Drumbeats

I’m going to come right out and admit that talk of war between China and the U. S. makes me nervous. It concerns me that endlessly hashing out different war scenarios inures us to the idea of going to war.

Although I found Robert Farley’s article at The National Interest too concerned with tactical errors than with the strategic errors that I think could really lead us to war with China, it’s probably worth reading anyway. I think that strategic errors are far more likely to lead us to war than tactical blunders. These are the sorts of things that I mean:

  • China underestimates the U. S. willingness to react. I think that’s the single most likely thing to push us into war. Consider Al Qaeda. Osama Bin Laden’s dismissal of U. S. will lead to the attacks on 9/11.
  • U. S. underestimates Chinese strength.
  • There are too many people on both sides who are already committed to going to war.
20 comments… add one
  • ... Link

    Sonny wants to go straight to the mattresses, huh?

  • ... Link

    Or maybe that’s Sun Yi.

  • TastyBits Link

    Unless they are a pretext, nobody is going to war over individual incidents. Probing actions are designed to draw fire, and when you intentionally lure the enemy to shoot at you, you risk getting shot.

    Neither country has the ability to invade and occupy the other, and therefore, there is no possibility of an absolute victory. A war between the US and China would be akin to siege warfare, and it would take years of grinding down the other through attrition. (It would also require frequent timeouts to allow Walmart and other US companies to resupply.)

    Other than a limited military action, there is no way to go to war, or it would require a lengthy process. You would need to mobilize all active and reserve military, and you would need to reinstate the draft. You would need to have enough troops to remain in the US, and you would need to send troops to Korea, Japan, Guam, the Philippines, Hawaii, etc. You would need to reposition the west coast fleet, and you would probably need to recommission the mothballed shipped. In addition, you would need to shift manufacturing to a wartime production capability.

    That is just to start. Taiwan and Hong Kong would be nice pickups, but the Chinese would probably have them on their priority list also. The Chinese could also start trouble with some of the neighboring countries. If the US had sufficiently pissed-off Russia, they may have an alliance or non-aggression treaty with them.

    The previous paragraph is for the delusional hawks. When the land masses you want to defend border your enemy but not you, it becomes very, very difficult to defend. They have the ability to move troops easily, and their logistics lines are very short. Contrary to what the “experts” tell you, wars are won based upon logistics. The best army without bullets, beans, and bandages is useless.

    If the US wanted to do something provocative, it could build its own island inside the Chinese perimeter.

  • steve Link

    If China underestimates our willingness to bomb people and go to war, they have not been paying attention. We will probably have a GOP win in 2016, and we will definitely end up with someone who thinks W’s policies were good. His former advisors will be back in place. Expect escalation. If, as seems unlikely, Hillary wins, we get someone just a little less hawkish but the possibility of advisors who are not maximalists.

    Steve

  • You can’t pay even passing attention to the Chinese military establishment for long without noticing the occasional extreme saber-rattling by some of their generals. China being what it is I can only assume that the saber-rattling is testing the waters. If you think that what John McCain or Lindsey Graham say is alarming, you should check out some of the Chinese generals.

    The Chinese are engaging in an extraordinary degree of brinksmanship. By its definition brinksmanship is risky and you can only conclude that either the Chinese do not appreciate the risks or they’re willing to take them. Probably some of both. That kind of brinksmanship by its nature can lead to mistakes that are hard to pull back from.

    Unlike some in our own Pentagon I don’t want to go to war with China. IMO a war with China would quickly go nuclear. 50 million Americans, probably including me, would die. 300 million to 500 million Chinese would die.

    China has no friends and it’s surrounded by enemies. If there were a war, areas on China’s periphery would quickly be gobbled up by Japan, North and South Korea, India, and Russia (just to name a few). It’s really a prospect too horrible to contemplate and I don’t see how the leadership of their country takes the stances they do.

    We have a very, very narrow line to walk. We shouldn’t allow Chinese adventurism but we shouldn’t push any closer to war than is actually necessary.

    steve:

    That’s short-term thinking. The Chinese probably look at the events of the last 70 years and see them somewhat differently than one would if only looking at the last 15.

  • TastyBits Link

    In my opinion, nuclear weapons are mostly overblown. First, you need to hit the target. Sending something halfway around the world is not like shooting at the rifle range. Almost may be good enough for horseshoes and hand grenades, but for ICBM’s small errors add up quickly.

    Then, they must function properly, and this requires that they were constructed correctly. They also must be maintained correctly, and they must be refurbished or replaced as they pass the expiration date.

    I seriously doubt any major country is going to start lobbing nukes at another unless their actual historic sovereign territory is invaded, and even then, they would need to be out of options.

    The US is not going to start sending nukes over Guam, and Hawaii or possibly Georgia until things are really bad. (We could see if the South would really would rise again.)

    If China were to declare war and they were to actually start damaging the US (non-nuke), the US could cut their internet access and destroy their ports. You start with one port, and after each port is destroyed, you ask them if they would like to discuss the matter.

    The delusional hawks are armchair generals who may or may not have actual military experience, but what they all lack is a logistics plan of action. Without logistics, you cannot win a war, and this is why the Chinese could never win against the US. If the US had the will, the US could win because the US could supply a logistics train. It would be a series of brutal vicious battles similar to the WW2 Pacific Campaign, and it is doubtful many Americans would have the stomach for that level of violence.

    I would be more worried about Russia. The West has not formally declared war on Russia, but they are trying to encircle Russia and cut off all monetary supplies. That is properly called a siege, and a siege is a form of war – declared or not.

  • ... Link

    A war with China would mostly be air and naval actions, with limited land action on islands in the Pacific, and on & near the Korean peninsula, yes? Maybe some limited landings at Chinese ports? The Chinese aren’t invading the US any time ever, and I can’t see the US attempting any more than what I mentioned, at most. I can’t see how that goes nuclear, especially against the land masses of either country. I COULD see the Chinese nuking a carrier battle group if they couldn’t damage one otherwise, but I just don’t see anything beyond that.

  • TastyBits Link

    @Icepick

    I agree, but call me old-fashioned. That is not a war.

    Is the US really going to sink the USS Walmart as it is leaving a Chinese port? Are Americans really going to forgo their cheap Chinese goods? Is Wall Street going to forgo Chinese investments? Is the US government going to forgo the Chinese purchasing government debt?

    Here is a question: If the free market resolves everything, why would the Chinese become belligerent? I am supposed to believe that without regulations the free market would resolve problems, and it is in China’s best interest to keep their trading partners (existing and potential) happy.

    Conservatives should be backing the free market solution which would be to not purchase Chinese goods, or if Americans continue to purchase Chinese goods, the American public must agree with the Chinese actions. It’s the free market after all, and we must abide by it.

    To my friends on the Left – Merry Christmas. You should be able to work this up into a much stronger argument, and you can really piss off Uncle Bubba at the 4th of July picnic. Rush Limbaugh will not have prepared him for this one.

  • Ben Wolf Link

    I expect the Chinese greatly underestimate American strength. The U.S. defeated the Soviet Union and its global alliance, both far more powerful than China is today; they seem to have forgotten that.

  • ... Link

    Ben, that America was far more powerful than today’s. That America built things and did things. This America designs things, markets things, and does high frequency trading to extract the last little bit of wealth from secondary financial markets.

  • steve Link

    “The Chinese probably look at the events of the last 70 years and see them somewhat differently than one would if only looking at the last 15.”

    WWII, Korea, Viet Nam, multiple landings of troops in Central America, bombings of Libya, troops in Lebanon multiple times, Bosnia, Desert Storm. Not an exhaustive list, and we certainly didn’t win all of those, but we have seldom shown much hesitation in using our military.

    I think the saber rattling is mostly for the domestic audience and for the rest of SE Asia.
    Steve

  • Looking at your examples as a man from the moon, I think the simplest post-WWII conclusion is that the U. S. can be defeated militarily or, at least, neutralized. I think I would also see lack of strategic vision.

    Unless you think that Viet Nam and Korea were resounding victories. I think they’re of a piece with Iraq and Afghanistan. Tactical battlefield strength followed by inevitable strategic defeat due to political weakness and lack of a coherent strategic vision.

  • mike shupp Link

    Two things to consider:

    (1) Straight out conflict between the US and China doesn’t seem immediately likely and probably wouldn’t appeal to politicians on either side. What is easy to imagine is a conflict between China and her neighbors that gets out of hand when the US chooses to intervene. As an example, the short Chinese-Vietnamese border war back in the 1970s. It’s not difficult to imagine something of the sort between China and Japan, or China getting involved if war starts between North and South Korea, or China deciding to take over Taiwan, or China and the Philippines fighting some battles over oil-rich islands in the Pacific, or …. Suppose the US took the attitude that China would back down quickly, if we showed resolve and sent some troops or ships or drones to assist our long time allies? And suppose the Chinese figured we’d stand down if they showed resolve and bumped off some of those ships and troops? Things could escalate quickly.

    (2) One thing conservatives just know — well, just about all Americans, but Conservatives in particular — is that China is inferior to the US. It’s got more people than us, but that’s it, and that’s all it ever will have. We’ve got a better military than theirs. Our economy is bigger and more productive. Our scientists are better. Our inventions are cleverer and we come up with new ideas faster. Our living standards are better and our rock bands are noisier and we defend freedom and all the good and decent people everywhere around the world loves us. And this will never change!

    So my guess is, around 2050 or 2060, this is going to change. The Chinese as a nation, if not as individuals, will be visibly more affluent than the US, their cities will be bigger and brighter and cleaner, their people may well be healthier, their crime and corruption may seem under better control, their universities will be larger and they’ll have more scientists and engineers than we do. Their military will look big and tough, albeit underexercised, since — despite our current complaints — the Chinese probably won’t throw their weight around the way the US does. And there’s going to be a lot of Chinese investment in Moslem and African and South American states, which will win friends or at least influence for them. I.e., by mid-century the Chinese are very likely to be a serious rival for world supremacy, if not already established as the premier power, and I do not expect American politicians to react very sanely to that. Americans do not lose fights nicely.

  • TastyBits Link

    @mike shupp

    I agree scenario number one is the most realistic, but we are well versed in proxy wars against a nuclear enemy. The new twist would be a proxy war against a trading partner.

    I have not studied Chinese history, but from what I know, they have never been a military powerhouse. Some nations are better fighters than others, and China does not seem to be one of the better ones. I doubt an offensive campaign against Japan or the Philippians would last very long, and the Japanese could do it armed with plastic knives.

    Throughout history, the best militaries are those which “threw their weight around”. They would also fight bigger armies. Looking big and tough has nothing to do with performance. This a mistake made by many people who do not understand how power works.

    The Chinese economy is a house of cards, and it will crash at some point. It is vastly over leveraged, and the banks are insolvent. Maybe out of the eventual crash they could build a more solid, but presently, it is a kleptocracy at best.

    As to everything else, Chinese culture is going to have to change dramatically for any of those outcomes to be realized. The more likely scenario is for the US to undergo an extreme decline in these areas.

  • steve Link

    “Unless you think that Viet Nam and Korea were resounding victories.”

    No, but the issue was our willingness to go to war. On that front, I think there is no doubt. If the Chinese think they can have a war where they lose in the short run, but have a win or draw in the long run, they might have a case, but there are reasons to think they might be more cautious. What would they be willing to lose? How do they pay for it with such an export oriented economy? We didn’t want to cross into N Viet Nam because we didn’t want to draw in China. What happens if we are already at war with them?

    Steve

  • No, but the issue was our willingness to go to war.

    No, it’s not. That’s your issue not mine. My issue is our willingness to go to war without an equal willingness to do what’s necessary to achieve our strategic objectives and I think the Chinese have noticed that.

  • mike shupp Link

    TastyBits —

    That’s my gut impression too, that the Chinese “have never been a military powerhouse.” But a thought intrudes, that China has a lot of history and even a lot of military history, and that most of that history was shaped by military victors. We might to reflect that up to 2500 years ago or so, what we might think of “China” was a diverse collection of semi-barbaric petty kingdoms and tribes; that virtually every inch of the China of today was incorporated into the whole after military conquest — a much bloodier task than putting together the modern USA — and that despite occasional setbacks, the Chinese have basically held together as an entity for 2000 years — a task which was beyond the capabilities of comparably sized empires in Mesopotamia, Europe, or the Americas. So there is a military tradition to point to, if the Chinese want one.

    That said, I’ve also got the impression the Chinese military is bloated by expansion into all areas of the economy, riddled by corruption, and cursed by nepotism. If they’d could fix these problems — which seem endemic — they’d be REALLY dangerous, but I don’t expect this to happen quickly, or perhaps at all. I think the People’s Army as it is, is sort of built into the Chinese state and is too useful for the Communist Party to change quickly. Think of it something akin to a “military-industrial complex”.

    But that said, once more, quantity has a sort of quality of its own, and for the moment China outguns Japan, the Philippines, both Koreas, Vietnam, etc. There’s little indication that most of these states — with the somewhat ironic exceptions of Vietnam and North Korea — have much desire or capability for beefing up their own military establishments. And if I were really cynical, I’d point out that it’s the comparative weakness of these states that makes them such dependable US allies, and that Washington and China both probably prefer to extend this situation for as long as possible.

  • TastyBits Link

    @mike shupp

    I have a very limited knowledge of Chinese history, but I think you would do better to compare them to the Egyptians. They were not a military powerhouse, but over 2,500+ years (depending on start/end), there were outstanding armies with technologically advanced weapons and tactics.

    The Japanese could switch to producing munitions and armaments quickly, and they are a first tier fighting force. Being outgunned is less important than being out willed, and the Japanese have the will to fight.

    When a squad of Japanese soldiers carrying boltless WW2 rifles with rusty bayonets are screaming as loud as they can while charging your machine gun position and you are dropping them as fast as you can but they will not stop, you need to ask yourself – what happens if one of them gets through? If he has no regard for his body, what the hell is he going to do to my body when all he has is a rifle butt and a rusty bayonet? You might want to make sure you have one dog tag in your boot laces so they can identify what is left of you.

    Here is the real kicker: he may have been dead halfway to your position, but the SOB refused to die until he completed his mission.

  • China and its military power have waxed and waned. There’s an animated graphic here that shows how its borders have changed through history. When China expanded it wasn’t by thought projection but by force of arms.

  • Andy Link

    It’s true the Chinese government works on a lot longer planning timeline than we do. When it comes to military strategy, they are quants who game out their end states and then build the forces they believe they need to be decisive. The downside is that that they aren’t very adaptable. The end result is that China has certain political objectives and is building the capacity to meet them based on quantitative analysis. In line with that they plan to avoid conflict scenarios they haven’t specifically gamed out.

    Unfortunately for us, most of their plans involve some kind of conflict with the US. This isn’t because the US and China can’t get along, but because the US is strategically allied with countries opposed to Chinese objectives. For the next couple of decades, China is focused on its littoral and near-abroad. Practically, this means the South China Sea and Taiwan.

    For the US, Taiwan is the more important consideration. With Taiwan the Chinese have to assume that the US would intervene to defend Taiwan from a military attempt to take over the Island. Chinese military planners are therefore faced with the problem of not only defeating the Taiwanese military and invading, but also defeating US supporting forces. And so the Chinese are explicitly building capabilities to do just that. Practically, this means the Chinese are building the capabilities necessary to decisively defeat or neutralize US Forces in East Asia.

    IMO, the primary danger is the belief among some in China that once these capabilities are fully operational, that the threat would deter the US from assisting Taiwan. In turn that could increase the appeal of a policy of reuniting China and Taiwan through military force.

Leave a Comment