8/20/2010
US carriers the perfect targets
'Setting the stage for a possible conflict, Beijing has grown increasingly vocal in its demands for the U.S. to stay away from the wide swaths of ocean — covering much of the Yellow, East and South China seas — where it claims exclusivity.
It strongly opposed plans to hold U.S.-South Korean war games in the Yellow Sea off the northeastern Chinese coast, saying the participation of the USS George Washington supercarrier, with its 1,092-foot (333-meter) flight deck and 6,250 personnel, would be a provocation because it put Beijing within striking range of U.S. F-18 warplanes.
The carrier instead took part in maneuvers held farther away in the Sea of Japan.
U.S. officials deny Chinese pressure kept it away, and say they will not be told by Beijing where they can operate.
"We reserve the right to exercise in international waters anywhere in the world," Rear Adm. Daniel Cloyd, who headed the U.S. side of the exercises, said aboard the carrier during the maneuvers, which ended last week.
But the new missile could undermine that policy.'
The above is extracted from an article by ERIC TALMADGE, Associated Press. The article is about China's new missile technology that is specifically developed to take on the American aircraft carrier group that is proving to be a menace in the East China Seas. The Americans have enjoyed naval and air superiority over all nations for a long time. This superiority is now being negated by the Chinese missiles that have the precision to knock out an aircraft carrier. It would be a cheap missile against a big, high value and worthy targets in terms of lives and machinery. Going down with an aircraft carrier will be several thousand crews and several hundreds of aircraft. A good bargain definitely.
The Americans will now have to be very careful pushing their sitting ducks in the waters around China. They will come within the range of these high precision missiles designed specially to take them out of the equation. It is no more an invincible task force. It is a lame duck!
The arrogance of American raw power has met its nemesis.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
25 comments:
China with its vast industrial might could have easily produced aircraft carriers by the tens if not the hundreds if they had wanted. Why didn't they do it?
Yes, you are absolutely right. With precision smart bombs like cruise missiles and the much improved scud missiles model 2010, aircraft carriers are really sitting ducks. And UAVs are going to be even more deadly and you don't need kamikazi pilots to dive onto the carriers.
I sincerely suggests to the Americans to send their carriers to the scrapyards and turn out stealth vessels instead. Yes, small stealth vessels capable of high speed manoeuvres, suitably armed would be a better bet. Aircraft carriers in this day and age are clumsy mammoths lumbering along as target practice!
Me thinks the Chinese(China) has never like wars BUT defense they will to protect its' people and its' Sovereignty. It will not harm the innocense and the Rights of others.
I maintain that the Chinese is a peaceful Race.
patriot
Haha !
Dinosaurs and mammoths were extinct for a long time.
patriot
Dinosaurs and mammoths turned into ducks ?
Nice one !
It looks like a simple solution, but it seems they have perfected the accuracy factor.
Take out the aircraft carrier while it is still thousands of miles away and before it could launch a strike with its aircrafts carrying its missiles.
Will it change the usefulness of aircraft carriers in future wars? This is left to be seen. But the USA seems to be genuinely worried about China's new answer to the superiority of its aircraft carriers.
A cheap answer to a costly and perennial threat. What an idea!
Aircraft carriers are for countries with imperial designs, to conquer and suppress countries in far away land. If a country has no expansionist ambition, there is no need for aircraft carriers to project their power.
The silly Afro Asian countries have been poisoned by the Americans to call it a peaceful country and China an expansionist country. How silly of them!
And aircraft carriers still have a big and invincible role against lesser powers like those in Latin America, Middle East and Africa. Not anymore to countries like Russia and China. They can only be used to bully smaller and weaker nations like India and Indonesia, and of course Iraq,Iran and North Korea.
> The arrogance of American raw power has met its nemesis.<
I seriously doubt that. The US is good at war, because it has had a lot of practice, and a lot of failure. Nothing like expensive failures which you can afford (just tax people more) to become really good at what you do over time.
Military warfare is not only to be taken in a vacuum. The US engages in global financial voodoo, as well as Foreign Policy plus making and breaking strategic alliances with nation -- as long as it is in "the US interests".
There has been lots of debate about the efficacy of the aircraft carrier battle group -- due to developments in new weaponology -- as redbean suggested, and the big glaring tthreat on the horizon: ENERGY SHORTAGE, i.e. OIL.
Granted, the fleet is mostly nuclear powered, but the planes, support craft etc are all use fossil fuel -- massive amounts of it.
Add to that growing budget black holes back on the mainland, and naval/ air warfare is being scrutinised and "re-designed".
The modern battlefield is way different from the time our tribal ancestors used to curse each other and throw rocks at one another.
The US military IMO, in this case is "testing" the Chinese -- pushing their buttons to see "what happens". No doubt the US spies will be monitoring the Chinese reaction. This is intelligence gathering from a "what if" scenario -- it could be very strategicly valuable information.
redbean can't look beyond his own deep emotional anti-US psychosis to realise that "US arrogance" as he puts it comes from FACT: "We can bully you and do what the hell we want because no one can stop us".
And to a great extent, they're right.
The Americans are used to bully everyone they like, anywhere, anytime. They no longer can do that to China at will and the Chinese are not going to let the Americans do it with impunity. When it touches their core interest, China is willing to play brinkmanship with the Americans.
The once feared aircraft carrier group is no longer that intimidating to the Chinese any more. They could rain 100 missiles on the aircraft carrier at one go like they told the Taiwanese of a similar non defensible position.
The Americans cannot take such a hit. The sinking of an aircraft carrier is more than 10 times the sinking of all the ships in Pearl Harbour in 1941.
The aircraft carrier battle group no longer pose the same threat as it did to China in the past. The group can be taken out. And the Americans know it.
American war strategy is always based on overwhelming superiority in air power and military power. And a formula of I can hit you you can't hit back. This doesn't work any more with the Chinese.
The Chinese are saying, you can hit me I too can hit you back.
Sorry mate, the ball game has changed.
the times of the world has changed
Leon Koh
http://hanleong.blogspot.com
Hi Leon Koh, welcome to the blog.
You got a nice blog there. great photos and a great artist.
Cheers.
And not forgetting American public opinion. When American casualties in Vietnam went through the roof, the American public themselves could not tolerate the human losses, and began to exert pressure on the Government.
That coupled with the stark realisation that they cannot win a guerilla war of hit and run, and an enemy that uses its head, by building tunnels that are just big enough for them to move around, but too small for the US soldiers to do likewise. Persistent aerial bombing could not dilodge or do much harm to the North Vietnamese hiding in the tunnels.
Might can only do so much in the initial stages of a war. What happens after is also important, because you have to have the manpower to control the areas you have overrun. Try conquering Russia or China.
The Russians found that might does not win the war in Afghanistan. They had all the superior weapons and firepower, but still lost the war.
Part1/2
I don't know why redbean wants to turn this into redbean=China/ anti-US vs me, matilah supposedly "pro-US".
I am neither pro-US nor pro China. In fact, I am hoping the 2 super powers do indeed engage in military conflict -- I just love the idea of two nations hell bent on killing as many of the other side as possible -- including and especially women and all those spoilt-brat children -- American brats and Chinese brats alike. I am an equal opportunity hater.
The most wonderful thing about this is that the US has been planning to whack China for decades. Think tanks/ "research" institutes like the Rand Corporation have been planning US-China war for decades despite their
published denial 2 year's ago.
Rand Corp has been caught lying many times before -- Vietnam when Bob McNamara was Secretary of Defense, for instance.
It is also important to look at historical fact: Except for Pearl Harbour and Sept 11, the US mainland has never been attacked by any external aggressor. The continental US is one of the most heavily defended areas in human history with the US having "first strike" capability sine the end of WW2.
OTOH, the US military has bombed the begeesus out of the infrastructures of many other countries in history.
That's the key: US fights wars AWAY FROM the US mainland therefore leaving the US infrastructure INTACT -- which means their population and economy is safer during war -- i.e. 'safer' than the population and economies of the enemy they're fighting.
Sure, the US doesn't win every war it entangles itself into -- it is losing in Afghanistan and Vietnam was a disaster, but the very fact that the US engages in "foreign adventurism" hurts the "enemy" more than it does the US. The "enemy" country is reduced to rubble, the population killed in great numbers, economy destroyed, and the country set back decades... meanwhile, the mainland US -- business as usual -- ice cream, pornography, rap music and Wall Street.
China doesn't have "wild ideas" of imperial empires. US Foreign Policy for over 100 years -- since Teddy Roosevelt, followed by Woodrow Wilson, then FD Roosevelt, Truman (the A-Bomb guy) -- have all been "foreign adventurists" believing that the key to US global "respect" was to constantly show of its "might" and "power".
Part2/2
There was a brief respite with Eisenhower (not really, it was the Cold War) but after that, back to the quest for global domination -- Kennedy (Cuba, Vietnam), Johnson (Vietnam), Nixon (Vietnam), Ford (Cold War), Carter (Iran), Regan (anyone who's assed ought to be kicked), Bush ver1 (Iraq), Clinton (Iraq, Bosnia), Bush2 (WMD, "Mission Accomplished"), Obama/ Hillary Clinton (?)
Another myth which needs busting: Washington doesn't give a shit how many US service personnel die. Why worry? The war never comes to US soil.
Business As Usual
redbean is way off the mark in his anti-US rantings. For a guy who claims to be a professional journalist, I find his ignorance quite stunning.
He still doesn't get the fact that wars are not about this country whacking the next just for war's sake or to see who has the bigger dick. It is about money and politics...and underlying that is a bond which "unites" all the players: POWER.
War is a racket. It doesn't matter which side wins or loses -- except to those who blinded by their political leanings, ideologies and "taking sides" -- as if they were betting on the World cup -- are ignorant of the vast machinery making trillions of "war profits", and elevating political aspirations to greater heights.
And lets not forget the financiers and arms dealers who sell to ALL sides in any conflict.
So I say, bring it on. I don't care who wins or loses. If I can make a buck, I want part of the action. Otherwise I'll just watch the awesomeness of the new military "toys" as they wipe out hundreds or thousands in one strike.
Bring it on lah!
Wow! Too deep!
The modern(present and future) terrorists knowthat they have to bring their fights with the Americans on US Soil. 9/11 was one such strategy and more attempts will be made.
The new generation and future generations of fighters against the US will henceforth follow. The American people will soon get to know that their ideological enemies are no fool.
It time that the People of USA stop their hawkish leaders from warmongerings otherwise it will be the American Public that will live in fear not only abroad but also on their very own soil.
patriot
Yes Sir !
That is the effetive way and right strategy to deal with the aggressors and war mongers.
Fight and destroy them on their homelands.
Right, go right to their doorsteps to serve them the just desserts. Make them live in fears, let them know they are vincible and as vulnerable.
The foreigners in the US should help their compatriots in their Motherlands(Other Sovereignties) to accomplish their missions of patriotism).
The warmongers are the Satans(devils) of the human world.
Matilah, I no professional journalist lah. Just a whiner, griper, gossiper: )
Patriot said it. Do not underestimate the enemies. After guerilla warfare and people's warfare which are asymetrical war of attrition with no battlefield, no war zone and no defined soldiers, the big powers like America are lost. All the big guns are quite useless and expensive to fire at one or ten soldiers.
The next phase is terrorist warfare or bacterial warfare. The enemies are inside America and building their strength everyday. Like we have said, it is like the human body, a thick skin to protect outside invasion. Unfortunately the bacterials are attacking from within, daily, 24/7.
America has no answer to that when the whole world is descending into that continent.
While America is project its power overseas, fighting faraway wars, the real war that is waiting to explode is in America.
For far too long they have lived with the cosy feeling that nobody can attack the USA, but 911 changed all that.
And all they needed were small weapons like handguns and paper cutters. No need to buy expensive missiles, fighter air-crafts, bombers, tanks or machine guns. Apart from that, no need to send an army. And above all, no radar can detect the invisible enemy right in the house.
Cheap, better and faster.
patriot, redbean,
Again, I have been misunderstood. I never once hinted that I "underestimated" the enemy.
The likelihood of another terrorist attack on US soil is almost a given -- most people including those in-charge of the military have resigned themselves to the fact that it is only a matter of time before the terrorists succeed. Many have already been caught, which begs the question: what about those who have yet to be caught?
However no matter how awesome a terrorist attack on US soil is, it is unlikely that they'll be able to cause debilitating long term damage like when US airforce and navy absolutely smashes the entire infrastructure of a hapless country (using Stealth bombers, smart bombs, depleted uranium ammo, day and night sorties...etc), sending any "survivors" into hiding and thus having to fight a guerrilla war with US ground forces...and "private" contractors (mercenaries) like Blackwater
The US has been spoiling for a fight with China -- the recent US 'Arrogance" comes as no surprise to me. The hawks in the US govt are HOPING China will react, so it will give the US military an excuse to start the shit.
The US hawks and warmongers have done this throughout history: Vietnam, FDR goading the Japs in WW2, Bush 1 & 2 chomping at the bit ready to go into and smash Iraq, setting up The Sinking of the Lusitania, 1915 as an excuse for the US to enter WW1, Reagan and the contras... fuck, this crazy theocracy (God- given right to bomb people) has got a constant hard-on for war.
War is business as usual, American style!
Matilah;
patriot is of the view that as the World becomes more interconnected and informations travel at the speed of sound, it is no more that easy for the US to behave the Bully that it was before.
In the past, the US was way way ahead in the fields of weaponries, electronic devices. These advantages have diminished much though the poorer and smaller countries have much to catch up.
The greatest difference now lies in the strategy of warfares and to me, nothing beats getting and destroying the enemy in their very own territories. Targeting the oversea interests and the officials of the enemy when they are abroad are no more beyond possibility. In fact, the targeting could be extended to the families of the officials for as long as the war is needed.
To make it short, me does not dispute that the US has weapons that's far superior than others. However, it's vulnerability obviously has increased many folds over the years. By itself, the US is also a very big target with it's wide presences of military and commercial assets oversea.
The evidences of it's past adventures and conquests have proved that against smaller sovereignties, the US have failed in many much smaller nations.
Though remote, me does hope that American public will realize that their leaders' love for wars, be it to cower or conquer and or to make money or take control of natural resources, will only endanger they themselves(Americans) everywhere.
The ambitions of the American Leaderships certainly are not worth the dangers and alienations to themselves. Certainly, the US has waning influences and clouts now than ever as the rest of the World see through its' ill and evil intents.
The US sent Al Gore, Carter and Clinton for oversea missions and not Bushes. The reason ? Much have to be done to protect the Bushes from fires. How many more Bush liked leaders can the US afford to have ?
patriot
George Bush is the number ONE international terrorist. He and his aides, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice, all have bloods dripping all over their hands.
And becos the Commander-in-Chief(all US Presidents assumed the Position) and their Adjutants are/were the worst terrorists; that justify them to be brought down or out by any means.
Yes !
Any mean will be justifiable.
Forget about the Geneva Convention and leave the United Nation in the cold. All the shit Organizations.
Have you ever thought about adding a little bit more than just your articles?
I mean, what you say is important and everything.
But think about if you added some great pictures or video clips to give
your posts more, "pop"! Your content is excellent but
with pics and video clips, this blog could certainly be one
of the best in its field. Great blog!
Take a look at my blog post ... garcinia vieillardii
Post a Comment