Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Perspectives. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
U.S. must beware China's 'Guam killer' missile
Topic Started: May 13 2016, 06:47 AM (1,159 Views)
Eddo26
Member Avatar

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/12/politics/china-guam-killer-missile/index.html

Capable of hitting targets 3,400 miles away, China's "Guam killer" missile is raising new fears of a growing Chinese threat to major U.S. military installations and stability in the Pacific Rim.

A congressional panel has issued a report warning of the dangers of the missile, during a week in which U.S.-China tensions flared anew with a U.S. Navy destroyer sailing close to a Chinese-claimed island in the South China Sea.

The U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission said this week that China's DF-26 intermediate-range ballistic missile -- dubbed by analysts the "Guam killer" and unveiled at a military parade in Beijing last September -- allows China to bring unprecedented firepower to bear on the U.S. territory of Guam. The territory sits well within the missile's range.
We believe only what we want to believe.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Demagogue
Member Avatar
Administrator
Yeah, an attack on Anderson AFB by China's conventional ballistic missiles would probably result in the US sinking every large vessel in their Navy as a response.

Of course this brings to my mind another thought. We have long had the capability to put conventional warheads into our ICBM's but we don't because we fear someone will think it is a nuclear attack rather than a conventional one. If China is using a conventional missile with this kind of range I see no reason why we can't deploy conventional warheads on our Trident ballistic missiles. The Trident's range is just over 4200 miles and is not that different than the D26 range. It is certainly accurate enough to use as a conventional warhead missile.

This would give us incredible ability to strike targets at any point on the planet within half an hour of the decision to attack.
People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would do them harm.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Drudge X
Member Avatar

China is literally surrounded by US forces.

Japan
S. Korea
Australia
Philippines
possibly Vietnam

Obama should force Vietnam to give US warships unlimited access to Cam Ranh Bay as a condition for selling them advanced weapons. That will raise China's eyebrows.

http://thediplomat.com/2016/03/vietnam-unveils-new-port-facility-for-foreign-warships-in-cam-ranh-bay/
Edited by Drudge X, May 13 2016, 10:45 AM.
Kate Steinle was separated from her family permanently but leftists didn't seem to mind.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Eddo26
Member Avatar

Demagogue
May 13 2016, 09:51 AM
Yeah, an attack on Anderson AFB by China's conventional ballistic missiles would probably result in the US sinking every large vessel in their Navy as a response.

Of course this brings to my mind another thought. We have long had the capability to put conventional warheads into our ICBM's but we don't because we fear someone will think it is a nuclear attack rather than a conventional one. If China is using a conventional missile with this kind of range I see no reason why we can't deploy conventional warheads on our Trident ballistic missiles. The Trident's range is just over 4200 miles and is not that different than the D26 range. It is certainly accurate enough to use as a conventional warhead missile.

This would give us incredible ability to strike targets at any point on the planet within half an hour of the decision to attack.
You seem to not know about submarine warfare. Those are the real threats, being able to strike undetected from anywhere, even from right next to the US coast with their own ballistic missiles.

http://www.globalfirepower.com/navy-submarines.asp

Look at the top 5 countries in submarines.
Edited by Eddo26, May 13 2016, 06:49 PM.
We believe only what we want to believe.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Demagogue
Member Avatar
Administrator
Eddo36
May 13 2016, 06:45 PM
Demagogue
May 13 2016, 09:51 AM
Yeah, an attack on Anderson AFB by China's conventional ballistic missiles would probably result in the US sinking every large vessel in their Navy as a response.

Of course this brings to my mind another thought. We have long had the capability to put conventional warheads into our ICBM's but we don't because we fear someone will think it is a nuclear attack rather than a conventional one. If China is using a conventional missile with this kind of range I see no reason why we can't deploy conventional warheads on our Trident ballistic missiles. The Trident's range is just over 4200 miles and is not that different than the D26 range. It is certainly accurate enough to use as a conventional warhead missile.

This would give us incredible ability to strike targets at any point on the planet within half an hour of the decision to attack.
You seem to not know about submarine warfare. Those are the real threats, being able to strike undetected from anywhere, even from right next to the US coast with their own ballistic missiles.

http://www.globalfirepower.com/navy-submarines.asp

Look at the top 5 countries in submarines.
Your source is garbage. To be honest, I may have forgotten more about submarine than your source.
People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would do them harm.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Demagogue
Member Avatar
Administrator
Demagogue
May 13 2016, 06:51 PM
Eddo36
May 13 2016, 06:45 PM
Demagogue
May 13 2016, 09:51 AM
Yeah, an attack on Anderson AFB by China's conventional ballistic missiles would probably result in the US sinking every large vessel in their Navy as a response.

Of course this brings to my mind another thought. We have long had the capability to put conventional warheads into our ICBM's but we don't because we fear someone will think it is a nuclear attack rather than a conventional one. If China is using a conventional missile with this kind of range I see no reason why we can't deploy conventional warheads on our Trident ballistic missiles. The Trident's range is just over 4200 miles and is not that different than the D26 range. It is certainly accurate enough to use as a conventional warhead missile.

This would give us incredible ability to strike targets at any point on the planet within half an hour of the decision to attack.
You seem to not know about submarine warfare. Those are the real threats, being able to strike undetected from anywhere, even from right next to the US coast with their own ballistic missiles.

http://www.globalfirepower.com/navy-submarines.asp

Look at the top 5 countries in submarines.
Your source is garbage. To be honest, I may have forgotten more about submarine than your source.
From your source.



Attached to this post:
Attachments: Submarine.png (36.43 KB)
Edited by Demagogue, May 13 2016, 06:54 PM.
People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would do them harm.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Eddo26
Member Avatar

Demagogue
May 13 2016, 06:51 PM
Eddo36
May 13 2016, 06:45 PM
Demagogue
May 13 2016, 09:51 AM
Yeah, an attack on Anderson AFB by China's conventional ballistic missiles would probably result in the US sinking every large vessel in their Navy as a response.

Of course this brings to my mind another thought. We have long had the capability to put conventional warheads into our ICBM's but we don't because we fear someone will think it is a nuclear attack rather than a conventional one. If China is using a conventional missile with this kind of range I see no reason why we can't deploy conventional warheads on our Trident ballistic missiles. The Trident's range is just over 4200 miles and is not that different than the D26 range. It is certainly accurate enough to use as a conventional warhead missile.

This would give us incredible ability to strike targets at any point on the planet within half an hour of the decision to attack.
You seem to not know about submarine warfare. Those are the real threats, being able to strike undetected from anywhere, even from right next to the US coast with their own ballistic missiles.

http://www.globalfirepower.com/navy-submarines.asp

Look at the top 5 countries in submarines.
Your source is garbage. To be honest, I may have forgotten more about submarine than your source.
There are a LOT of sources you can Google. You really should educate yourself on submarines.

The US is worried it can't keep up with China and Russia's submarine fleets
We believe only what we want to believe.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Demagogue
Member Avatar
Administrator
Eddo36
May 13 2016, 06:54 PM
Demagogue
May 13 2016, 06:51 PM
Eddo36
May 13 2016, 06:45 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deephttp://www.globalfirepower.com/navy-submarines.asp

Look at the top 5 countries in submarines.
Your source is garbage. To be honest, I may have forgotten more about submarine than your source.
There are a LOT of sources you can Google. You really should educate yourself on submarines.

Let's stick with your first source.

Posted Image

Notice how it ranks North Korea as the second most powerful submarine navy? Why is that I wonder?

Hmm, maybe it has to do with the fact that your source states
Quote:
 
This GFP listing does not make a distinction between nuclear powered and diesel-electric types nor does it take into account submarine type (attack, nuclear capable, etc) design age, or construction/unit quality/training.


That should be enough but if it is not I could give you a dissertation on the subject.
Edited by Demagogue, May 13 2016, 07:08 PM.
People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would do them harm.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Demagogue
Member Avatar
Administrator
Just so we are clear, the order of submarine sea power is.

1. USA
2. Russia - now that they are training and spending money again Russsia might be 1A.
then after a really big drop off in technology and experience
3. China

I won't bother with the rest.
Edited by Demagogue, May 13 2016, 07:02 PM.
People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would do them harm.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Eddo26
Member Avatar

Demagogue
May 13 2016, 07:02 PM
Just so we are clear, the order of submarine sea power is.

1. USA
2. Russia - now that they are training and spending money again Russsia might be 1A.
then after a really big drop off in technology and experience
3. China

I won't bother with the rest.
Submarine warfare isn't about who has the best or most tanks like land warfare, they are on a completely different scale not defined by attrition. It's not about fighting each other, it's the fact that they cannot be detected by any means apart from active sonar until they strike and go silent again. And submarines don't do active sonar, they only go passive because otherwise they give away their position, so you can't use US submarines to detect foreign submarines.

Diesel submarines are even much quieter than the nuclear submarines that the US uses, and that's what a submarine is for- being quiet.

Though China and Russia have nuclear submarines too.

China submarine-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Liberation_Army_Navy_Submarine_Force

We're talking about ballistic missile submarines though, China has one Type 92, four Type 94 (with one more being made) and the Type 96 is in development. With the money owed to them alone their whole navy can be funded many times over.

Those are the real threat against USA land because they carry nukes and are silent.
Edited by Eddo26, May 13 2016, 08:07 PM.
We believe only what we want to believe.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jeffersonCarter
Member Avatar

If China is such a huge threat, why are US companies doing so much business with them? All this talk about missiles and manufactured islands is absurd. The US spends so much on it's military it creates insecurity in other nations and feeds into an arms race and economic downfall.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
BuckFan

Demagogue
May 13 2016, 07:02 PM
Just so we are clear, the order of submarine sea power is.

1. USA
2. Russia - now that they are training and spending money again Russsia might be 1A.
then after a really big drop off in technology and experience
3. China

I won't bother with the rest.
I think that is being generous to russia.

The more interesting tend is the submarine fleets of our pacific allies like Australia who has committed to a significantn upgrade to their fleet
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
BuckFan

The other thing is the lack of anti submarine capability in china
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Demagogue
Member Avatar
Administrator
Eddo36
May 13 2016, 07:58 PM
Demagogue
May 13 2016, 07:02 PM
Just so we are clear, the order of submarine sea power is.

1. USA
2. Russia - now that they are training and spending money again Russsia might be 1A.
then after a really big drop off in technology and experience
3. China

I won't bother with the rest.
Submarine warfare isn't about who has the best or most tanks like land warfare, they are on a completely different scale not defined by attrition. It's not about fighting each other, it's the fact that they cannot be detected by any means apart from active sonar until they strike and go silent again. And submarines don't do active sonar, they only go passive because otherwise they give away their position, so you can't use US submarines to detect foreign submarines.

You have never worn, nor do you apparently even know a single person who wears Dolphins.

I am on my phone right now or I would educate you a little.

Maybe Sunday evening I can get to it unless someone else beats me to it.
People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would do them harm.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Demagogue
Member Avatar
Administrator
BuckFan
May 13 2016, 09:00 PM
Demagogue
May 13 2016, 07:02 PM
Just so we are clear, the order of submarine sea power is.

1. USA
2. Russia - now that they are training and spending money again Russsia might be 1A.
then after a really big drop off in technology and experience
3. China

I won't bother with the rest.
I think that is being generous to russia.

The more interesting tend is the submarine fleets of our pacific allies like Australia who has committed to a significant upgrade to their fleet
The ranking of 1a was generous and assumes continued spending and training at current levels for another 3 to 5 years.

As for our friends down under, they have committed to a nice fleet of capable boats and have always been one of our best allies.

Personally I look forward to their larger presence in the region.
Edited by Demagogue, May 13 2016, 09:48 PM.
People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would do them harm.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Eddo26
Member Avatar

Demagogue
May 13 2016, 09:39 PM
Eddo36
May 13 2016, 07:58 PM
Demagogue
May 13 2016, 07:02 PM
Just so we are clear, the order of submarine sea power is.

1. USA
2. Russia - now that they are training and spending money again Russsia might be 1A.
then after a really big drop off in technology and experience
3. China

I won't bother with the rest.
Submarine warfare isn't about who has the best or most tanks like land warfare, they are on a completely different scale not defined by attrition. It's not about fighting each other, it's the fact that they cannot be detected by any means apart from active sonar until they strike and go silent again. And submarines don't do active sonar, they only go passive because otherwise they give away their position, so you can't use US submarines to detect foreign submarines.

You have never worn, nor do you apparently even know a single person who wears Dolphins.

I am on my phone right now or I would educate you a little.

Maybe Sunday evening I can get to it unless someone else beats me to it.
You don't have to be in the submarine service to do research on it. The average person who plays Sub Command or read Tom Clancy's SSN probably knows more about submarine tactics than a cook aboard a submarine.
Edited by Eddo26, May 13 2016, 11:24 PM.
We believe only what we want to believe.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Demagogue
Member Avatar
Administrator
Eddo36
May 13 2016, 11:16 PM
Demagogue
May 13 2016, 09:39 PM
Eddo36
May 13 2016, 07:58 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
You have never worn, nor do you apparently even know a single person who wears Dolphins.

I am on my phone right now or I would educate you a little.

Maybe Sunday evening I can get to it unless someone else beats me to it.
You don't have to be in the submarine service to do research on it. The average person who plays Sub Command or read Tom Clancy's SSN probably knows more about submarine tactics than a cook aboard a submarine.
Said by the guy who does not think a Virginia or Seawolf class sub can hear a Chinese sub without pinging them...
People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would do them harm.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Eddo26
Member Avatar

Demagogue
May 13 2016, 11:26 PM
Eddo36
May 13 2016, 11:16 PM
Demagogue
May 13 2016, 09:39 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
You don't have to be in the submarine service to do research on it. The average person who plays Sub Command or read Tom Clancy's SSN probably knows more about submarine tactics than a cook aboard a submarine.
Said by the guy who does not think a Virginia or Seawolf class sub can hear a Chinese sub without pinging them...
Regardless a few subs can't cover a whole ocean.
We believe only what we want to believe.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
Learn More · Sign-up for Free
« Previous Topic · UnitedStates.com FOREIGN* & DEFENSE · Next Topic »
Add Reply