You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
China-Japan-Koreas
China can't afford to attack an American aircraft carrier
2019-01-14
[HotAir] Shortly after the year began we looked at a report out of China where one of their very anti-American admirals had said that China might need to sink a couple of our aircraft carriers just to put us in our place. The guy is known for his hawkish hyperbole, so it didn’t seem that our government was taking him too seriously. But at the same time, the Chinese government didn’t exactly move to disavow his comments either. They’re referring to it as a "bloody nose" strategy, suggesting that if they hit us hard enough on the first shot we’ll turn tail and run. No credible experts seem to expect it to happen, but it was a situation worth monitoring at least.

We weren’t the only ones who noticed the admiral’s remarks. Some other experts in military affairs have begun weighing in on the subject. The majority of observers thus far appear to agree that a massive missile strike on an American carrier group in the South China Sea actually might be able to sink (or at least severely damage) one of our bird farms. But that hypothetical exchange has an end result that the Chinese won’t like at all. (Business Insider)

"The decision to go after an aircraft carrier, short of the deployment of nuclear weapons, is the decision that a foreign power would take with the most reticence," Bryan McGrath, founding managing director of The FerryBridge Group LLC, a naval consultancy, told Business Insider. "The other guy knows that if that is their target, the wrath of god will come down on them."

McGrath emphasized that threats to US carriers are old news, but that the ships, despite struggling to address the threat from China’s new missiles, still had merit.

"I would have been more surprised if we had seen former Chinese rear admiral say, ’The fact that we’re building aircraft carriers is one of the dumbest moves of the 21st century given the Americans will wax them in the first three days of combat,'" said McGrath, dismissing Luo’s comments as bogus scare tactics.


The short version of this tale is that if the Chinese actually did decide to open fire on one of our carriers, they might succeed in a surprise attack. But we would be able to decimate all of the useful and powerful elements of their navy in short order. We could also put quite a pounding to Beijing if we were so inclined. And by sinking one of our ships, the Chinese would have committed an act of war anyway so there would be nothing stopping us. Short of going to tactical weapons and given the massive logistical hurdles involved in shipping any significant number of their soldiers anywhere near our mainland, we could probably handle them.
Posted by:DarthVader

#7  RS, I made that point several months ago but one of the locals got a burr under his saddle and popped off. You are correct that the Chinese are dependent on the sea lanes to prosper, without them they are just another third world country. That is why control of the South China Sea is so important to them.
Posted by: jvalentour   2019-01-14 19:52  

#6  Eventually the Chinese would have no maritime trade component left to their economy. I understand this is a large and critical portion of their economy.
I don't think they could adequately feed themselves after imports were terminated and the adjustment to reverting back to self sufficiency would take quite some time. Energy imports would be greatly reduced as would other imported materials which the current level of economic activity needs.
Posted by: Roger Smith   2019-01-14 15:56  

#5  You can only attack a US carrier if you can get your attack past the airgroup above, the subs beneath, and the ships surrounding that carrier and even then if you didn't take out that fleet it could probably eliminate the bulk of the Chinese navy without the carrier itself.
Posted by: rjschwarz   2019-01-14 15:40  

#4  Didn’t someone try something like this before.

Pearl Harbor for example.
Posted by: CrazyFool   2019-01-14 15:11  

#3  Ref #2: Yes, I believe the sinking or capture of any US vessel would probably bring an end to the China trade problem.
Posted by: Besoeker   2019-01-14 13:47  

#2  Attacking a US carrier would merit nothing less than full scale war with China. It's kind of like killing a cop. You might get lucky, but the rest of them will be down on you like flies on sh*t.
Posted by: Iblis   2019-01-14 13:22  

#1  The big problem with this reasoning is the 9/11 precedent.

Comparatively weak Taliban ruled Afghanistan could afford to stage a mass fatality attack on the CONUS that was both an act of war and a war crime.

It is true that present day Afghanistan is a nothing more than sh*thole country. But this is in spite of Western efforts to improve conditions. This is not the effect of Western retaliation.

Western consensus policy since at least 9/11 has dramatically eroded Western deterrence, Chicom rhetoric and action is one of the consequences.
Posted by: Elmerert Hupens2660   2019-01-14 11:38  

00:00