Is US doctrine just to scream "not fair" if their ships

>>32398257
Is it Chinese and Russian doctrine to say the same to US countermeasures? Or do they just claim they don't work?

>>32398257
yes

>>32398257

Pretty sure doctrine requires a response that would make W's Shock and Awe look like a backyard fireworks show.

>>32398257
No. The US sits at home chuckling knowing the Chinese would be hard pressed to hit Taiwan with one of its missiles let alone an aircraft carrier several hundred miles further out to sea.

>Chinese shill thread

Nothing to see here, people. Report it, hide it, and move on.

>>32398257

No nuclear power will use them because MAD.

No non nuclear power will use them because the US will just bomb the shit out of them conventionally.

This doesn't apply to Saudis or Israelis because "muh greatest allies. it was just a misunderstanding".

>>32398257
US doctrine is to not fight anyone with the ability to shoot back.

>>32398295

Damn you must be pretty high ranking in the CIA to know the exact capabilities of the DF-21D missile, great to have you here on /k/.

>>32398286
/thread

>>32398332
He's in charge.

File: 1481462598569.jpg (296KB, 860x1152px) Image search: [Google]

296KB, 860x1152px

>>32398309
>Any threads conflicting with my belief that the US military is indestructible most be deleted

>>32398257
>China sinks a US carrier
>Trump nukes the Three Gorges dam
>China is kill

>>32398257
>if

>>32398311
>No nuclear power will use them because MAD.
Kid, shut the fuck up. You are making a bunch of assertions about a subject you are VASTLY ignorant on. Don't fucking talk about what will or will not trigger "MAD" until you have at least read Kahn.

Now check global rule 2 and kill yourself

>>32398311
>MAD
>China has less than 500 nuclear warheads all of which are liquid fueled and none are on submarines

>>32398257
Using a ballistic missile to sink a carrier is stupid for so many reasons least of which is that countermeasures have been around for decades

>>32398311
al gore please go. what the fuck do AShBMs have to do with nukes?

you make it sound like China is basically Afghanistan and leveling cities conventionally is as easy as liquidating dirt farmers. this has nothing to do with hypothetical effectiveness of Chinese missile doctrine.

>>32398332
>you have to have access to advanced covert intelligence to see through Chinese propaganda

>>32399713
>all of which are liquid fueled and none are on submarines
Their smaller ones like DF-21D are solid-fueled, and didn't the Chinks do their very first submarine deterrent patrol this year?

Just nitpicking the details, I agree the guy you replied to is a teenager with machismo fantasies

it wouldn't matter if china had fucking magic-driven fusion bombs, the means of launching them would be ash within 45 minutes of any conflict with the US. it's all irrelevant

File: war plan orage.jpg (35KB, 332x499px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 332x499px

>>32398257
Pretty sure that if an Asian power starts sinking USN ships, US doctrine is to build an military industrial complex of unprecedented might and reach, cross the pacific and take all your conquests and holdings, and start destroying your cities with superweapons until you submit to unconditional surrender, military occupation, and a complete re-invention of your civilization as a society of subservient cucks.

#ThingsAmericaDoes

>>32399738
>Using a cruise missile to sink a carrier is stupid for so many reasons least of which is that countermeasures have been around for decades

>>32399742
>AShBMs have to do with nukes
because only china would know what the warhead was.

Launching a ballistic missile (regardless of warhead) at a carrier group would provoke an immediate nuclear response. The US Navy isn't going to assume "oh it's just one of their conventionally armed missiles" they going to go "HOLY FUCK", before telling a boomer captain to turn the keys and take out the Chinese coast.

>>32399756
>>32398295
>>32398309
>>32398323
I'm just going to leave this here:
http://www.4chan.org/rules
1. You will immediately cease and not continue to access the site if you are under the age of 18.

>>32399701
OPpenheimer said it would.

>>32399817
This. The minute China launches a ballistic ANYTHING eastward other than a space launch they're done as a nation.

File: 151007005_5.jpg (82KB, 1000x953px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 1000x953px

>>32399817
>le MRBM launch triggers nuclear exchange meme
Kid: shut the fuck up. You have no idea what you are talking about. When you don't know something, shut up and listen instead of talking. Now is one of those times. Just sit down, shut your mouth. Strategic deterrent policy is managed by sane and educated people, not by some unbalanced middle schooler with power fantasies.

>>32399835
Oppenheimer said no such thing.

Oppenheimer said that it was risky because the US can use it as an trigger toward escalation. He didn't say it would 'Trigger MAD".

>>32399817
>One ballistic missile aimed at a position out at sea will result in mass Launch on Warning.

Launch on Warning only applies to an attack aimed at the US mainland.

File: IMG_0058.gif (865KB, 2500x2644px) Image search: [Google]

865KB, 2500x2644px

>>32399817
fucking Christ, thank god our armed forces aren't run by 12 year olds as edgy as yourself. you have to be either shitposting or actually on sort of spectrum to even consider that the US would immediately respond to any sort of conventional attack by glassing hundreds of millions of people belonging to a nuclear power. Sure, China's nuclear arsenal is a bit of a joke, but less of a joke than anyone who believes they would initiate nuclear war with the US

>>32399835
Oppenheimer said it would trigger a conventional response, and that many stages down the road it could potentially escalate to nuclear. Big difference. It all depends on how the crisis evolves. Simply put, no, a ballistic missile launch does not trigger immediate nuclear retaliation unless
a. the missiles are actual ICBMs (speed and size tell you this)
b. the missiles are actually on a course to hit likely strategic targets in the mainland USA (direction and altitude tell you this)
c. the missiles are in enough number to be an actual strategic strike and not just an equipment error

>>32399833
>your posts triggered me means you must be underage

>>32398257
The US has stated that sinking carriers is a nukeable offense, much more effective than the huffing and puffing china does.
That and the fact that simple physics will tell you that there is no way to guide a reentry vehicle to hit a moving target on account of the ionized air blackout.

>>32399941
>That and the fact that simple physics will tell you that there is no way to guide a reentry vehicle to hit a moving target on account of the ionized air blackout.
Tell it to the Chinese. Hell, tell it to the Americans many decades ago

>>32399941
>citation needed
and
>citation needed

Don't move the goalposts: I didn't say the Chinese anti-ship missiles actually work.

>>32399941
>sinking carriers=nukes
citation needed

but
>there is no way to guide a reentry vehicle to hit a moving target
this triggers the China shill

>>32399891
>>32399876
>>32399915

To be clear, the issue is that it opens the door for conventional strikes on the Chinese mainland to destroy the missiles preemptively.

Strikes on the Chinese mainland end up only one place, and the risk is that the US will choose to skip a few steps in an attempt to limit Chinese responses and mitigate any response they might have. The US would do this because a key part of their doctrine during escalation is war termination though inter-war deterrence.

If the US makes it clear that it views the use of ballistic missiles as escalatory in this manner, it limits Chinese options to deploy their ASBM due to the desire (one presumes) to avoid moving down that track because they lack options in that arena.

Call it the 'Cuban Missile Crisis' precedent.

>>32399953
>Tell it to the Chinese
They know it perfectly well, the DF-21 is just a propaganda ploy.
What the US did was to scan the terrain out the sides of th reentry vehicle where the ionized air is much less violent.
What the chinese claims to do is to see directly down through the worst of it with a radar that would need orders of magnitudes of more accurate readings than the terrain scanning the US did.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_blackout#Spacecraft_reentry

>>32398332
nigga, I've seen things that would make your head spin. I've overseen numerous HVT/prisoner transports, one of which nearly cost me my life when the plane I was on fell out of the sky after being hijacked. Needless to say I bit off more than I could chew but that's what happens when you have an unexpected run-in with a big guy. Anyway, that's a story for another day.

>>32398257
Well ask the Yemenis that we blasted a few months back.

Some of the rebels there shot missiles at a few destroyers traveling by and then they responded by destroying the rebel's radar sites.

File: this could have been prevented.jpg (136KB, 500x372px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 500x372px

>>32399960
Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

I doubt a single ship being sunk would actually trigger that shit though. Worst case would result in a land war which could in turn escalate into a nuclear exchange as the losing power becomes more desperate.

>>32400017
s-senpai i though you stopped using your trip?

>>32400128
When people say things I didn't say, I....CORRECT THE RECORD

>>32400039
>What the US did was to scan the terrain out the sides of th reentry vehicle where the ionized air is much less violent.
So you're backing off from your claim that it's not possible, and pretending the goalpost was in a different place all along?

>>32400017
>If the US makes it clear that it views the use of ballistic missiles as escalatory in this manner, it limits Chinese options to deploy their ASBM due to the desire (one presumes) to avoid moving down that track because they lack options in that arena.

With the US so far being complacent in the SCS when it comes to Chinese expansion how can the US be assured China will just take that as hot air and proceed?

>>32400177
>what is reading comprehension
he obviously stated that it was impossible using the US technique, nonetheless the much more difficult Chinese technique

>>32400017
Seems like an ASBM is the same as any other AShM in that regard. Not like the US would decide not to fire back just because the weapon used had a turbojet rather then a rocket as its engine.

>>32398257
>US
>doctrine
Can someone get that picture, you know the one I'm talking about.

>>32400195
>With the US so far being complacent in the SCS when it comes to Chinese expansion how can the US be assured China will just take that as hot air and proceed?
They can't be assured of anything.

>>32400204
ASBMs are different due to the range of the weapon and its focus on a strategic target.
Carriers are strategic targets. Attacking strategic targets invites a strategic response.
AShM can be deployed against any surface ship, while ASBM's are expressly designed and described as anti-carrier weapons.

File: 1480025431003.jpg (124KB, 908x605px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 908x605px

>>32400246

This one?

>>32400249
>They can't be assured of anything.

Some things more then others

File: 1482263422326.jpg (55KB, 490x357px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 490x357px

>>32400260
>not knowing the one I was talking about

>>32400177
>chicom shills being this retarded
Is it the lead paint they put in the food over there mayhap?

The ionized air will garble the returns, spotting mountais through a thin layer of it was a feat, chinks claim they can spot a carrier through the worst of it behind a heat shield no less, which is laughable.

>>32399915
>>32399876
that underage b& projecting

>>32400327
I know little or nothing of the technology, but I've been asking for years what sort of terminal guidance these things are supposed to use and never get an answer. And even if such a system existed, how the hell are you supposed to aim the bugger?

>>32398332
>implying /k/ isn't 1 CIA shill posting 90% of the content and like 5 random posters

>>32400260

there's no way they fit all that into that airplane.

>>32400159
Thank you for your service.

File: IMG_0035.jpg (42KB, 317x428px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 317x428px

>>32400369
>"you're underage"
>"no u"

File: 1479765484647.jpg (96KB, 986x553px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 986x553px

>>32398257
Why on earth would someone sink a burger aircraft carrier? provoking the largest military power and largest economic power in the world into war?

First off, war with the united states is economic suicide to anyone who would try it, especially China, whose entire fucking economy would collapse without US consumption of their goods. Second, it's an unwinnable prospect, because between the US and its Allies there is enough nuclear might to make the entire planet unlivable.

You fucking chinkaboos make me sick, you're worse than slavaboos and deutschaboos combined

>>32400605
I always figured /k/ was just a compilation of FBI, CIA and NSA agents just shitposting at each other looking for right wing insurgents.

File: ATF.jpg (57KB, 499x314px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 499x314px

>>32400741
that's ridiculous

>>32400403
>how the hell are you supposed to aim the bugger
The undying will of the working class will guide the hammer of the proletariat to smite the capitalist, obviously.
Terminal guidance is detecting greed-ray emissions from the Bourgeoisie sailors.

To me the whole deal looks like a Star Wars-esque program aimed to get the US to spend money defeating an imaginary threat and to be used as internal propaganda.
There are too many things not adding up.

File: Seattle.jpg (39KB, 200x232px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 200x232px

>>32400741

>>32398257
US doctrine is to launch a massive nuclear counter strike to any advisory that is launching enough ballistic missiles to any nation launching enough to have even a remote chance of hitting even one ship.

>>32399833
t. Wang Li

File: b23[1].png (473KB, 600x706px) Image search: [Google]

473KB, 600x706px

>>32399817
>Mr. President, we have detected the launch of several ballistic missiles headed for the middle of the Pacific
>hurr durr better fire up the nukes and end all of civilization!
Stop.

File: Laughing-Men-In-Suits.jpg (23KB, 500x333px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 500x333px

>>32399792
Well shit. I guess that pretty much sums it up as far as doctrine goes.

>>32399915
>USA 2010
>100 surface-launched cruise missiles
???

>>32400195
>With the US so far being complacent in the SCS
Trump just appointed the author of "Death by China" to a trade task force. We are not fucking around any more come January 20th.

>>32402081
>Heading

The target of a MRBM isn't known at launch. What would be known is that China would be launching a bunch of potentially atomic armed missiles that could strike at US bases and allies. It's a first strike.

>End all civilization

China doesn't have enough nukes to end Japan, much less civilization.

>>32399876
Does anyone have a pdf of On Thermonuclear War?

>>32398257
>Hey what do you call 55 million dead chinks?

A great leap forward!

>>32402191
>The target of a MRBM isn't known at launch.
OK, the trajectory is known like 5 seconds after launch, if not less. Whatever.
You don't need to know the exact target to tell that the missile trajectory is going to hit something 3,000 miles west of Hawaii.

File: chinksbegone.png (27KB, 316x438px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 316x438px

>>32398257

How about the chinks stop sucking at fighting wars? We butchered half a million of your starved, feral soldiers at a >10:1 LER in our favor before, we'll be happy to do it again! It's not like we have 20 times as many nuclear warheads as you or anything!

>>32400551
Only the groups labeled. So 18 nukes fully loaded or 34 CBU-98 etc etc. Loading all of that would be impossible, theres no way that aircraft can generate enough lift for all of that weight