Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/19/2017 7:27:10 PM
Posted: 3/6/2006 6:50:46 AM EDT
Fact: China has ballistic missiles and many nuclear and non-nuclear subs and billions of people.

Scenario:
China tries to take Taiwan.
US tries to put a stop to it using naval power.
China puts its subs to work in the Pacific and Atlantic and lobs missiles into U.S territories.
US retaliates with subs and lobs missiles into China.
Continues until US population and sub fleet is pretty much devastated.
China continues on because they have billions more people to waste.
China invades US with millions of troops. US has nothing significant left to fight back with.

OK, I have just taken my tinfoil hat off.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 6:52:56 AM EDT
Mmm....Not sure what they'd want with a slag pile.

I'd say by that time the world would probably
be so devastated that would be the last of our worries.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 6:52:57 AM EDT
We have a LOT more nukes and delivery vehicles than the CHICOMS. They also lack the ability to move troops across the ocean in significant numbers. We can.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 6:58:58 AM EDT

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:
We have a LOT more nukes and delivery vehicles than the CHICOMS. They also lack the ability to move troops across the ocean in significant numbers. We can.



With all their subs prowling the PAcific?
Also, Forget the slag heap, I think they would want world domination.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 7:02:56 AM EDT
I would be willing to bet, that we know where their subs are, and they probably don't know where our's are, but in the above scenerio, they would find out real quick.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 7:04:55 AM EDT

Originally Posted By widmn:

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:
We have a LOT more nukes and delivery vehicles than the CHICOMS. They also lack the ability to move troops across the ocean in significant numbers. We can.



With all their subs prowling the PAcific?
Also, Forget the slag heap, I think they would want world domination.



Chinese longer range subs are not exactly renowned for their ability to run silent and avoid detection. They would be noting but targets for our attack subs. Most of their subs can only operate in littoral waters. Again, they are unable to project power.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 7:07:53 AM EDT
The Chinese conquest won't happen on the battlefield, it's underway at Walmart right now.

Once they have all our money they will own our asses free and clear and won't need to militarily conquer anything.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 7:08:23 AM EDT

Originally Posted By widmn:

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:
We have a LOT more nukes and delivery vehicles than the CHICOMS. They also lack the ability to move troops across the ocean in significant numbers. We can.



With all their subs prowling the PAcific?
Also, Forget the slag heap, I think they would want world domination.



Subs don't have much luck taking a air bridge down.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 7:08:42 AM EDT
They are building new subs that run on electric (quiet) and can stay under for 30 days.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 7:11:13 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SmilingBandit:

Originally Posted By widmn:

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:
We have a LOT more nukes and delivery vehicles than the CHICOMS. They also lack the ability to move troops across the ocean in significant numbers. We can.



With all their subs prowling the PAcific?
Also, Forget the slag heap, I think they would want world domination.



Subs don't have much luck taking a air bridge down.


What air bridge. Planes need carriers or land based airports. Both were taken out by subs and missiles remember?
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 7:11:32 AM EDT
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 7:12:09 AM EDT

Originally Posted By FightingHellfish:
The Chinese conquest won't happen on the battlefield, it's underway at Walmart right now.

Once they have all our money they will own our asses free and clear and won't need to militarily conquer anything.





You know what happens when you make all your income by selling to the same customer? You think that customer is dependant on YOU? No, YOU become dependant on THEM. As long as China is dependant on the US market, we have nothing to worry from them.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 7:17:59 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/6/2006 7:18:55 AM EDT by FALARAK]

Originally Posted By RikWriter:
You know what happens when you make all your income by selling to the same customer? You think that customer is dependant on YOU? No, YOU become dependant on THEM. As long as China is dependant on the US market, we have nothing to worry from them.



Correct.

Wait 20-30 years.... and see what happens, however.

I pray their democracy potential increases as their local standard of living/economy/average education does. However, if their people benefit wildly under the current style of rule, they will likely embrace whatever style of government leads to prosperity, or hope of prosperity, as did the Germans.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 7:21:35 AM EDT

Originally Posted By FALARAK:

Originally Posted By RikWriter:
You know what happens when you make all your income by selling to the same customer? You think that customer is dependant on YOU? No, YOU become dependant on THEM. As long as China is dependant on the US market, we have nothing to worry from them.



Correct.

Wait 20-30 years.... and see what happens, however.

I pray their democracy potential increases as their local standard of living/economy/average education does. However, if their people benefit wildly under the current style of rule, they will likely embrace whatever style of government leads to prosperity, or hope of prosperity, as did the Germans.


Aren't You assuming the peasants have a choice and that the Gubmint gives a shit about them?? I would assume that the Gubmint would blame us for whatever falls on the peasants heads.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 7:22:23 AM EDT

Originally Posted By widmn:

Originally Posted By SmilingBandit:

Originally Posted By widmn:

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:
We have a LOT more nukes and delivery vehicles than the CHICOMS. They also lack the ability to move troops across the ocean in significant numbers. We can.



With all their subs prowling the PAcific?
Also, Forget the slag heap, I think they would want world domination.



Subs don't have much luck taking a air bridge down.


What air bridge. Planes need carriers or land based airports. Both were taken out by subs and missiles remember?



Carriers have nothing to do with an air bridge. It's about strategic airlifters and ground based tankers.

If we lose our runways to operate those planes out of then the only real concern either of our countries would have to worry about is what to do in the 20 minutes while the missiles are heading over.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 7:24:24 AM EDT

Originally Posted By widmn:
US retaliates with subs and lobs missiles into China.



Right there is where it ends.

We have LOTS more nukes and they are more accureate.

After this China would have neither launchers nor population centers...
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 7:24:25 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SmilingBandit:

Originally Posted By widmn:

Originally Posted By SmilingBandit:

Originally Posted By widmn:

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:
We have a LOT more nukes and delivery vehicles than the CHICOMS. They also lack the ability to move troops across the ocean in significant numbers. We can.



With all their subs prowling the PAcific?
Also, Forget the slag heap, I think they would want world domination.



Subs don't have much luck taking a air bridge down.


What air bridge. Planes need carriers or land based airports. Both were taken out by subs and missiles remember?



Carriers have nothing to do with an air bridge. It's about strategic airlifters and ground based tankers.

If we lose our runways to operate those planes out of then the only real concern either of our countries would have to worry about is what to do in the 20 minutes while the missiles are heading over.



Are you then assuming that going full out nuclear is an effective deterrent for China?
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 7:28:14 AM EDT
Simple.

USN > PLAN
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 7:29:57 AM EDT

Originally Posted By widmn:

Originally Posted By SmilingBandit:

Originally Posted By widmn:

Originally Posted By SmilingBandit:

Originally Posted By widmn:

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:
We have a LOT more nukes and delivery vehicles than the CHICOMS. They also lack the ability to move troops across the ocean in significant numbers. We can.



With all their subs prowling the PAcific?
Also, Forget the slag heap, I think they would want world domination.



Subs don't have much luck taking a air bridge down.


What air bridge. Planes need carriers or land based airports. Both were taken out by subs and missiles remember?



Carriers have nothing to do with an air bridge. It's about strategic airlifters and ground based tankers.

If we lose our runways to operate those planes out of then the only real concern either of our countries would have to worry about is what to do in the 20 minutes while the missiles are heading over.



Are you then assuming that going full out nuclear is an effective deterrent for China?



yes
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 7:35:52 AM EDT
chinese aint gonna come east.. there gonna march west, across the tigris and euphrates rivers after they dry up, with 200,000,000 soldiers.

says so in the bible...
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 7:39:40 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TheFreepster:

Originally Posted By widmn:

Originally Posted By SmilingBandit:

Originally Posted By widmn:

Originally Posted By SmilingBandit:

Originally Posted By widmn:

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:
We have a LOT more nukes and delivery vehicles than the CHICOMS. They also lack the ability to move troops across the ocean in significant numbers. We can.



With all their subs prowling the PAcific?
Also, Forget the slag heap, I think they would want world domination.



Subs don't have much luck taking a air bridge down.


What air bridge. Planes need carriers or land based airports. Both were taken out by subs and missiles remember?



Carriers have nothing to do with an air bridge. It's about strategic airlifters and ground based tankers.

If we lose our runways to operate those planes out of then the only real concern either of our countries would have to worry about is what to do in the 20 minutes while the missiles are heading over.



Are you then assuming that going full out nuclear is an effective deterrent for China?



yes


I would say that Taiwan and Japan are lost already as we aren't going to chance a nuclear exchange over them and China knows it.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 7:48:06 AM EDT
We have alot of service members in Japan. Taking over the islands would mean taking them out, and things would go downhill after that.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 7:56:39 AM EDT

Originally Posted By sta1treeman:
I would be willing to bet, that we know where their subs are, and they probably don't know where our's are, but in the above scenerio, they would find out real quick.



Pretty much a winning bet. We have had passive sonar for a very long time and we know how to use it. Remember in the 80's when our attack subs went active for just a second? The entire Soviet fleet went hot because every one of their subs was being FOLLOWED! We had the C&C to initiate such a flashing...the Soviets shit their pants because for the most part, none of their subs knew they were being followed.

Top Top