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
    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  
•       •       •

9342 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 Dec 2012 at 12:30 PM (5 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»

Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2012-12-07 12:39:55 PM  
2 votes:

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

img405.imageshack.usView Full Size

Told ya, you farkers.
2012-12-07 12:35:24 PM  
2 votes:
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 12:12:11 PM  
2 votes:
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 12:08:24 PM  
2 votes:
This just in: Surprise attacks against stationary targets are often successful. The trick is achieving surprise.
2012-12-07 06:01:58 PM  
1 vote:
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 05:01:03 PM  
1 vote:

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 01:33:29 PM  
1 vote:

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 01:32:05 PM  
1 vote:
These people owe royalties to Tom Clancy.
2012-12-07 01:30:35 PM  
1 vote:

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 01:28:17 PM  
1 vote:
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.


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 01:05:46 PM  
1 vote:
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 01:03:30 PM  
1 vote:
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.comView Full Size

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.comView Full Size

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 01:03:28 PM  
1 vote:
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 12:58:53 PM  
1 vote:
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 12:53:20 PM  
1 vote:
As long as we don't get involved in a land war in Asia.
2012-12-07 12:39:34 PM  
1 vote:
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 12:38:39 PM  
1 vote:
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 12:35:03 PM  
1 vote:
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!
Displayed 18 of 18 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter

Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.