The Shotgun Blog
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
If Mr. Nicholls wants meaningful actions . . .
. . . and he's not willing to consider the propaganda bonanza that the Communists will reap from having the Western powers attend the Games, perhaps this Armed Forces Journal (US) story will get his attention:
China has launched more than 36 new submarines since 1995 — far outpacing U.S. intelligence estimates from a decade ago. Additionally, supersonic indigenous cruise missiles, rumored development of an anti-ship ballistic missile, dynamic mine warfare and amphibious warfare programs, invigorated aerial maritime strike capabilities, as well as a variety of new, sleek and modern surface combatants, suggest a broad front effort by the People’s Liberation Army Navy.
If Mr. Nicholls is willing to call for an increase in the Canadian Navy to help combat this threat (I've been asking the U.S. Navy to do this for years), then we can agree to disagree about the meaning of an Olympic boycott.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference If Mr. Nicholls wants meaningful actions . . .:
Perhaps its time to seriously discuss arming Japan, S. Korea and Taiwan with intermediate range nukes (and ABMs), that is, unless China takes on a more disarming attitude towards its N. Korean and Iranian clients and realize that matching (exceeding?) US Naval power in the S. China Sea would be fruitless. This could also relieve the US of the need for regional presence.
As for Tibet, what would feel-good left-libbers do to self-actualize if they didn't participate in meaningless symbolic gestures if China actually "freed Tibet". It keeps them from doing more damage elsewhere.
Posted by: John Chittick | 2008-04-09 10:27:28 AM
You want to spend more money on a defense budget that is already more than the rest of the world combined in order to match China in the South China Sea? Other than justifying navy jobs and getting new boats what purpose does raising the "threat" from China achieve? Sorry...I answered my own question.
Posted by: Fred T. Ward | 2008-04-09 11:20:05 AM
>"You want to spend more money on a defense budget that is already more than the rest of the world combined..."
Fred T. Ward | 9-Apr-08 11:20:05 AM
What does the monetary cost have to do with anything?
I guess you don't know that American defense workers are the highest paid defense workers in the world.
It's the number of units that count and the U.S. Navy doesn't have enough units to get the job done.
Posted by: Speller | 2008-04-09 11:27:32 AM
The Chinese Navy wants to be big enough and modern enough to deter any intervention by the US Navy when China makes its move against Taiwan, which will come sometime after the Olympics are over. They must be able to control the strait between Taiwan and the mainland in order to mount an invasion.
Posted by: JMD | 2008-04-09 2:42:06 PM
The PRC has to control the strait and the airspace between Taiwan and the mainland in order to mount an invasion.
It would be like the Battle of Britain all over again.
Posted by: Speller | 2008-04-09 2:51:04 PM
I think if the countries mentioned above were told that the US was going to reduce its presence in the S. China Sea and S.E. Asia and that the nuclear deterrent that it was offering under its control to be handed over eventually instead, they could well afford to pay for it (willingly). The savings from one Carrier group taken out of active service could easily foot the rest of the bill. The resulting shift in regional balance of power would be the Chi-Com's worst nightmare. Putin would go ape-shit along with the UN over breach of non-proliferation.
OR we could proudly display Free Tibet bumper stickers while chanting Kumbaya and practicing group hugs while debating the merits of an Olympic boycott. Peace in our time?
Posted by: John Chittick | 2008-04-09 7:02:56 PM
Effort has to be focused on next-generation technologies.
For example, at the moment, U.S. Carrier Strike Groups (CVBG is old nomenclature), are quite vulnerable to massed air attack. Develop a practical point defense laser, and that changes drastically.
To fight and win against China, we need to think about 2020. To wit:
1) Advanced Submarines: Plenty of Virginia-class boats, and follow on classes. At least twice as many as are planned now. Enough to sink every damned thing that floats in the South China Sea.
The strategy in the early stages of a war with China shouldn't be to throw aware Carriers along China's littoral areas. It should be to keep them back, using them to launch strike missions, while Submarines counter the coastal threat.
2) As I mentioned, combat lasers.
3) UCAV's. This is an area where the U.S. has, and can maintain, a large lead.
4) Space weapons: In the end, the key to a war against China will be space. Not only ABM efforts in space, but offensive ones as well.
The ultimate weapon of the next few decades will be, for lack of a better term, a "Space Battleship."
A large spacecraft (larger than anything that we've seen before) capable of breaking Earth orbit (and thus avoiding being hit by anything launched from the Earth), and manouvuring in space. Arm it with kinetic energy weapons - and plenty of nukes.
It will be able to hit anything being launched into orbit and to scoot in and hit targets on the Earth from space without warning.
Posted by: Adam Yoshida | 2008-04-09 9:49:28 PM
Posted by: Adam Yoshida | 9-Apr-08 9:49:28 PM
Does it give you sexual arousal when you can talk about big submarines, rockets and lasers? Or are you just trying to compensate for something? (Me thinks the latter, considering how obsessed you are with other peoples sex lives).
Ever heard of de-escalation? You know, before all the shooting starts? Probably not, then you wouldn't get to play with those big rockets of yours that give you.... something.
Well Adam, sign up for the Military (any branch) you can be right at the front lines and heroically tell us afterwards how you alone took out the Chinese threat.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-04-09 10:27:44 PM
Since massive destruction is guaranteed in a war between industrial states I'd be interested to hear what the folks keen to fight China believe the war aims of each side would be. What could any government hope to gain from a war? Surely Iraq has been a lesson in the costs of a modern war against even a third or fourth rate opponent.
Posted by: Fred T. Ward | 2008-04-10 4:54:03 AM
"Ever heard of de-escalation? You know, before all the shooting starts?"
I know living in the real world and actually basing your incoherent rants on facts are foreign to you, but can you point to any case where "de-escalating" while your opponent is escalating has actually worked?
Tell me, did Reagan end the cold war by "de-escalating" as all you whacko lefties wanted to do (and tried to do), or did he end it by modernizing and expanding the US army, and in particular the navy?
The stupidity of morons like you in the face of facts, and of history, when it comes to geo-politics is truly stunning.
Posted by: deepblue | 2008-04-10 6:49:46 AM
deepblue, just visualize whirled peas!
Posted by: Dishwasher | 2008-04-10 8:30:02 AM
>" Surely Iraq has been a lesson in the costs of a modern war against even a third or fourth rate opponent."
Fred T. Ward | 10-Apr-08 4:54:03 AM
It's too early to draw many lessons from Iraq, unless the lesson is that a nation like Iraq can be conquered in a month.
We have seen "modern war" in Iraq, but we haven't seen Total War in the Information Age yet.
Limited wars are what we have fought since the end of WWII.
A war against China or Iran won't be "limited" war, it'll be Total War.
Posted by: Speller | 2008-04-10 10:24:12 AM
Without some sort of action, if the status quo prevails, China will win without war. China will peacefully ascend to become the highest power in the world.
I, personally, would rather die than live in such a world. Indeed, I commit that I will die rather than live in a world where China is the leading power.
China is a historic enemy of Western Civilization. Given a position of power, they will ruthlessly strangle us and, in the aftermath, the whole of the world will stagnate and wither away, since they've never shown the cultural inclinations towards invention and experimentation that we have.
The objective in any war with China must be the dissolution of the Chinese state. China is too big. Let's break it up into a number of smaller states and let them fight it out with eachother.
A land war with China, though, would be folly. They are absolutely dominant in Asia and will be for the foreseeable future. The only power which might hope to fight them on land is India and, even then, an Indo-Chinese War would be a terrible waste for India, the Western Front replayed, in all the same horrible detail, in the 21st Century.
Thus, the goal should be to meet China with a sufficent military force to deter Chinese military adverturism throughout the littoral areas of Asia (there is little we can do, short of nuclear war, if they decide to go north into Siberia or West into Central Asia, I'm afraid). But, if they go for the Phillipines, Korea, Japan, Taiwan, or any of the coastal areas, we should have the force to smash their navy and let our friends and allies hold on. With sufficent lines of defense, we should be able to hold them in areas where local naval and air supremacy can be attained.
In the meantime, we should be pursing three other tracks to defeat the Chinese:
1) Diplomatically, the goal should be to encircle China. This is actually, in many ways, well advanced. Foolish people focused mainly on the United Nations and whiners from Old Europe ignore that, in reality, the global diplomatic posture of the United States is now much stronger than at the turn of the Century. The US-Indian Alliance will, God willing, be one of the great geopolitical features of this century. Similarly, Japan will be a key to any Asian conflict.
Russia, of course, is a problem. But I suspect that will sort itself out simply because, if China wants to expand (and they do), Russia's pretty much got to be the target.
2) Politically, all efforts should be made to divide China and to encourage internal dissent and radicalism. That means, of course, pushing the Tibet stuff. It could also mean, to pick one example, waging a cyberwar against China's internet censorship infastructure.
Also, it means playing off internal factions within China. In particular, one would think that good people to fund/arm might be the Moslems of Western China and peasants, enraged by growining economic inequality.
Another part of this effort would be to hamper China's growth by deliberately holding it to different standards than other developing nations in terms of labour/environmental standards. Indeed, a very good investment - for many reasons - would be to funnel a few hundred million dollars to environmental groups to harass China over their policies in this area (two birds, one stone).
3) Militarily, as I said, to beat the Chinese we need next-generation weapons. If we fight them with current-model stuff, their numbers will tell. But, if we develop leap-a-generation systems, like advanced missile defenses, hypersonic bombers, point defense lasers, radio-wave weapons, space weapon platforms, and so forth, we should be able to actually fight and defeat them in an all-out war.
Posted by: Adam Yoshida | 2008-04-10 12:31:32 PM
"Indeed, I commit that I will die rather than live in a world where China is the leading power."
Just out of curiosity, will you enlist?
http://www.goarmy.com (You'd need to be a permanent resident first, but that's easy enough.)
Posted by: Pattern Recognition | 2008-04-10 2:02:56 PM
One cannot countenance "winning" a war against the likes of China in the conventional or even advanced sense, even using nukes, without assuring our own destruction, since they have missiles and nukes too. Hence there is a requirement to utilize their strength (their huge Kurt Vonnegut-nightmare population)them... .
Hence the need for biological warfare. Remove the population without destroying the infrastructure.
Sorry, it is a nasty topic. But if there were hostilities, wouldn't we, the west, want to win?
Posted by: DCM | 2008-04-10 2:49:40 PM
Also, since when has it been law that us half-wits in north america have to buy Chinese trash anyway?
It would not take very long for NAFTA countries to start making toasters and hair curlers, and bluejeans again.
Consumers are so stupid! Here we are, handing our future over to a dictatorship in order to save $1.49 at Wal-Mart!
Posted by: DCM | 2008-04-10 2:53:25 PM
>"It would not take very long for NAFTA countries to start making toasters and hair curlers, and bluejeans again.
Consumers are so stupid! Here we are, handing our future over to a dictatorship in order to save $1.49 at Wal-Mart!"
DCM | 10-Apr-08 2:53:25 PM
One word, Unions.
NAFTA countries aren't making toasters and hair curlers, and bluejeans because the Union labour is too expensive.
That won't change unless Unions are brought to heel.
Consumers may be saving $1.49 at Wal-Mart, but the manufacturers are making a saving a lot more than that by using non-Union labour in third world countries.
Want to buy Taiwanese instead?
It's likely made in China with a sticker or box that says, made in Taiwan.
Posted by: Speller | 2008-04-10 3:06:02 PM
If it was "so easy" to become a Permanant Resident of the United States, I would already be one - and have been one for some time. Thanks to Ted Kennedy's abomination of an immigration law, it's actually relatively hard to get a Green Card - if you're from the West (and hence not eligible for the diversity lottery, refugee status, or, most likely, family sponsorship). There's talk of letting people volunteer for the U.S. Armed Forces overseas, in exchange for citizenship, and I've said before that I would probably take them up on it, if it comes to it.
Though, the way this country is going, pretty soon I'll end up having little choice but to seek political asylum anyways, what with the increasing criminalization of speech.
Of course, the stupidity of the "if you believe that, then enlist" arguement is that, of course, serving members of the armed forces are barred from political participation and, therefore, if everyone who supported the war was in the military, then the battlefield of ideas would be surrendered to anti-war fools.
Now, as to what DCM said - the grave danger of biological weapons is that they are, by definition, uncontrollable. After all, diseases mutate. The only situation I could see justifying the deployment of biological weapons would be as a doomsday weapon when faced with anhillation as the alternative.
Posted by: Adam Yoshida | 2008-04-10 3:55:00 PM
So that's a no then? Not even going to sign up as a reservist?(They can blog, which is all you're doing for the "war" anyway.) You'll live and die metaphorically behind your keyboard. Gotcha. I suppose that's brave. Some of those Chinese ideas can tear your arm off.
Posted by: Pattern Recognition | 2008-04-10 6:18:28 PM
Adam at 12:31 PM "Indeed, I commit that I will die rather than live in a world where China is the leading power."
Adam at 3:55 PM once his bluff was called: "if everyone who supported the war was in the military, then the battlefield of ideas would be surrendered to anti-war fools."
In Comment fields invective blows
Between the blog posts, row on row,
That mark our place; and overseas
The soldiers, still bravely fighting, are
Scarce heard amid the War of Ideas online.
We are the tired. Short hours ago
We typed, ate chips, saw monitor glow,
Posted, and were cross-linked, and now we lie
In Comment fields.
Take up our flame-war with the foe:
To you from sweaty hands we throw
The mouse; be yours to hold it low.
If ye break faith with us who head out to grab a Slurpee
We shall not log out, though invective blows
In Comment fields.
— Unknown Soldier on the Battlefield of Ideas
Posted by: Pattern Recognition | 2008-04-11 8:19:06 AM
LOL! One poster here speaks in highly erotic terms about all manner of phallic shaped weapons of mass destruction which he believes the US ought to develop, in addition to lasers. He even suggests the key is the weaponization of space! Proliferation is the name of the game, according to these military experts and scholars who have devoted their lives to studying for doctorates in strategic studies.
There is no surer sign that the sun has set on American super power empire than the unwillingness of the cannon fodder to enlist and the anxiety over the rise of a new power on the horizon.
America could not win in Iraq against a demoralized people living under an unpopular despot! There were only about 25 million Iraqis. Iraq has exposed America's weakness and no one takes America seriously anymore. Te sun has set and twilight bathes America in the afterglow of greatness. Bush was the last straw. America is bankrupt, in debt up to its eyeballs and facing humiliating defeats in two wars against third world peasants armed only with home made weapons.
Posted by: ROGER | 2008-04-11 11:42:22 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.