China can take out US super carrier with 1 missile

Commy

http://i.gizmodo.com/5199587/new-chines ... -in-one-go


so glad we dropped all those billion on these new top of the line super carriers.



super carriers that China can sink with 1 missile.


2000 mile range, mach 10 speeds, unpredictable flight path.


hooray for war.


what a fucking game. they spend a few hundred billion building top of the line ships...someone else spend a few billion and finds a way to sink them...so they start all over again...

mca47

Yeah, but that's war...that's humanity.

Gotta one-up the other guy!

Next, the US will spend billions on Chinese missile interceptors, then the Chinese will spend billions on anti-interceptor technology...

Commy

considering the cost of upgrades these days maybe its time to rethink that whole scenario.

SolarWorld

1242 miles is the range on that thing. Not that far. I think if we parked a super carrier off the coast of China THAT close then the war has already started.

Commy

SolarWorld wrote:

1242 miles is the range on that thing. Not that far. I think if we parked a super carrier off the coast of China THAT close then the war has already started.

o right. 2000 km

my bad.

soulsinging

Commy wrote:

http://i.gizmodo.com/5199587/new-chinese-missile-can-destroy-us-supercarrier-in-one-go

so glad we dropped all those billion on these new top of the line super carriers.

super carriers that China can sink with 1 missile.

2000 mile range, mach 10 speeds, unpredictable flight path.

hooray for war.

what a fucking game. they spend a few hundred billion building top of the line ships...someone else spend a few billion and finds a way to sink them...so they start all over again...

So? We can take out Beijing with one missile. We're even.

Commy

soulsinging wrote:

Commy wrote:

http://i.gizmodo.com/5199587/new-chinese-missile-can-destroy-us-supercarrier-in-one-go

so glad we dropped all those billion on these new top of the line super carriers.

super carriers that China can sink with 1 missile.

2000 mile range, mach 10 speeds, unpredictable flight path.

hooray for war.

what a fucking game. they spend a few hundred billion building top of the line ships...someone else spend a few billion and finds a way to sink them...so they start all over again...

So? We can take out Beijing with one missile. We're even.

yeah fuck it. let em drop hundreds of billions (our money) on something that can be destroyed with 1 missile.

soulsinging

Commy wrote:

soulsinging wrote:

Commy wrote:

http://i.gizmodo.com/5199587/new-chinese-missile-can-destroy-us-supercarrier-in-one-go

so glad we dropped all those billion on these new top of the line super carriers.

super carriers that China can sink with 1 missile.

2000 mile range, mach 10 speeds, unpredictable flight path.

hooray for war.

what a fucking game. they spend a few hundred billion building top of the line ships...someone else spend a few billion and finds a way to sink them...so they start all over again...

So? We can take out Beijing with one missile. We're even.

yeah fuck it. let em drop hundreds of billions (our money) on something that can be destroyed with 1 missile.

Can doesn't mean it automatically once. Yeah, our military budget is absurd. But you can't build an unsinkable ship, let alone an unsinkable warship. Did you think for a couple billion we'd somehow build an invincible boat? The fact that the Chinese have a nice missile that could potentially maybe (is this on any news site other than joe schmoe's blog?) put a hurt on our big carriers doesn't mean a damn thing. Any country could do the same with a lucky shot or with 10 missiles or whatever you prefer. The issue is the amount spent on this carrier regardless. The number of missiles it takes to sink it is irrelevant. It's either worth the money, or it isnt. But any ship can be sunk. Our planes can be shot down. Our cars could crash. Should we stop making everything?

Commy

soulsinging wrote:

Can doesn't mean it automatically once. Yeah, our military budget is absurd. But you can't build an unsinkable ship, let alone an unsinkable warship. Did you think for a couple billion we'd somehow build an invincible boat? The fact that the Chinese have a nice missile that could potentially maybe (is this on any news site other than joe schmoe's blog?) put a hurt on our big carriers doesn't mean a damn thing. Any country could do the same with a lucky shot or with 10 missiles or whatever you prefer. The issue is the amount spent on this carrier regardless. The number of missiles it takes to sink it is irrelevant. It's either worth the money, or it isnt. But any ship can be sunk. Our planes can be shot down. Our cars could crash. Should we stop making everything?

it was an eye opener to me. the big bad US navy and their super carriers...that China can sink with 1 missile. it was a glaring example of just how ridiculous the military industrial complex really is.

soulsinging

Commy wrote:

it was an eye opener to me. the big bad US navy and their super carriers...that China can sink with 1 missile. it was a glaring example of just how ridiculous the military industrial complex really is.

Fair enough. I'm willing to bet those carriers are still pretty damned impressive. And the article conveniently leaves out how such a thing could happen. I am willing to bet the Micronesia military could sink a super carrier if they get lucky on the shot. China's super missile might have better odds of getting that shot, but odds are just odds and war's not a game of odds.

Commy

soulsinging wrote:

Commy wrote:

it was an eye opener to me. the big bad US navy and their super carriers...that China can sink with 1 missile. it was a glaring example of just how ridiculous the military industrial complex really is.

Fair enough. I'm willing to bet those carriers are still pretty damned impressive. And the article conveniently leaves out how such a thing could happen. I am willing to bet the Micronesia military could sink a super carrier if they get lucky on the shot. China's super missile might have better odds of getting that shot, but odds are just odds and war's not a game of odds.

I can't find the link, but I believe the navy canceled its order of another 16 ships or so, in response to this. which led me to believe they were taking this seriously (sorry no link)

soulsinging

Commy wrote:

soulsinging wrote:

Commy wrote:

it was an eye opener to me. the big bad US navy and their super carriers...that China can sink with 1 missile. it was a glaring example of just how ridiculous the military industrial complex really is.

Fair enough. I'm willing to bet those carriers are still pretty damned impressive. And the article conveniently leaves out how such a thing could happen. I am willing to bet the Micronesia military could sink a super carrier if they get lucky on the shot. China's super missile might have better odds of getting that shot, but odds are just odds and war's not a game of odds.

I can't find the link, but I believe the navy canceled its order of another 16 ships or so, in response to this. which led me to believe they were taking this seriously (sorry no link)

Now if only they'd use that money for something productive... like schools or roads. But they'll probably just give it to a bad bank.

Drowned Out

What would happen if the US brought the majority of their military home, and halted all non-essential, non-maintenance military funding for, oh...say, ten years? Is there a concern that someone might attack if the balance of power shifted?...how long would that take, anyway? With two peaceful neighbours, we're essentially a big fucking island over here...is'securing the homeland' even an issue when it comes to military conflict/power? Isn't that what nukes are for? Is ALL other spending not about 'protecting foreign interests' at this point? :evil:

SolarWorld

Commy wrote:

soulsinging wrote:

Can doesn't mean it automatically once. Yeah, our military budget is absurd. But you can't build an unsinkable ship, let alone an unsinkable warship. Did you think for a couple billion we'd somehow build an invincible boat? The fact that the Chinese have a nice missile that could potentially maybe (is this on any news site other than joe schmoe's blog?) put a hurt on our big carriers doesn't mean a damn thing. Any country could do the same with a lucky shot or with 10 missiles or whatever you prefer. The issue is the amount spent on this carrier regardless. The number of missiles it takes to sink it is irrelevant. It's either worth the money, or it isnt. But any ship can be sunk. Our planes can be shot down. Our cars could crash. Should we stop making everything?

it was an eye opener to me. the big bad US navy and their super carriers...that China can sink with 1 missile.

China is not a third world country...

BinFrog

To me that is the perfect microcosm of how the blistering pace of technology is changing everything from warfare & politics, to social interactions & knowledge and information transferring.

Stuff like:
- You spend $50 on new anti-virus software, and the next day you get a trojan.

- You spend a lifetime learning audio software/hardware and then the next thing you know anyone who wants to can own a production studio in their house.

- You start a company that has anything to do with knowledge (consulting, encyclopedias, IT support), and then the same data/knowledge appears in a thousand different places for free.

- You can't go anywhere or do anything without almost always having to think about who has a camera on their phone. Wanna go skinny dipping? Better think twice.

- It's almost not even fun anymore to look up the answer to something. It usually takes seconds now.

It's too much to grasp sometimes.

tybird

That's the way of war....the "Golden B.B." will ruin years of planning.....one shell from the K.M.S. Bismarck destroyed the H.M.S. Hood....one torpedo from one obsolete bi-plane basically took the Bismarck.

soulsinging

Drowned Out wrote:

What would happen if the US brought the majority of their military home, and halted all non-essential, non-maintenance military funding for, oh...say, ten years? Is there a concern that someone might attack if the balance of power shifted?...how long would that take, anyway? With two peaceful neighbours, we're essentially a big fucking island over here...is'securing the homeland' even an issue when it comes to military conflict/power? Isn't that what nukes are for? Is ALL other spending not about 'protecting foreign interests' at this point? :evil:

I think nuclear weapons do have the sole positive of deterrence, the whole assured mutual destruction concept. That said, we've got way more than anyone needs. We could cover the earth in a mushroom clouds a few times over... why? You'd think once would be enough, but what do I know? As to the rest of the military, we are pretty secure here on our home soil, at least from the conventional warfare that our traditional military can fight. So I think you're absolutely right, it's basically a big stick to keep everyone else in line and protect our foreign interests... essentially, keep the empire and its stranglehold on many foreign countries from slipping.