Posted on 05/10/2005 6:11:01 PM PDT by hedgetrimmer
The Middle East is just a blip. The American military contest with China in the Pacific will define the twenty-first century. And China will be a more formidable adversary than Russia ever was
For some time now no navy or air force has posed a threat to the United States. Our only competition has been armies, whether conventional forces or guerrilla insurgencies. This will soon change. The Chinese navy is poised to push out into the Pacific—and when it does, it will very quickly encounter a U.S. Navy and Air Force unwilling to budge from the coastal shelf of the Asian mainland. It's not hard to imagine the result: a replay of the decades-long Cold War, with a center of gravity not in the heart of Europe but, rather, among Pacific atolls that were last in the news when the Marines stormed them in World War II. In the coming decades China will play an asymmetric back-and-forth game with us in the Pacific, taking advantage not only of its vast coastline but also of its rear base—stretching far back into Central Asia—from which it may eventually be able to lob missiles accurately at moving ships in the Pacific. In any naval encounter China will have distinct advantages over the United States, even if it lags in technological military prowess. It has the benefit, for one thing, of sheer proximity. Its military is an avid student of the competition, and a fast learner. It has growing increments of "soft" power that demonstrate a particular gift for adaptation. While stateless terrorists fill security vacuums, the Chinese fill economic ones. All over the globe, in such disparate places as the troubled Pacific Island states of Oceania, the Panama Canal zone, and out-of-the-way African nations, the Chinese are becoming masters of indirect influence—by establishing business communities and diplomatic outposts, by negotiating construction and trade agreements. Pulsing with consumer and martial energy, and boasting a peasantry that, unlike others in history, is overwhelmingly literate, China constitutes the principal conventional threat to America's liberal imperium.
How should the United States prepare to respond to challenges in the Pacific? To understand the dynamics of this second Cold War—which will link China and the United States in a future that may stretch over several generations—it is essential to understand certain things about the first Cold War, and about the current predicament of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the institution set up to fight that conflict. This is a story about military strategy and tactics, with some counterintuitive twists and turns.
Thankfully, God has a different opinion.
I don't trust Beijing a bit other than to be ruthless, greedy, acquisitive and arrogant.
But I dearly love the Chinese people. And the Thai people are very precious. And, my Japanese Hawaiian college roommate was a great guy.
But go ahead and keep your biases. They will cause a lot of harvesting from your sowing that should be very educational. Of course, educational doesn't mean you'll learn anything but at least it will be a series of opportunities.
"It was not the failure of the nuclear forces or military forces it was the failure of the sadists who ran that place."
The point being that very strong nuclear forces that were capable of far beyond the minimum deterrence mission didn't do a damn thing for them. The purpose of the Soviet nuclear forces were to prevent destruction of the Soviet political system. They failed to accomplish that mission.
"Instead of disarming we need more."
I'm not advocating getting rid of the nukes we have; I question the need for more nukes.
Are you an employee of PANTEX, by any chance? Are nukes your personal rice bowl?
How many more? What kind of warheads? Why THOSE warheads instead of others? For what missions? Remember that every dollar pumped into nuclear weapons, nuclear weapons security, etc., is a dollar that doesn't go towards other jobs that need to be done (such as killing terrorists). Money is a finite resource and should not be spent willy-nilly. I find it amazing that there are "conservatives" who act like they believe throwing money at a problem will solve it.
"Nukes are far from useless."
Past a very small number, they haven't done anything useful for anyone.
Recomissioning the four SSBNs, plus new warheads to replace the aging W78 (which some say will not explode at its full yield). Full funding for the RNEP. More tactical weapons such as the B61. Reinstating of the Enhanced Radiation Weapon (aka Neutron Bomb).
Terrorism is a threat but not the only threat. China. Plus it is China that is behing the nuclear programs of Iran, Pakistan (already has nukes), North Korea. For all we know China may actually be funding Al Queda.
You still haven't justified WHY those particular choices and not others.
Beyond a certain point (and we are well beyond that point), nuclear weapons add nothing to our ability to project our power and impose our will.
The whole point of nuclear weapons is to not use them. Buying more weapons means, in essence, locking up scarce funds in projects that, if they work as advertised, do absolutely nothing. Meanwhile, there are many other tasks to be accomplished asking for those same dollars.
If nuclear supreamcy had actually generated usable gains for America, China, or Russia after 1945, then your argument would make far more sense.
"Terrorism is a threat but not the only threat. China. Plus it is China that is behing the nuclear programs of Iran, Pakistan (already has nukes), North Korea. For all we know China may actually be funding Al Queda."
Ah, yes, I see.
I wonder if some idiot in the Chinese defense ministry is using the argument "For all we know, Bush and Halliburton may actually be funding Al Qaeda" to justify buying more nuclear weapons.
We are already in an arms race. Like Ronald Reagan did with the Soviets we must strengthen BOTH conventional and nuclear forces. If you belive that China is on our side in the War on Terror you need to wake up. They have done NOTHING to help us and are instead propping up North Korea and Iran. Already China refuses to help reign in North Korea.
The whole point of nuclear weapons is to not use them.
That is not entirly true. Even if North Korea does not have nukes and we go to war against them, we would have no choice because they have a 4 million man army and it would take awhile to reinforce the "tripwire" force we have in South Korea, not to mention the hundreds of thousands of artillery pieces pointed at Seoul. This is where tactical nukes come in. The RNEP will be needed for very deep bunkers. Our strategic (ICBM) warheads are aging as well. Whine all you want but I stand by my argument.
This is a very interesting article and (IMO) well worth the price of the magazine.
For what it's worth I'd like to see a debate between Kaplan and Thomas Barnett on this topic.
China is not quite monocultural or monoracial.
The primary Chinese population-self-designated Han have a millenia long history of reverence for the Center- the Mandate of Heaven and all that. They do not rise up against their rulers. Dynasties are deposed from outside by invasion of one sort or another. Even Mao led an invasion from the hinterlands. The Han people acept the powers that be and hope for benefits to be bestowed. They will defend their rulers against any foreigners.
Tibet is Chinese now. The Han have a rapidly growing majority of the population in Tibet. They are working diligently toward the same end in other not-yet Han majority areas.
I am not very worried about a bellicose China. The population of this nation is aging faster than any other country in the world. In a protracted war they would soon be unable to replace their young men and would have to rely on young women and middle-aged men. In a short war they would soon have their industry and communications crippled. I believe China is the proverbial "paper tiger."
Quite a few of us like at least some Asian people. The Vietnamese people are America's best friends and even that nominally Communist Mafia that rules the place is trying to be a protectorate of the Americans. The VCs are in a quandary because by making their system acceptable to America they will put themselves out of jobs. It is a puzzle.
Why bother fighting China at all? Why not just let it rot from within, which it shows every sign of actually doing right now?
Dont be fooled by the economic news, about how China is producing it's way to full superpower status, because as we know, you can't trust any numbers generated by a Communist regime.
China's future was written on the wall in the late 1980's with te Soviet Glastnost: it's why the communist Party in China allowed greater economic freedom to it's people, the theory being that if the people are allowed to make their money and have the illusion of freedom that they will allow the Party to continue to strangle them politically. Which is pure BS.
Once people start to improve their material situation they invariably demand increased political freedoms. With tthe advent of cheap computers, the internet, cell phones and the blogosphere, it is only a matter of time before a mass-movement gains momentum for full political and economic freedoms in China that will make Tiannemen Square look like a SUnday picnic.
If the United States wanted to help the process along, we could very simply remove MFN status from China and start to ban Chinese imports in certain areas. This idea that China is a strategic partner or a friend is also nonsense. We've been promised access to the huge consumer markets of China for 30 years and it has not come to fruition. So why are we, to pararphrase Lenin, selling them the rope with which to hang us?
Cut Chinese trade with the United States and watch how quickly China degenerates into Eastern Eruope, circa 1989, when East Germans and Czechs voted with their feet and flooded West. The same thing will happen to China.
I would not worry about the EU taking up the trade slack because they can't fill the void. Any gains they make would be strictly short term.
So, we don't need to fight the Chinese. The seedsa of China's demise have already been planetd and will eventually blossom on their own, provided we water them first.
yeah, it was more of a joke. of course asian people are great. i actually gravitate towards asian women. most of them are very down to earth and on the lower side of maintenance. and in NYC, that is an important quality.
Vietnamese women, at least, enjoy being women, unlike too many American women who go through life bitter that God played a dirty joke on them by not making them men.
Very interesting info.
It helps to have Asians such as yourself comment on these threads. Helps keep things in perspective.
I am not surprised by what you have said.
i kind of figured as much, but he's not a friend, he's a client, and since he is a good paying client who pays on time I'll not be too upset. ;o)
"The Chinese might employ nuclear-armed anti-ship missiles and torpedoes, fired from submarines or surface ships, but I think her little surprise for us may be nastier. Kaplan briefly mentions that China "may eventually be able to lob missiles accurately at moving ships in the Pacific" from deep in Chinese territory. I think those missiles, ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads, may be ready now – perhaps with a bit of clandestine targeting assistance from a Russia whose sphere of influence the United States is aggressively invading.
The Chinese way of war is indirect. In most cases, that means China will engage us with "soft power," as she is already doing on multiple fronts. But in the case of American intervention in a Taiwan crisis, what if a Chinese ballistic missile popped a nuke say, 100 miles from an advancing American carrier battle group? No one gets hurt, but the message would be loud and clear: keep coming and you're toast.
If we kept coming anyway and the Chinese did nuke a carrier, we would immediately face an asymmetrical situation. How would we respond? By nuking a Chinese carrier? China doesn't have any. If we drop a nuke on Chinese territory, we have initiated a strategic nuclear exchange. Is Taiwan worth Seattle or L.A.?"
Kaplan briefly mentions that China "may eventually be able to lob missiles accurately at moving ships in the Pacific
Ballistic missiles don't have active targeting systems. They go to a point on the earth. Hence: "Ballistic". They guide to a place; they don't track targets.
Ships move.
If China were to fire one of these weapons anywhere in our vicinity, their rice would be glowing before the thing came back down. We would light them up like a Christmas tree.
In 20 years develoment? ballistic anti-carrier nuclear tipped missiles are not that hard to make - especially as the sunburn technology advances.
and again in your bravado you missed the point.
we would immediately face an asymmetrical situation. How would we respond? By nuking a Chinese carrier? China doesn't have any. If we drop a nuke on Chinese territory, we have initiated a strategic nuclear exchange. Is Taiwan worth Seattle or L.A.?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.