Earlier this week, on a flight back from Utah where I was visiting my ageing parents, I finished reading CSBA president Andrew Krepinevich’s new paper titled “Why AirSea Battle?” (.pdf) The evolving AirSea Battle concept is a spin on the Army’s 1980s AirLand Battle concept that aimed to rain punishing ground and air strikes on Soviet shock armies before they could steamroll NATO defenses.
Today, AirSea Battle is targeting China’s rapidly growing arsenal of anti-access and area-denial (A2/AD) weapons, such as aircraft carrier killing ballistic missiles, sea-skimming missiles, stealthy submarines, bristling air-defense networks, anti-satellite and cyber weaponry.
Krepinevich writes that China is creating a “no-go zone” off its coasts with its “assassin’s mace” war doctrine to prevent U.S. naval and air forces freedom of movement. Beijing has been building up its A2/AD network for decades, but things really accelerated since the 1996 Taiwan Straits crisis when the U.S. sailed two carrier strike groups into the strait.
U.S. military dominance is eroding “at an increasing and alarming rate,” Krepinevich writes, because precision guided munitions pit very costly U.S. platforms, such as ships and aircraft, against an opponent’s much cheaper and voluminous missile magazines. The ability to project and sustain military forces overseas is threatened by this modern, high-tech equivalent of the U-Boat menace.
The Chinese military buildup aims to threaten key point targets such as Kadena Air Force Base in Japan and Andersen Air Base on Guam. Early in any conflict, the Chinese would launch massive salvos of ballistic missiles at those bases followed by waves of strike aircraft, Krepinevich writes.
Additionally, any fleet attempting to steam into the waters within the second island chain would be destroyed by China’s very long-range anti-ship ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and submarines. China has also developed and tested anti-satellite weapons and cyber weapons that could cripple U.S. targeting networks that are reliant on satellites and data networks.
Krepinevich, who is a very smart guy, has been thinking through something like AirSea Battle for at least the last two decades and CSBA has pioneered the intellectual work on battle networks and what they mean for future warfighting. I highly recommend his paper, as the AirSea Battle concept appears to be gaining some serious adherents among the Navy and Air Force.
Krepinevich promises a subsequent report will flesh out some of the AirSea Battle war fighting concept. Before that comes out it would be great to hear from DT readers on how they thin the U.S. should address the anti-access challenge.
One point I think merits highlighting is that much of our current ideas about power projection are Cold War holdovers where the Navy’s main task was to ensure secure sea lines of communication to allow unimpeded troop and equipment flow to Europe so as to reinforce NATO.
Yet, any conflict against China would be limited, not a total war like NATO versus the Warsaw Pact. In a limited war, it’s difficult to envision any scenario where the U.S. must deploy and maintain large ground forces inside China’s maritime domain. If that’s the case, then why would we ever need to steam a carrier battle group past the second island chain and within range of China’s vast missile magazines.
Developing a war fighting concept, and capabilities, to beat back China’s vast A2/AD network seems the most costly and potentially riskiest approach and would play directly to Chinese strengths. (Side note: a U.S. military officer who spent years as a NATO planner told me one solution to penetrating the thick Warsaw Pact SAM belt along the inner-German border was to use tactical nukes to blow corridors through which could pass NATO’s bomber force. That’s not really an option in a conflict with China, thank goodness).
My own opinion is, if the Chinese strategy is to create a no-go zone off its shores, it seems plausible that the U.S. counter strategy would be the same: prevent Chinese naval and air forces from operating freely in its own air and maritime space. Hitting China’s land and sea based targets from stand-off range exploiting U.S. advantages in targeting and precision strike and using stealthy attack submarines to close China’s waterways and choke them off economically seems a plausible approach.
The Air Force and Navy should pursue a cost imposition strategy: develop better long-range strike capabilities so as to force China to spend heavily to maintain its A2/AD network.
As always, I’d be curious to hear reader’s comments on where the Navy and Air Force should go with this fledgling concept.
– Greg
{ 47 comments… read them below or add one }
I believe people over think the likelihood of a Chinese conflict. Our economies are so intermingled that military action would have far reaching economic impacts on both countries causing escalation to be pointless.
With that being said, our strategy for any future conflict should be standoff, and precision strike. Short of having relatively small surgical ground forces, the US should not look to tie ourselves down militarily in another Afghanistan or Iraq. These two wars have drained our resources and have forced our last 8 years of development to be reactive as opposed to the Chinese who have been able to develop their programs proactively. That is the main reason that our military dominance has eroded so, and the only way to fix it going forward is to not get bogged down in nation building.
China is no Iraq or Afghanistan. It is one of the largest economies in the world and while it is true that it is hard to conceive of a situation where either China or the U.S. would see war in Asia as an economically good idea, the same could be said of a WW1. With war its not always about what makes sense, its sometime about what happens. There has been quite a bit of brinkmanship over Taiwan and, with that sort of thing, sometimes all it takes is a miscalculation or a jumpy weapons operator. So while I see no inevitability in armed conflict with China, being ready for the possibility is necessary due diligence.
Second, possessing the ability to project force can be a good thing even if no armed conflict will take place. Take Georgia for example. My personal assessment of the situation is that all parties were pretty wrong, but regardless of who was doing what to who when, there is no way that Russia would have been willing to invade our military ally if we had any means of putting up any credible military opposition.
The real key is to acknowledge the fact that the Chinese will continue to hold the upper hand due to geographical proximity and the fact that they will probably have the element of surprise as one of their cards (The PLA will probably initiate any conflict versus Taiwan). Therefore, it is advisable that the US maintain a strengthened forward based force composition element comprised of both SSNs and, although admittedly unlikely for political reasons, AD fighters.
We all remember the RAND organizatgion assesment inidicating the difficulties of maintaing a CAP over the Taiwan straits from Anderson and Kadena. Hence, the US should either sell F-16C/Ds to Taiwan or even better station squadrons in Taiwan. This solution is obviously not very politicaly feasible so the next best thing is to forward base a sufficiently enhanced number of US SSNs in order to be able to defeat any PLAN imposed blockade on Taiwan by hunting down their subs and surface vessels.
I definately agree that the US should not fall into the trap of playing to the PLAs strengths. Carrier battle groups are likely to fall prey to the massed anti-access weaponry increasingly available to the Chinese forces. Long range strike platforms (B-2, but what else?) are the key to be able to strike back at the Chinese.
It seems obvious to me that the PLA will not be able to stage a successful cross-straits landing anytime soon, but they do have the potential capacity to impose a blockade. While the US can fight back the surface PLAN, it will have more of a difficulty against the PLAAF due to geographical, basing, and logistical issues. Hence, the key question is how long can Taiwan politically and economically withstand a blockade? Will the Taiwanese resist long enough for the US to impose crippling losses to the Chinese without resorting to the increasingly unlikely and costly strategy of steaming carrier task forces to the rescue?
Wasn't this the same kind of thinking that was going on during the early years of the Cold War i.e. "bomber gaps" and "missile gaps"? Then come to find out the Soviet military was a 50 year hoax with limited to zero ability to maintain any kind of force projection or quality hardware and their strategic thinking was a command system just like their failed economy. The U.S. military is battle hardened and keeps developing technology that far outstrips others when it comes to real world functionality. Let DARPA do its thing and all the U.S. has to do is be more observant of the contracts and construction process so there are no more F-35esque overruns. I'm sorry but based on everything I've seen of the Chinese air force I'd pit any one of our National Guard air wings against anything the Chinese can miraculously manage to get airborne today. Didn't Israeli F-15's burn a gaping hole through the Syrian AD system and that was supposed to be the best Russia had to offer? And anything China has they stole from Russia.
Um…How long have you been out of the loop? China has been developing, re-engineering, and producing their own products for years. Not to mention they are most likely capable of shutting our critical systems down within hours of any real conflict through cyberwarfare.
I don’t think you truly comprehend what we are potentially up against.
I am not suggesting it’s an inevitable conflict, but it is certainly feasible.
I would argue that current AF war planners certainly are not as confident as you seem to be in a scenario like this.
So a country that can't even correctly produce a reverse engineered jet engine, as they have been trying to do for the last 20-30 years, have had nuclear technology for a loooong time and still can't make a nuclear arsenal equal to Britain's, just now got a man into space, and for that matter can't produce a half way decent car is going to shut down the critical systems of the country that invented the Internet? I think AF planners are angling for more money to fund their budgets so they can look good. I think you are mistaking lack of confidence for money scamming. They make great t-shirts. Horrible military equipment.
Ever read or saw 'Catch 22'? waing a war against an enemy and simultaneously doing business with the same enemy isn't out of the question.
Good Morning Folks,
It appears that Greg you have a thing about China and it’s ability or inability to project force out to even the 1st. Island line of defense.
To Greg; please inquire with Lt. Colonel Krepinevch what aircraft the Chinese have that can make it Guam, “in waves” or for that matter Okinawa?
I realize he assumed that both the United States and Japan lack any AD that could intercept and take out any Chinese air threat. I also realize that just because China took out a satellite one, its own with an on board homing device, that it can punch out any satellite at will. Also of course because it did the same stunt with a ballistic missile it could do it anytime it liked, oh did I mention that the US got ride of the last of it’s ballistic missiles in 1985, but to Lt. Colonel Krepinevich that doesn’t matter.
Also could Greg inquire to the Lt. Colonel what Ballistic Missiles that the Chinese have and have been tested for accuracy that could reach and hit Guam?
Then there are these mysterious and seemingly non existent submarines that China has that can operate out into the “blue water”? I’m sure that Lt. Colonel can enlighten us as to what, how many and where they are?
As far as I can see that China has a single nuclear boat a Han Class and no operational SSBM’s, that is in the North Seas Fleet that goes out for a day or so once a year.
The Japanese are very able to follow it around the Yellow Sea of which it doesn’t leave. The most numerous and able of China’s submarines is the Song Class, a Chinese reversed engineered Soviet Kilo, of which about 16-20 are in the water and can be produced at a rate of 2-3 a year. In the PLA the submarine service is not considered to be a great career path.
So far Greg all that you have posted regarding Lt. Colonel Krepinevich along with his current book “7 Deadly Scenarios:…” is utter unsupported nonsense and has no place at the table about rational military discussions about China.
If this is a topic that you are truly interested in, I might suggest you go and read the two book currently out that contain monographs by students and facility at the Naval war college in Newport RI. instead of this winger gladfly who couldn’t make a career out of the US Army, so he is trying to parlay a West Point Education into selling right wing bull sh**.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
China could vastly increase military spending if they chose to. The key thing to remember here is tthat our economiews are too interdependent on each other. China has a surplus right now and they are saving their money and biding their time. They know that eventually they will have the financial and military ability to fight Taiwan. They know that the US is spending its way into bankruptcy and that our forces will be stretched thin when and if we have a regional conflict in the Middle East with Iran. When that happens, China will open up on Taiwan and we will be too economically weak and militaryily strained to do anything about it.
Actually, no! Our economies are not interdependent. We buy cheap crap from China we don't need. They don't buy anything from us – They steal much of our technology. What we need to do is to be big kids now and put a 50% tax on their imports. (Donald Trump credit here) I love Walmart …but sorry. American industries or Vietnam, Indonesia and the like will make up the short falls. We can pay back our bonds, force them to shutdown the Iranians and deal with Chinese honestly. e.g.: Hey we know you'd like to beat us, but that's not happening. They'll respect us on many levels. Who cares if they like us!
I agree that a standoff-based approach is best, especially considering the military's interest in the "prompt global strike" concept. In addition, what about expediting development of the next generation UCAVs? These stealthy unmanned systems can maintain a CAP over the Taiwan Strait and use long-range standoff air-to-air missiles. But then again, considering our complete inability to maintain network security, I'm sure the Chinese could easily hack into those links…
The cyber warfare has a simple solution, cut off the internet. The majority of today's cyber attacks are over the world wide web, if you sliced all the undersea cables to china, either with divers in shallow regions or tactical strikes with torpedos and missiles for land based cables, china would have to reroute all those hackers through far less data transmission capability. And in a worst case, we cut our own cables and allow the military to seal off its own network. This would put any cyber attacks out of the question for us as well, but at least all our weapons would function, and as stated, we have superior targeting, so we could just let our missiles do the rest.
The first discussion in such a debate is motivation and means. What would be the motive for the Chinese to go to war with the US? I can't think of any except for, Taiwan.
The PLA technically has the means, but can it survive economically without the US? I say it cannot. Most of what China has achieved technically, has either been copied or stolen (close but not the same). The destruction of their industry/facilities would set them back many years/decades. I make that statement, because I don't believe any direct war between two major powers would be small.
From a cost benefit analysis, by going to war over Taiwan, China stands to lose more than it has to gain. By the time it's all over, Taiwan would be a moonscape, as would vast portions of the mainland.
Much like the Russians during the Cold War, Chinese leaders are much more level headed than some of their smaller cousins. They have been fighting longer than the west combined and understand the cost of war.
With the growth of Chinese success, it's gaining nationalism, even within Taiwan. It will be easier for China to absorb Taiwan over the course of several decades than it would be to go to war and be set back decades.
That being said, should China go to war with the US. They must be able to strike the US mainland, which so far, they cannot (with conventional weapons). They are not an expeditionary force. Can they maintain an area of denial, not just at sea (west), but also to the north, south and west, faster than the US can destroy their means to produce?
Economic interdependance is not a deterent to war. Europe was very economically interdependant before WWI. Japan and the U.S had a thriving trade relationship before WWII. If China thinks it has even a moderate chance at gaining something through war with the U.S they won't hessitate to do it. I think the biggest threat that could provoke war is an econmic depression/collapse in China. Chinese leadership may try to deflect attention away from such an internal crisis by looking towards retaking Taiwan or resumming the armed border conflict with India.
As far as U.S strategy goes, I agree with Greg. Pound China's air and sea weapons with our arsenal of standoff weapons. A conventionalized Trident or Munuteman missile may perform this role well.
I wouldn't believe a word Andrew Krepinevich has to say considering he's a CFR lackey.
Here's a nice quote from CFR's chairman David Rockefeller: "For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as "internationalists" and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it." – excerpt from pg 405 of David Rockefeller's book "Memoirs". David Rockefeller is CFR Chairman, Bilderberg member, and founder of the Trilateral Commission
Good Afternoon Editors.
Thanks for pulling my posting, I’m sure that the Heritage and others who now infest this site, if not being equity partners found facts on China offensive.
A year ago DT was a very creditable site that people who were decision makers read. This site had influence in the FCS and the F-22 decisions. Today DT is only good for right wing propaganda and what is the best digital camouflage on Chinese vehicles.
It’s really a shame Noah had something good going here that contributed to the national debate on defense, but as Noah said “I sold out to the man”.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
Mr Skinner l see the Chinese overcoming a 'close in' opposing force the same way the Soviets defeated the Germans in the east – sheer weight of numbers.
The Soviet equipment wasnt as good as the Germans but they had more tanks, more everything.
lf the Chinese decide to take Taiwan l cant see how they could be stopped, casualties mean nothing to them.
China and the U.S. will not be going to war in the forseeable future. A far more likely scenario would be China and an ever growing India.
That was meant to be 'waging' a war….
Given the Taiwanese can't even work up the political willpower to declare themselves independent and ask for UN status, I'm not entirely certain why we would waste too much coin or any blood defending it.
I think the best way to make the Chinese fold would be to not try. Let them invade it, it would make the occupation in Iraq look like a training day. Send the USN to conduct a selective blockade of the Persian Gulf and seize all tankers bound for China. Their economy would go into hyper collapse with the oil severed. Use long range stand off weapons and subs to savage their ability to maintain their forces on Taiwan.
The rest of the world would be at least willing to add some sanctions I'm sure which would further exacerbate their economic woes. They wouldn't be #2 economically for long with the whole world POed at them. Look how crummy even our own allies have treated us and we invaded one country with a leader who was essentially a modern day Hitler and the other attacked us. Not sure the Chinese would get a pass for invading what is for all practical purposes a sovereign democracy.
China will sail over and take Taiwan when the US will not defend it. They play the waiting game with great patience. When the US decides it does not make sense to pay for Taiwan to be free. Our best strategy is to erode the ChiComs politically by promoting free speech, religion & capitalism in China. Until that happens a strong US Navy & Air Force will be needed. (GO NAVY)
Stand off Base would where?..Australia of course as always {it has so much secret infrstrucure now with the US} and secret testing of much DARPA and Mil stuff is done there. It has the capability of basing UAV's and having a shroud zone, courtesy of JORN, and the Sub's etc.
China is stock piling steel and copper at an alarming rate {cement too} Hong Kong will have a civil War, yep my prediction, what will the PLA etc do over that and would it be also an excuse to hit Taiwan. Yes the have a sofisticated ant-threat shield, but we could too, Australia is a main key, will they paly ball , they are even closer really than Brit, and on par with Japan for allies!!
what say you?
Hong Kong to China – WW3? No.
Taiwan to China – WW3? No.
As the US continues to print money like it's confetti and sails it's 11 Nuclear Carrier Battle Groups up and down friendly waters all while proving the greatest military in the world can almost fight Iraq and Afghanistan without imploding – China just makes every garment worn in the us, every TV watched in the US and soon enough every car driven in the US.
War? Don't be an ass – with who over what?
As long as the Chinese know American soldiers will tear down Mao's picture in Tienanmen Square at some point after the President says "go", the world will be safe. AirSea Battle is a means to that end.
There are two ways to end a war: one where you leave your opponent in complete destruction, no treaty and no ceasefire (ala Israel v Gaza): and another where you conquer and help rebuild (ala Japan and Iraq).
Don't underestimate China's patience. Western policy may be thought of in presidential terms or a decade, China's policy can be thought of in terms of decades and/or a century. China will eventually maintain influence over Taiwan though financial and cultural ties rather than force.
I don't see the US invading China with troops (the entire population of the US would be horribly out numbered), or China invading the US (they just don't have the capability at this point).
MCQnight is correct in saying economic interdependence is not a complete deterrence to war, but level headed leaders are. Germany was lead by a nut-case at the time and thus didn't much care about the economic consequences. China and the US are very different. China's economy is growing at an enviable pace and they are the most prepared to weather any economic storm that may hit. Thus, their biggest issue is going to be figuring out how to handle a middle class, which wants more freedom and say in their country. The same middle class which is making them so successful.
The US will always loose ground in the initial phase of any major conflict. It’s the war of attrition that has been successful for us. Denying china its oil imports would choke their economy and war effort as we are taking out their factories from our long range land and sea positions.
We have a number of large bases in the Middle East that have the capability to disrupt oil imports and china would have to deal with those at the same time it’s making a grab for Asian assets. This doesn’t even factor in problems they could have with Tibet or India which may see a US/China conflict as an opportunity and their already starting to deal with the rich vs. poor issues.
We would be better off if a diplomatic solution for demilitarizing the Taiwan Straights was found instead of floating a couple of aircraft battle groups through them. China knows our capability, that’s why there are so many missiles on its coast. Their just as paranoid as we are..
China is a soveriegn entitiy with it's own agenda, one of which is to subdue Taiwan at any price. The possibility of war with China is a political reality, even if it is a remote one. The US Navy would be the first service called upon to stop any invasion of Taiwan and even though the Chinese would fire salvos of missiles at the carrier task forces, the counter strike with Tomahawks and
other systems would be just as devastating to the Chinese. The Chinese would have the defenders advantage and in the long run would prevail in such a scenario. In all likelyhood the US would lose two aircraft carriers in such an exchange and the cost economically would be huge to both countries.
The Soviet Union was economically beaten, never militarily, by the US. A thing to remember if you care to follow the GNP growth of China versus the US.
I like chinese food.
Good Morning Folks,
I see my first post finally made it.
To the poster regarding the invasion of Tiawan. China is still figuring out how to do it. It is doubtful that the PLA will play any part in the restoration of Taiwan to mainland China although I have no doubt that such an event will happen.
It will happen in the most Democratic way, the ballot box. With an estimated 70K commercial ties between Taiwan and mainland China is had to see them being separate political/economic entities much longer. It most likely will be an arrangement much the same as Hong Kong is today, but Beijing’s flag will be flying over a friendly Taiwan.
Since 1951 when Mao first pledged to return Taiwan to China, but realized the impossibly of a military invasion as being a reality. The rational is simple, first it would have to be done on the east coast of Taiwan, there are no suitable invasion beachs on the west side. Tapei and Kaphsiung would have to be taken in tack, very unlikely the Nationalists have publicly said they would destroy both of the cities and there ports infrastructures before letting the PLA have them. Lastly, arithmetic. Mao in 1951 said it would take a million Chines troops to take and hold Taiwan, today that number is estimated to be 1.5 million troops.
The Chinese figure with mobilizing ALL of it transport capacity and that all military elements were at 100% readiness they could move 20K troops in 24 hours, do the math of how long it would take to get 1.5 million troops into Taiwan. That doesn’t include supplies or equipment, just troops and it is assumed they would be unopposed by any Taiwan defense forces, a very unlikely event.
Lt. Colonel Krepinevich make a lot of wild predictions in his book, “7 Deadly Scenarios:…” One of them is that last month Feb. 2010 there would be 30 million Mexicans storming the US/Mexico border and bring with it the killer H1N8 Flu. Virus. I live only a few miles from the US/Mexican border and have been watching for this human stampede, hasn’t come yet, but I will keep an eye out for it and post on DT if I see it coming, stay tuned.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
You didn't notice? The 30 million Mexicans are already here.
If there was to be ground war with the Chinese, it would most likely take place in Africa or Central Asia. Besides that, the best way to beat the Chinese is to start agitating their various ethnic groups. The Chinese are aware of this, which is why they have a million man internal militia force. Air Sea battle would be over Taiwan. But I'm not sure the Chinese have the capability to move large numbers of ground troops to Taiwan?
It would be great if the U.S. could develop a platform (say on a 747) for a laser system to shoot down any missles headed for our ships.
To bad that's all science fiction.
I just want to know what the range and submerge time of a diesel sub will be when they replace the lead-acid batteries with lithium-ion.
Forget everything else, if they can use their subs to blockade the island and keep us away long enough to take it, the chances of it happening significantly increase.
We have better subs, but they are in their own waters and they have a lot of them….
Huge numbers of cheap, semi autonomous drone aircraft. Honestly what are they going to do against a half million flying smart bombs?
It is to DT's credit that they are making the public aware of the CSBA report, and I would encourage others to also read '7 Deadly Scenarios' also as food for thought.
Just have some countries manufacture some of our (USA) defense line. Countries like Phlippines, Singapore, and Australia may cost 10 times lower in respect to material and labor. When it comes to defending our sea, land and air territory, I think it is our responsibility to make it safe from any threat.
On the other hand we can always sign a peace treaty with them.
Good Evening Folks,
Any ground war in China wouldn’t involve the United States, maybe China vs. India, China vs. Vietnam or even China Vs. The Russian Federation, China may very well have another ground war even this decade but not with the United States.
On China invading Taiwan the Chinese and the Nationalist Chinese have been jawing about it for 50 years. Why hasn’t China invaded Taiwan?
I don’t think its fear of US intervention, any of you who have studied the Vietnam War could plainly see that the US did everything it could NOT to provoke China, the same was true in Korea. If I recall in both places we were at war and had American troops already there to do the deed, but we didn’t.
All that we are getting from that peculiar institution the American right wing tanks is the push to spend more money on “gold plated” defense systems that will never be used.
Here’s a flash for all of you, the uber-patriotic Heritage Foundation that has been bad mouthing China on this post for a while now, well they are now doing business with the Government of China, they are being paid to lobby the US Congress on issues important to China, it was in the WSJ a couple of weeks ago.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
First Member of the People's Liberation Front of Judea: "Right, so it is resolved: We demand all these gold-plated weapons that 'never' get used are gotten rid of immediately! After all what have they ever done for us, Eh? Just sitting there year end and year out, looking fearsome, never getting used while we peace-loving people get nothin'! We say: what are they good for?!!! "
Second Member of the People's Liberation Front of Judea: "Um, "Deterrence"?
First Member: "Whaat? Oh. Hmmm. Very well then. So now it is resolved? We demand all these gold-plated weapons that 'never' get used– with the exception of those that have deterred our enemies at some point– are gotten rid of immediately!!!!"
Second Member:"How do we know which ones were a deterrent and which ones were not?"
First Member: What?
Second member: How can we tell?
First Member: "We'll assign a committee to investigate and report back with its findings then…All right? So… it is Resolved! — We demand all gold-plated weapons that 'never' get used– with the exception of those that have deterred our enemies at some point, to be determined by a blue-ribbon committee reporting to us at some future unspecified date– are gotten rid of immediately!!!! Agreed?
Third Member of the People's Liberation Front of Judea: Well you know….now that I think about it, all of the weapons we’re talking about actually have been used at one time of another. Others: ‘You know, he’s right!
First Member (Glaring at Third Member): P***Off!!!…….Meeting adjourned.
BTW: We mustn’t forget Heritage's links to the Masons, Templars, Druids and especially the Spanish Inquisition. No one ever expects the Spanish Inquisition.
Just curious, but I noticed no-one talking counter-measures has mentioned the utility of our converted boomers. Seems to me in a dust up over Taiwan, they could be prepped to take out some of those missiles before they are launched.
Is 300 Tomahawk's enough to make a dent? Or even 600 IF you could get all 4 close enough in a timely manner (2 are in LANT, 2 are in PAC according to SUBFOR web site)?
First of all, I don’t think China wants to risk her economy in this sort of fight. Further, I don’t think China has all the capabilities the paper discussed. I also think that some of their capabilities will either fail, not work as well as advertised, or our own forces will degrade theirs considerably. Also consider that I’m an armchair warrior with more opinion than knowledge or experience. Just in case the Chinese are a credible force, and are seriously considering a fight, try these suggestions on for size:
(See the next post for the other half…)
"The Chinese military buildup aims to threaten key point targets such as Kadena Air Force Base in Japan and Andersen Air Base on Guam. Early in any conflict, the Chinese would launch massive salvos of ballistic missiles at those bases followed by waves of strike aircraft, Krepinevich writes."
Is a recognition that surface warships are sitting ducks good? Yes.
Is an expectation that the lesson that China learned from WWII was that Pearl Harbor was a good idea for Japanese forces in the Pacific reasonable? I think not.
Not attacking Japanese or U.S. forces if it can be helped, and certainly not pre-emptive, had the potential to keep other players off the board, at least briefly, while a direct attack prompts an immediate and decisive response from both Japan and the U.S. And, for the Chinese invadiing Taiwan, even a couple of days of dithering could mean the difference between a pitched air-sea battle and a fait accompli.
One subject has not been covered in this debate; the need for a military superpower-to-be (China) to regularly conduct war to continuously develop its war-fearing capabilities. So far China has not been "training" properly for a show-down with the US. My tip to the political-military leadership of China is to first have a string of wars with Russia, India, Vietnam (once more, but this time winning!), before taking on Taiwan/US/Japan. Watch the master of this game; the US has had 1-2 wars going for every decade the last 70 years!
If China does not heed this advice, I surmise the position it's taking on developing a no-access zone close to its shore is purely defensive.