Nuclear war with the US would be worse than any worst case scenario for China resulting from QEII.
Looks to me like you were saying it was the Chinese.Look, I'm not saying it was the Chinese but if it wasn't us that is a rational premise.
Even when the Chinese and Americans were actively killing each other, there was not even an implied Chinese threat to the US mainland.
Exactly. Any missile fired that close to the US coastline would illicit an enormous response even if we didn't fire a single missile.
For once, much of the line of succession wouldn't just be sitting in DC and the President himself would not be just trotting around.
Thats insulting. MY doomsday plan? Inferring I advocate MAD?
What have I EVER said that would lead you guys to believe that?
They're ing with you dude. I'm pretty sure everyone here knows you don't want California nuked.
Just Berkley.
Bingo.
Sorry CC, odds are against your theory for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the acute awareness of nuclear capabilities on the part of the respective navies.
You just don't do that .
If it were Chinese, it would have been MUCH more likely that they would have done so within their territorial waters.
well, hey, that's good enough for me!!!
More like your "reaction to doomsday" plan. I get the impression it was more a plan to deal with some kind of domestic societal breakdown, but total war with China would be as good a reason as any to hit the bunker.
@rjv:
Very much like WC taking the word of Obama's chief counsel for the BP spill commission, as gospel truth.
(The US Government is the primo journalistic source for US journalism.)
Last edited by Winehole23; 11-09-2010 at 03:15 PM.
besides, wc said he knows where all the nukes are.
Taking the US military at it's word that it was not involved, CC infers the provocation of the Chinese.
(The inaction of Obama in the face of an obviously warlike manifestation was an inference I smuggled in)
I think it was probably the U.S. military but I'm not sure what's the point of launching it in plain sight then denying it.
If it's to show off new capabilities, why deny it? Just say you were testing new technology and can't comment on the specifics.
And if the point wasn't to show anything off, why do it so close to the California coast?
Smarter men than I, I'm sure, have this all figured out...
To prevent the accidental disclosure of sensitive details?
It could have been a test of our own detection/defense capabilities.
The commander in chief will tell us what happened when he is back from vacation.
Vacation?
We used to have frequent errant missiles in So Cal in the 60’s & 70’s…The culprit was generally Rocketdyne Testing…
The U.S. military always denies U.S. Boomers off the coast…But occasionally they surface & accidentally get tangled up with barge cables & pull the barges & crew underwater for 5 miles or so…Bummer…
Interesting that the news did not show photos of the vapor trails left by the many U.S. fighter jets that later traveled the path of the missile…
I don’t think China would be upset about President Obama in India…You know what they say - go where the jobs are...
Speaking of "knowing where the nukes are"
China has 10, count 'em, 10 nuclear subs. The rest are deisel/electric.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...china/navy.htm
That makes the task of tracking them VERY easy.
Not really hard to pick up, even if they slip through.
http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2009/11/subnoise.php
There is also the small matter of the fact that China's Navy has deployed outside of its territorial waters exactly ONCE in 400 years. (thank Somali pirates for that)
(edit)
The more one reads about Chinese submarine capability, the less and less likely it seems that the Chinese are responsible. The Chinese Navy just doesn't have the general capability to operate a sub that far from its home bases. They generally only get two patrol cruises per year, TOPS, among other things.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 11-09-2010 at 04:25 PM.
But they DO have state of the art diesel/electrics that are VERY quiet on battery and capable of launching missiles.
I'm still not saying it was the Chinese but they ARE working dilligently on improving their capability and they have the money to blow on it.
Feel free to post your own speculations if it wasn't the US.
Yeah, even old subs that run on batteries are super quiet. Big problem, however. They have to move extremely slowly and have incredibly short ranges. There is not a single diesel electric ballistic missile submarine in the world.
Interesting. Found zero hits for rocket accidents, but plenty of other issues around Rocketdyne.
Link?
The 2 Chinese missile subs are noisy as . We know exactly where they are at all times. (usually in port)Speaking of "knowing where the nukes are"
China has 10, count 'em, 10 nuclear subs. The rest are deisel/electric.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...china/navy.htm
That makes the task of tracking them VERY easy.
Not really hard to pick up, even if they slip through.
http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2009/11/subnoise.php
There is also the small matter of the fact that China's Navy has deployed outside of its territorial waters exactly ONCE in 400 years. (thank Somali pirates for that)
(edit)
The more one reads about Chinese submarine capability, the less and less likely it seems that the Chinese are responsible. The Chinese Navy just doesn't have the general capability to operate a sub that far from its home bases. They generally only get two patrol cruises per year, TOPS, among other things.
I don't think people understand the level of naval superiority the US holds over the rest of the world.
Last edited by MannyIsGod; 11-09-2010 at 05:00 PM.
Denying the location surprises me zero since the whole purpose for boomers is their need to operate in secrecy. I dunno about the barges being dragged though.
Deisel/electrics are quiet when they are running on battery.
They are also incapable of crossing the 3,000 mile wide Pacific Ocean without recharging.
The only other nation technically capable of this would be Russia. That is a bit more likely than China, but that isn't saying much.
It was the US Navy, I am mildly sure of it. But then, I have only access to fairly indirect open-source data, so "mildly sure" is as good as it gets.
Forget capability. Reaction tells you it was the US. Either that or we should be extremely worried with our defenses.
why would any country give us reason to unite?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
