Is there any anti-ship missile powerful to one shot a Nimitz

Qualify 'one shot'.

An exocet could disable deck operations
A Granit could cause massive uncontrolled fires and power loss
A CS S-5 could break the keel and sink it.

>>34561402
One shot as in like turn in into scrap and make it sink in a few minutes.

>>34561387
A Granit with a nuclear warhead hitting the ship's nuclear powerplant or ammo storage might do it but it's close to impossible.

The most probable would be a superior DongFeng 10 super anti ship missile, since it's ballistic and comes at a 90 degree angle, it might just break the ship in two when it's travelling at an impressive Mach 15.

>>34561569
x-D

>>34561570
thanks for the upvote

>>34561413
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJEE7rv5M_E

>>34561569
nice adjectives Chang

>>34561387
>>34561413
Pretty much nothing is making one sink in a few minutes, hell as has been seen with smaller vessels you can break ships in half and so long as they had compartment doors closed the two halves will stay afloat seperately, at least in the short term. Even nuking one at point blank range such that you capsize it the hull will probably bob around down side up for a fair while.

In terms of mission kills as others have said pretty much anything hitting the Nimitz *could* take it out of action. Whether you did or not and for how long is going to depend massively on where exactly the missile hits, how any potential fires propogate and how well the crew handles damage control/repairs. Overall there's way too many variables to say "a hit by <missile> would definitely/likely have <result>" with any certainty unless you start specifying exact hit locations and/or ngles.

>>34561569
> our reverse-engineered chinkshit is better than the russian stuff, I swear
fuck off, chang micropenis

>>34561387
A full mag of .45 from a 1911

>>34561387
maybe something digital. I heard digitals are bad for carriers

>>34561387
Anything nuclear would compleatly fuck up any warship.

>>34561829
>Resorting to nukes to take down a single ship

>>34561413
Only nuclear sub surface detonations would do that.

>>34561882
>a single ship
A carrier battlegroup is a bit more than that. Taking one down can at best paralyze the entirety of air operations in a theatre.

>>34561648
Do you have to use the whole clip?

I thought .45 had stopping power :/

>>34561402
>A Granit could cause massive uncontrolled fires and power loss
Yeah a 500kt nuclear warhead will do that.

>implying the crew would allow it to strike the carrier

>>34561569

>Hypersonic dive ASHM with no known counters

"Close to impossible"

File: df21test.jpg (86KB, 800x539px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 800x539px

>>34562172
Let me know when they test it on a moving target.

>>34561387
one .22 lr round

it will bounce around the carrier, destroying everything inside

File: kzhbuot3ri88n6poedna.gif (3MB, 636x287px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 636x287px

>>34561387
Armored 800 kg warhead vs unarmored ship.. hmm...

>>34562172
>successful flight test over water

>>34561629
>Even nuking one at point blank range such that you capsize it the hull will probably bob around down side up for a fair while.

Watch some operation crossroads videos you giant mong that nuke was detonated a couple of dozen feet under water. A nuke tipped AShM detonating above the waterline point blank would melt the carrier not tip him over or something

>>34562149

A U.S Aegis destroyed's radar, sensors,bridge watch, and watch all failed to detect a loaded container ship moving at 23mph.

You honestly think they have any technology to do that?

>>34562572
Congrats, you have no gone nuclear to kill a single group of ships. You have now escalated into a nuclear shooting war with the US.

>>34562584
A Russian spy ship loaded with even more sensors and radars failed to detect a loaded container ship and got sunk to, what's your point?

>>34562600
If you're trying to sink a carrier then the escalation has already happened.

>>34562600
Read the post I've Answered.

Hint: nuclear politics wasn't part of it you troglodyte

>all these people memeing about the DF-21

Few problems people need to understand.

>600 kg payload is not enough.

>assuming inert penetrator, it won't make it all the way though the ship because it is NOT going mach 10 at sea level, it's going mach 3-4 top. Mach 10 is its top speed. Atmosphere is a bitch.

>due to both of the above, it would need to be nuclear.

>>34562339
I don't get this... Hmmm thing.

That pic has 2 missiles. First is a Vulcan, an upgraded Bazalt, fired from the Slava class of the Pacific fleet. You can see it descending to the waterline in the terminal phase. The second is a Moskit. Both does not carry 800 kg.

>>34562941
Whats interesting about that clip is that 1 of the missiles actually fail to do any major damage. It deflects on the side of the hull and detonates in the water.

>>34563203
Either that or it hits the water before the ship, resulting in it deflecting to the side.

File: 976.jpg (150KB, 930x670px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 930x670px

>>34562607
>spy ship loaded with even more sensors and radars
>Actually a fucking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survey_vessel

>>34561920
>isn't it great that those damn americans aren't flying air operations over our country anymore?
>nuking that carrier was such a good idea
>i mean the americans turned our country into a radioactive crater afterwards, but at least they aren't doing flight ops anymore

there are implications beyond the shortsighted "they can't do x if we escalate the fuck out of this war" deal.

even if this were Russia or China we were dealing with you could just replace "turned our country into a radioactive crater" with "turned the whole world into a radioactive wasteland"

>>34563239
try again, chief.
It might have been a survey ship way back then just is (was?) no longer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_ship_Liman

>>34563277

>The US would start a full-blown nuclear war just because they lost a carrier

I love this meme.

>>34563315
>it's a spy ship because someone on wikipedia named it like that for sailing under a false flag

>>34562180
SM-2 and SM-6 are faster so theoretically they should be able to hit it. Also there is the Passive counter of not getting in range.

>>34563385
Neither are faster then Mach 7

>>34563358
>China and Russia would start a full-blown nuclear war to kill a carrier

>>34563418

Using a nuclear AShM to kill a naval target would not start a nuclear war.

>>34563315
>It was outfitted for signals intelligence (SIGINT) purposes

>>34563358
the US would start a full-blown nuclear war because someone used a nuke against them.

it's not the carrier, it's the willingness to use nuclear arms in war. the same action would be taken if a nuke was used to eliminate a land base or something along those lines

>>34563433
lol

>>34563433
>Using a nuclear AShM to kill a naval target would not start a nuclear war.


you gonna back that up, or are we supposed to just take your word for that?

>>34563415
>dive
>meaning that it has to fly high for almost the entirety of its flightpath

what a joke

>>34563203
It's by design actually. Do note that it does not have a warhead. All that explosion is from the extra fuel.

The Vulkan P-1000 was derived from the Bazalt P-500 that was replaced by the Granit P-700. The Vulkan was designed to hit the target on or near its waterline rupturing the hull. To do that it only needs to explode on the hull and not over penetrate like the bigger and over armored Granit which was questioned because of its tendency to over penetrate the target and might explode on the other side and not inside.

There is another video of Vulkan where it dives down to the waterline and hits a wave and splattering the target with shrapnel instead. Which is ok as long as the warhead gets to the target.>>34563210

>>34563490

>the US would start a full-blown nuclear war because someone used a nuke against them.

Because 1 ship was destroyed? This entire premise is laughable.

>>34563363
The Russian navy considered it a surveillance ship.

>>34563469
Yes

>>34563505

Do you REALLY think all those fancy politicians in Washington would risk their own lives and fortunes just because 1 ship got destroyed. Sure, they'd argue about it. They'd try to assign blame to their political rivals. They'd write and deliver speeches about it. But in the end, they'd back down.

>>34563525
>Because 1 ship was destroyed?

again, it's not the destruction, it's the willingness to use nuclear arms. would they glass the entire country if it didn't have ICBMs? probably not, but they'd probably strike against that countries nuclear facilities at bare minimum to ensure the aforementioned country couldnt hit them with another nuke. if the country had ICBMs though? you'd better believe the US government would.

>This entire premise is laughable.

and the entire premise of risking full-blown nuclear war to sink a single ship is laughable as well, so yeah.

>>34563433
Not that huy but it definitely would have some kind of severe nuclear retaliation considering so much of America's power is Naval and that it's Naval doctrine relies so heavily on Carriers. It's basically like Dark Holeing one of your opponent's best cards. You no that nigga's going to play dark hole on your ass the second your best monster is on the field.

>>34563570

>We'll destroy an entire country because of a little tactical nuke

I'm not buying it.

>>34563549
>>34563549
>Do you REALLY think all those fancy politicians in Washington

it isn't "all those". it's literally one guy who makes that choice.

>would risk their own lives and fortunes just because 1 ship got destroyed.

if they believed their lives and fortunes were at risk (as in, if the country who attacked the carrier had ICBM capabilities) you'd better believe they would.

>>34563574

You're acting like the USA doesn't have its own tactical nuclear weapons. Ever heard of the B-61? Small nuclear bomb that can be air-dropped from an ordinary fighter jet.

>>34563549
lol this nigga

>>34563593
we destroyed 2 countries because some guys blew up 3 buildings.

so if you don't think the US would start a nuclear war over a tactical nuke, why is it that we didn't use them in Desert Storm? why don't we have them prepped and ready to go against the Norks?

>>34563636

>we destroyed 2 countries because some guys blew up 3 buildings.

But there was no risk to doing that. The politicians in charge knew that they'd be untouchable, and that all the "risk" would be assumed by the grunts in the field. Very different situation when you have to weigh your own personal safety into the equation, and that of your friends, family, everybody you know.

>>34562180
>>34563415
>>34563507
Sorry I meant SM-3 It's something like Mach 10-15 according to wiki. Anyway I'd imagine they wouldn't be going that fast at sea level.

>>34563602

>it's literally one guy who makes that choice.

No, it's not. Anytime nukes are involved, at least two people are involved in the decision-making process. This is known as the Two-Man Rule.

>>34563680
>SM3
>Sea level

No.

Eitherway, you don't need greater speed in order to intercept something coming towards you. See Sprint.

But really, this whole "MUH MACH 7 DIVE" bullshit underlies the big problem, it has to dive to get anywhere close to that speed which means that it's not sea skimming and becomes extremely vulnerable to interception during the climb and dive phase, to say nothing of pop up searches every missile does. Never believe manufacturer claims, no matter the country.

>>34563614
I'm not, I'm acting like they wouldn't use them, either way, they have better options you'd agree.

File: 1498522528951.gif (1MB, 260x260px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 260x260px

>>34563433

you'd absolutely get a nuclear response, likely not an ICBM strike against a capital, but a B2 strike against military targets? Mattis don't fuck around...

>>34563709
>SM3
>Sea level
>No.
I'd imagine the SM-3 would be pretty purpose built for shooting down that kind of missile huh. Fast acceleration against a predictable flight path.

>>34563728

Lol, China doesn't even have to threaten the US to have deterrence. All China has to do is say that any strikes against Chinese cities will result in similar strikes against Israel cities. That only would terrify Washington into inaction. They'll never risk the security of Israel.

>>34563636
Yes, the US would retaliate, it is outlined in the 1995 document "Essentials of Post–Cold War Deterrence". A major part of its nuclear deterrence is that the US will not act rationally to an attack, but in fact the opposite.

Interesting read.

File: mt-stupid.png (43KB, 613x481px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 613x481px

>>34563549
>Do you REALLY think all those fancy politicians in Washington would risk their own lives and fortunes just because 1 ship got destroyed
You just blow in from stupid town?

>>34563772

Of course they would say that. That's an easy thing to say. Much harder to actually do it.

>>34561569
>Mach 15
You have no grasp on reality, do you?

>>34563788
It doesn't matter. No parts of the retaliation process has room for a single individual to stop the retaliation, save for the president in some circumstances. In others, not even that.

File: df21c03large.jpg (146KB, 1024x598px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 1024x598px

>>34563778

Did you? In case you haven't notice, the US only picks fights against impoverished third-world countries, like Libya, Syria, and Iraq. They wouldn't dare to challenge a nuclear power like China. And if they did, they would very quickly come to regret their foolish warmongering.

>>34563750
SM3 is designed for ABM duties, that's the entire point of its massive launch booster.

File: gulf_of_tonkin_phantom_attack_on_us_military.jpg (547KB, 901x793px) Image search: [Google]

547KB, 901x793px

>>34563778
or if one of your radio stations got attacked by them crazy poles

File: china literally btfo.png (44KB, 669x458px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 669x458px

>>34563827
>being this retarded

>>34563700
>Anytime nukes are involved, at least two people are involved in the decision-making process.

no. there are not.

>This is known as the Two-Man Rule

the two man rule is used in verification of a launch or alert order from POTUS. Secdef authenticates the presidents identity after they issue the order. secdef can't say "no" to the president, that's not in his authority.

>>34563806

Irrelevant because the "retaliation process" would never be initiated in the first place. The only scenario where China would actually use a nuclear missile to destroy a carrier group would be in self-defense. China doesn't desire a war, but it will certainly defend itself if it is forced to do so.

>>34563673
>But there was no risk to doing that.

yeah, and when the choice is political risk vs. risk to your life and family, which one do you think those politicians are gonna take?

>weigh your own personal safety into the equation, and that of your friends, family, everybody you know.

and guess what tips those scales really fucking fast: knowing that your enemy has shown, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that they are willing to employ nuclear weapons against your country.

>>34563860
Assuming US is a pure aggressor of course, and this isn't some kind of first strike amid saber rattling and escalation.

>>34563860
>b-b-b-but its defensive so it doesn't count!

By this logic, NATO and the USSR could've nuked each other with no retaliation because 'they were just defending themselves from an enemy force"

>>34563887

You can't "retaliate" against somebody for defending themselves. If somebody tries to mug you, and you pull out a gun and shoot them, does that make it okay for the man's family to burn down your entire town?

>>34563914
I see the hook, but where's the bait?

>>34563827
Right because it would start a full on nuclear war. Well that's it then, mystery solved Dum-Fuc

>>34563827
>they would very quickly come to regret their foolish warmongering.

what's china gonna do? aggressively sit their troops in one location after we blow up the countries railroad tracks?

>>34563860
No, it is not irrelevant, because the second China uses nuclear weapons (theoretically, even the threat of it) against the US (or its allies or interests) they WILL have a war no matter if they want it or not.

That is the official policy of the US, and no, they will not deviate from it.

>>34563924

>it would start a full on nuclear war.

No, it simply wouldn't. The US would back down and sue for peace. They wouldn't have a choice.

>>34563914
it doesn't fucking matter if they're defending themselves. If they use nuclear weapons against the US, irregardless of the context, they get nuclear weapons sent right back at them, and most likely ten- or hundredfold.

>>34563940
>wouldn't have a choice

The US maintains nuclear supremacy over China, and it's well known doctrine that the US' only response to a nuclear attack is nuclear retaliation. I know you're trolling like a mad cunt and all, but please, just kys

>>34563839
So that would make this anon's reply >>34562180 pretty silly then.

>>34563914
>thinking this logic applies to an international incident such as this

are you really that naive? or are you a child?

>>34563860
Of course self-defense may include invading Taiwan or Southern Japan 'coz muh old maps' or whatever.

This 'peaceful China' meme is pathetic. Also, Korea.

>>34563940
Considering the crushing, cataclysmic blow to American prestige that would occur if the US backed down in such a scenario, and the substantial nuclear advantage over China that they have. I don't think that's remotely feasible.

>>34563946

I'm sorry, but are you literally 12 years old? Of course if a nation is under attack, they'd defend themselves. If that means using nuclear weapons to destroy American warships, then so be it.

>>34563849
The other guy is actually right in his last comment. He did not say that a country like China would be able to "defeat" the US in a nuclear war, but that they would regret starting this war.
Your own graph shows it very well. Even a few nukes landing in the US would be unacceptable. The united States would simply never risk such damage. Neither would of course China

>>34563954
Of course it is. Hypersonics have been interceptable since the 60s, even the SM2 was capable of doing so. Eitherway, you wouldn't use a fucking SM3 for AShM duties, that's what the 2 and 6 are for.

>>34563995
Do you even know what you're arguing?

>>34563953

Is there any good info on chink nuke stocks?

I know they're still working on their silo system with rail-movable missiles and interconnected launch sites, but what's the word on their actual warhead count?

File: china literally btfo2.png (103KB, 721x855px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 721x855px

>>34563999
>Even a few nukes landing in the US would be unacceptable.

When did this horse shit come about that "even one hit is too much???" Did people forget about the entirety of the cold war? There's such a thing as acceptable loses and a strategic nuclear war is very winnable. Even with a full blown countervalue strike from China on the US, the US remains a functioning country whereas as the retaliatory counvervalue strikes means the Chinese people are no longer around. Fuck off with you know nothing nonsense.

>>34564002
Right but you would against this missile of it is anything like these guys claim. They sound like BMs with explosives attatched.

>>34564015
200-300 on the high estimates combining strategic and tactical warheads. China has always been extremely wary of investing heavily in nuclear weaponry as it increases the chances of viables coups happening - just look at the Lop Nur incident with Mao.

>>34564046

Interested in reading more about this - quick Google didn't turn up much. Any chance you could point me in the right direction?

File: df_26.jpg (68KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 600x400px

>>34563979

Then that means the Chinese nukes have done their job. The entire point of the nuclear missiles is to deter the US from being able to use its carriers to attack China. Are American aircraft carriers currently attacking China right now? No? Then the nukes are doing their job.

>>34564011

I'm arguing that China can and will use nuclear weapons to defend itself against American aircraft carriers if it were ever forced to do so. You can squawk all you want about how the US has an "official policy" of automatically escalating to full nuclear war if a single carrier is lost. China has official policies as well. And those include using nuclear missiles to destroy hostile aircraft carriers.

>>34564075
>Are American aircraft carriers currently attacking China right now? No? Then the nukes are doing their job.

There are many reasons for why the two countries are not at war you utter moron.

>>34564075

Or there's the possibility that we don't particularly want to attack China. Nuclear deterrence doesn't automatically mean that's the reason for a lack of open hostilities

>>34564073
Mid 1960's General Wang En Mao. commander of the Xinjiang region fell into a disagreement with Mao. He ordered his men to seize the weapons at Lop Nur.
Mao and him came to some sort of understanding.

Then in the Early 70's (I think) Mao's own nephew, Mao Yuanxin, lead a contingent of Red Guards to Lop Nur with the intention of seizing control of the nuclear arsenal.

Again, Mao and him came to an agreement that halted it. It is worth noting that as soon as Mao was dead, Yuanxin was executed.

>>34564075
Then we aren't disagreeing about anything.

However, there's also a reason why there are US aircraft carriers in the south china sea without China doing anything about it.

Anti ship missile nation power ranking

1. China
2. America
- Britain
- France
- Russia

>>34564075
do you even know what you're arguing about at this point?

>>34564120
most best everything ranking

1. US

the end

>>34564024
read your own pic.
man 80 years of non stop propaganda and "USA #1" screaming really did a trick on burger brains.

File: rood.png (500KB, 445x607px) Image search: [Google]

500KB, 445x607px

>>34564120

>>34564138
Are you legitimately retarded or what?

>>34564129

The answer there is no

I can't believe that carriers are so tough that you have to resort to nukes to kill them. Wtf are those things made of?

>>34564151
did I trigger you?
no need for tears.

>34564174
Here's your reply, but I'll be keeping the (You)

>>34564181
hey hey now, do you need a hug?

>>34564166
They are extremely large.A nimitz is twice as large as an Iowa-class battleship.

>>34564166
if this thread is any indication, they are made of plot armor.

>>34564024
Why are you gettin so angry?
As you say there are such a thing as acceptable losses *in a war*. But in this case, just as in the cold war case, that war is in itself unacceptable, and the US (And any other country) would do everything to not get to that point. This is the very resason that the cold war stayed cold despite many risky situations.
The same applies today. The only way that we will se a full-scale war like this would be because of either accidents/miscounculations or because of a political dead-lock where the leaders have walked into a dead end and are forced to act with military force.

I will repeat myself. The US won't risk (total) war with a country like China.

>>34564197
I have no idea why people so ignorant continue to try and speak about things they know nothing about, then get angry when they're called out on it. Why are you so happy in your ignorance?

>>34564213
>boohooo people disagreeing with me are all ignorant, but let me ignore every point including my own posts until they give up putting up with my retardation
>AWH YISS ANOTHER INTERNET DEBATE WON
m8 you are entertaining, keep crying please.

>>34564247
Nigger, your entire argument boiled down to "China can nuke a carrier group and nothing will happen!" as seen in >>34563433 You can't be a cunt and get mad when people call you out on your bullshit when you've yet to offer anything even resembling an argument int he first place.

>>34564259
not my post, but nice try, manchild.

>>34564213
I am neither angry or ignorant.
But please tell me how you think I am wrong in my last post. I responded excactly to your arguments, and you haven't disproved any of the ones I made. Instead you resulted to name-calling which doesn't really make me think that you have anything clever to say about them.

>>34564264
>not my post

Then don't defend it, kiddo.

>>34564266
>not ignorant

Is this a joke? You addressed nothing that I said and then went off on a tangent of "well it wouldn't happen anyway" when the entire premise of the discussion is that it has happened and how the US would retaliate.

>>34564266

It's because your arguments are shit. Back alley logic does not into international relations, especially regarding a shooting war

>>34564197
>I will repeat myself. The US won't risk (total) war with a country like China.

the original argument was this:
>"a nuclear AShM would sink a Nimitz class carrier"
this was followed with:
>"would a country risk nuclear war with the US just to sink a single ship/CSG?"
followed by:
>"China would, and the US wouldn't start a nuclear war over it"
except that someone pointed out:
>"yes, they would, because the US PPR for that situation is to escalate the fuck out of it"

and now you're arguing as to whether or not it's plausible that it would happen. which isn't actually something that had come up until you brought it up.

>>34564278
>Then don't defend it, kiddo.
loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool

thanks for the chucke, i really needed that.

>>34564290
bruh, you went full tism tantrum a long time ago, you lost

>>34564338
yeah, sure m8.
still heartly keking at your outbursts.

File: thinking_man_PNG11611.png (100KB, 252x323px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 252x323px

>>34561387

Do people in this thread really believe that China and Russia have invested so much money into developing nuclear AShM without any intention of actually using them in a conflict? Using tactical nuclear weapons has always been part of their doctrine. None of this should be a surprise. Yes, China definitely would use nuclear anti-ship missiles against US carrier groups. It's not even questionable. No amount of scaremongering about "retaliation" will change this.

>>34564376
>your

there's more than one person cringing at your tism

>>34564482
>necroposting a dead thread so he can have the last word in a meaningless internet argument that he lost an hour ago
desperate much?

>>34564470

Then the Chinks get nuked back. It's that simple. Retaliation is par for the course when it comes to an enemy's first use of nuclear weapons.

Are you getting your daily yaun for posting here?

>>34564470
when all you do is bomb mudpeople who can't fire back for half a century you start believing your own propaganda.

>>34564516

>Then the Chinks get nuked back.

In theory. In practice, no, that would never happen.

>>34564514
>necroposting

is reddit down?

>>34564557
yeah, i can't surf my favorite subreddit r/gullible, so I am stuck with you.

>>34564166
Well OP was initially talking about sinking one within a few minutes of a hit, taking out a highly compartmentalised ship of that size in an extremely short timeframe is extremely hard to do without going nuclear, or at least getting an 'impossible' super fluke hit that somehow sets of a chain reaction of weapons and fuel stores.

Before things went onto a full shitflinging mess about nuclear exchanges we more or less covered that a single hit from pretty much anything could cause damage ranging from insignificant to fully mission-killed, hugely dependant on where exactly the hit was taken. Simply fucking up the flight deck is going to mission kill a carrier at least for a while until they cut out the knackered section and weld some replacement sheets down, not something that's going to be super quick to get done. Catapults, elevators, arresting gear, also all fairly exposed elements crucial to operations that could be damaged by a single hit, although at least in the case of cats and elevators you're unlikely to lose all operational capability from a single hit.

>>34564579
>jokes on you, I'm only pretending to be retarded

wow i haven't seen that used unironically in ages lol

>>34564617
>using unironically unironically
2007 called they want their maymays back.

>>34564547
>In theory. In practice, no, that would never happen.

we already discussed this, it's the US preplanned response to any form of nuclear aggression, whether it's warranted or not.

>>34561569
This is the first time I have seen Chang post here. Wow, those stories were true after all.

>>34564667
>can't spot obvious satire
Brainlet detected.

>>34564640

We already discussed this, it's the Chinese pre-planned response to any form of carrier aggression, whether it's warranted or not.

>>34564709
We've already discussed this, it's the 4chan pre-planned response to any kind of shitpost aggression, whether it's warranted or not.

>>34564709
Then why have carriers been sailing throughout the South China Sea for almost a century now and are doing so at this instant?

>>34564725
Okay so, I bothered reading the entirety of your first post, and found it mostly level-headed, and reasonable, suggesting that anal sex, like all things, is best in moderation, and best when not taken to the extreme. I agree with this standpoint. I love my gf, and although I occasionally enjoy going in the backdoor, I would never want to seriously damage her. Moderation is key.

However, your second post indicates a level of outrage, given by the overall tone and base assumption that anyone participating in anal sex would not inherently care about the safety of their partner.

I feel as though the overall tone of your argument is conflicting, and would be improved with a little more consistency.

>>34564728

>What is freedom of the seas

>>34564745
Entering another nations territory is not freedom of the seas.

>>34564745
those are rightful chinese waters, imperialist pig dog

>>34564709
alright, lets break down this thread kindergarten style again

>what could sink a Nimitz class carrier
>a nuke AShM
>who would risk nuclear war over a ship
>china
>the US would escalate from there, resulting in full scale nuclear war
>China is incapable of escalating a nuclear conflict to the orders of magnitude that the US is

each country has a capability, each country has a deterrent, if either uses either shit goes downhill for the entire planet.

>>34564760
>ANCIENT CHINESE TERRITORY WHITE DOG
say that to the mushroom cloud

>>34564780
>white dog
bitch pls, half the navy is black, the other is latinos.

>>34564760
>Entering another nations territory is not freedom of the seas.

dumping tons of sand on a shoal and claiming it as your island with zero precedence does not magically make part of the ocean yours.

>>34564762
>those are rightful chinese waters, imperialist pig dog

>China
>calling another nation imperialist

File: 8004979.jpg?398.jpg (39KB, 396x263px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 396x263px

>>34564793
yes, and after the exchange the entire chinese military will be black

>>34564780
>>34564803
good job proving that all us carriers are there for aggressive reasons

>>34564812
do you want to have a go, then?

File: 1496944691117.jpg (77KB, 586x679px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 586x679px

>>34564803

>China
>Imperialist

>Wars started by China
>0

>Wars started by America
>Too numerous to mention

>>34564803
>9000 gorillion bases in foreign nations
>occupying several countries for decades
>toppling democratic governments
>installing puppets
>financing "good rebels" who later turn to terrorists over and over and over
>all for oil and other loots
can you guess which country?

>>34564812
>good job proving that all us carriers are there for aggressive reasons

>China demands control over areas which are legally territory of other countries
>attempts to coerce other countries into following this demand through displays of military force
>US sails naval fleet through that area to undermine Chinese control over international waters

>GODDAMN AMERICANS HERE FOR AGGRESSIVE REASONS!

suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure

>>34564833
>wars started by china
>0

ye top fucking kek mate.

got that one about the red hooded girl too?

>>34563940
Ask Yamamoto how that went. We only picked on banana republics back in those days, until someone hit us hard enough to piss us off.

>>34564892
>We only picked on banana republics back in those days
and ever since.

>>34564833
>what are the Taiwan straight crises
>what is the Sino-Indian war
>what are the Nathu La and Cho La clashes
>what is the Battle of Chamdo
>what is the Sino-Vietnamese War

>>34564835
I never said the US was innocent, I just said that China wasn't innocent Either.

File: patriot-gallery-thumb.jpg (160KB, 480x327px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 480x327px

>>34564892

Yamamato didn't have nuclear AShM.

>>34564914
>meanwhile china can't even pick on taiwan

>>34564942
and you don't either.

>>34564914
>and ever since.

no, we haven't been picking on Latin American countries for a while now.

middle east and Africa dawg, that's the way to go.

File: kh-22m.jpg (241KB, 800x583px) Image search: [Google]

241KB, 800x583px

>>34561387
Any big Soviet AShM, namely Kh-22, P-500, P-700, P-1000. These things were designed specifically for this purpose.

>>34564942
yeah and the US wasn't the prominent military power at the time and didn't have the ability to lay waste to all of Japan without ever even invading, so yeah, that analogy doesn't really work.

File: U10553P27DT20140423154507.jpg (21KB, 550x297px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 550x297px

>>34564970

Just look at those whoppers.

>>34564942
>bragging about AShMs
>uses a picture of a Patriot Missile

good job anon

>>34564952
>taiwan
>literally a puppet for cheap labor
where do you think your TV comes from.
heartly kek

File: The Sum of All Fears (2002) - Aircraft Carrier is Attacked mute.webm (2MB, 640x266px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 640x266px

>>34564999

File: 1020905562.jpg (139KB, 1000x541px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 1000x541px

>>34564984

The idea that the US would risk a full-blown nuclear exchange over a single ship is straight-up fantasy.

>>34565025
and yet China still can't actually pick on them.

>>34565082
>can't
kek

>>34565065
>The idea that the US would risk a full-blown nuclear exchange over a single ship is straight-up fantasy.

okay, one more time for the mouthbreathers:

it's not about the single ship you tard, it's about the fucking use of nuclear weapons. using them against military assets indicates willingness to use them period, which also means against civilian targets. at which point the president must make a decision; retaliate immediately in hopes of destroying the Chinese leadership and the bulk of their nuclear weapons before they can launch, or risk waiting and potentially having China strike at civilian population centers, military bases, and strategic command points. since the US has 26 times as many nukes as China does, the choice is fucking clear.

>>34563544
which only means it has a long range radar to track NATO movements, not that it is a full size EW ship

>>34565153
>it's not about the single ship
>thread LITERALLY about a single ship
do they have schools in your area?

>>34561387
I suspect the super carriers are more brittle than we are led to believe.

Sinking one causes an immediate nuclear war of retaliation, or so I hear.

>>34561387
As many have pointed out any of the nuclear armed missiles would do the job.

Otherwise, I would have trouble believing a single missile would sink a carrier, except maybe one of the conventional ASBMs.

>>34565187

>Sinking one causes an immediate nuclear war of retaliation, or so I hear.

Yeah, that's bullshit. The US isn't gonna start a nuclear war because of 1 ship sinking.

>>34561387
Short answer: Yes

Good luck getting it to impact though

>>34565187
>>>34561387 (OP)
>I suspect the super carriers are more brittle than we are led to believe.
>Sinking one causes an immediate nuclear war of retaliation, or so I hear.
There is little doubt in my mind that any ASCM hit would be very harmful but I don't think it would sink her. I don't know about immediate nuclear war if one is sunk though.

>>34562287
>Underrated post

>>34565186
if in reference is to a single ship then yes, a nuke AShM can sink a carrier, but if that's the case then what does the US nuclear strategy following that strike even matter you fucking tard?

>>34565267
if anything this already stale pasta that is getting posted in every single thread lately is overrated.

>>34565186
Jesus you are fucking retarded. The US has an official document that states that any, even remotely, nuclear action against it will cause an immidiate and excessive retaliatory nuclear attack on the part of the US. It's not sinking a ship, its using nuclear weapons.

However, if China was to sink a supercarrier with conventional arms, i wouldnt want to be a chink in a major city.

>>34565290
>but if that's the case then what does the US nuclear strategy following that strike even matter
it doesn't matter, exactly, so I am not sure why you keep bringing it up.
I can only repeat my question about your inability to comprehend simple sentences.

>>34565295
>OP asks if there is a missile that can one shot a carrier
>thread answers yes there is
>you sperg out over and over about muh nucular retalliation
>calling others retarded
T O P K E K
O
P
K
E
K

>>34565320
There are more posts in this thread than OP, dingus

>In theory. In practice, no, that would never happen.

plus, 1/10 maymay

>>34561569
>Mach 15
On all levels, except physical, I am a dongfeng
*melts from ram pressure*

>>34563433
You are one dumb chink.

>>34565371
it can happen in theory and practice, just like your autism is both real in theory and practice.

File: on all levels except physical i am a dongfeng.jpg (88KB, 499x565px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 499x565px

>>34565387

>>34565418
my autism is like the quality of your posts, nonexistant.

>>34564530
Iraq, Serbia, Iraq again, Vietnam

File: Going full Oppenheimer-Bhagavad-Gita.png (466KB, 1011x1316px) Image search: [Google]

466KB, 1011x1316px

>>34564833
>Wars started by China
>0

I find it funny as American that I know more about Chinese history than some Chinese. I thought Soviet revisionism was bad.

XAXA

This whole fucking thread, XAXA

>>34565473
>shitposting about others shitposting
pure autism.

>>34565586
>thinks there is a single chinese person in this thread
were you born retarded or did you ND your brains out?

>>34565586
>le funny ball comics xDD
Back2reddit, faggot.

>>34565160
>NATO movements, not that it is a full size EW ship
What the fuck does that even mean. A spy ship is a spy ship. It will track everything that it's equipment allows for.

>>34565680
>>This is a vermin rifle, not a minigun.
>What the fuck does that even mean, a child-murder-assault-weapon is still a child-murder-assault-weapon, and should be treated the same.

>>34565263
Care to back up your claim?

>>34565455
Nice.

>>34565724
>>34565724

Not him, but that's about the most tortured metaphor I've ever seen.

>>34565805
I don't think you understand what tortured metaphor means.

>>34561387

Fuck yea, and it doesn't have to be nuclear

>>34565724
This makes even less sense, man. it's a spy shit, which means it gather shit from radar, SIGINT, ELINT and the like, it doesn't just have one EW suite and forgets the rest. Doubly so in a navy as poor and underfunded as the Black Sea Fleet. they only have so many intelligence vessels, which means they cram every conceivable space full of gear.

>>34565852
Please back up your claim.

>>34565920
>be too poor to float hulls
>but can afford an full bandwidth monitoring system
If you say so.

Also you still are totally missing the point of the comment chain, or just jumped in without bothering to read anything first, which is now that I think about it more likely.

Glorious WU-14 can make of scrap a vessel of america to furthermore damage

>>34561387
Does the Minute Man III count?

>>34561569
>since it's ballistic and comes at a 90 degree angle, it might just break the ship in two when it's travelling at an impressive Mach 15.

In the highly improbable event it gets a hit (0.06% chance on a moving ship, based on published design data), it'll punch a neat missile-sized hole all the way through the ship. There'll be localized spalling damage in the compartments it passes through, but nothing catastrophic. There's just not enough energy transfer happening. A good analogy would be shooting a large pumpkin with a .17 HMR. You get a hole in and a slightly larger hole out. You do not get a dramatically exploded pumpkin.

The most damage you can hope for is a hit on a reactor. You'll get a possible mobility kill and contamination that will be very costly to remediate. That would probably be effective as a kill, since the ship would be in for clean up and repairs for years.

>>34562572
Except... no capital ship was melted during Op Crossroads. Huh.

>>34562584
>failed to detect a loaded container ship

Source? If you reference the Fitz collision, I want to see your proof that they failed to detect the freighter. We've already picked that event to pieces, anything you come up with will be either woefully ignorant or abysmally misguided.

>>34566111
>>be too poor to float hulls
>>but can afford an full bandwidth monitoring system
Putting newer shit into an already existing boat is miles cheaper then building a new boat, dummy. Do you have a functioning brain? They (the Russians) did exactly that, took oceanographic survey vessels and converted them as it was cheaper to do so in the early 90s.
>Also you still are totally missing the point of the comment chain, or just jumped in without bothering to read anything first, which is now that I think about it more likely.
No I've been in here since the beginning, I've just been talking about the Russian spy ship part. I have no dog in the fight about the nuke tipped missile that will take out a carrier and will not somehow trigger a nuclear response from the US.

>>34565035
What the fuck were the escorts doing? Or the CAP? EG. the shit that is supposed to prevent shit from getting close to the CVN in the first place?

File: Fitzgerald vs cargo ship collision comparison with diagram (not mine) and course(17-06-2017).jpg (615KB, 1612x1390px) Image search: [Google]

615KB, 1612x1390px

>>34562584

>>34563433
At least not if you are a brit.

In one of their last exercises, they decided to not respond with nukes when their carrier was sunk by a nuclear Ashm

>>34567061

That pretty much proves my point. Sure, yanks will try to insist that they'd do differently, but in the end cooler heads would prevail.

>>34561387
Without starting a nuclear war, no.

The best option would probably a Granit with a conventional warhead, and hope that by the grace of Eastern Orthodox God you hit a reactor leading to a crew freak out or a radiation incident, or strike one of the various magazines and hope all the ordinance inside goes off.

>>34563433
>offensive use of a nuclear weapon would not start a nuclear war.

Well, that's exactly what it does. Have your wrangler explain it to you.

>>34567131
>still being this retarded

Why?

>>34567422

Using a nuclear AShM to defend against a hostile aircraft carrier is not an "offensive" use.

>>34566678

Knowing Tom Clancy, I'm sure the book version provides an excessively detailed explanation.

>>34567454

It is a hostile use of a nuclear weapon. Retaliation would be nuclear, not conventional, and your idea that 'cooler heads will prevail' is fallacious.

File: 1487376430151.png (216KB, 393x391px) Image search: [Google]

216KB, 393x391px

>>34561569
I literally almost died just now.

>>34563525
>Because 1 ship was destroyed?

No, you demented mong. Because a nuclear weapon was used. Why is this so difficult for you to grasp? The nuclear war has already been started. You're a fucking moron.

File: 20160611041603964.jpg (35KB, 640x350px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 640x350px

>>34567514

No, it's not. Defending your country isn't "hostile." It's self-defense. Don't like it? Then keep your carriers away from Chinese waters.

>>34567131
No, because the UK has infinitely less weapons to use. Put yourself in the position of the President. Someone tells you a carrier has been sunk with a nuclear weapon, they confirm it's Chinese. You are now left wondering if the Chinese have gone off the deep end by coming to the conclusion that the only way to take negate US naval power is to resort to nuclear weapons as a first resort.
That same man then tells you that a massive strike on China would severely cripple their ability to fire nuclear weapons and continue fighting. What would you do?
Keep in mind you don't know:
1. If they plan to fire at more military targets (and if they will include bases near population centers)
2. If they plan on escalating because they know the eventual US retaliation will shatter them and they're seeking to get their hits in early.

>>34567454
>use nuke
>get nuked by US so you can't use nukes anymore
>enemy side wins

>>34567547
Don't you mean Japanese, Philipino, Korean, and Vietnamese waters? Sorry, but the sea is free, as long as Americans sail there with the endorsement of most of Asia. No one likes the Chinese. Nuking the Americans' ships would be a fair thing for the Chinese to do, however, they'd still get nuked back. Don't expect the Americans to be nice about having a CBG nuked.

>>34566678
"Hey guys, take the rest of the week off."
-Carrier Captain

>>34563549
You should probably learn something about our government and how it works before you post any more about it. Right now, you're looking wilfully stupid.

>>34563752
What's Israel have to do with it?
China could do the same to SK or Japan to get the same response.

>>34567547
You might see it that way, but the other country will see it as a sucker punch and will be seeing red. Keep in mind they have much more of everything you have.

By that logic, the US can start sinking Chinese ships that encroach into sovereign waters around those countries and it will still be defensive.

>>34563593
Our response would be measured, proportionate, and nuclear.

>>34567631

Adorable. And how do you expect to accomplish that?

>>34567547

I can't believe that you can still breathe and type at the same time.

Even with your claims of self defense, it is still a hostile action.

A hostile action that begs for thermonuclear retaliation.

There's a very good reason that nukes haven't been used in 70 years - because once you start, where does it stop?

File: tu-16-DNST9301202.jpg (89KB, 849x503px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 849x503px

>>34567626

Nukes are only 1 possible weapon in China's vast arsenal. With hypersonic AShM, no nukes will be needed to cripple aircraft carriers. But the option remains on the table.

>>34567639

It would be foolish to say that you'd never use tactical nukes because if you ever said that, then the deterrent effect would be lost.

>>34567688

... What's your point? Your statement is only tangentally related to the discussion at hand.

>>34567622
Out of 63 people you're the only retard in this thread to reply to that stupid post.

>>34567547
Sorry but that's not how it works man. I guarantee you that saying

>Defending your country isn't "hostile." It's self-defense. Don't like it? Then keep your carriers away from Chinese waters.

Won't sate America's blood lust after you nuked a CBG. They will retaliate in such a way to prevent such an action from happening again. What you've done is for them an act of war, right or not, and they will do everything to ensure making war on you is as successful as possible. They will use nukes if it means taking your nuclear capability off the table.

>>34567688
Not sure what that means here? No ones saying that the Chinese shouldn't threaten to use a nuclear tipped Dong Feng, they're just saying its usage would be retarded and only serve to get them fucked up so that threat is an empty one.

>>34563496
>>34563602
>>34567600
>>34567631
I seriously wonder if this shitposting is actually the Chinese government evaluating American civilian views of proportionate response to the use of tactical nuclear weapons against carriers.

>>34563882
>and guess what tips those scales really fucking fast: knowing that your enemy has shown, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that they are willing to employ nuclear weapons against your country.

AQ thought that if they flew some planes into some buildings they could scare us into leaving them alone. That's not how it worked out.

If any country or non-state actor uses nuclear weapons against the US, 99% of the population are going to be raging for blood. Any politician who so much as hints at appeasement or negotiation will be looking at a recall election before sundown.

You have exactly zero understanding of American character.

>>34567674
>Nukes are only 1 possible weapon in China's vast arsenal. With hypersonic AShM, no nukes will be needed to cripple aircraft carriers. But the option remains on the table.
Well yeah, but that has yet to be tested in a real life situation, or even in a semi-realistic training scenario. If you're going to use pic related, you're going to have to get within range of carrier aircraft (and potential ground based aircraft as well, to say nothing of land and sea based AEW). Not to mention the submarines the Us has, which are much superior to even the most advanced Chinese boat. This whole thing also hinges on the fact that the carriers are within strike and escort range of China, airborne refueling can only do so much.

>>34567787

Kinda makes one wonder, doesn't it? So far the response seems to be 'duke em and nuke the fuck out of em'

>>34567793
A lot of people I know (I'm not from the US) took the 9-11 attacks personally, as if it was an attack our our own country.

The use of nuclear weapons against a free democratic nation would have every democracy in the entire world raging for blood.

>>34567787
Why would the Chinese government write things like the posts you're replying to. Those posts are more like the opinions of the American citizens, and the posts they're replying to are generally saying things like U.S. should do nothing and leave righteous Chinese clay, or are you asking the posters you replied to for their opinions. In which case I'd say it's a rude awakening for the Chinese government that the people are willing to support the use of Nuclear force in the event of a Chinese nuclear attack.

>>34567787
Well, they in for a rude awakening if they thought you could nuke a carrier with no response.

>>34567793
>AQ thought that if they flew some planes into some buildings they could scare us into leaving them alone. That's not how it worked out.
Actually it was to cause something so horrible to happen in our home that we would collectively think about the timeline of history that allowed us to get to this point including 9/11 and taking a good hard look at what policies and positions of ours that caused it. In hindsight, OBL was naive.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1844670457/_encoding=UTF8?coliid=I3KOSXD38BAXX&colid=2VO1FKTZI83XX

>>34566678
>>34567484

>Knowing Tom Clancy, I'm sure the book version provides an excessively detailed explanation.

It does! This scene was actually lifted from Red Storm Rising. One set of Badgers fire Kelt missiles as decoys that make them appear to be on an attack vector. The CVBG sends interceptors to the Kelts, putting them out of range of the real Badgers incoming from another vector and spam Kingfish missiles on the group.

>>34563882
>and guess what tips those scales really fucking fast: knowing that your enemy has shown, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that they are willing to employ nuclear weapons against your country.
So now you're in a scenario where every country with nukes knows that you're are incapable of delivering on the promise of MAD. That's one quick way to get nuked son.

>>34563433
killing a carrier even with conventional weaponry will trigger MAD

>>34563525
>>34563549
>>34563593
>>34563673
>>34563752
>>34563788
>>34563827
>>34563860
>>34563882
>>34563914
>>34563940
>>34563995
You seem to be ignorant of the fact that the US invented nuclear warfare, and is the only country to have used it.

Against an Asian country that launched a surprise attack against our naval assets. That's a very important point to remember.

>>34567878
I was talking to the presumably American posters in who replied to presumably Chinese shitposting.

>>34567885
Yes, it would be a rude awakening.

I've always worried that US patience is interpreted by Chinese as weakness.

>>34567885
>Actually it was to cause something so horrible to happen in our home that we would collectively think about the timeline of history that allowed us to get to this point including 9/11 and taking a good hard look at what policies and positions of ours that caused it
Lol we just went YOU DON'T LIKE SHORT SIGHTED AND VIOLENT AMERICAN FOREING POLICY DO YAH? I'LL SHOW YOU SHORTSIGHTED AND VIOLENT AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

File: 1487838973166.jpg (52KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 640x640px

>>34567938

Look, the people who keep saying that using a nuke to since a carrier would automatically trigger a nuclear war are wrong, but the people who think that nukes would be used to "avenge" any carrier that gets hit ever are a special kind of retarded.

>>34567920
Not really, not him but MAD only works if both sides don't fire.
If there is a use of a nuke, it needs to be responded to, to put the balance back into MAD.
If one side uses, it needs to be responded to by the other side, so that both sides (and the world) know that both ARE willing to use nukes. This resets the equation, the side that fired first now knows that the side that was fired on is willing to use nukes at a tactical level and the only way to overcome this is an escalation of violence (meaning larger nukes and more of them) which is bad because attacking side knows attacked side is willing to do tit-for-tat.

>I've always worried that US patience is interpreted by Chinese as weakness.
When you have 10 carriers and nearly 40 more subs (all of which are much more advanced than what China has) you can afford to be patient ad wait fro them to move.

>>34567941
I thought so, I don't know what this/these guys are trying to say, no one is saying that that Chinese don't have the right to use tac nukes, just that if they did they would reap the whirl-wind.

>>34567993
I'm glad you have access to the secret doctrine and decided to post it on a polynesian knitting forum. Thanks.

>>34567966
>Lol we just went YOU DON'T LIKE SHORT SIGHTED AND VIOLENT AMERICAN FOREING POLICY DO YAH? I'LL SHOW YOU SHORTSIGHTED AND VIOLENT AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
In retrospect (for Osama), it was the worst risk possible that backfired terribly. He took a calculated risk, but nobody knows he failed calculus 3 times.
Pro tip: If you're planning to attack the US, reconsider.

>>34568026

>Carrier gets hit by a sea mine and sinks
>OMG WE HAVE TO NUKE THE WORLD NOW

>>34568041
US doctrine is to respond to the use of nuclear weapons with nuclear weapons. If you have documents proving otherwise, either send them to wikileaks or fuck off.

>>34564835
>9000 gorillion bases in foreign nations

Now tell us how many of those foreign nations do not want the bases.

>>34568011
That's what I said, read his post, then read mine again. If you fail to respond, then you have demonstrated your unwillingness follow up on your commitment of proportionate (or if you're fighting China you could just nuke their silos and bases making a successful nuclear exchange impossible for them) exchange thus guaranteeing more nuclear attacks. Every Nuclear power on Earth would be able to put a gun to your head.

>>34564835
That would be the USSR.

>>34568041
That backpedaling and goalpost moving.

>>34568041
No, read the thread, losing a carrier would be bad, but we have 9 more. The "nuking the Earth" part comes in if it is destroyed by a nuke itself.

Also,
>Carrier gets hit by a sea mine and sinks
>hit by a sea mine
>a sea mine
>a
>a
>sinks
lol

>>34568033
Attack Europe instead desu, works much better.

>>34568078
I think we're in agreement here: that an attack on a carrier with a nuke would be a colossally terrible idea.

>>34568041
Goalpost shifting, as that was not said.
What has been said is this:
Using nukes to destroy a carrier will result in the US destroying the Chinese nuclear arsenal with nukes.
This does not mean that the war will escalate to a countervalue exchange, but claiming the US wouldn't respond to a nuclear attack with a prompt and violent destruction of China's nuclear weapons is simply retarded.

>>34568090
This.

I'm honestly impressed with how well kommandos deal with some surprisingly high-level anti-west propaganda.

>>34568092

>Reading comprehension.

This post: >>34568041 was intended as a response to this post: >>34567938

>>34561387
>>34561413

In the RN there was a list of how many Harpoon missiles it would take to get through the CIWS and both disable or destroy the ship, the average for a Russian cruiser was about 9 - makes you laugh when there's only 8 fit on most ships.

I've had a massive hard on for that Russian anti ship cruiser, the one with just missile tube after missile tube on deck - although in reality the only real anti ship weapons are jets and subs - anti ship missiles are gimmicky or for fighting third world countries.

>>34568095
No, it doesn't.
Having allies attack is just as bad, it just means we take less casualties.

We need some Oppenheimer copypasta from when he debated a .50 cent over this.

>>34568119
Then why didn't you link it when you wrote it originally? It makes you seem not able to use basic technology, man.

>>34568108
>>34568108
We are, my reply, and reading it again this wasn't really clear, insisted that if the Americans will be compelled to respond in a strategic manner, whether it be with nukes or otherwise. If China, blow up the three gorges (jk it's a war crime I know).

File: slava-DNSC9400156.jpg (125KB, 851x632px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 851x632px

>>34568123
>I've had a massive hard on for that Russian anti ship cruiser, the one with just missile tube after missile tube on deck
Slava class?

>>34561569
/r/asianmasculinity

>>34564075
>Are American aircraft carriers currently attacking China right now?

No, you fucking retard. For the same reason US tanks aren't rolling into Brazil. We're not at war with either China or Brazil.

>And those include using nuclear missiles to destroy hostile aircraft carriers.

First use of nukes against US assets will get a nuclear response.

>>34568117
This board definitely has had too much practice.

>>34568183

You can't respond strategically to a tactical weapon. It doesn't work like that.

>>34568192
I know you're joking but putting 50-centers and US citizens in the same basket is sorta unpatriotic.

>>34568205
Sorry Wei Zhong, the US can do anything it wants in response to a Chinese nuclear strike.

>>34568205
read >>34567581

>>34566941
F A K E
A
K
E
your shitty unfunny reddit tier pic has the collision spot wrong nigger, the faggerald smashed into the crystal, not the crystal into the faggerald

>>34568240

Okay, just understand that means putting US civilians in danger.

>>34568205
He's right
>>34568240
In a nuclear exchange between the US and China at least, the US holds all of the cards. The Americans don't have to deal with a knife's edge tit for tat if they don't want to. They can nuke most of China's arsenal out right.

>>34568261
That we understand.

>>34568205
Yes you can, specifically to eliminate the threat.
Also, there's no line in the rulebook which disallows the US to escalate as a response to escalation.

>>34568281

I'm not sure you do.

>>34568282

>What is international law

>>34567787
>EVERYBODY DISAGREEING WITH MY NARROW OPINIONS MUST BE A COMMUNIST SPY
holy fuck your tinfoil must be 1 mile high and industrial strength.
back to >>>/x/

>>34568294
Try actually making an argument.

>>34568294
>>What is international law
Show me the law that prohibits the US from enacting a counterforce strike in retaliation to a tactical nuclear strike, or even just at will.
>protip: it doesn't exist

>>34567940
>the US invented nuclear warfare, and is the only country to have used it
God bless the USA

>>34567837
>>34567885
see
>>34568299

LMAO this thread is gold

>>34564129
He's got 3 different handlers screaming 3 different sets of instructions into his earbuds, a People's Commissar sending capslocked IMs to his desktop, 2 pagers on his belt overheating from all the buzzing they're doing, and nonstop texts blowing up his phone.

At this point, he's just trying to get through another shift without collecting a 9mm retirement plan to the base of the neck.

No, he hasn't got a clue.

File: 1436232662197.jpg (61KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 640x640px

>>34561387
Who would win a fight between an 3rd world unarmed container ship and the most advanced US Navy destroyer armed with the most advanced sensors, missiles and cannons ?

>>34563433
A nuclear war is a war involving the use of nuclear weapons.

Your missile is a nuclear weapon. You see where I'm going with this?

>>34568372
Same question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_ship_Liman

File: PatrickAmerica.jpg (406KB, 3000x2167px) Image search: [Google]

406KB, 3000x2167px

>>34568370
And I'm helping parry and sink (heh) some of these arguments and I'm shitposting from a Vegas pool. Life truly is great.

>>34568387
So in a fight between a 3rd world unarmed container ship and the most advanced US Navy destroyer armed with the most advanced sensors, missiles and cannons, your bet is on some Russian sheep-herder, got it.

>>34568385

There is a difference between "tactical" and "strategic." An AShM is a tactical weapon, even if it has a nuclear warhead. You see where I'm going with this?

>>34568372
>>34568404
Pathetic attempt to derail thread identified.

>>34568370
keked.

>>34562339
Why hit it simultaneously with two different missiles?

>>34568415
Sorry Cheng Wei, we're not going to give China blanket permission to nuke US military assets.

>>34568419
Pathetic goal post moving detected.

>>34568435

>Implying China needs permission to defend itself

>>34568432
double the autism, duh

>>34568402
sounds like a waste of pool time.
get off your phone, or are you too awkward to stare at some boobs like a normal person.

>>34568404
Nah, by bet would be on the Navy Destroyer in the first 1v1 (cause professional damage control)
in the Russian spy ship one, it would be one the container ship because every sunk Russian Navy boat is a blessing and a source of the hardiest of laughter

>>34568462
>Nah, by bet would be on the Navy Destroyer in the first 1v1 (cause professional damage control)
Hmm can you show me some numbers that can back up those claims?
Cause according to real world data, giant container ships can hide from the best radar the US has to offer, so it has the element of surprise on its side.

>>34564195
Carriers are sinkable. They're a lot easier to mission kill, though. A hit from something like a MOAB would be pretty catastrophic, and MIGHT be a one-shot. Get something like that in the water alongside, within about 50 yards, and you might crush enough of the hull to cause a capsizing moment before DC measures take effect.

>>34568450
>Implying China needs permission to defend itself
>implying China is even that dumb to make a decision like that
but then again...

>>34568456
>get off your phone, or are you too awkward to stare at some boobs like a normal person.
clubs here don't open until 11:30

>>34568450
See
>>34567739

>>34568487
>Hmm can you show me some numbers that can back up those claims?
Uh, you want numbers on damage control?
How about the fact that the destroyer didn't sink after being hit by a container ship? Is that good enough?

>Cause according to real world data, giant container ships can hide from the best radar the US has to offer, so it has the element of surprise on its side.
You mean an accident? An the fact that US ships typically don't radiate in high traffic areas because of the potential for snoopers.

>>34568528
>US ships typically don't radiate in high traffic areas because of the potential for snoopers.

Now that is an entirely new level of denial, I applaud you.

>>34565160
Holy shit! How did it sink, then?! Those sheep barges are specifically designed to only take out full sized spy ships.

>>34568260
>Fitzgerald damaged on the side

|
|<---
|
|

You idiot. The Crystal T-boned the Fitzgerald.

>>34568566
>Now that is an entirely new level of denial, I applaud you.
How? They still have generic radars on for obvious reasons.
The ship simply had an accident.

>>34562149
iirc not that far ago some arabian guys casually hit a jew dd with a missile that they launched literally from inside of some truck

>>34568635
Fitzgerald was slightly faster and got rammed by the ship with a 30 mile turn radius, doesn't take a genius to figure out you absolute retard.

Not to mention, the record was set straight only hours after the event, the collision spot you are clinging to assumed the Crystal radioed the accident right after the collision and not over half an hour later like the logs clearly show.

>>34568641
>>34568566

Fitzgerald's passive radar detection didn't pick up Crystal's standard nav radar, even in absolute silent mode they should have seen it.
Not to mention
>Generic radar was not enough to avoid what might as well be a stationary object yelling I AM HERE on all frequencies.
Oh anon.

Always fun to see how brainwashed retards grasp for straws defending this incident.

>>34567454
Nukes aren't defensive weapons. First use isn't defensive use. If China escalates a conventional war into the nuclear realm, they're probably going to get hit with a counterforce strike.

It's pretty simple logic. Escalating from conventional to nuclear indicates a dangerous willingness to escalate. The logical retaliatory strike would be to insure that there cannot be any more escalation.

not like warships ramming each others it's something rare

>>34568190
carnival dayo!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFUKuWoMWzo

>>34568635
Lord have mercy, if you really think that is the only way 2 vehicles can end up in that situation I really hope they didn't give you a driver's license.

>>34568792
>warships ramming each others
lewd

>>34568415
Apparently you're too dumb to make simple conclusions. If a nuke is used in a war, it is a nuclear war. The Pacific War is technically a nuclear war. It doesn't matter what size the nuke is or anything else. The US firing back doesn't make it a nuclear war, it already was one when a nuke was fired to sink the carrier.

I too am angry about boats.

>>34564166
Some food for thought, the 2 carriers used in the Bikini Atoll Atom bomb tests, The USS Saratoga (CV-32) which was a full size fleet carrier, and the USS Independence (CVL-22) a light carrier (NOT an escort carrier) both went through 2 nuclear tests each, the Saratoga sank after the second test by having the weapon detonated underwater 500 meters away. The Independence survived both of its tests and was ultimately scuttled off of San Francisco, CA., pretty sure the Navy learned quite a lot about strengthening its carriers to ensure their survivability in a nuclear attack.

>>34569015

>If a nuke is used in a war, it is a nuclear war.

So WW2 was a nuclear war then?

>The Pacific War is technically a nuclear war.

Oh wait, you actually believe that? Let me laugh even harder now.

No CBG will ever be in range of weapons that can seriously threaten it without extensive preparation of enemy emplacements first. Carriers are by no means the limit of American force projection. CBGs do not operate in a vacuum and will not sail blind into hostile waters before every possible measure has been taken first to ensure enemy anti-ship assets have been bombed or displaced. Any such asset that reveals itself by firing will be subject to quick-counter attack by a variety of means including but not limited to: special forces, sub-launched cruise missiles, high-altitude stealth bombers, etc. etc.

Casualties are inevitable but if things go really hot, you won't be able to get all the carrier groups before your ability to attack them has been profoundly degraded. No nation, and no combination of nations, can begin to match the force projection of the United States alone, to say nothing of her many allies.

It's all moot, however, because the economies of the Chinese and the Americans are too closely intertwined to make a like-we-mean-it shooting war advantageous for anyone. Not for the foreseeable future.

>>34568747
>Always fun to see how brainwashed retards grasp for straws defending this incident.
There is no straw grasping. It was an accident. They happen. Mainly to China and the Russians.

>>34567637
>Adorable

Well, Tiffany, parts of our nuclear response policy ARE in the public domain. But since you seem incapable of conducting basic research on your own, I'll spoon feed you.

Measured- the response would be on a target of comparable or slightly greater strategic value. You nuke our carrier, we nuke one of your shipyards. That demonstrates willingness to escalate.

Proportional- responses are on targets-in-kind. We don't blow TGD if you hit one of our carriers, we keep the response in the naval assets category.

Keep in mind, we may just decide to keep it at a brushfire war level and go with a total counterforce package. The message there being, you nuke us, we take away all of your toys.

Like I said, this is all public domain stuff. Oppenheimer talks about it all the time in his nuke threads. If you were in a free country, you could probably browse those.

>>34563525
> Because 1 ship was destroyed?

Besides the point about nuclear weapons that other anons are trying to hammer into your thick skull, there's also this bullshit about "1 ship was destroyed".

Sinking a carrier isn't about destroying one ship. It's about neutralizing one of the most potent fighting forces in human history. Decapitating a carrier strike group doesn't happen in a vacuum.

Decapitating a CSG is something you do to create time and space for operations that the CSG would otherwise prevent. Nuking a carrier in the South China Sea, for example, would signal the intent to do some highly objectionable shit in that region. The US would absolutely respond with overwhelming violence against every Chinese asset within reach, until China was unable to do anything at all.

>>34563549
1 guy has the nuclear football, you dumb foreigner.....
And if you havent noticed he aint big on sitting things out.

>>34568033
>If you're planning to attack the US, reconsider.

Weird. The take-away I got was, don't fail calculus.