America Plans Unprovoked Nuclear Attack on China
This is an edited abridgement by Lasha Darkmoon of Professor Amitai Etzionis ground-breaking article in the Yale Journal of International affairs, Who Authorized Preparations for War with China?
AMITAI ETZIONI: The Pentagon has concluded that the time has come to prepare for war with China. It is a momentous conclusion, a momentous decision that so far has failed to receive a thorough review from elected officials, namely the White House and Congress. This important change in the United States posture toward China has largely been driven by the Pentagon.
The decision at hand stands out even more prominently because (a) the change in military posture may well lead to an arms race with China, which could culminate in a nuclear war; and (b) the economic condition of the United States requires a reduction in military spending, not a new arms race.
Have the White House and Congress properly reviewed the Pentagons approachand found its threat assessment of China convincing? If not, what are the United States overarching short- and long-term political strategies for dealing with an economically and militarily rising China? .
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates instructed the Chiefs of Staff to begin work on the AirSea Battle (ASB) project and, in September of 2009 . . . a classified Memorandum of Agreement was signed allowing the US to counter growing challenges to US freedom of action.
In late 2011 Gates successor, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, also signed off on the ASB and formed the new Multi-Service Office to Advance AirSea Battle. Thus, ASB was conceived, born, and began to grow.
AirSea Battle calls for a campaign to reestablish power projection capabilities by launchinga blinding attack against Chinese anti-access facilities, including land and sea-based missile launchers, surveillance and communication platforms, satellite and anti-satellite weapons, and command and control nodes.
US forces could then enter contested zones and conclude the conflict by bringing to bear the full force of their material military advantage.
One defense think tank report, AirSea Battle: A Point-of-Departure Operational Concept, suggests that China is likely to respond to what is effectively a major direct attack on its mainland with all the military means at its disposalincluding its stockpile of nuclear arms.
Joshua Rovner of the U.S. Naval War College notes that deep inland strikes could be mistakenly perceived by the Chinese as preemptive attempts to take out its nuclear weapons, thus cornering them into a terrible use-it-or-lose-it dilemma.
Several defense analysts in the United States and abroad, not least in China, see AirSea Battle as being highly provocative. Former Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General James Cartwright stated in 2012 that, AirSea Battle is demonizing China. Thats not in anybodys interest. An internal assessment of ASB by the Marine Corps commandant cautions that an Air-Sea Battle-focused Navy and Air Force would be preposterously expensive to build in peace time and if used in a war against China would cause incalculable human and economic destruction.
In the past, first strike nuclear strategies were foresworn and steps were taken to avoid a war precipitated by miscommunications, accidents, or miscalculations. In contrast, AirSea Basttle requires that the United States be able to take the war to the mainland with the goal of defeating China, which quite likely would require striking first. Such a strategy is nothing short of a hegemonic intervention .
Pentagon prepares AirSea Battle (ASB) for nuclear attack on China « nuclear-news
This is an edited abridgement by Lasha Darkmoon of Professor Amitai Etzionis ground-breaking article in the Yale Journal of International affairs, Who Authorized Preparations for War with China?
AMITAI ETZIONI: The Pentagon has concluded that the time has come to prepare for war with China. It is a momentous conclusion, a momentous decision that so far has failed to receive a thorough review from elected officials, namely the White House and Congress. This important change in the United States posture toward China has largely been driven by the Pentagon.
The decision at hand stands out even more prominently because (a) the change in military posture may well lead to an arms race with China, which could culminate in a nuclear war; and (b) the economic condition of the United States requires a reduction in military spending, not a new arms race.
Have the White House and Congress properly reviewed the Pentagons approachand found its threat assessment of China convincing? If not, what are the United States overarching short- and long-term political strategies for dealing with an economically and militarily rising China? .
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates instructed the Chiefs of Staff to begin work on the AirSea Battle (ASB) project and, in September of 2009 . . . a classified Memorandum of Agreement was signed allowing the US to counter growing challenges to US freedom of action.
In late 2011 Gates successor, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, also signed off on the ASB and formed the new Multi-Service Office to Advance AirSea Battle. Thus, ASB was conceived, born, and began to grow.
AirSea Battle calls for a campaign to reestablish power projection capabilities by launchinga blinding attack against Chinese anti-access facilities, including land and sea-based missile launchers, surveillance and communication platforms, satellite and anti-satellite weapons, and command and control nodes.
US forces could then enter contested zones and conclude the conflict by bringing to bear the full force of their material military advantage.
One defense think tank report, AirSea Battle: A Point-of-Departure Operational Concept, suggests that China is likely to respond to what is effectively a major direct attack on its mainland with all the military means at its disposalincluding its stockpile of nuclear arms.
Joshua Rovner of the U.S. Naval War College notes that deep inland strikes could be mistakenly perceived by the Chinese as preemptive attempts to take out its nuclear weapons, thus cornering them into a terrible use-it-or-lose-it dilemma.
Several defense analysts in the United States and abroad, not least in China, see AirSea Battle as being highly provocative. Former Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General James Cartwright stated in 2012 that, AirSea Battle is demonizing China. Thats not in anybodys interest. An internal assessment of ASB by the Marine Corps commandant cautions that an Air-Sea Battle-focused Navy and Air Force would be preposterously expensive to build in peace time and if used in a war against China would cause incalculable human and economic destruction.
In the past, first strike nuclear strategies were foresworn and steps were taken to avoid a war precipitated by miscommunications, accidents, or miscalculations. In contrast, AirSea Basttle requires that the United States be able to take the war to the mainland with the goal of defeating China, which quite likely would require striking first. Such a strategy is nothing short of a hegemonic intervention .
Pentagon prepares AirSea Battle (ASB) for nuclear attack on China « nuclear-news
