South China Sea

wordy · 14 Jul 2016 at 13:59

StriderX said:
And risk it to missiles it cant shoot down?

A lose of a carrier is a very serious blow to the US and their allies in the region would capitulate to stop the aggression.

Tenner sez that if China managed to sink an American Aircraft Carrier the Americans would do the exact opposite of capitulate.

Skiddley · 14 Jul 2016 at 14:00

Gilly said:
It's Chinese military. Clearly it was Chairman Miaow telling them to go away quickly

Gilly · 14 Jul 2016 at 14:02

wordy said:
Tenner sez that if China managed to sink an American Aircraft Carrier the Americans would do the exact opposite of capitulate.

Indeed. I literally cannot imagine the scale of response.

Burnsy2023 · 14 Jul 2016 at 14:04

Gilly said:
It's Chinese military. Clearly it was Chairman Miaow telling them to go away quickly

Yep, I laughed...

Gilly said:
Indeed. I literally cannot imagine the scale of response.

Again that depends who the Commander-in-Chief of the US is at the time. It could vary from measured, to bat **** crazy.

StriderX · 14 Jul 2016 at 14:05

wordy said:
Tenner sez that if China managed to sink an American Aircraft Carrier the Americans would do the exact opposite of capitulate.

Sorry i didnt mean the US would capitulate, but other ASEAN nations would look in despair.

wildman · 14 Jul 2016 at 14:05

Gilly said:
Indeed. I literally cannot imagine the scale of response.

it would be a response............. from orbit............. the only way to be sure.

If China sunk a US carrier it would literally be WW3 and Beijing would be drinking Nuka Cola for a very long time

StriderX · 14 Jul 2016 at 14:06

wildman said:
it would be a response............. from orbit............. the only way to be sure.

If China sunk a US carrier it would literally be WW3 and Beijing would be drinking Nuka Cola for a very long time

Japan would disappear as a result, they wont bother attacking the US, but Japan is their historical enemy of choice.

Burnsy2023 · 14 Jul 2016 at 14:10

StriderX said:
Japan would disappear as a result, they wont bother attacking the US, but Japan is their historical enemy of choice.

If they attack Okinawa then it's pretty much the same. That won't happen though, because China wants to project power, but it's not stupid.

CaptainRAVE · 14 Jul 2016 at 14:10

Gilly said:
Indeed. I literally cannot imagine the scale of response.

Exactly why it is unlikely to happen. Ultimately the carrier advantage has been well and truly neutralised. Not surprising that the US is moving to drones across the battlefield.

antran · 14 Jul 2016 at 14:17

I don't see the US or China backing down, just hope nothing serious will happen.

Recently, the Vietnamese Government are allowing the US Navy to use the facility in Cam Ranh Bay alongside the Singaporean and Japanese.

Obama lifts US embargo on lethal arms sales to Vietnam, they're currently shopping for American hardware.

wildman · 14 Jul 2016 at 14:19

antran said:
I don't see the US or China backing down, just hope nothing serious will happen.

Recently, the Vietnamese Government are allowing the US Navy to use the facility in Cam Ranh Bay alongside the Singaporean and Japanese.

Obama lifts US embargo on lethal arms sales to Vietnam, they're currently shopping for American hardware.

so the US will fight china via proxy like the way they fought the USSR in Afghanistan. This will end well..................

MichaelAwkward · 14 Jul 2016 at 14:38

StriderX said:
And risk it to missiles it cant shoot down?

What missiles are these?

CaptainRAVE · 14 Jul 2016 at 16:44

MichaelAwkward said:
What missiles are these?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DF-21

United States Naval Institute in 2009 stated that such a warhead would be large enough to destroy an aircraft carrier in one hit and that there was "currently ... no defense against it" if it worked as theorized.

Dis86 · 14 Jul 2016 at 17:33

In 2009.

IF it worked as theorised.

You don't think in 7 years they might have come up with a response?

Burnsy2023 · 14 Jul 2016 at 17:35

Dis86 said:
In 2009.

IF it worked as theorised.

You don't think in 7 years they might have come up with a response?

The problem is that you never know if any response actually works in real life because you can't test it.

Dis86 · 14 Jul 2016 at 17:42

Burnsy2023 said:
The problem is that you never know if any response actually works in real life because you can't test it.

How not? Surely they build a dummy version and start popping away at it with x, y and z? Same way you test any countermeasure.

Burnsy2023 · 14 Jul 2016 at 18:10

Dis86 said:
How not? Surely they build a dummy version and start popping away at it with x, y and z? Same way you test any countermeasure.

Build a dummy version from what exactly?

Dis86 · 14 Jul 2016 at 18:11

Burnsy2023 said:
Build a dummy version from what exactly?

I'm sure the largest military in the world can build a mock up that behaves in an exceedingly similar manner.

The Funktopus · 14 Jul 2016 at 18:22

The US has facilities at Kwajalein Atoll in the Pacific, where such tests are regularly carried out.

Ronald Reagan Ballistic Missile Defense Test Site

CaptainRAVE · 14 Jul 2016 at 18:22

Dis86 said:
I'm sure the largest military in the world can build a mock up that behaves in an exceedingly similar manner.

Assumptions all round, no way to know, but costly if you don't get the countermeasures 100% right. Also the Chinese aren't particularly standing still either.