The Dragon's Spear: China's Asymmetric Strategy

[W.G.Ewald]

Just to reiterate, the original article in this thread is worth reading just by the fact that sophomoric Chinese are trying so hard to trash it and suppress discussion by any other DFI members. Chinese operate here in a manner analogous to jamming of radio comms.

 

[t_co]

Let's define "win." I do not believe US can conquer China, and would have no benefit to do so. I believe the US can, with its east Asian allies, counter the threat of a territorially aggressive China.

So... containment.

For how long? There comes a point in the mid-2020s at which the power differential will no longer favor the US, unless China somehow manages to force South Korea, Taiwan, Japan, the Phillippines, Vietnam, Australia, and India into a grand anti-China coalition capable of not only common intent but also coordinated diplomatic and military action. That's fairly difficult, given that most of these countries are actively hedging between US abandonment versus the pivot, and Chinese growth versus collapse.

What is most likely is that Japan, the US, and the Phillippines go anti-China; India remains focused on Pakistan (or pursues a decidedly more China-friendly tack if Modi wins the election - a point I will explain in another thread); South Korea and Taiwan drift into the Chinese orbit; Vietnam undergoes either a revolution (becoming anti-China) or a new civil war; and Australia + other ASEAN states hedge like crazy.

Russia will be Russia; even if it drifts away from China, it is extremely unlikely to join a US-led coalition of anything.

That's not a recipe for China containment over the long haul; multilateralism in East Asia, maybe.

 

[no smoking]

A minor error really. They are both two-stage, solid-propellant, single-warhead medium-range ballistic missile (MRBM) in the Dong Feng series, are they not?

It is not a minor error, it is a error of primary school student! You can't treat them as the same weapon just because they looks similar! They are designed for completely different tactics!

Can you comment on the rest of the article: anti-sat and cruise missiles, lasers, attack submarines, stealth fast-attack missile craft, cyberwarfare .... and the whole concept of asymmetrical warfare?

The whole concept of asymmetrical warfare was first advocated by a book back in 1990s when PLA was in its historic low point. It is another form of national terrorism which is never accepted by senior PLA officers.

If you look at the weapons listed in this article, they are all being developed by USA at the same time. Is usa also following asymmetric strategy? Of course not, these weapons are all prepared for the next conventional war.

 

[W.G.Ewald]

It is not a minor error, it is a error of primary school student! You can't treat them as the same weapon just because they looks similar! They are designed for completely different tactics!

One evolved from the other. You are beside yourself with hysteria; focusing on one little thing like that is absurd. Look at the credentials of the author. Compared to him you are an anonymous nobody.

The whole concept of asymmetrical warfare was first advocated by a book back in 1990s when PLA was in its historic low point. It is another form of national terrorism which is never accepted by senior PLA officers.

If you look at the weapons listed in this article, they are all being developed by USA at the same time. Is usa also following asymmetric strategy? Of course not, these weapons are all prepared for the next conventional war.

You make no sense at all.