Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We only ever talk about the third attack on Pearl Harbor

butwhatfor.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 245 posts

Re: We only ever talk about the third attack on Pearl Harbor

#231

Post by ericmay »

Dah00n wrote: post #222
ericmay wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I believe that the majority in the US would prefer naval disarmament to having Chinese ships and planes patrolling 13 miles off US shores the way US Navy ships have operated near China. If they are in international waters than nobody will care. But China doesn’t have the resources to build ships to routinely project power off the US coast. Ask yourself - why are they building empty skyscrapers? Couldn’t they build…

>If they are in international waters than nobody will care If the USSR had put nukes everywhere around the US, even in international waters, we would not be here to discuss this today so yes people do care, a lot. As to why they "build skyscrapers instead of warships", that's already explained in the comment you reply to. In short: because China isn't going the route of massive military to become top dog. It will bec…

Nuclear weapons aren’t ships. It’s a categorical difference that matters a lot.

You can double check if you want but pretty sure U.S./E.U. adversaries like China and Russia already do flybys and have ships sail close via international waters. It’s good for a quick media hit in western countries but nobody who is serious or matters really cares about it. The U.S. does this all the time - called freedom of navigation exercises. The Chinese or Iranians will saber rattle a bit for no good reason other than strengthening their crappy, despotic regimes, but nothing comes of it.

Re China: I think you’re wrong, largely. First, China as a whole should be wealthier. It has 4x the population. It should have 2x-3x the GDP of the U.S. yet it doesn’t. Interesting.

Second, building empty skyscrapers is a hallmark of collapsing nation states of planned economies. It’s motion for the sake of motion. It’s like a broken window fallacy.

The U.S. has some very interesting advantages and certainly doesn’t need nuclear weapons to win “the war”. It’s winning it right now as China faces a population catastrophe and the U.S. continues chugging along like always.

Again, Chyna (Trumps terms) fear is overrated. Not sure what people/Trumpists are so worried about.

> Why spend a lot more on ships now when everything points to you being both richer, more technologically advanced and with better industrial capacity in 30 years than the US?

Not sure any projections are really convincing here. And the U.S. isn’t even trying as a unified country and is spending massive amounts of money wastefully (Iraq/Afghanistan, etc.).

Re: We only ever talk about the third attack on Pearl Harbor

#232

Post by ericmay »

hef19898 wrote: post #224
ericmay wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Missiles are not targeted at a location. They absolubtely do "lock on" and can track a moving target. They would simply not be able to function if that were not that case. Why even use a missile at all if it worked like that, just fire a big gun. Sure there are countermeasures, but manouvering a ship won't do anything on its own. The only way things like that help is when combined with chaff or heat signature dummi…

Ballistic missiles are things like ICBMs, there it doesn't matter if you miss by a couple of miles. Hypersonic missiles are fast enough to make ship movement a negligible factor, ship are slow . All other anti-ship missiles are guided. How bad that can end was shown in the Falkland war, the Royal Navy suffered quite a lot from Argentinian Exocets. Bought from France. A F-35 is what, 35 million dollar plus, excluding…

> Ballistic missiles are things like ICBMs, there it doesn't matter if you miss by a couple of miles. Hypersonic missiles are fast enough to make ship movement a negligible factor, ship are slow.

The hypersonic missiles are like ICBMs though. They operate similarly and enter the atmosphere before coming back down. They’re not nuclear weapons where you can be close enough, they have to be accurate. A miss by 3 feet jug as well be a miss by a mile.

As the missile enters the atmosphere it only has a few seconds to course correct to hit a moving ship. The ship can potentially move just out of harms way. Not the most likely scenario but definitely plausible.

> All other anti-ship missiles are guided. How bad that can end was shown in the Falkland war, the Royal Navy suffered quite a lot from Argentinian Exocets. Bought from France.

Different kinds of missiles. Can’t really compare them.

> A F-35 is what, 35 million dollar plus, excluding the pilot and training cost? Missiles are cheaper, by order of magnitude.

Not sure that these particular missiles are. I think it’s likely they’re closer to $20mm-$30mm in cost. Plus all of the ones China has are basically R&D missiles and not proven.

Re: We only ever talk about the third attack on Pearl Harbor

#233

Post by ericmay »

RugnirViking wrote: post #225
ericmay wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Missiles are not targeted at a location. They absolubtely do "lock on" and can track a moving target. They would simply not be able to function if that were not that case. Why even use a missile at all if it worked like that, just fire a big gun. Sure there are countermeasures, but manouvering a ship won't do anything on its own. The only way things like that help is when combined with chaff or heat signature dummi…

Typically the way these kinds of missile emplacements work is that first the ships are spotted with a command/radar unit, which then tries to categorise the ships based on their radar "signature" - in this case signature is literal, in the sense that each class of ship and sometimes even within classes has a unique radar reflaction that can be detected. Most major millitaries over the years of shadowing each other ha…

The issue here is China has no capability to swarm attack with these missiles. They don’t have enough, and they aren’t proven. And once you launch them that’s it. You won’t produce any others to get a second strike. So if you launch them all (China has what, 30?) and sink a CSG, the US just sends 2-4 more and now what? Oh and the US also has aircraft in places like Japan and Korea and Guam that can retaliate.

The Chinese also don’t have a multi-direction launch capability.

The carriers are definitely vulnerable to them in general, but the notion that the carriers are now all of a sudden the same as battleships is an easy and lazy mindset to adopt. “X must be like Y” is a failure in thinking - “oh our startup will just be the Uber for X”. “We’ll be the Amazon of Y industry” etc.

Instead of saying battleships did this thing and then I think these other things will be like them, you should start with the opposite assumption and deduce from that. Assume you’re completely wrong and figure out why carriers aren’t like battleships. It will be an interesting exercise. A good question to ask would be like what’s the point of carriers if there is nothing for the planes to bomb? That makes them actually useless. Even in a scenario where the Chinese are completely capable with these missiles the U.S. fleet can just take over the oceans anyway and then what?

The U.S. has power projection independent of the carrier fleet.

If your views are strongly aligning with what you would hear on Fox News or Reddit you should be very cautious in the certainty in which you hold those views.

Re: We only ever talk about the third attack on Pearl Harbor

#234

Post by valuearb »

tosbalok2 wrote: post #135
onepointsixC wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Midway had it's fortunate moments, but IJN didn't have much of a chance from the get go due to the absurd USN ship production: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9ag2x3CS9M

What's missing from this analysis is that the US industrial base wasn't under attack while it was producing those ships. If you play "what if" and imagine the Japanese had won Midway, and the US had no carriers at all, that gives the Japanese total control of the Pacific. The Japanese can take Hawaii if they want to, because how could the US possibly reinforce and resupply it? The Japanese can attack shipyards and po…

Hawaii is an unsinkable carrier itself. If the US lost its carriers at Midway, Oahu would have been host to a massive force of fighters and long distance bombers.

Any Japanese fleet unlucky enough to come within five hundred miles of Oahu would be subject to an unending stream of heavy US bombers like the B17 escorted by long range fighters such as the P-38.

There would be little chance of any surprise either with radar installations far improved and a vigilant picket line of US subs.

Landing troops without air superiority would have been impossible, and it’s unclear whether a Japanese carrier fleet could even hold off US battle ships if they sailed with US air cover.

To win that parley, land troops and push a large US Army force off Oahu is almost impossible. But even then, to raid the US coast with your remaining fleet, against an even more formidable air and sea defense many thousands of miles from any resupply would be a disaster for the Japanese Navy.

Re: We only ever talk about the third attack on Pearl Harbor

#235

Post by micropresident »

travisjungroth wrote: post #2

This story is amazing. The story of US war games seems to commonly be "Yeah the Read Team won but..." and no changes are made. Maybe those are just the stories I hear. It's also interesting to consider if the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor would have happened if it weren't for our own dress rehearsals we carried out in front of the Japanese. Maybe war games are a bad idea when they're too big to keep secret and you'…

It's very likely that Pearl Harbor was intentional to get popular support for entering World War 2. There's evidence that the president had been briefed on the attack and they intentionally did not move the fleet.

Re: We only ever talk about the third attack on Pearl Harbor

#236

Post by afterburner »

Dah00n wrote: post #221
stevehawk wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it doesn't matter how terrible our side thinks it would be if the other side has decided it is going to happen.

But it does matter. It takes two to tango and many a wise man have backed down from a winnable fight with a bloody nose. The US isn't forced to go to war with China over Taiwan. IMO it's more that those that want to retaliate are never anywhere near the war. If generals and politicians were in the first wave in an attack to retaliate against China invading Taiwan, retaliation would never happen. On the other hand if…

> The US isn't forced to go to war with China over Taiwan.

And China isn't forced to go to war with the US over Taiwan. What's your point?

Re: We only ever talk about the third attack on Pearl Harbor

#237

Post by Dah00n »

afterburner wrote: post #236
Dah00n wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it does matter. It takes two to tango and many a wise man have backed down from a winnable fight with a bloody nose. The US isn't forced to go to war with China over Taiwan. IMO it's more that those that want to retaliate are never anywhere near the war. If generals and politicians were in the first wave in an attack to retaliate against China invading Taiwan, retaliation would never happen. On the other hand if…

> The US isn't forced to go to war with China over Taiwan. And China isn't forced to go to war with the US over Taiwan. What's your point?

You are the first to mention China going to war with the US. What was written was the US going to war with China because of China attacking Taiwan, not attacking the US. It's not that same thing. If you want to discuss China attacking the US that's fine, but this isn't about that.

Re: We only ever talk about the third attack on Pearl Harbor

#238

Post by anamax »

jabl wrote: post #5
travisjungroth wrote: post #2

This story is amazing. The story of US war games seems to commonly be "Yeah the Read Team won but..." and no changes are made. Maybe those are just the stories I hear. It's also interesting to consider if the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor would have happened if it weren't for our own dress rehearsals we carried out in front of the Japanese. Maybe war games are a bad idea when they're too big to keep secret and you'…

In the recent(ish) movie Midway there is a scene where the IJN is wargaming the upcoming attack, and they get their asses kicked since some cheeky junior officer playing the Americans doesn't keep the carriers waiting in Pearl Harbor but rather NE of Midway (which is what later happened in reality). So they reprimand that officer and restart the game with the clause that the US carriers must stay at Pearl until the a…

The big problem for the Japanese at Midway was that they only had 4 carriers.

With 6 carriers, all of the the Japanese wouldn't have had to decide between protecting their carriers vs attacking US carriers vs attacking Midway. They could have done it all.

Heck, even one more carrier, for a total of 5, would have significantly reduced the task-overload.

That's why the original Japanese plan for Midway had 6 carriers. So, why didn't they follow the plan?

The answer is the Battle of Coral Sea, a month earlier.

While the US lost one carrier (Lexington) and almost lost Yorktown, one Japanese carrier was significantly damaged while another lost most of its aircrew.

Japanese doctrine at the time didn't transfer pilots between carriers, so Coral Sea took two carriers from Midway.

If the Japanese had transferred pilots from the damaged carrier to the carrier without an aircrew, the Japanese could have had 5 carriers.

Five carriers would have likely resulted in a Japanese win at Midway.

That said, the US would win the war in the Pacific as long as it sank a Japanese carrier for every 2-3 it lost.

Re: We only ever talk about the third attack on Pearl Harbor

#239

Post by afterburner »

Dah00n wrote: post #237
afterburner wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The US isn't forced to go to war with China over Taiwan. And China isn't forced to go to war with the US over Taiwan. What's your point?

You are the first to mention China going to war with the US. What was written was the US going to war with China because of China attacking Taiwan, not attacking the US. It's not that same thing. If you want to discuss China attacking the US that's fine, but this isn't about that.

Incorrect, I was responding to this comment about a Chinese attack on Taiwan or a Russian attack on the Baltics:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27346478

> In other wargames: > You might remember that the Ronald Reagan was sunk by a Swedish stealth submarine in 2005 [1] and that there is little hope to save the Baltic and Taiwan if Russia and China decide to occupy them [2].

> [1] https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/war-games-swedish-ste...

> [2] https://breakingdefense.com/2019/03/us-gets-its-ass-handed-t...

Re: We only ever talk about the third attack on Pearl Harbor

#240

Post by kovacs_x »

ericmay wrote: post #174
hef19898 wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Locating carriers to day? Easy, satellites and radar. Tag the group leaving port, track it 24/7. Or sonar. The days a surface fleet can hide are gone.

Ok let’s say you have a satellite and you somehow find US ships. Then what? And how far is the radar range? Can you truly detect ship signatures with radar without the CSG being out of your range? Maybe a war started and the USAF bombed the Chinese radar stations? Idk. Anyway, let’s say you launch missiles. Ok? Ships move. Ship missile defense shoots down some missiles, etc. Now what do you do? Idk why people think t…

I'm sure all the US carriers are accounted by China 24x7 already! :D

+ if I had to bet, then I'd bet that modern submarines, smart mines & rockets can take out any carrier, ship or whatever, it's just that no one has done it yet for obvious reason of not starting a new WW. It's stealth & speed that gives an edge these days, instead of displaying big, slow chunks of metal in a middle of big swaths of water + even 1 "missed" rocket can make the any ship incapacitated or sunk.. & now imagine 100 hypersonic missiles launched as a swarm.

Imo carriers and ships in general are the "battleships of WW2" (considered supreme, failed miserably). Yes, still works against small countries, with limited capabilities and as a "display of power", yet practically I'd assume they'd be sunk during the first days of a REAL full scale conflict. One should never forget the level of technology during WW2 compared to these days.

ps. it's interesting that China is always considered agreesor, though it's the US that's been involved (directly & indirectly) in most of the wars of the 19th, 20th & 21st century + is the TOP1 seller of the weaponry in the world as of today.

Post reply on HN