little reason to lie on their own site, so we can take a Carrier Strike Group (CSG) as having one Ticonderoga class cruiser, and a pair of Arleigh Burke's as their main air-defense component. According to Global Security (who is usually accurate), the upgraded Ticonderoga's carry a pair of Mk-41 Vertical Launch Arrays, with a total of 127 cells. A Flight IIA Arleigh Burke carries a similar system, albiet one with only 96 launch cells. Assuming that all of them are carrying SM/2 Block IV Standards (instead of possibly being loaded with Vertical Launch ASROCs or Tomahawks), that's a formidable component of 319 missiles. The carrier itself has as many as four launchers for Sea Sparrow missiles. Now I assume a carrier can carry a great big heap of those things, so you can expect salvos at a regular interval, with an engagement range of slightly over thirty nautical miles. A Chinese missile, like the C-802 is reported to travel about Mach 0.9, so thirty nautical miles is about three minutes. If you fire a salvo every ten seconds (I have no idea how accurate that is), you add 72 more missiles to the bargain. So that's 391 missiles total that a CSG carries.

China's current aim seems to be to have 150 missile boats in service by about 2015 (once again from Global Security-although the accuracy is somewhat more in doubt). So far each of their missile boats carries four launchers. If this trend continues, that small fleet will be able to launch a saturation attack, if they get close enough. This is why they built the things, they have no legs, they're not very seaworthy, but they're cheap and they can built a hell of a lot of them, compared to how fast we build carriers. That's why there have been people arguing against carriers in recent years.

Of course, if they manage to arm their old J-7/J-8 aircraft with Air-to-Surface missiles, the count gets higher, as they have over a thousand of these old, expendable aircraft. They'd pay a high price, but they might consider it worth it (especially if nobody is sure how high a price they'd pay). China has a lot of military equipment though, and they can be expected to be very methodical about deploying it.

Of course if missile boats (and assorted patrol boats and destroyers I haven't bothered to count) do launch a 600 missile attack on a carrier task force, the result could be devastating. Even if the US scores 100% kills, 200 missiles zeroing in on a task force would be disasterous. Even the formidable CIWS, operating in pairs, could probably be saturated by as few as fifteen missiles approaching the carrier from multiple directions. Not to mention that they would probably run out of ammunition against a larger attack.

Now this is extremely unlikely, since the US has more carriers, and at this point the Chinese would pay a large price. But if an American carrier group gets careless, and the Chinese are feeling lucky, when war breaks out they might be able to launch a saturation attack of sorts.


Sorry to hijack the thread for this long and mostly meaningless discourse.

Edit: I should add that none of those missiles are known to have a nuclear payload. But at that concentration, none of them really need a nuclear payload.

 

[Townsend]

Sorry to hijack the thread for this long and mostly meaningless discourse.

No need to apologize, this is an interesting and worthy discussion. It seems the original point has failed to engender much interest anyways.

Regards,

 

[GENIERE]

Now that is a worrysome statement

True. How many nukes does he (Chirac) have?

Should the Brits be concerned even if they force themselves to eat French food?

Are the 2012 Olympics imperiled?

Will the Chunnel be closed?

Will there be a Dover invasion?

Does France have an Armada?

Should I continue to sell Euros?

 

[russ_watters]

A good analysis dan, but I have three issues with it: one, it fails to account for the aircraft on the carrier. Two (related to one), it assumes several hundred gunboats and planes could get themselves into a position to launch such an attack. And three, it assumes strategic as well as tactical surprise - ie, if tensions were higher, we'd certainly have beefier task forces than that, probably more than one, and a signficant number of other ships not necessarily assigned to the carrier task force.

 

[alexandra]

One of the main reasons Madison was so opposed to direct democracy is the fact the the general public is not suited to govern itself directly.

To the extent that the general public is not truly informed of the real facts, it is not suited to govern itself directly. This situation could be redressed by ensuring that corporate vested interests who withhold/distort information to suit their own purposes do not control the mass media - then the 'Fourth Estate' could perform its democratic functions, as outlined at Allan Gregg's April 2 2001 talk at the Second Annual Kesterton Lecture of the School of Journalism and Communication (Carleton University, Ottawa).

In sum, Canadians identify four distinct roles and benefits that individuals and society share as a result of a free and functioning press. These are:

1) A utilitarian purpose - the press satisfies intellectual curiosity and provides knowledge that can be capitalized for practical purposes.

2) The watchdog function - journalists keep government and other powerful bodies in check and help "protect me in a dangerous world."

3) A community creator - news and current affairs reporting encourages empathy and builds a common ground on which to build communities.

4) The citizen function - the media helps one form opinions on important issues and provides the raw material for social interaction.

Extract from http://www.carleton.ca/jmc/newsevents/kesterton/gregg.html

But then, while those who do govern may be better informed than the 'ignorant masses' (a term I truly resent and would not choose to use myself), they are also following specific agendas, and these have nothing to do with the 'general good' but rather protect and further the interests of the powerful (the rich). This is just what James Madison intended, of course.

 

[Townsend]

'ignorant masses' (a term I truly resent and would not choose to use myself),

I feel the same.

This is just what James Madison intended, of course.

Well did you realize that After Alexander Hamilton, a Federalist who supported the constitution, became the president that James Madison changed his views about faction being the most harmful to individual liberty? Hamilton wanted a strong central government and James Madison saw this and then realized that too much power held by the few was the greater danger. Also note that it was Hamilton who started the first National Bank, an idea that Thomas Jefferson was strongly opposed to.

So it seems that history disagrees with what you're trying to suggest. Now if you said Alexander Hamilton, I might be inclined to agree with you to some extent but not entirely.

Regards,

 

[Townsend]

To the extent that the general public is not truly informed of the real facts, it is not suited to govern itself directly.

I disagree with this as well...

Faction will try to take control of power and oppress the rights of the individual. The general public being aware of the facts does not change that and nothing ever will.

Regards,

 

[Archon]

I disagree with this as well...

Faction will try to take control of power and oppress the rights of the individual. The general public being aware of the facts does not change that and nothing ever will.

Regards,

The presumption is that if the public is informed (accurately) of all the facts, it should be able to come to an enlightened and informed decision which is to the benefit of as much of the population as possible. I agree that this is kind of unlikely, but there you go. As an extension, though: I think that unless "the people" are adequately informed, they can't very well establish and maintain even an indirectly democratic government.

 

[Townsend]

The presumption is that if the public is informed (accurately) of all the facts, it should be able to come to an enlightened and informed decision which is to the benefit of as much of the population as possible. I agree that this is kind of unlikely, but there you go. As an extension, though: I think that unless "the people" are adequately informed, they can't very well establish and maintain even an indirectly democratic government.

Well how do you explain the United States then?

I think that the average American is better informed today then ever before. I think that most informed people will agree that the average American is not adequately informed even today. And yet America has, I believe, the oldest existing government that is currently still alive. Perhaps you are not correct about your assumptions.

I appreciate your views, I honestly do, but I still think James Madison knew what he was talking about.

Regards,

 

[MaxS]

Well how do you explain the United States then?

I think that the average American is better informed today then ever before. I think that most informed people will agree that the average American is not adequately informed even today. And yet America has, I believe, the oldest existing government that is currently still alive. Perhaps you are not correct about your assumptions.

I appreciate your views, I honestly do, but I still think James Madison knew what he was talking about.

Regards,

I would not call the american public informed. Rather misinformed by a never ending slew of propagandized media in all forms.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Well how do you explain the United States then?

I think that the average American is better informed today then ever before. I think that most informed people will agree that the average American is not adequately informed even today. And yet America has, I believe, the oldest existing government that is currently still alive. Perhaps you are not correct about your assumptions.

I appreciate your views, I honestly do, but I still think James Madison knew what he was talking about.

Regards,

Informed with what and when though.

Informed before the fact with lies disproved after the fact with facts?

I think you need to take a look at was fed to the prople as information which was in reality a fiction created to justify a course of action ... Propaganda, in other words.

 

[Townsend]

I would not call the american public informed. Rather misinformed by a never ending slew of propagandized media in all forms.

I am not calling them informed. I am saying that we all agree that they are better informed today than ever before in history. Well, you certainly are agreeing with me so at least I have your vote that they are not informed.

 

[Townsend]

Disinformation is still information...The fact that the public will believe something to be true when it is false only serves to reaffirm what James Madison feared the most. Faction!

Regards,

 

[MaxS]

WOW SEMANTICS AGAIN YAY!

Obviously when I am talking about an INFORMED VOTER I mean one that has the information he needs to make a good judgement (in other words the CORRECT information).

Isn't this just a tad self-evident?

And in this regard I totally disagree with you that the American People are better informed today than they ever have been.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Disinformation is still information...The fact that the public will believe something to be true when it is false only serves to reaffirm what James Madison feared the most. Faction!

And when the source of that disinformation is shown to be the organization partially designed by Maddison, we can only make the observation that it was he who erred and that they have no business being in control of heavy machinery much less the guradians of 'Truth, Justice and the American way' which is starting to sound more and more like an effort in creative writing than a government.

 

[Townsend]

And when the source of that disinformation is shown to be the organization partially designed by Maddison, we can only make the observation that it was he who erred and that they have no business being in control of heavy machinery much less the guradians of 'Truth, Justice and the American way' which is starting to sound more and more like an effort in creative writing than a government.

What government does not give out bad information? Find me one...

If you cannot then why are you condemning the American government? The American government takes into account that government can become corrupt and that is the purpose of checks and balances.

Your diatribe is getting to the point where any future discourse is futile.

 

[Archon]

Well how do you explain the United States then?

I think that the average American is better informed today then ever before. I think that most informed people will agree that the average American is not adequately informed even today. And yet America has, I believe, the oldest existing government that is currently still alive. Perhaps you are not correct about your assumptions.

I appreciate your views, I honestly do, but I still think James Madison knew what he was talking about.

Regards,

My last sentance wasn't very clear. I was aiming at the fact that unless they have a sufficient amount of accurate information, the American voters won't be able to elect the representatives who are best able to run the country. This is my problem with what you were saying earlier: while it's true in theory that our government should prevent horrible mistakes from being made, this isn't necessarily the case in reality. The voters can't control the government directly, but they are responsible for electing the people who do, and these people can do a great deal of damage with the support of the voters.

When the voters are uninformed (about the candidates, important issues, the principles of democracy, etc), then the very thing you were talking about could happen: if the country fills all three branches of the government with members of a single party, then the rights of the minority will certainly suffer. After all, a government consisting of, for all intents and purposes, one party cannot be expected to police itself.

I agree with Madison's general ideas: I just believe they have to be adapted to modern times. Remember: when the Constitution was written, Democracy was still a rather novel idea, and, as is the case with Capitalism, 200 years of history has taught us that the original ideas aren't all perfect (i.e. the danger of trusts and monopolies in a purely Capitalistic system).

 

[Townsend]

I agree with Madison's general ideas: I just believe they have to be adapted to modern times. Remember: when the Constitution was written, Democracy was still a rather novel idea, and, as is the case with Capitalism, 200 years of history has taught us that the original ideas aren't all perfect (i.e. the danger of trusts and monopolies in a purely Capitalistic system).

I see, well I agree with you. By the way, Thomas Jefferson, I think, said that the constitution is for the living. In other words, it is meant to be changed and to be interpreted by each new generation.

 

[danAlwyn]

A good analysis dan, but I have three issues with it: one, it fails to account for the aircraft on the carrier. Two (related to one), it assumes several hundred gunboats and planes could get themselves into a position to launch such an attack. And three, it assumes strategic as well as tactical surprise - ie, if tensions were higher, we'd certainly have beefier task forces than that, probably more than one, and a signficant number of other ships not necessarily assigned to the carrier task force.

True. I purposefully did not count the airplanes aboard the carrier, because actually factoring airpower into the calculations makes them a lot harder. I also admit that being surprised by China's missile boats at once is unlikely. But notice that I also did not account for Chinese decoy deployment, or the possibility of launching a feint to draw off some of the Combat Air Patrol. We'll get bogged down in the details at this rate.

More worrisome is the possibility that, in the next twenty years, it may become possible to build extremely cheap cruise missiles. In that case, China won't need the missile boats to deny the US access to the Strait of Formosa.

Strategic surprise may not be unreasonable in this situation. Spats between the PRC and the ROC tend to flare over sudden events, sometimes within a matter of hours. Given current policy I can see the US Navy deploying a standard task force from the Seventh Fleet to Taiwanese waters to show the flag at the beginning of what might be seen as a simple flare-up. I can also see them being unwilling to turn and run away if things look like they're getting more serious-which would be what a withdrawal of over a hundred miles might look like.

The other thing I anticipated was that in a sudden attack that achieved tactical surprise, US aircraft might not be able to kill missile boats until after the boats had launched. I'm not sure how well air-to-air missiles work against other missiles-I've never seen it tested. It would be interesting to ask the Navy, but I expect missiles might have some problems targeting each other.

What I don't like is those times when the Navy seems to assume that their carrier groups are unsinkable and invincible to conventional attack. In an age of increasing proliferation of high-tech conventional weapons that is just asking for trouble.

 

[The Smoking Man]

What government does not give out bad information? Find me one...

If you cannot then why are you condemning the American government? The American government takes into account that government can become corrupt and that is the purpose of checks and balances.

Your diatribe is getting to the point where any future discourse is futile.

And you think that the people of the opposing opinion to you don't feel this way Townsend?

What we are saying is that the last time that these tactics were used by a government in power against its own people to lie to them and lead them to war, they were tried and executed by the Americans in Tokyo.

It is know as a 'Class A War Crime' or 'Crime Against Peace'.

 

[Townsend]

What we are saying is that the last time that these tactics were used by a government in power against its own people to lie to them and lead them to war, they were tried and executed by the Americans in Tokyo.

Are you sure about that?...I am just asking because I want to be certain you mean exactly what you're saying. I don't have anything ready to pounce on you with but I am sure I can find things to contradict you with a little effort.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Are you sure about that?...I am just asking because I want to be certain you mean exactly what you're saying. I don't have anything ready to pounce on you with but I am sure I can find things to contradict you with a little effort.

To do that, you will have to prove how the USA followed Kellog-Briand then wouldn't you? Now taken in light of the Downing Street Memo, you will find that very hard to do.