Page 15 of 17 FirstFirst ...
5
13
14
15
16
17
LastLast
  1. #281
    Quote Originally Posted by Yadryonych View Post
    Yeah no, that's a nope. Nothing like that. Nuclear detterrent is mutual assured destruction. There's no way formosa can inflict any serious damage on china before getting roflstomped. The same with china's 200-300 warheads they will be intercepted, good luck if couple dosens actually make it to americsn soil
    A couple of dozens of nuclear warheads reaching US soil will be devastating. Yes, China will be totally destroyed afterward. However, the US will still suffer calamitous life and economic losses.

    The same with dozens of China's major dams failing at the same time. It will the equivalent of the Sumatran's tsunami. Except, instead of fishing villages and small towns, it will hit major cities. Some with the population size of more than half of California.

  2. #282
    So some news not directly connected to Taiwan, but to PRC itself. Recent reports seem to confirm that they are building more nuke silos, basically doubling their existing amount. Question is, why?
    The more realistic option - just to have more, even with double capacity they are far from USA and Russia, but gain edge over the other main player in the region - India.
    Worst one? They have decided to start directly competing with above mentioned countries and become the third global "nuke power".

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-57995185

    Quote Originally Posted by PC2 View Post
    I disagree with the bolded part, there are ways to use superior creativity to counter superior numbers.
    Small problem, China does not only have superior numbers, they have superior equipment/firepower/tech/call it whatever you wish.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kellhound View Post
    If the threat to destroy dams is all they have left to keep China at bay, that is just a "nuclear" deterrent.
    Yeah, basically.

    Rasulis, you absolutely can use cruise missiles against naval invasion, if you strike the beacheads where enemy has landed (might depend on the minimal trajectory though, if the target is so close, no idea about specifics of Taiwanese missiles).

    Quote Originally Posted by Rasulis View Post
    A couple of dozens of nuclear warheads reaching US soil will be devastating. Yes, China will be totally destroyed afterward. However, the US will still suffer calamitous life and economic losses.

    The same with dozens of China's major dams failing at the same time. It will the equivalent of the Sumatran's tsunami. Except, instead of fishing villages and small towns, it will hit major cities. Some with the population size of more than half of California.
    And it won't do shit to stop USA the country. I will repeat myself once more - there is no MAD scenario in China vs USA fight, losses can be absorbed.
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadoowpunk View Post
    Take that haters.
    IF IM STUPID, so is Donald Trump.

  3. #283
    Quote Originally Posted by Easo View Post
    So some news not directly connected to Taiwan, but to PRC itself. Recent reports seem to confirm that they are building more nuke silos, basically doubling their existing amount. Question is, why?
    The more realistic option - just to have more, even with double capacity they are far from USA and Russia, but gain edge over the other main player in the region - India.
    Worst one? They have decided to start directly competing with above mentioned countries and become the third global "nuke power".

    ...

    And it won't do shit to stop USA the country. I will repeat myself once more - there is no MAD scenario in China vs USA fight, losses can be absorbed.
    Your last statement explains exactly why they are going for option number 3. Basically, if they care about survival they have to assemble a large enough nuke force that the general consensus is that them launching their entire arsenal of nukes at us would be bad for the US, and not be completely absorbed. US and China are at war. Not a hot war, but a war nonetheless. This sounds like sound military doctrine - if the roles were reversed we would do the same.

    Americans here and elsewhere casually talk about actions that destroy multiple Chinese cities and justify why this is necessary. The US-Chinese war scenarios that Skroe provided links all showed an awful lot of destroyed coastal Chinese cities. If anyone here were to council China as to how best deal with the US, it would be pretty much what they are doing: build as many nukes as possible as fast as possible, and make their economy as self sustaining as they possibly can. They are doing both from what I can tell.

  4. #284
    Epic! Yadryonych's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Матушка Россия
    Posts
    1,694
    Quote Originally Posted by Omega10 View Post
    make their economy as self sustaining as they possibly can.
    They will have to seize SEA oil fields and Australian coal for that. The same thing as japan tried to do back then
    Lives matter

  5. #285
    Quote Originally Posted by Yadryonych View Post
    They will have to seize SEA oil fields and Australian coal for that. The same thing as japan tried to do back then
    I expect that the US will take full advantage of this vulnerability.

  6. #286
    Banned Kellhound's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Bank of the Columbia
    Posts
    20,935
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasulis View Post
    A couple of dozens of nuclear warheads reaching US soil will be devastating. Yes, China will be totally destroyed afterward. However, the US will still suffer calamitous life and economic losses.

    The same with dozens of China's major dams failing at the same time. It will the equivalent of the Sumatran's tsunami. Except, instead of fishing villages and small towns, it will hit major cities. Some with the population size of more than half of California.
    China may or may not be able to hit the US given the small number of missiles China has with the range needed vs the number of ABMs the US has to defend with. The flip side is the CCP would know what would happen to it afterwards.

  7. #287
    So it looks like China has decided that it is their turn to get entangled in the Graveyard of Empires. Haven't they been paying any attention to what happens there? They have been meeting representatives of the Taliban to make deals with them because Afghanistan is important for the belt and road and also the mineral wealth there. There have even been calls for Chinese peacekeepers to be deployed, under the auspices of the UN, to protect the 'safety and interests' of the Chinese workers there.

    Given the Taliban can't control and protect everything and the extremely tribal nature of Afghanistan, it isn't a stretch to seeing Chinese workers returning home in bodybags. What the response to that will be is interesting - does Xi send in troops to protect them, and if so, how long before they get caught up in a quagmire like every other nation who has tried the same?

  8. #288
    Quote Originally Posted by Easo View Post
    So some news not directly connected to Taiwan, but to PRC itself. Recent reports seem to confirm that they are building more nuke silos, basically doubling their existing amount. Question is, why?
    The more realistic option - just to have more, even with double capacity they are far from USA and Russia, but gain edge over the other main player in the region - India.
    Worst one? They have decided to start directly competing with above mentioned countries and become the third global "nuke power".

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-57995185



    Small problem, China does not only have superior numbers, they have superior equipment/firepower/tech/call it whatever you wish.



    Yeah, basically.

    Rasulis, you absolutely can use cruise missiles against naval invasion, if you strike the beacheads where enemy has landed (might depend on the minimal trajectory though, if the target is so close, no idea about specifics of Taiwanese missiles).



    And it won't do shit to stop USA the country. I will repeat myself once more - there is no MAD scenario in China vs USA fight, losses can be absorbed.
    Pretty much in line to a relatively recent Xi statement that they'd be bolstering their nuclear armament. Cold War 2.0 here we go indeed.

    As a side note, on the curbing the collapsing birthrates front, they've decided, among other measures, to pretty much annihilate the private tutoring industry, the rational being to make raising children more affordable. I guess it is indeed time for some more of those good old red times.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Corvus View Post
    So it looks like China has decided that it is their turn to get entangled in the Graveyard of Empires. Haven't they been paying any attention to what happens there? They have been meeting representatives of the Taliban to make deals with them because Afghanistan is important for the belt and road and also the mineral wealth there. There have even been calls for Chinese peacekeepers to be deployed, under the auspices of the UN, to protect the 'safety and interests' of the Chinese workers there.

    Given the Taliban can't control and protect everything and the extremely tribal nature of Afghanistan, it isn't a stretch to seeing Chinese workers returning home in bodybags. What the response to that will be is interesting - does Xi send in troops to protect them, and if so, how long before they get caught up in a quagmire like every other nation who has tried the same?
    I guess like with the likes of Pakistan, Kazakhstan or Turkey, it boils down to how much they're able to gain the loyalty of the loyal elite by filling the latter's pockets, and how much they'll be able to prop them up/share populace control tricks.
    "Learn to overcome the crass demands of flesh and bone, for they warp the matrix through which we perceive the world. Extend your awareness outwards, beyond the self of body, to embrace the self of group and the self of humanity. The goals of the group and the greater race are transcendent, and to embrace them is to achieve enlightenment."

    ~ Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang on Essays on Mind and Matter

  9. #289
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    The biggest issue we're having isn't getting official recognition and shame, which is already achieved, it's getting the Catholic Church to acknowledge their complicity and participation in some concrete manner.
    Is there any chance of changing the status quo regarding the privilege of the Church in running a separate, parallel school system?

  10. #290
    Quote Originally Posted by Flarelaine View Post
    Is there any chance of changing the status quo regarding the privilege of the Church in running a separate, parallel school system?
    Then you would also need to ask the Muslim to do the same or any other religion basically.

  11. #291
    Quote Originally Posted by Specialka View Post
    Then you would also need to ask the Muslim to do the same or any other religion basically.
    I don't think so; the offenses were very specifically committed by the Catholic Church in Canada. I'm not interested in whataboutism just now.

  12. #292
    Quote Originally Posted by Flarelaine View Post
    I don't think so; the offenses were very specifically committed by the Catholic Church in Canada. I'm not interested in whataboutism just now.
    You are the one talking about whataboutism. I did not. If you ban or reform any religious parallel school system, you will have to do it for all of them so they are all on the same basis.

  13. #293
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    68,699
    Quote Originally Posted by Flarelaine View Post
    Is there any chance of changing the status quo regarding the privilege of the Church in running a separate, parallel school system?
    That's only Ontario, and it's written right into the provincial Constitution. And there are benefits, oddly enough.

    Also, it's titled "Catholic", but they use the same curriculum and are primarily run/funded by Ontario, not the Vatican. If anything were gonna do it, this would be the thing, though.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Specialka View Post
    You are the one talking about whataboutism. I did not. If you ban or reform any religious parallel school system, you will have to do it for all of them so they are all on the same basis.
    Kudos on speaking out about a topic you completely do not grasp the basic concepts of. Your entire complaint here is a naked straw man.
    Last edited by Endus; 2021-07-29 at 02:04 PM. Reason: Fixing autocorrect typos


  14. #294
    On the topic of countermeasures: Would a dimensional warper WMD still be harmful to the ecosystem?

    The concept of mutually assured destruction exists because nuclear, biological, and viral WMDs don't just kill. They leave aftereffects that warp the ecosystem and environment forever.

    While we won't live to see it anytime soon for the foreseeable future, if human technology advances to such a point a nation develops WMDs that can warp swathes of land and places to another dimension and actually had the ability to close them from spiraling into leftover black holes, would it still harm the ecosystem or planet if the area it affected literally leaves nothing behind but a barren crater? What goes in is never to come back, and nothing is left behind.

    To be very specific on how such a weapon would be in practice: We get the WMD in position, it opens up a black hole that violently takes everything within a radius into it before closing. Notably, the ability to swallow up cities and military checkpoints with ease and seize what's left of the land.

    I would be surprised if the US with its intense military financing and secrecy isn't developing something like this or satellite laser WMDs that don't leave afterfires. The concept of something to counteract the common threat of nuclear weapons has circulated since its first and only testing.
    Last edited by YUPPIE; 2021-07-29 at 01:59 PM.

  15. #295
    Rasulis, you absolutely can use cruise missiles against naval invasion, if you strike the beacheads where enemy has landed (might depend on the minimal trajectory though, if the target is so close, no idea about specifics of Taiwanese missiles).
    I did not say “couldn’t.” I said it would be a waste of resources. Anti-ship missiles would be cheaper and better at hitting moving targets. As for hitting beach heads with cruise missiles, laying a thousand anti-tank and anti-personnel mines would still be cheaper and has the advantage of forcing the invading force to slow down its advance creating a kill zone. This is an effective strategy. Especially since the development of mine technology has leapfrogged the countermeasure (detection and disarming) methods. Never more so than with sea mines. The newest generation of remotely armed and mobile sea mines have made mine sweeper and mine hunting ships obsolete. In fact the US Navy has retired all of its mine sweeper and mine hunting ships.

    And it won't do shit to stop USA the country. I will repeat myself once more - there is no MAD scenario in China vs USA fight, losses can be absorbed.


    Could the US absorb the damage from a couple of dozens missiles is the same question as asking could the US absorb losing New York, SF Bay Area, Los Angeles, San Diego, etc. The answer is probably yes, but at what cost. The same with China & Taiwan situation. Could China afford to lose Shanghai (which sits at the Yangtze river estuary), Guangzhou, Tianjin, Shenzhen, etc. to 30-foot wall of water? Both are extreme measures which are meant as deterrent to keep the other side from attacking. Not as a first strike offense.

    As an aside, I just noticed that almost every single major cities in China are located next to a major river or on a river estuary, and there are freaking dams everywhere.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Kellhound View Post
    China may or may not be able to hit the US given the small number of missiles China has with the range needed vs the number of ABMs the US has to defend with. The flip side is the CCP would know what would happen to it afterwards.
    Exactly. It is meant as a deterrent. Not as a first strike offense. The US does not even have to use any of its ICBMs to hit China. A freaking single Ohio class submarine carry almost as many warheads as the entire Chinese arsenal. It has the advantage of being able to surface in the middle of a major Chinese harbor undetected, unleash a full salvo of all its warheads in about a minute, submerge and disappear. The US has 14 of those roaming the world oceans.

  16. #296
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasulis View Post
    In fact the US Navy has retired all of its mine sweeper and mine hunting ships.
    Tell me, then, what is Avenger class mine counter-measure ship? Those will in service for 3 more years. Or what is one of the primary littoral combat ship roles (as a replacement for Avengers)? Or the Fleet class unmanned vessels?
    So, in fact, they have not.

    Sorry, but the more you write the more I get the feeling you don't exactly know what you are talking about. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadoowpunk View Post
    Take that haters.
    IF IM STUPID, so is Donald Trump.

  17. #297
    Quote Originally Posted by Easo View Post
    Tell me, then, what is Avenger class mine counter-measure ship? Those will in service for 3 more years. Or what is one of the primary littoral combat ship roles (as a replacement for Avengers)? Or the Fleet class unmanned vessels?
    So, in fact, they have not.

    Sorry, but the more you write the more I get the feeling you don't exactly know what you are talking about. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
    The mine countermeasures of the Littoral Combat Ships are based on aviation and unmanned surface, semi-submersible and submersible vehicles. They are not independent systems. The mine technology has advanced so far now that using manned mine sweeper and mine hunter ships are dangerous to the ships & crews. BTW, China still depend and manufacture mine sweeper and mine hunter ships.

    How effective are mine countermeasures? USS Samuel B. Roberts in 1988 during the Iran-Iraq War nearly sank from First World War-era mine. In 1991, the multi-billion dollar USS Princeton was severely damaged by a pair of Italian made MN103 Manta sea mines costing a couple of thousand dollars a piece. The mine countermeasure technology has advanced considerably since then. However, the mine offense technology has advanced even faster. The imbalance problem occurs because the cost of making the weapon is in the thousands while the countermeasure means cost is measured in the hundred of millions. Probably in the billions when you include the research cost.

    - - - Updated - - -

    So what kind of sea mine technology does a modern navy has to deal with these days? Today’s systems can be triggered by the magnetic field of a ship, the sound of its propellers or the pressure of its wake. There are remotely activated mines that can lay dormant for a long time, ‘stealthy’ mines fashioned in shapes and materials designed to minimize their sonar profile, ‘smart’ mines that can discern between targets and ‘rising’ mines that fire torpedoes, and even mines which are equipped with sea-to-air missiles to destroy low-flying aircraft. Humans are pretty inventive when it comes to killing each other.

  18. #298
    That's a lot of text for simply saying - sorry, there are minesweepers in USN service right now

    Back to China...
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadoowpunk View Post
    Take that haters.
    IF IM STUPID, so is Donald Trump.

  19. #299
    Quote Originally Posted by Easo View Post
    That's a lot of text for simply saying - sorry, there are minesweepers in USN service right now

    Back to China...
    Context is important. You are right that the US Navy still has 11 Avenger class mine sweeper in service. However, during the Gulf War, the US Navy depended on surveillance, anti-submarine, mine-countermeasures (MCM) helicopters and aircrafts, and each individual ships sonar and radar. Those minesweepers were outdated as soon as they were launched. Using LCS, which cost 2.5 billion each with maintenance cost of 70 million a year, as countermeasures against weapon that cost a couple of thousand each is indicative of the underlying issue between the development of mine technology and its countermeasures.

    Back to China. The good news is that the problem goes both way. If the US has problem with mine countermeasures, the Chinese even more so. Imagine B-52 Stratofortress dropping thousands of sea mines along the Taiwanese Strait.

    The USAF Weapons School Commandant went to Barksdale AFB. I told him to go eat some fried #alligator. Instead he went dropping sea mines out of a B-52 Stratofortress! Awesome pics! Thanks to my exec “Boost” for the pics and being his IP for the day!

  20. #300
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasulis View Post
    Context is important. You are right that the US Navy still has 11 Avenger class mine sweeper in service. However, during the Gulf War, the US Navy depended on surveillance, anti-submarine, mine-countermeasures (MCM) helicopters and aircrafts, and each individual ships sonar and radar. Those minesweepers were outdated as soon as they were launched. Using LCS, which cost 2.5 billion each with maintenance cost of 70 million a year, as countermeasures against weapon that cost a couple of thousand each is indicative of the underlying issue between the development of mine technology and its countermeasures.

    Back to China. The good news is that the problem goes both way. If the US has problem with mine countermeasures, the Chinese even more so. Imagine B-52 Stratofortress dropping thousands of sea mines along the Taiwanese Strait.

    The USAF Weapons School Commandant went to Barksdale AFB. I told him to go eat some fried #alligator. Instead he went dropping sea mines out of a B-52 Stratofortress! Awesome pics! Thanks to my exec “Boost” for the pics and being his IP for the day!
    If the B-52's can drop anything unmolested in the straits then it is already over by that point.
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadoowpunk View Post
    Take that haters.
    IF IM STUPID, so is Donald Trump.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •