|
Korean Job Discussion Forums "The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
Posted: Sat Feb 06, 2010 9:01 pm Post subject: Conventional Prompt Global Strike |
|
|
US's (conventional) strike threat catches China off-guard
| SecDef Gates wrote: |
| In the case of China, Beijing's investments in cyberwarfare, anti-satellite warfare, anti-aircraft and anti-ship weaponry, submarines, and ballistic missiles could threaten the United States' primary means to project its power and help its allies in the Pacific: bases, air and sea assets, and the networks that support them. This will put a premium on the United States' ability to strike from over the horizon and employ missile defenses and will require shifts from short-range to longer-range systems, such as the next-generation bomber. |
China's cyberwarfare and anti-sat capabilities are truly formidable, although I'm confident China's navy poses no real threat by itself following a first strike scenario. But the United States is developing a new generation in precision conventional weaponry, most likely as a response to rogue states like Iran and North Korea, but which inescapably threaten China's current defense assumptions.
| An analyst wrote: |
| At some level, the Chinese see the US as investing in precision conventional munitions and have made their own parallel investments. But the more interesting question - 'Could conventional forces hold at risk China's nuclear forces?' - is something that seems to be just settling in. |
| An analyst wrote: |
It seems likely that Chinese defense planners will coalesce around the idea that the US is undertaking an open-ended strategic modernization which focuses largely on missile defenses and conventional strike capabilities, and that China needs to continue to improve the survivability of nuclear forces, largely through mobility, and continue to investigate ways to disrupt US command, control and intelligence capabilities |
I think China's strengths have to lie in the ability to disable US command & control. In addition to cyberwarfare and anti-sat capabilities, I'd expect China to have developed EMP warheads that could paralyze American cities, particularly Washington, D.C.. An electromagnetic shock could shut D.C. down for hours, even days.
C-PGS is actually an umbrella term for a host of different programs.
| Quote: |
| For years, several DoD-funded C-PGS projects have proceeded, including the Falcon Hypersonic Test Vehicle (HTV), the Blackswift hypersonic aircraft, the X-51 scramjet-powered vehicle, and the Conventional Strike Missile, or CSM, which is a modified Minuteman III ballistic missile, to name a few. |
Some of the new generation of weaponry is just absolutely disgusting. China can't hope to keep up, so it will have to focus on aggressive command and control disruptions as a defensive measure. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Established in 1994
|
Posted: Sun Feb 07, 2010 2:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Some of the new generation of weaponry is just absolutely disgusting. |
I don't keep up on weapons development, except for when a student tells me something--by 2020 they will have bat wingy things to solo fly silently into NK.
What are these 'disgusting' weapons you allude to? Do tell. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
bacasper

Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
Posted: Sun Feb 07, 2010 8:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Some of the new generation of weaponry is just absolutely disgusting. |
I don't keep up on weapons development, |
An excellent way to do so is to listen, live or on demand, to the weekly program Weaponry on Pacifica Radio's flagship station WBAI-FM. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
Posted: Mon Feb 08, 2010 2:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
What are these 'disgusting' weapons you allude to? Do tell. |
I don't keep up with the hardware stuff as much as I'd like. But the F-35 can hover.
Yeah, its kinda Transformers, but you know the world is jealous.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Established in 1994
|
Posted: Sun Feb 14, 2010 1:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
Here's a James Fallows bit on cyberwar:
Cyber Warriors
Next, the authorities stressed that Chinese organizations and individuals were a serious source of electronic threats�but far from the only one, or perhaps even the main one. You could take this as good news about U.S.-China relations, but it was usually meant as bad news about the problem as a whole. �The Chinese would be in the top three, maybe the top two, leading problems in cyberspace,� James Lewis, a former diplomat who worked on security and intelligence issues and is now at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, in Washington, told me. �They�re not close to being the primary problem, and there is debate about whether they�re even number two.� Number one in his analysis is Russia, through a combination of state, organized-criminal, and unorganized-individual activity. Number two is Israel�and there are more on the list. �The French are notorious for looking for economic advantage through their intelligence system,� I was told by Ed Giorgio, who has served as the chief code maker and chief code breaker for the National Security Agency. �The Israelis are notorious for looking for political advantage. We have seen Brazil emerge as a source of financial crime, to join Russia, which is guilty of all of the above.� Interestingly, no one suggested that international terrorist groups�as opposed to governments, corporations, or �normal� criminals�are making significant use of electronic networks to inflict damage on Western targets, although some groups rely on the Internet for recruitment, organization, and propagandizing.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/201003/china-cyber-war
Here's another: In overall spending, the United States puts between five and 10 times as much money into the military per year as China does, depending on different estimates of China�s budget. Spending does not equal effectiveness, but it suggests the difference in scale.
If true, and I've seen other estimates that agree, then there's some money to be saved. Slow down this part of the military budget to say, twice, what the Chinese spend and we'd still be far ahead. Then in 20 years or so, if our finances are in better shape and we want to gear up again, then do so. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|