Hamster Buddha
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2013
- Messages
- 3,675
- Reaction score
- 1,237
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
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.
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.)
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.
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
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.
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.