Posted on 06/08/2006 1:32:07 PM PDT by Paul Ross
Chinese Naval Buildup Surprising, But Not Yet Alarming, Says Admiral
The pace of Chinese naval expansion is faster than expected, but is not alarming yet, although Chinese intentions are not evident, a U.S. Navy admiral said last week.
"Clearly...we kind of continue to be surprised by the growth of the Chinese Navy," said Rear Adm. Joseph Walsh, director of Submarine Warfare (N77), on June 1 during a speech on the future of the U.S. Navy at a symposium in Washington, D.C. "That is clearly something we watch."
Walsh said the Chinese are focusing on fielding surface ships "that shoot lots of missiles" as well as submarines, "both nuclear and diesel," although principally diesel.
Despite these developments, the admiral said the U.S. Navy does not consider the Chinese Navy to be gearing to challenge for supremacy of the high seas.
"That navy is not the navy, I don't think, that has any intentions of trying to come out into a blue-water engagement with any other navy," he said.
Accordingly, he said the U.S. Navy does not consider its Chinese counterpart to be an overt threat. Nonetheless, as with the emergence of any other maritime force, the U.S. Navy must remain vigilant so that it maintains "superiority across the spectrum of mission areas" like anti-submarine warfare (ASW), he said.
The U.S. Navy is shifting its focus to the Pacific to contribute to the security of the region, said Walsh. "I see much more promise than peril in the Pacific," he said noting the region's rising economic opportunities and political freedom.
Nonetheless, there are challenges, such as Islamic extremism, terrorism and insurgencies, regional rivalries, growing competition amongst states for resources, and even the potential for a pandemic flu, he said. Then there is the emergence of China.
"I don't believe that the United States is threatened by the peaceful rise of China," he said. "On the contrary, we should welcome it. Yet China's impressive economic growth has brought a much more rapid military expansion than we expected.
"The real question, however, is one of intent," he stressed, adding that it is the U.S. hope that China conducts itself in a "constructive and responsible manner" during its rise.
"We look forward to more opportunities to engage with them as a maritime nation," he said.
Walsh spoke at the Armed Forces Journal Annual Conference that the Defense News Media Group Conferences hosted and Northrop Grumman [NOC] sponsored.
His comments came less than 10 days after the Department of Defense issued its 2006 Annual Report on the Military Power of the People's Republic of China. Congress mandates the yearly document.
The report, issued on May 23, said the Chinese Navy, formally known as the People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN), now includes 75 major surface combatants, approximately 55 attack submarines and about 45 coastal missile patrol craft. It also has about 50 medium and heavy amphibious lift vessels, up more than 14 percent from last year's estimate, the report said.
"Naval acquisitions, such as advanced destroyers and submarines, reflect Beijing's pursuit of capabilities to protect and advance its maritime interests," the document states.
While the PLAN's focus remains on protecting state sovereignty and national integrity, it "appears to be increasingly thinking about regional contingencies, including the protection of maritime resources and sea lines of communication," and is venturing beyond its coastal waters more frequently, the report states.
This includes expanding its presence through the Straits of Malacca and into the Indian Ocean, the reports states. "In 2005 Chinese naval vessels visited Pakistan, and for the first time conducted combined naval maneuvers outside their home waters," reads the document.
Chinese naval modernization, in addition to protecting China's littoral zone, "seeks to present a credible threat to Taiwan and to any third party that might intervene on Taiwan's behalf in a crisis," the report states.
"At present," it adds, "China's concept for sea denial appears limited to sea control in waters surrounding Taiwan and its immediate periphery." There would be indicators if it were to shift its naval policy to broader sea control, the report states. These include development of an aircraft carrier, and robust, deep water ASW capabilities, and acquisition of large numbers of nuclear attack submarines and increased open water training, it states.
The report notes that China might be able to deploy an aircraft carrier by around 2015 at the earliest.
I'm sorry to say, this Admiral Walsh gives a number of clues that he is likely a PC Panda Hugger, and towing the administration line.... with this first sentance:
"I don't believe that the United States is threatened by the peaceful rise of China," he said.Anyone familiar with Deng Xioping's writings and schema, or Defense Minister Chi Haotian and his successors know that for the CCP the "Peaceful Rise" is in fact a mere biding of time. In fact it is an explicit Code Word they employ for the purpose of disinformation, confusing the Western Panda Huggers who want to believe in the sincerity of the "Peaceful" part. Not realizing that "Peace" is not an objective, but a temporary strategem, a mere ruse. Peaceful Rise is Not a relaxation of enmity in the slightest. Hence, to the extent we allow them to "rise" we are allowing an enemy to gather its strength. The Panda Hugger's never seem to square the circle here...and are confounded by China's persistent hostility, duplicity, deviousness, and bad behavior. This Admiral, while sounding the Panda-Hugger Creed, does seem to have, just a shred of skepticism however, when he says with the next breath:
"On the contrary, we should welcome it. Yet China's impressive economic growth has brought a much more rapid military expansion than we expected.
"The real question, however, is one of intent," he stressed, adding that it is the U.S. hope that China conducts itself in a "constructive and responsible manner" during its rise.
Time for a new CIA Team B.
Unfortunately, I believe the new DCIA Chief Hadley is, apparently, another Panda Hugger...and he's about to re-appoint the previously-fired RAT at CIA Stephen Kappes, who is, coincidentally? another Panda Hugger, at the direction of his previous and current boss, and Panda Hugger John Negroponte.
Admiral Walsh appears to be at odds with others who are apparently not drinking the Kool-Aid at the Pentagon. From the Frontpage Magazine piece, The Pentagon Gets China Right:
In late May the Department of Defense issued its required annual report to Congress on the “Military Power of the People’s Republic of China.”[Therein] ...the Defense Department is hardly guilty of overstating the threat posed by a rising China. One reason for this is that Beijing is not only increasing its military capacity and global influence, but gauging their intentions remains a fretful affair. A noteworthy element in the 2006 report is the Pentagon’s accurate assessment of the PRC’s dangerously unpredictable strategy. Citing former paramount Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping’s words from the early 1990’s, Deputy Sec. Def., Rodman noted:
“The phrase that strikes me, of course is ‘hide our capacities and bide our time.”What many fail to understand, and something that SOME, but obviously not all in the Defense Department understand well, is that just like the al-Qaeda forces we are battling now, the Chinese think beyond the immediate and plan for the long-term.The assistant secretary added,
“I think this encapsulates what China’s strategy is. They are very patient.”
Today the U.S. fleet numbers 282 ships. Though our naval fleet is the most technologically advanced power on the seas, the decreasing number of ships is placing the Navy in a vise… one that tightens as the number of ships steadily falls and deployments increase. While some may argue that the “new” enemies of today are not ones that can be challenged by the naval fleets of the “past”, a very ominous potential threat is building on the horizon.
China has been officially modernizing its military for two-and-a-half decades. By the year 2010, China’s submarine force will be nearly double the size of the U.S. submarine fleet. The entire Chinese naval fleet is projected to surpass the size of the U.S. fleet by 2015. In short, the Chinese military is specifically being configured to rival America’s Sea Power.
China...building lots, and lots, of targets...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1645805/posts
US gives green signal to Agni III (China-specific Indian missile)
As long as the numbers in China's fleet doesn't overtake the U.S. number of torpedoes, all is well.
"Chinese Naval Buildup Surprising, But Not Yet Alarming, Says Admiral"
you know when it will be alarming? when their Naval Armada shows up on our shores.. while our Congressmen debate over the usage of the phrase illegal alien
I think ASW technology is evolving day after day, and know of scheduled upgrades in coming years. That's good because modern diesel boats are an incredibly dangerous weapon.
I also think the carrier task force is obsolescent, and by the time China can challenge the US in that department, carriers will be so vulnerable you might be better off with a row boat full of armed men.
Additionally, the fast attack submarine force fell to the 55 submarines. The Joint Chiefs of Staff in Bush's own QDR in 2001, reiterated the 1999 Study. In 1999, the CJCS Attack Submarine Study was an exhaustive and collaborative effort among the regional CINCs, U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM), the Department of the Navy, the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and the Joint Staff. They all came to the conclusion that we need to have "at a minimum" 68 fast attack submarines:
the study concluded that a force structure below 55 SSNs in the 2015 and 62 in the 2025 time frame would leave the CINCs insufficient capability to respond to urgent crucial demands.
In any war with China, nothing is more cruicial to our victory than the Subs and a restored ASW capability.
W has instead apparently shown an early proclivity to what I term "national security tone-deafness", and allowed the level of fast attacks and ASW capabilities to continue to erode instead of rebuilding to get back to the necessary force levels.
"The real question, however, is one of 'intent', he stressed, adding that it is the U.S. hope that China conducts itself in a constructive and responsible manner during its rise."
On china's "intentions" toward war; some may also find the following of interest.
Pentagon Report: China's Space Warfare Tactics Aimed at U.S. Supremacy.(01 August 2003)>http://www.space.com/news/china_dod_030801.html<
China directs global attention at Taiwan... and then invades everyone else.
That's what I was thinking, too... these days we have to wait until we're attacked to fight back and THEN the dems squeal about it.
I find the final paragraphs appropriate observations:
Dean Cheng, Research Analyst with Project Asia at the CNA Corporation in Washington, D.C., has also perused the DoD report on China. "I think that the Second Gulf War highlighted, on the one hand, the dependence of the United States on space-based systems, which China's People's Liberation Army cannot help but notice and note," Cheng said. "Space assets gave U.S. forces a significant edge, and that is something that the Chinese have noticed."Cheng said the DoD report correctly observes that the Chinese are showing an interest in the topic of physical attack against satellites.
"It would be dangerous and foolhardy, in my opinion, to either ignore such reports, or worse to pooh-pooh them. Given the degree of American reliance on satellite systems, it would behoove us to consider the prospect of attack against our space-based infrastructure from all potential sources, and to explore and, where possible, undertake countermeasures against such possibilities," Cheng told SPACE.com.
As the DoD report notes, Cheng said, "the Chinese have highlighted space systems as targets for preemption. That should only make us pay more attention to improving the survivability of the American space force."
Iraq's sucking up all the money. I was in the Navy in the '70s and I remember fellow officers talking about lack of funding for anything not related to Vietnam. Same thing here. Get used to it.
Don't think so.
China wants Tiawan back as a matter of pride.
They will do that first, then evaluate their position based on how hard, or easy, it was to get.
We won't do much cause we sorta believe in One China anyway.
Besides, the buzz on the street is that Tiawan is willing to defend itself down to the last drop of American blood, and not a drop of their own, kindof like most of the other "friends" we have around the world.
As much as Red China wants Taiwan back, they aren't going to get it.
I don't think Taiwan is the highest target on their list of targets. If given the opportunity, they'll invade Taiwan, but as it stands - doing so would cause the decimation of their investment in their army and navy.
A land invasion of one or more of their neighbors is far more likely than an invasion of China. Besides which, the Commies believe that all of South East Asia, and most of the rest of Asia belongs to them through previous imperial precedents.
The ROC's claim to Taiwan is a matter of international agreement following WWII. The Cairo Declaration allowed the ROC administrative possession of the island after Japan's unconditional surrender to the U.S. It is an unsigned agreement, and if ignored or put aside - ownership of the island of Taiwan goes to the United States. Imperial China ceded the island to Japan. Japan gave it up to the U.S. and Allies in a signed treaty. Britain, the U.S., and the Republic of China divided up the territories in two agreements. The first a signed treaty dealing with most of the other territory defaulted by the enemy, and the latter the unsigned Cairo declaration.
In my opinion, that means that either the ROC is still in rightful possession of the island, or if the Cairo agreement is ignored, the U.S. is the rightful owner of the island. PRC has no claim.
I like your scenario better but I just have problems believing they will leave it alone. Logic and reason sometimes do not rule the day. I hope you are right.
I'm sure China is quite aware of the fact that taking over Taiwan through invasion won't net them the economic prosperity and resources that the PRC is starved for. What makes Taiwan so productive is its system of government and its trade relations, all of which will be nullified by a hostile takeover by the PRC.
I would be more concerned over Taiwan's safety if the PRC stopped pushing the issue of Taiwan. The art of misdirection is a high art form in Chinese politics. If they're pointing at Taiwan all the time, they're probably looking elsewhere.
And to get back to the point, they need resources. Lots of resources for their industry and military. Threatening Taiwan before they can line up those resources and secure them will be an act of pointless aggression. International sanctions on China after a premature takeover of Taiwan would result in forcing the PRC to withdraw or threaten to use their nukes. In all, such a situation would be extremely clumsy and inelegant, as well as being suicidal for the Chinese communists who would face immediate threats of local uprisings on the mainland as a result.
The target is not Taiwan, at least not yet.
I don't understand China's obsession with Taiwan. Taiwan is now a minor player in world affairs. They have nothing that China needs. Their attitude towards Taiwan is of the nature of an old grudge, like that of Ireland towards England.
I don't foresee the USA sending any troops to defend Taiwan, ever. Taiwan has become irrelevant in the modern scheme of things.
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.