Archive for the 'Technology' Category

Can the United States Win a War Against China?

Aby July 17th, 2007

This is one topic of worldwide interest, perhaps because of the growing strength of the People’s Liberation Army of China in terms of strategic capabilities and technology. There are a lot of American and Chinese nationalists plus anti-Americans globally who like vultures (wishing for deaths), would want a war to happen. In the context of present China-US economic ties and their not-so-bad political stance, such a war is highly unlikely. However history has been evident that sudden strong political or military incidents could escalate to a war if there is no diplomatic initiative in both the sides, like the case of the first Gulf War in 1991. It would be interesting to analyse what the outcomes of such a war could be, considering the technological superiority of US military forces in total and strategic superiority of Chinese PLA in their mainland.

Chinese President Hu Jintao (left) and his US counterpart George Bush (right):Let us hope they do not think of coming to military ‘blows’

The most likely reasons for a possible US vs China war would be a US invasion of North Korea or an escalation of the Taiwan dispute. In normal cases the latter would make both countries seek an amicable diplomatic solution instead of a war which would not be worth it. The question of the PLA invading continental United States does not arise considering their lack of resources and capability for such a move. However in case of a US invasion of China’s mainland, things might have a different outcome. There are innumerable analyses and debates in the web on this subject, a lot of them propagated by nationalists who take a simplistic one track approach to explain warfare. A multi-dimensional approach encompassing historical trends coupled with available military information gives a more realistic understanding of a war scenario, rather than a simplistic one track thinking.

 

A look back at history of US conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq, Kosovo and Vietnam shows that the US conventional forces are not as invincible as some of us would like to believe. The United States won the Iraq and Afghanistan wars mainly because of a strategy of carpet bombing ground based guerillas and a complete lack of opposing air defence to stop the advance of their bombers. In both these wars the US forces were aided by local troops and a large number of nations banded with US as Coalition Forces. At the other side of the coin, an extreme overconfidence by defence analysts led to the death of 57000+ US forces in the Vietnam War without an actual military victory and a massive global political defeat. In the Kosovo Conflict, the US led NATO forces faced setbacks due to their overconfidence in technological superiority of US forces. The KLA guerillas were undermanned and with no air defence, eventually gave up the war but it revealed the inherent flaws in the US military technologies like ’stealth’ and ‘GPS targeting’.

 

In case of US going into war against China, it would face an exponentially worse time than it did in Vietnam or Kosovo. A US bombing strike on Chinese mainland would not only be struck down by the Chinese air defences (SAMs, etc.) but also face a full fledged counter attack from China’s PLA Air Force. The limited size of airbases in Taiwan and US would also hinder the advancing US forces while China, due to its large continental size would not face such problems. The USN and USAF have unquestionable superiority over China’s PLAN and PLAAF in technology and numbers, but it would hardly decide the outcome of a war; as China would be unlike any adversary US faced in the past. Like Kosovo, there would be a lot of surprises in store for US forces but unlike Kosovo they wouldn’t be facing 10000 disorganised ground based guerillas in China. Instead it would be a 2.5 million strong army with full fledged air, ground, sea and missile forces; all backed by a relatively stable economy and effective dispersed human intelligence (HUMINT).

 

A war with China would also result in severe economic repercussions for the US due to a major chunk of its economic activities on China and if the war is prolonged, the only option left for US forces would be a nuclear warfare. In the case of a nuclear first strike by US, China’s response would easily obliterate most major US cities wiping off 40-100 millions in the American mainland. The US might eventually win in a nuclear confrontation with China because of its arsenal but the effects of a nuclear war will render the American mainland into a massive scale of human waste. A war between these two countries would easily become the largest holocaust in human history with over 1 billion people eliminated which would make the World War 2 look like a picnic. An economic collapse for both US and China would be inevitable due to their interdependencies. Fortunately, most American military analysts in the United States Department of Defence are aware of the facts unlike the armchair nationalist ‘military professionals’ in online communities.

 

Further Information and Resources -

Spread the Word: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • StumbleUpon
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • Netscape
  • NewsVine

Intercontinental SLBMs - Russian Bulava vs American Trident

Dmitri June 29th, 2007

The RSM 56 Bulava SLBM (Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile) project of Russia went on a superfast track after the rising tension between the United States of America and Russia since 2006. The RSM 56 Bulava SLBM was successfully tested on June 28, 2007 from the Dmitry Donskoi nuclear submarine off the White Sea. Before this test there were three unsuccessful test launches in 2006, the causes of the failure not specified. The successful test of the Bulava barely a month after the RS 24 ICBM test, seemed to arouse global interests in the re-emergence of Russia as a world military superpower. There is widespread curiosity - if the Russian Bulava SLBM would be able to beat the US’ UGM-133A Trident (one of the most sophisticated and capable SLBMs in the world).

A news video on Russia’s Bulava SLBM test on June 2007 (Click on video to play)

RSM 56 Bulava - The missile is currently in development and slated for deployment in the Russian Navy in 2008. The Bulava is an MIRV tipped SLBM which can carry 4 - 10 independently targetable nuclear warheads of at least 100 kilotons each. The range of the Bulava is expected to be over 8300 kms taking into consideration the ranges of currently operational Russian SLBMs. The top speed of Bulava is not known but is expected to be faster than other SLBMs since it is based on the Russian Topol M class missiles (the fastest known missiles). It can be guided by a Global Navigation Satellite System (GLONASS) and after the fuel of the missile is expended, the warheads will follow an inertial trajectory (called ‘throw weight’ path). Twelve (12) of Bulava RSM 56 SLBMs can be fitted on each of the new generation Borei class submarines (which incidentally, was fast tracked and launched on April 2007, instead of the slated 2010).

 

UGM-133A Trident - The UGM-133A Trident D5, as it is technically known is currently operational and deployed by the US Navy. It has an inter-continental range with the capability to strike targets 7360+ kms away and can carry a payload of 3-6 nuclear MIRVed warheads. The Trident is also known for its high burnout speed and target accuracy of 380 meters, making it a powerful first strike nuclear missile. The guidance of this missile is based on a Global Positioning System (GPS) variant and when the fuel is expended, it follows an inertial guidance path. The Trident D5 can be fitted into Ohio class submarines and as with any SLBMs, launched from underwater submarines. The Trident D5 has been deployed since 1991 and has remained the most sophisticated submarine launched ballistic missile for a long time since.

 

Summing Up - There is no clear cut winner, at least using the known and tested data. The Trident does score over Bulava in that while it is operational and active, the Bulava is still to be deployed in 2008. Both the Bulava and Trident have long ranges capable of targeting any part of the world. The Trident has a maximum payload of 2800 kg which is significantly higher than the Bulava’s 1600 kg - which means the Trident can carry heavier and more warheads. Until the Bulava is deployed and more tests done, a more just comparison for Trident D5 would be the Russian SLBM RSM 54 Skiff which has been deployed and operational since 1986 and is capable of carrying 4-10 MIRVed warheads (2800 kg) over 8300+ kms. If the available public data is to be believed, the Bulava is behind Trident and Skiff in most parameters except speed and navigation system. The Bulava is probably designed for its high speed and high-technology navigation capabilities, to supplement the existing Skiff SLBM. Meanwhile the current competition is between one with longer range and greater MIRV capability (Skiff) while the other with higher speed and accuracy (Trident).

 

More Information and Resources -
Fact File on UGM 133A Trident D5 - US Navy
Fact File on RSM 54 Skiff - Global Security
Details on the Bulava Test - Global Security

Spread the Word: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • StumbleUpon
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • Netscape
  • NewsVine

Next »