Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

US Navy Stunned: Deadly new Chinese Missiles can Sink Every US Supercarrier

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
Joanne98 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-10-10 03:04 PM
Original message
US Navy Stunned: Deadly new Chinese Missiles can Sink Every US Supercarrier
A new 'smart missile' threatens to tip the balance of power towards China, US military analysts say.

The latest generation of the Dongfeng 21D (DF-21D) is a supercarrier killer according to experts on China's armaments. The missile can be launched from land and strike an aircraft carrier 900 miles away.

China has 11,200 miles of coastline. That fact coupled with the range and accuracy of the new missile could spell doom for any US or allied carrier fleet.

Designed to kill carriers


Patrick Cronin, a senior director of the Asia-Pacific Security Program that is part of the Washington, DC Center for a New American Security organization admits the DF 21D is designed to kill carriers--specifically US Naval carriers. "The Navy has long had to fear carrier--killing capabilities. The emerging Chinese anti-ship missile capability, and in particular the DF 21D, represents the first post--Cold War capability that is both potentially capable of stopping our naval power projection and deliberately designed for that purpose."

The new Chinese military's 96166 Unit will be outfitted with DF 21C medium-range ballistic missiles (MRBM) and possibly the DF-21D ASBM as well.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/US-Navy-stunned-Deadly...

If the cheap labor conservatives and the Benedict Arnold CEO's hadn't shipped our manufactoring base over there, they wouldn't have had the money to do this!

Republicans and capitalists are traitors!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-10-10 03:08 PM
Response to Original message
1. eh . . . when will it occur to those "protecting" us that violence isn't the way to do it????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mike r Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-10-10 03:08 PM
Response to Original message
2. Isn't this "Center for a New American Security" part of the neocon megaplex
called "Project for the New American Century"...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kolesar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-10-10 03:17 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. Board of Directors
Richard Danzig, Chairman
Madeleine K. Albright
Richard L. Armitage
Norman R. Augustine
Denis A. Bovin
R. Nicholas Burns
Leo S. Mackay, Jr.
Lt. Gen. Gregory S. Newbold, USMC (Ret.)
William J. Perry
Mitchell Reiss
Peter Schwartz
John P. White
Michael J. Zak
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_a_New_American_...
See the discussion page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Center_for_a_New_Amer...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
enough Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-10-10 03:13 PM
Response to Original message
3. For decades, right up to the collapse of the Soviet Union, we were told that the USSR
had a fearsome military machine that put us in dire peril every instant of our lives. This was the rationale for a huge military buildup in the US, and a paranoid stance in both our foreign and domestic policy. It was the defining "reality" of a long period of our history.

I personally have no way to know whether this alleged super-weapon of the Chinese actually has the capacity it is claimed to have. But I do have a lifetime of experience that makes me at least a bit skeptical.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Billy Burnett Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-10-10 03:24 PM
Response to Reply #3
9. Reverse the nations in your post.
Maybe it is the Chinese that are building up against a military on the verge of collapse (the US's).

That's what I'm thinking.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bulloney Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-10-10 03:27 PM
Response to Reply #3
11. The Pentagon always has to have a boogey man to scare us into accepting their bloated budgets.
I'm like you, enough. I can't prove it, but I'm old enough to remember there's just cause to be skeptical of these claims.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gordianot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-10-10 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #3
12. The Russians have had the "Sunburn" missle for some time, with similar claims.
I doubt anyone would know if these things work until they are used. If someone makes them, someone will buy them. Chinese capitalism at its best.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue Owl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-10-10 03:13 PM
Response to Original message
4. Solution: throw another $500 billion towards bombing Afghanistan cavemen
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GSLevel9 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-10-10 03:20 PM
Response to Original message
6. well...
all the reason to build more ICBM's!!!!!!

:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Historic NY Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-10-10 03:21 PM
Response to Original message
7. Wow you mean no one thought it was ever possible..........the Brits learned
during the Falklands War that Etendard-Exocet missle combination was deadly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donnachaidh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-10-10 03:24 PM
Response to Original message
8. who are they kidding?
they are stunned? When WE gave the Chinese the implements to MAKE these *smart missiles* in our initial NAFTA trades?

From David Cay Johnson's "Free Trade" book ---

"General Motors created a division to manufacture these magnets, calling it Magnequench."

:snip:

"GM also made 80 per cent of the magnets used in smart bombs, the kind that can be guided to a target to maximize damage, and, hopefully, minimize death of innocent bystanders."

"Then in 1995 the automaker decided to sell the division. Because the deal was for only 70 million it attracted little attention. The buyer was a consortium of three firms led by the Sextant Group, an investment company whose principal was Archibald Cox Jr., the son of the Watergate Special Prosecutor whom President Nixon famously fired."

It goes on to say how this consortium quietly bought that company and all other companies in the US capable of creating these devices. And then it was offered to the Chinese, despite complaints over the military application of the magnets.

Oh yeah, it was the Clinton Administration that approved the sale.

We GAVE them the technology.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kolesar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-10-10 03:27 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. David Cay Johnson takes on all of the tough topics
Ok, maybe not "all", but his work is important.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donnachaidh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-10-10 03:33 PM
Response to Reply #10
14. he sure does -- more people should read his stuff.
They'd be both outraged and be aware that they need to wear hipwaders when our government says it's *surprised*...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w4rma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 05:05 AM
Response to Reply #8
38. Traitorous DLCers. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bemildred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-10-10 03:32 PM
Response to Original message
13. Yawn. Somebody noticed carriers make big fat targets, again. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-10-10 03:58 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. Carriers are great for attacking undefended targets in third-world countries.
Otherwise, they're a fine income assurance program for the corporate officers and stockholders of General Dynamics Corp.

And, they look really great in Dinner Dress Whites.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
happyslug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-10-10 04:20 PM
Response to Reply #13
18. Carriers have been referred to a "Missle Magnets" since the 1960s
Carriers have they place, but NOT in small seas like the East China, South China and Yellow seas, which are the seas off the coast of China.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-10-10 04:27 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. Add the Persian Gulf.
The Navy could accelerate the carrier replacement program there by 3 or 4 vessels.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
burnsei sensei Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-10-10 03:44 PM
Response to Original message
15. I'm not sympathetic.
More money, less performance.
In military expenditures and in health care-- the outcomes are the same.
When is this government and society going to realize that you don't necessarily get what you pay for?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
happyslug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-10-10 04:17 PM
Response to Original message
17. That means US Carried MUST stay in the Pacific outside the seas off the coast of China
China has three seas on its coast, South to North, the South China Sea (South of Taiwan), the East China Sea (North of Taiwan) and the Yellow sea (Between China and Korea).

The East China Sea, from Shanghai to the Nahu on Okinawa is only 514 miles.
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/distances.html?n=...

The Yellow sea from Qingdao to Seoul South Korea is only 380 miles.
http://www.mapcrow.info/Distance_between_Qingdao_CH_and...

As you enter the East China Sea from the Yellow Sea you can travel from China to Southern most Japanese Island city of Kagoshima Japan. Distance from Shanghai China to Kagoshima Japan is only 546 miles.
http://www.flightpedia.org/distance-shanghai-china-to-k...

The South China Sea has wider distance but the distance from Hong Kong to Manila, Philippines is only 690 Miles.
http://www.travelmath.com/flight-distance/from/Manila,+...

Between Hainan Island off the South East coast of China (and is PART of China) to Manila is only 785 miles.

From Hainan island to Brunei Malaysia is only 972 miles.

Thus a 900 mile Missile (if it works etc) keeps US carriers off the Chinese Coast. Us Carriers will have to stay out of the the Waters between China AND the Island Nations off its coast (Philippines, The Ryukyu islands of Japan etc). In many aspects US Naval Policy for many decades for areas like this (including the Mediterranean Sea and the Persian Gulf) a bathtub when it comes to Carriers maneuvers. Most time Carriers will stay out of those areas except to show the flag OR to dash in launch an air-strike and dash out (Or after any missiles sites have been taken out).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-10-10 05:01 PM
Response to Reply #17
20. If China were to sell those missiles to other countries
it would be the end of American imperialism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proteus_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 02:39 AM
Response to Reply #20
24. And usher in Chinese imperialism.
Which I'm sure is cuter and fluffier. :eyes:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 07:42 AM
Response to Reply #24
27. Nope. If they really wanted military dominance--
--they'd be making aircraft carriers, not carrier killers. They have nothing resembling a navy that oould use them offensively.

I'm more worried that we'll have no choice but to depend on them for the very latest in renewable energy technology.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proteus_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 03:39 PM
Response to Reply #27
31. That's the rub.
In the century to come, imperialism won't always mean military dominance.

If China can hold it together.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 03:58 PM
Response to Reply #31
32. And it's our choice
Our betters have decided that military dominance of a declining resource is preferable to being on the cutting edge of the next energy economy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Wizard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 08:46 AM
Response to Reply #20
30. The Russians have been supplying Iran
with Sunburn missiles capable of sinking carriers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS-N-22
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Chi Minh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-10-10 05:30 PM
Response to Original message
21. Spot on. They were always demonizing the Chinese Communist regime. Now they have to face
a Chinese 'de facto', fascist regime, which their blind, fathomless greed has led to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveProfessor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-10-10 06:20 PM
Response to Original message
22. Multiple repeat - Demonstrably not true as well
Edited on Tue Aug-10-10 06:22 PM by ProgressiveProfessor
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proteus_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 02:38 AM
Response to Original message
23. Another weapon that wouldn't be used.
They sink a carrier, we glass Beijing.

I doubt that China would make that trade.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bhikkhu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:23 PM
Response to Reply #23
35. "war won't happen because the consequences would be terrible"
The logic of that is impeccable, but it has been proven often enough in the past that logic isn't the deciding factor in whether something happens. Particularly whether wars happen.

If we go to war with China (which would be pretty stupid to begin with anyway) and we use our carriers, then its obvious they would try to sink them. Given the advances in offensive weaponry, my understanding is they're all going to the bottom, even without this new missile. I would guess the navy has been well aware of this for some time and wouldn't use them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proteus_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:39 PM
Response to Reply #35
36. That's why we wouldn't give up bases in SK and Japan.
If our carriers couldn't get near China, then land-based fighters would do the dirty work with carriers resupplying them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thelordofhell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 02:57 AM
Response to Original message
25. News Alert!!
ANY big missile can be a carrier destroyer.

:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
formercia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 07:25 AM
Response to Original message
26. China has done the same thing Germany did before WWII
Selling cheaply made goods to the US and other countries allowed Germany to build up its manufacturing capability which was quickly converted to manufacture weapons. Like Germany, US business interests were more than willing to provide financing and expertise to facilitate rearmament.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Doctor_J Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 07:53 AM
Response to Original message
28. So glad we're getting our trillion dollars worth of "defense"
We could throw the pentagon some more but the pesky deficit still looms
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Hitman Donating Member (477 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 08:15 AM
Response to Original message
29. Call me crazy but..
Can't any ol nuclear warhead do the same thing?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sce56 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 08:08 PM
Response to Original message
33. Republicans and capitalists are traitors! Error: you can only recommend threads
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bozvotros Donating Member (394 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 10:42 PM
Response to Original message
34. I think the carriers have defenses against this kind of thing and
have had them for quite a while. http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/mk-15.htm They even use these to neutralize mortar and rocket attacks on some of our bases in Iraq. I think the Navy is aware that there are a number of missiles already capable of hitting our ships. This new Chinese missile might be bigger,faster and more accurate but 4500 radar guided, armor piercing rounds a minute still might have some say about whether it hits its target. I seriously doubt the Navy was "stunned."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Second Stone Donating Member (603 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 04:03 AM
Response to Original message
37. How about we not keep our carriers within 1000 miles of China's
Shores? Duh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
northernlights Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 07:09 AM
Response to Original message
39. Uh-oh. Quick, we'd better build something bigger, faster, deadlier...
think China will loan us the $$ we need to build it? :crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Sep 02nd 2014, 07:35 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC