China sees US missile defence plans as a threat, while the US worries about Chinese ballistic missiles. Who's right to be worried?
John Warden
Missile defence has become an area of controversy in the US-China relationship. The US government sees an enduring role for a range of relatively limited missile intercept capabilities, designed to protect the US homeland, deployed forces, as well as allies and partners by: 1) dissuading other countries from acquiring and deploying ballistic missiles by reducing their perceived value; 2) deterring the use of ballistic missiles by introducing the possibility of operational failure; and 3) defeating a missile attack.
China, by contrast, questions US motives in developing such a system and is particularly concerned with the potential evolution of the technology. The Obama administration has adopted a phased, adaptive approach for missile defence that focuses on countering the more immediate threat – short – and medium-range missiles – while maintaining options for flexible response to future developments. In particular, the United States worries about the development of limited numbers of relatively unsophisticated long-range missiles by a country such as North Korea or Iran.
The United States will continue developing and deploying PAC-3 batteries, AN/TPY-2 X-band radar, THAAD batteries, as well as SM-3 Block IA interceptors aboard Aegis cruisers. In 5 to 10 years, the United States hopes to deploy the SM-3 Block IIA and possibly the SM-3 Block IIB, which are envisioned to have some capability against longer-range missiles. In addition, 30 ground-based mid-course interceptors – the only deployed system with any capability against long range missiles – will remain at Ft. Greely and Vandenberg Air Force Base.
Because of their limited numbers and capabilities, these defences would, even if they worked exactly as designed, have no realistic capability against the large and sophisticated strategic nuclear retaliatory forces of either Russia or China. In East Asia, North Korea, with its large number of deployed short-range missiles and interest in developing long range ballistic missiles, is the primary US concern. However, at the tactical and operational level, the United States is also concerned with China’s declared intention to deploy an anti-access and area denial capability by developing ballistic missiles that would threaten US military forces and assets in the region.
To counter these threats, the United States plans to develop and deploy various defences, including missile interceptors, and to continue its cooperation with key allies and partners. But some in China are concerned that more advanced (or much more numerous) interceptors might threaten their strategic nuclear deterrent. Yet there’s no sign of any US effort to build a defence that would do so. It’s important to the broader relationship that policies on both sides be based on reality, not exaggerated fears, and that neither do things that could give rise to such fears.
Neither the United States nor China wants missile defence, or misperceptions of it, to contribute to crisis instability or an arms race.
He Yun
China has three primary concerns with US missile defence. First, a mature interception system might undermine China’s second-strike capability. Second, research and development advances in missile defence might lead to technological breakthroughs that China wouldn’t understand the full implications of, and could not easily imitate or negate. Third, developments might yield progress in space technology that would lead to the weaponization of outer space.
While US missile defence systems may not pose a significant threat to Russia’s strategic retaliatory forces, China’s small nuclear arsenal presents a different case. Chinese missiles are quite vulnerable to a US first strike, and those that did survive would be highly susceptible to a mid-course missile defence system – as proposed in a phased adaptive approach – if such a system becomes more sophisticated.
For now, China believes that it’s much less expensive and more effective to develop counter-measures. But even this isn’t an easy task; it requires a high level of technical sophistication to deploy decoys in the right shape and temperature to make them indistinguishable to X-band radars.
Chinese policy makers are also concerned with falling farther behind the United States technologically. Such concerns encouraged China to respond to President Reagan’s 1983 Strategic Defense Initiative by launching the ‘863 Programme,’ or State High-Tech Development Plan. This programme – begun in March 1986 and which continues today – aims to hedge against technological surprise by studying the most advanced science and technology developments with military applications.
China’s 2010 anti-missile test was a response to these worries. Because China doesn’t have early-warning radars or capable space sensors, it doesn’t intend to develop a missile defence system. Instead, the goal is to understand and master hit-to-kill technology. China conducted an anti-satellite test weeks prior so that it could first shoot down a satellite with a more predictable trajectory, increasing China’s confidence in its later anti-missile test. China doesn’t, as some have speculated, intend to develop anti-satellite weapons. Indeed, China has made it quite clear that it seeks to ban all space weapons, and the US rejection of such proposal is another reason that China is concerned with the development of missile defence.
The argument that the US missile defence deployments are, in part, a response to China’s anti-access and area denial capability makes no sense, as such plans were formulated before China’s declared interest in such a capability. Plainly, the United States will continue its missile defence plan regardless of China’s deployments. While China may feel the need to address US concerns regarding its recent military advancement, for the United States, such discussion may be best left outside of the missile defence framework.
Warden Responds
Many of China’s concerns with US missile defence are premature and exaggerated: premature because they focus on theoretical possibilities, not what the United States – as demonstrated in official documents and current deployments – is planning to do over the next decade; exaggerated because they greatly underestimate China’s present (and future) technological and industrial capability to offset US defences and thereby maintain China’s second-strike capability.
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
hwang china
China is building up its missiles for self defence. This is to ensure that bases from which US forces operate wont be a sanctuary. During the Korean war US navy ships operated from the vicinity to attack North korea.
fast forward to 2011,the Chinese at least have the means to defend themselves and retaliate. This is something anatema to US forces,long accustomed to opearting in a safe haven.
Those days are unfortunately gone. If the US were to try to get immunity from retaliatio it is aforlorn hope. The Chinese would only upgrade their weaponry.a
jared
“Where does Chinese aggression come from?”
-Not abiding by the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which China agreed to earlier.
-Threatening India, Vietnam, and the Philippines on every border/EEZ dispute (this wasn’t an issue for decades until China recently made it one)
-Jailing it’s own innocent citizens.
-Repatriating North Korean defectors, who are then sent to labor camps or just flat out killed
-Condoning the North Korean regime of sinking warships, shelling islands, and recent assassination attempts
-Threatening retaliation for sales of fighter jets to Taiwan (purely defensive in nature, considering China’s enormous military advantage)
“You should ask US to tell NK what to do”
-Denuclearize.
-Stop terrorizing South Korea.
-Also note US was the biggest donor in food until they declined it
-The US has absolutely no pull with the NK regime, unlike it’s biggest trading partner, China
ChrisH
Exactly spot on.
mareo2
One day if the son of Kim lose control of the DPRK, the CCP can order to the PLA to make a pre-emptive invasion for stop a several millions wave of hungry North Koreans invading China, looking to capture the WMDs and setup a far more pro-PRC government. Then the ROK is going to “complain” but secretly is going to be very happy that the PRC pay the cost of rebuild the north of “their” country to a minimum level of living stability and talk about reunification “someday” (they hope very far in to the future, but perhaps never can make them even more happy). As long as DPRK no longer threaten with nuke Seoul (and Tokyo and Washington) everyone is going to be quite happy to go back to the old days without deploying SM-3 anti-missile defensive systems in the North-East Asia region. Despite what some paranoid thinks, is not like we are happy expending billions on these technology.
habu
My comments are not limited to the US-China framework. Of course the USA does not want other nations to arm themselves because it will be a deterrent to any imperialist designs. I don’t doubt that even China may become like the USA in time. So, I suggest that non-Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) nations, like India, Iran, Brasil, Argentina, Venezuela, South Africa, Koreas, etc., be armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons.
The only language that the NPT powers, especially the USA, understand is the specter of nuclear terror. In fact, the USA and France, have threatened the use of nuclear weapons which is against the provisions of the NPT. Actually, Bush/Obama/H. Clinton have warned Iraq and Iran that “all options are on the table” which was a veiled threat.
It is only when more nations are armed that we will see respectable diplomacy. Also, we will limit the kind of invasions that the USA likes to conduct worldwide. This will certainly limit the kind of plunder that we have been seeing by the NPT nations, but especially the USA.
Huang
China’s neccessity and duty to bring itself up-to-date(modernization or rise) with the World while encountering(on many different sides)a mix reactions ranging from positive(views containing the least amount of jealousies and bias)to negative(attitudes conditioned or sub-conciuosly held in ralation to China’s LOW status-mistakes the Chinese nation made in the last few centuries). Attitudes or mis-perceptions held that long a time(not years but centuries)are undoultedly NOT easy to be changed over-night,BUT will eventiually be Changed by the environment of today.
While some individuals and officials in the US see China’s recent developnments with suspicions and thus express openly along that line. In fact,their attitudes precisely are the reflections of their difficulties(natural and emotional)in adjusting to the reality of the China to their traditionaly learned and held views.
On the other hand,there are also people(often are truth seeking)see the changing China as merely one natural process of the evolving and changing environment. Thus they tend to interpret China’s modernizations(economic,military,and so on)as just something China should and will become(a natural phenomenon).
If all the emotions and blindly held attitudes were put aside for just a moment,views from both sides of the spectrum will automatically be converged at the mid-point where artificial mis-trusts and poor-degree-of-understandongs will be most visible and be much easier to overcome and even turn them into useful assets instead of wastes and needless distractions.
China’s rise or modernizations is not only a reality,its the MUST. China’s defensive military nature will gradually be understood and accepted by it neighbors and friends around the World.
China was and will be a nation pursuing its goals similar to any individuals seeking and working hard to maintain a decent living while at the same time MUST maintain effective(defense with offensive capable in nature)national defense as a deterrence against likely aggressor.
Throughout China’s long history,China’s military effectiveness and military techonologies played the crucial role at maintaining a stable environment in which the people’s livelihoods,society,the sciences,and economic activities can grow and progress were being made(its all come down to stability and peacefulness where things can grow and prospered).
Feel free to dis-agree but keep emotions,lifestyles,wishes good or ill to yourself. I am not interested in your wishes and I don’t give a damn about it.
P.S. I don’t see people for what they(rich,poor,ethnicity,religion…),I will judged people for who they are(despise China and the Chinese people based on their own twisted emotions) even when they think they can hide behind their ill-conceived posts and fake titles.
ChrisH
The fact that the PRC happily murdered 100, 000, 000 of its own citizens is what worries the USA and its allies. As the phrase goes, look what they do to themselves, look what they do to Tibet and hence the fear of the West is palpable.
Frankly, whether North Korea listens to China or not with respect to its belligerence to South Korea, matters not. China and North Korea should both be very clear that any invasion by the North to the South will be met by a massive nuclear retaliation by the USA. It will stop PRC troops once again crossing the borders of two nations. The west does not want Chinese control of NK – this does not create stability just another Chinese puppet. China’s security is at stake if North Korea attacks the south because the west cannot afford another Chinese invasion.
Huang
Throughout China’s history and since the PRC took over,the Chinese nation and people experienced many tregedies one after another and NO one other than the Chinese people themselves sense or understand the magnitude of all those MISTAKES(decisions made by leaders proven to be costly to the nation)made in the past and one can only hope that as few mistakes as possible will be made in the future. One thing is clear,the PRC leaderships are demonstrating their utmost efforts to do the one thing that matters-maintaining stability,strenghten law and order,improving the people’s livelihoods,and safeguarding national defenses…These are the very things any respossible and decent Governments are doing. Aren’t it correct?
Tibet is doing fine as we speak. Of course,there will be some disturbances here and there and this only show how the Chinese leaderships of today and the imperial rulers of the past granted the ACTUAL freedoms to every subject or citizen without ever drafting laws of all kinds as seen the most developed societies. Example: any mass gatherings MUST be detailed and then approved in advance and only allowed in specified area with limited space.
It seems there remained to be a large gap between the actual and the out-of-date understandings with regard to many aspects of China in the eyes and minds of many outside China.
China is one of the(if not the only)nations on Earth today where all ethnic minority retain their own culture,custums,and way of life is a fact no lack or mis-understandings can change or presented otherwise.
ChrisH
Huang your reply is mere apologetics. What you say is neither justified nor true with the exception of your opening statement. China has experienced many tragedies one after the other. I disagree completely that you think no one other than the Chinese people sense or understand the magnitude of those tragedies. I do – I state the truth that apx 100 million Chinese people died because of Mao, if the surviving Chinese people knew or really understood the magnitude of that brutality they would of created change. Alas the people did not, could not.
The PRC leadership is not doing their best for the people with regard to “maintaining stability, strengthen law and order, improving the people’s livelihoods” although the PRC is safeguarding national defenses. So I will argue, in the main you are not correct.
Maintaining stability. Stability amongst other things means that the socio-political-economic systems provide a foundation for each of those categories. Social stability in China is not governed by recourse to law, agents of the state (police, bureaucrats etc) or a cultural norm. Rather, aspects of state are purely contingent. Contingent on power or money. Ordinary villages who speak out about corruption of building codes that resulted in the death of their children are sent to many years jail for daring to speak out. Any individual who makes recourse to law for their rights is subject to a corrupt police / judiciary and sent to prison and or tortured. To survive in Chinese society the rules are, make no waves do not be noticed by the agents of the state. If you have power or money you may attempt to get what you want by corruption but it is a game many many people play. No guarantees of safety or officials choosing you or your family for attention. No stability there. Politically there is only the one party. A factionalised party where the losers slip into obscurity busy watching their backs for the next purge or trumped up charges. The State seeks to make the general populace feel exactly insecure. It’s the way the system of authority works- by fear and intimidation. You don’t know when and who in authority will knock on your door and turn your life into hell. Didn’t sufficiently bribe an official, competitor knows better connected people than you, this isn’t the price of life in China it is the method by which the state maintains control. State organs create such a degree of personal and family insecurity that you will never be a threat to the party clique, you are too busy trying to survive, to hope you are not dealt with by the state.
Similarly economically. Chinese are the hardest working people on earth. You need money to bribe, to make a space for your family, keep the party officials happy. It doesn’t work that well. I have personal knowledge of a very senior party official who after a week of police detention couldn’t even recognise her nephew. I will go to the top she threatened, it came from the top the police replied.
The President personally chose to attack the Falun Gong. Why? Because they were increasing a large body, increasingly a national body but more importantly, advocated personal qualities. The state had to destroy any semblance of individuals even having a philosophy of self or spiritual reliance, state is number one and you must be subject to the state. Hence the state seeks to make all institutions in China capricious and contingent. The individual only has recourse in name to justice, rarely in reality. The more corruption there is (up to a point,) the more institutions that serve the state’s power hold the MORE insecure the people are. In China you are either a person of power playing the great game or you are an ant crushed at will.
Tibet is not doing fine. Wholesale murder, summary executions, indigenous Tibetan disenfranchisement is the reality, the truth of what the Han Chinese do on a daily basis to the Tibetan people.
Law and order are false terms or concepts in China. The Chinese press is lettered with examples of ordinary Chinese people seeking to object to corruption or to the excess of the state. These people go to jail or are tortured or lose their jobs because the state cannot have dissent to it – it might start a national movement against it. Better to intimidate and make example of those who dare to speak out.
As to improving people’s livelihoods. Occidental left wingers object to the trickle down effect in economics. In China the current generation is sacrificed to be poor workers. Once China feels it has sufficient control over western production methodologies and markets then China will really grow. At that time with the growth of a domestic market will Chinese living standards start to increase. Unfortunately, it will be commensurate with the current levels of fear, intimidation and corruption since the State will never willingly give up its control.
I will leave China’s minorities for another comment.
China is a destroyer of its own and other peoples. China wants world power because it believes it should be number one (both for survival reasons and to destroy its enemies.) The west really does want peace but Chinese pragmatism means on the way to the occidental death camp the west will be told, shown, made to believe that everything China does is justified including the death of the West.
Huang
Thank you for sharing your views,
Look like the ONLY thing to do now is to let time be the judge on all the differences between what is facts and what is mis-understandings.
Many thanks for caring about the people of China,
Peter
@ John Chan – Where do you get your information? Your comments are so completely absurd – and you don’t ever seem to see that China has many weaknesses and is causing many problems in the world. The same can be said for most countries – but your accusations about imperialism and lackies, etc. – are irresponsible and baseless. It’s easy to call names but how about some sensible argument and some evidence!!!???
John Chan
@Peter:
Labelling other blogger’s opinions that is not to your liking as completely absurd definitely is not the right way to start some sensible argument.
My information sources are The Economist, WSJ, NYT, Google, Amazon, YouTube, Asia Times, The Interpreter Lowy Institute, China SignPost, 凤凰网, Xinhau, Chinese historical literature, . . .
China has a lot problems and weaknesses as well as strength and greatnesses. It is China’s business, not an excuse for foreigners to interfere China’s internal affairs.
You cannot call China’s interactions with world as problems because their behaviour is not to the Westpac’s liking, it is called independence.
ChrisH
If that were a justifiable position to take, China should do the same with the rest of the world and not interfere. It does not. Unfortunately the USA with its presence in over 100 countries is far more guilty. Having the Americans bring “democracy” to my country with a bullet through support of a right wing clique is as exactly as bad as China. It must be remembered that China may be seen as monolithic but its approach in business, governmental relations, trade etc is a thousand fold way. SOme interactions will be generous, some by corruption, some by force, some by guile. With 1.4 billion people or so China can use more approaches or methodologies than any other nation.
Peter
@ John Chan – You say “Chinese bloggers on this site are defending China that it should have the right to defend herself, yet anti-China bloggers are crying foul on any improvement of China’s defending capability.”
This absurd – Every country has the right to defend itself. No one on this site – as far as I have seen has ever implied that China doesn’t have this right. Of course, if China is going to develope military capabilities that could potentially endanger the US or it’s interests – it also has the right to defend itself.
China has been improving it’s military at a breakneck pace for decades – while this causes concern for some – the standard line out of Washington has been that there is nothing to be concerned about.
John Chan
@Peter:
China’s military technology is 20 years behind USA, if China does not put in some effort to catch up, how is China ever going to close the gap? Why does such natural progression cause your concern that even Washington thinks there is nothing to be concerned about?
Westpac does not imply China doesn’t have the right to defend itself, they simply tell frankly that China doesn’t have the right to defend itself. For example Japan, Philippines, Vietnam, etc. are encroaching China territory in China Sea. They and the West accused China aggression when China tried to defend its territories. If it is not denying China’s right to defend itself, what is it?
Westpac (Meaning mainly the US with UK its lieutenant and Japan its major vassal state and a host of second tier associate nations.)
Cyrus
It is the opposite it is China who is trying to encroach on our territories and the US is helping us in defending our Sovereignty.
So yeah you have a RIGHT to defend yourself but you do not have the RIGHT to put STRUCTURES in our EEZ.
ChrisH
China may well be behind militarily by a factor but recall the Korean conflict. China pushed America and the UN all the way back. The Korean war was the first conflict where Australian troops did not own the night. China’s manpower is sufficient to win the next Korean peninsula war. American technological superiority is not a sufficient force mulitplyer to deal with 2 million PRC troops in 30 days.
NK if they attack will be a last throw of the dice. They will not aim for victory (how can they with the limited fuel they have) they will aim for as much destruction as they can. Although everyone fears the numbers of PRC troops it will be very hard for China to justify an invasion this time.
I hope they do, I hope the west nukes the hell out of China.