‘How the United States Lost the Naval War of 2015'

Posted By Thomas E. Ricks Tuesday, December 8, 2009 - 3:34 PM Share

The new (Winter 2010) issue of FPRI's Orbis magazine has a particularly alarmist article that posits the Chinese sneakily sinking the USS George Washington in 2015.

I usually like this sort of article that attempts to look back from a possible future event and explain how we got there. But I didn't find this article, by Cdr. James Kraska, a Naval War College law professor, particularly persuasive. I mean, he asserts that the U.S. Navy is taking its eye off the ball because:

An entire generation of [its] mid-career commissioned and noncommissioned officers tried to learn counterinsurgency land warfare in the desert and mountains of central Asia while their counterparts in China conducted fleet exercises to learn how to destroy them."

Really? Has the Navy sent "an entire generation" to Iraq and Afghanistan?

Also, does national security rest ultimately only on the Navy, as this hydrocentric article tendentiously asserts?:

Only more slowly did people begin to realize that the maintenance of the world order had rested on U.S. military power, and that the foundation of that power was U.S. command of the global commons. The Army could fail, as it did in Vietnam; the Air Force was ancillary to the Army. To secure the U.S. position and the nation's security-and indeed for world order-the Navy could never fail."

But what stuck in my craw most of all was Kraska's casual poke at "the apologizing Obama administration," which he asserts that, combined with the "unpopularity" of the predecessor administration, is undermining national security. I think it is acceptable for active duty officers to critique strategy, but I think here Kraska is sailing a little too close to politically attacking his commander in chief, especially since he offers no evidence, and footnotes this sentence to an article by Henry Kissinger that appeared months before Obama became president.

US Army Korea - IMCOM

(62)

HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE

WALKING WOUNDED

5:22 PM ET

December 8, 2009

you die, yankee dogs...

Bot virst, vee keel moose!
:)

Here's a link to the platinum-plated USN entry for our SKYNET future. The write-up doesn't say if the über stealth-drone is carrier capable, or explain why it's parked in the handicapped spaces, in the pic. Perhaps like Scar, in 'Galactica', it's suffering PTSD.

http://thefutureofthings.com/pod/6239/x47-b-first-navy-stealth-uav-ready.html

The Marines are more likely to get funding for this 'Flying Beer Keg' concept.

http://thefutureofthings.com/news/6071/flying-beer-keg-uav-deploying-to-iraq.html

WOMBAT

8:02 PM ET

December 8, 2009

No offense, Walking, but

No offense, Walking, but there are other people involved in Iraq and Afghanistan than the Marines. The Flying Beer Keg is traveling with a National Guard unit.

WALKING WOUNDED

12:07 AM ET

December 9, 2009

None taken. An extra ration of grog for them all.

You're not the first, wombat, to grumble about Corp column inches being inverse to their numbers, but that wasn't my intent.

The Marines draw Dept of Navy funding the way that the NG relates to Army, and the Coast Guard to practically everyone, except maybe Border Patrol and TSA.

There might be an economic principle in play, whereby the funding is inversely related to the proximity of the actual mission to the debt-laden citizens.

USAF burns the most the farthest. Go Navy.

JSINAIKO

12:44 AM ET

December 10, 2009

Is Fearless Leader Putin

Is Fearless Leader Putin (they sort of look alike)? Is Squirrel in special ops what with the wings and the rocket pack and all? Crank up the Wayback machine and let's go talk to Marshall to see what he thinks of all this?

ZJIN

6:18 PM ET

December 8, 2009

My first instinct for this

My first instinct for this kind of artilce is: oh man, does navy want some more budget again? It definitely needs some imagination to create an enemy to justify taxpayers' money right now.

WALKING WOUNDED

7:26 PM ET

December 8, 2009

'does Navy want more budget again?'

Let me count the ways. Perhaps we should begin with their existential struggle (agin USAF) for low orbit 'turf' in near space. Navy has already demonstrated precision hard-kill capability, taking down the AF launched bird from a platform in the S. Pacific!

I'm thinking that Navy's SPAWAR must be considering a strategic relationship with China's heavy launch consortium, to offset the AF early buy-in advantage, acquiring a Russian launch option when it was cheap.

That leaves Army sucking vacuum with the Euros, or perhaps drinking tea and courting Indo-Japanese partners. I'd go with the latter.

Seriously, advancing the timetable of the 2020 Formosa Straights war to 2015 does seem like a desperation move.

SCHMEDLAP

7:06 PM ET

December 8, 2009

Link to the article?

Tom,

The article doesn't appear to be on the Orbis website (unless I just overlooked it). I attended a presentation by LCDR Kraska in which he provided an overview of his dissertation (he recently earned a PhD in International Law). It was on the same topic. I suspect that if you can get in contact with him and raise these issues that he can address them to your liking. Not having found the Orbis article, I am not sure why you raise the concerns that you did. Having attended his presentation, the issues that you raise are not very concerning. Perhaps he does a better job in person than in print. As an aside, and contrary to a concern you raised, I would note that, based upon his oral presentation, I thought he was an Obama fan - but maybe he was tailoring the presentation to his audience (largely academic and, thus, more likely left-leaning).

3:54 AM ET

December 9, 2009

Link to article

The article is available thru the Orbis website with Elsevier Publishers. This is a subscription site. If your organization does not have access you can purchase individual articles.

The site is:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00304387

You may also request a copy by contacting me at the Foreign Policy Research Institute, www.fpri.org, at email: hr@fpri.org.

Harry Richlin
Foreign Policy Research Institute

SCHMEDLAP

4:32 AM ET

December 9, 2009

Invalid criticism of Kraska

Tom,

I just read it (thank you, Mr. Richlin). I’m baffled that you opted to lift those two quotes out of this piece and to make no other comment.

Regarding the first quote, keep in mind that the article is intended to be read as though written in 2015. Thus, if the event alluded to has not occurred, then it should be read as a warning by the author to ensure that it does not occur.

Regarding the second quote, again, keep in mind that the article is to read as though written in 2015. Obviously, the author doesn’t have any citations from that era. The Kissinger article cited supports the characterization of Bush. Should the footnote have appeared in the middle of the sentence instead of the end? I guess so. Whatever the case, I would read it as a warning, rather than an assessment – a somewhat realistic warning given that many do view the President as a bit apologetic.

Those two quotes were of little consequence. This was not making a statement about personnel decisions or training. Nor was it making a statement about the President’s overtures in regard to China. It was discussing the need to ensure our naval forces retain access to coastal waters, the reasons why, and the threats to that continued access.
The Chinese attack in this article was not due to personnel or training policies or any past or future apologies that the President may make to China. The attack was due to a dispute over international law in regard to our access to coastal waters. In order to settle that dispute and banish us from their waters, the Chinese sought to settle the question by taking action (sinking the carrier) that communicated a clear policy, demonstrated the authority to prescribe it, and demonstrated a credible intent to continue enforcing it.

Realistic? Plausible? Reasonable people can disagree. But the two quotes that you lifted from the story have zero to do with the main thrust of the paper and I’m baffled that you chose to highlight those to the exclusion of the what the article was actually about. While the concern that you cite in regard to the second quote is always important to consider, I think you are being hypersensitive here. It is futurism and, thus, seeks to offer advice by demonstrating "this is how we will look back on these events."

ERIC C

7:22 PM ET

December 8, 2009

I have a feeling China won't

I have a feeling China won't attack the USS George Washington for the same reason Russia hasn't attacked us since World War 2.

CMEYERGO

7:30 PM ET

December 8, 2009

Sitting Ducks

Why does the Navy base a carrier in Japan (the USS George Washington) within in striking distance of Chinese, Russian, and North Korean ballistic missiles? Why does the U.S. military hurt relations with Japan with a pig-headed attempt to keep six large outdated airbases in Japan?

As this recent article notes:
http://www.g2mil.com/Japan-bases.htm

"Keeping military families, aircraft, and ships permanently based in Japan is not only extremely expensive, it is strategically unwise. The USA maintained dozens of aircraft at Clark Field in the Philippines in 1941 to deter a Japanese attack. They provided an easy target for a surprise attack and all aircraft were destroyed on the ground. The defense of the Philippines was poorly organized as a key concern for American officers was the evacuation of military families.

The same problem exists today in the unlikely event that war erupts with North Korea, China, or Russia. Dozens of American aircraft and thousands of American lives may be lost to surprise missile, bomber, or commando attacks, while officers are distracted with family concerns. While American servicemen are brave, many would abandon their post after an attack to ensure the welfare of their family. An attack on Japan may cause panic, and Admirals would face problems of sailors refusing to abandon their family to set sail. The Navy would be anxious to move its ships out of port to slip past lurking enemy submarines to the safety of bases in the central Pacific. From a military standpoint, it is far better to base ships, aircraft, and families far from the Asian mainland."

TYRTAIOS

8:02 PM ET

December 8, 2009

Perceptions are reality

China can do a lot of things - so can the U.S.

I couldn't access the good Commander's article, but suffice to say, perceptions are reality in the Pacific. Several of our allies, notably Australia, perceive a waning U.S. military capability in the future, and are increasing their military blue water budgets accordingly.

Imagine my surprise awhile back while in Honshu, and a Chinese destroyer pulled into Tokyo Bay. That would have been unfathomable a decade ago. While at the same time, China has denied entry into Hong Kong harbor to our naval vessels. Probably because our female sailors are taller than their sailors and would make them look inferior. :)

Perhaps when we stop spending so much of our diplomatic and military energy in the ME, we’ll refocus on other important areas such as the Pacific.

JPWREL

9:44 PM ET

December 8, 2009

Wait a minute

Probably because our female sailors are taller than their sailors and would make them look inferior. :)

This reminds me of the attitude of Americans after the beginning of our Pacific war against Japan. They just could not accept that the buck tooth spectacle wearing Japanese were capable of operating a carrier task force across the North Pacific in secret and striking Hawaii a major blow by air power - the Germans must have helped them.

Hold the Chinese in contempt at our peril. Their school systems are surpassing ours in the teaching of math and science complementing crews that are highly trained, disciplined and posses a strict military bearing we abandoned a long time ago.

Granted, the PLA Navy as yet cannot match the absolute technical level of U. S. Naval systems but they are developing quickly. As the 2005 Swedish HMS Gotland submarine training attack exercises against U. S. carrier strike groups off San Diego proved the Chinese could probably penetrate an American carrier’s defensive screen and successfully attack. The Chinese are tough cookies and would likely consider a couple of diesel electric attack boats expendable in exchange for the core of a carrier strike group. This attack would likely be accompanied by complex cruise and ballistic missiles coordinated with electronic attacks thus overloading our defensive systems.

The Chinese are not fools and have their financial, intellectual, industrial and technological capabilities in order and growing by leaps and bounds. While I suspect that China will use her growing and formidable economic power for commercial peaceful purposes no one knows the future.

The only thing that our Navy should be focusing on is China’s growing capabilities and not attempting to divine her intentions. We also might want to correct our own overweening arrogance or some sad day they may correct it for us.

TYRTAIOS

10:01 PM ET

December 8, 2009

Man overboard

"Probably because our female sailors are taller than their sailors and would make them look inferior. :)"

JPWREL - the above is a joke, following in the "wake" of the responses on females in the Navy/military, etc.

However, I'm CO of troops aboard this amphibious ship and unless your moral and attitude improves, beatings and diminished rations will continue on this cruise! :)

JPWREL

10:28 PM ET

December 8, 2009

Ah! Now that sounds like the

Ah! Now that sounds like the old Navy we all loved.

GRANT

9:08 PM ET

December 8, 2009

I'd say that Kraska is

I'd say that Kraska is actually a bit of an older generation. He talks of 'generations' of officers, when in my opinion it would be far more intelligent to talk of fleets of 'aquatic drones' that could launch missiles at ships or even make 'suicide' attacks. I'm of the firm belief by now that robotics will be a deciding factor in the next high-intensity war much the same way that tanks and carriers were sixty years ago.
Also he apparently thinks that ships will be fighting ships instead of ships fighting submarines and planes fighting ships.

On a more personal note in a rather unkind tone:
To Cdr. Kraska, do you want to win this war or not! We aren't fighting the Chinese military, we're fighting a Pashtun-based insurgency.
Despite alarmist literature, the last time we engaged the Chinese in battle was during the Korean war. Even if we presume that for some reason in seven years time the Chinese will abandon their highly popular and successful strategy of a peaceful rise to enter a war with the United States, a good deal of the Chinese military haven't been involved in conventional warfare since the 1950s, and their last war was with Vietnam in 1979.

SKIPPY-SAN

9:46 PM ET

December 8, 2009

It may not be a whole generation

But it is a significant amount of folks who have been sidetracked from what they should have been doing to develop professionally within the Navy to go fill Army billets in Afhganistan and Iraq. The program of individual augmentations has caused problems for certain rates and ranks-and there are probably more than a couple of folks who got derailed Navy wise as a result of their service in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Furthermore if you look at the editor ( Macrubin Owens)-you know what the political slant will be. He has no use for the Obama administration.

That said Kraska's got a good point. The Navy is sacrificing its core capabilities and the skills sets it is required to possess-and the results show. Anti-submarine warfare is a learned skill that takes time. Same with the other "A"'s (AAW and SUW). There is no free lunch-we will pay a price for the capabilities and resources we are wasting now.

China is a threat.

NYGDAN

9:47 PM ET

December 8, 2009

Foundation Maintenance

Is US status as global superpower /really/ based on our nuclear stockpile? I mean, Russia has no real power projection capabilities, but it can still nuke the world, so clearly aircraft carriers and a navy aren't the be-all-end-all. Also, rather odd to call the Air Force ancilliary to the Army. The only reason the Navy is important is because it brings the Army to where it wants to get and lets the Air Force have some place to land. Without the Air Force, there'd be no carriers, and thus no power projection/reason for a Navy.

Anyway, why would China /ever/ attack the US /anyway/, they'd be defeated instantly, and not by Naval action, but by thermonuclear war. So I don't think that a slight loss in whatever new tactics Kraska thinks there are (anything to stop stealth, wave skipping over the horion supersonic missiles in those new tactics??) is the decisive factor predicating a Chinese attack.

Heck, you could argue that ANY nation capable of even mounting a Naval battle is already not the sort of nation that is ready to get vapourized in a nuke response anyway.

JPWREL

10:42 PM ET

December 8, 2009

No nucs likely

Your assumption that the U.S. would resort to nuclear weapons if our fleet were attacked I don't think holds much water. My 'guess' is that the Chinese in our example could obliterate a carrier strike group and not risk even a limited nuclear response if they themselves used only conventional weapons.

The nuclear threshold is highly problematic in that resorting to nuclear weapons to avenge the loss of a fleet unit would complicate bringing the war to an end. The whole purpose a naval action is to achieve a political objective. A limited nuclear exchange complicates the political boundaries. To be sure we would respond to an attack violently and generate tremendous damage but not so much as to cut off the political process since that would not serve the interests of either party.

ERIC_STRATTONIII

8:11 PM ET

December 9, 2009

Great Points JPWREL in your

Great Points JPWREL in your posts, just because we have Nukes does not mean we will use them. Even one launched would mean the deaths of Millions now.
The large concern is over Taiwan and I agree, the Chinese could wipe out a Carrier Strike Group with realtive ease and then hope to invade and hold Taiwan before we could get enough troops over to hold them off and then bet that we do not want to get involved in a fight to push them off.

BRET

11:33 PM ET

December 8, 2009

Agree with his opinion, but disagree with his evidence and reaso

Interesting post. Could you post the link to the article Tom?

I agree with his opinion. The Chinese military are catching up with our current military. They are creating new technology that the US doesn't possess, nor knows how to respond to (anti ship ballistic missiles), building and modernizing more ships, and are trying to create an aircraft carrier. Also, like the colonel pointed out, they are practicing naval war games much more than what they used to.

The US navy on the other hand has been slowing down. Many of our ships are Cold War era ships, and are not as effective as they were ten years ago. Even though we're upgrading the weapons systems on our Destroyers and Cruisers, we still need to build a new ship. Currently, many of these ships are reaching the point where they're being decommissioned. The Navy in response, hasn't done much, and aren't developing new Cruisers or Destroyers. Even though their budget is smaller, they are spending their funds on LCS ships, which are new, but they're smaller, minesweeper ships.

I believe that if we would ever enter a naval conflict with China, it would be a neck to neck conflict with no clear winner.

WHSKYJACK

11:52 PM ET

December 8, 2009

Didn't I just read on this

Didn't I just read on this site that the Brazilians are training the Chinese to run an aircraft carrier?
For me that's "nuff said"

So it is 2010 in a few weeks, where are the Chinese going to get this navy that is capable of defeating our navy in 5 years?
A doctorial thesis?
Have things ever changed.

Jack

SCHMEDLAP

12:34 AM ET

December 9, 2009

Huh?

Nuff said? Are aircraft carriers the wave of the future?

WHSKYJACK

2:42 AM ET

December 9, 2009

What future? 2015, is now.

What future?

2015, is now.

That is the problem with the scenario.

HAIRYSTEVE20

1:12 AM ET

December 9, 2009

Repo men

The Chinese don't need to defeat the US navy. All they need to do is ask for their money back. I reckon the entire US fleet would just about cover a downpayment.

BILL KELLER

1:38 AM ET

December 9, 2009

The elephant that stalks supply side economics...

when the national balance goes to only Mandarin IOUs, the quality of the food in the officer's mess will keep all lines doubled up. Chinese understand this very well.

WHSKYJACK

3:00 AM ET

December 9, 2009

But remember, if you owe the

But remember, if you owe the bank $100 and can't repay the loan it is your problem.
If you owe the bank 100 million dollars and can't pay the loan, it is the banks problem.
How many billion reasons do the Chinese have to see us successful?

Jack

BILL KELLER

1:30 AM ET

December 9, 2009

Remember the half of the West Point speech about costs..

suggest the President was alerting the part of the Nation that sees only immediate fears, devils, couscous, media, fiduciary responsibility, curvature, Darwin, civility, and common wealth sharing as existential deaths that their navel gazing might be a bit myopic.

PETE

7:40 PM ET

December 9, 2009

Say Again Last Transmission

Bill, your enigmatic messages are hard to understand. Your contributions to this forum would be greater if you used less Delphic Oracle and more King's English.

BILL KELLER

5:54 PM ET

December 10, 2009

As the King might say..

"Stop listening to sideshow barkers and con artists known as 'conservatives' or experts or tacticians or advocates. You are being warned that you are going broke and wasting your blood and money. You are not looking around at a world that is passing you by, you don't see your strategic competitors. You chase old myths while blinded by chronic biases. You are confusing veneer for virtue..."

But think this provokes anger when all that wanted is awakening...Delphi may be a better neighborhood. They may still have a desire to ponder with civility.

But I also appreciate your counsel, thank you.

JSINAIKO

3:11 AM ET

December 9, 2009

We have a guy in the "women

We have a guy in the "women are sexpots at sea" thread yakking about the Chinese threat to Taiwan. As if they are about to invade and as if the US would go to war with China if they did. Madame Chiang Kai-shek, Doug MacArthur, Milton Caniff, Terry and the Dragon Lady live!

That said, I have no problem with my tax dollars being spent gaming the possibility that the Chinese will some day sail out of Hong Kong or Shanghai to go toe to toe with the US Navy. Or infiltrate a carrier group with a couple of subs. Or something. But it's difficult to take seriously anyone who thinks it's actually going to happen any time soon.

Other than Tibet, which has been a Chinese client for centuries, can anyone here name any time or place where the Chinese have attacked or invaded anyone? Taiwan? I doubt it - if it didn't happen in 1950 or 1959 there isn't any reason to suspect it'll happen now or in the foreseeable future. Korea in 1950? Seen a defensive action by the Chinese in the wake of a rogue commander leading his armies up to the Chinese border. OK, they played some games with Vietnam in what was essentially a border dispute and Vietnam spanked them real good in 1979. So other than that and Korea I can't think of a single instance in the last thousand years where Chinese boots have been on the ground uninvited in some other country

Genghis Khan doesn't count. He wasn't Chinese.

So as a possible super-power it certainly makes sense to take into account Chinese capabilities, but history and culture make any aggressive military moves by China extremely unlikely. In fact unprecedented.

So I concur with the other posters above who see this as yet another attempt to find a new threat that we can spend a huge pile of dough on.

Or right wing American paranoia.

It's ironic; many of the same people who crow about how we beat the USSR by forcing them to spend inordinate amounts of their national treasure countering the perceived threat of Reagan's military buildup advocate that we do the same thing.

TYRTAIOS

5:53 AM ET

December 9, 2009

A moment in time

It seems Clausewitz argued that the key to victory, in all but a limited war, was the destruction of the enemy's army (Navy?) on the battlefield.

However, Jomeni maintained that the key to victory was the progressive domination of the enemy's territory (an ocean, with its littorals?).

Since you mentioned him, Chinggis Khaan put into practice both, but that's besides the point, though I admire him so.

It is not just about ships: we are seeing our attention in the big Pacific pond slowly slip, having been landlocked with consuming conflicts in two theaters, though at the moment, no one can match our blue water Navy - at this moment.

Our Commander, as Schmedlap has graciously recapped, is looking into a crystal ball toward another moment in time, with a trained eye.

Teaser question jsinaiko, who had the advantage: an average Mongol with a laminated recurve bow or a trained English longbowman? :o

JSINAIKO

11:48 AM ET

December 9, 2009

Great question! Mongol was on

Great question!

Mongol was on horseback Englishman on foot. Longbowmen never operated alone. Massed fire - like musketry a few hundred years later - was what made them such bad mamma-jammas. Fire and motion was the Mongols thing. Great light cavalry.

One on one? Mongol. Even with the rapid fire capabilities of the English longbow. Longbow was effective against massed heavy cavalry (knights) and massed infantry (French pike-men and crossbowmen).

But unless some unknown English mercenaries were out in Central Europe in the early 13th c., I doubt they ever encountered each other. The longbow reached its acme about 100 - 150 years after Chinggis (better spelling than mine) reached the borders of Europe. Also, the longbow wasn't something the Brits wanted to export till later when there was dough to be made due to an increase in cash reserves and the rise of central authorities (kings). As late as Agincourt in 1415 the French were underestimating the longbow.

How about Mongol vs. Sioux or Apache warrior?

I do understand the point of the article, but I still maintain that the Chinese will have to do a lot of changing to want to act in an expansionist manner or desire to destroy a rival's forces by physical force. Hasn't ever been their style and there is no reason to believe that it will become their style any time in the foreseeable future.

None of the guys some folks in the US are convinced want to destroy us have really ever shown the desire. or made moves to do so. This includes the Russians. The USSR spent a lot of time yelling at us, but the only period where they may have had the desire - 1946 to 1953 they either didn't have the bomb or were hamstrung by MAD, and knew it would have been suicidal. After Stalin there was never any desire or serious move to hit the Fulda Gap or nuke us or whatever. Some close calls in 1983 due to bad communications and mutual paranoia, but no plans to take over Western Europe in spite of the paranoid right's fevered wishes that it be so.

Both China and Russia have reputations for being pretty brutal and controlling inside their spheres of hegemony, but neither have ever made aggressive MILITARY moves outside those spheres. Ever.

Yes, things can change, and that's why I have no problem with planners looking at, and gaming the issue, but I don't see a lot of resource allocation in that direction being advisable, strategic, or a good use of those increasingly expensive and scarce resources.

ERIC_STRATTONIII

8:37 PM ET

December 9, 2009

Really?

Hmm..never made aggressive moves? What does Vietnam think about that? Japan? India? Do you EVEN read History? How big do you think we should let that sphere get? Maybe let them invade Japan? lol
As for Vietnam, so worried are they about the growing Sino threat that they offered a lease on Cam Ranh Bay to the US. But hey, I am sure you would have gotten to that eventually, right?

JSINAIKO

2:29 AM ET

December 10, 2009

Can you try being civil? Do

Can you try being civil? Do you understand what civil discourse is or do you just yell at folks and talk past them all the time. I really can't discuss anything with you as long as you continue to insult and try to demean other people

I have a PHD in history. So yes I do read history.

Those were border disputes and INDIA started the most recent ones. There are border disputes all the time - they are local matters and do not constitute a generally aggressive policy by anyone. Border straightening in the Himalayas has absolutely nothing to do with the vital interests of the US. Hell, they don't have much to do with the vital interests of China or India. And they certainly aren't going to engender a general or wider war. Or do you advocate US intervention when anyone shoots at anyone else?

The little war between China and Vietnam was THIRTY YEARS AGO. Don't have a cow.

JSINAIKO

12:41 AM ET

December 10, 2009

"How big do you think we

"How big do you think we should let that sphere get?"

Who is we? You? The JCS? The US is one country on the planet. I didn't realize we were kings of the world. Last time I checked there were limits to US power even with you at the helm.

I don't see the rest of the world worrying about the "Sino threat." I see them doing business with the Chinese.

When you live in ChaneyWorld I guess everything and everyone is a threat. Pretty sad place to be - enjoy!

ERIC_STRATTONIII

10:51 AM ET

December 11, 2009

oye

You know what, for someone who tosses insults you have a lot of nerve to accuse someone else of not being civil. However, I will lay off a bit but I will also go after you if you are way off on a subject, such as this and the women in combat posts.
We have a treaty with Taiwan or does that not mean anything?
So, since we are just one country we should ignore our treaties with Australia and Japan, etc..I am curious how many of our treaties you would let slide?
As for you PhD in History, I would like to suggest you actually interact with the Military you are so fond of posting on all the time. The problem I find with most academics is that they live in a fishbowl and hence do not always get the best info. Not being insulting on that, really, just stating that maybe you should get out and attempt to teach or lecture to Military students about something that is within both of your realms so that you would have a little more interaction and knowledge about the services.

WALKING WOUNDED

5:34 PM ET

December 9, 2009

Mounted vs dismounted bowmen

The dismounted marksman scores more often, but risks being outflanked by his mobile counterpart.

In a meeting engagement, the turkic saddle bow would seem to trump infantry or heavy cavalry, without risk of closing and taking casualties.

Union cavalry learned to fight a pitched battle dismounted, where their breach loading piece could be used with accuracy; or employ the pistol against undefended baggage trains. The wily Mongol also learned to vary the compromises between mobility, range, accuracy and rate of fire. They would avoid letting enemy bowmen get their range.

On the question of naval engagement, big ships can carry unbelievable firepower, allowing them to defeat anything, provided they get to shoot first. However, today's missiles hit an identified target at ranges of hundreds to thousands of miles, and can be dispersed on the mobile launchers invented in WW2. The capital ship is vulnerable to a single hit by a hypersonic DU missile. Point defense against swarms of missiles seems like a losing proposition.

But until the experiment is run in real time, the outcome is uncertain. Would we go thermonuclear with our major trade partner, or even risk loss of the Pacific fleet, to defend Formosa? How far along Taiwan's nuclear weapons program is might be a more productive line of speculation.

On the 'too big to fail' defense, the long term risk is if our economy gets whittled down to size. International consensus to limit our currency-printing monopoly is being discussed. Future loans from China will increasingly be secured agin real property, not mutable paper sums. So far, China's regional ring of developed industrial rivals has matched their bid for US paper and markets.

Again, until an economic assault is run at scale, in specific conditions, the outcome is speculative, and in the 2015 case, self-serving alarmism.

JSINAIKO

5:39 PM ET

December 9, 2009

Good Points & Good Questions...

Perhaps the mounted Mongol with his composite bow vs. English longbowman standoff depends on who the better commander is. Your points are well taken but I wouldn't want to be anywhere near the weight of fire massed longbowmen could accurately bring to a target whether mounted or not. If the Mongol commander could find a way to avoid the English volleys the Mongols would probably take the battle. But if he lets the horses get tired, watch out!

I am 100% confident that at this point in time and for the foreseeable future the US will not go nuclear over Taiwan. Or conventional either. But the chances that the PRC will invade Taiwan are about 0%. Ain't gonna happen.

Let's worry about the Iranians with their soon-to-be-bombs. Or the North Koreans, although the Chinese won't let that happen either.

China is on a huge roll. Why in any scenario would they kill the goose?

WALKING WOUNDED

7:00 PM ET

December 9, 2009

strategic change happens

... like when Seoul or Taipei go for the kind of neighborhood nuclear trump card that tiny Israel and bankrupt Pakistan achieved. Tokyo is there, for anyone with eyes to see. As is Arabia.

But what about Mumbai, Maylasia, Indonesia? Will Canberra be caught flat-footed? I think not.

Do lines of alliance shift and twist, in the Pakistani model?

The Navy has guarded US hegemony in the Pacific for so long that we think it's a permanent strategic feature. Just a hundred years ago, TR was sending the White Fleet to the East on half a bunker of coal.

JSINAIKO

7:29 PM ET

December 9, 2009

Everyone you mention is

Everyone you mention is making way too much money to get into that sort of thing. Of course it's worth considering, but you can't plan your acquisition budget based on that.

Yes, it's true; Japan would need about 100 days to put deliverable bomb together. And everyone relevant knows that. So what?

It isn't clear to me how your scenarios change anything. And the moment Taipei goes for its own bomb I'll eat my CPU. Again, too much dough being made. I should add that the chances of a reapproachment between Taiwan and the PRC are much higher than them duking it out. History indicates this ids what will happen. COmpare the situation between Taiwan and the PRC now compared to 30 years ago. Its come a long way baby.

WALKING WOUNDED

3:15 AM ET

December 10, 2009

too profitable to go nucular?

So S. Korea and Arabia are making too much money to worry about their primary strategic threat stealing a nuclear march on them? I aint no Richard Pearl, but that logic seems weak to me.

Pakistan and Israel have proved that US allies can bust the NPT monopoly with little and no sanctions, respectively. Japan has proved that cash is king, acquiring tons of Pu from a country that is technically still at war, occupying their Kuriles. Given the 6-party decade long failure to conclude a deal with Pyongyang, Seoul has ample strategic justification to opt out, and no one could really fault their general staff for recommending that they assemble the weapon before telegraphing the move to the UN/IAEC.

Seoul may figure the current US security umbrella is a better deal for now, but half a hundred general staffs must be looking at Nkorea, saying 'huh, izzat so?', and doing the arithmetic on their own nuclear path. Presenting options is what staffs do. And nothing provides options quite like being nuclear.

I'd put the odds on more nuclear neighbors somewhat higher than a shootout over Formosa. But the latter is a proven selling point for USN capital budgets.

JSINAIKO

4:22 AM ET

December 10, 2009

I would agree that the

I would agree that the nuclear family - if that's an appropriate term - will grow. I continue to challenge anyone to show me what might possibly make the PRC attack Taiwan; there haven't been any indications for decades.

And there's difference between a strategic rival and a threat. Again, no indication that China is interested in attacking anyone.

However what China is doing is expanding its economic reach worldwide. Thwey are all over East and central Africa, SOuth America, and as always, Asia. And not threatening anyone or making demands. Just doing business - making money.

The global hegemony they are creating is based on soft power; it's much more effective than all the carrier task groups put together and often has mutual benefits. I don't notice China making a lot of enemies these days.

No you ain't no Prince of Darkness, that that's a good thing, but I think you are over-rating the notion that the PRC thinks that it has to act in a threatening manner ot get what it wants. So far its done pretty well by just doing business.

Ironically, I would think that a desperate, nuclear, sociopathic North Korea is a bigger strategic threat to everyone these days, including the PRC. So in that sense, the PRC is more allied with South Korea than their socialist buddies in Pyongyang. And believe me, whatever lip service they may give it, socialist solidarity don't mean squat. Never meant as much as US planners mistakenly thought it did, but it's pretty much nonexistent now.

WALKING WOUNDED

6:50 PM ET

December 10, 2009

diplomacy, business, the big schtick

are all instruments of US policy, and China is maybe more unified in their policy aims than we are.

We've war gamed a Formosa Straights crisis for my entire life. Accepting your view of Chinese 'soft power', their general staff still has to analyze and counter our war plans, run their own games. The games are maybe instructive on why not to engage in the real thing, but they do draw into question a thesis that such a thing is unthinkable, zero percentile. China has historically shown willingness to engage in battle, with the US, with Russia, with India, and with Viet Nam. Territory is a thing folks will fight over, and the Chinese feel they were ripped off during the revolution.

Post WW2 thru post Gulf-1, nations acquired nukes with no desire to use them. So the inadvisability of nuclear war doesn't preclude the sacrifices necessary to gear up. The capital cost today is much lower than what Israel and Pakistan incurred, the information apparently available, dual use items adaptable.

As to what could stimulate an actual attack on Taiwan, note that a perception of Taipei digging their heels in on independence has turned up the threat volume in the past. A strategy for independence would almost require a nuclear deterrent. China can just run Taiwan broke in a conventional armed standoff, and the US is already on record endorsing Chinese sovereignty, in principle. So, if Taiwan moved to acquire nuclear capability, a la Pakjistan vs India, the PRC general staff would likely be tasked to present options for at least a preemptive strike strike to shortstop that program. And update/advance invasion options.

Our wars in Korea and Viet Nam can be viewed as Soviet projects, whose outcomes were decades of containment of a Soviet rival at US expense. Purchase of FSR Pu is conceivably within factions of Taipei and Moscow's interests, a variation on cold war conflict cultivation on China's borders.

Just because something is a bad idea...

JSINAIKO

11:04 PM ET

December 10, 2009

Well Written

Your scenario re. PRC/Taiwan isn't implausible or out of the question, just unlikely.

And it certainly makes sense to game that and other scenarios that may someday come to pass. I'm 55 and yes, they have been looking at this since some years before my birth (which happened a few weeks after my Dad got home from Korea).

China has a history of threatening breakaway provences and territories and then making peace. My guess is that Taiwan will end up in a similar situation to Hong Kong; self governing and semi-autonomous, but still part of the PRC. But that's just a guess too.

And here's another guess: eventually someone will use a nuke against someone else, but it ain't going to be any of the big members of the nuclear club. That is, not the US, PRC, Russia, PRC, India, UK, France, South Africa, Israel, or even Pakistan. North Korea or Iran, or a new as of yet unknown player. I also doubt that a non-state player will do it. Too hard to make one and then to make it deliverable.

My point is that although we do need to game these possibilities out, we really can't base our aquisition budgets on any of these. Or on a strictly COIN operation either. As Rubber Ducky points out somewhere else, the need for boomers has gone down exponentially. We got rid of battleships decades ago. We can probably lose a couple of Nimitz class carriers as well; eight or nine is more than enough. But we probably can use some littoral combat ships even if they aren't the ones proposed presently.

Your point about Korea and Vietnam is interesting, but I only agree to a point. For the first year of the Korean War it was felt that there was a good chance that it was a feint or glancing blow and once enough resources were committed there, Uncle Joe would send the T-54s into the Fulda Gap. Turned out that this was an incorrect hypothesis. We though the Vietnam escalation was to prevent the dominoes from falling. Wrong again. It was a war of national liberation and not a proxy for the USSR or PRC.

This goes to my posts about the mistake that the US has made since before WW2; the myth of monolithic communism. Of course the USSR supported North Vietnam - the PRC wasn'[t going to help much! And history has shown that Stalin was mucho pissed off at Kim il Sung for invading South Korea - it certainly wasn't part of any plan of Stalin's. ANd the PRC was brand new and pretty weak. Their response to the UN/US march to the Yalu was pretty defensive.

Yes, both these conflicts were in the end part of the massive containment effort that the US, NATO, SEATO and other allies maintained against the USSR, but that wasn't the reasons we were involved in either conflict.

WALKING WOUNDED

5:57 AM ET

December 14, 2009

jsinaiko:It was a war of national lib., not a proxy for the USSR

They aren't mutually exclusive.

US reaction to Korea stalemate and nascent VN war was to dilute containment and targeting agin USSR, in favor of containment of nuclear China. The upshot was strategic, in favor of USSR, whatever superpower input policy intended. FSU Russia's policy wonks might consider running a similar play for a similar advantage.

Even w/ ping-pong diplomacy and abandonment of our VN project, China took another 10 years to begin economic integration, while Russia was emerging as an energy exporter. A Prince Humperdink or a Moslem Vizini might think that nudging the Straight of Formosa flash point into crisis mode was a clever way to play 'crack the whip.'

JSINAIKO

6:10 PM ET

December 14, 2009

Well maybe... Given the

Well maybe...

Given the enmity between the PRC and USSR from the 60s on, if not before, it's difficult to see that level of coordination.

AFAIK, in the late 60s and through the 70s the USSR saw an active nuclear PRC as a greater and more immediate threat than the US. The tension swung back to the US after Reagan's election, reaching its zenith in the extremely tense period after the shoot-down of KAL 007.

It's important to remember that what the US policy and intelligence communities were thinking was very different from what the USSR and PRC understanding of the situation was. And that disconnect goes for the USSR vs. PRC as well. So in effect, everyone was assuming incorrect motives and policy aims about the other.

In a sense it's encouraging; if we weren't going to nuke each other then, with all the misapprehension on all sides, it's difficult to see a situation where a general nuclear exchange - the scariest scenario of the all - would occur now. That doesn't mean that a strategic mistake won't allow some anthill to escalate up to a scary and serious point, but the level of communication between the big three is so much better now, and the potential flash points less intense, making that possibility less likely.

Now - Delhi nuking Islamabad or vice versa? That's not so far-fetched. Or Iran doing something stupid once they have a deliverable device - that's scary too, at least with the present mullah know-nothings and their ignoramus buddies in the revolutionary guard running the show.

JSINAIKO

1:02 AM ET

December 10, 2009

Rate and weight of fire is

Rate and weight of fire is what got the English through at Crecy and Agincourt. Of course they were up against heavy cavalry and a few crossbowmen. They counted on breaking up the French knights attacks before they got close enough to do any damage and it worked every time. They certainly didn't have the mobility of dismounted cavalry.

I think a MOngol vs, English battle would have been a close run thing. If the bowmen could get off enough volleys to hurt the mass of light cavalry, or get them disorganized enough to allow the mounted knights (heavy cavalry) to mix it up with the Mongol bowmen the day would belong to the English.

Conversely, if the Mongols were able to avoid the massed volleys of longbow arrows and get close enough to the bowmen to pick them off with their composite bows, the Mongols would take it; avoiding the heavy cavalry and/or picking them off from a distance becomes much easier once they've neutralized the English archers.

On the more topical subject, I doubt a carrier task group could survive very long in a general war. As you pointed out, point defense against lots of cruise missiles won[t work - it would be overwhelmed. And as others have mentioned, even diesel subs may be able to penetrate the outer defenses. But this is nothing new. In the 50s Navy pilots were told not to expect their carriers to be there when they returned from their missions in the case of a general war.

That said, carriers being used as they are now, and have been since and during Korea; as platforms for littoral on inland air support and/or superiority do just fine. But for blue water battles I can't see any surface ships lasting long. Honestly, in spite of the fondest wishes of the navy, I can't envision any ship vs. ship surface battles for at least the next fifty years.

As for going nuclear against China - or anyone - I don't see that either. More and more soft power trumps saber-rattling. And the last time the Chinese were a naval power was in the 15th century. They may be building ships and creating some sort of capability, but it's gonna take a long time to turn any of that into a fighting navy, much less an aggressive one IMO.

I certainly am in total agreement with you about the article in question. But it isn't just alarmism, it's an argument to build a seaborne 21st century Maginot Line.

ERIC_STRATTONIII

8:27 PM ET

December 9, 2009

Wow, that much of a coward?

lol, wow, jsinaiko, trash talk on another post site and accusing me of saying "sexpots at sea"? Wow, lies are above you I see ;) Glad you read the post pertaining to China and the possible Taiwan problem. Oh, how is that thing going about being "civil" in your posts? Seems not very well for you ;)
While they are not a huge threat now, they will be in the future.
Your right though, EVERYTHING is just right wing paranoia!! lol, enjoy the tin hats many of you seem to wear buddy.

ERIC_STRATTONIII

8:38 PM ET

December 9, 2009

Oh, almost forgot about India too! lol

Yeah, ask the Indians too if the Chinese are not a threat to anyone and as for Taiwan, you do know we signed a treaty with them saying we would defend them if attacked right? You were going to get to that too eventually right? ;)

12NEXT