Pages

Monday, December 30, 2019

This ... This Is How You Deal With China

The following post is going to touch on geopolitics.  This is not a political blog and the reason I’m going to dip slightly into politics is that the actions and results directly relate to possible military/naval relations with, and actions towards, China.  It is the military aspect that I’m focused on rather than the political but there’s no discussing the one without the other.  So …

President Trump has been criticized by the left for engaging in a trade war with China.  Much of this war took the form of increased tariffs on Chinese imports.  China, of course, responded with increased tariffs of their own and the cycle went back and forth.  The left predicted that increased tariffs would decimate the US economy without considering the potential good that could come from it.  President Trump has held the position that China has been taking advantage of the US in trading for many years and that the situation had to be rectified and could be rectified.

As it turns out, President Trump was correct.  The US economy did not collapse but has grown even stronger and, most importantly, the Chinese have blinked and backed down somewhat.  The President has announced that China has agreed to a Phase 1 trade agreement.  As part of all this, China has announced that it will lower tariffs on 850 products this coming year. (1)

China and the United States cooled their drawn-out trade war earlier this month, announcing a Phase 1 agreement that would reduce some U.S. tariffs in exchange for more Chinese purchases of American farm products and other goods. (1)

U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer said China had agreed to buy $200 billion worth of additional U.S. goods and services over the next two years as part of the Phase 1 trade pact to be signed in early January. If the purchases are made, they would represent a huge jump in U.S. exports to China. (1)

To be sure, this is a small victory and it remains to be seen whether China will actually follow through and keep their word given that they routinely violate their pledges on all manner of issues.  They are not the most trustworthy of nations – not even close.  Their word is worthless. 

Still, it demonstrates lessons that are applicable to our military relations with, and actions towards, China.

First and foremost, this demonstrates that China respects and responds only to strength.  Conversely, accommodation and compromise are seen as signs of weakness and signals that the other party can be taken advantage of.  This should suggest a course of action for our military.  Instead of meekly allowing ourselves to be chased out of the South China Sea and chased away from Chinese naval forces in international waters, we should respond with resolution and a willingness, nay, eagerness, to engage and escalate.  Despite fraudulent Chinese claims to the contrary, the South China Sea is international waters and we should stand our ground and respond to harassment in kind.

Instead of meek, worthless Freedom of Navigation cruises which only reinforce China’s territorial claims (see, "Freedom of Navigation vs Innocent Passage"), we should anchor a ship a hundred feet off each of China’s illegal artificial islands and dare them to do something about it – and be prepared to take forceful action in response.

Let’s also clearly understand that even if China follows through on their trade pledges, their concessions are in areas that benefit them.  The reduced tariffs are on goods that they actually want to increase imports on.  In other words, they’re willing to accept a small tactical retreat to gain a larger benefit.

Recognizing this, we can take advantage of it.  We need to create situations in which the Chinese will accept small tactical retreats and, when they do, we need to solidify our gains and continually press for more.  Enough small retreats eventually become an overall significant retreat.

For example, we should be pushing back hard on Chinese territorial fishing violations and look to force the Chinese to back off some of their attempts at illegal territorial expansion.  We should increase naval visits to Taiwan and as soon as those become accepted then we should announce extended ‘visits’ which eventually become permanent basing.  We should flood their excessive Air Defense Identification Zones with our aircraft and force them to continually respond to us until they reduce the size of their claims.  I’m betting we can outlast them.  We should have ‘spy’ ships (intel gathering) closely tailing all Chinese naval forces that put to sea (you’ll recall that the Chinese routinely ‘spy’ on the RIMPAC exercises).  And so on.

The opportunities to push back and chip out small victories are endless.  It only requires some fortitude on our part and a willingness to accept escalation if the Chinese wish it.  We won’t be the ones to escalate but we should not be afraid of it – we should embrace it.

China respects strength and only strength as the trade war result proves.  It is far past time to demonstrate our strength with military/naval actions.



Note:  Because of the political aspects of this post, I’m not going to allow free comments because I don’t want to engage in political debates.  That’s not the point of the post.  So, instead, I’m going to moderate the comments for this post.  Be warned … I will not allow political comments.  If you wish to comment, confine it to the military implications.




_______________________________________

(1)CNBC website, “China will lower import tariffs on over 850 products from January 1, finance ministry says”, 22-Dec-2019,
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/23/china-will-lower-import-tariffs-on-over-850-products-from-january-1.html

65 comments:

  1. OK than no comment on the Trade war.

    I think pushing back on fishing, and claims is fine ideal. Hang about in their own made up space again fine. Taiwan would be trickery. Until Taiwan really decides what it wants to be it would be hard to build a solid long term US policy around it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Until Taiwan really decides what it wants to be"

    Have I missed something? Haven't they decided they want to be an independent country (actually, the 'true' China, in their view)?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Taiwan is running out of friends, fast.

      Until they actually declare independence, they're in a dangerous limbo. They should have done it back in 96' when their position and global recognition was relatively strong, but "status quo" was more important I guess...

      Delete
    2. Here's a quote that nicely summarizes the situation:

      "... Taiwan is already an independent country by the name of the Republic of China and that, as a result, there is no need for Taiwan to declare independence."

      The independence issue is a complex one but I think the Taiwanese position has been clearly established. Where it lies in the international legal realm, I'll leave to others but the practical issue has been decided and declared.

      Delete
    3. "but the practical issue has been decided and declared."

      No it has not. It needs to need to both formally declare independence and relinquish its residual claim on China.

      "actually, the 'true' China, in their view"

      In my experience - scientific collaborators, graduate student and the high school exchange students my kids go to school with - they have all identified as Taiwanese not some 'true china' nor do thay much care about the history. Problem is the oligarchy on the mainland does. And Purple Calico is right not rocking the boat is quite a common sentiment.

      The core problem remains Chiang Kai-shek was a utterly poor leader even for a dictator. The US should have given him the news back in 1950 - sorry you are running the ROT - declare it independent while we can still easily make that a certainty. CK should have made that call himself. He lost China, it was not coming back and he was not ever going to be the man to get it back.

      In any case until Taiwan makes a decisive move to say they are not just kinda waiting around to join a fantasy China that does not exist, I'm not seeing a solid basis for ramping up support in an obvious way.

      Twisting Israel's arm a bit more to get them to stop selling US tech to China and rather to Taiwan might be more useful. You know remind them who keeps vetoing stuff in the UN and paying their defense budget.

      Delete
    4. Taiwan already made a "decisive move" as show below link:

      "Taiwan President Tsai Ing-wen said on Wednesday the island would not accept a “one country, two systems” political formula Beijing has suggested could be used to unify the democratic island, saying such an arrangement had failed in Hong Kong."

      https://www.reuters.com/article/us-taiwan-china/taiwan-leader-rejects-chinas-offer-to-unify-under-hong-kong-model-idUSKBN1Z01IA

      From above: "China claims Taiwan as its territory, to be brought under Beijing’s control by force if necessary. Taiwan says it is an independent country called the Republic of China, its official name. "

      As well as below:

      https://www.dw.com/en/taiwan-rejects-hong-kong-model-for-unity-with-china/a-51849748

      To quote above: ""Democracy and authoritarianism ... cannot co-exist in the same country," Tsai added."

      Delete
  3. How about about a fiction post, showing 3 response cycles of your proposed freedom of anchorage operation. How does a Burke deal with 25 Militia Fishing boats etc.
    Does the Navy need armoured Dredgers and Tugs for counter sand island operations.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I did a fiction post on dealing with China in the "Island Showdown" post. You can find it in the fiction list above/right.

      The range of responses for dealing with the illegal islands is vast and depends only our degree of determination.

      What actions, if any, would you recommend we take?

      Delete
  4. Would an oil rig platform instead of a navy ship be better to place adjacent to the Chinese islands? They are huge, heavy, stable
    and above the water where the people would be. More comfortable for the armed marines? The top could be loaded with all sorts of Comm gear/antennas and of course weapons. Getting giddy here...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well that's an interesting idea and certainly steps up the confrontational level!

      Delete
    2. Rigs are by nature very unstable. While they look robust, they really aren't at all.

      Both jack-ups and semi-subs are designed to handle wave action and hook load. Anything else they don't like much. Even wave action in a storm requires very close attention and compromises between stability and damage reduction. You're doing deck load and metacenter calculations every watch so you don't cause instability when you shift loads or fluids around.

      Jackups require very detailed seabed soil analysis before positioning. Semi-subs in general require 8 anchor positions, and you need seabed analysis to be able to forecast decent holding, and if you are going to need to piggy-back your anchors. All of that requires anchor-handler/tugs running around next to your island.

      You could use a dynamically positioned semi-sub, but they drink diesel like there is no tomorrow so resupply becomes an issue.

      You could destroy either with a 76mm shell in the right spot.

      Nobody ever deploys a rig unless they believe the political situation is reasonably stable.

      https://www.offshore-technology.com/features/feature-the-worlds-deadliest-offshore-oil-rig-disasters-4149812/

      https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-platform-accidents/timeline-recent-oil-industry-accidents-idUSTRE7BH0B420111218

      http://members.home.nl/the_sims/rig/losses.htm

      https://www.scmdaleel.com/category/site-surveys-amp-investigation/5

      Delete
    3. If one wanted to pursue this type of action, a barge might be a better option?

      Delete
    4. I was thinking that. You could blodge together something pretty durable in a hurry. None of the disadvantages of using a rig.

      Delete
    5. "I was thinking that."

      Barge/rig issue aside, George, what other measures would you suggest for confronting China, if you're even in favor of confronting them?

      Delete
    6. This gets into areas we probably don't want to visit very quickly. Bear in mind I've lived over half my life overseas under just about every kind of governance system you can think of.

      I think its too late to confront China militarily, because the real problems don't have a military solution. Five years ago, probably yes, but things have changed dramatically in the last five years.

      I do believe the surface appearance of the trade war is bogus. What's really going on is much much deeper. Its not a an export/imbalance of goods, you have to add in the vast amount American companies generate from services and the huge business that subsidiaries of American companies are doing in China. Once you take that into account the trade gap is in completely the opposite direction.

      Here is a very interesting summary post from a guy I follow on Quora. He knows his way around China and is pretty switched on about what China is doing and where they are headed, particularly vis a vis the US. Its a heck of a lot of reading if you dig into the sources he quotes, but it is also thought provoking.

      https://qr.ae/TSesFS

      Delete
    7. "I think its too late to confront China militarily,"

      That's an interesting position given that they see great value in militarily confronting us and other countries. Without agreeing or disagreeing with your premise, why would you think that we have no military confrontation options and yet they have many? That would seem to be a logical inconsistency.

      Delete
    8. "interesting summary post from a guy I follow on Quora"

      From just reading the short linked article and not digging into any references, the author is anti-Trump and, borderline, anti-US along with some pro-China sentiment which instantly makes his points suspect and his views somewhat one-dimensional. That said, his thoughts are, indeed, interesting.

      Not being a political blog, I'll leave it at that and won't get into the Trump/US/China aspect beyond saying that Trump has moved us out of appeasement and into confrontation which I perceive to be a good and overdue move. I'll drop it there.

      Delete
    9. Regarding the stability of semi submersible rigs, dont they but out sea anchors to hold them in place and keep them stable? As they wont be used for drilling you can prioritize stability, not that just as a surveillance platform would have any activity that would increase instability- the checks every day mentioned would have the same values.
      Then there are those research vessels that at long and thin and can 'flip'
      https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-ships/g1606/8-incredible-vessels-that-changed-how-ships-are-made/?slide=1
      The very first one was owned by the US Navy.

      Delete
    10. I would place multiple wind turbine towers at each end of the runways with retractable masts (similar to a retractable radio antenna) or fitted with retractable barrage balloons that would render the runway useless when deployed. The towers in the stowed state would be high enough to provide an adequate vantage point for surveillance of the artificial island at all times but not unsafe for landings when stowed. I would partner with countries that have overlapping claims to the exclusive economic zones the artificial islands are located in and call the towers resource monitoring, aids to navigation or some other reasonable fiction. I would then make scheduled scientific measurements with the towers, making sure to inform China that they were happening and informing them it would be unsafe for flights around the islands for the set period of time the measurements were to occur. Make it often enough to be disruptive.

      Delete
  5. Another idea is to use the islands as a junkyard. Literally. We could run barges/ships loaded with pig iron into the channel that leads to their entry. Then sink the barges/ships in the channel. Rinse and repeat as necessary. I also like the idea of collecting dog poo from adjacent nations and air dropping said fertilizer on the islands. We have the ability to GPS drop by parachute pallets of the fertilizer from distance.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Correct me if Im wrong, but we have never "officially recognized" Taiwan as an independent country. That seems like an obvious statement of support that we've never done so as not to offend Beijing. Its kind of a silly political thing, considering weve sold warships to a country that "doesnt exist"... In the free society vs communist scenario it seems long overdue, and somthing that should follow on the heels of the trade war as a sign of our determination and intolerance of Chinas expansionist behaviour...

    ReplyDelete
  7. Correct me if Im wrong, but we have never "officially recognized" Taiwan as an independent country. That seems like an obvious statement of support that we've never done so as not to offend Beijing. Its kind of a silly political thing, considering weve sold warships to a country that "doesnt exist"... In the free society vs communist scenario it seems long overdue, and somthing that should follow on the heels of the trade war as a sign of our determination and intolerance of Chinas expansionist behaviour...

    ReplyDelete
  8. How about we officially recognize Taiwan as an independent country. Correct if wrong, but i dont believe weve done so. Its a silly political thing, considering weve sold warships to a country that "doesnt officially exist". I think thats important, and doing so on the heels of the trade war could help show our determination to support free societies that stand in the face of communism, or any other "-ism" for that matter. Not doing so shows a willingness to not offend Beijing, and frankly we shouldnt care. The trade war is the strongest confrontation short of a shooting war, and since weve already done that much, I think the timing of recognizing Taiwan is perfect. Yes it would probably set back trade issues for a spell, but we've seen that we can survive it and thrive, so nows the time....

    ReplyDelete
  9. Does "moderating posts" mean they dont show up immediately?? Or am i having a glitch? Ive written a post twice and theyre not appearing...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Moderating means I have to look at each comment and approve it or not. So, it does not show up until approved. You only need to type it once, as I think you've figured out now.

      Delete
  10. Just noticed "comment visible after approval"... Sorry about that :)

    ReplyDelete
  11. Just noticed "comment visible after approval"... Sorry about that :)

    ReplyDelete
  12. JUst remember to give them an out to save face. Also, if we are to trail them all we really need more ships ASAP.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "JUst remember to give them an out to save face. "

      Are they returning the favor? Are they giving the US an out to save face or are they flatly ordering us out of the Pacific? Hint: it's the latter.

      Why do we have to 'help' them and they don't have to 'help' us?

      Delete
    2. You want to push them out without a shooting war, that;s how you do so in East Asia.

      Delete
    3. "You want to push them out without a shooting war, that;s how you do so in East Asia."

      That sounds great as a slogan or vague wishful thinking but what, specifically, would you suggest doing that would have an effect?

      Treaties and international law seem to mean nothing to the Chinese since they demonstrate on a daily basis that they don't/won't honor them. What else would you suggest that will 'stop' them while giving them great 'face' and honor?

      Delete
  13. CNO, the US must decides on its end goal (what to do if China rises, or keep rising, without crossing the war threshold?)

    The last good hot war (discounting GW1) was WW2, and the choice was made easy for us when Japan attacked PH and Germany declared war afterwards (after already 4 years of mainland-Asia war and 2 years of European war.) Other than that, we pretty much blundered majority of war endings- even though we had no business in blundering them given our wherewithal.

    Today, it's increasingly becoming clear that China gaining traction in rising-without-warring via its econ-based realpolitik which has forced a trade truce from us while keep making inroads elsewhere. And if I'm not mistaken, the USN just announced a do-over with its present surface fleet structure, basically hinting it's probably not gonna work as anti-A2AD (which also mean, it might take years if not decades to find/deploy 'alternatives' with no guarantee of success in time frame we might not have). Furthermore, judging from Chinese reaction to HK protest, it became clear China would probably do-nothing outrageous and let the movement spends itself- even when it has all the tools to stop it immediately. Given all the above, I'm not even sure if 'Taiwan de-jure independence' will cause China to lash out against its long term national interest (think about it, Taiwan is already anti-China in deeds if not in name)- because time seems to be on China's side, eventually.

    In conclusion, we might be facing, rather than Nazi/IJ/USSR, another 'US' coming up (a more patient and pragmatic one).

    I don't know if I strayed into the geopolitics, but, recognizing what China will be is just as important doing something about it, imo.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "I think its too late to confront China militarily"

    I tend to agree with this statement. The strategic goal of any major military confrontation between the USA and China would be for the US to retain dominant position in Western Pacific.

    Even if the US would win such a confrontation, it would be probably weakened by the war effort to such a degree that it would loose the dominant position in the Western Pacific anyway.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Even if the US would win such a confrontation, it would be probably weakened by the war effort to such a degree that it would loose the dominant position in the Western Pacific anyway."

      Who would fill the void and become the dominant power? Do you not think the Chinese would be equally weakened by a war or do you think they would win so convincingly that they would be essentially unaffected by war?

      Would you have said the same thing (too late to confront militarily) about Germany at some point prior to WWII? I fear that we, as a Western society, have lost our resolve, our courage, and our willingness to do the hard thing. Winning a war with China would not be easy but I see no reason why it would not be possible and I see no reason why it's 'too late'.

      Delete
  15. Who would fill the void: probably nobody.

    Today the US Navy is not only the strongest one in the region, but is arguably stronger than all remaining navies in the region combined. This is a real dominant position.

    It is possible that after fighting and winning a war against China, the US Navy would still be the strongest navy in the region, but the this dominant position might be gone. It would suddenly play in the same league as the navies of Russia, Japan, or India, and not play in a league of its own as is the case today.

    Germany in WW2 is quite a good example, I think. Today China is very likely much stronger than Germany in WW2 (at least in terms of economic and military potential), and yet is has taken the biggest war ever and the concerted effort of almost the entire world to win against Germany.

    Another important factor is that nobody really knows how a major war against China woud really play out.

    One example: the war escalates, and China starts a cyber attack against the US, with the result that within 24h all US power plants go down.

    But it is also possible that the American counter-cyber proves effective, and due to US cyber counterattack within 24h all power plants in China go down.

    Or any other scenario between these two extreme ones might actually take place. And no one really knows which one.

    The point here is that is is very well possible that a major war againt China might have a very damaging (or perhaps even devastating) effect on the entire industrial base in both countries.

    It might be also the first war which would effect the american mainland in a major way.

    BTW, it is quite a lot would, could, might, etc. It is simply because no one really knows how such a war might really end.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "has taken the biggest war ever and the concerted effort of almost the entire world to win against Germany."

      Well, no, not exactly. The US fought two wars simultaneously (that's what made it a World war!). Had it been only Germany and we had been able to concentrate our force against just Germany, the timeline and "ease" would have been much different.

      For example, with the entire US Navy focused on Germany, the German surface navy would have quickly ceased to exist and the U-boat threat would have been hugely decreased both through direct action against subs at sea and through action against German sub bases by carrier air power. That would have meant more supplies getting through more regularly and the land combat, bolstered by the Marine Corps and Army Pacific divisions, would have been much shorter as Germany would have faced twice the land force strength. And so on.


      Delete
    2. "nobody really knows how a major war against China woud really play out."

      True, but we could have a pretty reasonable idea. Aside from my well reasoned descriptions of what would happen, the US military should be conducting very large scale exercises to find out how a war would play out. We should be setting up OpFors structured and resourced to mimic Chinese forces and given full freedom to fight as the Chinese would. Then, we'd have a pretty darn good idea how a war would play out.

      That we don't know how a war would play out is a failure on the part of our professional warriors. There's no excuse for not knowing.

      Delete
    3. I see it like this: the fighting in Europe and North Africa alone (which resulted in some 30..40 million dead) was enough to make WW2 the biggest war ever.

      The fighting in the Pacific made this war even bigger.

      Delete
    4. I am afraid that there is at least a realistic chance that the situation today is similar to the situation just prior to WW1.

      The military leadership of Germany was pretty sure that thay would reach a clear victory against France within 2..3 months. The result was 4 years of devastating war in the middle of Europe.

      Delete
  16. "Today the US Navy is not only the strongest one in the region, but is arguably stronger than all remaining navies in the region combined. This is a real dominant position."


    While there are lots of different ways to compare navies, I have to say that in reality, we are already inferior. If you look at the way a naval war will be fought, they dont have to venture away from home to win. The major combatant count leaves us second best already, and their build rate will continue to widen the gap. If you count missile tubes, and theyre bold with smaller combatants, we're second best again. The island chains with land based air etc make any US victory very challenging. Their current/future carrier forces dont need to meet us in mid-Pac for a Midway style battle. They can be used as recon, reinforcement, and quick reaction support for land based air, and not even stray far, if at all, from its protective umbrella. Of course the US would want to neutralize that advantage, and its possible, but, its war, and 2hrs into it, any plans and assumptions will probably be out the window. So I don't feel we are looking at this from a point of strength, and that will only get worse as time goes on....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with you completely. WWII was arguably a logistics win with the US being the manufacturing powerhouse of the world supplying everyone else.

      Logistics win wars. Any war fought within reach of China's land based aviation is going to run out the 5000 mile US logistics chain very quickly. And US basing closer to China than PH is very much at risk.

      And China is now the manufacturing powerhouse of the world, not the US. Including naval build rates.

      If you assume that 3-4 carriers are the minimum to get into a scrap with the Chinese, I think we're down to 4 carriers at the moment. Unless anyone knows that Truman is back...

      So it doesn't seem to make sense that this is the time to start anything, and with the planned force restructure I'm having a hard time seeing it get better soon.

      Add in the US getting into a disagreement with the Philippines...

      Delete
    2. "And US basing closer to China than PH is very much at risk."

      Maybe, maybe not. This is where military strategy comes in. In WWII, had we instantly established very far forward bases they would have been a great risk from Japanese air and naval power. However, we methodically rolled back their power projection capabilities so that by the time we established very far forward bases, they were relatively safe.

      The same applies today. Presumably, we would attrite (roll back) Chinese power projection capabilities such as submarines, ballistic missiles (yes, this means mainland attacks on missile launch sites, storage sites, and manufacturing sites), air power, etc. so that we can set up very far forward bases with some degree of safety.

      Now, the question becomes, given that bit of strategy, do we have the force structure to accomplish it? I would suggest that we do not and that a bunch of small, weak, unmanned vessels is going to do it for us.

      This is why it's mandatory to have a military strategy so that you can determine what force structure you need. Instead, we're collecting 'gee-whiz' technology and hoping that it can be useful. We've substituted technology for strategy.

      Delete
    3. "The same applies today. Presumably, we would attrite (roll back) Chinese power projection capabilities such as submarines, ballistic missiles (yes, this means mainland attacks on missile launch sites, storage sites, and manufacturing sites), air power, etc. so that we can set up very far forward bases with some degree of safety."

      I'm unclear if this is viable. I suspect no one knows who is prepared to talk about it publicly.

      The Underground Great Wall of China is probably a thing, but what kind of thing, and how big a thing is it?

      https://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/china/underground-great-wall.htm

      If its a decent size, then attriting Chinese IRBM capability becomes a whole different scale of problem.

      Delete
    4. This is what intel is for. It is not possible to construct, store, and prepare missile launch sites without leaving any trace. Presumably, we have a pretty good idea where China's missile inventory(s) are and where the launchers are.

      If they simply want to hide one missile, they probably can. Hiding hundreds or thousands is simply not possible.

      Delete
    5. " China's "Underground Steel Great Wall" could "guarantee the security of the country's strategic arsenal" against potential attacks, including those from future hypersonic weapons, Qian Qihu, recipient of the country's highest science and technology award, told the Global Times 13 January 2019. Qian, 82, an academician of both the Chinese Academy of Sciences and the Chinese Academy of Engineering, received the 2018 State Preeminent Science and Technology Award during a conference at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing.

      The "Underground Steel Great Wall" is a series of defense facilities located deep under mountains. While the mountain rock is thick enough to resist enemy attacks, entrances and exits of these facilities are often vulnerable and Qian's work was to provide extra protection for these parts. China's declaratory nuclear strategy follows the principle of "no first use" and requires the country to have the capability of withstanding a nuclear attack before it responds with its strategic weapons. Qian's work guaranteed the safety of the country's strategic weapons, launch and storage facilities as well as commanders' safety during extreme times, said Song Zhongping, a military expert and TV commentator.

      In an exclusive interview with the Global Times, Qian describes his work, the "Underground Steel Great Wall," as the "country's last national defense line." If other lines of defense including the strategic missile interception system, anti-missile system and air defense system fail to function against hypersonic missiles and recently developed bunker-busters, Qian's work can still thwart such attacks. "The development of the shield must closely follow the development of spears. Our defense engineering has evolved in a timely manner as attack weapons pose new challenges," Qian said."

      The problem with these statements is the difficultly of verification or disapproval. Handling solid fuel missiles is relatively simple. Think Tomahawk. TELs can be run in and out of the tunnels as required, provided there are enough entrances to survive a first strike or SpecOps intervention.

      This is also an issue with Iran. Again, not much for validation there either.

      Delete
    6. I appear to come across as an apologist for the Chinese.

      In reality, I'm the opposite. I have family that worked in China building car plants, specifically the project manager responsible for paint shops for GM. The Chinese built them four times faster for half the cost. Quality was better than either Canada or the US.

      So please humor me for less than 2 minutes, watch this and get back to me how the Chinese can't do military civil engineering projects if they really, really want to.

      https://youtu.be/4-XDxCb92X4

      Delete
    7. And while we are being careful about Chinese capabilities, it might be worth looking at this.

      I'm taken to task on unrealistic Chinese capabilities. I suggest the critics may not be paying attention.

      Take a passenger train in the US. Yes, I get that Popular Mechanics is not the latest in espionage, but their stuff is usually pretty good.

      https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/infrastructure/a29548729/china-high-speed-train/

      Delete
    8. "While there are lots of different ways to compare navies, I have to say that in reality, we are already inferior."

      When you look at the current strength of the US Navy (with some 80+ Aegis cruisers and destroyers, and ca. 58 nuclear SSNs, 4 SSGNs, and 14 SSBNs), I think that at least for now no other navy comes close.

      This might of course be different by 2030, especially with the current chinese build rates, but for now US Navy is still pretty much in a league of its own.

      This is at least how I see it.

      Delete
    9. " how the Chinese can't do military civil engineering projects if they really, really want to."

      Who said they can't? Of course they can. As can we. What's your point?

      "I'm taken to task on unrealistic Chinese capabilities. I suggest the critics may not be paying attention."

      There are several issues at play, here. Claims of capabilities and performance are easy - actual performance is not. As repeatedly demonstrated in this blog, manufacturer and Navy claims are always exaggerated and mostly false compared to actual performance. Russia has demonstrated a propensity for excessive claims. I'm sure China is guilty of the same.

      Claims are sometimes made to persuade an enemy to waste time and resources countering a non-existent capability (the Star Wars SDI Initiative and the Soviet Union, for example, although the degree of direct cause and effect is debatable, even today). China seems to have a predilection for excessive claims for both internal and external propaganda consumption. The Chinese DF-21 'carrier killer' is an example of a completely unfounded claim that the US is overreacting to and spending enormous sums to combat.

      All of this does not mean that they have no capabilities. It simply means that until the capabilities are proven, they're just claims. We need to be cautious about overreacting.

      On advantage the US has is that our constant conflicts over the last couple decades has allowed us to field test many capabilities so we have some idea of what works and what doesn't. China has had no such field testing under combat conditions. Again, that doesn't mean their weapons, systems, and personnel don't work - it just means that they are unproven.

      Delete
    10. Talking about engineering in China: 20 years ago China had virtually no semiconductor industry.

      This year SMIC (the biggest chinese semiconductor foundry) just started series production using a 14nm process.

      For comparison, in whole Europe there is currently no corporation which is capable of manufacturing chips using a 14nm process (the best one is STMicroelectronics with a 22nm process), and there is no corporation which would even have plans to develop such technology.

      https://www.anandtech.com/show/15105/smic-begins-volume-production-of-14-nm-finfet-chips-chinas-first-finfet-line

      Delete
    11. "Talking about engineering in China: 20 years ago China had virtually no semiconductor industry. "

      In 1949, the US had no spacecraft. 20 yrs later we had a man on the moon.

      What's your point?

      Delete
    12. "What's your point?"

      Good question :-)

      My point is this: in 1949 the US had no spacecraft, but at that time pretty much no other country in the world had a spacecraft.

      But in 1999 the US had advanced semiconductor manufacturing industry, Europe had advanced semiconductor manufacturing industry (a little behind the US), while China had pretty much nothing in this field.

      And 20 years later China has narrowed the gap in this field to such a degree that it has actually overtaken Europe, and is now probably some 2..4 years behind the US.

      This has major implications, also for the military, as virtually the entire electronics in modern military systems in based on semiconductors.

      It might also have implications for future developments, because it is at least conceivable that Chine might continue to outpace the West in this field in the next decade or so.

      BTW, I would probably not bring it up as a stand-alone topic, but I took advantage of the previous post about civil engineering in China.

      Delete
    13. "When you look at the current strength of the US Navy (with some 80+ Aegis cruisers and destroyers, and ca. 58 nuclear SSNs, 4 SSGNs, and 14 SSBNs), I think that at least for now no other navy comes close."

      The thing is, we have commitments all over the world, and even in a China war, theres no way we could bring those total numbers to bear. While i imagine quite a few grey vessels passing thru the canal, we couldn't/wouldn't leave 2nd or 6th fleets cupboards bare. Add in ships unavailable due to maintenance, etc, and you have a USN that will be lucky to bring an equal number of comparable ships to fight them in their backyard. Oh course its not a ship-on-ship fight, our carriers as of yet are unmatched, and the SSGNs a hugely important,but by the basic fleet size or missle tube metric, even being "equal" really puts the U.S. at the disadvantage...

      Delete
    14. "This is what intel is for. It is not possible to construct, store, and prepare missile launch sites without leaving any trace. Presumably, we have a pretty good idea where China's missile inventory(s) are and where the launchers are.

      If they simply want to hide one missile, they probably can. Hiding hundreds or thousands is simply not possible."

      My point is that you are making a major assumption, that if wrong, will bite you squarely on the butt.

      The Chinese are clearly capable of assembling, storing and launching missiles from underground complexes if they choose to do so. We know the underground complexes exist. We don't know how extensive they are.

      To make the assumption that they can't use these complexes to store and launch IRBMs is unfounded and dangerous.

      I also have reservations about our ability to find and destroy Chinese over the horizon radar. We don't know how much has been deployed, and while I'm sure we are going to get some of it, I am very concerned that the Chinese are going to build way more than we anticipate.

      China is the powerhouse manufacturing center of the world. To evaluate an enemy by your own standards is foolish. The really big risk posed by China is quantity. The US has a very clear qualitative edge and will have for some time to come. But China does quantity like no one else today.

      Take your phone out of your pocket and contemplate it relative to military manufacturing in a command economy.

      The new Huawei 5G base station equipment uses NO US sources electronics. That is a seriously big deal when exports to the US make up only 3.8% of Chinese GDP. And Chinese GDP growth is now at slightly better than 6% despite the trade war.

      I don't like any of the trend lines. The US is reducing conventional fleet strength in favor of unmanned, and can't maintain what they already have. The US economy is growing at ~2% with a recession on the horizon. The Chinese are plowing money into their conventional manned fleet. The Chinese economy is growing at 6%. And the Chinese reliance on US semi-conductors is dropping fast.

      These are not good times.

      Delete
    15. It's good and wise to carefully and objectively evaluate an enemy's capabilities. It's counterproductive to turn them into hundred foot giants based on fears or theoretical capabilities. You seem to be assuming that everything they touch is gold, every system and weapon will work perfectly, they can produce unlimited quantities of anything, and that they have no weaknesses, whatsoever. If that's your view, that's fine - you're welcome to it. However, the reality is that, yes, there are some disturbing trends but there are also some encouraging trends. The US has achieved energy independence, has begun to wean itself off Chinese rare earths, has combat proven systems (unlike the Chinese), has a potentially large array of allies (depending on the circumstances), and on and on.

      A more objective analysis would suggest that China has certain strengths and certain weaknesses, is pushing hard for quantitative advantage, has unknown and questionable personnel capabilities, has virtually no targeting quality over-the-horizon surveillance capability (which totally negates ballistic missiles against mobile targets), has many enemies (Japan, Taiwan, Vietnam, etc.) in its backyard, etc. In short, they can put up a good fight but can't win, at this point in time. Of course, if we keep appeasing them, they don't need to fight!

      Delete
    16. Thanks for posting my response. I realize its not going to be popular.

      One of the huge mistakes Japan made in WWII was equating American industrial capability to theirs.

      Japan was really just emerging from a quasi-feudal period where everything was built by hand.

      The US ability to manufacture was completely beyond their capacity to understand.

      My very, very serious point is that the US ability to resurrect that WWII manufacturing capability will take years.

      The Chinese capability to manufacture, including ships, is not in dispute. They might be number two behind Korea, but Korea doesn't do so much in warships.

      Ignore Chinese manufacturing capability at our peril.

      Delete
    17. "If they simply want to hide one missile, they probably can. Hiding hundreds or thousands is simply not possible"

      We could also shape the battlefield by changing the number of targets that China will have to deal with and force them to expend missiles at targets of our making. Guam will likely be a first target but we could make other targets even more threatening to China.

      Eareckson Air station on Shemya island is is 2801 miles from Beijing.
      Attu island is 2761 miles from Beijing. Kwajalein Atoll is 3806 miles from Beijing. Kandahar is 2871 miles from Beijing. Guam is 2506 miles from Beijing.
      All except for Kwajalein are within the combat radius of the B-2, B-52, B-1b and likely the B-21 without tanker support. I would expand and harden all of them. I would make the bases in less populated areas the more worrisome for Chinese military planners.

      Intermediate range ballistic missiles or ground launched long range stealth cruise missiles that could be fired from these bases should be developed. I would harden the missile fields to make it necessary to expend multiple attacks to eliminate the threat they would pose. Soak up the Chinese missiles away from population centers. I would hide nothing. I would just make it very difficult to eliminate the threat without expending significant resources.

      Delete
  17. "That we don't know how a war would play out is a failure on the part of our professional warriors. There's no excuse for not knowing."

    You said it.

    You can't fix something you don't know is broken...

    ReplyDelete
  18. NTM. Our national technical means are without peer. Anything produced in a factory and shipped can be tracked. Anything. Any missile system or TEL is tracked from birth to death. After the fall of the USSR russia had only 12 working milsats against our 213. I assume the imbalance has not gone away. I know some will say our NTM will disappear soon after a conflict starts. Maybe.
    The most effective way to combat china is with long range missiles which we can now produce since we have finally dropped the INF leash.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Very little that moves around the world is actually tracked by any government.

      The volumes involved are too high.

      Here's an example. About 3% of the containers entering the US from China are actually inspected. You can extrapolate from there.

      If the Chinese actually wanted to play a shell game with US NTM, its not out of the question. Satellite schedules are well established.

      https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/satellite-database

      http://www.westarusa.com/u-s-lawmakers-say-new-technology-time-inspect-inbound-containers/

      I keep reading comments about "we could do this" or "we should do that". I agree completely that its time for leadership to get off their backsides.

      But I'm not seeing much actually happening.

      Delete
    2. "Very little that moves around the world is actually tracked by any government."

      Very little is of interest. For items of interest, tracking is quite good. For example, Iranian weapons are very closely tracked. NKorean missiles and missile development program is closely tracked. I would assume that Chinese weapons are similarly closely tracked.

      Delete
    3. "NTM. Our national technical means are without peer."

      I would say that in the 1990s the US truly was without peer in terms of technology.

      But today the situation has changed. On balance, the US is still by far the most powerful country technologically, but there are several fields of strategic importance in which in the last 25 years other countries have managed to catch up with, and sometimes even overtake the US. Here are a few examples:

      5G cellular networks: China, Sweden, Finland
      Semiconductors manufacturing: South Korea, Taiwan
      Semiconductor lithography: Netherlands
      Commercial nuclear reactors (3G): China, Russia, South Korea
      Commercial nuclear reactors (4G): China
      Quantum communications: China
      AWACS radar systems: China, Israel, Sweden
      Rocket artillery: China, Russia

      The interesting aspect here is that in virtually all the above fields the US in the 1990s was leading, often really "without peer".

      Delete
    4. "Very little is of interest."

      That is not actually correct. There is a congressional mandate for 100% inspection of all goods entering the US. It hasn't happened because the technology isn't good enough without causing an enormous choke point.

      The Chinese have demonstrated that they are an order of magnitude better than anyone else in the world at major civil engineering projects at present.

      If they wanted to hide one or one hundred complexes, there is not a heck of a lot we could do about it. I understand we would know the complexes were being built, but once built the blind slams shut.

      I am NOT saying that is happening, just that if it is, there is no all-seeing, all-knowing Deus ex Machina that will magically tell US intelligence exactly what is happening.

      And again, frankly, it seems that no one is listening to the Intelligence community anyway, which is arguably even more disturbing.

      There is no "Trust but verify" with the Chinese, I guess primarily because no one thought it was worth the effort to negotiate.

      So we reap the consequences of a horrible foreign policy, if you can even dignify it with that title, for maybe the last 20 years or more. Very discouraging.

      Delete
  19. "The Chinese have demonstrated that they are an order of magnitude better than anyone else in the world at major civil engineering projects at present."

    Not really unless the point is just to have a mega project and PR.

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/chinas-three-gorges-dam-disaster/

    Sure you are desperate to win WW2 and you end up with Hanford, but a peace time project should not have blow back that fast. You can detail the same with their rapid rail system. Shoddy construction, routes that cannot fund themselves etc. How many of their super commuters are already just rotting in place or hardly utilized at a typical rates in other countries.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Can they build? Absolutely.

      Should they build? Not necessarily. Three Gorges is a prime example.

      In terms of heavy infrastructure construction capability no one touches the Chinese currently.

      Delete

Comments will be moderated for posts older than 7 days in order to reduce spam.