Help support TMP


"China will have the world's most powerful naval gun " Topic


25 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Ultramodern Warfare (2008-present) Message Board



1,117 hits since 23 Jun 2018
©1994-2018 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Tango0123 Jun 2018 10:36 p.m. PST

…ready for war by 2025


"* The warship-mounted electromagnetic railgun is expected to enter China's arsenal by 2025, according to sources with direct knowledge of a U.S. intelligence report.
* Railguns have long appeared on Russian, Iranian and U.S. military wish lists as cost-effective weapons that give navies the might of a cannon with the range of a precision-guided missile.
* China's railgun is capable of striking a target 124 miles away in under 90 seconds, according to the report.

China is currently testing the world's most powerful naval gun and people with direct knowledge of a U.S. intelligence report say it will be ready for war by 2025.

Railguns use electromagnetic energy instead of gunpowder to propel rounds, and China's is capable of striking a target 124 miles away at speeds of up to 1.6 miles per second, according to the report. For perspective, a shot fired from Washington, D.C., could reach Philadelphia in under 90 seconds….."
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

Personal logo Cacique Caribe Supporting Member of TMP24 Jun 2018 1:52 a.m. PST

Seven years from now? Who knows? They keep stealing technology and more, all without repercussions. Everyone else just keeps trading with them like nothing has happened.

If it was Russia or some other country our politicians would be in a rage. But their pockets are kept full thanks to Communist China, so not even a peep. And anyone else who tries to bring it up is called crazy or worse.

Maybe the world is waiting for the People's Republic of China to be fully armed and ready for war before they try to set any serious sanctions and limits on them? Ha! Good luck with it then.

This is like waiting until 1939 to try to stop Germany, when they and their Chancellor-for-life were ready to do war, instead of taking truly serious steps back in 1933.

Dan
TMP link
TMP link
TMP link
TMP link

bsrlee24 Jun 2018 6:10 a.m. PST

Sadly Dan is right, and not just the US, its happening all over the globe.

princeman24 Jun 2018 5:04 p.m. PST

Yup – I agree with Dan and brslee.

Begemot Inactive Member24 Jun 2018 11:50 p.m. PST

It's always 1939 or Munich 1938.

28mm Fanatik25 Jun 2018 10:52 a.m. PST

The historians of tomorrow may conclude that a similar anxiety about rising Chinese power has motivated several American administrations to launch hasty and reckless efforts to consolidate a global Pax Americana. But the would-be architects of enduring American global hegemony in the past three decades have failed, and time is running out.

MY FIRST argument, then, is that the underlying cause of Cold War II is the American bid for global hegemony that followed Cold War I and Chinese and Russian resistance to it. My second argument is that, if American victory is defined as achieving American global hegemony in the face of their resistance, particularly the resistance of China, the United States is going to be defeated in Cold War II.

To judge by the rhetoric of the new cold warriors, the goals of the United States include, among others, the following: China's acceptance of permanent U.S. military domination of East Asia; China's acceptance of rules for world trade drafted by the United States and its European and Asian allies, without Chinese participation; Russia's acquiescence in a permanent U.S./NATO presence on its borders; and Russia's return of Crimea to Ukraine.

It is not necessary to argue that these geopolitical objectives are undesirable from an American perspective, for the simple reason that these objectives, whether good or bad, are impossible for the United States to achieve. To commit a nation to projects that cannot be accomplished must result in humiliating national failure.

The excerpt above did not originate from a liberal media outlet like Vox or Huffington Post but was published in the most recent edition of the conservative foreign affairs publication "The National Interest." The full article can be found at the link below:

link

The problem isn't China. The problem is American Hegemony and the arrogant attitude that America alone is exceptional and has the sole birthright of being a superpower.

Lion in the Stars25 Jun 2018 4:37 p.m. PST

What the hell is that author smoking?

The US maintains a presence in East Asia due to treaty obligations. South Korea refuses to be a Chinese (or Japanese!) client state ever again, and desires a 'big brother' who can prevent the Chinese from a military invasion. Japan is constitutionally prohibited from maintaining a military capable of offensive actions, and half the US bases in Japan are actually for the reinforcement of Korea in case of war.

The rules of international trade are drafted such that all nations are placed on an equal playing field (because all the big trade powers were equally pissed off about the rules!). China is catching flak due to crappy Quality Control and Assurance (though that is squaring itself away due to market factors), and for manipulating their currency exchange rate such that products made in China are significantly cheaper than they would be if the exchange rate was allowed to float.

The 'Eastern NATO nations' on Russia's borders joined NATO because they refuse to be a Russian client-nation again. Russia's treatment of them during Cold War 1 guaranteed this response.

And the big problem with Russia taking Crimea is that it really boosted nuclear proliferation. The Ukraine gave up all it's Soviet-made nukes in exchange for a promise from Russia and the US that the Ukraine's territorial boundaries would be respected. Russia didn't respect the borders, and the US was unwilling to threaten Russia with violence to kick them out. Ergo, the only way to protect your own borders from a nuclear power is to have nukes of your own.

28mm Fanatik25 Jun 2018 6:38 p.m. PST

All valid points. But there are some strong voices in our foreign policy circles who make compelling arguments that:

America's treaty obligations in East Asia can only be seen as a not-so-thinly veiled policy of "containing" China. Of course, China's aggressive territorial claims make it easy to justify, but for how long? Just as Britain had to yield to America's ascension and "Manifest Destiny" during the 19th century, America may have to acknowledge China's rise in the 21st.

The rules of commerce represented by the TPP and TTIP are overly restrictive and are being forced on countries that do not want them like Universal Health Care (even our own apparently if the rhetoric of our POTUS is to be believed).

The annexation of Crimea resulted from NATO/EU expansion to Russia's borders with total disregard for Russia's interests, which would not have occurred in the first place if there were no Maidan Revolition or the offer of NATO membership to Ukraine. The irony is that, in trying to be more "secure" through NATO membership, Ukraine (and Georgia) with the help of the West only made things much worse.

Underlying Realpolitik is the principal that all nations have, and act out of, their own interests. And if for all our good intentions we ignore or dismiss them, we do so at our own folly.

BTW the author's main point in the article is that a new modus vivendi as in CW1 will have to be established in CW2.

Begemot Inactive Member25 Jun 2018 8:42 p.m. PST

…the only way to protect your own borders from a nuclear power is to have nukes of your own.

This makes the case for Iran and North Korea possessing nuclear weapons. They believe they are threatened by USA, the preeminent nuclear power. An own goal?

Lion in the Stars26 Jun 2018 10:31 a.m. PST

The annexation of Crimea resulted from NATO/EU expansion to Russia's borders with total disregard for Russia's interests, which would not have occurred in the first place if there were no Maidan Revolition or the offer of NATO membership to Ukraine. The irony is that, in trying to be more "secure" through NATO membership, Ukraine (and Georgia) with the help of the West only made things much worse.

You are ignoring the desires of the former-WARPAC nations to not be Russian clients in this statement.

Begemot Inactive Member26 Jun 2018 12:55 p.m. PST

Your preceding comments use a specific and particular situation to set up your final, concluding, and general principle that "… the only way to protect your own borders from a nuclear power is to have nukes of your own." I merely pointed out the logical consequences of your general principle.

28mm Fanatik26 Jun 2018 1:10 p.m. PST

You are ignoring the desires of the former-WARPAC nations to not be Russian clients in this statement.

Not at all, but as a realist I recognize that a perfect world in which everybody gets what they want is unattainable. Russia has drawn a "red line" with Georgia and Ukraine on how far the West can push towards her borders after a decade of NATO expansion under two US (Clinton and Bush Jr.) administrations.

Here's another article on this particular topic. Even if you strongly disagree with it, you might find the parts (starting on page 3) describing the modern Russian Federation armed forces, its equipment and structure interesting from a wargaming perspective:

link

Lion in the Stars28 Jun 2018 11:27 a.m. PST

@Begemot: Well, it wasn't entirely the US who kicked that mess off, but yeah, the actions of that Administration are going to have repercussions for decades. If not longer.

If I wanted to be a real ass, I'd suggest that Russia's actions despite an earlier treaty to respect the Ukraine's borders indicate that Russia's word is no longer good for anything.

Begemot Inactive Member28 Jun 2018 11:43 p.m. PST

Lion – I think your remarks of Jun 28 11:27 hrs are misdirected. Was your intended target 28mm Fanatik? Otherwise I don't think your comments make any sense with respect to what I've written about your logic.

28mm Fanatik29 Jun 2018 9:34 a.m. PST

@Begemot,

Not to go too far off topic, but Lion's most recent comments were directed at you. You applied the same unimpeachable logic to Iran and N. Korea wanting nukes to deter the USA from intervention or regime change, just as Lion said it was a mistake in hindsight for Ukraine to give up her nukes since they would have deterred Putin from taking the Crimea.

Lion's comment "Well, it wasn't entirely the US who kicked that mess off, but yeah, the actions of that Administration are going to have repercussions for decades. If not longer" is referring specifically to the "bad" nuclear deal that the previous administration, the EU, China and Russia negotiated with Iran, which the current POTUS tore up not long ago. So now that "mistake" has been corrected, it predictably led to this: TMP link

Lion in the Stars01 Jul 2018 11:24 p.m. PST

I'd meant that the US didn't start the Crimean mess, but the lack of US resolve to stop the Russians (due to a not-unreasonable fear of a fight with Russia going nuclear) when we had promised otherwise was the US's fault, one that we are going to have to deal with for a long time.

See also 'Red Lines' about the use of chemical weapons.

28mm Fanatik02 Jul 2018 7:04 p.m. PST

I stand corrected. The previous administration and the EU badly miscalculated how far they can push NATO closer to Russia's borders through the use of soft power. Now they know where the red line is. A new modus vivendi has been established. Russia now hosts the World Cup and is about re-establish dialogue with the US.

Lion in the Stars02 Jul 2018 7:31 p.m. PST

You know that Eastern Europe, the 'new NATO' countries, all approached the alliance, don't you?

Begemot Inactive Member02 Jul 2018 11:54 p.m. PST

Has the question of joining NATO ever been submitted to a vote of the people of any country, or is this a decision that has been made by a small elite group in the government? In the case of Ukraine, several opinion polls over the years before February 2014 showed that the majority of Ukranians were opposed to joining NATO.

Lion in the Stars03 Jul 2018 2:21 a.m. PST

There's something wrong in the world when the American is saying that democracy, public opinion in particular, is a terrible way to run a country.

Personal logo Cacique Caribe Supporting Member of TMP03 Jul 2018 9:33 p.m. PST

Lion

Depends on where and how they are gathering said "public opinions".

Some media and activist groups would have you believe that social media petitions, comments, polls and reviews equal democracy … until you look a lot closer and realize that, thanks to the huge number of duplicate and foreign accounts, the numbers sometimes exceed the total of your local registered voting age constituents. :)

And I've personally seen how personal and house to house "opinion polls" operate. They pick and choose who to ask, and the questions can be worded so as to favor only one outcome. That would not be democracy. It would be rule by the activists and their organizations, not the people.

Dan

williamb04 Jul 2018 6:30 p.m. PST

With regard to the expansion of NATO. The new countries asked to join. Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia are all worried about Russia attempting to regain control of them. Yes, Russia does not want NATO to expand into Eastern Europe which is why they have interfered when nations have attempted to join it. This happened when Moldavia wanted to join. When Ukraine elected a pro-western government despite Russian attempts to influence the elections there, Russia invaded them in violation of the treaty that was made with Great Britain and the US. While the United States is a major player in NATO it does not dictate what NATO chooses to do. Germany and Great Britain chart their own courses. If the majority of Ukranians favored Russia then more than part of the country would now be in control of pro-Russian factions.

28mm Fanatik05 Jul 2018 8:32 a.m. PST

When Ukraine elected a pro-western government despite Russian attempts to influence the elections there, Russia invaded them in violation of the treaty that was made with Great Britain and the US.

Some might call it karma or poetic justice because of western attempts to break Ukraine from Moscow's orbit by inciting the Euromaidan movement which removed the lawfully elected Viktor Yanukovych on trumped up corruption charges. His only "crime" was that he chose Moscow over Europe.

Begemot Inactive Member05 Jul 2018 10:25 a.m. PST

williamb –

When Ukraine elected a pro-western government despite Russian attempts to influence the elections there, Russia invaded them

When was this election held in Ukraine that inspired this invasion? Was it pre-February 22, 2014 or post-February 22, 2014?

williamb05 Jul 2018 11:19 a.m. PST

Regardless of weather or not there were trumped up charges or an election or not. Russia still invaded Crimea in violation of the treaty, which is a lot more forceful than what the west was doing.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.