Pentagon report warns of risk in China's military buildup:
China's years of double-digit growth in arms spending and new missiles, ships, and aircraft mean it could project power farther afield, the 2006 China Military Power Report said.
"The pace and scope of China's military build up already place regional military balances at risk," the report said.
China angrily rejects U.S. claims about military buildup:
China angrily rejected a U.S. Defence Department report Thursday that states Beijing is a potential military threat, insisting its multibillion-dollar buildup is defensive.
Beijing is "strongly resentful of and firmly opposed to" the comments in an annual Pentagon report on Chinese military power, Chinese media quoted Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao saying.
Fred Kaplan tells us why the Pentagon keeps overestimating Beijing's military strength:
Every day and night, hundreds of Air Force generals and Navy admirals must thank their lucky stars for China. Without the specter of a rising Chinese military, there would be no rationale for such a large fleet of American nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers, or for a new generation of stealth combat fighters—no rationale for about a quarter of the Pentagon's budget.
4 comments:
There's a real disconnect between the first two articles and the third one, Ami. The initial article states only that China is building up its force capable of operating in Asia beyond Taiwan, which it has threatened since the Kuomintang retreated there nearly 60 years ago, and the second article doesn't even go that far. The third article, however, explicitly brings up the idea that China is attempting to gain superpower status (albeit as a straw man argument).
I don't really have an issue with the first two articles, since they both portray legitimate positions of the two nations. Yes, China's buildup could be used to project their power beyond Taiwan (or against Taiwan), should they choose to. And yes, the buildup could just as easily be defensive, a reaction to the generally higher levels of tensions everywhere in recent years. The truth most likely lies somewhere in between, with the buildup definitely sending a message to Taiwan, Japan, and the nations claiming the disputed Spratly islands that China's military could move if it chose, but at the same time I don't think the Chinese buildup is as threatening as, say, the US presence in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia was to Iraq between 1991 and 2003.
The third article, however, has several points which I have to take issue with. First, the use of the term "superpower" is not supported by the facts. The US and the USSR, as superpowers during the Cold War, were regarded as such because of a number of factors: (1) both nations had extensive nuclear arsenals and the capability to deliver their weaponry pretty much anywhere in the world on short notice; (2) both nations had access to bases throughout the world where they could base conventional forces; and (3) each nation was by far the dominant nation among a coalition of allied nations in a world which was largely split into two camps. None of those condiditons applies to China today, nor is that likely to change in the next decade.
Second, the author dismisses the idea that maintaining aircraft carriers, nuclear subs, or stealth aircraft in the current world environment makes sense. I would argue that it makes sense for the US to maintain these advanced combat platforms, since decommissioning these vessels would make any radical or militaristic government less hesitant about attacking their neighbors.
Third, the article seems to dismiss that China is a threat to anyone (excepting perhaps Taiwan), which is an oversimplification. In addition to Taiwan (which China identifies - with a strong legal case - as a rebellious province) China is involved in disputes with Japan over ownership of certain islands in the East China Sea and with multiple nations over the ownership of the Spratly Islands, and in both cases ownership of the islands is at issue because there are abundant oil and gas fields beneath the seabed surrounding those islands - and China is now the second or third largest net importer of oil and gas on the planet after the US and possibly Japan. I consider the unilateral occupation by China of the Spratly Islands to be a possibility in the coming years, but I don't think China seeks a direct military confrontation with Japan at any point.
Hi IV,
I agree with most of your posting, but disagree that China doesn't meet item 1 in your list of factors to be a superpower.
In fact China does possess nuclear weapons and has the capability to deliver them for great distances. We gave them information that improved their ballistic missile technology during the Clinton administration.
I agree with your assessment of China WRT factors 2 and 3, but would suggest a couple of other items as well.
4. The ability to field an overwhelming military force. China has the potential ability to field a larger armed force than any other nation on earth, just as a function of their population size. That alone puts them onto the edge of being a superpower.
5. The ability to influence the actions of a large number of other nations. This probably fits into your items 2 and 3. Again, China isn't really here yet, but its emerging economic power is gaining them more influence over other countries.
It all comes down to: China isn't what I would call a superpower yet, but it's capable of becoming one in short order. If China chose to upgrade its status, I don't think it would take them a decade (especially if they continue to build their military).
I'm not at all convinced that China can deliver those nuclear weapons anywhere on short notice, which is part of my definition. They don't have long-range bombers capable of flying around the world like the US and USSR had, and they don't have a fleet of missile subs capable of firing on their enemies from off their coasts or of evading detection while getting into/out of position to do so. They do have some land-based ballistic missiles, and I'm not sure what their range is, but that by itself isn't enough to meet the criterion imo.
Otherwise, I pretty much agree with your comment as well. Scary, huh?
IV,
I agree that the ability (or more accuratly that others think you have the ability) to project power is a requirement for being a superpower.
The ICBMs that China is working on (they can reach LA now) go a long way toward this. But without a long-range Navy or Air force, China cannot really project force. That would require either long range bombers, a capable Sub force, or a fleet capable of operating away from shore based air support. I don't think they are within 5 years of any of these things.
Post a Comment