China, Iran Creating 'No-Go' Zones to Thwart U.S. Military Power

Politics Daily ^ | 03/1/10 | David Wood

[neverdem]

During the Cold War, the Pentagon built the greatest naval and air forces the world had ever seen, endowing the United States with the superpower ability to land huge military forces anywhere in the world, at any time, whether invited in or not.

So it was that Washington, using its armada of aircraft carriers, cruise missile-launching submarines, fast cargo ships, long-range bombers, airlifters, and air refueling fighters, could eject the Iraqis from Kuwait (1991), bomb Serbia (1999), kick over the Taliban regime in Afghanistan (2001), and knock off Saddam and his cronies (2003). Everybody else had to meekly follow along (or sit on the sidelines).

But now the party's over. The United States, Pentagon strategists say, is quickly losing its ability to barge in without permission. Potential target countries and even some lukewarm allies are figuring out ingenious ways to blunt American power without trying to meet it head-on, using a combination of high-tech and low-tech jujitsu. Get the new PD toolbar!

At the same time, U.S. naval and air forces have been shrinking under the weight of ever more expensive hardware. It's no longer the case that the United States can overwhelm clever defenses with sheer numbers.

As Defense Secretary Robert Gates summed up the problem this month, countries in places where the United States has strategic interests -- including the Persian Gulf and the Pacific -- are building "sophisticated, new technologies to deny our forces access to the global commons of sea, air, space and cyberspace.''

Those innocuous words spell trouble. While the U.S. military and strategy community is focused on Afghanistan and the fight in Marja, others – Iran and China, to name two – are chipping away at America's access to the Taiwan Strait, the South China Sea, the Persian Gulf and the increasingly critical extraterrestrial realms.

"This era of U.S. military dominance is waning at an increasing and alarming rate,'' Andrew Krepinevich, a West Point-educated officer and former senior Pentagon strategist, writes in a new report. "With the spread of advanced military technologies and their exploitation by other militaries, especially China's People's Liberation Army and to a far lesser extent Iran's military and Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, the U.S. military's ability to preserve military access to two key areas of vital interest, the western Pacific and the Persian Gulf, is being increasingly challenged.''

At present, "there is little indication that China or Iran intend to alter their efforts to create 'no-go' zones in the maritime areas off their coasts,'' writes Krepinevich, president of the non-partisan think tank, the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.

What will save America's bacon, Gates and others hope, is something called the Air-Sea Battle Concept. Problem: It has yet to be invented.

The most worrisome of the "area denial/anti-access'' strategies being deployed against the United States (and others) is by China, which groups its defenses under the term "shashoujian,'' or "assassin's mace.'' The term refers to an ancient weapon, easily concealed by Chinese warriors and used to cripple a more powerful attacker.

In its modern incarnation, Krepinevich explains, shashoujian is a powerful combination of traditional but sophisticated air defenses, ballistic and anti-ship missiles, and similar weapons to put at risk nearby U.S. forces and regional bases, together with anti-satellite and cyberwar weapons to disable U.S. reconnaissance and command-and-control networks.

Dennis Blair, the top U.S. intelligence official, described these developments in detail in a report to Congress last month, adding that taken together, they "improve China's ability to execute an anti-access and area-denial strategy in the western Pacific.''

Iran's area-denial arsenal includes coastal and inland missile batteries, ballistic missiles to threaten U.S. bases and Arabian oil facilities, mines and shallow-draft missile boats that can quickly swarm around heavy, slow-moving U.S. warships. Iran's ability to threaten any would-be invaders, or simply to shut off access to the Gulf, would be enhanced if it acquires a nuclear weapons capability, which some analysts believe could happen within President Obama's current term in office.

As these new challenges have grown, America's air and naval forces have been quietly shrinking, a function of the staggering increase in complexity and cost of the hardware. Although other factors are at play, the bottom line is that the Pentagon can afford fewer planes and ships because each one costs more and more. As former Lockheed Martin chairman Norm Augustine pointed out in 1983, the cost of a fighter aircraft has quadrupled every 10 years, since the dawn of the age of aviation.

The F16 fighter, for instance, originally cost about $35 million each (adjusted for inflation). It is being replaced by the F-35, currently priced at $266 million each. The pattern holds for the F-22, which the Pentagon has bought to replace its F-15s, and the B-1 and B-2 bombers built to replace B-52s and F-111s. Small wonder the Air Force inventory of fighter-attack planes and bombers has sagged 20 percent during the past 15 years from 2,073 to 1,649.

The Navy also has fallen victim to the rising-cost, falling-inventory phenomenon. During the Vietnam War it boasted 932 warships. By 1985 the Navy could barely maintain 571 ships (despite the Reagan administration's rallying cry of a "600-ship Navy!''). Today's Navy has dwindled to 283 expensive warships.

Robert Work, currently the under secretary of the Navy, pointed out as a private researcher last year that not only is the current naval force inadequate for a bust-in-the-door mission, the Navy's plans for a larger future fleet are still inadequate – and unaffordable to boot. The Navy's planned future fleet of 313 ships, he wrote in a major paper on naval strategy, "lacks the range to face increasingly lethal, land-based maritime reconnaissance/strike complexes (networks), or nuclear armed adversaries.'' And, he said, it ignores the growing challenge of China's shashoujian.

Anyway, Work added, "the signs are that the Navy's plans are far too ambitious given likely future resource allocations ... the Navy needs to scale back its current plans; they are simply too ambitious for expected future budgets.''

So what's the plan? The plan is to develop a plan, for now being called the Air-Sea Battle Concept. The idea is based loosely on a strategy the Army came up with during the Cold War when the generals realized they were out-manned and out-gunned by the Red Army. Their solution was AirLand Battle, based mostly on the early work of Army Gen. Donn Starry, who advocated using closely coordinated air and ground combat power to attack deep into the enemy's rear at the outset of the fight, rather than waiting for the enemy to advance up to "the front.''

AirLand Battle became a reality after much headbutting among senior generals not willing to share the glory (or the budget dollars). It arguably helped to deter Soviet aggression in Europe. And it proved highly successful in Desert Storm and in the invasion of Iraq.

The hope for Air-Sea Battle is to achieve similar synergy by joining naval and air power with space and cyberspace war-fighting capabilities for "defeating adversaries across the range of military operations, including adversaries equipped with sophisticated anti-access and area denial capabilities,'' according to the Pentagon's most recent strategic plan, the Quadrennial Defense Review, published earlier this month.

If that sounds vague, it's because there's not much behind the words. A laconic sentence in the QDR hints that no one has any idea what Air-Sea Battle might mean in practice: "As it matures, the concept will also help guide the development of future capabilities needed for effective power projection operations.''

Last fall, the leaders of the Air Force and Navy, two services not known for cozy relations, signed an agreement to share work on this concept.

They immediately recruited a small working group, which set off on a listening tour to hear the views of senior U.S. commanders on what Air-Sea Battle should look like.

While the Air-Sea Battle task force is at work, Iran's extremist Revolutionary Guards are slowly taking over control of the government, according to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, suggesting that Iran's keep-out defenses will continue to be hardened. And China's work on cyberwar continues.

As all that unfolds, the Pentagon's attention will be elsewhere. Gates has directed that the Defense Department's strategic and budgeting focus in 2011 be directed at fighting "the wars we are in today,'' in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[jpl]

And to make matters even worse, Obama now intends to unilaterally downsize, or perhaps even eliminate, our nuclear stockpile deterrent, as well as our space program capabilities. He is trying to systematically dismantle our defenses one little piece at a time!

[hennie pennie]

*ping*

[DonaldC]

Well, I guess the party had to end sometime.

[Citizen Tom Paine]

Unfortunately, we will pay for our mistakes in the blood of our children not the blood of our leaders.

[massgopguy]

In the book I’ll never finish, the Chinese demand we withdraw to a position east of the International Dateline and west of the Prime Meridian.

[ETL]

China, Russia, Iran and Chavez are all together in trying to reshape the world as we know it. And Obama is doing everything he can get away with to help them make it a reality.

[Scotsman will be Free]

“It’s no longer the case that the United States can overwhelm clever defenses with sheer numbers.”
Haven’t done that since our 1,000 plane raids over Germany in WWII.

[Bulldawg Fan]

The last President who made America this vunerable was James Buchannan who sat by while the country fell apart. But no one ever questioned his loyalty to America, that only has happened recently with the communist we have in office now.

[bayliving]

Maobama is a traitor to MY country and as such deserves a traitors fate.

[ETL]

From the campaign trail, February 2008...

Obama Pledges Cuts in Missile Defense, Space, and Nuclear Weapons Programs

February 29, 2008 :: News
MissileThreat.com

A video has surfaced of Presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama talking on his plans for strategic issues such as nuclear weapons and missile defense.

The full text from the video, as released, reads as follows:

Thanks so much for the Caucus4Priorities, for the great work you've been doing. As president, I will end misguided defense policies and stand with Caucus4Priorities in fighting special interests in Washington.

First, I'll stop spending $9 billion a month in Iraq. I'm the only major candidate who opposed this war from the beginning. And as president I will end it.[i.e. not win it]

Second, I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending.

I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems.

I will not weaponize space.

I will slow our development of future combat systems.

And I will institute an independent "Defense Priorities Board" to ensure that the Quadrennial Defense Review is not used to justify unnecessary spending.

Third, I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal, I will not develop new nuclear weapons; I will seek a global ban on the production of fissile material; and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair-trigger alert [they are NOT on "hair-trigger alert" now -etl], and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals.

You know where I stand. I've fought for open, ethical and accountable government my entire public life. I don't switch positions or make promises that can't be kept. I don't posture on defense policy and I don't take money from federal lobbyists for powerful defense contractors. As president, my sole priority for defense spending will be protecting the American people. Thanks so much.

Article: Obama Pledges Cuts in Missile Defense, Space, and Nuclear Weapons Programs:
http://missilethreat.com/archives/id.7086/detail.asp

"MissileThreat.com is a project of The Claremont Institute devoted to understanding and promoting the requirements for the strategic defense of the United States."
_____________________________________________________

"I will not weaponize space"

"I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems"

2008 Pentagon Report (March 2008):
China's Growing Military Space Power
By Leonard David
Special Correspondent, SPACE.com
March 6, 2008

GOLDEN, Colorado — A just-released Pentagon report spotlights a growing U.S. military concern that China is developing a multi- dimensional program to limit or prevent the use of space-based assets by its potential adversaries during times of crisis or conflict.

Furthermore, last year's successful test by China of a direct-ascent, anti-satellite (ASAT) weapon to destroy its own defunct weather satellite, the report adds, underscores that country's expansion from the land, air, and sea dimensions of the traditional battlefield into the space and cyber-space domains.

Although China's commercial space program has utility for non- military research, that capability demonstrates space launch and control know-how that have direct military application. Even the Chang'e 1 — the Chinese lunar probe now circling the Moon — is flagged in the report as showcasing China's ability "to conduct complicated space maneuvers — a capability which has broad implications for military counterspace operations."

To read the entire publication [29.67MB/pdf], see U.S. Dept of Defense:
http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/pdfs/China_Military_Report_08.pdf
_____________________________________________________

From the Sino-Russian Joint Statement of April 23, 1997:
"The two sides [China and Russia] shall, in the spirit of partnership, strive to promote the multipolarization of the world and the establishment of a new international order."
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/HI29Ag01.html

[Destroyer Sailor]

This is pure BS. How much combat has China seen in the last thirty years? I can of one event and Vietnam gave the PLA a bloody nose during border fighting back in the late 70’s.

[ETL]

Russia and China have been holding joint war games every other year since 2005. The latest apparently took place on July 22-27 of last year.

"Russia and China will hold their joint military exercise on July 22-27 on the territories of the two countries. About 3,000 military men, 300 units of military hardware, over 40 planes and helicopters will take part in Peace Mission-2009 drills. About 1,500 servicemen, T-80 tanks, BMP-1 and BTR-70 armored vehicles, 22 aircraft, including two Il-76 cargo planes, five Su-24, five Su-25, five Su-27 fighters and five Mi-8 helicopters will represent Russia in the drills."

http://www.russiansentry.com/?area=postView&id=1409
_____________________________________________________

[2009] Russia, China plan new joint military exercises

By MARTIN SIEFF, UPI Senior News Analyst
Published: March 26, 2009

WASHINGTON, March 26 (UPI) -- The continuing tensions over Russia's refusal to sell its state-of-the-art land warfare advanced weapons systems to China hasn't interrupted the rhythm of major joint military exercises between the two major land powers on the Eurasian landmass. The latest in the regular, biennial series of exercises between the two nations has been confirmed for this summer.

The next in the now well-established series of exercises called Peace Mission 2009 will be carried out in northeastern China, the Russian Defense Ministry announced March 18, according to a report carried by the RIA Novosti news agency.

The first bilateral Peace Mission maneuvers -- described at the time as counter-terrorism exercises -- were held in Russia and the eastern Chinese province of Shandong in August 2005. As we reported at that time, they were a lot bigger than mere counter-terrorism exercises. Warships, squadrons of combat aircraft and more than 10,000 troops were involved carrying out landings against hypothetically hostile shores. The maneuvers also involved large-scale paratroops drops. The scale and nature of those exercises suggested a trial run for a possible Chinese invasion of Taiwan with Russian support. ..."

http://www.upi.com/Security_Industry/2009/03/26/Russia_China_plan_new_joint_military_exercises/UPI-25021238094858/
_____________________________________________________

Russia, China flex muscles in joint war games
August 17, 2007

CHEBARKUL, Russia (Reuters) - Russia and China staged their biggest joint exercises on Friday but denied this show of military prowess could lead to the formation of a counterweight to NATO.

"Today's exercises are another step towards strengthening the relations between our countries, a step towards strengthening international peace and security, and first and foremost, the security of our peoples," Putin said.

Fighter jets swooped overhead, commandos jumped from helicopters on to rooftops and the boom of artillery shells shook the firing range in Russia's Ural mountains as two of the largest armies in the world were put through their paces.

The exercises take place against a backdrop of mounting rivalry between the West, and Russia and China for influence over Central Asia, a strategic region that has huge oil, gas and mineral resources.

Russia's growing assertiveness is also causing jitters in the West. Putin announced at the firing range that Russia was resuming Soviet-era sorties by its strategic bomber aircraft near NATO airspace.

http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-29030120070817?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0
_____________________________________________________

War Games: Russia, China Grow Alliance
September 23, 2005

In foreign policy it’s critical to “know thine enemy.” So American policymakers should be aware that Russia and China are inching closer to identifying a common enemy — the United States.

The two would-be superpowers held unprecedented joint military exercises Aug. 18-25. Soothingly named “Peace Mission 2005,” the drills took place on the Shandong peninsula on the Yellow Sea, and included nearly 10,000 troops. Russian long-range bombers, the army, navy, air force, marine, airborne and logistics units from both countries were also involved.

Moscow and Beijing claim the maneuvers were aimed at combating terrorism, extremism and separatism (the last a veiled reference to Taiwan), but it’s clear they were an attempt to counter-balance American military might.

Joint war games are a logical outcome of the Sino-Russian Friendship and Cooperation Treaty signed in 2001, and reflect the shared worldview and growing economic ties between the two Eastern Hemisphere giants."

http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed092605a.cfm

[Zetman]

Well, the only good part is that we still have the technical know-how to build all of this stuff. We haven’t lost that. Some day, we might be faced with a huge national emergency (hopefully when a Conservative is in the White House) and we will HAVE to rebuild all the “infrastructure” of our military capability. Sure, it will be expensive, but we have proved that with the proper motivation, and the right people in power, and with sufficient funds allocated, we can accomplish a great deal in a short period of time.

We have the oil resouces within our borders that the libs currently won’t let us touch. Those reserves are still there, and can be tapped as soon as enough motivation exists to sweep the libs out of the way. Ditto’s with weapons and technology. We have already done a lot of the advanced research to build the things we need. Lasers, hypersonic missiles and aircraft, robots, and such. We just need the leadership to clear the decks so we can get it done.

I hate to think that we be “forced” to embark on a massive “overnight” build-up like we did in WWII (with another Pearl Harbor-like attack upon us), and I hate the fact that Obambi is putting us in such a position. However, if we DO get hit with another Pearl Harbor, if the likes of Sarah Palin are in office at the time, we DO have the know-how, raw materials, and ability to quickly build factories (or convert existing facilities), and get ourselves onto a wartime footing in relatively short order, if we literally throw everything we have at the effort. It would be painful, expensive, and it might take longer than we hope, but it could be done. We have a lot of empty factories sitting around our country.

We would also need to reconstitiute our Intelligence capabilities. But again, we know HOW to do that too, and we have plenty of brains here in the USA capable of doing it, it just needs the proper leadership and will to get it done.

So, the only long-term hope a China or Russia would have would to be able to cripple our domestic capabilities here in the USA. However, they lack the ability to do that with conventional weapns and forces, and will for sometime to come. That is why they want to have libs in power here as much as possible - to to prevent us from getting our act together.

They may also hope to overwhelm us with nukes - which is another reason they are using the current libs in power to try to get us to dump them. This is why we need real Conseratives in charge NOW. It will be much easier to rebuild now, and thwart our enemies, while there is no “immediate” emergency. We can do it quickly if we have to, like WWII or even the Apollo moon shot, but I shudder to think of the level of national emergency we would have to experience in order to get us to actually initiate such an action (and if we keep having the libs in power, we are finished anyway, they would prevent such a build-up - even in a grave emergency).

So, lets boot out The “O”, and his commie friends, and get the rebuilding underway now, on our own terms, at a more comfortable pace. That way we never have to worry about the WWII Pearl Harbor scenario again.

[sport]

As long as obama is in the White House and the Democrats control Congress, neither Iran or China have a hell of a lot to worry about concerning the U.S. military.

[bayliving]

This is a much different, more modern China that has the manpower and it's only a matter of time before they have the hardware.

I am not saying that we couldn't win in a conflict, it's just that it would be MUCH easier if Maobama doesn't tie both our hands behind our backs.

[familyop]

"At present, 'there is little indication that China or Iran intend to alter their efforts to create 'no-go' zones in the maritime areas off their coasts,' writes Krepinevich, president of the non-partisan think tank, the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments."

The mainstream, bipartisan propaganda buffs are really full of it. The truth is that the various import interests want to suck the remainder of the debt economy dry and leave you all to starve. They are betraying the USA's defense to keep freight fuel prices and foreign product prices down. The "MSM" is sponsored. Funding for propaganda under the guise of "news" does not come from never-never land.

US TOLD TO LEAVE CENTRAL ASIA [Russia & China demand "deadline."]
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1437369/posts

[lentulusgracchus]

C’mon, let’s hear it for Mao, free trade and the Long March.

LOL, if the Chicom gvt ever really took an interest, they'd just hack FR's servers and turn it into worm food, toxify it with Trojans etc.

Cyberwar .... we do apps and they do war.

[El Gato]

At the same time, U.S. naval and air forces have been shrinking under the weight of ever more expensive hardware. It's no longer the case that the United States can overwhelm clever defenses with sheer numbers.

That's been the case since at least the end of the Vietnam War. We really could not just overwhelm enemies ever since the end of WW-II, when not only could we... we did. In WW-II our "stuff", especially ground army stuff, wasn't as good as that of the Germans. But we had a whole lot more of it. A lot of it we gave or sold to the Russians, who had a whole lot of troops to use it, as did we.

But that said, the ever shrinking portion of the GDP or federal budget devoted to defense hasn't helped any either. In 1964, total federal outlays were 18.5% of GDP. Defense was 8.6& and entitlements were 6.1%. By 2008, before the lastest big ramp up in federal spending, Defense was 4.0% and entitlements were 12.6% while overall federal spending ws 209.9%. But of course to hear many tell the tale, it's the Defense buget that is bloated. Much of the growth in the entitlement fraction came in '67 to '78, that being the effect of the Great Society programs of LBJ. Although there was something of a bump up in the mid '80s and mid 90s, the later following a bit of a decline. But entitlements realy started UP again in the early 2000s, and are still going up.

Wish I had the numbers for 2009. I've got a strong stomach and think I could look at them without immediately tossing my cookies.