[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/news/ - Current News

Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 30 posters in this thread.

05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
06/20/16New 4chan Banner Contest with a chance to win a 4chan Pass! See the contest page for details.
[Hide] [Show All]



File: 1552343922774.jpg (114 KB, 800x800)
114 KB
114 KB JPG
>imagine the Ramp....

https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/05/10/china-carrier-new-offense-defense-navy-planavy/
commercial satellite photos published by the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington show what is almost certainly the early stages of construction of China’s third aircraft carrier.
This new vessel will be a major leap in capability compared to the two ships the Chinese navy has sailed so far—and it represents the evolution of Chinese carrier aviation from an adapted Soviet model to a Western-style fleet, one that speaks to China’s ambition to be the leading strategic power in Asia.
Like many facets of China’s modernization, its carrier program is a process of copying, adaptation, and innovation. The copying part came first. China bought the Varyag, a half-finished Soviet-era vessel from the Ukraine—little more than rusting hulk, really—and built a respectable midsize ship, the Liaoning, which is now evolving from a training vessel to one with some operational capabilities. China got the blueprints for the ship from the Ukraine, too, but it didn’t just finish the ship as the old Soviet Navy intended—it adapted and innovated.
Soviet carriers of the late 1980s were not built for the same purpose as U.S. carriers, gigantic floating airfields that allow power to be pushed far overseas. They were constructed with an entirely different operational concept in mind: protecting the near seas against foreign aircraft and surface ships. Soviet ships were smaller and armed with a battery of huge long-range anti-ship missiles under the flight deck. They were cruisers with a couple dozen fighter aircraft on board rather than true U.S.-style super carriers.
>>
BAM!
>>
>As the United States has learned since the end of the Cold War, aircraft carriers are useful to project force against small countries that cannot threaten them at sea. For China, then, the carrier fleet is for now a symbol of its ambition, but it will truly come into its own when, as Beijing anticipates, the United States decides it is no longer willing to protect its Asian friends and allies.
RIP Japan
>>
>>397329
A war between China and Japan would last 15 seconds with China defeated and occupied.
>>
>>397335
larping like it's 1894
>>
>>397335
>A war between China and Japan would last 15 seconds with China defeated and occupied.
It would take Japan at least 5 years to build enough nuclear weapons to act as a deterrent. And that's if they centralized everything towards doing that. Hate to say it but Japan loses if the war escalates to strategic bombing.
>>
>>397340
>he doesn’t know about nuclear armed metal gears on the Japanese peninsula
>>
>>397340
Please. Kadena alone has 200 american nuclear warheads. And those actually work. Unlike the surplus soviet crap the chinese have.
>>
>>397342
>Kadena alone has 200 american nuclear warheads. And those actually work. Unlike the surplus soviet crap the chinese have.
the instance is we were talking about is Japan vs china.
>>
>>397353
You really think they wouldn't be used if china attacks.
>>
>>397354
Japan doesn't have the keys to the nukes
>>
>>397359
the password is 00000000
>>
>>397354
>You really think they wouldn't be used if china attacks
Let's say we elect a radically isolationist president in 2024 and recall all US manpower and Material. I don't even think Japan could contend with China conventionally. And Japan does not have Nuclear weapons to keep China from dropping a third one. (Although I understand that they might have the components for a few ready for assembly.
>>
Japan has the technical knowledge and resources to make a nuke but not the capability to maintain them. If they make one they'd need to use it immediately and they don't have the capability to deliver it before the bomber they send gets shot down and Chinese warheads drop down. And if Japan goes for nukes South Korea goes for them as well and they'd get it just as fast.
>>
>>397371
>before the bomber they send
They don't have a bomber Anon, the F-15J is probably their best chance at an aircraft delivery system. But that's for chumps anyway. If they could get a warhead compact enough for an F-15 they would probably modify the launch tubes on the Oyashio-class submarine to send Nuclear cruise missiles. The problem is you would need a lot of volume of fire, as the S-400 copies the PLA have would have too good a chance of knocking them out. America can just zerg rush a target with tomahawks. But Japan didn't put those on their subs. They just have harpoon tubes.
>>
>>397415
>They don't have a bomber Anon,

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.. BEHOLD THE MIGHT INTERNET COUCH POTATO GENERAL!
>>
Taiwan would be the first country to go if the US pulled back. Japan would have plenty of warning. And if the ROC chose to put up even a halfway determined fight, the PLA army, navy, and airforce would be shattered, needing years of rearming. Not to mention the Chinese economy would be in shambles because a war with ROC would cut off a substantial amount of their shipping.
Here's a fun video on what a war would look like.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z67BZ1T0ehU&t=431s
>>
>>397418
>BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.. BEHOLD THE MIGHT INTERNET COUCH POTATO GENERAL!
Japan Doesn't have a bomber.
>>
>>397422
Nuclear weapons aren't physically large, so they don't require a heavy to deliver them. Even megaton weapons are pretty small.
>>
>>397435
>Nuclear weapons aren't physically large, so they don't require a heavy to deliver them. Even megaton weapons are pretty small.
If the nation has developed Their program enough to build them that small. Japan may be technically able to do that, but It's not easy at the start of a program.
>>
>>397335
>>397339
Japan never managed to completely conquer and occupy even a quarter of China in 1894 or World War II when China was divided into warlords and in a civil war with communists. Why would Japan succeed now when Japan is militarily castrated and without a missile and nuclear force? China has enough conventional missiles and warheads to reduce Japanese cities to rubble without even using nukes.
>>
>>397421
Taiwan independence supporters in the ROC are majority LGBTQ video game addicted youth who desperately avoid military conscription by loading up ansd getting fat or sick before health exams.
>>
>>395508
>innovation
>China
don't make me laugh
>>
Japan has nuclear capabilities NOW! Wake up shit doctors!
>>
>>397366
>Although I understand that they might have the components for a few ready for assembly.
this is probably most first world nations
>>
>>395508
Babies are a waste of money anyway
>>
>>397692
Navies
>>
>>397686
If you don't know how to minimize your nukes and put them on working missiles, it means shit.
>>
>>397694
No no, you were right the first time
>>
>>397695
>Implying Japan don't know how to miniaturize things
I bet you'll also claim they can't draw well
>>
I wouldn't worry.
They're only gonna be using J20s.
>>
>>397729
Nukes take time to miniaturize, missile systems take extensive testing and combining the two even more so. In the scenario where US won't help and war is inevitable Japan doesn't have the time.
>>
What are the odds Japan floats in a nuke by sea barge?
>>
>>397939
>What are the odds Japan floats in a nuke by sea barge?
They would have to be the aggressors in that instance. A sea barge can't give you second strike deterrence.
>>
>>398033
>inb4 nuclear sea/land mines
>>
>>398041
More likely than you'd think
Good way to keep aircraft carriers at bay
>>
>>398042
>Good way to keep aircraft carriers at bay
Operation Crossroads demonstrated that nukes had rather lackluster performance against warships. And the Chinese would not send their carriers out alone. Minesweepers would be in their escort.
>>
>>397339
Just wait for the mechas to come out from beneath Neo-Tokyo. China has to nuke Tokyo once and give Japan time to rebuild first though, it's how it works in every anime.
>>
China would have to be suicidal to attack japan.
International condemnation alown would skrew them.

If they went nuclear then they would be nuked by like 5 other countries and lead to an arms race in Asia.

It's not a good look for them
>>
>>398057
I thought sea nukes were great. Hydrostatic shock from even regular bombs could shatter hulls. Nukes would fare better if exploded subsurface. Right? After all water does transmit force better than air...
>>
>>398133
Cities crumble. People die. But our rage lives on.
>>
>>398334
>Hydrostatic shock from even regular bombs could shatter hulls
Certainly. But at the spacing your average battle group disperses ships at, you still have to have one nuke for each ship.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeZp
Both the American operation Crossroads and the Soviet Joe-17 test underpreformed expectations despite the test ships being unrealistically close.
Cross roads had the excuse of being 600 yards off target. 600 yards is not very far off target for a nuke.
But Joe-17 was a Nuclear torpedo. And it only sank one destroyer. Just like a regular torpedo could.
>>
>>398348
WOuld the use of MIRV missiles change things up? Power in numbers (and saturation too). What about low level air bursts?
>>
>>398412
>WOuld the use of MIRV missiles change things up
If Japan can pull those of of their asses. but keep in mind, in any war with china, Japan would have conventional ballistic missiles hit them in a comically long barrage. This could knock out any ability for Japan to defend their coasts.
> What about low level air bursts?
That is what Able test was
Like I said before, The PRC would move on ROC before Japan. So they would have the better part of a decade to spin up a military and wartime economy. the problem would be resources. As china could immediately put pressure on their economy
>>
>>398417
>So they would have the better part of a decade to spin up a military and wartime economy. the problem would be resources. As china could immediately put pressure on their economy

American can always inject their arms and expertise into Japans JSDF, and turn them into an offensive power, although that would violate some
Post-ww2 treaties. Still, for the sake of keeping China in Check perhaps it would be a good call. Would there be enough time? Chinese pressure shouldn’t affect Japan so long as America is helping right?
>>
>>398263
>>398419
The invention of balistic missiles renders conventional forces irrelevant. China can bombard Japan with conventional missiles without sending a single soldier or fighters aircraft over. Japan has less land than China and is crammed into a smaller urban space and would suffer more. It's the same with nuclear, Japan would need 10,000 warheads, 10,000 launching pads and 10,000 missiles to destroy just China's major urban areas while China can destroy Japan with 100 or less nuclear warheads, launching pads and missiles. Japan does not have the number of launching pads, missiles or fissile material to destroy China. China can survive 100 nukes, Japan cant survive 10.
>>
>>398425
I like your analysis. How’s you get well versed in this stuff? I’d like to read what your reading. And where can I read more about this? I like reading about nuclear policy and watching the fireballs grow
>>
>>398425
They would be effectively killing themselves the US would form a UN coalition to nuke China back to the Xia dynasty.

especially if they attack Japan that does not even have an offensive military
>>
>>398698
>The invention of balistic missiles renders conventional forces irrelevant.
his analysis is patently wrong since countries spend enormous amounts to maintain large conventional forces
>>
>>398419
>Chinese pressure shouldn’t affect Japan so long as America is helping right?
The scenario we are envisioning is a future wherein America is unable or unwilling to counter China.
I hold that Japan would need a substantial Nuclear deterrent, preferably consisting of a handful tactical cruise missiles and a large amount of submarine-launched ballistic missiles
Even then, China would still be able to economically sap them of resolve without overt aggression.
It would be nice if Asians didn't all hate each other. A Korean, Taiwanese ,Japanese ,Philippine and maybe Vietnam defense and trading bloc would go a long Way.
>>
>>395508
what a scary dude; met him once
>>
>>397635
>Taiwan independence supporters in the ROC
Except the ROC doesn't want independence. They consider themselves the rightful rulers of mainland China.
>>
>>398864
That's only the Kuomintang, who no longer represent the general will of the Taiwanese population now that they've lost their iron grip on the country. The fact that they've always been outnumbered by precursor Taiwanese is starting to show itself in politics.
>>
>>398849
To keep control over their own countries, and perform operations like destroying other armies and guerilla forces or military occupation. China and Japan are separated by ocean. The last time Japan invaded China was through Korea and Japan no longer controls Korea. There's no reason China needs to deploy any soldiers. Hamas and Hezbollah used rockets.
>>
>>398878
There has yet to be a war won by throwing a shit ton if rockets or bombs at your enemy. If that was the case, the US wouldn't have an abysmal post-WWII record. You need a conventional force to consolidate the advantages gained by the bombardment, unless you're saying China intends to turn Japan into a bigger Gaza.
And in this whole discussion there's been no mention of the ROK, who will find itself surrounded by 3 non-allies. They will not sit idly while Japan rearms and China goes on the offensive. If Japan rebuilds and develops nukes, South Korea will develop them too and point them east.
Best Korea could sit back while its rivals kill each other.
>>
The real kings of the sea are nuclear-powered submarines. China doesn't have anything like that yet. maybe in 30 years.
>>
Is that winnie the Pooh?
>>
>>398942
china has like a dozen, including SSBNs just fyi
>>
also i mean big >implying about "defense" considering over the last 40 years they've attacked and seized several islands in the SCS

"defense" yeah ok
>>
>>399135
The 1974 Paracel islands battle happened after an American led South Vietnamese forces unilaterally tried to expel Chinese from the Paracel islands which they jointly occupied since the 1950s and instead the Chinese kicked their asses and permanently expelled South Vietnam from the Paracels. The 1988 Johnson South Reef skirmish happened after Vietnamese attacked a UNESCO assigned Chinese force which was sent by the UN to carry out a survey. The Vietanmese got their asses kicked again. Those were the only two battles China fought in the SCS and both were started by Vietnamese attacking Chinese garrisons.



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.