Last year's annual report on Chinese military developments was widely criticized. What does the 2013 version offer?
After a year-long hiatus, the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD)’s annual report on Chinese military developments is back and better than ever. Its 43-page 2012 predecessor was widely criticized for arriving far later than Congress requested and containing little substance or new data. But this year’s expeditiously-issued 92-page document continues a tradition of detailed, sophisticated, publicly-available U.S. government analysis previously seen in the 2011 DoD report, the 2010 National Air and Space Intelligence Center (NASIC) report on China’s air force, and the 2009 and 2007 Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI) reports on China’s navy.
Like these other landmark reports, this year’s DoD iteration clearly and understandably comes from a U.S. military perspective, yet strives to provide a comprehensive picture of Chinese military developments and the strategic concerns that motivate them. This represents an admirable effort to offer a balanced assessment, as can be seen in remarks at the time of its release by David F. Helvey, deputy assistant secretary of defense for East Asia. Useful data are presented on everything from Chinese sea- and -land based energy access to apparent ambiguities in Beijing’s “no first use” nuclear doctrine to members of the Central Military Commission and their key professional relationships.
All this context matters deeply, and should be commended. But arguably the report’s greatest contribution lies in more specific areas: providing authoritative assessments of key People’s Liberation Army (PLA) developments that are difficult, if not impossible, to achieve or confirm via other publicly-available sources, such as Beijing’s own recently-released 2013 Defense White Paper—which, like many Chinese public strategic documents, offers few specifics. Chinese government representatives are already out in force criticizing this year’s DoD report and claiming that its content is distorted or inaccurate, but as usualdo not offer credible evidence to clarify or counter even the report’s most important assertions. Yet it is precisely in such areas—which include hard-to-attribute cyber activities and other types of espionage—that observers of China’s military development need the greatest governmental assistance. After all, as a recentWall Street Journal op-ed argues cogently: “In the long run Beijing usually does what it says it is going to do, although the execution may be concealed with deception.”
With respect to obfuscation, the report documents that China has conducted multiple naval operations in the undisputed U.S. Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) of a nature that it would oppose a foreign military such as that of the U.S. conducting in its own claimed EEZ—which it is projected to fill with increasing numbers of maritime law enforcement vessels. While the report states that China is conducting such activities in the EEZs of multiple states, a reference that almost certainly includes Japan, it is worth noting the report’s exact wording with respect to the United States: “the United States has observed over the past year several instances of Chinese naval activities in the EEZ around Guam and Hawaii. One of those instances was during the execution of the annual Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) exercise in July/August 2012. While the United States considers the PLA Navy activities in its EEZ to be lawful, the activity undercuts China’s decades-old position that similar foreign military activities in China’s EEZ are unlawful.” It will be particularly interesting to see how Beijing responds to such revelations, which further underscore the emerging contradictions between China’s promotion of restrictive approaches vis-à-vis foreign military and governmental activities in the Near Seas (Yellow, East, and South China Seas) even as it pursues increasing access to such other strategic seas as the Western Pacific and the Arctic. Given this complexity, perhaps Beijing’s approach for now will be to denounce the report generally while avoiding this specific issue.
Perhaps the report’s single greatest contribution to what is known publicly about the PLA concerns China’s nuclear submarine programs. It states that China’s three already-operational Type 094 Jin-class nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) may be joined by “as many as two more in various stages of construction.” The Type 094 “will give the PLA Navy its first credible sea-based nuclear deterrent” once its 7,400+ km-range JL-2 submarine-launched ballistic missile (SSBN) is deployed effectively. “After a round of successful testing in 2012, the JL-2 appears ready to reach initial operational capability in 2013,” DoD explains. “JIN-class SSBNs based at Hainan Island in the South China Sea would then be able to conduct nuclear deterrence patrols.” After as many as 5 Type 094 SSBNs are operational, China is slated to “[proceed] to its next generation SSBN (Type 096) over the next decade.” This improved variant may finally offer acoustic qualities suitable for long-range patrols.
Additionally, “China is building four improved variants” of the Type 093 Shang-class nuclear-powered attack submarine (SSN) to add to the two already deployed. Within “the next decade, China will likely construct the Type 095 guided-missile attack submarine (SSGN), which may enable a submarine-based land-attack capability,” the report adds. Not only will the Type 095 employ “better quieting technologies,” it will also “fulfill traditional anti-ship roles with the incorporation of torpedoes and anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCMs).” With respect to conventional attack submarines, DoD states that the Yuan-class (Type 039A), which may grow to twenty hulls in total, has air-independent power, hence its designation as an “SSP.” These developments will afford the People's Liberation Army (PLAN) new force deployment options and significantly enhance its undersea warfare and strike capabilities.
Another area of significance is the report’s coverage of China’s anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM) program, which is part of a major Chinese emphasis on missile development, particularly of conventional ballistic and cruise missiles. While many details can and have been assembled from previous U.S. government announcements, this is the most definitive, comprehensive statement concerning the program’s current status and capability yet available. “China continues to field” the DF-21D ASBM with its 1,500+ km-range and maneuverable warhead, the report asserts, which “it began deploying in 2010.” The DF-21D “gives the PLA the capability to attack large ships, including aircraft carriers, in the western Pacific Ocean.” Also, “The PLA Navy is also improving its over-the-horizon (OTH) targeting capability with sky wave and surface wave OTH radars, which can be used in conjunction with reconnaissance satellites to locate targets at great distances from China (thereby supporting long-range precision strikes, including employment of ASBMs).” In a hint that Beijing may build longer-range ASBMs, DoDstates: “Beijing is investing in military programs and weapons designed to improve extended-range power projection… Key systems that have been either deployed or in development include ballistic missiles (including anti-ship variants)….”
On the nuclear side, Beijing is trying to achieve/consolidate secure second-strike capability. China has engaged in major efforts over the past decade to construct advanced, deeply-buried facilities to enable “all aspects of its military forces, including C2 [command and control], logistics, missile, and naval forces” to survive a nuclear first strike.
This is part of a larger array of “current and projected force structure improvements” that “will provide the PLA with systems that can engage adversary surface ships up to 1,000 nm from China’s coast.” The PLAN “will also develop a new capability for ship-based land-attack using cruise missiles.” The report judges China’s defense industry to enjoy significant resources.The report credits China with having deployed one of the world’s largest advanced long-range surface-to-air missile (SAM) forces. In a sea change from a decade ago, DoD assesses that PLA missile and other developments have already “largely negated” many of Taiwan’s traditional defensive advantages of technological superiority and geography even as Taipei’s military spending is a tenth that of the mainland’s official defense budget.
Areas of particular Chinese defense industrial capability include missiles, space, and shipbuilding. The report characterizes China as being “among the top ship-producing nations in the world” and China’s ballistic and cruise missile industries to be “comparable to other international top-tier producers” and well-positioned for further development. China’s missile and space industry has benefitted from “upgrades to primary final assembly and rocket motor production facilities.” A burgeoning space launch industry enabled 18 space launches in 2012 that lofted, among many other systems, 11 new remote sensing satellites. Meanwhile, Chinese shipyards have improved in capacity and sophistication, e.g., through improvement management and software, allowing them to develop increasing varieties of platforms and systems and reducing reliance on foreign assistance. Other Chinese research and development trends stand out. The report documents a significant focus on developing unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), both for PLA use and to market to foreign countries; as well as on development/acquisition of unmanned combat aerial vehicles (UCAVs).
China’s navy also “has the largest force of major combatants, submarines, and amphibious warfare ships in Asia.” Looking forward, DoD estimates that “China will probably build several aircraft carriers over the next 15 years.” It projects that Beijing “will likely establish several access points… in the next 10 years,” possibly in the Malacca, Lombok, and Sunda Straits, in “the form of agreements for refueling, replenishment, crew rest, and low-level maintenance” to address logistical limitations that currently restrict the level of PLAN distant operations. The report is careful to emphasize, however, that “the services provided will likely fall short of U.S.-style agreements permitting the full spectrum of support from repair to re-armament.”
Despite these areas of progress, the PLA faces areas of enduring weakness, and even new emerging challenges. Present limitations, albeit which the PLA is struggling to surmount, include lack of “a robust, deep water anti- submarine warfare capability….”A related uncertainty is “whether China has the capability to collect accurate targeting information and pass it to launch platforms in time for successful strikes in sea areas beyond the first island chain.” Other developments will themselves force difficult questions upon the PLA. Generally speaking, “to fully implement ‘informatized’ command and control, the PLA will need to overcome a shortage of trained personnel and its culture of centralized, micro-managed command.” More specifically, “Further increases in the number of mobile ICBMs and the beginning of SSBN deterrence patrols will force the PLA to implement more sophisticated command and control systems and processes that safeguard the integrity of nuclear release authority for a larger, more dispersed force.”
Finally, as part of a clear effort to address Chinese military development comprehensively, the report is not all doom and gloom in its coverage. It enumerates both PLA bilateral and multilateral military exercises and Sino-American military contacts and exchanges. One imagines that the report’s authors have been tempered by the reality that Beijing often limits or cancels such exchanges to express political differences, but remain duty bound to pursue a U.S. government policy that preserves the possibility of such exchanges building trust and habits of cooperation and in doing so avoids a still-worse alternative. Whatever uncertainties and concerns may underlie it, this is not a document that is all zero-sum in its approach.
While the U.S. intelligence community has access to a wide range of data on specific developments, other observers who lack access to such information because of nationality or societal station must depend in part on open government publications to raise and clarify specific issues. Given the dynamism and importance of the matters at stake, it is essential that a full range of individuals and foreign governments alike have access to substantive reports. U.S. taxpayers must be informed as to why they are being asked to fund the development and maintenance of military capabilities, and to exercise the civilian oversight on which a democracy depends. Allied and friendly governments and their citizens must keep abreast of relevant developments and maintain military relations with Washington on the basis of mutual understanding and interest. And China itself needs to know how its military progress is being perceived, even as it remains free to publish whatever reports of its own it might wish. Given these factors, DoD is to be commended for having released such a substantive and timely report on China’s military development. Its contents should be discussed and debated constructively with regard to specific substance, in lieu of political sloganeering or sweeping but unsubstantiated charges that fail to further understanding.
Photo Credit: U.S. Department of Defense
Comments
http://thediplomat.com/2013/05/08/back-on-track-pentagon-report-reveals-chinese-military-developments/
Observer
May 10, 2013 at 11:28 amYawn!!! More shiny stuffs but still could not fight. Can someone tell me when china won a war vs. competent military forces?
Let see. Against Japanese, Brits, Machus, Mongols, what were the results? Heck, even against little Vietnam for the last few thousands years, what were the results?
"The emtpy drums are the loudest ones" – old proverb
Typhoon
May 10, 2013 at 2:07 pmJust to refresh your memory. During the Korean War, US led UN Forces were defeated in North Korea by Chinese PLA volunteers. According to US history, it is the most humilating & longest retreat ever
In desperation during the retreat back to South Korea, US Forces abandon many heavy weapons which include heavy artillery and Tanks. These captured weapons are now still on display in Beijing Miltary Museum.
The most embarrasing is that the Chinese troops heaviest weapons were mortars and assault rifles.
They had no air & Armor Support and yet they are able to defeat the world best equipped and best trained soldiers.
Brutaltruth
May 9, 2013 at 11:43 pm"Present limitations, albeit which the PLA is struggling to surmount, include lack of “a robust, deep water anti- submarine warfare capability…"
Enough said. Till China rights this situation, it is not a serious adversary. See you in a couple of decades. (That's how long it takes).
Bankotsu
May 9, 2013 at 2:41 pmI have a new suggestion. Since U.S. is hell-bent on staying in western pacific to contain China and Japan, why not let U.S. take hawaii west, while China take hawaii east?
Errol
May 10, 2013 at 3:18 amThat sounds like fun. Only drawback is you'd need the equivalents of what the US has in the western Pacific. Bases in Japan, Guam, etc. Aside from the Galapagos, not sure what islands can serve as bases for the PLAN.
Liang1a
May 9, 2013 at 8:58 amMany Chinese are annoyed by America apparently taking the side of the Japnese in the Diaoyu Island dispute. America should understand clearly that unlike Hu and Wen the two cowards the new Chinese leadership is no longer afraid of America and no longer so eager to placate it and win its "friendship". The Chinese leadership no longer cares about the incessant demonization of China threat. And as they no longer care about America's hostilities, they will no longer do anything to placate it. This means that China will not back down from the Diaoyu dispute nor will it give any concessions to America. The end result is that America only makes the Chinese people more angry which will harm American businesses in China. And as Chinese military grows stronger every year, American mystique and charisma also dim proportionately. The Chinese people will see that America is just a second rate country compared to China with a smaller economy, poorer peoples and a inferior and weaker military. In the end, the Chinese people and leadership will just be impatient with the boorishness of the Americans and just kick them aside if they tried to inconvenience China.
Justin
May 9, 2013 at 2:32 pmPlease tell me you are joking. China with its one "new" aircraft carrier if you want to call that is still not near the level of the 10 aircraft carriers that the United States has. Furthermore, the level of skill and training that American forces untake is far better than what China is currently attempting. Yes, China has increased their military for budget every year for the last decade. However, America's defense spending is still 4 1/2 times more. Even with the expected cuts in the future, China will not come close for over a decade. Your argument about China having a larger army is invalid. How are they supposed to transport it with their inferior navy and airforce? Furthermore, all you need to do is look through history to see what happens when larger untrained forces challenger smaller better trained armies. It normally does not work out well. Of course China's economy is growing quicker since it is still a developing one. Yet, lets not forget that China's economy is only half the size of the United States. Even though China's transformation has lifted tens of millions of Chinese citizens out from under the poverty line, there is still a large gap between the standard of living in both nations. Furthermore, environmental destruction will eventually bring China to its knees unless it is fixed. Lets also not forget about China's housing bubble that will be getting to pop in the next few years. Also, its important to mention the insane amount of debt help by local and provincial governments in China that is off the record. Furthermore, China's continued use of the 9 dashed line in the South China Sea is leading neighboring nations to join together against them. Yes, the SCS dispute is a nationalism booster at home, but China has put all of its eggs in one basket over a sovereignty dispute that will not hold up in international court. Claiming 80 percent of the SCS due to vague historical ties is not justified.
Yes America is in a bad place right now, and yes China has the chance to over take them. However, China is not without issue. There are a lot of things China needs to work out before it will be going anywhere.
Liang1a
May 9, 2013 at 6:48 pm@Justin,
China may have only 1 carrier and America may have 10 carriers now. But the situation can change. In 10 years China may deploy 6 carriers while America may need to reduce its carriers to 6 also. So by 2023, China's and America's carriers will be the same in number. And China's carriers will be of higher quality because they are all modern and new while America's carriers are all WW2 vintage outdated carriers. China has actually increased the number of its transport planes and naval transport ships and amphibious ships that can carry a whole brigade at a time together with tanks, guns, attack helicopters, etc. You'd be amazed to know how fast the Chinese military is expanding in all respects. And anything America has, China also has. For example, America has a new kind of carrier based UAV called the X-47B. The truth is China is also testing its version of X-47B called the Lijian or Sharp Sword.[1] China also has more than 6,000 UAV of more than 10 kinds. And while America has its X-37 Orbital Test Vehicle, China also has its version of space plane called Shen Long or Divine Dragon. So don't think America is so far ahead of China. The truth is China has already caught up with America and poised to overtake it soon.
And China's economy is not half the size of America's. It is in fact already significantly bigger than the American economy. China's 2012 GDP is 52 trillion yuan. At 6.3 yuan per dollar this is only $8.25 trillion. But at the PPP rate which is actually close to 3 yuan per dollar the real Chinese GDP is $17.33 trillion or $2.33 trillion more than America's 2012 $15 trillion GDP. And the gap will be even bigger after 2013 as China grows another 7.5% or more while America can at best eke out 2% or 3% at best. So don't delude yourself with the real size of China's economy. The only thing that might endanger China is its excessive dependence on exports. Once China can successfully shift from exports to domestic service based economy then it can grow sustainably for the next 30 years until it become 7 times bigger than America's economy. Obviously when China's economy is 7 times bigger than the American economy, the American economy is obviously puny relative to China's extra large economy.
[1] Lijian – China testing its carrier based UAV
http://v.ifeng.com/v/mil/zhongguolijian/index.shtml#fc5e89f3-f17c-4944-93fe-b1be46b2ea8f
[2] China has more than 6,000 UAV of more than 10 kinds
http://v.ifeng.com/v/mil/zhongguolijian/index.shtml#59e49dab-370c-4f52-9eee-8e51b5b30b5c
Liang1a
May 9, 2013 at 7:04 pmJustin wrote:
Furthermore, China's continued use of the 9 dashed line in the South China Sea is leading neighboring nations to join together against them. Yes, the SCS dispute is a nationalism booster at home, but China has put all of its eggs in one basket over a sovereignty dispute that will not hold up in international court. Claiming 80 percent of the SCS due to vague historical ties is not justified.
————————
Your so-called "neighboring countries" consist of only 2, namely Vietnam and Philippines. The rest of the countries in SE Asia are either on China's side or don't care. Malaysia even has a territorial dispute with Philippines over Sabah. China has already given notice to Philippines to get out of 8 of China's sovereign islands within the 9-Dotted Lines. Hopefully, China will proceed to use force to protect its sovereignty before the end of May. The excessive weakness Hu-Wen had shown to these thuggish nations had created a big problem for China where there should never have been any problem at all. Now only by using force can China bring this needless problem to a quick end. Chinese leaders should understand there is no need to try to make friends with countries that are not really good friends. In the end, good relations cannot give China peace and security. Only force and the willingness to use it can keep China safe.
The size of China's soverign waters is irrelevant. There is no need for China to feel guilty for owning large areas of waters. It is just China's good luck. The same as Russia owning Siberia or America owning Alaska. Although there is even less ground for America to own Alaska. After all, how can America buy it from Russia? Can America buy the moon or Mars from Russia? Obviously not.
Duke
May 10, 2013 at 2:01 am@Lang1a,
….'The size of China's soverign waters is irrelevant. There is no need for China to feel guilty for owning large areas of waters. It is just China's good luck!!"
This sort of 'neo-Lebensraum' ( living space for the superior race) must be crushed right at its early embryonic stage before it's too late ! Save this sort of 'silly arrogance' for yourself, my poor old Lang1a. Remember, in today's civilized world there's no place for that sort of dangerous delusions & illusions!
Errol
May 10, 2013 at 2:58 amWould you espouse the same venom in trying to retake the northern territories that Russia took from China? I guess not.
You claim only Vietnam and the Philippines have a bone to pick with you. Don't fudge the situation. China's recent exercise in the southernmost reach of its SCS claims raised Malaysia's hackles. I guess the other ASEAN members have realized that once the first line has fallen, that being the Philippines and Vietnam, then Malaysia and Brunei are next. And after them, the last claimants in the SCS. Don't worry about Malaysia and the Philippines. Manila isn't pushing the Sabah issue, and Sabah residents can decide who they want to be with.
And you did kind of amuse me with how you disparage American carriers. WW2-vintage you say? Unless you can prove that nuclear-powered carriers were sailing the seven seas back in the early 40's, I'll take your claims with a grain of salt.
Why can Alaska be bought from Russia? Because it's a sale that can be 'consummated'. Once bought, American sent people to Alaska. And rest assured, that assuming we humans don't wipe each other off the face of this planet, colonies will be set up on Mars and the Moon. And you can bet your soul that people will be selling and buying properties on said off-world bodies at that point.
Oro Invictus
May 10, 2013 at 12:27 am@ Justin
Dear fellow, don’t make the mistake of rewarding Liang1a’s behaviour with a reply; trust me on this, there’s no need to reply to him, every other rational person here knows he is utterly divorced from reality and thus do not respond to him. The only purpose his posts serve is to make those other few reality divorcees look foolish by agreeing with a man whose proficiency with what he spouts is (to paraphrase the criticism of L. Ron Hubbard’s All About Radiation) the sort of knowledge that perhaps an individual who has read Intermediate Economics and Statecraft, with a lot of misapprehensions and lack of understanding, demonstrate.
I’ll admit, even I get annoyed by the extra scrolling to actually read useful comments his long, ranting attempts to preserve his own fragile ego entail, but the best option is just to pity him and move on. That’s the only way to deal with someone who makes the North Korean foreign ministry’s claims look rational and level-headed.
Also, just as a precaution in the face of the new comments policy, I’m requesting that the Diplomat moderators not censor anything I’ve said here; while I appreciate the desire to avoid flame wars, A) If anyone decides to respond to this with vitriol, I’m just going to disregard it and B) I hardly think I am being unfair, given we are dealing with the same person who has repeatedly stated his belief that Chinese people aregenetically more clever and productive than any other ethnic group.
Liang1a
May 10, 2013 at 6:43 pmErrol wrote:
May 10, 2013 at 2:58 am
Would you espouse the same venom in trying to retake the northern territories that Russia took from China? I guess not.
Liang's response:
Apparently Russia and China are jointly developing the former territories of China now under Russia control. As long as China can develop it jointly there is no urgency in recovering it. In a de facto way China already has retaken these areas.
Errol wrote:
You claim only Vietnam and the Philippines have a bone to pick with you. Don't fudge the situation. China's recent exercise in the southernmost reach of its SCS claims raised Malaysia's hackles. I guess the other ASEAN members have realized that once the first line has fallen, that being the Philippines and Vietnam, then Malaysia and Brunei are next. And after them, the last claimants in the SCS. Don't worry about Malaysia and the Philippines. Manila isn't pushing the Sabah issue, and Sabah residents can decide who they want to be with.
Liang's response:
Malaysia has no wish to fight with China. Brunei certainly doesn't want to fight with China. Thailand and Singapore and Indonesia are all neutral. Laos and Cambodia are both friendly to China. Burma is just too far away from the South Sea. Therefore, there are only two thugs in SE Asia namely Vietnam and Philippines who dare to steal from China. And if you think Malaysia and Philippines are good over Sabah then you don't know what you're talking about.
Errol wrote:
And you did kind of amuse me with how you disparage American carriers. WW2-vintage you say? Unless you can prove that nuclear-powered carriers were sailing the seven seas back in the early 40's, I'll take your claims with a grain of salt.
Liang's response:
American carriers are mostly made in 1970's. Nitmiz was built in 1975. And all the active American carriers are of the Nitmiz class. So they are old and outdated. At least in technologies if not in actual age. And America won't even be laying the keel for the first Ford class carrier until 2015 if ever.
Errol wrote:
Why can Alaska be bought from Russia? Because it's a sale that can be 'consummated'. Once bought, American sent people to Alaska. And rest assured, that assuming we humans don't wipe each other off the face of this planet, colonies will be set up on Mars and the Moon. And you can bet your soul that people will be selling and buying properties on said off-world bodies at that point.
Liang's response:
This is nonsense. Deal that can be consummated? That's nothing but gibberish. If Russia didn't have legal possession of it then it was stolen property. Stolen property can't be sold. And anybody caught owning stolen property will be punished by law.
As to colonizing the moon and Mars, who do you think will colonize them? You Americans? Don't make me laugh! China will be landing a moon probe sometime this year. Then there will be plan to land a rover and return a sample to earth. Then there will be a manned landing on the moon. There are speculations that Americans faked its moon landing. So we'll see if there are any American footprints on the moon when Chinese taikongnauts get there.
As to Mars, Americans (with its puny $15 trillion economy) will be too poor to go there for another hundred years. Only China with a $100 trillion economy (by 2040) will have the money to fund a manned expedition to Mars. We'll be taking Russians and various friends (such as South Africans and Brazilians) with us but no Americans. Can you get there by yourselves? I doubt it.
———————–
Liang1a
May 10, 2013 at 6:50 pmErrol wrote:
And you did kind of amuse me with how you disparage American carriers. WW2-vintage you say? Unless you can prove that nuclear-powered carriers were sailing the seven seas back in the early 40's, I'll take your claims with a grain of salt.
Liang's response:
American carriers are mostly made in 1970's. Nitmiz was built in 1975. And all the active American carriers are of the Nitmiz class. So they are old and outdated. At least in technologies if not in actual age. And America won't even be laying the keel for the first Ford class carrier until 2015 if ever.
——————————–
China's first carrier, Liaoning, is less than 1 year old. By 2023 there may be some 6 Chinese carriers which will all be less than 10 years old. In contrast, America will probably not build any more carriers for another 10 years. So by 2023, America will have maybe 6 Nitmiz class carriers that were built between 1989 and 2009 and 34 years to 14 years old. Obviously, they will all be outdated by Chinese standard.
Liang1a
May 9, 2013 at 8:46 amAmerica is not a real democracy but a dictatorship of the majority. This is why the minorities are all discriminated and marginalized. The fact that the blacks earn only 2/3 the incomes of the whites and own 1/20 the wealth of the whites is good evidence that America is not a democracy. American government might ask the American people for more money to fund its military. But there is just no more money left for the military to spend. In fact, given the dire situation of the American economy, the American military has to reduce its budget by some 10% or more. Therefore, America cannot increase its military spending no matter how fast Chinese military is expanding. If America tries to increase its military spending to arms race with China then it will quickly collapse its economy and cause unspeakable hardship to the American people. Many people still think America can arms race China into the ground like it did to the USSR. But the truth is the shoe is now on the other foot with Chinese economy able to expand 8 to 10 times over the next 30 years while America would be lucky not to collapse. Therefore, as Chinese economy expands, America can no longer arms race with China. In fact, even though Chinese military budget is only some 720 billion yuan or $120 billion for 2013, yet because of the much higher purchasing power of the yuan and the lower salaries of the Chinese military personnel, Chinese military's 720 billion yuan can buy more than American military's $600 billion. In fact, China's effective purchasing power can give China a military that American military needs $1 trillion or more to keep up. For example, a Chinese private takes home 15,000 yuan while an American private takes home $20,000. Therefore, for each American private China can deploy 8 privates – America needs to spend $1.33 for each yuan China spends which means as China spends 720 billion yuan America must spend some $1 trillion.
China's navy is developing many types of new ships that are as good as or better than American models. China's new Type 55 destroyer is just as good as American Zumwalt class destroyer. China had deployed at least 2 Type 052D destroyers in 2012 and will probably deploy 6 in 2013. There were reports with pictures purported to be at least 6 Type 052D under construction. There was also at least 1 report that a 60,000 ton carrier is some 80% completed and can be expected to be launched in 2013 or 2014. The truth is China is increasing the number of its naval ships at a very fast rate. And the ships are not only being produced quickly they are also of very high quality. It would not be surprising at all for Chinese navy to equal American navy by 2023.
Of course, all of these expansion requires that China maintains a minimal economic expansion of at least some 7.5% per year. If China can turn inward to develop its internal economy based on expanding the services for the Chinese consumers then China will have no problem to maintain such a minimal rate of economic expansion. But if China tried to rely on exports then it is likely that its economy will begin to stagnate at some 5% or less. Probably even just 3%. But I'm hopeful that China can maintain 7.5% growth. Then as China's economy doubles to some 110 trillion yuan by 2023, its military budget can be some 1.5 trillion yuan to 2.5 trillion yuan for some 1.5% to 2.5% of its GDP. Even presuming Chinese wages will double, it would still require American military to spend some $1.5 trillion to $2.5 trillion to keep up which is obviously impossible. Therefore, America is doomed to become second rate or collapse and break apart like the former USSR and becomes the former USA.
Kanes
May 9, 2013 at 1:34 pmI agree with your purchasing parity analysis.
In addition to the salaries, there are other implications. Food, uniforms, weapons, lodging, deployment, transport, etc. also saves billions of dollars for the Chinese. Developing weapons is another saver. US weapons development is carried by companies that make huge revenues with extremely high pay. Marketing campaigns to pro-up weapons beyond their usefulness also cost a lot of money. Running many security agencies with bureaucracy costs billions too.
Having regular wars since 2001 also cost billions.
All in all, the US defence spend has a lot of fat in it. When adjusted and discounted for purchasing parity, the Chinese budget is higher. Plenty more to go into new product development which itself is much cheaper.
Economic concepts of cost leadership applies in defence too.
Bankotsu
May 9, 2013 at 7:07 pm"America is not a real democracy but a dictatorship of the majority."
America is more like two party dictatorship to me.
Liang1a
May 9, 2013 at 7:52 amI'm glad to hear that China had done any kind of military exercises in America's EEZ. It is about time for China to play tit for tat. And I don't know why America is talking about EEZ since it really doesn't have any EEZ since it never joined the UNCLOS. So, if America is not a member of the UNCLOS how can it claim to have any EEZ under a provision of UNCLOS? This is the kind of bad reasoning that America is famous for.
I don't think Chinese government had consider foreign ships entering into China's EEZ as "illegal". China only considers them "unfriendly" and "provocative". But since China's protests had gone unheeded, China might as well return the favor. If America dislikes China in its "EEZ" which it really cannot claim as I explained above, then it can appreciate how China feels about American subs just outside the 12 nm limit.
Kanes
May 8, 2013 at 1:49 pmJust imagine the possibilities if China and Russia come together in military development. They complement one another perfectly. China developed a new space weapon about 5 years ago – space junk. A missile launched from earth hit a sattelite scattering debris across a large area in space. This may be repeated until some concessions are awarded by bigger space powers. Its a new bargaining tool.
Leonard R.
May 8, 2013 at 10:29 amFrom a NYTimes story on the report (emphasis added):
"But the Pentagon report describes something far more sophisticated: a China that has now leapt into the first ranks of offensive cybertechnologies. It is investing in electronic warfare capabilities in an effort to blind American satellites and other space assets, and hopes to use electronic and traditional weapons systems to gradually push the United States military presence into the mid-Pacific nearly 2,000 miles from China’s coast."
From a NYTimes story on the report (emphasis added):
"But the Pentagon report describes something far more sophisticated: a China that has now leapt into the first ranks of offensive cybertechnologies. It is investing in electronic warfare capabilities in an effort to blind American satellites and other space assets, and hopes to use electronic and traditional weapons systems to gradually push the United States military presence into the mid-Pacific nearly 2,000 miles from China’s coast."
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/07/world/asia/us-accuses-chinas-military-in-cyberattacks.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
—
If this is not already war, it is the prelude. It is a good sign that the Pentagon is making a realistic assessment of China's near-term plans to push the US out of the western Pacific and ultimately (in my opinion), to force the US to abandon its sovereign territories, allies & US citizen populations of Hawaii.
The Pentagon gets it. DOS under Hillary got it. What's necessary now is a mobilization. The US should not wait for another Pearl Harbor. The next one will be much worse. China's intentions toward the America are quite clear. The threat is existential. And despite the efforts and hopes of diplomats, the status quo cannot hold. In fact, it's not even the status quo any more. The pieces are already moving into position.
Leonard R.
May 8, 2013 at 11:46 amShould read:
"force the US to abandon its sovereign territories, allies & US citizen populations west of Hawaii"
Bankotsu
May 8, 2013 at 2:09 pm"The US should not wait for another Pearl Harbor. The next one will be much worse. China's intentions toward the America are quite clear."
This had better not be another "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction" drivel from the U.S. again.
U.S. is not fooling anyone. I am not going to be duped twice by the U.S.
..
May 9, 2013 at 1:26 amWell.. Unlike Iraq, China actually does possess CBRN weapons and delivery systems capable of hitting the states.
TDog
May 9, 2013 at 3:34 am@Leonard R.
You claim the threat posed by China to the US is "existential."
What would Chinese preeminence in the western Pacific do to remove from the globe the existence of the United States? How would removing our bases from, let's say, Guam or South Korea result in the total and complete destruction of the United States government, people, and territory?
Your overstatement of the situation is exactly the sort of hyperbole that leads to war rather than prevents it. We have within our means the ability to adjust to China's reemergence on the world stage, yet many policymakers and China watchers tend to panic because they cannot fathom a world where the United States controls less of the globe than it currently does.
One of the main tenets of strategic thinking, however, is the strategic withdrawal. You redress your lines to shorten lines of communication and control, allow your resources and manpower to be more effectively employed, and generally create a more convenient and less costly environment for your forces given your current situation.
With that in mind, it would be much better for us at this point in time to accommodate China's rise in the western Pacific and cooperate with them. With the US economy still in a fragile recovery and our military power all but exhausted, now is not the time to thump our chests and prepare for a war with someone we need not fight. And if we cooperate with China, our retrenchment does not take on the character of a retreat or a rout and we would be leaving the security of our flank to partners rather than competitors.
In preparing for war, we are setting ourselves up for failure. It's not that we're incompetent, mind you, but rather it's because we're exhausted. We spent ourselves to the brink of insolvency fighting paramilitaries and terrorists armed with small arms and improvised explosives, so the notion that we should or even could prepare for an even bigger war with an even better-equipped, better-trained, and better bankrolled foe is ridiculous.
Right now we need to regroup and recover. The question we have to ask ourselves is will we do it with at least some degree of influence by cooperating with China or do we do it the hard way and have China take it anyway? Because I guarantee you the latter method will be more expensive, less palatable, and infintely more humiliating than the former.
Leonard R.
May 9, 2013 at 10:08 amTDog: "One of the main tenets of strategic thinking, however, is the strategic withdrawal. You redress your lines to shorten lines of communication and control, allow your resources and manpower to be more effectively employed, and generally create a more convenient and less costly environment for your forces given your current situation."
–
I do advocate strategic withdrawal from Taiwan and South Korea. But US territories and US citizen populations are worth defending. That's how I see it. Imperial Japan made the same demands on America and the US decided to fight. Now China is making the same assumptions. We'll see how it plays out.
Oro Invictus
May 9, 2013 at 11:08 am@ TDog
If I may be so bold, it seems both of you are engaging in hyperbole, Leonard’s being of the alarmist variety and yours of the defeatist. Leonard’s portrayal of the “malevolent PRC menace” is deserving of critique, but your depiction of the US as a beaten and tired nation whose best option is acquiesce to an (as you imply) unstoppable rising PRC seems just as deserving of skepticism.
And, before you argue it is a matter of perspective, I must note that is exactly my point. Both of you are expressing a perspective based on assumed certainties which are, in fact, utterly unverified. One must remember that, in the absence of true objectivity for perception or reality, what separates educated opinion and logical conclusion from hyperbole and irrational exhortation is the degree of logical parsimony; with respect to the principle of Occam, the difference is a matter of a razor’s edge.
On another note, is the constant utilization of group inclusive phrases like “we” and “our” in your writings intentional? I ask because, if your diction is non-accidental, the implications of such language add an entire dimension to your posts. Indeed, such words, when used, as such carry connotations of sectarianism, group exclusivity, and discrete consequence (well, either that or it is basic overcompensation for a sense of non-belonging, perceived or otherwise). I apologize if this inquiry seems strange, I just like to have knowledge rather than uncertainty in such discourse.
Bankotsu
May 9, 2013 at 2:03 pm"Imperial Japan made the same demands on America…"
What demands did Imperial Japan make on America? I thought it was America making all the demands on Japan?
Stefan Stackhouse
May 9, 2013 at 4:21 amI don't intend to be a glib pollyanna here, but let's get a grip on reality. China is one of the major nations on Earth, and of course they are going to be developing a hefty military. They have an exposed litoral, and so of course they are going to strengthen their naval forces. This would all be happening regardless of what the government of China happened to be, and even if they were an ally of the US. Just understand that this much is a baseline, and is going to happen no matter what. Let's not get paranoid and read too much into that part of it. It is only things above and beyond that baseline that really should start to raise any real concern.
Oro Invictus
May 8, 2013 at 8:30 amThe article provides a good overview of the report (of which I have only read parts of) and I generally agree with the article’s presentation of it; what I am extremely curious about, though, is an extremely notable exception: Failure to mention the paper’s allegations of direct PRC military support for widespread cyber-espionage against the US, the first time this report has ever done so. Was this ignored as such things are already getting a great deal of coverage by others? Was it an oversight (unlikely)? Or did the author not consider these allegations to be as severe nor noteworthy as many others view them as?
I myself find the allegations intriguing, not insomuch as because anything said is particularly revelatory, but that it is one of the few assessments, however indirect, of the state of PRC military innovation the US provides. That the report indicates that the scale of such attacks have been increasing at a rate non-commensurate with spending increases implies that, rather than simple gauging of others’ strengths (which all nations engage in), the PRC remains (or are becoming more) reliant upon espionage to “fill-in-the-gaps” as their technology levels reach more appreciably modern levels; in other words, the implication is that the PRC military’s innovative capacity has seen no major systematic improvement in recent times. Indeed, such indicators are appreciated as, in the absence of official data, it is difficult to know for certain whether the PRC military’s innovative infrastructure is on par with the public sector or otherwise.
Leonard R.
May 8, 2013 at 11:43 amPrediction: The US will experience a huge surge in cyber-attacks from North Korea. That's because the PLA will re-route its attacks against the US through orth Krea. It's the same sock puppet show the US falls for every time.
Bankotsu
May 9, 2013 at 2:05 pm"Prediction: The US will experience a huge surge in cyber-attacks from North Korea."
You might as well tell me Iraq has WMDs.
Jeremy
May 9, 2013 at 3:29 pmYou do realize that Iraq did indeed have chemical weapon stock piles, right? This isn't a secret.
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/dni/dni_ltr_wmd_21jun06.pdf
TDog
May 8, 2013 at 7:31 amThe key to dealing with China, in my opinion, is two-fold: first we must understand China and then we must see to it that our understanding leads to cooperation rather than confrontation or even competition. China's major shortcoming is that it is incredibly insecure. Whether this is due to its recent history or its geography or a combination of those factors and others, it is an undisputable fact; China behaves as if it has been backed into a corner.
Justified or not, the key to dealing with that is to not view China as anything other than a new player on the field. When a sports team gets a new player, is it par for the course to brutalize them, try to keep them from playing, and generally isolate them? Or is it more productive to make the new player feel like a part of the team?
We often justify our military expenditures and deployments in terms that are anti-China. Whether implied or stated, our understanding of China is all too often combined with the qualifier "And here's what we're going to do to counter it."
We have the understanding part down fairly well. While the details may escape us, we're certain enough of Chinese capabilities to know what to expect out of them at least 80% of the time. The failure on our part is that we seek to turn that understanding into a competitive advantage at a time when it would behoove us to cooperate with China rather than butt heads.
I think the Pentagon is moving in the right direction. It is displaying a bit more understanding than it has in the past and certainly a lot more patience. If we can turn this strained competition into a genuine cooperation, this pivot to the Pacific could turn into a win-win situation.
Leonard R.
May 8, 2013 at 10:34 am"force the US to abandon its sovereign territories, allies & US citizen populations west of Hawaii"
Bankotsu
May 8, 2013 at 2:11 pm"force the US to abandon its sovereign territories, allies & US citizen populations west of Hawaii"
How come U.S. is so concerned about west pacific? Maybe China should also start thinking about Easternpacific.
RaRa the new god
May 8, 2013 at 7:31 pm"force the US to abandon its sovereign territories, allies & US citizen populations west of Rhode Island"
Obama is planning to move his family to Damascus (Benghazi being no longer okay) very soon.
Jonathan
May 9, 2013 at 2:19 amDoes China have allies in the Eastern Pacific, let alone allies that are threatened by an aggressive power?
vic
May 9, 2013 at 8:44 amI really cannot understand why the US is so worried about being pushed out of the "west of Hawaii"?
The US is really threatening continental Asia by having an aggressive navy. The Chinese armed forces have to push the US out to a safe distance from Asia if only to guarantee safety for their citizens. The security of the American homeland is not affected one bit by the displacement of US navy to the "east of Hawaii". Eventually the US government must come to its senses to realize that their actions are creating fear in others.
fdsaasdf
May 9, 2013 at 12:03 pm"Eventually the US government must come to its senses to realize that their actions are creating fear in others. "
Does this statement go both ways, with the Chinese military vis-a-vis its neighbours — Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, Brunei, Malaysia, Vietnam, Russia, and so on?
Duke
May 9, 2013 at 6:06 pmvic,
The US is a Pacific country & has been in the Asia- Pacific for almost 7 decades as a protector for the whole region ( when China was still a poor third-world country). Most of its closest allies & key trading partners are in this region. Its trade with the regional countries has amounted to trillions of dollars annually & you really think it's not important to the US' economy? The Asia-Pacific will also be the world’s strategic and economic center of gravity in the 21st century, and the US will expand its trade with the region via the TPP, a free trade zone. For over 6 decades, USN has protected all the vital SLOCs from the Persian Gulf to the East Asia via Indian Ocean , Strait of Malacca & SCS against any menaces to disrupt or hinder freedom of navigation. Then, there's no reason now for the US to withdraw all its forces from this strategic region, especially when there already appeared a big bad bully having been intimidating , coercing & forcing other small regional countries into submission for serving its own interests & its hegemonic ambition.
Bankotsu
May 9, 2013 at 7:09 pmI agree with your views.
JohnX
May 10, 2013 at 5:38 pmLook at history, China doesn't have allies. China has vassals or enemies.