so, is the balance of power finally shifting?
the force of our weapons enabling us, to strut thro the earth, dominating, finally at an end?
this seems to suggest it is, on a military viewpoint, let alone shifting economic balances to our detriment, their ascendancy over us?
Guaranteed
are we are Empire nearly in its death throes?
only a miracle will save us?
excerpt from article.
ABOARD THE USS GEORGE WASHINGTON – Nothing projects U.S. global air and sea power more vividly than supercarriers. Bristling with fighter jets that can reach deep into even landlocked trouble zones, America’s virtually invincible carrier fleet has long enforced its dominance of the high seas.
China may soon put an end to that.
U.S. naval planners are scrambling to deal with what analysts say is a game-changing weapon being developed by China — an unprecedented carrier-killing missile called the Dong Feng 21D that could be launched from land with enough accuracy to penetrate the defenses of even the most advanced moving aircraft carrier at a distance of more than 1,500 kilometers (900 miles).
article continues…
There tends to be an element of over-hyping in announcement of new weapons. Remember how Patriot missiles were going to knock Scuds out of the sky? I’d be surprised if these missiles could really deliver the accuracy and punch that is being currently advertised.
Hmm, China has a few missiles that can take out carriers. The U.S. has about 3,000 land- and sub-based missiles that can take out China.
If there is a shift, it’s going to be a very very slow one and long before it approaches anything close to parity, the U.S. can far more easily ramp up its own weapon programs and leap ahead again.
I would hazard a guess that its the fact that the Chinese weapon travels at up to mach 10 and that is the biggest concern. Much faster than a lot of existing x to ship weapons and perhaps too fast for the existing systems to defend against?
edit : Exocet for example travels under Mach 1,
and look how that took out shipping,
Falklands conflict.
In fairness, the Patriot system was designed to shoot down aircraft, not other missiles. Ballistic missile interception was a secondary capability that was designed in later.
It wasn’t redesigned primarily for missile interception until well after the first Gulf War.
For what it’s worth, the current version (PAC-3) actually does work.
No offense, but these sorts of statements just make you sound hysterical and a bit dumb.
The US is not going to disintigrate. At worst, we may go the way of the Brittish Empire where our international influence is greatly reduced. Either way, it wont be because of some Chinese missle.
Certainly a satellite guided balistic missle that can take out a carrier 900 miles away is a threat. But like any threat in the past, I’m sure we will develop a countermeasure.
This reminds me of the great USSR (when there still was a USSR) super torpedoes, that were going to render Air Craft Carriers obsolete. How did that work out? Iran supposedly has a super missile as well…or at least, that’s what the Iranians claim.
Here is the thing. Even if the Chinese have such a weapon (which, setting aside all the hype and obvious exaggeration, they probably DO have a missile that could reasonably hit a Carrier TASK GROUP), so what? First of all, if China fires such a missile at a US carrier, then we are at war anyway. If they actually manage to hit a carrier with such a missile, AND they manage to sink it (:dubious:), then that would certainly be bad. And then Chinese infrastructure would be getting gob-smacked by conventional Tomahawk cruise missiles fired from numerous nuclear subs in the area, not to mention air strikes coming in from various overseas US bases and from the US mainland…and that would be just the beginning. Unless China was willing to go nuclear (again, :dubious:), what ELSE could they actually DO to us?? We have a huge technological edge.
And why would they attack a US carrier? As a prelude to invading Taiwan? Good luck with that! Even if they managed to damage a carrier (instead of being intercepted or hitting one of the escorts), they would then actually have to try and fight the Taiwanese air force and then try a forced entry invasion. And that while the US is bombing the crap out of their invasion force, their logistics points, infrastructure and everything else.
And so on. We could seriously hurt China VERY badly (hell, if we wanted to be REALLY evil, a couple of bunker busters on the 3 Gorges Dam would probably ruin much of their economy right there…not to mention hurting them very badly in a number of other ways). They could, perhaps, hit one of our air craft carriers. Or, maybe not.
Has this stunning event shifted the balance of power from East to West? I’m thinking…not.
The ability of the US to project its will through the use of force is damn near non-existant. The US government is severely constrained by its democracy to the extent that it virtually operates with arm tied behind its back.
Economically they are constrained by all sorts of self imposed regulations and ethics.
The result is that we are seeing the Eastern powers, Russia, India and particularly China taking over the resource extraction in Africa and South America, making America more and more irrelevant.
So slow and long that apparently you don’t recognise that it’s already happened.
You don’t think that the Iraq quagmire, despite 100% US air supremacy, pre-strike certification of defence capability and total absence of opposition WMD, shows any nation wanting more power and influence how to do it?
Why start a expense and destructive firefight when you can get the result through patience and even make money as the opposition spend yourselves into oblivion?
Indeed, but why try and bust through the armour plated front door when the kitchen window is open?
You’d have a much greater effect on the Chinese economy if the US stopped buying Chinese toys and home furnishings, but that ain’t going to happen either.
Fixed all your spelling mistakes for you, there were quite a few.
anyways,
Basically, i meant what i said, who will save us was what i asked,
it will take a miricle is what i said.
what we need saving from? i think, mainly from ourselves,
our arrogance that we are invulnerable, the force of our weapons allows us to dominate.
Strut thro the Earth
The Question was, will other countries technological evolving superiority finally see us relegated to a more subservient role?
I think probably, eventually.
If Iraq had of had, WMD, as we wrongfully, criminally insisted they did, or if they had Nukes would they be now lying belly up, terminally bleeding,?
I think not.
Sheez, we can not even ‘win’ against ppl who resist us with sticks and stones,
How would we take on foreign nations who are armed with WMD, just as we are.
We are all MAD.
right?
Why should we? It’s better to trade with someone than fight with them, and if we didn’t buy toys and home furnishings from them, then we’d probably simply buy them from India, or South Korea, or Japan, or…well, or someone else. I doubt that simply not buying them from China would magically bring those manufacturing requests back to the US, and I doubt it would really benefit us, as a whole, if it did in any case.
Because the OP is speculating about war, and as unlikely as it would actually be, I was responding to that question. Besides, their ‘armour plated front door’ is anything but ‘armour plated’, and if it came down to a fight, it would be China that would be hurtin the most, when the smoke cleared. Air strikes on their infrastructure would hurt them in a big way, and the destruction of a couple of key rail heads would bring a large chunk of their economy to a grinding halt (not to mention the a fore mentioned dam). While one of our carriers going to the bottom would certainly be a blow, such a confrontation (on the purely military side…on the economic side, especially wrt trade would be even worse for China, since I doubt much of Europe would still be wanting to trade with them afterward either) would certainly hurt China worse.
Which is why it won’t happen. That trade stuff is a pretty good inoculation against China tossing one of it’s supposed super missiles at us in the foreseeable future. Or going for Taiwan either, for similar reasons (besides the military impracticability of doing so anyway).
when will we stop killing them foreign ppl?
invading their countries,
restructuring their internal politics to suit us, our lust for their oil, amongst numerous other things…
simple really,
too hard for you?
Indeed. Aircraft carriers have been extremely vulnerable since the deployment of the ballistic missile, and even more so with see skimming supersonic cruise missiles that the Soviets were deploying in the mid- to late-Eighties. The lesson of the Falklands War was that the default NATO defense strategy of large task forces to protect carriers and other capital assets was severely flawed; that if an committed opponent tried hard enough to penetrate through the defenses of a carrier group, he’d probably succeed. Carriers remain in deployment due to a combination of their ability to project air power in a readily deployable way even in areas where we don’t have ground bases, and because the supercarrier is a sign of strength and vitality in a nation’s military; only the US Navy has genuine supercarriers, whereas the rest of the world suffers with thru-deck cruisers, amphibious assault ships, and the like that are only capable of supporting VTOL and helicopter aircraft of limited range. In an age of intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of maneuverable and highly accurate reentry vehicles that can be remotely or intelligently guided into a mobile target, carriers and other capital surface ships are as defunct as battleships.
However, China’s real power flows not from the barrel of a gun but in the form of cheap but desired goods and control over the dollar. Their military presence is really just intended to keep people from exerting military influence over them, and keeping potential threats like Russia and India at bay.
:rolleyes: It sounds like you’re suggesting that the problem is that the U.S. is too nice and honest to be a successful empire. You can’t seriously mean that.
I believe we’re in agreement on the ends, but not the means. I don’t understand the premise that in the (unlikely) instance of armed conflict it must be China shooting at capital ships and US shooting at infastructure. I expect the Chinese would prefer that the hegemonists clung to that paradigm. It keeps those minds and wallets focused on how the previous war was won.
As for Taiwan, the Chinese reunification isn’t going to be by conquest. Yes, they may well rattle sabres periodically for shits and giggles but eventually, later this century or the next they’ll put an offer on the table and, the price being right, the US will quietly hand Taiwan over.