New Chinese Nuclear Threat to US

Not in the way that you are implying. Yes, it had a RADAR, but it was for verifying the target in the way of a TOMAHAWK and guidance, it compared what the RADAR saw and verified that was the target location. It could not acquire, track, and hit a moving target. It made a comparison against RADAR maps before hitting the target area. It could not acquire an object like a tank then hit it, it only verified the location based on maps in the memory.

Yes. It can't be done in the way some people seem to think like magic.

No, they are nothing alike.

The Kh-47 Kinzhal (DAGGER) is an air-launched missile, it is nothing like a DF-21. It is fired from a flat trajectory, and operates at a flat trajectory. Yes it is based off of a ballistic missile design, but it does not operate as a ballistic missile.

And the same with all of the claims of a "maneuverable ballistic warhead". They still target a fixed ground location, and have no way to acquire, track, then hit anything that is mobile. And the biggest problem with missiles like the DF-21 is the claims that they can locate, acquire, track, and feed to the missile in real time the location of targets beyond the horizon. Nobody can do that, RADAR simply can't bend around the curvature of the planet. Never has, never will. There can be some reception through atmospheric scattering, but it lacks almost all detail and is only good for warning and not target acquisition.

Plus those kinds of RADAR pump out a hell of a lot of power. Like the kind that would make them an instant target for every aircraft with a HARM missile on board.

The US never adopted maneuvering of ballistic missiles because like supersonic missiles, it is a rather stupid concept. The things are going to fast that target acquisition is almost impossible other than for fixed ground targets. Certainly not for mobile targets. Supersonic missiles are just as silly, as by definition they have to operate at a very high altitude. Which means they have a very high chance of being intercepted. Our tactic for flat trajectory ground target missiles was never "high and fast" but "low and slow". With the missiles operating only a hundred meters or less off of the ground to reduce the time an adversary would have to detect, acquire, or intercept it.

Intercepting a flat trajectory missile like a cruise missile is nothing special, us and the British were doing that with prop driven planes in the 1940s. Which was much easier as the normal operating altitude of those was in the 2-3,000 foot range. They are much harder to acquire and hit when they operate below the range of ground based RADAR.



That was a TOMAHAWK in Iraq. And yes, it is so low that ground based RADAR would never see it. When setting up RADAR, one sets lower limits to prevent the system from seeing things like trees, buildings, mountains, and other things. In movie terms you block them so the system ignores anything within that range. That is why the biggest threat to almost any air defense system is helicopters. They not only operate at a really low altitude, they can operate at such a slow speed that the RADAR will ignore them (otherwise any large flock of birds would trigger the system that a threat was in range). That is why around even a PATRIOT Battery, you will have people with heavy guns and MANPADs, to protect the site from helicopters that they generally can not see or engage because they are too low.

 

Does it operate in a ballistic trajectory? In other words, does it leave and immediately climb at a 45 degree angle or more and reach a high altitude before descending? Or does it travel most of the distance from the launcher to the target in an almost straight line, only popping up at the end for the terminal phase? Generally only climbing a few dozen meters?

If it is not on a ballistic trajectory, then it is a flat trajectory, no matter if it "pops up" at the last minute or not.

Many anti-ship missiles also use a "pop-up" at the end, but they also are still flat-trajectory missiles and not ballistic missiles. They travel 95-99% of the distance from when launched to the target in a flat trajectory and not a ballistic one.

 

Why can't a system be designed to home in on the shape or profile of a US aircraft carrier?

What prevents a warhead from being designed to accept external commands relayed by radio transmission?

Satellites and drones could spot the location of an aircraft carrier. High-altitude AWACS might also be able to pinpoint the location of an aircraft carrier.

Why would high speed preclude target acquisition?

 

We are still going to argue this...ok.

For starters If you kill 10's of thousands of civilians and only 150 soldiers with an atomic bomb. I do not consider that a military target. I consider that gross incompetence. The very reason as to why both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were never bombed in the many months of unchallenged napalm bombing runs was exactly due to the fact that they were considered not important.

Secondly the actual arms manufacturing facility on the outskirts of Hiroshima...one of the few things in the area you would want to destroy to as -you say- "end the Japan war machine"...was untouched.

The Hiroshima bomb was dropped directly on top of a hospital. (not a military target) of which was surrounded by almost half a dozen schools.

That's not a military target. That's called terror bombing. A bold display and free test to see what devastation our new atomic bomb would do if dropped in a populated area. This is again backed up by the minutes posted of the meetings when discussing specific bombing locations.

As for the invasion. I have stated several times that Truman was not convinced it was the right way to go. And the meeting's minutes reinforce this narrative backed up by his private thoughts written in his diary on getting the Russians to invade.

So the meeting (if you read it) is generals discussing the pro's/con's and cost of such an invasion. How it would compare to previous skirmishes. And what the results of such an invasion could bring about. I'm going to highlight some quotes. They are important.

"THE PRESIDENT stated that one of his objectives in connection with the coming conference10 would be to get from Russia all the assistance in the war that was possible. To this end he wanted to know all the decisions that he would have to make in advance in order to occupy the strongest possible position in the discussions."

Admiral Leahy details how Japan was already beaten to which the president agreed. And it was ONLY this stupid desire to get unconditional surrender that was fueling this desire for invasion.

"ADMIRAL LEAHY said that he could not agree with those who said to him that unless we obtain the unconditional surrender of the Japanese that we will have lost the war. He feared no menace from Japan in the foreseeable future, even if we were unsuccessful in forcing unconditional surrender. What he did fear was that our insistence on unconditional surrender would result only in making the Japanese desperate and thereby increase our casualty lists. He did not think that this was at all necessary."

The president agrees with this statement but doesn't think he could sell this to the American public, as anything less than a "unconditional surrender" would still be seen as a defeat.

"THE PRESIDENT stated that it was with that thought in mind that he had left the door open for Congress to take appropriate action with reference to unconditional surrender. However, he did not feel that he could take any action at this time to change public opinion on the matter."

Where the invasion is left off after this meeting? The president agrees that as a military operation, it is sound. But that he would further contemplate actually going forward with the operation. What does that mean? It means you can plan it, gather troops but the final decision would be planned later.

"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; that we can do this operation and then decide as to the final action later."

So based on the diary entries of the President, and everything he's asking and saying in this meeting...he was never going to go forward with this invasion. Once he got Russia on board, the American invasion was off the table.

The bombs didn't end the war or prevent us from invading. It was Japan getting invaded by Russia from the North that ended their last hope for negotiation. And that is based off of their eternal communications discussing negotiations with Russia leading up to the invasion.

So the bombs didn't do much but display America's new toy at the cost of many Japanese lives.

 

You are judging the bomb that was dropped on weapon factories by how many soldiers it killed, which is nonsense.

The destruction that the Nagasaki attack inflicted on Japanese weapon factories was quite satisfactory.

That is incorrect. The reason why Hiroshima was not destroyed with conventional weapons is because, as a designated atomic target, it was off limits to conventional bombing.

The reason why Nagasaki was not destroyed with conventional weapons is because it was difficult to find with the radar that we used to guide our large nighttime incendiary raids.

Having judged the bomb that was dropped on factories by how many soldiers it killed, you now reverse that and judge the bomb that was dropped on soldiers by how many factories it destroyed, which is doubly nonsense.

The Hiroshima attack killed thousands of Japanese soldiers and completely destroyed the military headquarters that was in charge of repelling our invasion of Kyushu.

Truman is on record agreeing with the invasion and ordering that it go forward.

The minutes show Truman agreeing with the invasion and ordering it to go forward.

Those quotes do not change the fact that Truman agreed with the invasion and ordered the military to carry it out.

That is incorrect. It means that the military is ordered to go forward with the invasion.

The "final action" does not refer to the invasion of Kyushu. It refers to the subsequent capture of Tokyo.

What he has to say about the invasion of Kyushu is "the Joint Chiefs of Staff could go ahead with it".

That is incorrect. Truman ordered the military to go forward with the invasion. The Soviets deciding to help us invade did not result in any change to his order.

So it goes.

 

In other words, magic and fairy dust. No different than what China has been claiming.

Of course, never mind that you have to get an AWACS within range. China itself claims it is with some new kind of over the horizon RADAR, but sure, AWACS. I suppose they also have a stealth AWACS as well?

Satellites are not "real time". Sure, it is good for knowing something is in the area, but it can't give that kind of fast actionable intelligence needed to strike a moving target. We are talking real life here, not video games or movies.

And drones, same thing. Not gonna get in range to do that. Plus I find it amazing how many tend to forget all the ECM we have. Of course, that magically fails also.

Think about it. The faster a missile is traveling, the less time it has to search for, acquire, lock on, then travel to the target. A subsonic missile can be almost leisurely about it, checking the images stored in its internal database repeatedly as it continues to search for other targets. But the faster a missile is going, the less time it has to do so. Not so much because of processing power but the lack of maneuverability at high speeds. The faster an object goes, the longer it takes to make a change in direction or altitude.

 

I must ask... what is your military experience? Some of the things you suggest are very strange. For example, using a TOMAHAWK to engage "moving targets". No one in my world would ever suggest such a thing. Different weapons to engage different targets is part of their design. Tomahawks are designed to hit city block-sized targets... and city blocks are rarely mobile enough to be called a "moving target". Tomahawks are used to attack fuel depots, large headquarters, big repair and other facilities... not tanks. The flight of a TOMAHAWK is preprogrammed using digital mapping. During flight, radars compare the ground being traversed with these maps and keep it on course... along with GPS updates... but GPS is not reliable in a hostile area of operations.

You seem to be mixing big weapons with little targets. We have designed a whole realm of weapons, each designed for specific targets. And TOMAHAWKS (ALCM/ GLCM/, et al) don't shoot at moving targets. Moving targets get shot at with things like HELLFIRE, TOW, MAVERICK, sensor-fused-weapons, and the almighty JAVELIN.

For bigger things, like ICBM's, we do indeed send directions to the weapon in flight. The intel isn't FROM the weapon, its usually from satellites, recon aircraft and such. If we send out an ICBM and all of a sudden we see enemy air defense in its path, we can tell it to change its course to avoid the THREAT.

There is no radar guided weapon I can think of that can engage beyond line-of-sight, although emerging networks will get it in the "ball park" before relying on its radars.

Stinger travels at mach 2.5. and certainly do not operate at "very high altitudes"... heck, they can shoot down helicopters operating at NOE... basically skimming the ground.

Key "sites" are protected today with the Israeli IRON DOME system which we have adopted and call C-RAM (Counter Rocket, Artillery, Mortar).

Your data seems antiquated, inaccurate and confused... with a bit of reality thrown in. Again, may I ask what your experience in the military is? I have never heard anyone with real experience talk as you do. That's not an insult... I just wonder where it comes from.

 

Javelin, and TOW too, rise up as they near the target, allowing attack of a tank from the top, where the armor is relatively light.

 

In my career, we never used AWACS. That was for THEATRE level command... far away. When you have an enemy tank coming through the wire... the last thing on your mind is AWACS. Heck, even Close Air Support from an F-16 or other fast mover isn't of much use. When that tank is coming through the wire, there is hardly time to work your way over from the ground pounders to the Navy or Air Force... work your way up the chain of command and down theirs, contact the assets, have them maneuver into place and execute. Gimme an Apache hovering a couple of hundred meters behing me, behind a tree, ANY TIME. Or better yet... DEDICATED ARTILLERY. Ever hear of AFMSS? Its the Air Force Mission Support System. It allows fast movers to rehearse their missions. From a ground perspective, there's no time for that. We need "steel on target"... NOW. No time for the niceties.

You're a little outdated with your view of UxV's (drones) too. From torpedoes to ground systems to air systems... it gets better every day. Apaches can now carry UAV's deep into the battle area before releasing them. Other aircraft get them in even faster. And few existing defense systems have a chance of stopping a swarm of drones... air, surface or subsurface. Global Hawks can stay aloft for days. Predator/Reaper has a long and very accurate arm.

ECM can be defeated. EMP is a whole different world... we'll save that for another day.

 

It also ignores the obvious. If the U..S. had to invade Japan we were planning to use every nuclear weapon that could be made available AND chemical weapons.

 

Well, they can already home in based on visual data. But that is not acquisition. How are you going to acquire it?

You mean, other than the fact that such is easily jammed? Oh, the delay involved in two way communication, and most weapons are simply not designed to be steered in that manner.

Even those "smart bombs" made famous in the Gulf War were not controlled visually by remote. The target was painted by a LASER designator, and that is what they were homing in on. The camera only showed where it was going, the operator had no control over it.

Not in anything even remotely close to real time. And do you think that during hostilities that the US is going to allow some drone to operate over it's fleet?

And great, high altitude AWACS. For China, that is the KJ-2000. A platform based on the Il-76. Maximum altitude, 13,000 meters (43,000 feet). But here is the thing, at that altitude you can not see much more than 100 miles because of the curvature of the earth. And RADAR is amazingly inefficient at distance at detecting objects on the ground due to backscatter. That is why AWAC aircraft are designed and created to detect airborne threats, not ground threats.

Because the faster an object goes, the larger it's turn radius is and the less maneuverable it is.

 

If you want to know, 10 years in the Infantry. Over 5 years working with the PATRIOT system, and over 7 years in IT.

And yes, that was my point. Nobody uses TOMAHAWK to hot moving targets. It is simply not designed to do that at all. Although theoretically a nuclear armed TOMAHARK could be used to target a road convoy.

And yes, I know the difference. The problem in here is that many are confusing the systems that have a person in the end operating it with the "fire and forget" types of weapons. They are not the same, they have never been the same, and people need to stop confusing the two. Yes, JAVELIN is steered by a person, but it is also a very short range line of sight weapon (under 5km). Firing one of those is absolutely nothing like firing a HARPOON or TOMAHAWK.

Now what some are trying to compare these systems to are in a way similar to the Harpoon. Yes, they can be fired in a manner to "fire and forget" and it will acquire it's own target. However, the scanning capabilities are classified but believed to be between 20 and 30 degrees, no more than about 5 miles. That means they have to be fired damned accurately to the actual location of the ship or they simply will not find it. And they really can't target a specific ship in that mode, they simply lock onto the first ship they detect.

 

Yes, and I have worked in a Battalion TOC where we got almost all the take from the AWACS in real time. In much the same way in 2009 we could watch the take from the Navy following the Maersk Alabama.

In the last several decades the military has come a long ways in integrating their RADAR systems. However, the only ones that really get that take are the units that would actually be using it. Like PATRIOT, it tells the air defense units on the ground what exactly is inbound, the speed, altitude and trajectory, and possibly what kind of threat it actually is.

No, it was in no way our asset, but they did share with us the data they were collecting.

 

Oh, and EMP can be easily defeated, out military equipment has been hardened against it for over 50 years.

Faraday cages are about the ultimate in "low tech".

 

Actually, the plan ("Operation Downfall") did not include the use of nuclear or chemical weapons.

 

Your Patriot experience is showing. That's a theatre weapon. Most of us grunts don't think above Infantry or Artillery level (with a healthy smattering of Apache). Most of us in the trenches never experienced a Harpoon or Tomahawk except in a publication (although I did do a stint with Kollsman that makes the altimeter and some terrain matching stuff with Tomahawk.)

"Fire and forget" does not refer to "acquiring its own target". Legacy guided anti-tank weapons like Dragon, TOW an SAL HELLFIRE require the gunner to keep his crosshairs on the moving target until impact. This made him vulnerable to enemy fire throughout the time of flight of the round. JAVELIN simply requires the gunner to aim at the target. The missile itself then identifies and locks on to something on the target that doesn't exist in nature like a pure right angle or straight line. It locks onto the target an guides itself to impact. This allows the gunner to pull the trigger and RUN, rather than hang around until impact. That is the truly revolutionary ability JAVELIN brings to the battlefield.

I never worried much about ships. Most of my combat experience was spent in the desert, far from the water. Heck, I didn't even get in country on a ship.

GO ARMY!! BEAT NAVY!!!

Note: Three of my favorite steak joints were near Ft Bliss. Ever get to "Cattleman's" (in the hills overlooking Bliss), "State Line", or "The Hacienda" (down I-10 a few miles at the Fabens exit)?

 

There is no way to "harden" against EMP. EMP is essentially an expanding and contracting magnetic field that induces current in ferrous materials. There is no way to shield against magnetism. Even the entire earth can't o it... that's why compasses point to the north. The only defense is a Faraday Cage. The problem there is that it must be totally sealed to work, denying access to the equipment, so you can't use it until you take it out, then its subject to EMP again. We've developed EMP weapons... starting with Boeing's "CHAMP". We've made them ever smaller and lighter to meet the UxV challenges we face now. EMP will change the entire concept of a three dimensional battlefield. There was a recent picture of a soldier in Moscow with a handheld version in his hands.

 

And that's great. Easy to make at home to save spare computers, radios, cameras, etc. in preparation for the possible nuke war Biden is leading us into.

 

Not what I read.

 

Actually, it was seriously being considered.

President Truman outright their use against personnel, but was considering their use against crops in order to help starve them into submission. And they were being seriously considered for the openings of both Operation Olympic and Operation Coronet. At the rate they were being built, around 15 would have been operational and ready to use at that time. The bombs would have been air bursts to soften up the beach defenses 2 days prior to the invasion to the invasion itself.

The Road to Trinity: A Personal Account of How America's Nuclear Policies Were Made. - Kenneth Nichols

 

And your limited experience in other areas other than as a grunt are showing. "Fire and Forget" simply means that the actions of the gunner or anybody else no longer matter, the weapon is entirely on its own after the button is pressed. HARPOON is "fire and forget", once it is fired it seeks out the target with no further input. TOMAHAWK is also a "fire and forget" weapon, but it has a basic guidance and acquisition package onboard. Not to "seek" a target, simply to verify it is at the right location when it does strike where the target should be. It may home in on a fixed location, or seek out a target with RADAR. But the point is that once it is released there is no more interaction between the weapon and any other systems. There is no grunt on the ground or a pilot in the aircraft with a LASER designator guiding it, nobody steers it. It is entirely autonomous after it is released. That is what "fire and forget" means.

 

Oh hell, EMP is one of the easiest things to defend against. And yes, it is fairly easy to harden against EMP.

Here, perfect against EMP.



Want to know what else is protected against EMP and you have in your own home?



That is why you can see what is inside of your microwave and not get cooked, it's literally a Faraday Cage.

And no, it does not have to be completely sealed off with no access, you simply have to then shield around the openings. This is because like any other high energy particles or waves, EMP goes in straight lines. Have any access for cables take 1 or 2 bends, and the EMP can't penetrate. Hell, I have worked inside of Faraday Cages when I was at Hughes and Boeing. Entry was through an S shaped corridor, once again so that the waves could not escape (those were RADAR labs and they were not concerned about waves getting in but in them getting out).

So no, they do not need to be "totally sealed". Hell, a lot of IT equipment like servers are placed inside of Faraday Cages. How in the hell could those work if they had to be totally sealed? And yes, I have worked inside Faraday Cage server rooms also. About half simply had a 2 door airlock type of system to access where only 1 door could be open at a time. And the seal around the door was the same as much military equipment has. A steel mesh gasket.

 

Wow, have you ever actually worked with Faraday Cages? Here is the funny thing, I have.

I even laughed when I had one customer that made one without even knowing it. I got a call to a construction company because they had installed a new wireless video camera on their gate, and for some reason they could not see it. So I went to the site, and almost immediately started to laugh. Their office was a metal shed on a trailer, that was placed inside of another metal shed. And their WIFI router was inside that trailer. I explained to them that they had essentially made a Faraday Cage, as the combination was blocking the signals. I simply added an external antenna to the inner trailer so one of the 2 antennas on the router was outside of it. Problem solved. $150 service call and about $30 in parts.

 

Do you want to pursue this? My dad was in the planning cell for the operation and I am a West Point grad that can you beat you to death with references and proof.

 

Your would'ves, should'ves, and couldv'es don't mean much in 2023.In 2023 no one cares. We're more interested in Bidens' cowardice in Afghanistan, Putin's nukes, inflation, open borders, gas prices, etc. Come, join us in 2023 where our own lives are endangered. Please take your false information, put it in a logical, rational document, and send it to the US Military Academy at West Point. They disagree with you.