01-27-2017, 09:10 PM
(01-27-2017, 06:40 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: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.
That requires local air superiority. That's difficult to get with 10 carriers, which means 3 on station at a time. We could surge but we'd need to get everything coordinated just right, and then stage an actual invasion so we ended up holding the territory. Or we could use cruise missiles, but cruise missiles are more expensive than run way patches, so that's a losing technique in the long term, unless it enables us to stage an invasion.
Quote: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.
I agree it's an open question with respect to carriers versus attack submarines. It doesn't matter that much since we've got the advantage in both - for now.
Quote: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.).
If they don't use their navy, they might as well not have built it in the first place.
As previously discussed, the Chinese mainland isn't close enough to control the entire South China Sea, especially the reaches such as near the Philippines.
The Taiwan Strait is a different story. The relevant forces would be based on the mainland and Taiwan.
The Daoyu are basically a nearly irrelevant sideshow, serving only as a possible irrational flashpoint.
From the US standpoint, it's the South China Sea that is relevant, not just for its resources, but because it contains critical routes for America's global trade empire. The trade routes are more important to the US; the resources are more important to China. There ought to be a win/win here somewhere; it's just a matter of whether we can get to it.