Will this be the Chineese Century?

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » 2005-01-04 04:28pm

MKSheppard wrote:
Chmee wrote:Aegis rocks out in the middle of the Gulf when you've got a few piddly Iranian launchers to worry about, no way they're parking the Lincoln that close to the Chinese coast with a nearly inexhaustible supply of antiship missiles can be brought into play
Moron. AEGIS was designed to deal with the SOVIET BACKFIRE SWARM,
and now that every single carrier escort has AEGIS thanks to the endless
ARLEIGH BURKE SWARM, you just switch the system to AUTO and let
it shoot them all down.

never mind the much simpler anti-carrier solution of a tactical nuke from an SLBM launched a thousand miles away. Yeah, we counterstrike the sub and it's toast, but that doesn't save the battle group.
Idiot. Try finding a CVBG in the middle of the ocean, and you don't have
an inkling of US nuclear doctrine. Look at my SIG to see what it is.

A Chinese tactical nuke would be met with the total annihilation of China.

You really have no ability or even willingness to discuss an issue with the grownups, do you? Do you even bother to read what people post before you stomp around with the infantile insults?

Who was talking about finding a CVBG in the 'middle of the ocean'? Nobody here, bright-boy, because we were talking about thirty miles off the Chinese coast. You think they do all their recon with an abacus and tall wooden towers, or do you think they might have one or two radars that can see that far into their own territorial waters? Let's never mind their recon satellites.

Please try to have an inkling of a clue what the topic is before your next manly 'RAWWWWR' entry into the thread.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2005-01-04 04:36pm

The Chicoms would have to be pretty desperate to get into a pissing contest with the USA. Even with their huge army, masses of missiles and tanks and aircraft, they still have the nuclear deterrent to watch for and India nor Russia is going to let them waltz in. They fire off a nuke at anyone like that or even worse, a CVBG,and they can expect a shitstorm.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2005-01-04 04:44pm

Chmee wrote:You really have no ability or even willingness to discuss an issue with the grownups, do you? Do you even bother to read what people post before you stomp around with the infantile insults?

Oh, says the total fucking idiot who has no grasp of military history or
knowledge. I'm so shocked. I guess I better hang myself in shame.

Who was talking about finding a CVBG in the 'middle of the ocean'? Nobody here, bright-boy, because we were talking about thirty miles off the Chinese coast.

And why the fuck would a CVBG be 30 miles off the Chinese coast, when
the F/A-18E Super Hornet has an unrefuelled combat range of 390 nautical
miles?

You think they do all their recon with an abacus and tall wooden towers, or do you think they might have one or two radars that can see that far into their own territorial waters? Let's never mind their recon satellites.

Moron. Do they have radars that can reach out hundreds of miles to
open sea? The Soviet Union, faced with the task of finding CVBGs in
the ocean, resorted to launching nuclear powered radar satellites
to find our CVBGs in the 1980s.

Somehow I don't think our Chinese friends have a RORSAT handy.

Please try to have an inkling of a clue what the topic is before your next manly 'RAWWWWR' entry into the thread.

Why don't you leave this board for a few months, read some real military
history books, other than "BABYS FIRST BOOK OF TANKS", and then get
back to us, fuckshit?

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » 2005-01-04 04:45pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote:The Chicoms would have to be pretty desperate to get into a pissing contest with the USA. Even with their huge army, masses of missiles and tanks and aircraft, they still have the nuclear deterrent to watch for and India nor Russia is going to let them waltz in. They fire off a nuke at anyone like that or even worse, a CVBG,and they can expect a shitstorm.

I totally agree ... they'd be just as nuts to do it as we would to put a battle group so closely up in their face.

I agree with Illum's main point: the Chinese don't force project outside their borders worth shit. 30 miles is wayyyy too close, but you get more than a couple hundred miles from their borders and they're tame as kittens. But when you start to push too close to those borders, the Chinese are basically xenophobes .... they will react in a very nasty fashion to people messing around too close to their shores, and we know it, which is why we avoid doing it.

Messing around in the Taiwan Straits is one thing ... actually hitting a target on the mainland is something completely different.

Would they be nuts to hit us with a tactical nuke? Absolutely. Would we be nuts to put a carrier group in a position where they had to consider it as an option? Equally so.

frigidmagi · Post by **frigidmagi** » 2005-01-04 04:48pm

Would they be nuts to hit us with a tactical nuke? Absolutely. Would we be nuts to put a carrier group in a position where they had to consider it as an option? Equally so.

To bad we don't have to get close to actually hit targets on the mainland.

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » 2005-01-04 04:51pm

MKSheppard wrote:
Chmee wrote:You really have no ability or even willingness to discuss an issue with the grownups, do you? Do you even bother to read what people post before you stomp around with the infantile insults?
Oh, says the total fucking idiot who has no grasp of military history or
knowledge. I'm so shocked. I guess I better hang myself in shame.

I don't know ... as far as I know I was studying U.S.-Soviet nuclear doctrine while you were still a bad idea in daddy's pants, but instead of running around comparing resumes I was just discussing the issue. My bad.

MKSheppard wrote:And why the fuck would a CVBG be 30 miles off the Chinese coast, when
the F/A-18E Super Hornet has an unrefuelled combat range of 390 nautical
miles?

Well, I don't know, because if you read the thread you'd see that *I* wasn't the one who suggested that a CVBG would be 30 miles off the coast, I was responding to that hypothetical ... do you have a specific learning disability related to reading comprehension? Because I wouldn't want to pick on the handicaped.

If not, either read the thread and have something intelligent to say or take a big steaming cup of STFU and let the grownups get on with their day.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2005-01-04 04:53pm

Chmee wrote:I agree with Illum's main point: the Chinese don't force project outside their borders worth shit. 30 miles is wayyyy too close, but you get more than a couple hundred miles from their borders and they're tame as kittens. But when you start to push too close to those borders, the Chinese are basically xenophobes .... they will react in a very nasty fashion to people messing around too close to their shores, and we know it, which is why we avoid doing it.

Actually, the only historical precident (Korea) indicates that China would not take overt action until massed US forces were literally on the border.

Unless you treat fox-fours on spy planes the same as tactical nuclear weapons.

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » 2005-01-04 04:56pm

Howedar wrote:
Chmee wrote:I agree with Illum's main point: the Chinese don't force project outside their borders worth shit. 30 miles is wayyyy too close, but you get more than a couple hundred miles from their borders and they're tame as kittens. But when you start to push too close to those borders, the Chinese are basically xenophobes .... they will react in a very nasty fashion to people messing around too close to their shores, and we know it, which is why we avoid doing it.
Actually, the only historical precident (Korea) indicates that China would not take overt action until massed US forces were literally on the border.

Unless you treat fox-fours on spy planes the same as tactical nuclear weapons.

No, you're on the money, that's exactly the precedent ... until you show them a threat that you're actually going to hit them on their home turf, they play their cards pretty close .... but if you screw up in that very delicate calculation of how close you can get, they throw a half a million troops at you and see what happens.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2005-01-04 04:58pm

Chmee wrote:I don't know ... as far as I know I was studying U.S.-Soviet nuclear doctrine while you were still a bad idea in daddy's pants, but instead of running around comparing resumes I was just discussing the issue. My bad.

Your posts indicate you have zero knowledge of any nuclear weapons
other than "RAR, NUKES GO BOOM AND EVERYONE DIES!11!!!!11!!oneone

Well, I don't know, because if you read the thread you'd see that *I* wasn't the one who suggested that a CVBG would be 30 miles off the coast, I was responding to that hypothetical ... do you have a specific learning disability related to reading comprehension? Because I wouldn't want to pick on the handicaped.

Actually you're the one with a learning disability. Illuminatus said
that the Chinese can't even get the oil within 30 miles of their coast,
because of a thing called CVBGs.

You in your infinite wisdom, went:

I know you're exaggerating, but I doubt we're going to bring any CVBG's within thirty miles of the Chinese coast during a period of heightened tension with the cloud of Exocets and Silkworms they'd toss at us. If only one percent got through they still get a huge win on the trade-off.

Yes, in Chmee's world, US Carrier Battlegroups have no other weapon
except the 5 inch guns on the CVN's escorts, and aircraft carrying bombs
do not have radiuses measured in hundreds of nautical miles.

If not, either read the thread and have something intelligent to say or take a big steaming cup of STFU and let the grownups get on with their day.

So in other words, you've graduated from 5th grade ten years late?

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2005-01-04 04:59pm

Am I getting Chmee's infinite stupidity to make up for me missing Stewart of SDI during my sabattical last year?

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2005-01-04 05:01pm

Chmee wrote:No, you're on the money, that's exactly the precedent ... until you show them a threat that you're actually going to hit them on their home turf, they play their cards pretty close .... but if you screw up in that very delicate calculation of how close you can get, they throw a half a million troops at you and see what happens.

Yes. If you literally put troops on the border (and sometimes not even then, ask Brezhnev), the Chinese will react. Until then, they don't do jack.

aerius · Post by **aerius** » 2005-01-04 05:06pm

MKSheppard wrote:Am I getting Chmee's infinite stupidity to make up for me missing Stewart of SDI during my sabattical last year?

Probably. Either that or you haven't used the words "nuclear", "incinerate" and "depopulate" enough in one day.

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » 2005-01-04 05:07pm

MKSheppard wrote:Am I getting Chmee's infinite stupidity to make up for me missing Stewart of SDI during my sabattical last year?

Let it rest sonny, I've run into trolls with a lot more cleverness than you show any sign of developing in the near term. If you're worried that I'll respond to any more of your breathless (well, thoughtless) prose in the future, it's not a risk.

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » 2005-01-04 05:08pm

Howedar wrote:
Chmee wrote:No, you're on the money, that's exactly the precedent ... until you show them a threat that you're actually going to hit them on their home turf, they play their cards pretty close .... but if you screw up in that very delicate calculation of how close you can get, they throw a half a million troops at you and see what happens.
Yes. If you literally put troops on the border (and sometimes not even then, ask Brezhnev), the Chinese will react. Until then, they don't do jack.

Yeah, but it's more than a coincidence that the strategic nuclear powers (as marginally as China qualifies for that club) go to such great lengths to avoid even conventional conflicts with one another ... one fuck-up and everybody is really, really sorry.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2005-01-04 05:09pm

Kid, if you're going to give up then have the balls to say it straight up.

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » 2005-01-04 05:09pm

Howedar wrote:Kid, if you're going to give up then have the balls to say it straight up.

I have absolutely given up on the possibility that you can engage in an exchange of ideas. Eighth-grade schoolyard insults, I see you've got plenty ... I can go over to my buddy's house and listen to his kids if I want to waste my time on that crap.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2005-01-04 05:13pm

Lets get into the absurdity of this statement by Chmee:

never mind the much simpler anti-carrier solution of a tactical nuke from an SLBM launched a thousand miles away. Yeah, we counterstrike the sub and it's toast, but that doesn't save the battle group.

Yes, a 200-300 KT warhead fired from a SLBM is going to be "tactical".

And of course, lets not forget the difficulties of relaying the constantly
changing target location of the CVBG to the SSBN, and them updating
the co-ordinates on their missiles. It is not as simple as punching in
a new set of co-ordinates. You have to open the missiles up and screw
with the inertials to get it to accept new co-ordinates.

Let us do the math

Calculator

Thermal Radiation would only start fires out to 8 km, and the near fatal
air blast would only extend out to 5 km...

And a CVBG moves at 30 knots when conducting flight operations.

Given a 1 hour time frame for downloading the target data and entering
it to the SLBM, a CVBG will have moved 30 nautical miles, or 55.59 kilometers, putting it well out of the effects of the nuclear warheads on
the SLBM.

Not to mention that modern US ships are hardened against nukes, and
that US CVs have flight deck washdown systems to decontaminate after
a NBC strike...

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2005-01-04 05:14pm

Chmee wrote:Let it rest sonny, I've run into trolls with a lot more cleverness than you show any sign of developing in the near term. If you're worried that I'll respond to any more of your breathless (well, thoughtless) prose in the future, it's not a risk.

Son, when you postulate using a SLBM as a "Tactical" weapon against
a Carrier, you've moved into total bugfuck idiocy mode, and should
only be regarded with scorn.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2005-01-04 05:15pm

Chmee wrote:
Howedar wrote:Kid, if you're going to give up then have the balls to say it straight up.
I have absolutely given up on the possibility that you can engage in an exchange of ideas. Eighth-grade schoolyard insults, I see you've got plenty ... I can go over to my buddy's house and listen to his kids if I want to waste my time on that crap.

Don't worry, the rest of us have already determined that you have no ideas worthy of the name. In the meantime, when you get old enough to read the big boy books, feel free to come back in this thread, read your tripe, and realize how stupid you are.

Kamakazie Sith · Post by **Kamakazie Sith** » 2005-01-04 05:24pm

Chmee wrote: Well, I don't know, because if you read the thread you'd see that *I* wasn't the one who suggested that a CVBG would be 30 miles off the coast, I was responding to that hypothetical ... do you have a specific learning disability related to reading comprehension? Because I wouldn't want to pick on the handicaped.

If not, either read the thread and have something intelligent to say or take a big steaming cup of STFU and let the grownups get on with their day.

What you're missing is nobody said the CVBG was going to be thirty miles off the coast. What people are saying is that the Chinese cannot grab the oil fields within thirty miles of their coast because CVBG will stop them. (Nobody said the CVBG was going to be within thirty miles)

It was obviously that the CVBG would operating from a tactically sound position.

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » 2005-01-04 05:29pm

Kamakazie Sith wrote:
Chmee wrote: Well, I don't know, because if you read the thread you'd see that *I* wasn't the one who suggested that a CVBG would be 30 miles off the coast, I was responding to that hypothetical ... do you have a specific learning disability related to reading comprehension? Because I wouldn't want to pick on the handicaped.

If not, either read the thread and have something intelligent to say or take a big steaming cup of STFU and let the grownups get on with their day.
What you're missing is nobody said the CVBG was going to be thirty miles off the coast. What people are saying is that the Chinese cannot grab the oil fields within thirty miles of their coast because CVBG will stop them. (Nobody said the CVBG was going to be within thirty miles)

It was obviously that the CVBG would operating from a tactically sound position.

I understand that distinction ... it seems like quite a departure from historical precedent to suggest that we'd get into that kind of dogfight on the Chicom's doorstep, considering the risks. There's no question we have all the assets to make it a very nasty fight in their neighborhood, while they completely lack the assets to do the same to us. The question is what would ever push us into such high-risk behavior.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2005-01-04 05:31pm

Chmee wrote:I understand that distinction ... it seems like quite a departure from historical precedent to suggest that we'd get into that kind of dogfight on the Chicom's doorstep, considering the risks.

Taiwanese Independence. And the Chinese would just well, you know, die,
when we mass seven CVBGs together and begin the GRAY WALL OF DEATH
of Navy fighters sweeping all before them.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2005-01-04 05:37pm

Chmee wrote:
Illuminatus Primus wrote:
Chmee wrote:I know you're exaggerating, but I doubt we're going to bring any CVBG's within thirty miles of the Chinese coast during a period of heightened tension with the cloud of Exocets and Silkworms they'd toss at us. If only one percent got through they still get a huge win on the trade-off.
Those sites get demolished by USAF's bombers and AEGIS is still highly functional, I assure you.
Aegis rocks out in the middle of the Gulf when you've got a few piddly Iranian launchers to worry about, no way they're parking the Lincoln that close to the Chinese coast with a nearly inexhaustible supply of antiship missiles can be brought into play, never mind the much simpler anti-carrier solution of a tactical nuke from an SLBM launched a thousand miles away. Yeah, we counterstrike the sub and it's toast, but that doesn't save the battle group.

Yeah, since AEGIS was so designed to fight the Iranians, rather than the Soviet Navy's endless swarms of missiles (these people stuck SHIPWRECKs on their carriers, for fuck's sake). Fucking idiot.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2005-01-04 05:44pm

Is anyone else amused by Chmee's bluffing through military matters and his endless masturbation to the universally useful SLBM?

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » 2005-01-04 06:03pm

Illuminatus Primus wrote:Is anyone else amused by Chmee's bluffing through military matters and his endless masturbation to the universally useful SLBM?

I have to admit, I haven't seen this much whiny bitching substituting for actual thought since the last trip to the dog pound. Not sure why you feel the compulsion to jump on that particular train, IP, but it's a shame.

Universal rule of forum discussion: the bigger the talk, the smaller the rocks. Really, if you talk like a 8th-grader, you probably don't have anything much more interesting to say than one, either.