Chinese Naval Mines

Over at Strategy Page there is an interesting article called, "Where China is Mighty." It's an interesting historical summary that recounts the effectiveness of naval mines. I was unaware that China currently possesses the world's largest stockpile of naval mines. According to the article, it has 100,000 out of the world total of 250,000.

Mines are not glamorous, but they are deadly weapons, both on land and sea. Unfortunately, capacity to clear mines usually lags behind the ability to manufacture and deploy them.

The U.S., and other major navies, are hustling to improve their mine clearing capabilities. But based on historical experience, and technical advances, the smart money is still on the mines. ... While often ignored, naval mines, in general, are a formidable weapon. But they just don't get any respect. The historical record indicates that admirals should rethink their attitudes.

China ostensibly needs all those mines to protect its long coastline. But as the article points out, mines can also be deployed offensively. And China has a lot of them.

Maybe the Chinese Will Do Something About Somali Piracy

Here's China's Chief of the General Staff, General Chen Bingde on Somali piracy.

"For counter-piracy campaigns to be effective, we should probably move beyond the ocean and crash their bases on the land," ... "It is important that we target not only the operators, those on the small ships or crafts conducting the hijacking activities, but also the figureheads,"

The way to stop piracy has been known for thousands of years: you kill the pirates and destroy their bases. With most anti-piracy efforts crippled by blind legalism, will the Chinese actually step up and take effective action?

Amazing Artwork

Over at missourah.com I noticed a post called, "Taking camouflage to a new level." It's about Chinese artist, Liu Bolin. If you haven't seen his work it is definitely worth checking out. Without knowing anything about his pieces, you'd think the photos were just digital special effects. They aren't. Here's one example above. The man in the picture is real, but painted to camouflage him to the point of near invisibility. There is a gallery of his work at Eli Klein Fine Art.

Chinese Space Exploration

The Chinese have major plans for space exploration.

China has said it will put a man in the moon by 2025, and begin exploring Mars and Venus in five years. It will have a space station within a decade.

I'm not sure if this is unsubstantiated bluster, or if China really will be able to develop that level of space capability. China conducted its first space walk only two years ago. But a major Chinese presence in space is a worrying prospect.

Don't expect China to worry about great steps for mankind. There's little doubt that Chinese space exploration will aim at benefiting China first & foremost. China is not our enemy, but it is a potential threat that has to be watched. Space is currently an area where the U.S. holds major strategic advantages. A surging Chinese space program could drastically change that calculus, especially if U.S. efforts remain relatively stagnant. It's something to keep an eye on over the next decade.

Total War?

Over at The Victorious Opposition there is an interesting post presenting four hypothetical scenarios and asking whether or not readers would support "total war" in response. Total war is defined as,

a war in which our vital interests are at stake, we mobilize our full strength, the enemy commands a modern state, and the war has more of a global or hemispheric rather than a simply regional nature.

I wouldn't call that total war myself, just a major war. I think total war has other implications. But given that definition, here are the scenarios:

1. China attempting to overrun Taiwan?
2. Iran detonating a nuclear weapon in Israel?
3. North Korea sinking an American vessel (something small like a frigate) with a submarine?
4. Russia invading any ex-Soviet republic NATO member nation in the same way it did to Georgia?

In my opinion, only two of those scenarios would likely produce a truly major war of the type the writer is describing: numbers 1 and 4. Here are my answers.

1. It depends on the overall circumstances. In my opinion, China's overall power is grossly exaggerated by many vis a vis the United States. I do not believe China is capable of pulling off the type of massive amphibious assault that would be necessary to overrun Taiwan, with even minimal, largely deniable U.S. involvement. On the other hand, China is certainly capable of unleashing a devastating missile barrage in an attempt to pound Taiwan into submission. Should the U.S. go to war in a major way to save Taiwan? It's a difficult call, and I can't say for certain without more details of the overall picture. Taiwan is a a long-standing ally of the U.S. In my view, loyalty to allies who have been loyal to us is extremely important. We should certainly not sit idly by while China hammers Taiwan. But risking nuclear war for Taiwan is another matter.

2. If Iran detonates a nuclear weapon in Israel, I fully expect Iran to be devastated by an Israeli nuclear response. I don't see this scenario as a major war situation for the U.S. Compared to the United States, even an Iran armed with a some nuclear weapons is extremely weak. Even using conventional weapons, if the gloves were off, the U.S. could cripple Iran, while suffering only regional damage. Should Iran manage to pull off an amazing nuclear first strike that utterly destroyed Israel and its entire nuclear force, I would definitely support a massive retaliatory strike of either a conventional or nuclear variety. A third-rate power such as Iran could not be permitted to destroy a major U.S. ally and get away with it.

3. Again, I don't see this as a major war scenario of the type described -- unless China backed North Korea -- it's a major war, but a regional one. If North Korea dared openly sink a U.S. vessel, I would definitely support a declaration of war. I would also support a first strike with tactical nuclear weapons if necessary to ensure that North Korean nuclear weapons are not used against us. If they covertly sank a U.S. vessel, as with the South Korean one, I would opt for lesser but still violent measures, such as hunting down every North Korean submarine, and possibly bombing submarine bases.

4. I think this and number 3 are probably the most likely of the four scenarios, and this one is the most avoidable. I was not and am not a fan of expanding NATO to include small, weak former Soviet republics. Some allies are not worth having. It would be a disaster if one of these countries, places outside our vital interests, dragged us into a major war with Russia. Should such a scenario develop, I would try to get unified NATO support in an attempt to intimidate the Russians into backing down. If the rest of NATO goes wobbly, I would probably support some attempt to find a way for the U.S. to also weasel out of its treaty obligations.

Double Wishful Thinking

Wishful thinking has been a key plank of Obama's foreign policy throughout his administration. But China has provided another reminder that reality differs sharply from the delusions of the Obama administration.

China insisted Tuesday that it has not shifted its approach on Iran's nuclear program, despite White House claims on Monday that Beijing had become more open to sanctions on Tehran.

Jiang Yu, a spokeswoman for the Chinese Foreign Ministry, told reporters in Beijing that "China has always believed that sanctions and pressure cannot fundamentally resolve the issue" of concern about Iran's nuclear program, according to the official New China News Agency.

This is an example of double wishful thinking. Obama is  operating under two sets of false assumptions. First is the idea that sanctions are going to do anything to stop Iran's nuclear program. Despite all evidence to the contrary, the administration continues to pretend that  Iranian nuclear ambitions can be derailed through some sort of sanctions.  In reality, there are only two things likely to disrupt Iranian plans: war, or some sort of radical change inside Iran itself. But the Obama administration isn't just content to cling to the comforting delusion that sanctions can solve the problem. It has to go further, and engage in wishful thinking about the involvement of countries like China. 

The Chinese have made it clear that they aren't interested in applying any sort of harsh sanctions to Iran, let alone ones that even in theory might have some chance of halting its nuclear program. Making a false statement that the Chinese are on board, only to have China come out and directly contradict the administration, is just one of the many illustrations of the bumbling incompetence of Obama's foreign policy. It's not the first time he's engaged in such a pretense about sanctions, only to be publicly contradicted.

The White House has recently asserted common ground with Moscow on the issue. Yet last week, in an appearance with Obama in Prague, Czech Republic, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev stressed that there were limits to the sanctions that his country was willing to impose.

Wishful thinking about a policy based on wishful thinking. That's what passes for foreign policy in the Obama administration. 

Foreign Praise for U.S. Global Power

Here's something you don't see everyday, a foreign newspaper editorializing in favor of U.S. "global dominance." It comes from The Australian, in the person of Foreign Editor, Greg Sheridan, who draws a number of conclusions from the recent U.S. Quarterly Defense Review.  Sheridan rejects the popular notion of major U.S. decline, and argues that U.S. dominance will continue for the foreseeable future. And he thinks that's a good thing. I agree, but it's unusual to hear that perspective from a non-American, even from closely allied countries.  Here are some key excerpts:

The defence budget and the QDR are critically important because they indicate that Barack Obama is determined to keep the US as the world's No 1 military power, and one that can carry out all the global responsibilities that Americans normally sign up for.

Normally we hear complaints about U.S. "arrogance," and even "imperialism." Sheridan points out that U.S. power is the basis of Asian security for countries such as Australia.

The network of US treaties -- the San Francisco system -- has been the bedrock of Asian security since World War II, and it has allowed for Asia's economic miracle. ... Only the US can provide the framework of security that has kept the Asia Pacific stable, and incidentally provided for Australia's security, over the past several decades. No other power can do it physically, politically or morally, especially not China.

He concludes,

Obama's defence budget and QDR demonstrate that the US has not lost the taste for global military leadership. For which we should all give thanks.

The whole thing is worth reading, as a welcome breath of fresh air in an atmosphere often polluted by anti-Americanism.

Why Russia & China Favor a Nuclear Iran

There's an interesting article in the New Republic called, "Bombs Away: The real reason why Russia and China aren’t interested in stopping Iran’s nuclear program." The author, Matthew Kroenig, rejects the common explanation that Russian and Chinese economic ties with Iran are the primary reason for their assistance with its nuclear aspirations, and for their reluctance to do anything about it. Instead he looks toward strategic reasons. He argues that both countries see a nuclear Iran as a constraint on U.S. power in the Middle East -- a constraint that will not affect Russian & China because they lack force projection capabilities in the region.

An Iranian bomb, then, won’t disadvantage China or Russia. In fact, it might even help them. Neither country has hidden its desire to hem in America’s unilateral ability to project power, and a nuclear-armed Iran would certainly mean a more constrained U.S. military in the Middle East. Indeed, at times during the 1980s and 1990s, Beijing and Moscow aided Tehran with important aspects of its nuclear program.

It's nice to see an argument on this issue that gets away from economic determinism and looks toward power politics and grand strategy. I think the author is probably correct in his view of Russian & Chinese motives. Where I disagree with him is on his analysis of the U.S. side of the equation. Here he offers a reverse of Chinese & Russian motivations. The U.S. opposes proliferation in Iran because it constrains U.S. power projection in the region.

Of course, there are the concerns of accidental nuclear detonation, nuclear terrorism, or even nuclear war. But these are all extremely low probability events. The primary threat of nuclear proliferation is that it constrains the freedom of powerful states to use or threaten to use force abroad. ... In nearly every historical instance of proliferation, beginning with China in the 1960s, the United States opposed nuclear proliferation in large part because it wanted to preserve its military freedom of action. ... Although Washington might not have immediate plans to use force in the Middle East, it would like to keep the option open.

Although I agree that this reasoning is certainly part of the U.S. desire to block Iranian nuclear weapons, I think he ignores other obvious reasons of greater significance. First and foremost, Iran is a rogue state ruled by radical Islamic fanatics hostile to the U.S., and has been conducting a low level proxy war against U.S. forces in the region. It's not really necessary to look for deep strategic reasons to understand why the U.S. would want to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of the mullahs. If Iran was ruled by a more responsible government that just happened to be aligned against the U.S., the author's argument would be more convincing. 

Second, Kroenig ignores the threat to Israel in his calculations. This is a key reason the U.S. opposes a nuclear weapon in Iranian hands. Israel rightly sees such weapons as an existential threat, and the U.S. would rather not be sucked into a Middle East war if the Israelis decide they must act to preempt the threat.  And third, there is the fear that even if war doesn't break out right way, that an Iranian bomb will precipitate a Middle Eastern nuclear arms race, with other countries feeling that they need to obtain weapons, leading to a general destabilization of the region with unknown consequences. 

In my opinion, the nature of the Iranian regime, its hostility toward the U.S., the threat to Israel, the fear of being drawn into a war, and worries about the stability of the region as a whole are far more significant motivations for U.S. opposition to Iranian nuclear arms than our desire to maintain future force projection capabilities in the region.

More on Chinese Arrogance.

Yesterday I wrote a post called "Chinese Arrogance." And today I see an article in the Washington Post called, "China's strident tone raises concerns among Western governments, analysts." The article details the arrogant and outright obnoxious behavior of China toward other countries, and speculates on what it means for the future. 

The communist rulers of China, like most oligarchs & dictators throughout history, respect strength and see appeasement and compromise as weaknesses to be exploited. Some countries by virtue of their size, weakness, or proximity to China may have to tolerate Chinese bullying and intimidation. The U.S. does not and should not. The best way to make this clear to the Chinese is to give them a message in a language they understand. Chinese representatives should be told explicitly that the U.S. does not take orders from China, and that any attempts to sanction U.S. companies will be answered with retaliatory measures. Approve the F16 sale to Taiwan, and quietly let it be known to the Chinese, that their attitude and attempts at intimidation convinced us that the sale should go through. 

Chinese Arrogance

China is upset that the U.S. has dared to sell $6 billion in defense equipment to Taiwan against Chinese wishes -- as if the U.S. has to ask permission of China before concluding an arms deal with its allies. China is going so far as to make threats of retaliation.

the Chinese side has decided to suspend planned mutual military visits," Xinhua quoted the ministry as saying. The Foreign Ministry said China also would put sanctions on U.S. companies supplying the equipment. ... Beijing was "strongly indignant" about the arms sales to Taiwan and warned that they would have a "serious negative impact" on U.S.-China cooperation

China is even threatening to

sanction businesses in the districts of congressional lawmakers known to be backers of Taiwan.

Just about every time we talk to the Chinese about issues important to the U.S., such as human rights, specific concerns of U.S. business within China, intellectual property issues, and anything relating to the internet, we are told not to interfere in China's "internal affairs." They are completely uncooperative on other major foreign policy issues, such as the Iranian situation, and have been of minimal use with regard to North Korea. There's some evidence that they've been conducting cyber attacks against the U.S. They may be a major trading partner and financial investor in the U.S., but they need economic ties with America just as much as we need our connections with China. Nothing about our relationship requires that the U.S. put up with the obnoxious arrogance of the Chinese regime. Chinese protests about Taiwan should be met with the clear and unmistakable response that we will sell our allies whatever, and however many weapons we wish, and that China has absolutely no say in the matter -- they will not be permitted to interfere with our affairs. A good start would be the immediate approval of F16 sales to Taiwan.

The only silver lining for China in Friday's announcement was that it did not include the sale of 66 F-16 C/D fighters to Taiwan. But that does not mean the Obama administration has rejected Taiwan's request for the advanced fighters to replace its aging air force. The Defense Department is drawing up a report on the air power balance between China and Taiwan that could be used to push a decision.

Expedite the sale, and send China a message that arrogant attempts to intimidate the U.S. will only be counterproductive. 

Talk of Useless Sanctions Against Iran

The Obama administration has accepted the failure of its chatting with theocrats policy toward Iran -- sort of, and is looking at applying a favored half-measure: sanctions. There was actually previous talk about "crippling sanctions" -- whatever they are -- but now the emphasis has shifted to "targeted sanctions" -- better known as useless sanctions. As the Christian Science Monitor points out, the shift has much to do with China, which has demonstrated a "lack of enthusiasm" for sanctions. 

For reasons of its own, it is apparent that China doesn't particularly care whether or not Iran gets nuclear weapons. According to the article,

China might eventually be persuaded to go along with sanctions against members of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps involved in the nuclear program, Katzman suggests, but would almost certainly oppose any measures aimed at succoring the opposition to the Iranian regime. China regularly opposes any action it deems to be international interference in another country’s domestic affairs.

As one expert put it,

from what we’re seeing it’s pretty clear this [sanctions] process is going to be very gradual.”

That's a nice way of saying completely useless.

Indian Quick Strike Strategy

I just noticed an article at the Times of India detailing Indian war doctrine, which underwent a shift following the 2001 terrorist attack on parliament. In the aftermath, India concluded that its mobilization was too slow, allowing the enemy (Pakistan) time to react, and opening up a window for international intervention to forestall Indian military action. According to the article, current Indian doctrine calls for rapid mobilization, and overwhelming offensive action. It's described as "`pro-active' war strategy to mobilise fast and strike hard to pulverise the enemy," from a "cold start."

The plan now is to launch self-contained and highly-mobile `battle groups', with Russian-origin T-90S tanks and upgraded T-72 M1 tanks at their core, adequately backed by air cover and artillery fire assaults, for rapid thrusts into enemy territory within 96 hours.

Although it makes sense from a military perspective, you have to wonder if such a strategy might make war more likely. If a major terrorist act tied to Pakistan strikes India, will India launch a rapid attack before all the details are in? Obviously it didn't happen after the Mumbai terrorist attack, but the next time could be different. At any event, the article is an interesting glimpse of Indian strategic thinking.

An Irony of History

China executed a British citizen today for heroin smuggling, despite strenuous protests from the British government, including Prime Minister Gordon Brown. China responded as follows,

Beijing called the British criticism groundless interference in its judicial sovereignty. ... "Nobody has the right to speak ill of China's judicial sovereignty," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu said. "We express our strong dissatisfaction and resolute opposition over the groundless British accusations."

It's a measure of just how far Britain has fallen in the world, that China can execute a British citizen and just brush off criticism -- and not just brush it off, but actually condemn the UK for daring to offer any criticism at all.

In the mid-19th century, the British actually fought two wars with China, the Opium Wars, in order to force the Chinese to allow the opium trade -- which was against Chinese law -- and to protect British smugglers. They succeeded. Now in the 21st century, they are powerless to protect a single smuggler from execution. It's yet another measure of how far Britain has fallen, and how far China has risen.

The Latest in Piracy

Somali pirates have captured a Chinese cargo ship in the Indian Ocean, 700 miles from Somalia. According to the "naval spokesman for the European Union's anti-piracy force," the naval patrols in the region are forcing the pirates to move further out to find targets. Wow, what a great success. Basically they've succeeded in annoying the pirates, and increasing their travel time. Good job. Rarely has so much naval power been assembled for so little result. 

You have to wonder when some country is going to get tired of this and actually take effective actions, instead of just ignoring the lessons of history and trying to put a band-aid on the piracy problem. The Chinese currently have three warships in the region. Is there any chance they might retaliate against suspected pirate bases in Somalia? A British analyst quoted in the report thinks the Chinese will probably take a cautious approach, and avoid endangering the captured crew, but he isn't sure. As he points out,

"We've never seen so many Chinese citizens captured at a time when Chinese ships were in the region."

Somalia piracy will continue as long as it is profitable, and the rewards outweigh the risks. Naval patrols can't be everywhere at once, and there are just too many targets to cover.  I wouldn't be at all surprised if piracy increased and spread to other countries, since it is clear that no one has the stomach for stamping it out.

More on the Uighur Situation

Yesterday I posted about the U.S. transfer of 17 Uighurs to Palau. Today there was this reaction from China.

China on Thursday called on the United States to return "Chinese Muslim terrorists" held at Guantanamo Bay, instead of sending them to the Pacific island nation of Palau. ... China holds the unswerving stand that the US should stop handing over the terrorists to any third country, so as to expatriate them to China at an early date ... "China urges the US to implement the UN Security Council's relevant resolutions and its international obligations on counter-terrorism,"

Congratulations to President Obama for managing to actively annoy the Chinese for no good reason. I'm sure they'll be ready and willing to cooperate with us on terrorism matters in the future. They won't bring up the Uighur situation the next time we need their assistance.  I'm not opposed to angering China about matters where our national interest clashes with theirs, but to do so on behalf of some Guantanamo prisoners is extremely foolish.

The Uighurs Again

The Obama administration isn't willing to go along with the nutcases who think we should release Guantanamo prisoners into the U.S.  The administration

asked the U.S. Supreme Court Friday to reject a request for a hearing from 17 Chinese Muslims currently being held at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, arguing they have no right to come to America despite a district judge's orders

The whole idea of releasing them into the U.S. is completely insane. These people have been held prisoner by the U.S. for years. If they weren't enemies of our country before, they certainly now have a good reason to hold a grudge. Fortunately, it appears that the Obama administration is more responsible than many of its supporters. It is busy shopping the Uighurs to various countries, but finding no takers. 

There is a very simple solution to the Uighur problem. These individuals are wanted by China. We don't need to find another country to take them. Just send them to China. This is a win-win situation for the U.S. We get rid of them, and at the same time we are able to do a favor for China. Plus it costs us nothing. Problem solved.

A Chinese Reminder

China's hypersensitive overreaction to a published Pentagon report assessing Chinese military capabilities should remind everyone of the type of regime that still rules the country. China even made the ridiculous claim that the mere publication of such a report constituted interference in their internal affairs. This is same language they employ with regard to Taiwan, Tibet, human rights criticism, and pretty much anything else they object to.

'The report issued by the United States continues to play out the theory of China's military threat, severely distorts facts and interferes with China's internal affairs,' Foreign Affairs Ministry spokesman Qin Gang said of the document

It has gone so far as to file a formal protest, all over a standard Pentagon assessment.

Reporting on China often focuses on its rapidly expanding economy, and its close financial ties with the U.S., particularly as China buys up more of the debt that allows us to keep spending wildly. The Chinese reaction to this report is a useful reminder that the country is still controlled by paranoid communist oligarchs who cannot abide the slightest criticism, even from outside sources. It's something to keep in mind the next time someone suggests that we should cancel a major weapon system because it doesn't fit in with the types of wars we are now fighting.

Useless Diplomacy

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned North Korea today against launching any missiles, according to ABC News. Clinton said that if North Korea follows through on its plans, that would

damage its prospects for improved relations with the United States and the world.

Yeah, I'm sure North Korea is really impressed with that warning. No doubt improved relations with the U.S is high on their list of priorities. Clinton also noted that a missile launch would be "very unhelpful in moving our relationship forward." What relationship? While the Secretary of State is making these useless statements, the North Koreans are busy threatening us with "destruction," and claiming that they haven't made

a concession despite threat and blackmail from the U.S. nor will make one in the future"

Why do we insist on pretending that North Korea is anything other than a hostile nation run by a deranged dictator? Diplomatic efforts aimed at North Korea are totally useless, and merely encourage Kim Jong Ill and his cronies to keep doing what they are doing, in the hope that they can extract concessions from U.S. administrations stupid enough to give them something. Anyone who trusts a single word out of North Korea, let alone makes some sort of agreement with them and actually expects it to be honored, is a complete idiot.

North Korea doesn't need to be "engaged" or talked to; it needs to be contained & deterred. Our diplomacy in that regard should be directed at China, with the intention of making it very clear to the Chinese that we expect them to maintain a certain degree of control over their insane client state. As a rational actor, we expect China to prevent the insanity of North Korea from spilling over its borders. As long as they keep Kim Jong Ill on a short leash, there will be no need for U.S. involvement - a win/win for both the U.S. and China.