There are good reasons to cut programs like the F-22: we're not using them. We've never used them in combat. The U.S. has 11 carrier groups, with another carrier under construction and 2 more planned. Assuming the Chinese build four carriers in addition to the retrofit, they still will have less than half the number of carriers the U.S. has.

The Chinese threat is entirely hypothetical—and, frankly, on the absurd side. Our economies are too interlocked for there to be a plausible scenario for us going to war with China. Not to mention the fact that the PRC is a nuclear power. We're not going to war with the Chinese. If the unthinkable happens and we do, our force count won't be an issue.

The U.S. military is the largest and most technologically advanced in the world, yet it's proven to be ill-suited to fight the battles we ARE fighting. The last thing we need to do is decide China is "an enemy" and build a military to fight it.

Specular, China is an enemy. The intertwined economies argument only holds merit with Americans. The military runs China. Much of our navy is mothballed and the Chinese have been purchasing Russian Sunburn missiles, which can destroy our aircraft carriers.

The F-22's were just starting to enter service and are the most advanced fighters in the world. They are needed to replace our aging inventory. No C-17's=no major military air transport. I could make an argument that cutting these programs is treasonous.

The chinese also do not need to match us carrier for carrier in terms of force projection. The Chinese threat is not absurd, it is quite real. The Chinese will always act in their own best interests, regardless of the consequences. (When I say Chinese, I mean the Chinese government/military whose interests are not those of the average Chinese citizens)

The Chinese have done excellent work stealing our top secret nuclear technology and other high tech info as well.

Never underestimate the threat of the Chinese. Geopolitics must always consider the opponents view and not just the view from the comfort of our armchairs.

R.W., China is not an enemy. RL international relations are rarely that clear cut. We work with China, we work against China. Yes, China has it's own agenda, and that agenda conflicts with ours more than, say, Germany's. But they are far from an enemy. Nor are they irrational. They act in their own best interest considering the consequences. There is nothing to suggest that they would start a potential nuclear conflict with the U.S. Nothing to suggest they will start any kind of war. If you disagree with that statement, give me concrete examples of irrational, provocative behavior.

Re: F-22s, nobody can touch our current aircraft. The Chinese don't have an airplane that can best the F-15, -16 and -17 we currently use. We have absolute air superiority in all conflicts we are currently and foreseeable engaged in. By the time the Russians or Chinese might (a huge might) become military rivals, odds are that manned aircraft will be obsolete. The Predator has obsoleted many conventional aircraft rolls. The F-17 has been nearly obsoleted by JDAM and B-52s. The B-2 is functionally useless (which makes the development of a Chinese version a yawner), as B-52s + JDAMs is a better, cheaper bombing solution. The F-22 was designed for a military role that no longer exists.

We currently do have enemies in this world, enemies who do threaten the lives of our soldiers, and if we are unfortunate, our civilians. But those enemies do not have aircraft. They don't have Sunburn missiles. They don't have aircraft carriers. They have IEDs and assault rifles. If we're going to defeat them, we'll need something far more substantive than advanced aircraft: we'll need a sophisticated combination of military, police and diplomatic efforts that foregoes simplistic enemy/friend categories.

China's threat is more economic since they hold note on US debt.

Unity of the Motherland is denied to China by the United States; that makes us an enemy to the PLA.
I think in the end the Classical Liberal International Relations theory has failed because it underweights the physical power objective that is at the real heart of international relations.
The F-15 is inferior to latest generation Russian planes, and the Shkval and Sunburn would crush any carrier battle groups in an engagement over Taiwan.
Furthermore, the Chinese economy is as much an export led bubble as the American economy was that fed their industrial development.
If Russia offers China Taiwan and Iran works with them at the same time, all bets are off, and in fact the U.S. Army is trapped in Iraq and Afghanistan. rated.

Specular, good comments from you, but I'll add that the Chinese are developing indigenous copies of certain Russian aircraft (Such as the Sukhoi-33 which is suitable for carrier use) that are better than our old fourth generation fighters. I think you are referring to the F-117 stealth fighter when you mention the F-17.

The B-2 is still extremely capable, but we have a limited supply of them. The B-52's are being upgraded to function until 2040 or 2050. (Which is amazing, since, by that time some of the airframes will be 100 years old and some of the pilots great, great grandparents could have flown the same plane)

The Chinese are positioning themselves well as far as military strategy goes. Chinese conglomerate Hutchinson Whampoa's subsidiary Hutchinson Port Holdings now runs the Panama Canal Authority and has worldwide port holdings that control 13% of the world's container cargo. From a military standpoint this is an extrordinarily exploitable tactical opportunity.

The Brazilian Navy is cooperating with the Chinese in training their future carrier pilots. The Brazilians bought an older French carrier and have been honing their pilot's skills with it in anticipation of building a few of their own.

During the Revolutionary War, former members of the British Roger's Rangers, which were deployed during the French and Indian Wars, joined the militiamen and became the first "modern" guerilla warfare fighters, so the United States has a long history of dealing with unconventional warfare, but we lack skilled and visionary leadership.

The Chinese are potentially everyone's enemy and as long as we keep pissing in their CornFlakes over Taiwan, they will always dislike us. Additionally, they are grossly overpopulated with 1.3 Billion citizens, they really could care less if they lost most of them.

Mustard, you are correct. The Chinese have us by the balls economically speaking. If they want to cash in that trillion or so of treasuries, they could just take California in trade. (I'd let them have it FWIW)

Don, as usual, good points. The Taiwan issue is a bullseye. The Chinese are forming a series of worldwide alliances which they will be able to use to their advantage when necessary. They are also using cash to buy a 50 year strategic stockpile of raw materials. Let's face it, the Chinese invented government bureacracy and they are a much more shrewd, ancient and cunning people than they are usually given credit for.

So, RW and Don, your working theory is that the U.S. and the PRC are going to go to war over Taiwan? Really? And because of that, we should focus our resources on fighting the Chinese, who don't yet have weapons to challenge us (and actually look far from having them: they are only now /developing/ blue water capabilities), rather than focusing on insurgents in Pakistan and Afghanistan?

I'm sorry, but that kind of thinking is a dead end. Both of you claim that China is a threat, but neither of you provided a single example of troubling PRC aggression that suggests a desire and willingness to confront the U.S. militarily. If anybody develops the capacity to challenge American air superiority, we can build new planes as that threat emerges. Until then, we had better focus on the threats of the present day.

Don, more than ever, power-based international relations analysis is devoid of meaning. Unless you look at economic and social aspects, power is meaningless. By a pure military analysis, Israel should be without troubles right now. We know that's not true.

We live in a complex age, and to break things down to a single issue (Taiwan) is ludicrous. To think that military power alone matter is naïve. And to spend excessive time worrying about the PRC as a real threat to the U.S. is to ignore the facts on the ground. They have nothing to gain now and for the foreseeable future in a military conflict with the U.S. If they want to hurt us, they will use their dollar holding to undermine our economy. But doing so comes at an enormous cost to them, both in terms of devaluing their holdings and undermining the export market their internal stability may depend on. Pulling the trigger on the U.S. risks pulling the trigger on the Communist Party's ability to rule.

Specular, the point Don and I are making is to not ignore the Chinese. As to the Afpak situation, we can deal with it, but we lack the Curtis Lemay type leadership to exploit our advantage.

Nobody is ignoring the Chinese—or the Russians, who are aggressive and provocative. But Gates is working very hard to fight against the bureaucrats in the Pentagon who want fancy weapon programs for the sake of fancy weapon programs. The cuts he's making are smart cuts that make our military stronger, not weaker. We have to build the military to fight the realistic threats we face now and in the immediate future, not speculative threats that have little probability of evolving into real ones—and, should they begin evolving into probable threats, would provide us with ample warning of their move in that direction.

My procurement beef with the military hawks is that they want more weapons, not smarter weapons. You seem to accept the premise that the Chinese anti-ship weapons make it impossible for us to project force via carrier groups in the Taiwan Straight; yet you are implying that the U.S. should build more carriers. If anti-ship missiles can take out entire carrier groups, we don't need more carriers; we need better fleet-based missile protection. Or, more likely, we need a new naval paradigm.

If we're going to spend huge amounts of money on the military, lets spend it on something that makes us safer.

Specular quote: If we're going to spend huge amounts of money on the military, lets spend it on something that makes us safer.

Agree 100% with that statement. Robert Gates is, however, either an idiot or is deliberately sabotaging our security by cutting vital programs.

I think you fundamentally misunderstand the threats to our country and the usefulness of the "glamorous" weapon systems. What Gates is doing is something that should have been done 15 years ago: shifting our military from a cold war stance to being prepared to fight the smaller non-state forces that represent the major threat to our security. Anything else is an exercise in cold war nostalgia.

I've noticed that you have yet to come up with a concrete example of Chinese aggression that suggests they will become a military advisory at any foreseeable point. There is no need to come up with examples of how insurgents might threaten our country, because they already do. If you live in Indiana and there's a fire in your basement, putting your resources into earthquake-proofing your house is foolish. Gates is dealing with the fire. You're worried about the earthquake.

Hmmmm Specular, concrete examples of chinese aggression? Well, they now control the Panama Canal, they captured one of our naval aircraft in 2001 and took the crew hostage. They are constantly threatening massive retaliation for any aid to Taiwan if they decide to attack it. They launch cyber attacks on our defense department computers, they steal our secrets. they recently harassed a U.S. Navy vessel in international waters. Lets cut the crap shall we, the Chinese ARE our adversaries.

My problem isn't that I don't understand the threats to our country, it's that I do understand them. Facts are facts and touchy feeley wishful thinking will not change those facts.

And then there is this....


Speech By Comrade Chi Haotian
Vice-Chairman Of China's
Military Commission
December, 2005
3-1-9

The following is the actual text of a speech delivered in December, 2005 by Comrade Chi Haotian ­the Vice-Chairman of China's Military Commission to top officers and generals. Keep in mind that China has for many years advocated deceitful and covert warfare against its enemies. This is their Modus Operandi. There should be little question that a "Bird Flu" Pandemic would deeply excite them. (Don't forget how they have poisoned thousands of American pets and knowingly placed lead paints on toddler's toys.)

"Comrades, I'm very excited today, because the large-scale online survey sina.com that was done for us showed that our next generation is quite promising and our Party's cause will be carried on. In answering the question, "Will you shoot at women, children and prisoners of war," more than 80 per cent of the respondents answered in the affirmative, exceeding by far our expectations. Today I'd like to focus on why we asked sina.com to conduct this online survey among our people. My speech today is a sequel to my speech last time, during which I started with a discussion of the issue of the three islands [Taiwan, Diaoyu Islands and the Spratley Islands --- Ott] and mentioned that 20 years of the idyllic theme of 'peace and development' had come to an end, and concluded that modernization under the saber is the only option for China's next phase. I also mentioned we have a vital stake overseas. The central issue of this survey appears to be whether one should shoot at women, children and prisoners of war, but its real significance goes far beyond that. Ostensibly, our intention is mainly to figure out what the Chinese people's attitude towards war is: If these future soldiers do not hesitate to kill even noncombatants, they'll naturally be doubly ready and ruthless in killing combatants. Therefore, the responses to the survey questions may reflect the general attitude people have towards war..We wanted to know: If China's global development will necessitate massive deaths in enemy countries; will our people endorse that scenario? Will they be for or against it?

The fact is, our 'development' refers to the great revitalization of the Chinese nation, which, of course, is not limited to the land we have now but also includes the whole world. As everybody knows, according to the views propagated by the Western scholars, humanity as a whole originated from one single mother in Africa. Therefore no race can claim racial superiority. However, according to the research conducted by most Chinese scholars, the Chinese are different from other races on earth. We did not originate in Africa. Instead, we originated independently in the land of China. Therefore, we can rightfully assert that we are the product of cultural roots of more than a million years, civilization and progress of more than ten thousand years, an ancient nation of five thousand years, and a single Chinese entity of two thousand years. This is the Chinese nation that calls itself 'descendants of Yan and Huang.'

During our long history, our people have disseminated throughout the Americas and the regions along the Pacific Rim, and they became Indians in the Americas and the East Asian ethnic groups in the South Pacific. We all know that on account of our national superiority, during the thriving and prosperous Tang Dynasty our civilization was at the peak of the world. We were the centre of the world civilization, and no other civilization in the world was comparable to ours. Later on, because of our complacency, narrow-mindedness, and the self-enclosure of our own country, we were surpassed by Western civilization, and the centre of the world shifted to the West.

In reviewing history, one may ask: Will the centre of the world civilization shift back to China? Actually, Comrade Liu Huaqing made similar points in early 1980's Based on an historical analysis, he pointed out that the centre of world civilization is shifting. It shifted from the East to Western Europe and later to the United States; now it is shifting back to the East. Therefore, if we refer to the 19th Century as the British Century and the 20th century as the American Century, then the 21st Century will be the Chinese Century! (Wild applause fills the auditorium.)

Our Chinese people are wiser than the Germans because, fundamentally, our race is superior to theirs. As a result, we have a longer history, more people, and larger land area. On this basis, our ancestors left us with the two most essential heritages, which are atheism and great unity. It was Confucius, the founder of our Chinese culture, who gave us these heritages. These two heritages determined that we have a stronger ability to survive than the West. That is why the Chinese race has been able to prosper for so long. We are destined 'not to be buried by either heaven or earth' no matter how severe the natural, man-made, and national disasters. This is our advantage. Take response to war as an example. The reason that the United States remains today is that it has never seen war on its mainland. Once its enemies aim at the mainland, the enemies would have already reached Washington before its congress finishes debating and authorizes the president to declare war. But for us, we don't waste time on these trivial things. Maybe you have now come to understand why we recently decided to further promulgate atheism. If we let theology from the West into China and empty us from the inside, if we let all Chinese people listen to God and follow God, who will obediently listen to us and follow us? If the common people don't believe Comrade Hu Jintao is a qualified leader, begin to question his authority, and want to monitor him, if the religious followers in our society question why we are leading God in churches, can our Party continue to rule China??

The first pressing issue facing us is living space. This is the biggest focus of the revitalization of the Chinese race. In my last speech, I said that the fight over basic living resources (including land and ocean) is the source of the vast majority of wars in history. This may change in the information age, but not fundamentally. Our per capita resources are much less than those of Germany's back then. In addition, economic development in the last twenty-plus years had a negative impact, and climates are rapidly changing for the worse. Our resources are in very short supply. The environment is severely polluted, especially that of soil, water, and air. Not only our ability to sustain and develop our race, but even its survival is gravely threatened, to a degree much greater than faced Germany back then Anybody who has been to Western countries knows that their living space is much better than ours. They have forests alongside the highways, while we hardly have any trees by our streets. Their sky is often blue with white clouds, while our sky is covered with a layer of dark haze. Their tap water is clean enough for drinking, while even our ground water is so polluted that it can't be drunk without filtering. They have few people in the streets, and two or three people can occupy a small residential building; in contrast our streets are always crawling with people, and several people have to share one room.

Many years ago, there was a book titled Yellow Catastrophes. It said that, due to our following the American style of consumption, our limited resources would no longer support the population and society would collapse once our population reaches 1.3 billion. Now our population has already exceeded this limit, and we are now relying on imports to sustain our nation. It's not that we haven't paid attention to this issue. The Ministry of Land Resources is specialized in this issue. But we must understand that the term 'living space' (lebenstraum) is too closely related to Nazi Germany.

The reason we don't want to discuss this too openly is to avoid the West's association of us with Nazi Germany, which could in turn reinforce the view that China is a threat. Therefore, in our emphasis on He Xin's new theory, 'Human Rights are just living rights' we only talk about 'living' but not 'space' so as to avoid using the term 'living space.' From the perspective of history, the reason that China is faced with the issue of living space is because Western countries have developed ahead of Eastern countries. Western countries established colonies all around the world, therefore giving themselves an advantage on the issue of living space. To solve this problem, we must lead the Chinese people outside of China, so that they can develop outside of China.

Would the United States allow us to go out to gain new living space? First, if the United States is firm in blocking us, it is hard for us to do anything significant to Taiwan and some other countries! Second, even if we could snatch some land from Taiwan, Vietnam, India, or even Japan, how much more living space can we get? Very trivial! Only countries like the United States, Canada and Australia have the vast land to serve our need for mass colonization.

Therefore, solving the 'issue of America' is the key to solving all other issues. First, this makes it possible for us to have many people migrate there and even establish another Chinaunder the same leadership of the CCP. America was originally discovered by the ancestors of the yellow race, but Columbus gave credit to the White race. We the descendants of the Chinese nation are ENTITLED to the possession of the land! It is historical destiny that China and United States will come into unavoidable confrontation on a narrow path and fight. In the long run, the relationship of China and the United States is one of a life-and-death struggle. Of course, right now it is not the time to openly break up with them yet. Our reform and opening to the outside world still rely on their capital and technology. We still need America. Therefore, we must do everything we can to promote our relationship with America, learn from America in all aspects and use America as an example to reconstruct our country. Only by using special means to 'clean up' America will we be able to lead the Chinese people there. Only by using non-destructive weapons that can kill many people will we be able to reserve America for ourselves.

There has been rapid development of modern biological technology, and new bio weapons have been invented one after another. Of course we have not been idle; in the past years we have seized the opportunity to master weapons of this kind. We are capable of achieving our purpose of 'cleaning up' America all of a sudden. When Comrade Xiaoping was still with us, the Party Central Committee had the perspicacity to make the right decision not to develop aircraft carrier groups and focused instead on developing lethal weapons that can eliminate mass populations of the enemy country. Biological weapons are unprecedented in their ruthlessness, but if the Americans do not die then the Chinese have to die. If the Chinese people are strapped to the present land, a total societal collapse is bound to take place. According to the computations of the author of Yellow Peril, more than half of the Chinese will die, and that figure would be more than 800 million people! Just after the liberation, our yellow land supported nearly 500 million people, while today the official figure of the population is more than 1.3 billion. This yellow land has reached the limit of its capacity. One day, who know how soon it will come, the great collapse will occur any time and more than half of the population will have to go.

It is indeed brutal to kill one or two hundred million Americans. But that is the only path that will secure a Chinese century, a century in which the CCP leads the world. We, as revolutionary humanitarians, do not want deaths, But if history confronts us with a choice between deaths of Chinese and those of Americans, we'd have to pick the latter, as, for us, it is more important to safeguard the lives of the Chinese people and the life of our Party. The last problem I want to talk about is of firmly seizing the preparations for military battle. The central committee believes, as long as we resolve the United States problem at one blow, our domestic problems will all be readily solved. Therefore, our military battle preparation appears to aim at Taiwan, but in fact is aimed at the United States, and the preparation is far beyond the scope of attacking aircraft carriers or satellites. Marxism pointed out that violence is the midwife for the birth of the new society. Therefore war is the midwife for the birth of China's century."

CHINA IS A THREAT

RW, where did you dig that up? I only scanned it, but it looked so bogus, it wasn't worth reading. I smell a smear job. Even if the "speech" you quote is real, it's not like the U.S. government (and other allied governments) haven't had people go rogue periodically and make incredibly stupid and provocative speeches. Usually, the are forced to resign.

Re: the captured aircraft, as I recall, was one of our espionage planes that landed in their territory and they didn't give it back before taking it apart to learn it's secrets. We invaded their airspace. Had the reverse situation occurred, do you think the U.S. government would have returned it without tearing it down first?

They bought rights to the Panama Canal? Sounds like an investment, not an act of aggression.

Re: Taiwan, last time I checked, Taiwan wasn't U.S. territory. Yes, they have a lot of bluster about Taiwan, but they haven't actually done anything about it, beyond some blustery naval maneuvers.

Change "China" to "the U.K." for any of your facts and there is nothing alarmist about it. Heck, change any of it to "Brazil" and it would induce yawns. This is only scary if you assume, without evidence, that the PRC is going to attack the U.S. against their own interests. There is no evidence of that.

Hey RW, I know that China scares you. This is what scares the bejeezes out of me:

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4932&page=0

Specular, I had not heard of Chi Haotian, but there are several generals who share his feelings. If I can dig up similar statements I'll post them.

Pakistan is a threat and so is China......and Russia (and Israel if they attack Iran) there is a lot of bad stuff going on that could screw us royally. Things are not cool right now.

This is a very interesting and articulate discussion on military strategy. Completely out of my expertise, I must confess, but an important topic. Rated for interest and importance.

Thanks for stopping by mish, I always note you have very reasoned comments.

I'm way short on time at the moment, but the F-22 cuts thing is a false alley of despair. The proposal is to cut production there (at 187) in order to focus and speed production of the F-35 fighter, with an expectation for nearly 2,500 to come online.

Saturn,
If Gates is only allowing 187 F-22's, there is no way he will allow full production of the F-35. Also, the F-35 is a replacement for the Harrier and the need to add a fan to facilitate VTOL limits the range and ability of the aircraft. The F-22 is is the plane that needs to be produced in quantity.

In the article you quote from, Jim Inhofe hits the nail on the head. The fact that congress has the unmitigated gall to chide the military for having some programs that are overbudget is mind numbing in it's hypocrisy. I'm more convinced than ever that Gates is a moron and a traitor. He wants to cut missile defense, field an inferior fighter, scrap a new com satellite to replace the old ones we have now, cut the future combat systems modernization program which is specifically targeted at stopping the insurgent threat through enhanced individual combat equipment, cut the program for a new transport plane and while the Prez does not need a helicopter, cutting a program that could help rescue downed pilots (that cost over a million dollars each to properly train) is just plain idiotic.