21–30 of 209 posts
What does hypersonic mean? I thought all missiles were largely supersonic, except for maybe cruise missiles.
What does hypersonic mean? I thought all missiles were largely supersonic, except for maybe cruise missiles.
Mach 25 is approximately orbital velocity, but since Mach is actually related to air pressure, it's not a very meaningful comparison except to note that anything moving that fast isn't going to be in-atmosphere for very long.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What if they decide they want to gobble up Taiwan, Vietnam, Japan, Australia, etc? Should we just sit back and say "it's not us, so this is fine?"
Legally Taiwan and Mainland are in a civil war for the legitimate government of the one China. One China is the "policy" of US China and Taiwan. Of course, Taiwan want to get rid of that. China will risk a nuclear war to prevent that, and US is OK with either, preferably let China bleed the most with minimal cost. These are as obvious as the sun hanging over the sky. China had no ambition for territorial expansion ot…
What does hypersonic mean? I thought all missiles were largely supersonic, except for maybe cruise missiles.
What does hypersonic mean? I thought all missiles were largely supersonic, except for maybe cruise missiles.
https://www.gao.gov/blog/faster-speed-sound-u.s.-efforts-dev...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What will the outcome be? Judging by what we did in Afghanistan, not good. I hope we don't send thousands to die and/or kill other people. If they invade the US, we fight, otherwise, we shouldn't be policing the world. I don't see the benefits of a war with China, or any other country at all.
What if they decide they want to gobble up Taiwan, Vietnam, Japan, Australia, etc? Should we just sit back and say "it's not us, so this is fine?"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Legally Taiwan and Mainland are in a civil war for the legitimate government of the one China. One China is the "policy" of US China and Taiwan. Of course, Taiwan want to get rid of that. China will risk a nuclear war to prevent that, and US is OK with either, preferably let China bleed the most with minimal cost. These are as obvious as the sun hanging over the sky. China had no ambition for territorial expansion ot…
Perhaps you haven't noticed that China has been building islands and claiming the sea around them. In fact, they claim the entire South China Sea as territorial waters. They routinely send their fishing fleets into the legitimate territorial waters of other nations. As they are starting to struggle again with the size of their population, expansion will seem like a natural solution.
Of cuz, that's known everywhere. Chinese netizens are ecstatic about this ingenious move that fenced off SEA countries from meddling the water area in any way that could affect China's claim over them.
> They routinely send their fishing fleets into the legitimate territorial waters of other nations
They are just self directed business man. Just like the numerous business man who invaded almost every Asian countries in the early 1900s. These fisherman would have been invading all-over the places if they were in 1900 as well.
Of cuz, not like the 1900s, these fisherman are not going to be protected (very strongly) by their home country when they were caught.
> they are starting to struggle again with the size of their population, expansion will seem like a natural solution.
Well, almost everyone is expecting the population to be dwindling from now on. A lot have calling the recent census fake, because they all expect a population drop.
Not sure why this population driven expansnism holds itself...
As I understand it, China has hypersonic missiles and nukes, whereas the US does not. Should a conflict in the South China sea break out, China could nuke US carrier groups assuming their satellites aren't taken out first. That spells game over for US projection of power if successful. China could deploy air and submersible drones to get around downed satellites, but these have the potential of being jammed with EMP,…
> Should a conflict in the South China sea break out, China could nuke US carrier groups If China wants to start a nuclear exchange, sure. The US probably wouldn't go nuclear in response to an invasion of Taiwan, but it absolutely would in response to a nuclear attack on US forces.
But apparently not without phoning China about it first, if recent news is to be believed.
As I understand it, China has hypersonic missiles and nukes, whereas the US does not. Should a conflict in the South China sea break out, China could nuke US carrier groups assuming their satellites aren't taken out first. That spells game over for US projection of power if successful. China could deploy air and submersible drones to get around downed satellites, but these have the potential of being jammed with EMP,…
Is the premise here that carrier groups would be survivable in the absence of hypersonic missiles? They... aren't at all, are they?
As far as I know, with existing known technology and defenses, there's probably a number n, such that if you launch more than n simultaneous non-hypersonic cruise missiles, an aircraft carrier is going to be unable to deal with them all. This of course assumes you can launch that many missiles, in range of the carrier, simultaneously, without advanced warning.
Now, the navy also isn't dumb, so I'd venture to guess they avoid parking their carriers within that range when possible, and that they probably have some other defenses like C-130's and other ships mounted with directed energy weapons and other missile defense and whatnot. I imagine they also aggressively pursue and maintain intelligence on the location, number, and readiness state of those missiles. This starts to get complicated because there's a complicated interplay of strategy and tactics related to the off-ship capabilities, and defenses have counter-strategies (such as launching a bunch of Surface-to-air missiles at those C-130's immediately prior to launching the cruise missles) and those counter-strategies have counter-strategies, etc. etc.
I also have no idea what that number n is. It could be infeasibly high.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What will the outcome be? Judging by what we did in Afghanistan, not good. I hope we don't send thousands to die and/or kill other people. If they invade the US, we fight, otherwise, we shouldn't be policing the world. I don't see the benefits of a war with China, or any other country at all.
What if they decide they want to gobble up Taiwan, Vietnam, Japan, Australia, etc? Should we just sit back and say "it's not us, so this is fine?"