Pat Buchanan asks an interesting and provocative question, or rather, presents a dillemma.
And what can we do to assure that does not happen — short of a war that could be disaster to us both, as World War II was for the British as well as the Germans.
How do we decouple from a country that provides necessities of national life — such as pharmaceuticals — for our people?
The Unz Review
Related
Simulated war games over China threat reportedly warn of likely defeat
Lee Brown
Also
China’s New Aircraft Carrier Killer Is World’s Largest Air-Launched Missile
H I Sutton
Also
You Tube
Cold war is inevitable, hot war is not.
ReplyDeleteIn the early days of a war with China, many of the forces located at these forward bases would not even be in the fight. Older, non-stealthy fighter jets, such as F-15s and F-16s, would not play an offensive role, because they could not survive against China’s advanced fighters and surface-to-air missile systems. The same is true of the Navy’s F-18s. The limited numbers of stealthy, fifth-generation fighter jets that could be brought to bear, such as F-22s and F-35s, can fly only several hundred miles on a single tank of fuel, so they would depend heavily on aerial refueling tankers to be able to reach their targets. But because those tankers are neither stealthy nor equipped with any self-defense capabilities, they would be shot down in large numbers. With those aircraft lost—which the Air Force never assumed could happen when they were developed—there would be no backups to keep America’s short-range fighter jets in the fight.
ReplyDeleteA similar dynamic would play out with America’s sea bases. Once the war started, US aircraft carriers in the region would immediately turn east and sail away from China, intent on getting more than a thousand miles away from the opponent’s long-range anti-ship missiles. But from that far away, none of the aircraft on the flight deck would be capable of reaching their targets without aerial refueling, so the Navy would find itself on the horns of the same dilemma the Air Force faced: its stealthy fighter jets would be pushed so far back that they could only get to their targets with the help of non-stealthy, defenseless refueling aircraft that would be shot down in large numbers.
All the while, Chinese satellites and radars would be hunting for those aircraft carriers as well as additional carriers meant to provide reinforcement that would begin their long journey across the Pacific Ocean from wherever they were in the continental United States. If found, those ships would face large salvos of Chinese missiles, especially the DF-21 and DF-26 anti-ship ballistic missiles, better known in US defense circles as “carrier killers.” The carriers and their escort ships might shoot down some of the missiles, but there would be so many that some could get through and knock the carriers out of the fight by cratering their flight decks, damaging their control towers, or destroying their aircraft before they even got airborne. It is also possible that a hit could be fatal, sending five thousand Americans and a $13 billion ship to the bottom of the ocean—all at the cost to China of around $10 million per missile.
source: The Kill Chain - Defending America in the Future of High-Tech Warfare by Christian Brose
Cold War created by technologist intelligentsia (nuclear weapons) so the warrior class would stop the BIG hot wars...,
ReplyDeleteie warrior class wants nothing to do with nuclear weapons....
We should have at least eliminated an eastern capital city in what we assessed as responsible jurisdiction via nuclear strikes in aftermath of 9/11.... row would have easily understood.... Too late now....
ReplyDeleteThe Kill Chain - Defending America in the Future of High-Tech Warfare by Christian Brose
ReplyDeleteThere are two chief weapons that could give each side a decisive advantage. The first is the US submarine fleet which operates at will (unless China has developed an anti-submarine capability that is not generally known). The second is the anti-satellite capability of the PLA which could decapitate US command and control, navigation and targeting GPS, and communications in the first hours of hostilities unless the initial US strike destroys this. Both sides are well aware of this.
Russia has the same or better capability of taking down US satellites, and the same vulnerability to US submarine attack. Russia also has state of the art electronic warfare capability that China probably does not yet. Russia also has nuclear deterrence capable of totally destroying Europe/UK and badly damaging the continental US over the arctic. Again, both sides are aware of this.
War is unlikely absent a blunder (crossing a red line) or an accident. The likelihood of either seems uncomfortably high given hair-trigger conditions and suspicion of first strike.
What level of damage can China's nuclear arsenal do?
ReplyDeleteFunnily enough, a US military person asked a Chinese military person this. The answer was, trying using nuclear weapons on us and you'll find out. Typically Chinese actually. The Chinese are pretty non-committal.
ReplyDeleteSurely an estimate can be made.
ReplyDelete200 nukes ought to be enough to wipe US cities off the map.
China has over 300, enough to do the job. Russia and the US have over 5000 and the US is allocating hundreds of billions to development of new weapons and missile delivery.
ReplyDeleteStatus of World Nuclear Forces Sep 2020.
The US has modeled itself after the Roman Empire offering protection in exchange for tribute. In the case of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States for example, tribute takes the form of pricing oil in US dollars which supports the US dollar as the global reserve currency.
ReplyDeleteIn order to offer protection, the US needs aircraft carriers to project air power. In the event of an invasion or blockade of Taiwan, the US would be helpless without its aircraft carriers. Here, another writer describes China's strategy:
China’s aim to develop aerial weaponry tailored to target American force-multiplying aerial assets, like tankers and sensor aircraft, may have just appeared in another tangible form—a relatively huge and previously unseen air-to-air missile.
For years, I have posited that China would develop highly focused capabilities to counter specific but glaring weaknesses in America’s high-tech and increasingly networked expeditionary war fighting machine and battle doctrine. This pertains specifically to developing weapons and tactics used to attack low-density but high-value flying assets. China’s J-20 stealth fighter-interceptor is part of this strategy.
It’s a simple premise really, one that we have discussed many times before. China knows that American and allied air power is designed around a strategy of working cooperatively as a deeply networked team, one full of diverse assets that together equal far more than the sum of their individual parts. Taking on American fighters in a traditional manner would be a losing game, at least when looked at in a vacuum void of quantitative factors. But if China can successfully attack the enabling assets that support the "shooting" assets, they can make inroads into leveling the air combat playing field. This means coming up with weapons and tactics tailored towards targeting American airborne early warning and control aircraft, and other key flying sensor platforms and communications nodes that often operate behind—but relatively close to—the front lines.
These assets offer the US and allied combat aircraft the enhanced situational awareness that no other force in the world can muster, and this is largely a decisive factor in obtaining the very high kill ratios needed to sustain an expeditionary air campaigns against a near-peer state competitor. In addition, also being able to successfully target lumbering tanker aircraft that provide America’s relatively short-range, aerial refueling addicted combat aircraft fleet with a constant stream of fuel would hit US airpower where it hurts most. Doing so can even lead to the demise of the aircraft that the targeted tankers support during long-range combat operations. In other words, shoot down the tanker and you may have shot down the fighters it supports without even firing a shot at them. Or at least you have pulled those fighters out of the fight, and in some cases for a prolonged periods of time if they have to divert to remote airfields, many of which may be under threat of cruise and ballistic missile attack themselves by China's missile forces.
source: Shadowy New Missile Appears Under the Wing of Chinese J-16 Fighter
Normal Combat Radius
ReplyDeleteThis represents how far, in kilometers, the aircraft can normally travel from its base and perform its mission (air superiority or ground attack). The rule of thumb is that the combat radius is one-third the distance an aircraft can fly in a straight line on a full load of fuel. This assumes a trip out and back, plus one-third of fuel for combat operations. But for that handful of nations with a lot of aerial tanker aircraft, the situation is quite different, and rather more complicated. With tankers you can have combat aircraft top off their fuel tanks just before they enter hostile airspace, and do the same when they return. This can more than double the normal range of warplanes. But it gets more complicated than that. Aircraft have a maximum takeoff weight, but bombers can take off with more bombs and less fuel. After flying a long distance to just outside enemy territory, they can take on more fuel, deliver their bombs, and tank up again on the way home. Aircraft can also carry more weight in flight than they do when taking off. So refueling in the air can as much as double the normal bomb load. This technique is particularly useful with heavy bombers like the B-52, B-l, and B-2. But even smaller bombers make use of the technique, especially the F- 117. America has the largest aerial tanker fleet and is the most frequent user of tankers to extend range and increase bomb load. Another factor affecting range is the use of speed to avoid enemy warplanes or ground fire. Normally, aircraft burn about .5 percent of fuel per minute when cruising at the economical speed (600-800 kilometers an hour). When enemy warplanes or ground fire are encountered, maximum speed is used. These high-speed maneuvers will often get you away from danger or are sometimes used to catch up with enemy fighters. But maximum speed burns up a lot more fuel. Fighters can consume 10-15 percent of fuel per minute at maximum speed. Even strike aircraft will frequently crank it up to 2-3 percent of fuel per minute while maneuvering toward or away from their targets. The average aircraft has sufficient fuel for 2-3 hours of cruising and up to 15 minutes of high-speed maneuvering during combat. Strike aircraft prefer to conserve their fuel so they can circle the battlefield waiting for the opportune moment to go down and hit a target. Fuel is a weapon. If one aircraft has more fuel, it can force another into a situation where the disadvantaged plane will crash with empty gas tanks. When the low-fuel aircraft realizes that it only has enough to get back to base, it can be more easily outmaneuvered by its opponent, who can be more generous with fuel and speed. Fuel is also a handy defense. Recon aircraft, in particular, use bursts of speed to avoid danger from aircraft above or missiles below. Combat aircraft often fly off to their objectives with one or more large fuel tanks hanging from them. These tanks slow down the aircraft and decrease maneuverability. Before entering combat, these tanks are normally dropped. A common tactic is to force the other fellow to jettison his drop tanks before the fuel they carry has been used. This is done by attacking the enemy formation with missiles or interceptors before it has reached its objective. The attack does not have to be serious, just enough to force those partially full tanks to the ground. Once more, aerial tankers are a crucial advantage. Aircraft coming out of hostile airspace with nearly empty tanks are often rescued by waiting tankers. Other nations often lose aircraft when pilots have to choose between getting shot down and using so much fuel that they could not make it to a landing strip in friendly territory. Russian aircraft were built with this in mind and are rugged enough to land on any long, flat surface that’s reasonably firm.
source: How to Make War - A Comprehensive Guide to Modern Warfare in the Twenty-first Century by James F. Dunnigan
For years, I have posited that China would develop highly focused capabilities to counter specific but glaring weaknesses in America’s high-tech and increasingly networked expeditionary war fighting machine and battle doctrine.
ReplyDeleteThis has been the Chinese strategy forever. Those familiar with Chinese martial arms will view the vast array of weapons serially as one weapon was developed to counter another that gave advantage. This is the history of warfare.
China has already done this except maybe for US submarine fleet. But China has been working on a fix for this that may be operational.
China's new submarine engine is poised to revolutionize underwater warfare (June, 2017)
In addition, Chinese forces are, so far, chiefly defensive instead of offensive. The obvious strategy is to develop weapons to attack the adversaries strengths. The is projecting forward, which complicates logistics, while China and Russia resources are land-based and near at hand.
The US, China and Russia are investing heavily in military technology, also with an eye on the export market. Russia and Chinese production costs are way lower than the US, so nominal comparison is misleading. The US and the allies it equips spend much more on the same real product.
Those familiar with Chinese martial arms should be "martial arts" rather than "arms."
ReplyDeleteNuclear weapons in the current context of US v China are there to prevent warring...
ReplyDeleteMost recent opportunity for us to deploy nuclear weapons was perhaps Kabul in aftermath of 9/11....
Now way past that opportunity..,
The next opportunity might be if N Korea launches a missile towards Guam or Hawaii or Alaska maybe us west coast... we should have nukes going back there before the thing hits wherever it is pointed at... if US has competent leadership in office which depends on who is in there..,
If Gomer Pyle USMC were in the White House, that would be competent leadership.
ReplyDelete