# Fun World Events Predictions

Discussion in 'World Events' started by Eluminate, Feb 26, 2004.

Not open for further replies.
1. ### UndecidedBannedBanned

Messages:
4,731
My take on A possible war in the straits on Taiwan

A war against the Taiwanese would be a major investment of resources and personal for the Chinese. But the Chinese are at least in terms of morale ready, the Chinese have repeatedly said they would support a sustained war against Taiwan:

There simply no denying that the Chinese are ready to go, but are the Americans? According to Time magazine a mere 51% of Americans support a war. Surely the support will go up because Americans are innately confident in their armed forces. Americans have the psychology of a child who has never been denied candy. When that candy is finally denied the child simply doesn’t know how to react. This will happen if and when that carrier is destroyed. Through my examples, and the lack of rebuttal from other posters shows that the Chinese don’t need a American force to beat a American force. The same asinine logic was applied to the Vietnam War in the 60’s. The American forces were just too technologically superior to the Vietnamese. But by 1973 the outcome was clear to all. Why did the US lose in Vietnam? There are many factors, but one was the way the Vietnamese fought. Americans are trained to fight against conventional armies, and navies. Principally Soviet/East European in nature, they don’t train or they don’t train enough to combat the real enemies that they face. Stokes is a good example of a man who thinks like a boy. He shows this by not being able to refute what I am saying, and is basing his refutation of my points in mere belief that the carriers will not be destroyed. This is not unique to Stokes this is a common trait among indoctrinated people all over the world. They intrinsically deny the mere possibility that they could win to such inferior forces. But if China is known for one thing it is playing the weak card strong.
The Chinese know that they are dealing with a technologically powerful military machine, that is the CVBG. Why would China in turn give the CVBG the battle it wants? Remember the role of the CVBG, that is one of a open ocean battle against large forces of the opposing sides largest and best naval assets. This is shown by Stokes in his inaccurate summation of a battle.

Why would China send these obviously inferior assets into the sea against the carriers? These subs would have to go deep in the strait to do their damage, and the large Chinese surface fleet i.e. Sovremennys are not numerous and are tactically weak against a CVBG without the rest of the assets of the Soviet navy. Rather the Chinese recognize that they stand no chance against the Americans in this Armada battle. Look to history ppl let’s not be ignorant. The Spanish Armada that sailed to England was defeated by small and fast firing weaponry. Who in 1588 would have doubted a successful Spanish invasion of England? But it happened, the Spanish lost. Even though the Spanish had the larger force, alas the American CVBG. Also notice that the British did not leave their territorial waters, and remained safely within Britain, luring the Spanish into the trap that is the home field advantage. Same logic can be applied to the up coming battle for Taiwan against a feasible American force. The Chinese have 79 Osa class ships (hundreds of other such ships but I will use the Osa). The Chinese would logically not put these ships into the open straits if the carriers are there. I have already explained how the Chinese could get rid of a carrier. The Americans will be hard pressed to get rid of these boats. First reason is that these boats are small, the size of fishing trawlers, and near heavily trafficked commercial ports, it would not be easy for the American pilots to attack the Chinese boats. Especially if there are 79 of such boats, along with untold amounts of civilian boats, the task would be daunting. Another thing is that the Chinese have literally thousands of J-6 fighters, which was inferior to anything the Americans or Taiwanese have. But if they are approaching the American CVBG en masse 50+ craft, the chances are that some will get through. Of course these will not be flying above 300 ft (were radar becomes effective). These will be harder to shoot down with missiles, and dog fights will ensue. Many of the J-6 (I would say 30-40) will be destroyed, either by BVR missiles to Standard missiles on the Aegis class ships (which is a dangerous gamble on resources). This largely wasteful attack by Chinese forces will waste Americans resources like missiles, and fuel. These waves will continue, and should continue to degrade American power at sea. Then eventually if the en masse attack by the Osa ships somehow fail, advanced Chinese fighters like the SU-30 MK, with Moskits would almost surely get rid of the carrier. China is not going to get rid of her most valuable and expensive forces against the carrier, that is what the US wants her to do.
The loss of an American carrier will scare the US, bravado is a funny thing. The other carrier in the region will move farther away to avoid the same fate of the other carrier. Simple logic deducts as such. But that would mean that the actual aircraft on board will have less of an impact on the larger battle at hand. The US military itself supports this thesis; she has lost twice against a hypothetical Chinese enemy. T
The problem China faces is not really the carrier, that to me is a issue that can be dealt with. What the issue is what can the Chinese do in terms of an amphibious assault? The Chinese don’t have the actual capability to land men on Taiwan en masse. If the ROC/USN forces want to win against China, that is the moment to do it. The weak thrust by the Chinese against the Island is the moment in which China could lose the whole thing. The US moving into the straits as many have said here is not logical. The Chinese amphibious fleet is as good as those that landed on Normandy beach in WWII. Admittedly the Chinese are making new amphibious ships but still are insufficient to meet the rigors of the Taiwanese invasion. If China really wanted to win in an amphibious invasion they would need something en par to the Tarawa/Wasp class ships. Neither China nor Russia has that capability as of today. The Best China can hope for is a variant of the Russian Ivan Rogov amphibious landing craft. China needs herself a carrier in order to secure the straits for the invasion. Air support will be integral to any successful invasion.
Another chief concern of mine is the experience, and training of Chinese pilots. I have no doubt that American pilots are not only experienced, but very well trained. This is the US’ greatest single asset that the Chinese lack. Of course we have to ask ourselves is will the Americans support the Taiwanese within the next decade? I opt for no, due to the fact by the end of this decade Taiwan will not exist anymore. Simply put Taiwan’s largest export market is China, and only growing. Simple economics will usurp all military hawks, and maybe that’s a good thing.

Last edited: Mar 2, 2004

3. ### SpykeRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,006
Actually, no that's not the role of a CVBG. The 2 Persian Gulf wars have shown the role of the CVs. The Soviets never had anything equivalent to a CVBG, and by the '80s the US Navy had tested the Red Banner navy's responses enough to know it was going to fight a defense war close in to Soviet waters rather than come out for a blue water fight. They are designed to bring air power to enemy shores. CVBGs won't have to come into the strait and fight. All they have to do is stay out at sea and knock out Chinese transport forces with bombers and both surface and undersea launched missiles. That's not to say there won't be risks, but it is much less likely if they stand out in open sea east of Taiwan.

5. ### UndecidedBannedBanned

Messages:
4,731
Actually, no that's not the role of a CVBG.

The modern American CVBG purpose was against firstly the most potent threat that the USSR had. The SSBN threat, which was the prime threat to the US and the CVBG purpose, was to get to those SSBN's and to secure the airspace so that other forces on the hunt would not be harassed by the enemy. The modern American carrier was not built for the Persian Gulf War.

The 2 Persian Gulf wars have shown the role of the CVs.

No, what the Persian Gulf War showed is the new use of the CVBG, not the original purpose. Also you cannot compare a non-existent Iraqi navy to that of a Chinese one, so... really the Persian Gulf wars is Non Sequitur to the experience that these ships would face in the straits.
by the '80s the US Navy had tested the Red Banner navy's responses enough to know it was going to fight a defense war close in to Soviet waters rather than come out for a blue water fight.

I bet you are right, but the USN also reserved the possibility of a GIUK war, that was the one which was constantly being practiced.

They are designed to bring air power to enemy shores.

No, that is the role of the amphibious battle groups like the Wasp/Tarawa ships. The carrier has little armed power (in terms of land forces) the CVBG purpose would be to protect the amphibious battle groups, not to deploy them themselves.

CVBGs won't have to come into the strait and fight. All they have to do is stay out at sea and knock out Chinese transport forces with bombers and both surface and undersea launched missiles.

But fighters would have to carry fewer payloads due to more fuel. Also they would be heavier making them susceptible to advanced Chinese fighters like the J-12, SU-30MK. After 2007 the USN will have a much more difficult time dealing with a Chinese threat once the F-14's are gone. You are right that they could do that, but the risks are far greater, and the planes carry less armaments, and don't have much leeway in terms of time to loiter around.

7. ### Michael歌舞伎Valued Senior Member

Messages:
20,285
I do agree that anything can happen in terms of war - I do not think it will be as easy as Stokes nor as hard you imply. Or maybe one or maybe the other. Anything is possible. Heck, Just look to Iraq and we can see that military planners missed something.

However, I just do not think that the Chinese are ever going to go to war against Taiwan. Maybe, but I doubt it.

8. ### UndecidedBannedBanned

Messages:
4,731
I agree that the Chinese will not go to war with the Taiwanese. Mike just look at the way Taiwan is shifting her economic prowess to the Chinese. The Taiwanese in 2001-02 faced a deep recession, what pulled them out? The Chinese, the Chinese is now by far the largest trading partner that Taiwan has and Taiwan has invested billions into China. Now Chinese trade with Taiwan is sizable but it is not critical, for Taiwan it would eventually come to a point where she depends on the goodwill of the Chinese.

Exports:
$130 billion f.o.b. (2002 est.) Exports - partners: Hong Kong 23.9%, US 20.8%, Japan 9.3%, China 7.7% (2002) HK and China are basically one, because HK is a place of re-exports so really Taiwan exports 31.6% of all her trade to China, and its not decreasing.$41 billion worth of exports to China, in a $400 billion economy is 10% of the entire economy. China's power as I have constantly alluded to is not that of the military machine, but rather one of economic dominance. Soft power kills your enemy without them even knowing. 9. ### Stokes PennwaltNuke them from orbit.Registered Senior Member Messages: 1,503 Nope. The SSNs hunted Russian boomers. CVBGs controlled large areas at sea to protect friendly shipping, and launched air/missile strikes to project power ashore. See above. A vast majority of CAS came from naval air power in GWI, and especially in GWII. Same goes for cruise missile fires. Wrong again. A CVBG would operate in support of an ARG during amphibious warfare ops, providing NGFS and CAS to the amphibious Marine elements ashore, as well as logistical bolstering subsequent to the establishment of a beach head. Somebody's never heard of IFR. Does American military preeminence make your penis feel any smaller? Because you've got this ROW superiority complex I cannot understand. I'm not saying we're invulnerable, I'm saying that right now, we're the best. That might make a few people upset, but that's just how it is. 10. ### SpykeRegistered Senior Member Messages: 1,006 The modern carrier was built exactly for operations like the Gulf wars. The navy's maritime strategy, which was designed for the Soviets through the '80s, of course, was used in both Gulf wars, the navy just didn't have to act quite as aggressively and at as high a speed as it was expected it would act against Soviet naval bases. Well, if when you say 'original use' you mean up through WW2, then perhaps, although no one was really sure what the exact role for a CV was at the time. The British used a CV to sink a BB (Bismarck) at sea, the Japanese used them for assault on a naval base (Pearl), the Amercans and Japanese used them against each other's carriers, and later the Americans would use them during their island hopping assault up the Pacific. But the Soviets never developed anything comparable so modern operational plans for the CV, while still giving the CV multiple dimentions, still focuses on the CV being used to assault land-based installations as well as cover both amphibious and land-based operations. We've seen the latter in both Gulf wars as well as in Vietnam. That's true, but the CV's spent the entire '80s very aggressively testing Soviet capabilities, and conducting war games based on how the Soviets reacted, so they will be prepared for the Chinese. Doesn't mean it would be easy, but then again... That was a '70s game plan. In the '80s CVBGs sailed through the GIUK gap and challenged the Soviets off the Kola Peninsula and in the Pacific off Kamchatka and in the Sea of Okhotsk, in the Soviets backyards. A much more aggressive plan than the prior plans. But that's because before then they had expected the Soviet navy to come out and fight. But sailing under EMCON conditions each time they effectively proved they could hide entire fleets from Soviet satellites until they were just outside territorial waters. Very likely they could fool the Chinese as well. No kidding. I never said the CVBG would deploy land forces. See above. I said they are for bringing 'air power' to enemy shores. A CVBGs function is not a transport group. The CV provides air cover and the Aegis cruiser(s) provides other muscle. It won't be that big a strain. The US has consistently conducted exerciese using its CVBGs about 200 miles or so off the east coast of Taiwan. Why would they loiter around? They deliver their payload and go home. 11. ### ClockwoodYou Forgot PolandRegistered Senior Member Messages: 4,467 Fun, Huh? At some point in the next couple hundred years, the United States of America as the body we now know will cease to be. It may keep the core of its power but control is lost in many areas both inside and outside its national borders. While collapse may be due to violent action towards it or the ever increasing social and economic strains put on it by its populace and the world, in the end it will not matter. Soon after control is lost, all hell breaks loose. Throughout the world there is an unparalleled recession due to the loss of one of the bigger world consumers and the staging ground for many companies and banks. (by this time China may have surpassed this but the loss is still enormous) The leaders of many American companies that are still standing leave in mass to more promising parts of the globe. In many countries they hold such power as to almost be nations unto themselves. A the worse off of the American populace take this opportunity to emigrate to the assorted English and Spanish speaking countries of the world. Countries develop different roles in response to the power vaccume. The EU develops into something akin to the Soviet Union after a bloody change of leadership. Without American protection, various Muslim powers engineer the final destruction of Israel. After the assassination of a number of higher ups in the Israeli government and the destruction of a good section of Jerusalem by suicide bombers equipped with a very potent new explosive, Israel is weak enough to be taken by military action. Swarms of Muslims from across the Middle East sweep into Jerusalem in civilian garb and begin their attack. No other country offers more than token help. At some point, the outnumbered Israeli military is broken as they are unable to defend against an opponent willing to sacrafice his or her life, the lives of their family, and a thousand innocent civilians to achieve his or her goals. Before this happens, the Israeli military takes far more drastic measures than the destruction of a suicide bomber's house. They kill and torture his or her family. It has no effect. Before they go they also perfom devastating missle strikes against several Muslim holy cities. After their fall, there is a massive slaughter of Jews in what is seen as vengence. This includes everyone: men, women, children, the sick, the elderly. Everyone. Many Jews flee but just as many are butchered. Casualties rise higher than they were in WWII concentration camps. After this is done the Middle East no longer has Israel as something to unite against. Wars, conventional and civil, wrack the area and fossil fule production flounders. Increased enviromental degredation everywhere causes famine and disease. This deepens the recession immesurably. Last edited: Mar 3, 2004 12. ### UndecidedBannedBanned Messages: 4,731 Nope. The SSNs hunted Russian boomers. CVBGs controlled large areas at sea to protect friendly shipping, and launched air/missile strikes to project power ashore. The SSN's did hunt the SSBN threat yes, but they also needed protection for Soviet Bears did they not? How about the Sea Hawk's, or the S-3 Vikings? What were those there as chess toys as well I assume? The CVBG has many roles, but the pre-eminent role of the modern American carrier is that of air support, and anti-shipping duties. Land attack is an important element but not the most important one. See above. A vast majority of CAS came from naval air power in GWI, and especially in GWII. Same goes for cruise missile fires. So? That doesn't mean that the carriers were designed for that purpose. Do tell me when in the 60's when the Nimitiz class ships were being designed what was their reason d'etre. I am pretty sure it wasn't to attack poorly defended enemies in the 3rd world, was it? The Americans in had the capability to attack the land, yes duh! But the Americans at the time of the designers were much more concerned with a hypothetical Soviet threat. If the US wanted as you so proclaimed a carrier whose teleology was to attack the land, then they would not have developed those huge things. Wrong again. You are right, I misread that statement... Somebody's never heard of IFR. In-flight refueling from a S-3 over the Taiwan strait with 200 J-11's armed to the teeth with up to 12 BVR missiles, and the super deadly AA-11? HA! I spit on such an ignorant comment. Once the F-14 is goners, the US will have a real battle on her hands for supremacy of those skies. Does American military preeminence make your penis feel any smaller? There is no American preeminence as I see it so no. What I see is a strong United States, not a preeminent one. There has never been and never will be a preeminent power. Don't be under any illusions you sad example of a human being... I'm not saying we're invulnerable, Why do you lie? You Stokes are just angry that yet again I have whipped you into submission. Learn from your mistakes boy... I'm saying that right now, we're the best. That might make a few people upset, but that's just how it is. Do show me where I have said the US is not the best? 13. ### UndecidedBannedBanned Messages: 4,731 The modern carrier was built exactly for operations like the Gulf wars. I find that awfully hard to believe that is their sole intended purpose. The carriers serve many purposes, and most importantly is power projection, and that could mean many things. So no one can say definitively what their real intended purpose other then showing the flag to scare the living daylights out of nations. The navy's maritime strategy, which was designed for the Soviets through the '80s, of course, was used in both Gulf wars, the navy just didn't have to act quite as aggressively and at as high a speed as it was expected it would act against Soviet naval bases. This where I disagree with your line of reasoning. My premise is that the ships intended purpose was different then what applied to it in the 80's. When these ships were designed the aggressive attack against the Kola was not in the cards, let's face reality here. Thankfully for the US she developed great ships that could fulfill that role. But the carriers were not developed to attack land targets before that of the naval nature. Well, if when you say 'original use' you mean up through WW2, then perhaps, although no one was really sure what the exact role for a CV was at the time. What I am talking about primarily is the Nimitz class ships, not WWII vintage designs. That's true, but the CV's spent the entire '80s very aggressively testing Soviet capabilities, and conducting war games based on how the Soviets reacted, so they will be prepared for the Chinese. Doesn't mean it would be easy, but then again... I never said it would be easy for any side, but it is feasible. That is what I am not hearing. No one is saying that the Chinese could sink a carrier; instead I hear is the dancing around the fire, be brave touch the fire. That was a '70s game plan. Exactly thank you which proves my point, the original purpose of the carrier design was to attack the Soviets out in the oceans, with the best they could offer. Not as you say to do things like the GW. But sailing under EMCON conditions each time they effectively proved they could hide entire fleets from Soviet satellites until they were just outside territorial waters. Very likely they could fool the Chinese as well. But also the Chinese have also alluded the US satellites as well, this is not a one sided game. Be under no illusions, the US could fool the Chinese yes. But the Chinese could easily fool the US; she could mask her ships as Fishing Trawlers until it's too late. America is facing an enemy that does not play by America's rules. Vietnam was precipitated by this very same American arrogance of power. Have the American public not learned a thing? No kidding. I never said the CVBG would deploy land forces. See above. I said they are for bringing 'air power' to enemy shores. A CVBGs function is not a transport group. The CV provides air cover and the Aegis cruiser(s) provides other muscle. I know I mis-read... It won't be that big a strain. The US has consistently conducted exerciese using its CVBGs about 200 miles or so off the east coast of Taiwan. But the same military has shown that she would lose. I am not making these things up. Just messages to Stokes if you have problems with the lack of American preeminance, deal with the navy. It was their simulations that validated my points...twice! Why would they loiter around? They deliver their payload and go home Not necessarily, the planes if they could not find their targets? Or if their objective is being surrounded by heavy air defense. In instances of air support you need to loiter...I am ignoring the E-2 Hawkeye... 14. ### SpykeRegistered Senior Member Messages: 1,006 Of course operations like the Gulf wars are not a CV's sole purpose. A CVBG can do virtually anything the navy wants it to do. But in no engagement since WW2 has the navy used a CV in combat against another naval force, only in support of both marine and army operations. So the expected primary role has shifted over the years, and naval planning, while maybe not eliminating other possible crises, still focuses on how it expects future engagements to unfold. Um, the CVs were not really designed for any one role, whether that role be for fighting other fleets or covering land assaults. They were designed simply as seaborne mobile airbases, with many expected uses. But when you don't have a comparable enemy at sea you gear your strategies to how you do expect to fight. Anything's possible. Again, you're arguing the design of the CV being geared to one purpose originally, fighting the Soviets at sea, and that's simply not the case. The CV was designed originally for multiple roles as needed, naval engagements, covering amphibious assaults, etc. It is strategies that shift, and with those shifting strategies, the immediate role of the CV shifts, but there has been no need to re-design the CV to meet new roles. No, they haven't. The only things the Chinese have that can allude the Americans for any period of time are the old battery-powered Kilo subs, and that's only because they can fool sonar by hiding in shallow coastal waters. If they tried to come out into deeper water they're dead. In case you haven't noticed, if China plans on invading Taiwan it will have to bring its brown-water navy out into blue waters. So yes, in effect, it will have to play by US rules. Yes, yes, I read your earlier link by the 'expert' on US naval power on a Pakistani Times board. :bugeye: What he didn't bother to mention, if he even knew, was that the planners are constantly conducting war scenarios based on various factors in each. Occasionally the US came out badly. Sometimes it was a walkover. That's the purpose of conducting multiple scenarios. The F-14s can refuel east of Taiwan if necessary. The Chinese are not going to be able to effectvively contest them out refueling out there. We'll have to see just how effective the SU-27/J-11 proves to be. They will have to deal with the F-14s and the Taiwanese F-16s. If they manage to get in close they can be effective, but BVR their avionics are inferior and they're very vulnerable. They would have a tough time getting out to F-14s in the Pacific before they are knocked out. To be honest, there is little the Chinese can do in the relative future short of blasting Taiwan off the map, shich would serve no purpose. They just don't have the capabilities. 15. ### UndecidedBannedBanned Messages: 4,731 Of course operations like the Gulf wars are not a CV's sole purpose. But Spyke you said so: Do you recant that statement? A CVBG can do virtually anything the navy wants it to do. But in no engagement since WW2 has the navy used a CV in combat against another naval force, only in support of both marine and army operations. Exactly my point, the real purpose of the CVBG is going to be played out in a possible war with the Chinese. The carriers of any navy during the cold war were to serve many purposes but some overrode the others. Spyke you cannot tell me that a GW type of battle was in the minds of planners at the time of the late 60's? I think we can agree that the US at the timed geared her forces against the Soviet threat, and thustly they built a carrier as such. Yes the carriers today can do anything virtually but their telos is to depreicate an enemy naval force. Again, you're arguing the design of the CV being geared to one purpose originally, fighting the Soviets at sea, and that's simply not the case. The carriers were built to confront the Soviet threat, yes the carriers today are primarily land attacked platforms but their reason for even existing was to secure American power at sea firstly. The CV was designed originally for multiple roles as needed, naval engagements, covering amphibious assaults, etc. It is strategies that shift, and with those shifting strategies, the immediate role of the CV shifts, but there has been no need to re-design the CV to meet new roles. I don't disagree... No, they haven't. The only things the Chinese have that can allude the Americans for any period of time are the old battery-powered Kilo subs, and that's only because they can fool sonar by hiding in shallow coastal waters. If they tried to come out into deeper water they're dead. Well I do suggest that you read what was written by the author I gave you in the link. The Chinese did throw off the Americans. I mean Spyke how do you they haven't? This is where the American problem sets in; I discussed this earlier in my post. Mere belief is rampant among you guys and I don't understand why, its getting dogmatic now. In case you haven't noticed, if China plans on invading Taiwan it will have to bring its brown-water navy out into blue waters. So yes, in effect, it will have to play by US rules. Do you honestly believe that a sane China would let its pathetic brown water forces into the strait with CVBG's out there? The whole idea is to get the US out of the area, or even out of the war. I think American public opinion will change about the war if the Americans loose a carrier...for what? Getting a carrier could be a potentially big PR ploy. Look at the falling support of Iraq for just 500 men getting killed. Imagine potentially 5000 men, and$5 billion goners. Also you are dealing with a nuclear armed China.

Yes, yes, I read your earlier link by the 'expert' on US naval power on a Pakistani Times board. :bugeye:

It wasn't actually written by the poster... :bugeye:

What he didn't bother to mention, if he even knew, was that the planners are constantly conducting war scenarios based on various factors in each. Occasionally the US came out badly. Sometimes it was a walkover. That's the purpose of conducting multiple scenarios.

Irrelevant Spyke, the mere fact that the Chinese could twice hypothetically destroy a American force is powerful ammo. Hopefully the US has reoriented its policy so those losses don’t happen in the real world. It raises reasonable doubt to the dogmatism that Stokes extols.

The F-14s can refuel east of Taiwan if necessary.

Ignoring what I say eh? The F-14's are reaching retirement and by the time this thing breaks out. They would mostly be goners.

The Chinese are not going to be able to effectvively contest them out refueling out there.

When you have an S-3 Viking refueling two F-14's, that when they are at their most weakest. It would only be logical for the Chinese to attack the F-14's then. Also the F-14 would be raped in a dogfight with a J-11 with a good pilot.

They will have to deal with the F-14s and the Taiwanese F-16s.

Technically the Su-27 is superior to both in payload, endurance, maneuverability , and the AA-11 in the right hands would easily get rid of those pesky F-16's. Actually the most dangerous asset the Taiwanese have is the M2000.

If they manage to get in close they can be effective, but BVR their avionics are inferior and they're very vulnerable.

How is the Su-27's BVR inferior to that of an F-16 for instance? I know it is compared to the F-14, but anything else?

They would have a tough time getting out to F-14s in the Pacific before they are knocked out.

Again, F-14's goners...ciao...goodbye...

To be honest, there is little the Chinese can do in the relative future short of blasting Taiwan off the map, shich would serve no purpose. They just don't have the capabilities

To actually invade yes they lack the basics. To create havoc, nope.

16. ### Stokes PennwaltNuke them from orbit.Registered Senior Member

Messages:
1,503

You know, if you're going to agree with me, you could say so in fewer words. Like 15ofthe19 said before, nobody's going to think less of you for agreeing with another member. If you weren't so obstinate and cantankerous you might actually learn something from these threads.

I see we're playing numbers again. In that case, I'll see your 200 J-11s, and raise you 80 F/A-18 Hornet/Super Hornet fighters, each with 6-8 AIM-120C Scorpion AMRAAMs, eight AEGIS combatants with either 90 or 120 SM-2 Block IIIB antiaircraft missiles each, a SPY-1D phased array radar impervious to MIJI with a 256 mile range, SLQ-32 ECM suite for broadband meaconing, SRBOC decoys, USQ-119 JTIDS terminals with CEC daughter processors for interlocked picket defense, UYK-44 FCS capable of tracking and engaging up to 64 targets simultaneously, and better-trained pilots and crews than any other Navy afloat, exercising AAW tactics forged in the most comprehensive cauldron of naval wargaming ever developed.

After that, it's GG Chinamen. Next map.

But seriously, that's a very sophomoric approach to it, and I've corrected you on this before. You're going to need to do a little more learning, because you can't base your half-baked naval speculation off of a few hours of playing Harpoon 4.

o noes plz don't call me names dood!

Do yourself a favor and look up the definition of preeminent. In a dictionary.

Quotes taken out of context don't do a lot to help you, ace. Since you can't be bothered to read, I said that CVBGs, specifically, are impervious to a certain type of attack. That's two specifications in one sentence, and your transmogrified misquote that takes it to mean me saying ALL of our stuff is invincible is a strawman of epic proportions.

At this point it's become clear that I'm not going to convince you of anything, and likely would never be able to, even if I also had the same surplus of idle hours to allocate to an online message board.

17. ### ClockwoodYou Forgot PolandRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
4,467
I think I am witnessing the use of Weapons of Mass Discussion, similar to what happened between me and Ghassan/ Proud Syrian. It is a scary thing to behold.

18. ### EluminateRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
359
I didnt want this whole discussion on the possibility and non possibility of the predictions.... I wanted fun predictions by other people. Granted I did it badly but still.

out there comon... Lets hear them and you could be as vague or as elaborte as you wish in giving or not giving why or why not your predictions will occur. Predict GO!!!

19. ### Carnuthi dontRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
547
no one even mentions the phoenix's? even though theyre for bombers when chinese fighters first take off they should be loaded to the gills, aim54's should knock em down fairly easily. thats 100+ down and tomcats extend their range w/ less weight =)

20. ### Carnuthi dontRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
547
the mayan calender ends in 2012! i predict the jaguar god will descend and eat all our hearts

21. ### ClockwoodYou Forgot PolandRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
4,467
O' hear ye, hear ye. In the year of our lord, 2004, a new leader of my land shall be chosen. He shall be known as Kerry but within six months he shall have offended all the lands is exactly the way his predecessor did. Four years later, he too shall be replaced. This replacement too will offend in the same such manner.

On that day it will be known that in times of war, especially when peace is not an option, any man in the position of president by democratic means will act exactly the same as any other. Any who would not would have never reached such a position.

 And the replacement of Kerry shall be known as Hillary and on her first day in office she shall hire one known as Martha Stewart. This Martha shall be hired to redecorate the palace of Hillary, the socalled White House.

22. ### RonVolkRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
232
Didn't you read the "Shadowrun" book series? In 2012 magic, elves, and dragons are coming back to the world. Heck Yeah!! I want a magic sword of orc bashing (+8 against orcs).

Trying to make it fun for Eluminate.

23. ### 15ofthe1935 year old virginRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,588
I predict that nico will be eaten by a Nazgul after attempting to reason with Sauron that his deployment of the Uruk-Hai against Rohan was ill-timed, and thusly, a logical fallacy. Sauron was patiently hearing nico's arguments until she repeated the phrase cognitive surrender one too many times.