The Pentagon's new China war plan

[gambit]

That is right, it may appear shocking to you but every sovereign nation has plans to counter every known or potential adversary. It is not peculiar to the US.

It is shocking to the poor man, especially when it is clear his argument is based more on ignorance and emotions than on a clear head with critical thinking skills.

The only difference is that the US is more open about their strategies, they research, debate and discuss about these strategies a lot and most of this stuff is available in the public domain. That is how their system works, nothing wrong about it.

Am going to quote again from the same book...

Amazon.com: War Games (9780425116470): Thomas B. Allen: Books

Chapter 3

Measuring War: The Men, Methods, and History

The author was Major General Edward B. Atkeson, former director of the Army Concepts Analysis Agency, the Army's built-in think tank that makes contributions to the SIOP and produces most of the Army's war games and models. Atkenson wrote that many wargaming simulations "were as perforated with logic holes as a sieve." In war games, he said, NATO tankers kill three or four tanks for every one lost, but doubters can search in vain for the hard facts that back up these paper victories that "emerge from the analytical process via the bowels of a computer."

Like Dupuy, Atkeson wanted analysis to look beyond numbers. "You can play the Iraq-Iran war, where one side is using just a sort of rabble in arms and the other side is harvesting them," Atkeson, recently retired, said in an interview. "But if one side outnumbers the other, the numbers will count. Well, of course, Israel couldn't survive that way. So there are some quantitative differences that someone has to take int account that perhaps theh purest mathematicians - particularly the Rand types - wouldn't be comfortable with.

"I don't know anyone who can do it in such away that his colleagues would agree, with the exception of Trevor Dupuy's approach. Trevor says, 'Look and see what actually happened.' War wasn't invented yesterday. There have been a lot of them, and most of these kinds of issues have come up in one way or another.

"The Soviets will take a campaign or a battle and they will dissect it to its individual parts: what happened to an engineering company on the third day of the engagement if they had to cross a stream and it only had fourteen guys to build a bridge that normally takes sixteen to build? And the stream was going at this certain rate of flow? All those little factors. They will take history and break it down to its particulars, file them away in computers, so that when you come to a situation, and you know that part of your campaign involves an engineering company crossing a bridge with only fifteen guys to do it, the computer will search through these compilations and aggregations of previous experiences and seize them and say, 'Here is a norm for you.' You don't have to follow that, but if you deviate very strongly and you're a colossal failure, you better go home and shoot yourself.

"We consider that there is a scientific aspect to warfare, but fundamentally it's an art. And we train artists to manage their resources. We tell the artist to do as he pleases. He can follow doctrine. It's easier if he follows doctrine because then he won't screw up his neighbors. If he's successful, we won't mind what he does. If he's unsuccessful, we'll fire him and get somebody else. The Soviets have a different view. They tend to emphasize the scientific dimension, and they look for historic principle as sort of the first determinant. Of course, they will take into consideration technological advances and the great compilations of nuclear weapons and aircraft speeds. But they have essential norms. They know how fast they expect their forces to operate under certain circumstances and they know how much it takes to accomplish something.

A wise military leadership will continue to assess its forces regarding doctrines, numbers, capabilities, technologies, intelligence, and training. The same wisdom will compel planning for potential wars because it is the responsibility of the military to think pessimistically. Diplomats are inherent optimists. We want both. We want to negotiate our ways out of difficult problems but we must do it in ways that potential adversaries in their cost versus benefits analysis will concede that their costs will be too great.

This article is nothing more than an inflammatory piece. This sort of speculating, planning, simulating, and finally war game exercises have been going on for thousands of years in mankind's history. Why is this speculative one between US and China any different?

In case anyone thinks am just pulling these excerpts out of my butt...

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Edward_B._Atkeson

Major General Edward B. Atkeson, USA (Ret.) "is a senior fellow at the Institute of Land Warfare, Association of the U.S. Army, and a senior associate at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. During his distinguished military career he served as Deputy Chief of Staff Intelligence, U.S. Army Europe, and later as a member of the National Intelligence Council under the Director of Central Intelligence. He also served with the Bureau of Politico-Military Affairs, Department of State, and as a commander of the U.S. Army Concepts Analysis Agency. General Atkeson is a frequent writer and speaker on military affairs, having contributed over 100 articles to military journals and other publications. He is the author of four books: The Final Argument of Kings: Reflections of the Art of War (1988); A Military Assessment of the Middle East 1991-1996 (1992); The Powder Keg: An Intelligence Officer's Guide to Military Forces in the Middle East 1996-2000 (1996); and, A Tale of Three Wars (1997)."

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/06/09/obituaries/trevor-n-dupuy-79-prolific-military-historian.html

Trevor N. Dupuy, a prolific military historian and battlefield theorist whose expertise extended over 5,000 years of warfare, from the conflicts of ancient Egypt to the Persian Gulf war of 1991, took his life on Monday, three weeks after learning that he was terminally ill. He was 79 and lived in Vienna, Va.

 

[BanglaBhoot]

I get sent articles by US military research centers and think tanks and it is clear from reading that stuff that the Americans have taken war to a whole new level. War has become serious business and like a Wall Street broker who studies companies and balance sheets the US army does the same on each and every aspect of warfare. They have made war empirical. The question is will the US military be able to maintain this level of efficiency once the cut backs start. The US economy is no longer first rate and this could affect what the military can do in future.

 

[khurasaan1]

Exactly ! So why would US even think of going to war with China ?

They want to make China their colony so that they dont have to pay anything back.......

 

[khurasaan1]

I get sent articles by US military research centers and think tanks and it is clear from reading that stuff that the Americans have taken war to a whole new level. War has become serious business and like a Wall Street broker who studies companies and balance sheets the US army does the same on each and every aspect of warfare. They have made war empirical. The question is will the US military be able to maintain this level of efficiency once the cut backs start. The US economy is no longer first rate and this could affect what the military can do in future.

Yes! ure article is exactly showing the plans of US against China and its allies.....the US is really up against China to cripple its economy.....but they will fail severely in their evil plans.....Insha-Allah........

 

[T-Rex]

BS article from obscure source. Try some other source ! Oh wait, you may not find such crap !

Your comment is a BS, the article is quite credibile. Here's what Mr. gambit says:
"We have war plans against EVERYBODY.

Was that shocking...???

Actually, it would be a dereliction of duty of ANY country's military leadership if the leaders at least do not contemplate the possibilities of wars against high visibility potential adversaries. Was that even more shocking? If it is, then perhaps those who are shocked should serve some time in their respective countries' militaries and be enlightened. For US, we even have plans for alien invasions.

Deep in the bowels of the Pentagon, there are war plans that try to involve significant global actors. This information is not new and even detailed in an old book.."

Though the comment goes a bit too far by saying that the US has war plan against everyone for we know that the US will never ever go to war against the UK or israel but the rest of the comment simply validates what most people, except some minors, already know.

 

[T-Rex]

China is next super power?

You still have doubt about it!

 

[888jamie888]

Even with cuts the USA's military budget is enormous. $700 billion...That's far bigger than Pakistan's entire GDP.

 

[angela]

I agree on this point. America utilizes a large amount of its budget on military since it has to keep controlling the entire world as super power. China on the other hand, isn't same.

 

[perplexed]

^ what guarantee do you have China won't act like Big Brother to the world when it can act like one ? especially when you can hear about so many news of cyber attacks originating from China. They may not bomb but in their won way can act like one.

 

[T-Rex]

^ what guarantee do you have China won't act like Big Brother to the world when it can act like one ? especially when you can hear about so many news of cyber attacks originating from China. They may not bomb but in their won way can act like one.

If International Robbers Association can act like a big brother why can't China?

 

[Abingdonboy]

I think there best plan would be to pull out all (combat forces anyway, we know the US is going to keep a sizable number in huge AFBs amd "embassies" like in Iraq) forces from Afghan as it is incredibly expenosve both finically (I heard from a reliable source it costs $1,000,000 USD per SOLDIER per YEAR to keep them deployed in Afghan, is almost double for SOFs deployed) and on a human level. Reduce their spending as much as humanly possible and take care of domestic issues. Sit back and watch- China will do the rest, increasing social issues on the rich/poor divide are only increasing as time goes on and is going to come to a head sooner rather than later, fracturing political class and increasing resentment by educated Chinese of the totleterian regime and their lack of basic freedoms. Social issues arising form the "one child policy" will start to emerge in the coming future as the burden of the ever ageing is felt by the unfortunate generation born into the policy. Not to mention the plethora of other social (or anti social in this case) issues that have arisen from the policy, think about it an only child with no brothers, sisters, cousins or aunts being spoilt by parents and four grandparents is going to produce some "interesting" results. We all from our own experiences know only children are "different" and have certain issues arising from their peculiar situation, in China this is only MUCH, MUCH worse as entire generations now live like this. The poor treatment of minorities in China has already created many issues especially amongst the numerous Chinese Muslims who are being influenced by their "brothers" in Afghanistan and Pakistan and are bringing this cause to China, which will no doubt be met with force- making the situation much worse.


China may be the victim of its own success without any outside assistance bur I'd assume the US wouldncertainly give it a nudge in the "wrong" direction.

 

[SQ8]

Every country holds contingency plans for the worst..
India probably has hundreds for Pakistan and China.. and many more for the rest of its neighbors..
Perhaps even an invasion of the Maldives or Sri Lanka if need be.
But these are all plans, they do not translate to policy requirements or immediate operational needs.
Pakistan war games the US every now and then.. and it doesn't go well for our side. Which is why we dance a different tango with them.
That doesn't mean that In case the US attacks from the west an with carrier.. there will not be at least an abstract of an idea on what has to be done to avoid maximum damage. Somebody will have at least some inkling in that panic of what sort of moves need to be made. Because we wargamed it, planned for it. That doesn't mean it will happen, but there is always the "what if?".

America in its overly spread out tentacles.. needs a lot more war games done.
That doesn't imply directly that the US is preparing to hit China sometime next year.
There is a tete-a-tete with the Chinese on part of the Americans, the US sees a competitor to its status in the east.. and would like to do everything possible within subtle grounds to ensure China does not present the challenge that it is capable of.

 

[untitled]

Every country holds contingency plans for the worst..

America has even plans to invade Canada if necessary

 

[pmukherjee]

Every country holds contingency plans for the worst..
India probably has hundreds for Pakistan and China.. and many more for the rest of its neighbors..
Perhaps even an invasion of the Maldives or Sri Lanka if need be.
But these are all plans, they do not translate to policy requirements or immediate operational needs.
Pakistan war games the US every now and then.. and it doesn't go well for our side. Which is why we dance a different tango with them.
That doesn't mean that In case the US attacks from the west an with carrier.. there will not be at least an abstract of an idea on what has to be done to avoid maximum damage. Somebody will have at least some inkling in that panic of what sort of moves need to be made. Because we wargamed it, planned for it. That doesn't mean it will happen, but there is always the "what if?".

America in its overly spread out tentacles.. needs a lot more war games done.
That doesn't imply directly that the US is preparing to hit China sometime next year.
There is a tete-a-tete with the Chinese on part of the Americans, the US sees a competitor to its status in the east.. and would like to do everything possible within subtle grounds to ensure China does not present the challenge that it is capable of.

Absolutely, there is little possibility of the US and China going to war any time soon. At a purely conventional level, China does stand out as a potential threat to the US. The first and only credible threat since the demise of the USSR. However, whereas, the USSR presented a very massive and an existential threat to the US and to the industrialised west, the threat perceived from China as of now is limited in that China seems to be keen to deny access to the US from the international waters of the Western Pacific adjacent to the China Seas. The US considers free and unfettered movement and power projection in the international waters all over the globe as a prerequisite to its role of global power projection. Being denied free access to the Western Pacific or the WPTO (Western Pacific Theater of Operations), as it is known to the US military is not an acceptable option for them. Threats of this nature come within the ambit of A2/AD or anti access/area denial. A2/AD threats have the potential to either cut off the US from a part of the international maritime arena which it considers essential to its security needs, thereby leaving its friends and allies in the area at the mercy of hostile powers or raise the cost of the access to prohibitive levels. It is primarily in response to the A2/AD threats posed mainly by China and to a much lesser extent by Iran, that the AirSea Battle concept has been devised by the Pentagon. It by no means signifies imminent hostilities.

 

[fd24]

How can usa look at taking on china. they cant even control a couple of thousand blokes in pyjamas and slippers with obsolete weapons in afghanistan