View Full Version : Chinese war ships off Alaska ?
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/04/obama-makes-excuses-for-chinese-warships-in-u-s-waters/
just kinda curious if others think what I do our country appears weak and the bullies are pushing our buttons to see what gets a response or not
Pentagon officials said Thursday that five Chinese warships that appeared near Alaska during President Barack Obama’s visit this week passed through U.S. territorial waters–and hastened to defend China’s actions as being consistent with international law.
The rush to avoid an international crisis contrasts sharply with China’s own aggression any time the U.S. approaches Chinese waters or airspace, even where Chinese claims are dubious.
FromMyColdDeadHand
09-04-15, 17:50
If they want to reinforce the idea of freedom with navigation of the seas, the more power to them.
If they want to reinforce the idea of freedom with navigation of the seas, the more power to them.
I'm sure their motives are 100% honorable. Kind of like when our military probes another countries defenses. We're just being helpful.
In case you wanted to read actual news about the incident and draw your own conclusions, here is the story:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/04/politics/china-ships-alaska-us-waters/index.html
Moose-Knuckle
09-06-15, 02:00
Yeah I couldn't help but ponder the coincidence of this and Barry being up there.
FromMyColdDeadHand
09-06-15, 02:12
That's what I mean. Freedom of navigation doesn't work for them in the South China Sea, but if they want to play tit-for-tat and reinforce the concept that they would like to take away with, that bolsters our argument.
A blue water confrontation for China would go about as well as us trying an amphibious assault on China.
A blue water confrontation for China would go about as well as us trying an amphibious assault on China.
I was about to take issue because I believed we could successfully assault and establish a beach head.
China has approximately 2,333,000 under arms and 2,333,000 reserves. They have 9,000 tanks, 5,000 AFV's, 1,100 Fighters, 1,000 Helicopters and 200 attack helicopters.
We have approximately 1,400,000 under arms, and 1,100,00 reserves. We have 8,848 tanks, 41,000 AFV's, 2,207 fighters, 2,700 attack aircraft, 6,196 helicopters, and 920 attack helicopters.
Our Navy could ensure that the vast majority of the 51 RO/RO vessels in the Merchant Marine would make the transit safely and supply the beachhead. I THINK we could establish air superiority over the battle field.
I think it would be bloody, but I think we could establish a beach head. Then it would just be a matter of who used the first nuke.
SilverBullet432
09-06-15, 14:23
I'm sure the chinese are aware of our naval power.
Yeah I couldn't help but ponder the coincidence of this and Barry being up there.
I think Manchuria wanted it's Candidate back.
I was about to take issue because I believed we could successfully assault and establish a beach head.
China has approximately 2,333,000 under arms and 2,333,000 reserves. They have 9,000 tanks, 5,000 AFV's, 1,100 Fighters, 1,000 Helicopters and 200 attack helicopters.
We have approximately 1,400,000 under arms, and 1,100,00 reserves. We have 8,848 tanks, 41,000 AFV's, 2,207 fighters, 2,700 attack aircraft, 6,196 helicopters, and 920 attack helicopters.
Our Navy could ensure that the vast majority of the 51 RO/RO vessels in the Merchant Marine would make the transit safely and supply the beachhead. I THINK we could establish air superiority over the battle field.
I think it would be bloody, but I think we could establish a beach head. Then it would just be a matter of who used the first nuke.Mean while back on the East coast Putin would then attack us at our weakest when all our resources are busy with China and North Korea.
Russian spy vessel recently spotted off the coast of Georgia near Kings Bay Sub base…. (http://www.actionnewsjax.com/news/news/local/russian-spy-ship-spotted-kings-bay/nnYGB/)
I was about to take issue because I believed we could successfully assault and establish a beach head.
China has approximately 2,333,000 under arms and 2,333,000 reserves. They have 9,000 tanks, 5,000 AFV's, 1,100 Fighters, 1,000 Helicopters and 200 attack helicopters.
We have approximately 1,400,000 under arms, and 1,100,00 reserves. We have 8,848 tanks, 41,000 AFV's, 2,207 fighters, 2,700 attack aircraft, 6,196 helicopters, and 920 attack helicopters.
Numbers don't tell the whole story. This isn't a simple board game where you put your forces on one side, put their forces on the other, and then fight it out. Not all of our troops are combat troops.
For example tanks. We may be listed as having 8,848 tanks, but I doubt we have the trained crews to man 1/3 of that number. The numbers are just inventory. Then we need a means of getting that number across the world and starting and keeping a supply line with food, fuel, ammo, parts, maintenance, and everything that they need. I'm just using the tank number example without factoring in every other supporting arm.
Our Navy could ensure that the vast majority of the 51 RO/RO vessels in the Merchant Marine would make the transit safely and supply the beachhead.
I seriously doubt it. We would be fighting them in their home waters where they have lots of shorter ranged fast patrol craft equipped with some surprisingly modern anti-ship missiles. They might not be good for power projection but they would be hell in home waters. They have DF-21 antiship ballistic missiles and YJ-12 and YJ-18 land, sea and air launched anti-ship missiles. The YJ-12 and YJ-18 are actually more advanced and longer ranged than our decades-old Harpoon antiship missiles. Please look up those missiles.
China has been hard at work on anti-access weapons, strategies, and tactics which would make it impossible for use to fight them in their home waters without suffering heavy losses.
I THINK we could establish air superiority over the battle field.
Questionable. I doubt we could get our carriers close enough or keep them there. Even so, we would not have enough carrier born aircraft. China has been procuring and building hundreds of advanced Russian SU-17 variants. Again, it's not a matter of a board game where you put all of our forces on one side and theirs on the other and decide who wins that way. Given modern espionage and satellite technology, there is no way we could get large forces close enough to China to invade.
This isn't even considering the political will in the US. I can't see any US decisionmakers signing off for that bloody of a battle .
Well, dang, I was kind of going tongue-in-cheek there, but thank you for the well thought out reply.
I will take you up on your suggestion to look at the missile disparity as well as their littoral patrol craft.
Thanks.
Oops, I didn't pick up on the tongue-in-cheek.
Eurodriver
09-06-15, 18:04
Serious question: In an era of nuclear weapons, would an invasion of a nuclear nation be possible?
Would China nuke its own soil to repel invaders, or risk a retaliatory nuclear strike against their cities by nuking ours? At what point does a nation (not necessarily China) reach a point where it uses the "Samson Option"?
Given the above - what is the point of large conventional armies? Certainly fighter aircraft, drones, and bombers can do much more safely, with much less drama, what an on-the-ground invasion force can do.
ETA: Some research has uncovered the following:
China became the first nation to propose and pledge NFU policy when it first gained nuclear capabilities in 1964, stating "not to be the first to use nuclear weapons at any time or under any circumstances". China has repeatedly re-affirmed its no-first-use policy in recent years, doing so in 2005, 2008, 2009 and again in 2011. China has also consistently called on the United States to adopt a no-first-use policy, to reach a NFU agreement bilaterally with China, and to conclude an NFU agreement among the five nuclear weapon states. The United States has repeatedly refused these calls.
This might explain the conventional military build up in China. However, again, how much does "under any circumstances" apply when NATO forces are converging on Beijing and you've had 300,000,000 casualties?
Take a look at Google Earth. Locate Attu Island. They passed West of there. Draw your own conclusions. At no point did they get closer than 1000 miles from the president. The Chinese could legally get closer than that to Washington D.C. by sea.
Take a look at Google Earth. Locate Attu Island. They passed West of there. Draw your own conclusions. At no point did they get closer than 1000 miles from the president. The Chinese could legally get closer than that to Washington D.C. by sea.
I did - Wow!
The PLAN flotilla entered the Bering Sea via international waters via a passage between the Russian Kamchatka peninsula and the American Attu island, a defense official confirmed to USNI News on Thursday.
After operating in the Bering Sea — a first for the PLAN — the group passed east of Attu, through the Aleutians and into the northern Pacific Ocean.
http://news.usni.org/2015/09/03/chinese-warships-made-innocent-passage-through-u-s-territorial-waters-off-alaska
The Aleutian Islands stretch 900 nautical miles westward from the Alaskan Peninsula to the outermost island of Attu, only 650 miles from what was then Japan’s northernmost naval base at Paramushiro in the Kurile Islands.
http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87/usw/issue_18/forgotten.htm
Serious question: In an era of nuclear weapons, would an invasion of a nuclear nation be possible?
Would China nuke its own soil to repel invaders, or risk a retaliatory nuclear strike against their cities by nuking ours? At what point does a nation (not necessarily China) reach a point where it uses the "Samson Option"?
First, I don't see any way anyone could invade China. Look at their forces and look at a map.
Given the above - what is the point of large conventional armies? Certainly fighter aircraft, drones, and bombers can do much more safely, with much less drama, what an on-the-ground invasion force can do.
Please forgive me, I don't want to sound like I am lecturing anyone, especially you, who I am sure has a military background. You need ground forces to take and hold ground or hold and defend ground. Not everything can be accomplished by air strikes.
This might explain the conventional military build up in China.
China has radically modernized their conventional forces over the past decades. Their conventional forces were really out of date.
China also wants to be able to assert their control beyond their immediate area into areas they define as their first and second island chains. They are building a blue water navy and have developed a lot of land based systems, such as mobile land based ballistic anti-ship missiles, modern strike aircraft equipped with advanced anti-ship missiles, etc.
However, again, how much does "under any circumstances" apply when NATO forces are converging on Beijing and you've had 300,000,000 casualties?
Again, please look at NATO forces, where they are located, and what they would have to do to get to Bejing and many would get destroyed in the process of trying to set foot on mainland China. I do not see any way that it could happen.
titsonritz
09-07-15, 01:24
Chinese to the NW and Russians to the SE...what's to worry?
http://www.valuewalk.com/2015/09/pentagon-monitoring-russian-spy-ship-yantar/
I can't see any US decisionmakers signing off for that bloody of a battle .
Yeah, I wonder what's wrong with them.
Tying into what Ed has said....
What would be the strategic endstate? We can't manage our mess of >400 million. There is no way we could even begin to try to manage 1.6 billion Chinese. Then add to it their demographic time bomb, fragile domestic food production, and rather unstable economy, my COA is wait them out.
Look the other than notable exceptions our military is really proficient at powerpoint, gay awareness, NCOERs, and uniform corrections. In my limited studies of military history I've never seen any of those being critical elements in an army that is going to be fighting this theoretical disaster. So many dead drafted hipsters that we'd have a lost generation of men like the French and Brits dealt with after WWI. This fight would even further destabilize the world.
Yes I think we could invade, we could hold ground, that we could really make a generational mess of us and them, then fight an insurgency that would make iraq look like Bolivia. Why?
Numbers don't tell the whole story. This isn't a simple board game where you put your forces on one side, put their forces on the other, and then fight it out. Not all of our troops are combat troops.
For example tanks. We may be listed as having 8,848 tanks, but I doubt we have the trained crews to man 1/3 of that number. The numbers are just inventory. Then we need a means of getting that number across the world and starting and keeping a supply line with food, fuel, ammo, parts, maintenance, and everything that they need. I'm just using the tank number example without factoring in every other supporting arm.
I seriously doubt it. We would be fighting them in their home waters where they have lots of shorter ranged fast patrol craft equipped with some surprisingly modern anti-ship missiles. They might not be good for power projection but they would be hell in home waters. They have DF-21 antiship ballistic missiles and YJ-12 and YJ-18 land, sea and air launched anti-ship missiles. The YJ-12 and YJ-18 are actually more advanced and longer ranged than our decades-old Harpoon antiship missiles. Please look up those missiles.
China has been hard at work on anti-access weapons, strategies, and tactics which would make it impossible for use to fight them in their home waters without suffering heavy losses.
Questionable. I doubt we could get our carriers close enough or keep them there. Even so, we would not have enough carrier born aircraft. China has been procuring and building hundreds of advanced Russian SU-17 variants. Again, it's not a matter of a board game where you put all of our forces on one side and theirs on the other and decide who wins that way. Given modern espionage and satellite technology, there is no way we could get large forces close enough to China to invade.
This isn't even considering the political will in the US. I can't see any US decisionmakers signing off for that bloody of a battle .
Yes, and then consider China's rather robust expansion into the development of "Satellite Killers". A first, or retaliatory, strike against our communication, GPS/navigation and weather satellites would be a hell of a force multiplier.
http://breakingdefense.com/2015/05/pentagon-reports-on-chinas-satellite-killers/
“Perhaps the most worrying part of the report from a US perspective is the section talking about Chinese counterspace capabilities,” said Brian Weeden, the Secure World Foundation‘s technical advisor. “The tough question is what to do, [and] some of the potential options could make the situation worse instead of better.”
The report discusses three apparent tests of Chinese anti-satellite systems (ASAT), not just the well-known two. Everyone knows about China’s 2007 test when it destroyed its own defunct satellite, scattering debris that continues to orbit the planet and threaten space assets of every country. A fair number of people know that in 2014, China conducted what the Pentagon called a “successful” test of the same system, albeit without actually destroying a target, to everyone’s relief.
But very few people know that in May 2013, China launched something else: a mysterious object that nearly reached geosynchronous orbit, the ultra-high altitude where crucial communications satellites hang out. Based on its trajectory, the system couldn’t have been intended to launch satellites or traditional research missions. Instead, the Pentagon report says and Weeden’s own analysis confirms, it could have been an anti-satellite system able to reach altitudes three times higher than the weapon tested in 2007 and 2014.
Sorry for provoking the thread drift.
Ed L. and Fox, thanks for some food for thought. I now know more about Chinese anti-ship ballistic and cruise missiles.
Plus, thanks to AKDoug, I know where Attu is located and have concluded that the Chinese were not steaming off Alaska so our President could motor out and have a clandestine meeting in order to map out their plans for hegemony.
This was an interesting find on the website Funker350.com (http://www.funker530.com/chinas-animated-video-shows-them-dominating-american-military/) that goes to show others have taken notice to some of the events unfolding before us.
The really interesting part is that China has created an animated video that shows them dominating the U.S. by land, air and sea.
http://youtu.be/ULtzgE9mJD8
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.