Chinese Dragon Awakens - Chinese Military Build-up

[Captain Nate]

Chinese dragon awakens

By Bill Gertz

THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Published June 26, 2005

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Part I

    

    China is building its military forces faster than U.S. intelligence and military analysts expected, prompting fears that Beijing will attack Taiwan in the next two years, according to Pentagon officials.

http://www.washtimes.com/specialreport/200...22138-1088r.htm

The rest is at the link above. I think China's build-up is very disconcerting. Worse, I think granting them the olympics is like giving Nazi Germany the Olympics all over again. I don't know if they will really attack Taiwan in the next two years, but maybe in the next 10. Do you think, as Ayn Rand argued, that we should defend Taiwan, a free nation, if attacked? Or would it not be in our national interests to oppose China, and instead choose appeasement?

Edited June 26, 2005 by Captain Nate

[gags]

We certainly have the right to defend Taiwan, but not the obligation.

The Chinese are becoming an increasingly dangerous military and economic threat. Their recent bid to purchase Unocal is disturbing.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5062500139.html

[AisA]

Yes, I think we should defend Taiwan -- by selling them a couple of Trident-class ballistic missile submarines. This would give them 500 nuclear warheads on a platform that is completely undetectable (except by us). Should give the Chicoms something to consider.

[Dagny]

This past semester I met (in one of my college classes) this guy who had spent 2 years in China and was going back this summer to live there permanently. He is actually American but was talking about how much he loved China. He spent every class saying things like "China is going to be the next superpower. The US is going down!". I kept my distance from him because I thought he was full of bs but now all these recent reports on China has left me wondering.

[Praxus]

Yes, I think we should defend Taiwan -- by selling them a couple of Trident-class ballistic missile submarines.  This would give them 500 nuclear warheads on a platform that is completely undetectable (except by us).  Should give the Chicoms something to consider.

I would much rather, keep all of them in our hands. Give Taiwan about 5,000 Cruise Missles. China would think twice before attacking a nation with the capacity to sink their entire invasion fleet. Also give them some PAC-3 Patriot batteries to defend against the over 500 Ballistic Missiles they have pointed towards Taiwan.

China would be impotent.

[DavidV]

We certainly have the right to defend Taiwan, but not the obligation.

The Chinese are becoming an increasingly dangerous military and economic threat.  Their recent bid to purchase Unocal is disturbing.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5062500139.html

Americans have invested over $700 billion in China. What is "disturbing" about China spending some of the billions of dollars we send there? We can't send billions to China and expect them to keep it under the mattress indefinitely. (In other words, banning Chinese investment in America is equivalent to banning American investment in China, since it would make our dollars useless to them.)

See:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0630/p17s01-cogn.html

Edited July 1, 2005 by GreedyCapitalist

[Captain Nate]

In Objectivism, I understand the proper foreign policy of a government is free trade, but is it proper for a government to shelter domestic industry, or end free trade agreements with other nations if it is our national security interests? Especially if the trade is not with another free, or semi-free country?

(Edited to remove quotation of entire previous post. - softwareNerd)

Edited July 1, 2005 by softwareNerd

[DavidV]

It’s wrong a government to “shelter domestic industry” for any reason. This term usually refers to direct or indirect taxation on citizens and foreign sellers to create domestic monopolies immune from competition. Even when this is supposedly done for “national security” reasons, (a common and politically effective excuse) it inevitably weakens the domestic industry that it is supposed to be protecting. For example, both steel and supercomputers have faced heavy import restrictions for many years. As a result, steel manufacturing in America has become costly and inefficient. “Anti dumping” laws that banned Japanese computers contributed to the self-destruction of Cray supercomputer, while companies like Fujitsu and NEC created supercomputers that surpassed stagnating American designs.

[gags]

Americans have invested over $700 billion in China.  What is "disturbing" about China spending some of the billions of dollars we send there?  We can't send billions to China  and expect them to keep it under the mattress indefinitely.  (In other words, banning Chinese investment in America is equivalent to banning American investment in China, since it would make our dollars useless to them.)

See:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0630/p17s01-cogn.html

I think you misread the quote in the CSM article. I believe the $700 billion figure is total US investment abroad over the past 4 years, not US investment in China. I don't find anything to be disturbing about China spending some of their dollar reserves in this country. However, when there is an apparent issue of national security, I think such transactions at least deserve a closer look.

It’s wrong a government to “shelter domestic industry” for any reason.  This term usually refers to direct or indirect taxation on citizens and foreign sellers to create domestic monopolies immune from competition.  Even when this is supposedly done for “national security” reasons, (a common and politically effective excuse) it inevitably weakens the domestic industry that it is supposed to be protecting.  For example, both steel and supercomputers have faced heavy import restrictions for many years.  As a result, steel manufacturing in America has become costly and inefficient.  “Anti dumping” laws that banned Japanese computers contributed to the self-destruction of Cray supercomputer, while companies like Fujitsu and NEC created supercomputers that surpassed stagnating American designs.

I would agree that sheltering domestic industries from foreign competition is almost always a bad move. As you point out, it often results in exactly the same outcome as the protectionist legislation was intended to avoid.

However, there are cases where foreign powers that are clearly threatening to this country have attempted to purchase military technology and other strategic assets from US companies. Those situations must be reviewed on a case by case basis, and a determination needs to be made whether a given transaction will truly damage US national security.

I don't know enough about the Unocal situation to make such a determination, however, it certainly deserves some attention.

[elk4586]

Just as a note, our (the United States') balistic subarines (boomers) are Ohio class...the Trident is the missile sysetem. And to be on topic, what's everyone's take on the idea that I currently am chewing on, that China will not remain a communist country for more than 10-20 years because of the whole A is A law...a, growingly, capitalist country CANNOT have a communist government. Any ideas?

[scottkursk]

Also, given the Chinese buildup in seapower would make it a very unpleasant fight. I love our Navy and have no doubt they could put up one heck of a fight versus the Chinese if they went for Taiwan given that it would almost certainly draw in our allies like Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Korea, and frankly anyone else who is in zone of fallout.

The only thing that does not give me comfort is one of the things helping defend our liberty is called the USS Jimmy Carter. Not to dismiss her fine crew etc but jeez, naming something as beautiful and powerful as a Seawolf after Jimmy Carter just ruins it for me.

Though this would be a very different war than we've experienced for 50 years. This would be ship to ship with missiles, trulys massive casualties, and in all likelihood, someone would end up using a nuke. The brush wars the US has been fighting have been, in comparison relatively low casualty wars. When navy's get involved that is when things tend to get very ugly since boats are filled with large numbers of people.

Plus the economic impact of something happening to Taiwan, oh I shudder to think about how the market would react. Elk does have a point that given market forces inside of China, there does stand a chance of genuine reform but then it's pretty rare that dictatorships go quietly into the night.

[Praxus]

Also, given the Chinese buildup in seapower would make it a very unpleasant fight. I love our Navy and have no doubt they could put up one heck of a fight versus the Chinese if they went for Taiwan given that it would almost certainly draw in our allies like Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Korea, and frankly anyone else who is in zone of fallout. 

The Chinese Navy is vastly inferior to that of the United States. They have a very limited blue water fleet, mostly with obsolete technology. The only real "modern" Ships they have (but even they are a bit outdated) are the 052C Lanzhou Class and several Sovremenny Class destroyers. As it stands at this juncture, it is impossible for China to take Taiwan by force even without US forces.

The more likely outcome of an attack at this point, is the entire Chinese invasion feet becoming a new reef.

Edited July 3, 2005 by Praxus

[scottkursk]

 

The Chinese Navy is vastly inferior to that of the United States. They have a very limited blue water fleet, mostly with obsolete technology. The only real "modern" Ships they have (but even they are a bit outdated) are the 052C Lanzhou Class and several Sovremenny Class destroyers. As it stands at this juncture, it is impossible for China to take Taiwan by force even without US forces. 

 

The more likely outcome of an attack at this point, is the entire Chinese invasion feet becoming a new reef. 

 

I have no disagreements with you there. But there is some truth in the Soviet maxim "there is a certain quality to quantity." And if you throw enough Sardines and Sunburns into the air at once and they are bound to hit something.

The Lanzhaou's aren't bad for their first DDG's but with the Sovremenny's tossing Sunburns would be pretty interesting to face. Still, it is a war we'd win. The Chinese navy is well behind ours and their kills would be due as much to odds plays than skill. But the Brits learned the lessons in the Falklands (I think a good comparison naval technology wise) there are no "gimmees" in war no matter how overwhelming or onesided the odds are.

The only real threat that China presents is with nukes. In reality, their navy just can't withstand an allied defense of Taiwan. China knows it. At worst they rattle the sabre enough they actually start a shooting war they would loose face. Getting defeated by the US and our allies, even with a couple of "lucky hits" by China, they would loose. Even if they used nuke tips against US allied fleets, the repercussions would be so negative to be ridiculous.

This would cause a loss in stature worldwide that they wouldn't want. So i think they wouldn't want to actually start the war. The only thing that they could do would end up dropping a nuke on Taiwan which wouldn't do anybody a bit of good. China wouldn't be able to use the ground for obvious reasons, and the diplomatic fallout would be bad.

Of course, the diplomatic fallout would also be obviously bad and very counterproductive to their long term goals. So it's probably a case of MAD like we had with the Soviets. We and Taiwan really do have the upper hand in the equation. If they build ships and keep rattling sabres, maybe confiscating the occasional fisherman who strayed to closed to territorial waters, they get to be the big guy on the block. Look at Hussein. As long as he didn't actually get into the fight, was looked pretty good to his friends at the dictators bar and grill. But once that fight started...

[Captain Nate]

Even though, head-to-head, China probably couldn't defeat us, we have to remember we have other global responsibilities. We're acting in the Middle East as well, and could only divert a certain amount of our forces at a given time to deal with China.

But what's really worrisome is that, even though China is not as advanced as us, their weapons build-up has been focused solely on exploiting our weaknesses. Meaning, they've been focusing on weaponry that can knock out our reliance on satellites, laser-guided weapons and the internet. They plan on hitting us where it hurts, to make things incredibly difficult for us. And the technology to do it isn't wildly expensive that the Chinese couldn't develop it.

[Praxus]

I have no disagreements with you there. But there is some truth in the Soviet maxim "there is a certain quality to quantity." And if you throw enough Sardines and Sunburns into the air at once and they are bound to hit something.   

 

The Lanzhaou's aren't bad for their first DDG's but with the Sovremenny's tossing Sunburns would be pretty interesting to face. Still, it is a war we'd win. The Chinese navy is well behind ours and their kills would be due as much to odds plays than skill. But the Brits learned the lessons in the Falklands (I think a good comparison naval technology wise) there are no "gimmees" in war no matter how overwhelming or onesided the odds are. 

From what I understand, the first sea force to respond would be the Carrier Strike Force from Japan, which at the moment is the Kitty Hawk and it's Battlegroup. The Nimitz is also in the Pacific at the moment. So these are two major sea forces in the area. We also have hundreds of fighters in Japan and South Korea. So immediately we could shift some of the air assets from Japan to the Philippines to support the defense of Taiwan. From what I have read, Taiwan would have to hold for two weeks before our Carriers could get there. Given the fact that the US/Taiwanese forces would outnumber Chinas modern aircraft well over 4:1, we would have complete air dominance over the straight of Formosa.

As for anti-ship missiles such as the Sunburns. They will pose little if any threat given the light air defense of the PLAN and the shear distance away that the US Carrier groups will be. The main threat is silent diesel submarines.

The only real threat that China presents is with nukes. In reality, their navy just can't withstand an allied defense of Taiwan. China knows it. At worst they rattle the sabre enough they actually start a shooting war they would loose face. Getting defeated by the US and our allies, even with a couple of "lucky hits" by China, they would loose. Even if they used nuke tips against US allied fleets, the repercussions would be so negative to be ridiculous.

The US considers Carriers to be strategic assets. If a nuclear weapon is used to destroy a carrier battle group, we go to Defcon one and China disappears in 40 minutes from their use of a nuclear weapon.

This would cause a loss in stature worldwide that they wouldn't want. So i think they wouldn't want to actually start the war. The only thing that they could do would end up dropping a nuke on Taiwan which wouldn't do anybody a bit of good. China wouldn't be able to use the ground for obvious reasons, and the diplomatic fallout would be bad. 

They wouldn't have to worry about that, they would be dead.

Edited July 3, 2005 by Praxus

[scottkursk]

As for anti-ship missiles such as the Sunburns. They will pose little if any threat given the light air defense of the PLAN and the shear distance away that the US Carrier groups will be. The main threat is silent diesel submarines. 

 

The US considers Carriers to be strategic assets. If a nuclear weapon is used to destroy a carrier battle group, we go to Defcon one and China disappears in 40 minutes from their use of a nuclear weapon. 

 

They wouldn't have to worry about that, they would be dead.

Given AEGIS etc, Sunbruns et al shouldn't be a problem. As you point out, it will probably be a really well disciplined diesel boat that would play the role of the navy's mcguffin. True, irony of ironies diesel boats do still play an important part today though they are eclipsed by the likes of our modern LA class boats etc. But then all kidding aside, with nukes, all you have to do is really get close. And to be honest, they don't even have to fire the torpedo. Given the culture, they'd get off to just setting the thing off for the sake of the state.

Plus given our picket defenses, I doubt seriously they'd actually be able to, unless REALLY lucky be able to get at something like a carrier with a missile. But then again I point out the Falklands as an example of sometimes luck counts. Still, Id rather be stationed on the Hawk or the Nimitz than on the edges with the Arleigh Burkes. Not that they are bad but being in the center is a good thing.

Valid point about the carriers groups being treated as strategic assets. That kind of reminds me about that line from Red Dawn when they were sitting around the camp fire and the kids ask Powers Booth "just who is on our side?" " 'Bout 400 million screamin' Chinamen" "But I thought there were a billion screaming Chinamen" And Booth just casually lets out, "there were."

[scottkursk]

Even though, head-to-head, China probably couldn't defeat us, we have to remember we have other global responsibilities. We're acting in the Middle East as well, and could only divert a certain amount of our forces at a given time to deal with China.

But what's really worrisome is that, even though China is not as advanced as us, their weapons build-up has been focused solely on exploiting our weaknesses. Meaning, they've been focusing on weaponry that can knock out our reliance on satellites, laser-guided weapons and the internet. They plan on hitting us where it hurts, to make things incredibly difficult for us. And the technology to do it isn't wildly expensive that the Chinese couldn't develop it.

True, my discussion about relative naval strengths would be null and void if China were able to develop/deploy a decent EMP bomb or burst over Taiwan. Almost nobody dies but the country is rendered effectively worthless.

I would be interested in knowing to what extent the Navy is actually involved in the Gulf right now. I imagine a large number of sorties are flown off the decks of carriers and most if not all the cargo is now hauled there by them. Otherwise, I doubt there is much call for AEGIS cruisers at this point in the game in Sadr City. Note, not that I'm advocating splitting up a unit, that would be stupid. Operational units work best together but I do wonder what guys on Hoel's and Sprucans are doing at this point? Reading up on China?

[Praxus]

Plus given our picket defenses, I doubt seriously they'd actually be able to, unless REALLY lucky be able to get at something like a carrier with a missile. 

I hear ya. First the ship would have to get within range of the target ; that is to say avoid carrier based American air assets (given that these ships are full size destroyers, it's impossible). Which means they would have to get within 90km of the outer most Aegis destroyer to just reach just the destroyer, and even closer if they want to hit the Carrier. Once it is fired, it would have to avoid SM-2s, ESSM, and then Phalanx from numerous ships.

Then of course if it even hits the Carrier, it isn't going to sink it, as it requires 6-7 hits (according to Soviet estimates) to knock out a US Carrier. They also said they couldn't do anything to a Battleship but that's a whole different story.

The ESSM is the most effective from what I have read, something that the British ships in the Falklands lacked (along with Aegis radar).

[AisA]

The ESSM is the most effective from what I have read, something that the British ships in the Falklands lacked (along with Aegis radar).

Can you elaborate on ESSM? I am not familiar with it. Thanks.

[Praxus]

Can you elaborate on ESSM?  I am not familiar with it.  Thanks.

It stands for "Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile". In tests it took down incoming drones maneuvering at 9 g's at Mach 2+ (roughly the same capabilities of missiles like the Moskit or Sunburn).

http://www.raytheon.com/products/stellent/...ms01_055809.pdf

Edited July 3, 2005 by Praxus

[AisA]

It stands for "Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile". In tests it took down incoming drones maneuvering at 9 g's at Mach 2+ (roughly the same capabilities of missiles like the Moskit or Sunburn).

http://www.raytheon.com/products/stellent/...ms01_055809.pdf

Thanks for the link. What a fabulous weapon system.

[scottkursk]

Thanks for the link.  What a fabulous weapon system.

The sparrow is amazing. I can't find it via google just yet but I remember back in the late 80's or early 90's when we were doing some joint ops with the Turks right after we sold them some Kidd class DDGs. Somehow, a gunny got smart and gave it the old college try to see if he could get a lock on a ship itself with a sparrow and accidentally launched. I seemed to remember the missile, which wasn't armed, removed a rather sizeable portion of the deck. Thank goodness the Turks were understanding.

What Raytheon has been able to do with them is astounding.

Still, getting to watch a Sea Whiz do it's thing is a really impressive but scary thing. I'd personally have rather had all the picket defenses do their jobs catching, oops, shooting down, the missiles for the carrier before phalanx would ever need to be used but that ripping leather sound does give you the willies.

[scottkursk]

Then of course if it even hits the Carrier, it isn't going to sink it, as it requires 6-7 hits (according to Soviet estimates) to knock out a US Carrier. They also said they couldn't do anything to a Battleship but that's a whole different story. 

When they still did open air testing of nukes, they nuked an Iowa class. Still couldn't get them to sink after a couple of attempts by naval demolitions guys who supposedly specialized in scuttling craft. The things are just to darn well built.

Anyway, the Soviets built the Slavas or Kirov, I can't remember which, basically with the sole idea of if you thrown enough Shiprwecks at the Iowa's, you'd be bound to hurt one. And you'd have to throw lots and lots of them. I don't think they ever thought they'd actually sink the Iowa class ships, just disable them or keep them busy with fire control.

Still, with modern VLS, etc, the Iowa's are an anachronism almost. The idea of hurling 2700lb 16" unguided projectiles in todays world seems almost funny.

[Praxus]

Still, with modern VLS, etc, the Iowa's are an anachronism almost. The idea of hurling 2700lb 16" unguided projectiles in todays world seems almost funny.

The 16" 50 caliber guns on a the Iowas are the most accurate of their kind ever built. With new rounds that were developed by DARPA in the 1980's (and proved to be successful) the range of the guns are extended from a mere 25 miles out to 100+ miles. Combined with GPS guidance in these warheads, the Iowas would be the most effective warships in our arsenal.

We have a major lack of NSFS (Naval Surface Fire Support). The plan to fill this gap will not be fulfilled until the new DD(X) class destroyers get into service. Even then it will not be able to match the capability of the battleships. In fact a battleship in a single day can deliver a payload per day that is 6 times greater then a carrier.

Total cost of reactivating, upgrading, and running 2 Battleships is the same as it costs to just buy 2 B2 Bombers (roughly 2 billion dollars). The amount of firepower that a battleship can deliver for it's cost is unbeatable by any foreseeable platform.

Just imagine: Post one off these off the coast of North Korea with upgraded shells, improved fire control system, firefinder radars, and 61 Caliber 5" Guns we would deliver over 1600, 16" shells and over 10000, 5" shells on an incoming North Korean invasion force.

A single tomahawk costs 1.2 million dollars and can't provide immediate NSFS. A single 11" Sabot BB(base bleed) round would cost 1/5th of that and it can provide immediate NSFS. Anything within 50 nm can be taken out by unguided rounds that cost 1/1000th of a Tomahawk. This on top of the fact that in order to match the payload of a single BB you would have to have 1600 VLS cells filled with Tomahawks, and we don't even have 1600 tomahawks in both fleets combined (pacific and atlantic), let alone in one theater of operations.

[scottkursk]

We have a major lack of NSFS (Naval Surface Fire Support). The plan to fill this gap will not be fulfilled until the new DD(X) class destroyers get into service. Even then it will not be able to match the capability of the battleships. In fact a battleship in a single day can deliver a payload per day that is 6 times greater then a carrier. 

 

Total cost of reactivating, upgrading, and running 2 Battleships is the same as it costs to just buy 2 B2 Bombers (roughly 2 billion dollars). The amount of firepower that a battleship can deliver for it's cost is unbeatable by any foreseeable platform. 

 

The new DD (X) class are almost spooky in how high quality they are. You are right in that the payload per day capabilities of a DD(X) vs a battleship are not even close. But, given the political implications of the ability to direct fire from cruise missiles vs shells, it does make a certain sense to ramp up the production of the DD(X) and other systems.

Offshore bombardment like we did really to good effect last in Beirut wouldn't be an easy sale today diplomacy wise. There is something very "sanitary" about a harpy going through some bad guys bathroom window versus a 16" taking out the bad guys building and neighboring buildings.

The June issue of Imprimis had a really good article by a former muckety muck of the Navy discussing the risk/benefit analysis of performing the DARPA upgrades to the Iowa's versus plowing leaving them as is and going full bore into production with the new systems. I think the Navy will be much better off once the DD(X) gets underway and in fighting shape. Personally, I'm looking forward into seeing what they make of the LCS variants. Ever since they ditched the Pegasus, there hasn't been really nice shallow draft swift boat that can show some killing power. 45 knots with a 20 foot operational depth. That is scary.