|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Sept 24, 2014 11:11:20 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Sept 24, 2014 12:42:43 GMT -8
Thanks for the article AW. China has a 'carrier killer' missile that has some in the surface Navy concerned. To be honest, I forgot about the attack subs. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Sept 24, 2014 12:56:32 GMT -8
Thanks for the article AW. China has a 'carrier killer' missile that has some in the surface Navy concerned. To be honest, I forgot about the attack subs. Yes, I saw something about that Chinese ballistic anti-ship missile, too. Could be a problem. On the other hand, I would be tremendously surprised to learn that the Dept. of Defense is not working on anti-missile measures. But this piece makes the case that China is overoptimistic if they think they can invade Taiwan with impunity. Of course, there is also the question of whether a President of the U.S. . . . that is, any particular President . . . would enforce a red line drawn around Taiwan. It does no good to have the assets if you are not willing to use them. And it does no good if your opponent incorrectly thinks you will not use those assets. Remember Europe in 1939. Hitler, encouraged by the timidity of France and Britain in 1938, was sure that an invasion of Poland would bring only angry rhetoric. He was wrong. AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Sept 24, 2014 21:23:30 GMT -8
I agree completely with the article.
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Feb 6, 2015 18:24:51 GMT -8
Thanks for the article AW. China has a 'carrier killer' missile that has some in the surface Navy concerned. To be honest, I forgot about the attack subs. Yes, I saw something about that Chinese ballistic anti-ship missile, too. Could be a problem. On the other hand, I would be tremendously surprised to learn that the Dept. of Defense is not working on anti-missile measures. But this piece makes the case that China is overoptimistic is they think they can invade Taiwan with impunity. Of course, there is also the question of whether a President of the U.S. . . . that is, any particular President . . . would enforce a red line drawn around Taiwan. It does no good to have the assets if you are not willing to use them. And it does no good if your opponent incorrectly thinks you will not use those assets. Remember Europe in 1939. Hitler, encouraged by the timidity of France and Britain in 1938, was sure that an invasion of Poland would bring only angry rhetoric. He was wrong. AzWm He was wrong, after being right about Austria and Czechoslovakia. Opponents timidity leads to boldness. Would Taiwan lead to another step that would invoke wrath? |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Feb 7, 2015 6:08:37 GMT -8
Our ability to defend Carrier Battle Groups is understated. Our biggest threat is lack of will and wisdom from our political leaders.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecmusician on Feb 7, 2015 12:42:15 GMT -8
Our ability to defend Carrier Battle Groups is understated. Our biggest threat is lack of will and wisdom from our political leaders. This is unfortunately true, in any organization success always starts at the top. On the bright side, our stealth fighter and bomber capability should not be discounted as well. I would anticipate air superiority in any conflict with any nation. Plus the U.S. has some "other" military assets which are totally unique and utterly devastating. Nuff said. |
|
|
|
Post by azteceric on Feb 9, 2015 10:17:55 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Feb 9, 2015 11:19:40 GMT -8
We can try to ramp up security, but when we have an administration like we have now it is a much bigger problem. Here is a quote from the article in your link. "Pentagon technology security officials in 2011 opposed a joint venture between General Electric and AVIC over concerns that U.S. fighter jet technology would be diverted to AVIC's military aircraft programs. The Obama administration ignored the concerns and instead has since promoted the systematic loosening of technology controls on transfers to China." |
|
|
|
Post by azteceric on Feb 9, 2015 11:40:45 GMT -8
We can try to ramp up security, but when we have an administration like we have now it is a much bigger problem. Here is a quote from the article in your link. "Pentagon technology security officials in 2011 opposed a joint venture between General Electric and AVIC over concerns that U.S. fighter jet technology would be diverted to AVIC's military aircraft programs. The Obama administration ignored the concerns and instead has since promoted the systematic loosening of technology controls on transfers to China." Absolutely, need an administration that listens to experts before making decisions. Also need the government and contractors to step up security protocols, even then countries like China pay people to hack all day. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2015 8:45:58 GMT -8
It depends upon what type of battle and where it's fought but generally the answer is; no. China sill relies largely upon borrowed and stolen technology and outdated tactics. Their doctrine primarily addresses an existential, civilizational all out war which is the least likely thing to occur.
Also, folks tend to over-estimate how much the US relies upon "hackable" technology for war fighting.
|
|
