Thanks to a robust economy, an increasingly sophisticated scientific and engineering capability and a willingness to obtain western technology by any means, China’s commitment to establish a military second to none is succeeding. The U.S. is not responding appropriately.
A Kidney cialis usa online stone issue is more normal in men than in women. We should fight with the greyandgrey.com cialis 10 mg monster of Impotence and defeat it by taking complete treatment. Alike, jelly, it is available in many flavors as well including pineapple, generic levitra mastercard strawberry, orange, banana and mint. Sometimes, an over practice of drugs brings tadalafil online in uk efficient erection.
China’s Great Technological Leap Forward
Since the end of the Second World War, Americans have assumed that their technological superiority would make up for the larger militaries of potential adversaries such as the Soviet Union and China. However, the booming economy of the PRC has allowed that nation to catch up to and in some cases overtake the U.S. in this crucial area. “The observable reality” notes James Kynge, author of China Shakes the World, “is that China is climbing the technology ladder at a rapid pace, and its ascent is neither localized nor specialized, but identifiable almost across the board.”
China explained its military world view in its China National Defense white paper:
“International military competition remains fierce. Major powers are stepping up the realignment of their security and military strategies, accelerating military reform, and vigorously developing new and more sophisticated military technologies. Some powers have worked out strategies for outer space, cyber space and the polar regions, developed means for prompt global strikes, accelerated development of missile defense systems, enhanced cyber operations capabilities to occupy new strategic commanding heights…”
The paper notes that Beijing emphasizes “accelerating the modernization of national defense and the armed forces…the PLA has expanded and made profound preparations for military struggle, which serves as both pull and impetus to the overall development of modernization…development of high-tech weaponry and equipment.”
Battle of the Budget
Beijing can and does expend extraordinary amounts in its largely successful quest to establish an armed force second to none in size, and increasingly rivaling the United States for technological sophistication. Pentagon sources indicate that even in areas in which Washington has long held unquestioned superiority, such as stealth and space capability, the PRC has become a significant challenger. An analysis by Japan’s Self Defense Forces notes that “China has been modernizing its military forces, backed by the high and constant increase in defense budget.”
Misunderstandings concerning Beijing’s military budget have long plagued defense analysts. Its stated budget for this year is $106 billion dollars, (According to Pravda, exceeding $100 billion for the first time) a significant 11.2% increase from the prior year (rendering the average annual rate of increase since 2000 at 11.8% in inflation-adjusted terms.) But the actual figure is considerably higher. Beijing does not include numerous expense items in its defense budget that other nations do, hiding those costs in various civilian spending programs. Further, thanks to the extensive commercial activities of The People’s Liberation Army, profits can be funneled directly to military needs.
The Department of Defense notes that “Estimating actual PLA military expenditures is difficult because of poor accounting transparency and China’s still incomplete transition from a command economy. Moreover, China’s published military budget does not include several major categories of expenditure, such as foreign procurement. Using 2011 prices and exchange rates, DoD estimates China’s total military-related spending for 2011 ranges between $120 billion and $180 billion.” We believe the actual figure to be even higher.
At the same time, America’s defense budget is in danger of being substantially reduced, along with cuts to the vital research and development budget. The White House plans to cut roughly a trillion dollars from the armed forces over the next ten years.
The Role of Espionage
The Department of Defense’s recently released Annual Report to Congress on Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China 2012 notes that Beijing accelerates its technology in more ways than just standard R&D investment. China makes significant use of illegally acquired dual-use military-related information, as well as data stolen by espionage. According to the DoD, “One of the PRC’s stated national security objectives is to leverage legally acquired dual-use and military-related technology to its advantage…[the Chinese]..are the world’s most active and persistent perpetrators of economic espionage. Chinese attempts to collect U.S. technological and economic information will continue at a high level and will represent a growing and persistent threat…”
Despite this, as noted by PRC expert Bill Gertz, the White House has reduced the importance of counterespionage against Beijing, and has placed the Commerce Department, not known for attentiveness to spying concerns, in charge of sensitive export technology control.
This is consistent with the Administration’s 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review. That document, despite mounting evidence of China’s successful abuse of American civilian technology, successful espionage, and the advancing sophistication of its armed forces, proclaimed:
“Today’s export control system is a relic of the Cold War and must be adapted…the current system impedes cooperation, technology sharing… [and] is largely outdated…Much of the system protected an extensive list of unique technologies and items that, if used in the development or production of weapons by the former Soviet Union, would pose a national security threat to the United States.” In an effort to mitigate its naïve view that national security concerns ended with the Cold War, the report goes on to claim that the Administration will seek to concentrate on fewer but more vital matters.
The Growing Reality of China’s Military Sophistication
Indeed, the view that the Soviet Union’s demise essentially eliminated the danger from a Cold War style, high-tech nuclear assault permeated the Administration’s acceptance of the New Start Treaty with Russia. As part of President Obama’s “Reset” concept, in which he viewed Moscow-Washington relations far more benignly than his predecessors, substantial reductions in the U.S. nuclear arsenal were agreed to, and the President has proposed even further unilateral cuts to America’s deterrent.
Unfortunately, Beijing was not bound by that treaty. James Woolsey’s U.S. Nuclear Deterrence in the 21st Century white paper notes that “China, while officially professing a doctrine of ‘no first use,’ is modernizing and expanding its nuclear forces. Nuclear threats have also been periodically made by senior Chinese generals.”
Beijing has been clear on the priority it places on making its armed forces as sophisticated as possible. The Heritage Foundation’s Dean Cheng reports that Hu Jintao has discussed the need to “accelerate its transformation and modernization in a sturdy way, and make extended preparations for military combat…Hu…congratulated China’s weapons designers and manufacturers on their achievements…this suggests that the Chinese leadership expects even more advanced systems to be developed in the coming five years.”
The White House apparently fails to recognize the scope of China’s increasingly sophisticated military threat. In his White House address onPriorities for 21st Century Defense earlier this year, the President, discussing China, stated: “States such as China … will continue to pursue asymmetric means to counter our power projections capabilities, while the proliferation of sophisticated weapons and technology will extend to non-state actors as well.” His use of the term “asymmetrical,” which generally refers to a far smaller and substantially less sophisticated opponent, is totally inappropriate. The President also appears to deemphasize the key role of substantial armed deterrence. “Meeting these challenges cannot be the work of our military alone, which is why we have strengthened all the tools of American power, including diplomacy and development, intelligence, and homeland security.”
The Center for Security Policy has expressed deep concern over the President’s increased reliance on “soft” power. “The nation’s nuclear forces will be allowed to atrophy further through a failure to modernize, test and properly maintain them, and further cuts in their numbers-including in all likelihood the elimination of an entire ‘leg’ of the Strategic Triad. The result will not be the President’s stated goal, namely of ‘ridding the world of nuclear weapons.’ Rather, it will simply be to rid the United States of its deterrent forces at a time when they are likely to be more needed than ever.”
In discussing our nuclear deterrent, the President wholly fails to note China’s rapid rise, claiming that “It is possible that our deterrence goals can be achieved with a smaller nuclear force, which would reduce the number of nuclear weapons in our inventory as well as their role in U.S. national strategy.”
In contrast to the President’s perspective, the 2012 DOD report begins by noting that “…China is pursuing a long-term, comprehensive military modernization program designed to improve the capacity of China’s armed forces…China’s military modernization is, to an increasing extent, focusing on investments in military capabilities that would enable China’s armed forces to conduct a wide range of missions, including those farther [away.]”
“[Beijing’s] leaders in 2011 sustained investment in advanced cruise missiles, short and medium range conventional ballistic missiles, anti-ship ballistic missiles, counterspace weapons, and military cyberspace capabilities…the PLA also continued to demonstrate advanced capabilities in advanced fighter aircraft,…limited power projection…integrated air defenses; undersea warfare; nuclear deterrence and strategic strike; improved command and control; and more sophisticated training and exercise…The PLA Air force is attempting to increase its long-range transportation and logistics capabilities, to achieve greater strategic projection.” A Space Express report notes that as part of China’s power-projection goals, it will be building two aircraft carriers, adding to the one purchased from Russia.
A similar analysis was contained in the 2011 paper, The National Military Strategy of the United States of America, which, while not specifically naming China, noted: “…States are rapidly acquiring technologies, such as missiles and autonomous and remotely-piloted platforms that challenge our ability to project power.” Interestingly enough, the paper’s only specific mention of China is a statement that “Our nation seeks a positive, cooperative and comprehensive relationship with China that welcomes it to take a responsible leadership role…” and goes on to state that America will “monitor” China’s “military developments.”
American Miscalculation
The immediate effects of Washington’s miscalculations of China’s aggressiveness based on its growing military might can be seen in increased tensions in Southeast Asia.
NY Analysis correspondent Larry Allison, reporting on location in the Philippines, notes that the PRC’s overtly aggressive actions in Southeast Asia have caused great concerns for the Manila government. Earlier this month, a missile frigate, part of a flotilla of Chinese military vessels intruding into the Philippine’s Exclusive Economic Zone, ran aground within the Spratley Shoals. A large fleet of PRC fishing vessels moved into the area to reinforce Beijing’s illegitimate claims. Heritage reports that Beijing had “begun ‘regular, combat-ready patrols’ in waters under Chinese jurisdiction.”
Secretary of State Clinton has offered no U.S. response other than to suggest a “code of conduct” for China. Clinton’s consistent outreaches towards Beijing have been demonstrably unsuccessful in gaining any concessions.
The U.S.-China Economic & Security Review Commission’s report released in April, Indigenous Weapons Development in China’s Military Modernization, notes that:
“Evidence broadly suggests that U.S. analysts did not expect the emergence of the PLA Navy’s Yuan-class submarine when the class was unveiled in 2004… On the other hand, U.S. Officials were keenly aware of Chinese anti-satellite (ASAT) weapons development, and reports show that U.S. officials were also aware of potential ASAT testing activity in 2007, although it is possible that the exact timing of the test was unexpected. However, while U.S. government analysts accurately anticipated several developments, such as the emergence of China’s SC-19 ASAT system, China’s selective transparency-or strategic deceptions that asserted opposition to the development of space weapons-may have misled foreign observers outside of military and intelligence channels.
“There have been, however, identifiable cases of miscalculation regarding U.S. assessments on the development speed of Chinese indigenous weapons systems. While U.S. intelligence sources acknowledged the development of a land-based anti-ship ballistic missile in 2008, academic and government sources have both indicated that the United States underestimated the speed of China’s ASBM development. U.S. Department of Defense officials have assessed that ASBM reached initial operational in December 2010, and official Chinese media and Taiwanese sources have reported that the ASBM is now field deployed with PLA missile units. China’s fifth-generation fighter, the J-20, was originally projected to begin prototype testing in 2012; however, the United States also underestimated the speed of its development, as the aircraft made its first publicized flight in January 2011.
“Particular challenges to accurate predictive assessments on indigenous Chinese developments include:
- Information denial and/or deception…;
- Underestimation of changes in China’s defense-industrial sector…;
- Difficulty in understanding the PRC national security decision-making process…;
- Underestimating of Beijing’s threat perceptions…;
- China’s increased investments in science and technology…; and
- Inadequate capabilities for and/or attention to the exploitation of open-source Chinese language materials….
“U.S. observers should not take at face value statements from the Chinese government or military policy, as they could be deceptive, or simply issued by agencies…that have no real say over military matters…U.S. analysts and policymakers should expect to see continued advancements in the ability of the PRC to produce modern weapons platforms, and an attendant increase in the operational capabilities of the People’s Liberation Army.”
The Air Sea Battle Concept Shell Game
The White House has made much of the Air Sea Battle Concept which shifts resources from the Atlantic to the Pacific in response to Beijing’s growing power. The operational plan is to integrate Naval, Air Force and Marine assets to deter China. However, those assets are increasingly scarce. As the NY Analysis has previously reported, the U.S. has only 284 combat ships, down from a high of 600 in the Reagan era, and the Air Force has been reduced from 37 combat wings to 20. Funds for vitally needed modern fighters have been slashed. The President plans to cut funding for the Marines.
The problem isn’t limited to China. The mantra that a full scale war is no longer possible following the fall of the Soviet Union continues to misinform the Obama Administration and the general media. Indeed, while the Soviet Union has fallen, Russian militarism is experiencing a resurgence under Vladimir Putin. (Hard evidence of this was visible as recently as July 4, when Moscow sent nuclear-capable TU-95 BEAR-class bombers to the U.S. West Coast, testing American defenses.)
Moving pieces from one part of the globe to the other is useless if there aren’t enough pieces to begin with.
Conclusion
The U.S.-China Economic & Security Review Commission believes that “The apparent disparity over the past decade between U.S. predictions and the actual pace of development…raises questions as to whether flawed underlying assumptions may have affected analysis in this area, inside or outside the U.S. government.” The Commission notes that there have been significant differences between the views of the State Department’s International Security Advisory Board, (which reports that “America is viewed as China’s principal strategic adversary…China’s military modernization is proceeding at a rate to be of concern even within the most benign interpretation of China’s motivation.”) and the State Department itself.
From Beijing’s perspective, there has been no downside to its unprecedented military buildup. Indeed, as its power to confront America or intimidate regional neighbors has grown, the White House has responded by planning to significantly scale back American military capability. China’s belligerent stance and aggressive territorial claims against nations such as the Philippines, Vietnam, Japan and, of course Taiwan, as well as others, will only become more intense as its ability to successfully compete against diminishing American power grows.