USAF general: China military buildup 'incredibly disturbing'...

The threat from Chinese advanced weapons, including new stealth fighters and ballistic missiles, dominated concerns expressed by senior military officers at a Senate hearing this week on the military impact of delays and problems with the new fifth-generation F-35 jet.

Two senior officers in charge of U.S. air power voiced increasing worries that U.S. forces will not be prepared for a future conflict with China, during a hearing of the Senate Armed Services airland subcommittee on Tuesday.

Air Force Lt. Gen. Herbert J. Carlisle, deputy chief of staff for operations, said China’s rollout earlier this year of a new J-20 stealth fighter, which has made two or three test flights, is very troubling, along with another joint Russian-Indian stealth jet.

Both aircraft could be sold to Iran and affect a future U.S. intervention there against Tehran’s nuclear program.

“Those are discouraging in that they rolled out in a time that we thought there was maybe a little bit more time, although we weren’t sure of that,” Gen. Carlisle said.

The three-star general’s comments echoed earlier comments by Navy Vice Adm. David J. Dorsett, a senior intelligence official, who said of the J-20 in January that “we have been pretty consistent in underestimating the delivery of Chinese technology and weapons systems.”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/may/25/inside-the-ring-377211977/

 

The likelyhood of us actually going to war with China is tiny. Such a war would destroy each of our economies and no one would be able to achieve their objectives.

 

I wouldn't assume good relations forever.

And, if China exports their weapons to hostile Islamist states? Still all good?


_

 

What are we going to do? Go to war with China over weapon sales that are 100% legal under international law?

Good relations are unnecessary from a military standpoint. None of China's neighbors will allow China to invade them, and the two likely targets are nuclear armed. Taiwan is out of China's reach because its military is more than capable of repulsing an invasion and our navy would wipe out their follow-on forces.

Likewise, we don't have the capability to invade China and force their capitulation. Any war between us was end in status quo antebellum but with both nations' economies annhilated.

 

Better start learning Mandarin.

 

Many analysts believe America will lose a war with China over Taiwan after the year 2020. That's the conclusion of a Rand study on the subject.
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3774348

 

No, why would you say a crazy thing like that? Emotion?

Based on what? Hope? More emotional good vibes? These are weapon systems that will be around for decades. You have no idea what may happen in 10-20 years.

Taiwan is certainly on the menu. You are being naive and not looking ahead.
A weakened America and a weak Democrat president would put Taiwan in a bad position.

More crazy talk.


_

 

How exactly? China is focusing on the development of stuff to counter our carriers. Their SAMs aren't being designed to take out ASMs. Our subs could sit on the far side of Taiwan and lob cruise missiles at the Chinese invasion fleet with not much trouble at all.

 

Your one to talk about emotion when not only do you not counter my argument but also make sure to bring out a jab against democrats.

 

America only has four SSGNs. Maybe two would be available at any one time. They don't carry enough cruise missiles to alter the course of the battle.

Edit: Here's the Rand Study in case anyone is interested.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/files/2008_RAND_Pacific_View_Air_Combat_Briefing.pdf

 

Our SSN's also can carry Harpoons and Tomahawks.

As for enough to alter the course of the battle, a single SSGN carries 154 Tomahawks. 4 SSGN's would be 616 missiles. That's more missiles than the Chinese navy has amphibs by a factor of 10 to 1. That's 10 missiles per ship, with each missile more than capable of taking out a ship. And that's not including ASM's launched from other sources.

Yet you say its not enough to alter the course of the battle?

 

Four SSGNs won't be available. At least two of them will be in drydock at any one time. China will bide its time, increase its amphibious capability and ASW capabilities.

 

So long as we maintain a vastly superior military, it will stay that way. That is why you want a vastly superior military.

Peace through superior firepower.

Theirs far more than ours...a war would eliminate all that debt we owe them. We have a lot more to gain from a war with them than they do.

We have already invaded sovereign nations without UN approval before.

 

And likewise Taiwan and US will increase their counters to those. The military game isn't one-sided.

Amphibious invasions are the most difficult military operations known to man. More so in the modern world where the counter invasion weapons (ASM's, SAM's, mobile inland defence units) are far cheaper than the invasion weapons themselves and easier to use.

 

That study has more holes in it than swiss cheese. It focuses almost purely on the aerial aspect of the conflict without considering the naval component. Basically, China doesn't have the landing craft to invade Taiwan. If it did somehow design, build, and deploy the massive fleet neccessary they wouldn't be able to protect it from the USN, USAF, or Taiwanese forces.

 

Superior firepower is a subjective concept. We could do more with less and it would even be cheaper considering how much is spent on personnel.

It would eliminate our debt, but the consequences of that would still destroy us. The value of the dollar would disappear.

You seriously think we can invade China?

 

The American people can't afford the level of defense spending required to maintain its position in the Western Pacific. You can't have what you can't pay for. Taiwan is deeply divided politically. Their defense spending is unpredictable.

 

The Chinese hold less than 10% of U.S. debt. In a war scenario it wouldn't be much of a factor. China depends on the U.S. market to sell its goods. Losing the U.S. market would seriously damage it. The naval blockade of China in any kind of war scenario would hurt it even more.

 

The 'battle' over Taiwan has been won; China's got it in the bag.

 

Actually, Americans can afford to stay in the Western Pacific, if we massively reduce the size of the Army. Personnel and training costs make up the most of the military's budget. The Army is the largest portion of the military. Cutting its size would seriously cut the budget without affecting the other branches.

 

China can pad its economy with trillions of dollars; forcing domestic demand if need be. The US would tank completely. It could survive, with a dictatorship, perhaps; but the US isn't politically flexible. Rationing would never happen.

 

I seriously think that we will not necessarily consider arms sales to be ok just because "international law" does. And I seriously think we would act in our own defense, regardless of what "international law" thinks.

Those invasions are a good example of how "international law" does not limit our actions.

 

Wow, you seriously believe that our Chinese debt being monetized wouldn't hurt us?

Weren't you Rightists saying just a couple months ago that QE was going to kill the economy?

 

It does have the flaw you point to. But America still can't get around area denial anti-access tactics employed by China with surface vessels, and there aren't enough subs to do the job imo.

If war comes America must first strike Chinese satellites. Blind them. Deny them the ability to use the DF-21. Then we might be able to stop the Chinese.

 

The US couldn't invade China without the world ending.