China Rapidly Modernizes for War With U.S.

During the last several months, there have been numerous hints in the Chinese and Taiwanese media indicating that war is more likely than believed here in the West.

Some strategists suggest that the 2008 Olympics scheduled for Beijing constitute a key benchmark, after which a war may be possible. However, it is clear that both nations are preparing for a conflict in the near term, and that 2008 may not be as pivotal as some experts believe.

In fact, China’s media have been repeating the mantra in their news reports that the People’s Liberation Army is preparing to gain a victory in this “internal military conflict in a high-tech environment.”

Chinese war planners have studied carefully the recent U.S.-Iraq War, a war that demonstrated to PLA strategists that U.S. military might is derived from its technological superiority.

China’s military experts conducted similar studies after America’s first Gulf War. One military study written by two Chinese colonels entitled “Unrestricted Warfare” suggested that China could not compete with America’s technological prowess.

Instead, China had to develop “asymmetrical” warfare to defeat the U.S. in any conflict.

Interestingly, “Unrestricted Warfare” became an instant best seller in China after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. In the 1998 book, the Chinese colonels suggested that a successful bombing by Osama bin Laden of the World Trade Center would be an example of this new “unrestricted warfare” concept.

Apparently, China feels much better positioned after the recent Iraq War and wants to challenge the U.S. on a technological level.

Almost instantly after the Iraq War, in May 2003, China’s President and Communist Party General Secretary Hu Jintao declared at the party’s Politburo meeting the necessity of “active support of national defense and modernization of the army.”

Hu emphasized the need for further integrating information technology (IT) into the PLA and mobilizing China’s entire scientific and technological potential for PLA’s needs.

As a result, the PLA’s modernization in these areas has accelerated significantly.

Since the second half of 2003, the PLA has been engaged in the latest stage of its RMA – Revolution in Military Affairs – program, which was officially announced by the chairman of China Central Military Commission, Jiang Zemin, in his speech on Sept. 1, 2003.

He emphasized that that PLA should transform itself into a “smaller and much smarter science- and technology-based army.”

Maximizing IT and other advanced technologies – including nanotechnologies, space technologies, electromagnetic weapons, etc.

Transforming the PLA into an “army of one” that is comparatively smaller and of very high quality, similar to the U.S. Army.

During 2003 and 2004, Russia – jointly with Belarus and Ukraine – has been a major source of advanced weapons for the PLA.

According to official figures from Russia’s weapons export state monopoly, Rosoboronexport, Russia’s total weapons export in 2003 approached $5.7 billion, making Russia the second largest arms exporter after the U.S. (Please note that China is arguably the leading arms exporter in quantity of arms transported, as its weaponry is considerably less expensive than that of the U.S.)

If one takes into account the weapons deliveries from Belarus and Ukraine to China, along with “double use” nuclear and space technologies supplied by Russia to China, then Chinese real arms imports from greater Russia would, in my estimation, be $4 billion.

Clearly, Russia and her allies have been a huge factor supporting the PLA in its rapid modernization and planned confrontation with the U.S.

The PLA has been following its “three-way policy” of advanced weapons acquisition.

This three-pronged strategy calls for China to gain technologically advanced weaponry through (1) imports, (2) joint (Chinese-foreign) weapons R&D, and (3) independent weapons R&D within China.

The details of this mechanism were given in the article “China’s military affairs in 2003,” published by the Taiwanese journal Zhonggong yanjiu (China Communism Research) in February 2004.

According to Taiwanese experts, though weapons import and joint R&D still play the major role in PLA modernization, the role of “independent R&D” has been increasing gradually.

Appointed in March 2003, new Chinese Defense Minister (former chief of Defense Ministry’s Armament Division) Col.-Gen. Cao Gangchuan was personally in charge of this work.

He has tried to decrease China’s dependence on Russian arms and increase the share of advanced weapons imports from Germany, France and Israel.

China also is engaged in joint weapons R&D projects with EU and NATO countries, including R&D of mid-range air-to-air missiles and highly precise satellite positioning (Galileo project).

China believes that in a conflict with Taiwan, air dominance will be key to a quick victory.

The PLA has been beefing up its PLA Air Force (PLAAF) and aircraft troops of the PLA Navy (PLAN).

Reportedly, by the end of February 2004, the PLAAF purchased from Russia 76 SU-30 MKK fighters belonging to the advanced “4 plus” generation.

There is no data regarding future deliveries of the “finished” SU-30 from Russia to China; however, the Chinese aircraft industry is more or less capable now of producing the SU-30 as well as other fighters belonging to the fourth generation, or close to this level.

Dramatic modernization of China’s First Aviation Industry Corp., or AVIC-1, from 2001 to 2004, is of principal importance here (the data in this account are given in the above-mentioned article in the Zhonggong yanjiu journal).

Four major companies are developing China’s jet-manufacturing capability. Interestingly, each of these companies recently underwent radical modernization and upgrading, including advanced equipment obtained from Europe’s Airbus, claiming the help is for “cooperation in passenger aircraft production.”

Shenyang Aircraft Corp. continued, in the past year, to produce SU-27 SK (J-11) heavy fighters from Russian kits at a rate of at least 25 units annually, and the share of Chinese-made components surpassed 70 percent.

In the frame of “independent R&D” within China, the Chengdu Aircraft Corp. has mastered the serial production of medium J-10 fighters and FC-1 light fighters. These planes reportedly can match the U.S. F-16 fighter.

Guizhou Aircraft Corp. developed the advanced Shanying fighter-trainer, while Xian Aircraft Corp. mostly finished developing the new generation of FBC-1 (JH-7) long-range fighter-bomber, which became known as JH-7A.

Other enterprises, belonging to AVIC-1, mastered production of KAB-500 guided bombs and several kinds of air-to-air and air-to ground missiles.

By the end of 2003, the new generation of Flying Leopard, i.e., JH-7A, was being tested. This fighter-bomber’s weapons include new air-to-air and air-to-ground missiles of beyond-vision range, guided bombs, etc. This aircraft is adapted for anti-radar reconnaissance, effective low-altitude strikes against large naval vessels, and general strikes of ground-based and naval targets.

By the end of 2004, as a result of supply from Russia and increased fighter production at AVIC-1 subsidiaries, the number of advanced fighters of various kinds in PLAN air troops and the PLAAF – including SU-27 (J-11), SU-30 (J-11A), J-10, FC-1, Shanying, FBC-1 (JH-7) and JH-7A – could surpass an estimated 400 units. The Sea Component

The PLA Navy (PLAN) has numerous Chinese-Russian projects under way this year and next, including:

Purchase of two Russian Sovremenny destroyers, equipped with improved ship-to-ship supersonic cruise missiles (SSM) Sunburn 3M80MBE of 240 km range. Initially, Sunburn had a range of 160 km. However, in 2001-2003, Raduga Design Bureau in Dubna (about 150 km north of Moscow) designed, under PLAN’s orders, a much more lethal version of SSM.

Very probably, serial production of new SSM would be mastered in China, so it would be installed on two Sovremenny destroyers, purchased by PLAN in 1999-2000, on Chinese-built Luhu- and Luhai-class destroyers as well as Jiangwei-class frigates. According to media reports in the Hong Kong and Taiwan media, two new Sovremenny destroyers could be transferred to PLAN before the end of 2005.

Purchase of eight Kilo submarines, equipped by “super-advanced” 3M54E (CLUB-S) submarine-launched anti-ship missiles. In 2003, China already obtained 50 missiles of this kind, which would greatly improve PLAN’s striking capacity. China intends to organize production of these missiles. They probably also could be used on Chinese-built conventional submarines of the Song class.

New Kilo submarines could enter PLAN service in 2005 or the first half of 2006. (Information regarding destroyers and conventional submarines was repeated in several articles in Zhonggong yanjiu in January 2003 through February 2004 and in multiple media reports from Hong Kong during the same period.)

Construction of “093 project” nuclear attack submarines and the “094 project” strategic nuclear submarine, using Russian plans and technology, at Huludao (a port city in northeast Liaoning province) military shipbuilding plant. By the end of 2005, PLAN would have in its service at least two “093 project” and at least one “094 project” nuclear submarines. Reportedly, Russia had to make significant improvements in design and weapons of these submarines, in accordance with Chinese customers’ requirements.

Along with Russian contracts is the construction of a new generation of destroyers, frigates and conventional submarines at modernized shipbuilding plants in Dalian, Shanghai, Qingdao and Wuhan cities. An upgraded PLA could be capable pf establishing sea control around Taiwan in 2008.

Aso important is the fact that both the PLAAF and PLAN would be equipped, by 2008, with perfect military information technology systems, more precisely by C4ISR (command, control, computers, communication, intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance) systems, which would make the use of the listed weapon systems much more effective.

If you were a PRC Navy General with the commission of planning an invasion of Taiwan, would you take your tens of thousands of antiship and antiaircraft missiles and take potshots at the Taiwan Navy, or would you aim a swarm attack at the American Crown Jewels?

Depends on if I wanted to start a war that might escalate to a nuclear exchange. If yes, then I guess I'd strike at US carriers. If no, I'd hit the Taiwanese and hope the US stayed out.

Keep in mind that just one carrier accident in the Caribbean cost us lots of planes and about $500M during peacetime. Also keep in mind that if you sank every single Taiwanese boat, would that give you the final edge?

If the US stayed out then yes.

The real power in the region isn't Taiwan, it's the U.S. But if you sank 2 American carriers, would that give you the edge?

A temporary edge probably, a permanent edge, not so sure.

The whole point of such a downside is that if Americans see it, they will withdraw from the fighting. Do you agree with that posture?

If the US lost a carrier that might cause us to withdraw. I don't see how a reactor accident mushroom cloud would make us more likely to withdraw.

The Chinese could send a pilot with the mission of dropping a very low yield nuclear torpedo that helps to augment this disaster scenario. All that they need is the appearance of nuclear radiation, burning ships, drowning sailors and sinking carriers to get the desired effect. It would actually help them to have the American ship still in containment, because afterwards they could send a sub to disarm the nuclear torpedo and then pretend to be heroes.

Sorry, you're getting silly now.

So, what was my supposed motivation?

"I stand corrected, there was no significant radiation release."
***I guess here is where we disagree, perhaps on what the meaning of "significant" is. From what I can see in the NRC’s 2004 Fact Sheet on the TMI Accident, they now acknowledge that even under NORMAL operating conditions, there are 12 deaths attributable to radiation release at nuclear plants.

http://www.tmia.com/accident/whatswrong.html

Excerpt:
In August 1996, a study by the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, authored by Dr. Steven Wing, reviewed the Susser-Hatch study (Columbia University; 1991). Dr. Wing reported that "...there were reports of erythema, hair loss, vomiting, and pet death near TMI at the time of the accident... Accident doses were positively associated with cancer incidence. Associations were largest for leukemia, intermediate for lung cancer, and smallest for all cancers combined... Inhaled radionuclide contamination could differentially impact lung cancers, which show a clear dose-related increase."

Findings from the re-analysis of cancer incidence around Three Mile Island is consistent with the theory that radiation from the accident increased cancer in areas that were in the path of radioactive plumes. "This cancer increase would not be expected to occur over a short time in the general population unless doses were far higher than estimated by industry and government authorities," Wing said. "Rather, our findings support the allegation that the people who reported rashes, hair loss, vomiting and pet deaths after the accident were exposed to high level radiation and not only suffering from emotional stress.”

Even under normal operating circumstances nuclear plants release radiation. The NRC acknowledged that 12 people are expected to die as a direct result of normal operation and releases for each commercial nuclear reactor that is granted a license extension of 20 years.

"Never said there would be no radiation released, said you'd be lucky to detect that which was released."
***Again it appears that we part company. A runaway, sinking nuclear plant which is no longer moderated except by surrounding seawater in an open loop configuration is a radiation heat pump into the environment. The seawater closest to the device quickly turns to steam, ablating away as it rises to the top because it's lighter than the surrounding water, and carries its radiation with it into the open sea. From there, ocean currents could carry the radiation poisoned seawater to multiple places. We can easily measure the radiation that leaked from the Chernobyl accident, which would be on the same order of magnitude as the radiation leaked into the sea under this scenario.

"But if you sank 2 American carriers, would that give you the edge? "

As I posted before, carriers are tough ships to sink. Below are just some of what I got from a website on the Forrestal:

"With over a dozen major detonations from 1,000 and 500 lb bombs and numerous missile, fuel tank, and aircraft explosions no ship has ever survived the pounding FORRESTAL underwent that day, before or since."

"Once the fires were under control, the extent of the devastation was apparent. Most tragic was the loss to the crew, 134 had lost their lives, while an additional 64 were injured, this was and still remains the single worst loss of life on a navy vessel since the USS FRANKLIN (CV 13) was bombed in WWII. The ship proceeded to Cubi Point in the Philippines for temporary repairs. In only eight days enough repairs were made that she could start the long trip back to her home port of Norfolk, Virginia for permanent repairs. On her way home she was capable of operating aircraft if needed."

http://navysite.de/cvn/cv59.htm

I have no doubt it would require 20-50 cruise missile impacts to to have even a chance of sinking a Nimitz-class carrier. It's all irrelevant anyway, since all the Chinese need to do is send the ship back to dry dock where it might as well be sunk for all the use we'd be getting out of it. The same can't be said for the escorting ships however, just consider the damage to the USS Cole. 4 or 5 missile impacts and it's at the bottom. It makes no difference if you shot down 99 missiles before getting hit, you're still sunk. Anyway, this is all pretty much applicable to a war NOW. Not 20 years from now where free trade policies, if they continue unchanged, will give them the technological ability to build their own Aegis systems, Seawolf/Virginia-equivalent SSN's and maybe even Nimitz-equivalent carriers and Ohio-equivalent SSBN's. Their aircraft by then could very well end up on a par with US aircraft, something you don't want when you're outnumbered. And knowing Murphy's Law, we'll probably be dependent on China by that time for the components to keep all of our advanced weapons operating.

As far as invading Taiwan, I'm sure they already have contingency plans for the use of their entire fishing fleet for conducting an invasion. Assuming they don't build large numbers of landing craft in the next 20 years or so. Also, to achieve victory, I have no doubt they'd be willing to sacrifice container ships. Without containers, each ship could probably carry 20,000 troops if not more. With US/Taiwanese naval forces busy defending against air attack, they might not have the opportunity to engage such ships before they beach themselves and start unloading. Their ballistic missile technology is improving every day. It won't be surprising if in 5 to 10 years their tactical ballistic missiles will be accurate enough to pick particular buildings within a targeted base to hit. Send a 100 or more missiles at each base, and there's not enough left standing to mount a defense with.

In August 1996, a study by the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, authored by Dr. Steven Wing, reviewed the Susser-Hatch study (Columbia University; 1991). Dr. Wing reported that "...there were reports of erythema, hair loss, vomiting, and pet death near TMI at the time of the accident... Accident doses were positively associated with cancer incidence. Associations were largest for leukemia, intermediate for lung cancer, and smallest for all cancers combined... Inhaled radionuclide contamination could differentially impact lung cancers, which show a clear dose-related increase."

Yeah, right. So, how much were the legal settlements for all these deaths?

Even under normal operating circumstances nuclear plants release radiation. The NRC acknowledged that 12 people are expected to die as a direct result of normal operation and releases for each commercial nuclear reactor that is granted a license extension of 20 years.

Wow, 12 people are going to die? When? Today? How about when they're 80? 90?

How many people die from coal mining accidents? How much radiation is released by burning coal?

***Again it appears that we part company. A runaway, sinking nuclear plant which is no longer moderated except by surrounding seawater in an open loop configuration is a radiation heat pump into the environment. The seawater closest to the device quickly turns to steam, ablating away as it rises to the top because it's lighter than the surrounding water, and carries its radiation with it into the open sea. From there, ocean currents could carry the radiation poisoned seawater to multiple places. We can easily measure the radiation that leaked from the Chernobyl accident, which would be on the same order of magnitude as the radiation leaked into the sea under this scenario.

So this Chinese missile strike is going to destroy/remove all the control rods? As far as Chernobyl, why don't you tell me how much fuel was in their reactor versus how much fuel is in a carrier reactor.

Thank you for answering my questions. I'll attempt to answer yours. Here was our earlier exchange:

Toddsterpatriot: This is not going to be the nuclear winter like scenario that causes us to preemptively give Taiwan to the PRC.
KevinO: Your final sentence shows where your motivation comes from in arguing against the possibility of such a scenario. If it were truly possible, the end result of an American withdrawal from the conflict becomes self-evident.

Obviously I can't know what your motivation is, because I'm not you and you are the only one who can know it. But it does show through in some ways, it manifests itself lightly, it becomes evident with revealed clues. Until you stated flatly, "If the US lost a carrier that might cause us to withdraw", it appeared that you were not acknowledging the simple underlying premise to the whole discussion.

When you say that you "don't see how a reactor accident mushroom cloud would make us more likely to withdraw", it makes me wonder where you're coming from because a lost carrier might cause us to withdraw but a lost carrier + nuclear mess wouldn't be more likely to cause us to withdraw? The american and world press would be all over it like vultures, and mainstream Americans are afraid of anything with the word "nuclear" in it. It would play directly into their fears, and the public pressure to withdraw would be stronger than what happened during the Viet Nam war. Not only that, but it really would be an environmental disaster.

"Sorry, you're getting silly now."
***I hope you're right. I was glad to be wrong about Saddam Hussein, and I would be delighted to be wrong about the Chinese in this scenario. Like I stated earlier, let's hope they're dimwitted. But that's not a very effective military strategy.

Good Link.

That was one nasty accident. Note that they weren't even under attack. Just think of what would have happened if the surrounding ships were unable to come to their aid, and everyone was under attack. You don't even really need to sink one of them for the desired effect, as you said, "all the Chinese need to do is send the ship back to dry dock where it might as well be sunk for all the use we'd be getting out of it."

July 29, 1967 - The worst accident aboard a US Navy surface vessel since WWII.

On July 29, 1967 the USS FORRESTAL was operating on Yankee Station off the coast of North Vietnam conducting combat operations. This was the fifth such day of operations and at 10:52am the crew was starting the second launch cycle of the day, when suddenly a Zuni rocket accidentally fired from an F-4 Phantom into a parked and armed A-4 Skyhawk. The accidental launch and subsequent impact caused the belly fuel tank and a 1,000 pound bomb on the Skyhawk to fall off, the tank broke open spilling JP5 (jet fuel) onto the flight deck and ignited a fire. Within a minute and a half the bomb was the first to cook-off and explode, this caused a massive chain reaction of explosions that engulfed half the airwings aircraft, and blew huge holes in the steel flight deck. Fed by fuel and bombs from other aircraft that were armed and ready for the coming strike, the fire spread quickly, many pilots and support personnel were trapped and burned alive.
Fuel and bombs spilled into the holes in the flight deck igniting fires on decks further into the bowels of the ship. Berthing spaces immediately below the flight deck became death traps for fifty men, while other crewmen were blown overboard by the explosion.
Nearby ships hastened to the FORRESTAL's aid. The ORISKANY (CV 34), herself a victim of a tragic fire in October 1966, stood by to offer fire-fighting and medical aid to the larger carrier. Nearby escort vessels sprayed water on the burning FORRESTAL and within an hour the fire on the flight deck was under control. The crew heroically fought the fire and carried armed bombs to the side of the ship to throw them overboard for 13 hours. Secondary fires below deck took another 12 hours to contain.

Oh, and BTW: Was that a Mushroom cloud I saw in that picture?

Yeah, right. So, how much were the legal settlements for all these deaths?
***I don't know. But we are getting sidetracked from the main discussion, so I'm dropping this rabbit trail.

Wow, 12 people are going to die? When? Today? How about when they're 80? 90?
***Ooooh, sarcasm. Keep in mind that it's 12 people under normal operating conditions and there's an admitted radiation leak at TMI, generating additional (NRC undisclosed number of) deaths.

How many people die from coal mining accidents? How much radiation is released by burning coal?
***Irrelevant. Another rabbit trail.

So this Chinese missile strike is going to destroy/remove all the control rods?
***Enough damage to cause trouble. That's the danger.

As far as Chernobyl, why don't you tell me how much fuel was in their reactor versus how much fuel is in a carrier reactor.
***I don't know, but you could be onto something here. The reactor for a nuclear aircraft carrier has got to be considerably smaller than a typical commercial reactor, reducing the potential for open-ended disaster.

Obviously I can't know what your motivation is, because I'm not you and you are the only one who can know it.

So when you said you knew my motivation you were wrong.

But it does show through in some ways, it manifests itself lightly, it becomes evident with revealed clues.

So now it's evident? So what is it?

When you say that you "don't see how a reactor accident mushroom cloud would make us more likely to withdraw", it makes me wonder where you're coming from because a lost carrier might cause us to withdraw but a lost carrier + nuclear mess wouldn't be more likely to cause us to withdraw?

No.

The american and world press would be all over it like vultures, and mainstream Americans are afraid of anything with the word "nuclear" in it.

You appear to be afraid of the word nuclear, not me. Then again, I'm not a "mainstream" American.

It would play directly into their fears, and the public pressure to withdraw would be stronger than what happened during the Viet Nam war. Not only that, but it really would be an environmental disaster.

Fears based on ignorance.

"Reactors SINK. Do you have any idea how good a mile of water is for shielding and thermal energy absorption?"
***We addressed this before: A runaway, sinking nuclear plant which is no longer moderated except by surrounding seawater in an open loop configuration is a radiation heat pump into the environment. The seawater closest to the device quickly turns to steam, ablating away as it rises to the top because it's lighter than the surrounding water, and carries its radiation with it into the open sea. From there, ocean currents could carry the radiation poisoned seawater to multiple places.

***Ooooh, sarcasm. Keep in mind that it's 12 people under normal operating conditions and there's an admitted radiation leak at TMI, generating additional (NRC undisclosed number of) deaths.

Well, first, I don't believe your supposed source. Second, people die everyday. It's not that 12 people will supposedly die (I don't believe it) but how much sooner would they die than without the reactor? Will they die at the age of 10? That would be serious. Will they die at the age of 80, after a lifetime of excess radiation exposure, that would be less serious.

***I don't know, but you could be onto something here. The reactor for a nuclear aircraft carrier has got to be considerably smaller than a typical commercial reactor, reducing the potential for open-ended disaster.

Finally, the light goes off. Ever hear the dose makes the poison? Like I've said before, I suspect you'd be lucky to detect any radiation from such a sunken carrier, never mind dying from that undetectable radiation.

"So when you said you knew my motivation you were wrong."
***I never said I knew your motivation, I said, "Your final sentence shows where your motivation comes from."

So now it's evident? So what is it?
***Since we agree that your motivation can only be known by you, why do you ask me? Please tell us your motivation.

You appear to be afraid of the word nuclear, not me.
***How is it I appear to be afraid of the word nuclear? My point is that mainstream Americans are afraid of nuclear stuff, so please address the issue at hand.

Fears based on ignorance.
***Very much so. But each one of those ignorant americans has one vote, no more and no less than you. The fears that the public possesses are real, regardless of their basis in ignorance. But it is a step forward that you acknowledge these fears exist in the populace.

Well, first, I don't believe your supposed source.
***And then we get to the point where I don't believe your source and it gets us nowhere. I'm going to drop this rabbit trail.

Second, people die everyday. It's not that 12 people will supposedly die (I don't believe it) but how much sooner would they die than without the reactor? Will they die at the age of 10? That would be serious.
***OK, that's good enough. At least you acknowledge it would be serious. Let's move on.

Will they die at the age of 80, after a lifetime of excess radiation exposure, that would be less serious.
***Agreed.

Like I've said before, I suspect you'd be lucky to detect any radiation from such a sunken carrier, never mind dying from that undetectable radiation.
***Your original post was comparing a wartime sunken carrier to the peacetime sunken Russian nuclear subs which have managed to moderate the nuclear reaction and maintain some semblance of containment. It's an apples and oranges comparison. If the carrier's rods were damaged, the containment breached, and the nuclear plant started a thermal runaway process, there would be considerably more radiation discharge. Certainly detectable, possibly becoming an ablative radiation pump into the open sea.

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.