Chinese develope "kill weapon" to sink US carriers

[guy]

Can the US Carriers be defended against this weapon ?


First posted on a Chinese blog viewed as credible by military analysts and then translated by the naval affairs blog Information Dissemination, a recent report provides a description of an anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM) that can strike carriers and other U.S. vessels at a range of 2000km.

The range of the modified Dong Feng 21 missile is significant in that it covers the areas that are likely hot zones for future confrontations between U.S. and Chinese surface forces.

The size of the missile enables it to carry a warhead big enough to inflict significant damage on a large vessel, providing the Chinese the capability of destroying a U.S. supercarrier in one strike.

Because the missile employs a complex guidance system, low radar signature and a maneuverability that makes its flight path unpredictable, the odds that it can evade tracking systems to reach its target are increased. It is estimated that the missile can travel at mach 10 and reach its maximum range of 2000km in less than 12 minutes.

https://www.usni.org/forthemedia/ChineseKillWeapon.asp

This missle makes the Sunburn look like a firecraker

It reaches Mach 3 at a high altitude and its maximum low-altitude speed is M2.2, triple the speed of the American Harpoon. When slower missiles, like the French Exocet are used, the maximum theoretical response time for the defending ship is 150-120 seconds. This provides time to launch countermeasures and employ jamming before deploying "hard" defense tactics such as launching missiles and using quick-firing artillery. But the 3M82 "Mosquito" missiles are extremely fast and give the defending side a maximum theoretical response time of merely 25-30 seconds, rendering it extremely difficult employ jamming and countermeasures, let alone fire missiles and quick-firing artillery http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/moskit.htm

[SpiralHawk]

1. "If only I was still The Decider. Smirk." - xCommander AWOL (R)

"This would be yet ANOTHER perfect opportunity to flake out, shirk responsibility, and let Dickie 'Five Deferments' Cheney devise the jaundiced, Treasury Depleting, occult Black Ops military strategery for yet another EPIC Republicon Homelander FAIL. Smirk."

- xCommander AWOL (R)

[rug]

2. This is the fatal flaw in carrier based naval strategy.

[harun]

101. I think we could reduce our Navy by half and still have plenty. Not practicle anymore.

Or use it heavily to help deliver aid and food to people in disasters, etc. I would be fine by that.

[FreakinDJ]

3. But but but .... China is our Trading Partner

We gave them all our Manufacturing Industries.......they just got to be our friends

[MikeNearMcChord]

4. A good article from the War Nerd

One thing that is noted, any missle can do the trick.
http://exiledonline.com/the-war-nerd-this-is-how-the-carriers-will-die/

[soothsayer]

5. don't people blow up our ships with tiny little dingys?

[guy]

7. But this would put the ship on the bottom of the ocean.

[Pavulon]

13. 30 minutes or less...

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[burning rain]

26. Yah, the People's Republic is just spoiling for a war.....

with the US, upon which it depends so heavily for economic development. As is, no doubt, Russia, never mind that it went out of its way to draw down tensions with the West after the Georgia crisis. Riiiiight. More alarmist trash from the right-wing paranoid and military industrial complex advertisement machine.

[Pavulon]

32. Any event involving the sinking of a US carrier

will end in a war. Whether it is nuclear or not would be determined by circumstance. An attack on a US carrier would generate a nuclear strike. China does not have a substantial second strike capability. China can not survive an open war with any Western nation.

The liberty event is in no on parity with an attack on a carrier.

My "radical" idea is drawn from the NPR, read it.

This is the rules we use to kill the world..
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/11/nuclear_posture_review.html

[Zodiak]

62. I did read it

And it doesn't say one word about the sinking of a US carrier, nor does it pretend to set policy for the threshold for war. Did you cite the right link because this leads to a review of the NPR by the Center for American Progress?

[amandabeech]

6. This is why we import everything from our friends, the Chinese!!!

We search for a way to be energy independent, but we !cannot! be independent in manufacturing!

[Burma Jones]

8. I guess that just leaves Nukes.......

[Mudoria]

9. Wonder who they stole the technology from?

[Pavulon]

10. Does it kill ohio class subs?

no? well need to go on with melamine food sources and lead toys. good day.

[guy]

11. Kick for debate.

I noticed the other thread on the subject got locked because of a Rense link, and that the people posting on the thread were talking about the sunburn missile instead of this NEW missile.

Forget the sunburn. This new anti-ship missile does mach 10 ...the sunburn, mach 2.5

[Pavulon]

12. Rense is garbage, janes is a source for usable info.

carriers are strategic nuclear assets and china attacking one would lead to a quick end to their current overpopulation problems as they would be showered with nuclear weapons.

[NutmegYankee]

16. Besides, submarines make surface ships obsolete anyway.

What good are missiles if you have no navy or merchant marine left?

On edit: grammar

[Pavulon]

33. The use of that weapon would leave

no one. The US has ZERO naval threat from China. NONE. Chine is behind the USSR (when it fell) in sub and naval technology.

They are third world.

[NutmegYankee]

37. I was implying that submarines can do the same job as surface ships with no missile risk.

Why even sail within range?

[daleo]

68. Do you not think that might have adverse consequences for the whole globe?

Nuclear winter, fallout, etc?

Even the U.S. would be affected.

[Pavulon]

88. Yes. China is a nuclear nation. That weapon has no use outside of an ongoing

nuclear war or to start one. Obviously the impact of any nuclear exchange, even a "small" one would be catastrophic.

[cobalt1999]

14. It's useless for anything except all out nuclear war

It's as useful a weapon as an ICBM in a silo. Big, powerful, and too dangerous to ever use because of the retaliation.

[guy]

17. So...

Your view is that if China sank a US carrier, we would launch an all out nuclear strike on them ? ...Thus assuring they return the favor.

Sounds a wee bit radical to me.

[NutmegYankee]

18. we have thousands, they have about 150.

Some of us would still be here, them, unlikely.

[guy]

22. 150 ?

So 3 could fall on each state ? Is that all ? ...Almost would be worth it for a carrier
:eyes:

[NutmegYankee]

24. It's called mutually assured destruction.

That's why you make it a principle, hit this ship with a nuke tipped missile, and it starts a nuclear war, of which few will survive. The point, don't attack the ship! You have to actually be willing to do it to make it work as a deterrent.

[guy]

27. Nobody ever said anything about "nuking a ship"

A missile traveling at mach 10 has enough kinetic energy to sink a ship without any a warhead of any kind, the ship would basically sink from the missile, not the warhead.

Anyway, nuking a ship is absurd.

[NutmegYankee]

30. Not that absurd - The soviets had weapons for just that purpose. n/t

[Statistical]

38. You are missing the point.

The US would consider sinking a carrier no different than carpet bombing Andrew's Airforce base.

Any country attacking a US Carrier understands it would be just as bad as a strike on us mainland.
Any such engagement would escalate to a nuclear confrontation.

That is why people have made reference to can it sink an Ohio?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_class_submarine

At any such time 9 to 11 are at sea hiding at the bottom of the ocean. The ULF relay network can send a launch signal anywhere in the world and can't be stopped.

Each Ohio has 24 ICBM w/ 8 475kt warheads or 91,200kt total yield or 6000x the Hiroshima bomb.

China is no more likely to strike a Carrier than they are to level New York city.

Of course some in the Navy need to expose this "threat" to get hundreds of billions to design a ballistic missile shield for naval fleets.


BTW: Both US and Soviets had tactical nukes to sink carrier groups. Both sides even developed nuclear tipped torpedoes.

[Diclotican]

54. NutmegYankee

NutmegYankee

Ever heard about MIRV?: Then you doesn't need so many missiles.. If everyone of them is tipped with MIRV http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIRV Then even 150 missiles would triple many times... And many american City's and military bases would be in danger of being destroyed...

On the other hand, why should The Peoples Republic of China attack a Aircraft Carrier in first case?.. As I understand the "red" China tend to be very guarded against attacking others.. Because it will hurt them self if the war is going out of control. And the leadership in China are afraid of loosing control.. Social control is important for them. And if China was ever to use their nuclear weapons, or attacking a aircraft carrier by conventional means it will be the end of Communist China.. In so many ways, it is just plain stupid...

The new missile is maybe a danger to the aircraft carriers - in the future, but for the moment PRC have no interest in waging war with US. They have to much on stake to do that.. And the PRC have no real naval forces to fight US on open sea.. And it will take them, at least a couple of decades to get a real blue sea naval forces if they ever wanted to have it.. And one thing is to have it, another thing is to operate it and train their soldiers accordingly.. And for the moment, the only country who are doing that, at a large scale is the US... Not even France and UK are in the same liga as US when it came to aircraft carrier opperations...

But, on the other hand, if the naval forces of PRC are to have newly build russian submarines.. Specially if it ever would be a follow up om Akula http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akula_class_submarine http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/row/rus/971.htm http://warfare.ru/?linkid=1761&catid=306 Then China would have have a first class Submarine force to be reckoned with... And then splash a newly build SSBN class and you really have something of a deterrence against enemies... But then again, tis is something that is maybe a couple of decades in the future...

But that means, Russia have to sell it to them... And that is maybe another questing to be answered too..

Diclotican

[NutmegYankee]

65. I stopped reading after your first sentence - 150 WARHEADS

Each MIRV is a WARHEAD! They have more warheads, but only 150 or so can be deployed quickly.

[Diclotican]

66. NutmegYanke

NutmegYanke

It was a typo from my side I guess, Sorry about that.. I know about what MIRV is... But if they have 150 MISSILES ready to deploy quickly, then they still have a punch that no one should take for granted I guess?...

But then, China sees to be reluctant to the whole idea of nuclear weapon, because they have maintained their missile weapon system, but not exactly used to much money to build up a real stockpiles of weapon.. Enough to scare of everyone who want war with China.. But not to break the bank... In all China also sees to have had/have problems with the missiles, specially the fuel is a problem for the Chinese.. So they tend to have their nuclear weapons going "dry".. Mutch what the US had when your nuclear missiles had to fuel their missiles with liquied fuel instead of what they have been using for the last 30-40 year or so.. That means it wil take at least 30-50 minutes to fuel up a missile, and then it takes some times to fire them all.. And I would bet my farm on this, the US have assets in China, who would report if China was to fuel up their nuclear weapons.. Or at least the satelites would give it away.. And if they was to do that... Then they have a problem on their hand.. Low Level B2 with some bombs would do the trick I guess.. But in PRC, it wil take a long time to came to the fact that they want to use a nuclear weapon, they are not MAD in PRC. Maybe in North Korea, but not in China. They have to mutch to loose in a nuclear war with anyone. The country who for the moment have most of the weapon USA, doesn't see it that I guess.

Even if China was to double their weapon capacity, to 300 missiles, they would still be FAR below both Russia and USA, when it came to missiles.. And they know very well to behave.. China have no interest in going to war with US, why should they.. If they want a broke US, they should just lend them the rope, and let US kill themselfs... With the loan they are getting all over the place this days to keep the image of a "superpower" afloat, it is just a matter of time before the whole ship is falling apart if you ask me..

Diclotican

[Statistical]

70. China has mostly short and medium range weapons.

Most of China arsenal is medium range (1500-3000km) mainly as a deterrent against Russia.

China has stopped using liquid fuel missiles 20 years ago. Nobody uses them any more because they are dangerous, slow to arm, easily spotted, and fuel is very caustic making maintenance a nightmare.

I do agree with you that China has no interest in a war w/ US. 1500+ warheads vs 20 (maybe half could be stopped by the Interceptors). It would be very one sided.

I also think we need to get smarter w/ our strategic weapons. Eliminate all short range weapons except one large gravity bomb and one cruise missile.

We should cut land based ICBM back to a token force (sub launch is far more effective)

Even ohio fleet could be cut from 14 to maybe 8. That would still give us nearly 1000 active warheads.

Articles like this are just saber rattling to do the reverse. Spend even more despite the fact that nobody wants a war w/ the country that a) has largest nuclear arsenal and b) is the only country to detonate a nuclear weapon in combat.

[Diclotican]

78. Statistical

Statistical

True, they have had more problems with Russia over the last couple of decades than US.. So it is naturally that they have been using their money to build short to medium range missiles to protect their country against large forces of russian armory coming their way if war get out...

Okay, they have stooped using liquid fuel in the end.. I got the impression they still had missiles who was been liquid fueled.. But I guess even China have to spend money on solid fuel then... And as you point out, they are hell to maintance....

I doubt that US want to end up with one large gravity bomb, and one cruise missile tipped with nuclear head.. Even that ONE nuclear weapon was used, it is no easy task to rebuild nuclear weapon capacity even if the nuclear weapon is just one gravity and one cruise.. I would hope that US and the rest of the world now, when the cold war is over, and the danger from nuclear weapon is bigger than ever before, that we toghter can reduce the number of nuclear war heads, and missiles and systems thereof to a level where a accidental lunch is not that dangerous anymore.. Both Russia and US have had accidents who almost got us all to end up in smokes many times over the decades, and I am not that sure that we always would be that lucy as both Russia and US have been the last 60 year. It needs just ONE single weapon to be blown up in a tense situation, and all hell is out.. Even if it was a accidence the whole thing..

Many land based ICBMs bases could be closed down, that is true, and maybe be build to museums over a time in the world, when the stations was based to lunch missiles to destroy the world as we know it. I for one would be interested to visit one of the missiles, just to pook around.. Off course after all sensitive missile tech and other equipment was removed.. I guess many of the systems in the missiles is rather sensitive to sivilians... And to spyes... But some old era missile bases is in rather bad shape, have seen some of them, on the net.. It is interesting to se how big the missile bases indeed was underground... It is almost like a small size city many of them...

Oh, so US have so many OHIO class submarines as 14, that is a big fleet, when you think about what they are carring around all the time.. And even just 8 modern OHIO class subs, as you point out, will give more than enough missiles to hit most targets under the sun...

That is also a point to remember.. US is the country with most nuclear weapons.. Even Russia who have the second largest stockpiles of weapons, have not the same nuclear capacity as US have. And I have the feeling that even that they do on paper have a large chunk of nuclear weapons, many, or not most of their nuclear weapons is either to old to fire when the button pushed, or in a state of derelict, so they can't be fired in any circumstances. And it will take decades to build new ones.. Even the Russian submarine force who once had one of the biggest, most mean submarines in the world, the Typhoon class submarines who even not the ADCAP torpedo could not sing singlehandedly are not in the same shape as before.. Some of the Typhoon class is out there cruising the Arctic, but for the most part they are in the dock, and would possible end up as scrap.. As I understand it, the Russian navy have 6 Typhoon at service for the moment... But not more.. And most of the other submarines is either to old, or have not been maintained enough to go to sea at any cases... Many russian city's have even "adopted" submarines, who now is bearing their "adoptive city's" name to honour them.. And in return, the navy are given fresh food, and other nessesarity...

And as you also pointed out.. The United States of America are the only country in the world, who have used nuclear weapon in anger.. No other country have to this day used nuclear weapon...

Diclotican

[Statistical]

67. Um No a MIRV is a MULTIPLE Independent Re-Entry Vehicle

A MIRV allows you two place 2+ warheads on one missile.

My understand is that China MIRV program is very entry level and most of there missiles have single warhead. Not only that most Chinese missiles can't reach the US. Only the DF-4 can reach mainland United States and it is believed that only about 20 exist. Any engagement between the United State & China would be very one sided.

Virtually every US strategic weapon can hit China. 1000+ warheads on Ohio class subs + 500 warheads from land based silos.

Of course we shared our skills with our best buddy Britain.
UK's Boomers use the same Trident II ICBM as the Ohio class.

[NutmegYankee]

71. No shit. I said nukes, and the other poster does some goofy math

He says well no, there are 150 nukes times the MIRVs. I pointed out that the Re-entry Vehicles are the Nukes (or package containing them).

[Diclotican]

77. NutmegYankee

NutmegYankee

Ok;)

Diclotican

[Diclotican]

76. Statistical

Statistical

And even then, if China have MIRV, at very entry level it is very confusing for me, that US is so scared of it now.. And as you point out, just DF-4 (as I understand it the most modern type of the rockets) have the range to hit US anyway.. With just 20 such missiles it would be a suicide to attack US... It looks like RPC just doesn't trust their missiles the way US does?

And then you have more than 1000 warheads on the Ohio-class submarines, and the 500 or so warheads from land based siloes... It is just amazing if US would be that scared about RPC, when them self have most of the missiles.... And the Ohio-sub is some ass kicking submarines:):..

It is correct that your friend UK is using the same missile tech as the Ohio-sub.. For the most part in the missile compartment the difference between the UK missile subs are that they are smaller, and have les missiles.. They are almost identical to their counterparts in the US... And most of the UK nuclear deterrent missile force are on this 4 or 5 submarines as I understand it... A small but very potent submarine force I might say... They might be a Small force, but even a seasoned american submariners respect the british ones...

Diclotican

[daleo]

69. That's a comfort

Some of us would still be here.

[NutmegYankee]

73. At least for a little while.

Then the nuclear winter would kill all the plants, the fallout would kill off most living things, and then the lack of an ozone layer due to the explosions would ensure that everyone else starved to death because they can't grow plants.

[daleo]

74. Yes, thanks for adding that

Nuclear war has always struck me as a mutual suicide pact.

[Statistical]

75. Unsurviable nuclear winter is a myth.

http://www.oism.org/nwss/s73p912.htm

At most the dust/fallout/soot would reduce temps by 10-20 degrees for a couple months before slowly returning to normal.

That isn't today say the number of deaths by secondary effects such as radiation, unclean water, malnutrition and more wouldn't be large.

The idea that a nuclear war would "wipe out mankind in a nuclear winter" has been discredited for 60+ years.

Of course popular culture, TV, movies, etc have done good job of making nuclear weapons seem larger than life.

[Diclotican]

79. Statistical

Statistical

It is true that after a nuclear war, not everything will die... But it will be the end as we "Know it" because after a nuclear war,everything we take for granted would be almost goon... Even if a small bomb was used to level a City, that means possible millions killed, or maimed or at least hurt to a serting degree.. In the "red zone" where the blast would be, there almost nothing Will survive for sure, and even longer out, the damage from the blast, and heat would be horrible.. But of course, it depend of the nuclear head and how big it was.. A large bomb, more damage...

And it is not just to rebuild what is destroyed either.. Most country in the world are not that large as Russia China or US. Most country in Europe is small enough to travel in a days notice, or maybe two if you is sticky about it.. Even Germany and Poland can be crossed in a day, if you drive the highway all the way...And start early.. Even a small nuclear weapon would have a impact on people that we might not know about before it happened.. And for the living a nuclear blast even a "small one" would be something bigger than life...

Nuclear weapon is the devil in a bottle.. Many country have the knowledge to build that.. but as today no country after 1945 have taken the devil out of his bottle.. But if one country try to take the devil out... Then everything we have worked for the last 6000 year is possible down the tube... Hopefully, we will if not eradicate all nuclear weapon got it under some control. SO that the devil would be in the bottle, or is that to mutch to hope for?..

Diclotican

[daleo]

100. As Dr. Strangelove said

We might get our hair mussed a little.

[cobalt1999]

19. Absolutely.

Wiping out a U.S. carrier task (especially with a nuclear tipped missile), would mean nuclear war.

[NutmegYankee]

21. A nuclear tipped one would start a nuclear war without doubt.

Totally agree.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NutmegYankee]

25. That's a little different than a capital ship.

Even N. Korea attacked a spy ship and TOOK it. But an attack on a capital ship, especially with a nuclear weapon, would invite a nuclear response. They use a nuke, we use a nuke. It really is that simple.

[guy]

28. Dude.

I never mentioned nuking a ship.

The article never mentions nuking a ship.

In fact nuking a ship is an absurd thought that some here made up out of thin air just to push the idea of the USA launching an all out nuclear strike.

[NutmegYankee]

29. Other articles mention possible nuclear tips for these anti-carrier missiles.

Much like the Soviets had nuclear tipped torpedoes.

[cobalt1999]

31. Not absurd. Detailed reports on this system give it nuclear capability

This report didn't go into that aspect of it, but it's true.

However, nuclear or not, it'll start nuclear weapons exchange if it is ever launched against a U.S. carrier.

[guy]

35. Oh please.

Iraq attacked the USS Stark with two Exocets killing almost 40 Americans.

We did nothing in response.

But if China launches missiles at one of our ships, we would unload our nuclear arsenal on them ? ..assuring our own destruction ?

How radical. Thank god the war mongering repubs are out of power.

[NutmegYankee]

36. Your examples are way off. The Stark was a frigate, and it did not sink.

That's quite a lot different from a Capital Ship, with over 5000 men and women on board, and lots of aircraft.

[Pavulon]

40. Correct. If this happened tomorrow President Obama

would authorize the use of nuclear weapons and release them to the military. No question. Once the weapon left the ground it would be detected and once its trajectory was determined the ball would be put in motion to respond.

[cherokeeprogressive]

72. US Aircraft Carriers carry up to 6,000 Sailors, 100 aircraft, PLUS nukes.

Sinking one, ESPECIALLY unprovoked, would most certainly lead to a nuclear exchange. Take it from a former Sailor who sailed exclusively on aircraft carriers. China would be bombed back into the stone age.

[muriel_volestrangler]

85. Though no-one mentioned an unprovoked attack, of course

And really, you're just making up scenarios out of thin air. There's no reason to think that China, firmly wedded to the global economy, would start making unprovoked attacks on the world's largest (by far) military. You may as well fantasise about Belgium attacking France.

If these weapons were ever to be used, it would be after a confrontation that built up to it (eg over Taiwan); and it wouldn't necessarily be much of an escalation over what had gone before. So a nuclear response by the USA wouldn't be a foregone conclusion (after all, even Cheney and Bush didn't nuke Afghanistan the moment 9/11 happened).

[Pavulon]

34. The wonder weapon is ICBM based

firing one towards the us navy would cause the US to launch nuclear weapons. This is not an under wing weapon.

[Statistical]

50. Exactly.

The article talks about a version of the DF-21 modified to strike Naval targets.

The DF-21 is a 35 foot tall, 15 TON STRATEGIC missile that can carry either 2500 lb explosive charge or a 300-400kt nuclear warhead.

China launches a STRATEGIC weapon the US would respond with a STRATEGIC weapon. The US first choice would be sending launch signal to one of 9 Ohio class Boomers that constantly (24/7 365) circle the globe.

China knows this, we knows this, China knows we know this.

Kinda disingenuous for OP to reference a massive strategic weapon then show photo of a under wing missile.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Statistical]

55. Comparing the two is like comparing a 9mm to a M1 tank.

The sunburn is an agile sea skimmer light enough to be carried by aircraft.

The DF-21 is a STRATEGIC weapon. It has a large fixed firing base consisting of missiles, mobile launchers, and support facilities. It is a land based and constantly monitored by NORAD (as all other nuclear "parks").

Any launch by Chinese would likely be perceived (even incorrectly) as a nuclear launch against the United States. It isn't like NORAD will be asking the Chinese their plans. Instead sat will feed launch information to NORAD who will need to make a determination quickly.

If you were sitting in NORAD and saw a bunch of ICBM launching off the coast of China what do you think your reaction would be?

BTW: The DF-21 is neither new nor impressive. It's closest US equivalent would be the MGM-31 Pershing; a 1960s era missile that was obsolete by mid 70s (although we did keep some around until 1991).

[guy]

60. Excuse me again.

"BTW: The DF-21 is neither new nor impressive. It's closest US equivalent would be the MGM-31 Pershing; a 1960s era missile that was obsolete by mid 70s (although we did keep some around until 1991)."

The DF-21 has been modified to sink ships. This is a brand new develpoment. The DF-21 does mach 10 ...our Pershing does mach 8.

But your not impressed. I see.

[Statistical]

63. Honestly that is a major improvement in your mind...

enough to get all worked up about.

Let's say you had an interceptor that could hit a missile moving at Mach 8 or Mach 10.

Lets say it has a strike range of 200km.
You would have 60sec response time on a Mach 10 missile and a massively longer 72 sec response time with a "slow moving" Mach 8 missile.

The point stands the DF-21 is a 1960s era weapon system based on an obsolete Soviet design that has no been modified to start nuclear wars by shooting at carriers instead of land based targets.

Yup definatly warrants a trillion dollar reaction from the military.

How about we forget about all these strategic toys and do things like:
better bodyarmor
better small arms
better light armored vehicles.

You could fund the entire cost of R&D, development, production, fielding, and spares of a next gen armor, or next gen carbine for a tiny fraction of developing some (not so) needed counter to a 1960s era weapon.

[Pavulon]

89. Bet you did not know it the US worked with its developer

to make a target drone. Yeppers, we had access to the design and telemetry systems of that weapon.

Janes defense is a great publication.

[Deja Q]

87. Another reason to rid the world of nukes...

Then the Chinese can do anything they want, unrestrained?

:sarcasm:

[burning rain]

20. Freepers have certainly been going wild over this one.

It doesn't surprise me that US military analysts would view that Chinese blog as credible, because this provides another opportunity to demand massive military spending. And, as we all know, no matter how small the chance that a threat might befall us, or that the threat even exists, we have to buy everything defense contractors offer us, no matter the cost, or we're traitors, and hate mom and apple pie into the bargain.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

39. We Should Have Large Military Spending And Should Absolutely Develop Best In Class Defenses.

That's not a freeper concept at all. In fact, most people highly agree except for a relatively small fringe and usually irrational group on the far left.

[burning rain]

41. I'm sure we'd be fine without a new ultraexpensive countermeasure....

for this new weapon of the People's Republic, if it exists, if it's anything like what the blog purports, which our military industrial complex is plainly eager to believe, or at least say they believe so as to sell us something more important than healthcare or education (who needs those?).

Deterrence works, and we have more than enough weaponry to deter the PRC, which have a huge stake in peaceful relations.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

42. Don't Care What You're Sure Of.

Your opinion means exactly squat as it relates to whether or not there is a need for such. I'd rather leave that up to the experts who make such decisions, rather than some no name typing blather on a message board.

[burning rain]

52. I'm much too modest to ask you to care, but thanks for the replies.

In any case I have considerable confidence in the administration to disappoint the excessive military spending parasites. They're already in a tizzy over the drawback from missile defense in Eastern Europe. So much less money for them, and what a blow to their defense-issues political machine!

But, I'm sure that in 2012 they'll be back with campaign planks to "defend America" with all sorts of geegaws that Obama rejects, and not coincidentally stuff their pockets and beggar more obviously useful social spending.

[Forkboy]

61. "rather than some no name typing blather on a message board."

And you are?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

82. Pssssssttttt.... C'mere...

Hey... Ya listening? Shhhhhh..... Don't tell anyone ok? But like, ummmm, I wasn't the one giving a firmly convicted opinion on whether we needed it or not. See, still with me? See, that poster was saying he's convinced we don't need it. I, c'mon, listen up kid.. I, was saying that I'd rather trust that decision to the experts who make them, rather than some anonymous internet dude blathering away. Got that? Ya follow son? See, we're all anonymous, but that wasn't the point. I never claimed that I SHOULD be listened to over some expert. I merely stated that I'd rather listen to an expert than mr friggin anonymous. I hope you can see the clear distinction between the two as well as the severe logical flaw in your empty snarky reply.

:dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce:

[Forkboy]

84. Pssssst....c'mere, boy.

You're one of the most boorish posters on DU, a poster who constantly acts like he is the end all, be all of worldly knowledge, one who consistently acts as if he knows more than the experts. Still with me, pipsqueak? You see, and listen up now, little one, I merely pointed out in my snark that's only empty to one who wears lots of dunce caps in his post that you are also an anonymous internet dude blathering away. Something you just agreed with me on, sunshine. You say you don't want to be taken seriously, which I suspect is already the case...but you're full of shit or you wouldn't bother posting.

I hope, though surely don't expect, that you can see the clear point that even a child can see. But wait, I repeat myself.

See ya in church, Mr. Friggin Anonymous.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

91. FAIL.

My previous reply blew this one of yours away kid. If ya don't see it, well, then, I just don't know what to tell ya.

And just for humors sake, since I already know you can't, mind backing up this little made up statement of yours?

"one who consistently acts as if he knows more than the experts."

Prove it kid. Bet ya can't.

[Forkboy]

102. Thank God it passed!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=4161334

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=5368244#5375650

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=5348311#5349849

Of course, you may be right...or you may be wrong. The fact is that you clearly felt in these threads that you knew more than actual scientists and economists.

"Prove it kid. Bet ya can't."

Bet I just did, Chumley. :hi:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

103. FAIL.

If that's all you've got, than that's pretty damn sad.

Let's take the first one: To try and assert that at the time of that there weren't TONS of experts and economists who were saying how necessary the package was is beyond disingenuous and completely false. There were, and you know it. There were plenty who felt otherwise, but there were plenty who didn't. So that wasn't me acting like I knew more than the experts, but instead agreeing with them. It was a dire situation at the time and to this day I'm convinced that things would've been on an even steeper downhill slope without its passage. I also to this day continue to laugh my ass off at the ignoramuses who continue to use it against me as if they 'know' that the passage of it hasn't affected anything blah blah blah. There's no way to know, and there's strong indications from many many experts in the area that things in fact would've been far worse had it not have passed. So I laugh my ass off at those that use it against me, because they do so out of closed minded ignorance. It's like they're saying "ha ha, you were sooooooooo wrong there!", when there's no indication whatsoever that I was wrong, and a high probability that I was in fact right. But whatever... I enjoy laughing at their closed mindedness.

Your second example is hilarious. The majority of experts believe there is NO link between thimerosal and autism. People who continue to believe there is one are those who are irrational or have a hard time letting go. How could you use that as an example? I'm completely on the SIDE of the experts there. TOTAL FAIL on your part.

Your third example is a crock as well. I offered a quite rational and well thought out opinion on it. Tell me... Are there any parts of my post there you disagree agree with? Which parts? It all sounded spot on to me. And I'm against the experts on that? Where has this debate taken place? Sure, there are those who think it would help, but there are just as many who think otherwise. It's an 'open to opinion' type subject, and I simply gave mine. But tell me chumley, were there any parts of that post that weren't logically correct? I'd love to hear them.

If that's the best you could do, than how sad for you. Epic fail, regardless of your inability to see it.

See ya round kid. I'm out of your league and I'm bored with you; to be honest. Have at it with your amateur snark and accusations. :hi:

[rollingrock]

44. And that kind of thinking will ensure a never-ending arms-race

the US military budget is already higher than the rest of the world combined,
and probably half of it is wasted on useless overpriced crap.

[MadHound]

80. Wow, when you step in it, you really, really step in it

"The actual current level—excluding supplemental funding for the Iraq and Afghanistan operations—is over three times as much as all the US’s potential enemies combined. 2 Only 7% of respondents thought US defense spending should be at this level. Instead, 71% thought the US should spend either “a bit more than its most powerful potential enemy” (41%) or “about as much as all of its potential enemies combined” (30%). Another 15% wanted to spend about twice as much as potential enemies.”


Hmm, seven percent, looks like you identified the wrong people as belonging to a "small fringe and usually irrational group":shrug:

"Defense spending received the deepest cut, being cut on average 31percent—equivalent to $133.8 billion—with 65 percent of respondents cutting. The second largest area to be cut was the supplemental for Iraq and Afghanistan, which suffered an average cut of $29.6 billion or 35 percent, with two out of three respondents cutting."
<http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brunitedstatescanadara/85.php?nid=&id=&pnt=85>

Sixty five percent of the public would cut the defense budget an average of 31%, Ouch. Looks like "most people agree" that our defense budget is overblown and needs to be trimmed, severely.

"But wait," I hear you say, "those polls are a bit too old, and by all means, certainly not mainstream enough." OK, here you go

"The Feb. 1-4 poll finds that 43% of Americans believe the government is spending too much for national defense and military purposes, while 35% say the government is spending the right amount and 20% say too little. The percentage of Americans saying the government is spending too much on defense has increased by 11 points over the past year and is now at its highest level since 1990."
<http://www.gallup.com/poll/26761/Perceptions-Too-Much-Military-Spending-15Year-High.aspx>

Is that recent enough, and MSM enough for you?

Face it, you're wrong on this one. Most Americans sensibly and intelligently believe that we need to cut our military spending. It truly is just a fringe group that wants us to increase it.

How does it feel to be a member of a fringe group?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

81. Bzzzzzzzt. Nice Try.

Those polls are not relevant to my reply whatsoever.

I never said only the fringe think our current level is too high. In fact, there was no reference to our current level whatsoever. Yet in an attempt to twist, distort and spin my reply into something it wasn't, you posted polls only referencing that. Too bad for you that they meant absolutely nothing.

What my post DID say and was referencing, is that we should have large military spending, not some pacifist amount like kooky kucinich and the fringe wackydoodle far left propose. I also said that we absolutely should have best in class defense. And even in your polls it suggested that most thought we should have a budget bigger than our biggest adversary. Hey, guess what... That's still pretty damn large ain't it? And ya know what else? I guarantee you an overwhelming amount of the american public would agree that we should maintain a best in class defense and develop the defenses necessary to thwart any new possible threat. So did I step in it? Nope. Not whatsoever. My post is accurate and yours was nothing but failed distortion.

[MadHound]

86. Oh please, at least be honest with youself

Those polls are completely relevant to your post because your OP stated that most people agree with you, that we should have a large military force, such as we currently have. I showed you three polls that showed you that no, most people want to cut our military budget, with the average amount of the cut being 31%

Oh, and you really should research the positions of people you disagree with before you reference them or disparage their positions. Let's take a look at Kucinich's position on the size of the military, shall we. "It is time the U.S. set an example for the world by proposing a 15% cut in the military budget to help meet pressing social needs, including hunger, both abroad and at home." <http://kucinich.us/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1747&Itemid=29> Oooo, that's such a kooky concept, cutting the military budget by fifteen percent. So kooky that most of the people in this country want to double that figure to over a 30% cut, as I referenced above. Yes, indeed, people like that "kooky kucinich and the fringe wackydoodle far left" are so out of touch with American people. Hell, the American people want to cut the military budget not by fifteen percent, but by nearly a third! Yes, I guess that the left is really out of touch with the American people:eyes:

So gee, if you're so in tune with the American public, how much do you think we should cut the military budget by? Ten percent? Fifteen percent? Careful, you're getting into Kucinich territory. Or do you agree with most of the people in this country that we should cut the military budget by almost a third? Frankly I suspect that you are a member of that fringe group that posits that we should continue to increase our military spending, but hey, feel free to prove me wrong.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

90. I'm Always Honest, And I'm Honestly Laughing At Your Reply.

"Those polls are completely relevant to your post because your OP stated that most people agree with you, that we should have a large military force, such as we currently have."

Ok, I'll be honest. Those polls are relevant to my post. They prove me right. As per your own words, my position was that most people agree that we should have a large military force. Your poll shows that the average cut was 31%. Hmmmm, 31%... Sounds like alot. But is it enough to reduce our military to a size that wouldn't be considered 'large' by any rationally thinking person? Well all one needs to do is look back at your other post to find the answer:

"The actual current level—excluding supplemental funding for the Iraq and Afghanistan operations—is over three times as much as all the US’s potential enemies combined."

Hmmmmm.... Reduction of 31%... So that would make us then only TWICE as much as all the US's potential enemies combined. Oh noes!!!! A mere twice as much as all our potential enemies combined! We're nothing now! What a puny military that would be!!! Oh wait... What's that you say? Having spending twice as much as all our potential enemies combined would still be considered by any sane person to be one hell of a LARGE military force? Ohhhhhhh, I see now. So the poll WAS relevant after all! But only in proving me right, and you wrong.

Bye now! :hi:

[MadHound]

92. LOL, you are too funny

So now you agree with me, eh? So I guess you're in agreement with Kucinich too eh? So I guess that makes you part of the "fringe wackydoodle far left" also.

Too funny, when you're getting your ass handed to you, join your opposition. Welcome aboard you hard core, far left fringe wackydoodle you. Your capitulation is too funny:rofl:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

93. Are You For Real? ROFLMAO!

Re-read my reply. It is you who had your ass handed to ya honey. Your own posts proved my point. Epic fail on your part.

[Statistical]

56. Bingo.

Likely will be used as ammunition for financing the naval missile defense shield. Placing interceptors on naval fleets to ensure US forced (both naval and ground) can't be targeted by ballistic missiles.

Only problem is the ground based interceptors already have cost us couple hundred billion and there is no guarantee they will work.

[Regret My New Name]

43. mach 10??? Isn't that sort of kind of like really fast?

Likely?

[rollingrock]

45. No, not likely

it sounds like a bunch of hysterical Defense Department propaganda fear-mongering more than anything else...just in time to scare the crap out of the new administration and get them to sign over yet another massive new defense budget.

[Statistical]

57. It is likely just not as advanced as it sounds.

Virtually every ICBM hits speeds that fast during terminal phase.


Shoot a missile large enough to launch sat into space.
Once in space coast to other side of globe.
The re-entry vehicle (RV) which is much smaller seperates from main missile.
The vehicle aligns for destination and fires a booster accelerating it towards earth.
The warhead deploys keeping speed of the RV.

The combination of gravity and the initial boost in space means it comes down really, really, really fast.

Nothing new here. 1960s technology. Only difference is that Chinese are repurposing some of the older ICBM and fitting them to engage ships.

We could dig up some Pershing MGM-31 (built in 1960s) from scrapyard and do the same thing.

[NeedleCast]

46. Lots of Speculation

This missile and the much acclaimed Sunburn have a grand total of how many hits on modern warships?

[onethatcares]

47. I know, I know,

why don't we build some super weapons in space, you know, ones that will track and kill those missles while on their way? And then we can build more weapons for space because we need to knock down the weapons the other guy is gonna shoot at us from space, but they wont' be able to hit the submarines.

And our money will still go to the supposed enemies of our country to be recycled into new Bentleys' and larger gated communities for the revolving door diplomats and military people.

Gaud dammit, What are the Chinese gonna do, take our National Parks and charge us admission to them? Make us ride bicycles? Make us work 70 hours each week to pay the mortgage? Up our credit card interest rates? Charge us $4.00/gal for gas. Make us buy copies of Maos' manifesto? I mean none of this crap makes any sense,

Somebody help me here.

you can throw the sarcasm icon in where ever you want, but I'm tired of 500 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR BEING SPENT ON BETTER WAYS TO KILL PEOPLE,

[anonymous171]

48. Looks like they are preparing to collect our debt. nt

[TexasObserver]

49. Makes you wonder why Bush and Cheney sat on their asses the past 8 years.

Oh, that's right. They are owned by China. China was their banker for their idiotic war and expenditures.

I wouldn't worry. Shouldn't take long for Obama, like Clinton, to clean up the military mess a Bush left him.

[Vidar]

51. Can't say I blame them.

[ThomWV]

58. So what? If it comes down to sinking ships the nuclear warheads will already be flying

I believe the time from launch to explosion is something slightly less than 20 minutes if China is the target.

[guy]

94. Like I said.

Iraq and Israel tried to sink our ships and kill our people.

We did nothing.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

59. Translation: Send a lot of money to the MIC!!

[Cali_Democrat]

64. Russia sold them this technology years back

I remember reading about this several years ago. You would have to assume back then that the Chinese would make it fully operational.

It doesn't even matter. Large carriers are becoming obsolete anyways. There are also many other ways for the Chinese and the Russians to sink US carriers.

[Hanse]

83. An anti-ship ballistic missle with a range of 2000 km?

That's as dumb as a screen door on a submarine.

[guy]

98. How so ?

Seems deadly serious to me.

[goforit]

95. Do we really need war at all? WTF ??? Almaegaedon on its way???

[lovuian]

96. Aircraft carriers are past

this makes them sitting ducks

[foo_bar]

97. so the design philosophy reverts to dreadnoughts, c'est la guerre

It's not like you need carriers for unmanned drones anyway. Pretty soon a "pocket battleship" will be more than hyperbole thanks to nanotech.

[tjwash]

99. OMFG! The Chinese are coming!! Better up the defense budget by a couple hundred more billion.

It's not like we don't spend more than the rest of the world combined, on our fucking military industrial complex or anything. :eyes:

Forgive me for not crapping my drawers.

I wonder how many people in the U.S. could have have had their health insurance paid for, with just what half of the fucking jets on the flight deck of that behemoth floating U.S. phallus costs?

[DainBramaged]

104. "It is estimated that the missile can travel at mach 10 " what horseshit

these people can't even make children's toys safe. Somewhere in the DOD SOMEONE wants new toys.

[Name removed]

105. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DainBramaged]

106. Mach 10 is bullshit, even we have never reached that speed EXCEPT

on GIANT rockets after 1o minutes of space flight using millions of pounds of thrust. Like I said originally, any one who believes this will buy the piece of bridge I have in my closet.