| Submit your comments on this article |
| China-Japan-Koreas |
| China's challenge |
| 2007-07-29 |
| U.S., European strategy must adjust to confront |
| Posted by:ryuge |
| #8 After multiple generations of 'family planning' China no longer has a surplus of young men to throw into war the way they did in Korea. In that regard they are now facing the same requirements as Western Europe and North America - lack of public willingness to risk high human cost, protracted war. It's genetic - if you only have 1-2 kids per family, you strive mightily to protect them; if you have 10, it's not such a big deal (despite what we may SAY and WANT to believe.) Hence Muzzies can send kids off as human sacrifices and Israelis don't. So China MUST develop high tech war capabilities now. And even if they ARE doing so, it takes time and iterations to do so. Not to mention battle testing of hardware, software (including tactics and strategy) and training. Big challenge. Furthermore, because of the massive trade between China and the US (and allies), China is now at least as dependent on the US as we are on them. War between us has become MAED - Mutual Assured Economic Destruction. Chinese leaders are pragmatic enough to recognize that too. War with China, through proxies or otherwise, would be subject to the same restrictions as Vietnam, or more. Neither side can afford to truly escalate to pursue 'victory', though it can be politically very difficult to withdraw and admit defeat, so you get decades of half-speed war. Stupid then, and stupid now - maybe we'll both recognize that and not go there. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2007-07-29 19:51 |
| #7 RUSSIA expanding its reach into the Arctic regions will likely induce the Canadians to de-regulate,expand and modernize their armed forces and security, or else rely on the USA. It also likely has future, "ripple effect" geopol/milpol consequences for GREENLAND, ICELAND, + NATO-EUROPE. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2007-07-29 19:23 |
| #6 United States needs to begin taking steps now to prepare for China's emergence as a major regional power. One thing that makes sense ... China emerging as a regional power, not a great power,not a superpower, a regional power... with limited reach because of other powerful states around it |
| Posted by: John Frum 2007-07-29 19:01 |
| #5 China's ballistic missiles could be used to attack runways and aircraft on the ground at U.S. and allied air bases in the Western Pacific, neutralizing U.S. land-based air power before it could get into the air. China is even trying to develop a way to hit a moving ship at sea with a ballistic missile, an unprecedented capability that would threaten the one U.S. advantage that until now China has had no answer for – the U.S. Navy's aircraft carriers. Even more nonsense |
| Posted by: John Frum 2007-07-29 18:58 |
| #4 After years of backwardness and inefficiency, China's defense industries are now producing weapons systems that are approaching the capability of those that constitute the bulk of the U.S. military's inventory. These include modern fighter jets, ships, surface-to-air missiles, and tanks roughly comparable to the F-15s and F-16s in the U.S. Air Force, the Aegis destroyers and Los Angeles-class attack submarines in the U.S. Navy, and the Patriot missiles and M1 tanks in the U.S. Army and Marine Corps. Utter nonsense |
| Posted by: John Frum 2007-07-29 18:57 |
| #3 Anonymoose, pls don't substitute/associate a common sense approach with craftiness. It's just that--a common sense approach. Just sayin'. |
| Posted by: twobyfour 2007-07-29 17:38 |
| #2 The US is also being very crafty in not only confronting China directly, but by boosting India, so that China will have somebody in its neighborhood to keep them occupied as well. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2007-07-29 15:55 |
| #1 Much has changed in the past 12 years. After years of backwardness and inefficiency, China's defense industries are now producing weapons systems that are approaching the capability of those that constitute the bulk of the U.S. military's inventory. These include modern fighter jets, ships, surface-to-air missiles, and tanks roughly comparable to the F-15s and F-16s in the U.S. Air Force, the Aegis destroyers and Los Angeles-class attack submarines in the U.S. Navy, and the Patriot missiles and M1 tanks in the U.S. Army and Marine Corps. I sincerely doubt such an appraisal. Otherwise, why would China be so aggressive in its pursuit of modern European weapons systems? This smacks of alarmism. The United States must also prepare to fight a wider range of potential adversaries than China. Many of the new weapons systems and capabilities that the United States is acquiring were selected in the 1990s and initially optimized for operations against the type of adversaries America faced during that decade – countries such as Iraq and Serbia that fielded largely low-tech capabilities leavened with a smattering of imported high-tech weapons. Many of these systems have since been modified to contend with more modern threats. Which is just one more good reason to give China an economic smackdown. We are pouring billions of dollars into their military funding pipeline, all the while degrading our own industrial base. Need I remind anyone that such an industrial base is vital to America's war fighting ability? Such possible adversaries had no hope of actually defeating the United States in a war; the primary U.S. concern in a conflict with them was how to minimize U.S. and civilian casualties. As a result, many of the new weapons systems the United States is acquiring are not necessarily the best ones for confronting a country such as China that will present a virtually across-the-board high-tech challenge. Even the author recognizes that China's completion of any military upgrade will take over a decade. In that time, American hardware will have evolved light years beyond anything China could even aspire to. Unless, that is, we keep handing over the farm to Chinese spies in America. Currently, the United States has about 200 fighter aircraft, nine surface warships, two attack submarines and one aircraft carrier based in Japan, South Korea or Guam. China, by contrast, has roughly 3,000 fighter aircraft, 70 surface warships and 60 attack submarines in East Asia. Although today perhaps only one in 10 of the Chinese aircraft and ships is a modern one comparable in capability to those operated by the United States, even that fraction conveys a numerical advantage for China. I'd wager heavily that America would enjoy kill ratios similar to those projected against a USSR invasion of Europe during the Cold War era. Those figures stood at 10:1 and I doubt the Chinese would fare any better, if not a whole lot worse. One valid observation the author makes is how we need to get our allies on board in terms of bolstering their military defense capabilities. Both Taiwan and Japan must come up to speed and spending upon the hardware needed to confront China's threat. They are the ones with the most to lose and need to act like it. South Korea's hopeless diddling with their Northern relatives have rendered them almost useless in this, save as a military outpost for our own troops. I look forward to a new generation of hypersonic missiles that can reach Chinese targets in a few hours. The fractionalized DARPA F-6 space platforms would also go a long way towards neutralizing any Chinese anti-satellite threat. Armed UAV systems also show huge promise in leveraging our assets without increasing troop deployment numbers. All of these facts point towards China remaining at a definite disadvantage for some time to come. Finally, as China modernizes its own infrastructure they become increasingly more vulnerable. In effect, they now have far more to lose than just some scattered rice paddies. Large projects like the Three Gorges Dam loom as massive targets of opportunity that would pose severe consequences should Chinese aggression draw unfavorable attention to themselves. This last development may serve to subdue China's expansionist aspirations more than any other single factor. Ironically, improved infrastructure should also propel China's evolution into a peaceful democracy. All that remains to be seen is if the Politburo's Mandarins can contain their greed and overweening sense of power long enough for that to happen. Since the advent of peaceful democracy would inherently signify the Mandarins' downfall, the prospects aren't necessarily so pleasing. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-07-29 15:49 |