Watching the fleet sail by. The US set to say f* you to China and sail within the 12 mile limit of these new islands

[Kidlicious]

Zombie Reagan 2016

[My Wife Hates CIV]

trump will do.

[Kidlicious]

If I had to choose between him and Clinton which on to screw with I would choose Trump. Bill knows.

[kentonio]

Well, given what China has in the area (which isn't anywhere near their coast or any significant military presence), MWHC probably isn't far off on the hypothetical attack. Of course China isn't going to attack a US AEGIS Cruiser with a fleet of coast guard cutters, dredges, and fishing boats so it's still a silly hypothetical. China wouldn't attack the US even if they could sink the ship, because that would be horribly stupid. (And if they could sink the ship the US wouldn't have sailed it there alone either.)

Setting aside the circular argument you just tried to use, no they probably wouldnt use coast guard cutters, it'd seem more rational to use submarines, their vast air force and perhaps even the 2000 mile range anti-ship ballistic missiles they're developing.

[kentonio]

And you say this because a US destroyer was hit while in port, but wasn't sunk? Keep telling them stories liberal.

No, the USS Cole reference was throwaway snark. I say this because its obvious to anyone who has been watching China advance.

[Aeson]

Setting aside the circular argument you just tried to use, no they probably wouldnt use coast guard cutters, it'd seem more rational to use submarines, their vast air force and perhaps even the 2000 mile range anti-ship ballistic missiles they're developing.

There was nothing circular about the argument. I was simply pointing out that the hypothetical was absurd on all counts. If the US sails a ship through the Spratlys China isn't going to do anything but bluster, same as the US is doing while China builds islands in the Spratlys.

[Aeson]

As for unproven missiles, assumed subs which would have to assume they are outmatched, and an air force which can't hope to project power in that area ... that's a big part of why China is building the islands and airstrips in the first place. Eventually China can project power in the region. But right now they're unable to dislodge even the Philippine navy consisting of some wooden boats and a grounded, rusted out, unarmed WWII vessel.

[kentonio]

There was nothing circular about the argument. I was simply pointing out that the hypothetical was absurd on all counts. If the US sails a ship through the Spratlys China isn't going to do anything but bluster, same as the US is doing while China builds islands in the Spratlys.

The discussion had nothing to do with the likelihood of it happening (which I'd already pointed out was absurb), simply that the idea of a single US ship standing up against China's entire military force in their part of the world was stupid.

[kentonio]

As for unproven missiles, assumed subs which would have to assume they are outmatched, and an air force which can't hope to project power in that area ... that's a big part of why China is building the islands and airstrips in the first place. Eventually China can project power in the region. But right now they're unable to dislodge even the Philippine navy consisting of some wooden boats and a grounded, rusted out, unarmed WWII vessel.

The unproven missiles is fair in terms of the DF-21. It's the one that has everyone worried in terms of its potential as a carrier killer, but it is indeed unproven technology and may well still be a few decades away from readiness. Unfortunately that is far from the only missile threat China has, and killing a lone cruiser (regardless of how advanced it is) is considerably less challenging than taking out a carrier in the middle of a carrier battle-group.

As for subs, in the hypothetical used here, the carrier is alone, so there is no issue of them being outmatched by US counterparts. Re aircraft, the Chinese have cruise missile equipped fighter-bombers with sufficient range I believe.

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/...missiles-12085

Re the Phillipines navy, from what I understand its much more that no-one wants a shooting war, rather than any lack of capability, although AH would be the one to ask I guess.

[Aeson]

The discussion had nothing to do with the likelihood of it happening (which I'd already pointed out was absurb)

simply that the idea of a single US ship standing up against China's entire military force in their part of the world was stupid.

The point being "China's entire military force" in the Spratly Islands isn't really even "military" at all.

[Aeson]

The unproven missiles is fair in terms of the DF-21. It's the one that has everyone worried in terms of its potential as a carrier killer, but it is indeed unproven technology and may well still be a few decades away from readiness. Unfortunately that is far from the only missile threat China has, and killing a lone cruiser (regardless of how advanced it is) is considerably less challenging than taking out a carrier in the middle of a carrier battle-group.

So which missile do you want to change to now?

As for subs, in the hypothetical used here, the carrier is alone, so there is no issue of them being outmatched by US counterparts.

Re aircraft, the Chinese have cruise missile equipped fighter-bombers with sufficient range I believe.

You're assuming there are Chinese subs in the Spratly Islands. Which there might be. But the Chinese would also be in the same situation. They couldn't know if there were US subs there or not. That's pretty much the point of subs.

As for aircraft, you want to put the entire Chinese mainland into play while pretending the rest of the US Navy ceases to exist. Doesn't seem fair, since the hypothetical didn't say the US would abandon the South China Sea to just one ship.

[kentonio]

You're trying to have a different argument to the one MWHC initially started. The problem being that I doubt anyone would actually disagree with the argument you're trying to have. Which makes me wonder why you're trying to have it.

[Kidlicious]

No, the USS Cole reference was throwaway snark. I say this because its obvious to anyone who has been watching China advance.

I won't even ask why you are so interested in China increasing it's ability to attack the US Navy.

[kentonio]

I won't even ask why you are so interested in China increasing it's ability to attack the US Navy.

Because it changes the entire dynamic of America's ability to project power, and that has consequences for the entire world.

[Kidlicious]

Since when did we project power in China?