Posted on 02/14/2003 4:27:31 PM PST by vannrox
Edited on 07/12/2004 4:00:56 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Russia delivered the latest batch of advanced SU-30MKK fighter bombers to China within the past month and additional jets are on the way, according to U.S. intelligence officials.
Russia's arms exports used to be public. But under pressure from Beijing, Moscow agreed to keep secret its major weapons systems transfers to China.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
BTW, that "electronic Pearl Harbor" the Chinese allegedly threatened us with was coined by US defense analysts who never really got around to explaining how this amazing attack would work--and their hypothetical attack, when passed around the INFOSEC community, generated more laughs than Carson's best monologues ever did.
A full-scale hacker war between the US and China would result in Mutually Assured Annoyance.
The developing geo-political and military situation is not good at all. If we are sucked into any kind of major warfare in the Mid-East ... meaning that they actually fight and give us any kind of difficulty, then it is not too far a stretch to think that N. Korea tries to go south. If they do, we would be hard pressed to respond quickly, and in serious jeopardy of direct military conflict with China IMHO, who might pick that time to try and gobble up Taiwan and make a major move in all of Asia.
That is the precise circumstance in my series, Dragon's Fury
There's many things to worry about WRT US national security. China getting a few jet fighters is somewhere around #35 on the priority list.
Hundreds of your posts, all of them decrying our call (that's right, "our," there are now many who believe as I do...) to restore military levels to what they were in the early 90s if not the mid 80s.
I point out reality--that you're never going to get those kinds of force levels, in part because of demographics (there are fewer military-age bodies around today than in the mid-1980s) and partly because the threat level is much, much lower than what we perceived the threat level to be in the mid-1980s. (I note that the actual threat level in the 1980s, while higher than today, was still significantly lower than the perceived threat. The CIA, after all, made the fatal mistake of believing the Kremlin's own economic figures, which, in the manner of totalitarian regimes everywhere, were "strategically misrepresented" at each level from factory floor to Politburo.)
The difference between do-nothingism (which is what you inadvertently advocate by demanding the unachievable as a precondition of any effort to defend America) and pragmatic realism is that the latter accepts that the force structure isn't going to get much bigger, and works with what is actually going to be available.
You clearly have an agenda that you will not share completely.
I've tried--imperfectly, I will admit--to be nice. It seems that you've mistaken good manners for weakness.
Very well.
All you do is criticize.
All you do is cut-and-paste, post links, and scream that the sky is falling because your paranoia isn't taken seriously the people who actually have stuck their paw in the air, sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution, and are taking their oaths far more seriously than Bubba the Hutt and his cronies ever did.
Like I said, folks like you have it easy. You don't have to deal with the consequences of a bad decision in this field, because folks like you will not be allowed to make those decisions. This is a good thing.
Naturally, this elicits suspicion regarding your goals.
Ah. If you disagree with my arguments, but cannot logically refute them, then I'm obviously guilty of some nonspecified heinous crime.
The Army's TACWAR system could do what Saddam Hussein couldn't do: actually get his troops to fight--and that is why our casualty estimates were an order of magnitude too high. The Iraqi Army has even less reason to fight for the greater glory of the Husseini al-Tikriti clan today.
BTW, if the DPRK charges south, my money's on the ROKs, with or without significant US assistance. Another prediction: If Kim Jong-Il tries anything nuclear against Japan, the JSDF will suddenly reveal what they did with the missing plutonium, and our postwar problem will be "OK, how the f*** do we keep the Japanese from trying to establish the Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere?"
My read on the global situation is that the "conventional" (read: "usual") threat scenarios are going to be overturned by 2015, and we're going to settle into an uneasy standoff between us, the Franco-German Axis of Europe, and possibly Brazil. Japan may jump in either direction, depending less on economics and more on cultural shifts.
Our significant allies will be Russia (or as much of Russia as will be actually governed from Moscow), the UK, Eastern and some of Southern Europe, Israel, Iraq (post-Hussein), and Iran (post-theocracy). Minor allies will include the South American neighbors of Brazil.
Not-so-fun places will be mainland China (warlords, famine, and nukes, oh my!), the Arabian peninsula (where we will have to smash the odd Wahabbist uprising), and Africa (as always).
My thoughts are
What is it about Germany that really concerns you?
Of late, Germany seems to be angling to head up a Europe unified against the US--and they may not be squeamish about using force to do it.
As for Russia and China, the data confirms a real threat. Also, look at the source of the very first source and deliver to me something that would indicate that Bill Gertz is not a valid source (Washington Times or not)?
My argument is less with the facts than what those facts actually mean.
China has a LOT of catching up to do in order to pose a credible threat to the United States--and they are not building one of the critical components--a modern Navy, with enough combat sealift to land a corps-sized force in an opposed landing. But they don't have very long to do it in before the Big Crash--they are Enron with a few nukes. Russia is an example of what happens to a totalitarian regime that lasts long enough.
Are the Chinese upgrading their military? YES. Are the pros keeping an eye on it? YES. Do I panic because someone posts something from a Russian design bureau's product brochures? NO.
They see the same things we do ... and will be in an economic position to make their play (if one is to be made) within the next few years time frame.
In order to do so, they will have to negate the US Navy and they know it. A tall order for sure, but one they are planning for. No other scenario will work for them ... or for anyone else for that matter.
They are trying to use limited numbers of Sunburn and the newer Yahkont missiles to move in that direction, but that is playing against the CBG's strength, which is air defense and which has not been sitting still since the introduction of the Sunburn quite a few years ago.
Even so, those missiles could maybe pull off taking down an Aegis cruiser or Carrier with a saturtion attack ... and over the next few years perhaps they will develop enough resource to mount a couple of them. But then they would face a retrribution that would destroy their entire navy in short order and so defeat the reasoin for making the attack in the first place.
So, short of something much more effective, that plan can only be considered a complimentary strategy in any major war scenario. I still believe that the most serious, most viable threat to the CBG is sub-surface. I went to some ends to develop a purely fictional super-weapon in my series of novels to make the rest possible.
If they ever did come up with something that could negate our sea power advantage ... it would make the entire situation orders of magnitude more dangerous and difficult.
In the real world, short of something like that, they will fail. But we cannot discount them for two reasons:
We shall see.
Hell, 2010 would be premature.
They see the same things we do ... and will be in an economic position to make their play (if one is to be made) within the next few years time frame.
Their economic position is worsening, not improving, except in the Shanghai-Hong Kong region--which is kinda tired of carrying the rest of China as dead weight.
Translate Pat Buchanan's speeches into Chinese, change all the references to the US to China, leave the complaints about foreign devils intact, and he'll go over great in Manchuria.
In order to do so, they will have to negate the US Navy and they know it. A tall order for sure, but one they are planning for. No other scenario will work for them ... or for anyone else for that matter.
They'd have to negate the entire United States Navy, around the entire world.
They are trying to use limited numbers of Sunburn and the newer Yahkont missiles to move in that direction, but that is playing against the CBG's strength, which is air defense and which has not been sitting still since the introduction of the Sunburn quite a few years ago.
Wonder what they'll do when they discover Russian arms vendors have yet to figure out the concept of "truth in advertising?"
Even so, those missiles could maybe pull off taking down an Aegis cruiser or Carrier with a saturtion attack ... and over the next few years perhaps they will develop enough resource to mount a couple of them.
One nasty problem for the ChiComs is that the South China Sea is full of large ships. An uncaged antiship missile has no friends. They can easily "saturate" a tanker inbound to Shanghai.
But then they would face a retrribution that would destroy their entire navy in short order and so defeat the reasoin for making the attack in the first place.
The big issue here is that China's admirals are buying the shiny toys of seapower--DDGs, SSKs, et cetera.
They aren't buying the dull, boring stuff, like amphibs. But it's the dull, boring stuff that does power projection--which is the sole offensive REASON for having a navy.
So, short of something much more effective, that plan can only be considered a complimentary strategy in any major war scenario.
Defeating the US Navy is the major war scenario.
Absent that, their ambitions will remain landlocked.
Unless, of course, they hire Louis Farrakhan as a consultant for "The Million Man Swim" :o)
I still believe that the most serious, most viable threat to the CBG is sub-surface. I went to some ends to develop a purely fictional super-weapon in my series of novels to make the rest possible.
The problem with superweapons of the sort that you describe is that they eat budgets at a prodigious rate, and every dime spent on developing a single-purpose superweapon is a dime that isn't available for things like combat sealift--and China has huge shortfalls in combat sealift that are not being made good.
If they ever did come up with something that could negate our sea power advantage ... it would make the entire situation orders of magnitude more dangerous and difficult.
A seapower advantage is not merely a matter of a fleet off the enemy's coast. It's things like being able to chase the Chinese flag off of the world ocean--which we could do right now. It's being able to turn off the flow of raw materials to Chinese industry--which we could do right now. It's being able to interdict all Chinese trade with the rest of the world--which we can do right now.
In the worst-case scenario, the Chinese could "win." However, when "winning" includes never getting another drop of oil into a Chinese port, or never getting goods to world markets, it starts looking considerably less attractive.
Something else to consider is what happens to mercantilist armies. In the US Army, the ambitious soldiers enter into the combat arms, because that's where the Army's senior leadership comes from. In China, the ambitious soldiers try to get into business admin--because they will get rich, and being in the outfit that generates the funds for the PLA budget grants them power.
Historically, mercantilist armies--armies whose main business in peacetime is commercial business instead of training for war--perform abysmally in combat.
I believe the Chinese know all of this and are trying to develop plans, however furtile to our way of thinking, to overcome our advantage and play to their strengths. Putting their genie back in the bottle might end up being a very formidable task, particular in any ground campaign(s) on mainland Asia if it came to that.
I really doubt that we'll go mano a mano with the ChiComs in mainland Asia, absent a significant nuclear preparatory bombardment--and the question then becomes, "So what's the point?"
They are tryig to think "outside the box" ... outside our box specifically ... and they have to, and we'd best not under-estimate them. I believe they could develop in-theater sea lift capability fairly quickly ... and it would not have to be world-class if they were able to overcome what you and I know would be their huge, primary obstacle which we discussed in the last exchange.
As to the cost of "super-weapons" ... that depends on the perspective. A weapon can be guaged "super" by either its technological wonder, or by simply what it accomplishes. Sometimes the two don't have to be a perfect, or even a close match.
The Chinese know all of this too and will be bending every effort towards it and we will, of course, be cognizant of it and watching it. One way to help would be to, as a government and a people, to stop funding their growth and delivering much of our own production capability right in their laps. But that just IMHO.
The Japanese of World War II could clearly not match us in production or technology ... but they caused a lot of hurt before they were put down.
As to oil ... the Chinese would have to aquire it by expansion and in cohoots with our other enemies ... like our Islamic fundamental foes in the Mid East. Don't think for a moment that they are not all aware of this too and that the Chinese are not, in their own plans, somehow taking that into account. It's not something one forgets ... no more than the Japanese did. And for a while, the Japanese Empire made it stick to their ultimate complete undoing.
I know it seems very unlikely to many people that the Chinese and the Islamics could/would get together, but then again, many people thought he same about any alliance in World War II between Hitler and Stalin. That initial unlikely and ultimately alliance-gone-bad allowed for much greater German expansion and served ultimately to prolong the war in Europe ... and it could have been dramatically worse had Hitler taken out England. Thank God, English grit, and American inginuity, bravery and support that he did not.
I pray we continue to foster and display those same qualities today in rich abundance ... we may need them, not just as a military, but as a people.
Thanks for the congenial discussion.
The massive surpluses are getting skimmed off at each level--and there are a lot of skimmers.
They are tryig to think "outside the box" ... outside our box specifically ... and they have to, and we'd best not under-estimate them.
I don't. However, I disagree with your assessment that they are thinking "outside the box." They are thinking well inside a box that the XUSSR invented re: attacking carrier groups. Suggested reading: Seapower and Space, by Norman Friedman.
I believe they could develop in-theater sea lift capability fairly quickly ... and it would not have to be world-class if they were able to overcome what you and I know would be their huge, primary obstacle which we discussed in the last exchange.
It would have to be world-class unless the plan is to throw a Type B Army onto Taiwan, never to be seen again.
The problem is that in any amphibious assault on an island fortified as Taiwan is that you're going to have ghastly loss rates in sealift, even with air superiority.
China is in no position to deliver a "Spruance Haircut" to Taiwan, unless they make massive use of nuclear weapons.
There are two problems with this last idea. First, the ROW (rest of the world) will treat them like they're mad dogs--and that will include their alleged allies in Russia, because they will worry about China's plans re: Siberia.
The second problem is dealing with the likely Taiwanese response. When Nixon went to China in 1972, Taiwan read the writing on the wall, and unless they were uncharacteristically stupid, they started a nuclear weapons program. By 1979, when Jimmy Carter recognized Beijing, it's almost a certainty that they had a nuclear capability. 24 years later, they probably have a significant nuclear force. They don't need much of a nuclear force--a quick analysis of China shows that 50 nuclear warheads are enough to send the country back to the warlords and famine phase, with an unlucky few getting bone cancer as a bonus...
As to the cost of "super-weapons" ... that depends on the perspective. A weapon can be guaged "super" by either its technological wonder, or by simply what it accomplishes. Sometimes the two don't have to be a perfect, or even a close match.
What you proposed was most assuredly a case of technological wonder.
Of note vis a vis controlling the S. China and E. China seas, attacking US W. Pacific bases and attacking potential US forward deployment areas. The PLA have wisely invested in SRBMs and IRBMs, and, in their deployment in road mobile fashion. We in the West wonder why the PRC have not, up until now, made much investment into ICBMs. Simply put (and mentioned in a CIA report last year) SRBMs would have great utility as theatre mass destruction weapons. The PRC's nuclear doctrine is drastically different from ours and does appear to feature substantial theatre usage.
Hey, as long as we're playing that...what if incredibly advanced aliens caused our Sun to go nova?
RE: They aren't buying the dull, boring stuff, like amphibs. But it's the dull, boring stuff that does power projection--which is the sole offensive REASON for having a navy.
Granted they are not buying such things. But are they building them? Have you personally visited the PRC? I have. One of the things I noticed was quite an industry, in general, for the production of hydrofoils and hovercraft. Beyond that, the ship building capabilities in the Shang Hai area keep increasing. At present, most of this is channelled into nominally "civilian" craft. (A somewhat related anecdote. A bit over a year ago, the Port Of Oakland, CA, USA received a series of new container cranes, larger than any previously brought in. Apparently, firms from all over the world bid. The winner was an org in Shang Hai. So, one day, in floated the cranes, on top of a hull built specifically for transporting such cranes. It had to come in during low tide, clearing the bottom of the Golden Gate Bridge by inches... I'd say the ChiCOMs can definitely build things besides wooden junks!).
In other words, the ChiComs have adopted a nuclear use policy that is aimed at warfighting, but completely rules out damage limitation, preventing lateral escalation, and post-attack deterrence.
In this scenario, we would have every reason to destroy China as a geopolitical entity, every ability to do so without significant damage to the US homeland, and absolutely no reason to not do so. Hell, North Korea seems to have a more realistic nuclear warfighting strategy than the PRC does.
I've got some REALLY bad news for you. Neither do we. These are like 5 years away from any serious acquisition numbers. Too little. Too late. If the balloon is going up the next year or three...
That's nice. I merely content myself with consulting stuff like Combat Fleets (better than Jane's, at a lower cost).
One of the things I noticed was quite an industry, in general, for the production of hydrofoils and hovercraft.
Hydrofoils are NOT amphibs. Hovercraft MAY be, but are far too soft and far too expensive for use in an opposed landing. The money would be far better spent on plain, dull LCUs, LCPs, and LSTs. But you're indicating that China would either opt for a massive (and easily detected) retooling, or a massive wastage of resources that they can ill afford.
I have spent a lot of time on Taiwan ... there are many beaches there that are not "fortified" at all in the classic sense. They are protected by air assets, naval assets and rapid deployment forces ... but "fortified" as in major fortifications they are not. IN a scenario where ballistic missiles are droping by the hundreds, where air superiority is potentially lost, where sea power shift in balance to the PLAN ... they will have a difficult time fortifying them.
The Chinese, if they can negate our sea capabiity in the area, have the where-with-all to play an attrition game against Taiwan ... and most of SE Asia that does not go along. So, I disagree with the need for any type of major nuclear bombardment of Taiwan given that rather major condition of the US NAvy not being available.
As to what the ROW thinks in the context of such a scenario ... folks who end up going over the edge to enforce their abject will, philosophy, dogma, ideology at the point of the sword seldom do care what the ROW thinks in the end ... they figure that they will get the ROW to come around in the same fashion. That thinking applies in a diplomatic world where sanity flourishes ... it goes out the window in world war where insane tyrants seek to exeret their will through force ... and only returns when it is clear they are going to fail ... usually after a few million dead.
In the series , Russia and China start off as Hitler and Stalin which ends up buying time for major CHinese expansion ... of course given that persnickity major condition of dealing with the US Navy.
The technology presented in the LRASD weaponry is decidedly not a technological "wonder" IMHO ... but is would pose a current logistical nightmare ... and is limited by the PLAN's lack of current platforms to carry such a beheamouth. In the series they spend many years bringing about conditions that overcome those issues ... technical, logistics and platform wise.
That purely fictional tale is meant to provide what is hopefully a exciting read and also to encourage people to think about current policies in this regard.
Anyhow ... good dialog. I believe that the PRC wants and plans for Asian hegonomy ... I also believe they have an almost insurmountable wall to climb to attain it ... us. I want to insure it stays that way. We are not helping ourselves with the current trade and economic policy in that regard IMHO. We are fueling their ambitions.
Fregards.
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.