Group of US officials, lawmakers, want naval "surge" to confront rising China

[CougarKing]

How are they going manage this with the sequestration, etc.?

Defense News

US Commission Wants American 'Surge' to Confront China

WASHINGTON — A study group is calling on US officials and lawmakers to dramatically increase America’s naval footprint in the Pacific to “offset China’s growing military capabilities.”

In its annual report, the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission calls for an American “surge [of] naval assets in the event of a contingency.”
The commission, created by Congress in 2000, calls on lawmakers to “fund the US Navy’s shipbuilding and operations efforts to increase its presence in the Asia Pacific to at least 60 ships and rebalance homeports to 60 percent in the region by 2020 so that the United States will have the capacity to maintain readiness and presence in the Western Pacific.”

Such an increase in shipbuilding would “offset China’s growing military capabilities, and surge naval assets in the event of a contingency,” according to the commission.

In a somewhat contradictory recommendation, the study group also urged Congress to urge the Pentagon “to continue to develop the US-China maritime security relationship in order to strengthen strategic trust.”

The commission wants Washington to flex its muscles in the region with a seeming expectation that China will respond by seeking more friendly relations with Washington.

In addition, the commission proposed some steps to combat alleged Chinese-based cyber shenanigans.

For instance, the study group called on lawmakers to support the Obama administration’s push to strengthen US intellectual property rights within regional groups. It also wants Congress to pass legislation “clarifying the actions companies are permitted to take regarding tracking intellectual property stolen through cyber intrusions.”

It also wants US officials to work with other nations to create a list of individuals, groups and organizations “engaged in commercial cyber espionage.”

In a typical recommendation when multiple federal entities and private firms are involved, the commission wants to promote better information sharing.

Finally, the commission called on Congress to call on the administration to “expedite” parts of a 2011 law designed to safeguard Pentagon supply chains from cyber attacks.

 

[Edward Campbell]

How are they going manage this with the sequestration, etc.?

Defense News

Presumably with money they borrow from China ...

There are people dumber than American legislators, but not many, and not so close at hand.

 

[Lightguns]

Unfortunately, this US bashing of China is looking more and more like the last gasp of empire. Pity us when it happens, we will be ripe for subversion from a number of players who want our oil economy to disappear.

 

[ArmyRick]

I agree with Mr Campbell. How exactly do these folks think the US is going to pay for this?

 

[a_majoor]

The people caling for a Naval Surge are not keepig up with current events either; the DoD's long term plan is to rebalance the US forces and apply up to 60% of the USN to the Pacific Ocean.

Note the use of terminology; "rebalancing" not a "surge" or a "pivot", which imply short term redeployments for tactical purposes.

 

[marinemech]

over the next 20 years we will likely see less ships based out of the eastern ports, Germany is no longer the Enemy,  we now are starting to look at the enemies in Arabic and Asian Areas

 

[Edward Campbell]

over the next 20 years we will likely see less ships based out of the eastern ports, Germany is no longer the Enemy,  we now are starting to look at the enemies in Arabic and Asian Areas

Actually, parts of the USN, and parts of the defence-indusrial base (President Eisenhower's military industrial complex), and parts of the K-Street (and area) lobby and think tank crowd, and parts of the US Congress are looking FOR an enemy in the Arabic and Asian areas. They need, in order to maintain the big, expensive forces they have, a near peer enemy - Iran is one choice, but China is the prize. So they aim to make China an enemy ... America's best interests be damned.

 

[Pusser]

over the next 20 years we will likely see less ships based out of the eastern ports, Germany is no longer the Enemy,  we now are starting to look at the enemies in Arabic and Asian Areas

Oh dear.  Did you really think the emphasis on the Atlantic was to defend against Germany?  I've got news for you.  Germany was subdued in 1945 and most of them officially became our friends in 1955 (when West Germany joined NATO).  The threat in the Atlantic came from the Soviet Union.  Although East Germany was part of the Soviet Bloc, the bulk of Western naval forces were not concentrated in the Atlantic for them.  And we're seeing a shift to the Pacific, not in search of new enemies, but in recognition that ocean trade with the Orient is increasing and there are new threats coming with it.

As for a naval serge, I think we need to consider the possibility of a twill or even a double-knit instead.

 

[marinemech]

never thought of the Soviets in Eastern Waters, i was basing the Germany Thing on the Past, most of our Eastern Forces i believe are Anti-Piracy off of Somalia

 

[cupper]

never thought of the Soviets in Eastern Waters, i was basing the Germany Thing on the Past, most of our Eastern Forces i believe are Anti-Piracy off of Somalia

Huh?  I think you may be thinking way too far East. Stick with Atlantic and Pacific terms of reference.

 

[cupper]

How are they going manage this with the sequestration, etc.?

Defense News

From the money that was devoted to Obamacare, once they finally get a vote to repeal that sticks. 42 and counting. :facepalm:

Seriously, if they can't come to a consensus on budget negotiations after spiraling down the shutdown toilet, there is no hope of getting something like this out of the starting blocks slipway.

And with the winds of isolationism blowing stronger, will the policy really gain traction?

 

[tomahawk6]

The strategy that I would favor would not include a surge of naval forces.Rather I would do everything possible to assist our allies in the region to build up their air and sea forces.A counter to China's naval build up would be more submarines.Conventional subs for our allies.Nuclear subs for the USN.Expand our anti-ballistic umbrella and provide our allies the SM-3 missile that can counter China's ballistic missiles.

 

[a_majoor]

While a "surge" sounds superficially attractive, putting more ships in harms way doesn't sound like a winning strategy to me.

Chinese strategy involves "unrestricted warfare", which includes everything from terrorism to cyberwar to financial manipulation as well as conventional military "hard" power and cultural "soft" power to manipulate and coerce the enemy into a position advantageous to China. This is a Grand Strategic version of our concept of "Shaping the Battlespace", with some of the long term thinking of "4GW" thrown in as well.

On the most basic level, Chinese military responses to US Naval strength has been to focus on anti access/area denial technologies like long range missiles and a large fleet of submarines. They also have demonstrated the means to attack satellites in orbit, and EW and cyberwar will be applied on a grand scale against American and Allied forces attempting to employ "Air/Sea Battle" or other means to force their way  into a contested area.

While this is not any guarantee of Chinese success, a simple surge really does very little to strengthen the position of the United States or her Allies and most certainly plays right into the Chinese strengths.

How to neutralize such a strategy is somethig I'll leave to smarter people than me....

 

[tomahawk6]

Cutting off China's access to the sea lanes is very doable and is their major weakness.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Cutting off China's access to the sea lanes is very doable and is their major weakness.

I agree it is relatively easy to cut China's sea lines of communications ... but to do so is tantamount to an act of war.

Going to war with China is madness ... the only way to defeat China is through a protracted land war ~ nuclear strikes, even many and massive nuclear strikes will not do the job ~ and I believe that America cannot win a land war in Asia.

I know many (most?) Americans believe that they are both special, that there is a special providence for America, and invincible on the battlefield. I do not share either belief. A German general, discussing going to war with Russia, compared it to a (German) elephant, HUGE and massively powerful, going to war against ants. The elephant can crush thousands, even millions, but, eventually, he tires and the ants win. So it is, I think, with America vs Asia, in general, and China, in particular.

The most sensible policy for America is to mobilize, again, as it did in the 1940s and '50s, all it immense and exemplary social, political, cultural and economic weapons and employ them around the world ~ that's what the Chinese are doing and, in my opinion, they're wining because America, especially the Pentagon, has a clouded and too narrow strategic vision.

Please remember an old joke, because it rings true: What's the difference between the USA and the Boy Scouts? The Boy Scouts have adult leadership!

 

[tomahawk6]

I agree it is relatively easy to cut China's sea lines of communications ... but to do so is tantamount to an act of war.

Going to war with China is madness ... the only way to defeat China is through a protracted land war ~ nuclear strikes, even many and massive nuclear strikes will not do the job ~ and I believe that America cannot win a land war in Asia.

I know many (most?) Americans believe that they are both special, that there is a special providence for America, and invincible on the battlefield. I do not share either belief. A German general, discussing going to war with Russia, compared it to a (German) elephant, HUGE and massively powerful, going to war against ants. The elephant can crush thousands, even millions, but, eventually, he tires and the ants win. So it is, I think, with America vs Asia, in general, and China, in particular.

The most sensible policy for America is to mobilize, again, as it did in the 1940s and '50s, all it immense and exemplary social, political, cultural and economic weapons and employ them around the world ~ that's what the Chinese are doing and, in my opinion, they're wining because America, especially the Pentagon, has a clouded and too narrow strategic vision.

Please remember an old joke, because it rings true: What's the difference between the USA and the Boy Scouts? The Boy Scouts have adult leadership!

China is a land power but has limited naval power.It is the PRC that has developed so called carrier killer weapons.Why would they do that ? So it is only practical for strategic planners to have a means to apply pressure to China.Stopping freighters/tankers for search in international waters is legal.Perhaps the PRC should dial back their aggressive posture in areas far beyond their own territorial waters ?

 

[a_majoor]

I believe it was Robert Kaplan who said: American and China are like a Whale and a Dragon: each are supreme in their elements but cannot really get at the other outside of their elements.

China is well aware of its vulnerability to naval pressure, and is employing a multi faceted strategy: anti access/area denial weapons to prevent direct intervention, military, political and economic pressure against its neighbours (especially the so called "First Island Chain") to prevent the PLAN from being bottled in, and moving more and more to "inland" routes and markets, i.e. oil and natural gas, minerals and other natural resources from Central Asia and Siberia, places the USN does not reach.

I suspect that as the implications of "Unrestricted Warfare" sink in to a new generation of political and military strategists, we will see some surprising counters. Perhaps the simplist one of all will be for the USN to simply stop "policing the commons" and targeting their attention to ensuring freedom of the seas and free trade to America's friends and allies. This alone would impose a massive cost on nations that suddenly have to shoulder the cost for sea lane security that the USN has been carrying for them up to now. While the Chinese may have worked hard to secure their supply lines, the extra costs to export their products, goods and services will be a major cost that they either eat, or pass on to the purchasers of their exports. As well, while China may be trading with Central Asia and Siberia for raw materials, the corresponding markets for Chinese finished goods in Central Asia and Siberia is far smaller than markets in the West. If they become less competative to Western consumers, they won't be making up the losses in Asia. The economic implcations of this should make for "interesting" times in China.

 

[Edward Campbell]

China is a land power but has limited naval power.It is the PRC that has developed so called carrier killer weapons.Why would they do that ? So it is only practical for strategic planners to have a means to apply pressure to China.Stopping freighters/tankers for search in international waters is legal.[size=11pt]Perhaps the PRC should dial back their aggressive posture in areas far beyond their own territorial waters ?[/img]

Are you really suggesting that the PRC is the only major power with an "aggressive posture" beyond its own territory?  :tsktsk:

 

[tomahawk6]

Are you really suggesting that the PRC is the only major power with an "aggressive posture" beyond its own territory?  :tsktsk:

Yes I am.Good old gunboat diplomacy Edward as now practiced by the PRC.Now for the bait you have so kindly dangled in front of me.
You are a student of history,when in recent memory has the US used its military power for anything but for the cause of liberty and democracy ?

 

[Edward Campbell]

Yes I am.Good old gunboat diplomacy Edward as now practiced by the PRC.Now for the bait you have so kindly dangled in front of me.
You are a student of history,when in recent memory has the US used its military power for anything but for the cause of liberty and democracy ?

Hmmm ... let me see: Latin America, throughout much of the 20th century ~ supporting corrupt, brutal dictatorships over other corrupt, brutal dictatorships for, very often, commercial advantage (think United Fruit Company); Vietnam ~ supporting one corrupt, brutal dictatorship over another for ideological reasons; Kuwait ~ supporting a corrupt, brutal aristocracy over a neighbouring corrupt, brutal dictatorship, but in the name of punishing aggression (as Nuremberg and the UN Charter say we should) ... in fact the US has rarely been enamoured of democracy, instead, since about 1950 it has been engaged in wars against competing ideologies.

Now, don't get me wrong: I agree that opposing Marxist/Stalinist/Maoist communism was the right choice - but we, in the US led West, were against communism, not for liberty and democracy.

I agree that President George W Bush wanted to spread democracy - but as an adjunct to his Jacksonian* foreign policy, and, as I have been saying for a decade or so now, I always thought it - trying to spread liberal democracy to North Africa, the Middle East and West Asia - was/is a fool's errand.

_____
* See Walter Russell Mead's Special Providence, American Foreign Policy and How It Changed the World