5 ms·

> China could nuke US carrier groups assuming their satellites aren't taken out first. That spells game over for US projection of power if successful. Incorrec

> China could nuke US carrier groups assuming their satellites aren't taken out first. That spells game over for US projection of power if successful. Incorrect, the USA will probably just shrug, and call in the other 11 super-carriers and 9 amphibious assault ships. At the same time they will invoke NATO article 5 and a few other Asian mutual-defence treaties. 2 UK, 1 Spanish, 1 French, and 2 Italian carriers will arrive soon afterwards. As will 4 Japanese, 3 French, 2 Australian and 2 South Korean helicopter carriers. The trick isn't to take out one aircraft carrier: its to to be able to take them all out.

Armisael16 5y ago
Article 5 only applies to attacks in Europe or North America. The SCS is definitely in neither.
- throwaway210222 5y ago
  Fair point. 2/3 of the armada (modulo dry dock) is still coming to the fight.
- AlexAndScripts 5y ago
  Fair, though in practice they would join in anyway - China would be going for them next. Better to fight with the US than alone.
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    Presumably the US would find itself in such a situation because it tried to stop the invasion of Taiwan. China will never have the interest or capabilities of going after Europe.
- throwawaycuriou 5y ago
  Interesting. Edge case: if French Guyana (off the north side of South America but considered part of France and the European Union) is the victim of an attack by some means, are NATO members obliged to act in its defense?
  - Armisael16 5y ago
    No. The same is true of New Caledonia (most of overseas France, actually).
    - addaon 5y ago
      Nor the Falkland Islands, which is probably a more likely (although still unlikely) trouble spot.
simonh 5y ago
That’s absolutely right if course. Taking out a carrier group, or even several carrier groups is if course doable, but by itself it isn’t an objective. It’s a means to an end, so without a strategic context it doesn’t mean anything.
echelon 5y ago
> The trick isn't to take out one aircraft carrier: its to to be able to take them all out. Hypersonic missiles and nukes cost a lot less than a carrier. Assuming their surveillance doesn't get taken out, they can spam missiles. China will have to have good signals intelligence for this to work, though.
- varjag 5y ago
  A nuclear attack will ensure proportional response.
  - throwawaylinux 5y ago
    What is a proportionate response if most of China's army and navy are on the mainland? Nuclear strikes on the mainland?
    - varjag 5y ago
      Yes, is it surprising in any way? Nobody would have raised an eyebrow at this concept back during the Cold War, just shows how comfortable in peace we are now. The concept of unilateral nuclear strike did not exist; all models were of nuclear exchanges and question was only if it could happen in any limited way or escalate into a total one. Both game-theoretic calculus and political pressure at home would make nuclear retaliation unavoidable, and with the perspective of escalation China is firmly on the losing end.
      - throwawaylinux 5y ago
        It's not surprising, it just isn't exactly proportionate (well it is by one definition of the word I suppose). That strike would cause China to retaliate against the US homeland, wouldn't it? And the retaliation for that would aim to dismantle China's military and industrial base. If that's the case then I can't see how isolated tactical nukes against carriers makes sense for China. They might as well throw everything they have to begin with.
tlear 5y ago
Nobody except Japan maybe UK and Australia is likely to do anything. US itself is likely to turn tail and run if attack in not nuclear. Nuclear attack might inject some spine into response.
marstall 5y ago
I've read its actually very hard to find an aircraft carrier in the open ocean, and even if you have found it, difficult to target because it will be be moving at 30 knots in a zigzag pattern?
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  That's true for subsonic low altitude missiles yes. For a missile going Mach 7 at 25km altitude, the carrier has no hope of moving enough in the 9 minutes it has to evade the missile. So you only have to find the carrier once briefly, which is not so hard.
  - dotancohen 5y ago
    Let us assume that at launch the missile had the location of the carrier as provided by satellite one hour ago. How is the final phase of flight and targeting going to work? How far away can on-board sensors detect the carrier, and does the missile have the maneuverability to steer towards the target in that timeframe?

Armisael16 5y ago

Article 5 only applies to attacks in Europe or North America. The SCS is definitely in neither.

throwaway210222 5y ago
Fair point. 2/3 of the armada (modulo dry dock) is still coming to the fight.
AlexAndScripts 5y ago
Fair, though in practice they would join in anyway - China would be going for them next. Better to fight with the US than alone.
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  Presumably the US would find itself in such a situation because it tried to stop the invasion of Taiwan. China will never have the interest or capabilities of going after Europe.
throwawaycuriou 5y ago
Interesting. Edge case: if French Guyana (off the north side of South America but considered part of France and the European Union) is the victim of an attack by some means, are NATO members obliged to act in its defense?
- Armisael16 5y ago
  No. The same is true of New Caledonia (most of overseas France, actually).
  - addaon 5y ago
    Nor the Falkland Islands, which is probably a more likely (although still unlikely) trouble spot.

simonh 5y ago

That’s absolutely right if course. Taking out a carrier group, or even several carrier groups is if course doable, but by itself it isn’t an objective. It’s a means to an end, so without a strategic context it doesn’t mean anything.

echelon 5y ago

> The trick isn't to take out one aircraft carrier: its to to be able to take them all out. Hypersonic missiles and nukes cost a lot less than a carrier. Assuming their surveillance doesn't get taken out, they can spam missiles. China will have to have good signals intelligence for this to work, though.

varjag 5y ago
A nuclear attack will ensure proportional response.
- throwawaylinux 5y ago
  What is a proportionate response if most of China's army and navy are on the mainland? Nuclear strikes on the mainland?
  - varjag 5y ago
    Yes, is it surprising in any way? Nobody would have raised an eyebrow at this concept back during the Cold War, just shows how comfortable in peace we are now. The concept of unilateral nuclear strike did not exist; all models were of nuclear exchanges and question was only if it could happen in any limited way or escalate into a total one. Both game-theoretic calculus and political pressure at home would make nuclear retaliation unavoidable, and with the perspective of escalation China is firmly on the losing end.
    - throwawaylinux 5y ago
      It's not surprising, it just isn't exactly proportionate (well it is by one definition of the word I suppose). That strike would cause China to retaliate against the US homeland, wouldn't it? And the retaliation for that would aim to dismantle China's military and industrial base. If that's the case then I can't see how isolated tactical nukes against carriers makes sense for China. They might as well throw everything they have to begin with.

tlear 5y ago

Nobody except Japan maybe UK and Australia is likely to do anything. US itself is likely to turn tail and run if attack in not nuclear. Nuclear attack might inject some spine into response.

marstall 5y ago

I've read its actually very hard to find an aircraft carrier in the open ocean, and even if you have found it, difficult to target because it will be be moving at 30 knots in a zigzag pattern?

sudosysgen 5y ago
That's true for subsonic low altitude missiles yes. For a missile going Mach 7 at 25km altitude, the carrier has no hope of moving enough in the 9 minutes it has to evade the missile. So you only have to find the carrier once briefly, which is not so hard.
- dotancohen 5y ago
  Let us assume that at launch the missile had the location of the carrier as provided by satellite one hour ago. How is the final phase of flight and targeting going to work? How far away can on-board sensors detect the carrier, and does the missile have the maneuverability to steer towards the target in that timeframe?