‘We’ll see how frightened America is’ PLAN admiral says sinking US carriers key
47 replies, posted
https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2019/01/04/well-see-how-frightened-america-is-chinese-admiral-says-sinking-us-carriers-key-to-dominating-south-china-sea/
Another Beijing official has sounded off about the communist nation’s perceived dominance of the South China Sea region, this time coming as an alarming threat of inflicting mass casualties on the U.S. Navy.
During a Dec. 20 speech to the 2018 Military Industry List summit, China’s Rear Adm. Lou Yuan, the deputy head of the Chinese Academy of Military Sciences, added fuel to the South China Sea fire when he stated the key for Chinese domination in those hotly contested waters could lie in the sinking of two U.S. aircraft carriers, according to a report by Australia’s news.com.
"What the United States fears the most is taking casualties,” the admiral said, before adding that such an attack on two of the U.S. Navy’s steel behemoths would claim upwards of 10,000 lives.
Lou went on to call America’s military, money, talent, voting system and fear of adversaries the five U.S. weaknesses that can be easily exploited, according to the report.
"We’ll see how frightened America is,” he said
Please no America-China war
or any war with Trump at the helm
Didn't american carriers lose wargames to subs even recently.
A US-China war in the South Sea is probably the biggest potential war that humanity would probably survive. You'd get lots of ships sunk, planes shot down, soldiers and sailors dying by the tens of thousands, but it probably wouldn't go nuclear because neither side has that much at stake. For either of us, losing the sea would be far better than even winning a nuclear exchange.
The tactical situation is bad for both sides. America has a lot of powerful assets but they're glass cannons to some extent. We've got all these crazy stealth fighters and stealth bombers, but they rely on non-stealth refueling aircraft, and those will practically be the first casualties. The carriers are also quite vulnerable - we have anti-missile systems but we just don't know how good they are against a peer-level adversary, On China's side, they have bases on all the islands they've been making but those are fixed targets. Pop a sub up, fire off some cruise missiles, they're toast. And their naval assets are pretty rudimentary - growing quickly, but they're still far from our level. They don't have to project power as far as we would, they could get by with smaller frigates than the mighty sea-going cruisers we'd have to field, but it's still technically an away game for them.
I think this report is highly simplified, and in many ways wrong. I don't think America would fold as soon as we took casualties - we sat around in Iraq and Afghanistan for a decade-plus with plenty of bodies to show for it. I think they're making the same mistake Argentina made in 1982 - just because we're a democracy with better things to worry about than some small islands (and oil) halfway across the planet, doesn't mean we won't fight like hell over them. If anything, losing a carrier would galvanize public support. Remember "Remember the Maine"? America doesn't like dead Americans, but our natural instinct is vengeance, not retreat.
The report is correct that if China wants to win, they need to take down the carriers, but that's fucking obvious. They're just too much firepower, and critically, it's projected firepower. With tankers gone, carriers are the nearest "airbase" for the fighters. Take those out, and now they're flying from Korea or Japan, and that's a big advantage. Maybe not enough - a carrier is the biggest stick in a carrier group, but I still wouldn't want to face the rest of one, and even the USMC "amphibious assault ships" are carriers nearly on par with what China currently fields.
I mean if they could sink a carrier yeah that would cause problems, but some people really underestimate the strength of a U.S. Navy super carrier battle group. Not invincible, sure, but probably one of the most difficult things you could possibly engage in a modern conflict; not to mention, iirc (correct me if I'm wrong) while we have at least 11 currently operation, with two in construction and two more ordered but not yet in construction. There are a total of 20 operation aircraft carriers in the world, and the United States has over 50% of them. China has 1, Russia has 1, and everyone else who has them are either a part of NATO or fairly afaik. In any naval (and subsequently aerial) theater, the U.S. would probably clean house with sheer numbers alone.
"Local Chinese man spews verbal sewage for like the 17th time this month and shows no sign of stopping, septic cleanup stock prices soar."
I posted an article like a month ago about something similar. Chinese officials love talk but their only real advantage is having an awful lot of fleshies walking around.
"We'll see how frightened America is"
Hah. I guarantee you if some PLAN moron decided to fire on a U.S. carrier (even if in a potential Sino-American war) and it took casualties or was sunk from a hit (increasingly unlikely due to how we structure our CBGs and from how large and caked-in-defenses a carrier is), America wouldn't be scared.
We'd be pissed. Remember Pearl Harbor? Imagine that but with the modern, far more technologically advanced and heavily bankrolled U.S. Navy gunning for your sorry ass because you killed some of their men and damaged/sunk a ship.
i know not much for US carrier personnel but from the few shows that I've watched about, not even if they got some sort of Chinese James Bond would be able to do it i think.
Only maybe if they've got someone to become president in the US again and start decommissioning the carriers and the whole navy along with it.
With your Todd Howardism, you really got me to laugh aloud
Thanks for that
https://i.imgur.com/JOh1MNR.jpg
Ultimate viral marketing campaign, start a america-chinese war to advertise Fallout 5.
Most of the quoted ramblings in this article are borderline insane if you take them as anything but internal propaganda and should be dismissed as such.
"“The PLA is capable of taking over Taiwan within 100 hours with only a few dozen casualties,"
With the rate china is abandoning Deng Xiaoping's foreign policy, almost expecting them to do something incredibly foolish and attack, severely unprepared.
He'll widen his eyes, grin up his face ear to ear and go "u WOT MATE?!" as he pulls a nuclear arsenal of buttons to press to release all the bombs in a cartoony The Mask fashion.
"whats going through the minds of Chinese policy makers"
Probably air to surface missiles in a minute or two here.
Yeah, well, what if America sinks all of the Chinese ships so that they can't sink any carriers? What're ya gonna do then?
I'll let the Americans have that little bit of strategy for free.
why is the CCP dickwaving? they know if their provocations did start a war their economy would evaporate due to exports being blockaded by the fuckhuge american fleet
Todd Howard will remember that.
The remaining question is: will the movie be produced by Tencent or Dreamworks
You can't protect against a threat you can't observe.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saCdvAp5cow
They've been sunk twice in War Games.
From what I recall reading while the US is considered a military superpower most arms of our military are actually not quite as good as what some other first world nations have but our navy in particular is the biggest reason we're a military superpower. It's the largest, most well-supplied, and most high tech navy in the world. And even in modern day naval domination is a huge boon since most supply lines are still either by land or sea.
You have to understand this is less about what America can do, and more about what China can.
You know, that China. That one over there.
They're exceedingly concerned about making their willy look big and dangerous when it's more of a mess than Russia's current state of affairs. Slavic hand-me-downs, shoddily reverse-engineered whatsits, goofy super-soldier regimes, and outright fake tech meant purely for propaganda. They're a dog with their hackles up to appear bigger. You have to shake off (what feels like a decade of?) of western media running with clearly garbage articles meant to make China seem dangerous for those sweet clicks.
So like all authoritarian states.
China isnt even relevant why listen to what they say
just a thought but we have been kind of doing this aircraft carrier thing for 100 years and its still very dangerous and accident prone, I doubt they can manage the complex logistics of moving an airfield around at sea and flying hundreds of sorties.
They don't need an aircraft carrier to win the South China Sea. They've been building islands and putting air bases on them, that's basically an unsinkable, immobile aircraft carrier. And, a lot of the fighting may be within range of their own airfields.
China's aircraft carriers, right now, are basically about figuring out how to operate them, maybe using them to bully small countries in the Pacific. Right now, their carriers (well, one operational carrier) are even more vulnerable than ours.
china is pretty economically relevant to most of the world being the largest produced of cheap shit goods
To be fair Swedish subs are ridiculously stealthy. They have secondary propulsion that runs on slight temperature difference, which is pretty much entirely silent.
