What a sad and pathetically transparent attempt at smearing. You baselessly accuse me of action like a politician, could that have anything to do with you acting like the worst kind of political attack dog?
You spin all this BS about one line in a long quote that you chose to take out of context and interpret as you wanted. Was that really such a big issue? Or are you just fuming everyone isn't fawning all over how incredible the US military is and think 2 carrier battle groups would be enough to take down China?
The answer is clear to all, so you can stop this pathetic charade.
What a bunch of idiotic rubbish. Out of context, you say? Well let's have a look at the context so you can be exposed in front of everyone:
Until the F35 comes online, the USN's primary strike aircraft the FA18E does not enjoy many advantages against current front-line PLA fighters, so even if the PLA has trouble finding the carriers, the strike packages coming in will still have a very hard time. Especially if you factor in things like ground and PLAN naval radars and missiles, as well as the PLA's own AWACS and tanker Assets.
If the US brings all 11 carriers as well as all its SSGNs and most of all its fleets as well as be willing to take heavy losses keeping their island airbases open, then they can overwhelm the PLA conventionally. But it will come at a very heavy price, certainly at an exchange rate that will make US generals and politicians bulk.
Clearly the context is one in which you are trying to make it sound very very difficult for the US to defeat the PLA. It absolutely makes sense that you would, in the midst of all this self-stroking, talk about how it would take the entirety of the USN to take down the PLA. And if bringing all 11 carriers, all of its SSGNs, and most or all of its surface fleets will still result in a "heavy price", why in the world would any US military commander bring anything less than all he's got into the fight? He wouldn't. Your claim is obviously a statement to the effect that the US would be positively REQUIRED to bring essentially everything into the fight in order to have a chance of winning, and even then it would sustain massive casualties.
BTW, lest you continue to think I'm some kind of CIA attack dog: I'm a first generation Chinese American with a strong interest in military issues. I have a amateurish/hobbyish interest in seeing China improve its military power and get excited when I see new stuff coming out in the PLA arsenal. I have a feeling many people are here for the same reasons. However, I'm quite sober when it comes to military analysis, unlike you who seem to be somewhat delusional about these things.
What utter BS. I said 'if America brought all 11 carriers...it can win', does anyone disagree with that? I never said America needed to bring all 11 no matter what you want to imagine. As I have already stressed repeatedly, I said 11 because that way I can avoid needing to justify why I picked that number.
Yeah I think I'm going to call bullshit on that one. See above.
To prove a point? Unlike you, the rest of the world operate in a rational universe and would like to base their conclusions on fact, instead of fiction.
To prove what point, exactly? "The sun rises every day" proves what point exactly? Uselessly obvious statements "prove" nothing at all. Even you know that. Which is why your current attempt at reframing your original unsupported claim as some kind of statement of an obvious, undeniable truth isn't working.
Again, you are trying to split hairs, and you are deliberately misquoting me to either justify this ridiculous tantrum or to cover up for the fact that you misread what I originally said and jumped to some stupid conclusion based more on your own insecurities and prejudices.
Splitting hairs in your case is apparently becoming very important since like a politician you have chosen to play fast and loose with your own statements.
And please, I have done nothing but point out the blatantly obvious. Of course I think the US will take massive casualties in an all out war against China. I challenge you to find anyone with any credibility who think otherwise.
No need with this useless hand-wringing melodrama/straw man combo. It has no place on a military site.
Those are opinions as close to fact as it is possible to get, and people are free to draw their own conclusions from that. If you have a problem the rational and mature thing to have done was to present a rational argument supported by facts and/or strong, persuasive arguments that justify your position. Instead, you 'pulled a number out of your ass' as you yourself admitted and seem to be throwing a tantrum when others ask you where that number came from and how it is reasonable to assume that that is the correct number. Pathetic, childish and stupid. Suck it up and grow up.
You didn't ask me where this number came from. Here is actually your first, initial 5 year old tantrum response to me:
That's plain ridiculous and shows you did not actually comprehend what I was saying.
bla bla bla
Instead of focusing of the message, you perceived a 'slight' and then displayed disappointing but not unexpected pettiness and childish tit for tat. Please show a bit more maturity and grace. For your own sake if no one else's.
This idiotic rant was posted after I had only written a single sentence response to someone else (solarz) about the 11 carriers post. So who's the child here?
Just how stupid do you think everyone else here is exactly to fall for this laughably transparent attempt to backtracking all over the place. Like a politician caught in the act, no amount of official denials will plaster over a statement already and obviously made.
And what exactly is this 3 or 4 figures even based on? Oh I forgot, you pulled that one out of your ass, as it seem everything else you have said so far.
Up to now, you have offered up no reasonable argument to support your assessment, if it can be called that, of how many carriers would be needed. Instead you have wasted mine and everyone else's time by derailing this thread with these sad, pathetic and transparent childish attacks over what exactly? A figment of your own angry and insecure imagination based on nothing more then a hair splitting attempt on a turn of phrase based on what has been said that was deliberately misquoted to make it say what it does not.
You're right, I have not offered up my analysis of such an attack scenario. The thing is, NEITHER HAVE YOU, whether 1 carrier, 5 carriers, or all 11 of them. As I've frankly admitted, I'm pulling a number out of my ass just like you did, and as long as you don't (or are unable to) support that number, I feel no obligation to support mine. And I have already told you why splitting hairs is so important with you. I have also quoted you in context to show everybody here why it is obvious what you plainly meant is what you plainly said. Even your bosom buddy solarz agreed with this point, though I'm sure he does not wish he did.
I think most people reading your original post will also take the plain interpretation that you were claiming the USN would be obligated to bring everything in to be able to defeat the PLA. Like I said, trying to whitewash a politican's words almost never works.
I was using that to make a point to support my conclusion, how hard is that to understand? I can only conclude that you are either being deliberately obtuse or simply lack the mental faculties to appreciate what has actually been said and why. Unless you materially demonstration otherwise, I see no point in wasting any more time on you.
And what conclusion would that be, hmmm? That it would be massively difficult for the US to defeat the PLA? Yes, I agree, this conclusion would definitely be enhanced by claiming that it would require all 11 carriers, all SSGN's and most or all of the USN's surface fleet for the US to win. Oh, and a willingness to stomach massive USN casulties. :roll:
As for general statements, well that is all any of us are qualified to say. Do you have classified files and threat assessments from the PLA or the Pentagon to use to be able to make a more detail prediction of what might happen? No, and to claim otherwise would be as pathetic as it is stupid.
The problem is that you made some very very specific statements. 11 carriers, all SSGN's, etc. This exposed you to scrutiny, and realizing this, you backtracked furiously while throwing tantrums left and right.
I have supported my position, and you have been able to offer up zero counter arguments or evidence to argue against anything I have said other than a pathetic and misguided attempt to twist my words out of context.
Wait, you supported your position? No, son, you supported squat. Try again.
Well, in an alternative universe where I actually did say I think it would NEED all 11 carriers, then you would have a point. But in this world, I used that to illustrate my point that if the USN brought its entire might to bare, it can defeat the PLA. Does anyone disagree with that?
This "point" would be the stupidest point in the world, akin to making a statement that the sun rises daily, and I think even you would not feel the need to make it. And in fact you were not making this point. Here is the point you were trying (but failing) to make: if USN brought its entire might to bare, it can defeat the PLA; OTHERWISE IT MAY NOT WIN. But I think by now we've made that plainly obvious, haven't we?
