China's PLA Sees Value in Pre-emptive Strike Strategy

Department of Defense ^ | Aug. 11, 2003 | Sgt. 1st Class Doug Sample

[Spruce]

China's PLA Sees Value in Pre-emptive Strike Strategy

By Sgt. 1st Class Doug Sample
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Aug. 11, 2003 — The military strategy of "shock and awe" used to stun the Iraqi military in the opening campaign of Operation Iraqi Freedom might be used by the Chinese if military force is needed to bring Taiwan back under communist control.

According to the released recently The Annual Report on the Military Power of the People's Republic of China, the country's military doctrine now stresses elements such as "surprise, deception and pre- emption." Furthermore, the report states that Beijing believes that "surprise is crucial" for the success of any military campaign.

Taiwan, located off the coast of mainland China, claimed independence from the communist country in 1949. The island has 21 million people and its own democratic government.

China, with 1.3 billion people, claims sovereignty over the tiny island, sees Taiwan as a breakaway province and has threatened to use military force against Taiwan to reunify the country. And China's force against Taiwan could come as a surprise attack.

But "China would not likely initiate any military action unless assured of a significant degree of strategic surprise," according to the report.

The report states that Lt. Gen. Zheng Shenxia, chief of staff of the People's Liberation Army's Air Force and an advocate of pre-emptive action, believes the chances of victory against Taiwan would be "limited" without adopting a pre-emptive strategy.

The report says that China now believes pre-emptive strikes are its best advantage against a technologically superior force. Capt. Shen Zhongchang from the Chinese Navy Research Institute is quoted as saying that "lighting attacks and powerful first strikes will be widely used in the future."

China's new military thinking has evolved over the past decade. PLA observers have been studying U.S. military strategies since the first Gulf War, when they noticed how quickly U.S. forces using state-of-the-art weapons defeated Iraqi forces that in some ways resemble their own.

Since then, the report states the PLA has shifted its war approach from "annihilative," where an army uses "mass and attrition" to defeat an enemy, to more "coercive warfighting strategies."

The PLA now considers "shock power" as a crucial coercion element to the opening phase of its war plans and that PLA operational doctrine is now designed to actively "take the initiative" and "catch the enemy unprepared."

"With no apparent political prohibitions against pre- emption, the PLA requires shock as a force multiplier to catch Taiwan or another potential adversary, such as the United States, unprepared," the report states.

Ways the PLA would catch Taiwan and the U.S. off guard include strategic and operational deception, electronic warfare and wearing down or desensitizing the opponent's political and military leadership. Another objective would be to reduce any indication or warning of impending military action, the report states.

Preparing for a possible conflict with Taiwan and deterring the United States from intervening on Taiwan's behalf is the "primary driver" of China's military overhaul, according to this year's report. Over the course of the next decade the country will spend billions to counter U.S. advances in warfare technology, the report states.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

China Waging War on Space-Based Weapons***The PLA also is experimenting with other types of satellite killers: land-based, directed-energy weapons and "micro-satellites" (search) that can be used as kinetic energy weapons. According to the latest (July 2003) assessment by the U.S. Defense Department, China will probably be able to field a direct-ascent anti-satellite system (search) in the next two to six years.

Such weapons would directly threaten what many believe would be America's best form of ballistic-missile defense: a system of space-based surveillance and tracking sensors, connected with land-based sensors and space-based missile interceptors. Such a system could negate any Chinese missile attack on the U.S. homeland.

China may be a long way from contemplating a ballistic missile attack on the U.S. homeland. But deployment of American space-based interceptors also would negate the missiles China is refitting to threaten Taiwan and U.S. bases in Okinawa and Guam. And there's the rub, as far as the PLA is concerned.

Clearly, Beijing's draft treaty to ban deployment of space-based weapons is merely a delaying tactic aimed at hampering American progress on ballistic-missile defense while its own scientists develop effective countermeasures.

What Beijing hopes to gain from this approach is the ability to disrupt American battlefield awareness--and its command and control operations--and to deny the U.S. access to the waters around China and Taiwan should the issue of Taiwan's sovereignty lead to conflict between the two Chinas.

China's military thinkers are probably correct: The weaponization of space is inevitable. And it's abundantly clear that, draft treaties and pious rhetoric notwithstanding, they're doing everything possible to position themselves for dominance in space. That's worth keeping in mind the next time they exhort "peace-loving nations" to stay grounded.***

[Maurkov]

Help. I cant decide if this reminds me more of Khrushchev's missile bases in Cuba or Iraq's secret programs to develop WMDs.

Look at how we responded. Considering how restrained our foreign policy tends to be, what do you think China will do?

[The Pheonix]

The Official US Govt's position;

Pres Bush, in his face to face ,one on one meetings with Pres Jiang (three times, Oct 2001-Beijing, Feb 2002-Beijing, Oct 2002-Texas) had reaffirmed the US committment to her "ONE CHINA POLICY". Similarly, he made the same assurance to the Chicoms, in his meeting with the new Pres Hu in France, G8 Summit, 2003

The Official US GOvt line is: "the US Govt does not support Taiwan Independence"

In Nov 2002, Deputy SoD ,Paul Wolfowitz, announced in a HK Phoenix TV interview, that the US "OPPOSES Taiwan Inependence". Many analysts interpreted this statement coming from the most hawisk, ultra-Nes-Conservative, as a warning to the Taiwanese not to rock the boat.

Later, SoS Powell, Deputy SoS, Armistage, also said at news/media conferences in Beijing, that."the US does not support Taiwanese Independence"

The US has not decided to sell the AEGIS destroyers to TW yet, for that is interpreted as "crossing the RED LINE" by the Chicoms,(quoted from various news journals)

SOURCES; Taken by various news items, from FEER, AFP, REUTERS, etc

[GOP_1900AD]

The biggest surprise would be if the PLA, side by side with the Burmese and Pakistani forces, go south, overland, in a big ole convoy, into ASEAN. Truckin', tankin' and TELin'.... have we even considered this?

[RightWhale]

the surprise may be that they hit us first with North Korea

They will have the advantage to begin, but if they fall short it will become fall back, fall back, fall back. They won't be able to try again for a few hundred years.

[The Pheonix]

The PLA is more than capable of overhelming the whole of SE Asia without Burmese or Pakistanis. The late Ho Chi Min had advised the Vietnamese people that,"when the USA comes over to wage war, they come by the 100s of 1000s, but when the Chinese come they come by the 10s of millions"

I believe this may be one of their strategy in time of a major war. After occupying SE Asia, they would deploy their IRBMs, SRBMs, and land-based cruise missiles to threaten/cover the whole of the shipping lanes from the Straits of Malacca to Korea

[FreedomPoster]

Who's to say they haven't? Or just hinted that they have?

If you were a geriatric leader of China, would *you* chance it? How many ground bursts in port cities would it take to totally mess over China? I'm guessing a fairly small number.

[Batrachian]

Do you remember Dr. Strangelove? The effect is lost if you keep it a secret.

[GOP_1900AD]

Indeed, the use of "battlefield" and quasi strategic arms to satisfy strategic objectives appears to factor strongly into the strategies of nations such as the PRC, Pakistan and Russia. The US were foolish to avoid investment in 4th generation SRBMs and IRBMs and even more foolish to sign the INF, which the Soviets / Russians broke long ago and other nations are not even signatories to. Idiots here in the states will argue "but what use are SRBMs and IRBMs now that Europe is no longer the forefront of potential conflict" and I believe the scenario you depicted answers this stupid question. As for what the US could do to respond our choices would include having our own SRBMs and IRBMs located in all of our existing Pacific bases, opening up new sites such as via renewal of SEATO (by installation of a pro US anti PRC regime in Thailand if need be) and perfection of the use of ships and aircraft as launch platforms for SRBMs and IRBMs. We've demonstrated satellite launches from the cargo bays of C5As (you simply drogue the rocket out the back and then cold launch from there) so extension of the tactic to missiles is a no brainer.

[Orion78]

This is apparently what North Korea aims to do with it's announcement that it has nuclear weapons. The difference, of course, is Kim Jong Il is insane and North Korea is communist.