Sorry but it is out of touch. These treaties were meant to go beyond the Cold Wars and provide a stable balance of power.
You haven't been paying attention to what the Dept. of the Navy has been talking about. We've already taken steps to move beyond them. Russia has not been happy about some of our actions. But a changing world creates the need to change conditions.
Which is ridiculous. While Taiwan can be hit by short ranged missiles going to Japan and to Guam requires much larger missiles of sorts. These kinds of missiles can be construed as going nuclear.
That's true, and is what I was talking about. We aren't exactly sure how China intends to equip those missiles. But if they are conventional, a Trident missile that is equipped the same may be an option.
Which is ridiculous. If you already threatened a nuclear posture, and threatened that any IRBMs launched can be considered a nuclear attack and would respond in kind, China or anyone else won't be using IRBMs in a conventional manner.
I don't think you understood my point.
And how is that accomplished? The US declares each missile launched as conventional or nuclear? How can you differentiate this from radar? How can you differentiate this by trajectory.
I don't think you actually read my posts. What I said before was "Not only that I believe in this day and age many command chains from around the world would wait to determine what type of attack it was. They would know conventional Trident is a deployed and viable weapon system, they would see if weapon deployment and targeting was specific in nature, and think perhaps over-reaction by the targeted nation may actually result in the Tridents with the thermonuclear warhead variety to be deployed instead of the conventional ones. There are also a number of factors such as how many missiles were launched. There’s a big difference between 24 missiles with 12 warheads separating all at once ( similar to how a nuclear first strike would be conducted) with 1-2 missiles of the same variety targeting specific targets. " I'm thinking China doesn't want to be annihilated here. Am I correct to assume that? The other point is that we wouldn't use this system in anyway unless China began launching BM's at third party nations. China cannot expect to light East Asia on fire and expect no retaliation. Nor can they define how that retaliation should occur.
China won't *use* nuclear tipped missiles against you if you don't use nuclear missiles against them. They have reiterated their no first strike policy. Launching conventional Tridents however, can result in them going nuclear.
Well, again, this system seriously would not need to be used unless China began launching ballistic missiles at third party nations and other targets in the Far East. what you're not getting is the true potential for deterrence that exists in this system. At least the Dept. of the Navy has explained it that way in not so many words.
And how is that enough for a preemption. There is nearly over 1000 DF-11s and DF-15s alone. In mobile TELs.
I wasn't particularly talking preemption on this point. Conventional Trident in this case would be more retaliatory on high value assets and war-sustaining necessities. We would need another solution for TEL's and yes, that's a tall order to fill. I understand that.
If you got a Trident headed to a population center, what exactly are they going to think of? Sure. They will press the red button. Thank you for starting World War III.
You don't understand how this system would be used. We would have no need to use it unless China began launching BM's all over the Western Pacific. It would be they who would start this march into hell. Conventional Trident is simply a non-nuclear deterrent capability with tremendous striking potential if needed.
You sound ridiculous. Any BM will never be as accurate as a CM. The faster the missile flies, the less its opportunities for flight correction. Which means to compensate, you still need a bigger blast. Even with a conventional warhead, these warheads, with over 1 ton each of advanced explosive, can produce an explosion that can be mistaken as a small nuclear weapon. It's ridiculous to think that China will have to check the explosions for radioactivity before it decides the weapons fired are conventional or nuclear. This does not even cover "conventional WMDs" like the possibility of biological and chemical attacks through the conventional Tridents.
Right, this is what some have been trying to relay to those who believe in the applications of anti-ship BM. Not exactly a viable solution. On another note, did you know that Trident D5 is the first and only true sea-based missile that has the accuracy and viable ability to be used as a counterforce first strike weapon? Do you know the significance of that? The Soviets knew and hated it. Now consider dropping 12 1 ton non-nuclear explosion into that CEP zone. You're going to get your target.
And what makes you think that China won't have the ability to respond with precisely accurate conventional BMs? Their ASAT test shows they got atomic clocks and very precise inertial navigation systems that are right to cutting edge. That's an accuracy of 4m2 CEP against 865 kilometers on a target moving at orbital speeds. Their space launches always have their reentry landings right precisely on cue, never farther from their intended mark by a few kilometers.
I do know they have improved. But it took a few tries for them to get there as well. I do also applaud them on their manned efforts. The USN did destroy a satellite at a lower orbit which means faster orbital speed and less time in the visible horizon. This was also done from a sea-based mobile system. And did it on the first try with 1 missile. I'm not taking away anything from China's ASAT test. But some perspective needs to be placed.
I also have to say that landing a manned capsule which is constantly slowing on re-entry is also different from placing a warhead from a bus on target accurately. And doing so with a demonstrated consistent pace.
The only one with his head in the clouds is you, thinking this won't escalate into a nuclear war.
No. You misunderstand. I see a potential for this. But China shooting missiles around loosely would be the only reason to retaliate in any kind. We simply won't allow that. It would also be a losing strategy for China which I won't elaborate on further as some political implications would have to be factored into that discussion. So I part company with that thought.
And frankly I see as much ridiculous and exaggerated things on other forums like Strategypage.
Never heard of Strategy Page. But yes, the Internet is full of alot of crap. There is a whole lot on Chinese bbs. And despite Sinodefenceforum being a top notch site, a number of posters here have very vivid imaginations. And no, I'm not talking about you crobato. And I'm not talking about Tphuang either since I've addressed him in this thread. But I've had people on a thread during a forum session tell me how Aegis algorithms work, what information can be processed onboard Arleigh Burke ships and how they go about tracking and engaging targets, what their limits are, how they datalink, what they carry in terms of weaponry, how anti-ship missiles engage, etc. It was complete junk. Yet they were absolutely convinced of their uninformed opinion. I've actually worked CIC onboard DDG-56 and found it to be utterly ridiculous. Anyway, you're right, crap is everywhere on Internet forums.
Accuracy of Chinese missiles are no longer an area of speculation. Its a fact if their development programs are an indication.
Numbers of missile builds do not indicate anything.
The problem is you cannot give an absolute guarantee about it right? The full extent of the 094's capability is not very clear, and PLAN submarines appeared to have slipped before. The Russians have much noisier SSBMs than 094, and you can base this from the fact these subs got twin shafts and screws while the 094 only has one of each, and the screws are not the slow turning, low cavitation type that you see on the 094. You have built a strategic ASW strategy against much noisier Typhoons and Deltas. If the SSBN has the potential to be much quieter that seriously screws up your long range detection possibilities which are tuned to Cold War twin shafted, conventionally screwed subs.
And the 094 isn't the end of the development trail since we know they're working on even quieter propulsor units like pumpjets. And these 094s will be escorted by 093s. This opens scenarios that you cannot guarantee each pair or group will be _stopped in time_.
What you see on the outside concerning submarine development, gives an indication of what you get on the inside. Neither of these submarines show me anything developmentally that has built anything into them equivalent to our last generation of builds here in the US. Sorry guys. No offense intended. I'm not concerned about neither of them. It looks like a generational step for China. Especially 094. However I see some lines in there that don't exactly please me in terms of generated flow noise. That's about it. 093 is similar for me. The real simple low-down here. We are way ahead of them in this area. I'm extremely confident in this. In terms of sensors it harder to judge, but these things typicaly go hand and hand. Never seen it otherwise. And our ASW is factored around any sub type. Not just Delta's and Typhoons. If you think Virginia's are solely designed to go after Typhoons under the ice, you haven't exactly been keeping up. And unlike China, you can actually get pretty good indications of some very impressive and innovative technologies built into these submarines. They've opened up portions of them to the press. It truly takes away nothing for them to do this and shows a real confidence in their design.
I'm sorry but no one seriously thinks this missile build race China has is based with nuclear weapons. Nuclear watchers are only looking at the DF-31A, not the DF-11.
True to a certain extent.
And the capability for the Chinese to do it also exists.
Also true to another extent. Although like I said, they don't particularly need them. And it would increase their likelihood to be a major strategic loss for China in that role. With what I see regarding China's current nuclear submarines, I'm not so convinced of a high likelihood of survivability.
24 Tridents vs. 24x6 Tomahawks, that ratio sucks. How are you going to preempt hundreds of mobile TELs all over the country? Each Trident is far less stealthy than a Tomahawk, which can give the TELs warning time to move out.
Actually it's 22x7 for the SSGN. The other 2 tubes are used for storage and SEAL lockout. And it's 24x8 for the SSBN's. It potentially could be 24x12 for the conventional Trident program.Stealth regarding Trident is a non-issue as response time would be severely limited. You think these conventional warheads would go only after TEL's? No. they're going after mostly fixed sites like logistics, command and control, airfields, bases, and perhaps some BM's. Yes, Tomahawks, SLAM-ER's, B-2's and such (if intel is good that is), would be more suitable in that role.
Furthermore, maybe you don't understand that many of the PLA bases are underground. Chances are, BMs don't have the required accuracy to close off an entrance as a Tomahawk or a JDAM can.
Right. However warhead design does have penetration capability not found in some cruise missiles. Both have their advantages. This issue is more complex than you give it credit for.
I can trust decision makers not to stoop to this lunacy.
Can you trust China's decision makers not to fire off ballistic missiles all over the Western Pacific including Taiwan. Seriously the USA is in no mood for war. But deterrence is a vital interest. That means hostilities if necessary.
What makes you think I'm ignorant of such eh?
All these missiles and warheads are thrown into scrap in both the US and the SU thanks to the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty.
I'm sorry, did you say the Cold War is over? The Cold War is over but the participants who signed that Treat AREN'T. They are still here, with Russia in place of the Soviet Union. And so are the lessons from the Cold War.
I didn't say you were ignorant. Nor do I believe you are. But I'm hoping the Chinese have an understanding of some things.
Sigh. China has already mentioned they have a no strike first policy.
They can say anything they want. Do you think all the people of the Far East buy this?
The Chinese never has any intentions for a first strike, knowing their dense population centers would put them in a serious disadvantage in a nuclear exchange.
Plus their lack of a credible second strike element. But yes, the USA has no desire to nuke anybody anyway. Nor does the USA want to fight such a war. The Chinese hopefully will realize where they may put us if they began launching BM's at Japan, Guam, and other placxes of strategic interests. Seriously crobato, your view seems to be that the USA should allow China to target anybody, and the USA responding in kind or finalizing the deterrent role adequately is destabilizing. I adamantly disagree. If China doesn't launch, they have nothing to worry about.
And seriously, a very limited number of conventional Tridents isn't going to stop the mobile TELs. Not exactly that easy telling a DF-21 TEL from a DF-11 TEL from space. If you hit a DF-11 TEL, you're already on the losing side because the cost of these missiles are much less than a Trident. The target ain't worth it.
Like I said, BM's would not be a primary target. Fixed targets of extremely high value, and targets of war-sustaining value would be.
Oh please. I know exactly how deterrent works. Your conventional Trident does not fare any better against all other alternatives in terms of numbers, accuracy and cost effectivenes such as B-2 with JDAMs to Tomahawks. Not to mention the supply of Tridents themselves are limited,. you use them up, what are you going to replace them with? You still need the nuclear deterrence scenario, and you're asking and castrating a strategic nuclear asset to do a conventional job that a bunch of B-2s can do with far more cost effectiveness, less possibility of collateral damage and without a serious escalation in the nuclear threat level.
Well, you're seriously arguing merits again. Like I said, argue with the DoD and the Navy. They're the ones seriously considering this alternative plan. No offense, but I'll defer to their judgement over yours as to the potential of such a system and it's risks. And anyway, my whole point on the statement before everybody went crazy was that we do have this capability. Whether you like it or not, it is a potential. It is merely something that can be used. You are seriously wasting time arguing over why we shouldn't deploy it. I'm not interested in that as it does have a possibility to be a deployed system. Right now it's not. But in the RAND war here, you never know. My own view is the deterrent factor outweighs the risks. Even if such a war proceeds we may not need to use it. But it's presence does have value. You don't agree, it's OK.
