China fast-track "hypersonic missile" program -- Cold War: Part 2?

[iLemming]

@XT

It was last year that they finally started to work it up at sea…they have been working on it for quite while to get it ready for operations. It IS pretty much a tempest in a tea cup

Odd. Because I thought carriers meant power projection – something the U.S. have held aloft as an escutcheon of supremacy…

I’m not sure what you are getting at here. The Chinese already have the technology for intercontinental ballistic missiles with or without a space program.

Sure. But ICBM’s don’t travel as 8000km/h and adequate defences already exist for said threats.

There is about zero chance that the Chinese will be landing on and colonizing the moon any time soon.

Speaking in absolutes is usually done through the anus.

@YogSosoth

North Korea doesn’t have the manpower to take over Florida, let alone the US.

DPRK have the largest standing army in the world. Granted, they’re hungry and probably couldn’t muster the energy to bayonet-charge a hay bale, but the pure numbers are indeed there.

And an EMP attack is not going to cripple the entire US.

Researching the subject matter reveals the U.S. electrical infrastructure to be a veritable spider web of new lumped on old – a system that, if collapsed, would be irreparable. According to those claiming expertise in the area, if an EMP attack was conducted on the U.S., the whole kit and caboodle would have to be uprooted and replaced. Moreover, to acquire said replacement parts would need massive logistical efforts, beginning with the sourcing of most of this componentry from where it’s made - Asia; largely represented by China - something that might prove difficult if these nations are in the process of being annexed by the very adversary who themselves happens to manufacture many of the parts being sought… and those who, incidentally, would be waiting for the oft-promised U.S. military assistance / intervention. Further, it would take literal decades to get the nation back to where it left off, by which time the world would likely look like the Jetsons to the U.S.'s Flinstones and one-time allies might not even be allies any longer, if they still existed at all.

With respect to the effects of a successful attack of this kind on the U.S. mainland; anyone could literally walk in if the unrest washing over the U.S. right now over comparatively trivial issues of dermal melanin levels is any measure. The U.S. would likely become a live stage play of the film The Road if electricity were to become a Mad Max-esque memory in an instant; gun nuts running amok, police and military shooting at anyone that has a bulge in their pants. Which, as sensational as it sounds, is what is being considered with these ‘EMP attack’ ruminations. Because it’s not a simple ‘switching off’ or cutting of power we’re hypothesising - as if it were a mere circuit-breaker that were tripped - but the literal destruction of any and all affected electrical systems and entrained electronics. It’s 1800’s, Wild West retrogression that’s being proposed here. Ask the U.S. congress if you don’t believe my doomsday fear mongering!

Realistically, here’s what I think would happen. Let’s say some space phenomenon shoots a cosmic EMP directed at the US

>realistically
>space phenomenon

NB: An EMP attack is affected through the detonation of a nuclear just below the Ionosphere. No Dr. Evil -helmed, Rube Goldberg device is required.

[Snarky_Kong]

@iLemming

Sure. But ICBM’s don’t travel as 8000km/h and adequate defences already exist for said threats.

ICBMs travel much faster than that and the only defense we have for them is “we’ll nuke you back.”

[XT]

[QUOTE=iLemming]
Odd. Because I thought carriers meant power projection – something the U.S. have held aloft as an escutcheon of supremacy…
[/QUOTE]

You do realize that the US isn’t the only country with a working carrier today, right? Merely having a carrier does not grant the ‘escutcheon of supremacy’, even if you have a navy that has a tradition of using the things correctly and the crews TOO use them correctly…none of which China currently has. That’s why it’s a tempest in a tea pot atm…it will literally take years for China to work up their retreaded Soviet era carrier and train the people to use it, to integrate it into their own service and learn to support it, etc etc. Same goes for their home grown carriers.

Speaking in absolutes is usually done through the anus.

If anyone is talking out their ass on this it’s you. There is zero chance that China will colonize the moon in the next 50 years…zero. Same goes for the US, and we are very well ahead of the current Chinese space program, which as yet still hasn’t landed a man on the moon, nor will they at the present rate until the 2020’s. The US is shooting for a manned Mars mission in the 2030’s…and THAT is pretty ambitious.

[Ravenman]

@iLemming

It’s not the missile itself that does the potential damage, but the payload. Moreover, I doubt whoever harnesses this kind of delivery system will be so obliging as to send one ‘package’ at a time. Also: The Seventh Fleet…

So what?

I repeat: the US was the leading world economy for decades while under threat from the Soviet Union. The threat from the Soviet Union to the United States homeland was exponentially greater than any threat from China, now or in the foreseeable future. The Seventh Fleet has nothing to do with anything.

Perhaps this is the real threat: Kimmy and co. getting their hands on Chinese-developed tech of this kind.

And how would that happen? If you think China sells its most modern weapons to North Korea, you’re simply not informed about Chinese-DPRK relations in the slightest. China doesn’t even like North Korea that much.

I should also point out that the U.S. has attempted a few tests of hypersonic weapons, and both of them ended in explosions. And the booms did not happen at the end of the test as expected. The idea that China announced some weapon, therefore it is a threat to us, ignores the fact that China’s weapon might not work at all.

[KarlGauss]

@YogSosoth

. . . an EMP attack is not going to cripple the entire US.

@Trinopus

I can never find any alarm whatever in an EMP attack

I am not trying to sound snarky, but did you read the link posted above by iLemming?

I only read the ‘executive summary’ yet afterward found myself hoping against hope that the preventative measure mentioned therein have been implemented. Cause I’ll tell you, reading it made an EMP attack sound like it had a genuine potential for absolute catastrophe. Equally as distressing to me was that, requiring as it does only a single nuclear weapon, and by the avoidance of causing direct casualties (thus allowing the perpetrators to come off as something other than barbaric murderers), it looks an ideal mode of attack for a rogue state or a terrorist group.

“Catastrophe” and “irresistible” (above) are not just my words. The Congressional Commission said exactly those things.

[Trinopus]

@KarlGauss

. . . requiring as it does only a single nuclear weapon . . .

Anyone firing even a single nuclear weapon at the U.S. is going to suffer retaliation, probably on a disproportionate scale.

Any rogue state that could use a nuclear weapon to generate an EMP could also use it to annihilate downtown Seattle (or other city of their choice.) Why should I fear the EMP any more than I already fear the annihilation of the heart of a major city?

Why would the rogue state limit themselves to the limited effects of an EMP when they could achieve such annihilation?

Russia could use a full-scale ICBM launch to cover the U.S. with propaganda leaflets…but they probably aren’t going to.

[KarlGauss]

@Trinopus

Anyone firing even a single nuclear weapon at the U.S. is going to suffer retaliation, probably on a disproportionate scale.

How do you (disproportionately) retaliate against a terrorist organization?

Any rogue state that could use a nuclear weapon to generate an EMP could also use it to annihilate downtown Seattle (or other city of their choice.) Why should I fear the EMP any more than I already fear the annihilation of the heart of a major city?

Because an EMP attack could devastate the entire country, not just one city. Beyond that, the time to recover from an EMP attack could take years (and not just in repairing the infrastructure, but restoring the economy and people’s faith in it).

ETA: remember that the “single nuclear weapon” needed to effect an EMP attack, is launched into space and detonated there. In other words, it could look like a simple satellite launch until it was too late. I suppose it’s even conceivable that a nuclear device could be surreptitiously planted on some nation’s satellite (launch).

[Ravenman]

@KarlGauss

How do you (disproportionately) retaliate against a terrorist organization?

Because an EMP attack could devastate the entire country, not just one city. Beyond that, the time to recover from an EMP attack could take years (and not just in repairing the infrastructure, but restoring the economy and people’s faith in it).

ETA: remember that the “single nuclear weapon” needed to effect an EMP attack, is launched into space and detonated there. In other words, it could look like a simple satellite launch until it was too late. I suppose it’s even conceivable that a nuclear device could be surreptitiously planted on some nation’s satellite (launch).

The idea of a terrorist organization launching a long-range ballistic missile to paralyze the United States with an EMP blast is on my personal list of threats to be concerned about. However, it ranks right below the threat of terrorists obtaining an aircraft carrier battle group to wreak havoc on trans-Pacific ocean trade routes.

[XT]

@Ravenman

The idea of a terrorist organization launching a long-range ballistic missile to paralyze the United States with an EMP blast is on my personal list of threats to be concerned about. However, it ranks right below the threat of terrorists obtaining an aircraft carrier battle group to wreak havoc on trans-Pacific ocean trade routes.

See, your priorities are skewed. What if they get a hold of Kaiju, and use THOSE to wreak havoc and let loose the dogs and whores in the Pacific (Rim)?? What then?? Then when the Chinese have their bases on the moon (and all our bases belong to THEM), they can toss hypersonic air craft carriers at our cold war, part 2 and drop bayonets charges from VISA!

I think these are threats we should all take seriously. :eek:

[Trinopus]

@KarlGauss

How do you (disproportionately) retaliate against a terrorist organization?

What’s the difference, in the answer to that question, whether they blacked out the U.S., or destroyed Seattle?

In either case, and pretty much equally, we’d go on a massive hunt for whoever did it, and kill them.

Because an EMP attack could devastate the entire country, not just one city. Beyond that, the time to recover from an EMP attack could take years (and not just in repairing the infrastructure, but restoring the economy and people’s faith in it).

Destroying Seattle would have most of the same effects, plus a whole lot of people dead.

ETA: remember that the “single nuclear weapon” needed to effect an EMP attack, is launched into space and detonated there. In other words, it could look like a simple satellite launch until it was too late. I suppose it’s even conceivable that a nuclear device could be surreptitiously planted on some nation’s satellite (launch).

I doubt that anyone could sneak a bomb onto an ordinary satellite launch. Too many people would have to be in on the conspiracy. This is getting into “Faking the Apollo Program” levels of complexity.

It’s a hell of a lot easier to sneak the bomb into Seattle on a container ship than to launch it into space above the center of the U.S.

The EMP scare is a foolish goblin-under-the-bed fantasy. (The fear of someone sneaking a bomb into Seattle is also foolish…just a lot less foolish.)

[Morgenstern]

@XT

Naw, it would still be a huge technical feat even today and I’ll be impressed as hell if they actually pull it off. I’m not holding my breath, though.

I wonder how much of their technology is stolen from the US with respect to their space program?

[The_Second_Stone]

@Morgenstern

I wonder how much of their technology is stolen from the US with respect to their space program?

We will find out by how much over budget they go and how many blow up.

[iLemming]

@XT

You do realize that the US isn’t the only country with a working carrier today, right?

But it’s the only country with as many as it has.

If anyone is talking out their ass on this it’s you. There is zero chance that China will colonize the moon in the next 50 years…zero.

K. :rolleyes:

@Ravenman

I repeat: the US was the leading world economy for decades while under threat from the Soviet Union. The threat from the Soviet Union to the United States homeland was exponentially greater than any threat from China, now or in the foreseeable future.

China hadn’t risen back then and no one knew they had a comparable nuclear arsenal to, if not greater than, the U.S. and Russia. Viewing the Chinese through a European prism is folly that could prove to be of catastrophic proportions. Did the White house calculate it would have to abandon corralling oil in the Middle East and “pivot” to Asia overnight back in the 80’s? A. No. China surprised us once. China may yet surprise us again.

The Seventh Fleet has nothing to do with anything.

mfw

If you think China sells its most modern weapons to North Korea, you’re simply not informed about Chinese-DPRK relations in the slightest. China doesn’t even like North Korea that much.

NK are China’s Orwellian buffer to the capitalist party of SK. …and China don’t necessarily have to sell to NK – Kimmy already has nukes and had to have gotten the tech from somewhere…

I should also point out that the U.S. has attempted a few tests of hypersonic weapons, and both of them ended in explosions.

What’s the implication here – that if the U.s. can’t do something, no one can? Last time I checked, the fruits of U.S. education system, compared to Scandinavian and pertinent Asian countries, was shameful.

@Trinopus

Anyone firing even a single nuclear weapon at the U.S. is going to suffer retaliation, probably on a disproportionate scale.

That’s some might impressive chest thumping! But at the risk of tempering your impromptu little Independence Day parade, EMP attacks do not require the nuclear payload to make landfall (*I appreciate nukes detonate above ground) - the ionosphere is their target - and if a successful EMP attack were to take place, there would be no retaliation – everything runs on this fangled form of energy called ‘electricity’, the pertaining componentry of which would all be destroyed by an EMP attack on the scale being broached. As for carrier-base retaliation; those ships would be too busy scurrying back to the mainland to supply seaside cities from their generators (before the blacked out nation ate itself from the inside out) to spend time playing Battle Ship with aggressors who would at that point already have an unassailable upper hand.

@Ravenman

The idea of a terrorist organization launching a long-range ballistic missile to paralyze the United States with an EMP blast is on my personal list of threats to be concerned about.

What if those “terrorists” are a nation state; population: 1.4 billion…?

I mean, if you wanted to take out the U.S., and presuming what is being discussed here is all assayble fact (which it all but is), wouldn’t you go for the ‘EMP solution’ over a tit-for-tat conventional weapons tussle that would get neither side anywhere?

@Morgenstern

I wonder how much of their technology is stolen from the US with respect to their space program?

I’d wager, ‘some’. That’s probably why NASA are banned from working co-operatively with China.

[iLemming]

@Trinopus

I doubt that anyone could sneak a bomb onto an ordinary satellite launch.

I doubted a dozen rag-tag raghead fundamentalists could take down the Twin Towers, WTC7 and half the Pentagon using box cutters…

[Ravenman]

@iLemming

What if those “terrorists” are a nation state; population: 1.4 billion…?

I mean, if you wanted to take out the U.S., and presuming what is being discussed here is all assayble fact (which it all but is), wouldn’t you go for the ‘EMP solution’ over a tit-for-tat conventional weapons tussle that would get neither side anywhere?

Then it is China attacking us and we know right where China lives.

No, if I were China, I wouldn’t launch a nuclear war (no matter where the warheads explode) with an adversary which has many, many times more warheads than I do.

You really have no idea what you’re talking about here, do you?

[XT]

[QUOTE=iLemming]
But it’s the only country with as many as it has.
[/QUOTE]

Ok, I’m not seeing your point here. What has this to do with the Chinese carrier or the Chinese carrier program? Anything?

K.

So, you figure that even though the US landed on the moon in 1969 (and no moon base in sight) and the Chinese haven’t been able to do more than a few manned orbital flights that there is any possibility that in 50 years they will not only land a man on the moon (something even by their wildly optimistic estimates they won’t do for at least 10 more years) but build a colony…and when I point out how ridiculous that nothing is you roll your eyes and say ‘K’?? Suit yourself partner.

[XT]

[QUOTE=Ravenman]
You really have no idea what you’re talking about here, do you?
[/QUOTE]

Bingo

[Trinopus]

@iLemming

. . . EMP attacks do not require the nuclear payload to make landfall (*I appreciate nukes detonate above ground) - the ionosphere is their target - and if a successful EMP attack were to take place, there would be no retaliation – everything runs on this fangled form of energy called ‘electricity’, the pertaining componentry of which would all be destroyed by an EMP attack on the scale being broached. . . .

The US counterstrike capability is sufficiently hardened to withstand an EMP attack.

The EMP attack would not knock out ballistic missile submarines, for one thing.

An EMP attack is a hobgoblin fantasy, and has no realistic potential whatever. Anyone who could arrange such an attack is already capable of arranging a much more devastating attack using the same weapon against a large city center.

[SenorBeef]

@Trinopus

Any rogue state that could use a nuclear weapon to generate an EMP could also use it to annihilate downtown Seattle (or other city of their choice.) Why should I fear the EMP any more than I already fear the annihilation of the heart of a major city?

Why would the rogue state limit themselves to the limited effects of an EMP when they could achieve such annihilation?

This is silly. An attack on seattle, depending on the weapon used, is going to kill perhaps a million people, including the long term deaths. A pretty big deal, but hardly an existential threat. The economy would recess from hysteria, but the overall functioning of the US would be intact.

An EMP attack could potentially destroy ALL INFRASTRUCTURE THAT USES ELECTRICITY OR ELECTRONICS OVER A LARGE PORTION OF THE COUNTRY.

Power stations, gone. Electrical infrastructure even if we could somehow obtain power generating systems, gone. All vehicles, gone. All computers, gone. All communications infrastructure except for EMP-survivable military networks, gone. All agriculture shutdown. All food distribution shut down. Water pumps, processing, and filtration shut down. All computers, cell phones, and the internet, shut down. Everything that it takes to run a modern civilization would be gone, instantly.

They would be mass starvation that would kill tens of millions of people at the very least, simply from the food, power, and water shutting off. In winter, people would freeze to death while trying to survive off existing stocks of food. The US economy would cease to function. You could not communicate or interact with anyone further than you could walk. We wouldn’t even have significant numbers of helpful domesticated animals to get us by for a while.

We would have nothing with which to rebuild. The entire world’s output of power generation equipment would take decades to replace what was lost. The electrical infrastructure would have to be rebuilt entirely. And why? Because the world would all band together to get the US, now the biggest backwater country on the planet, back on its feet out of altruism? It would end the US as a viable nation, and ultimately would probably result in, conservatively, over a hundred million deaths. It would easily be the greatest disaster in human history.

The loss of Seattle would be a mosquito bite in comparison.

[CarnalK]

What SenorBeef said. Add to that all the people who would die pretty quick. Like all critical care patients and people flying in planes.No idea what would happen to pacemakers. .