U.S. Maneuvers Could Spark a War

Goodshape · 16-07-2004 5:34pm #1

From CommonDreams.org
...
Quietly and with minimal coverage in the U.S. press, the Navy announced that from mid-July through August it would hold exercises dubbed Operation Summer Pulse '04 in waters off the China coast near Taiwan.

This will be the first time in U.S. naval history that seven of our 12 carrier strike groups deploy in one place at the same time. It will look like the peacetime equivalent of the Normandy landings and may well end in a disaster.

At a minimum, a single carrier strike group includes the aircraft carrier itself (usually with nine or 10 squadrons and a total of about 85 aircraft), a guided missile cruiser, two guided missile destroyers, an attack submarine and a combination ammunition, oiler and supply ship.

Normally, the United States uses only one or at the most two carrier strike groups to show the flag in a trouble spot. In a combat situation it might deploy three or four, as it did for both wars with Iraq. Seven in one place is unheard of.

Operation Summer Pulse '04 was almost surely dreamed up at the Pearl Harbor headquarters of the U.S. Pacific Command and its commander, Adm. Thomas B. Fargo, and endorsed by neocons in the Pentagon. It is doubtful that Congress was consulted. This only goes to show that our foreign policy is increasingly made by the Pentagon.

According to Chinese reports, Taiwanese ships will join the seven carriers being assembled in this modern rerun of 19th century gunboat diplomacy. The ostensible reason given by the Navy for this exercise is to demonstrate the ability to concentrate massive forces in an emergency, but the focus on China in a U.S. election year sounds like a last hurrah of the neocons.

Needless to say, the Chinese are not amused. They say that their naval and air forces, plus their land-based rockets, are capable of taking on one or two carrier strike groups but that combat with seven would overwhelm them. So even before a carrier reaches the Taiwan Strait, Beijing has announced it will embark on a crash project that will enable it to meet and defeat seven U.S. carrier strike groups within a decade. There's every chance the Chinese will succeed if they are not overtaken by war first.

China is easily the fastest-growing big economy in the world, with a growth rate of 9.1% last year. On June 28, the BBC reported that China had passed the U.S. as the world's biggest recipient of foreign direct investment. China attracted $53 billion worth of new factories in 2003, whereas the U.S. took in only $40 billion; India, $4 billion; and Russia, a measly $1 billion.

If left alone by U.S. militarists, China will almost surely, over time, become a democracy on the same pattern as that of South Korea and Taiwan (both of which had U.S.-sponsored military dictatorships until the late 1980s). But a strong mainland makes the anti-China lobby in the United States very nervous. It won't give up its decades-old animosity toward Beijing and jumps at any opportunity to stir up trouble — "defending Taiwan" is just a convenient cover story.

These ideologues appear to be trying to precipitate a confrontation with China while they still have the chance. Today, they happen to have rabidly anti-Chinese governments in Taipei and Tokyo as allies, but these governments don't have the popular support of their own citizens.

If American militarists are successful in sparking a war, the results are all too predictable: We will halt China's march away from communism and militarize its leadership, bankrupt ourselves, split Japan over whether to renew aggression against China and lose the war. We also will earn the lasting enmity of the most populous nation on Earth.

by Chalmers Johnson
.....

Scary stuff. Thoughts?

dahamsta · 16-07-2004 6:57pm

Originally posted by Goodshape
Thoughts?

That the title of the article should be "U.S. Maneuvers Could Spark another War"?

flogen · 16-07-2004 7:21pm

Originally posted by Goodshape
If American militarists are successful in sparking a war, the results are all too predictable: We will halt China's march away from communism and militarize its leadership, bankrupt ourselves, split Japan over whether to renew aggression against China and lose the war. We also will earn the lasting enmity of the most populous nation on Earth.

Interesting read.
Is he trying to say here that the US would lose the war?
I still doubt that America would attack China, or NK, because they know they would be lucky to win, and it would cost them very heavily even if they did.
I imagine any attempts to stop China's advance will be diplomatic and economical, and surprisingly, they are trading quite alot with China (maybe they dont want to anger a potential threat, i dunno).

Also, a war wouldnt stop China going Commie, they were communist, but get less and less so every year.... theyre just a socialist dictatorship IMO.

flogen

bonkey · 16-07-2004 7:24pm

Originally posted by flogen
Also, a war wouldnt stop China going Commie, they were communist, but get less and less so every year.... theyre just a socialist dictatorship IMO.

He said a war would run a serious risk of stopping them moving away from communism....

jc

Manach · 16-07-2004 7:44pm

So, we have the shores of a Democratic nation, Taiwan, being guarded against a one-party totalitarian state, China. This is bad because?

That Europe should close its eyes and ignore the human rights abuses whilst Mainland seeks to bully the internal politics of Taiwan; in the hopes of gaining extra Chinese trade. This is good because?

mike65 · 16-07-2004 8:09pm

Theres a phase always worth bearing in mind -
"Forget the story check the source"

In this case something called commendreams which is another web haven for the deluded dipso left. Yes the LA times carried the piece but thats okay it publishes other points of view whereas CD is singular in its outlook. The author Chalmers Johnson is an "anti" as a quick google will illustrate. So should we belive him when he suggests the US is angling for a fight with not very Red China? No unless thats the sort of thing you want to belive.
According the Chalmers Johnson the US was going to war with North Korea last year.

http://www.icasinc.org/2003l/johnson1.html

Mike.

Hobbes · 16-07-2004 8:17pm

Bush wont do dick to China.

He knows where his bread is buttered.

First up his brother has been getting kick backs from Chinese companies. Fuk knows why though.

Second most of the major US imports come from China. If China was to suddenly stop the US population would have a fit that they would have to pay more for everyday items.

Third, China has a huge amounts of US businesses investing in its country. They are making losts of cash, I would take it a lot of them would not like to loose their cash cow.

Lastly, China is a superpower. Any aggression can only end in mutual destruction.

The war show was just for probably selling weapons to other countries and a little slide show to the Middle East of "Don't fuk with us". Not impressed.

arcadegame2004 · 16-07-2004 8:38pm

I support these US manoevres. Democratic Taiwan needs the protection of the US. It cannot defend itself for long by itself. If I may draw a comparison: Imagine the following scenario:

Imagine that Nazi Germany had won WW2 and that the United States had not entered the war against Germany. Suppose that the new Nazi Europe demanded that we come under its evil regime. Would it then be wrong for the US to carry out manoevres to protect us? Of course not.

Democracy should be defended from evil dictatorships dominated by war-criminals that make Abu Ghraib look like a holiday camp.

Sparks · 16-07-2004 8:51pm

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Democracy should be defended from evil dictatorships dominated by war-criminals that make Abu Ghraib look like a holiday camp.

Doesn't it strike you as mildly insensitive to refer to a prison where the raping, murder and torture of both adults and children by US soldiers has been documentd, as a "holiday camp"?
Wouldn't it strike you as being more rational to categorise both examples of human rights abuse to be equal in intensity, if differing in scale?

arcadegame2004 · 16-07-2004 9:15pm

Sparks, of course I am not categorising Abu Ghraib as a holiday camp! Horrendous acts of brutality occurred there. The point I am making is that acts of the kind that go on in Abu Ghraib are everyday occurrences on a massive scale in China, dwarfing even Abu Ghraib in scale.

Sparks · 16-07-2004 9:21pm

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Sparks, of course I am not categorising Abu Ghraib as a holiday camp!

My error. When you said "that make Abu Ghraib look like a holiday camp" I assumed you meant that China was doing things so horriffic that it justified calling Abu Ghraib a holiday camp. As opposed to doing the same things on a larger scale, which is a different thing entirely.

Horrendous acts of brutality occurred there. The point I am making is that acts of the kind that go on in Abu Ghraib are everyday occurrences on a massive scale in China, dwarfing even Abu Ghraib in scale.

So why are the PDs urging the expansion of economic ties, trade relations, and educational programs with such a monsterous nation?

pork99 · 16-07-2004 9:27pm

Originally posted by Sparks
Doesn't it strike you as mildly insensitive to refer to a prison where the raping, murder and torture of both adults and children by US soldiers has been documentd, as a "holiday camp"?
Wouldn't it strike you as being more rational to categorise both examples of human rights abuse to be equal in intensity, if differing in scale?

In the PRC it's official policy. In the US it's a crime. Next question please.

It seems to be the other way around;

China simulates Taiwan invasion

Hopefully any US exercises will avert any possible war. I'm old enough to remember the Cold War and this sort of scare story; "Massive Soviet excercises in Poland, it's war!" every other week. Never came to anything.

Is he trying to say here that the US would lose the war? I still doubt that America would attack China, or NK, because they know they would be lucky to win, and it would cost them very heavily even if they did.

A full scale invasion of North Korea would be risky and nasty and I think a US invasion of mainland China is the stuff of fantasy. No, I think the sort of war the US prepare forin that region is a defensive war to protect Taiwan or South Korea and ultimately Japan.

Given their superiority in naval and air forces the US can successfully defend Taiwan. Any Chinese invasion simply could not succeed without air and naval superiority and they would be mad to try it. South Korea I think would be harder to defend but still possible, the main wildcard being that fat f*ck in N. Korea being mad enough to use nukes.

Sparks · 16-07-2004 9:38pm

Originally posted by pork99
In the PRC it's official policy. In the US it's a crime. Next question please.

Next question: How can it be a crime when it's ordered by superior officers with strong indications that it was known about to at least Rumsfield's level for several months prior to the discovery of the photos? And how can torture continue in Guantanamo and Kandahar and other US army bases outside the US if it's not an offical policy?

I think a US invasion of mainland China is the stuff of fantasy. No, I think the sort of war the US prepare forin that region is a defensive war to protect Taiwan or South Korea and ultimately Japan.

So it's fantasy to think of invasion but sound military planning to plan to defend against one of the largest armed forces in the world, half-way round the globe from your resupply points?

Given their superiority in naval and air forces the US can successfully defend Taiwan.

I think perhaps you've misunderstood the numbers of aircraft involved here. The simple fact is that the US doesn't have enough aircraft to prevent the Chinese from simply throwing a sufficently high number of aircraft at the US forces to overwhelm and destroy them.

South Korea I think would be harder to defend but still possible, the main wildcard being that fat f*ck in N. Korea being mad enough to use nukes.

Nukes would not be required, given the number of artillery pieces the NKVD have along the border. Every major town and airbase within range would be rubble within a few hours of any conflict starting. And there's no way the USAF could have any significant effect on over 5,000 artillery pieces over a border running the width of the country, it's too big a task.

Basicly, the US is rattling it's sabre at a rather larger opponent it has no realistic hope of "beating", and the end result would be massive loss of life on the part of those unfortunates caught in the middle.

Ping Chow Chi · 16-07-2004 9:57pm

Its coming up to the election and lots a big ships off the coast of 'nasty' China will probably go down well with the people of America.

Hey if you have the big ships, why not put on a show

pork99 · 16-07-2004 10:45pm

Sparks, no matter who sanctioned torture in the US government it's against their laws and their constitution.

I was not talking about numeric superiority but technological superiority eg night & all weather capacity, stealth capabilities, satalite intelligence etc. YThese things are decisive in an air/naval campaign.

Also I read once that the North Koreans redeployed thier ground forces after the 1991 Gulf War. They dispersed them in order to present a less vulnerable target in the event of a war with South Korea nad the US. If they concentrate their ground force & artillery like that all they will achieve is to provide a bigger target fro the USAF & ROK AF. The North Korean Air Force is a pile of obsolete junk similiar to Iraq's pre 1991 and on the modern conventional battlefield it's air power which counts.

Sparks · 16-07-2004 11:25pm

Originally posted by pork99
Sparks, no matter who sanctioned torture in the US government it's against their laws and their constitution.

Actually, it's not - so long as the pain inflicted was not the sole objective of the person doing the inflicting.
Believe it or not, that's the offical line at the moment.

I was not talking about numeric superiority but technological superiority eg night & all weather capacity, stealth capabilities, satalite intelligence etc. YThese things are decisive in an air/naval campaign.

Only in a limited campaign. And if you think that the Chinese, when up against the US or any other opponent, would attempt to compete with that opponent on it's strongest points, you may need to re-read Sun Tzu....

Also I read once that the North Koreans redeployed thier ground forces after the 1991 Gulf War. They dispersed them in order to present a less vulnerable target in the event of a war with South Korea nad the US.

And I read once that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction that could be deployed in as little as 45 minutes....
Point being, their artillery is spread out - along the border between the ROK and the DPRK. It would do precious little good if they put it where it couldn't fire on the only realistic threat the DPRK perceives.

If they concentrate their ground force & artillery like that all they will achieve is to provide a bigger target fro the USAF & ROK AF.

So now we have the US and ROK forces trying to not only achieve air superiority against retrofitted MiG-21s and similar fighters (and Archers and Adders don't care about their launch platform all that much) but also attack 5,000 artillery groups stretched along a 151-mile long border.
There is such a thing as a target that's too big y'know...

The North Korean Air Force is a pile of obsolete junk similiar to Iraq's pre 1991 and on the modern conventional battlefield it's air power which counts.

Didn't the US have air superiority in Vietnam and Korea? And doesn't it have it in Iraq?
The modern conventional battlefield doesn't exist. Modern battles are asymmetric in nature, usually against guerilla tactics. You should be thinking Gaza or Baghdad rather than Normandy...

pork99 · 17-07-2004 12:07am

Originally posted by Sparks

So now we have the US and ROK forces trying to not only achieve air superiority against retrofitted MiG-21s and similar fighters (and Archers and Adders don't care about their launch platform all that much) but also attack 5,000 artillery groups stretched along a 151-mile long border.
There is such a thing as a target that's too big y'know...

Didn't the US have air superiority in Vietnam and Korea? And doesn't it have it in Iraq?
The modern conventional battlefield doesn't exist. Modern battles are asymmetric in nature, usually against guerilla tactics. You should be thinking Gaza or Baghdad rather than Normandy...

Well I think in any potential war in Korea or an attempted invasion of Taiwan would be a conventional war. Admittedly the North Koreans have 10s of thousands of troops in special forces type divisions whose role would be to infiltrate as far into the south as possible but I think the South Koreans should have local security fores to counter this threat.

The US's air superiority is of limited use in a situation like Iraq just as it was in Vietnam but what you are describing as "retrofitted MiG-21s and similar fighters" and "5,000 artillery groups stretched along a 151-mile long border" is also what is know as a "target rich environment"

In the case of Taiwan it would be very much like Normandy with the PRC attempting to land airborne and seaborne forces and to do that they simply have to win the air/sea battle first. I don't see any role for guerilla tactics whatsoever. THe only way the PRC can get onto Taiwan is a simple brute force conventional invasion.

The number of combat aircraft the PRC has capable of taking on the USN & USAF is actually quite limited. They have dozens of SU27s SU30s and J-10s but thousands of MIG 17s 19s znd 21s. They are in the process of modernising their air forces but by the time they have upgraded to the F-16 equivalent J-10 the US will be using F-22s.

You are saying that swarms of older fighters (which cannot fly at night or in all weathers) with upgraded missiles could over-run US air forces? Interesting idea but my money would still be on the yanks there. I hope I never see that put to the test though

Sparks · 17-07-2004 12:23am

Originally posted by pork99

what you are describing as "retrofitted MiG-21s and similar fighters" and "5,000 artillery groups stretched along a 151-mile long border" is also what is know as a "target rich environment"

Technically, Custer could have described Little Big Horn the same way...

The number of combat aircraft the PRC has capable of taking on the USN & USAF is actually quite limited. They have dozens of SU27s SU30s and J-10s but thousands of MIG 17s 19s znd 21s. They are in the process of modernising their air forces but by the time they have upgraded to the F-16 equivalent J-10 the US will be using F-22s.

As I said, Adders and Archers don't care too much about their launch platforms. And don't forget that both outperform their US equivalents. An F-22 may certainly be able to take on eight MiG 19s and win without the pilot breaking a sweat, but two hundred Mig-19s carrying AA-14s is a different ball game.

You are saying that swarms of older fighters (which cannot fly at night or in all weathers) with upgraded missiles could over-run US air forces?

Yes. Ants, you see. Individually, they're very squishable. Get enough together though, and they'll strip a rain forest to bare earth and bones.

I hope I never see that put to the test though

And on that we may comfortably agree.

Time Magazine · 17-07-2004 1:02am

I doubt America would take on China. I read somewhere (quite reliable, because I would have ignored otherwise) that China have something crazy like 7 million tanks. Not to mention sitting on UN, so it's hardly in America's interests to fight with this future trading partner.

I'm sure there are other reasons to show its military might. Maybe to focus more on North Korea? Perhaps they're just showing off.

Big Ears · 17-07-2004 3:02am

Originally posted by Angry Banana
I doubt America would take on China. I read somewhere (quite reliable, because I would have ignored otherwise) that China have something crazy like 7 million tanks.

nnyyyyyyrrrrrrmmmmmmmmm Microwave bomb ....................................tanks come to a halt.............people get out nnnnnnnnnnnyyyyyyyyyrrrrrrrrrrrrmmmmmmmmm DaisyCutter .

now whose the ones with the real weopons of mass destruction ?

BattleBoar · 17-07-2004 3:13am

The spread of capitalism in China will do more to prevent war from happening than any amount of weapons ever could.

Hobbes · 17-07-2004 4:28am

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
The point I am making is that acts of the kind that go on in Abu Ghraib are everyday occurrences on a massive scale in China, dwarfing even Abu Ghraib in scale.

Do you have links to that? Daily occurances? Have you even been to China?

bizmark · 17-07-2004 5:33am

Originally posted by Angry Banana
I doubt America would take on China. I read somewhere (quite reliable, because I would have ignored otherwise) that China have something crazy like 7 million tanks. Not to mention sitting on UN, so it's hardly in America's interests to fight with this future trading partner.

I'm sure there are other reasons to show its military might. Maybe to focus more on North Korea? Perhaps they're just showing off.

I think its somewhere around 10,000 tanks 2.8 million troops 4,400 aircraft mostly combat and over 100 navy combat vessels (destroyers frigates subs etc).

That was back in 2000 mind so it might of went up since then (or i might be wrong) their not american beating powerful but they sure as hell arent to be messed with

..Oh and on top of all that theres around 208 million men of militry age in china :eek:

Nuttzz · 17-07-2004 9:31am

Originally posted by Sparks

As I said, Adders and Archers don't care too much about their launch platforms. And don't forget that both outperform their US equivalents. An F-22 may certainly be able to take on eight MiG 19s and win without the pilot breaking a sweat, but two hundred Mig-19s carrying AA-14s is a different ball game.

you are assuming that they do get off the ground in the first place, It is extremely unlikely that there would be a US/PRC war why go to war with your biggest trading partner??? I would be like Ireland invading Newry, what purpose would it serve?

mike65 · 17-07-2004 11:23am

If we had an anoraks board this thread would be moved!

Mike.

Sparks · 17-07-2004 3:32pm

Originally posted by mike65
If we had an anoraks board this thread would be moved!
Mike.

True Mike, but then, this is an anoraks board - it's just that instead of taking train numbers, it's members talk about politicians

Goodshape · 17-07-2004 4:26pm

Could be that the US are trying to start another arms race?

Would that not prove profitable for many people in power in Washington today? While also sustaining the current levels of fear and uncertinty in the world?

Originally posted by Goodshape
Needless to say, the Chinese are not amused. They say that their naval and air forces, plus their land-based rockets, are capable of taking on one or two carrier strike groups but that combat with seven would overwhelm them. So even before a carrier reaches the Taiwan Strait, Beijing has announced it will embark on a crash project that will enable it to meet and defeat seven U.S. carrier strike groups within a decade.

ionapaul · 17-07-2004 5:35pm

I do know that the reason the Chinese defense budget has risen so dramatically in recent years is that in the aftermath of the US domination of the skies during the action again Serbia the Chinese military were aghast at the wide gulf between the skills and technological sophistication of the US airforce/army and their own. Quite simply the US military is the strongest in the world by those terms and the Chinese realised that is they ever would have a chance against the US in any conflict they would have to improve and improve quickly. Because, as someone already pointed out, by the time the Chinese will have upgraded to F-16 class aircraft the US will have F-22s, and so on.

China would be mad to invade Taiwan without ensuring that the US holds back or at least does not use its full might to defend the island. No army currently could stand up to the US military in a 'regular' conflict, guerrila tactics or those used by the Viet Cong would be the only ones that would work.