Someone mentioned on Gizmodo that the US has "lasers' to shoot down these missiles. I'm no expert but this quote is from a NTY article published today re: the new defense budget:
"Defense experts say that Mr. Gates is likely to cut $1 billion to $2 billion from programs for defenses against missiles, and that Boeing’s airborne laser system, which would equip a modified 747 jetliner with a laser to shoot down missiles, might be killed."
Doesn't look like shooting down big missiles with expensive lasers is high on the priority list.
I think this missile scenario is one that is more FUD than anything at the moment. A country like China or Russia knows that if they open up this can of worms, it's not going to be who launches the first missile that wins (or is hurt the most)
Imagine this scenario: China decides it's time to take back Taiwan into the motherland, and invades and occupies the country. (China has been setting up this scenario for many years) Can we send an aircraft carrier in? No, we risk that missile. Check.
Alternately, we send in the aircraft carrier, it is destroyed, what then? We nuke a population center? Unlikely. Without missile defense, we are powerless. Kind of like not having air support during WWII.
Going by historical policy, we'd have the carrier group in the waters beforehand if there was any sign of impending hostility. An attack on the carrier would probably result in retaliation against military targets.
That wouldn't need to be nuclear. We still have rather a few submarines for use against capital ships, invasion ships, etc. If they can do it, we can:
Sadly, the very point of a stealthy submarine makes it useless for what a carrier group does very well - signify military presence and imply the willingness to use it.
Of course, carrier groups often include submarines. Perhaps in the future, carrier groups will have more submarines to get around the ballistic missile threat. Take out the carrier, and you've just blasted off the visible part of the iceberg, no more.
Is there anything -- besides looking badass -- that carriers do that couldn't be done by a swarm of submarines or stealthed high-speed catamarans equipped with cruise missiles, SAM, and drones?
If you have enough SAMs, why do you need air to air? Also, if your SAM launchers are stealthed and mobile at high speed, they aren't going to be so easy to take out.
Support AWACS, drop Marines in somewhere by helicopter, support midair refueling for bombers that can drop bigger bombs than a catamaran-launched cruise missile can.
Also, spreading out thousands of crewmembers on a swarm of small surface craft would be much more of a logistics challenge for supply than a smaller number of bigger craft (as in a carrier group).
And there goes $400 billion of annual trade with the US and $1 trillion in US treasury reserves.
I can't think of a scenario where the military invasion of Taiwan passes cost/benefit analysis for China, which is probably why it hasn't happened yet. The Chinese government strikes me as one of the more rational ones.
I'm not sure what made the media start going nuts about this, but this missile is hardly new; it's been around for quite some time (and still hasn't been tested yet). It's not, as articles seem to be implying, something that came out of nowhere and surprised the US.
12 comments
[ 5.7 ms ] story [ 65.0 ms ] thread"Defense experts say that Mr. Gates is likely to cut $1 billion to $2 billion from programs for defenses against missiles, and that Boeing’s airborne laser system, which would equip a modified 747 jetliner with a laser to shoot down missiles, might be killed."
Doesn't look like shooting down big missiles with expensive lasers is high on the priority list.
I think this missile scenario is one that is more FUD than anything at the moment. A country like China or Russia knows that if they open up this can of worms, it's not going to be who launches the first missile that wins (or is hurt the most)
Alternately, we send in the aircraft carrier, it is destroyed, what then? We nuke a population center? Unlikely. Without missile defense, we are powerless. Kind of like not having air support during WWII.
Check Mate.
That wouldn't need to be nuclear. We still have rather a few submarines for use against capital ships, invasion ships, etc. If they can do it, we can:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-492804/The-uninvited...
Sadly, the very point of a stealthy submarine makes it useless for what a carrier group does very well - signify military presence and imply the willingness to use it.
Of course, carrier groups often include submarines. Perhaps in the future, carrier groups will have more submarines to get around the ballistic missile threat. Take out the carrier, and you've just blasted off the visible part of the iceberg, no more.
Also, spreading out thousands of crewmembers on a swarm of small surface craft would be much more of a logistics challenge for supply than a smaller number of bigger craft (as in a carrier group).
I can't think of a scenario where the military invasion of Taiwan passes cost/benefit analysis for China, which is probably why it hasn't happened yet. The Chinese government strikes me as one of the more rational ones.