• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Chinese missile could shift PAcific power balance

Gray_Fox_86

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 8, 2005
Messages
2,327
Reaction score
282
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate

Chinese missile could shift Pacific power balance - Yahoo! News

I am not sure of what to think. Many military and intelligence analysts, that are credible, say watch out for how China is modernizing their military. Soon they will be a serious military competitor that far exceeds the Russian threat. Because unlike Russia, China is an ailing population with far too many men. That means they would most likely want to start a war for females or the government would just want to cull the male population. But still if they ever attack we must watch out.
 

Is that some sort of sick joke?

Aside from that I think people are exaggerating China's capabilities and its potential threat. Sure an anti-ship ballistic missile would be a major threat, but in general it would not be too difficult for the U.S. and Russia to do something similar. In fact, it is quite plausible they already are working on such projects, and they can produce far more ballistic missiles at this point. Also this creates greater incentive for adopting anti-ballistic missile technology like the SM-3.
 
China already can deny USN access tens of miles from their coastline, and this missile will extend that reach further. While no wunderwaffen technology is a sure bet, carriers are at a serious disadvantage in the technological arms race. They cannot run, they cannot hide and the missile defense system cannot afford even a single failure, while the enemy only needs to get a missile through. Technology like this is going to spread as time goes on, and it would be prudent to start developing a replacement for carriers in the future. Realistically, I doubt it is possible to stop China from asserting control over nearby waters, but there still is a whole lot of other ocean for the USN to continue to control.
 
Hard to say, without being an expert on the whole missle / counter-missle technology situation, which I am not.

However, those whose business is naval war are concerned, so that concerns me.

We need to get more serious about producing more advanced anti-missle systems, or possibly alternatives to the carrier battlegroup. Possibly building a larger number o much smaller carriers that use VTOL warplanes?
 

Carrier subs with Harrier jet type capabilities?

Just a thought.
 
Hard to say, without being an expert on the whole missle / counter-missle technology situation, which I am not.

I can't claim to be an expert either, but the fundamental nature is firmly skewed against counter-missile technologies. A carrier is a giant object that slowly moves at 30 knots. A missile is a tiny object moving from several hundred to several thousand mph. Thus, it is far easier to hit a carrier than an incoming missile. Compounded by that, the defending system cannot afford to let a single missile through, while the attacker needs only one good hit. Suppose the Chinese have a missile that can hit a carrier 50% of the time, while we have a missile that can intercept theirs 95% of the time. Despite such a technical advatantage, the Chinese need only fire 60 missiles in order to get an 90+% chance of a hit.
 


That is a strong point, no doubt.

A lotta advances are being made with lasers, lately. A hypothetical laser anti-missle system would use a light-speed beam to intercept the missle... 186,282 mph vs a couple thousand mph. That could be the thing that tilts the equation towards the anti-missle side. We don't have one yet, but we're working on it.
 

Except there are also a number of countermeasures that could be employed against directed energy weapons. I believe the Russians are already putting such countermeasures in their ballistic missiles.

As far as the fate of carriers that will likely be impacted less by their vulnerability and more by the advances made in intercontinental aircraft and spacecraft technology.
 

Lasers are reflected and scattered by clouds, smoke and fog. They are inherently unable to operate in bad weather.
 
Lasers are reflected and scattered by clouds, smoke and fog. They are inherently unable to operate in bad weather.


Hm. That could be an issue yes. I thought infrared was less susceptible to such problems.
 
Lasers are reflected and scattered by clouds, smoke and fog. They are inherently unable to operate in bad weather.

Microwaves are a different story.
 
Hm. That could be an issue yes. I thought infrared was less susceptible to such problems.

It is, but it just isn't enough. A powerful enough laser might be able to penetrate a light cloud with enough energy, but even moderately bad weather is going to neutralize any laser that is practical. Lasers may have their place, but they will have to be accepted as fair-weather friends.

Microwaves are a different story.

True, but I haven't hear of any weaponized application of mircrowaves that could target missiles. The only military use on the drawing board is a less-lethal crowd dispersion method based on heating skin. I doubt you could focus enough energy of such a long wavelength on a single point to cause any significant damage.
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…