China Lands Aircraft On Their Carrier

[IndyDave1776]

I don't think we will ever use nuke as a first strike in the future, maybe as a retaliation...

Unless Reagan is resurrected and afforded two more terms by virtue of a new life I doubt that even this would happen.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Who says it takes a presidential order for nuclear retaliation?

 

[IndyDave1776]

Who says it takes a presidential order for nuclear retaliation?

You have a point. The right sub captain who has good information may be able to get the job done. My understanding of the USAF missle facilities is that the people involved are generally isolated enough that without orders they wouldn't be aware that there was a need.

 

[jedi]

Who says it takes a presidential order for nuclear retaliation?

Explain your answer TF.
This is an easy test. =)

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Explain your answer TF.
This is an easy test. =)

I don't believe the "safe guards" put in place to retaliate against the USSR in the event of a first strike against us taking out the President or communication were ever taken down. As pointed out above Missile Sub commanders were given authorization for retaliation as well as the b-52s in the arctic.

 

[jedi]

I don't believe the "safe guards" put in place to retaliate against the USSR in the event of a first strike against us taking out the President or communication were ever taken down. As pointed out above Missile Sub commanders were given authorization for retaliation as well as the b-52s in the arctic.

Oh I was under the impression that sub boats did not have the access codes to laucnh said nukes. Recall reading they did but then in 1980s that was taken away. Granted that info Irecall from a movie with d. Washington and gene h???? In which gene was the sub capt. And d,w. Was his xo and they have an agrument over a 1/2 wire that says or does not say to lauch the nukes. Mutny on the sub occurs at the end the nukes are not shoot and when they surface the msg is read in full saying to stand down.

At end the of the movie is txt saying since that incident (based on real events iirc) only the prez has the codes.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Another thing--codes or not I am not aware of any security system that cannot be defeated by a knowledgeable person given adequate time, and I would think the level of knowledge required to maintain and potentially repair the things would require enough knowledge to fire them without official permission.

 

[bingley]

We (USA) might not be wiling to shot an ICBM but I'm sure the MIDDLE EAST if given the chance would as for China I give them a 75% chance that they would. Sure they would lose people as well but they have enough people that they can/are willing to lose as well.

We have fought more wars than the PRC has. We have invaded and occupied more countries. We have more military bases around the world. We have a bigger, more powerful military. We have proved ourselves much more willing to use force. You can try to justify this as the price of empire, or you can denounce it as unhumanitarian, but the objective fact is we're the badass of the world.

The People's Republic of China? Other than pretending not to have had a part in the Korean War, it fought some skirmishes with the Indians, and got its ass handed to it by the Vietnamese. History shows that they're not very aggressive even against its weaker neighbors, and they seem to use force more within the borders, to control and oppress the Chinese population. I don't buy this "the EAST thinks differently and they'll launch ICBMs." We think differently, and we're the ones who would launch the ICBMs. Whaddaya think, we keep those missiles around for kicks?

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Oh I was under the impression that sub boats did not have the access codes to laucnh said nukes. Recall reading they did but then in 1980s that was taken away. Granted that info Irecall from a movie with d. Washington and gene h???? In which gene was the sub capt. And d,w. Was his xo and they have an agrument over a 1/2 wire that says or does not say to lauch the nukes. Mutny on the sub occurs at the end the nukes are not shoot and when they surface the msg is read in full saying to stand down.

At end the of the movie is txt saying since that incident (based on real events iirc) only the prez has the codes.

Oh dear sweet baby Jesus don't get your info from movies!



I'm not 100% but I know they had capability to circumvent the president and nuke half the world when we were scared of the Russians. I cannot imagine what we have in place now that we are scared of hundreds of small groups to the point of invading entire countries to control them better.

 

[bingley]

This Chinese middle schooler got it figured out. If he doesn't do well on his next exam, then we'll go to war with China.

Why the Fate of Humanity Rests on a Chinese Middle-Schooler's Test Scores - Minami Funakoshi - The Atlantic

 

[Kutnupe14]

We have fought more wars than the PRC has. We have invaded and occupied more countries. We have more military bases around the world. We have a bigger, more powerful military. We have proved ourselves much more willing to use force. You can try to justify this as the price of empire, or you can denounce it as unhumanitarian, but the objective fact is we're the badass of the world.

The People's Republic of China? Other than pretending not to have had a part in the Korean War, it fought some skirmishes with the Indians, and got its ass handed to it by the Vietnamese. History shows that they're not very aggressive even against its weaker neighbors, and they seem to use force more within the borders, to control and oppress the Chinese population. I don't buy this "the EAST thinks differently and they'll launch ICBMs." We think differently, and we're the ones who would launch the ICBMs. Whaddaya think, we keep those missiles around for kicks?

Let's hope what you say is correct, but I doubt China doesn't have the stomach for a fight... The same thing was said about the US at the begining of the last century.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mI3menlI6-c

 

[IndyDave1776]

Let's hope what you say is correct, but I doubt China doesn't have the stomach for a fight... The same thing was said about the US at the begining of the last century.

I am with you. We can dismiss China at our own peril.

 

[bingley]

Let's hope what you say is correct, but I doubt China doesn't have the stomach for a fight... The same thing was said about the US at the begining of the last century.

I was responding to a comment that says the "East" thinks differently, and would launch ICBM if given the chance. That's just some foolish stereotype. I did not say that China "doesn't have the stomach for a fight." Hey, it fought us/US in the Korean War. I do believe today's China has more pragmatic leaders, rather than the really ideologically driven sort before the 1980s. Hopefully both the US and China will recognize that there is a lot of money to be made, and war or hostility won't help.

 

[cobber]

China won't go toe-to-toe with the US. They'll use misdirection and wear us down in the long run.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I will add that history has proven repetitively that an enemy in combat is under no obligation to conform to anyone's expectations. One of the things that cost us dearly at Pearl Harbor is that we set up the defenses to counter the attacks that our people would have planned without considering two things: 1., The Japanese may chose a bold stroke (as the did), and that 2., We had a sense of complacency based on the fact that aerial torpedoes of the day would dive to approximately 120 feet and then rise up to 20 or so to make their run at the target. Since Pearl Harbor is only 40 feet deep, we felt absolutely safe from aerial torpedoes (which were much more destructive than the bombs of the day). It never dawned on the American planners that some young and creative Japanese officer, like one Lt. Genda, would come up with a way to make aerial torpedoes work withing the 40 depth imposed by Pearl Harbor, which is exactly what happened.

That said, I am not going to arbitrarily put anything past the Chinese. They are bright, capable, and historically have held life in lower regard than most western cultures. Again, we may dismiss them at our own peril.

 

[bingley]

That said, I am not going to arbitrarily put anything past the Chinese. They are bright, capable, and historically have held life in lower regard than most western cultures. Again, we may dismiss them at our own peril.

The Western regard for life and rights of man came as a result of the Enlightenment. That is to say, it is actually a fairly recent thing. Before that one could argue that China was ahead in terms of humaneness. Go back four hundred years, and you find European travelers praising the Chinese legal system as the paradigm of justice and humanity. No, they were not deluded. They were just both astounded and grateful at the impartial and even-handed treatment they received when they got into trouble in China. Early contacts between the Chinese and the Europeans are really interesting. Read about them sometime.

When you think about culture, you have to realize that cultures change. Though America is Western, we're quite a bit more violent than Western Europe. We hold human life in lower regard than countries like France or Germany. But then the French of the ancien régime were known to carry out the most brutal form of torture and execution for regicide, and as for the Germans, does anyone needed to be reminded of World War II? This goes to say that cultures change very fast, and the kind of black-and-white thinking that I see in this thread is not really sophisticated enough to deal with such reality.

 

[downzero]

China won't go toe-to-toe with the US. They'll use misdirection and wear us down in the long run.

They never will need to, since they can buy us.

 

[$mooth]

Also, more tech just means more of a chance that something will break. It's a statistical fact.

If you have one component that is 90% reliable, then you can plan on a 90% readiness level.

If you require 2 components to make something work and both of those are 90% reliable, then the chance of both of them working at the same time is .9*.9 or 81% reliable. And so on and so forth.

So, then you have to double up on systems to get your reliability back up. Now they cost more, are more difficult to maintain, so you can't field as many.

It's a logistical nightmare, and it won't matter how advanced our planes are if they're sitting on the runway waiting for maintenance.

Close. More Tech doesn't mean worse reliability when reliability and redundancy is part of each component's design. This is also accounted for in stricter environmental requirements in modern designs.

Your system reliability is always less than the reliability of your weakest component. So if that component is 3000hours, then your system will be less than 3000 hours.

Reliability is measured in MTBF more than percentages. Availability is measured in percentages (Uptime over uptime + downtime).
Reliability isn't simple multiplication either, and it needs to account for parallel and series systems.

 

[T.Lex]

Bump.

Palace Intrigue: Chinese Soldiers Storm Replica of Taiwan Presidential Office - China Real Time Report - WSJ

Is Beijing doubling down on its longstanding threat to reclaim Taiwan by force? That’s a concern for some Taiwanese after China’s state broadcaster showcased a recent military drill that featured soldiers storming an apparent replica of the island’s presidential palace.
...
The video went largely unnoticed until Wednesday, when a Shanghai-based media outlet said it demonstrated how Beijing “would use force to solve the Taiwan issue.”
...
“Over the years, the PLA threat to Taiwan has become largely abstract, and ordinary Taiwanese now tend to shrug off news of traditional PLA exercises,” said J. Michael Cole, a Taipei-based senior fellow with the University of Nottingham’s China Policy Institute. That, he said, “may have compelled Beijing to up the ante.”
The apparent targeting of Taiwan’s presidential palace “strikes at the heart of what is recognizable to ordinary Taiwanese—downtown Taipei. This is a symbol of nationhood, the seat of power in Taiwan,” Mr. Cole said. “By making the threat more recognizable and immediate than missiles fired off Taiwan’s northern and southern tips, or drills simulating an amphibious assault, Beijing may hope to engage ordinary Taiwanese not at the intellectual and abstract level, but on an emotional one.”

 

[deal me in]

Wonder why the russians sold it?

Russia realized they would never be a true surface naval power and gave up. They can meet their national security needs (not to mention territorial grabs) without a great surface navy. China on the other hand, may have delusions of grandeur about challenging US supremacy in the Pacific. Not any time soon fellas.

Just a question, I don't claim to be an expert. Is the aircraft carrier becoming obsolete? Is it the last war's technology? Yes, they give us the the ability to project power against inferior military's, but it's my understanding they are very vulnerable to the latest air and land based missile technology. The kind we would face against Russia or China. In addition, Stealth Bombers give us that ability to project power without being as big a target. Any Navy expert want to weigh in on the vulnerability?