PDA

View Full Version : The US response to China (catch all)



SWJ Blog
12-14-2010, 04:50 PM
Japan gives China a new strategic complication (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2010/12/japan-gives-china-a-new-strate/)

Entry Excerpt:

According to the New York Times, the Japanese government will soon release new defense policy guidelines (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/13/world/asia/13japan.html?_r=2&ref=world) that will redirect its military’s primary attention away from the Russian threat from the north and toward the Chinese threat from the south. The new defense guidelines will also direct Japan’s military forces to improve their coordination (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/12/AR2010121203790.html) with the United States, Australia, and South Korea. Japan’s shift toward China is a response to what it sees as the more ominous threat. What China’s leaders need to ponder is whether their more assertive policies are actually improving China’s security.

Click through to read more ...



--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2010/12/japan-gives-china-a-new-strate/) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

SWJ Blog
01-07-2011, 09:40 PM
This Week at War: Gates's China Syndrome (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2011/01/this-week-at-war-gatess-china/)

Entry Excerpt:

The U.S. secretary of defense believes that better military relations with Beijing can help avoid an arms race. But is that what the Chinese want?

Here is the latest edition of my column at Foreign Policy (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/01/07/this_week_at_war_gates_china_syndrome?page=0,0):

Topics include:

1) Will China listen to Gates?

2) Can an army fighting a drug war stay clean?

Will China listen to Gates?

On Jan. 9, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates will leave on a three day visit to China, where he will meet with his counterparts in the Chinese government. According (http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=62252) to Gates's spokesperson, the trip is "aimed at improving our mutual understanding and reducing the risk of miscalculation." Achieving a sustained military-to-military relationship between the United States and China has long been a goal of Gates. For the secretary, the ultimate purpose of such a relationship is to avoid a wasteful and potentially dangerous arms race between the two powers. What remains to be seen is whether Gates's hosts have the same view and whether they currently have much incentive to listen to their guest.

As a trained historian and former Cold Warrior, Gates is well aware of the costs and dangers of military competitions among great powers. Now in the eleventh hour of what will presumably be his last tour of public service, Gates is hoping that a system of regular contact between U.S. and Chinese defense officials will increase transparency, reduce suspicion, and ease the pressure that would otherwise push for greater military preparation on both sides. Gates is now deeply immersed in defense budget planning and feels the pressure smaller budgets will place on U.S. forces. Should Gates be able to avert an arms race with China, he would achieve a success that would eclipse those he may yet achieve in Iraq and Afghanistan.

For Gates, the U.S.-China military relationship benefits both sides and should logically be a high priority for both countries. Unfortunately, Chinese behavior on this issue does not support that view.

Click through to read more ...



--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2011/01/this-week-at-war-gatess-china/) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

SWJ Blog
02-01-2011, 07:20 PM
China Commission receives testimony on China’s military doctrine (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2011/02/china-commission-receives-test/)

Entry Excerpt:

On January 27, the U.S. government’s U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission (http://www.uscc.gov/index.php)received testimony from eleven experts on China’s “active defense” strategy and its implications for Asian security.

A few highlights from the day’s testimony:

1) Roger Cliff of RAND discussed (http://www.uscc.gov/hearings/2011hearings/written_testimonies/11_01_27_wrt/11_1_27_cliff_testimony.pdf) how the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) describes its “active defense” doctrine, noting that the PLA never uses such U.S. terms as “area denial” or “anti-access.” Cliff notes that since its founding in 1927, the PLA has long become used to the idea of engaging in combat against better-equipped adversaries. According to Cliff, the PLA’s current doctrine emphasizes seven principles: avoiding direct confrontation; seizing the initiative early; surprise; preemption; “key point strikes” against critical nodes; “concentrated attack,” and information superiority. Applying this doctrine to a hypothetical China-U.S. matchup in East Asia, Cliff would expect the PLA to bypass frontline U.S. forces and instead focus its attacks on U.S. bases, the U.S. supply and maintenance system, and the U.S. command and control system.

2) Martin Libicki of RAND discussed (http://www.uscc.gov/hearings/2011hearings/written_testimonies/11_01_27_wrt/11_1_27_libicki_testimony.pdf) two scenarios involving China’s use of offensive cyber operations, the first for strategic coercion and the second in operational support of a conventional military campaign. Libicki asserted that the U.S. government has yet to assess its risk exposure to cyber attack, let alone calculate its ability to fight through such an attack.

3) Lt. Gen. David Deptula, USAF (ret), catalogued (http://www.uscc.gov/hearings/2011hearings/written_testimonies/11_01_27_wrt/11_1_27_deptula_testimony.pdf) the PLA’s current and near-term capabilities in integrated air defense; conventional missile forces; integrated joint operations; and space and counter-space operations. For non-conventional operations, Deptula discussed the Chinese concept of the “Three Warfares”: psychological operations, influence operations, and “legal warfare.”

4) Finally, Jim Thomas of CSBA (http://www.csbaonline.org/2006-1/index.shtml) discussed (http://www.uscc.gov/hearings/2011hearings/written_testimonies/11_01_27_wrt/11_1_27_thomas_testimony.pdf) his recommendations for a U.S. regional response. Thomas recommended that the U.S. should encourage its allies and partners in Southeast Asia to develop their own “mini anti-access/area denial” defense postures. Second, the U.S. should promote regional defense planning, coordination, and transparency. Third, the U.S. should promote regional ISR data sharing. Fourth, the U.S. should expand its own military engagement activities with its allies and partners in the region. Finally, the U.S. should continue to develop and refine its emerging AirSea Battle concept.

There are additional witness statements and documents not covered in this summary. Click here (http://www.uscc.gov/hearings/2011hearings/written_testimonies/hr11_01_27.php) to see all of the witnesses and their statements.

Nothing follows.



--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2011/02/china-commission-receives-test/) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

Ray
08-15-2011, 06:38 AM
Moderator's Note

This small, surprisingly so thread was called The Pentagon's new China war plan; today it was retitled 'The US response to China (catch all)' after three threads were merged (ends).


Saturday, Aug 13, 2011 13:01 ET
The Pentagon's new China war plan

According to the defense trade press, Pentagon officials are seeking ways to adapt a concept known as AirSea Battle specifically for China, debunking rote claims from Washington that it has no plans to thwart its emerging Asian rival. A recent article in Inside the Pentagon reported that a small group of U.S. Navy officers known as the China Integration Team "is hard at work applying the lessons of [AirSea Battle] to a potential conflict with China."

<snip>

AirSea Battle, developed in the early 1990s and most recently codified in a 2009 Navy-Air Force classified memo, is a vehicle for conforming U.S. military power to address asymmetrical threats in the Western Pacific and the Persian Gulf -- code for China and Iran.

<snip>

It complements the 1992 Defense Planning Guidance, a government white paper that precluded the rise of any "peer competitor" that might challenge U.S. dominance worldwide. The Planning Guidance is the Pentagon’s writ for control of what defense planners call "the global commons," a euphemism for the seaways, land bridges and air corridors that are the arteries of international commerce. For a foreign power to challenge this American dominion is to effectively declare war on the United States, and that is exactly what China appears to be doing in the South China Sea, a resource-rich and highly contested waterway in Southeast Asia.

It was in this spirit that Marine Corps Commandant Gen. Jim Amos, at a dinner hosted by the Center for a New American Security in late May, remarked that the wars in the Persian Gulf were denying Washington the resources it needed to cope with an increasingly assertive China. "

<snip>

In addition to China, Vietnam, Brunei, Taiwan, Malaysia and the Philippines all have competing claims on several clusters of South China Sea islands. Rather than intervening with quiet diplomacy to untangle this incendiary thicket, the U.S. has starkly sided against Beijing. In March 2010, when a Chinese official was quoted by Japanese media as identifying the region as a "core interest" of Chinese sovereignty, the White House retaliated by declaring that freedom of maritime navigation is a U.S. "national interest."

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2011/08/13/sino_us_stephen_glain
Notwithstanding the Defence Budget cuts, the national debt, commitment in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US apparently has not abandoned its national geostrategic perspective as some may believe.

If indeed it is so, one wonders how the US will be able to balance the strategic interests around the world to include the above, Arab Spring and the Chinese hegemonic intent.

Dayuhan
08-15-2011, 08:56 AM
Sounds like an old plan, not a new one.

I wouldn't read too much into the existence of a plan or various efforts to develop new plans. The Pentagon does this all the time; they have plans for all kinds of contingencies. It's their job. The likelihood of the plan ever being used is a quite different thing.

I don't think either the US or China has any real interest in initiating conflict, or anything to gain from initiating conflict.

Fuchs
08-15-2011, 09:19 AM
I agree, although the official statement a year or so ago that SHAPE did not yet have plans for defending the Baltic NATO states did create cracks in my confidence that military forces have lots of strategic plans...

Ray
08-15-2011, 05:30 PM
Old plan or not, one wonders why raise it now.

Saturday, Aug 13, 2011 13:01 ET

Backwards Observer
08-15-2011, 08:28 PM
Old plan or not, one wonders why raise it now.

Just so the generals can say the road's open?


F-16s pivotal for Taiwan’s future: Yang

If Taiwan does not get the F-16C/D aircraft it seeks from the US to replace its aging fleet, Taipei will lose its leverage and face immediate challenges in fulfilling its responsibilities of preserving peace and stability in Asia, Deputy Minister of National Defense Andrew Yang (楊念祖) told a defense magazine in an interview published yesterday.

“Washington sometimes does not get the right picture of Taiwan’s responsibility. That is part of the reason we want new fighters,” Yang told Defense News in a wide-ranging interview. “Otherwise, the US has to send its own military to replace our daily patrols in the region.”

F-16s pivotal for Taiwan's future: Yang (http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2011/08/09/2003510306) - Taipei Times - Aug 9, 2011

-$-$-$


F-16C/D deal for Taiwan dead: report

THE BIG SURPRISE:It had been anticipated that the US would upgrade Taiwan’s entire fleet of F-16A/Bs. However, it appears only one of the two F-16 wings will be retrofitted

By J. Michael Cole / Staff Reporter

Taiwan will not be getting the 66 F-16C/D aircraft it has been requesting since 2007, a Ministry of National Defense official has confirmed, and fewer of its older F-16s will be retrofitted, news that could strike a blow to President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration as it heads into elections next January.

“We are so disappointed in the United States,” the official told Defense News on the sidelines of the Taipei Aerospace and Defense Technology Exhibition (TADTE), which ended on Saturday, blaming the decision on pressure from Beijing.

F-16C/D deal for Taiwan dead: report (http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2011/08/15/2003510769) - Taipei Times - Aug 15, 2011

-$-$-$

CHIEF

"You're on your own, captain. You wanna go on ?
Like this bridge : We build it every night. Charlie
blows it right back up again. Just so the generals can
say the road's open. Think about it. Who cares ?"

Do Long Bridge (http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DmANbl6QX9ok) - Youtube

Special Bonus Link (http://www.theonion.com/articles/somebodys-got-to-save-this-country-from-certain-do,21135/)

Dayuhan
08-16-2011, 06:50 AM
Old plan or not, one wonders why raise it now.

Who raised it? Looks to me like it got a few column inches in the "Daily Tedium" section of some specialized defense journal and some eager beaver at Salon figured they could yank it out of context and get a headline out of it. look for the same item to appear in hysteria blogs under the headline "US Plans War With China!!".

SWJ Blog
09-02-2011, 11:44 PM
This Week at War: The Pentagon's China Syndrome (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/this-week-at-war-the-pentagons-china-syndrome)

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/this-week-at-war-the-pentagons-china-syndrome) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

SWJ Blog
09-23-2011, 11:31 PM
This Week at War: Let's Talk About China (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/this-week-at-war-lets-talk-about-china)

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/this-week-at-war-lets-talk-about-china) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

SWJ Blog
10-17-2011, 02:04 PM
U.S. Marine lieutenant has a message for China (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/us-marine-lieutenant-has-a-message-for-china)

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/us-marine-lieutenant-has-a-message-for-china) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

davidbfpo
01-20-2013, 09:38 PM
A "lurker" suggested posting this Hudson Institute paper 'Information-based
Arms Control and Sino-American Trust' by Dr Christopher Ford, alongside his reflections on dealing with the Chinese.

I have read the later, not the former and it is perplexing as China is currently seen as an accelerating great power, likely to be in competition, if not conflict with others, not just the West.

The next post tells a rather different story.

From the paper's opening:
This paper was prepared for the Fourth Xiangshan Forum in Beijing, a conference sponsored by the Chinese Academy of Military Science and the People’s Liberation Army, to which I am grateful for inviting me to participate. AsiaPacific security issues are obviously of great importance to our two countries, to Pacific Rim relations, and to peace and security more generally. This paper explores some aspects of China’s relationship with the United States and with its neighbors, as well as the role Sino-American strategic transparency may be able to play in managing those relationships.

Link:http://www.hudson.org/files/publications/Ford--ArmsControlSino-AmericanTrustDec2012.pdf

From the reflections, which starts with and my emphasis:
Our subject there was Asia-Pacific mutual trust, and indeed the discussion provided an interesting opportunity to learn about that subject. Unfortunately, however, this was principally because our discussion – especially on the first day – did more to demonstrate or model distrust than to illuminate how to lessen or overcome it.

In general, the participants in Roundtable Three broke down into two camps. One focused on the challenges of each side understanding and trusting the other side’s strategic intentions, on the role of perceptions in conditioning such conclusions, and of how to communicate and to modulate future behavior in ways conducive to trust. By contrast, the other camp focused upon trying to obtain agreement on specific characterizations of past behavior before any matters relating to the present (or the future) could be addressed. The first camp, in other words, emphasized trying to achieve forward-looking insight, while the other stressed backward-looking blame-allocation and fault-finding. The second group consisted predominantly of PLA participants.

He ends with:
To be sure, perhaps I am reading too much into a few days’ discussions. On the other hand, perhaps these encounters at the 4th Xiangshan Forum really do offer insight into an idiosyncratic Chinese approach to global order, highlighting a sort of politico-moral imperialism that has few obvious precedents outside the historical Sinosphere. Chinese leaders appear to be strongly invested in other countries’ narratives of China – seeing this as critical terrain for international competition (i.e., advantage or vulnerability) – and they seem to claim the right to control everyone else’s interpretations. If this is so, there may be important policy implications for the United States, and for China’s increasingly nervous neighbors, both about what to expect from Beijing in the years ahead, and about additional ways in which we might perhaps be able to develop effective competitive strategies vis-à-vis the PRC.

Link:http://www.newparadigmsforum.com/NPFtestsite/?p=1498

davidbfpo
01-20-2013, 09:48 PM
A few months ago in discussion - in London - with two analyst friends looking at the future we turned to the Pacific. I recalled a reference to the Chinese Coast Guard (or similar) having an observation presence on US Coastguard vessels in the North Pacific Ocean - for reasons I could not recall.

My memory was jogged by checking back numbers of 'Survival' (February-March 2011, pub. by IISS) which has an article 'Policing the Waves: Maritime Paramilitaries in the Asia Pacific'. At the end it refers to an annual meeting, the North Pacific Coast Guard Forum, with PRC, Canada, Japan, RoK, Russia and the USA.

A search then found my memory was correct:
Both the United States and China actively participate in international efforts to deter the practice of large-scale high seas drift net fishing as encouraged by a 1992 United Nations moratorium. The Coast Guard and NOAA Fisheries Service annually host enforcement officers from the China Fishery Law Enforcement Command on board Coast Guard cutters patrolling in the North Pacific Ocean.

From:http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ole/news/2012/08/14_uscgdacheng.htm

Then an comments by the USCG Commander for the Pacific:http://www.civilbeat.com/articles/2012/09/04/17002-the-rising-east-change-comes-to-us-coast-guard-in-the-pacific/

There is more detail of the August 2012:http://coastguard.dodlive.mil/2012/08/international-partnership-nabs-another-drift-net-violator/

It is an interesting example of how multiple national interests can be pursued through what appears to be a strange coalition.

One wonders if this could happen in the South China Sea? Yes, fishery protection is quite different from territorial disputes.

Backwards Observer
01-21-2013, 04:02 PM
A "lurker" suggested posting this Hudson Institute paper 'Information-based Arms Control and Sino-American Trust' by Dr Christopher Ford, alongside his reflections on dealing with the Chinese.

Thanks for posting these. The author displays an exceptional level of writing skill.


I once assumed that most such things were simply an uncoordinated, unsystematic prickliness bespeaking merely Beijing’s ongoing insecurity in the modern world and the crudely propagandistic reflexes of the Chinese Party-State. And I had assumed that the “non-interference” theme in PRC diplomatic discourse was simply a propaganda trope intended to be alternatively invoked or ignored with opportunistic and often hypocritical cynicism.

['.']

It does seem to be the case that China’s modern ruling elite views politico-moral discourse control as a crucial determinant of “comprehensive national power.” But this isn’t just some newfound enthusiasm for constructivist international relations theory. We may in fact see here a modern incarnation of the ancient Confucian “rectification of names,” in which properly characterizing key actors in a system of order determines the relationships and responsibilities between them. Through such a prism, control over “naming” is essentially the same thing as controlling the system of order itself. Nor can there be anything purely “internal” about such characterizations, for they are in part constitutive of systemic order, and thus everybody’s business.

['.']

China’s fixation upon shaping others’ accounts of China, then, is arguably not necessarily “just” the result of insecurity or narcissism. Some of it may in fact grow out of a deeply-rooted conception of social order in which narrative control is inherently a strategic objective because it is assumed that status or role ascriptions and moral characterizations play a critical role in shaping the world they describe. (It seems to be felt, for instance, that if the world understands China “properly,” it will tend to behave toward China as China’s rulers desire; controlling others’ conceptual frameworks may be felt at least as important as more traditionally tangible aspects of international dominion. How others view China and its role in the international system, moreover, may feed back into its regime’s own legitimacy narrative at home, and thus its continued monopolization of power.) Through this lens, my PLA counterparts’ emphasis upon demanding concurrence with Beijing’s characterization of the region’s politico-moral backstory, as it were, was not a self-indulgent distraction from the task at hand, but in fact the game itself.

As the old story goes, polishing a stone may not make a mirror, but it is possible that it improves the quality of the reflection.:)

Nangaku Ejõ (http://dogenandtheshobogenzo.blogspot.com.au/2011/02/zazen-polishing-tile-to-make-mirror.html)

Nányuè Huáiràng (http://www.absolutoracle.com/Notezen/Articles/koan1.htm)

Ray
01-21-2013, 07:11 PM
It is every difficult to know what the Chinese say and what they mean.

Too much of it is in pious platitudes, homilies and mealy mouthed outpourings.

Their statements are tongue in cheek!

Backwards Observer
01-22-2013, 12:14 AM
It is every difficult to know what the Chinese say and what they mean.

Too much of it is in pious platitudes, homilies and mealy mouthed outpourings.

Their statements are tongue in cheek!

Reading this comment brings to mind another common Chan/Zen saying, sometimes phrased as, "Why did Bodhidharma go to China?".:rolleyes:

The Story of Bodhidharma (http://www.usashaolintemple.org/chanbuddhism-history/) - USA Shaolin Temple

Ray
01-22-2013, 07:24 AM
Nice story!

Did enlighten the people!

Backwards Observer
01-22-2013, 09:25 AM
Indeed. Current scholarship from the Korean Zen lineage suggests that Bodhidharma's teacher, Prajnatara, was actually a Yogini. Fascinating.


According to the story of Prajnatara from Kerala, originally she was a homeless waif who wandered western India and called herself Keyura, which means "necklace" or "bracelet." One day she met Master Punyamitra, and they felt a great dharma connection between them from past lives.

She became Punyamitra's student and was re-named Prajnatara. She is remembered as an accomplished yogini and also as a powerful Siddhi who could see into the past, present and future.

When Huns swept through northern India in the 5th century, Prajnatara went further south to escape the chaos. The Pallava king of south India, Simhavarman, invited her to teach in his capital, Kanchipuram. King Simhavarman's youngest son, Bodhitara, became her student and was ordained a monk with the name Bodhidharma.

Prajnatara, seeing that the dharma would leave India, advised Bodhidharma to go to China after she died. And so, some time after his teacher's death at the age of 67, Bodhidharma traveled to China and eventually to Shaolin.

Prajnatara: Mother of Zen? (http://buddhism.about.com/b/2010/10/28/prajnatara-mother-of-zen.htm)

Ray
01-22-2013, 01:47 PM
Fascinating.

Thanks.

I had no idea of all this.

Ray
01-23-2013, 08:12 AM
Allies Offer US Strong Advantages, And Some Risk, In China Rivalry

America counts heavily on a cordon of allies stretching from Japan to the north down to Thailand, and across to India, in the highly unlikely event of war with China. But these same allies could draw the U.S. into strictly local disputes in which America does not always have a clear security interest and which could destabilize the region.

Asian powers including India and Japan possess large, sophisticated navies and air arms which, combined with U.S. Pacific forces, could outgun the rapidly-modernizing People's Liberation Army in wartime. And in peacetime, these same regional powers can help as counters to Beijing's growing influence.

In most conflicts short of war in Indo-Pacific Asia, however, Washington must be careful not to take sides, for backing allies in even minor spats could come at the cost of regional stability, experts say......


http://defense.aol.com/2012/09/11/allies-offer-us-strong-advantages-and-some-risk-in-china-rivar/

davidbfpo
01-23-2013, 05:56 PM
From an observer and edited:
As you astutely observe, the North Pacific Coast Guard Forum is an excellent example of how otherwise militarily mistrustful countries can develop confidence-building measures through paramilitary agencies. As such, it does indeed, as you suggest, pose a potential template for the South China Sea.

There are, though, various barriers to the creation of a South China Sea Coast Guard Forum, primarily owing to the actors involved: China perceives a much greater benefit to be gained through coordination with the advanced and substantial coast guards of the North Pacific. By contrast, there are relatively few practical gains to be had from China engaging with the coast guards of most South-east Asian countries.

Nonetheless, as a confidence building measures (CBM), and one that could be driven by non-disputants such as Singapore, it is certainly a worthwhile suggestion and idea to pursue.

Dayuhan
01-23-2013, 11:42 PM
Good sober article, nice to see people write on the subject without hysteria or paranoia.

Of course the US wants allies that will help out if we get in a mess but doesn't want to commit to helping out if they get in a mess. The allies, of course, want the same thing. Calls for a bit of compromise along the way.

SWJ Blog
08-12-2013, 11:20 AM
U.S. Geopolitics: Afghanistan and the Containment of China (http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/us-geopolitics-afghanistan-and-the-containment-of-china)

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/us-geopolitics-afghanistan-and-the-containment-of-china) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

davidbfpo
12-12-2013, 02:39 PM
About pivot! A thought provoking article id'd by The Lowy Institute blog on Sino-US relations, which reverses the two nations positions:
Historically, it is somewhat unusual for one great power to have a tight set of alliances in the immediate neighborhood of another great power and to maintain a lot of military force in its vicinity, without the other power having a compensating presence in close proximity to its rival.

Which goes on:
What if we lived in a geopolitical bizarre world, in which, instead of the US having two treaty allies on China's doorstep with accompanying naval and air force bases and tens of thousands of troops, it was China which held the strategic upper hand in the Americas? A naval base in Cuba, perhaps. An alliance with Canada which included the permanent basing of 100,000 Chinese troops. Near-constant surveillance flights and regular submarine patrols off the California coast.

I'm not saying this is China's ambition, merely that the idea of it exposes how unusual the current Asian balance of power arrangement is, and how understandable it would be for the US to chafe at such treatment, particularly if, in this bizarre world scenario, the US was just blossoming into an economic giant which wanted to take its proper place as a world power.

Link:http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/2013/12/09/Stephen-Walts-big-question-How-long-will-China-tolerate-Americas-role-in-Asia.aspx

The original article which led to the Lowy piece was by Stephen Walt on FP, which is slightly longer, is called 'How long will China tolerate America's role in Asia':http://www.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/12/02/whats_the_big_question_answer_the_us_and_china

There is a long-running thread 'China's Emergence as a Superpower', with 712 posts and nearly 83k views since February 2006. Maybe this thread will be merged there one day:http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=4366

davidbfpo
12-13-2013, 07:13 PM
Not that such incidents have not happened before in the 'Cold War', indeed the super-powers had an agreement to prevent such incidents. IIRC there is no such Sino-US agreement, although there is a military-to-military "hot-line".


The guided missile cruiser USS Cowpens...was confronted by Chinese warships in the South China Sea near Beijing’s new aircraft carrier Liaoning....

“On December 5th, while lawfully operating in international waters in the South China Sea, USS Cowpens and a PLA Navy vessel had an encounter that required maneuvering to avoid a collision,” a Navy official said.

Link:http://freebeacon.com/chinese-naval-vessel-tries-to-force-u-s-warship-to-stop-in-international-waters/

davidbfpo
12-13-2013, 07:39 PM
An IISS Strategic Comment on the newly declared ADIZ into the East China Sea, beyond internationally recognised boundaries and so affecting Japan, RoK and PRC let alone others. Being published today it is als behind a pay-wall:http://www.iiss.org/en/publications/strategic%20comments/sections/2013-a8b5/china--39-s-air-zone-rouses-regional-fears-9a92

So far restraint has been exercised.

SWJ Blog
02-25-2014, 04:21 AM
What Happens When a Navy Officer Gets Real on China? (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/what-happens-when-a-navy-officer-gets-real-on-china)

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/what-happens-when-a-navy-officer-gets-real-on-china) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

SWJ Blog
04-18-2014, 02:37 PM
China Boast: U.S. Marines Would be Like ‘Marching Band’ in All Out Fight (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/china-boast-us-marines-would-be-like-%E2%80%98marching-band%E2%80%99-in-all-out-fight)

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/china-boast-us-marines-would-be-like-%E2%80%98marching-band%E2%80%99-in-all-out-fight) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

AdamG
01-17-2015, 01:45 PM
The aircraft carrier George Washington has not been attacked, and World War III has not begun, despite what tweets from United Press International say, the Navy has confirmed.

The carrier is in port, not in the South China Sea, the Navy told Military Times on Friday.

UPI issued a statement on Friday saying its Twitter account and website had been hacked on Friday afternoon.
http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/pentagon/2015/01/16/george-washington-not-attacked-navy-upi/21868543/

Bill Moore
04-10-2015, 12:09 PM
http://theweek.com/articles/548388/uschina-war-unthinkable-also-may-inevitable

A U.S.-China war is unthinkable. It also may be inevitable.


First, the economic tension: "Beijing's plans for a new multilateral Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank have put Washington on edge," notes Johns Hopkins China expert Ho-fung Hung. "More than 40 countries, including major United States allies in Europe, have signed up to join it despite the Obama administration's objections and warnings."


Then, the militarization and geopolitics: Obama's new Defense secretary, Ash Carter, is telegraphing a response to China's aggressive militarization of the South China Sea. "We and many other countries are deeply concerned about some of the activities China is undertaking,"

davidbfpo
04-11-2015, 03:22 PM
Bill,

Is this public ONI document a factor in your thoughts?

I found a reference via a Bill Gertz article (via Twitter) which starts with:
China has deployed a new high-speed anti-ship cruise missile and is sharply expanding an armada of advanced guided-missile warships and submarines, according to a naval intelligence report made public Thursday. The Office of Naval Intelligence, in its first unclassified assessment of the Chinese navy in six years, revealed (http://www.oni.navy.mil/Intelligence_Community/china_media/2015_PLA_NAVY_PUB_Interactive.pdf) deployment of the new YJ-18 supersonic anti-ship cruise missile on warships and submarines that analysts say poses a major threat to U.S. and allied vessels.
China’s current naval force of 300 surface ships, submarines, amphibious ships, and missile-armed patrol craft is rapidly expanding, the report says.

Link:http://freebeacon.com/national-security/oni-reveals-massive-chinese-naval-buildup/

The ONI report (45 pg PDF):http://www.oni.navy.mil/Intelligence_Community/china_media/2015_PLA_NAVY_PUB_Interactive.pdf

Bill Moore
04-11-2015, 09:54 PM
Bill,

Is this public ONI document a factor in your thoughts?

I found a reference via a Bill Gertz article (via Twitter) which starts with:
Link:http://freebeacon.com/national-security/oni-reveals-massive-chinese-naval-buildup/

The ONI report (45 pg PDF):http://www.oni.navy.mil/Intelligence_Community/china_media/2015_PLA_NAVY_PUB_Interactive.pdf

If I understand your question, my answer would be no. What the ONI report put in the public domain was fairly well known by national security specialists and military planners. I'm curious why the ONI report was published in an unclassified document. I suspect that one reason is to send a wake up call to the American people and Congress that we can't afford to under invest in our navy in these dangerous times. China's aggressive behavior well outside of international norms is already well known by other countries in East Asia, and many are asking if the U.S. will honor its security commitments. This is one region where traditional deterrence still matters.

China's use of its paramilitary fishing fleets, coast guard and then its Navy is one way it can achieve its goals without crossing red lines. The fact that China is expanding select atolls in the South China Sea, and then building military bases is clearly an aggressive move. China doesn't want diplomatic international intervention, they just want to threaten countries in the region one on one. The so-called cabbage strategy is appropriate.

To get a view of how some Chinese military leaders view the situation read the somewhat dated article below. It is a battle of the narrative, but China's territorial claims have no legal basis whatsoever in the South China Sea.

http://chinadailymail.com/2013/05/28/china-boasts-of-strategy-to-recover-islands-occupied-by-philippines/

China boasts of strategy to “recover” islands occupied by Philippines


“What one has stolen has to be returned. No matter how long the Philippines have illegally occupied those Chinese islands and reefs, I believe that it cannot change the fact that those islands and reefs are inherent Chinese territories. However, what shall we do to counter those rude and barbarian acts of the Philippines?”

Zhang Zhaozhong: What should we do about those islands and reefs? I think that in the main we have done some things relatively successfully in dealing with the Philippines. Since the 1990s, the Philippines has done quite a few illegal and irrational things in its attempt to turn the Huangyan Island into its territory by means of presidential order, domestic legislation, and so on.

A more recent article in Foreign Affairs that worth the read.

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/143659/andrew-s-erickson-and-conor-m-kennedy/chinas-island-builders

China’s Island Builders
The People’s War At Sea


Recent satellite images show that the Spratly islands, a series of features in the South China Sea, are growing at a staggering pace. Tons of sand, rocks, coral cuttings, and concrete are transforming miniscule Chinese-occupied outcroppings into sizeable islands with harbors, large multi-story buildings, airstrips, and other government facilities. The parties behind the construction and defense of these islands remain a thinly veiled secret. As China builds up its presence in the South China Sea, it is also greatly increasing its ability to monitor, bully, and even project force against its neighbors. In Machiavelli’s words, Beijing has decided that it is more important to be feared than loved—and that making progress before a new U.S. president pushes back is crucial to its regional aspirations.

Bill Moore
04-12-2015, 01:59 PM
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/143659/andrew-s-erickson-and-conor-m-kennedy/chinas-island-builders

A couple of interesting points made in the Foreign Affairs article.

- China believes President Obama is weak, so they have considerable freedom of movement in the South China Sea.

- China's fishing fleet is already a paramilitary asset (you can see attached video in the article on how they harass), but now there is discussion on arming the fishermen.


“putting on camouflage they qualify as soldiers, taking off the camouflage they become law abiding fishermen.” Maritime militia units are charged with making both peacetime and wartime contributions to Maritime Rights Protection under the rubric of People’s War at Sea.

Also a Chinese company doing construction work in the South China Sea (building artificial islands and then building military bases on top of them) has received numerous awards for their support to national security. It should be apparent to most level headed people that China's economic competition is tied hand-in-hand with its military competition, it is all part of one coherent strategy.

Another form of economic competition (if you will), is backing up paramilitary military fishing ships with their Coast Guard equivalent (white hulls) to make it look like a law enforcement issue, that way staying in the gray zone below traditional war, but it is warfare by most people's definition of using force to impose their will upon others.


On March 26, 2013, China’s most advanced fishery patrol ship, Yuzheng 310, confronted an Indonesian Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries vessel in the Exclusive Economic Zone off Natuna Island (claimed by Indonesia), apparently jamming its communications with headquarters in order to coerce the Indonesian vessel to release Chinese fishermen detained for illegal fishing. Chinese MLE vessels have bullied Vietnamese and Philippine ships as well, attacking fishing ships in international waters.

Overall the trend lines for long term peace in East Asia are not positive. We are far from the point where all is lost, but more deterrence (both capacity and the demonstrated will to use it) is required to start with, because unfortunately pure diplomacy doesn't seem to work the PRC government. It is greatly disappointing, almost unbelievable, that China would risk falling off the path to greatness with their immature foreign policies. Of course this is why so many in the West are in a state of denial, because their actions seem illogical.

AdamG
05-08-2015, 02:53 PM
How the United States Lost the Naval War of 2015

James Kraska
Stockton Center for the Study of International Law; University of Virginia School of Law, Center for Oceans Law & Policy; University of Virginia School of Law, Center for National Security Law; Duke University Marine Laboratory; University of California Berkeley School of Law, Law of the Sea Institute; Foreign Policy Research Institute (FPRI)

2010

Orbis (Foreign Policy Research Institute), pp. 35-46, Winter 2001


Abstract:
Years of strategic missteps in oceans policy, naval strategy and a force structure in decline set the stage for U.S. defeat at sea in 2015. After decades of double-digit budget increases, the People’s Liberation Army (Navy) was operating some of the most impressive systems in the world, including a medium-range ballistic missile that could hit a moving aircraft carrier and a super-quiet diesel electric submarine that was stealthier than U.S. nuclear submarines. Coupling this new asymmetric naval force to visionary maritime strategy and oceans policy, China ensured that all elements of national power promoted its goal of dominating the East China Sea. The United States, in contrast, had a declining naval force structured around 10 aircraft carriers spread thinly throughout the globe. With a maritime strategy focused on lower order partnerships,and a national oceans policy that devalued strategic interests in freedom of navigation, the stage was set for defeat at sea. This article recounts how China destroyed the USS George Washington in the East China Sea in 2015. The political fallout from the disaster ended 75 years of U.S. dominance in the Pacific Ocean and cemented China’s position as the Asian hegemon.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1648631

Bob's World
05-08-2015, 03:30 PM
Nations do not expand their sovereignty based on legal merit (particularly when what is legal or illegal is largely established by their opponents). Nations expand their sovereignty when they believe it to be in their interest to do so, and believe they have the power to do so.

China has built a navy designed to seriously hurt the US Navy, and thereby deter the US from employing it to curb their long-stated ambitions. The US Navy keeps buying ever bigger, more vulnerable, more expensive carriers of aircraft too few and too expensive to put at risk. Where is our asymmetric counter to China's??

So far, phase 0 goes to the Chinese...as our Navy is stuck in WWII, and our Air Force is stuck in the Cold War. We must first change the way we think, not blame our competitors for refusing to play our game indefinitely.

Our carrier-centered navy may well be as obsolete as our battleship-centered navy was in 1940. Do we really have to wait for a more agile opponent to sink half of it to refocus for the world we live in today?

davidbfpo
05-12-2015, 09:43 PM
Just spotted this on a HJS mailing for an event a month ago in London:
With Professor Christopher Coker, Professor of International Relations at the London School of Economics and Political Science, and author of The Improbable War: China, the United States and the Logic of Great Power Conflict.

Professor Coker expanded upon the arguments set forth in his book, arguing that the next global conflict is likely to be played out in cyberspace and outer space and like all previous wars it will have devastating consequences. He made a case for why such a war between the United States and China may seem improbable, but is actually all too possible.

Transcript of event:http://henryjacksonsociety.org/2015/04/09/event-transcript-the-improbable-war-china-the-united-states-and-the-logic-of-great-power-conflict/

Bob's World
05-13-2015, 01:22 AM
If we bump with China, I would be very surprised indeed if there was not significant action in both space and cyber. These are domains we both compete within and build capabilities either designed for the other, or that are a threat to the other and therefore a target.

No surprise there. Cyber and space may be similar to how great powers have prodded at each other in small 3rd party conflicts, like we did with the Soviets in Vietnam and Afghanistan and elsewhere. A space where one can impose costs with low risk of direct warfare on one's home turf.

AdamG
05-22-2015, 03:35 PM
China declared victory on Friday over an encounter with a US surveillance aircraft overflying the contested South China Sea, saying its military "drove away" the intruder with radio warnings.

http://news.yahoo.com/china-declares-victory-us-surveillance-overflight-114402363.html

AdamG
05-27-2015, 01:45 AM
US-China war 'inevitable' unless Washington drops demands over South China Sea

Warning from state-run China newspaper as Beijing reveals plans for development of disputed South China Sea islands

China’s armed forces are to extend their operations and its air force will become an offensive as well as defensive force for the first time, in a major shift in policy that will strengthen fears of accidental conflict.

A policy document by the state council, or cabinet, said China faced a “grave and complex array of security threats”, justifying the change.

The People’s Liberation Army, including its navy and air force, will be allowed to “project power” further beyond its borders at sea and more assertively in the air in order to safeguard its maritime possessions, the white paper stated.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/11630185/US-China-war-inevitable-unless-Washington-drops-demands-over-South-China-Sea.html

AdamG
06-01-2015, 03:28 PM
Related.



May 22, 2015 7:01 AM

China and Russia conducted joint naval exercises this week in the Mediterranean Sea — a sign, some security experts say, that the two countries are stepping up defense cooperation to offset U.S. military primacy.

The Russian Defense Ministry said a total of 10 warships from the Russian Navy and China’s People's Liberation Army Navy took part in the week-long exercises. The Chinese Defense Ministry said the joint exercises focused on navigation safety, at-sea replenishment, escort missions and live fire exercises.

http://www.voanews.com/content/are-chinese-russian-military-excercises-effort-to-offset-us-primacy/2782818.html


15:41 May 12, 2015 Interfax

Russian and Chinese naval ships are expected to sail out of the Novorossiysk port and head to the Mediterranean Sea to hold their Joint Sea-2015 maneuvers, on Tuesday, the Russian Defense Ministry has reported.

"The active phase of the exercises will take place in a certain district of the Mediterranean Sea from May 17 to May 21," the ministry's spokesman for the Navy Captain 1st Rank Igor Dygalo told Interfax-AVN on Tuesday.

The unit of the Russian Navy and the People's Liberation Army Navy of China includes China's Linyi and the Weifang frigates and the Russian Black Sea Fleet's Samum amphibious ship, he said. They are expected to cross the Black Sea, sail through the Bosporus and the Dardanelles and catch up with other ships participating in the maneuvers in the eastern part of the Mediterranean Sea.

- http://rbth.com/news/2015/05/12/russian_and_chinese_naval_ships_to_head_to_site_of _mediterranean_sea_dri_45923.html)


Antonov also said he was concerned about stability in the region, naming the US as the main destabilizing factor. He said that Washington's policies have been aimed against Russia and China: "We are concerned by US policies in the region, especially since every day it becomes increasingly focused on a systemic containment of Russia and China."

http://rt.com/news/263533-rusia-multinational-navy-drills/

davidbfpo
06-17-2015, 07:32 PM
From Post 9, three weeks ago
China declared victory on Friday over an encounter with a US surveillance aircraft overflying the contested South China Sea, saying its military "drove away" the intruder with radio warnings.
http://news.yahoo.com/china-declares-victory-us-surveillance-overflight-114402363.html

It appears this incident was recorded by CNN, as they are now showing an 'exclusive' report from aboard the P8 maritime patrol plane:http://pzfeed.com/cnn-exclusive-inside-a-u-s-spy-plane/

Bill Moore
07-19-2015, 03:31 AM
I look forward to reading Peter Singer's new book, "Ghost Fleet," even it does appear to be focused mostly on all domains (cyber, air, space, and maritime) except land and human (if you accept the concept of human domain). I think Peter is correct in that our strategies are failing to incorporate uncomfortable what if's, and the implications of those what if's, and how to adapt.

http://theweek.com/articles/565740/could-china-defeatamerica-world-war-iii


The Communist Party no longer rules China. In its place is a plutocratic-military regime known as the Directorate. The regime severs its ties with the U.S. — which it perceives as a declining empire holding China back from vital energy resources. With Russian support, China launches a surprise attack on the U.S. Pacific Fleet, resulting in its near total destruction.


"In a future battle of high technology, much of the technology will negate itself," he added. "So there's an irony that in a world of robotics, the internet, satellites, that the fight could play out like the battles of World War II."

In Ghost Fleet, the Directorate destroys America's satellites, blinds its warships and fighter jets with electronic noise, and clogs its communications networks with malware. This creates a "digital fog" that makes war just as confusing as America's historical naval battles with Japan.

flagg
07-19-2015, 09:15 PM
I look forward to reading Peter Singer's new book, "Ghost Fleet," even it does appear to be focused mostly on all domains (cyber, air, space, and maritime) except land and human (if you accept the concept of human domain). I think Peter is correct in that our strategies are failing to incorporate uncomfortable what if's, and the implications of those what if's, and how to adapt.

http://theweek.com/articles/565740/could-china-defeatamerica-world-war-iii

I've read "Ghost Fleet".

I was expecting it to be a 21st century digital generation Red Storm Rising.

I was pretty disappointed.

While I think it does a decent job of looking at the genuine threat posed by a fascist/capitalist/expansionist China and it tried to pull together all of the warfighting domains, I think it did so superficially and simply.

I feel they went quite wide(necessarily across the warfighting domains), but also quite shallow.

Too shallow in many aspects(political/economic warfare/effect and commentary on US and its core allies).

Some bright spots for sure, worth the read, but I don't think it's worth getting your Red Storm Rising hopes up.

-----

On an unrelated note. I've just finished a few books on RECONDO/LRRP operations in Vietnam.

It has left me thinking about the application of similar doctrine in the Pacific Ocean.

Large(r) numbers of small(er), cheap(er), stealth(ier) littoral/blue water "LRRP ships"(and submarines) that are capable of organic self-defense and organic offensive ambush, but largely a sensor net for prompt global strike.

But still capable of performing maritime policing/counter-piracy/presence patrols.

Meshed with satellite and manned/unmanned aerial ISR platforms.

In a "LRRP ship" context, if it's valid/relevant, the Littoral Combat Ship seems to make sense if that's part of it's intent.

But I wonder if the Chinese are closer to providing a regionally operational "maritime LRRP" capability with their sea/air/space sensors partnered with DF-21D?

davidbfpo
07-20-2015, 01:22 PM
Hat tip to WoTR for this review by Claude Berube who teaches at the U.S. Naval Academy:http://warontherocks.com/2015/07/ghost-fleet-the-best-techno-thriller-since-red-storm-rising/

The last passage:
The work has plenty to keep readers attentive, including military history and pop culture references such as direct and indirect homages to the Battlestar Galactica reboot, Star Trek, Red Dawn, and Tron. This is a book best savored in as few sittings as possible. The authors are clear enough in their message that America is vulnerable, and they’re right. But they’re also correct that innovative thinking will save us in the end

davidbfpo
08-11-2015, 01:08 PM
Hat tip to WoTR for this short article, which starts with:
The lessons of the Maginot Line extend well into the 21st century, as China constructs a coastal and offshore defensive belt to defend both its maritime and territorial claims with high-tech and static capabilities. With its Anti-Access/Area Denial (A2/AD) strategy, China aims to force the U.S. military to operate at a much greater distance from the Chinese mainland.
Link:http://warontherocks.com/2015/08/chinas-maginot-line/

Bob's World
08-11-2015, 03:36 PM
China's actions are consistent with those of rising powers throughout history, only colored by their own unique geography, history and culture.

They are doing what we would do in their place, only with more patience and wisdom. I am reminded of the joke of the Old Bull and the Young Bull standing on a hill top looking down at a herd of cows. The US being the young bull in this fable, and China the old.

If US policy is one of strategic stasis, then it means we must keep putting more and more energy into the system, creating a pressure cooker effect as the relative balance of power shifts between the US and China in the region (and in general). But unless China collapses internally ( a distinct possibility that they are very aware of), at some point the pressure cooker will blow.

A policy of strategic evolution is more appropriate. But there are no right answers, and any tradeoffs, regardless of how wise or reasonable, will be labeled by many as "appeasement." Usually those who throw out terms like "appeasement" and "you can't abandon our allies" as rationale for sustaining strategic stasis are also closely related to the chicken hawks who will clamor for war over some small incident that challenges those rigid policies.

OUTLAW 09
08-12-2015, 07:06 AM
A soaring dollar could set off a currency war with China — via @TheFiscalTimes

http://read.bi/1Tn3daY

pic.twitter.com/6BFhm2v7PI

With their almost total collapse of their stock exchanges coupled with the devaluation yesterday China is actually struggling to get their economy under control and coupled with a sudden and not anticipated slow down in exports--they are struggling regardless of how they color the picture.

It will get worse when the Fed starts their rise of the US interest rates which will further strengthen the global USD.

OUTLAW 09
08-12-2015, 06:15 PM
A soaring dollar could set off a currency war with China — via @TheFiscalTimes

http://read.bi/1Tn3daY

pic.twitter.com/6BFhm2v7PI

With their almost total collapse of their stock exchanges coupled with the devaluation yesterday China is actually struggling to get their economy under control and coupled with a sudden and not anticipated slow down in exports--they are struggling regardless of how they color the picture.

It will get worse when the Fed starts their rise of the US interest rates which will further strengthen the global USD.

This is pretty much "in your face":China lets yuan fall further, fuels fears of currency war http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0QG04U20150812 …

davidbfpo
08-20-2015, 11:46 AM
Hat tip to WoTR for a reply to China's Maginot Line (Post 16 here):http://warontherocks.com/2015/08/the-danger-of-historical-analogies-the-south-china-sea-and-the-maginot-line/?

AdamG
10-20-2015, 03:28 AM
On October 13, 2015, China started the 24 hour test flight of its largest airship yet in Xilinhot, Inner Mongolia. The Yuanmeng has a volume of 18,000 cubic meters, a length of 75 meters and a height of 22 meters. It will fly to 20,000 meters to test its control systems and near-space flight performance. With solar panels installed on its top, the Yuanmeng will be one of the largest solar-powered airships in existence. Using solar power to drive its rotors will save additional weight in order to increase payload, and gives it a total flight endurance of six months. The Yuanmeng's 5- to 7-ton payload of data relays, datalinks, cameras and other sensors would also be powered by the sun.
http://www.popsci.com/china-tests-its-largest-airship


See also
http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=1087&highlight=airship

SWJ Blog
01-31-2016, 09:36 PM
China Reorganizing Military to Close Gap with U.S. (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/china-reorganizing-military-to-close-gap-with-us)

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/china-reorganizing-military-to-close-gap-with-us) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

SWJ Blog
02-24-2016, 06:22 AM
The Exotic New Weapons the Pentagon Wants to Deter Russia and China (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/the-exotic-new-weapons-the-pentagon-wants-to-deter-russia-and-china)

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/the-exotic-new-weapons-the-pentagon-wants-to-deter-russia-and-china) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

AdamG
01-20-2017, 02:34 PM
I wonder how they stole the technology.


The Sharp Sword is the first non-NATO stealthy unmanned combat aerial vehicle (UCAV). Built by Aviation Industry Corporation of China, with much of the work done by the Hongdu Aviation Industry Group, the Sharp Sword first flew in November 2013. Looking a bit like a mini-B-2 flying wing bomber, the UCAV has two internal bomb bays and a likely payload of about 4,400 pounds. Its engine is a non-afterburning WS-13 turbofan engine, with serpentine inlet to hide the engine from enemy radars (the first Sharp Sword does not use a stealthy nozzle due to its technology demonstrator status). It has a length of about 33 feet, and a wingspan of about 46 feet.

http://www.popsci.com/china-sharp-sword-lijian-stealth-drone?src=SOC&dom=fb

Azor
01-20-2017, 05:58 PM
I wonder how they stole the technology.

http://www.popsci.com/china-sharp-sword-lijian-stealth-drone?src=SOC&dom=fb

Is it my sick and twisted imagination, or does Popular Science have a love for all weapons Chinese?

They certainly have beaten the Russians in the areas of HGVs, railguns and UAVs.

Wasn't BAE's Taranis the first stealth UCAV? It would be good to know that the British can still do it, as they did with the Meteor and the V-bombers...

Keep in mind the following:

1. The Chinese are adept at creating mock-ups of Western aircraft that aren't necessarily the real thing on the inside
2. The West has been well aware of Chinese espionage efforts for decades now
3. Rather than attempting to keep advanced technology completely secret, it is preferable to allow tainted IP to filter to the adversary, where it can cause mayhem (e.g. the Soviet oil pipeline)
4. The Taranis has an IOC date of ~2029, but this is likely a lie

AdamG
02-04-2018, 03:38 PM
Ever since Eraser, everyone wants a railgun. Turns out China is no exception. Some photos posted by Dafeng Cao, a Twitter user who keeps close tabs on Chinese military developments, show a ship-mounted gun that could very well be the country's very own homegrown electromagnetically propelled mass driver.
Railguns, or coil guns, accelerate solid metal projectiles using ultra-strong electromagnets, firing them well above speeds achieved by conventional ballistic methods. We're talking Mach 6 here. The U.S. has been working on them for years, and has produced some very cool test videos, but I haven't heard about any of them being mounted on ships.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/sure-looks-china-ship-mounted-191815169.html

https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/DR.VXQYO7gTXgdHGSD8kiQ--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9OTYwO2g9NjQw/http://media.zenfs.com/en-US/homerun/techcrunch_350/7774bc1c227227b30c44dca031c15096

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DVCojXnUMAIAbmh.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DVComwYUQAAR3u_.jpg

AdamG
03-05-2018, 07:35 PM
DANANG, Vietnam (Reuters) - A U.S. aircraft carrier arrived in Vietnam on Monday for the first time since the end of the Vietnam War, dramatically underscoring the growing strategic ties between the former foes at a time when China’s regional influence is rising. The imposing grey silhouette of the USS Carl Vinson could be seen from the cliff tops just outside the central Vietnamese city of Danang, where the 103,000-tonne carrier and two other U.S. ships begin a five-day visit.

https://in.reuters.com/article/usa-vietnam-carrier-vietnam/u-s-carrier-arrives-in-vietnam-amid-rising-chinese-influence-in-region-idINKBN1GH0SF

AdamG
03-05-2018, 07:40 PM
Is it my sick and twisted imagination, or does Popular Science have a love for all weapons Chinese?

Popular Science isn't as hard-core as it was in our youth.

AdamG
03-09-2018, 02:19 PM
An economist who believes that Chinese goods are literally poisoning Americans, advocates ending Washington's "One China" policy and says trade deals have weakened the United States economically with the connivance of U.S. business has emerged as the big winner from renewed turmoil in the White House.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-trump-navarro-analysis/death-by-china-economist-ascendant-as-trump-pushes-tariffs-hits-china-idUSKCN1GJ2TU

AdamG
05-03-2018, 04:44 PM
Cross-thread traffic time.
http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?2164-China-s-Expanding-Role-in-Africa&p=211271&viewfull=1#post211271

AdamG
05-22-2018, 06:18 PM
The West may be too late to stop Beijing in S. China Sea, says analyst
The Pentagon warns Beijing is continuing to destabilize one of the most contested regions in the world. Senior Lowy Institute Fellow Sam Roggeveen speaks with News Stream.
https://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2018/05/22/news-stream-coren-stout-roggeveen-lowy-south-china-sea.cnn

AdamG
06-02-2018, 04:57 PM
Indicators (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pjw2A3QU8Qg)



SINGAPORE — Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis harshly criticized the Chinese government on Saturday for its continuing militarization of a string of islands in the South China Sea, calling the new presence of advanced military equipment and missiles there a flagrant show of military power.

“Despite China’s claims to the contrary, the placement of these weapons systems is tied directly to military use for the purposes of intimidation and coercion,” Mr. Mattis said during a speech on Saturday at the annual Shangri-La Dialogue, a regional security conference.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/01/world/asia/mattis-south-china-sea.html

AdamG
07-08-2018, 02:24 PM
WASHINGTON/TAIPEI (Reuters) - Two U.S. warships passed through the Taiwan Strait on Saturday on a voyage that will likely be viewed in the self-ruled island as a sign of support by President Donald Trump amid heightened tension with China. "Two U.S. Navy ships conducted a routine transit through the international waters of the Taiwan Strait on July 7-8 (local time)," Captain Charlie Brown, a spokesman for U.S. Pacific Fleet, told Reuters in a statement.

"U.S. Navy Ships transit between the South China Sea and East China Sea via the Taiwan Strait and have done so for many years," Brown said.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-warships-pass-taiwan-strait-amid-heightened-tensions-021648932.html

AdamG
07-08-2018, 02:26 PM
The U.S. State Department has issued a request for U.S. Marines to be stationed in Taiwan for the protection of diplomatic personal in Taipei, according to CNN. The request comes as China ramps up military exercises in the Taiwan Straits amid a looming trade war with the U.S.

https://taskandpurpose.com/marines-taiwan-china-mattis/

AdamG
07-22-2018, 02:30 AM
China is waging a 'quiet kind of cold war' against US, top CIA expert says


Beijing doesn't want to go to war, a top CIA expert on Asia said, but the current communist government, under President Xi Jinping, is subtly working on multiple fronts to undermine the U.S. in ways that are different than the more well-publicized activities being employed by Russia.

"I would argue ... that what they're waging against us is fundamentally a cold war -- a cold war not like we saw during THE Cold War (between the U.S. and the Soviet Union) but a cold war by definition," Michael Collins, deputy assistant director of the CIA's East Asia mission center, said at the Aspen Security Forum in Colorado.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/21/us-china-trade-china-is-waging-a-quiet-kind-of-cold-war-against-us.html

AdamG
08-21-2018, 10:26 AM
Beijing (AFP) - China on Saturday rejected what it called an "irresponsible" Pentagon report claiming Beijing's bombers are likely training for strikes against US and allied targets in the Pacific. The Thursday report said China was leveraging its growing military, economic and diplomatic clout to rapidly establish regional dominance, while its bombers were developing capabilities to hit targets as far from the Chinese mainland as possible. Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Lu Kang said the report was "presumptuous and irresponsible", stating it was "in total disregard of facts" in a Saturday statement.


China is engaged in a decades-long build-up and modernisation of its once-backward armed forces, and military leaders have set a goal of fielding a world-class force by 2050. Last year, six Chinese H-6K bombers flew through the Miyako Strait in the southwest of the Japanese islands, and then for the first time turned north to fly east of Okinawa, where 47,000 US troops are based.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/china-rejects-irresponsible-pentagon-report-bombers-113003575.html

AdamG
08-21-2018, 11:11 AM
Why Japan Truly Failed at Pearl Harbor (And What China May Learn From It)
https://www.yahoo.com/news/why-japan-truly-failed-pearl-160000942.html

In short, this is a rival who seems to have learned from Yamamoto: don’t jab a sleeping giant, and if you do, don’t steel his resolve. Let him slumber until it’s late in the contest, and you may prevail. China may have learned the true lessons of Pearl Harbor. Let’s do the same—and get ready.

AdamG
09-26-2018, 04:49 AM
Washington (CNN)China's top naval officer canceled a visit to the US to meet with his American counterpart less than 48 hours before the meeting was scheduled to occur, according to two US defense officials.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/24/politics/chinese-admiral-cancels-us-meeting/index.html


HONG KONG — China has denied a request for a U.S. warship to visit Hong Kong, American officials said Tuesday. The incident came amid rising tensions between Beijing and Washington over tariffs and follows the U.S. last week imposing sanctions on China after it bought arms from Russia. The USS Wasp, an amphibious assault ship, had been due to make a port call in the former British colony of Hong Kong in October, diplomatic sources told Reuters. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/china-won-t-let-u-s-navy-ship-dock-hong-n912846

AdamG
10-01-2018, 12:02 PM
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - China has canceled a security meeting with U.S. Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis that had been planned for October, a senior U.S. official said on Sunday, days after a top Chinese official said there was no reason to panic over tensions between the countries.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-china-security/china-cancels-security-talks-with-united-states-idUSKCN1MB17G

AdamG
10-01-2018, 06:42 PM
China says its economy is slowing. Its central bank may be preparing to intervene
China's central bank is likely to cut reserve requirement ratios for banks one more time this year, said Jeff Ng, chief economist for Asia at Continuum Economics.
Over the weekend, a private survey showed growth in China's factory sector stalled after 15 months of expansion, with export orders falling the fastest in over two years.
An official survey also confirmed a further weakening in the manufacturing sector.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/01/beijing-will-act-on-slowdown-amid-us-china-trade-war-economist.html

AdamG
10-11-2018, 07:16 PM
Yanjun Xu, a senior officer with China’s Ministry of State Security, is accused of seeking to steal trade secrets from leading defence aviation firms, top Justice Department officials said
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/politics/article/2167973/chinese-spy-charged-stealing-us-aviation-secrets-and-extradited

AdamG
10-22-2018, 06:24 PM
TAIPEI/WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States sent two warships through the Taiwan Strait on Monday in the second such operation this year, as the U.S. military increases the frequency of transits through the strategic waterway despite opposition from China.

The voyage risks further heightening tensions with China but will likely be viewed in self-ruled Taiwan as a sign of support by President Donald Trump’s government, amid growing friction between Taipei and Beijing.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-taiwan-us/u-s-warships-pass-through-taiwan-strait-amid-china-tensions-idUSKCN1MW1Z0

AdamG
10-25-2018, 01:21 PM
Probably also warrants a separate thread under Futurists.

Retired Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges, who was U.S. Army commander in Europe from 2014-17, told the forum that it's likely but not inevitable that the United States will be at war with China in 15 years.
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2018/10/24/us-war-with-china-is-likely-in-15-years-retired-general-says/
See also
http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?25180-The-Indo-Asia-Pacific-and-the-Multi-Domain-Battle-Concept

AdamG
01-16-2019, 02:35 AM
Time for your Survival Kit Contents Check? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPwW7RaPO_g)


Amid increasing tensions with Beijing, the Pentagon on Tuesday released a new report that lays out U.S. concerns about China's growing military might, underscoring worries about a possible attack against Taiwan.

Speaking to reporters, a senior defense intelligence official said the key concern is that as China upgrades its military equipment and technology and reforms how it trains and develops troops, it becomes more confident in its ability to wage a regional conflict. And Beijing's leaders have made it clear that reasserting sovereignty over Taiwan is their top priority.

The official added, however, that although China could easily fire missiles at Taiwan, it doesn't yet have the military capability to successfully invade the self-governing island, which split from mainland China amid civil war in 1949. The official spoke on condition of anonymity in order to provide more detail on intelligence findings in the report, which was written by the Defense Intelligence Agency.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/defense-intel-report-fuels-worries-china-attack-taiwan-60400254