• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

China warplanes tail U.S. and Japan fighter jets; How Far Will China Go?

Sherman123 said:
Anti-ship ballistic missiles are not realistic weapons, and the DF-21 especially is not worth being concerned about.

Firstly there is a very good reason no nuclear state uses ballistic missiles as tactical weapons aside from rocket artillery. Why? Because there is no immediately knowing if the missile signature detected carries a nuclear payload. It has been a recurring problem the United States has faced when trying to develop its Prompt Global Strike Program. The only realistic way to accomplish the goals of the program at present is an enhanced ICBM capability. But we cant really do that. Because there is no way for other powers to be certain that the missile in question is conventional and not a sinister nuclear strike. Likewise there is no way to be sure that the MRBM heading towards one of our carrier battle groups is armed with a conventional or nuclear payload.
Click to expand...

I do agree that for any state, there is no way in knowing what kind of payload a BM carries. This was a recurring issue during both Gulf Wars in that when the SCUDs were launched from Iraq at Israel, everyone had to scramble to get their gas gear. However, I don't believe that fact precludes the possibility of the use of the DF-21 in a conventional manner. Odds are, that by the time NORAD picks up the missile and is able to pin points it's trajectory, the missile would of already hit it's target. We saw this issue during the First Gulf War as well, when shortly after a SCUD was launched, it's trajectory was pinned down by NORAD but there wasn't the time to scramble a response. The PATRIOT system had it's own detection system and thus could be used instead.

The other issue is that, once the missile is launched and the trajectory has been determined, I doubt the US is going to launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike *in case* it just happened to be carrying a nuclear warhead. Again, odds are by the time they would have a counter-strike ready, the missile would of hit it's target. In that case, they would respond in kind with the appropriate response (whether it's nuclear or non-nuclear.)

Sherman123 said:
Secondly its just technically really difficult to do and China has a poor track record. You have to identify the ship you want to hit, make sure it is the one you think it is, spin up your missile, make sure your targeting information is accurate (satellite intelligence more than a few minutes out of date wont help), and then fire a ballistic missile at a moving target on the ocean and not only hope it hits but hope it isn't intercepted.
Click to expand...

I think in general, it's dangerous to underestimate one's adversary. And despite the difficulties, there is a significant advantage for going a Ballistic route, rather than a traditional ASCM route. That is for the fact that it, as difficult as it is to attack a moving target with a ballistic weapon, it is equal (if not more) difficult to counter such a weapon. All out current ship borne defensive capabilities are meant to deal with current threats of missile coming in at a flat trajectory. What they aren't designed to, at this point anyways, is to attack a target that is coming down on it. We saw in the first Gulf War (granted it's 20 years hence) that the PATRIOT system was only effect 1 out of 10 times. I'll admit, I'm not sure what the success rate of the PATRIOT II was, but I doubt it was significantly

Sherman123 said:
China is big on rolling out wunderwaffe and big prestige weapons projects. They are bad at serial producing modern military technology. What is most concerning about the Chinese military buildup isn't their token aircraft carrier (which by the way is going to get sunk the first night of the war) it is the massive growth of their littoral air arm, missile boats & submarines, and ASCM capabilities. The real risk we face from China is being swamped by a flood of aircraft and smaller vessels that try and attrit Allied forces in their littoral zones and gain control over the area. I think they are actually relatively close to that being a plausible objective. The best countermeasure is to station more ships and aircraft in encircling countries.
Click to expand...

I do agree that the Aircraft Carrier is nothing more than for national pride sake. The truth is, their strategy for war with the US has never included the use of a single aircraft carrier against the US Fleet. They have no doubt that in an open oceans battle, they wouldn't stand a ghost of a chance. Then again, they don't need to though. They can use the assets you mention, along with the DF-21 and their ASAT based weapons to cripple our ability to wage a campaign in the theatre of operations. What's worse, is that I believe it's doubtful the submarine force is going to stay in their home waters. We can expect attacks on not only shipping, but also vital oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico.

My point with all this being, that a war with China isn't the cake walk that some would argue.
 
joko104 said:
Since no war between China and the USA will or can happen
Click to expand...

Wishes he could count at the time leaders of countries have said that a war "can't" or "won't" happened...
 
Or they could just cash in all their T-notes, buy no more and require Americans buy our Christmas presents from them in Euros. That'd pretty much take us out.
 
DA60 said:
What goes on in that part of the world (or ANY part of the world outside of United States territory) is none of the American government's direct business.

Let Japan/Taiwan/China fight over those uninhabited rocks.
Click to expand...

Yeah, one problem with that... By treaty, Japan can't have it's own military. And by the same treaty, we're kind of it's defunct protectors.
 
Hamster Buddha said:
Yeah, one problem with that... By treaty, Japan can't have it's own military. And by the same treaty, we're kind of it's defunct protectors.
Click to expand...

Actually, Japan does have a military - a very powerful one. The only stipulation is that they must call it a 'self defence force' and they can (theoretically) only defend Japan itself.

But since the Japanese government calls these rocks (islands) part of Japan, then it can legally and constitutionally defend them using it's own navy.


List of active Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force ships - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Last edited:
DA60 said:
Japan does have a military - a very powerful one. The only stipulation is that they must call it a 'self defence force' and they can (theoretically) only defend Japan itself.

But since Japan calls these rocks (islands) part of Japan, then it can legally and constitutionally defend them using it's own navy.


List of active Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force ships - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Granted. The issue though remains that they are capped on just what they can do militarily with a budget a third the size of China, and 9500x smaller military... they really don't stand much of a chance due to those limitations. And we also have security agreements that obligates us to serve as a defensive force.
 
Hamster Buddha said:
Granted. The issue though remains that they are capped on just what they can do militarily with a budget a third the size of China, and 9500x smaller military... they really don't stand much of a chance due to those limitations. And we also have security agreements that obligates us to serve as a defensive force.
Click to expand...

Well, as of right now, imo, Japan has a more powerful Navy/Air Force then China...but that is besides the point.

Japan Air Self-Defense Force - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List of active Chinese military aircraft - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(sure, China has more 'stuff' - but most of it is second rate - and despite their Su-27 copies, they have nothing can match Japan's F-15's).


And I don't care what America's agreement is.

I say it is none of her business and Japan can take care of itself. If they cannot - tough.

Enough brave Americans have died and enough American trillions of tax dollars have been wasted to settle other people's disputes.

The world can get along without America holding it's hand.

And with America's economy in stagnation and her national debt still growing fast, in a decade or two - America simply will not be able to afford to be the world's cops.
 
Last edited:
DA60 said:
Well, as of right now, imo, Japan has a more powerful Navy/Air Force then China...but that is besides the point.

And I don't care what America's agreement is.

I say it is none of her business and Japan can take care of itself. If they cannot - tough.

Enough brave Americans have died and enough American trillions of tax dollars have been wasted to settle other people's disputes.

The world can get along without America holding it's hand.
Click to expand...

Japan has a stronger air force/navy than China? According to whom?
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
It is Japan's Airspace. China publishing a map that says "oh, this is ours now" does not actually make it theirs.



If this is a plan, then my bet would be it looks like this:

Raise tensions to the point where Japan finally shoots down a Chinese UAV. Declare that to be an Act of War, and take some posturing moves. Then declare that you're willing to start talks over the issue, thereby placing Japan in a no-win situation. Either they can refuse, in which case China appears to be de-escalating and Japan looks like the aggressor (which is easy for her to do in that region of the world) thus degrading her ability to form closer defense relationships with the Philippines, Vietnam, Singapore, Malaysia, et. al., or Japan has to admit the disputed nature of the Senkakus (which - I would bet - would be what China is after).​

But I think it is very possible that you are correct that they simply did not anticipate a Combined US-JPN-ROK reaction like they've seen. I wonder if they read too much into our failure to defend red lines in Syria and focus on Iranian negotiations. :shrug:



Well, outside of the above scenario, yeah, they are in some trouble. The question that I wonder who is asking is what the leaderships self-perceived ability to back down is. If they are - as a growing number thing - in for some serious fiscal pain with their economic readjustment, then it may be that they can't afford to look weak on Restoring the Grand Tradition as well.
Click to expand...

Nice post.
 
DA60 said:
Check my post again.

And...

List of active People's Liberation Army Navy ships - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List of active Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force ships - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Japan has a VERY advanced Navy - maybe the second or third most powerful in the world.

China is slowly re-tooling - but they still cannot match Japan's - not even close.
Click to expand...

Okay, even according to these sites, China still outmatches Japan in terms of raw tonnage and number of personnel. And as far as the air force, it's not even close to being in Japan's favor:

Top 10 Largest Air Forces in the World

Top 10 Naval Forces in The World

To your overall point though, I am generally anti-getting in another countries affair. But with Japan, we are talking about not only a long time ally, but a military that has been intentionally gimped by the United States. Personally, I'd like to toss out the idea of then having only a "Defense Force", but it is what it is. There is also the fact that a disruption of commerce in either the East of South China sea would hit the US Economy hard.
 
Hamster Buddha said:
Okay, even according to these sites, China still outmatches Japan in terms of raw tonnage and number of personnel. And as far as the air force, it's not even close to being in Japan's favor:

Top 10 Largest Air Forces in the World

Top 10 Naval Forces in The World

To your overall point though, I am generally anti-getting in another countries affair. But with Japan, we are talking about not only a long time ally, but a military that has been intentionally gimped by the United States. Personally, I'd like to toss out the idea of then having only a "Defense Force", but it is what it is. There is also the fact that a disruption of commerce in either the East of South China sea would hit the US Economy hard.
Click to expand...


Surely you realize that there is more to a military then sheer numbers.

The most advanced fighter jet the Chinese has is a copy of the Russian Su-27. Though it is a (imo) good plane - I believe it is no match for the F-15's that Japan has. Plus, they have 200 J-10's - which seem to me like second-class F-16's. Again, a useful plane - but still no match for Japan's Eagle's. And most of China's other fighters/bombers are basically junk - warmed over versions of fifty/sixty year old designs.

As for their navy, it has some decent ships - but again, still no match for the Japanese Aegis-style destroyers (which are basically U.S. Arleigh Burke-class copies, which are America's first line destroyers).

Sure, China has an aircraft carrier under trials. But it is a redone 30+ year old ex-Soviet ship. And an aircraft carrier is only as good as it's planes/pilots. And again, this ship will only carry 30 Su-27-types - no match for Japanese F-15's (imo).

Now, with China's huge economy, this situation will not last. But for now, Japan can take care of itself (conventionally).


And as for America 'gimped' the Japanese military? I strongly disagree.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

Only four other countries spend more on their military then Japan does. And America has/is sold Japan some very advanced weapon systems.


But again, this is besides the point to me.

It is their problem. Just like Syria is it's problem. Just like Israel/whomever is their problem.

I don't care what treaties were signed - time to re-do them and stop losing American dollars and (more importantly) American lives fighting other people's problems in the middle of nowhere.


You don't agree - that is you prerogative.
 
Last edited:
DA60 said:
But again, this is besides the point to me.

It is their problem. Just like Syria is it's problem. Just like Israel/whomever is their problem.

I don't care what treaties were signed - time to re-do them and stop losing American dollars and (more importantly) American lives fighting other people's problems in the middle of nowhere.

You don't agree - that is you prerogative.
Click to expand...


To your point though, if we don't honor our treaties with other countries, wouldn't that cause us to lose all credibility? How could we then expect any nation to honor their treaties with us?
 
beerftw said:
i wouldnt be too worried about such a chinese carrier,its built off a russian carrier,and russia to date has never had a successfull aircraft carrier,they could build missle and tanks and advanced jets,but asking them to buuild a functioning aircraft carrier,and the russian engineers cringe.
.
Click to expand...

It all depends how the Chinese plan to use their carriers.

The U.S. Navy uses it's carriers today as a strike platform against land targets. We use to have CVS ASW carriers but no longer.

The old Soviet Union carriers were all ASW carriers never intended for being used as a strike carrier against land targets or as a surface warfare carrier.

The U.S. Navy might have made a wrong turn many decades ago, neglecting naval surface warfare. All of our surface warships today are designed to protect our carriers (AA & ASW) with a second role of land strikes with Tomahawk cruise missiles with no real surface warfare capabilities. No guns capable of providing NSFS for our Marines ashore or providing naval shore bombardment.

The Russians never neglected naval surface warfare.

The question being asked today by those in the maritime community, how will the Chinese use their carriers ? ASW. AA. as a strike platform against land target, naval surface warfare, sea lane control ? Nobody knows right now.
 
Last edited:
DA60 said:
As for their navy, it has some decent ships - but again, still no match for the Japanese Aegis-style destroyers (which are basically U.S. Arleigh Burke-class copies, which are America's first line destroyers).
Click to expand...

Those newer Japanese destroyers are more than "decent" they are excellent warships, especially the Kongo class destroyers.
 
Harshaw said:
Now we have LHDs, which pretty much ARE CVSes.
Click to expand...

True, and the word is they will be used for that purpose. It's also planned to use them as a small strike carrier with one FA-35 B squadron (12 ac) aboard to provide CAS for Marines who are ashore.

An LHD with a squadron of ASW helicopters and a detachment of FA-35 B (6 ac) aboard could provide escorts for convoys and be used for sea lane control.

But an LHD isn't fast enough to keep up with a Carrier Strike Group.
 
Harshaw said:
You keep saying this -- "YOU would risk a potential war." You will not give the slightest quarter to the idea that it's CHINA who's risking a potential war -- or even that they have any culpability at all along those lines. You think China is the good guy here, and that we, by continuing to use the air routes we've used for almost 70 years, are the aggressor.

It's CHINA who's risking the war with us, THE superpower. But no; to you, that's a wise move.
Click to expand...

and you keep failing to follow the thread. The poster said in the quote that he "wanted a war with China", please read what I'm actually quoting before you jump in.

To your point but China being the aggressor I agree they are but Japan, Korea and the US are also acting aggressively. Your flying fighter jets and bombers only a few hundred miles from their coast and you navy patrols the region, eventually they were going to try and push you out.
 
Higgins86 said:
and you keep failing to follow the thread. The poster said in the quote that he "wanted a war with China", please read what I'm actually quoting before you jump in.
Click to expand...

Where?
 
Higgins86 said:
Yeh I will run and find you that quote right after I'm done polishing your shoes and preparing dinner.
Click to expand...

He didn't say what you said he did. If you're going to get after me for not reading the thread, you should at least not make things up about it.
 
Beaudreaux said:
On the islands? Weeds.

Under the islands and the surrounding sea? Oil.

Plus, this extension by China would also move their ADIZ out to a point that is would make it more difficult for the US to come to the aid of Taiwan if China decided to get stupid. This ADIZ cuts the routes from Korea and Japan to Taiwan.
Click to expand...


I think the oil is north and east. The Senkakus are mostly 'valuable' for fishing and as a matter of national pride.
 
APACHERAT said:
Those newer Japanese destroyers are more than "decent" they are excellent warships, especially the Kongo class destroyers.
Click to expand...

The 'decent' ships I was referring to were the newer Chinese ones, not the Japanese ones. As I said, the newest Japanese destroyers are Arleigh Burke class copies...top notch destroyers (IMO).
 
Turkey and Greece used to do this dozens of times a year, (and still do from time to time) I think at the very worst we will see something low key like the Sino-Soviet border conflict, given that both sides have a strong disincentive to escalate.
 
Hamster Buddha said:
To your point though, if we don't honor our treaties with other countries, wouldn't that cause us to lose all credibility? How could we then expect any nation to honor their treaties with us?
Click to expand...

That is why I say America should redo the treaties.

Most of these agreements were a) when the Cold War was still on and b) when America was (outside of the U.S.S.R.) by FAR the most powerful country in the world AND by miles the largest economy. She could afford such luxuries as policing the free world.

Now, America is massively in debt, the economy is being propped up by smoke and mirrors (QE/artificially low interest rates) and is practically stagnant.
And China is fast gaining on America's economic supremacy.

America helped the world massively during the generation after WW2. Now it's time the world looked after itself and stop looking to Americans to clean up their messes whenever they get into trouble.

As for losing credibility?

IMO, between Gitmo, the NSA spying on almost EVERYONE and the drone strikes (which are technical acts of war in many cases), America is losing a TON of credibility by butting in to everyone else's business.

It's time America looked after itself and let other countries fix their own local/regional messes.

And if they don't like it - I could care less.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom