If a Chinese spy satellite can watch a US carrier group in real time and launch hundreds of hypersonic missles at it then what is the point of having ...

If a Chinese spy satellite can watch a US carrier group in real time and launch hundreds of hypersonic missles at it then what is the point of having a navy anymore?

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    bombing third world shitholes who didnt allow gnomish banks

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      thread/

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >hypersanic missiles

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous
    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      yeah

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I don't understand why hypersonic missiles are something to be afraid. Those are still just a missiles. Any advanced countermeasure system can calculate flight path and destroy it like normal missile.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Three reasons
      1) Missiles do not follow a ballistic trajectory, so unlike an artillery shell given its vector and position, you do not know where its flight path.
      2) The speed increases the margin of error decreases hit probability
      3) The difference in delta v, which you can intuitively understand as the limit of its manoeuvrability based on its energy. Imagine a window in which a missile has to pass in the next few seconds based on its ability to maneuver. An interceptor meets the missile in this window. The faster the missile, the larger this window is.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I'm not a master of this subject, but I have studied some flight mechanics. I don't think missile can change flight path much in higher speeds. It would need to slowdown which would make it easier target. Isn't countermeasure payloads usually huge clouds of shrapnels? Multiple missiles will create huge sharpnel cloud and no way for hypersonic missile to avoid it.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Multiple missiles will create huge sharpnel cloud and no way for hypersonic missile to avoid it.
          The hypersonic missile will have struck its target before the countermeasures have left their launcher. There's very very little time to react. That's the key.

          Not that it matters, even without hypersonic missiles submarines are a huge threat to surface ships and it's been that way for a few decades now.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >what are picket lines?
            you realize that there are radar and other detection nets covering very far out, not just right next to the ship.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >you realize that there are radar and other detection nets covering very far out
              Sure. Now do the math on how far a hypersonic projectile can make it in the amount of time it takes to launch an interceptor.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Not that far at all, since it would have to slow down to hit a moving target.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Assuming worst case scenario, about 20 minutes.

                You do know that the same detection technology meant to see nukes works just as well here?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            These missiles aren't sea skimming anon there are literally IRBMs with a warhead strapped to a glider. There is a lot of time for a fleet to pick up the launch and launch SM2s&6s at it along with popping chaff and ramping up ECM output. There definitely is a lot less time once said glider deploys but that is still after countermeasures are launched.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            A big hunk of metal moving at Mach 8 through the atmosphere at cruising height is not going to be difficult to detect. Hypersonic glide vehicles don’t have to be launched in a parabolic trajectory, but they aren’t going to be skimming the ground

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Don't have to know its flight path. Hypersonics can't turn easily and they leave a big fuck off plasma trail. You don't even need to catch up to it - just need an interceptor placed along the flight path. Don't need to travel as fast - and therefore, you can be more maneuverable than the hypersonic - if you don't have nearly as much distance to cover.
          Since hypersonics can't turn very well, you can also just… move a little bit.

          Hypersonics are extremely maneuverable. Their speed gives them extremely fast turn rates. You're confusing it with turn radius, which is probably quite large for them. And you do absolutely need to know its trajectory to a very precise value. Shrapnel doesn't work well on high supersonic missiles, which is why ABMs like the Patriots use a kinetic kill. And again, you can only place yourself in its path if you know precisely where its path is, which you do not if it can change course.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            That's one aspect of being maneuverable. In others, not so much. But it can only be cash once or by a very small amount because doing so will reduce its energy if did more. That's why typically, you only see one movement.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The complete opposite. The air resistance and plasma around the device, along with many other factors, some to do with EMS, completely prohibit the warhead from maneuvering in any way that makes it tactical. Hypersonic weapons are a meme that only relies on the response time of countermeasures. It's fast, that's it. Why not focus on being stealthy? Why not focus on countermeasures and SEAD? That's why you chinks will always lose. You always focus on the shiny stuff whereas us whites focus on the fundamental things that gets the job done.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >>I’m not a master of this subject

          No kidding…

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Don't have to know its flight path. Hypersonics can't turn easily and they leave a big fuck off plasma trail. You don't even need to catch up to it - just need an interceptor placed along the flight path. Don't need to travel as fast - and therefore, you can be more maneuverable than the hypersonic - if you don't have nearly as much distance to cover.
        Since hypersonics can't turn very well, you can also just… move a little bit.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Fast missiles are really, really hard to hit

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Guess why all of the worlds militaries are racing to get AI? Because hitting an object travelling at mach 5+ with another object at mach 5+ is pretty much fucking impossible

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You literally cannot shoot down hypersonics with current technology retard

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Yes you can? A hypersonic glider, maybe not.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Chinese boost-glide absolutely can be shot down. It's only the terminal phase in which they can't be intercepted.
        Which is the same case as a conventional ballistic missile.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >It's only the terminal phase in which they can't be intercepted.
          Still giving hypersonic too much credit, THAAD & AEGIS work on hypersonic gliders in the terminal phase with appropriate programming.
          Hypersonic velocity does not translate perpendicularly, turns have to be extremely tight and the terminal phase generally can't use its lifting body to brake without disintegrating instantly.
          The only vehicle that has ever demonstrated agility at hypersonic speeds was HTV-2 on the second flight. It took DARPA two tries, so I suppose China will manage it by 2060.

          As far as interception, AEGIS already got this capability with Baseline 9 in 2021 after some testing and THAAD is rumored to have already had it for years since the tolerance for THAAD interceptors is way higher than SM-6. Some time back, Lockheed tried to shill THAAD-ER so the US could intercept midcourse glide vehicles using "terminal" air defenses, restoring its original title of "theater" air defense instead, but it still doesn't need better interceptors for the terminal phase.
          The US made AMaRV in fucking 1980, it isn't hard, God Bless McDonnell. The point is that gliding makes it difficult to predict when they'll come down in the first place, not that it makes them much harder to intercept with modern technology. MIRV are a solved problem. THAAD & AEGIS can be omnipresent, 24/7 on the softest targets.
          That's part of the folly of trying to use hypersonics as asymmetric warfare, you are betting that you can produce more expensive missiles than the US can make equally expensive interceptors when the US has infinite money cheats on

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >China will have a perpendicularly manevuring HGV by 2060
            Try a few years ago

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              I think you're japing about a rocket misfire but nothing in that image implies perpendicular motion, quite the opposite, that looks like a corkscrew trajectory which is relatively easy to do
              the point was that motion at hypersonic speeds perpendicular to your hypersonic trajectory isn't viable, not that a hypersonic vehicle should ever translate perpendicularly, even HTV-2 probably couldn't handle that many G's I don't think

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >easy to do
                post something similar.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                ok retard

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                how does it feel to have 80IQ?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                you don't have a counterexample or substantial explanation of why a rocket spinning out at subsonic speeds at night is different from a controlled plane causing a corkscrew trail at subsonic speeds so you are resorting to derailing gayry
                I don't know what it's like to have 80 IQ, but maybe you can enlighten me

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                i ask for something similar not your cope. I asked specifically because I know you will find nothing.
                how does it feel to have 70IQ? are you gonna post that american rocket cucked spin trajectory and call it similar?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >MIRVs are a solved problem
            They're not a solved problem when it takes ten interceptors to deal with one ICBM

            >infinite money cheat
            If the fed doesn't also give out trillions in gibs and welfare. Why do you think inflation is at 9%? A whole fucking 10% of tax revenue is now going just to service interest on our debt. Interest payments are now SIXTY percent of our military budget. In the next decade projections indicate we are going to spend as much on interest as our military.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >it takes ten interceptors to deal with one ICBM
              it has never taken ten interceptors to intercept an ICBM in any of the tests or the one documented live-fire situation, why would it start now?
              you may be getting confused with THAAD fire unit capacity, a fire unit has 10 interceptors and is used in an external environment while each THAAD battery has 48 interceptors and are currently reserved for use in the US

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I'm talking about the basic calculus of ABMs since the Cold War. Creating a missile shield was dismissed by McNamara because when a MIRV could carry a dozen warheads and successful engagement at a 50% rate would need five times that to get a 90%+ intercept rate. The enemy would simply build more missiles and watch as you bleed to death economically.

                As for your idea that the US has an infinite money cheat - it has a large money cheat, which has been abused so badly the US has presently reached its spending capability without incurring massive economic disruption.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                no one has made a MIRV with a "dozen warheads" and a kinetic kill vehicle isn't waiting until the missile is fifty meters away, if you have to trigger your "dozen warheads" at 50km you are hitting the carrier or soft target with exactly zero of them, actually a kill vehicle might not even be necessary at that point, enjoy detonating a pond
                McNamara wasn't talking about tactical missile defense, but strategic missile defense, which isn't relevant to the discussion - obviously you can afford to "miss" with nukes if nuking a country in general is the goal, but THAAD and AEGIS are not really about a nuclear enabled war, that's what multi-domain nuclear deterrence is for, McNamara's angel.

                You keep repeating shit arguing about whether the US has an "infinite money cheat" but I am ignoring it because empirical reality means equivocation is pointless, you can simply assess capacities and unless you are a retarded monkey like this person

                https://i.imgur.com/Jrj7Zih.jpg

                >China will have a perpendicularly manevuring HGV by 2060
                Try a few years ago

                "bro check out this png of [a rocket crashing] CHINA STRONG" it is demonstrably true that the US has way too much money to spend and has enabled capabilities with it

                i ask for something similar not your cope. I asked specifically because I know you will find nothing.
                how does it feel to have 70IQ? are you gonna post that american rocket cucked spin trajectory and call it similar?

                >i ask for something similar not your cope. I asked specifically because I know you will find nothing.
                I did so easily now you are crying into your pillow because it fucked you harder than you were expecting

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                lol what a delusional retard.
                yea man. That was totally similar. kek

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >yea man. That was totally similar. kek
                glad we both agree that you don't have anything of value to contribute because you can't substantively point out why it isn't similar, try prepping more next time

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >no one has made a MIRV with a dozen warheads
                The D5 trident has up to 14.

                >at 50km
                A MIRV separates on reentry. Once the missile reaches the peak of its trajectory, the separation happens.

                >wasn't relevant to the discussion
                They literally use the same technology. Ballistic missiles follow the same set of rules. THAAD and Aegis were designed to protect against middling powers and their SCUDs/Hwasongs. They were never meant to work as a real ABM system.

                >US has too much money
                What most retards don't understand is the US government doesn't have unlimited money. It has unlimited borrowing capacity. It doesn't mean it doesn't need to pay it back. Its just it can borrow as much as it likes, even when inflation his 9%.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >The D5 trident has up to 14.
                I thought we were talking about defense for America, not from America
                >A MIRV separates on reentry. Once the missile reaches the peak of its trajectory, the separation happens.
                separates from the boost, not the warhead, the scatter of a warhead separating at "the peak of its trajectory" would be insane, on the scale of hundreds of miles; without the nuclear component you are carpet-bombing an ocean with pebbles
                even the W76 isn't a maneuverable precision weapon and it doesn't have a reasonable CEP to act like one with conventional hardware (1250 feet is great for nukes and nothing else), it could miss by the entire length of a Nimitz so enjoy 14 big question marks for 1/14 of the warheads to maybe get close enough that ABMD intercepts it - the W76 is also way more capable than any compact warhead that anyone else has produced to this day
                W76-2 might be capable of the scenario you are imagining, but it's also fielded US2020, so not relevant to the discussion for at least 40 more years
                >Ballistic missiles follow the same set of rules. THAAD and Aegis were designed to protect against middling powers and their SCUDs/Hwasongs.
                the payload if what distinguishes "tactical" and "strategic," other than your confusion there I'm not sure what your point is
                both THAAD and Aegis already work as terminal interceptors for hypersonics, including MIRV

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                > I thought we were talking about defense for America
                SS-18 could carry ten as well. Supposedly, the new Russian one can carry between ten and fifteen, but I don’t know how credible that is

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                But building more will have the benefits of economies of scale. And doing ABM programs, it's better to include a dozens more because sensors are one of the things that are common across the different missiles. Guidance will be modified here and there.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                So do ICBMs. There are thousands of the things in the world, they've already got a lot of scale.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                ICBMs are much more expensive for the reason is their warheads. The maintenance alone would be large compared to let's say an ABM missile.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            hypersonic is a meme. the real threat would be subs so I would care more about china getting better engine/sonar tech than muh mach 20.

            also the pl-15 will negate AWACS and make reliably detecting sea skimmers difficult. and it's way easier to volley 200 sea skimmers at a fleet than muh hypersanic

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Some time back, Lockheed tried to shill THAAD-ER so the US could intercept midcourse glide vehicles
            Why don't they just skip that step and go on straight to developing the THAAD-EST?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Can build a hypersonic missile
        >Cannot build something to shoot down the hypersonic missile you made and know everything about.

        What the fuck did he mean by this?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You've watched too much Hollywood. How can you calculate the "flight path" of a missile when it can fly any path that it likes?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It can't fly any path it likes. At any given point, it has a cone that it can steer in. Faster it goes, the smaller that cone gets.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Dense fuck. Don’t talk about shit authoritatively when you’re dumb as fuck.

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    One, it can't, as both the satellite and the ship are moving and time of flight even for hypersonics gives the ship too much time to move away from the earlier fix.

    There is also the problem that most chink Spy Sats have already probably been compromised by the X37 and those that haven't are going to die minute one to SM-3s

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      That's a huge problem, if they were firing artillery shells at the carrier.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah and a hypersonic is basically an artillery shell when it comes to its accuracy against a maneuvering target. But not a modernized guided one... just a dumb unguided fast rocket

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    if carriers are so obsolete why is everyone building them

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >If

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      refference understood Mr. Perseus.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      but they lost that war
      maybe not the best example

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Phillip II took some territory in Laconia but failed to take Sparta itself. In fact his son Alexander was still seething about it years later after defeating the Persians at the Battle of the Granicus.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Based Laconicism enjoyer.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        the spartans who said that got their teeth kicked in by Philip of Macedon, tho

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Yes but their humor was still pretty legendary.
          > When asked whether it would be prudent to build a defensive wall enclosing the city, Lycurgus answered, "A city is well-fortified which has a wall of men instead of brick."[28] (When another Spartan was later shown an Asian city with impressive fortifications, he remarked, "Fine quarters for women!"[29])
          Spartans were based retards: the city state.

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >he thinks it’s hard to knock out satellites

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    My dick can wipe out the entire universe. What is the point of anything?

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    https://www.navalgazing.net/Carrier-Doom-Part-1

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Please point to one (1) instance of a satellite network providing real time guidance to a swarm of hypersonic missiles for a moving target in the middle of the ocean.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous
      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        he said moving target you moron

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >chinese hypersonics
    I've seen the propaganda
    I'm not impressed

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because the Chinese don't want what happens if they attempt a Pearl Harbor 2.0.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      china people would never do that.

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I am comrade Xhaun Dao from 音译威斯康星州 autonomous region and this is post of convincing me that Glorious Party of Chinese Communist is very strong and we should not being waste time and money on military when no baby food and gasoline. Tell "NO" fight CCP to Premier Brandon.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      4chan are just whores for anyone who gives them a tiny bit of attention at this stage.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Passed

  14. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Russia can barely hit the broad side of a kindergarten in a country it used to own yet China is going to be able track and kill targets moving around at nearly 60km in the vast expanse of the ocean?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I feel like China has a slightly larger budget to work with than Russia

  15. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >the fucking hypersonic meme again
    It is 1950s technology. What China has is a hypersonic boost-glide vehicle.
    Those fleets are under no more danger now than the were decades ago.

  16. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Impressive. With this most recent achievement, fate has in a single stroke, marked the decline of the west and spelled a new era of wondrous prosperity and peaceful global dominance for the Chinese dragon, which promises to firmly stand in sharp contrast to the historically bloody ascent of western powers and the cruel subjugation it brought to the humbler nations of the world. With the blessings of Chinese monocrystal turbines, plasma stealth technology, quantum direct-current electricity, quantum aircraft carriers and quantum enhanced railguns will be the instruments with which China affirms its noble stewardship of 21st century world politics and offers the non-western world a different option; an humanist alternative to the depredations of Western leadership and the opportunity for a more equitable and dignified

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Hmmm, can't tell if you're b8 or not but just in case:
      您從我們的技術中復制出來的東西或者只是冒著什麼廢話,我們將在大半夜把您的玩弄個假瓷器放在一起。

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        No its real

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I cant wait to see the gifs of the mountains of dead chinks lmao

  17. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It’s always awkward when you accidentally wear your f-18C to the super hornet formation

  18. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    China just doxxed literally every single citizen within, you are smoking something fierce if you think for a single second that their tech and especially satellites are not completely compromised.
    >inb4 if dat tru y not taek ovur huh????1?1?11
    Because dumbass geriatrics are still in power and people don’t take what is seemingly upfront the most logical route. Guarantee if they were looked at with as much disdain as Iran they’d be India tier from remote hacking.

  19. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Range of hypersonic missile: About 1000 km
    >Range of F-35+Harpoon missile: 1400 km without refueling

  20. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    "IF".

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/8NT6Wgl.png

      >If

      Dangit, I should have read the thread first.

  21. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They'd need a single capable hypersonic missile to have hundreds.

  22. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >If a Chinese spy satellite can watch a US carrier group in real time and launch hundreds of hypersonic missles at it then what is the point of having a navy anymore?
    Honey, when we are at a point where Chinksects dare to attack American naval assets you better be sure Americans will shoot down every last chinkoid spy satellite - in real time

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      At which point everyone gets Kesseler'd. Shortly after shooting their satellites down (and having them shoot ours down, I'm not aware of any countermeasures to anti-sat weaponry yet) we then lose our (and their comm satellites and GPS)

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        GPS, comms, and recon satellites orbit at completely different altitudes hundreds of miles apart. Destroying a chink spy sat would not take out global gps and communications systems.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        We should develop a missile that deploys a net, capturing the targeted satellite, with a booster stage or secondary rocket to propel the net and satellite out of orbit, thus avoiding space junk fugging up our parking lot/planetary exit.

  23. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Chinese spy satellite
    Impressive that you think space force would let these survive long enough to do anything.

  24. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    If attack submarines can fire enough to torpedos to sink and entire carrier group what's the point of having a navy anymore?

  25. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    bump

  26. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    If The US can wipe out the entire Chinese population by simply glassing the coast then why start a shooting war?

  27. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Lets imagine for a second that Chinese claims are true, even without hypersonics, how do we defend against missile spam? CRAM and CWIS have limited target engagements and ultimately can't be easily replenished when underway. For the same or lower price of a nuclear supercarrier, they could have a fuckton of AShMs on land, sea and air platforms.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      What's the range of their missiles in comparison to a carriers jets? If they're similar or the missiles have longer range, the carriers could just hover at the edge of that range while both sides destroy anything that enters a sort of coastal no-mans land. Otherwise it's up to Chinese AAs ability to defend the anti-ship missiles.

  28. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Imagine still hoping and praying the meme missile can fix that pesky Malacca Strait oil problem

  29. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >If a Chinese spy satellite can watch a US carrier group in real time and launch hundreds of hypersonic missles at it then what is the point of having a navy anymore?
    >If
    Yes.

  30. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because it makes chinks seethe. They screech and cry and pound their faces in self hate because they can't deter us from doing exactly whatever the fuck we want.

  31. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    impressive

  32. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    bump

  33. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    .

  34. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Didn't the Chinese recently use some kind of targeted EMP to render a US warship dead in the water, and it had to be picked up and towed away by tugboats?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      No

  35. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >launch hundreds of hypersonic missles
    Do you chinks really believe they are capable of this?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Yes, Chinese has 3-4 time the industrial capacity of the USA

  36. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Hypersonic missile
    >~15,000 mph

    >USA-193
    >Satellite falling from orbit
    >~17,000 mph

    If they can shoot down satellite falling faster out of the sky why wouldn't they be able to shoot down a Missile that has a fixed course because of the speed its traveling at?

  37. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Anyone gonna tell him US has plan B already for scenario of losing carriers?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Whats the Plan B for losing 3-4 of the US pacific carriers?

      Nuke each other to death?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Losing 1 Carrier means an immediate nuclear response against the attacking nation.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          No it doesn’t. Stop being retarded

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You think US is willing to sacrifice 100 million citizens over 1 carrier?

            >I'm going to commit to a total war and Sink one of your carriers
            >No you cant nuke me!!!

            If China sank a US carrier the use would respond with a nuclear strike against said chink bugmen.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              China is willing to sacrifice 1 billion of their people to reduce the entire US power base into rural agriculture lands.

              With 1 billion Chinese gone, China would still be the 2nd largest nation on Earth.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              No it fucking wouldn’t you numpty.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          You think US is willing to sacrifice 100 million citizens over 1 carrier?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You thinm China is willing to sacrifice everything for one American carrier?

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Mutual annihilation is assured. If Chins willing to sink the US carrier, then it means America is willing to sacrifice everything.

  38. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    If that's the case why does china keep desperately trying to build a aircraft carrier?

  39. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

Your email address will not be published.