China Dominates US Naval Strategy Discussion

[Indus Falcon]

China Dominates US Naval Strategy Discussion
Jun. 17, 2014 -
By CHRISTOPHER P. CAVAS

Chinese Navy Chief Adm. Wu Shengli, left, and Adm. Johnathan Greenert, chief of naval operations, shake hands at a conference in China in early April. (MCC(SW/EXW) Peter D. Lawlor / US Navy)
NEWPORT, R.I.— The latest international crisis may be a terrorist land offensive in Iraq, but concerns about China’s ambitions clearly dominate those thinking about strategies for the US Navy.

“The rise of China as a challenger is the most significant strategic challenge for the US,” Hal Brands, a historian at Duke University, told a “Current Strategy Forum” audience Tuesday at the Naval War College here.

“The US is not devoting enough resources to addressing China’s rise,” claimed Aaron Friedberg, a professor of international affairs at Princeton University.

“We need to develop a credible military strategy for countering China,” Friedberg continued. “Our ability to come to the aid of our allies depends on having a plausible strategy in which our friends and allies believe.”

Adm. Jonathan Greenert, chief of naval operations, kicked off the two-day conference with remarks that addressed the importance of development strategies. One questioner asked if open discussions about counter-China strategies would antagonize the Asian power.

“In a classified nature we look at all of this,” Greenert said.

There are groups up here that do that full-time, he continued.

“But people say we need to talk about it more openly. We can’t do that. It will antagonize. It will unnecessarily muddy the waters.”

Speaking later with reporters, Greenert amplified his remarks.

“It would be antagonistic to any country to openly state, yeah, we are preparing, and here are our tactics,” Greenert said.

He also addressed the Air-Sea Battle concept, which China widely views as aimed specifically at them.

“Air-Sea Battle is about assuring access, and that includes anywhere in the world,” Greenert said. “So yeah, it is our intention, that all-domain access is a key part of our strategy.”

But one conference speaker strongly supported open discussions about China.

“I would disagree with Admiral Greenert,” Friedberg countered. “I think it’s going to be important for our readers to find ways to talk about China as a military challenge.”

“There should be an ongoing debate to define what China is doing,” Friedberg added.

China Dominates US Naval Strategy Discussion | Defense News | defensenews.com

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Isn't it a bit early too worry about that.

We are in the very early stages, we will need at least 10-20 more years to build up our national power to a reasonable level.

Frankly America has more pressing matters to worry about, like Ukraine, Iraq and Syria.

 

[Oldman1]

Isn't it a bit early too worry about that.

We are in the very early stages, we will need at least 10-20 more years to build up our national power to a reasonable level.

Frankly America has more pressing matters to worry about, like Ukraine, Iraq and Syria.

Nothing that requires too much of the U.S. Navy or Air Force. Sending a few hundred military advisers to Iraq is nothing. And Syria has its own problems and Ukraine with theirs to the point that Russia has yet to send in their forces to help their brothers in need of help. Never bit too early. Surely China is already planning earlier to deal with the U.S. am I right?

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Nothing that requires too much of the U.S. Navy or Air Force. Sending a few hundred military advisers to Iraq is nothing. And Syria has its own problems and Ukraine with theirs to the point that Russia has yet to send in their forces to help their brothers in need of help. Never bit too early. Surely China is already planning earlier to deal with the U.S. am I right?

Our strategy is out in the open.

We are going to keep building our economy, with the goal of becoming a developed country.

America's goal is to maintain their global hegemony. Whereas our goal is economic development. And our economic development will eventually (within the next few decades) make us a peer competitor to America in terms of economy. Thus breaking America's global economic hegemony, regardless of our intentions.

For us, it's a waiting game. And that's all we need to do, to achieve our goals.

Whether this is acceptable or not to America, is frankly not my concern. That's for them to decide.

 

[OCguy]

Isn't it a bit early too worry about that.

We are in the very early stages, we will need at least 10-20 more years to build up our national power to a reasonable level.

Frankly America has more pressing matters to worry about, like Ukraine, Iraq and Syria.

China is the only foreseeable blue-water adversary on the horizon.

If you were to listen in on a Chinese navy meeting, the main discussion would be about the USA and how to counter it. It has been like that for 20+ years. The only difference is, the US allows some information to get to the press, so you have stories like this.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

China is the only foreseeable blue-water adversary on the horizon.

If you were to listen in on a Chinese navy meeting, the main discussion would be about the USA and how to counter it. It has been like that for 20+ years. The only difference is, the US allows some information to get to the press, so you have stories like this.

Probably, yes.

The difference is, we don't have a blue water navy yet. So all our discussions are based around DEFENDING ourselves in our own region. Hence the focus on overwhelming swarms of cruise missiles and DF-21D anti-ship ballistic missiles.

Our strategy is not about moving out with an expeditionary force, since we don't have that capability yet.

All we have to do is make the cost unacceptable for any adversary. Since we will be fighting in our region, we will have the home advantage, as well as all of our assets right there in the conflict zone.

As long as we can deter any adversary, through conventional or non-conventional means, we will buy ourselves enough time to complete our current phase of economic development. That's the priority, not egotistical wars. We're in it for the long game.

 

[lcloo]

So what is the US policy on rise of China?

1. To deny China as regional power in East Asia at all costs
2. To accept it gracefully
3. Accept that ultimately China's rise is unavoidable but not without some blocking actions from US and its allies.

 

[Sanchez]

China is the only foreseeable blue-water adversary on the horizon.

If you were to listen in on a Chinese navy meeting, the main discussion would be about the USA and how to counter it. It has been like that for 20+ years. The only difference is, the US allows some information to get to the press, so you have stories like this.

Nonsense!

Between 1985 - 1996, China produced only two 4000 ton destroyers for her navy. In 1996 - 1997, US navy humiliated PLA by invading Chinese airspace and waters. The hostility of US and its persistent containment policy awakened Chinese leadership , and China realizes that a peaceful rise without defense would be impossible to success. In other words China's modernization program of defense started from 1996.

US might not have underestimated the capability of PLA might, but certainly underestimated Chinese will and determination to defend our core interests. China is perhaps an enemy in the making to hegemonic US power in Asia and certainly a would-be terminator of global $$ empire.

 

[OCguy]

Nonsense!

Between 1985 - 1996, China produced only two 4000 ton destroyers for her navy. In 1996 - 1997, US navy humiliated PLA by invading Chinese airspace and waters. The hostility of US and its persistent containment policy awakened Chinese leadership , and China realizes that a peaceful rise without defense would be impossible to success. In other words China's modernization program of defense started from 1996.

US might not have underestimated the capability of PLA might, but certainly underestimated Chinese will and determination to defend our core interests. China is perhaps an enemy in the making to hegemonic US power in Asia and certainly a would-be terminator of global $$ empire.

I don't think any of that contradicts my statement that the US is the main topic of Chinese military policy and planning, so the headline in the OP isn't in any way strange or surprising.

 

[Sanchez]

I don't think any of that contradicts my statement that the US is the main topic of Chinese military policy and planning, so the headline in the OP isn't in any way strange or surprising.

I think that your statement should be turned to the other way around. China would be on your enemy list made by US policy, not that China had planned anti-US military strategy in the first place. Even today China is planning a regional defense strategy against US intimidation and its enboldened allies, not military challenge of US power on the global stage.

 

[OCguy]

I think that your statement should be turned to the other way around. China would be on your enemy list made by US policy, not China had planned anti-US military strategy. Even today China is planning a regional defense strategy against US intimidation and its enboldened allies, not military challenge of US power on the global stage.

The US has a contingency plan for almost any standard or predictable event, even if they are not at all probable. This does not constitute "enemy" by any means.

 

[Sanchez]

Maybe or maybe not. US policy and intention is certainly not perceived in the same way as you wish.

 

[Pangu]

The US had these color coded contingency list of probable adversaries during WWII, I think Canada was pink, China yellow, etc, even friends like the UK were also on that list. It's all in a day's work, nothing to get overly worried about.

 

[OCguy]

Maybe or maybe not. US policy and intention is certainly not perceived in the same way as you wish.

Or maybe it is perceived correctly, but a different message is broadcast via their media wings to the public.

Watch what government does, not what it says. Our officials recently visited the Chinese AC for a tour, and this week the favor was returned by having Chinese officials aboard one of ours. China is also participating in large scale international response drills in Hawaii this month.

Enemies? Doubtful. Adversaries? Not at this time.

 

[Sanchez]

Or maybe it is perceived correctly, but a different message is broadcast via their media wings to the public.

Watch what government does, not what it says. Our officials recently visited the Chinese AC for a tour, and this week the favor was returned by having Chinese officials aboard one of ours. China is also participating in large scale international response drills in Hawaii this month.

Enemies? Doubtful. Adversaries? Not at this time.

Some good will hope is always there, isn't it?