And so it begins: Cold War II

[cmjust0]

Meet the Dong Feng 21D "Carrier Killer" missile.

Carrier-killing missiles "could have an enduring psychological effect on U.S. policymakers," he e-mailed to The AP. "It underscores more broadly that the U.S. Navy no longer rules the waves as it has since the end of World War II. The stark reality is that sea control cannot be taken for granted anymore."

Which, of course, means US policymakers will begin spending billions upon billions on a countermeasure...only to watch China unveil the next innovation, and the next, and the next. It's exactly what we did to the Soviets during Cold War I...we forced them to spend themselves into collapse, and it worked beautifully. We defeated the Soviet Union without having to fire a single shot.

Personally, I believe China can do the same to us now. And considering how much of our money they have...and how little of it we have...I suspect Cold War II will be considerably shorter in duration than was Cold War I.​

 

[Boyd]

all I have to say about that is wow

Don't we still have the largest fleet of subs still? I don't know any navy folks personally, but I would imagine the sub launched ballistic missiles (either conventional or nuclear) still trumps the new Carrier Killer. Then again China can field over a million man army.....

What truly scares me more than a head to head with china, is who is china going to sell this technology to.. What if it is sold to Iran? They can already cut off shipping routes, but imagine what they could do with a missile with pinpoint accuracy up to 900 miles away?

 

[Q9]

Answer to ocean control: BRING BACK THE FREAKING BATTLESHIPS! 16+ inches of blast armor, torpedo blisters on the hull, and turrets that could survive a meteorite. Today's ships have lots of gadgets, but a single well-placed missile can shut one down. It was found during the Cold War that it would take six direct hits from a Soviet cruise missile to the ship's superstructure to even slow it down. Any missiles of potential enemies would have no more explosive power than the Styx missile, the cruise missile mentioned above.

Fact: It has been shown that no ship today can provide the same kind of coastal fire-support for Marines as an Iowa-class battleship. They can place their shots almost as accurately as missiles, fire faster, and let me tell you, shells are a heck of a lot cheaper than kamikaze robots! Also, unlike missiles, shells are nearly impossible to shoot down, and even then they come down in such numbers that it wouldn't really matter. Not to mention, battleships are ideal for the original purpose of the Navy: Defending US shores.

Humorous story: At one point, an Iowa-class battleship was firing its cannons and asked its spotter for a damage report. Included in the report of buildings destroyed was this hilarious phrase: "... As well as a small portion of the island."

I think this may have been during World War II.

EDIT

Forgot to add, the Navy has successfully shot down moving drones with a laser weapon. Surely it could bring down a missile!

Also, the carriers themselves are too fragile. They rely almost entirely on their planes and escort ships, but those won't do any good against a missile.

By the way, why is the Washington positioned off of the Korean coast? To my knowledge, the N. Koreans don't pose a threat to US security.

 

[redhen]

Yeah.. we better play nice with China...
Some smart cookies over there....
And a zillion of them too.

 

[Ec_Prokta]

But we're giving them tons of money, so I'm not sure if the next Cold War is soon.