Re: Satellite defense
- From: "Jonathan" <beals@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 20:52:22 -0500
"Ed Kyle" <edkyle99@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1169659853.039812.114050@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Jan 23, 1:10 pm, "frédéric haessig" <fhaes...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
snipstrategy for WWII?
Yes. So much would be at stake that I don't think we would
see ASAT attacks unless a big war was already on, or was
just about to begin. China's main wargaming scenario has
to be Taiwan, where it would need to blind the U.S. for just a
few days. Once they have swarmed onto that island, and
have it surrounded by a gazillion submarines and protected
by a missile screen, the war is over.Wasn't that basically Japan's
Surely an exemple to copy
The difference between then and now is that surface fleets
are much more vulnerable today to attack from missiles
and submarines. If China took Taiwan and the U.S. tried
to force a counter-attacking fleet across the Pacific
(half-way across the globe with no cover), it would never
make it. An attack sub hundreds of km distant could
erase a carrier group in a matter of minutes.
And what about that amphibious landing China
would have to pull off? With our navy and fighters
standing comfortably at a distance, firing one
harpoon after another?
AGM-84 Harpoon
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/agm-84.htm
China
has been building submarines like crazy for several
years. Its underwater fleet is expected to surpass the
U.S. fleet in a decade or so.
Japan didn't fully leverage the power of its submarines
during WWII. The U.S. did. A relatively small number
of U.S. submarines (compared to surface ship numbers)
sank more than half of Japan's merchant fleet during the
war. China, it could be assumed, will not repeat Japan's
mistake.
It'd be China that has to protect a supply line
and invasion force. Taiwan and the US would
be defending a fortress island.
Remember what our troops thought about
invading Japan?
- Ed Kyle
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Satellite defense
- From: Ed Kyle
- Re: Satellite defense
- References:
- Satellite defense
- From: Frogwatch
- Re: Satellite defense
- From: Ed Kyle
- Re: Satellite defense
- From: Rand Simberg
- Re: Satellite defense
- From: Ed Kyle
- Re: Satellite defense
- From: Jake McGuire
- Re: Satellite defense
- From: Ed Kyle
- Re: Satellite defense
- From: frédéric haessig
- Re: Satellite defense
- From: Ed Kyle
- Satellite defense
- Prev by Date: Re: Space Solar Power - A possible way of Reducing Rectenna size?
- Next by Date: Re: Space Solar Power - A possible way of Reducing Rectenna size?
- Previous by thread: Re: Satellite defense
- Next by thread: Re: Satellite defense
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|