Strangely, I consider war as historically practiced to be profoundly
obsolete. Unfortunately that does not stop building out deterrence
and then rationalizing the whole exercise. If China were to
collectively lose its mind then they will still face the nasty
problem that their population base looks like a giant bull's eye and
is impossible to protect from a globally distributed attack. The
same holds true generally and war is now all about wealth destruction
and not about the assemblage of wealth.
The USA Civil War destroyed the accumulated wealth of a slave owning
society. The first and second war was about destroying the
accumulated industrial wealth of Germany and Japan and the USSR. My
point is reall simple. Unless one is blind dumb and stupid to boot,
there is no economic profit in modern industrial war. Killing of a
generation of productive young men only makes the recovery almost
impossible.
So we discuss here the continuation of what is the USA's naval Pax
Americana. It is already overwhelming by a factor of ten and
countering such capability has been taken from the table. The whole
world could not do it nor should they want to.
What is needed is an agreement among the Great Powers and any
potential Great Powers in which it is agreed that the USA continues
to provide global security. It will take time to work out and must
produce a council that mandates action. This acknowledges ambitions
and sets the stage for a substantial down sizing of the forces in
play.
Recall
that NATO set the stage for the creation of the EU. Potential
partners are the USA, EU, Russia,China, India, and Brazil. These are
treated as first tier partners. Once established and settled,
everyone else could join as a second tier.
Beyond
all that we now learn that Rail guns are operational, operate at 5
mach and are hopefully capable of rapid fire. Better yet, they can
be mounted and supported on a destroyer. All that tells us that the
next generation will be almost immune to any previous generational
attack. Anything been built now is obsolete.
A U.S. shot across
the bow could slow the dragon
By James A. Lyons
Friday, March 29, 2013
On March
14, China completed the transition of its new leader, Xi
Jinping, with his assumption of the presidency. His main power comes
as the leader of the Communist Party and as chairman of
its Central Military Commission. While trying to project his
image as a “man of the people,” his various speeches on “the
China Dream” have a definite military overtone, even though he
professes to continue the peaceful development policies of his
predecessor. He has launched a well-planned campaign to enhance the
military force of the People’s Liberation Army in order
to give China the capability to “fight and win wars.”
Such statements undercut the theme that China’s military
buildup is only for defensive purposes.
China’s unrelenting
drive to become the dominant military power in the western Pacific
continues with its just announced 10.7 percent increase to its
military budget. This double-digit increase takes on added
significance when viewed in light of the Obama administration’s
sequestration and previous, draconian budget cuts to U.S. military
forces. With the continued turmoil in the Middle East, as well
as Russia’s efforts to revive Soviet Cold War tactics to test
our readiness both militarily and politically, it is questionable
whether the “strategic pivot” to the Pacific can ever be fully
implemented.One of the key weaknesses of the pivot strategy is that
it does not address China’s development of a globally
deployable military force and the establishment of nuclear and
non-nuclear and proxy states, such as North Korea and Iran.
As Richard Fisher, a senior fellow at the International
Assessment and Strategy Center, has pointed out, such an imbalance
has the potential for China to create a number of “Chinese
pivots” that could quickly overstress and thus limit or deter U.S.
strategy.Another element that cannot be discounted is the potential
for a large Chinese nuclear breakout. China has more than
3,000 miles of underground reinforced tunnels for their fixed and
mobile strategic weapons. In a Feb. 11 Wall Street
Journal article by Bret Stephens, Gen. Victor Esin,
former chief of staff of Russia’s Strategic Rocket Forces,
highlighted the “stealthy” rise of China to a position
of nuclear parity with the United States and Russia. He stated
that China may have 850 warheads ready to launch, and he
estimated China’s inventory of nuclear weapons at between
1,600 and 1,800 warheads, as compared with the current U.S. estimate
of China having 200 to 400. Many reports note
the administration wants to reduce U.S. warheads to 1,000
or fewer.Gen. Esin went on to state that he has solid evidence
that China conducted a multiple-warhead test in July 2012,
and a month later, launched a new, long-range
multiple-warhead-capable missile from a submarine. Any future START
talks with Russia must recognize China’s nuclear
inventory.Clearly, we need an immediate “shot across China’s
bow” that would have an impact. Putting anti-ship ballistic
missiles on U.S. ships, submarines and aircraft could be just such a
shot, threatening China’s navy to show them they will gain
nothing by using their fleet against the United States and its
allies. Such a capability could be accomplished in the near term as a
relatively inexpensive option, while posing a risk to China’s
ever-expanding surface navy.
The potential impact
of introducing anti-ship ballistic missiles into our naval and air
forces would be significantly multiplied if we could sell such a
capability to our allies, provided an agreement can be reached
with Russia to retire the 1987 Intermediate Nuclear Force
(INF) Treaty. This probably is feasible, since, according
to Russia’s Gen. Esin, if China does not stop
expanding its nuclear inventory, Russia will consider
abandoning the INF Treaty. Another action that we can take is to
create an Asian regional long-range sensor network that would provide
our allies real-time warning of broad Chinese military activity. For
such a network to become a reality, we should capitalize on the
recent decision to install a second Forward Based X-Band
Transportable (FBX-T) radar in southern Japan by placing a
similar radar in the Philippines. We currently have an FBX-T radar in
Shariki, Japan, with a 600-to-1,200-mile range. Installing an
updated 3,700-mile-range SBX radar in the Philippines would permit
continuous missile and aircraft coverage of all nations in the
western Pacific littoral, including China.Even in this tight budget
climate, we should find the funding to pursue the development of
energy weapons. For example, a railgun with “shotgun” pellets
flying at Mach 5 has the potential to produce a “steel cloud,”
which would shred most missiles, cruise missiles and aircraft flying
through it. In tests, the railgun has fired artillery-size
projectiles up to speeds of Mach 5 with a potential range of 62
miles. Such a system would be quite adaptable to a destroyer-sized
ship.Clearly, we have a number of options that can be brought to
bear, including selling nuclear submarines to allies such as
Australia andJapan. However, all our conventional options must be
underpinned by a credible nuclear deterrent. Therefore, it is
absolutely essential to modernize our nuclear-weapons inventory. To
make our options a reality, the Obama administration needs
to recognize China’s strategic objectives and the threat they
pose to our national interests and those of our allies, and institute
programs that pose an unacceptable risk to China.
Retired Adm. James A.
Lyons was commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet and senior
U.S. military representative to the United Nations.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/29/how-to-neutralize-chinas-military-threat/#ixzz2PWuN8yvO
No comments:
Post a Comment