Russian Deep-Sea Vessel Stuck, Trapping 7

[Fly Navy]

Funny story about their current submarine fleet:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3179044.stm

Apparently the Russian Navy is so broke, it doesn't even have the cash to dismantle the submarines that it can't afford to run.

"Of 103 nuclear submarines still to be dismantled, 76 still contain a nuclear reactor, the Russian atomic energy ministry says."

Here's a Russian Nuke that sank before it even made it to the scrapyard (oops!):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3194379.stm

"Since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, Russia has decommissioned about 190 nuclear powered submarines.....The submarines spend years sitting in berths, their hulls rusting, often getting inadequate maintenance."

Probably for the better considering how they dispose of them.

 

[IRfly]

Addressing an issue on the previous page, I've heard that the main reason that the Russians didn't want U.S. help with raising the Kursk was because the Kursk was testing a new weapons system that they obviously didn't want anyone else to know about. Something with hyperfast torpedoes. Again, this is unsubstantiated, but I heard it from a friend whose father has been working in the Soviet/Russian nuclear complex for decades, so take it for what it's worth.

My $.02 on the Chinese threat. The Chinese have forever and a day before they'll be able to mount offensive capabilities against the U.S., with the exception of their current capabilities of land-based nuclear ballistic missiles and perhaps future submarine-based weapons. Either way, it doesn't matter. The Chinese have no interest in a nuclear holocaust. They also really have no interest in attacking the U.S. (militarily, anyway). All they want is to be able to attack Taiwan, if need be, with a reasonable deterrent to U.S. forces. If they can just get some of their 1.3 billion over the Straits...

Here's a better question...How far should we (the U.S.) be willing to go against an increasingly strong and well-armed China to protect Taiwan's de facto independence?

 

[Fly Navy]

Addressing an issue on the previous page, I've heard that the main reason that the Russians didn't want U.S. help with raising the Kursk was because the Kursk was testing a new weapons system that they obviously didn't want anyone else to know about. Something with hyperfast torpedoes. Again, this is unsubstantiated, but I heard it from a friend whose father has been working in the Soviet/Russian nuclear complex for decades, so take it for what it's worth.

Probably more to do with losing face by asking your former (still?) adversary to help you rescue a submarine that was designed to kill them and their carriers.

 

[IRfly]

<shrug> No doubt that figured prominently as well.

 

[HH-60H]

How so? Please enlighten us, oh intel selectee.

Well actually he is probably right

However one chooses to quibble over numbers, the fact remains that the Chinese military is, in its present state, far from being an offensive force capable of challenging the US. I wouldn't lose any sleep over some kind of Chinese Pearl Harbor reprise.

If you actually knew anything about China, you would know that is not really part of their national strategy right now. But what is a major problem for the US is the Taiwan issue.

 

[A4sForever]

My, my, my ..... how times HAVEN'T changed. Now the news is reporting the Rooskies were engaged in some type of military electronic operation -- repairing submerged cables or something similar .... ..... it never changes. Like I said: and we're risking OUR guys lives and spending big bucks to rescue them ???

Let us hope we at least glean some intelligence from the operation .....

 

[Brett327]

If you actually knew anything about China, you would know that is not really part of their national strategy right now. But what is a major problem for the US is the Taiwan issue.

What's with all the "if you knew anything about X,Y,Z, BS?" Who are you? Steven Mosher? The Ghost of Mao?

They're not going to pull that trigger either for the exact same reasons. They're not going to push the issue, and neither are we - it's not in anyone's interests to do so.

Brett

 

[HH-60H]

What's with all the "if you knew anything about X,Y,Z, BS?" Who are you? Steven Mosher? The Ghost of Mao?

They're not going to pull that trigger either for the exact same reasons. They're not going to push the issue, and neither are we - it's not in anyone's interests to do so.

Brett

Well, you start off by belittling some guys statement, which is in fact true, just because he is an intel selectee.
How do you know maintaining sovereignty over Taiwan isn't in their best interest? Our employer sure doesn't think so. China wants to become the major power in Asia, and eventually a world power that is a counter to the evil west.
Oh yeah even if I was the ghost of Mao, I wouldn't know much about today's China, since no members of PRC's leadership are from the revolution era, and I was not around for the Culture Revolution.

 

[Brett327]

Well, you start off by belittling some guys statement, which is in fact true, just because he is an intel selectee.
How do you know maintaining sovereignty over Taiwan isn't in their best interest? Our employer sure doesn't think so. China wants to become the major power in Asia, and eventually a world power that is a counter to the evil west.
Oh yeah even if I was the ghost of Mao, I wouldn't know much about today's China, since no members of PRC's leadership are from the revolution era, and I was not around for the Culture Revolution.

When someone throws out a statement like "dubious accuracy" in regards to what I've posted, then fails to detail why they think that is the case, then, considering the source, I go into wannabe suppression mode. So, unless we're going to resort to source citation in everything we post, I would at the very least expect an argument as to why he thinks the way he does. As for what I know, the fact is that nobody knows anything WRT China and its intentions. There is no consensus within DOS or DOD, nor will you find it within the intelligencia. So, what we're left with is intelligent debate - let's have some here and now. Assuming that those who are in charge in China are rational actors, they know that we know that they know that if either side of the whole Taiwan issue were to move militarily, there would be dire consequences, including the remote, but real possibility of a limited nuclear exchange. If that were to happen, both sides would be huge losers, and over what? Taiwan is not that big a deal. It's in a tense, yet stable condition that either side would be unwise to disturb - we have a treaty to that effect. I recall what that Chinese General was saying a few weeks ago about whether the US was willing to trade LA and SF for Taiwan. The answer - probably not, but I don't think China is willing to trade their entire southern region and their whole economy for it either.

Discuss

Brett

 

[eddie]

They're not going to pull that trigger either for the exact same reasons. They're not going to push the issue, and neither are we - it's not in anyone's interests to do so.

But it wasn't in the Japanese' best interests to bomb us, and it probably wasn't even in the Germans best interests to invade Poland... Logic doesn't ever seem to stop anyone, no?

That being said-- Why is it not in their interest to have Taiwan... given the whole the importance of "face" to them? ("Face Value?") I don't know.

 

[The Chief]

... they (Chinese) integrate into the globalized economy, that interdependance will make it increasingly important for them to play nice ... Brett

Think you are correct. Some say 12 years other say 20 years, but most all agree than the Chinese economy will become the largest economy in the world, India second and the US third. While the Chinese are not above mischief, (EP-3 to test new Pres), short of some huge uprising within China, most agree they are content to compete in the economic sphere. We are on track to becoming a debetor nation to China.

Heard on the cocktail circuit: The optimist expects a war with China in the near future, the pessimist expects peace and more trade.

 

[IRfly]

Think you are correct. Some say 12 years other say 20 years, but most all agree than the Chinese economy will become the largest economy in the world, India second and the US third. While the Chinese are not above mischief, (EP-3 to test new Pres), short of some huge uprising within China, most agree they are content to compete in the economic sphere. We are on track to becoming a debetor nation to China.

That cuts both ways, though... China's military interests are and consistently have been regional (i.e. Taiwan). The U.S. has been what's kept them from getting it...so far. But as our economies are more intertwined and we become increasingly indebted to China, will that make the U.S. less likely (or able) to continue to defend Taiwan? A U.S. president would have an increasingly tougher time making the case for war with China over Taiwan to be in U.S. interests, whereas Chinese are born and bred with it in their blood that Taiwan is an integral part of the Chinese homeland. In the U.S. the choice would be to either end up with higher interest rates (due to the Chinese ceasing to buy U.S. bonds), massive inflation (no more $8 toasters from China), and higher taxes (to finance a war in the sphere of reality when nobody is buying U.S. T-bonds), or to just let the island go (assisted by liberals who think that China really isn't that bad and support China's claim to Taiwan as an indivisble part of China). In today's consumer-driven culture, anyone care to hazard a guess as to which way U.S. public sentiment would turn?

So, while China would be perhaps less likely in the future to risk provoking America, the U.S. will also probably take care to step a little more lightly with the PRC.