Fundamentally China retains an almost perfect strategic position for defense of its homeland and that is not going to change. Yet the same defense also makes offensive options almost as futile.
As this item makes clear, the USA controls both the seas in terms of surface warfare, but even more tellingly, convincingly controls the subsurface. Thus the USA has all the effective options at sea.
As well all prospective targets, and that is simply South Korea, Vietnam and Taiwan possess land forces capable of grinding up any Chinese expeditionary force that actually crosses their borders while providing a massive support base for USA air power acting in support. Yet even if the USA stood out, these powers will maul a Chinese land force in the early going.
What we are hearing these days can be described as military wet dreams largely disconnected from military reality. The fact is even a Chinese army matching the capabilities of its immediate opponents would be in trouble for in all cases, the defense has a huge advantage.
We forget that D day was only possible because the German Army had already lost it main chances in Russia and was in retreat. The strategic reserve was gone. Imagine attempting such a landing on Taiwan against a freshly mobilizing and angry population.
China thinks it can defeat America in battle
As this item makes clear, the USA controls both the seas in terms of surface warfare, but even more tellingly, convincingly controls the subsurface. Thus the USA has all the effective options at sea.
As well all prospective targets, and that is simply South Korea, Vietnam and Taiwan possess land forces capable of grinding up any Chinese expeditionary force that actually crosses their borders while providing a massive support base for USA air power acting in support. Yet even if the USA stood out, these powers will maul a Chinese land force in the early going.
What we are hearing these days can be described as military wet dreams largely disconnected from military reality. The fact is even a Chinese army matching the capabilities of its immediate opponents would be in trouble for in all cases, the defense has a huge advantage.
We forget that D day was only possible because the German Army had already lost it main chances in Russia and was in retreat. The strategic reserve was gone. Imagine attempting such a landing on Taiwan against a freshly mobilizing and angry population.
China thinks it can defeat America in battle
But it overlooks one decisive factor
By David Axe, War is Boring | July 7, 2014
https://medium.com/war-is-boring
https://medium.com/war-is-boring
Sorry, China, but the U.S. still has the upper hand.
(Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Jared Hill/U.S. Navy via Getty Images)
The bad news first. The People's
Republic of China now believes it can successfully prevent the United
States from intervening in the event of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan or
some other military assault by Beijing.
Now the good news. China is wrong — and for one major
reason. It apparently disregards the decisive power of America's
nuclear-powered submarines.
Moreover, for economic and
demographic reasons Beijing has a narrow historical window in which to
use its military to alter the world's power structure. If China doesn't
make a major military move in the next couple decades, it probably never
will.
The U.S. Navy's submarines —
the unsung main defenders of the current world order — must hold the
line against China for another 20 years. After that, America can declare
a sort of quiet victory in the increasingly chilly Cold War with China.
How China wins
The bad news came from Lee
Fuell, from the U.S. Air Force's National Air and Space Intelligence
Center, during Fuell's testimony before the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission in Washington, D.C. on Jan. 30.
For years, Chinese military planning assumed that any attack by the People's Liberation Army on Taiwan or a disputed island
would have to begin with a Pearl Harbor-style preemptive missile strike
by China against U.S. forces in Japan and Guam. The PLA was so afraid
of overwhelming American intervention that it genuinely believed it
could not win unless the Americans were removed from the battlefield before the main campaign even began.
A preemptive strike was,
needless to say, a highly risky proposition. If it worked, the PLA just
might secure enough space and time to defeat defending troops, seize
territory, and position itself for a favorable post-war settlement.
But if China failed
to disable American forces with a surprise attack, Beijing could find
itself fighting a full-scale war on at least two fronts: against the
country it was invading plus the full might of U.S. Pacific Command,
fully mobilized and probably strongly backed by the rest of the world.
That was then. But after two
decades of sustained military modernization, the Chinese military has
fundamentally changed its strategy in just the last year or so.
According to Fuell, recent writings by PLA officers indicate "a growing
confidence within the PLA that they can more-readily withstand U.S.
involvement."
The preemptive strike is off
the table — and with it, the risk of a full-scale American
counterattack. Instead, Beijing believes it can attack Taiwan or another
neighbor while also bloodlessly deterring
U.S. intervention. It would do so by deploying such overwhelmingly
strong military forces — ballistic missiles, aircraft carriers, jet
fighters, and the like — that Washington dare not get involved.
The knock-on effects of
deterring America could be world-changing. "Backing away from our
commitments to protect Taiwan, Japan, or the Philippines would be
tantamount to ceding East Asia to China's domination," Roger Cliff, a
fellow at the Atlantic Council, said at the same U.S.-China Economic and
Security Review Commission hearing on Jan. 30.
Worse, the world's liberal
economic order — and indeed, the whole notion of democracy — could
suffer irreparable harm. "The United States has both a moral and a
material interest in a world in which democratic nations can survive and
thrive," Cliff asserted.
Fortunately for that liberal
order, America possesses by far the world's most powerful submarine
force — one poised to quickly sink any Chinese invasion fleet. In
announcing its readiness to hold off the U.S. military, the PLA seems to
have ignored Washington's huge undersea advantage.
The Silent Service
It's not surprising that Beijing would overlook America's subs. Most Americans overlook
their own undersea fleet — and that's not entirely their own fault. The
U.S. sub force takes pains to avoid media coverage in order to maximize
its secrecy and stealth. "The submarine cruises the world's oceans
unseen," the Navy stated on its Website.
Unseen and unheard. That why the sub force calls itself the "Silent Service."
The Navy has 74 submarines,
60 of which are attack or missile submarines optimized for finding and
sinking other ships or blasting land targets. The balance is
ballistic-missile boats that carry nuclear missiles and would not
routinely participate in military campaigns short of an atomic World War
III.
Thirty-three of the attack
and missile boats belong to the Pacific Fleet, with major bases in
Washington State, California, Hawaii, and Guam. Deploying for six months
or so roughly every year and a half, America's Pacific subs frequently
stop over in Japan and South Korea and occasionally even venture under the Arctic ice.
According to
Adm. Cecil Haney, the former commander of Pacific Fleet subs, on any
given day 17 boats are underway and eight are "forward-deployed,"
meaning they are on station in a potential combat zone. To the Pacific
Fleet, that pretty much means waters near China.
America has several submarine types. The numerous Los Angeles-class attack boats are Cold War stalwarts that are steadily being replaced by newer Virginia-class boats with improved stealth and sensors. The secretive Seawolfs, numbering just three — all of them in the Pacific — are big, fast, and more heavily armed than other subs. The Ohio-class missile submarines are former ballistic missile boats each packing 154 cruise missile.
U.S. subs are, on average,
bigger, faster, quieter, and more powerful than the rest of the world's
subs. And there are more of them. The U.K. is building just seven new Astute attack boats. Russia aims to maintain around 12 modern attack subs. China is struggling to deploy a handful of rudimentary nuclear boats.
Able to lurk silently under
the waves and strike suddenly with torpedoes and missiles, submarines
have tactical and strategic effect greatly disproportionate to their
relatively small numbers. During the 1982 Falklands War, the British sub
Conqueror torpedoed and sank the Argentine cruiser General Belgrano, killing 323 men. The sinking kept the rest of the Argentine fleet bottled up for the duration of the conflict.
America's eight-at-a-time
submarine picket in or near Chinese waters could be equally destructive
to Chinese military plans, especially considering the PLA's limited
anti-submarine skills. "Although China might control the surface of the
sea around Taiwan, its ability to find and sink U.S. submarines will be
extremely limited for the foreseeable future," Cliff testified. "Those
submarines would likely be able to intercept and sink Chinese amphibious
transports as they transited toward Taiwan."
So it almost doesn't matter
that a modernized PLA thinks it possesses the means to fight America
above the waves, on land, and in the air. If it can't safely sail an
invasion fleet as part of its territorial ambitions, it can't achieve
its strategic goals — capturing Taiwan and or some island also claimed
by a neighboring country — through overtly military means.
That reality should inform
Washington's own strategy. As the United States has already largely
achieved the world order it struggled for over the last century, it need
only preserve and defend this order. In other words, America has the
strategic high ground against China, as the latter must attack and alter the world in order to get what it wants.
In practical military terms,
that means the Pentagon can more or less ignore most of China's
military capabilities, including those that appear to threaten
traditional U.S. advantages in nukes, air warfare, mechanized ground
operations, and surface naval maneuvers.
"We won't invade China, so ground forces don't play," pointed out
Wayne Hughes, a professor at the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School. "We
won't conduct a first nuclear strike. We should not adopt an air-sea
strike plan against the mainland, because that is a sure way to start
World War IV."
Rather, America must deny the Chinese free access to their near waters. "We need only enough access
to threaten a war at sea," Hughes said. In his view, a fleet optimized
for countering China would have large numbers of small surface ships for
enforcing a trade blockade. But the main combatants would be
submarines, "to threaten destruction of all Chinese warships and
commercial vessels in the China Seas."
Cliff estimated that in
wartime, each American submarine would be able to get off "a few torpedo
shots" before needing to "withdraw for self-preservation." But assuming
eight subs each fire three torpedoes, and just half those torpedoes
hit, the American attack boats could destroy all of China's major
amphibious ships — and with them, Beijing's capacity for invading Taiwan
or seizing a disputed island.
Waiting out the Chinese decline
If American subs can hold the line for another 20
years, China might age right out of its current, aggressive posture
without ever having attacked anyone. That's because economic and
demographic trends in China point towards a rapidly aging population,
flattening economic growth, and fewer resources available for military
modernization.
To be fair, almost all developed countries are also
experiencing this aging, slowing and increasing peacefulness. But
China's trends are pronounced owing to a particularly steep drop in the
birth rate traceable back to the Chinese Communist Party's one-child
policy.
Another factor is the unusual speed with which the
Chinese economy has expanded to its true potential, thanks to the
focused investment made possible by an authoritarian government… and
also thanks to that government's utter disregard for the natural
environment and for the rights of everyday Chinese people.
"The economic model that propelled China through three
decades of meteoric growth appears unsustainable," Andrew Erickson, a
Naval War College analyst, told the U.S.-China Economic and Security
Review Commission.
What Erickson described as China's "pent-up national
potential" could begin expiring as early as 2030, by which point "China
will have world's highest proportion of people over 65," he predicted.
"An aging society with rising expectations, burdened with rates of
chronic diseases exacerbated by sedentary lifestyles, will probably
divert spending from both military development and the economic growth
that sustains it."
Wisely, American political and military leaders have
made the investments necessary to sustain U.S. undersea power for at
least that long. After a worrying dip in submarine production, starting
in 2012 the Pentagon asked for — and Congress funded — the acquisition
of two Virginia-class submarines per year for
around $2.5 billion apiece, a purchase rate adequate to maintain the
world's biggest nuclear submarine fleet indefinitely.
The Pentagon is also improving the Virginia design, adding undersea-launched drones, extra missile capacity, and potentially a new anti-ship missile.
Given China's place in the
world, its underlying national trends and America's pointed advantage in
just that aspect of military power that's especially damaging to
Chinese plans, it seems optimistic for PLA officers to assume they can
launch an attack on China's neighbors without first knocking out U.S.
forces.
Not that a preemptive strike would make any
difference, as the only American forces that truly matter for containing
China are the very ones that China cannot reach.
For they are deep underwater.
From drones to AKs, high technology to low politics, War is Boring explores how and why we fight above, on, and below an angry world. Sign up for its daily email update here or to its RSS feed here.
1 comment:
"Imagine attempting such a landing on Taiwan against a freshly mobilizing and angry population." -- That is more like a fantasy. The Taiwan population has mentally conceded the argument; "we are Chinese". There will be no angry population, just quiet acceptance of the inevitable. There may be an hour or a day of "quiet anger", but soon they will look FORWARD to going about their day undisturbed. Fighting back, will disturb their day.
Post a Comment