CHINA IS A PAPER TIGER LET AUSTIN CHALLENGE THEIR BLUFF
Austin’s Strategy for US-China conflict will stop war more likely
China Using Political Warfare to Fight Unseen War on Taiwan & the World—The Chinese Communist Party is advancing its plans to overtake Taiwan. This comes amid frequent incursions into Taiwanese air space, the positioning of warships near the island nation, and renewing threats against it. This strategy includes a broad array of tactics tied to political warfare, which China is using not just against Taiwan, but much of the world as well.“Political Warfare: Strategies for Combating China’s Plan to ‘Win without Fighting.'”
The United States needs to prepare for a potential future conflict bearing little resemblance to "the old wars" that have long consumed the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said Friday in his first significant policy speech.
Austin called for harnessing technological advances and better integrating military operations globally to "understand faster, decide faster and act faster."
"The way we fight the next major war is going to look very different from the way we fought the last ones," Austin said during a trip to the Hawaii-based U.S. Pacific Command.
Austin did not explicitly mention rivals like China or Russia. But his remarks came as the United States starts an unconditional withdrawal from Afghanistan, on orders from President Joe Biden, aimed at ending America's longest war and resetting Pentagon priorities.
Austin acknowledged that he has spent "most of the past two decades executing the last of the old wars."
Critics say withdrawing from Afghanistan will not end the Asian country's internal conflict or extinguish the threat of terrorism.
Austin's remarks did not appear to prescribe specific actions or predict any specific conflict. He instead appeared to outline broad, somewhat vague goals to drive the Pentagon under the Biden administration.
"We can't predict the future," Austin said. "So what we need is the right mix of technology, operational concepts and capabilities — all woven together in a networked way that is so credible, so flexible and so formidable that it will give any adversary pause."
Preventing a conflict would mean creating "advantages for us and dilemmas for them," he said.
U.S. responses could be indirect, he said, outlining a scenario in which cyberwarfare could be used "to respond to a maritime security incident hundreds of miles away."
Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin is advocating an approach to national security that he calls integrated deterrence. It is designed to employ the full range of American capabilities, used either punitively or preventively, to persuade potential aggressors not to attack the United States or its core overseas interests.
Having argued for a similar concept — which I call indirect or asymmetric defense in a new book, “The Art of War in an Age of Peace: U.S. Grand Strategy and Resolute Restraint” (with equal emphasis on resoluteness and restraint) — I agree with Secretary Austin. The framework he advocates merits greater discussion and elucidation — and, most of all, action, especially in the non-military realms of national security policy.Part of why the concept of integrated deterrence — including economic instruments of multiple types, as well as cyber, informational and diplomatic capabilities — is so important is this: A classic military invasion or large-scale attack by Russia or China seems far less likely than smaller, more limited and possibly “gray-area” aggression. We need credible responses where the punishment fits the crime, rather than imagining that the world’s greatest military would come quickly to the rescue by, for example, sinking
China’s 350-ship navy in the opening days of battle over islands in the western Pacific, as some have implied we might do. And we need to worry about actions that might fall short of direct assaults on American treaty allies, such as a Chinese attack on Taiwan or an expanded Russian attack on Ukraine, that nonetheless would be unconscionable and impossible to ignore.
Indeed, today, the possibility exists that Washington could be forced to choose between risking war and appeasing Chinese or Russian aggression in ways that ultimately could lead to much graver threats. This is a Catch-22 we need to avoid.
In the event of limited enemy aggression — say, the seizure of a contested island in the Baltic Sea or western Pacific, perhaps a partial Chinese blockade of Taiwan to squeeze the island into strategic submission — a large-scale U.S. and allied response could seem massively disproportionate. Yet a non-response would be unthinkable and potentially inconsistent with American treaty obligations and other commitments. Washington could be faced with two equally senseless, unacceptable options.
Integrated deterrence and asymmetric defense offer alternatives. Without renouncing the possibility of a direct response to liberate allied territory, they could meet China or Russia at whatever level of escalation Beijing or Moscow wanted to consider in a proportionate (though not necessarily identical or symmetric) fashion. This strategy would combine military elements with economic warfare.
The military components could feature redeployments during and after a crisis, strengthened forward defenses, and perhaps limited military attacks against Russian or Chinese assets, quite possibly in other theaters from where the initial attack occurred.
The instruments of economic warfare could include offensive elements, notably various types of sanctions that might evolve and expand with time during a crisis and perhaps beyond. The sanctions could feature targeted penalties against individuals, or more sweeping restrictions against whole sectors of an adversary’s economy, and should be applied in conjunction with as many U.S. allies as possible. Such economic instruments would have to include defensive measures to ensure the resilience of the United States and its allies against possible enemy reprisal.
Having argued for a similar concept — which I call indirect or asymmetric defense in a new book, “The Art of War in an Age of Peace: U.S. Grand Strategy and Resolute Restraint” (with equal emphasis on resoluteness and restraint) — I agree with Secretary Austin. The framework he advocates merits greater discussion and elucidation — and, most of all, action, especially in the non-military realms of national security policy.Part of why the concept of integrated deterrence — including economic instruments of multiple types, as well as cyber, informational and diplomatic capabilities — is so important is this: A classic military invasion or large-scale attack by Russia or China seems far less likely than smaller, more limited and possibly “gray-area” aggression. We need credible responses where the punishment fits the crime, rather than imagining that the world’s greatest military would come quickly to the rescue by, for example, sinking
China’s 350-ship navy in the opening days of battle over islands in the western Pacific, as some have implied we might do. And we need to worry about actions that might fall short of direct assaults on American treaty allies, such as a Chinese attack on Taiwan or an expanded Russian attack on Ukraine, that nonetheless would be unconscionable and impossible to ignore.
Indeed, today, the possibility exists that Washington could be forced to choose between risking war and appeasing Chinese or Russian aggression in ways that ultimately could lead to much graver threats. This is a Catch-22 we need to avoid.
In the event of limited enemy aggression — say, the seizure of a contested island in the Baltic Sea or western Pacific, perhaps a partial Chinese blockade of Taiwan to squeeze the island into strategic submission — a large-scale U.S. and allied response could seem massively disproportionate. Yet a non-response would be unthinkable and potentially inconsistent with American treaty obligations and other commitments. Washington could be faced with two equally senseless, unacceptable options.
Integrated deterrence and asymmetric defense offer alternatives. Without renouncing the possibility of a direct response to liberate allied territory, they could meet China or Russia at whatever level of escalation Beijing or Moscow wanted to consider in a proportionate (though not necessarily identical or symmetric) fashion. This strategy would combine military elements with economic warfare.
The military components could feature redeployments during and after a crisis, strengthened forward defenses, and perhaps limited military attacks against Russian or Chinese assets, quite possibly in other theaters from where the initial attack occurred.
The instruments of economic warfare could include offensive elements, notably various types of sanctions that might evolve and expand with time during a crisis and perhaps beyond. The sanctions could feature targeted penalties against individuals, or more sweeping restrictions against whole sectors of an adversary’s economy, and should be applied in conjunction with as many U.S. allies as possible. Such economic instruments would have to include defensive measures to ensure the resilience of the United States and its allies against possible enemy reprisal.
China joins Russia in warning it will 'not stand idly by' if the US deploys medium range missiles after tearing up arms control treaty
Above all, if the United States military focuses on preparing for the next war, then it may also accomplish what Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin calls the cornerstone of America's defense—ensuring that it never has to fight one. The United States may never see eye-to-eye with China on the sovereignty of the South China Sea or with Russia on European security. By developing credible military options, however, the United States may be able to deter both powers from using force to change the status quo.
No matter what the Biden administration says in its next defense strategy, interstate competition will be a reality. Recognizing this geopolitical backdrop, however, is different than tasking the Defense Department to compete. Combatting the military threat posed by China and Russia will require the Department of Defense's full concentration, especially in an era of more constrained resources. Dropping “competition” from the next defense strategy would be a good place to start.
Raphael S. Cohen, a former active-duty Army officer, is a senior political scientist and the acting director of the Strategy and Doctrine Program, Project AIR FORCE at the nonprofit, nonpartisan RAND Corporation.
This commentary originally appeared on The Hill on May 17, 2021. Commentary gives RAND researchers a platform to convey insights based on their professional expertise and often on their peer-reviewed research and analysis.
China has said it will 'not sit idly by' if the US chooses to deploy intermediate-range missiles to the Asia-Pacific region after walking away from a treaty that banned the weapons (pictured, a retired Chinese missile at a military museum in Beijing)
Beijing was not a signatory to the original Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, and Washington has said it tore up the deal in part to counter threats from China (file)
Trump has said he is keen to sign a new pact that includes both Russia, which was signed up to the previous deal, and China, which was not.
However, fears have been growing of a new arms race after Washington announced its intention to test a new intermediate-range weapon in the coming weeks.
The INF Treaty, signed by the US and the USSR in 1987, banned both countries from using land-based ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and missile launchers with ranges of 500–5,500 kilometres (310 and 3,400 miles, respectively).
The US Navy’s new anti-ship missile scores a hit at RIMPAC, but there’s a twist
Check out old U.S. Navy ships blowing up as part of RIMPAC 2018 exercise
The U.S. surface fleet’s brand-new anti-ship missile was used as part of the barrage of rockets and missiles that put an end to the landing ship tank Racine on July 12 during the Rim of the Pacific exercise, but it wasn’t shot by the Navy.
The U.S. Army shot the Naval Strike Missile from the back of a truck using its Palletized Load System in a demonstration that is likely to raise eyebrows in China. The missile, a joint venture between the Norwegian company Kongsberg and Raytheon, was fired from the Pacific Missile Range Facility in Barking Sands, Hawaii, at the former USS Racine, which was floating 55 nautical miles north of Kauai, Hawaii.
Joining the U.S. Army was the Japanese Ground Self-Defense Force, which fired Mitsubishi’s Type 12 surface-to-ship missile.
The Navy inked a contract with Raytheon to start buying the NSM for its littoral combat ships and likely its future frigate. The Army’s shot successfully detonated on target, according to U.S. Pacific Fleet officials.
The shots dovetails with a concept that the Army and the JGSDF have been developing, known in some circles as “archipelagic defense,” which in essence calls for the use of ground forces to deny Chinese forces free movement through the theater by deploying anti-ship and anti-air missiles throughout the island chains that pepper the Asia-Pacific region.
Ghost Riders in the Sky! Three US Stealth Bombers - each costing $2.1bn and with call-sign 'DEATH' - soar over Dover after leaving RAF base for secret training mission in Europe
Three US B-2 Stealth Bombers have taken to the skies above Britain from an RAF base in Gloucestershire
The planes, valued at $2.1billion each and capable of carrying nuclear weapons, arrived in the UK last night
They have come to the continent to take part in a series of training activities, claimed a US forces spokesman
Three US Stealth bombers, which cost $2.1billion each and $135,000 an hour to operate, have been pictured taking part in a European training mission above the skies of Dover.
The United States Air Force B2 Spirit bombers, designed to be virtually undetectable to radar and carry 20 tonnes of nuclear or conventional bombs, were filmed arriving under cover of darkness on Tuesday night at RAF Fairford, Gloucestershire.
They are in Europe to take part in 'long planned' NATO training missions with their European allies, according to a Royal Air Force spokesman.
Incredible pictures show two of the bombers flying alongside two Royal Air Force F-35B lightning jets from RAF Marham, near the White cliffs of Dover and above a wind farm as they conduct an integrated flying practice.
This is the first time the US bombers have trained with non-US F-35's.
Three US Stealth bombers have been pictured taking part in an integrated flying practice with two Royal Air Force F-35 lightning jets in the skies of Dover (Pictured: One B2 spirit bomber and two RAF F-35's fly over the English channel near Dover)
The B2 spirit bombers, which cost $1.2billion each and an estimated $135,000 an hour to run, have been designed to be virtually invisible to radar and to be capable of evading air defence systems. (Pictured: Two B2 Spirit bombers and two RAF F-35 lightning jets take part in a training flight above the white cliffs of Dover today)
+13
The bombers touched down in RAF Fairford, Gloucestershire, on Tuesday night. The base is used by the bombers as it has a longer runway than other air force bases and climate-controlled B2 aircraft hangars. (Pictured: A B2 Spirit bomber flies through the skies above the UK)
The planes arrived in the UK using the callsigns DEATH 1, DEATH 2 and DEATH 3. Footage shows the planes on the specially-designed long runway shortly after arrival.
With a 172-foot wingspan and a design that allows them to travel 10,000 miles with only one mid-air re-fueling, so that they could bypass Soviet air defence systems, they are one of the most deadly warplane models in the sky.
After the planes failed to materialise at RIAT this year aviation fans were left wondering when they would next come to the UK, following a visit last year and a posting at RAF Fairford the year before.
The base is one of the few places where the distinctive weapons, which have smooth flat wings with sharp angular edges to deflect radar, can land as it has a long runway and specially-built climate-controlled B2 hangers.They touched down in the UK at 1am on Tuesday night.
An airfield spokesman said: 'The United States Air Force are deploying a variety of aircraft and support personnel to RAF Fairford during August and September 2019.'
'While deployed to the UK the aircraft will conduct a series of training activities in Europe, these activities are long planned.'
US stealth bombers arrive at RAF Fairford for training mission
They are capable of carrying nuclear bombs as well as conventional explosives and were designed to be able to deliver a payload to the Soviet Union as they could evade their air defence system due to their ability to fly 10,000 miles and only need to refuel once (Pictured: A B2 Spirit bomber swoops above the Dover shoreline)
The US initially ordered 132 of the mighty 172-foot wingspan warplanes (one is pictured here flying over the windfarms near Dover) before cutting the order to just 20 following the collapse of the Soviet Union
A B2 Spirit fighter flying above the white cliffs of Dover with two RAF F-35 lightning jets. It touched down in the UK with two others at 1am on Tuesday night
Two B2 bombers are shown here flying with two F-35 RAF lightning jets above the white cliffs of Dover. An RAF spokesman confirmed that they had come to the UK to take part in NATO training exercises
The planes have previously been used for combat in Kosovo, where they bombed Serbian forces as NATO countered ethnic cleansing in the region, to take out Taliban targets in Afghanistan, and more recently to hit ISIS positions in Syria. (Pictured: Two Stealth bombers with two F-35 lightning jets flying along the Dover coastline
They are a small part of a US fleet of 20 Stealth Bombers, the country's most technologically advanced aircraft ever made, which are based at Whiteman Air Force Base, Missouri.
First designed under the Carter Administration, originally 132 were ordered by the United States. However, this was quickly scaled back following the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Since then the Stealth bombers have been used in fighting over Kosovo, where they bombed Serbian forces as NATO countered ethnic cleansing in the region, to take out Taliban targets in Afghanistan, and more recently to hit ISIS positions in Syria.
The distinctive planes, which have a smooth surface and sharp edges to deflect radar, were pictured arriving at RAF Fairfold, Gloucestershire, on Tuesday night
They came to the base as it has a specially designed longer runway and two climate-controlled B2 aircraft hangars
B-2 SPIRIT: MOST EXPENSIVE AIRCRAFT EVER, BUILT TO DROP ARMAGEDDON ON THE SOVIETS
The B-2 Spirit is the U.S. Air Force's deadliest and most expensive plane - a Cold Warrior's invention which has since been used to bomb the Taliban and ISIS.
Each of the 20 operational B-2s is valued at $2.1 billion, and putting one in the air costs an estimated $135,000 an hour, and cannot function in the rain.
On board its flight crew of two can stay in the air for 33 hours, at the controls of a plane designed to sneak into Soviet territory unseen to drop nuclear bombs, then return to the U.S. in a single flight.
The B-2s were first designed under the Carter administration, came close to being canceled, and finally took flight for the first time in 1989, just as the Soviet Union they were supposed to fight was collapsing, entering Air Force service in 1997.
They have been used to fight in Kosovo, where they bombed Serbian forces as NATO moved in to counter ethnic cleansing of the Muslim Albanian minority, and in the war on terror, taking out Taliban targets in Afghanistan and most recently ISIS positions in Syria.
All are currently based at Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri, meaning that the one designated to fly over the Mall is flying 1,042miles to D.C. for the spectacle.
If it flies low enough it will be visible from the ground, but it is almost invisible on radar, with its stealth design making it look like a pigeon on radar screens.
SPECIFICATIONS:
Aircrew: 2
Top speed: 628mph
Range: 6,000 nautical miles, and refuels approximately every six hours
Length: 69ft
Wingspan: 172ft
Weight: 158,100lbs
Weapons: B61 and B83 nuclear bombs, MK84 conventional bomb, MK82 and CBU-87 conventional weapons and AGM-129 advanced cruise missile
How many: 20 operational
Costs: $135,000 an hour to operate, making it roughly twice as expensive to operate as the B-52 or B-1
From a range of 6,000 miles to 518 miles and the ability to carry nuclear weapons: How the two warplane types flying above Dover compare
B2 Spirit bomber
Top Speed: 628mph
Range: 6,000 miles without re-fuelling or 10,000 with re-fuelling
Weapons: B61 and B83 nuclear bombs, MK84 conventional bomb, MK82 and CBU-87 conventional weapons and AGM-129 advanced cruise missile
Aircrew: Two
Wingspan: 172ft
Length: 69ft
How many?: 20 currently operational in the US, 0 currently operational in the UK
Costs: As much as $135,000 an hour to operate, making it roughly twice as expensive as the B-52 or B-1
F-35 lightning jet
Top Speed: 1,200mph
Range: More than 518 miles can be covered without re-fuelling
Weapons: Two air-to-air missiles and two bombs. Underwing pylons enable the plane to carry a 15,000lb payload
Aircrew: One
Wingspan: 51.2ft
Length: 35ft
How many?: More than 19 currently operational in the US and nine currently operational in the UK
Cost: $35,000 per flying hour
B2 Spirit bomber (left) pictured flying above Dover and an F-35 lightning jet (right) preparing for take off on the UK's new aircraft carrier, named Queen Elizabeth II
No comments:
Post a Comment