How to Deter China

Discussion in 'China' started by jus, Mar 16, 2015.

  1. jus

    jus Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2014
    Messages:
    1,848
    Likes Received:
    1,208
    Location:
    Universe
    [​IMG]
    Soldiers shout as they practice in temperatures of about minus 22 degrees in Heilongjiang province, December 16, 2014.


    In the U.S. military, at least, the “pivot” to Asia has begun. By 2020, the navy and the air force plan to base 60 percent of their forces in the Asia-Pacific region. The Pentagon, meanwhile, is investing a growing share of its shrinking resources in new long-range bombers and nuclear-powered submarines designed to operate in high-threat environments.


    These changes are clearly meant to check an increasingly assertive China. And with good reason: Beijing’s expanding territorial claims threaten virtually every country along what is commonly known as “the first island chain,” encompassing parts of Japan, the Philippines, and Taiwan—all of which Washington is obligated to protect. But to reliably deter Chinese aggression, the Pentagon will have to go even further. Emerging Chinese capabilities are intended to blunt Washington’s ability to provide military support to its allies and partners. Although deterrence through the prospect of punishment, in the form of air strikes and naval blockades, has a role to play in discouraging Chinese adventurism, Washington’s goal, and that of its allies and partners, should be to achieve deterrence through denial—to convince Beijing that it simply cannot achieve its objectives with force.


    Leveraging the latent potential of U.S., allied, and partner ground forces, Washington can best achieve this objective by establishing a series of linked defenses along the first island chain—an “Archipelagic Defense”—and, in so doing, deny Beijing the ability to achieve its revisionist aims through aggression or coercion.



    THE RISKS OF REVISIONISM

    China wants to slowly but inexorably shift the regional military balance in its favor.

    China claims that its rise is intended to be peaceful, but its actions tell a different story: that of a revisionist power seeking to dominate the western Pacific. Beijing has claimed sovereignty over not only Taiwan but also Japan’s Senkaku Islands (known in China as the Diaoyu Islands) and most of the 1.7 million square miles that make up the East China and South China Seas, where six other countries maintain various territorial and maritime claims. And it has been unapologetic about pursuing those goals. In 2010, for example, China’s then foreign minister, Yang Jiechi, dismissed concerns over Beijing’s expansionism in a single breath, saying, “China is a big country, and other countries are small countries, and that is just a fact.”


    Consider Beijing’s recent bullying in the South China Sea. In March 2014, Chinese coast guard boats blocked the Philippines from accessing its outposts on the Spratly Islands. Two months later, China moved an oil rig into Vietnam’s exclusive economic zone, clashing with Vietnamese fishing boats. The moves echoed earlier incidents in the East China Sea. In September 2010, as punishment for detaining a Chinese fishing boat captain who had rammed two Japanese coast guard vessels, China temporarily cut off its exports to Japan of rare-earth elements, which are essential for manufacturing cell phones and computers. And in November 2013, China unilaterally declared an “air defense identification zone,” subject to its own air traffic regulations, over the disputed Senkaku Islands and other areas of the East China Sea, warning that it would take military action against aircraft that refused to comply.

     
  2.  
  3. jus

    jus Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2014
    Messages:
    1,848
    Likes Received:
    1,208
    Location:
    Universe
    Some have suggested that as its military grows stronger and its leaders feel more secure, China will moderate such behavior. But the opposite seems far more likely. Indeed, Beijing’s provocations have coincided with the dramatic growth of its military muscle. China is now investing in a number of new capabilities that pose a direct challenge to regional stability. For example, China’s People’s Liberation Army is bolstering its so-called anti-access/area-denial capabilities, which aim to prevent other militaries from occupying or crossing vast stretches of territory, with the express goal of making the western Pacific a no-go zone for the U.S. military. That includes developing the means to target the Pentagon’s command-and-control systems, which rely heavily on satellites and the Internet to coordinate operations and logistics. The PLA has made substantial progress on this front in recent years, testing an antisatellite missile, using lasers to blind U.S. satellites, and waging sophisticated cyberattacks on U.S. defense networks.


    China is also enhancing its capacity to target critical U.S. military assets and limit the U.S. Navy’s ability to maneuver in international waters. The PLA already has conventional ballistic and cruise missiles that can strike major U.S. facilities in the region, such as the Kadena Air Base, in Okinawa, Japan, and is developing stealth combat aircraft capable of striking many targets along the first island chain. To detect and target naval vessels at greater distances, the PLA has deployed powerful radars and reconnaissance satellites, along with unmanned aerial vehicles that can conduct long-range scouting missions. And to stalk U.S. aircraft carriers, as well as the surface warships that protect them, the Chinese navy is acquiring submarines armed with advanced torpedoes and high-speed cruise missiles designed to strike ships at long distances.


    The U.S. defense budget, which until recently stood at above four percent of the country’s GDP, is projected to decline to less than three percent by the end of the decade. Simply put, the Pentagon is shedding military capabilities while the PLA is amassing them.


    Yet if the past is prologue, China will not seek to resolve its expansionist aims through overt aggression. Consistent with its strategic culture, it wants to slowly but inexorably shift the regional military balance in its favor, leaving the rest of the region with little choice but to submit to Chinese coercion. For the most part, China’s maritime neighbors are convinced that diplomatic and economic engagement will do little to alter this basic fact. Several of them, including Japan, the Philippines, and Vietnam, are increasingly focusing their militaries on the task of resisting Chinese ambitions. They know full well, however, that individual action will be insufficient to prevent Beijing from carrying its vision forward. Only with U.S. material support can they form a collective front that deters China from acts of aggression or coercion.


    DETERRENCE THROUGH DENIAL

    If Washington wants to change Beijing’s calculus, it must deny China the ability to control the air and the sea around the first island chain, since the PLA would have to dominate both arenas to isolate the archipelago. The United States must also integrate allied battle networks and strengthen allied capabilities—both of which will help offset the PLA’s efforts to destabilize the region’s military balance. By and large, those goals can be achieved with ground forces, which would not replace existing air and naval forces but complement them.


    When it comes to air defenses, states along the first island chain could buttress their ability to deny China access to airspace by employing army units equipped with highly mobile and relatively simple short-range interceptor missiles (such as the Evolved Sea Sparrow, supported by GIRAFFE radar systems to detect targets). The U.S. Army, meanwhile, along with such allies as Japan, could operate more sophisticated, longer-range systems capable of intercepting Chinese cruise missiles and destroying advanced Chinese aircraft. Although not part of the first island chain, Vietnam is already enhancing its air-denial capabilities and could contribute to a larger defense effort.


    Then there is the task of denying the PLA the sea control it would need to mount offensive operations against the islands. Senior members of Congress have encouraged the U.S. Army to consider resurrecting an artillery force for coastal defense, a mission it abandoned after World War II. The idea is simple and compelling. Rather than risk sending warships within range of PLA defenses or diverting submarines from higher-priority missions, the United States and its allies could rely on ground forces, based along the first island chain and armed with mobile launchers and antiship cruise missiles, to perform the same operations. Japan’s military has done exactly that, placing shore-based antiship cruise missile units on some of the Ryukyu Islands during military exercises. Vietnam has fielded similar systems. And other frontline states could follow suit, either independently or with U.S. funding, training, and technical assistance.



    Several countries, Japan and Vietnam in particular, have already suggested that they are serious about fielding the kind of robust defenses that would be required for Archipelagic Defense. Other states beyond the first island chain, including Australia and Singapore, appear inclined to provide basing and logistical support. But just as it took NATO well over a decade to establish a formidable conventional deterrent to the Warsaw Pact, the United States and its allies cannot establish Archipelagic Defense overnight.


    Committing to the strategy now would have the advantage of allowing Washington and its friends to spread the expense of fielding such forces over time. In the meantime, given the region’s ongoing military competition, the United States and its allies along the first island chain must make a persistent, sustained effort to preserve regional stability and prosperity. Of course, Archipelagic Defense would provide no more of a panacea against all forms of Chinese aggression than NATO’s conventional deterrent solved the problems once posed by Moscow’s wars of national liberation and nuclear buildup. But establishing such a posture would represent an essential—and long-overdue—first step in counterbalancing China’s revisionist ambitions.


    Andrew F. Krepinevich, Jr.
 | How to Pivot | Foreign Affairs :namaste:
     
  4. jus

    jus Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2014
    Messages:
    1,848
    Likes Received:
    1,208
    Location:
    Universe
    @amoy @Ray @nimo_cn US/NATO has big plans for China “Archipelagic Defense”

    And your views please
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 10, 2015
  5. Khagesh

    Khagesh Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2015
    Messages:
    924
    Likes Received:
    567
    Location:
    India
    Hand over a bunch of pontoons to Vietnam capable of launching Shaurya type missiles. Develop a Shourya for Anti Shipping role and provide credit line for 100 examples of this pontoon+Shaurya complex to everybody and anybody in South East Asia. Well dispersed.

    Develop something similar for Agni 5 and host at least 50/100 of these all along our coastline. But this time with nukes.

    Na rahega baans na bajegi baansuri.
     
  6. amoy

    amoy Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2010
    Messages:
    5,519
    Likes Received:
    1,544
    Here are some of counter deterences to the deterences

    China's Diego Garcias

    Imagery shows progress of Chinese land building across Spratlys - IHS Jane's 360
    China building airstrip-capable island on Fiery Cross Reef - IHS Jane's 360
    China starts work on Mischief Reef land reclamation - IHS Jane's 360
    [​IMG]
    And the quasi-alliance with Russia - A Russia-China Alliance Brewing? | RAND
     
    Last edited: Mar 16, 2015
    Otm Shank2 likes this.
  7. Ray

    Ray The Chairman Defence Professionals Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2009
    Messages:
    43,118
    Likes Received:
    23,543
    Location:
    Somewhere
    Detering China is feasible by weaning away nations from its periphery from the influence of China.
     
  8. no smoking

    no smoking Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2009
    Messages:
    3,172
    Likes Received:
    422
    Funny thing is our Indian friends never realised that a war against China is the last thing these countries want.
    Whatever India can give to them, China already had the better weapon long time ago. If Chinese can't use these weapon in such a dispute, why do you think India's missile can be different?
     
  9. prohumanity

    prohumanity Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2013
    Messages:
    883
    Likes Received:
    542
    Location:
    USA
    I don't believe India wants a war with China...this type of propaganda is from other corners of the World. This is misleading as the reality is that China-India trade is growing faster and is reaching 100 billion dollars a year already. (almost equal to India-USA trade) There is a big possibility that in Sep2015 India will join SCO and Eurasia Union. India is also, one of the BRICS and a G-20 nation. In all these forums India interacts with China in a constructive manner. And don't forget upcoming state visit of Prime Minister Modi to China in May2015.
    Am I getting it wrong OR many posters here are not able to see what I see coming. Absolutely NO WAR between India and China....a lot of trade between India and China in coming years. Pakistan is irrelevant and a spent bullet from West's armament.......it's useless.
    God save you from west-financed and west inspired propaganda machine !
     
  10. Khagesh

    Khagesh Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2015
    Messages:
    924
    Likes Received:
    567
    Location:
    India
    South East Asia deserves some protection from Chinese expansionism.

    And that can only happen if they arm up.

    In any case South East Asia has formed itself into an economic union and it is only a matter of time before they put up a military alliance to defend their own interests.
     
  11. Ray

    Ray The Chairman Defence Professionals Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2009
    Messages:
    43,118
    Likes Received:
    23,543
    Location:
    Somewhere
    There will be no war, but the armed peace will continue as will the incursions.
     
  12. Khagesh

    Khagesh Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2015
    Messages:
    924
    Likes Received:
    567
    Location:
    India
    Armed Peace is the only Peace there can ever be.

    Unarmed Peace can only happen with like minded people who have reconciled their differences.

    South East Asia must re-arm with clear intent unless they each want a Spartley like situation at their doorsteps, a few years down the line.
     
  13. no smoking

    no smoking Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2009
    Messages:
    3,172
    Likes Received:
    422
    They need a navy fleet as powerful as US navy to protect them, not a couple of obsolete India missile.

    If they need weapons, they have better options: USA, Russia and even French.

    First, unfortunately, China is already a part of this economic union, a core part.
    Second, this military alliance doesn't work when some potential members are expecting Chinese protection against the threats from some other potential members.
     
  14. MANT!

    MANT! Regular Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2015
    Messages:
    45
    Likes Received:
    29
    Location:
    Mare Island CA USA
    Some of the Spratly islands claimed by assorted powers have civilians living on them, in the case of the Philippines, they are paid by the government to live on those islands

    Wrecks, rats and roaches: Standoff in the South China Sea -- CNN.com

    Any civilian deaths in any Chinese invasion of these islands would give the Chinese leadership a bit less leverage should they invade.. as world opinion would give the Philippines the moral high ground.

    Philippines and the Spratly Islands - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    It's a potential flashpoint, but I do hope it never gets to a shooting conflict.
     
    Last edited: Mar 18, 2015
  15. prohumanity

    prohumanity Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2013
    Messages:
    883
    Likes Received:
    542
    Location:
    USA
    If a nation is very strong...who cares about world opinion...world opinion becomes a piece of used toilet paper. NATO invaded Iraq, Invaded Libya, destabilized Syria and Ukraine.....what world opinion did...nothing ! They just watched and trembled in fear. Why? Because NATO is strong and no body can dare to antagonize it. The only way for India is to make a very strong and formidable military in order to promote its "UNiversal Brotherhood" "Non-violence" "harmony and peaceful coexistence " principles and beliefs. A weak nation can not promote its great values.
    India should make it very clear that it does not want to harm any nation unless harmed and wants to engage in peaceful and win-win dialogue with all nations of the world. One biggest principle of Indian civilization is "Entire world is our family" so why should we fight with our own family members.
     
  16. Khagesh

    Khagesh Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2015
    Messages:
    924
    Likes Received:
    567
    Location:
    India
    No doubt. Aapke aur hamare khyal milte julte hain (We think alike).

    I was merely suggesting the cheapest possible deterrents.

    Something Chinese should we well aware of considering their own history.



    Ah you mean Divide and Rule. Like em imperialists.

    Ok I am listening.
     
  17. Khagesh

    Khagesh Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2015
    Messages:
    924
    Likes Received:
    567
    Location:
    India
    On a separate note, looks like in some parts of the world, the so called world opinion matters more than the opinion of the country that is actually being threatened.
     
  18. no smoking

    no smoking Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2009
    Messages:
    3,172
    Likes Received:
    422
    Unfortunately, no one wants this useless deterrents unless they are given for free.



    Thailand VS Vietnam, Korea VS Japan for example.
    No, in most of their history, they fought lot more wars against each other than Chinese.
     

Share This Page