01-27-2017, 06:40 PM
Quote: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.
That makes more sense. Sorry, I was getting wrapped up in the word "sink" and was immediately skeptical.
Of course, they could just as easily just bomb the runways and other facilities with conventional missiles and avoid the escalation risk.
Quote: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.
It COULD happen. I just don't think it very likely. As I said, there are other ways to accomplish the same thing without breaking that particular taboo with all it would mean.
Quote: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.
I agree that the US would have an overwhelming advantage in a straight up fight in the open ocean. The Chinese don't really have a true blue-wate navy, yet. It's why I don't think it would play out like that. It's also how I would envision what I was discussing with Mike earlier, a 2020s Crisis climax within an overall macrodecision phase ending (which is traditionally accompanied by the next hegemon maintaining 50%+ of global naval capacity) in the 2040s or so. China and the US drift to war, a war which could include proxy conflicts in places like Korea or Iran, and a naval conflict largely taking place in the East and South China Seas. Have, for instance, the Taiwan issue be the final catalyst, China hitting unhardened US bases in the Western Pacific with conventional munitions, but a lack of sufficient amphibious capacity and US/Japanese submarines/anti-air assets preventing it from seizing Taiwan. The US then, knowing the risks of bringing its surface ships in close proximity to the mainland, goes for a far blockade, blocking China from breaking out and commercial traffic from coming in. China in turn has to replace its seaborne imports, extend its supply lines deep into Inner Asia, and build up its forces to try and force their way out/wait for the US to lose interest. Anti-satelitte attacks, cyber-warfare, etc. could also feature. This conflict could coincide with similar 4T conflicts elsewhere (say, India/Pakistan) and conclude in the mid-to-late 2020s. The victor, let's say China for sake of argument, now faces the task of expanding its presence out into the ensuing void and stabilizing its immediate environment and sealanes to the point that basic trade for needed commodities could resume.
Or not, you can vary the victors (The US, or maybe the Chinese and Americans destroy themselves and someone on the sidelines jumps to the lead), the circumstances (nukes, Russia coming in on one side or another, political breakup of one or the other party), or what have you, the point I want to make is that if you look at Paul Kennedy, Chase-Dunn, Pobodnik, M & T, S & H, something like this is predicted to happen. It may not, but I have been satisfied with their reading of how events should go thus far, and so this is the type of thing I am looking out for.
Quote:With respect to your question, 10 times the size of their Navy in terms of comparable ships.
Interesting metric. Can you go into more detail?
Quote:10 supercarriers versus 1 carrier that is not a supercarrier.
There were questions among naval strategists well throughout the second half of the 20th century that aircraft carriers may no longer be the ne plus ultra of peer-level naval warfare. It was never put to the test, and they retain tremendous advantages in gunboat diplomacy/presence patrols/etc. so here we are. At some point, the question will eventually be put to the test, and we'll know for sure.
Quote:75 nuclear submarines versus a dozen, some of which are diesel, etc.
*blinks*
Your numbers are a little off on both ends. The US presently operates 69 submarines, and barring massive investment (which we will hopefully see from the Trump admin), that number is dropping and will for the next 15 years or so.
The PLAN operates 70 right now, and that number is growing. Granted, there are qualitative differences between the two, but the newer models are narrowing that gap and diesel-electric subs are not to be taken lightly, particularly within the confines of the East and South China Seas, where range is not so much of an issue.
Quote: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.
Sure, if they just drive all of them out into the Pacific Ocean and challenge us to a duel. Somehow, I don't think that would be the gameplan.
Quote:Again, that's assuming we don't have to deal with artificial islands.
Or, you know, the Chinese mainland. Again, I don't think the assumption of an open ocean fight on level terms has much bearing on the likely areas of conflict (Taiwan Straits, Senkaku/Diaoyu, SCS, etc.).
Quote: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.
You're missing more than a couple of classes of ships in between.
Quote:Supercarriers, and maybe attack submarines, are currently the most effective vessels in today's navies on a per ton basis.
Probably submarines more than supercarriers, particularly if evaluated on a "per ton" basis.
Quote: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.
Glad we're on the same page, albeit different sections. The mainland is also an unsinkable aircraft carrier in its own right, and given that most of the US' air purchases for the last few decades were relatively short-range ones designed for a battle with the Soviet Union on the North European Plain we may experience issue there, should conflict occur (it's why the Navy brass' present footdragging on turning the UCLASS program into a long-range bomber is critically short-sighted).
Quote: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.
Worthy caveat. Please note that I don't think any of these scenarios I am detailing are good ideas, only that I think they are real possibilities worth contemplating.