6 ms·

No one would bat an eye if a Carrier Strike group launched F35 fighters to attack the Chinese mainland to disable missiles before they were used. In fact, this

No one would bat an eye if a Carrier Strike group launched F35 fighters to attack the Chinese mainland to disable missiles before they were used. In fact, this is 100% expected strategy for this situation. ----- What about a Marine WASP-class assault ship launching helicopters to do the same thing (except cheaper)? ---- What about a few Marine Special Ops units infiltrating the beaches under the cover of darkness to support those helicopters? If they're discovered, they could be "plausible deniability" units and arguably the USA never even landed in China. ---- What about the regular Marine infantry establishing a beach-head to support those Special Ops units, but never advancing further than just the beach? Etc. etc. Its a smooth and slippery slope. Its not exactly clear where or how to draw a line. In any case, the Chinese missile forces are going to be a severe issue. I expect at a minimum, F35B fighters from Carriers to be utterly destroying any missile-site they discover. That absolutely means attacks on the Chinese mainland. Something like this is almost a necessity, so that US Marines could do "something" to support the US Navy. Its probably too much to ask the US Navy to solo all of China by themselves.

dahdum 5y ago
> No one would bat an eye if a Carrier Strike group launched F35 fighters to attack the Chinese mainland to disable missiles before they were used. In fact, this is 100% expected strategy for this situation. > Something like this is almost a necessity, so that US Marines could do "something" to support the US Navy. Its probably too much to ask the US Navy to solo all of China by themselves. We aren’t striking Russian forces despite their deliberate targeting of civilians and numerous war crimes. Why would we attack a far more dangerous adversary first? The moral argument is clearly not enough, and we have no defense pact. We’d risk giving them their Pearl Harbor moment, and facing the carefully directed rage of a 1.4 billion population command economy under single party authoritarian rule.
- hackerfromthefu 5y ago
  >> facing the carefully directed rage of a 1.4 billion population command economy under single party authoritarian rule. Isn't that scenario already happening, just with barely plausibly deniability?
scarmig 5y ago
> No one would bat an eye if a Carrier Strike group launched F35 fighters to attack the Chinese mainland to disable missiles before they were used. In fact, this is 100% expected strategy for this situation. This isn't an accurate understanding of current US military or foreign policy thinking. https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/JIPA/Display/Article/2491279/reconsidering-attacks-on-mainland-china/ https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/JIPA/Display/Article/249127... > Military strategists, planners, and force requirements developers should anticipate America’s civilian leadership needing effective military options short of mainland attacks on China. RAND analysts seem to appreciate the risks of homeland attacks, suggesting that “as low as the probability of Chinese first [nuclear weapons] use is, even in the most desperate circumstances of a prolonged and severe war, the United States could make it lower still by exercising great care with regard to the extensiveness of homeland attacks and by avoiding altogether targets that the Chinese could interpret as critical to their deterrent.” Attacks against the mainland are certainly possible, depending on circumstances, but it's neither the default nor expected.

dahdum 5y ago

> No one would bat an eye if a Carrier Strike group launched F35 fighters to attack the Chinese mainland to disable missiles before they were used. In fact, this is 100% expected strategy for this situation. > Something like this is almost a necessity, so that US Marines could do "something" to support the US Navy. Its probably too much to ask the US Navy to solo all of China by themselves. We aren’t striking Russian forces despite their deliberate targeting of civilians and numerous war crimes. Why would we attack a far more dangerous adversary first? The moral argument is clearly not enough, and we have no defense pact. We’d risk giving them their Pearl Harbor moment, and facing the carefully directed rage of a 1.4 billion population command economy under single party authoritarian rule.

hackerfromthefu 5y ago
>> facing the carefully directed rage of a 1.4 billion population command economy under single party authoritarian rule. Isn't that scenario already happening, just with barely plausibly deniability?

scarmig 5y ago

> No one would bat an eye if a Carrier Strike group launched F35 fighters to attack the Chinese mainland to disable missiles before they were used. In fact, this is 100% expected strategy for this situation. This isn't an accurate understanding of current US military or foreign policy thinking. https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/JIPA/Display/Article/2491279/reconsidering-attacks-on-mainland-china/ https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/JIPA/Display/Article/249127... > Military strategists, planners, and force requirements developers should anticipate America’s civilian leadership needing effective military options short of mainland attacks on China. RAND analysts seem to appreciate the risks of homeland attacks, suggesting that “as low as the probability of Chinese first [nuclear weapons] use is, even in the most desperate circumstances of a prolonged and severe war, the United States could make it lower still by exercising great care with regard to the extensiveness of homeland attacks and by avoiding altogether targets that the Chinese could interpret as critical to their deterrent.” Attacks against the mainland are certainly possible, depending on circumstances, but it's neither the default nor expected.