War with China?

[TheDrake]

I do not see a hypothetical scenario where the United States attacks first, at least for the next decade or so, we'd need a LOT of ballistic missile defense systems. Which are incredibly useful in both their ability to shoot down ICBMs, which are Ballistic Missiles and because of North Korea why we have THAAD in the first place, which can more likely than not also engage against those more conventional hypersonic ballistic missiles China is billing as "Carrier Killers" where oddly enough a system which can kill the "carrier killers" before they reach their target are also able to kill ICBMs. It just becomes a question of how large and deep out reserves are kept in regards to addressing a potential nuclear strike.

It unironically puts China in the position that the more they chest thump about their Carrier Killers and how good their hypersonic missiles are, they provide the United States with all the political cover it needs to develop defenses for said carriers against the conventional threat which just so happens to incidentally also work against the nuclear one.

Meaning China's only option is to then expand their nuclear strike capabilities in order to compensate for said defenses, but as they likely build more "carrier killers" as well, the US can justify expanding their defensive ability to over-match the carrier killers.... Which puts their nuclear deterrent back in the toilet.

It's an interesting circular game China has caught itself up in on that front, but that's a digression. Back on topic, at present, there is no conceivable scenario where the US starts a war with China on its own. The only way war with China occurs is in the scenario that China either attacks a neighbor, or it attacks the United States directly(probably in the form of their "forward deployed" forces in the Asian theater of operations.

If China attacks first, they're the ones that have presumably opted to keep the nukes off the battlefield, and the United States just needs to keep its missiles defenses on hot standby. They also know that even if they launch all 50 nukes, only a few may get through, but they're not going to be able counter the hundreds the United States is likely to send back in response. So it basically come down to how China responds to America's counter-response potentially being far more effective than their generals/politicians expected.

Wanted to split this off from the long running "Trump said" thread. I think the most likely scenario is not China invading Taiwan. I think that only happens if Taiwan tries to declare independence. Nor do I think the US initiates military action to stop China from building bases in the South China Sea. It is far more likely that an accident due to posturing leads to escalation. There have been close encounters by both Navy and Air Forces in the region. Like when that Chinese fighter bumped into our reconnaissance aircraft and then dismantled it. I imagine Trump might go a little more hotheaded about it, which could lead to a tit-for-tat that gets out of control.

[wmLambert]

...the most likely scenario is not China invading Taiwan. I think that only happens if Taiwan tries to declare independence. Nor do I think the US initiates military action to stop China from building bases in the South China Sea. It is far more likely that an accident due to posturing leads to escalation. There have been close encounters by both Navy and Air Forces in the region. Like when that Chinese fighter bumped into our reconnaissance aircraft and then dismantled it. I imagine Trump might go a little more hotheaded about it, which could lead to a tit-for-tat that gets out of control.

Actually, the balance of interaction between us and China has more to do with economy than the military. They are experiencing the worst flooding in their history, with millions of evacuees without food, and farmland underwatwr. China has been purchasing food from us in order to survive. They do not want to shut off that spigot.

They also have been investing in land ownership along the equator, because they have been listening to their scientists and believe glaciation will come shortly, and will ruin their future harvests.

There is short term and long term planning, and they are terrified of the long term facing them.

[TheDeamon]

cross posting this to reply over here:

In a correction to earlier speculation, I referenced Chinese naval “bunkers“ as potentially responsive to Trump’s announcement of AGM-183 specifications. I is now clear to me that the construction located on the coast of Hainan Island is specifically designed primarily to conceal, not protect, the movements of their intercontinental ballistic missile submarine fleet.

Additionally, the structure is complete, enormous, and in use. Therefore it could not possibly be connected to anything Trump said during his presidency.

Having said that; speed is not the only advantage of hyper-sonic missiles possessing terminal maneuverability. These cannot be defended against with current technology, nor do they need a “payload” to destroy a target. At mach 17, kinetic force alone is adequate to sink a ship. Trump also mentioned that the accuracy is measured in inches, not feet. I do not know if that is credible, but if it is, the Chinese have a real, and unsolvable problem.

I'm going to have to do some more research on that last one, will be interesting to see what rabbit holes that leads down. Kinetic energy certainly has it's own role to play in things the concept of "rods from god" in the form of mass driver attacks from orbit is now decades old at the point, and Mach 17 is a very different thing in regards to kinetic energy than the mach 10 China currently claims for their stuff.

I'd probably still hazard a guess that even a Mach 17 kinetic hit may not be up to sinking a fleet carrier, but I don't doubt its ability to "mission kill" all the same.

Okay, some additional research just before hitting post:

kinetic energy (joules) = 1/2 x mass (kg) x velocity^2 (m/s)

Mach 17 is 5831 m/s, compared to 3430 m/s for Mach 10.

1 gram of TNT releases about  4184 joules of energy upon detonation.

5831 raised by the power of 2 is 34,000,561 but to make it like with like we'll reduce it to 1 gram of material delivered at mach 17. So 1/2 * 0.001 = 0.0005 * 34,000,561 = 17,000.2805 joules of energy released per gram that hits a target at mach 17, or equivalent to just over 4 grams of TNT.

H6 explosive, which is used in the MOAB, is 1.35 times more energetic than TNT. Of course there are other confounding variables to add into the mix(like simply "punching through" your target), but I'll have to agree that just looking at that, a Mach 17 kinetic strike weapon is nothing you'd want to be near where it hits if it has any mass behind it.

3430 m/s(mach 10) raised to the power of 2 gives 11,764,900 which works down to 5,882.45 joules per gram assuming it hits at Mach 10. H6 explosives release 5648.4 joules per gram by comparison, so from a raw utility perspective, it does look like somewhere around Mach 10 is where you hit the point that ditching the high explosives in favor of simple mass becomes a viable option.

An additional check finds wiki talking about the Naval Railguns firing at around Mach 7.

[TheDeamon]

For a frame of reference going back to WW2, where after October 1942(USS Hornet), Japan never sunk another fleet carrier after that point in the war, although they sunk many more of the escort carriers. It certainly wasn't for lack of effort on their part where the fleet carriers were concerned. And given the challenges the US Navy had trying to scuttle the Hornet(the Japanese finished the job), at less than a quarter of the displacement of a modern Super Carrier.... It's going to take a very significant hit to sink a Super Carrier(and probably multiple hits).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Japanese_World_War_II_navy_bombs

Bomb "No.80" although designated as a land bomb, it saw use in the battle of Midway, it carried 842 lbs of Picric acid or Type 98 explosive
Bomb "No.80 Model 1" was specified as an "ordinary bomb" which had it in a classification for Naval use against ships. It carried 770 lbs (349.266 kg) of Type 91 explosive

Type 91 explosive was slightly less dense than the modern H6, and slightly lower explosive velocity although I'm not finding any numbers expressed in joules and too lazy to do the conversions myself.
1.63 g/cm cubed, and 7200 m/s vs 1.72g/cm cubed and 7367 m/s.

[wmLambert]

Your math is good, but don't forget reactive penetration. A super-velocity gram of mass that goes straight through an object has less effect. It penetrates, but has the same effect as a target stepping to the side and letting a bullet pass by untouched. Bunker-buster bombs, for instance, are designed for penetration and high-energy release after penetration.

Our depleted-uranium shells are designed to penetrate the front armor of a tank, but not go all the way through. Sometimes less force is better.

[TheDrake]

...the most likely scenario is not China invading Taiwan. I think that only happens if Taiwan tries to declare independence. Nor do I think the US initiates military action to stop China from building bases in the South China Sea. It is far more likely that an accident due to posturing leads to escalation. There have been close encounters by both Navy and Air Forces in the region. Like when that Chinese fighter bumped into our reconnaissance aircraft and then dismantled it. I imagine Trump might go a little more hotheaded about it, which could lead to a tit-for-tat that gets out of control.

Actually, the balance of interaction between us and China has more to do with economy than the military. They are experiencing the worst flooding in their history, with millions of evacuees without food, and farmland underwatwr. China has been purchasing food from us in order to survive. They do not want to shut off that spigot.

Somebody could read this as a threat to starve human beings for a marginal geopolitical advantage.

[wmLambert]

...the most likely scenario is not China invading Taiwan. I think that only happens if Taiwan tries to declare independence. Nor do I think the US initiates military action to stop China from building bases in the South China Sea. It is far more likely that an accident due to posturing leads to escalation. There have been close encounters by both Navy and Air Forces in the region. Like when that Chinese fighter bumped into our reconnaissance aircraft and then dismantled it. I imagine Trump might go a little more hotheaded about it, which could lead to a tit-for-tat that gets out of control.

Actually, the balance of interaction between us and China has more to do with economy than the military. They are experiencing the worst flooding in their history, with millions of evacuees without food, and farmland underwatwr. China has been purchasing food from us in order to survive. They do not want to shut off that spigot.

Somebody could read this as a threat to starve human beings for a marginal geopolitical advantage.

Who would? The facts are as they are, even though the MSM doesn't mention how desperate the Chinese are at the moment. No one is threatening to cut off their food supplies, but they are very concerned by how much they need good relations with the outside world at the moment, and how they should act to maintain their own security. That "somebody" you hypothesize reacts better to positiveness than negativity. There are no threats, yet the Chinese will work to create advantageous relationships.

[TheDeamon]

Your math is good, but don't forget reactive penetration. A super-velocity gram of mass that goes straight through an object has less effect. It penetrates, but has the same effect as a target stepping to the side and letting a bullet pass by untouched. Bunker-buster bombs, for instance, are designed for penetration and high-energy release after penetration.

Our depleted-uranium shells are designed to penetrate the front armor of a tank, but not go all the way through. Sometimes less force is better.

I didn't forget it, I just didn't do anything beyond make an oblique mention of it as it's hard to number crunch equivalencies:

H6 explosive, which is used in the MOAB, is 1.35 times more energetic than TNT. Of course there are other confounding variables to add into the mix(like simply "punching through" your target), but I'll have to agree that just looking at that, a Mach 17 kinetic strike weapon is nothing you'd want to be near where it hits if it has any mass behind it.

Although for a missile coming in on a ballistic trajectory it should be moving almost straight down, or just slightly off from straight down. As such the shot would hit the ocean after passing through the ship in the worst case. And contact with the water would likely release much of the kinetic energy at that point if nothing else. That also isn't to mention the possibility of a "lucky strike" that manages to punch through fuel stores(Where hitting several feet of Diesel Fuel or JP-5 is going to likely have a comparable "kinetic soak" happen), a weapons magazine, or something else highly critical to the ship. So there are the one-in-a-million type shots that could really throw a spanner into the mix for the guys on the receiving end all the same.

[TheDrake]

...the most likely scenario is not China invading Taiwan. I think that only happens if Taiwan tries to declare independence. Nor do I think the US initiates military action to stop China from building bases in the South China Sea. It is far more likely that an accident due to posturing leads to escalation. There have been close encounters by both Navy and Air Forces in the region. Like when that Chinese fighter bumped into our reconnaissance aircraft and then dismantled it. I imagine Trump might go a little more hotheaded about it, which could lead to a tit-for-tat that gets out of control.

Actually, the balance of interaction between us and China has more to do with economy than the military. They are experiencing the worst flooding in their history, with millions of evacuees without food, and farmland underwatwr. China has been purchasing food from us in order to survive. They do not want to shut off that spigot.

Somebody could read this as a threat to starve human beings for a marginal geopolitical advantage.

Who would? The facts are as they are, even though the MSM doesn't mention how desperate the Chinese are at the moment. No one is threatening to cut off their food supplies, but they are very concerned by how much they need good relations with the outside world at the moment, and how they should act to maintain their own security. That "somebody" you hypothesize reacts better to positiveness than negativity. There are no threats, yet the Chinese will work to create advantageous relationships.

Oh, okay. So please explain what you meant by "shut off that spigot", because it sure sounds like YOU want us to threaten to stop shipping food.

[wmLambert]

...So please explain what you meant by "shut off that spigot", because it sure sounds like YOU want us to threaten to stop shipping food.

Let me repeat: Who would? The facts are as they are, even though the MSM doesn't mention how desperate the Chinese are at the moment. No one is threatening to cut off their food supplies, but they are very concerned by how much they need good relations with the outside world at the moment, and how they should act to maintain their own security. That "somebody" you hypothesize reacts better to positiveness than negativity. There are no threats, yet the Chinese will work to create advantageous relationships.

Think, if you would, what the Chinese may think might happen if they attacked or offended other countries who they do get food from. The spigot is open, but thay are aware that they could well put a kink in the hose with their own actions.

[TheDeamon]

...So please explain what you meant by "shut off that spigot", because it sure sounds like YOU want us to threaten to stop shipping food.

Let me repeat: Who would? The facts are as they are, even though the MSM doesn't mention how desperate the Chinese are at the moment. No one is threatening to cut off their food supplies, but they are very concerned by how much they need good relations with the outside world at the moment, and how they should act to maintain their own security. That "somebody" you hypothesize reacts better to positiveness than negativity. There are no threats, yet the Chinese will work to create advantageous relationships.

Think, if you would, what the Chinese may think might happen if they attacked or offended other countries who they do get food from. The spigot is open, but thay are aware that they could well put a kink in the hose with their own actions.

on

Or how, in the event that hostilities began between them and the Unites States, how easy it would be for America to use their Navy to cut off their food supply as their domestic situation isn't great due to all the flooding at present.

It isn't a pressing threat right now, but strategic planners in their Military have to really hate having it underlined in bold typeface that they're one naval blockade away from a world of crushing food shortages. Being a net importer of food is not a great place to be when you have military ambitions.

[wmLambert]

...how easy it would be for America to use their Navy to cut off their food supply as their domestic situation isn't great due to all the flooding at present.

It isn't a pressing threat right now, but strategic planners in their Military have to really hate having it underlined in bold typeface that they're one naval blockade away from a world of crushing food shortages. Being a net importer of food is not a great place to be when you have military ambitions.

True enough, however; The USA has always been the rescuer - not the Devil. If a nation does something evil, then they can expect all nations to oppose them. That is what keeps China from being too blatant. What you should remember is that China is already in a position of crushing food shortages. Look up the unprecedented floods throughout China that the MSM does not cover. They are already there, and are surviving by imported foods and supplies. The spigot is wide open.

[rightleft22]

True enough, however; The USA has always been the rescuer - not the Devil.

OMG that explains a lot about who you are. 

[Fenring]

The USA has always been the rescuer - not the Devil.

This, followed by this -

If a nation does something evil, then they can expect all nations to oppose them. That is what keeps China from being too blatant.

- are possibly the two most false statements ever made on these boards. Actually the second quote is itself two separate false statements. If you truly believe them then you are a fool of epic proportion. China is literally running concentration camps Nazi-style, and no, "all nations" will not oppose them. Do you even know anything about the U.N.?

[TheDeamon]

Do you even know anything about the U.N.?

That a majority of the member nations have governments no "western/1st world nation" would want to emulate? But if you want to pass a resolution in the General Assembly you need some of them to sign on to what you propose?

The security council is an entirely different ball of wax.