New Chinese Nuclear Threat to US

Discussion in 'Nuclear, Chemical & Bio Weapons' started by AARguy, Apr 5, 2023.

  1. AARguy

    AARguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2021
    Messages:
    13,960
    Likes Received:
    6,478
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    They are not starting with an invasion of the San Fernando Valley. Their first step is Taiwan. They don't need long 'legs" for that. The strategic control of over half the world's microprocessor production is the goal.

    How China Could Choke Taiwan’s Economy With a Blockade - The New York Times (nytimes.com)
    China's Growing Marine Corps Would Be Vital to an Invasion of Taiwan (businessinsider.com)
    US Navy chief warns China could invade Taiwan before 2024 | Financial Times (ft.com)
     
  2. Toggle Almendro

    Toggle Almendro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2016
    Messages:
    2,928
    Likes Received:
    721
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That is incorrect. Truman had every intention of going ahead with the invasion of Kyushu if Japan had kept refusing to surrender.

    And his orders to keep going ahead with the invasion of Kyushu remained in place up until the moment of surrender.

    Far from being willing to let the Soviets have Japan all to themselves, Truman did his best to completely shut the Soviets out of Japan.


    His personal diary is not how orders were conveyed to the generals.

    Not to mention the fact that his personal diary does not say anything about "not invading if Japan had kept refusing to surrender".
     
  3. Toggle Almendro

    Toggle Almendro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2016
    Messages:
    2,928
    Likes Received:
    721
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    A nuclear deterrent is by definition a significant threat.

    And "China deterring us from protecting Taiwan" will be a pretty big problem if China attacks Taiwan. We are going to have to start deterring China from attacking Taiwan like we deterred the Soviets from attacking Western Europe.


    In peacetime stealth planes are fitted with radar reflectors to hide their stealth characteristics.


    The DF-21D has a range of 930 miles.

    The YJ-18 has a range of 340 miles.

    How much damage will US fighters be able to inflict on China if they are flying from carriers on the opposite side of Taiwan? China will be unlikely to allow US refueling planes to operate over their territory.


    Chinese diesel attack submarines "hiding on the bottom and waiting" are what we will be facing if we help to defend Taiwan from Chinese attack.
     
  4. philosophical

    philosophical Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2017
    Messages:
    2,066
    Likes Received:
    636
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has submarines armed with nuclear weapons capable of hitting targets in the United States of America.
     
    bobobrazil likes this.
  5. Toggle Almendro

    Toggle Almendro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2016
    Messages:
    2,928
    Likes Received:
    721
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I suspect that they see Russia as the threat that requires targeting.
     
  6. ToughTalk

    ToughTalk Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2018
    Messages:
    12,554
    Likes Received:
    9,542
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Do you have anything other than your personal opinion to verify that? A Truman statement or declaration or the like? Because I have his diary and commanding officers all detailing the invasion was not going to happen.

    Because simply gathering troops in one spot isn't enough chief.

    Japan was beaten and trying to detail how the hell they would surrender without losing their Emperor. At that stage of the war america was running uncontested firebombing missions carte blanche without losing any fighters.

    A diary details the inner thoughts of what's going on in the head of the commander and chief. And sorry to say but his thoughts on invasion were that Russia can waste their lives.

    That was before he got his shiny new toy of course.

    And that brings you to another problem. Trying to convince me that a country being firebombed at will for months on end, losing upwards of 10's of thousands of people per run and burning entire cities, would even notice or care about the difference of napalm versus atomic. 1 bomb causing the same damage they were seeing from 100's of bombs. Outcomes were still the same.

    Russia coming in from the north was likely the last straw. Their last hope was hung on by failed negotiations with Russia.

    There was no invasion once Truman got Russia on board. And it was exactly a day later after that, that he realized he had the bomb so he now needed to beat them to the punch by using it. Showing off to the world America's new toy at Japan's expense.
     
    Last edited: May 31, 2023
  7. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,494
    Likes Received:
    2,420
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The DF-21D is a chimera. This has been known for years, nothing about it makes sense.

    It has only been used against fixed targets (mostly painted on the ground), and is nothing special. We already know a ballistic missile can strike a ground target, big deal.

    Yet they claim they can magically locate a carrier from beyond the horizon, then target just the carrier out of a fleet of ships and then hit it outside of the line of sight. While it's moving. With a ballistic missile that has a CEP larger than the carrier is.

    Sorry, unless the thing is lobbing a nuclear warhead, that is a pure fantasy.

    Oh, and it also has to get past the defenses, but of course everybody seems to pretend that it has none, and the carrier will just be anchored somewhere with no cruisers or destroyers nearby. And China will just magically know where it is.

    There is a serious problem when people believe everything announced about a weapon. Especially when they can not realize that a lot of the claims are BS.
     
  8. AARguy

    AARguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2021
    Messages:
    13,960
    Likes Received:
    6,478
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You are quite a bit out of date. ICBM's can have a CEP of only a few feet. They are missiles, not rockets. They update their flight path while in the air based on data inputs from satellite imagery, GPS, SIGINT, ELINT and more. Battlefield networking enables a whole new world of near-real time sensing. The only real question mark is non-nuclear EMP generation, which can disable guidance systems, communications, networking, etc.
     
  9. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,494
    Likes Received:
    2,420
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Against a moving target?
     
  10. AARguy

    AARguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2021
    Messages:
    13,960
    Likes Received:
    6,478
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    CEP is not usually associated with a moving target. "Dumb" artillery has a CEP no matter what the target is. You aim it ap POINT X and it may miss by a bit. That accuracy is the "Circular Error Probable" (CEP). Dumb artillery cannot correct their path in flight. Neither can rockets, generally. Missiles, on the other hand, are designed to have a dynamic flight path. Tactical missiles can be guided to a target by an operator. These include TOW (Tube-launched, Optically Tracked, Wire Guided) which connects the gunner and the missile. The gunner keeps his crosshair on target and guides the missile to a moving target. HELLFIRE does the same thing using a laser rather than a wire. There are air-to-air missiles guided by radar, like AMRAAM. There are other missiles guided by heat on the target. Stinger does that.

    ICBM's typically don't have on-board sensors, but they can be guided externally. The question of using ICBM's on a moving target is generally moot. Missiles are designed for specific targets. ICBM's are typically not used against moving targets... it would be like swatting a fly with a battering ram. There are many other, more appropriate ways to attack an aircraft carrier. Cruise missiles come to mind. Stay tuned. UxV's (Unmanned "x" - air, surface, subsurface Vehicles) (drones) are the wave of the future...
     
  11. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,494
    Likes Received:
    2,420
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    They can? Name a single ballistic missile that can be guided externally other than a few specific ones like the Copperhead.

    And even that is not really "guided", other than it follows a point of light aimed by somebody. Nobody "guides" it, it simply follows wherever the light is. There is not a human actually "directing" the munition itself.
     
    Last edited: May 31, 2023
  12. AARguy

    AARguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2021
    Messages:
    13,960
    Likes Received:
    6,478
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The Copperhead is not a missile. Its an artillery round. In my world, "ballistic missiles" go thousands of miles and there aren't many types. But if you're bringing tactical weapons like Copperhead into the conversation... we can talk TOW, HELLFIRE, PATRIOT, and DRAGON. Those are guided by the gunner that fires them (or in the case of Copperhead or HELLFIRE... by a "remote designator" in a "cooperative engagement".) Excalibur is guided by GPS. AMRAAM is guided by radar. Stinger is guided by heat from aircraft exhaust. JAVELIN is self guiding. When a JAVELIN gunner sights in on a moving tank, the missile seeker head identifies some feature which is not naturally occurring, like some straight line on the enemy tank. A CCD camera locks on to that feature and stays locked on after firing. All the "smarts" are on the missile. The seeker stays locked on allowing the gunner to "shoot and scoot"... making Javelin the most advanced anti-tank round in the world.
     
  13. bobobrazil

    bobobrazil Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2022
    Messages:
    1,672
    Likes Received:
    893
    Trophy Points:
    113
    the atomic bombs were used to intiminate the hundreds of russian divisions and stalin,from invading all europe.... tokyo was already nearly firebombed to death...chinese nukes have always been very big to overcome their inacuracy
     
  14. AARguy

    AARguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2021
    Messages:
    13,960
    Likes Received:
    6,478
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The nukes had little to do with Russia. They were our friends then. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were only about making the Emperor "accept the unacceptable" and "endure the unendurable" and surrender... and they worked!
     
  15. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,494
    Likes Received:
    2,420
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    But the DF-21 is a ballistic missile, so bringing in things like the JAVELIN or any other flat trajectory missile is a fail.

    And your world is wrong, especially as the DF-21 is a MRBM. And below that are the SRBM, that can have ranges of under 100 miles.

    Once again, name any steerable ballistic missiles that did not have those kinds of adjustments placed in before they were fired.
     
  16. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,494
    Likes Received:
    2,420
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Uh, no. If the Soviets were going to do that, they would have done it long before the first atomic bomb was used.

    Because just like the other powers after the war, the Soviet Union also demobilized. From a height of over 11 million in 1945, all the way down to 2.7 million in 1946. The Soviets were in no position to continue moving West, they were already at the end of a very long supply line, and were too busy occupying all of their new territories.
     
  17. bobobrazil

    bobobrazil Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2022
    Messages:
    1,672
    Likes Received:
    893
    Trophy Points:
    113
    read your history of the cold was, please, the usa was bringing home all their troops for the most part, while russia maintained a huge mult million man army at the ready, the entire justification for the contined existence of atomic weapons was as a deterent to the million man armys...japanese culture being different they have away of remeinig aloof as an aswer when in a losing position, this was mis trsnslated as being arrogant..there were many isolated areas and cities were firebombed dead, all the us had to do was blockade them which would kill civilans by the score
     
    Last edited: May 31, 2023
  18. Toggle Almendro

    Toggle Almendro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2016
    Messages:
    2,928
    Likes Received:
    721
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Truman may well have hoped that the Soviets would be intimidated into behaving, but that was not the reason for dropping the atomic bombs on Japan.

    The reason for dropping the atomic bombs on Japan was to do damage to the Japanese war machine.
     
  19. AARguy

    AARguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2021
    Messages:
    13,960
    Likes Received:
    6,478
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Javelin is not a flat trajectory. Like most modern anti-tank weapons, it is a "top attack" weapon. We got rid of most of our tactical nukes... *' and 155mm tube launched, Lance and Pershing. All gone. ATACMS range is out to 160 kilometers and more, but its not nuke.
     
  20. AARguy

    AARguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2021
    Messages:
    13,960
    Likes Received:
    6,478
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That is simply not true. We were building up troops, ships, etc for a full scale invasion of Japan. Even the troops headed home from germany weren't going home... they were headed to the Pacific for the invasion of Japan (OPERATION DOWNFALL) which was scheduled for 8 May 1945... until the BOMB intervened.

    Here's some reading on it for you:

    Operation Downfall - Wikipedia
    20 Steps in Planning for the Invasion of Japan in 1945 (historycollection.com)
    Planned Japan Invasion Before World War II Ended 70 Years Ago (businessinsider.com)
     
  21. bobobrazil

    bobobrazil Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2022
    Messages:
    1,672
    Likes Received:
    893
    Trophy Points:
    113
    i have read hundred of books i was talking about the war in europe, of course they were building up for japan, and the thinking was for years down the road when it wass assumed russia would have millions for long time the us did not want to counter ballance, nukes were a cheaper route
     
  22. Toggle Almendro

    Toggle Almendro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2016
    Messages:
    2,928
    Likes Received:
    721
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The Pershing II had a radar sensor that allowed it to detect and home in on a target.

    Is there any reason to think that a maneuverable ballistic warhead cannot be designed to receive external commands?


    True. That is a longstanding issue with discussions about the threat that anti-ship missiles pose to our carriers. People either say that our carriers are doomed with no hope or say that our defenses are impregnable and there is nothing to worry about.

    The reality is in between the two extremes. The threat is real but we do have competent defenses.

    Those maneuverable ballistic warheads that Russia falsely advertises as "hypersonic missiles" are probably similar in ability to the warhead of a DF-21D. I expect that a lot of US admirals were relieved to hear about Patriot missiles in Ukraine intercepting those warheads with ease.

    There is a reason why the US never adopted the atmospheric maneuverability of the Pershing II warhead to our ICBMs and SLBMs, and instead have our strategic warheads punch through the atmosphere at maximum speed.
     
  23. AARguy

    AARguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2021
    Messages:
    13,960
    Likes Received:
    6,478
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That is simply wrong. You obviously did not take even a slight glance at the references I posted.

    Here's an excerpt:

    "
    When the plans for "Downfall" were drawn in April 1945, certain suppositions regarding both Allied and enemy capabilities were made. It was assumed that the entire resources of the Pacific would be at the disposal of General MacArthur and Admiral Nimitz for the conduct of the operation; that the flow of redeployed United States Army forces to the Pacific Theater would be maintained after the surrender of Germany; and that required base establishments, staging facilities, and heavy cargo shipping would be available for the mounting and continued support of the forces"

    The preparations for Operation Downfall, including a proposed date for the invasion was set. You simply refuse to acknowledge the voluminous information available and freely accessible about it.

    There's no need for you to continue. The most casual reader of this thread needs to do no more than click on a few of the many sites which document OPERATION DOWNFALL to see you are in denial of the facts.
     
  24. Toggle Almendro

    Toggle Almendro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2016
    Messages:
    2,928
    Likes Received:
    721
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    "THE PRESIDENT said he considered the Kyushu plan all right from the military standpoint and, so far as he was concerned, the Joint Chiefs of Staff could go ahead with it;"
    https://teachingamericanhistory.org...ld-at-the-white-house-on-monday-june-18-1945/


    That is incorrect. No order to call off the invasion was ever given. Had Japan continued to refuse to surrender, Truman's order was to invade.


    That is incorrect. Japan was refusing all of our efforts to communicate with them.


    That is incorrect. Truman was pleased that the Soviets were going to help with the invasion, but he had no thoughts of letting the Soviets keep Japan all to themselves.

    Truman did his best to keep the Soviets entirely out of Japan.


    That is not my position, so I have no need to defend it.

    The positions that I am defending are:

    The atomic bombs were dropped on military targets.

    The motive for dropping the atomic bombs was to damage the Japanese war machine and drive Japan to surrender.

    Japan refused to even talk to us about surrender until after both atomic bombs had already been dropped.


    Agreed.


    That is incorrect. The order to go ahead with the invasion stood until the moment that Japan surrendered, which was only after both atomic bombs had already been dropped.


    While it is true that there was a hope that the atomic bombs would allow us to take all of Japan and shut the Soviets out, that had nothing to do with the dropping of the atomic bombs or with the timing of the drops.

    The plan was always to drop the atomic bombs as soon as they were ready to use, and they were finally ready to use.

    The only thing that could have prevented the atomic bombs from being dropped was Japan offering to surrender.


    More importantly, striking a blow against Japan and damaging their war machine.
     
  25. Toggle Almendro

    Toggle Almendro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2016
    Messages:
    2,928
    Likes Received:
    721
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I think he is talking about the US position later on, after Japan surrendered, during the Cold War.

    It is a little hard to be sure though, because he is not typing out proper sentences that would clearly separate one point from the next.

    @bobobrazil
    Did I interpret your meaning correctly?
     

Share This Page