The U.S. just sent a carrier strike group to confront China

[gambit]

The source is "The U.S. -China Military Scorecard" by the Rand Corp. sorry to disappoint, Please let me know if that statement is true or false.

It is funny...

RAND may say something like 'US have not encounter any opponent like China', but have you consider the opposite that 'China have not encounter any opponent like the US' ?

 

[Speeder 2]

Afghanistan or Iraq didn't have a Navy like the one Chinese have, you can tell the difference?

that's a very deep question you raised to him, don't you realise?

 

[sicsheep]

It is funny...

RAND may say something like 'US have not encounter any opponent like China', but have you consider the opposite that 'China have not encounter any opponent like the US' ?

so you are saying they are equally inexperienced in this regard?

 

[gambit]

The stupidity of the US truly has no bound.

The stupidity of China have no bound.

Do you really think a carrier battle group or 2 really has a chance of survivial in tight SCS?

Chance of survival ? Yes. Chance of victory ? Abso-effing-lutely, son.

so you are saying they are equally inexperienced in this regard?

Just to make you happy and overestimate yourselves: Yes, the US Navy and the PLAN are equally matched.

 

[Tiqiu]

Australia should not conduct 'missions' with US in South China Sea: former FM
(Xinhua) Updated: 2016-03-04 09:49

CANBERRA - Former Australian Foreign Minister Bob Carr has slammed suggestions that Australia should send warships to the South China Sea, labeling the federal Opposition's call as unnecessary and belligerent.

Labor has responded positively to requests from the United States for Australia to conduct "freedom of navigation" missions in the South China Sea, something that Carr said would only serve to raise tensions in the region.

He said Australia should not play as the United States's "deputy" in the South China Sea, in which Australia is not a relevant party to the "dispute."

"Do we want to be the only American friend, partner or ally to be donning a deputy sheriff's badge, glinting in the sunlight and getting into running these sorts of patrols?" Carr told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) late on Thursday night.

Defense analyst Catherine McGregor agreed with Carr, and said Australia had no business involving itself in the region.

"I just don't think that unilateral action testing these norms is required from Australia, as we're not a party to this dispute," she told the ABC.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2016-03/04/content_23735063.htm

 

[$@rJen]

Australia should not conduct 'missions' with US in South China Sea: former FM
(Xinhua) Updated: 2016-03-04 09:49

CANBERRA - Former Australian Foreign Minister Bob Carr has slammed suggestions that Australia should send warships to the South China Sea, labeling the federal Opposition's call as unnecessary and belligerent.

Labor has responded positively to requests from the United States for Australia to conduct "freedom of navigation" missions in the South China Sea, something that Carr said would only serve to raise tensions in the region.

He said Australia should not play as the United States's "deputy" in the South China Sea, in which Australia is not a relevant party to the "dispute."

"Do we want to be the only American friend, partner or ally to be donning a deputy sheriff's badge, glinting in the sunlight and getting into running these sorts of patrols?" Carr told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) late on Thursday night.

Defense analyst Catherine McGregor agreed with Carr, and said Australia had no business involving itself in the region.

"I just don't think that unilateral action testing these norms is required from Australia, as we're not a party to this dispute," she told the ABC.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2016-03/04/content_23735063.htm

Nobody would give a damn about ex-FM...

 

[CHD]

The ME is land which requires the army. The SCS is water which requires the navy. You can tell the difference, no ?

And both requires a thing called money and wether the american people wants another war.
It will be interesting to see how US convince its people that forget terrorists, the next bogeman is SCS.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Honestly, (and I am being completely serious here.), if I'm going to get trolled by anybody, I just love when the Chinese do it. I could not keep a straight face when reading this. It's so damn cute and funny! "Maybe when the US balls get bigger"

Seriously though, America should have made their move 10 years ago.

Now we have a massive arsenal of carrier killer ballistic missiles, namely the DF-21D and the DF-26, the latter of which has a range of around 4000 km. And according to the US department of defense: "Can destroy an aircraft carrier with a single warhead... and there is no system that is currently able to intercept it".

We have already built large numbers of these (which have been operational for many years now).

Now will America be willing to trade their extremely expensive aircraft carriers with hundreds of planes and thousands of personnel on board, for our mass produced carrier killer ballistic missiles? Even if it takes hundreds of these missiles to take out a carrier we still come out massively ahead.

And, worse news is coming. China has already tested HGV technology multiple times already. It's only a matter of time before it gets inducted (which will boost the capabilities of our DF-26 by astronomical amounts), the longer America waits the lower their chances become. That's why the sooner the better, maybe Trump will understand that.

The sooner America makes a move the better their chances. Trump 2016.

(Of course we don't believe they will make a move, which is why China seized the Scarborough shoal as far back as 2012, and is currently continuing to build islands in the SCS).

 

[Guynextdoor2]

If it were truly a "stupid thing" that China did, US would not have been so pissed that they have to make an announcement about their "innocent pass" in SCS. China did stepped on some tails, but China did push their defense line a few hundred nmi forward. How this could even be considered "stupid thing"?

If India had a chance to build some islands in the middle of Indian Ocean, would you consider it a "stupid thing" too?

It was a stupid thing and US doesn't have to justify sending carriers in international waters. India don't build islands in Indian ocean for a reason- THEY ARE INTERNATIONAL WATERS.

 

[Gijoe]

Seriously though, America should have made their move 10 years ago.

Now we have a massive arsenal of carrier killer ballistic missiles, namely the DF-21D and the DF-26, the latter of which has a range of around 4000 km. And according to the US department of defense: "Can destroy an aircraft carrier with a single warhead... and there is no system that is currently able to intercept it".

We have already built large numbers of these (which have been operational for many years now).

Now will America be willing to trade their extremely expensive aircraft carriers with hundreds of planes and thousands of personnel on board, for our mass produced carrier killer ballistic missiles? Even if it takes hundreds of these missiles to take out a carrier we still come out massively ahead.

And, worse news is coming. China has already tested HGV technology multiple times already. It's only a matter of time before it gets inducted (which will boost the capabilities of our DF-26 by astronomical amounts), the longer America waits the lower their chances become. That's why the sooner the better, maybe Trump will understand that.

The sooner America makes a move the better their chances. Trump 2016.

(Of course we don't believe they will make a move, which is why China seized the Scarborough shoal as far back as 2012, and is currently continuing to build islands in the SCS).

I read it from American Janes IHS about the Chinese wu14 HGV, all of the six tests are successful. How many success does US HGV success 2 success out of 7 tests.

 

[gambit]

Now will America be willing to trade their extremely expensive aircraft carriers with hundreds of planes and thousands of personnel on board, for our mass produced carrier killer ballistic missiles? Even if it takes hundreds of these missiles to take out a carrier we still come out massively ahead.

Actually...The question should be: Would China be willing to trade those expensive untried missiles and combat inexperienced personnel against the US ?

Back in Desert Storm, the pundits 'analyzed' the Iraqi Army and said that given their combat experience from the Iraq-Iran War, the US would suffer casualties like the Vietnam War. The final result is nothing like those 'analyses', including the ones from the PLA.

Today, some 'analyzed' that it is China who is the equivalent of the US in Desert Storm: Facing a combat experienced opponent.

The error in that 'analysis' is that after the Iraq-Iran War, the Iraqi military was used mainly for internal pacification and no progress in technology. Whereas with the US, after Desert Storm, its military reformed itself using what it learned from Desert Storm. Then there is the technology component, which have always been the US military's strong suit.

So the PLA would be facing an opponent that not only whose storehouse of combat experience have been continuous for decades, but also have been equally continuously upgrading its technological base. The US military is not the Iraqi military. The PLA is staffed mostly with short term conscripts. The US is staffed with all volunteers whose first term is longer than the PLA's basic requirements. The backbone of any military is its non-commissioned officers (NCO) corps and the US is superior to the PLA in this. These intangibles are equally important as the technological components.

If it comes down to a fight, those Chinese man-made islands will be rendered worthless and the PLAN will be gone on the first week, if not the first day.

And both requires a thing called money and wether the american people wants another war.
It will be interesting to see how US convince its people that forget terrorists, the next bogeman is SCS.

If the Chinese shoots at US, there is our bogeyman.

 

[$@rJen]

Nobody gives a damn about " WE PLAN" as well, especially when the Indians are involved.

Actually your Chinese Gov does... go and read about the Chinese Warnings to India and its objection to India cooperation with US in SCS

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Actually...The question should be: Would China be willing to trade those expensive untried missiles and combat inexperienced personnel against the US ?

Back in Desert Storm, the pundits 'analyzed' the Iraqi Army and said that given their combat experience from the Iraq-Iran War, the US would suffer casualties like the Vietnam War. The final result is nothing like those 'analyses', including the ones from the PLA.

Today, some 'analyzed' that it is China who is the equivalent of the US in Desert Storm: Facing a combat experienced opponent.

The error in that 'analysis' is that after the Iraq-Iran War, the Iraqi military was used mainly for internal pacification and no progress in technology. Whereas with the US, after Desert Storm, its military reformed itself using what it learned from Desert Storm. Then there is the technology component, which have always been the US military's strong suit.

So not only would the PLA facing an opponent that not only whose storehouse of combat experience have been continuous for decades, but also have been equally continuously upgrading its technological base. The US military is not the Iraqi military. The PLA is staffed mostly with short term conscripts. The US is staffed with all volunteers whose first term is longer than the PLA's basic requirements. The backbone of any military is its non-commissioned officers (NCO) corps and the US is superior to the PLA in this. These intangibles are equally important as the technological components.

If it comes down to a fight, those Chinese man-made islands will be rendered worthless and the PLAN will be gone on the first week, if not the first day.

So how come China seized the Scarborough shoal from the Philippines in 2012 and America never came to fight, despite having a mutual defence treaty with the Philippines for half a century? Instead they chose to abandon their mutual defence treaty.

How come China is still building and militarizing islands in the South China Sea today, completely ignoring America's red lines there?

Obviously we do not believe America wants to swap their expensive carriers with thousands of personnel on board for our mass produced carrier killer ballistic missiles.

If we are wrong... then let them come and fire the first shot. Otherwise we will continue as usual.

Our island building is still going ahead at full steam as we speak. Nothing short of a full-scale nuclear war is going to stop it. Certainly not a few sunk carriers.

 

[gambit]

So how come China seized the Scarborough shoal from the Philippines in 2012 and America never came to fight, despite having a mutual defence treaty with the Philippines for half a century?

It has been explained to you before but you were too dense to understand it.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

It has been explained to you before but you were too dense to understand it.

That's because there is no explanation.

America simply abandoned their mutual defence treaty with the Philippines as they were losing territory to China in 2012.

But hey... you could always prove me wrong. Let America fire the first shot.

Otherwise, we will continue building islands as usual.

And look, today was another day whereupon Chinese island building and militarization of the SCS continues without opposition. And tomorrow, and the day after...

We are making a bet that no one is willing to wage a war in order to stop Chinese island building in the SCS. And every day that passes, our bet is being proven correct.