Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Pentagon Finds China Fortifying Its Long-Range Military Arsenal

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Pentagon Finds China Fortifying Its Long-Range Military Arsenal

    By Ann Scott Tyson
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Wednesday, May 24, 2006; Page A17

    China's military buildup is increasingly aimed at projecting power far beyond its shores into the western Pacific to be able to interdict U.S. aircraft carriers and other nations' military forces, according to a Pentagon report released yesterday that outlines continued concerns over China's rising strategic influence in Asia.

    Chinese military planners are focusing to a greater degree than in the past on targeting ships and submarines at long ranges using anti-ship cruise missiles, partly in reaction to Taiwan Strait crises in 1995 and 1996 that saw the U.S. military intervene with carrier battle groups, the report said.

    Save & Share

    * Tag This Article


    Saving options
    1. Save to description:
    Headline (required)
    Byline
    2. Save to notes (255 character max):
    Blurb
    3. Tag This Article

    The People's Liberation Army "is engaged in a sustained effort to interdict, at long ranges, aircraft carrier and expeditionary strike groups that might deploy to the western Pacific," the report said. Long-term trends in China's development of nuclear and conventional weapons "have the potential to pose credible threats to modern militaries operating in the region," it said.

    The annual report to Congress on China's military power also highlighted Beijing's purchases of Russian weapons, its positioning of as many as 790 Chinese short-range ballistic missiles opposite Taiwan and its nuclear weapons modernization. It warned that advances in nuclear missiles are spurring a debate among some high-ranking Chinese strategists over whether Beijing should change its "no first use" doctrine that bars using nuclear weapons except in response to a nuclear attack.

    The 50-page report states that China's military buildup remains primarily focused on Taiwan, and notes that its current ability to sustain military power over long distances is limited. But the report also outlines Chinese military ambitions that go well beyond Taiwan, and reiterates the Pentagon's latest formulation on China's military threat, stating that "China has the greatest potential to compete militarily with the United States."

    China's defense budget is expanding apace with the new investments, the report said. Beijing officially projects a growth in defense spending of 14.5 percent this year to about $35 billion. But the report, citing the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency, puts the actual funding at twice or triple that amount -- or as much as $105 billion -- when all military-related spending is tallied.

    The report details how the Chinese military is investing in cruise missiles, precision weapons and guidance systems that could target ships, submarines, aircraft and airbases as far away as the "second island chain" including the Mariana Islands and Guam. As part of this strategy, China is buying Russian aircraft, such as the IL-76 transport and IL-78 tanker aircraft, and has shown interest in the Su-33 maritime strike aircraft. China is in the early stages of "developing power projection for other contingencies other than Taiwan," said Peter W. Rodman, assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs.

    On Taiwan, the report said China had deployed about 100 more short-range ballistic missiles to garrisons opposite the island, increasing the total from 650 to 730 last year to between 710 and 790 now. "The balance between Beijing and Taiwan is heading in the wrong direction," Rodman said, adding that "maybe our job is to be the equalizer if a contingency arises."

    The internal debate over China's nuclear policy of no first use is unfolding as the nation upgrades its nuclear arsenal to include more mobile intercontinental ballistic missiles such as the DF-31A and the JL-2 submarine-launched ballistic missile, according to the report. Both missiles are expected to become operable as early as 2007 and be capable of striking the United States, it said.

    China's stated doctrine, reaffirmed last fall during a visit to Beijing by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, is not to use nuclear weapons first. But senior U.S. defense officials said improvements in the quality and quantity of China's nuclear missiles had generated discussion among Chinese military and academic strategists over how and when to use them. "We take them at their word that they adhere to that doctrine," Rodman said. However, he said, "as their capabilities change they may be thinking about options that they didn't have before."

    The report cites public comments by Chinese military officials and strategists stating that under certain extreme circumstances -- such as an all-out attack against the country by conventional forces -- that China should use nuclear weapons.

    Any move to abandon the no-first-use doctrine would be "very destabilizing" in the region, a U.S. defense official said.

    To address such concerns, the United States and China will soon start talks over nuclear strategy with the first U.S. visit by the head of China's nuclear arsenal, Jing Zhiyuan, the commander of the Second Artillery Corps, officials said. Jing will be hosted by his American counterpart, Gen. James E. Cartwright, chief of U.S. Strategic Command at Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska. No date has been finalized for the visit, Rodman said.

    The strategic talks illustrate the Bush administration's two-pronged approach to China's military buildup set down in the 2006 National Security Strategy: to engage with Chinese military leaders to influence their choices while hedging against potential threats.

    Experts on China's military differed on the significance of the debate over nuclear policy. "The real issue is not 'no first use.' The real issue is: Under what conditions China will use nuclear weapons . . . how bad do things have to get for the threshold to be crossed?" said Evan S. Medeiros, an expert at Rand Corp. He noted that some Chinese military commentators have stated that a precision strike by conventional weapons on China's nuclear facilities could be tantamount to a small-scale nuclear attack and lead China to consider using nuclear weapons.

    Other experts played down the importance of the nuclear debate in China. "They are primarily interested in increasing conventional options in regional contingencies and vis-a-vis Taiwan," said Kurt Campbell, a China expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

    from here
    In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

    Leibniz

  • #2
    Budget time at the Pentagon I see.

    Comment


    • #3
      I wish they would get their stories straight.

      U.S. Pacific Commander : China military lacks quality

      Fallon, U.S. Commander, Pushes China to Modernize Its Military

      May 18 (Bloomberg) -- With the commander of all U.S. forces in the Asia-Pacific region looking on, China's People's Liberation Army is showing off its skills.

      Soldiers from the 39th Regiment smash bottles on their foreheads, jump through hoops of fire and crack cement with their bare hands. One soldier attaches a rope to a vehicle and pulls it with his teeth.

      If what the U.S. commander, Admiral William Fallon, later called a ``show of macho strength'' was supposed to impress him, it failed.

      ``I haven't seen evidence of the kind of thinking and equipment that would indicate that they're any good,'' Fallon said in an interview on his plane after a seven-day visit that took him to an engineering school, air field and other installations including the 39th's base near the North Korean border.

      The lack of military quality might be a source of relief for those who fear China's rising power. Not for Fallon. The 61-year- old admiral, who commands a force of 300,000 from his Hawaii base and serves as a super-envoy to governments throughout the Pacific region, says that a poorly trained Chinese military, run by a reclusive Communist Party leadership and out of step with international military norms, is a hazard to long-term U.S. national security.

      ``The more they are like us, the easier it will be'' in crises like the 2001 collision between a U.S. Navy spy plane and a Chinese fighter jet, Fallon said. Fallon, head of Pacific Command, has no Chinese counterpart who is readily available for consultations.

      Getting Familiar

      To that end, Fallon has been pressing the Chinese leadership to communicate better and support more exchanges of officers. ``To have them understand that their guys are not much different from ours will go a long way,'' Fallon said during his trip through China. ``It's when you don't know, you assume everyone's out to kill you.''

      Chinese officials keep secret the details of their weapons acquisitions, leaving U.S. officials to engage in ``guesswork,'' Fallon said. His invitation to observe a U.S. exercise in the Pacific was unanswered, prompting some of his aides to speculate that Chinese officials were reluctant to accept because they didn't want to be obliged to reciprocate.

      ``Much of our concern about the Chinese military has not been the size and scope of the buildup but the lack of transparency,'' said Christopher Hill, U.S. assistant secretary of state for East Asian affairs, in a May 5 interview. ``We don't know why they're doing it.''

      Spending Disputed

      Peter Rodman, the assistant secretary of defense for international security policy, has disputed China's assertion that its defense budget this year is $35 billion.

      During March testimony to Congress, Rodman said spending could be three times higher and noted China's ``widespread use of denial and deception'' in the security realm.

      Defense Minister Cao Gangchuan dismissed the notion that China is secretive about its military intentions and budget. He backed the idea of further military exchanges and brushed aside suggestions that China is spending more on its forces than it is disclosing.

      In a Beijing meeting with Fallon, Cao said the purchase of ``strategic systems'' is ``still very limited.''

      Pacific Policy

      Fallon's diplomatic push has support across the Bush administration. ``This is one area where the secretary of defense in particular has been pro-engagement,'' Hill said, referring to Donald Rumsfeld. President George W. Bush discussed increasing up military exchanges during his April summit with President Hu Jintao.

      With U.S. policy makers consumed with Iraq, Fallon said he often has the freedom to navigate Pacific policy. ``They're intensely focused on the Middle East, so I tend to business out here,'' he said.

      Specialists on Chinese politics are split about the value of Fallon's diplomacy.

      ``Admiral Fallon's trip is an important step toward the re- engagement of U.S. and Chinese militaries, which has stagnated in recent years,'' said Bates Gill, a China scholar at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

      `Hope Over Experience'

      Others describe Fallon's endeavor as naïve. Chinese leaders ``have no intention of diluting the opacity of their military buildup, and the admiral's inability to get any this time, after several visits by several Pacific commanders over the past five years, strikes me as the triumph of hope over experience,'' said John Tkacik Jr., an Asia researcher at the Heritage Foundation in Washington.

      The Pentagon's quadrennial defense review said China could eventually challenge U.S. dominance in the region. And a separate 2005 Pentagon report to Congress documented an expanding Chinese arsenal of ballistic and cruise missiles, submarines and advanced aircraft.

      Fallon said China must show more openness before he can persuade the U.S. Congress to roll back legal restrictions on contacts between the militaries.

      ``In the Asia-Pacific region I can think of no other issue that looms as large as the relationship between the U.S. and China,'' Fallon told reporters on May 15 in Shenyang, a city in northeastern China.

      Fallon's attention must stretch far beyond China. Since taking the Pacific command 15 months ago, he has logged hundreds of thousands of miles, leapfrogging among the 43 countries in his region of responsibility.

      The pace of his travel requires physical endurance. The former combat fighter pilot is an avid runner, and he and his wife Mary, 59, who accompanies him on most of his trips, are planning on hiking Japan's Mount Fuji.

      Advice From Kissinger

      Before traveling to China, Fallon said he sought guidance from Henry Kissinger, who secretly visited Beijing in 1971 and conceived President Richard Nixon's groundbreaking trip to China the next year. Kissinger, a former secretary of state, counseled patience and perseverance with Chinese officials.

      In moments of crisis, the Pacific commander is the first U.S. official contacted by defense ministers from Kathmandu to East Timor, and he has personal ties with presidents too, among them Indonesia's Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono.

      Pacific Command ``is paramount among U.S. government agencies in its ability to think strategically about Asia,'' U.S. Ambassador to Thailand Ralph Boyce said in an interview in Bangkok, where Fallon stopped after his China tour.

      Diplomatic Tasks

      Fallon was carrying out diplomatic tasks in Asia before he took his Pacific command. After a U.S. submarine mistakenly surfaced beneath a Japanese fishing boat in 2001 and killed all aboard, it was Fallon, then vice chief of naval operations, who was sent to convey official condolences. On his first trip overseas as Pacific commander four years later, Fallon returned to the Japanese village to check on the fishermen's families.

      In March, Fallon stopped in the oil-rich sultanate of Brunei, and the country's leader, Hassanal Bolkiah, expressed disappointment about a patrol boat he had bought. Fallon offered to send U.S. advisers to assess the country's naval needs.

      Fallon says he would like to have that kind of rapport with Chinese leaders, and he left China optimistic that he was making progress. On his way home after a stop in Thailand, a last-minute request to fly over Chinese airspace to avoid a typhoon was quickly approved, to his surprise.

      As his plane lifted off, Fallon told aides he was already looking toward his return, something Chinese officials might not be ready to hear. ``I'm looking forward to seeing you here, sir,'' Defense Minister Cao told Fallon last week. ``Once a year.''

      Comment


      • #4
        Another excuse maybe for increasing raptor prod & supporting JSF ;).
        Hala Madrid!!

        Comment


        • #5
          just finish reading it, one word, Disappointing

          PLA's new doctine is "deep battle" Huh?
          “the misery of being exploited by capitalists is nothing compared to the misery of not being exploited at all” -- Joan Robinson

          Comment


          • #6
            Nice to have you here Xinhui.

            However, do elaborate "disappointing".

            Given your background, it will be worthwhile for many.
            Last edited by Ray; 24 May 06,, 11:07.


            "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

            I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

            HAKUNA MATATA

            Comment


            • #7
              I find it rather intruiging. China is making the assumption that the US will be invovled in any [future] conflict that happens to spring forth, and as such are altering their operational perameters and military doctrine to fit that: a US vs China battle. A good question would be whether or not the US will be invovled. I would not be surprised if in the next thirty+ years South Korea, Japan, and Austrailia are handling the majority of security issues handling China (India of course would also be there).

              Thanks to the Gulf Wars, China has a clear understanding and three stark examples of the US's fast-attack capabilties; understanding might be pushing it, but then they say 'three's the charm'. As such the US should begin developing a system by which to counter this. Something along the lines of simultaniously wiping out, quickly, Chinese detection methods (ie sattelites, radar stations, etc); and do so quickly.
              [Wasting Space]

              Comment


              • #8
                lol @ Gungrape, you got it spot on....budget time....lol

                Trajan, You make a good point, the next generation of weapons will be in space, we shall start arming space, a simple example, scuicide bomber style sattelites to take out other peoples satellites in time of war is the chinese apraoch, the US apear to be working on a laser based system instead.

                http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key...tion-space.htm
                http://cndyorks.gn.apc.org/yspace/ar..._and_china.htm

                There was talk of people like India and Pakistan getting in ont he act there witht eh weaponization of space even.

                With regards to the first post, yeah China is sharpening it's teeth, yeah it's extending it's range, however to be honest, for any reponsible nation the ulimate military capability should be to take out abolsutely anyone at time of war, that include the USA, Russia, China, anyone. that does not mean you'll start a war with these people.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Ray
                  Nice to have you here Xinhui.

                  However, do elaborate "disappointing".

                  Given your background, it will be worthwhile for many.

                  Thanks


                  Does size matters? Last year’s report was above 100 pages, this year is 50 odd.

                  For me, this report spend much time in bean counting and not enough in actual analyze, what those number means? And what’s up with the cheesy graphic? It does seems this years report tired to avoid past political mistakes such as the citation of a ROC general’s call for bombing of three gorge damn, etc. Just the numbers just don’t cut it for me.
                  “the misery of being exploited by capitalists is nothing compared to the misery of not being exploited at all” -- Joan Robinson

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I would not be surprised if in the next thirty+ years South Korea, Japan, and Austrailia are handling the majority of security issues handling China (India of course would also be there).


                    I would not count ROK and Austraila into this alliance. India, Japan, yes.
                    One can also ask much this type of alliance is worth, consider the primary goal of the PRC is economy growth in the next 50 years. no, not Taiwan, Taiwan comes in second. The current trend regarding the "Taiwan Issue" is maintaining the status quote, not unification. PRC leadership is putting their money in economy intergration, not 100% military. They put their money where their mouth is. example, Feb 2006, PRC gave taiwanese companies 50 Billion, yes 50 Billion USD worth of tax break for investing in banking sector alone. In addition, Taiwanese companies enjoy export refund credit if they re-export their good via PRC. Image what would be a 150 billion USD cold cash injection to PLA budget would mean. that is a year. 150 billion seems alot but it is not much in China's overall trade balance



                    Total foreign trade in 2005 topped $1.4 trillion, making China No. 3 in the world in foreign trade after the United States and Germany and ahead of Japan.

                    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/12/bu...rssnyt&emc=rss
                    “the misery of being exploited by capitalists is nothing compared to the misery of not being exploited at all” -- Joan Robinson

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      The real interesting thing to me is the mention of that 100 extra missiles. Since no new regts were raised, this essentially means that they have expanded their mission capabilities per regt.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Col, that one of the reason I asked about SSM's TOE
                        “the misery of being exploited by capitalists is nothing compared to the misery of not being exploited at all” -- Joan Robinson

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I've got some questions though. It would be very unlikely that they've upgraded all the missiles. There would still be batteries with the old CEP that would require a 4 missile salvo. So, while this maybe an improvement, in the overall scheme of things, maybe a very marginal improvement.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Also noted more two-rounds SSM loaded enter service, I wonder DoD counts them as "new missiles"





                            Date Posted: 18-May-2006

                            JANE'S DEFENCE INDUSTRY - MAY 18, 2006

                            Chinese arms build up "troubling", US defence consultant said

                            Guy Anderson JDI Editor

                            * There is a "growing unease" in the US that China "does not see the world in the same way that we do", Dr Michael Pillsbury, consultant to the US Office of the Secretary of Defense, said.
                            * But Pillsbury said that the US is "committed to engagement and co-operation" with Beijing.

                            A SENIOR US defence consultant said that China's 'secret build up' of arms in the absence of an 'apparent goal' is troubling, but stressed that Washington does not view Beijing as a threat and is keen to 'engage'.

                            Dr Michael Pillsbury, consultant to the US Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), added that 'We [the US] are committed to engagement and co-operation with China but there is a growing unease that the Chinese do not see the world in the same way that we do.'

                            Pillsbury's comments came during an address to the Jane's Defense Industry Conference in Washington DC on 18 May, and echoed concerns previously voiced by US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in 2005.

                            The US has responded with unease to the steep upward trajectory of Beijing's defence spending, which has increased by more than 10 per cent each year since 2000. It is estimated that the country's military expenditure reached USD90 billion in 2005, and the US Pentagon previously estimated that spending could reach USD270 billion by 2025 if double-digit increases continue each year.

                            China claimed to have dedicated USD25.05 billion to defence in 2004; many times less than the USD50 billion to USD70 billion alleged by the Pentagon. Such discrepancies have led to allegations of a lack of transparency on the part of China, as well as US concerns over the country's ultimate aims.

                            'It is my view that the fact that China seems to have a secret build up plan with no apparent goal is troubling,' Pillsbury told the conference.

                            'Rumsfeld has raised this in China. This has also been raised by Clinton, who told the Chinese it is better to have transparent government. But we are not making much progress.'

                            Pillsbury acknowledged that Taiwan remains a source of tension between China and the US, but added: 'US military aircraft and naval ships have not visited Taiwan in 25 years, and the US does not refer to Taiwan as a nation. However, the US has committed to the protection of Taiwan through the Taiwan Relations Act[of 1979]; we are aware that this commitment has been the source of many protests in China, as has the sale of weapons to Taiwan.'

                            Pillsbury stressed, however, that the US government is geared towards co-operation with China as opposed to conflict.

                            'US government departments are in no way structured to see China as a threat. Indeed, most departments have units within them with the purpose of engaging with China in a positive manner.'
                            “the misery of being exploited by capitalists is nothing compared to the misery of not being exploited at all” -- Joan Robinson

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I still see this as a money grab. You're right. Compare to previous years, this was a let down. What is the US supposed to do? What threats are they supposed to counter? "Potential" is damned hard to defend against.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X