I know they are limited. I don’t know range. Are they all sub-based? It’s because they are limited that I’m more curious as to if huge destruction to most of the countries in northern hemisphere is a foregone conclusion.
With the sheer number of nukes Russia and the US have it seems virtually impossible for a nuclear war between the two to be contained to just those two countries. But if it’s China and the US, how do other countries react? What defense treaties, etc. are there and would they all be honored? For that matter (and off-topic to this thread) would it even be possible for India and Pakistan to have a nuclear war and no other country to launch nukes?
I’m not sure if you’re familiar with modern American culture. The country became completely unhinged and blood thirsty after 9/11, and those were just your every day paper pushers like you or me. Several thousand dead U.S. sailors would lead to a complete cessation of rational thought and anyone calling for restraint would be called an unAmerican traitor.
Of course, it’s easy to be all Curtis LeMay when there’s not much personal cost. It would be interesting to see the reaction when the economy is imploding. I’d think the feelings would grow more vindictive. Would probably get way worse before it got better.
Two things that haven’t come up yet:
[ol]
[li]When war starts, debt is cancelled, or at least suspended. A large portion of China’s reserves are U.S. bonds. Those bonds would now be worthless. U.S. debt decreases, Chinese assets are lost.[/li][li]The Chinese regime is holding on for dear life by delivering increasing prosperity. If that fails, a large portion of their army is going to be needed to keep the troublemakers in line. As long as the U.S. doesn’t put troops in main land China, I don’t see the regime lasting more than 2 years after start of hostilities.[/li][/ol]
Where do you get these numbers from? Lockheed Martin is producing dozens of F-35’s every year, and that’s just the LOW-RATE initial production. At full production, they expect to produce more than 150 F-35s each year.
Raytheon produces something like 70 AMRAAMs each month.
Our shipyards are turning out two Virginia-class submarines every year.
Sure, it’s not like the good old days in WWII where they’d slap a destroyer together in a week, but the US is certainly capable of producing and fielding new equipment during the course of a war. MRAPs are proof of that.
Another factor is that the Chinese manufacturing economy is primarily based on export sales. So China is much more vulnerable to a loss of foreign trade (the kind of thing that happens in a war) than America is. China doesn’t have a huge domestic market to buy Chinese products.
China already recognizes that it’s at risk from export trade growth slowdown (note: growth is slowing, but there’s still growth), and supposedly looking at or implementing policies to encourage more domestic consumption of products and services. So, there’s today’s economic reality, and whatever things look like in five years should this hypothetical war start then.
Right, how about the economic reality of China being the USAs largest creditor with £1.32 trillion of Treasury Bonds, and also 30,000 tonnes of gold to hit the market with.
That’s one crashed and crushed enemy economy: poof!
[QUOTE=up_the_junction]
Right, how about the economic reality of China being the USAs largest creditor with £1.32 trillion of Treasury Bonds, and also 30,000 tonnes of gold to hit the market with.
[/QUOTE]
Wrong…the US’s ‘largest creditor’ is the US. I’m unsure of what your point is, however. In the event of a shooting war, China is going to…what? Call in it’s treasury bonds or burn them in a bonfire?? And dump some gold on the market to…er, what?
If you are implying that this would crush and crash our economy you are dreaming. If you are saying it would hurt the Chinese (which it would), then…well, again, no idea what, if any point you are actually trying to make with this drive by cryptic crap you seem to constantly spew. Could you be a bit more verbose or at least a bit clearer? Or something?
Yet during WWII Japan killed far far more Chinese people than vise versa: estimates are 3 to 6 million. Having greater numbers didn’t offer them much advantage then, has that changed that much?
China’s manufacturing capacity would probably be hit by B-2s in the first few days or weeks of war. It would be very difficult for China to get its manufacturing capacity going as far as war weapons are concerned. You can’t just build J-10s or Yuan-class submarines in a backyard shed.
I see no reason why it would go that way - France and Russia aren’t allied with the US or China in that sort of scenario, in the sense that there’s no obligation for either to assist the US or China.
If China and the USA nuked each other, the rest of the world would probably just sit back and watch it happen, then try to go on with radioactive life after it was over.
Yes, but how does crashing their own economy help the Chinese?
China is not the US largest Creditor, it is the largest foreign creditor. Domestic creditors are larger. For example, the Federal Reserve holds more than six times as much debt as China.
And I don’t think you understand how debts work. They are paid down according to a schedule agreed upon at the time the loan was made. The creditors can’t cash in the debt and demand it all back at once any more than your bank can’t suddenly demand you cash out your mortgage right now!
The only time Chinas holding US debt gives them power is if the US is in the position of needing to renegotiate its debt or being unable to meet payments, like the situation is in Greece right now.
As for gold…the US went of the gold standard in 1933.
If China floods the market with gold, what exactly does that do to the US? Sure, a lot of gold bugs lose their savings, but if the country ticks along quite well with oil, an actually useful resource swinging between 120 and 60 dollars per barrel, I don’t actually thing swings in gold is going to matter much.
I’m sorry but that is just headline journalism of the worst kind.
I would not call a modern F-16 a 70’s jet, it has had multiple upgrades.
Plus the arguments, in defence of the F-35, of it not having any of it’s advanced features equipped, sound quite reasonable.
It does appear that the F-35 is more sluggish than the F-16 in a classic dogfight situation.
Yeah, the article that that article refers to is awful. They were basically testing/demonstrating the pure aerobatic capabilities of the F35. It was not even remotely a real world combat test. Modern air combat is nothing like what people think from watching stuff like Top Gun. Most of the time the engagements happen beyond visual range and the side with the better AWACS and pilot training will win.
In real world combat situations, an f35 would kill a flight of F16s before they even realize it’s there.
Well, yes and no. For less complex items (trucks are not that complex), you can convert and modify (and the basic MRAP has been discussed and planned since 2004). It still took 6-12 months from contract award to start producing the things, and that was for an immediate and life-saving device.
While I concur that major programs are turning stuff out, they are doing so under contract and have been ordering/stockpiling material to meet the contract schedule for several years. Some of the items on a top-line fighter jet, especaially the electronics, do take a great deal of time to build and testing and acceptance take even longer. You are only seeing the fruits of many years of labor.
Now if you suddenly add 400 aircraft to the contract due to war, well, the manufacturer has to go back out to the producers of all the compontents and has to have them build new one (they are building extras at their own cost, you know). So while in a war-type situation it will go faster, it will still take you years to put a top-line fighter/warship/missile into the line.