Nuke Monday

So did you ever wonder what happened to former DepSec Def Paul Wolfowitz (best known for lambasting General Shinseki on troop strengths and discussing the dangers of Iraq's alleged WMD program)? Last we heard, he had joined the State Department to advise SecState Condi Rice on WMD issues. No, really. It's not a joke. Well, he's bubbling full of ideas, like increasing the US nuclear arsenal to meet China's growing stockpile. Except, you know, we already have much more than they do.

The International Security and Advisory Board (Isab), which reports to Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, warned that "holding the US homeland hostage to missile attack is important to Chinese military goals".

It claimed that China will have "in excess of 100 nuclear-armed missiles that could strike the United States" by 2015.

By contrast, it said the US had allowed its nuclear stockpile and expertise to "deteriorate and atrophy across the board" for the last two decades.
--------------
The report suggests that a conflict between the US and China could be triggered by the issue of Taiwan's sovereignty and claims China will invade the island in the near future. "If China is to become a global power, the first step must include control [of Taiwan]," it states.

It adds that there has been a "substantial expansion" of China's nuclear arsenal in order to force America to "back away rather than fight". The report claims China has "new thermonuclear warheads as well as tactical arms, encompassing enhanced radiation weapons, nuclear artillery, and anti-ship weapons". Current US intelligence reports paint a less dramatic picture and there is no evidence of a tactical nuclear arsenal.

Gee, 100 missiles that could range the United States. We've only got 2500 or so, but of course, most are pointed at Russia and we might not be able to spare a few hundred to threaten retaliation. We do have a choice here - work China into our plans as a strategic partner or force it into a corner as an adversary. Paul Wolfowitz, ladies and gentlemen. If we finish the war in the Middle East that he facilitated, then he's got a second third war all lined up for us.

Comments

[Cheryl Rofer]

It's fourth. You forgot Iran.

[Ray]

Just one question for someone to answer, please: how long would a nuclear war last?
R.

[infocyde]

You actually don't know what you are talking about at all. There aren't just one size fits all nukes. Specific types of warheads are designed to do specific things. China, along with other potential adversaries, put there c4i facilities down very deep. Our warheads tend to be very accurate, but many of them are not designed as deep nuclear penatrators, and most of our warheads are in the 500 kt range. It would take multiple strikes on harded facilities to be sure those facilities are destroyed. If our number of warheads falls below a certain point, which would indicate also a reduction in warheads like the W88, would mean our hitting power is in question. In order for MAD to work, our enemies have to be 100% sure that their elites will not survive.

That being said, working with China to bring down their nuke stockpile is a good thing. I wouldn't bet my future existence on their cooperation though. Negotiation does not always work...it annoys me to no end that the prevailing wisdom on the left tends to be that negotiation only fails because it wasn't tried...historically totally untrue.

Grow up. People are evil. Peace comes through strength, always has, always will. Weakness produces instability, opportunism, and war.

[Brett]

The problem with China having "the same number of nukes as the US" is, they already grossly out-man us in conventional forces, so we only have the nuke deterrent. Or, had you forgotten that?

[J.]

Cheryl - oh you a bad person. The bombers aren't in the air - yet.

R. - I figure maybe 30 minutes. World War V would then start about an hour after that, and that would be the really long one.

infocyde - without getting into a heavy discussion of "On Thermonuclear War," might I suggest that in any scenario (barring a US first "preemptory" strike), our current arsenal of bombers, subs, and silo missiles could easily take out China's military strategic forces. The key in deterrence is/was aiming at China's major cities, unless you think that China would accept rebuilding its country with the surviving 500 million Chinese.

Brett - I think you need to re-examine the current Chinese military strength estimates. China's defense budget is at best one-tenth our defense budget, and unless you think the Chinese army is going to swim over to the US homeland, it's not a threat to us. Its sea and air power can't do much more than ensure that they can take Tawain if they wanted to. Unless we're going to invade China, which would be insane, we've got a considerable edge on China in all military areas.

Also see this two-year old Kaplan article in Slate that discusses the Pentagon's tendancy to overstate China's strength.

[Ray]

A great many of these discussions imply a timescale of conflict that in reality would not exist. How can there be a cry of "Enough!" when missiles of such destructive power are showering down on each of the protagonists? Interesting to speak of the capabilities of the weapons, but has anyone done a projection of the aftermath; taking the US and China as the theoretical combatants- to include any fallout effects. I am a layperson, not an expert.
R.

[TulsaTime]

OMFG! Are we never to be rid of wolfie and his 'strategery' worldview? Where is his brain trust pal dougie? Together they can plot more over-reach projects like this stand off with China.

Next up, the super-duper double secret moon base with gazillion watt death ray and american flag carved at tranquillity base!

[Ray]

If there's a nuclear war between superpowers, in our lifetimes, let's all make a firm committment to discuss it afterwards.
R.

[james]

infocyde:

Your understanding of MAD is flawed - it stands for Mutually Assured Destruction and requires that both parties are equally at risk because enough nuclear tonnage will survive to make the other side pay dearly. Your scenario calls for China to be helpless after a pre-emptive or retaliatory strike by the US. That's not MAD, that's just complete domination of one side by the other. It seems that the Chinese have MAD right with the current balance of arms - enough on both sides of a particular quality to keep the other side respectful of the other.

Your facts on Chinese capabilities and survivability may be totally accurate. But they do not upset the balance of MAD. I doubt that Wolfie is inexperienced enough to invoke MAD to justify his arms proposal. The US has moved away from MAD or similar military philosophies since the end of the Cold War and is firmly embarked under the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive, unilateral military capabilities that undercut any other nation's abilty to resist our political or military goals.

This is far more destabilizing than MAD. Two equally matched adversaries with roughly equal prizes to be won and prices to be paid can reasonably coexist under MAD. Throw the balance of power to one extreme and you will find the weaker power work to regain some leverage by whatever means necessary.

[rb]

Mr. Wolfowitz, once again blinded by his neocon goggles, fails to acknowledge the power that the China already has over the United States; indeed, by the economic short hairs. Holding trillions in Treasury notes as blackmail, they can invade Taiwan at any time and wipe out our economy if the Pentagon so much as twitches.
Assuming one's adversary has the same motivations as yourself is the mistake that led us into Iraq. Dumping their dollars on the world market would certainly hurt the Chinese, but the Asian concept of victory, and acceptable loss, is not like ours.

[bobbymike]

There is only one quote that needs stating to determine Chinese military thought. A General in the PLA said we would trade 150 million people for 150 million people (10% or 50% of the population)

I do not fear US nuclear weapons. We may be able to deploy fewer than 2500 but it is an absolute imperative to have the necessary R&D and modern production infrastructure to avoid strategic surprise.

[infocyde]

@james. Actually, the survivability of a US nuclear deterrent is after an adversarial first strike by the Russians is in question right now. With the Chinese the question is less in doubt, but reducing are nuclear arsenal or sitting on our laurels is not the way to keep a credible deterrent. My view of MAD is accurate, as it includes provisioning for the destruction of the elite class that has a historical track record of expending human capital in the past if we heaven forbid entered into a nuclear conflict with China. The "progressive"/ignorant view doesn't do this.

Also I'm not a spectator watching two teams and hoping they reach parity for the better good. I'm an American. I believe in democracy, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and the sovereignty of the individuals. These are not values highly esteemed by our competitor in China. Unfortunately nor are they highly esteemed by many of our countrymen unless you have the “correct” view.

And as far as the Chinese defense budget being 10% of ours, grow up again. China doesn't give you numbers like western democracies do. Their defense spending has increased by double digits for the past 10 years, and guess what, they LIE and massively under report what they do spend. Those Chinese defense spending figures is a form of soft asymmetric warfare that works brilliantly on the minds of those who already have a predisposition to weaken the U.S. military.

And on wolfie...he sucked. I'm arguing the cause not the man.

Round 2?

[james]

infocyde:

I'll stick by my original statement that your views are beyond those needed to maintain the balance of risks necessary for MAD. Certainly the case for MAD with China, questionable with Russia. Is your view good foreign/defense policy? Perhaps. But that line of thinking allows you to spin it as "the proposed US nuclear armament upgrades are simply a step to maintain a status quo balance of power that has existed for the last 30 plus years". We can fool ourselves with that kind of logic but we won't be fooling our enemies (or allies).

I never made any arguments about Chinese defense spending but in reply I'll note that the Chinese can spend all they want, even match the US dollar for dollar and still be decades away from being a credible threat to US military power. They have the world's largest standing army primarily equipped with weapons dating back to the Korean War. They have some modern tech but with extremely limited distribution. China, Russia and any other possible enemy state would only be able to fight a limited war with the US and one that they would have little hope of winning outright. The US has the capability to severely hurt any adversary anywhere on the planet and expect to hold its one in any regional conflict well enough to sit at the negotiation table on equal terms if not with the upper hand.

I think this should be more than enough as a goal for US military planners. I don't like pushing our capabilities so that we can win decisively on all fronts - the current nuclear discussion or otherwise. It drains our resources, it overcommits our politicians, and it gets us involved in conflicts that push the definition of "national interest". It also fosters international suspicion of the US and almost forces any self-respecting nation to assert itself and develop enough capability to withstand US pressure. That's true for China and Russia but has also happened with ostensible allies in Europe who are loath to be seen as US lackies.

[Gerry]

Has anyone thought about our current missle defense system? It is up and running and growing month by month. The Chinese have none. We have ships at sea that can detect missle launches from China, launch intercepters, as well as relaying the information back to the states for alert with more intercepters. The Chinese, at best, launch 100 nukes, 10 survive and hit LA and San Francisco or San Diego and Hawaii. Now comes the massive retaliation at the Chinese leadership, missle sites, and military. Even if the Chinese leadership survive from their hole in the ground, it will be too radioactive for them to come to the surface for several years. Back in the late 70s Moscow was a prime target because of the leadership. We didn't have "one" nuke targeted for Moscow, we had over 60. (for Moscow alone, think about it).

[Kln]

If the US has specific nukes for specific jobs and targets and it has over 2500 of them, what kind of nukes does China have and what are they designed for and aimed at?

[utfb]

Wasn't former sec wolfowitz also at the IMF. Wayward women will do it to you everytime but he also had all the troops (career people) at the IMF firmly against him for other reasons as well. When you're W's boy you are well taken care of.

[infocyde]

@James. I'm for pursing the ability to win decisively on all fronts. As a percentage of our GDP we are spending less then we did in the cold war while we are simultaneously fighting two wars. Also as a percentage of the population being actively in the armed forces we our society is the least militarized that we have been since before WWII. I totally disagree with you that to make peace with nations we need to present no threat to them. This might work if every other nation was a liberal western style democracy, many nations are not. I would also counter argue that nation states like China, and perhaps even Russia, are investing heavily in their militaries because they see now that they can compete, where if we had maintained the absolute dominance that we had at the end of the cold war perceived this window of opportunity for them would not exist.

As far as using our forces in an imperial way, I'm in agreement with you. We should use our military very sparingly and only when our DIRECT (meaning the U.S. populus as a whole, not our corporate interest)are threatened.

Speak softly and carry a big stick.

[infocyde]

Also, pride goes before a fall. I think you greatly underestimate chinese military capacities. I'm well aware that many of their military units are equiped with antiquated equipment. But I'm also very impressed with how fast the Chinese are bringing some units up to speed. Within 20 years I believe there forces will be equivalent to where our military is now. If we don't move forward, Chinese subs, cruise missiles, and air units will give us a run for our money in a potential conflict. Twenty years sounds like a long time, it isn't.

[Kln]

Im not a big fan of China but China does not have a string of military bases around the world, has not intervened militarily in nations all over the globe, is not now involved in two major wars, has not pushed its client states into suicidal confrontations with its neighbors (Georgia). China has not helped to overthrow numerous governments that were not in line with its policies. China spends nowhere near as much on its military and has a much smaller number of nuclear weapons than the US.

If China goes against the US it will not go head to head, in the past it was People's War but now China will use asymmetric means to fight, and that's if it needs to.

The sheer size of the US military and its overt and belligerent response to any threat makes a mockery of the "speak softly and carry a big stick" idea. More "speak loudly and shoot first".

Its amazing that the most armed and dangerous nation in the world has a threat perception of China the way it does. Does China see the US the same way?

A confrontation between the US and China is going to take place where? Most likely near or in China, China is not going to be landing troops of the beaches of the US west coast. China and the US might skirmish over trade but in whose sphere of influence is that likely to be in?

Besides if the US is struggling in Iraq and Afghanistan then its not going to even risk a fight against China. The US couldn't win it because it would either have to occupy or nuke the hell out of China and neither option is acceptable (or doable) and anything less would not stop the Chinese from doing what they would do in their own sphere.

The flip side would be the Chinese navy sailing into the Caribbean and trying to pick a fight with US interests there, they would fail and rightly so as they are far from home and have few options.

The Chinese have shown a great interest in cyberwarfare and while its still early days there has been plenty of reports about attacks on US military computers from China. why worry about the material assets when they might be opening a backdoor and slipping some bugs in that way.

In the 80s there were constant talk in the form of books and articles about the threat of "rising Japan", that conflict never came. Now there is talk about "the coming war with China".

In the Korean war McArthur wanted to nuke China. The govt said no. In Vietnam the US tied the hands of its generals due to fears of escalating the conflict and dragging in China. Now the US is beholden to China in the form of the vast amounts of US currency held by China and the large volume of trade it does with the US. What US govt would risk all on an all or nothing gamble in the face of such odds. The Global economy is already in recession and a war of that nature would do far more damage than its worth.

The US should seek to contain Chinese expansion for sure but not to actually go into conflict with it. But the reality is that the only area of the US economy which can take any form of cuts in the current crisis is its bloated military budgets, the world is going to become multi-polar weather the US likes it or not and if it fights to preserve the status quo then it will suffer a worse fate than the British empire, which at least saw that it could go out the easy way or the hard and chose the former. England was depleted by two world wars and the US is now in a similar state.

China has a terrible human rights record and is no angel when it comes to how it runs it country, or deals with its problems but thats just the point. China has far to much on its plate at home to entertain any grand plans about ruling the world. Look at any map of the world actually made in China for the Chinese and they show what they are interested in very clearly. Taiwan and the south China sea. Both are to secure their sea lanes for trade and to reclaim what they traditionally consider as theirs, again much like the US in the Caribbean.

Much of China's military is configured for internal suppression (much like the military's of most Asian nations) not for external expansion (like most European).

Also China has some units which are well equipped but the PLA and its bloated bureaucratic state and vested economic interests are much worse than the Pentagon and its pork barrel policies. This means that China may attempt to modernize its external units like its navy first but more because its easier to do so than reform its large and cumbersome Army.

Absolute dominance is a near impossibility in military affairs. The US never has and never will have absolute dominance. Dominance by force is also the worst of options. Conflict without a guiding political framework (ie a plan for the future) is doomed to fail yet much of the US military action in the last decade has been just that, short term (if any) gain regardless of the long term effects and using the most destructive means (military) to do it. US policy for military intervention has mostly been overwhelming firepower against those that cannot return in kind, suppression by air power and brute force when facing smaller powers. In the cold war it faced Russia but never went head to head, it fought war by proxy because its leaders knew what the cost would be. Today i dont think the leaders would make any different decision (excepting if McCain and Palin get in) because they know the cost.

When Ike was president the US spent 10% of its GDP on defence, now its down to 4% and the economy was at its peak under Ike, now it is not, no government no matter how bats**t insane is going to take such a risk so all this talk of future war with China is what?

[infocyde]

Remember Tibet?

Actually, numerous officers in the PLA have talked about an upcomming war with America about 20 years out.

You are correct, a direct invasion of China by America or vice versa, at this time or in the forseeable future is unlikely. Armed conflict between or two nation's is a possibility, and perhaps a growing one. China's military is planning for it. If it is ok with you I would like ours to plan for it as well.

We might be entering a multipolar world, which is all the more reason to have a potent military, as history has proven that multipolar worlds are unstable.

Dominance by force has worked throughout history and will continue to be a tool of nation states. I'm not advocating us dominating everybody, just that if a conflict breaks out, we do our best to equip our military to be dominant in every combat sphere.

Yes, China has some very good cyber warfare capabilities. So does the U.S. and other nations.

We don't want a war with China, but we want to deter Chinese attacks against a fellow democratic state (Taiwan) and we want to keep Chinese expansionism in check. I would like to see China become more and more democratic, and as they do we can deal with them more as a partner rather then a threat.