These maritime disputes are cast against the backdrop of decades of Chinese naval build-up, Beijing’s maritime bullying, and the country’s intransigent and tireless peddling of patently illegal maritime claims. China’s grand effort to convert large swaths of the oceans into an area under Chinese suzerainty is a dangerous game that risks naval war. The cornerstone of American power and security is global access, and particularly maritime mobility. This isn’t new. The first war fought by an independent United States was over the issue of freedom of the seas—the 1798-1800 Quasi-War with France. The second US war was the First Barbary War of 1804; the third US conflict was the War of 1812, and the fourth war involving the United States was the Second Barbary War. For each of these conflicts, the key US issue was ensuring freedom of the seas. Likewise, the issue of freedom of the seas helped precipitate US involvement in two world wars and, in the Gulf of Tonkin, the Vietnam War. Are you starting to see a pattern here?
But China has made uncanny progress on its dogged trek to transition from an obsolete 1950s-style coastal defense force to a balanced blue water fleet. Several factors are in play as China unveils a stable of advanced and emerging systems. First, China is working feverishly on a new weapon that will alter the strategic calculus—the 1,500-mile range DF-21 ASBM, specifically designed to decapitate US carrier strike groups. The DF-21 will be armed with a maneuverable reentry vehicle (MARV) that, in combination with a space-based maritime surveillance and targeting system, can be used to strike moving warships at sea. This is unlike any threat ever faced by the US Navy, and the prospect of intercepting a maneuvering ballistic missile reentry vehicle is daunting.
Second, after suffering an embarrassing indignity in 1996 when President Bill Clinton ordered the Nimitz and Independence carrier battle groups into the Taiwan Strait, China has embarked on a program to build a powerful surface fleet, which will include aircraft carriers. As a maritime nation with worldwide responsibilities, the United States devotes only 26 percent of its defense budget to the Navy and Marine Corps. The Chinese Navy, on the other hand, attracts more than 33 percent of the nation’s military spending.
While the United States has the forward-deployed USS George Washington on a short tether, oftentimes Washington has no other carrier in theater, meaning that even two or three Chinese carriers operating in the area likely will exceed the number of US flattops. The Chinese fleet is about 260 vessels, including 75 major warships and more than 60 submarines, and the entire force is complemented by hundreds of fast cruise-missiles shooting offshore patrol vessels and land-based aircraft.
By comparison, the US Navy battle force, run ragged with global responsibilities, has shrunk by 20 percent since 2001. The US fleet will be hard-pressed to maintain a force of 11 carriers, 31 amphibious warfare ships, 88 major surface combatants and 48 submarines, all spread thinly throughout the world. The United States believes it can be ‘virtually present’ everywhere, and then surge actual forces in the event of a crisis. But ‘virtual presence’ is actual absence, and the US strategy is tacit recognition that the Navy that had approached 600 ships in the 1980s is incapable of maintaining even half that number.
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
james_002
Why do you delete my comment censorship?
obsthetimes
the countries you’ve mentioned are minnows compared to the whale that is china. China does not need to ‘take over’ countries but only make them bow to its wishes.
Japan’s pacifist constitution makes countering china impossible. The US should lean on Japan to alter its constitution.
miki
“China is a massive threat to Western World” should be rephrased as “the Yellow Peril is a massive threat to the Western World”!
Perhaps its time to bring on the Opium War II? before its too late?
Communist China could not be a threat to any one until the regime can afford to spend 500+ billions a year for at least a decade on its military. its not going to happen in my live time! So go have a drink enjoy life in peace for the next few decades!
HHyap
Now, the colonial mentality has spoken, bring on the opium war and show the world how the big used to bully, with force.
Please initiate it, just talk will only show your gutless attitude.
Let the war begin and we all shall see the result.
Don’t be a coward.
wilson
I find it revealing that China is described as ‘increasingly provocative’ when it attempts to disrupt ‘routine’ U.S. military manoeuvres! Guess where these ‘routine’ manoeuvres took place? The East China sea. Now who exactly is being ‘provocative’ here?
Whenever I hear a story, I simply switch the players and the location and reapply the rhetoric.
Here, China’s military is ‘routinely’ manoeuvring around the coast of America. The ‘provocative’ Americans attempt to disrupt these manoeuvres. Who in their right mind wouldn’t howl with laughter if the Chinese wrote something like that?
Why do we accept such obvious bullshit from western sources?
obsthetimes
Without the US navy patrolling in ‘International waters’ off China, the Chinese would willy nilly just bully every country in the region. Just becuase it is named the ’south china sea’ does not mean it belongs to china. You comment exposed your view point, that korea, japan, phillipines and vietnam just dont count!
J Baker
Where’s the proof for what you’ve just claimed? If you cannot prove what you said, you are just a nutcase who simply spouts what he wants to say without rhyme, reason nor facts. A fruitcake.
Derrick
The US will always counter any rising power in Asia…the US economy depends on access to cheap labor in China and other countries so any attempt by any nation to obtain naval hegemony will be challenged by the US.
Also, it is unsafe to assume the US would not use tactical nuclear weapons in a first strike capacity if it got involved in any type of military or naval confrontation in Asia. First off, most rising powers have a higher number of troops/ships/etc., so in a conventional conflict, their massive advantage in numbers pretty much necessitates the US use tactical nuclear weapons.
So to go down that route, any attempt by China to dominate the South China Seas is pointless because it will inevitably boil down to a nuclear confrontation, and the US has a lot more nuclear weapons than China.
Henry Seng
In regards to the debate between Ly Tran Le and Jeff, it’s rather passionate and personal. I have to agree with Jeff. We’re not even in the game, an economic game. China, a military threat? Ridiculous! Sure, they spend a few dollars to modernize their military, which is still small and backward. Why shouldn’t they? They can afford it. What we should be looking at is what they’re spending on: major infrastructure projects, like roads, bridges, railways, dams, power plants, solar power technology, electric car technology, etc. This country is going to be so competitive. We think the Japanese are competitive. Just wait and see, if you have not noticed it, yet. Simply put, we have a few giants like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, but they’re going to have a lot more. It may sound a little bit prejudice, but is not. These guys are serious economic warriors. This communism in that country was just a fluke. We’re wasting our resources in the wrong area, the military that is.
mandrewsf
China is not a threat. PLAN lacks the technology, military spending and naval experience to make it a credible challenge of U.S. naval hegemony. Note that China does not even have an aircraft carrier yet, and the two under construction are relatively backward diesel-powered platforms. And even if China could field a credible surface fleet, its weakness in air power (i.e. its lack of 5th generation fighters) will mean that most of its ships are in mortal peril if a war with the U.S. does break out.
Also, the only possible cause for a war between China and the U.S. is if a war in Taiwan breaks out. This will only happen if Taiwan declares unilateral independence, but the U.S. also pledged to not defend Taiwan if Taiwan did do something so foolhardy.
Meanwhile, drop the Impeccable incident please… The only thing this incident shows is that China no longer lack the power project capacities to project naval power beyond immediate coastal regions. Naturally they would not then tolerate U.S. surveillance ships strolling around its top secret sub bases. That’s not really saying much about Chinese “aggression.”
obsthetimes
Did you not read the article about the Dong Feng Carrier killer missile? Why is this missile being developed if China is only interested in a ‘peaceful rise’.
Michael
I’m no expert, but it seems to me that most (if not all) of these arguments could also apply to Japan, Taiwan and South Korea. Unless China has plans to take these countries over before they can build their own ASBNs and air forces, its hegemony would only last for a short time.