Don't these make US Carrier strike groups useless in the china sea?

Don't these make US Carrier strike groups useless in the china sea?

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Yes, the US isn't going to be able to stand up to china and we should focus on fixing our own country.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >the US isn't going to be able to stand up to china
      lmao the US is running out of red lines to cross.
      when f35s are based in Taiwan in a few years will that be the last one?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >posted less than a minute apart
      come the fuck on now

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      NPC post Chang

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      What's your WPM, chang?

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Shooting a CSG is just begging to get nuked.

    China isn't going to risk a nuclear war just to keep our CSGs from prowling around in the south China sea.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >muh nooks

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        You are right, destroying the Three Georges dam would be more fitting.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          wouldn't do anything, China has tactically cloud seeded itself into a historic once-in-300-years drought so now the river is empty
          checkmate gweilo

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Nuking china in response to a conventional attack is begging for you to get nuked in return. Like you're in a bar brawl and take a hit so you draw your knife. Never ends well.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        No shit, but annihilating a CSG means WWIII and nukes anyway.

        You don't let an adversary take out a $25B+ asset without a MASSIVE response, and I don't think the US has any conventional response that would have similar impact on China EXCEPT for a nuke, or a conventional strike against three gorges dam which would end up killing far more people than a single nuclear attack would.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          USA won't do shit.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            LUL youll never learn

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You really think the US would just an aircraft carrier face tank a Chinese missile and have NO military response at all?

            Fucking do it chang, I'm willing to roll the dice on the one if you are.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              There's a bit of a range between a nuke and "no response at all" don't you think?
              And this thinking that you need to respond directly to an enemy action is bullshit too. When you're in a war, everything you do is meant to harm the enemy. You're not going to do it any more efficiently by introducing tit-for-tat revenge into your decision making. If a carrier is sunk, you eat the loss, redeploy your air power to land bases and proceed to kick chinese ass in the same way you did before.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Its fact that destroying a CSG is a nukeable offense, so good luck trying!

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                USA won't do shit.

                >USA won't do shit
                >proceeds to have everyone tell him how wrong he is
                >moves goalposts and tells everyone what the U.S. might do
                kys

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Not the same guy you dumb moron. I maintained the position that the US wouldn't respond with nukes to a sunken carrier. Not that they would stop the conventional war effort, run tails between legs and leave east asia to china.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >When you're in a war
                we haven't been in a real war in decades
                call me when we're dropping millions of tons of ordinance out of b52s and firebombing Dresden, again

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Sure, they should invade Taiwan now

            Sure, invade the island

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You can claim the US won't do shit all you want, but we have physically seen China not do shit when it came to Pelosi going to Taiwan 🙂

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              All I saw was now fast US carrier ran away like a bitch

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                All I saw was a plane entering supposed Chinese air space and not getting shot down despite threats

                Honest question, will China "win" when our crazed cold war era politicians like Pelosi and Biden croak? We're about to get a bunch of young melinials/zoomers in office who would shit their pants and cry if tiktok is banned so it could be a legit concern.

                It's possible, but with Russia possibly collapsing we might see an end to leftist psy ops that caused such weakening.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >US carrier group circles to keep on station during a crisis without becoming a stationary target
                >They are obviously frightened of China's might.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Honest question, will China "win" when our crazed cold war era politicians like Pelosi and Biden croak? We're about to get a bunch of young melinials/zoomers in office who would shit their pants and cry if tiktok is banned so it could be a legit concern.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The tremoring, liver-spotted hands of a Silent/Boomer slowly henpecked his post one key at a time.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                don't worry that's just the childhood lead poisoning leaching out of his dissolving bones

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You gays keep forgetting the US goes full tard rage when attacked. Even latte sipping hipsters call for the blood of foreigners when shit happens. Just look at 9/11 and remember how even garden gnome yorkers went out into the streets singing kumbaya celebrating the death of some sand moron.
            Tl:dr don't be a slant eye when you piss off the US as the 1911 was purpose built to kill squints.
            Flips (the first)
            Nips
            morons and chinks
            Zipperheads
            Chinks (again some day)

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >The absolute full broadside of asian racial epithets

              My fucking sides, Jesus Christ you fucking psycho

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >Just look at 9/11 and remember how even garden gnome yorkers went out into the streets singing kumbaya celebrating the death of some sand moron.
              This, post 9/11 psychosis was some real shit

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous
          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            how many times does america have to teach the entire world a lesson before you fucking retards learn

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              People who don't have freedom cope by claiming the boot on their neck is virtuous and that their enemies are just soft for not having a boot on their neck. Tojo said all the same shit word for word about the US being too comfortable, too soft, not having the stomach for war, that if you slapped the US' nose it would seek peace. The key thing these people never understand is the difference the US population has when reacting to a good casus belli versus a war that is seen as wasteful, pointless, and our fault.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Anglos are inherently the most bloodthirsty and violent race, but their education and morals hold them back most of the time.
                Thus when a righteous cause is found, they destroy their enemy with the pent up bloodlust of generations, and give no mercy
                God bless America

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I mean, we invaded iraq and Afghanistan.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            We invaded and killed hundreds of thousands over 2 buildings anon we would absolutely push China shit in if they tried.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah because attacking the US Navy in a sneak attack worked REALLY well for Japan.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >t. Emperor Hirohito, December 6 1941

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No, my friend, you have it backwards.
            China won't do shit.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            What has happened EVERY FUCKING TIME someone fucked with our boats. The last time it happened we cracked open an entirely new branch of technology on them

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Chinese coast guard patrolled north pacific, bullying us fishing boats for 6 month and your navy didn't do shit

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                did China sink any of them?

                just being in the same ocean doesn't count as 'bullying' regardless of how much you want to larp as having force projection dingus

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >2 warships.
                >zero observed interactions of any kind with any US vessels
                >immediately shit themselves and run home when approached by a virtually unarmed USCG cutter.

                China is the most pathetic nation ever to exist

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                don't forget they also got BTFOd by the Vietnamese coast guard

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Sauce?

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Nonsense. Noone's going to start the apocalypse (because by the time china has finished their current nuclear armament programme, that's what it will mean) over a military asset that the US has 11 of, in a war that won't even reach american territory. You may claim so, but it's a bluff and the chinese will call it.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >You may claim so, but it's a bluff and the chinese will call it.
            We flew one of our least liked politicians into chink airspace and all they did was seethe over it.
            Chinsects won't do shit

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Yes, because flying an unarmed plane through chinese airspace and fucking nuking them is totally the same thing.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Again, fucking try it chang. You want a third of southern China underwater? Millions homeless and millions more starving? Three gorges dam is just a wobbly kneecap waiting for the baseball bat of freedom.

              Don't test us.

              >Don't do totally normally things in war or we'll FUCKING NUKE YOU I pinky swear promise
              Literally russian tier. Just as pathetic, just as toothless.
              And I'm not chinese either btw. Just not interested in getting revenge nuked because someone couldn't stomach a sunken ship.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                We aren't at war with China

                If China starts a war by using OPs missiles to attack a CSG, expect hellfire and brimstone

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You're the same kind of pussy that would also say we shouldn't nuke China even if they nuke us first.

                >well it was ONLY one nuke, we can't risk escalating the conflict further by nuking them back

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Strawman and retarded.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Again, fucking try it chang. You want a third of southern China underwater? Millions homeless and millions more starving? Three gorges dam is just a wobbly kneecap waiting for the baseball bat of freedom.

            Don't test us.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >You want a third of southern China underwater?
              Stupid laowai. China cleverly dried up all rivers.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            this. look how many aircraft carriers the japanese sunk, and the US didn't nu...
            wait, nevermind

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              And those carriers were a lot cheaper than current carriers.

              The largest carrier Japan sunk in WWII "only" cost about $25-30M USD (around $500M in 2022)

              A bargain compared to the current $11-13B cost of the GRF-class boats, not to mention their planes also cost a lot more these days, pretty sure they plan to have 3-4 dozen F-35s and a good dozen+ other planes, probably adding another $5B+ in value. Not to mention all the crew training and shit which costs a fuck ton to get a crew fully trained.

              Sinking a modern carrier would be an incredibly heavy blow to the US in power projection capability but also just in pure economic damage.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          If chinks can reliably attack surface vessels with long-range ballistic (HGV optional) missiles, then they can reliably deny CSG operations. There really is no way around it. Can they do it, and if not when can they do it, if ever, are the real questions.

          Attacking a CSG would not be a decision taken lightly, and before it could even be envisioned the chinks would need to have a reliable nuclear deterrent or 2nd strike capability. Attacking 3 gorges realistically needs nukes anyways because it's a fuckmassive gravity dam

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >because it's a fuckmassive gravity dam
            Why would that need nukes?

            GBU-57A/B Massive Ordnance Penetrator is a 30,000lbs bunker buster. I think a B-52 can hold 2 or 3 of them, and I think the B-2 can hold 2 as well.

            You really think a half dozen of those won't put a hole in this dam?

            Sure, you could ALSO just use a nuke, but you certainly don't have to.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >implying the B-52 will go thought hundreds of SAM and the 2nd largest air force in the world.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                This is why I mentioned the B-2

                also the B-21 is supposed to be able carry at least 1 of them as well, or a rocket-assisted derivative bunker buster with similar destructive capabilities.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                2nd largest Airforce in the world is the US Navy, 3rd largest is the Marine Corps

                And yes, given the combat performance of Slav SAMs (Chinese are the same or worse) I am fully confident that we would smoke China militarily and barely break a sweat.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                https://i.imgur.com/tohyRS7.png

                You mean the Navy? I love the Navy!
                also https://www.livescience.com/navy-ufo-videos-national-security-threat

                >2nd largest Airforce in the world is the US Navy
                Yes, 10 years ago you boomer. PLA air-force is the 50% bigger than the US navy airforce.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Yes but US pilots have 2-3x the flight hours and our planes are just all around better.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Yes but US pilots have 2-3x the flight hours and our planes are just all around better.
                Yes, 10 years ago.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The PLAAF is only the second largest air force if you count 3rd-generation fighters (when in any potential conflict, they'd only be a way for USN pilots' to stat-pad)

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You mean the Navy? I love the Navy!
                also https://www.livescience.com/navy-ufo-videos-national-security-threat

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              I'm not a dam expert but I think you need fairly massive breaches to have large scale destruction downstream. In any case, an attack on 3 gorges is realistically equivalent to a nuclear attack so policy wise its irrelevant whether it's conventional or not. From an american point of view what matters is can the chinks launch a nuclear counterstrike.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Dams fail all the time from even minor structural failures due to the force of the water causing even more damage as it collapses. Any uncontrolled breach can lead to a catastrophic failure.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You don't need massive breaches to destroy a dam. You don't even need a "breach" in the common meaning of the term. The whole point of a dam is to store gravitational potential energy so it can be converted to kinetic energy. Any minor damage to the dam that allows even a minimal amount of that energy to be unleashed outside of the specifically designed pathways will cause a catastrophic failure of the dam in short order. This is why even minor overtopping to the tune of ~2"-4" can (and has) collapsed entire dams before.

                The difference between attacking the 3 Gorges with a conventional or a nuclear assault isn't so much about the initial attack, but whether you want to blanket a third of the country (and eventually the ocean) with irradiated floodwater. MacArthur got shitcanned for wanting to salt the Yalu with cobalt, and this would be only barely less ecologically destructive.

                >t. engineer who stopped a couple classes short of a minor in nuclear engineering

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              I'm not a dam expert but I think you need fairly massive breaches to have large scale destruction downstream. In any case, an attack on 3 gorges is realistically equivalent to a nuclear attack so policy wise its irrelevant whether it's conventional or not. From an american point of view what matters is can the chinks launch a nuclear counterstrike.

              My buddies and I did the math a while back. The best way to remove the damn is smuggling in a SF diver team with a nuclear demolition charge to the base of the damn on the wet side. The water would attenuate the radiation burst to the point of non existence will so blowing the thing to pieces

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >If China comes up with a reliable anti-[weapon] system then [weapon] is obsolete.
            How can the US possibly defeat China's militarized tautology capabilities?!?

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          ???
          It would not be at all difficult to launch conventional strikes on important military infrastructure against China, given it's almost all on the fucking coast. Three Gorges if we really want to be extra Hispanicy about it.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >You don't let an adversary take out a $25B+ asset without a MASSIVE response,
          You're forgetting that it would be a voluntary war on America's side, just like the invasion of Ukraine is voluntary for Russia.
          Just as there is no reason for Russia to resort to nukes to win Ukraine since it's not theirs in the first place; there's no reason for the US to resort to nukes to force an invasion of China.

          The US loses all its carriers. It retreats back to its borders. The world moves on.
          The US is still secure from invasion. China has proven itself secure from American invasion. They still have to worry about the 1 billion Indians on their border, though.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >The US loses all its carriers. It retreats back to its borders.
            If China engages in an act of aggression like striking US carriers, the US won't retreat back to its borders. There will be a total blockade - not embargo, blockade - of China. No grain shipments in. No export shipments out. Any ship heading to China is sunk and any ship trying to leave is sunk, until China collapses into starvation and civil war.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >If China engages in an act of aggression
              Why the fuck would China engage in an act of aggression? They have no plans to invade the US.
              It's the US that's trying to contain China, not China that's trying to contain the US. The US would be the one starting the war of aggression.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The most likely scenario of China starting shit first against the US would be if China decides to try and pre-emptively attack a US CSG before invading Taiwan to annihilate any sort of fast response by US naval airpower in the pacific and instead forcing either south Korea or japan to respond, both nations who aren't really within range to provide much air power. Japan has their 2 helicopter carriers with F-35's now, but that isn't anywhere near the same level of power a CSG can exert.

                That's the most likely scenario of china doing a preemptive strike against a US carrier.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                No reason to preemptively strike when it's a sitting duck anywhere.

                >China invades Taiwan
                >US says, "YOU CAN'T INVADE WITHOUT OUR PERMISSION!" and proceeds to prepare a war of aggression.
                >China says, "Fuck off, this is none of your concern."
                >US moves carriers into position.
                >China warns them off
                >US launches strike package
                >China sinks the battle group.

                Now the US is no longer in any position to prosecute a war of aggression against China.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Invade sovereign nation
                >Their allies defend them
                >WAR OF AGGRESSION WAR OF AGGRESSION
                I cannot wait to see the shitty, Soviet + Guanxi corruption culture of China fail militarily just as badly as Russia has.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                you wont do shit

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You're missing the steps that leads to the ROC flag flying over Beijing again

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >10 other CBGs rape every Chinese flag or traveling vessel to death
                >800 million Chinese become dinner for the other 200 million in 6 months.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                10 more CBCs get sunk. USA complaints like a bitch.
                Bulk of US navy is outdated, your 40yr old ships are gonna get btfo

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Your shit is derived from reverse-engineering a
                40-year-old Soviet carrier which was a piece of shit when it was new. At least trying using one of your non-CATOBAR, diesel-powered glorified ski jumps in a non-scripted training exercise before you decide the destruction of the entire Imperial Japanese Navy must have been a fluke.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Why the fuck would China engage in an act of aggression?
                The only way there will be a conflict between China and the USA is if China engages in an act of aggression, such as a second attempt at helping North Korea annex South Korea, or an attempt to annex Taiwan. The USA has no reason to engage in any act of aggression against China, so any scenario where China attacks an American aircraft carrier is by default in one of the many plausible scenarios where China tries to throw its weight around and attack innocent neighbouring countries.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >The USA has no reason to engage in any act of aggression against China
                Wrong. White supremacy is a driving force.
                The US, UK, and AUS all have the majority of their forces around China right now for the sole reason of containing the only non-white nation that can challenge the white hegemony. China threatens none of them, none of them live in that half of the world, yet their militaries are all off China's coast.

                If there was no reason to engage in any act of aggression, their fleets would all be home.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Posturing to stop Chinese expansion isn't aggression.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                If the Chinese surrounded Hawaii and threatened to sink any ship that left, you wouldn't consider that an aggressive act?

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                That's not at all what we're talking about.

                The US isn't stopping china from trading or even just normal transit of their military, the US is stopping china from literally building military bases and artificial islands with landing strips.

                It's pure blatant expansion into the SEA region.

                If china wants to patrol around playing high seas cop, they can. It's when they start expanding to choke off access to certain fisheries or trade routes where it becomes an issue.

                The US is playing sea police. China isn't.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                So if China surrounded Hawaii and Guam, and told us that all airports and naval bases had to be shut down to reverse our destabilizing expansion into the Pacific, you wouldn't see that as an act of aggression?

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                What expansion have we done in the pacific since WWII?

                We can point to china's RECENT expansion in artificial islands and tiny island military bases.

                And again, we aren't surround china demanding them to do anything, we're just asking them to stop expanding and telling them if they attack our allies in the region they're gonna get got.

                if you think that means the US is being aggressive, just try it chang I can't wait to show you real aggression.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                What does it matter when it was? That would seem to just be an arbitrary distinction in favor of the status quo -- a status quo that quite conveniently favors the US.

                Did China get a veto over our armed fortress *ahem* "embassy" in Iraq? Do they get a veto over our piracy in Persian Gulf or the Gulf of Mexico, where we seize weapons and medicine we don't like?

                Quite convenient that the US can expand to every corner of the globe but China can't come out of its coastal waters.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Did China get a veto
                No. Because they suck ass, and have no ability to stop us from doing whatever we want. We have the ability to stop China from doing what it wants, therefore we do so.
                Morals are a fucking stupid argument to make when considering geopolitics dumbass.
                >But muh American pigdogs are cheating
                Yes we are. Get fucked.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Morals are a fucking stupid argument to make when considering geopolitics dumbass.
                Yet you need to coach evil in lies to get any support.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Yes, because the status quo is the exact opposite of destabilizing. When you are dredging to build islands and expand your EEZ, you are being a destabilizing influence. Meanwhile, the US hasn't engaged in territorial expansion in the region since 1898, when it got Wake Island (save for a few Japanese islands, which were managed after the war and given back in the late 60s and early 70s). More than that, it's been reducing its Pacific footprint, creating entire countries in the process - the Philippines in 1946 and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands in 1986.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >arbitrary distinction in favor of the status quo
                This is literally the foundation of all international relations.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Did China get a veto over our armed fortress *ahem* "embassy" in Iraq?
                Yes, they did, because that's literally how the UN works.

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1441

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Iraq was in compliance
                >US decided to invade anyway
                >Nowhere in the resolution is there authorization for the US to take over Iraq

                So exactly when did China have a veto over the unilateral decision to attack and take over a country that was in compliance with the resolution they voted in favor of?

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                They got to say their piece. It's just that the UN is as useless stopping us as it is everyone else.

                Fuck I hate that institution. Why couldn't those fucking Saudis crashed into that too?

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                So the point remains, that China would be just as justified in sinking US carriers and carpet bombing the US over its invasion of Iraq as the US would be justified in attacking China over its invasion of Taiwan.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                "For every injustice the US commits, China gets to commit one injustice of equal or greater value."
                No one on Earth will buy your moral relativist bullshit and "but muh American hypocrisy!" won't mean you can invade Taiwan without getting sanctioned/cruise missiled so hard it makes the Great Leap Forward and the Era of Unequal Treaties seem like a golden age for China.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >>Iraq was in compliance
                "Resolution 1441 stated that Iraq was in material breach of the ceasefire terms presented under the terms of Resolution 687. Iraq's breaches related not only to weapons of mass destruction, but also the known construction of prohibited types of missiles, the purchase and import of prohibited armaments, and the continuing refusal of Iraq to compensate Kuwait for the widespread looting conducted by its troops during the 1990–1991 invasion and occupation."
                >>US decided to invade anyway
                It was confirmation that our stated causus belli was factually correct.
                in the resolution is there authorization for the US to take over Iraq
                True. But it did confirm that our stated casus belli was factually correct. It also did not specify what would happen in the event Iraq did not comply with the resolution's demands, nor that any actions taken would first have to be confirmed by the security council. It did not authorize the use of military force, but it did not specify that it could not be used.
                >So exactly when did China have a veto over the unilateral decision to attack and take over a country that was in compliance with the resolution they voted in favor of?
                Again, the resolution literally said Iraq was not complying with existing UN resolutions or the terms of the 1991 ceasefire. Resolution 1441 was unanimously passed by all 15 members of the security council, including China. If China had elected to use its veto, the resolution would have failed even if it were 14-to-1. Arguing that China had no idea that the resolution might lead to war requires the PRC's leadership to have the naivety and intelligence of a child.

                Did the resolution authorize the war? No.
                Could China have unilaterally stopped the US from using it to justify war? Yes. All they had to do is say the words, "China votes against the resolution." They didn't but now conveniently use it as a justification for unilaterally invading Taiwan--- without a UN resolution.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >It's pure blatant expansion into the SEA region.
                ASEAN said China is no threat and SEA economy need China, then told USA to fuck off during the Shangri-la forum.
                American plebs are delusional.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                moron ASEAN is dysfuctional and fucking impotent. It's just a club of fuckers doing fuck all and turning a blind eye to eachother's countries. SEA needs China, which is exactly the fucking advantage China's fucking with to build whatever the fuck they want.

                I'd rather get fucked by Uncle Sam than get a smile from Ching Chong Chang.

                If your mother called you a slanted gay would that be true?

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                SEAmorons would the first on their knees begging Americans

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Retard

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >or a conventional strike against three gorges dam which would end up killing far more people than a single nuclear attack would
          There's your answer. China has a glass jaw.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I doubt it. So the Pentagon would say that china killing 5k American sailors would warrant obliteration of all major cities in china and the US ending both countries as we know it? We would respond with continued conventional means before that point

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Pretty sure you’d see 50$billion worth of Chinese military buildings and equipment targeted by precision stealth strikes before we nuked them…

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It would be more prudent to take out all their dams and induce mass casualty events via conventional weapons. Bug swatting doesn’t have to be nuclear.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Hitting civilian targets to cause civilian casualties is almost as provocative as nukes. The US will target military infrastructure in return for the sinking of a CSG.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Hitting civilian targets to cause civilian casualties is almost as provocative as nukes
          Okay, Chink.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          When did China get civilians?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      In theory it shouldn't, in practice 5000 US sailors dying in the blink of an eye would make the public bay for blood.

      What I could see would be some immediate and aggressive conventional non-nuclear bombing of chinese military assets all about the South China Sea. Their artificial islands, their naval groups, some mainland chinese naval facilities. Just full on cutting edge best of the best missiles or stealth bombers or UAVs or whatever. Shock-and-Awe tier.

      A Carrier group won't get them killing millions of chinese civilians. It'll just, unless we are as rotten and shitty as Russia the paper tiger proved to be, make us go rabid-dog and smash the shit out of every Chinese military target available. Which is why China has to decide a very precise moment when they feel they can get away with anything.

      That said it would likely spiral into some kind of WW3. Maybe not a nuclear one but you'd see China going full tilt nutjob - imprisoning every American they can get their hands on in China (or lynching them), seizing every American-associated economic asset, hacking/cyber warfare out the ass to the mainland US.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        A carrier strike group sunk by these missiles would be neutralized and any reinforcing CSG would suffer the same fate. Only long flight bombardments from land airports would be able to harm china thats to little for that extensive bombing campaign you talk about, it wouldn't be possible.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        US Cyberwarfare is crazy strong, but it always holds back. China can't take that dicking.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >China will not risk a war when attacked and being in a war, the post
      so I guess they will just let the US invade and occupy China in order to avoid a war

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Except no one wants to invade China you dumb chang.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >yo lets nuke a nuclear country

      said no one ever

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Yeah, 1970s tech beats 2020 tech, didn't you know OP?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Muh look similar; therefore same
      You are a retard

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >You are a retard
        KEK. The automatic hapanda response. Like a fucking parrot.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        They are aerodynamically identical, therefore equal in performance.
        >muh ching chong quantum hypersanic paint

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    No, they can't hit moving targets, and the scientist that designed them already gave all their details to the glowmorons.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      China is going to go full Suicide Squad and implant microbombs next to engineer/scientist brain stems.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Defects to the west
      >Defects to fucking Britain
      Lmao

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous
    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >No, they can't hit moving targets
      Then why US ship keep running away like a bitch?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        US ships keep sailing in the Strait of Taiwan and the South China Sea on a regular basis.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Then why don't the US sent their Carrier group like in 1996?
          Also China is now regularly patrolling the Alaska coast and bully US fishing boat, the US can't do shit.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Also China is now regularly patrolling the Alaska coast
            Do these Chinese ships stay near Alaskan waters forever or do they run away like a bitch?

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              They stated for six month and you navy didn't do shit. USA is a moron

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                This is some weird cope anon, I hope you enjoy being a retard as much as we enjoy laughing at you.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                So the Chinese navy ran away like a moron?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Waaaa, why didn't the enemy do exactly what I wanted them to do!

        You're going to have a bad time with this mindset in a real war.

        Also your body-kit Pershing 2s aren't scaring anyone until you can get terminal guidance on a moving target worked out. The CEP natively sucks, and a carrier can move almost five miles in any direction from launch detection to impact. Whoops.

        And people are mentioning nukes because you can't tell the difference between an ICBM and a HGV until well after launch has been detected by the Americans. Who are known to have Launch On Warning doctrine. Smoothbrain move on China's part, as usual.

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They're as game changing as the Armata

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    If they cant reach the Malacca Strsit from China then they're useless

  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Doesn't my nth gay-ass technology mean carriers are obsolete. I'm completely neglecting missile defense, electronic warfare, or suppression by long-range bombers, cruise missiles, or ballistic missiles btw

    have a nice day

  8. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    velly implessive!

  9. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The US navy is always 30 years ahead of the curve when it comes to what they allow the public to see. For all we know they are developing super powerful lasers that can take advantage of the nuclear reactor on the carrier, or some super advanced CWIS system, or whatever. Lockheed was fucking around with an f35 prototype in the Nevada desert in the fucking 90s

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >for all we know
      If only you knew how bright the flash could be.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >F35 prototype
      I doubt it, considering how many countries it took to make it.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous
        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >x35
          >First flight 24 October 2000
          >with an f35 prototype in the Nevada desert in the fucking 90s
          So that was a fucking lie

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            not that anon, but 2000 is much earlier than i would've thought to see one of those things flying around

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >The US navy is always 30 years ahead of the curve when it comes to what they allow the public to see
      Yeah. They were already as gay as the rest of America is now in the late 80’s.
      The next level showing of sodomy in the pipe is bound to be a gale changer from the diaper mutts.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Hey, at least when our boys do gay shit it's consensual
        :^)

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >gale changer from the diaper mutts
        >Enemies of the USN aspirate on their own vomit when they roll out PROJECT: UH OH STINKY and project the stench of a furry convention through new wind-manipulation devices

  10. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    No, they require satellite guidance in order to hit ships, of which they have 4, all of which the US could easily destroy. Meanwhile America is building UFOs.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Goddamn we are reaching some truly sci fi looking shit

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The SR stands for Super eRection

  11. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Don't these make US Carrier strike groups useless in the china sea?
    they're just fast cruise missiles, anon

  12. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    To be honest, anti-ship missiles make almost every kind of combat ship uneconomical.

    I'd more see as a winning strategy China being able to outproduce the US in -cheap- munition, with the US carrier group not having enough ammo to keep up the defense and being destroyed before they can resupply.
    However that would only keep the battle away from China.
    Once the US establish a protected supply line and China supply line get sniped by stealth missiles they can't intercept the attrition change side.

    I expect Submarine warfare to go essentially the same way but more in favor of the US. New software being good enough to make submarine stealth worthless so everything become a question of who can mass produce torpedoes and UUV-drones to swarm the opponent.

    This is no longer WWII when weapon production pace was on par with the rate at which they are destroyed.
    We could build 400 aircraft per month, now we are extremely happy if we can produce 1 modern aircraft per month.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      That’s why DEWs (Direct energy weapons) are so crucial in a war of attrition and probably why the DoD shelved its rail gun efforts to put the focus on lasers and shit. Man I can’t wait to eat some fried bugs

  13. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Ask yourself this
    Why does the DF-17 make CSGs obsolete, but other ballistic missiles don't?
    Do you understand that BGV hypersomic ballistics were done in the 1940s? Then nobody touched them for years because they offer only marginal advantages over conventional ballistics with far more cost.
    They no more have made CSGs obsolete than existing ballistic missiles that China and everyone else already had.

  14. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Somehow I'm not worried.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Kek in 2001 my Chinese Foreign Policy prof told us about how his parentsij China would have to attend mandatory military training and they'd be laughing at how the bullets would strike their targets sideways. I'm glad that 40 years laters nothing has changed.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I think it's impressive how progressive the commie bandits are, making a female combat squad and showing them off

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Sadly, this is not keyholing, but recoiling rounds from the wall behind the target. You can see it for yourself:

      Start at 7s.
      At 8s, a barely visible hole appears on the rightmost part of the right eyebrow (your right)
      At 9s, the recoiling bullet exits and creats the keyhole

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Ok Chang. Because bullets ricochet off of concrete completely intact and not deformed.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        You fucking retard, you're suggesting 2 full seconds for a bullet to ricochet 15 cm, and for that ricochet bullet to be FULLY INTACT.
        You fucking mong.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Look at the keyholes. The edges go inwards from our perspective, as if the holes were made from a projectile striking the front. If it was caused by ricochet, the edges would be coming towards us.
        Further, it is hard to believe that the bullets were not deformed by striking concrete.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Noguns zhangs who have never shot anything before in their life
        Your even dumber if you think this is the case. Since ricochets are pretty deadly to people shooting at up close targets. But I'm sure the casualties sustained during training was acceptable.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        literally excuses made by someone that's never shot anything in their fucking life. bullets are made of soft fucking lead, if they bounce back like that off cinderblocks they wont even penetrate ballistic plates

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        If bullets did that anyone shooting in there was going to be catching lead. Considering they all didn't just drop screaming in puddles of blood I highly doubt fmj suddenly became rubber

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I think you posted this in good faith, but as a guy who done shoots a lot, you are wrong. This comes down to abysmal chink rifles or wonky chink training ammo.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      why does the target look like a racist caricature of a chinese man lmfao

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It is in fact exactly that, it's a caricature of a Uighur, which is a different asian ethnicity up in northern china. Primarily muslim, and in the way of Chinese progress with their belt and road initiative.

  15. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >cope answers
    usa stronk/china stronk
    >real answer
    we don't know until it actually happens

  16. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    china is built on mud infused steel. ill be worried when they stop mass spamming dogshit

  17. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I don't believe this shit even works. I really don't.

  18. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I dunno. It's never been used against a carrier group.

  19. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    No

  20. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    US probably has secret tech that makes those useless.

  21. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Armatard sucks donkey dicks.

  22. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    What the hell is PrepHole now?

    The Chinese are selling a lot of promises on hypersonics. One is being able to communicate while in flight. This ability to lets them correct targeting and also receive non-inertial updates will be imperative to these functioning or missing.

    If it can't update it can't hit things properly. It also doesn't take into account directed energy weapons, AEGIS self-defense missiles, or other 'chaff' weapons that could defect the weapon.

    Also, missiles don't occupy buildings. Ignoring that you start WW3 by sinking a carrier, you also are still across a huge body of water from your goal occupation.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It wouldn't be a war of occupation, but rather one closer to the Pacific war

  23. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    No, they make the US carrier groups useless in the Pacific.
    They make for good artificial islands for China in the South China Sea.

  24. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Retards on side
    >The US will NUKE BEIJING

    Retards on the other side
    >The US will do nothing

  25. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    No because those are just cardboard.

  26. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Hypersonics can barely hit stationary targets let alone moving objects surrounded by defense layers

  27. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Don't these make US Carrier strike groups useless in the china sea?
    Not really. No more than a rifle makes an infantry man on the battlefield useless.

  28. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Then I guess China does not mind becoming a 3rd world shit hole within a year.

  29. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    no it only transforms CSG into SCG (submarine carrier groups)

  30. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >oh God please let China attack us before they overtake our GDP and they build new carriers to face our 30+ year old ones

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It'll still take at least 30-50 years before they can actually build up their military AND have enough experience operating naval logistics on a wide-scale with some blue water experience under their belts.

      Even if they had the ships to do it right now, it would be dumb because they just don't have much experience operating such a large navy, even more so in an actual war.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        That's my point, it's in China's best interests to wait a long while yet

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I'm gonna be dead by then so meh

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Ok boomer

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        China would never attack because they're not going to take over a country with 500 million guns on the other side of the planet.
        China would play on its own side of the world, first. If the US gets involved, that's a war of aggression against China which they take care of with antiship missiles. No more US war of aggression and China is free to play.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          That means no taiwan

          If china attacks taiwan, the US is fighting.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            That's a war of aggression against China just as much as it would've been a war of aggression against the US if China had sunk carriers and carpet bombed Guam because we invaded Afghanistan without their permission.

            China can go to war with Taiwan if they please, and they may defend themselves against US aggression.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >China can go to war with Taiwan if they please
              And the US, and other Pacific nations, can react to China's decision as they please.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      China's demographics are terminal. They're growing old before they can grow rich enough to support a billion seniors. The covid lockdowns aren't helping, either.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        They're just joining the club baby
        Hell, Germany is at 48

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Theirs is going up faster, though. Thank the One-Child Policy and forced industrialization for that.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Technically at the rate Covid affects the elderly it’s probably helping them more than hurting them in the long run…

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      China's economy is literally about to pop, you haven't been following the news at all. They're facing a massive real estate bubble crisis right now that's only getting worse by the day.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >You have too much wealth! Surely this will bankrupt you!
        You're really not very bright, are you?

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          How could the People's Speculative Real Estate Market be bad if Comrade Pooh Bear says the line will keep going up forever?

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          do you know what a bubble is?
          It literally works exactly like that.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Wow, y'all are really about to experience your nation's first ever economic depression without any idea it's coming, aren't you? Here's some advice: the Party's managed to conceal and delay everything for so long without addressing the underlying problems means that when the slump hits, it's going to be a fucking doozy. The PRC has a strong hold over the political system, but strong means brittle, so it might shatter at any point. Given China's recurring problems with mass famine, I'd advise you to stock up on non-perishables. Political chaos (combined with the yuan's value plummeting) will really fuck up imports for a long, long time and China's so large any international aid will be a drop in the bucket of what's needed. Even worse, they'll be effects on the entire world economy and everyone else will have problems of their own. The next few years might make the Great Leap Forward seem like a golden age.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >having too much wealth leads to a depression!
            You're really not very bright, are you?

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >thinking a bubble is too much wealth
              you do a lot of projection, don't you?

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                A bubble just results in a correction. You do not lose any of the wealth.

                >Congress starts making noise about gun control. Prices start to go up. You decide now's a good time to sell your AR-15 and cash out. You sell it for $2000 -- $1000 more than you bought it for..
                >They guy who bought it sells it for $3000 a week later.
                >That guy sells it for $4000 a week later.
                >That guy sells it for $6000 a week later
                >That guy sells it for $10,000 a week later.
                >"I've got to get back in on this!" you think. You buy it back for $15,000.
                >Nothing happens with gun control
                >prices plummet back to $1000

                Is the economy destroyed?
                No. The guy you bought it from has his 1000 pieces of paper.
                The guy you sold it to has 1000 extra pieces of paper.
                The guy he sold it to has 2000 extra pieces of paper
                The guy he sold it to has 4000 extra pieces of paper
                The guy he sold it to has 5000 extra pieces of paper.
                You are down 1000+2000+4000+5000 + the original 1000 purchase = 13,000 pieces of paper
                13,000 pieces of paper have been distributed among others, for a net loss of zero pieces of paper.
                You have your gun back for a net loss of zero guns.

                Nothing has changed except the distribution of paper.
                The correction hurt you, while the bubble profited 4 others to the exact combined extent the correction hurt you.

                The gun manufacturer having manufactured the gun, creating a valuable item (wealth) does not leave the nation in a poorer state than if he hadn't, simply because a bubble formed around it. The nation is up one gun in wealth and down zero paper.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Ah yes, because the correction in the housing market in 2008 did not result in any lost wealth.

                Fucking dimwit.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                China actually has a government that can do something when the citizens are being stupid.
                See Xinjiang.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Like print counterfeit money with the same exact serial number multiple times?

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                yeah the little bit you're leaving out is this is chinese paper (real estate). remind me again, which industry in China created the "tofu dreg projects" moniker?

                you'd get sturdier paper off the ground in Hiroshima on the afternoon of August 6, 1945.

  31. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous
    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      now that's air power

  32. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You know the funny part? The USN doesn't technically even *have* to fight in the South China Sea. A task force, with USAF support from Diego Garcia, could interdict almost all shipping to or from China in the Indian Ocean, outside of the range of the DF-17. That means no hydrocarbons, which China needs not just for power and transportation, but also for agriculture. They'd be looking at a severe famine within months, but as a practical matter, their economy would probably collapse within weeks as word got out and people began to panic.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      If only there were some way on earth China could possibly get such goods from another source. Unfortunately, all hydrocarbons on Earth travel via the strait of Malacca.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Pretty much. What they get from Russia is entirely from eastern Siberia, not western Siberia. There literally aren't any pipelines running from their primary oil and gas fields to China, and it would take years (*with* Western imports and engineers--far longer without) to build out meaningful capacity across Siberia to China. The TSR doesn't have the spare capacity to make up the difference, either. Plus, there's the small matter that Russia may be effectively losing a large chunk of their oil production next year anyway, because of the sanctions (and perhaps more importantly, the boycotts that pulled the Western engineers out). And finally, there's also the minor issue that China's economy is dependent upon both imports *and* exports, and without access to foreign markets and supply chains, China's economy collapses before it runs out of oil and food, causing chaos.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >there's also the minor issue that China's economy is dependent upon both imports *and* exports
          You mean like... just about every economy on Earth?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            yes it remains an effective method of warfare like in previous total wars

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Most modern nations on Earth don't have 40% of their economy depending on exports and won't have a billion people starve to death if they can't import food by sea. Modern China is a house of cards.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >depending on exports
              Uh, you realize that if you don't export, you get to keep the stuff, right?

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Uh, you realize that if you don't export, you get to keep the stuff, right?
                Yeah go fucking sell black rubber dildos, retarded mousepads and plastic yoyos to your own peasant population who the majority make $1.65 a month instead of to the degenerate West, that will surely balance out their economy. If only the CCP had someone as brilliant as you at their head instead.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Their wealth still gets catapulted to that of the US, while the US becomes a third world nation.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                No, because a thing is only valuable if someone wants it. China does not want the entire US-bound inventory of Spirit Halloween knickknacks, they want USD. If trade was broken off between China and the US, they would suddenly have a lot of useless shit and very little USD.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Yes anon, 90% of Chinese exports are spirit Halloween knickknacks

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Most of their exports are intermediate stages of manufacturing, like taking a circuit board populated in Taiwan and installing it into a phone chassis made in Thailand. They're mostly coasting on arbitrage, except the calculus for that remaining viable is dying with their demography.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Yes anon, 90% of Chinese exports are spirit Halloween knickknacks

                you're, astoundingly, both kind of correct

                the only manufacturing that the US genuinely offshored (Taiwan's status as a nexus of tech manufacturing hasn't really changed all that much, but AFAIK they've been the kings of it for most of the semiconductor transistor era) was plastic forming (it generally comes from refineries in the West) and textiles. the plastic manufacturing was China's specialty, and their economy has been buoyed by idiotic Western oligarchs who saw China's real estate as being as rapid-growth as the CCP reports and thought investing in Chinese real estate would give them their first erection since their geriatric hearts couldn't handle viagra any more

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The last I checked, China can't eat smart toasters with bluetooth connectivity

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              You might need to update your knowledge from 2006, that 40% has gone down to 20%, which is actually pretty low

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This is charmingly naive.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Oh, don't get me wrong--the PLAN could still cause all kinds of problems in the short term, but the CCP has to recognize that it's not a winning hand in the long run, and escalating to nukes just gets them nuked right back. Would you gamble your country, your people, your cushy life at the top of the pyramid on having to roll boxcars multiple times in a row?

        It's not a foolproof deterrent--nothing is--but it's something the CCP has to keep in mind: the US, if sufficiently annoyed, can shut down over 99% of all sea trade to and from Chinese ports within a few hours to a few days of the order being given, depending on where assets are and which legal channels are used to compel other nations (and international maritime insurance providers) to comply.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          US can't even maintain it's own navy, except for carriers it has less modern warship than the PLAN.
          Tico and Burke II are fucking outdated compared to 052D and 055. No ASAR radar no ASBM. Americans plebs don't even realize how behind they are, but you generals are, that's why you won't do shit.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Invade Taiwan and find out.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              China will only attack Taiwan if US is on the table.
              China is not attacking now because the USA keep running away like a bitch.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Tico and Burke II
            >no ASBM
            Lol. Lmao even.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Hey guys we're gonna go indefinitely blockade China and completely implode the global economy 50x worse than 2008 or Covid ever did, that fine with everyone?
      >Yeah sure man go ahead

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Anon, decisions like thst aren't made without contingencies in mind and a pivot away from China has been happening for the past decade with COVID cementing that.

        The US might not be able to move as quickly and open the pocketbook quite as deep as the EU for bullshit economic warfare, but they can do just fine.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >we don't NEED the south china sea

  33. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    China plans to be carbon neutral by 2060.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      They'll be neutrally charge carbon atoms in 40 years after their society collapses and everyone nukes them like they deserve.

  34. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Don't these make US Carrier strike groups useless in the china sea?

    yes. also they are making Guam bases into huge waste of money.

  35. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Laughs in rocket-deployed GMLRS launchers

  36. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >china says carriers are useless
    >china builds carriers
    Really makes you think.

  37. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    prepare your asshole

  38. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why does every "Here's how China wins" scenario revolve around them building n+1 missiles with none of the supporting capabilities needed to effectively use them, nor the assets to follow up on their purported effects, with the US military suddenly embracing technological stasis during the years it will take for China to mass-produce their "we somehow managed to make sensors that can penetrate a shroud of blinding plasma and no we won't demonstrate this capability in a way you can verify" superweapon?
    It's literally, China wins because it has a magic "China wins" button.

  39. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Cue the US drawing a penis into the three gorges dam until it breaks with cruise missles

  40. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >The only place you can take out a loan at is your local fucking bank.
    >Local bank takes the funds you pay in and uses it for a bigger bank in the region.
    >Bigger bank lends it into national companies.
    >National companies claim they're doing massive projects for investments (But they never finish them and just start up another one for claims) and "pays" into the national bank.
    >National bank disburses everything back down
    >It's supposed to go to the local bank to give you more money and others loans.
    Is it just a ponzi scheme in China?

  41. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Doesnt one carrier strike group placed here to choke China of it's oil make these useless in general?

    Also, any military that parades in the 21st century is meme levels of facade

  42. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Is a massive, fast, drone launcher with huge amounts of electricity going to become obsolete?
    No

  43. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The Rabid Dogs Of American Imperialism Cannot Hope To Withstand The Harmonious Advance Of People's Polytechnic Mastery Of Rocketry

  44. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I wish a bro would

  45. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Did Japanese guided suicide rockets make US carriers useless in the Pacific theater of WWII?
    Did German V2 rockets damage US shipping at all?

  46. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    If that were the case, china wouldnt be so interested in building their own carrier groups

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I doubt China is building carriers to use them on anyone who has DF-17's.

      There's a major difference between thinking they might be useful for "shaping relations" with Third World nations and thinking they'll be useful in peer conflicts with global superpowers.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      No, based on the effectiveness of modern AA against Soviet derived systems in Ukraine right now, I'd say it instead makes you wonder if China needs to rethink their war plans. Instead, those launchers are big, juicy targets for more agile systems and laughable unless you're bigger than the entire CSG pierside.

      Is Multirole/navy bombers group are better anti ship missiles ?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        bump

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          bro what

          Sorry. I'm having a stroke. See this.

          *are better in dealing carrier group than anti-ship missiles.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        bro what

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        *are better in dealing carrier group than anti-ship missiles.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Anti ship missiles are for defense, carrier groups are force projection. China cant afford to rely on turtling as a legit military strategy.

  47. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    No, based on the effectiveness of modern AA against Soviet derived systems in Ukraine right now, I'd say it instead makes you wonder if China needs to rethink their war plans. Instead, those launchers are big, juicy targets for more agile systems and laughable unless you're bigger than the entire CSG pierside.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Soviet derived systems
      retard

  48. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Not when the US navy has lasers and drones and rail guns etc.

  49. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Holy fucking wumao cope ITT.

  50. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Guess what happens if the Chinks attack or especially manage to sink a US carrier.
    Think about it man.
    It starts with Nu... and ends with clear combat until no motherfucking chinkoid is alive anymore

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Guess what happens if the Chinks attack or especially manage to sink a US carrier.
      USA stay silent. Iran just bombed your consulate and your base this year, the USA said there was no death and didn't do shit.

  51. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Aren't these hypersonic glide weapons that can barely maneuver in the air and are easily targeted by kinetic destruction systems?

    The reason the US hasn't invested in hypersonics is that they mostly suck ass unless you put a nuke on them, and we already have ICBMs for that. We're trying to build an air-breathing, maneuverable hypersonic missile for the prompt global strike program, but said missile is not finished and is not likely to be finished for a few years.

    The US first fielded these hypersonic glide missiles in like the fucking 80s and realized that they had way too many downsides back then.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >easily targeted
      Bullshit, call me shill if you must but the very point of "hypersonic glide" is that no/less anti-missile can launch and intercept them in time.
      ICBM are literally named so for being ballistic, they don't maneuver at all, and are more easily intercepted.

      The US only made hypersonic missiles, not missile capable of maneuvers. We don't need them for nuclear deterrence simply because we have too many nuke anyway, it will get through by sheer number.

      However for anti-ship purpose, being able to produce even a few of those missiles would be perfect. As long as you can produce more of those than the enemy have warship and get a superior kill, this is a win. You can't replace a warship in a week or a month.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >easily targeted
      Bullshit, call me shill if you must but the very point of "hypersonic glide" is that no/less anti-missile can launch and intercept them in time.
      ICBM are literally named so for being ballistic, they don't maneuver at all, and are more easily intercepted.

      The US only made hypersonic missiles, not missile capable of maneuvers. We don't need them for nuclear deterrence simply because we have too many nuke anyway, it will get through by sheer number.

      However for anti-ship purpose, being able to produce even a few of those missiles would be perfect. As long as you can produce more of those than the enemy have warship and get a superior kill, this is a win. You can't replace a warship in a week or a month.

      USA is behind China in hypersonic missiles because they decommissioned their hypersonic wind tunnel after the old war.
      Also warhead like the Pershing 2 is very different from df21 or df17, comparing them is retarded.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >USA is behind China in hypersonic missiles because
        No. The reason the US has mostly abandoned hypersonics is because they don't fit into American military doctrine.
        The entire point of hypersonic missiles is to hit a target fast enough that its defenses can't react to stop it, but the US already has something that fills that niche far better and for far less money (see picrel). Which is the better option, the missile that lights up like a fucking Christmas tree the moment it's launched, can't guide itself, can barely maneuver, and looks indistinguishable from a ballistic nuclear missile strike, or the small stealthy missile that you can't see on radar until it's right on top of you?

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Those missiles are cope. Ship based asbm out range them and they are not that more stealthy than sea skimmers.
          China already has lrasm equivalent, they ground effect missile that stays just 1m above water.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Your combat proven technology is cope
            >my untested, unproven propaganda parade piece is better
            Every time.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Hypersonic missiles are hard to detect, such speed come with a plasma sheath which is why guiding them is extra hard.
          US love their stealth but the main reason it work is because they keep using it against countries with lesser technology than Soviet. Those "stealth missiles" also need to use the terrain or they'll still light-up even on Russian radar.

          Not saying the Russian aren't coping with missiles they can't actually produce in high number, or at all, after sanction.
          The real danger will come from China is they can overcome the Mao's sheep mentality that keep them from innovating.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >US love their stealth but the main reason it work is because they keep using it against countries with lesser technology than Soviet
            This is and has always been a massive cope. It relies on the assumption that Chinese radars have some magical quality that will allow it to see though stealth better than all of the American radars it was tested against and deemed sufficient to overcome.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Stealth are easy to detect you brainlet

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              ...or maybe the cope is that American have magical paint that nullify laws of physics and make the extreme heat of jet engine disappear?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            https://i.imgur.com/inBZ7XL.png

            >USA is behind China in hypersonic missiles because
            No. The reason the US has mostly abandoned hypersonics is because they don't fit into American military doctrine.
            The entire point of hypersonic missiles is to hit a target fast enough that its defenses can't react to stop it, but the US already has something that fills that niche far better and for far less money (see picrel). Which is the better option, the missile that lights up like a fucking Christmas tree the moment it's launched, can't guide itself, can barely maneuver, and looks indistinguishable from a ballistic nuclear missile strike, or the small stealthy missile that you can't see on radar until it's right on top of you?

            Stealth just make you difficult to target, it's easy to detect stealth. Lrasm is subsonic, so quite vulnerable to ciws.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Stealth are easy to detect you brainlet

              Lol, looks like I struck a nerve.
              >know something is there using wide band radar
              >don't know exactly where it is
              >or what it is
              >or how far away it is
              >or how fast it's going
              >or in what direction
              >or how many there are
              >all the radar bands you could use to determine those things don't work on it

              >but hey, you "detected" it

              ...or maybe the cope is that American have magical paint that nullify laws of physics and make the extreme heat of jet engine disappear?

              Already combat proven against the best AA systems Russia has to offer in Syria. Cope in whatever way you feel necessary.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Hypersonic missiles are hard to detect, such speed come with a plasma sheath which is why guiding them is extra hard.
            Plasma sheath stealth is a meme that only brainlets believe in. It's very dependent on the temperature of the missile body. The Zircon, for example, reaches ~4000 Kelvin at altitude and speed. At 4000 Kelvin, plasma shield can block 1 Ghz and lower but SPY-1 operates at S band: 2-4 Ghz, APG-81 and APG-79 operate at X band: 8-12 Ghz, SPY-6 operates at S/X band: 2-4 Ghz and 8-12 Ghz, SPY-3 operates at 8-12 Ghz, MPQ-53 operates at C band: 4-8 Ghz, AIM-120 and SM-6 seeker operates in I/J band: 8-20 Ghz. All of them are higher than 1 Ghz, so the plasma shield is useless. Zircon can fly Mach 9 at 30 km altitude, doesn't mean it can do the same at 1 km altitude. Depending on the materials in which the body is made of, if they're using passive, active, or ablative cooling, etc. Plasma is an easy, easy problem to solve. Also, space based IR sensors can, and do, track hypersonic missiles of all types.
            >US love their stealth but the main reason it work is because they keep using it against countries with lesser technology than Soviet.
            China's radar tech is literally Soviet and Russian knock-offs. They're so shit at building radars that they contracted Russia to build their Early Warning Radar System.
            >Those "stealth missiles" also need to use the terrain or they'll still light-up even on Russian radar.
            Proof?

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >China's radar tech is literally Soviet and Russian knock-offs. They're so shit at building radars that they contracted Russia to build their Early Warning Radar System.
              boomer cope. reminder than the 90s was 30 yrs ago

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >reminder than the 90s was 30 yrs ago
                Learn Engrish, Ping Ling. If China can make better radars, why are they contracting the design and construction of the Early Warning Radar System to Russia?

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >30 years ago
                ?

                You mean 3? The system he's talking about is 3 years old. You didn't have any LPAR system until Russia built it for you.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                source

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-10-03/putin-says-russia-is-helping-china-build-missile-warning-system

                Isn't exactly clear when the system started coming online, but it's been visible on google maps for 3 years.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Helping =/= building
                Radar and engines on Chinese jets and ships have been domestic radars for years and is considered superiors to the Russian.
                China already surpassed Russia in the 2010s.

                https://i.imgur.com/K4GpFns.jpg

                >prove me it's a copy. similar shape is a brianlet argument.
                It uses the same terminal guidance radar as the Pershing II, the same flight profile as the Pershing II, is around the same weight as the Pershing II, and has the same range as the Pershing II. It's a Pershing II copy, only 20 years later.
                https://www.chinasignpost.com/2010/12/26/china-deploys-worlds-first-long-range-land-based-carrier-killer-df-21d-anti-ship-ballistic-missile-asbm-reaches-initial-operational-capability-ioc/
                >US navy ran away from the south china sea in 2020 because of it you retarded boomer.
                Proof?
                >MUH BOOMER
                Are you 12?

                >It uses the same terminal guidance radar as the Pershing II
                prove it. flight profile and weight doesn't prove anything about guidance

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Helping =/= building
                Fuck off, gay. You're using Russian radars. You can't detect an incoming nuke without Russia's help.

                Rest of your post is the usual Chinese lies, you overwhelmingly rely on Russian engines or Chinese direct copies and you will continue to use majority Russian tech in most of those systems for years.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                cope

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Yup, that's what you're doing. Pretend anyone reading this is thinking about anything other than the fact that you're mad that you still use Russian tech instead of your own.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >t.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                It has the same radar diameter, same remaining volume for power generating and signal processing, it has the same volume for a warhead, same time-to-target, same launch signature same aerodynamics,etc.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                but it does have chink software sometimes

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >prove it. flight profile and weight doesn't prove anything about guidance
                Cope, Ping Ling. Now, get back to the call center. Can you show me one Chinese produced scramjet? Just one.

                >engines on Chinese jets
                It took you 40 years to copy the CFM-56II and produce the WS-10A - which still only has an abysmal 1500 life cycle before complete overhaul. The WS-15 isn't ever going to be flown on the J-20.

                >domestic radars for years and is considered superiors to the Russian.
                Proof?

                >China already surpassed Russia in the 2010s.
                Then why do they need to contract a Russian company to produce their Early Warning Radar System?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >USA is behind China in hypersonic missiles because they decommissioned their hypersonic wind tunnel after the old war.
        No, we didn't. What is The Hypersonic Tunnel Facility (HTF) at NASA’s Neil A. Armstrong Test Facility?

        >Here from 1968: A BGRV was launched on February 26, 1968, from Vandenberg Air Force Base by an Atlas F to the area of Wake Island in the Pacific.
        Link: https://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/B/BGRV.html

        >HyFly Mach 6 Scramjet Missile Test
        Link: https://thefutureofthings.com/5667-hyfly-mach-6-scramjet-missile-test/

        >HIFIRE/HyCAUSE Scramjet Mach-8+ success with Australia/USA collaboration 2017
        Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovKipc5LpCU

        >Advancing Hypersonics –Aerojet Rocketdyne’s Scramjet Engine Makes Hypersonics History
        Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YJyBf8x83Q

        >Hypersonic missile successfully hits Ronald Reagan
        MACH8 Link: https://www.theregister.com/Print/2011/11/18/hypersonic_weapon_pacific_test/

        >In November 2011, AHW was launched from the Pacific Missile Range Facility in Kauai, Hawaii, to the Reagan Test Site on the Marshall Islands. The glide vehicle successfully hit the target, which is located about 3,700km away from the launch site.
        Link: https://www.army-technology.com/projects/advanced-hypersonic-weapon-ahw/

        >Department of Defense Tests Hypersonic Glide Body March 2020
        Link: https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/2119458/department-of-defense-tests-hypersonic-glide-body/
        Short vid in this link: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/35369/army-shows-first-ever-footage-of-new-hypersonic-missile-in-flight-and-impacting

        HVGs:

        >X-43A

        >HTV-2

        >X-51

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >What is The Hypersonic Tunnel Facility (HTF) at NASA’s Neil A. Armstrong Test Facility?
          >Mach 7
          That's pathetic. You need mach 10-20 wind tunnel to properly test ASBM. China has hypersonic wind tunnel that goes to mach 30.

          https://i.imgur.com/W6JfxXQ.png

          >Also warhead like the Pershing 2 is very different from df21 or df17, comparing them is retarded.
          The DF-21D is a literal copy of the Pershing II, down to the terminal radar guidance.

          brainlet won't can't into engineering

          >China tested those against moving target ships lol.
          So, you can show me the test of the DF-17 hitting a moving ship?

          show me test of US missile and ciws intercepting ASBM

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >You need mach 10-20 wind tunnel to properly test ASBM.
            NASA (NG) HYPULSE can do up to Mach 40, no problem there.
            https://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/releases/2020/Q4/purdue-hypersonics-receives-boost-from-northrop-grumman-shock-tunnel-donation.html
            >China has hypersonic wind tunnel that goes to mach 30.
            The JF-22 isn't even operational yet, brainlet. Come back when they actually do some testing with it. The JF-12 is only Mach 5-9. Also, can you show me just one scramjet China has produced?

            >brainlet won't can't into engineering
            It's a literal copy. Prove otherwise.

            >show me test of US missile and ciws intercepting ASBM
            Once you show me the DF-17 or DF-21D hitting a moving target.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >It's a literal copy.
              prove me it's a copy. similar shape is a brianlet argument.

              >Once you show me the DF-17 or DF-21D hitting a moving target.
              US navy ran away from the south china sea in 2020 because of it you retarded boomer.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >prove me it's a copy. similar shape is a brianlet argument.
                It uses the same terminal guidance radar as the Pershing II, the same flight profile as the Pershing II, is around the same weight as the Pershing II, and has the same range as the Pershing II. It's a Pershing II copy, only 20 years later.
                https://www.chinasignpost.com/2010/12/26/china-deploys-worlds-first-long-range-land-based-carrier-killer-df-21d-anti-ship-ballistic-missile-asbm-reaches-initial-operational-capability-ioc/
                >US navy ran away from the south china sea in 2020 because of it you retarded boomer.
                Proof?
                >MUH BOOMER
                Are you 12?

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              It's ok anon, they still just don't get it, and won't till it happens

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/china-conducts-sixth-missile-defense-test-one-year-after-the-last-one

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Neat, can you show me it actually intercepting ANYTHING?

                The AEGIS is very capable, and is the only PROVEN ABMS in the world. AEGIS will BTFO of any chinsect missile those impotent sub-humans decide to launch. Not to mention, our IR sats can detect missile launches as soon as they light off(see pic). Then, the Ohio Class will be shoving Trident IIs up China's ass, as soon as it detects the first nuked launch. Then comes the Air Force with the Minuteman III to finish the bugs off.

                AEGIS:

                Raytheon's Ballistic Missile Defense Systems: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ae5VmVwfWmk
                Aegis Ashore Missile Intercept(SM-3 Block IIA): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9BJ_3uklVk&t

                USS John Finn (DDG-113) Missile Intercept(SM-3 Block IIA): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwJ9c6ZSyqI

                USS LAKE ERIE (CG 70) Missile Intercept(SM-3 Block IIA): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpX0EwO5SkE

                USS LAKE ERIE (CG 70) Satellite shoot down(SM-3 Block IB): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UahioUnMHHc

                Here take your pick, we have many: https://www.youtube.com/user/AegisBMD/videos

                THAAD:

                A THAAD in Alaska intercepted a missile launched just north of Hawaii. Flight Test THAAD (FTT)-18: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGEdLW5ddcE

                THAAD Terminal High Altitude Area Defense missile system 14th TEST: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S65JESDwUTU

                The U.S. Missile Defense Agency, conducted an intercept test of the THAAD. This was flight test THAAD-23 on August 30, 2019: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0zqSUqUuCI

                round Based Interceptor (GBI)

                MDA video of their test of the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense's (GMD) Ground Based Interceptor (GBI) upgraded booster vehicle: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtzVC4LXtsE

                Anti-Ballistic Ground Based Interceptor Missile Knocks Out Intercontinental Ballistic Missile: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5dXTUhPwB8

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Also warhead like the Pershing 2 is very different from df21 or df17, comparing them is retarded.
        The DF-21D is a literal copy of the Pershing II, down to the terminal radar guidance.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Oh, well no, that isn't the point. Defenses like the SM-3 rely on faster interception because they need to hit an incoming warhead while the warhead is still in space. This means the SM-3 must launch soon after the ballistic missile does, and the flight path of the ballistic missile must be predicted (which is easy, the hard part is detecting it accurately in a short period of time). There's nothing the warhead can do because the SM-3 warhead is just a rod with thrusters and light sensors. A heavy warhead would need ridiculous thrusters of its own to dodge an SM-3, it's just not logical.

      A glider doesn't spend much time in space, it comes back down to atmosphere so it can change course. You still need to widely lead the glider to intercept it, but now you can't predict its course because even minor changes will make you miss by miles. The glider isn't doing hard maneuvers, it's just changing its course slightly but significantly.

      Probably no country has any real operational or remotely close to operational glider.

  52. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >untested weapon system is created
    >"GUYS GUYS the (insert country known for corruption, lies, and shoddy construction) built some kind of wonder weapon! it can (insert claim here)
    >pro-western folk point out there is no documented evidence to prove the before mentioned claims, as the only shown test if any exist do not live up to the claim
    >anti-western performs mental gymnastics as they slide away from the topic of the weapons actual capabilities, as they themselves do not know how capable the weapon is
    >they proceed to argue with having nothing been actually learned or discovered about the weapons true capabilities

    why do they do this? the people who argue for these weapons seem to not be concerned with how reliable the weapon truly is or whether they actually work. I'd say it's because they're not westerners but there are plenty of anti-west people with the exact same mentality. These people seem to value a sketchy weapon that hasn't seen any combat and therefor losses over a proven, but not invincible product.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      China tested those against moving target ships lol. The goalition fleet ran away afterwards. You are just ignorant

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >China tested those against moving target ships lol.
        So, you can show me the test of the DF-17 hitting a moving ship?

  53. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Every time there's a Navy thread it's the same shit over and over, and it's obvious there's maybe two posters on PrepHole who have any idea. I actually suspect these threads are Chinese attempts to bait out classified info.
    >hypersonics
    >CIWS
    >old tech
    >carriers will be 10nm away and easy to detect, pussies if the stay outside of the engagement envelope
    >what's EMCON?
    >what's defense in depth?
    >CIWS
    >lasers and railguns
    >the missiles are too fast
    >CIWS
    JTFC

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      How is one supposed to pronounce CIWS? I recall AC7 calling it "see-wizz," but I'm not confident that's really right.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Like that. See-whiz

  54. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    If China has any foresight at all they'll simply wait a decade or two before invading Taiwan. Right now Taiwan is the singular manufacture of specific chips, very important chips. If China attacks now the USA has the option to either go to full scale war with China, or become obsolete. Instead, if China waits a decade or two for the USA to build their own plants on their own soil Taiwan is strategically much less important and they will be far less willing to go to war over it

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      At this point they're worried if Russia falls apart enough to not be an issue for western Europe anymore they might refocus more of their military efforts on china.

      Waiting a decade could just give the west time to unite further and make hard plans to deal with the Chinese threat in the 2030s.

  55. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They might be enough to keep carriers from loitering off the chinese coast, so the CSG's will just play keep away and send submarines to cruise missile the fuck out of them and maintain a clear corridor for long range aircraft, and drones to supress anti ship missiles wholesale. Hypersonics are capable, and dangerous. But they don't render anything obsolete. The USA has a long history of seeing supposed game changing weapons, and then developing doctrines and weapons that absolutely slap the shit out of whatever the claimed effectiveness of the new weapons were in the first place.

  56. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The United States Navy is the sole reason piracy is down and countries all over the world no longer have big navies.

    It literally rewrote the game for everyone. But only Chinks would be retarded enough to ruin this for everyone.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      They think they can become a similar naval super power with a similar piracy suppression role.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I honestly doubt because China's foreign policy has always been aggressive and demanding tribute/bow downs. It'll just piss everyone off. Also, China's naval history hasn't been that good.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      US navy didn't do shit about piracy. Somali pirate was stopped by international effort not by US. US navy is to bully other countries you brainwashed retard.

      I honestly doubt because China's foreign policy has always been aggressive and demanding tribute/bow downs. It'll just piss everyone off. Also, China's naval history hasn't been that good.

      ignorant of history.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >US navy didn't do shit about piracy.
        Literal retard with no history in naval sailing and piracy.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Nah, he's pretty correct, Chinas modern naval history is pretty shit if we start at the 1800's where any relevant history is concerned. That said their current expansion and modernization has been prodigious, but they are yet unproven as a modern blue water navy. They have a LOT of catching up to do with their preferred foe in the USA. To discount the excess of actual flight time, and deployment time the US Marines and Navy have had over the last 80 years would be a fucking disaster. If the prevailing opinion is "lol america weak" you're going to be really fucking mad when thousands of sailors and hundreds of ships are sinking to the bottom of the south china sea. Hubris has always lead to disaster in terms of naval conflict.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >CTF 151
        >international kinda
        >USN plus rotating coalition support
        >t. literal years of my life in GoA IRTC

  57. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I'm so glad the Great Firewall exists. It keeps retards like the one in this thread away from the rest of the internet.

    Imagine the horde of retards unironically spamming propaganda if China posted on the same internet the rest of us do.

  58. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    A carrier group is considered U.S sovereign territory. You attack one with missiles, be prepared to get your shit pushed in, in return. Simple as that.

  59. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >American brainwashed by their government and really believe they are the strongest
    lol

Your email address will not be published.