01-27-2017, 05:06 PM
(01-27-2017, 01:33 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: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?
The blast radius of a 1MT warhead is about a mile; the crater radius is about half that. Superimposing this on Fiery Cross Reef, one of China's three main artificial islands in the middle of the South China Sea, the crater would cover all the built up area and the middle third of the runway, and the blast radius would cover the rest. The island would be left unusable and the depth of the crater would make it more difficult to rebuild than it was to build in the first place.
I grant that Mischief Reef might take two or three warheads, especially with today's new, improved, smaller warheads.
I didn't make any claims that it has been contemplated, but there are people in the Pentagon whose job it is to come up with outlandish contingency plans. They'd be remiss if they hadn't done this analysis.
And again, I'm not advocating it; I'm just pointing out that it could happen. If we get into a war over the South China Sea, which neoconservatives seem to want, and the choice is between losing three supercarriers taking out three artificial islands or use a few nukes, I guarantee you the admiral in charge of the men on the supercarriers is at least going to consider the nuclear option and may well advocate it. And let's not forget the stories that were circulated back in the primary about Trump asking military experts why we don't use nuclear weapons.
Quote:
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?
If you're going to accuse me of modifying my claim, you should quote the original claim in full, which made it clear that I was talking about naval battles away from the coast.
With respect to your question, 10 times the size of their Navy in terms of comparable ships. 10 supercarriers versus 1 carrier that is not a supercarrier. 75 nuclear submarines versus a dozen, some of which are diesel, etc. But even if we have only have 5 to 1 advantage, that still means that in an all out war, we rate to lose a few destroyers and submarines, and have a small chance of losing one carrier while destroying their entire navy. Again, that's assuming we don't have to deal with artificial islands.
Destroyers can carry weapons capable of sinking a supercarrier, though it might take more than one destroyer's worth. Iranian style speedboats cannot; the threat from those really small ships is suicide attacks, and even then they're more of a threat to destroyers than carriers. Supercarriers, and maybe attack submarines, are currently the most effective vessels in today's navies on a per ton basis.
Quote: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?
As I've said several times now, the artificial islands change the picture. I don't classify them as naval assets because, well, they're not ships. China doesn't classify them that way either because, well, they claim they're for peaceful uses, despite the military grade air bases.
WWII absolutely taught us that land based air beats aircraft carriers absent overwhelming odds. That's why the artificial islands are a real threat to US maritime supremacy - much more so than the Chinese navy in its present state.
And for any people wandering here from John Xenakis' thread, this doesn't mean I think a China-US war is an especially strong candidate for the crisis war. The smart thing would be to negotiate a win/win solution, as I outlined in an earlier post. However, one needs to know potential worst case outcomes to establish the boundaries for negotiation.