Get Serious About China's Rising Military

[FRIZ]

The Washington Post
Thursday, May 25, 2006; A29

Get Serious About China's Rising Military
By Dan Blumenthal

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...052402431.html

The Pentagon's annual report to Congress on China's military power, released this week, reveals that Beijing's buildup has advanced well beyond what most analysts considered likely just 10 years ago. Some highlights: The new arsenal of the People's Liberation Army includes more than 700 missiles deployed opposite Taiwan, a fleet of sophisticated diesel electric submarines, a growing nuclear submarine capability and advanced destroyers armed with lethal anti-ship cruise missiles. By making the potential cost of any U.S. intervention in the Taiwan Strait extraordinarily high, Beijing has accomplished its decade-long goal of establishing a credible military threat to Taiwan -- as well as a deterrent to the United States. The question is, what next?

The report points to some answers. With a growing dependence on oil imported from the Middle East and Africa, Chinese strategists are talking about creating a blue-water navy to secure Beijing's energy supply lines. The military may be reconsidering its nuclear "no-first-use policy" and examining ways to secure China's territorial claims in the South China and East China seas. Simply stated, as China's military power has grown, so too, it appears, have the strategic tasks that it may be assigned. This shouldn't be surprising. Our own history teaches that as a nation's power grows so do its ambitions.

As if to underscore this point, an official Chinese military journal recently published an article arguing that Beijing should develop a military "commensurate with its international status." Since Beijing's economic and diplomatic interests span the globe, such strategic thinking can take the People's Liberation Army in some troubling directions. For example, Beijing may conclude that relying on the U.S. Navy for the safety of its energy supplies is too risky, and decide to increase its naval presence along the expanse between the Persian Gulf and East Asia. This would make the Chinese navy the first since the Cold War to compete for sea control with the United States. In addition, there are numerous disputed territorial claims in the East China and South China seas that China could settle by military means. Japan and China already have come close to skirmishing over energy resources in nearby disputed waters.

Of course, given the opaque character of Chinese military planning and government decision making, analysts can only speculate as to what turns the Chinese military buildup will take. It would help if China were to open up its political system so that we and other regional powers could get a better handle on the country's long-term ambitions. But this seems unlikely, at least anytime soon. Indeed, the Pentagon report notes that secrecy, deception and surprise remain key components of Chinese strategic practice.

China has already changed Asia's balance of power. It is past time for America to get serious about deterring the potentially worst sorts of Chinese behavior and to provide allies in the region with reason for renewed confidence in the U.S. security umbrella. Unfortunately, we are only just beginning to grapple with this daunting strategic task.

The latest Quadrennial Defense Review states that China "has the greatest potential to compete militarily with the United States." The Pentagon seeks to "shape [China's] strategic choices" and to "dissuade any military competitor from developing disruptive or other capabilities that could enable regional hegemony." The Bush administration has taken some concrete action toward these ends. An upgraded alliance with Japan will improve our deterrent posture. The opening of a strategic relationship with India reflects in part an American desire to ensure that China does not gain hegemony over South or Central Asia. An increase in the size of the U.S. Navy's attack submarine fleet in Guam also brings more American capability into the Pacific. A nascent defense relationship with Vietnam may over time provide the American military with what it needs most in Asia -- more bases.

But our China policy leaves us a day late and a dollar short when it comes to the challenge posed by the speed of Beijing's military buildup. We still have restrictions on relations with Taiwan dating to the Carter era that make the island more difficult to defend. A stronger commitment by the Pentagon to developing long-range surveillance and strike capabilities would make Beijing less confident that it could use its vast territory as a sanctuary for its missile and other "disruptive" forces. Upgrading our undersea warfare capabilities will improve our regional freedom of action.

Washington's largely reactive and tepid response to China's growing military power is understandable given what is on America's plate at the moment. And policymakers are still hoping that they can gain China's cooperation on pressing international security crises. But as the Pentagon report says, China has been less than cooperative on those supposed common interests: denuclearizing North Korea and Iran, for example. A policy seeking to shape China into a responsible global actor works only if you are willing to recognize when it is not working. That time may be fast approaching.

[one-eyed-fatman]

I don't know what the hell this is about. China is using American tax dollars to do their military buildup. Ask Bush. He knows.

[einheit 13]

???? What we gonna play 'bully" with China now?? Thats a joke, we'd need more nukes to kill that many people. China could sweep across Europe if it chose to and only a nuclear threat or launch could stop them.

We couldn't win a conventional with them. I bet a lot of eastern European countries would ally with them or at least try to remain neutral.

[jkswiss]

WHAT?!?!?
We need to shock and awe them, just like we did to Iraq, and they'll just roll over.

Or not. I would definitely tread softly where China is concerned. I think a conflict with them would change the face of this earth.

[O.C. 4 U]

Hey, don't worry, just keep spending your money at Walmart. They just need their military in case the elbonions invade; they would never do anything to us, their most favored trading partner.

[Mark S.]

Originally Posted by O.C. 4 U

Hey, don't worry, just keep spending your money at Walmart. They just need their military in case the elbonions invade; they would never do anything to us, their most favored trading partner.

O.C. 4 U is right. The Chinese are eating our lunch thanks to Walmart and similar outfits.

[PackerfanXD]

Originally Posted by einheit 13

We couldn't win a conventional with them.

B.S. It may not be easy, but we could nuke the **** out of that country. We may not be able to occupy China, but we could level it.

[NiK]

Originally Posted by XpackerfanD

B.S. It may not be easy, but we could nuke the **** out of that country. We may not be able to occupy China, but we could level it.

Think we won't get it back?

[jkswiss]

I take it that you missed the conventional part, that being no nukes/biological.
I don't see any way in hell that we could occupy China. The notion itself is laughable. We are stretched thin from Iraq, now imagine doing the same thing to the next possible superpower.
I read somewhere that almost half our national debt is carried by China.

[PackerfanXD]

Originally Posted by jkswiss

I take it that you missed the conventional part, that being no nukes/biological.
I don't see any way in hell that we could occupy China. The notion itself is laughable. We are stretched thin from Iraq, now imagine doing the same thing to the next possible superpower.
I read somewhere that almost half our national debt is carried by China.

Sorry, but nukes are conventional now and have been since we used them in WWII. They are tools at our disposal. Unconventional weapons now would be sound weapons or weather-controling weapons.