China's Military Moves Worry Lawmakers

[lovuian]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=512&ncid=703&e=8&u=/ap/20050218/ap_on_go_co/us_china

WASHINGTON - President Bush (news - web sites)'s plan for the Navy calls for buying fewer ships, while China, a potential security hot spot, is increasing and repositioning its fleet. It's a prospect that concerns some lawmakers.






The plan is contained in Bush's 2006 budget proposal, which Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Thursday defended, saying the military was closely watching China's moves but that the U.S. Navy (news - web sites) remains the pre-eminent fleet.


"The United States Navy ... is the Navy on the face of the Earth that is a true blue water navy," Rumsfeld told the Senate Armed Services Committee (news - web sites). "On the other hand, when one looks at trend lines, it is something that we have to think about."


The Pentagon (news - web sites) says buying fewer ships than previously planned won't affect combat ability. Previous budgets envisioned purchasing six Virginia-class attack submarines, seven DD(X) destroyers and 10 San Antonio-class amphibious landing ships through 2011.

more...

China is becoming a Super Military Power!!!

[Toots]

1. There was a story posted here last week about China and Russia conducting

Joint military maneuvers. Bush* is most definitely a uniter.

[LiberallyInclined]

2. yep- by the end of this term...

he may even succeed in re-uniting China and Taiwan...er, i mean the province of Formosa.

[yinkaafrica]

4. Has that ever happened before?

[bpilgrim]

29. no

it is UNPRECEDENTED

peace

[yinkaafrica]

3. Oh Oh! China already owns us. Watch them get bolder and bolder

[kodi]

5. Isn't it delightful? China is building its navy with American money.

We are handing the adversaries of the US the means to destroy us.

[LeaderlessResistance]

6. China Threat

The China Military threat may be very real. However, the U.S. government plays down the quality of it's own weapons. For instance, the United States military and police can stall your car from outer space. The Air Force or now increasingly Space Force, is able to shoot down any satellite from ground based Lasers, they also can shut down anything electronic with satellites. So if Iran launched a missile at Israel, the USA could turn off its electronics, thereby making the missile ineffective. In the future, through nano technology or robotics, China could possibly beat us. At this time though, America controls outer space, thereby making conventional military defeat impossiable.

[oneighty]

7. 1,300,000,000 Chinese

300,000,000 Americans. You do the math. When the star wars thing is over and done with and we are reduced to sticks and stones who is going to win.

USofA does not have a lock on nasty weapons.

Fair and Balanced

180

[Lexingtonian]

14. hardly any of that is true

let alone physically possible.

The military game is, as it has been for fifty years, all about winning/retaining control of the airspace over the Formosa Strait. That is a complicated problem, but it comes down to technology- at this point some mix of radar and rocketry and computerized sortout, with some help from space- but in its overall crude motifs resembles an artillery battle.

In artillery battles involving roughly similar numbers, the defensive side prevails as a rule if it is adequately prepared.

[LinuxInsurgent]

17. right...

China would be fighting on its home front, adequately prepared, knowing the terrain, having easy supply lines, and huge morale (people's nationalism in defending nation).

The U.S. would be in a land it does not know, not knowing the terrain, having vulnerable supply lines, and a morale that hinges on how many casualties the Chinese can inflict...plus the legitimacy would be nill...nobody would support an Imperial action in China, not in the world anyway. Compare the problems the U.S. has in Iraq, the weakest ARab nation, with Iraqi nationalism, knowledge of the terrain, legitimacy-morale issues, and then think of how much HARDER it would be on China, a much larger nation, mountaineous, jungled, and with a military arsenal that would dwarf Iraq's by hundredfold.

I'll even venture this...the United States CAN'T take on Iran...it could not successfully invade and occupy Iran...and Iran is weaker than China. It could possibly defeat many aspects of Iran's military...but in order to occupy the nation, it would need a ground force that would not be able to complete its "total control" mission...the Iranian ground forces would be sufficient to deny that aspect of "victory" to the Americans. It would essentially be a war of missiles and warplanes...American warplanes, missile, and Navy attacks vs. Iranian missile attacks on U.S. concentrations in the Mid East, perhaps Israel, and assymetrical guerrilla conflict on the ground...the U.S. would not be able to achieve victory.

[Lexingtonian]

22. China fighting a defensive war?

My comment was only about Taiwan and retaining its sovereignty against China's military imperial designs. Which would be a Chinese war of aggression, because Taiwan was essentially a colony or occupied country under Chinese rule historically.

The present U.S. war in the Middle East is a 'peacetime' war- there is no actual sense of existential threat or of actual Arab or Iran ability to confront even the peacetime U.S. military. A U.S. war against China would involve full economic mobilization and American power to destroy Chinese materiel would easily rise from a 2x mismatch (in the present) to a 20x mismatch if not higher. The real trouble in a military confrontation is logistical, getting all the American materiel required to East Asia.

And victory in a war against China is not military subjugation of the civilian populace. It is militarily the destruction of the high tech weaponry, offensive and defensive, that is being used to create hegemony in East Asia and destruction of the Chinese military command structure. Politically it is toppling of the present Chinese elites and establishments from governance and economic power. A decapitation strategy.

[Massacure]

27. The U.S. doesn't have to occupy China though.

You blow up their airplanes, and sink their ships to win. It's not like defending Taiwan means overthrowing China. That would be a HUGE mistake.

[LinuxInsurgent]

15. ummm..evidence please?

that's a lot of claims there...and I think they severely overestimate American capabilities.

We can't even test the missile defense system right...and you're talking about ground-based lasers?

[Randi_Listener]

28. Turn off electronics from space?

That's bullshit. If you are talking about an ECM or EMP, that sort of energy doesn't exist on a limited platform like a satellite. You've been reading some horseshit.

[bin.dare]

42. then why is a group of "dead-enders and former Baathists" ...

... with primitive weapons defeating this powerful US military?

[David__77]

8. China is not a threat to the US, but the US is a danger to China.

I hope that China develops the means to fully defend itself against aggression--there's nothing wrong with that. The US rings it with bases while China hasn't a single foreign base or single troop occupying another country. Who is threatening whom?

[LinuxInsurgent]

16. I'd say a nation with

200-300 nukes and intercontinental ballistic missiles, plus a huge army, tanks, jets, and other types of WMD is a threat to the United States.

I agree...the word "threat" is relative...we are threatening them with all that you describe...the Chinese haven't done a single move that would indicate "threat" to the United States (like spying on them and losing one of your spy planes on Hainan Island).

For all the bases the United States emplaces, it cannot take on China. The American military is severely debilitated by one factor...it's legitimacy...the American public will not withstand wars with huge casualties, especially in foreign lands where the justifications are not credible. In a war with China, the U.S. would be at the disadvantage...and the American public would not accept the huge casualties of that type of war.

The U.S. is not omnipotent or invincible...Vietnam and Iraq have proven that...and both of those nations were qualitatively and quantitatively on a whole 'nother level than China. Vietnam and Iraq, during their wars, were the weakest nations in their region...Ho Chi Minh's guerrilas and the Iraqi insurgents (even weaker) are no comparison to China, arguably the third most powerful country in the world (after U.S. and Russia). After a certain point of power...it just becomes impossible to envision "victory" on a country that powerful...given that the retaliation from it will exact a price to dear to contemplate.

We will not have war with China...and I suspect North Korea as well...for the same reasons, North Korea has the 4-5 largest army in the world.

[kodi]

26. "China hasn't a single foreign base" .....tell that to the Tibetans

You offer too cheaply a give-a-way of the freedoms the Tibetans once enjoyed. Would that you held your own freedoms in so cheap a regard.

If one considers the long term, as the Chinese leadership certainly does, thinking in quarter century time spans instead of quarterly financial ones, the Chinese will surface as a direct threat to the US within this half century.

Certainly many of those who oppose US hegemony in East Asia will cheer this. But what will replace it?

A Sino hegemony as planned by the peaceful, freedom loving Chinese Communist Party, which is both totalitarian and nationalistic?

When discussing Chinese military expenditures it is essential to examine it in the context of the entire picture and that means to hold in relief their military spending against their use of economic warfare against all comers.

Make no mistake, the Chinese economy for all of its "wild west" attributes is still run by the Party.

This is simple, asymmetric warfare and a type at which the Chinese excel. You don't have to use bombs and bullets to weaken and undermine your adversary if you can bury their economy with cheap exports.

But such economic warfare alone will not hurt the US. It must be coupled with the ability to project force to maintain economic markets. And this the Chinese are planning.

I negotiate business deals with Chinese companies, export and import goods to and from China on a regular basis, and go head to head with Chinese companies both in the US and in Asia.

My personal experience is that they are not to be trusted in business deals. They lie, cheat, and steal whatever they can.

If you go to China to do business you have to be licensed by the state, like in the US. The difference is that whatever work you do there must be done in concert with a Party approved Chinese company and you are required to reveal to that Chinese company your proprietary technology, which they then steal. Then, by setting up subsidiaries of their other companies involved in the joint venture, they use the foreign appropriated technology to produce products to compete with the original foreign company both domestically as well as in the export markets.

In other words, foreign companies are giving the Chinese their own knives to have their throats slit.

As they increase their military power, any leverage the US, Europe and Russia has to stop this mis-appropriation of intellectual property rights is diminished and the ability of the Chinese to disrupt the economies of the adversaries is increased.

Anyone who does not think that the Chinese are out to control East Asia by economic AND military force if necessary is not familiar with the history of Chinese adventurism against their neighbors.

[David__77]

9. Why is there a "left McCarthyism" against China?

China is not a threat at all to the people of the US. It may be a threat to the imperial designs of the neo-conservatives and to their "left" counterparts like Joe Lieberman who wish the US to police every corner of the earth. China is clearly interested in developing its economy and defense capacity--any country that did not wish to do so has inept leadership. I think it's far past time to discard old McCarthyite anti-China notions.

[VegasWolf]

10. I think that sometimes old habits are hard to break, plus the fact

that we have been taught since childhood that we are
the world's greatest nation. It's hard to let loose of
no longer true idols. China is an entirely different
country now than it was, AS ARE WE, but it is being lead
by competent leadership, unlike uSOFA.

[Say_What]

11. Still suffering from all that 'communist' brainwashing and indoctrination

Intersting comments from an interview with Cuba's VP Ricardo Alarcon:

...The U.S. is not going to rise above the rest of the world. It is the sole superpower in cold war terms. But the U.S. cannot exercise complete power over the rest of the world. Russia continues to have nuclear weapons. Economically, for example, China has emerged as a power. Recently the Chinese president toured Latin America and discussed granting Argentina a credit line of $20 billion. Forty years ago, at time of the Alliance for Progress, Kennedy offered the entire continent $20 billion – over a ten year period. Cuba criticized this modest offer at the time because it was too little. Remember, at that time this little island had established relations with that big country China. The other countries in Latin America followed the U.S. line and refused to recognize the existence of China. Now, 40 years later, that once non-recognized country’s head of state travels throughout the region and offers much more than the U.S. could when it was at its peak. And the U.S. must accept that China plays that role in the world. The Vice President of China was doing a similar thing in Africa.

Although the U.S. remains the biggest military power, it has trouble controlling a rather small country like Iraq, which it almost destroyed by bombing and an economic embargo before the war. The reality is that U.S. is only the most powerful entity in one area: information and communication.

It was the only dominant force at end of the Second World War, the only nuclear power. Nagasaki and Hiroshima, by the way, are the only cases in which nuclear power has been used destructively. They were not employed by a terrorist state, but by the U.S. democracy – allegedly to defeat Japan. At that time and later, during the Marshall Plan, the U.S. was at the top. Since then it has been declining. That does not mean it is a country in disarray, but it is going downward.

http://www.progresoweekly.com/index.php?progreso=Landau&otherweek=1108620000

[MrPrax]

12. Why? Because it is easier...

You make a good point...

These tend to be the same folks that attack the war on Iraq, by suggesting that the 'real enemies' are Saudi Arabia, Iran, NK, Pakistan, etc and that US 'might' should be directed to those 'targets'.

Essentially they are not against a 'secure and mighty' America, they just contend that there is a better way to 'promote' freedom and American expansionism.

They have swallowed hook, line and sinker most American talking points on foreign policy, exceptionalism and pre-destiny over the past half century and so shedding simplistic notions of 'good and evil', 'dominos' and the 'enemies' within' is not easy.

[LinuxInsurgent]

18. Because...

in 15 years, China's economy will be better than the United States

because the manufacturing basis that made the U.S. great, is now in China, as the largest manufacturing nation in the world

Because China's military continues to grow, and will match the Americans in roughly the same time.

Because the productive power of China's 1.3 billion people easily beats out the productive power of U.S. 300,000,000.

Because China owns substantial portions of America's foreign debts...and thereby holds the key to America's economic wellbeing. Recent economic moves seem to indicate China's planning to move toward a basket of currencies (yuans, Euros...and decreasing dollar amounts).

All of these signal that the days of the U.S. empire are numbered...which is why the neocons are going bananas about China. Their dreams of an Imperial USA sink every day that China becomes stronger.

[Lexingtonian]

19. Why should we trust China?

For one thing, if you've ever gotten to know people in the Chinese elites you'll catch on quickly that they aren't exactly Modern or Liberals. Their resentment and need to measure themselves against The West and The People Of The West is inescapable. You really have no idea about the amount of tribal bellyaching that goes on about Why Are We Inferior Now and How Do We Show Them Up- and: Just Wait.

If you ever been to China, you'll be struck about the organization and the social pressures there are. But also by the way human life is regarded as cheap, as a commodity, as not inherently having dignity or importance to anyone other than your family. The overt point of life is to serve in projects headed by Big People who fight among themselves for prestige, and who form a collective that is both jealous and selfimportant, this among themselves and toward other societies.

The truth about China is that Mao was another emperor, and so was Deng. The CPC was the replacement for the Mandarin class. Chinese society is in transition to Enlightenment and in small degree Modern times, but its essential feature is that it is still hierarchical as in Imperial times and its social endeavor is the kind Toqueville describes for aristocratic Europe in 1830- the Many toil in ignominy and silence and repression so that the Few may do exalted and ambitious things.

The reason why the American Right is both highly aware and coldly blind to this (at different times) is that this is the political set of motifs of Nationalist Europe that culminated in World War 1- all aggression and discontent from internal oppressions and unsettled injustices of a faux, imposed, domestic unity was forced into projection by the elites of each country. The excessive blame for national unhappiness was focussed on other countries and societies. The end result was Imperialist expansionism and extreme bloodshed.

[LinuxInsurgent]

21. We don't need to trust them...

we just have to be aware that we can't take them in a war...unless we want the annihilation of our forces in retaliation.

There is no winner in a China vs. USA war...both nations are sufficiently powerful to destroy each other, and each other's armed forces.

[Lexingtonian]

23. uh huh.

Tell me how long China could hold up if the U.S. cuts off its oil imports via a naval blockade now. Weeks? Days?

[LinuxInsurgent]

34. heheh...

if the U.S. even attempted to impose a naval blockade...China has a lot of options:

1) It could sink the Navy ships with the Sunburn missiles it possess. Read on the capability of the Sunburn missile to bypass ANY Naval defense system here - (http://www.rense.com/general59/theSunburniransawesome.htm) (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=18173)

2) It could attack U.S. installations in Taiwan, South Korea, Okinawa, Japan, or the U.S mainland, via intercontinental ballistic missiles tipped with nuclear weapons.

3) It could launch its thousands of MiGs against the Naval blockade and easily sink them.

4) It could immediately switch its full currency to the Euro...thereby sinking the U.S. economy, which China owns 40% of its foreign debts. A declaration of China that it was not going to finance the U.S. debt would send the entire economy plummetting.

So...let's stop the Starcraft/Command and Conquer, Nintendo mentality and let's get back to reality. The United States cannot take on China...unless it wants retaliation that either would be severely costly to the United States or would spell the nuclear doom of both nations.

[Lexingtonian]

43. See, that's where you're wrong.

Every one of your four options is pathetic.

1)-3) amount to declaring war on the U.S. But all the U.S. would have to do is close the Java Strait and Malacca Strait to third country oil tankers for a few days. Any nuclear attack could be answered with 100x retaliation and world approval.

Btw, it's not physically possible for the Sunburn missile to function as claimed without an enormous amount of deceleration near a target to at least swerve- and it appears to work by lifting off the ocean and plunging on its target from above. That phase of flight is highly technically vulnerable to Phalanx if nearby and Patriot III-like attack if farther off. The defense of last resort is a nuclear tipped interceptor missile that vaporizes the incoming threat. Which you may not know about, because you're not supposed to. But that was the very first concept in threat interception- look back at the Nike Hercules defense system of the Sixties. And yes, the U.S. has had similar missiles- submarine launched, but much smaller- since the early Seventies, and wargamed that threat for thirty plus years.

And I'm sure you're aware that National Missile Defense is not primarily based in Alaska because of a future threat from North Korea. When it works- which it may, in a decade or two-

4) would entail bankrupting China, given all the obligations it has to keep its import/export economy afloat, and all the U.S. would have to do is wait out the temporary overseas devaluation.

The U.S. has some 1,000 tactical nukes distributed around its ships, air bases, and such in the Asian theater and 5,000 ICBM warheads.

You have the Nintendo mentality here. A great deal of magic has to be invoked on your part to make a Chinese threat somehow equal. Now, I grant you that in 20 years the balance will be much closer- but also that the imperialist nationalism crisis building up at the moment will have passed.

[kodi]

38. Nicely said. Refer to my post #26. It dovetails with what you have said.

Having spent enough time with Chinese businessman over the past few decades, I do not trust them as far as I could piss into a hurricane.

The Party is both totalitarian and nationalistic and whips up anti-Sino emotions at the drop of a hat when they need an outside enemy to quell popular dissent of their government.

[damntexdem]

13. But if "buying fewer ships than previously planned won't affect combat ...

ability," then why did the Pentagon want to buy them in the first place?

[LinuxInsurgent]

20. pork politics in the homeport states

With the advent of the Russian Sunburn missile and its more advanced prototypes (in development), the most advanced American Navy defense system (AEGIS, Phalanx) is no longer relevant. The Sunburn missile can take on ANY Navy ship in the world...and destroy it...there's nothing the U.S (and any other Navy) can do. As one of the articles I cite states...U.S. Navy carriers have become huge sitting ducks.

Having more Navy ships is irrelevant...it would just give more targets for the missiles...and the cost per missile compared to a Navy ship, is peanuts. The Russians (correctly) surmised that in order to keep parity with the United States, instead of wasting money on matching the U.S. ship to ship, they just needed to be the superior missile nation. While the U.S. parades their ships in the world...the Russians can easily sink them all...at a fraction of the cost. An adequate defense to the American Navy. The Russians don't have the OFFENSIVE benefits of a Navy...but they don't have imperial plans...so they only need an adequate defense, to defeat any Navy. The Sunburn is the basis of that vision of defense.

To be quite honest...if the Sunburn becomes widespread throughout most of the strategic enemies of the United States...the American Navy has become obsolete...and Iran, China, and Russia have them.

To read more on the Sunburn, go here.

http://www.rense.com/general59/theSunburniransawesome.htm
http://www.softwar.net/3m82.html
http://www.cuttingedge.org/news/n1449.cfm - (ignore the conspiracy theory here...focus on the technical details)

[BeFree]

24. Sunburn?

Man, if that's true, that Russia has developed a missile that can't be defended against, the end of empire is closer.

One must wonder - what defense we must be working on, or, put another way how will we keep from getting a nasty case of sunburn? Surely they are working on a defense, probably space based. Space is the new ocean which the country with a big enough fleet will command.

[flyarm]

31. actually there is a operation sunburn with the russians!

http://www.joevialls.co.uk/myahudi/sunburn.html

snip;

Russia Ready to Vaporize the Jewish State
And then kick America out of the Eastern Hemisphere’s oilfields

Copyright Joe Vialls, 28 October 2003

When the end finally comes for Israel, it will all be over in microseconds. Flying faster than rifle bullets,
the Sunburns will approach Tel Aviv and Haifa at twice the speed of sound, detonating in blinding white
200 Kiloton flashes designed to instantly transform animal vegetable and mineral into heat and light.”

During the Cold War of the sixties, the only thing stopping American or Russian psychopaths from taking over the entire world was the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction , where a multiple ICBM launch by America on Russia or vice versa, would automatically lead to a “doomsday” response by the nation under attack. Mutual destruction of both America and Russia was thereby guaranteed, resulting in nearly thirty years of unprecedented peace and quiet, caused solely by mutual nuclear fear.
About one month ago, Russia discreetly invoked MAD again, but this time in the Middle East in direct response to hysterical Israeli threats to nuke Iran with submarine-launched American Harpoon missiles. Quietly and with the minimum of fuss, Russia deployed its most advanced tactical nuclear missiles and crews to both Syria and Iran, thereby sending an unmistakable diplomatic signal that if Israel attacked Tehran or Damascus with nuclear weapons, Russia would in return instantly and anonymously vaporize the Jewish State.
This is not an idle or exaggerated threat. The Russian missile type deployed in Syria and Iran is the P270 Moskit , known in NATO circles as the SS-N-22 "Sunburn", once described by Rep. Dana Rohrabacher as "the most dangerous anti-ship missile in the Russian, and now the Chinese, fleet.” The ship borne version of this missile is launched from deck mounted quad tubes, but since Rohrabacher made his comments, Russia has adapted the Sunburn for submerged launch from submarines, air launch from Sukhoi 27s, and single surface launch from modified 40’ flatbed trucks. Nowadays, western defense experts unambiguously view all versions of Sunburn as the “most dangerous missiles in the world”.

[LinuxInsurgent]

35. there is no defense against the Sunburn

the sheer speed of the missile make it physically impossible for a ship's automated defense system to mount a credible defense...even a manual "gattling gun" spread of bullets to hit the incoming missile would be too slow.

There's a speed point in which it is impossible for any nation to develop a defense against the missile.

Once a Sunburn is launched...unless it misses its targets...it's gonna hit it.

And just to give you an idea of how powerful the Sunburn is...the French-Made Exocet was used by Argentina to sink a full British battleship. ONE Exocet missile....the Sunburn is 3 times as powerful and faster, and much more accurate than the Exocet.

One Sunburn can sink a U.S. carrier, let alone a battleship.

[hack89]

25. The missile is the least important part..

of a long, complex chain of events needed to hit a ship at long distances. The Sunburn is not a magical weapon - it has to be told precisely where its target is, a process involving aircraft, reliable communications, precise navigation and superb command and control. Break the chain at any point and you don't hit the target. The Chinese have not invested in the systems needed to accurately locate and target US carriers at long range.

Don't also forget that the Chinese navy has no real way of protecting their destroyers that carry the Sunburn from US Nuclear subs or carrier aircraft. I can guarantee you that the first shot fired in a Chines US naval battle would be the Chines destroyers blowing up from US torpedoes.

[Randi_Listener]

30. Ever heard of spy satellites?

Most military grade spy satellites can see shit less than a foot across. A fucking aircraft carrier is a little bigger than that.

The Chinese can see and target this from a thousand miles away.

[hack89]

32. Spy satellites are not used for searching ..

Their resolution is so small that it is like searching through a soda straw - they see such a small area at any given time that unless you already know where the target is you'll never find it. All high resolution spy satellites are cued from other systems and are given precise target coordinates in order to take their high resolution images. Precise targeting is a PROCESS, whereby you start with a general idea of where the target is and by using different systems you progressively reduce the possible area the target is in until you have a location precise enough to shoot a missile.

[LinuxInsurgent]

36. don't make the mistake of assuming...

the Chinese don't have missiles that can be launched from the land. The articles we read only detail Navy application...but who is to say what the chinese military REALLY has....in terms of systems to locate carriers...you think China would order Sunburns that are useless without targeting systems...and not order the target systems?

and assuming that the Chinese capability to launch sunburns was degraded, the Chinese government wouldn't just sit on its hands allow itself to be defeated because its Sunburn arsenal was destroyed. If it came down to it, China would launch its nuclear intercontinental missiles, and destroy much of the United States.

Like I said...the U.S. cannot win a war with China...and neither can China win a war with the United States.

[hack89]

37. If they are on land they are not a threat

Sunburn is a short range missile (100 to 150 miles) - we would never operate carriers that close China. You just keep the carriers out of Sunburn range while you pound the missile sites with aircraft and cruise missiles.

Over the horizon targeting is more than systems - in addition it requires tactics, doctrine and lots of practice. As I keep saying, it is a PROCESS - one that is very hard to master and execute in a hostile environment.

It makes perfect sense for the Chinese to order Sunburn even without a realistic chance of targeting US carriers. For one, it would give them a huge advantage over the other regional navies. Secondly, the US Navy has to take them seriously and as such their presence will impact US Navy plans and operations. The only point I am making is that Sunburn is not the wonder weapon you want to make it out to be. It is a short range tactical missile that is hard to accurately target, carried by ships that are easy to sink. It makes the Chines navy a more dangerous opponent but it does not make it invincible. Remember also that the history of warfare is full of "wonder" weapons that failed - failed usually because some smarter human figured out and took advantage of its weaknesses.

The nuclear missile argument is irrelevant to this argument - it would mean the destruction of China too. Why is it impossible to think that China would not seek a negotiated settlement instead of mutual annihilation?

[LinuxInsurgent]

40. you are too confident..

do you forget that China has warplanes as well...assuming that we dogfight them in the air with our F-16, you think we can engage EVERY single plane and not have one slip through and hit our ships at a range of 100 miles? And again, you base your assumption on the belief that China has Sunburn missiles only on ships...a air to ship application could already have been devised...and who knows what the Chinese really have.

You assume that the Chinese WOULD seek a negotiated settlement...this is hardly what the evidence of their past actions suggest. During the Hainan affair, a crucial moment of brinkmanship between the United States and China, the Chinese were willing to escalate U.S-Chinese tensions over a single spy plane...and they didn't give it up, despite the possibility of war, until the United States apologized for the flights, and agreed to take the war plane back...in pieces.

I also think that the Chinese cultural mindset needs to be put at work here...the Chinese have always been open to the idea that life is not as valuable as we place it to be (individualism for them is a lot less). Mao was willing to kill 40 million of his countrymen...and not blink an eye. And remember, China has substantial ownership in our economy. There's a whole host of foreign policy options (like invading Taiwan, destabilizing the region, damaging the U.S. economy via a rapid shift towards Euros, etc.) that China could adopt to "get back" at the United States...the proposition that China would "stay hit" (not retaliate to an American first-attack against its Naval forces) is quite laughable.

Perhaps it would be wise to ponder WHY belligerent George W. Bush, who has taken on Saddam Hussein and the Taliban, even against the advice of most of his generals and the world community, became a little playtoy when the issue was the Hainan affair...and the adversary was China. In fact, ask the same question in relation to North Korea (why Iraq and not North Korea, when NK has WMDs, and Iraq didn't). Simple...the Bush regime knows that it cannot take on NK or China without unacceptable casualties and losses...Iraq and Afghanistan were deemed "manageable" (Iraq proved to be too much, as the insurgency shows)...and it is now debating whether or not Iran is too much to handle (it seems that with Iran having Sunburns and other WMDs, and a quite large army, they are tilting toward dealing with Iran in diplomatic terms).

The U.S. doesn't pick on adversaries that can defend themselves...this is why I view an attack by the U.S. against China as highly unlikely...and I would probably think that an NK attack too. Iran is a wild card..i happen to think the United States CANNOT take on Iran, without severe consequences...but something tells me that the President's neocon advisors (who are deluded in their imperial ideology) think that Iran is "manageable" and are pressing for an attack. If Bush does attack Iran, it will be because he was fooled into thinking Iran was a weak nation...which it is not. Notice that the Russians have "raised the ante" with supporting the Iranians and the Syrians have joined with the Iranians in a common front. The law of unintended consequences applies here. Who knows what would happen as a result of an attack on NK, Syria, Iran, or China...where would these nations retaliate...what would they do...what would happen as a result of that retaliation (assuming they retaliate against an ally country (NK vs. SK, Iran vs. Israel, Syria vs. Israel, etc.)...how would that other country change the conditions of war? We could be talking the start of World War III...out of a stupid first-attack by the U.S. World War I was started by a single shot...from a Serb nationalist against an Archduke...it led to much destruction. A similar "first shot" by the U.S. could cause massive destruction on a whole host of places...and the U.S. would end up rueing the day that they attacked first.

These are the issues that we must keep in mind...and why I think that it is unlikely that the U.S. will attack any of the above nations (Syria, Iran, NK, China), and instead continue its usual policy of picking on weaker nations.

[hack89]

44. You are right, it would be a hard fight

The only point I was trying to make is that the Sunburn is not a wonder weapon that all of a sudden has changed the balance of power.

By the way, how are those airplanes carrying those sunburns going to find their targets? You seem incapable of grasping the basic fact that finding and targeting the carriers is the issue here - the Soviets at their best had a very hard time doing it and the Chinese are no where near where the Soviets were 20 years ago.

Additionally, any Chinese strike aircraft carrying such big, heavy missiles would be sitting ducks for our F18s and AEGIS air defense missiles.

[LinuxInsurgent]

45. what targeting problems.

How hard is it to target a big carrier? The Chinese have the latest, state of the art technology available in the world...they make computers! They trade regularly with Japan and Europe...it's not like that their systems are antiquated like North korea's.

And who is to say that all the aircraft launched had these missiles. The Chinese have fighter squadrons, and bomber squadrons. Send the fighters to tie up the F-16s and and send the bomber squadrons to bomb the ships from a distance of 100 miles (far away from the Aegis defense systems). While the fighters engage the F-16s, who even if they win the fight, will be tied up with fighting off the MiG fighters, the bombers continue on their mission of sinking the ships from a safe distance, and launching the Sunburns from that distance.

China losses some fighters, U.S. loses some fighters, some bombers may be knocked down...but I assure you that some of those bombers will launch their missiles, and when they strike U.S. ships, they will sink them.

End Result: massive casualties on both sides...and we haven't even invoked the nuclear option yet.

[hack89]

46. It is very hard to target a carrier

Think about it - not only do you have to get an airborne radar within a 100 miles without getting shot down, you have to sort out the carrier from all the other ships in the area. Once you do all that, you have to get the firing coordinates to the firing unit without getting your communications jammed. And all this assumes that the firing unit is still alive and in the proper position to shoot.

It is much more than computers and systems - War is not a video game -its all about people - a lot of people executing a complex process flawlessly. The Chinese have never demonstrated the ability to do this. Again, the SUNBURN is not a wonder weapon that can be rendered ineffective with the proper planning and tactics

The AEGIS air defense system was design to take on massive SOVIET air raids of hundreds of missiles - the aircraft carrying the SUNBURNS would be shot down well before they got within range to shoot.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v3.0
==================



This week is our first quarter 2005 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend almost entirely
on donations from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for
your support.

[Rainscents]

39. If US ever goes into full blown war, we are in deep shit!

We can't make anything here as we had off loaded all the military tech. As it is, we are buying bullets from other country right now...

[Lostnote03]

41. Capitalism in its purist form......

....Marx stated it well when he stated something to the effect that capitalists will sale the rope that will hang them....Of course the Bush family of Neo-Cons will be in the middle of the deal profiting....