# Is There Any Defense Against The Chinese Ant-Ship Ballistic Missile? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [January 13, 2013, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-defense-against-the-chinese-ant-ship-ballistic-missile/647082 "2013-01-13T18:57:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![AaronX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/7bcc69/32.png) [@AaronX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AaronX)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2013, 5:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-defense-against-the-chinese-ant-ship-ballistic-missile/647082/21 "2013-01-14T05:19:39Z")
> [@Tom\_Tildrum](#): > > I’m not sure which is more frightening, the Ant-Ship or the truck-launched BM. It’s the 1500 pond warhead. That’s a lot of water. ---
**Author:** ![usedtobe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ec9cab/32.png) [@usedtobe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/usedtobe)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2013, 6:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-defense-against-the-chinese-ant-ship-ballistic-missile/647082/22 "2013-01-14T06:23:47Z")
FWIW - I remember seeing a pic of two subs surfaced near a surface ship. The pic was labelled as 2 Chinese subs surfaceing just outside the pickets of a US carrier group, undetected. The problem being that, according to my understanding at least, the US shops were on maneuvers simulating battle conditions. Presumably on full alert. If the subs (in formation, very close to each other) could get there undetected, they would have had no problem taking out their choice of ships. Any body else remember this pic? Within last 2 years. Was it legit? In any event, the US can no longer assume it can rule the waves unchallenged. Not to derail or anything, but: am I the only native born USA’er who wonders what the hell are we doing stationing troops all over the globe? Nobody else seems to consider it necessary… ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2013, 7:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-defense-against-the-chinese-ant-ship-ballistic-missile/647082/23 "2013-01-14T07:16:32Z")
> [@usedtobe](#): > > am I the only native born USA’er who wonders what the hell are we doing stationing troops all over the globe? Nobody else seems to consider it necessary… If the Chinese want oil they can babysit the world for a change. ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2013, 12:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-defense-against-the-chinese-ant-ship-ballistic-missile/647082/24 "2013-01-14T12:08:13Z")
> [@jnglmassiv](#): > > Not too sure about that article. A lot of his arguments are "But how are carriers 'sposed to defend against 20,000MPH ICBMs from the heavens? Answer me that, smarties. One of the fun part is when he suggests that a carrier would be vulnerable if the warhead were nuclear. Umm, if China use tactical nukes on us, carriers will be the least of their worries. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2013, 12:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-defense-against-the-chinese-ant-ship-ballistic-missile/647082/25 "2013-01-14T12:59:36Z")
> [@TokyoBayer](#): > > One of the fun part is when he suggests that a carrier would be vulnerable if the warhead were nuclear. > > Umm, if China use tactical nukes on us, carriers will be the least of their worries. That may be so, but it’s troubling that we (meaning the US) would need to use nuclear deterrence to protect our warships. Let’s think about this: China starts gearing up to invade Taiwan. The US sends a carrier group or two to defend Taiwan. There are some shooting incidents, and eventually China threatens to use tactical nuclear weapons against American aircraft carriers. We know that we have no tactical defense against such an attack. We also know that if we massively retaliate against such an attack, we will risk looking like the bad guy since the Chinese attack killed only military personnel and basically we are getting involved in a civil war. So there will be considerable pressure to simply withdraw and let the Chinese have Taiwan. Of course I am not an expert, but it just seems like a bad idea to rely on nuclear deterrence to protect warships. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2013, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-defense-against-the-chinese-ant-ship-ballistic-missile/647082/26 "2013-01-14T13:07:01Z")
The use of nuclear weapons of any type has strategic consequences. ---
**Author:** ![Sailboat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sailboat/32/461_2.png) [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2013, 1:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-defense-against-the-chinese-ant-ship-ballistic-missile/647082/27 "2013-01-14T13:20:41Z")
> [@usedtobe](#): > > FWIW - > > I remember seeing a pic of two subs surfaced near a surface ship. > > The pic was labelled as 2 Chinese subs surfaceing just outside the pickets of a US carrier group, undetected. Why would they choose to surface at all? Revealing they had been undetected would be giving away an advantage. It’s common for anti-submarine forces to force a submarine to surface, by harassing it with sonar and the like. Are you sure you weren’t seeing a picture of Chinese subs detected and harassed until forced to admit defeat? A somewhat less threatening situation than your post suggested. ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2013, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-defense-against-the-chinese-ant-ship-ballistic-missile/647082/28 "2013-01-14T14:22:28Z")
Yes, [it’s a well-known event](http://philosophers-stone.co.uk/wordpress/2011/01/chinese-sub-surprises-u-s-aircraft-carrier-battle-group-surfaces-within-striking-distance-of-carrier/). > [@](#): > > Chinese Sub Surprises U.S. Aircraft Carrier Battle Group, Surfaces Within Striking Distance of Carrier > > The United States Navy was performing exercises between Japan and Taiwan when a lone Chinese submarine did the unthinkable. > > It surfaced, undetected, withing striking range of the USS Kitty Hawk (CV-63). > > That’s right. No one knew it was there until they could see it with the naked eye: This was back in 2006, and made waves (no pun intended) in the Navy. [David Axe’s analysis](http://thediplomat.com/2011/10/20/china%E2%80%99s-overhyped-submarine-threat/) > [@](#): > > It was the US Navy’s biggest jolt in years. On October 26, 2006, a Chinese Song-class attack submarine quietly surfaced within nine miles of the aircraft carrier USS Kitty Hawk as the 80,000-ton-diplacement vessel sailed on a training exercise in the East China Sea between Japan and Taiwan. > > The Song-class vessel, displacing 2,200 tons, was close enough to hit the Kitty Hawk with one of its 18 homing torpedoes. None of the carrier’s roughly dozen escorting warships detected the Song until it breached the surface. The subs are part of the actual immediate threats for now, although not as dire as they were feared to become. China still is not happy with the US’s ability to project power so close to the Straits and want Taipei to sweat more. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2013, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-defense-against-the-chinese-ant-ship-ballistic-missile/647082/29 "2013-01-14T14:57:17Z")
> [@](#): > > Quoth **Martin Hyde** : > > But if you move out of Gulf War I I find your claim we’ve never hit a hostile missile to be quite bizarre. It is widely accepted we shot down Al-Samoud 2 missiles in the second Iraq war. Say “uninformed” rather than “bizarre”. I hadn’t heard much of anything about missiles used against us (successful or otherwise) during the second Iraq war. I’ll accept the claim that we have, at least on some occasions, shot down hostile missiles. It remains a very difficult problem, however. ---
**Author:** ![Chimera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Chimera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chimera)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2013, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-defense-against-the-chinese-ant-ship-ballistic-missile/647082/30 "2013-01-14T16:03:30Z")
> [@AaronX](#): > > It’s the 1500 pond warhead. That’s a lot of water. Meh, not to an ocean going navy. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2013, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-defense-against-the-chinese-ant-ship-ballistic-missile/647082/31 "2013-01-14T16:38:06Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > The question is a non-sequitur because carrier groups are designed to fight 3rd world countries. They have been useless against modern navy’s since the invention of nuclear warheads which can be airborne or seaborne. We were [one person away from this happening](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasili_Arkhipov) during the Cuban Missile Crisis. You’d still have to hit the carrier almost directly to put it out of action- close enough for blast to wreck the carrier, or for radiation to kill the crew. That’s probably a fairly tall order for a moving target, unless you use a fairly big nuke, which isn’t probably the case for most shipboard weapons. Modern naval ships have sprayers to wash fallout overboard, and are hardened against nuclear strikes to some extent. Most of them were designed during the Cold War, when nuclear weapon use was expected. The bigger question is whether or not air power is still the anti-ship killer that it was in WWII. I kind of suspect that carriers these days are more for attacking land targets than for going out and sinking the enemy’s navy, if only because nobody else’s navy even comes close in size to ours, and the ones who are as (UK) or nearly as competent (France, Spain, Italy) are all close allies. ---
**Author:** ![Amateur\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/59ef9b/32.png) [@Amateur\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amateur_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2013, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-defense-against-the-chinese-ant-ship-ballistic-missile/647082/32 "2013-01-14T17:00:39Z")
I find it hard to believe that a carrier (group) would be a difficult target for a missile to hit. The Chinese have satellites that could locate a carrier and tracking ability to set a ballistic path that would put a missile within homing range of something so enormous and slow - why the claims that this represents several difficult to impossible steps for a highly technological nation? ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2013, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-defense-against-the-chinese-ant-ship-ballistic-missile/647082/33 "2013-01-14T18:40:18Z")
> [@bump](#): > > You’d still have to hit the carrier almost directly to put it out of action- close enough for blast to wreck the carrier, or for radiation to kill the crew. > > That’s probably a fairly tall order for a moving target, unless you use a fairly big nuke, which isn’t probably the case for most shipboard weapons. > > Modern naval ships have sprayers to wash fallout overboard, and are hardened against nuclear strikes to some extent. Most of them were designed during the Cold War, when nuclear weapon use was expected. > > The bigger question is whether or not air power is still the anti-ship killer that it was in WWII. I kind of suspect that carriers these days are more for attacking land targets than for going out and sinking the enemy’s navy, if only because nobody else’s navy even comes close in size to ours, and the ones who are as (UK) or nearly as competent (France, Spain, Italy) are all close allies. Seriously? You think anything floating is going to survive a nuclear strike? It wouldn’t matter if the ships held the water speed record. Modern nuclear weapons are exponentially more powerful than those used on Japan. a small w-88 warhead is 20 TIMES more powerful. When you talk about a fusion nuclear device they are pretty much dial-a-yield. The size of the warhead is no longer relevant to the desired yield. We’re not talking about a pulse weapon hundreds of miles away, we’re talking about something that only has to be within hundreds of feet to vaporize a ship and modern technology can place an object plus or minus 4 feet. A carrier is literally toast. It’s a ship designed to babysit 3rd world countries and nothing more. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2013, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-defense-against-the-chinese-ant-ship-ballistic-missile/647082/34 "2013-01-14T18:52:35Z")
You think the Chinese ballistic system can place a nuclear warhead +/- 4 feet? Seriously? Yes, a nuclear strike against a carrier group has a pretty good chance of wrecking it. But it’s not going to do that by “vaporizing” the ships, it’s going to do that by rendering them unable to continue to operate, and perhaps by weakening them so much that the ocean gets in and they sink. But remember that the strength of an explosion decreases with the cube of the distance from ground zero, because the force is radiating out in three dimensions. So a blast that can wreck the target if it hits within 50 feet might not do much more than scratch the paint at 100 feet. Nuclear weapons are subject to the same effects, a nuclear bomb can only wreck a target that’s miles away if it’s a city busting hydrogen bomb. And ballistic missile with all the modern bells and whistles might be quite accurate, even if built in China, but it’s only as accurate as its targeting information. When you’re trying to hit a city or a building, well, cities and buildings don’t move. Ships do. If the last known location for the carrier was taken half an hour ago, you might as well not even fire your missile even if you can hit a target within a few feet, because the target isn’t there anymore. ---
**Author:** ![Amateur\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/59ef9b/32.png) [@Amateur\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amateur_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2013, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-defense-against-the-chinese-ant-ship-ballistic-missile/647082/35 "2013-01-14T19:04:21Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > If the last known location for the carrier was taken half an hour ago, you might as well not even fire your missile even if you can hit a target within a few feet, because the target isn’t there anymore. China has spysats like all the other technologically advanced nations. You seriously think that, in a situation where they’re going to try to take out one of our carrier groups, they don’t have the capability to pull near-realtime imaging, and do it well enough to estimate speed and direction of the group for a ~10 minute ballistic arc? It’s not likely to be some quick-draw situation; they could spend plenty of time lining up their shot. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2013, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-defense-against-the-chinese-ant-ship-ballistic-missile/647082/36 "2013-01-14T19:10:11Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > You think the Chinese ballistic system can place a nuclear warhead +/- 4 feet? Seriously? Yes, seriously. What is hard to understand about that? A carrier cannot hide from a satellite or drones and a GPS navigation system can place it that close. I can fly an old generation aviation GPS right down to the centerline of a runway and come within a dozen feet of it. The newer generation units are more accurate. Last time I checked an aircraft carrier was wider than a runway. + or - 4 feet on something that large doesn’t really matter with a nuclear device which can carry basically any practical yield desired. And as I stated before a W-88 warhead is 20 TIMES the yield of the atomic bombs dropped on Japan. that was a CITY. A carrier will all the delicate airplanes and airplane fuel and electronics and PEOPLE will be incinerated at ground zero. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2013, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-defense-against-the-chinese-ant-ship-ballistic-missile/647082/37 "2013-01-14T23:25:16Z")
Of course the problem with shooting down a Chinese missile is that an hour later, you want to shoot one down again ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2013, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-defense-against-the-chinese-ant-ship-ballistic-missile/647082/38 "2013-01-15T00:11:31Z")
> [@](#): > > But remember that the strength of an explosion decreases with the cube of the distance from ground zero, because the force is radiating out in three dimensions. Inverse _square_. And in tests, even _fission_ bombs have been able to sink battleships from miles away. ---
**Author:** ![usedtobe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ec9cab/32.png) [@usedtobe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/usedtobe)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2013, 6:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-defense-against-the-chinese-ant-ship-ballistic-missile/647082/39 "2013-01-15T06:05:48Z")
Re GPS and aviation accuracy: An airliner was flown across the Atlantic and down the runway - off by 3’. That was over 20 years ago. When discussing ways to kill jihadists in their Afghan caves, one of the folks offer that the US was working on a bomb that would penetrate the mountain and explode inside the cave. Yes, 3 dimension accuracy within 4’ has been child’s play for decades. Now you know why the Soviets, Chinese, and the EU all have their own satellite systems. And -pssst: the people who build killing machines know all about these systems - if you take out the US satellites (the number you would need to kill to serious degrade the accuracy is \> 1), I’m going to guess the machines are clever enough to borrow the signal from other people’s systems - ya’ think? Google"approach-certified gps" for a quick catalog of units approved for sole navigation systems in the US Oh - WAAS means a box on the ground going “beep beep” - if one of those would somehow appear near the target, you are looking at 6" precision. ---
**Author:** ![d1a1s1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f6c823/32.png) [@d1a1s1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/d1a1s1)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2013, 6:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-defense-against-the-chinese-ant-ship-ballistic-missile/647082/40 "2013-01-15T06:20:26Z")
> [@TokyoBayer](#): > > Yes, [it’s a well-known event](http://philosophers-stone.co.uk/wordpress/2011/01/chinese-sub-surprises-u-s-aircraft-carrier-battle-group-surfaces-within-striking-distance-of-carrier/). > > This was back in 2006, and made waves (no pun intended) in the Navy. > > [David Axe’s analysis](http://thediplomat.com/2011/10/20/china%E2%80%99s-overhyped-submarine-threat/) The subs are part of the actual immediate threats for now, although not as dire as they were feared to become. China still is not happy with the US’s ability to project power so close to the Straits and want Taipei to sweat more. You’re ridiculously naive if you think that POS Chinese sub was really undetected. Undetected by the carrier, sure, ill give you that. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-defense-against-the-chinese-ant-ship-ballistic-missile/647082.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-defense-against-the-chinese-ant-ship-ballistic-missile/647082.md?page=3)