China’s Island Missiles Can Effectively Shut Out the U.S. Air Force(warisboring.com)
warisboring.com
China’s Island Missiles Can Effectively Shut Out the U.S. Air Force
http://warisboring.com/articles/chinas-island-missiles-can-effectively-shut-out-the-u-s-air-force/
65 comments
War is Boring had an interesting article last year basically making the same argument, that the way for the U.S. to win a war with China would be to focus on disrupting its maritime supply lines: https://medium.com/war-is-boring/to-defeat-china-in-a-confli...
That's only during wartime though. At present it is purely a show of force and a way to prevent the US advising "their" airspace.
If they do want to sell a couple to Turkey, then a US plane being "accidentally" being downed by one due to operator error, would make for a good advertisement. I'm such a cynic.
If they do want to sell a couple to Turkey, then a US plane being "accidentally" being downed by one due to operator error, would make for a good advertisement. I'm such a cynic.
Right now it's being used to build out the Air Defense Identification Zone they claimed over the south china sea a couple years ago and back up their claim with the threat of shoot down. By projecting force over the South China Sea, they, in essence, use the islands to turn it into their own private lake and effectively take over what are considered international waters render moot the ongoing arguments at the UN regarding islands and mineral rights. If the geological estimates concerning the amount of oil in the SCS are correct, it's a major coup and has the possibility of turning China into a net oil producer.
So, what's your opinion on Diego Garcia (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diego_Garcia)? Waste of effort, too?
Waste of effort, too?
As an air defense base, yes. As a FOB for non-wartime activities, no. As a defensible base in an all out war, yes.
That said, I can't imagine Diego Garcia's primary role is to act as a buffer/barrier so the two aren't really comparable in that way. After all, it has:
"two parallel 12,000-foot-long (3,700 m) runways, expansive parking aprons for heavy bombers, 20 new anchorages in the lagoon, a deep-water pier, port facilities for the largest naval vessels in the American or British fleet, aircraft hangars, maintenance buildings and an air terminal, a 1,340,000 barrels (213,000 m3) fuel storage area, and billeting and messing facilities for thousands of sailors and support personnel."
Is this comparable to what the is being done by the Chinese?
As an air defense base, yes. As a FOB for non-wartime activities, no. As a defensible base in an all out war, yes.
That said, I can't imagine Diego Garcia's primary role is to act as a buffer/barrier so the two aren't really comparable in that way. After all, it has:
"two parallel 12,000-foot-long (3,700 m) runways, expansive parking aprons for heavy bombers, 20 new anchorages in the lagoon, a deep-water pier, port facilities for the largest naval vessels in the American or British fleet, aircraft hangars, maintenance buildings and an air terminal, a 1,340,000 barrels (213,000 m3) fuel storage area, and billeting and messing facilities for thousands of sailors and support personnel."
Is this comparable to what the is being done by the Chinese?
The comment I reacted to mentioned the strategy of the Japanese in World War Two. They had islands with lots of infrastructure (for the time), too.
I think the problem for the Japanese was that they didn't have enough ships. Knowing that, they went for the island approach. Doing that, they gave up mobility in exchange for size and robustness. The mobility of the US navy allowed the US to concentrate firepower and take an island at a time. If distances between islands were smaller the Japanese might have been able to better defend against the US by rapidly moving planes and infantry between islands.
I think the problem for the Japanese was that they didn't have enough ships. Knowing that, they went for the island approach. Doing that, they gave up mobility in exchange for size and robustness. The mobility of the US navy allowed the US to concentrate firepower and take an island at a time. If distances between islands were smaller the Japanese might have been able to better defend against the US by rapidly moving planes and infantry between islands.
They also didn't have enough planes, the ability to make significantly better ones due to the engines, and not enough pilots (they didn't change to war tempo pilot instruction until way too late). They really had no business getting into a war with a mature and robust industrial power like us, their only hope was breaking our will and that, at best, would have only happened when we started invading the home islands.
The war was all but over after the South Pacific campaign which started with our landing in Guadalcanal. Neither of us did anything particularly clever there, besides our only neutralizing vs. taking Rabaul, it was just a brutal slugfest where, for example, in one night action we lost two rear admirals (2 stars). By the end of it, IJN airpower, land and carrier based, was broken, and most of that was done by US land based aviation. For a really in depth look this book is highly recommended: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0813338697
You do have a point about our tactic of defeat in detail, when we were willing to expend enough lives and material we could and did take islands as we needed. I guess one of their big mistakes was thinking they could stop that for any particularly island with their air and naval forces in the region.
The war was all but over after the South Pacific campaign which started with our landing in Guadalcanal. Neither of us did anything particularly clever there, besides our only neutralizing vs. taking Rabaul, it was just a brutal slugfest where, for example, in one night action we lost two rear admirals (2 stars). By the end of it, IJN airpower, land and carrier based, was broken, and most of that was done by US land based aviation. For a really in depth look this book is highly recommended: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0813338697
You do have a point about our tactic of defeat in detail, when we were willing to expend enough lives and material we could and did take islands as we needed. I guess one of their big mistakes was thinking they could stop that for any particularly island with their air and naval forces in the region.
Diego Garcia is not part of a defensive line, it is a force multiplier. The problem with using an island chain to defend yourself is that you must keep all the islands supplied, and this is a logistical nightmare. A single island is much easier to supply and defend.
Diego Garcia is a single island, more like Malta than the Japanese islands and islets. Diego Garcia's capacity for basing large strategic bombers close to potential conflict zones is a huge force multiplier, much like basing aircraft in Malta allowed the Allies to disrupt axis resupply efforts to North Africa.
Diego Garcia is a single island, more like Malta than the Japanese islands and islets. Diego Garcia's capacity for basing large strategic bombers close to potential conflict zones is a huge force multiplier, much like basing aircraft in Malta allowed the Allies to disrupt axis resupply efforts to North Africa.
As with all other Forward Operating Bases (FOB), it will face the same challenges as any island during conflict. If you can exhaust the island's supplies and constrict replenishment, the utility of the island diminishes. In the case of Diego Garcia, assuming a conflict with China, they lack the force projection capabilities to effectively shut down the flow of supplies to DG. (Assuming the US submarine force > chinese submarine force in capability). Their best bet would be to render it inert using cruise missile and non-nuclear ICBM strikes to disable the runways, mine the anchorages, and destroy the fuel supplies. Bonus points if they can sink ships in the lagoon.
If you're interested in this subject, here's a post I wrote two years ago about how bad the U.S.'s strategic position in the South China Sea vis-á-vis China was even before these new missiles were deployed: http://jasonlefkowitz.net/2013/08/stovl-the-f-35-and-how-wer...
OK just skimmed parts and read conclusion. Going to go back to later but this is an awesome piece I want to point every strictly "Grow Military" republican friends I have to as, no don't grow the military but be SMART about allocation of funds in order to strengthen military. Money doesn't make a good anything if it's mismanaged.
One thing I've seen is that many government projects get their budget shrunk if they don't spend it all... So they use their entire budget even if they don't need to. That is only one small problem in a hugely broken system. A system that doesn't strive for their goal of "winning wars with minimal cost of life."
One thing I've seen is that many government projects get their budget shrunk if they don't spend it all... So they use their entire budget even if they don't need to. That is only one small problem in a hugely broken system. A system that doesn't strive for their goal of "winning wars with minimal cost of life."
I've seen that a lot, and I've discussed it with quite a few people. I think that a lot of money could be saved if that was changed, though maybe organisation and allocation, making the next budget, could become harder.
The sad thing is, most people don't seem to care. I even tried to discuss it with the Minister for Development (I'm in Germany) at some point, since I've been working in a place within his influence and saw people do ridiculous things with money near the end of the year, but he didn't even try to understand what I was talking about (he half-heartedly tried to get some names out of me though). Maybe he was too drunk, I hope he was.
(Then again, that particular place I worked at measures their progress towards goals in money spent, and that is what the bosses fret over.)
Maybe one of the reasons is that the government tries to stimulate the economy and thus keeps up the spending. Still, talking about austerity at the same time is a mismatch. I'm still trying to figure out this puzzle.
Does anyone here have any clues to the situation? Is there a good reason for this rule to exist?
The sad thing is, most people don't seem to care. I even tried to discuss it with the Minister for Development (I'm in Germany) at some point, since I've been working in a place within his influence and saw people do ridiculous things with money near the end of the year, but he didn't even try to understand what I was talking about (he half-heartedly tried to get some names out of me though). Maybe he was too drunk, I hope he was.
(Then again, that particular place I worked at measures their progress towards goals in money spent, and that is what the bosses fret over.)
Maybe one of the reasons is that the government tries to stimulate the economy and thus keeps up the spending. Still, talking about austerity at the same time is a mismatch. I'm still trying to figure out this puzzle.
Does anyone here have any clues to the situation? Is there a good reason for this rule to exist?
>The American strategy for air superiority, not just with the F-35 but also with the F-22 and other modern aircraft, is based on two fundamental technologies. The first is “stealth“: using technology to help our planes to evade detection by radar. The second is “BVR”...
While the F-35 does rely entirely on stealth, the ATF program that gave birth to the F-22 emphasized both stealth and extreme performance. High speed and high altitude complement stealth by reducing the adversary's reaction time while increasing the reach of one's own weapons.
While the F-35 does rely entirely on stealth, the ATF program that gave birth to the F-22 emphasized both stealth and extreme performance. High speed and high altitude complement stealth by reducing the adversary's reaction time while increasing the reach of one's own weapons.
Cool piece.
Do you have anymore about the RAF's cold-war Harrier plans?
Do you have anymore about the RAF's cold-war Harrier plans?
This 2006 history of the Harrier and its precursor projects (warning, PDF) from the Royal Air Force Historical Society goes into detail on the subject: http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/documents/Research/RAF-Historica...
The chapter titled "The Cold War Concepts of Operation for the RAF Harrier Force" (p. 55-63), written by Group Captain Jock Heron, will be of particular interest.
The chapter titled "The Cold War Concepts of Operation for the RAF Harrier Force" (p. 55-63), written by Group Captain Jock Heron, will be of particular interest.
Thanks!
This is a bit concerning, though the title of "Shut out the USAF" is kinda clickbait-y exaggeration. It's certainly an escalation in the little island "cold wars" of the pacific. Many countries have competing claims on the island and play a little military "chicken" every now and then, usually with minor ships or handfuls of troops. This is the first I've read of any country putting major semi-fixed military hardware on any of these contested islands, though.
Clearly missiles like this are a concern for the USAF, but the technology and tactics are in place to deal with them. They certainly do limit the kind of operations that any opposing AF would be willing to undertake without carrying out a strike against the missiles. Like sure, we could probably take them out with the latest fighters and missiles on a well-planned mission, but how willing would we be to send transport or recon aircraft or lone fighters wandering around where they might be in range of these things? What might we, or any other nation, be willing to do around them without attacking them and thus possibly triggering a much larger war? That's the level they're operating at here.
I wonder if any other nations will start basing their own high-end hardware on contested islands, or ask the US to do it?
Clearly missiles like this are a concern for the USAF, but the technology and tactics are in place to deal with them. They certainly do limit the kind of operations that any opposing AF would be willing to undertake without carrying out a strike against the missiles. Like sure, we could probably take them out with the latest fighters and missiles on a well-planned mission, but how willing would we be to send transport or recon aircraft or lone fighters wandering around where they might be in range of these things? What might we, or any other nation, be willing to do around them without attacking them and thus possibly triggering a much larger war? That's the level they're operating at here.
I wonder if any other nations will start basing their own high-end hardware on contested islands, or ask the US to do it?
I should think the batteries would be themselves targeted by stand-off missiles as soon as any situation deteriorated to a shooting match.
> the very fact that the HQ-9 could compete for an international missile tender against American, Russian and European systems — and win — is an indication of just how capable the Chinese weapon is.
The odd-one-out in that list is Russia. Turkey might be very reluctant to deploy a Russian system, however cheap it might be up-front. Although relations were much warmer back in 2015, Turkey even then would not want to be dependent on Russia's good-will to keep a missile system running.
So shouldn't that quote read "cheap" rather than "capable"? Almost all defence acquisitions are really about backhanders and trade deals etc.
> the very fact that the HQ-9 could compete for an international missile tender against American, Russian and European systems — and win — is an indication of just how capable the Chinese weapon is.
The odd-one-out in that list is Russia. Turkey might be very reluctant to deploy a Russian system, however cheap it might be up-front. Although relations were much warmer back in 2015, Turkey even then would not want to be dependent on Russia's good-will to keep a missile system running.
So shouldn't that quote read "cheap" rather than "capable"? Almost all defence acquisitions are really about backhanders and trade deals etc.
>I should think the batteries would be themselves targeted by stand-off missiles as soon as any situation deteriorated to a shooting match.
Yep. As usual, warisboring is wrong. These kinds of bases will be ignored in peacetime and quickly destroyed in wartime.
Yep. As usual, warisboring is wrong. These kinds of bases will be ignored in peacetime and quickly destroyed in wartime.
The hard part about reading these kinds of things is that China is doing essentially what the United States has been doing since WWII. We put missiles everywhere... Right in China's doorstep even.
I just pray that as China grows in military strength they'll also grow in a desire for peace. Right now they are behaving like someone that has something to prove.
I just pray that as China grows in military strength they'll also grow in a desire for peace. Right now they are behaving like someone that has something to prove.
Right now China faces an interesting social problem -- their population includes millions of military-age men who are demographically doomed to remain single.
Unfortunately, from their leadership's perspective, that means that the lives of those young men are cheap disposable resources. If the Chinese want to become belligerent, expansionistic players on the world stage, right now's the best shot at it they'll ever have.
Unfortunately, from their leadership's perspective, that means that the lives of those young men are cheap disposable resources. If the Chinese want to become belligerent, expansionistic players on the world stage, right now's the best shot at it they'll ever have.
The original article is here:
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/look-out-america-c...
(great if an admin would like to update the url)
(great if an admin would like to update the url)
I'm wondering if it has been reported everytime the US has deployed some defensive missile batteries around the world... Pretty much US aircraft carriers have more fire power then these batteries. Do we report their movement as hard as this?
Like is this just agg-prop to some anti China sentiment?
Like is this just agg-prop to some anti China sentiment?
This is newsworthy because the island exists within an area of overlapping territorial claims. The installation of the missiles is an escalation in an ongoing dispute.
So is NATO putting missiles into ex-Soviet states bordering Russia, but we don't see much on the new cold war with Russia on these pages.
Deploying missiles onto land that everyone agrees you own is one thing. Deploying missiles onto land that other people think they own, which could fire on planes flying over more land people disagree about, is clearly a different situation.
That said, I agree that the media under-reports provocative actions by groups we like.
That said, I agree that the media under-reports provocative actions by groups we like.
Ah, you're right. Russia annexing Crimea outright and pseudo-annexing eastern Ukraine (and the resulting rise in tensions) is totally nothing like China annexing the Spratleys.
Well you say "land that everyone agrees you own" and yet that point of view was not unanimous (for example the Russians didn't think so). From the Chinese point of view, perhaps it seems like it is "land that everyone agrees [they] own".
From the international perspective, china unilaterally declared the islands sovereign territory, and specifically claimed there were no military intentions for the island. China has contradicted its previous claims, and alienated the neighboring territories by claiming disputed territory. The international community is understandably displeased with china.
The US certainly has its faults, but compared to China on human rights it is really no contest, especially as it pertains to the last 60 years. Mao's cultural revolution killed 30 Million people. Communism hosts a toxic culture incredibly prone to corruption.
So the reason China is horrible in 2016 is because of something it did in 1976?
The US had slavery, And attempted a genocide in their own country, can we count those things?
The US had slavery, And attempted a genocide in their own country, can we count those things?
[deleted]
I can't see how a Chinese vs US war is in either parties interest. Surely China knows they can never take the US mainland and the US can't take China proper, so even if they win they get, what exactly? Other than deep hatred for their biggest trading partner?
It's not unusual for rising powers to flex their new muscles by claiming new rights and privileges at sea; the U.S. did it in the 1890s and early 1900s, establishing its power in the eastern and central Pacific by overthrowing the government of Hawaii, driving the Spanish out of the Philippines, establishing bases on Midway Atoll and Wake Island, etc.
(Note that all of these locations would become key flashpoints in the war between the U.S. and the Japanese Empire a few decades later.)
(Note that all of these locations would become key flashpoints in the war between the U.S. and the Japanese Empire a few decades later.)
See e.g. WWI. I've read that world trade didn't return to pre-WWI levels until quite recently, 2-3 decades ago.
Neither party you mention is a monolith. Don't consider China's interest or USA's interest. Rather, think of the interests of decision-makers and of those who can influence them (including those who can do so indirectly through a gullible public).
> The addition of the HQ-9 — which was first reported by Fox News on Feb. 17 — would greatly increase the People’s Liberation Army’s air defense capabilities in the region. Like the Russian-made Almaz Antey S-300 air defense system, the HQ-9 has the ability to render vast swaths of territory into virtual no-fly zones. Only the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor, F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit stealth bomber can safely operate in the vicinity of an HQ-9 for any length of time.
The title is simply wrong.
1) B-2, F-22, and F-35 can all be used to throw missiles at these sorts of targets and then exit the area. The HQ-9 / Patriot can't track stealth aircraft at extreme range effectively. Or you throw sea skimming / low altitude cruise missiles with jamming to provide EW cover.
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/american-f-22s-b-2...
> The Raptors “kick down the door” using their unique combination of stealth, high altitude and blistering speed to target the nodes of the integrated air defense system so that the B-2s can proceed to their targets unmolested. It’s a mission the F-22s have only gotten better at with the Increment 3.1 upgrade that allows the jet to geo-locate emitters much more precisely than before. And that capability will continue to improve with the Raptor’s forthcoming Increment 3.2B upgrade.
> The other option to take down an integrated air defense system is to use a combination of standoff weapons like the JASSM and JASSM-ER cruise missiles together with electronic attacks from a platform like the EA-18G Growler. The Growler can not only jam the enemy’s radar, but can generate an ellipse to target the missile site. The problem there is precisely updating the cruise missile with current track data before the enemy moves during the incoming weapons’ time of flight.
2) HQ-9 [if based on Patriot] is actually less effective than the modern Russian systems. Without the ability to move substantial distances, HQ-9 isn't a serious threat to the US. However, pretty much every US ally in the region isn't capable of standing up to that sort of thing. Given the region is largely divided into the US / Chinese spheres of influence at this point it doesn't really matter because there aren't neutral parties.
3) I'm honestly more concerned about China sparking a major war than I am about their ability to create no-fly zones.
------
EDIT:
Since I'm rate limited:
Realistically, whether you realize or it, China is in that position and has been for 20 years.
A missile base in Hainan would have the range to hit anything transiting to Vietnam via the sea. Short of taking Hainan away from China, Vietnam can be closed to ships by China at any time.
China isn't interested in provoking a military conflict but rather guaranteeing its security and a world position equal to the US in all theaters.
Similarly, its why Hainan has a semi-covert submarine base:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yulin_Naval_Base
The title is simply wrong.
1) B-2, F-22, and F-35 can all be used to throw missiles at these sorts of targets and then exit the area. The HQ-9 / Patriot can't track stealth aircraft at extreme range effectively. Or you throw sea skimming / low altitude cruise missiles with jamming to provide EW cover.
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/american-f-22s-b-2...
> The Raptors “kick down the door” using their unique combination of stealth, high altitude and blistering speed to target the nodes of the integrated air defense system so that the B-2s can proceed to their targets unmolested. It’s a mission the F-22s have only gotten better at with the Increment 3.1 upgrade that allows the jet to geo-locate emitters much more precisely than before. And that capability will continue to improve with the Raptor’s forthcoming Increment 3.2B upgrade.
> The other option to take down an integrated air defense system is to use a combination of standoff weapons like the JASSM and JASSM-ER cruise missiles together with electronic attacks from a platform like the EA-18G Growler. The Growler can not only jam the enemy’s radar, but can generate an ellipse to target the missile site. The problem there is precisely updating the cruise missile with current track data before the enemy moves during the incoming weapons’ time of flight.
2) HQ-9 [if based on Patriot] is actually less effective than the modern Russian systems. Without the ability to move substantial distances, HQ-9 isn't a serious threat to the US. However, pretty much every US ally in the region isn't capable of standing up to that sort of thing. Given the region is largely divided into the US / Chinese spheres of influence at this point it doesn't really matter because there aren't neutral parties.
3) I'm honestly more concerned about China sparking a major war than I am about their ability to create no-fly zones.
------
EDIT:
Since I'm rate limited:
Realistically, whether you realize or it, China is in that position and has been for 20 years.
A missile base in Hainan would have the range to hit anything transiting to Vietnam via the sea. Short of taking Hainan away from China, Vietnam can be closed to ships by China at any time.
China isn't interested in provoking a military conflict but rather guaranteeing its security and a world position equal to the US in all theaters.
Similarly, its why Hainan has a semi-covert submarine base:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yulin_Naval_Base
If an EA-18G Growler is close enough to effectively jam the HQ-9's radar, then its close enough for the HQ-9's missiles to shoot it down.
And the HQ-9 or shorter range systems surround it are more than capable of shooting down any anti-radiation missiles fired towards it.
And the HQ-9 or shorter range systems surround it are more than capable of shooting down any anti-radiation missiles fired towards it.
Conveniently for defense contractors, only the F22, F35, and B2 are immune, according to a completely unsourced assertion!
If, as the article asserts, HQ-9 incorporates Patriot missile technology given to them by Israel, conventional aircraft would certainly not be safe.
Why would the Israelis do this?? Here's the line from the article:
"According to Missile Threat, the Chinese developed much of the HQ-9’s technology from a Patriot battery Beijing acquired from Israel"
Is this true?
"According to Missile Threat, the Chinese developed much of the HQ-9’s technology from a Patriot battery Beijing acquired from Israel"
Is this true?
Yes the israelis sell lots of US tech directly to China and Russia in exchange for cash
Inb4 a bunch of downvotes
Inb4 a bunch of downvotes
Incorporating Patriot technology does not mean it's as good as a Patriot. Nor that they have enough of them to seriously threaten our non-stealth fighter fleet.
Well the F35 certainly doesn't belong on that list, being fictional an' all.
The F117s are quietly gathering dust in Nevada
It can't operate from a carrier though
It can't operate from a carrier though
Makes you wonder if China maybe has a 20 year plan towards something very bad out there.
I mean why do they even want that space?
I mean why do they even want that space?
It allows china to press economic claims in the surrounding waters. Such as exploitation of resources, and interfering in commercial shipping.
Overall it's a chess move. It allows China to exert pressure on the region. Similar to Iran and the strait of Hormuz.
Overall it's a chess move. It allows China to exert pressure on the region. Similar to Iran and the strait of Hormuz.
Useless islands are good for expanding Exclusive Economic Zone.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_economic_zone
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_economic_zone
The minerals, fish and shipping of the area makes up most of the other countries economies. With control of this area china could exert pressure directly onto these other countries.
$5 trillion a year in cargo passes through.
It's a matter of time until China has total dominance of the region. It's inevitable.
How the fuck does this story have 28 points?
What is happening with Hacker News?
What is happening with Hacker News?
No, it won't.
In all out conventional warfare you bring out the tactical nukes via various deployment mechanisms.
If the batteries form a big threat, they'll get wiped.
In all out conventional warfare you bring out the tactical nukes via various deployment mechanisms.
If the batteries form a big threat, they'll get wiped.
The Chinese have nukes too. You bring out your nukes, they bring out THEIR nukes, and then you're on the slippery slope towards Armageddon.
In the case of tactical nuclear weapons, I don't see what gain there is versus traditional bunker busters using depleted uranium warheads.
There is one difference, which is that popping a nuke over a live target would make a Very Big Statement: "You have crossed a line that we believe now makes you an existential threat. Consider your next move very carefully." Which would then prompt the adversary, staring into the abyss, to search their soul a little before pressing matters any further.
(Or so goes the theory, anyway. In reality nobody knows how a nuclear-armed adversary would respond to that Very Big Message, because it's outside the realm of previous human experience. For all we know it could have the opposite effect, causing them to panic and unload their whole nuclear arsenal out of fear.)
(Or so goes the theory, anyway. In reality nobody knows how a nuclear-armed adversary would respond to that Very Big Message, because it's outside the realm of previous human experience. For all we know it could have the opposite effect, causing them to panic and unload their whole nuclear arsenal out of fear.)
DU is not a "nuke". It's kind of the opposite. It's the byproduct of the process of separating the more active isotopes from the almost non-radioactive one, U-238.
[deleted](1)
you do not need to hit the target directly.
plus those rocket launchers are not in bunkers.
Conventional warfare does not include 'tactical nukes', that's nuclear warfare.
By definition conventional warfare does not include bio, chemical and nuclear weapons.
By definition conventional warfare does not include bio, chemical and nuclear weapons.
both WW so far have been labeled conventional, saw use of those weapons.
full out thermo-nuclear warfare with the intent of wiping out the enemy completely has not been done, obviously ever. yet. US vs. USSR was at this stage. US vs. China is not due to China's smaller arsenal.
full out thermo-nuclear warfare with the intent of wiping out the enemy completely has not been done, obviously ever. yet. US vs. USSR was at this stage. US vs. China is not due to China's smaller arsenal.
I doubt they'd shut out an A team of Navy Seals with C4 however. War is boring is one of the better military blogs out there, but this is a silly article. If the US really wanted the islands, a few anti-aircraft weapons will not stop them.
AA/AD isn't done by one thing. They need anti ship ballistic missiles and submarines to make sure no carrier group would ever go anywhere anywhere near (i.e. near enough for standoff weapons that would hurt the anti air weapons) and so on. You need all the different pieces of the puzzle to have effective area denial.
Realistically, in the event of hostilities, we wouldn't send in the air force to take the islands out. We'd launch a bunch of sea skimming cruise missiles from a submarine or a special forces raid onto the island to punch a hole in the air defense grid then let the planes through. We did something similar in Gulf War I & Gulf War II. Planes only went in after other forces ensured the air defense grid wouldn't be defending much.