Home » News » Around the Globe » China’s Anti Access Future is Here

China’s Anti Access Future is Here

by John Reed on March 27, 2012

China’s may already be able to hold U.S. forces in the far western Pacific Ocean at bay, argues DT’s go to China expert and Naval War College professor Andrew Erickson in one of his latest analysis pieces.

While China can’t yet project serious military power around the globe — or even to the farthest corners of the Pacific — it’s massive military buidup may have given the nation enough muscle to create the anti-access/area denial scenario in its own neighborhood that Pentagon planners have been worrying about for several years. As Erickson says, the “the future is now.”

Here’s an excerpt from his piece titled, Near Seas “Anti-Navy” Capabilities, not Nascent Blue Water Fleet, Constitute China’s Core Challenge to U.S. and Regional Militaries.

Concerns about a Chinese “blue water navy” fundamentally mischaracterize the true nature of China’s present and medium-term challenge to the U.S. Navy and other U.S. and allied forces.[vii] Because of the fundamentally different cost dynamics, and China’s very different levels of military capability in the Near and Far Seas, it is important for analysts not to conflate Near Seas high-intensity A2/AD with Far Seas low-intensity presence, and even influence.[viii]

Beijing’s “blue water” naval expansion remains years from posing a serious problem for Washington. Indeed, as a growing great power, it is only natural for China to play an increasing role in this realm, and in many respects it should be welcomed. The U.S. has and will continue to have many viable options to address any problems that might emerge in this area, at least with respect to the potential for high-intensity kinetic conflict.

For instance, Chinese forces themselves are highly vulnerable to precisely the same types of “asymmetric” approaches (e.g., missile attacks) that they can employ to great effect closer to China’s shores. In fact, there is substantial room for cooperation beyond the Near Seas. This potential may even be said to be growing, as China’s overseas interests and capabilities increase, thereby allowing it to contribute in unprecedented ways. In this area, which covers the vast majority of the globe, China appears to be cautiously open to U.S. ideas about “defense of the global system”—which in fact offer excellent opportunities for “free riding” off U.S.-led provision of security for key global sea lanes such as the Strait of Hormuz.

The problem for the U.S. is that in the Near Seas themselves China is working to carve out a sphere of strategic influence within which freedom of navigation and other important international system-sustaining norms are seriously constricted. Thus, China’s already-present ability to engage in A2/AD operations within the Near Seas and their immediate approaches has the potential to seriously undermine U.S. national security interests.

Assisted in part by the land-based Second Artillery Force, anti-satellite capabilities, and global cyber activities, this A2/AD challenge threatens U.S. naval platforms, but is far more than just a Chinese navy-based threat; some U.S. government experts have called it an anti-navy.” It could already be difficult to handle kinetically with current U.S. approaches, and the situation appears to be worsening rapidly. The U.S. may not have years to develop new countermeasures and prepare to address the most difficult aspects of the problem; in that sense, “the future is now.”

Radiating Range Rings, Through the Lens of Distance

The most common source of error in Chinese and U.S. analyses of People’s Liberation Army (PLA) development is the conflation of two factors: scope and intensity. A stone dropped into the water forms waves that radiate outward, gradually dissipating in the process. Close to home, China’s military capabilities are rapidly reaching a very high level. However, they are making much slower progress, from a much lower baseline, further away. The major exceptions to this pattern occur in space, in which China’s capabilities are more evenly distributed and hence more global in nature, and in cyberspace in which physical distances are largely meaningless.

To call this a “tale of two militaries” oversimplifies, since some platforms and weapon systems can contribute in both areas, but it captures the basic dynamic. Many vehicles and armaments are primarily relevant in one area or the other. Cherry-picking the characteristics of either of these “layers” or “levels” to characterize overall Chinese military/maritime power risks fundamentally misrepresenting its critical dynamics.

On one hand, it is a mistake to exaggerate the scope of China’s military buildup: China is not developing a “blue water” power-projection navy nearly as rapidly as it is deploying shorter-range platforms and weapon systems such as missiles for land, air-, sea-, and undersea-based platforms. On the other hand, it is equally misguided to suggest that restraint and limitations in the Far Seas indicate restraint and limitations in the Near Seas, when in fact Chinese actions across the military and diplomatic spectrum strongly suggest the opposite.

“Counting all the beans” by treating side-by-side comparison of all Chinese and U.S. forces as the key metric, as sometimes done by those who would minimize the PLA’s significance, is only relevant if one assumes that the pertinent scenario is a Cold War-style Sino-American global conflict—a virtual impossibility, fortunately. Rather, China is seeking to further its core interests by pursuing an asymmetric approach that maximizes its advantages in a contingency relatively close to China’s maritime periphery.

Read the rest of Erickson’s analysis at China Sign Post.

Share |

{ 90 comments… read them below or add one }

JackBlack March 27, 2012 at 5:16 pm
superraptor March 27, 2012 at 5:20 pm

We have lost the will to compete militarily. We are unilaterally dismantling our conventional (see F-22 and JDRAM) and nuclear capabilities(see Minuteman III) while China is greatly and successfully increasing its capabilities. Our defense budget has to increase, not decrease, but it would require broad tax increases for everybody. At least we should demand value for our tax dollars and cancel programs with little value in favor of programs with greater value such as the Virginia Sub program.

Reply

Andy March 27, 2012 at 5:48 pm

require broad tax increases for everybody.??????why
do you know how much we spending on FOREIGN AID every year and some country even ask for bilions and billions more????

Reply

fromage March 27, 2012 at 7:58 pm

You have an interesting definition of "unilaterally dismantling."

Reply

PolicyWonk March 27, 2012 at 9:39 pm

It isn't a matter of will: its a matter of finances. If we hadn't been spent down the tubes and squandered the budget surplus and kept the financial house in order – this conversation wouldn't be happening.

Reply

passingby March 28, 2012 at 2:44 am

there was no budget surplus under Bill Clinton. It was an accounting gimmick.

Reply

blight_ March 28, 2012 at 12:03 pm

It was a projected number over the next decade, true. Which didn't account for the collapse of the internet bubble and other fun stuff.

Reply

bchock March 27, 2012 at 5:25 pm

in a few years we will have lasers and we have now other missiles to shoot missiles down also jaming pods so whats the big deal? we also we spend way more then them on military so we are ready.

Reply

chaos0xomega March 27, 2012 at 5:39 pm

This post shows a poor understanding of how these systems actually function as well as how military acquisitions differ…

The anti-access weapons being developed by China are being purpose-built to defeat existing and projected systems. They have anti-ship missiles that fly a random flightpath based on stellar radiation which crashes our Aegis defense systems. Ballistic anti-ship missiles are going to be coming in way too fast in the terminal phase for anti-missile missiles/lasers to be an effective defense (to the best of my knowledge, the most effective and only proven systems are designed to take out the missile in the boost phase, which we would be well out of range of). And jamming pods mean nothing in that circumstance as well, as by the time the missile enters range of the jamming pod, it will already have its terminal course locked in, nothing you can do to change it… You also act as though all these defensive systems are active all the time… they aren't.

As for spending more money than China, 1 dollar spent in the US is not the same as 1 dollar spent in China. Despite a much smaller budget than us, the Chinese military is increasing in size, while the American military is shrinking. Some may argue that size isn't everything, and this is true, but China's armed forces are not only expanding in size, but also in capability, while the US is arguably staying stagnant (and in some cases declining) in terms of capability. In any case, there is also "the quality of quantity" as the Soviets showed the Germans during World War 2…

Reply

@Earlydawn March 28, 2012 at 12:40 am

Citation on the "stellar radiation" bit? Never heard that before in my life.

Reply

Thomas L. Nielsen March 28, 2012 at 1:59 am

It probably refers to celestial navigation, where the platform uses the relative position of certain stars to navigate.

Regards & all,

Thomas L. Nielsen
Luxembourg

Reply

chaos0xomega March 28, 2012 at 1:43 pm

Earlydawn, I have no citation, this is what I was told by a US Navy O-4 who has been doing some secret squirrely type research for the Pentagon. He has been a reliable source of information in the past, not sure if he was talking out his butt (or said something he shouldnt have) or what.

Reply

TMB March 27, 2012 at 6:12 pm

Our military spans the globe and is capable of doing just about everything (to varying degrees). Aside from the economic scales of what a dollar can buy, their military is almost entirely locally focused and purpose-built. They've devoted most of their naval and airpower towards influencing their immediate surroundings in the Pacific. They regulalry drill on attacking carriers and Taiwan because that's where they're focused. If you were to boast to a Chinese admiral that we can sail a carrier battle group to any corner of the world, he'd probably shrug and say "Good for you. We have no desire to. And oh by the way, we're making this corner harder to get to."

Reply

Lance March 27, 2012 at 5:31 pm

The report over blows China's capabilities. some of there scare over its anti-ship missile would depend on the conflict is the Navy wanted to stick a Carrier Strike ground right off the coast and bomb china well yes that would be hazard by there carrier killer missiles. However to support Taiwan or Philippines against Chinese Red aggression most US Naval forces would be on the other side of the allied nation and would be too far away for Chinese missiles to have range on there own. Put this way there tanks suck there rifles suck now there planes are good not superior to US? European fighters/bombers but are copies of Russian and European planes anyway. China must be contain and monitored but fear mongering over it is overblown and is more political than factual.

Reply

Juuso March 28, 2012 at 1:23 pm

“However to support Taiwan or Philippines against Chinese Red aggression most US Naval forces would be on the other side of the allied nation and would be too far away for Chinese missiles ”

Yeah, Taiwan is so far away from China…

“Put this way there tanks suck”

How you know that something like ZTZ-99A2 sucks?

Reply

RMS March 28, 2012 at 6:39 pm

1. “their” and “there” are not only spelled differently, but also have two different meanings. Choosing which one to put in the sentence will go a long way to understanding what you are triing to get across.

2. “European fighters/bombers but are copies of Russian and European planes anyway.” I don’t get the point which you are tiing to get across, and what it has to do with China?

Reply

Nick T. March 27, 2012 at 5:40 pm

This isn't a surprise. China will probably stick with missiles so long as it can free ride of the US's global police policies. The best we can hope for is a laser or railgun systen that can shoot down the missiles before they get to close, of preferable before they even leave the Chinese mainland. If we can find a relatively cost effective, accurate (Read: Railgun Birdshot, round 120 metal pellets travelling at mach 7-10) to shoot down their missiles, we got them by the balls.

Reply

dddd March 28, 2012 at 11:07 am

Don't forget about the kill chain, which is highly vulnerable to our comparative strengths. It is not very easy to find a ship in the Pacific ocean. That requires satellites, surveillance aircraft, long range radars, disguised military vessels, and submarines. Each element can be held at bay with the proper hardware and doctrine.

Reply

Regal Hawk March 27, 2012 at 6:02 pm

For us to leave behind such a temporal effect on not having the most fuel efficient surveillance equipment out there to prevent these freaks from over stepping, will be such consequences that most will turn there nose up at……

If any country, any country launches a missile, we suspect that contents will go over there borders, the only option we have to incinerate the launch site and the surrounding 200 miles. Leave a mark that they will remember!

Reply

passingby March 28, 2012 at 3:08 am

LOL. Spoken like a true terrorist, a brainless thug, and a murderous psychopath.

Reply

Regal Hawk March 28, 2012 at 3:25 pm

Dear Passingby – if another country launched a missile at your country, your stating that to react accordingly is a thug? No sir, I think that the thug is the one that made the first strike……. As for brainless, excuse me any individual, sect or country that ostracizes itself and acts in a terroristic nature by carrying out subversive or openly firing a missile onto another country. As you stated, deems no response – right? Hope you never see this incident happen… Maybe if we ‘all’ were socialized like the jews were, me/you could be duped into anything.
- What a fantasy land this would be…..if we are anyone else did not react.
-

Reply

Hunter78 March 27, 2012 at 7:43 pm

Don't worry about China, guys. Romney has declared Russia is our no 1 geopolitical enemy.

Reply

C-Low March 27, 2012 at 8:00 pm

Hitting an aircraft carrier in the open ocean running at full steam with spoofing, countermeasures, jamming, decoys, other clutter from escorts, and then BMD missiles and microwave burst from those new massive AESA radars… will not be easy.

China's new weapons will be a flash in the pan, opening days weapons that I doubt will have much true effectiveness besides being used as a harassing weapon against fixed naval and air base facilities. Their real value will be in targeting supply ships at port or anchor off Taiwan or hitting/harassing naval/air bases in Guam, Japan, S Korea, etc.. Disrupt allied air support in theater and shut down the big airbases of Taiwan while also shutting down the naval resupply or reinforcement of Taiwan. Taiwan has limited stock piles that without big US cargo planes rolling into big long air fields or other big US supply ships rolling into big port facilities it will be a short war.

China will lose its eyes and ears very early in a war with the US. The US will have some disruption but with the X-37 etc.. programs it will remain only a disruption. Their subs may survive long enough to help but when they come up to make com they will be destroyed. With no tracking to get the missile on top of the carrier the list of defenses will not even be needed.

Reply

d. kellogg March 27, 2012 at 8:08 pm

Why again do US warmongers plan on a serious confrontation with china?
Considering just how dependent the US everyday-consumer is on made-in-china wares (thanks in major part to all those corporations that took jobs there to begin with,
more often than not having the blessing of previous politicians to do so…gotta forge better ties with china to stave off the Russian horde threat, etc ad naseum),
wouldn't such a military confrontation between the US and china be the financial/economic equivalent of mutually assured destruction?
The longer term a military confrontation, the greater both sides will suffer, not entirely thru military hardware attrition, but on the homefront where that massive balancing act of consumer and supplier is seriously shaken.
Those can create political repercussions just as much as could public disapproval of another expensive war.

Reply

jrexilius March 28, 2012 at 12:21 am

A little sensationalist in your description but some validity to your point. But to assume that the chinese view it as "mutually assured" five or ten years down the road is a mistake. It is not unreasonable to foresee a future where the political calculation of oil in the spratleys, taiwan and other nearby resources outweigh export dollars from the US.

Reply

Smitty March 28, 2012 at 1:00 am

You don't understand — the best way to avoid war is to be ready to fight it. Nations fully ready and capable of defending themselves or carrying a war to the potential enemy are seldom attacked. It is when you do not have the capability of defending your interests that potential enemies will be likely to attack.

At this particular time in history it is not in China's best interest to contemplate War with the USA, nor is it particularily in our interest to contemplate War with them. That being said, we both have interests that need to be protected. As a major importer the US requires open access to sea lanes as a major exporter China requires the same thing. Bot h have a common interest, but neither is willing to be in a postiton where the other can unilaterally decide their fate.

Reply

passingby March 28, 2012 at 2:28 am

I thought the US had blamed the WTC attack on Al qaeda. The latter must be pretty darn powerful, eh? What about the Trillion+ bailout of the banksters after the derivatives attack?

Reply

jrexilius March 28, 2012 at 12:27 am

The article makes some sound points. Taiwan and local influence is of more concern than policing global shipping lanes or any other common force-projection concerns. The US provides global stability elsewhere and they care about Taiwan. Not news to anyone that's kept up with China for the last couple of decades (or centuries for that matter).

Reply

Ben March 28, 2012 at 12:39 am

Why are all the pro-China comments being thumbed up and all the anti-China comments being thumbed down?

Reply

Sgt_Buffy March 28, 2012 at 8:27 am

Because it seems to make sense that China, while not an immediate threat, is a threat to be considered. Those of us who say that we should ignore China don't understand the lessons of the Cold War. We'll build up a military, they'll build up a military, and both sides will pray that we don't attack each-other. And we won't, because we're so big that it's like George Orwell's "1984" in that we are too large to really defeat each other.

Reply

blight_ March 28, 2012 at 11:10 am

If Oceania attacks Eastasia, then Eurasia will kick our asses. Eurasia is resurgent, but still small. Eastasia is small and growing. Oceania can take on one, but not two.

Reply

@Earlydawn March 28, 2012 at 12:48 am

How is China planning on targeting these acclaimed missiles? The ocean is a big place to hide, even within the confines of the South China Sea.

Last I checked, China had one nascent constellation of naval surveillance satellites with limited coverage, and an extremely small formation of non-SOTA AWACS aircraft. They also don't actively train on air-to-air tanking, so station time would be seriously limited. The satellites could probably be jammed / dazzled with reasonable preparation time, if not totally shot down.

Also, consider the U.S.' ASAT preparedness. The DoD demonstrated a capability to shoot down a satellite from a mobile platform (!) with greater precision than a land-based Chinese launch. If you can move the launch platform out of Chinese sensor range, how are they going to maneuver their satellites to prevent a hit?

I think China would likely end up blind in a hurry.

Reply

Sgt_Buffy March 28, 2012 at 8:29 am

Agreed, China is not prepared now, but just wait. They are trying very hard to overcome their shortcomings, but the age of warfare for land is pretty much over (between powers anyway). China will only fight a war if it has to, they know they're outmatched.

Reply

Auyong Ah Meng March 28, 2012 at 1:37 am

Folks, please kindly factor in Japan, South Korea and Taiwan into consideration too…

China has to neutralize them or take them out 1st before taking on the US….

The US won't be in this alone…

Reply

Rabbit March 28, 2012 at 2:17 am

It's possible we'll have North Korea to contend with and I doubt the JSDF would concern itself with conflicts outside its territory. I'm not optimistic about Taiwan's chances in the event that our hypothetical sea war with China breaks out either. The input of our allies in the Far East would be welcome but we can't bank on them being there. Not because I don't trust them but because they have their own problems.

Reply

Juuso March 28, 2012 at 1:31 pm

Taiwan would be bombarded back to the middle ages in few days if war started.

South-Korea? Wouldn’t do a thing. There is still Norrth-Korea between China and South-korea, and they are afraid of Norks now…

Japan? Very unlikely that they would do anything.

Reply

crackedlenses March 31, 2012 at 3:23 pm

That assumes they [Japan] don't get hit in the crossfire and decide to retaliate. I don't know the specifics of what their laws allow, but it a possibility to consider…..

Reply

William C. March 28, 2012 at 1:47 am

Meanwhile we are cutting ships and can't fix our plans for future classes of destroyer and cruisers.

We already have a solid starting point with the Standard Missile 3, new ships could expand upon that capability with new radars, missiles, and directed energy weapons.

Reply

Andrew March 28, 2012 at 2:10 am

This war isn't happening for a long time, if it ever did. The economies of both countries are still heavily reliant upon each other or each others Allies and both would suffer greatly in any conflict economically. China's economy is already showing signs of slowing down, you think cutting exports to the West will help that? They don't want conflict any more then we do, and that will keep them out of any direct conflict. I could see them fighting proxy wars in Africa with ease (they are going to need fertile land badly in the coming decades), but nothing that puts itself in direct confrontation with the West.

Reply

Will March 28, 2012 at 2:09 pm

It was MAD during the Cold War, now it's MADE – Mutually Assured Destruction of the Economies. Assume that at some point in the near future China decides to coerce Taiwan into reunification & is able to block the USA from providing protection. So we retaliate instead. Does anyone think China will be able to protect the flow of oil from the Mideast oil fields to China, either by sea or overland?
The West & the Soviet bloc had competing economies during the Cold War. The USA & China share the same 1 today. That comes with it's own dangers. If the corporations f' up badly enough again, the Chinese may not be able to protect themselves with another $US trillion stimulus package. If the Chinese central planners f' up, they could take us down with them since we depend on them to maintain the value of the $US.

Reply

tribulationtime March 28, 2012 at 5:22 am

I agree with Auyong thats countries are a powerfull "reef" to get in open waters. In the other hand China military is nothing if they have petroleum and nearest pacific haven´t it. See CIA factbook 2011. So China strategical focus should be in Iran, 2nd Gas a 3rd Oil proben reserves, Cia factbook 2009; secure a land locked liveline between Iran and China is all. But no so easy is keep Iran from westerns invaders. Is more easy keep at bay westerns in eastern coast flooded with civvies.

Reply

fewrwrw March 28, 2012 at 6:09 am

what is A2/AD?

Reply

Italskil March 28, 2012 at 8:04 am

Anti-access/area denial. It is a catch-all phrase for all of the various technologies that China is developing in order to keep the US military out of their backyard.

Reply

Sgt_Buffy March 28, 2012 at 8:31 am

The only war China can afford to fight is a proxy war, something that the US is very, very practiced at.

Reply

Vec March 28, 2012 at 9:50 am

Similarly the only war the U.S.can afford to fight is financed/ borrowed money from China.

Reply

Rabbit March 29, 2012 at 1:19 am

Funny story, China was fighting proxy wars for awhile too. Vietnam worked out pretty well for them I'd say.

Reply

ben March 29, 2012 at 6:16 am

that was a russian proxy war… the chinese and north vietnam hated each other…

There is a better case to be made about the india/pakistan wars. Since the whole reason pakistan uses american equipment was because India chose not to antagonize their gigantic communist neighbor during the cold war.

Reply

Jeff March 28, 2012 at 9:24 am

No one wins a nuclear war. In a conventional war with China we don't even have to win millitarily, we don't have to attack China directly. We can do the same game of creating an area of anti-access and then simply blockade key points in their geographically limited shipping lanes. That puts a stranglehold on a country that imports 80% of its food supply.

Reply

Morty March 28, 2012 at 10:40 am

Scud

Reply

nary March 28, 2012 at 11:00 am

It seems our present Administration is too busy engaging in Social Engineering of our military rather than preparing for future military conflicts.

I suspect we will be spending more monies on "same sex insurance benefits" than we will be in producing future weapons systems.

We're going the way of Rome faster than you or I can fathom.

Reply

ruger March 28, 2012 at 11:14 am

As with most troll comments, many of their fantasies are based upon a true academic philosophy: hold everything constant. While many synchronous capabilities do warrant address, there seems to be an absence of a weighted variable in this equation and that would be the over 75 years of US naval warfare in real capabilities of CBG and Under/Surface warfare. It is good to define your enemies and understand their capabilities. This article address anti-access that 1. won't last long and 2. presumes that China has the ability to outlast a campaign of outer-rim anti access.
The Chinese economy is about to implode and if this needs explaining you are on the wrong blog.
Worst case: the US Navy will have to take one on the chin. The repercussion upon the PLANavy and the Chinese economy will be devastating. BTW: Only US Investors (always has been a risk) are dependent on Chinese goods and as the price of oil rises the US market will adjust where goods are manufactured. I don't buy chinese crap. Interesting article, silly troll remarks.

Reply

Juuso March 28, 2012 at 1:33 pm

I have heard that Chinese economy will implode since early 2000′s but it still is waiting to happen.

Reply

ruger March 29, 2012 at 11:23 am

That's it! …? How long can they devalue their currency? How long will it take for their faulty loans to fail? When will their housing bubble burst as it did in the US?
400 million people have been raised above the poverty line in china, the others haven't. When their manufacturing sector moves offshore and their imports drop by 50% their economy sinks. When will this happen? Hanging on by a thread! Never said if, I said when…

Even if they used anti-access, the second and third ring blockade of imports and freedom of navigation will be devastating.

Reply

Vec March 31, 2012 at 10:05 pm

Stop dreaming in fantasy.

All the absurd predictions from bank failure in the 1990s to implosion,housing bubble is just a western evil dream.

Get a baby pacifier is better

Reply

Splitpi March 28, 2012 at 11:52 am

So do candy bars and bread. Inflation always drives cost up, the question is proportionality to inflation… or rather in comparison to GDP, which produces automatically inflation adjust ratio.

Reply

OPSO March 28, 2012 at 12:43 pm

China is leveraging focus in the huge area of energy, while simultaneously turning the marketing of their goods inwards. They plan to move 350 million people into the middle class within 5 years. This will displace Americans literally on a one-to-one ratio, making us irrelavant. They've used our military as the high seas police force, our industry as their repository of knowledge, our universities for technical training, our weapons development as their low-cost effective laboratory, our consumption as their driver for industrial infrastructure… this is the Chinese way… passive confrontation…(Wu Ying Dao = The Formless Way). Like water they seep into every crack that provides little resistance, and as the temperature drops the water becomes ice, cracking the huge boulder.

Reply

OPSO March 28, 2012 at 12:45 pm

Their oil consumption will grow by 5-7 million barrels a day by 2015, India's will grow by 7-10 million a day. Where will this oil come from? World production peaked in 2008-09 at 93mbd, and now stands at 88mbd. __China is seeking to enlarge it's sphere of influence, this would be the most dangerous scenario possible.__Using proxy combatants is how the Korean, and Vietnam wars worked.__If 80% of the Asian countries aligned with China, the energy consumption alone would wipe us out. … __What Erickson is REALLY saying is: "There are more that two ways to skin an american cat."

Reply

ruger March 29, 2012 at 11:31 am

America / North America is sitting on the largest reserves of energy in the world currently discovered. As was said 30yrs ago, there are only 30 yrs of oil left! So the operative word is currently known reserves. When the US exploits these reserves, your fantasies are yours alone. The only enemy that will destroy America is from within, the left! Its not over until that fat lady sings.

Reply

IronV March 28, 2012 at 12:53 pm

Whitewalls? Really? Tuck and roll in the interior?

Reply

Marcellus Hambrick March 28, 2012 at 1:07 pm

China wants to turn the Pacific into a Chinese lake. They want to particularly rule there part of the Pacific. Their main weapons are denial weapons where they want to deny America access. They have continued to harass the Phillipines, Singapore, Japan, South Korea, abd Vietnamese interests in the area. They recognize that more and more US budget dollars is going to non-defense items such as social programs. Plus, they have over $1.3 TRILLION in US debt that in the event of hostilities they could demand immediate payment.

Reply

Vec March 29, 2012 at 1:42 am

Is America lake in the Pacific going to have a new name called Bankrupt Lake.

Reply

Marcellus Hambrick March 28, 2012 at 1:09 pm

China wants to turn the Pacific into a Chinese lake. Their main weapons are denial weapons where they want to deny America access. They have continued to harass the Phillipines, Singapore, Japan, South Korea, abd Vietnamese interests in the area. They recognize that more and more US budget dollars is going to non-defense items such as social programs. Plus, they have over $1.3 TRILLION in US debt that in the event of hostilities they could demand immediate payment.

Reply

Darvin Ham March 28, 2012 at 1:12 pm

China wants to turn the Pacific into a Chinese lake. Their main weapons are denial weapons where they want to deny America access. They have continued to harass the Phillipines, Singapore, Japan, South Korea, abd Vietnamese interests in the area. They recognize that more and more US budget dollars is going to non-defense items such as social programs. Plus, they have over $1.3 TRILLION in US debt that in the event of hostilities they could demand immediate payment.

Reply

Vec March 29, 2012 at 1:38 am

U.S. has been harassing the world for the past 50 years.

Vietnam,Iraq,Afghanistan,Chile,etc.

The list is endless to American imperialism.

Reply

Ralph March 28, 2012 at 1:34 pm

If China somehow succesfully invaded Taiwan, would the US keep the war going? I imagine the US Navy, especially its subs could eventualy destroy much of the PLAN and cut them off from Taiwan, followed by a US invasion/liberation of Taiwan. Any thoughts on the plausibility of that? The USN could most likely cut off China's Iranian oil shipments. Would Australia be involved in this war?

Reply

Vec March 29, 2012 at 1:39 am

Yes if u ar dreaming.

Reply

Vitor March 28, 2012 at 2:37 pm

Guys, guys, why the need to be able to invade and defeat every country? The US armed forces should be about defending the USA, not attacking other countries. This idea that the USA should be able to quickly defeat everyone has helped to bankrupt the country.

Reply

Vec March 29, 2012 at 1:40 am

Delusion of Exceptionalism.

Reply

William C. March 29, 2012 at 1:43 am

So if the Chinese want to boss us around the Pacific we let them? Hell, we didn't let the Japanese get away with it!

Reply

chockblock March 30, 2012 at 2:09 pm

And the desire for peace has let several dictators murder and kill.

Reply

warspony March 28, 2012 at 3:04 pm

TPTB will eventually combine a commie force to take down the free world (and the commies too).

Reply

chockblock March 30, 2012 at 2:46 pm

The worst part is that China will sell these systems. It's not a matter of if but when. Money, power, influence, seeing an American Carrier battle group go up in flames.

If the US does not act, we could lose access to the pacific and the PRC will act like Imperial Japan, only with nukes.

Reply

Vec March 31, 2012 at 10:44 pm

Better than imperial Pax America.

ook at the sestruction of Iraq(weapon of mass destruction allegation) Afghanistan,Vietnam,Chile,Laos ,Cambodia,etc.

Destruction,destruction,destruction.

Congraluations Pax America.

Reply

FSmith March 31, 2012 at 11:52 pm

"…it’s massive military buidup…"

So, this is a typo, right?

Reply

Liam April 28, 2012 at 6:59 pm

Isnt this exactly what the Aegis Combat System was made for? and isnt that on every Ticonderoga Class and Arleigh Burke Class ships? which all together we got almost 100 of those wonderfully powerful ships.

Reply

Andy March 27, 2012 at 7:25 pm

Fifty three billion dollars ????
Are you sure? I bet we spend more than Fifty three billion dollars….don't tell me a drop in the bucket….

Reply

Splitpi March 28, 2012 at 11:32 am

Here's the most interesting thing…. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BUDGET-2010-TAB/pdf/

If you do the math on the link above, what you see is:
1950: Receipts to GDP = 14.4%, Defense Spending to GDP = 5.9%, Social Benefits to GDP = 4.0%
1960: Receipts to GDP = 17.8%, Defense Spending to GDP = 7.7%, Social Benefits to GDP = 3.7%
1970: Receipts to GDP = 19.0%, Defense Spending to GDP = 7.7%, Social Benefits to GDP = 5.0%
1980: Receipts to GDP = 19.0%, Defense Spending to GDP = 5.1%, Social Benefits to GDP = 7.7%
1990: Receipts to GDP = 18.0%, Defense Spending to GDP = 5.3%, Social Benefits to GDP = 7.6%
2000: Receipts to GDP = 20.9%, Defense Spending to GDP = 3.3%, Social Benefits to GDP = 7.9%
2010: Receipts to GDP = 15.8%, Defense Spending to GDP = 4.8%, Social Benefits to GDP = 11.0%

If you look at it in terms of total outlays:
1950: Defense Spending to Outlays = 35.9%, Social Benefits to Outlays = 24.2%
1960: Defense Spending to Outlays = 47.3%, Social Benefits to Outlays = 22.5%
1970: Defense Spending to Outlays = 40.5%, Social Benefits to Outlays = 26.2%
1980: Defense Spending to Outlays = 24.6%, Social Benefits to Outlays = 37.5%
1990: Defense Spending to Outlays = 26.5%, Social Benefits to Outlays = 38.1%
2000: Defense Spending to Outlays = 17.3%, Social Benefits to Outlays = 41.2%
2010: Defense Spending to Outlays = 26.6%, Social Benefits to Outlays = 60.5%

What this does show is that Revenue is down yet higher than 1950's. Defense spending is near an the all time low in terms of % to GDP and % of Expenditures. Social Benefit expenditures are at an all time high and have nearly tripled in both terms of % to GDP and % of Expenditures since 1950.

For instance in 2010, Social Insurance and Retirement Receipts netted $940,370 M. It's expenditure is $1,622,000 M.

What this all shows is that we have a very large spending problem, and very small revenue problem as a Government.

If we return to 1950's… and all things being equal…IF IF IF.. I know…
Then Defense Spending would jump by $150 B to $862.6B and Social Benefits would decrease by $1,039.9 B to $582.251.4. Revenue would decrease… but lets hold it the same. Thus we would have around $240 B budget surplus.

Just an example of the budget problems and to point out that in reality Defense spending is near the all time low in comparison to the last 60 years.

Reply

elportonative77 March 27, 2012 at 7:50 pm

Look it up for yourself then.
http://foreignassistance.gov/

Reply

Andy March 27, 2012 at 8:23 pm

I know for sure we've spend alot more than that (I don't want to post here), my point is that, if we use some of the BILLIONS for the defense it wll be better for the country and also create millions of JOBS.

Reply

Andy March 27, 2012 at 8:42 pm

China and Russia receive my TAX MONEY????? WHAT THE…

FYI : ALOT OF THE COUNTRIES ARE NOT ON THIS LIST…

Reply

elportonative77 March 27, 2012 at 8:46 pm

Alright, I can't seem to convince you that the numbers are true but whatever. In response to your jobs claim I suggest you read this article:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/68505.h

I'm not saying this article is right or wrong but it can give you a different perspective on the role our DoD should play.

Reply

matheusdiasuk March 28, 2012 at 12:21 am

Yeah, sure.

We are in 1970 and China military is nothing beyond guerilla in the jungle.

Let's just send Rambo. Or the expendables (Team Norris).

Reply

Anonymous March 29, 2012 at 2:45 pm

And what about the Chinese submarine surfacing in the kill zone of the Kitty Hawk? Or are we just pretending we are infallible?

Reply

Thomas L. Nielsen March 28, 2012 at 2:04 am

So if China attacks a US carrier group (a military target) with conventional antiship missiles (ballistic and/or cruise), you recommend retaliating with a nuclear strike on a major civilian target?

Seriously?

Regards & all,

Thomas L. Nielsen
Luxembourg

Reply

Thomas L. Nielsen March 28, 2012 at 2:08 am

Sending Chuck Norris? And I though the guy above who wanted to nuke Hong Kong was a bit harsh….

Regards & all,

Thomas L. Nielsen
Luxembourg

Reply

passingby March 28, 2012 at 2:20 am

LOL. A question to him on this??? does it look like Big-Rick has a brain?

Reply

Greg March 28, 2012 at 5:03 am

You never make any sense. China wants us to import their low cost alternatives. What exactly do we import from Russia? What country are you from, you have nothing but negatives to say about the US and our Governent. Why don't you just troll in your own countries military forums.

Reply

Regal Hawk March 28, 2012 at 3:33 pm

Regal Hawk March 28, 2012 at 3:25 pm
Dear Passingby – if another country launched a missile at your country, your stating that to react accordingly is a thug? No sir, I think that the thug is the one that made the first strike……. As for brainless, excuse me any individual, sect or country that ostracizes itself and acts in a terroristic nature by carrying out subversive or openly firing a missile onto another country. As you stated, deems no response – right? Hope you never see this incident happen… Maybe if we ‘all’ were socialized like the jews were, me/you could be duped into anything.
- What a fantasy land this would be…..if we are anyone else did not react.
______

Until such time that we or any nation as full access to information, the use of our funds as you stated will always occur. Remeber: Knowledge is power, deception is Temporary.

>>>>> It is not a Crime to report the the News, the Crime is not sharing the news with everyone. Thus, ignorance continues, debates go on with no conclusion due to this incremental fact!
-

Reply

Regal Hawk March 28, 2012 at 3:33 pm

Regal Hawk March 28, 2012 at 3:25 pm
Dear Passingby – if another country launched a missile at your country, your stating that to react accordingly is a thug? No sir, I think that the thug is the one that made the first strike……. As for brainless, excuse me any individual, sect or country that ostracizes itself and acts in a terroristic nature by carrying out subversive or openly firing a missile onto another country. As you stated, deems no response – right? Hope you never see this incident happen… Maybe if we ‘all’ were socialized like the jews were, me/you could be duped into anything.
- What a fantasy land this would be…..if we are anyone else did not react.
______

Until such time that we or any nation as full access to information, the use of our funds as you stated will always occur. Remember: Knowledge is power, deception is Temporary.

>>>>> It is not a Crime to report the the News, the Crime is not sharing the news with everyone. Thus, ignorance continues, debates go on with no conclusion due to this incremental fact!
-

Reply

sinorise April 13, 2012 at 12:06 am

unfortunately unemployed americans can only sit and day dream about past glories and future dominance, while the world passes them by.

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: