5 ms·

For those who can't be bothered reading it, the posited scenario goes something like this: 1. China torpedoes a US aircraft carrier for no particularly good re

by hugh_ 17y ago

For those who can't be bothered reading it, the posited scenario goes something like this: 1. China torpedoes a US aircraft carrier for no particularly good reason 2. China claims that the US aircraft carrier exploded all on its own, and nobody can prove otherwise 3. The US doesn't bother to retaliate 4. The US has thus "lost the Naval War of 2015". Does this scenario strike anyone as especially plausible?

tokenadult 17y ago
Couldn't the United States send some nuclear-tipped missiles to China in response, and then claim the explosions were simply explosions of the warheads stockpiled in China? I just don't buy 3. as a likely response. Possible, but not likely.
- hugh_ 17y ago
  And unless step 3 seems not just "likely" but "damn near certain", there's no way the Chinese are going to be dumb enough to attempt step 1.
stcredzero 17y ago
There would be records of the radar track in the computers of the Aegis cruisers in the task force. There may well be evidence of the launch captured by satellites. ELINT is very powerful, and the US intelligence agencies have been at this game since before WWII. Their sneakiness boggles the mind! They were using signals bounced off of the moon to spy on Soviet equipment, and disguised the whole thing as radio astronomy! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFSPHfZQpIQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFSPHfZQpIQ If you are going to go up against the US defense establishment, you'd better be damned sure you know what you're doing. If I were the US, facing such an asymmetric threat, I'd keep most of my carrier groups around for the short term as a boondoggle, then come up with my own novel threat against my opponent's shipping. (Sub launched cruise missiles, or mines? The advanced 21st century version, of course.)
- hugh_ 17y ago
  (Sub launched cruise missiles, or mines?) Nukes. If I were the US, I'd simply make it an official matter of policy that any attack from a nuclear power would result in an immediate nuclear response, the logic being that once two nuclear powers are at war it's probably going to turn nuclear eventually, so you might as well make the first strike.
  - synnik 17y ago
    Please tell me you are joking. Some of us spent our entire youth afraid of nuclear annihilation 24/7. We've been out of that for some time now, but I don't think anyone wants to send the world back to that point.
    - barrkel 17y ago
      Fear of nuclear annihilation is why there hasn't been a war. Nuclear weapons = peace. Not a happy peace, but infinitely better than either no nukes or a single side having nukes.
      - eru 17y ago
        You know that there were more hot wars during the cold war than we have now?
  - run4yourlives 17y ago
    Well, I guess the whole world can thank their deity of choice that you're nowhere near being in charge of anything.
  - nfnaaron 17y ago
    If I were the US, I'd simply make it a matter of official policy to make as many official, unofficial, formal, informal, commercial and personal ties to every country in the world as possible, to the maximum extent that any ideology on either side allows. Yes, certainly we need to maintain defensive and offensive military capabilities, but I think we should be doing much, much more to reduce the need for those capabilities.
cabalamat 17y ago
> China torpedoes a US aircraft carrier for no particularly good reason No. The scenario is that China hits a US carrier with a (conventionally armed) ballistic missile, for no particularly good reason
- hugh_ 17y ago
  I stand corrected. Don't aircraft carriers have pretty good missile defence systems, though?
  - ptomato 17y ago
    No. They have effectively none.
    - jfoutz 17y ago
      http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/cvn-68.htm http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/cvn-68.h... The NIMITZ-class self-defense measures include: missiles, guns, and electronic warfare. The NATO Sea Sparrow Missile System is comprised of two launchers with eight missiles each. Sea Sparrow is a radar-guided, short-to-medium range missile capable of engaging aircraft and cruise missiles. NIMITZ-class also has Close-In Weapon System mounts for short range defense against aircraft or missiles. Each mount has its own search and track radar, and a six-barrel, 20-millimeter Gatling gun capable of firing 3,000 rounds per minute
    - ajross 17y ago
      Untrue. The entirety of surface fleet doctrine in the modern USN is focused on protection of the carriers (and other force projection ships) from attack. Pretty much every ship you see is a "carrier defense mechanism", as are most of the aircraft on deck.
    - cabalamat 17y ago
      They have plenty of defences. However, a ballistica missile re-entering is going very fast and is therefore very hard to intercept. It is also not a threat that carrier battle groups have been designed to combat.

by hugh_ 17y ago

tokenadult 17y ago

Couldn't the United States send some nuclear-tipped missiles to China in response, and then claim the explosions were simply explosions of the warheads stockpiled in China? I just don't buy 3. as a likely response. Possible, but not likely.

hugh_ 17y ago
And unless step 3 seems not just "likely" but "damn near certain", there's no way the Chinese are going to be dumb enough to attempt step 1.

stcredzero 17y ago

There would be records of the radar track in the computers of the Aegis cruisers in the task force. There may well be evidence of the launch captured by satellites. ELINT is very powerful, and the US intelligence agencies have been at this game since before WWII. Their sneakiness boggles the mind! They were using signals bounced off of the moon to spy on Soviet equipment, and disguised the whole thing as radio astronomy! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFSPHfZQpIQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFSPHfZQpIQ If you are going to go up against the US defense establishment, you'd better be damned sure you know what you're doing. If I were the US, facing such an asymmetric threat, I'd keep most of my carrier groups around for the short term as a boondoggle, then come up with my own novel threat against my opponent's shipping. (Sub launched cruise missiles, or mines? The advanced 21st century version, of course.)

hugh_ 17y ago
(Sub launched cruise missiles, or mines?) Nukes. If I were the US, I'd simply make it an official matter of policy that any attack from a nuclear power would result in an immediate nuclear response, the logic being that once two nuclear powers are at war it's probably going to turn nuclear eventually, so you might as well make the first strike.
- synnik 17y ago
  Please tell me you are joking. Some of us spent our entire youth afraid of nuclear annihilation 24/7. We've been out of that for some time now, but I don't think anyone wants to send the world back to that point.
  - barrkel 17y ago
    Fear of nuclear annihilation is why there hasn't been a war. Nuclear weapons = peace. Not a happy peace, but infinitely better than either no nukes or a single side having nukes.
    - eru 17y ago
      You know that there were more hot wars during the cold war than we have now?
- run4yourlives 17y ago
  Well, I guess the whole world can thank their deity of choice that you're nowhere near being in charge of anything.
- nfnaaron 17y ago
  If I were the US, I'd simply make it a matter of official policy to make as many official, unofficial, formal, informal, commercial and personal ties to every country in the world as possible, to the maximum extent that any ideology on either side allows. Yes, certainly we need to maintain defensive and offensive military capabilities, but I think we should be doing much, much more to reduce the need for those capabilities.

cabalamat 17y ago

> China torpedoes a US aircraft carrier for no particularly good reason No. The scenario is that China hits a US carrier with a (conventionally armed) ballistic missile, for no particularly good reason

hugh_ 17y ago
I stand corrected. Don't aircraft carriers have pretty good missile defence systems, though?
- ptomato 17y ago
  No. They have effectively none.
  - jfoutz 17y ago
    http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/cvn-68.htm http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/cvn-68.h... The NIMITZ-class self-defense measures include: missiles, guns, and electronic warfare. The NATO Sea Sparrow Missile System is comprised of two launchers with eight missiles each. Sea Sparrow is a radar-guided, short-to-medium range missile capable of engaging aircraft and cruise missiles. NIMITZ-class also has Close-In Weapon System mounts for short range defense against aircraft or missiles. Each mount has its own search and track radar, and a six-barrel, 20-millimeter Gatling gun capable of firing 3,000 rounds per minute
  - ajross 17y ago
    Untrue. The entirety of surface fleet doctrine in the modern USN is focused on protection of the carriers (and other force projection ships) from attack. Pretty much every ship you see is a "carrier defense mechanism", as are most of the aircraft on deck.
  - cabalamat 17y ago
    They have plenty of defences. However, a ballistica missile re-entering is going very fast and is therefore very hard to intercept. It is also not a threat that carrier battle groups have been designed to combat.