01-27-2017, 01:33 PM
Quote:Disperse it where? Read my last few words, please. As I said, "back into the waves". The sand would sink back to the bottom where it was dredged up from in the first place.
With respect to radiation, a bomb has a few kilograms of fissionable material, while a power reactor has a few metric tons - several orders of magnitude more. If we could live with Fukushima without shutting down all the nuclear reactors in the world, the military will be able to live with a few bombs. That's assuming the decision makers will have "thought this through", which isn't something to be counted on once you get into a shooting war.
Note that I'm not advocating using nukes, just pointing out how it could happen. Keep in mind it's going to be Boomers making the ultiimate decision, not Silents who tend to think things through to the point of indecision.
So you have a reclaimed island with a massive harbor and an odd shape and one hit from a nuke and all of it is going to go right to the bottom of the sea? Do you have any sources for this claim, some sign that this has been contemplated by anyone, or are you just pulling this out of... I don't know what?
Quote:We're talking about the South China Sea, not the Taiwan Strait. The Exocet's range is about 100 miles, which doesn't buy you much in a sea that's about 1000 miles across. That's why China is building the artificial islands.
Excuse me, but you're modifying your claim. The original claim made by you was that nukes would need to be used because:
Quote:How does China sink a US carrier? They don't have the conventional forces to do it.
They don't have cruise missiles, delivered by planes, submarines, and boats (range up to 300 miles from launch point)? Anti-ship ballistic missiles fire able from land covering most of the SCS (max range of 900 miles)? Considering the US is gaming out possible scenarios under the assumption that they shouldn't send capital ships within the first island chain, I can't help but feel that you're talking out of your hat, here.
I'm not saying that "OMG THE CHINEZ R INVINCIBLES!" because that would be nonsense, but neither are we. Ships would be lost, and unlike us the Chinese have the advantage of concentrating their forces, whereas ours are scattered throughout the world.
Quote:As for the fuzzy wuzzy formula - excuse me, the "Lanchester's Square Law" as it seems to be called nowadays - try applying it to the fact that the US Navy is about 10 times the size of the Chinese Navy. I think you'll quickly see how it supports my point that China loses any conventional naval conflict.
10 times the size of the PLAN as measured by how, tonnage? Try half that, a third of which is taken up by the 10 (once and future? 11) supercarriers. I don't think that's an effective proxy for combat power, particularly given the terrain. The US Navy is moving towards a "distributed lethality" concept precisely because even small ships can carry missiles capable of sinking even larger ships. And their ships ARE fairly numerous.
So sure thing, ignore actual Naval College models of how ship combat works in favor of going, "But, But, AMURKA!!" "Cause what do they know?
Quote:The artificial islands do have the potential for making the South China Sea a no go zone for the US Navy, though, which is why they are such an issue.
How, it's not like they can carry weapons capable of sinking ships, the Chinese don't have those, amirite?
Quote:Interesting - thanks. I knew China was supporting their currency, but I hadn't realized they'd spent that much on it since I last checked a few years ago.
No problem. Yeah, the export model they've been following (pioneered by Japan and the Asian Tigers) is about on its last legs. A financial crisis is due at some point, as happened to all the other countries with the same economic plan. Really, they're just forestalling the inevitable at this point.