China VS USA how would it go?

amphibulous

Banned
Technically, IRBMs, not ICBMs.

Actually the terminal package is probably trivial to swap between the two types - and most people don't know what an IRBM is.

Whether the system is actually operational yet is unclear, but it certainly hasn't seen mass deployment.

We're not clear on the date of the war either, but it probably won't be next week, so its reasonable to assume wider deployment.

And the yanks' do actually have systems capable of countering it mounted on the escorts that will inevitably be with the carrier (SM-3 is specifically designed for ABM use, some models of SM-2 have a degree of ABM capability).

That would be correct if you wrote "ATTEMPTING to counter it." ABMs have a very poor track record, are never 100% effective, and are easily overwhelmed by sending more missiles: even if you have a 90% success rate against each missile, that means that there is a 75% chance that 1 or more missiles in a salvo of 10 will get through.

The maths you've neglected is pretty simple, it's just 1 - p^n, where p is the probablity of a successful single intercept and n is the salvo size; this simple equation is fundamental to the chances of success of ABMs and CIWS and is why they are only a good idea if the enemy can't increase his salvo size, or has to pay a high cost to do so - eg when he is launching from an expensive aircraft. Against reasonably resourced opponent with land base missiles, forget it. Even a 20 IRBM salvo is cheap compared to a carrier and that would still give you a 75% hit rate against a ridiculous 95% chance of successful individual interceptions.

And its very unlikely that the success rate would be anything like that high as the terminal packages are known to be capable of high-g evasion, while US ABM peformance has been pretty damn poor.

In practice, even firing multiple interceptors per missile, I'd be amazed at a 50% intercept rate against an evading target.

Oh - and you also have the HUGE problem that carrier groups rely on electronic stealth and give away their position when they use radar, but that ABM defense would mean keeping power radars on all the time...

So, no, an American CBG won't be anywhere near as outmatched as you're suggesting.

If you forget basic mathematics and don't understand how carrier groups operate, yes.

And if there's been an SSGN sent ahead to work over the Chinese radars etc. with Tomahawk cruise-missiles before hand, then it'd be doubtful the CBG would be outmatched at all.

It's a lot easier to defend against cruise missiles than it is IRBMs. They're great against enemies who don't have modern air defense nets, but against people with fighters, sams and radars they're just particularly dull-witted sub-sonic aircraft. They're slow moving and they require expensive launch platforms, limiting your ability to "zerg rush" a defense system.

And more importantly, the Chinese can build extra radars that they never switch on until a carrier is in the area and they are at war. Even worse, you will never know how many they have built, so can never be sure you have removed the risk.

Sounds a lot like you're riffing from the China-wank Popular Mechanics article that was discussed on here back in 2010.

It sounds to me like you didn't bother reading the source I actually used and linked and that no one ever explained the basic maths to you. Which isn't surprising - I bet there are 100 times as many people on this sight who could tell you what an SU30 is than who know what Lanchester's equation.

...But things are still desperate for the Chinese because of the US submarine blockade.
 
Last edited:
You beat me to it. The only thing to add is that economically, China has the US by the proverbials. Unless the US Government can pay off a $1tn foreign debt tomorrow without tanking the economy worse than it already has.

If there was a war tomorrow, China won about an hour before it started.

Uhm, sorry, but common misconception.

If there is open hostility, why on earth would like the US gov. pay the chinese held debt off? If i remember correctly, they have an act regarding enemy assets, so they could simply confistace those debts.
And, for the record, the Fed could buy the chinese held bonds, if they wished so, without any serious consequences - for the US.
 

amphibulous

Banned
China has to basically invade every one of its neighbours (most of whom are ambivalent towards them at best) to keep them from taking in US troops.

Yes. Just like the Nazis had to invade Switzerland and Sweden in WW2...

In reality, the US can't get most of its closest allies to send a field kitchen to Afghanistan: the assumption that China's neighbours are definitely going to queue up to take part in a war on behalf of the US is a little strange.
 

amphibulous

Banned
a nuclear power firing ballistic missiles toward another nuclear powers navy - well, not a wise move.

This is utter nonsense. Aircraft and cruise missiles can all carry nuclear warheads too. No one is going to start a suicidal nuclear war because an IRBM that *could* be carrying a nuke (but certainly isn't) is tracked heading for a carrier.
 

amphibulous

Banned
I wish I had put this in ASB, an ASB makes them hate eachother.

No, there is a very obvious, reasonably likely and widely discussed scenario for a Chinese-US war - I'm surprised you're not aware of it:

http://store.cato.org/books/americas-coming-war-china-collision-course-over-taiwan-hardback

One issue could lead to a disastrous war between the United States and China in the next five to ten years: Taiwan. In early 2005 China passed an anti-secession law that authorized the use of force against Taiwan would it declare independence, raising tensions in a region where emotions are already running high. Many see the move as one step closer to war breaking out between China and Taiwan. A growing number of Taiwanese want independence for their island and regard mainland China as an alien nation. Mainland Chinese believe Taiwan was stolen from China more and a century ago, and their patience about getting it back is wearing thin.

Washington officially endorses a “one China” policy but also sells arms to Taiwan and maintains an implicit pledge to defend it from attack. That policy invites miscalculation by both Taiwan and China. The three parties are on a collision course, and unless something dramatic changes, an armed conflict is virtually inevitable within a decade.

...That last sentence is just typical Cato silliness though! But serious risk, yes. This is very much not ASB stuff.
 
This is utter nonsense. Aircraft and cruise missiles can all carry nuclear warheads too. No one is going to start a suicidal nuclear war because an IRBM that *could* be carrying a nuke (but certainly isn't) is tracked heading for a carrier.

Did i said anything starting a suicidal nuclear war? :)

Still, its not a wise move - simply because with those things around, you would not like to take chances.
 
No, there is a very obvious, reasonably likely and widely discussed scenario for a Chinese-US war - I'm surprised you're not aware of it:



...That last sentence is just typical Cato silliness though! But serious risk, yes. This is very much not ASB stuff.

or Sout china sea islands, or east china sea inslands, or India, or Mongolia, hell, even a vietnam, maritime regions and siberia, korea, central asia should be considered, if they are desperate enough.
 

amphibulous

Banned
Uhm, sorry, but common misconception.

If there is open hostility, why on earth would like the US gov. pay the chinese held debt off? If i remember correctly, they have an act regarding enemy assets, so they could simply confistace those debts.
And, for the record, the Fed could buy the chinese held bonds, if they wished so, without any serious consequences - for the US.

Smart post! It really takes a lot to get the US and China into a war; the only reason that Taiwan is a potential trigger is that the Chinese see a formal declaration of independence as an existential threat - they believe it could trigger the break-up of mainland China.
 
People don't seem to have an idea of what debt is or how it works.

China can't "call it in." To the extent china owns American treasury bonds (and it is not the largest buyer; the largest buyers are domestic sources), it has the right to payments for a certain rate over a certain time.

It can sell them for free on the world market, which causes a problem, but then it also just wiped out enormous amounts of its own assets too.

As for a one hundred and thirty thousand strong army of hackers? Seriously?
 
The best US plan would be to wait. China has an even worse issue of an aging population than the west doesn't it?
 
The Government of China is led by a thoroughly pragmatic and levelheaded group of people and not by stupid megalomaniacs like Adolf Hitler. Hence the PRC would never get into a war with United States in the near future. They will make every effort to catch up with the USA economically, technologically and militarily. Only when they are confident enough that they can challenge the USA successfully, they will make a hostile move. The Chinese are extremely patient and calculating and they may wait for several decades for the right opportunity.
 
Yes. Just like the Nazis had to invade Switzerland and Sweden in WW2...
Strategic airlift, even if tanks can't be flown in en masse, special-forces can.

In reality, the US can't get most of its closest allies to send a field kitchen to Afghanistan: the assumption that China's neighbours are definitely going to queue up to take part in a war on behalf of the US is a little strange.
They won't have to, China will just have to think they will and they'll get it.
 
Last edited:
You mean a war "to to toe" with the Chinese with all the marbles on the table and nukes? Or something more limited. The United States would absolutely "win" in the first situation. The USA could probably devastate the Chinese mainland in a first strike with little meaningful Chinese reaction, and the US could probably reply to a Chinese first strike with a response that is almost as devastating.

Assuming the much more likely probability of a limited war resulting from something like a second Korean War, a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, a Japanese/Chinese dust-up, a Chinese/Vietnamese dust-up, the outcome would depend on how far the combat theatres were from China and if the US attempted an invasion of China proper. In general, my opinion is that the US currently has the airpower and naval edge to win any war in which China is the aggressor against an American ally nation which is not contiguous with it (Japan, Taiwan, etc). The US also probably has the overall edge to withstand, with solid hellp from its ally, a Chinese invasion of Vietnam or (with North Korea) an invasion of South Korea. However, China probably has the ability and desire to win any limited war with the US in which it is defending Chinese or immediately adjacent territory from a US and/or local US ally invasion. With respect to non-nuclear air attacks the respective homeland, both powers would be capable of this, but only the US has the material in ships and planes to sustain a strategic offensive.
 
You beat me to it. The only thing to add is that economically, China has the US by the proverbials. Unless the US Government can pay off a $1tn foreign debt tomorrow without tanking the economy worse than it already has.

Dude, that's what the Trillion Dollar coin is for!
 

amphibulous

Banned
Originally Posted by amphibulous
This is utter nonsense. Aircraft and cruise missiles can all carry nuclear warheads too. No one is going to start a suicidal nuclear war because an IRBM that *could* be carrying a nuke (but certainly isn't) is tracked heading for a carrier.

Did i said anything starting a suicidal nuclear war? :)

If that wasn't the implication of your post, then it was meaningless.

Still, its not a wise move - simply because with those things around, you would not like to take chances.

You are trying to have things both ways: no.

Once again, there is no danger of an anti-carrier strike being mistaken as a nuclear first strike against the US - the trajectory is completely different. So there is no possibility of a nuclear launch in return. (And if the Chinese didn't agree with me, I doubt they'd have built the system... You might also check comment from the USN and real military analysts, hmm?)
 
Top