If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   U.S. Bases in the Pacific vulnerable to a bolt-from-the-blue military attack. This is not a repeat from 71 years ago   (globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com) divider line 142
    More: Scary, U.S. Naval War College, forward operating base, People's Liberation Army, aircraft carriers, P L A, USS George Washington, Imperial Japan, combat operations  
•       •       •

9309 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 Dec 2012 at 12:30 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



142 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-12-07 12:08:24 PM
This just in: Surprise attacks against stationary targets are often successful. The trick is achieving surprise.
 
2012-12-07 12:12:11 PM
God farking dammit get me some defense spending yesterday! Don't want those japs koreans ruskies chinese catching us by suprise...

/ No welfare like red state defense welfare
 
2012-12-07 12:14:41 PM
The People's Liberation Army (PLA) now possesses the means, the motives, and the opportunities to deliver disabling blows against U.S. bases in Japan where the bulk of American military power in Asia is concentrated

Ummm, I hate to break this to the author, but ever since 1964, the Chinese have had these things called "nuclear weapons" that are mounted on things called "ballistic missiles". They can strike almost anywhere in the world, including our bases in the Pacific.

Scary, huh?
 
2012-12-07 12:22:49 PM

Marcus Aurelius: They can strike almost anywhere in the world, including our bases in the Pacific.


blogs.laweekly.com
I know, let's spend a lot of money on some sort of space based thingy to shoot 'em down with! That could work!
 
2012-12-07 12:25:07 PM
WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!!!111!!!!

//FFS, STFU and GBTW
 
2012-12-07 12:34:22 PM
What are selling, Mr. Military-Industrial Complex dude?
 
2012-12-07 12:35:03 PM
1) Why would the Chinese want to take over America? This is the place they keep sending all their toxic waste to in the form of Barbie dolls and cheap electronic shiat that breaks after a week. This place will be uninhabitable in 20 years.

2) The runways at Midway Island have bushes growing out of them, FFS. Someone get some landscapers out there, stat!
 
2012-12-07 12:35:24 PM
The timing of this article is no way related military spending cuts scheduled to begin in three weeks.

It's not welfare when taxpayer largess benefits military contractors!
 
2012-12-07 12:35:54 PM
That's why we pay for a Department of State and a Central Intelligence Agency.

The Department of State keeps up good relationships with as many countries as possible, so they don't want to attack us.
The CIA keeps an eye out to make sure an attack wouldn't be a surprise.
 
2012-12-07 12:36:09 PM
Headline should be:
"This just in: military installations are vulnerable to attacks from which they are not prepared"
and submitted with an obvious tag.

That's why surprise attacks are so devastating. They are a surprise. The alternative is 24/7 alert which is a greater detriment to security over time because it tires people out and if your "on alert" all the time, it makes people think nothing ever happens on alert status. Plus its cost prohibitive.
 
2012-12-07 12:37:24 PM
So we're worried about a surprise non-nuclear attack on our bases/forces and allies in Japan. Yep, there's no way that would be answered with nuclear weapons - nope, none at all.
 
2012-12-07 12:38:23 PM
Yes CNN, I'm sure China is going to start a war with the US.
 
2012-12-07 12:38:35 PM
i2.ytimg.com
12/7/41 -- Never forget
 
2012-12-07 12:38:39 PM
What possible motive would the Chinese have for launching an offensive operation that would probably fail in the long run? Other than maybe taking back Taiwan, they just don't have any desires to gain territory. In fact, their interests are served by keeping our military policing the world----it makes it safer for them to conduct trade, and we foot the bill. If they knock out our military, they'll have to start policing the world's oceans.
 
2012-12-07 12:39:34 PM
Horseshiat. China has no incentive to do it, and in fact has significant disincentive. And they know what the counter-attack would look like, that our reach is muuuuuuch longer than theirs.
 
2012-12-07 12:39:55 PM

zerkalo: What are selling, Mr. Military-Industrial Complex dude?


img405.imageshack.us

Told ya, you farkers.
 
2012-12-07 12:41:30 PM

HMS_Blinkin: In fact, their interests are served by keeping our military policing the world----it makes it safer for them to conduct trade, and we foot the bill.



This. They were perfectly happy to quietly move into Afghanistan to start exploiting the mineral resources while everyone was still focused on the U.S.
 
2012-12-07 12:41:45 PM
Farkers: China, China, China....

Reality:

WHAT ABOUT BEST KOREA?!?!??!?!

/that's no shiat.
 
2012-12-07 12:43:28 PM
Had we the nuclear capabilities of today in 1945, Japan would have never looked eastward for expansion.

I don't think China is that dumb.
 
2012-12-07 12:44:44 PM

HMS_Blinkin: What possible motive would the Chinese have for launching an offensive operation that would probably fail in the long run?


Right now? None.

That doesn't mean they might not have one 5 or 10 years from now.
 
2012-12-07 12:45:05 PM
I say we remove all our bases from Japan and sell them more Aegis boats. WWII was 70 years ago, FFS.
 
2012-12-07 12:46:21 PM
These guys with military think tanks are supposed to come up with all sort of scenarios. They write papers on these things. MIlitary draws up plans and maybe even does wargames based on them. Remember that war plan from earlier last century our government had against a UK/Canada invasion? Whether there is any real chance of these things happening is another story.

When I was in college and Germany was reunifying (I'm old) we had a speaker come in from a think tank institution who just published a paper in one of the foreign policy journals about how an isolated Russia pissed off at a newly unified Germany could start cold war part II and lead to another European land war. Likely scenario?

OTOH, CNN printing this as a newsworthy item is sort of stupid.
 
2012-12-07 12:47:49 PM
upload.wikimedia.org

Billy Mitchell is unavailable for comment...though I wish he were.
 
2012-12-07 12:49:18 PM
Don't try and scare me CNN, I know the military complex is going bananas right now over all the funding it's going to lose at the end of the year.
 
2012-12-07 12:52:07 PM
firstest with the mostest, CNN - you put bases where you need them.
 
2012-12-07 12:53:18 PM

H31N0US: Had we the nuclear capabilities of today in 1945, Japan would have never looked eastward for expansion.

I don't think China is that dumb.


That depends. The PRC has some serious structural, erm, challenges that they are going to have deal with. Things like the majority of their commercial loans being worthless, tens of millions of marriage age men without corresponding women (due to the "One Child" policy and selective abortions). So far, they've been able to keep those problems at bay by growing at double digit rates, but that can't last forever. When their economy crashes, as it must at some point, they are going to have a major problem with internal unrest. When that happens, they may look to an outside enemy to focus the attention of the people away from their empty bellies and empty beds.

That is the scenario
 
2012-12-07 12:53:20 PM
As long as we don't get involved in a land war in Asia.
 
2012-12-07 12:56:02 PM
GUAM IS GOING TO TIP OVER!
/ahhhhhhhhh we're all going to die!
 
2012-12-07 12:56:04 PM

ChipNASA: Farkers: China, China, China....

Reality:

WHAT ABOUT BEST KOREA?!?!??!?!

/that's no shiat.


Best Korea isn't the biggest concern right now. South Korea will have a hardliner nationalist as a president and she (yes, a daughter of a Communist dictator who allied with the USA) will most likely disturb China, Japan, and North Korea simultaneously. Japan will likely have an anti-American ultra-nationalist party in power sooner or later.

We always think that North Korea is a problem in Asia without questioning. I think we need to change our approach.

Besides, North Korea's existence helps selling weapons to Japan and South Korea. The Western world definitely needs to keep North Korea as a valuable secret ally to keep selling weapons.
 
2012-12-07 12:57:36 PM
chrisabraham.com
 
2012-12-07 12:58:38 PM
First consider the means. The Chinese military can now lock their crosshairs on Japan, home to the largest U.S. naval and air bases in the world.

Naval Station Norfolk is the worlds largest naval base.
 
2012-12-07 12:58:53 PM
So, we've established that China has no interest in US territory? Good, we haven't gone insane... yet.

But, I'm surprised I am the first one to mention this. While unlikely, there are plenty of reasons we may end up in a war with China. They decide to take Taiwan. They back North Korea on a conflict with South Korea. They get into a war with Japan over those little islands. They get into a war with the Philippines, Vietnam, etc. over the Spratley Islands.

We have treaties with almost all of the above countries to assist on defense.

If China went to war on the above issues, either its going to go into overtime on diplomacy to keep us out and its counting on us to not back our allies (a good bet) OR they need to consider striking our bases in Asia to stop our response.
 
2012-12-07 01:00:41 PM
Bolt from The Blue?

i62.servimg.com

To be fair, I don't think our shields can repel that level of firepower.
 
2012-12-07 01:03:28 PM
Between our current trade imbalance and the fairly significant debt we owe to China, bombing us or Japan would be a bad investment for them.

We're their best customer and will be for a long time.
 
2012-12-07 01:03:30 PM
It's kind of hard to mount a sneak attack against someone that has radar and satellite surveillance.

Also, am I missing something, or does the Chinese "stealth" just seem to not actually have any actual stealth features? It generally apes the shape of the F-22/F-35, but it seems like it is missing a lot of the details that actually make a plane low observable.

img.news.sina.com

For example, the cockpit has a frame that is flat in the front, while the F-22 and F-35 both have canopy frame that are faceted where they meet the body of the jet to reduce radar returns. 

sitelife.aviationweek.com

You also have those big round engine nozzles, instead of the F-22 style nozzles. From everything I've read about the subject, attention to those small details matters almost as much in determining what the RCS is going to be of a stealth aircraft than the final shape of the aircraft. There is also advanced materials like carbon fiber and radar absorbing paint that also factors into the equation, so I have a gut feeling that the J-31 actually has a pretty large RCS compared to the American stealths. It honestly might not even be that lower than a traditional aircraft, and if I had to guess I'd think that it would be somewhere in the neighborhood of an F-15 Silent Eagle or an F-18 Super Hornet, which adds some stealthy features on to a traditional airframe.
 
2012-12-07 01:05:46 PM
Oh No! Quick, take even more of my money, military-industrial complex! We only spend more than the next ten nations put together! The poor, the sick, the uneducated? Fark 'em! Our crumbling infrastructure and potholed roads and failing schools? Fark 'em! Give me yet more military spending NOW!
 
2012-12-07 01:09:51 PM
Where the hell is the Obvious tag or is Subby just a fraidy-pants? US military installations vulnerable to attack by cruise and ballistic missiles? Well this has certainly never been a possibility, has it. CNN is almost as pathetic as Faux.
 
2012-12-07 01:18:57 PM
We have to close the cartoon dog gap!

vinylmationkingdom.com

25.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-12-07 01:19:08 PM
www.enchantedlearning.com + www.enchantedlearning.com + 1.bp.blogspot.com

VS

www.mapsofworld.com + www.enchantedlearning.com + flagspot.net

Who ya got?
 
2012-12-07 01:24:49 PM

generallyso: Yes CNN, I'm sure China is going to start a war with the US.



Trading partners have never made war on each other, never in history. Right? Only like, usually. Kissinger and Nixon though we could kiss the Chicom ass, give them Haber-Bosch instead of letting them starve and that they would appreciate us for it. Fat farking chance.

The Chicom already believes they are at war with the West. They openly refer to the trade relationship with the US as an Economic War.

The Chicom is building offensive weapons at a fantastic rate.

The Chicom needs oil. Needs it badly.

The Han Chicom believes himself to be the racial and cultural superior of everyone else on the planet and that it is his destiny to bring forced abortion and political re-education camps to every corner of the globe.
 
2012-12-07 01:26:28 PM
Just the military industrial complex looking to fill their "supplies" closet.
The only boogie man is poverty.
 
2012-12-07 01:28:17 PM
This time, China - armed with a large and growing arsenal of ballistic and cruise missiles - is poised to reprise Pearl Harbor. The People's Liberation Army (PLA) now possesses the means, the motives, and the opportunities to deliver disabling blows against U.S. bases in Japan where the bulk of American military power in Asia is concentrated.

>motives

What motives? Really, what motives? What possible non-crazy motive would China have to attack us or our allies in Asia and the Pacific?

This doesn't even pass the belly laugh test.

This is about money. This is about the money that Romney promised the military, but since he didn't win the elecion, these propaganda pieces come out to "force" Obama to spend more in Asia. This is truly what Ike warned about.
 
2012-12-07 01:30:30 PM
TFA: Toshi Yoshihara
 
2012-12-07 01:30:35 PM

Apik0r0s: The Han Chicom believes himself to be the racial and cultural superior of everyone else on the planet and that it is his destiny to bring forced abortion and political re-education camps to every corner of the globe.


Meth is a hell of a drug.
 
2012-12-07 01:31:45 PM
This won't be a problem if we simply double our defense spending, which will be paid for easily if we keep the Bush tax cuts in place and remove the unbearable burden of corporate taxes on our defense industry.
 
2012-12-07 01:32:05 PM
These people owe royalties to Tom Clancy.
 
2012-12-07 01:33:29 PM

Apik0r0s: The Han Chicom believes himself to be the racial and cultural superior of everyone else on the planet and that it is his destiny to bring forced abortion and political re-education camps to every corner of the globe.


Poe's law just kicked me in the face.
 
2012-12-07 01:34:07 PM

dittybopper: H31N0US: Had we the nuclear capabilities of today in 1945, Japan would have never looked eastward for expansion.

I don't think China is that dumb.

That depends. The PRC has some serious structural, erm, challenges that they are going to have deal with. Things like the majority of their commercial loans being worthless, tens of millions of marriage age men without corresponding women (due to the "One Child" policy and selective abortions). So far, they've been able to keep those problems at bay by growing at double digit rates, but that can't last forever. When their economy crashes, as it must at some point, they are going to have a major problem with internal unrest. When that happens, they may look to an outside enemy to focus the attention of the people away from their empty bellies and empty beds.

That is the scenario


Perhaps, but I don't think China would go for the US, at least not right away.

At least initially they'd focus on other countries in Southeast Asia that lack strong ties to the West. We'd protest, but as long as they stayed away from countries like Japan or the Philippians we'd probably look the other way. They would want easy victories for propaganda purposes, not a conflict with a superpower where the chances of them coming out ahead long-term are just about zero.

While it's unlikely the US could straight-up conquer China, partially because of it's huge land area and population and partially because we are perhaps the worst imperialists in the history of the planet (which is probably a good thing for the most part), all we'd have to do is turn back their offensives to declare victory.
 
2012-12-07 01:35:49 PM

Apik0r0s: generallyso: Yes CNN, I'm sure China is going to start a war with the US.


Trading partners have never made war on each other, never in history. Right? Only like, usually. Kissinger and Nixon though we could kiss the Chicom ass, give them Haber-Bosch instead of letting them starve and that they would appreciate us for it. Fat farking chance.

The Chicom already believes they are at war with the West. They openly refer to the trade relationship with the US as an Economic War.

The Chicom is building offensive weapons at a fantastic rate.

The Chicom needs oil. Needs it badly.

The Han Chicom believes himself to be the racial and cultural superior of everyone else on the planet and that it is his destiny to bring forced abortion and political re-education camps to every corner of the globe.



Shouldn't they be called Chicaps now? Yes, they are totalitarian in their government, but it's hard to call them Communist now when they are pretty much a free-market capitalist's paradise when it comes to providing cheap labor with few worker protections and no unions. It's basically a Randian wet dream over there run by their country's 1%, and the Party is nothing more than an old boy's club of the country's elite.
 
2012-12-07 01:36:43 PM
6/21/1942

Never Forget!
 
 
2012-12-07 01:38:03 PM
"The Han Chicoms" would be a great name for a Chinese boy band.
 
2012-12-07 01:38:05 PM

Nick Nostril:

2) The runways at Midway Island have bushes growing out of them, FFS. Someone get some landscapers out there, stat!


They still have one active runway at Midway, every once in a while a commercial airliner has to land for some mechanical issue. Now all of the albatrosses nesting on the field are a whole other issue, but that's why Midway was turned over to Fish and Wildlife by the Navy back in the '90s.

Wake OTOH, has an active 3000m runway that the AF Navy and Marines will still use when they're moving planes from one place to the other. Somehow I doubt they'd hold off an invasion force for 2 weeks like they did back in WWII though.

/Have been to Wake, have worked with the Midway folks
 
2012-12-07 01:40:21 PM

Mad_Radhu: It's kind of hard to mount a sneak attack against someone that has radar...


img845.imageshack.us 
 
2012-12-07 01:44:25 PM

bubo_sibiricus: What motives? Really, what motives? What possible non-crazy motive would China have to attack us or our allies in Asia and the Pacific?


Same motive Japan had.

Oil.

But, then again, it's not like any nation has started a war over oil in recent history, right? What set us off on Iraq was not Bush Jr. trying to please his daddy or the neo-cons being confused about who attacked us on 9/11 - it was a response to the UN giving the greenlight to Iraq to cut oil contracts with France and China.

The way we keep the Chicom hive mind at bay is by controlling the oil. They are looking for a way out of that situation. They are building offensive force projection systems and getting quite bellicose with their neighbors over the island chains that hold oil.

There will be war.
 
2012-12-07 01:44:26 PM
How did it work out for the Germans when they bombed Pearl Harbor?
 
2012-12-07 01:46:03 PM

H31N0US: Had we the nuclear capabilities of today in 1945, Japan would have never looked eastward for expansion.

I don't think China is that dumb.


They arent. Besides, why attack the people who are paying you so much in interest? Never mind the fact that we outgun them in every aspect, including nuclear. They are far better of bleeding us dry cash and trade wise.



Mad_Radhu: It's kind of hard to mount a sneak attack against someone that has radar and satellite surveillance.

Also, am I missing something, or does the Chinese "stealth" just seem to not actually have any actual stealth features? It generally apes the shape of the F-22/F-35, but it seems like it is missing a lot of the details that actually make a plane low observable.

[img.news.sina.com image 550x367]

For example, the cockpit has a frame that is flat in the front, while the F-22 and F-35 both have canopy frame that are faceted where they meet the body of the jet to reduce radar returns. 

[sitelife.aviationweek.com image 440x330]

You also have those big round engine nozzles, instead of the F-22 style nozzles. From everything I've read about the subject, attention to those small details matters almost as much in determining what the RCS is going to be of a stealth aircraft than the final shape of the aircraft. There is also advanced materials like carbon fiber and radar absorbing paint that also factors into the equation, so I have a gut feeling that the J-31 actually has a pretty large RCS compared to the American stealths. It honestly might not even be that lower than a traditional aircraft, and if I had to guess I'd think that it would be somewhere in the neighborhood of an F-15 Silent Eagle or an F-18 Super Hornet, which adds some stealthy features on to a traditional airframe.


yup, pretty much spot on. Not a shabby plane in any way, but not nearly the equal of the one it copies.
 
2012-12-07 01:46:49 PM

Diogenes Teufelsdrockh: Mad_Radhu: It's kind of hard to mount a sneak attack against someone that has radar...

[img845.imageshack.us image 320x258]


LOL

Well, has radar and is trained to use it. And knows to tell someone. And that someone they told knows what the hell it means.
 
2012-12-07 01:49:24 PM

Mad_Radhu: It's kind of hard to mount a sneak attack against someone that has radar and satellite surveillance.


Hard, but not impossible. I can think of some options. Sub launched cruise missile attack to soften up defenses, followed by an invasion with troops and equipment concealed on a container ship (nobody would think twice about a container ship coming from China!). Take the airport by a commercial flight filled with special operations troops at roughly the same time as the missile attack. Maybe land some troops via submarine at strategic points. You might even infiltrate the population gradually, if you were patient enough.

The PRC is nothing if not patient, btw. They set up a translation service in Hawaii, using American citizens of Chinese descent, and waited until they could bid upon and receive contracts to translate PRC radio signals that the US intercepted. This is a big deal, because the among the best intelligence you can get is signals intelligence. As I recall, it took 10 years from the time they set up the company to when it was awarded contracts.
 
2012-12-07 01:49:30 PM

Sultan Of Herf: H31N0US: Had we the nuclear capabilities of today in 1945, Japan would have never looked eastward for expansion.

I don't think China is that dumb.

They arent. Besides, why attack the people who are paying you so much in interest? Never mind the fact that we outgun them in every aspect, including nuclear. They are far better of bleeding us dry cash and trade wise.



Because they understand the end-game. Which is where we use their dependency upon oil that we control to put the screws to them. No nation lives in another's shadow for any longer than they have to.
 
2012-12-07 01:51:32 PM

dittybopper: H31N0US: Had we the nuclear capabilities of today in 1945, Japan would have never looked eastward for expansion.

I don't think China is that dumb.

That depends. The PRC has some serious structural, erm, challenges that they are going to have deal with. Things like the majority of their commercial loans being worthless, tens of millions of marriage age men without corresponding women (due to the "One Child" policy and selective abortions). So far, they've been able to keep those problems at bay by growing at double digit rates, but that can't last forever. When their economy crashes, as it must at some point, they are going to have a major problem with internal unrest. When that happens, they may look to an outside enemy to focus the attention of the people away from their empty bellies and empty beds.

That is the scenario


If only there were a quick solution to having too many men. One that has been used throughout history. If only...
 
2012-12-07 01:52:04 PM

SweetHomeNowhere: ChipNASA: Farkers: China, China, China....

Reality:

WHAT ABOUT BEST KOREA?!?!??!?!

/that's no shiat.

Best Korea isn't the biggest concern right now. South Korea will have a hardliner nationalist as a president and she (yes, a daughter of a Communist dictator who allied with the USA) will most likely disturb China, Japan, and North Korea simultaneously. Japan will likely have an anti-American ultra-nationalist party in power sooner or later.

We always think that North Korea is a problem in Asia without questioning. I think we need to change our approach.

Besides, North Korea's existence helps selling weapons to Japan and South Korea. The Western world definitely needs to keep North Korea as a valuable secret ally to keep selling weapons.



Park Chung-hee was a right-wing authoritarian/fascist.
 
2012-12-07 01:52:47 PM

sid244: [www.enchantedlearning.com image 244x160] + [www.enchantedlearning.com image 443x288] + [1.bp.blogspot.com image 400x226]

VS

[www.mapsofworld.com image 390x265] + [www.enchantedlearning.com image 432x300] + [flagspot.net image 420x221]

Who ya got?


It's more like China vs. Vietnam, the Phillipines, India, and Japan.

The United States? Well, we just sit in the corner and watch for a while, get good and worked up, then jump in at the end to spray all over everything.
 
2012-12-07 01:55:39 PM

Apik0r0s: Same motive Japan had.

Oil.


Good god, you're a moron.

The American oil embargo caused a crisis in Japan. Reliant on the US for 80% of its oil, the Japanese were forced to decide between withdrawaling from China, negotiating an end to the conflict, or going to war to obtain the needed resources elsewhere.

We do not have a farking embargo against China like we had against Japan. It's not even a remote possibility.

I was going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you were just trolling, but you truly believe your bullshiat. It's not even entertaining.

And with that, say goodbye.  Plonk.
 
2012-12-07 01:57:21 PM

dittybopper: Hard, but not impossible. I can think of some options. Sub launched cruise missile attack to soften up defenses, followed by an invasion with troops and equipment concealed on a container ship (nobody would think twice about a container ship coming from China!). Take the airport by a commercial flight filled with special operations troops at roughly the same time as the missile attack. Maybe land some troops via submarine at strategic points. You might even infiltrate the population gradually, if you were patient enough.


I don't think launching an invasion cross hundreds or thousands of miles of ocean via the modern equivalent of the trojan horse is going to work particularly well, and modern giant cargo ships make particularly poor amphibious landing vessels. The real problem, though, is logistics. Both land and air transports are big and slow, and you can't run a modern military living off the land.
 
2012-12-07 01:58:46 PM

Apik0r0s: If only there were a quick solution to having too many men. One that has been used throughout history. If only...


pic2.qguide.com
 
2012-12-07 01:58:50 PM

Non-evil Monkey: Perhaps, but I don't think China would go for the US, at least not right away.


Oh, no, they'd avoid direct conflict with us. At least until we boycotted their products. We're their single biggest customer.
 
2012-12-07 01:59:10 PM

bubo_sibiricus: Apik0r0s: Same motive Japan had.

Oil.

Good god, you're a moron.

The American oil embargo caused a crisis in Japan. Reliant on the US for 80% of its oil, the Japanese were forced to decide between withdrawaling from China, negotiating an end to the conflict, or going to war to obtain the needed resources elsewhere.

We do not have a farking embargo against China like we had against Japan. It's not even a remote possibility.

I was going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you were just trolling, but you truly believe your bullshiat. It's not even entertaining.

And with that, say goodbye.  Plonk.



There was no embargo against Japan in July of 1941.
 
2012-12-07 01:59:28 PM

Apik0r0s: If only there were a quick solution to having too many men. One that has been used throughout history. If only...


*THAT* is what scares me.
 
2012-12-07 02:04:00 PM

The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: How did it work out for the Germans when they bombed Pearl Harbor?


The's get the reference right...

Bluto: Hey! What's all this laying around stuff? Why are you all still laying around here for?
Stork: What the hell are we supposed to do, ya moron? We're all expelled. There's nothing to fight for anymore.
D-Day: [to Bluto] Let it go. War's over, man. Wormer dropped the big one.
Bluto: What? Over? Did you say "over"? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!
Otter: [to Boon] Germans?
Boon: Forget it, he's rolling.
 
2012-12-07 02:05:17 PM

Diogenes Teufelsdrockh: Mad_Radhu: It's kind of hard to mount a sneak attack against someone that has radar...

[img845.imageshack.us image 320x258]


C'ome on Lou turn that thing off and lets grab some grub, no one will know.
 
2012-12-07 02:09:33 PM

wxboy: This just in: Surprise attacks against stationary targets are often successful. The trick is achieving surprise.


The real trick is withstanding the retaliation.
 
2012-12-07 02:12:44 PM
According to Jessie Jackson:

Barak Obama should be proud to be the "Defense Spending President". Defense Spending, feed the chidren. Defense Spending, create jobs. Defense Spending, keep the family safe. Defense Spending, create new technologies.
 
2012-12-07 02:13:18 PM
There was no embargo against Japan in July of 1941.

That's precisely when it started.
 
2012-12-07 02:15:47 PM

you have pee hands: dittybopper: Hard, but not impossible. I can think of some options. Sub launched cruise missile attack to soften up defenses, followed by an invasion with troops and equipment concealed on a container ship (nobody would think twice about a container ship coming from China!). Take the airport by a commercial flight filled with special operations troops at roughly the same time as the missile attack. Maybe land some troops via submarine at strategic points. You might even infiltrate the population gradually, if you were patient enough.

I don't think launching an invasion cross hundreds or thousands of miles of ocean via the modern equivalent of the trojan horse is going to work particularly well, and modern giant cargo ships make particularly poor amphibious landing vessels. The real problem, though, is logistics. Both land and air transports are big and slow, and you can't run a modern military living off the land.


All you have to do is get there. Once you've got control of relatively small areas (the airport, the dock facilities), you can bring in a lot more stuff, and you can do it relatively quickly by air, and by sea for the heavier stuff.

Also, you can pre-position a lot of supplies on ships. Like I said, no one would think twice about seeing a container ship from China. Or two. Or three. The stuff doesn't have to be in containers, btw: You can build a false structure that looks like containers, but contains things like helicopters.

Not easy, but not impossible.
 
2012-12-07 02:17:05 PM

Diogenes Teufelsdrockh: Mad_Radhu: It's kind of hard to mount a sneak attack against someone that has radar...

[img845.imageshack.us image 320x258]


We are slight better at interpreting radar signals now than we were in 1941.
 
2012-12-07 02:18:18 PM

maudibjr: First consider the means. The Chinese military can now lock their crosshairs on Japan, home to the largest U.S. naval and air bases in the world.

Naval Station Norfolk is the worlds largest naval base.


That's what I thought.
W00t! W00t! Represent!
 
2012-12-07 02:22:18 PM

signaljammer: There was no embargo against Japan in July of 1941.

That's precisely when it started.


I thought it was August. My point was that while we may not have an embargo against China right now, it could happen quickly, just as quickly as the war that would follow. I can see us ending up at odds with China when they start bullying their way onto others islands in the region and there being embargoes, blockades or other sanctions.
 
2012-12-07 02:25:27 PM
China was probably out of ideas until they read this article.

Nice job CNN.

2.bp.blogspot.com

Way to ruin peace in the world.
 
2012-12-07 02:30:24 PM

dittybopper: All you have to do is get there. Once you've got control of relatively small areas (the airport, the dock facilities), you can bring in a lot more stuff, and you can do it relatively quickly by air, and by sea for the heavier stuff.


You also need to control a means of access to said airport and dock facilities. I think resupply by sea is totally out of the question. Sweeping the entire shipping route of nuclear submarines would be next to impossible and cargo ships would be pretty vulnerable to long ranged anti-ship missiles as well. (FWIW, I don't think the US could do it either - the subs are too quiet, dive too deep, and move too fast. There just hasn't been a hot war between powers with submarines since they were all diesel/electric). At least air transports don't require weeks to cross the ocean but they're still subsonic and tremendously vulnerable to SAMs and AAMs. You might be able to get land some troops and equipment on those initial cargo ships, but unless they can immediately turn that into total regional naval and air superiority it'd be a suicide mission.
 
2012-12-07 02:30:45 PM
Sorry, CNN. America is not vulnerable to attack from someone we owe two trillion dollars to. That is 20 times their annual defense budget.
 
2012-12-07 02:31:47 PM

signaljammer: There was no embargo against Japan in July of 1941.

That's precisely when it started.


Well that and all our aid to the KMT, who Japan was at war with. We'd been supporting Chiang Kai-shek to varying degrees for a long time. Declaring war on us, France and the UK in theory gave Japan a chance to cut off Chinese supplies (American shipping, the Burma Road, and French Indochina).
 
2012-12-07 02:33:00 PM

Mad_Radhu: It's basically a Randian wet dream over there


LOL
 
2012-12-07 02:34:52 PM

angryjd: Sorry, CNN. America is not vulnerable to attack from someone we owe two trillion dollars to. That is 20 times their annual defense budget.


If I owed 2 trillion to somebody, that would be the ONLY person I feared attack from.
 
2012-12-07 02:37:18 PM

dittybopper: you have pee hands: dittybopper: Hard, but not impossible. I can think of some options. Sub launched cruise missile attack to soften up defenses, followed by an invasion with troops and equipment concealed on a container ship (nobody would think twice about a container ship coming from China!). Take the airport by a commercial flight filled with special operations troops at roughly the same time as the missile attack. Maybe land some troops via submarine at strategic points. You might even infiltrate the population gradually, if you were patient enough.

I don't think launching an invasion cross hundreds or thousands of miles of ocean via the modern equivalent of the trojan horse is going to work particularly well, and modern giant cargo ships make particularly poor amphibious landing vessels. The real problem, though, is logistics. Both land and air transports are big and slow, and you can't run a modern military living off the land.

All you have to do is get there. Once you've got control of relatively small areas (the airport, the dock facilities), you can bring in a lot more stuff, and you can do it relatively quickly by air, and by sea for the heavier stuff.

Also, you can pre-position a lot of supplies on ships. Like I said, no one would think twice about seeing a container ship from China. Or two. Or three. The stuff doesn't have to be in containers, btw: You can build a false structure that looks like containers, but contains things like helicopters.

Not easy, but not impossible.


Except of course that a big ship, loaded to the gunnels, and having no manifest is going to raise alarm bells. Between our Navy and the UN, there are a lot of eyeballs looking at shipping as it is to ensure materials don't get to North Korea or Iran. And the airliner scenario is also a no-go. Every plane that lands or takes off needs a flight plan. Suddenly doubling the number of incoming flights is going to raise alarm bells. Having a plan inbound with no flight plan is going to raise a fighter interceptor.
 
2012-12-07 02:42:43 PM

Apik0r0s: Same motive Japan had.

Oil.


Why the fark would they attack the US for oil? Makes more sense to attack Russia. They're weaker than the US, they're right next door, and they have plenty of oil. Hell, attacking Canada for oil makes far more sense than attacking the US.
 
2012-12-07 02:43:43 PM
I thought all they had to do was knock out the satellites with an EMPa nd we were farked.

/or was it shine a laser pointer at our combat jets?
 
2012-12-07 02:48:30 PM
China's probably the least suicidal nation/state on the planet. Go to war with the US? Yeah sure... mire yourself in a bloody war with SKYNET while India eats your lunch. Preposterous.

Some of you need better War Porn.

/I know. U B Trollin'.
 
2012-12-07 02:49:25 PM

funmonger: Apik0r0s: Same motive Japan had.

Oil.

Why the fark would they attack the US for oil? Makes more sense to attack Russia. They're weaker than the US, they're right next door, and they have plenty of oil. Hell, attacking Canada for oil makes far more sense than attacking the US.


They would need to get our fleets out of the way so that they could take over the small island chains like the Spratlys. They can at least make (ridiculous) claims to the island chains, it would be a lot harder to justify taking a chunk of Russia.
 
2012-12-07 02:51:00 PM
They need to attack the US to attack Russia? Now I know you're trolling.
 
2012-12-07 02:54:30 PM
Face it: This fantasy-league war-with-the-ChiComs is something even Hollywood thinks is farfetched. It will simply never happen. Tom Clancy had to go all Harry Turtledove to make it semi plausible in his books. A US Civil War II is far, FAR more likely.
 
2012-12-07 02:54:34 PM

Evil Twin Skippy: Except of course that a big ship, loaded to the gunnels, and having no manifest is going to raise alarm bells. Between our Navy and the UN, there are a lot of eyeballs looking at shipping as it is to ensure materials don't get to North Korea or Iran. And the airliner scenario is also a no-go. Every plane that lands or takes off needs a flight plan. Suddenly doubling the number of incoming flights is going to raise alarm bells. Having a plan inbound with no flight plan is going to raise a fighter interceptor.


So you think they'd go to all that trouble and not be able to fake some manifests? Or manage to delay a few airline flights due to "mechanical difficulties" on the ground and send ones packed with troops and supplies instead? They don't even have to be originally heading in the direction of the objective: They can fly a different way and when out over the middle of the ocean where there is no radar coverage dogleg towards the objective.

Did you read the link I posted above where the People's Republic of China established a translation company in Hawaii with the specific purpose of penetrating US signals intelligence? I've worked in SIGINT. I know how tightly that kind of thing is held. And they managed to do it. Faking some manifests, and holding a few planes on the ground so there isn't a huge increase in air traffic would be child's play.
 
2012-12-07 02:55:43 PM

funmonger: They need to attack the US to attack Russia? Now I know you're trolling.


Not at ALL what I said. Read it again. Attacking Russia would be monumentally stupid of China, there's some ugly history there that doesn't need to be re-visited.

China's bellicosity of late has ALL been centered on one issue: the small chains of oil laden islands in the oceans around China. Whose Navy would stand in the way of their taking these islands over?

Not Russia's.
 
2012-12-07 03:00:14 PM

Apik0r0s: Not at ALL what I said. Read it again. Attacking Russia would be monumentally stupid of China, there's some ugly history there that doesn't need to be re-visited.


As opposed to the uglier history of China fighting the US. Oh, sorry... the UN.

Your theory still doesn't make sense, no matter how many times I read it. You said China needs Oil... so, um, how will grabbing the Spratlys give them that Oil?

Attacking Russia makes the most sense if China needs oil so badly that it's willing to fight for it. Attacking the US is suicide and you know it.
 
2012-12-07 03:02:12 PM
Timely. Just watching the movie "Air Force" now. Good movie.
 
2012-12-07 03:03:01 PM
I mean, I know there's oil there... but attacking the US for it will not give them anything but a napalm headache, or worse. Russia has more. The Russian army now sucks, and they fight the same way, using cold-war doctrine. It's Go Russia or Go Home.
 
2012-12-07 03:09:08 PM

funmonger: Apik0r0s: Not at ALL what I said. Read it again. Attacking Russia would be monumentally stupid of China, there's some ugly history there that doesn't need to be re-visited.

As opposed to the uglier history of China fighting the US. Oh, sorry... the UN.

Your theory still doesn't make sense, no matter how many times I read it. You said China needs Oil... so, um, how will grabbing the Spratlys give them that Oil?

Attacking Russia makes the most sense if China needs oil so badly that it's willing to fight for it. Attacking the US is suicide and you know it.


The better question is why attack anyone to get oil in this day and age? In the 1930s and 40s it made some sense as the international trade in energy hadn't really begun in earnest, so you needed to control the source itself. Now it would seem easier and cheaper to just buy energy on the open market.
 
2012-12-07 03:12:51 PM
There was a time when prosperity could be achieved via military conquest. That time has passed.

China and the US are never going to go to war because our economies are so intertwined, that it would be a Great Depression-level disaster for both. The same could be said for nearly any developed economies in the world.

And yes, this is a good thing.
 
2012-12-07 03:15:01 PM

Moopy Mac: The better question is why attack anyone to get oil in this day and age? In the 1930s and 40s it made some sense as the international trade in energy hadn't really begun in earnest, so you needed to control the source itself. Now it would seem easier and cheaper to just buy energy on the open market.


Very True.

China stands to benefit from recent trade deals with Canada, now a major source of oil. They make all our cheap shiat. We need something to sell back to them, after all.

There will be no war with China. Those days of Titanomachia are over.
 
2012-12-07 03:20:04 PM
I think eventually we're bound to collapse under our own bureaucratic weight if we don't tighten up on our policies and budget. Less of an implosion like Russia, more of a slow sunset like the British. All of our might slowly rusting away will leave us vulnerable... eventually.

To that end, the real question is if China's expansion will happen at a slow enough pace to allow them an outlasting strategy. China is normally a patient nation, but they simply need too many resources to keep pace with our greed.
They'll eventually have to lash out at someone, but I doubt its the US that will be their target.

/I'd be more worried if I was India, Pakistan, Vietnam (etc) or any island nation in the pacific.
/Possibly even Russia, who's had a bad habit of signing pacts with back stabbing neighbors.
/The Americans relationship to China is more of a suicide pact.
 
2012-12-07 03:26:53 PM
You never know who we're going to pay to attack us.
 
xcv
2012-12-07 03:35:27 PM

funmonger: Apik0r0s: Not at ALL what I said. Read it again. Attacking Russia would be monumentally stupid of China, there's some ugly history there that doesn't need to be re-visited.

As opposed to the uglier history of China fighting the US. Oh, sorry... the UN.

Your theory still doesn't make sense, no matter how many times I read it. You said China needs Oil... so, um, how will grabbing the Spratlys give them that Oil?

Attacking Russia makes the most sense if China needs oil so badly that it's willing to fight for it. Attacking the US is suicide and you know it.


They don't need to attack Russia. They're already colonizing Siberia according to Moscow; Chinese are moving in large numbers across the border and dominating the economic sector.

'One feature of the Russian-Chinese relationship seemed especially telling: Cross-border marriages are overwhelmingly between Chinese men and Russian women. Much of this has to do with demographics-Russia has a surplus of women, while China has too many men. But as one Russian woman told me, "Chinese men are kinder and more attentive to their wives. And they usually have more money."'

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/dispatches/features/ 20 09/where_russia_meets_china/why_are_siberian_russians_drawn_to_china.h tml
 
2012-12-07 03:38:53 PM

Moopy Mac: funmonger: Apik0r0s: Not at ALL what I said. Read it again. Attacking Russia would be monumentally stupid of China, there's some ugly history there that doesn't need to be re-visited.

As opposed to the uglier history of China fighting the US. Oh, sorry... the UN.

Your theory still doesn't make sense, no matter how many times I read it. You said China needs Oil... so, um, how will grabbing the Spratlys give them that Oil?

Attacking Russia makes the most sense if China needs oil so badly that it's willing to fight for it. Attacking the US is suicide and you know it.

The better question is why attack anyone to get oil in this day and age? In the 1930s and 40s it made some sense as the international trade in energy hadn't really begun in earnest, so you needed to control the source itself. Now it would seem easier and cheaper to just buy energy on the open market.


The international energy trade began in earnest in the late 19th century. The big corporations freely traded around the world much like they do now, the only thing different is the profit split between production companies and host nations. In the example of Japan, which had no production, they required American oil companies to maintain a 6 month inventory of supplies in order to be allowed to trade in the country, such supplies supplementing the emergency oil they purchased during the leadup to the embargo. Western companies, while they didn't like it, were too worried that their competitors would gain the market share and were thus willing to invest in the inventory.

funmonger: Apik0r0s: Same motive Japan had.

Oil.

Why the fark would they attack the US for oil? Makes more sense to attack Russia. They're weaker than the US, they're right next door, and they have plenty of oil. Hell, attacking Canada for oil makes far more sense than attacking the US.


I take it you don't know where most Russian oil is? The early cold war pissing match over Iran in 1946 was precisely about buffer zones for Russia's oil holdings, and an attempt to get at the British holdings in Iran. To my knowledge, they haven't found much oil at all near the border with China.

And, the Chinese don't need to attack us for our oil, that would be silly. They simply need to do the same thing the Japanese did, attempt to take the oil rich islands of south east asia and hope they can wield them to the Chinese economy in the face of American naval opposition. The Japanese tried and failed, mainly because they had a similar sense of racial superiority as the modern Chinese, and felt that the United States was too soft to spend the blood and treasure we needed to dislodge them from their new empire. I'm personally on the fence whether or not the Chinese will make a similar gamble, but to say that they won't ignores the historical precedent of a power much weaker than they are today who tried that same thing.

Or, they could just be smart about it and negotiate for some oil concessions of their own. Surely they could use some of those massive foreign currency reserves to bribe some third world dictators like the western multinationals have done.

ha-ha-guy: signaljammer: There was no embargo against Japan in July of 1941.

That's precisely when it started.

Well that and all our aid to the KMT, who Japan was at war with. We'd been supporting Chiang Kai-shek to varying degrees for a long time. Declaring war on us, France and the UK in theory gave Japan a chance to cut off Chinese supplies (American shipping, the Burma Road, and French Indochina).


That was one of the conditions of the Japanese ultimatum that Cordell Hull rejected in November. One, they wanted us to sell them oil again, and two, they wanted us to stop giving aid to the Guomindang. Hull wasn't taking that shiat, and FDR welcomed the opening of the back door that he discussed with Churchill.
 
2012-12-07 03:39:57 PM

xcv: But as one Russian woman told me, "Chinese men are kinder and more attentive to their wives. And they usually have more money."'


Given the Confucian values of many Chinese men and how that impacts their treatment of women, I am forced to conclude that Russians are absolutely atrocious husbands.
 
2012-12-07 03:41:21 PM

udhq: There was a time when prosperity could be achieved via military conquest. That time has passed.

China and the US are never going to go to war because our economies are so intertwined, that it would be a Great Depression-level disaster for both. The same could be said for nearly any developed economies in the world.

And yes, this is a good thing.



Brought to you by the same naiveté that brought you The War To End All Wars.
 
2012-12-07 03:51:00 PM

udhq: There was a time when prosperity could be achieved via military conquest. That time has passed.

China and the US are never going to go to war because our economies are so intertwined, that it would be a Great Depression-level disaster for both. The same could be said for nearly any developed economies in the world.

And yes, this is a good thing.


We all know that the economies of Europe have never been intertwined, Oh, sure, they sold and bought things from each other all the time but that does not mean that they were intertwined. They were co-dependent economically, but that is all.

Japan very much depended on the USA, the British and the Dutch to keep their country running. At some point, the Japanese decided that it was more important to take over than to purchase.

Not now, but at some point it could become very likely that China would feel the same way.
 
2012-12-07 03:58:27 PM

Moopy Mac: The better question is why attack anyone to get oil in this day and age? In the 1930s and 40s it made some sense as the international trade in energy hadn't really begun in earnest, so you needed to control the source itself. Now it would seem easier and cheaper to just buy energy on the open market.



Except that the open market is only open to you until closed by this:

upload.wikimedia.org

Which is exactly what happened to China and France under Little Bush. America's long term security centers on the control of fossil fuels.
 
2012-12-07 04:11:44 PM

xcv: 'One feature of the Russian-Chinese relationship seemed especially telling: Cross-border marriages are overwhelmingly between Chinese men and Russian women. Much of this has to do with demographics-Russia has a surplus of women, while China has too many men. But as one Russian woman told me, "Chinese men are kinder and more attentive to their wives. And they usually have more money."'


Now THAT's a strategy.
 
2012-12-07 04:17:09 PM
Everyone saying "China would never attack us", please recall that China is a) run by people, and, b) people do stupid stuff.

Also, we're talking about a nation that, in my lifetime, chucked it's OWN people into concentration camps.

Rationality is all well and good, but it's not always in the driver's seat...
 
2012-12-07 04:17:42 PM

funmonger: Apik0r0s: Same motive Japan had.

Oil.

Why the fark would they attack the US for oil? Makes more sense to attack Russia. They're weaker than the US, they're right next door, and they have plenty of oil. Hell, attacking Canada for oil makes far more sense than attacking the US.


I remember playing that game a few years ago:

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-12-07 04:23:43 PM

SquiggsIN: I don't see anything in the next century changing enough that China would even consider wanting to take on the NATO alliance. No, not happening.



The math wasn't there for Japan either. Germany wasn't ready at the outbreak of WWI and they knew it. Weird shiat happens, the USA once went to war over a pig and a potato.

I don't see a sneak attack scenario in this. More a slow burn centered around these islands.

With enough anti-ship capability China could easily make it too costly for us to get involved.
 
2012-12-07 04:25:47 PM

Syphilis_Smile: I take it you don't know where most Russian oil is? The early cold war pissing match over Iran in 1946 was precisely about buffer zones for Russia's oil holdings, and an attempt to get at the British holdings in Iran. To my knowledge, they haven't found much oil at all near the border with China.


I have no idea where the oil is. I know Russia has some, more than China does, and attacking the US - as TFA purports to be a possibility - is suicidal when compared to attacking Russia. I'm not saying that fighting the Russians would be easy... but who would YOU rather fight for oil? US or Russia? This is my sole point, all logistics other than proximity aside.

And, the Chinese don't need to attack us for our oil, that would be silly. They simply need to do the same thing the Japanese did, attempt to take the oil rich islands of south east asia and hope they can wield them to the Chinese economy in the face of American naval opposition. The Japanese tried and failed, mainly because they had a similar sense of racial superiority as the modern Chinese, and felt that the United States was too soft to spend the blood and treasure we needed to dislodge them from their new empire. I'm personally on the fence whether or not the Chinese will make a similar gamble, but to say that they won't ignores the historical precedent of a power much weaker than they are today who tried that same thing.

I'm pretty sure the bold above means Attacking America.

By the way, the Japanese didn't fail due to a perceived sense of racial superiority. Tactical blunders (Pearl Harbor, Going all-Naval in the Pac Rim rather than all-army in Manchuria) and bad luck (Midway) did that just fine.

The Chinese aren't going to gamble jack. They have waaaay more to lose attacking America, and not just from America. India would love to crush a weakened China, as might Russia. It would be a repeat of the days of the Dowager Empress if China tried any such tomfoolery, and they know that better than we do.

Or, they could just be smart about it and negotiate for some oil concessions of their own. Surely they could use some of those massive foreign currency reserves to bribe some third world dictators like the western multinationals have done.

EXACTLY.

Which means all this Bolt-From-The-Blue talk is garbage.
 
2012-12-07 04:28:59 PM

Apik0r0s: udhq: There was a time when prosperity could be achieved via military conquest. That time has passed.

China and the US are never going to go to war because our economies are so intertwined, that it would be a Great Depression-level disaster for both. The same could be said for nearly any developed economies in the world.

And yes, this is a good thing.


Brought to you by the same naiveté that brought you The War To End All Wars.


Right, because that quote had zippidy-fark to do with how economic globalization makes it damn near impossible for superpowers to disentangle.

I'm sorry, and I don't at all mean to be rude by saying this, but I can't imagine a 1 sentence comment on this subject that could possibly telegraph a deeper ignorance than you just demonstrated.
 
2012-12-07 04:29:09 PM

PunGent: Everyone saying "China would never attack us", please recall that China is a) run by people, and, b) people do stupid stuff.

Also, we're talking about a nation that, in my lifetime, chucked it's OWN people into concentration camps.

Rationality is all well and good, but it's not always in the driver's seat...


China isn't suicidal, as a nation. They simply will not attack a nation that can crush them. Christ, they couldn't even invade Viet Nam properly!

They won't attack America. Humans aren't as stupid as you think.
 
2012-12-07 04:29:30 PM

PunGent: Everyone saying "China would never attack us", please recall that China is a) run by people, and, b) people do stupid stuff.

Also, we're talking about a nation that, in my lifetime, chucked it's OWN people into concentration camps.

Rationality is all well and good, but it's not always in the driver's seat...


Not to mention the brutal suppression of people who only wanted what we generally take for granted.

They still execute people for purely economic crimes like smuggling.
 
2012-12-07 04:33:44 PM

dittybopper: PunGent: Everyone saying "China would never attack us", please recall that China is a) run by people, and, b) people do stupid stuff.

Also, we're talking about a nation that, in my lifetime, chucked it's OWN people into concentration camps.

Rationality is all well and good, but it's not always in the driver's seat...

Not to mention the brutal suppression of people who only wanted what we generally take for granted.

They still execute people for purely economic crimes like smuggling.


None of this suggests that the ChiComs are stupid enough to attack the Unite States.
 
2012-12-07 04:35:46 PM
Any war that diminishes Chinese defensive capacity will not be undertaken, and a war with the US is exactly that. China would be conquered by India and Russia and the US at the same time.
 
2012-12-07 04:42:13 PM

Apik0r0s: With enough anti-ship capability China could easily make it too costly for us to get involved.


This is a general principle that people often forget: You don't have to be able to *WIN*, you just have to make it expensive enough that the other side won't try it.
 
2012-12-07 04:43:40 PM

funmonger: dittybopper: PunGent: Everyone saying "China would never attack us", please recall that China is a) run by people, and, b) people do stupid stuff.

Also, we're talking about a nation that, in my lifetime, chucked it's OWN people into concentration camps.

Rationality is all well and good, but it's not always in the driver's seat...

Not to mention the brutal suppression of people who only wanted what we generally take for granted.

They still execute people for purely economic crimes like smuggling.

None of this suggests that the ChiComs are stupid enough to attack the Unite States.


Well, there isn't any indication that they would do something stupid in the near future. But what looks stupid today, to us, might not look stupid to the leadership of the PRC in 10 or 20 years time.
 
2012-12-07 04:57:38 PM

dittybopper: Apik0r0s: With enough anti-ship capability China could easily make it too costly for us to get involved.

This is a general principle that people often forget: You don't have to be able to *WIN*, you just have to make it expensive enough that the other side won't try it.


If people forget that, it's because they don't play enough RISK online, lol.

And the other half of the equation is that when laying claim to these islands, you don't have to be right, necessarily, just righteous enough that nobody goes to war on you. A good pretense, good press and a slew of carrier killer missiles to poison the pill and Win. China seems to be pursuing both avenues furiously.

The problem is that history shows schemes like this blowing up and beyond anybody's control.
 
2012-12-07 05:01:03 PM

funmonger: Syphilis_Smile: I take it you don't know where most Russian oil is? The early cold war pissing match over Iran in 1946 was precisely about buffer zones for Russia's oil holdings, and an attempt to get at the British holdings in Iran. To my knowledge, they haven't found much oil at all near the border with China.

I have no idea where the oil is. I know Russia has some, more than China does, and attacking the US - as TFA purports to be a possibility - is suicidal when compared to attacking Russia. I'm not saying that fighting the Russians would be easy... but who would YOU rather fight for oil? US or Russia? This is my sole point, all logistics other than proximity aside.

And, the Chinese don't need to attack us for our oil, that would be silly. They simply need to do the same thing the Japanese did, attempt to take the oil rich islands of south east asia and hope they can wield them to the Chinese economy in the face of American naval opposition. The Japanese tried and failed, mainly because they had a similar sense of racial superiority as the modern Chinese, and felt that the United States was too soft to spend the blood and treasure we needed to dislodge them from their new empire. I'm personally on the fence whether or not the Chinese will make a similar gamble, but to say that they won't ignores the historical precedent of a power much weaker than they are today who tried that same thing.

I'm pretty sure the bold above means Attacking America.

By the way, the Japanese didn't fail due to a perceived sense of racial superiority. Tactical blunders (Pearl Harbor, Going all-Naval in the Pac Rim rather than all-army in Manchuria) and bad luck (Midway) did that just fine.

The Chinese aren't going to gamble jack. They have waaaay more to lose attacking America, and not just from America. India would love to crush a weakened China, as might Russia. It would be a repeat of the days of the Dowager Empress if China tried any such tomfoolery, and they know that better t ...


The Japanese plan was actually to attack the British and the Dutch. However they knew the United States was signing defense treaties with their European friends, so that meant the U.S. fleet would sortie out on Plan Orange with the start of hostilities. To make the best use of their naval forces, therefore, they decided to give up on the original Decisive Battle strategy which called for luring the Amerian fleet across the Pacific, hitting them with fleet subs along the way to reduce their numbers, and then surprising them with a night-time Long Lance attack of the type that was so effective in the waters around Guadalcanal. They instead allowed Yamamoto to take the British lead at Taranto to knock out the U.S. fleet in Pearl Harbor to allow their ships to freely tackle what became known as the ABDA command.

I don't understand your comment on the tactical benefit of Manchuria. There was no oil in Manchuria, and the Japanese efforts to mimic the German Bergius/Fischer Tropsch industrial facilities to make synthetic gasoline from Manchu coal were barely under way in 1941. The Japanese already knew they could not effectively invade the Soviet Union, so what were they going to accomplish? They would have run out of gas long before they reached the Soviet oil fields in present day Azerbaijan.

Hell, the only real tactical blunder in the list you gave was Midway, which you chalk up as bad luck. The other major error was that they neglected anti-submarine warfare because they felt Americans could never endure the discomfort of underwater life. I'd say you should trust me when I say that the Japanese had unrealistic expectations for the way the war would be fought, and denied to the very end that they would lose, due nearly entirely to their sense of racial superiority.
 
2012-12-07 05:02:17 PM

dittybopper: Well, there isn't any indication that they would do something stupid in the near future. But what looks stupid today, to us, might not look stupid to the leadership of the PRC in 10 or 20 years time.


The PRC has more to fear from it's own than it does the US, or any other foreign power for that matter. Much of their own history has been spent fighting themselves for control, and that problem does not seem to be going away for the next 50 years, let alone 10.
 
2012-12-07 05:11:09 PM
How about a blue attack bolt from the military?
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-12-07 05:13:20 PM

Syphilis_Smile: I'd say you should trust me when I say that the Japanese had unrealistic expectations for the way the war would be fought, and denied to the very end that they would lose, due nearly entirely to their sense of racial superiority.


I said that I don't think it was thier belief in racial superiority that made them lose. I said it was tactical blunders and bad luck. Pearl harbor counts as a tactical blunder on many levels. 1) no carriers taken out, 2) Attacking America in the 1st place.

Also, I'm pretty sure there was a debate among the Empire's brass on which group got more "stuff", army or navy, and which direction to fight in. I can't nail my source, so I'm not 100% about the full details of that plan. They were only sure that they couldn't invade Russia after a disastrous probing attack, IIRC.

All this gets away from my point, which is that China isn't attacking America anytime soon.
 
2012-12-07 05:21:21 PM

funmonger: Syphilis_Smile: I'd say you should trust me when I say that the Japanese had unrealistic expectations for the way the war would be fought, and denied to the very end that they would lose, due nearly entirely to their sense of racial superiority.

I said that I don't think it was thier belief in racial superiority that made them lose. I said it was tactical blunders and bad luck. Pearl harbor counts as a tactical blunder on many levels. 1) no carriers taken out, 2) Attacking America in the 1st place.

Also, I'm pretty sure there was a debate among the Empire's brass on which group got more "stuff", army or navy, and which direction to fight in. I can't nail my source, so I'm not 100% about the full details of that plan. They were only sure that they couldn't invade Russia after a disastrous probing attack, IIRC.

All this gets away from my point, which is that China isn't attacking America anytime soon.



I would call attacking America in the first place a strategic blunder, not a tactical one.
 
2012-12-07 05:26:44 PM

Apik0r0s: I would call attacking America in the first place a strategic blunder, not a tactical one.


Okay, sure.

China still won't attack America.
 
2012-12-07 06:01:58 PM
God damn, that article was stupid. Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor had exactly zero elements of bolt-from-the-blue attached to it. The only surprising part was that they sneaked their carriers to Hawaii, instead of attacking only in the Philippines, as expected. We had cut off their oil and given them an ultimatum on China and Indochina; their only choices were to completely knuckle under or attack.

As for his bullshiat analysis of China's motives and capabilities:
1. We are China's largest trade partner. War with the U.S. means economic disaster for them, when they're already teetering on the economic brink because of a real estate bubble..
2. 380 conventionally armed ballistic missiles means 380 1,000-pound bombs aimed vaguely in an area of a few thousand yards.These missiles don't have laser or satellite-guided warheads. Throw ALL of that at Yokusuka, and you're unlikely to cripple that one base. Spread it around and you'll have a negligible result.
3. There are 10 other carrier battle groups aside from the GW, plus an entire nuke sub fleet, that can be supplied from Hawaii, the Philippines and Korea to a) eliminate any Chinese vessel with a gun or missile on it, 2) Shoot down or destroy on the ground the entire (mostly obsolescent) Chinese Air Force. 3) Blow the crap out of any dang thing we feel like on the Asian mainland.

What the fark are they teaching at the Naval War College?
 
2012-12-07 06:07:09 PM

mbillips: What the fark are they teaching at the Naval War College?


That the best way to score more funding is through Fearmongering.
 
2012-12-07 06:08:06 PM

Apik0r0s: Except that the open market is only open to you until closed by this:

upload.wikimedia.org

Which is exactly what happened to China and France under Little Bush. America's long term security centers on the control of fossil fuels.


We are decommissioning more ships than we are building right now. Rmoney made this point during one of the debates and people mocked him for it.

Current fleet: 288

All ships scheduled to be decommissioned in FY 2013 (and only 2013): 11

All ships scheduled to be commissioned during FY 2013-2017: 12

That's a net gain of one ship over the next four years IF (and this ain't gonna happen) no other ships are decommissioned in FY 2014, 2015 or 2016.

There is also the nagging fact that usually only about 40% of the fleet is at sea at any given moment and you can't push that number up a whole lot without running into some very serious logistical problems very quickly.

Ships take a long time to build (3-8 years usually, depending upon the size and complexity). It's not like we can go to the local Warships R Us and pick one off of the showroom floor and get it delivered next week. The fleet is getting smaller and smaller while at the same time we are relying more and more on receiving vital goods (instead of the rest of the world needing what we sell) that we need to survive over the oceans of the world.

Case in point: Right now the Port of Long Beach is on strike costing an estimated 1-1.5 billion a day in trade. That's one port out of literally dozens (of which only one exports more than it imports, and that's food out of New Orleans). Stop shipping us stuff and we would soon be in a very tight spot. Hit the major US naval and air bases in Asia and the Western Pacific while the important ships are in port and you could easily cut the fleet size by a third. That means that ships will have to transit thousands of miles each way just to get to and from their areas of operations which essentially makes it no more than a quarter to a third (out of the ~40% that remain available) that might be able to do anything in the theater of operations at any given moment assuming that they aren't needed somewhere else.

I'm not saying that this is a concern or a reasonable possibility right at this moment however the rest of the world can do math too.
 
2012-12-07 06:13:39 PM

SquiggsIN: The supply of anti-ship missiles that would be required to deter the U.S. Navy should they want to retake an island DOES NOT EXIST.


Not yet, anyways.
 
2012-12-07 06:22:45 PM
Also, they could secretly build an army of transforming robots and sell them to us as cars, televisions, and Ipads. Then one day, BOOM! We're all speaking Mandarin and Mao's face is on Mt. Rushmore.
 
2012-12-07 06:25:09 PM
WE CANNOT AFFORD A CANOE GAP
 
2012-12-07 07:08:10 PM

Radioactive Ass: The fleet is getting smaller and smaller while at the same time we are relying more and more on receiving vital goods (instead of the rest of the world needing what we sell) that we need to survive over the oceans of the world.


It's funny that you see this exclusively as a threat to security. I agree, it does make it dependent on others. But it also makes others dependent on us. Historically interdependency -- on scales from individuals to nations -- tends to tamp down violent interactions because the side effects are harmful to all parties even if the direct damage is completely unilateral.
 
2012-12-07 07:15:07 PM
Also, this isn't Starcraft I. Zerg rushes aren't gonna cut it against modern American tech. Less ships /= weaker navy.
 
2012-12-07 07:20:39 PM

funmonger: PunGent: Everyone saying "China would never attack us", please recall that China is a) run by people, and, b) people do stupid stuff.

Also, we're talking about a nation that, in my lifetime, chucked it's OWN people into concentration camps.

Rationality is all well and good, but it's not always in the driver's seat...

China isn't suicidal, as a nation. They simply will not attack a nation that can crush them. Christ, they couldn't even invade Viet Nam properly!

They won't attack America. Humans aren't as stupid as you think.


To clarify, I don't think it's likely...the article is pretty useless...just that it's not
completely improbable. Most wars throughout history are the result of miscalculations and/or downright stupidity.

Afa Vietnam, you're quite right, they didn't succeed...but the question was whether they'd attack, not whether they'd win.
 
2012-12-07 07:23:13 PM
Uh oh. Looks like somebody at CNN just saw the Red Dawn remake.
 
2012-12-07 07:46:39 PM

profplump: It's funny that you see this exclusively as a threat to security. I agree, it does make it dependent on others. But it also makes others dependent on us. Historically interdependency -- on scales from individuals to nations -- tends to tamp down violent interactions because the side effects are harmful to all parties even if the direct damage is completely unilateral.


The main point behind having a navy is security via keeping open the sea lanes of communication (commerce). There's a reason why the strongest nations in the world, past and present, have always had a strong naval presence.Commerce has always required inter-dependance otherwise it wouldn't exist in the first place.

The concern that I have is not what we have now but what we might have in 10-20 years from now. We can no longer get away with building Liberty type ships in a crisis. Not only don't we not have that capability anymore but with current levels of technology they wouldn't last very long even if we did. It takes a lot of time, money and resources to build the ships of today (like I said 3-8 years, and that's from laying the keel, not from initial authorization which can add anywhere from a year to 3 years on the timeline).

I don't have any expectations that the world in 20 years will look the same as it does now and anyone who does is a fool. What it will look like will then depends entirely on what we do today. The post that I was commenting on was saying that the current US fleet would prevent something from happening in the future and I pointed out that the US fleet is not going to look anywhere near the same in the future based upon current and projected shipbuilding trends.

Currently we have at sea around 116 ships at any given time. That includes not only warships (surface and submarine) that actually project power but the supply ships that they must have to keep them at sea and troop transport type ships that have limited use other than putting boots on the ground (not really useful out in the open ocean and in fact are a liability in that they take ships away from other tasks to protect them).

In 20 years that number will be well below 100 if the current trends continue. That number is well below what we may need in a world that has over 139 million square miles worth of oceans that we rely upon for our survival.

funmonger: Less ships /= weaker navy.


Ships are only useful when they are where you need them when you need them there. They don't just magically appear and life isn't a video game.
 
2012-12-07 10:02:50 PM
This is ridiculous. China is not going to attack because it has far too many vulnerabilities in terms of economy and culture. If they tried to Zerg-rush the South China Sea they'd have to worry about India coming at them from behind. Pakistan and North Korea wouldn't help and Russia has large stake in seeing China getting crushed militarily. Not mention that to lose (even if not that badly) would be political death for the Communist Party. They don't even have the monetary resources as they're busy using those to stave off a collapse of the economy due to the spending of local governments.
 
2012-12-07 10:18:04 PM

ShonenBat: This is ridiculous. China is not going to attack because it has far too many vulnerabilities in terms of economy and culture. If they tried to Zerg-rush the South China Sea they'd have to worry about India coming at them from behind. Pakistan and North Korea wouldn't help and Russia has large stake in seeing China getting crushed militarily. Not mention that to lose (even if not that badly) would be political death for the Communist Party. They don't even have the monetary resources as they're busy using those to stave off a collapse of the economy due to the spending of local governments.


An all-out attack IS unlikely. They're probably posturing to improve their position vis a vis the Spratleys.

But the thing about about saber-rattling is that events can escalate beyond either side's ability to control them.

Look at the start of the German west front in WW1, for example.
 
2012-12-07 10:33:04 PM

PunGent: ShonenBat: This is ridiculous. China is not going to attack because it has far too many vulnerabilities in terms of economy and culture. If they tried to Zerg-rush the South China Sea they'd have to worry about India coming at them from behind. Pakistan and North Korea wouldn't help and Russia has large stake in seeing China getting crushed militarily. Not mention that to lose (even if not that badly) would be political death for the Communist Party. They don't even have the monetary resources as they're busy using those to stave off a collapse of the economy due to the spending of local governments.

An all-out attack IS unlikely. They're probably posturing to improve their position vis a vis the Spratleys.

But the thing about about saber-rattling is that events can escalate beyond either side's ability to control them.

Look at the start of the German west front in WW1, for example.


Exactly. The best way to prevent a war is to make it seem like a losing proposition from the get go for those who may wish to start one. People don't tend to rattle their sabres when they know that the people that they are rattling them at can and will fight back and have a very good chance of winning.

Well, ok, the really crazy and\or desperate ones do but they don't usually win and usually lose everything in the process. Besides you can't really do much about them except be ready to fight when they inevitably go full retard.
 
2012-12-08 02:50:23 AM

Radioactive Ass: They don't just magically appear and life isn't a video game.


THEN WHY DO PEOPLE I STOMP ON KEEP TURNING INTO COINS?????

ARG!!!!!
 
2012-12-08 03:30:08 AM

mikefinch: Radioactive Ass: They don't just magically appear and life isn't a video game.

THEN WHY DO PEOPLE I STOMP ON KEEP TURNING INTO COINS?????

ARG!!!!!


Stop stomping Hobo's. Didn't your parents teach you better than that?
 
2012-12-09 11:51:55 AM

Radioactive Ass: PunGent: ShonenBat: This is ridiculous. China is not going to attack because it has far too many vulnerabilities in terms of economy and culture. If they tried to Zerg-rush the South China Sea they'd have to worry about India coming at them from behind. Pakistan and North Korea wouldn't help and Russia has large stake in seeing China getting crushed militarily. Not mention that to lose (even if not that badly) would be political death for the Communist Party. They don't even have the monetary resources as they're busy using those to stave off a collapse of the economy due to the spending of local governments.

An all-out attack IS unlikely. They're probably posturing to improve their position vis a vis the Spratleys.

But the thing about about saber-rattling is that events can escalate beyond either side's ability to control them.

Look at the start of the German west front in WW1, for example.

Exactly. The best way to prevent a war is to make it seem like a losing proposition from the get go for those who may wish to start one. People don't tend to rattle their sabres when they know that the people that they are rattling them at can and will fight back and have a very good chance of winning.

Well, ok, the really crazy and\or desperate ones do but they don't usually win and usually lose everything in the process. Besides you can't really do much about them except be ready to fight when they inevitably go full retard.


Yep. My concern here, with a basically quasi-naval confrontation in the area, even without a deliberate Tonkin-style incident, the entire thing could go up based on the actions of one local frigate skipper.
 
Displayed 142 of 142 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report