I’m working my way through CSBA president Andrew Krepinevich’s latest on a new war fighting concept (.pdf) under development called “AirSea Battle.” The concept is intended to ensure Navy and Air Force power projection against China’s rapidly growing arsenal of what the military terms anti-access weapons, such as aircraft carrier killing ballistic missiles, stealthy cruise missiles, stealthy submarines, dense air-defense networks, anti-satellite and cyber war weaponry.
AirSea Battle is focused on China, with Iran as the lesser included case. Krepinevich’s paper titled “Why AirSea Battle?” sets out to answer just that question. A follow-on report promises to flesh out the actual concept. I haven’t read the whole thing yet, but what I’ve read so far is familiar territory, mostly details about new and more long-range precision weapons and their implications for U.S. forces in the Pacific.
Krepinevich and CSBA have written a lot about China’s growing military power, which is understandable, as the CSBA team is heavily influenced by the research priorities of Pentagon futurist Andy Marshall, who has long warned of the rise of China.
Krepinevich writes that China’s burgeoning anti-access arsenal is intended to, “raise the US cost of power-projection operations in the Western Pacific to prohibitive levels, thereby deterring any American effort to meet its defense obligations to allies in the region while setting the conditions for a potential latter-day Chinese Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere of influence.”
I think it’s obvious that as our strategic focus during the 20th century was Europe, and although in the last decade the Middle East, for the 21st century it will be Asia. It’s important to remember that there are actually two rising powers in Asia, China, of course and India; there is every chance that India’s economy may pass China in the next decade.
I see the value in developing the AirSea Battle concept as it focuses the services on a specific strategic and operational challenge. But I also worry that it focuses the services on too specific a challenge. It continues the process of “benchmarking” two thirds of the U.S. military against a single opponent, that being China.
I hope somebody is thinking through the implications of that benchmarking on a military that will, in all likelihood, never fight China. If we learned anything in Iraq and Afghanistan, it’s that a military brilliantly configured to fight the Red Army was not the right military to battle shadowy insurgent networks. We do know potential enemies will continue to come up with ways to fight in ways that exploit our military weaknesses, not our strengths.
The other thing that concerns me is that while the big brains in this town are thinking about the war fighting concepts to battle China, not enough are thinking about how to compete strategically against China on the economic and political field of battle, the field China prefers.
China is flexing its economic muscle globally: buying huge swaths of farmland in Africa, building deep water ports in Asia, colossal gas pipelines, rail lines across the Himalaya and of course a big mine in Afghanistan.
Yes, China is engaged in a military buildup. If I were Chinese, I would consider it criminal if my government didn’t build up its military to protect vital raw material flows across the seas and was able to protect the approaches to the homeland.
However, if the challenge is China using its impressive and growing economic muscle to establish what Krepinevich calls the “Chinese Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere of influence,” I’m not sure a military solution is the right response. That’s a political-economic challenge, not a military one.
Anyway, something to think about and I welcome learned comments to the contrary. I’ll write more about AirSea Battle as the concept gets fleshed out.
A reminder: the Pentagon’s annual report on the Chinese military is due out next month.
– Greg
{ 60 comments… read them below or add one }
China is simply deploying lots of defensive weapons. Pursuing workarounds will only antagonize them. It's much cheaper to defend against a carrier group than to deploy one successfully against a modern adversary, so their move is both peaceable and cheap. If we fall for their trick, we'll spend our way into defeat. Defensive capability is a good thing. Offensive capability can sometimes be bad!
I don't think Chinese defense spending can be characterized as "lots of defensive weapons". They've been beefing up their amphibious assault capability as well as their anti-Taiwan missile capability. And their submarine forces.
I don't think China is really an enemy of the United States, but there is some speculation that regional pressures could destabilize the government, or else some hothead could take over. Either way, planning against the Chinese military is unfortunately prudent.
Taiwan is an ally of the U.S., but a very expensive one. China hasn't indicated any designs on Russia, Japan, North Korea, the Philippines or any U.S. territory for generations. A very large share of U.S. naval capacity and a significant share of U.S. Air Force capacity are basically justified by this single potential conflict. Is it worth it?
The Taiwanese themselves are seeking detente and are ambivalent about trying to claim bona fide independence from China. The recent examples of Hong Kong and Macao seem to indicate that China isn't in a rush to kill geese that lay golden eggs. Unlike some of our more intractable adversaries (e.g. North Korea, Burma, Sudan), China is genuinely moving in the right direction in terms of political economy, so if the status quo can hold for a decade or two more, neither we nor Taiwan might object to a fuller political integration with mainland China. We're spending a very large sum of money to buy Taiwan the ability to postpone political integration with mainland China by a couple of decades while they decide how sure that are they they could live with it.
Bingo. And, effectively, that's the message the political elites in China are putting out.
It *could* mask some sort of heinous plot to over-run Asia, but I doubt it.
you are completly wrong about chinese and taiwanese.
the first one have none birder wich was not "disputed" the last decade the second one is happy US dont gift the to China for another bunch of chinese money wasted in Irak and amerian bank system.. aside a fackt that chinese already integrated Taiwan into own economy and political rule.
not that none have nuts to ask taiwanese wich sie they will chose for living in the future.
"…I don't think China is really an enemy of the United States,"
Evidently you do not follow (china) the military speeches, military training documents, think tank publications, or ignore wholly the real strings attached to our distractions of Iran and North Korea. I use the word distraction emphasized. It is the blind, fatalist, quitters that will allow china to do anything.
The only good thing china has going for it is the authoritarian market / people driven system. A system that has brought prosperity to 300 million and left how many in the dust? Whose currency is undervalued, loan risk is not valued correctly, a provinces held together by force, on and on…
It will be the US that enables its own demise through these defeatist weepy eyes, PC hand cuffs and girly-progressive policies (pejorative intended) plaguing our society. That in a world governed by the threat of force is what will defeat us in this arena, make our friends hate us and enslave our children.
A Containment Policy will work – The US has to grow 'some' and play hardball in order to put some of the Iran type issues to bed: i.e.: foment real unrest inside china, cut of the supply of oil from Iran or (the threat), offer to assist South Korean/Japan with nukes.
Negotiate from a position of power and see real Peace.
The only war with China I see is a war over resources. China's growing economy is going to need more fuel, same with India. And with fuel running out, and renewable fuel lagging behind (mostly due to lack of investment). A energy conflict is all but inevitable. Most likely India and China will go at it. Pakistan will try to take advantage of it. And being we been supplying Pakistan with arms/training, we'll get dragged into it aswell. Especially if China tries to reclaim its territory (Taiwan). And push further into US energy interest in the area.
Paranoid much?
India and China are currently in a tiny, low intensity shooting war over a disputed border in a desolate, uninhabited part of the Himalayas, but there are no resource rich areas where India and China have or are likely to have contesting claims. And, both nations depend far to much on international commerce to engage in outright piracy to secure resources.
Pakistan meanwhile has no interest in occupying Hindu majority territory in India. There is a dispute over the status of Kashmir. Pakistan might make a bid to wrest de facto control of this region from India at some point, but no China-India conflict would impact that fight.
If China invaded North Korea, we would probably agree to refrain from getting involved. China is not the rogue state that North Korea is, and treats its people better than North Korea.
India and China are currently in a tiny, low intensity shooting war over a disputed border in a desolate, uninhabited part of the Himalayas–
whahahaha.. seriously you need to take geography lessons!
Popo the great, if I were you, I'd check out a map before sneering.
China isn't facing a critical energy shortage any time soon. Most of China's energy comes from coal, with small amounts of nuclear / hydro energy on top of that. Shortages and brownouts in China have been the result of new demand outstripping new supply. That seems to be more under control nowadays.
Petroleum / diesel for transport IS a bottleneck. China is a fairly large oil and natural gas producer in its own right (like the US). It's nowhere near self sufficient in oil (like the US).
As long as the international oil market remains rational, China's optimal course is to buy it, like everyone else. China's energy supply situation is *very* similar to the US'. Its approach to securing energy supplies is (IMHO) modelled on the US.
You forget about China's growing economy. They are going to need MORE energy fairly soon (by soon I mean within 10 years). As their economy grows, more people buy cars, as they buy cars, China needs more oil. And lets not forget, we're running low on oil. I don't care what the oil companies say… common sense says we don't have too much left, let alone enough left to spread more around. China (and the rest of the world) has two options when they need more energy, invest in long term projects to switch from dirty energy to clean renewable energy. It wait and suffer while people wage war over what oil is left.
It's coming… no one can deny it, oil wont last forever.
war is the way of the ancient world
the modern wars are more technical and unpredictable
the war of economics which the Chinese has waged
is probably the war to end all wars….
how do we win that conflict without thinking… the last war
which was Veit nam..right?
pvt pv
I get my copy only a week ago, and you've linked to it already!
Impressive (really, no Snark!)
Now if you can only get the hapless masses to Grok it…(yes, Snark!)
We shouldn't be prepared for every possible conflict with China in East Asia. We should not prepare for an invasion of any part of mainland China. We should not be prepare to destroy land targets in China not related to our core missions in the region.
Our main objectives vis China should be modest: (1) protect the autonomy of Taiwan, (2) defend allies South Korea and Japan, (3) protect the flow of air and sea commerce to and from Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan (and commerce merely passing through the area with no local destination); and (4) defend the United States and its territories and ships from long range attacks (e.g. with nuclear missiles).
We should also be planning under the assumption that in the event of a threat to Taiwan's autonomy that we would do so in concert with Taiwanese forces, and that in the event of an attack on South Korea, Japan, the United States or innocent commercial shipping, that we could enlist the assistance of the forces of South Korea, Japan and other regional allies (e.g. Australia and New Zealand).
We should also pursue, much more seriously, conventional arms treaties that would reduce the cost of achieving these modest objectives.
Gen Mc Arthur wanted to attack China's mainland when we regrouped during the Korean Conflict but Pres. Truman like during the 2nd. World War did not have what it took to get the job done. We are now seeing what both decisions that was "Bad" has cost America.If we had invaded China's mainland today we would own them,if we had attacked the Russians at the end of WW11 today we would be in control also. So a Former Arty. Officer who later became President did not have the "Balls" to make tough decisions and we are now paying the price for his inability to get the Jobs done. Some will read this and say this is crazy but ask the Questions are there any possibilities of this being the TRUTH?????
Interesting perspective.
Patton wanted to fight the Russians in 1945. He was, frankly, out of his mind :)
As to invading China in 1950… well, heck… if it were feasible, I would have signed on for that, on humanitarian grounds. The thing is, I don't think it was feasible. The Japs hammered away at China from 1932 to 1945, using mindless brutality, barbaric policies and all that, and ended up achieving only their own defeat. Think "Vietnam War cubed".
Remove (or at least heavily) caveat your first paragraph, and you would have made a perfectly reasonable comment.
When is it ever going to make sense to invade China or bomb it in a way that does not involve defense of the U.S., Taiwan, South Korea or Japan? Even if one can conceivably imagine some situation where it does, should we really spend money on that?
Spending money on keeping every option open, is like buying prepaid tuition credits at Harvard when you have a D average in high school, or buying a Ferrari repair kit because you might win the lottery some day and buy one. The Defense budget, vast as it is, still involves making choices about what we are willing to be prepared to do.
You are pretty much the only person I've ever encounted who thinks World War II was too short.
As it was, the only way we were able to win it at all was with Russia on our side, and less than a decade later, we didn't manage to prevail in North Korea. There is no reason to think that we would have prevailed in an invasion of mainland China after fighting to a mere draw in North korea (and losing in Vietnam a couple decades later).
There is also no reason at all to think that war with Russia after World War II would have led to victory or secured public support. We weren't even in a position to oust Russia from East Germany or any country in Eastern Europe.
Attacking without winning is usually a bad plan.
At the end of WWII the Russians were in a worse position than we were. It would have been winnable although one can question if it would have been worth it.
Was there position so poor that we could have defeated them after being overextended ourselves? How long? At what cost?
We also had no reason to be sure, in 1945, how the Russians would rule in the post-WWII era.
To a great extent we won the Cold War because we so completely retooled for the nation to be economically productive after WWII. We had more comparative advantage over the Soviets in manufacturing than we did in war making.
We had to wait a generation and a half for the Soviet Union to collapse on its own, but as a result, we lost a lot less time and treasure in the process.
This is nonsense and stems from the distorted (but common) US view of the European theatre. The Russians won the war, almost single handedly. They had pretty much crushed the German army well before D Day, and the Western assault on France only succeeded because the large majority of the German army was tied up trying to slow the advancing Russian juggernaut in the East. If the US had decided to attack Russia, they would have been handily trounced and then likely would have used atomic weapons. Europe would be a very different place today, to say the least. Thank God the Western leaders were more aware of the true situation on the ground.
China is still fuming at the US over selling weapons to Taiwan and they
have threatened to take the island by force. To rule out a war with China is
still premature until the Taiwan issue is resolved.
What kind of war do you foresee? Achieving our goals via regime change, a la Iraq, is not a practical approach. If the goal is pretty much limited to preventing a mainland based attempt to occupy Taiwan, do we even have the right kind of force structure for that? What percentage of U.S. Naval forces could be brought to bear in the critical first day or two?
Well I think China would be hard pressed to attack taiwan seeings how the U.S. has security agreements in place to defend them against such an attack. Granted they are irate that we sold them another 6.5 billion in weapons and planes, China is much more likely to use its economic sway over the U.S. holding more than a trillion in U.S. bonds. But when it comes down to it, China has plenty of domestic issues to deal with before they can really become a global superpower and challenge U.S. dominance in SE Asia
We needed to upgrade our missile defenses to challege the future threat from any rougue , communist, socialist and persiancountry. A advance missile defense that can tavel long range around the world, that can cruise the air, deep sea, low altitude sky cruise and space. Also we need a advance radar that can detect enemy sub underwater, enemy stealth plane, enenmy ballestic missile, enemy ICBM, enemy stealth missile boats and soforth.
SMSgt Mac beat me to saying, well, almost exactly what he was going to say. Am I to take your first paragraph as meaning we shouldn't have contingency plans for scenarios which you consider unlikely or unappealing?
If so, I must take issue, being in favor of planning for contingencies. I would be surprised if even today there weren't OPLAN equivalents of War Plan Red, Black, Orange, etc.
It is one thing to have plans in a drawer for dealing with an exceedingly unlikely contingency that has no solution that is a win for the U.S. and leaves the U.S. with litlte upside.
It is quite another to spend perhaps a third to two-thirds of your procurement and training budget preparing for such a contingency.
Do you think that the Israelis or the Germans or even the Japanese have plans for occupying China? I doubt it. Part of good planning is to figure out in advance that some approaches are bad ideas, so that we don't have to spend time in a crisis reinventing that wheel.
Congrats Greg, one of the most reasoned and balanced short summaries of US-Sino military relations I have seen in a while – you make one very important point, which is that we need to try and see the issue from their side as well, not solely from ours. It would indeed be odd and criminally negligent by Chinese authorities not to provide for the defense of their vital interests.
I think this is just as much the US needing to get used to the fact that there are powers in the world today with interests which may be counter to that of the US and which may have the ability to put force behind these interests, a situation the US has hardly faced, with the exception of the Soviet standoff, since the times of Theodore Roosevelt. In the early 20th century, when he was faced with balancing various powers in the Eastern Pacific Ocean, he correctly identified the Pacific as one of the areas which would grow the most in importance over the years, and his maxim of "speak softly and carry a big stick" applies more now than ever. The US needs to be able to put credibility behind their dealings with the Chinese, but the primary goal must be, as you say, to recognize this as an economic contest first and foremost and to deal with it accordingly.
Remember what the US did to the Soviets– forced them to run their economy into the ground in an arms race that was relatively far more expensive for them than it was for the US by continually engaging in rhetoric and activity the Soviets would perceive as threatening. It worked real good.
In this analogy y’all are the Soviets, in case anyone’s wondering.
The USA is China’s best customer, China will not do anything to upset thair best customer .
Also- China is moving away from communism and turning
more socialist. The people in China are copying America, and the Internet has opened the eyes of all China.
Funny kind of socialism :)
The goal of every good Chinese socialist is a second car, a bevy of mistresses, trips to Vegas and a huge luxury home. And the private sector is even worse.
Good Afternoon Folks,
I see that we are still looking under the bed for a boggyman named China, he’s not their. There is no Air/Sea competition between the US and China.
I think the picture shown kinda sums up Chinas efforts. It appears to be a Type 092 Xia Class SSBM, two were made but only one can bee seen at the dock by overhead imaging, the where about of the other Xia is unknown. Launched in the early 1980′s. It is doubtful that the surviving Type 092 even has a full time crew.
The Xia was to use the liquid fueled Jl-1 Med. Range Ballistic. one was fired, but had problems from a Xia in 1988, that might be the missing haul? China no longer list the Jl-1 as an active weapon. This single Xia has spent most of its life sitting at the dock and only going to sea for the periodic military maritime paraded. It’s being replaced the Type 094 Jin, one of three has been completed, the other two seem to have been held up for some reason, and it is now in a sea cave off Hainan Is. It made the voyage south on the surface, can it dive? The Jin will be in that cave for a long time since its weapon the Jl-2 SLBM is still years from being operations.
As for attack submarines China has a fleet of 55, perhaps two nuclear (Hans) the rest are either Chinese made Song’s or old Soviets boats. From 2004 to 2009 the average number days of the year for the entire Chinese fleet was a total of six (6) for the WHOLE FLEET. This is not the activity of a country that is attempting to be a world power.
The Air/Sea Battle between China and the US is a non starter.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
I totally disagree with Byron Skinner. Such is the kind of thinking China wanting you all to believe. China is making agressive overtures in SE Asia, particularly the South China Sea, one of the busiest internationl sealanes. China has established a "secret" underground submarine base on the Hainan Island, rapidly expanding its navy as well as expeditionary landing forces.
The purpose is to gain control of the Spratley Islands by force from Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, and of course Taiwan. (Except for Vietnam which claimed the most, all the latter claimed several islands and Taiwan currently occupies the largest.) The Spratlies has potential of huge oil and natural gas reserves and China, being thirsty for these resources will try to exert control sooner or later.
The Air/Sea battle between China and US may not happen because of Taiwan, but when China has successfully staked its claim of the Spratlies and thereby extent its own territorial claims to 200 miles beyond -effectively means the entire South China Sea. IF China controls the SCS, Japan and South Korea are going to have a hard time getting doing their shipments of oil or trading.
Wake up, America!
Why should we care if China fights Vietnam and gets the Spratley Islands from Vietnam. Suppose the Vietnam does the oil and gas exploration there instead of China. Who do you think it will sell the oil and gas to anyway? Even better, because oil and gas are fungible and trade in world energy market, it really doesn't matter who provides it from a U.S. perspective, more oil and gas produced locally and used by China reduces the cost of oil and gas to everyone else in the world.
China also has no incentive to stop trade in the South China Sea. It's nation's wealth, fundamentally flows from international trade. This would be a very expensive approach for China to take (economically and militarily) simply for the privilege of making South Korean and Japanese ships take a slightly longer route on the far side of the Phillipines.
China's designs on the Phillipines and Malaysia are far less obvious (although, of course, it does want Taiwan). It hasn't made serious designs on much easier to conquer Mongolia or North Korea.
I figure if the political and social situation continues as it is 10 yrs before we give up all but a token force of nuclear weapons, the vast magority of our military is mothballed or rendered defficent from lack of recruits (remember accourding to some only idiots and freaks get into the military) and a general degrading of skill for better PC crap. And when we are where greece is now, with no money and no way to get more because we are supporting to many welfare programs the take over will begin. Basicaly we become a puppet.
No flashes, no big bangs. No legions of chinese troops the people who do it will be our own and the long night begins.
History has shown the people with the longest outlook and the most ruthless nature ussually win.
Im less conserned about china directly threatening the US than i am about them providing material and political support to our enemies. Also they keep there currency atificaly low to keep ur trade deffecit very high.
I think china will use 3rd parties to fight us most likely. Basicaly iran gets a sudden infusion of material and political support.
In the middleast its considered normal (they ALL do it) to use 3rd party organizations (AQ,Hamas, hezzbollah etc) as a kind of check on there neighbors. I think china would wait awhile before doing anything to us.
There is not a shortage of technology to support the myriad of plans (look at past posts where it's application is presumed China). Unfortunately, the technology cannot overcome or solve Political problems i.e.: the will to apply it when necessary.
If the US wanted to remove itself from the sideshow-Bob's like Iran and North Korean – it needs to lose its skirt and address China head on.
Let's take the economic hit now! – It will force us to fix our spending issues and force China to deal with it's own equally serious problems.
Valcan is correct – people with the longest outlook and ruthless nature wins – look internally at the Progressives/liberals/left in the US.
They and China tell us that they are kind and Darwin doesn't rule the day like in the past. Psst: Only winners know that little secret.
China doesn't especially want to fight the U.S. directly or indirectly. It may want to keep us too assertive in a sole superpower capacity, but we're its major trading power and a huge portion of China's national wealth is tied up in Treasury bonds and business contracts with U.S. firms.
China's problem is how to find a way to assauge national pride, to consolidate the current regime's domestic power by unifying against a foreign enemy, to let the world know that decades of double digit GDP growth has made it more powerful, and to give hundreds of thousands of men with no realistic prospect of every finding a Chinese wife some opportunity to distinguish themselves. It wants a small winnable war that would involve lots of soliders and a credible threat to the homeland, not another world war or a remote foreign quagmire.
From a technical point of view, how much range and operating time does changing from lead acid batteries to Lithium-ion batteries add to submarines?
China has built quite a few of the "old" style diesel subs. But when operating on batteries they are very quiet…… They also have Lithium-ion battery capability's.
As far as the social dynamic, there is a lot of talk about China changing and becoming better. But is you asked the Tibetans and or any of the ethic or religious minorities they would disagree…..
The question is as their country unravels from the bottom up, how will they react? They would not be the first ascendant country to try and hold internal power through external adventures.
Good Morning Folks,
First on the South China Sea. China and Vietnam have been bumping heads here since at least 1979 when Vietnam embarrassed China in China’s attempt to “teach Vietnam a lesson” and invaded Vietnam.
The last major confrontation between China and Vietnam in the South China Sea was in 1988 it was a sea skirmish that left 5 Vietnamese gun boats on the bottom of the South China and 72 dead Vietnamese sailors.
There have been a couple of items of little note since then. One is the invasion of one Rocky Island in the Paracel Group by a Chines amphibious assauly, less then Company size no opposition from the resident Vietnamese, Rocky Is also was the scene of a civil dispute over a pig last year between Chinese and Vietnamese settlers, now China is attempting to market the Paracels as a tourist destination.
To the Spratly Islands. The one of interest is Woody Island where the Chinese have built and air base. If you look it up on google earth you will have no doubt about it’s intended purpose.
The burning issue in the South China Sea is sorting out all the claims of interest in the area. China and Vietnam are on two of many. Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Philippines, Indonesia and Malaysia in the Pacific and from old colonial claims you can add Germany, France, Spain, The UK, Holland and even the United States. To say this area could remain unstable for generations would be an understatement.
Of note here is that either Japan and Malaysia could would most likely defeat the Chinese in any Naval conformation in the South China Sea right now. Both Japan and Malaysia have vastly superior and better trained Naval and Air Forces compared to the Chinese. The Philippines and Indonesia could hold their own and protect their interest against the Chinese.
The growth of the Chinese Navy. They have been able to since 2005 to launch five Song Class diesel subs a year, one destroyer, Luda II and maybe ten light frigates, Jaingwei Class or smaller patrol vessels, most of these have been assigned to the PLANCG.
Meanwhile Vietnam has entered into at least three arms deal with The Russian Federation, tied to the contract to build an $11 billion nuclear power project in Vietnam. These contract include 6 Kilo Class (M), the M boats are built for export, Submarines, the Chinese currently have four Kilos, there best diesel submarine, two M’s and tow old Soviet boats, the two Soviet boats are waiting to go back to Russia for overhaul. China has on order six of the old Soviet boats, but the delivery is delayed over currency problems.
The battery issue is not between lead acid and lithium-ion, it’s between lead acid and Hydrogen Fuel Cells as is used the German U-212 and U-214. The Germans are very guarded about U-212 technology and in fact made it a felony for anybody to give/sell this technology to another country (ie. Russia or China) they have sold the U-212/U-214 to Israel and Egypt. It is doubtful that even if China had the Hydrogen Fuel Cell technology it could develop it.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
If the United States is drawn into war with China, then the world has much far more serious worries.
If China drafted even 1/2 its men of service age thats 200 million soldiers.
If they mobilized most of them into Taiwan our nuclear option is negated.
Russia Iran North Korea Have longer ties with China then we ever could have & this would nothing more then trigger dreaded WWIII
So called world economy would divide up & millions of peaceful civilians would suffer in many ways. Death starvation, made refugees or forced to choose a side.
Our only hope would be that NATO airpower is fast enough to stop a Taiwan invasion.
However, China could simply emmigrate enough people to tawian over 100 years or so to take it over without war. Google, how many Chinese now live in North America.
China makes everything we buy. They could take us out by simply lacing it all with biohazards,lead, poisons, & even radioactive residue.
In order to best defend America for the long term, we should be doing everything possible to prevent war.
Good Evening Folks,
China could draft all of its men, so what Taiwan is 132 nm away. To Vietnam, India and Russia those 200 million men might mean something, but if China has to cross a body of water, forget it. According to the PLA, China’s total capacity to move men across the Formosa Straight would be 20K in a 24 hour period. Thats assuming that there is no resistance from the Taiwanese or the USN, big assumption I would say.
China estimates it would today take 1.5 million men to invaded, and stabilize an occupied Taiwan. Oh by the way that doesn’t include any supplies, ammunition or weapons and any invasion of Taiwan would have to take place on Taiwan’s east coast, there are no suitable invasion beaches on the west coast of Taiwan.
Also both of Taiwan’s major ports would have to be taken in tack. This would by necessity be an airborne operation. China’s airborne is in the PLAAF, 30K at full strenght, currently they are at about 10 K. They have 12 Il-76 lifters, if all are good to go they can drop about 400 troops at a time, but no equipment.
Lets get realistic about China. If you don’t share a land border with China, you have little to be concerned with. Russia, India and Vietnam are more the capable of defending themselves.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
be more worried about your debt to china and your ability to compete economically with them. last time i checked the us weren't in a good shape in both departments.
be more worried about your debt to china and your ability to compete economically with them. last time i checked the us weren't in a good shape in both departments.
Of all of the potential “bad actors” in the world, China is by far the least likely to pick a fight with the USA. As Skinner pointed out, they really can’t do much as far as invading anybody that is separated from them by a body of water.
More importantly, think through what happens to China if it enters into a “hot war” with the US. They immediately wipe out 40 to 45% of their GDP, because we stop importing all the gadgets we currently import from them. That ought to keep those 1.3 billion citizens content and harmonious to the PRCC government.
Yes, such a conflict would seriously affect the US economy for a couple of years while we bustled about finding new off-shore suppliers – or better, retooled our economy to produce the stuff at home.
Ninety nine percent of what we import from them we would have no problem producing ourselves, while a majority of what they import from us they have no capability of designing and producing in China. Also keep in mind that we educate and train 50% or more or of their top level scientists and engineers. How are they going to replace that??????
Realistically, each year that passes equates to further “westernization” of the Chinese economy. They have already passed the point where they can wage war against us without ruining their own economy. Their people aren’t about to let that happen without full scale revolt.
Decent points but what about those 1.3 billion citizens being recruited into the army or even worse brain washed to think it was the USA who started it?
They don't exact have free media so who knows what message they would be told.
As for there GDP its a titi for tat game yes they lose a lot of there market but they also dump all our bonds basically bankrupting us immediatly and unable to wage a costly war.
There decline would be a lot slower and able to outlast that is what I fear.
I dont trust them!
1. Since the 1990s, China has embarked on an unprecidented, full-court press, policy of building up their public and international relations with Russia, Iran, India, and the oil-producing nations in central Africa and South America with their goal of projecting Chinese influence beyond the Asian mainland.
Next is their building and modernization of their armed forces by obtaining western technology in order to build "smarter" weapons, weapon systems, and delivery platforms. In this, they have ramped up their production of new generation fighters and massive transport aircraft along with their version of an airborne AWACs platform. (see my next comment)
When you owe them 780 billion and you keep spending trillions while bowing and apologizing to every nation you gotta ask why wouldn't they see this as a time to exurt there influence and build there strength.
Whats obama gunna do ask for more coin thats it!
2. China is also expanding and up-grading their battle-ready surface, and sub-surface, fleet complete with weapons and systems designed to counter, with the goal of neutralizing, major US naval assets in the Pacific. All the while getting closer to their ultimate goal of being able to project Chinese political, economic, and military influence and might beyond the confines of the Asian mainland and its Pacific rim. To essentially not only rival US Pacific forces but to potentially displace the United States as the leading force in the region and beyond. Chairman Mao once said, "The 21st century will belong to China."
China is weilding its newfound soft and hard power to make gains at the expense of the United States, especially in Southeast Asia. While we were continually distracted by wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the economic troubles at home, China's been making progressive and steady headways in all areas -political, social and military. Of course, China is not going to directly confront the US at this time or in the next few years, not until they have fielded more attack submarines in the Pacific than the US Navy and have equipped their large naval fleets with all the high-tech weapons capable of striking out at long distances (thus effectively keep the aircraft carriers away from the hot zone.) Mean while, traditional US allies will be picked on and threatened if not defeated one by one. When will we wake up? When the Chinese submarines conduct regular exercises near Hawaii? near the west coast?
1) Even China is not going to be able to field a 200-million-man army. There won't be enough guns to go around. Enough boots may be. Not to mention supplies and logistics. Co-incidentally, China just recently passed… its first Draft Law. One can only wonder why a country with such huge population would need such a law.
2) China doesn't have to confront the US on Taiwan, nor invading it. All they have to do is blockade Taiwan, once they have built up enough naval power assets.
Sorry, Trevor, I call bullsh*t on "China just recently passed… its first Draft Law". Y'all need to provide a reliable citation, there, sir.
Lack of manpower has never been a problem for the PLA. Quality, on the other hand, is a perennial issue.Only a few, elite units meet the kinds of education, training and equipment levels that would be considered routine by most modern militaries.
Good Evening Folks,
All good ideological thinking but woofully short of any hard or supporting data. To correct China has been in a military modernization “officially” since 1988 and the Party Congress meeting. Since November China has been reducing (selling) it’s US Treasury holdings since November of 2009 and now officially holds about $780 billion. There is a $300 billion auction scheduled for this week, I don’t know if China plans to show up to bid or not.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
Ideological thinking? We are talking hard facts here. Anybody who is interested in China's increasingly agressive stance in the South China Sea should Google the topic and find it out for yourself. It is no surprise that even the Australians are embarking on the biggest military expenditure since WWII. Virtually every country surrounding the South China Sea is beefing up their navy, buying new submarines, missile/torpedo boats, etc. Why would they be doing that if it wasn't because of the volatile situation further exasperated by China's posturing? The sad fact is that one of the main reasons for a new Asian arms race is the expectation of the decline of the US Navy in the region.
Should we be looking up for the next "Pearl Harbor" ??
Good Morning Folks,
“Ideological Thinking”. Total fantasy. Australia is getting into the global arms business, see purchase of an American ship yard in Mobile Alabama. They also are trying to cut a deal with the South Korean (Hyundai?) to buy other gulf yards and the Bath Iron Works in Maine, yes BAE/GD want to grab their profits and run at Bath. This was the reason for Depty. Sec. of Defense for Procurement Williams Lynn’s visit to Australia a couple of weeks ago. To sweeten the deal the DoD has already awarded a contract for 10 new ship to the new Australian yard in Mobile plus will cut them in on the LCS business. The gift to sweeten Bath for the deal is an early long lead contract for DD 1001.
On the other countries you make some general statements but how many vessels are being bought, by what countries are buying, and is this an unusual purchase or just routine. I have listed in a previous post China’s out put of Naval vessels for the past ten years, rather meager, so I won’t repeat myself.
Sure the Chinese are aggressive in the South China Sea but they are not showing any signs of changing the status quo. As for the US Navy becoming weaker I heard and interesting point for a retired Naval officers a few months ago. He said that a single DD 51 could have sunk all of the Battleships that fought in WW II and not even be scene by the enemy or the Americans.
There is no decline in the USN and if anything United States Sea Power is stronger then it’s ever been. This is just another right wing fantasy.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
If you don't call this an arms race, I don't know what is:
- http://www.irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=17689
- http://apac2020.the-diplomat.com/feature/the-next…
- http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-affairs/34089-…
Here's the most recent writing: http://www.heritage.org/research/nationalsecurity…
Did anyone bother to read the Pentagon's force projection report for the next 20 years? I almost felled off my chair when Byron Skinner called all this an ideological thinking and then right-wing fantasy… I truly doubt if any SE Asian countries would care less about the right or left wing polical leanings in the US. What matters to them is to keep the Chinese away from their front yard.
NEXT PEARL HARBOR . . . GUAM