South China Sea Yes Conflict



Download 0.84 Mb.
Page3/20
Date18.10.2016
Size0.84 Mb.
#2955
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   20

Mil Modernization

SCS conflict will escalate – stakes are too high, China is modernizing its technology and all other US responses have failed.


Barno and Bensahel 6-14 - David Barno And Nora Bensahel, Lt. General David W. Barno, USA (Ret.) is a Distinguished Practitioner in Residence, and Dr. Nora Bensahel is a Distinguished Scholar in Residence, at the School of International Service at American University, 2016 (“A Guide To Stepping It Up In The South China Sea,” War on the Rocks, June 14, 2016, Accessed July 11, 2016, Available Online at http://warontherocks.com/2016/06/a-guide-to-stepping-it-up-in-the-south-china-sea/, KC)

The South China Sea has become one of the most dangerous flashpoints in the world as China continues to aggressively expand its influence and capabilities there. One year ago, we proposed several ways in which the United States could try to deter further Chinese encroachments. But, as the recent Shangri-La Dialogue demonstrated, tensions in the region have only risen since then. The Chinese have only accelerated their bellicose behavior, and nothing the United States has done has seemed to have any effect. The United States and its partners now have no choice but to consider a wider range of more assertive responses.

We are not seeking a conflict with China, nor do we advocate a war. We do not believe that China is an inevitable adversary of the United States. But we are increasingly concerned that Chinese actions in the South China Sea, if left unopposed, will give it de facto dominance of an area that is a vital strategic interest to the United States. More direct U.S. actions would involve significant risks — but so would failing to act, and those risks are far less appreciated.



Why does the South China Sea matter? It is one of the world’s most important shipping lanes, transited by about one-third of global commercial goods each year. It lies atop at least seven billion barrels of oil and an estimated 900 million cubic feet of natural gas. Conflicting claims to these important waters abound. These involve several U.S. allies and friends and will likely be exacerbated by the pending outcome of an international court case between China and the Philippines. Chinese efforts to establish sovereign claims over these key international waters not only threaten unimpeded access to global shipping lanes and U.S. partners in the region, but also set a dangerous global precedent. Beijing’s forceful efforts are intended to establish regional hegemony by creating a zone of “near seas” over which it can claim sole control.

During the past year, Chinese actions have grown bolder. They have completed land reclamation efforts at the three largest outposts in the South China Sea and are now focusing on developing infrastructure. Each one already has an airfield with a 9,800-foot runway, which is long enough to land most military aircraft. They have also landed a military jet on Fiery Cross Reef and deployed advanced fighters and surface-to-air missiles on Woody Island in the Paracels. Taken together, these capabilities provide forward-positioned power projection platforms for Chinese fighters, bombers, and reconnaissance aircraft. Aircraft from these bases could easily reach — and possibly enforce — Chinese claims out to the so-called “nine-dash line” that borders the easternmost rim of the South China Sea. Chinese Navy ships and maritime militia can also use these outposts as refueling and provisioning stops that extend their sea presence across this vast expanse. U.S. aircraft carriers are at best transient visitors in these same waters, and no other country in the region can project and sustain the air and naval presence in the South China Sea that these fixed bases now offer.

The United States has responded to this continued expansion with ever stronger warnings and actions. Most notably, the United States conducted its first freedom of navigation operation (FONOP) in the South China Sea in October 2015, when a U.S. destroyer sailed within 12 miles of Subi Reef to demonstrate that the United States rejects any Chinese maritime claims emanating from its artificial islands. At least two other FONOPs have been conducted since then, and the head of U.S. Pacific Command, Admiral Harry Harris, has stated that future FONOPs will increase in number, scope, and complexity.

Yet Chinese confrontational actions are nevertheless continuing and even escalating. In recent months, for example, Chinese fighter jets have flown dangerously close to U.S. reconnaissance aircraft in both the South and East China Seas, violating an agreement that the United States and China signed last year on safe conduct in the air. And the Chinese government recently announced that it is considering establishing an Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) over the South China Sea as a further signal of its security claims to this key region.

China has subtly but forcefully established a permanent presence across a series of outposts on territory that did not exist five years ago. This is the new reality of the South China Sea. As a result, the United States and its regional partners now have little choice but to consider a broader and stronger range of options. These actions should be designed to achieve two primary objectives: to deter China from further expansion and combative behaviors and to better position the United States and its partners for military action to defend the international commons, if required.



We readily acknowledge that these objectives may conflict with each other, and that more options risk provoking precisely the type of conflict that the United States seeks to avoid. But failing to take stronger action also runs the very serious risk that the Chinese will gradually but inevitably gain control of this critical maritime region. That would weaken the regional position of U.S. allies and partners, but even more importantly, it would challenge the vital and longstanding U.S. interest in maintaining global freedom of navigation.

Military modernization and A2/AD capabilities massively increase the risk of conflict


Torsvoll 15 – Eirik Torsvoll, research assistant at PluriCourts, an Oslo-based research center for the study of the legitimate roles of the judiciary in the global order, Winter 2015(“Deterring Conflict with China: A Comparison of the Air-Sea Battle Concept, Offshore Control, and Deterrence by Denial,” The Fletcher Forum of World Affairs, VOL. 39:1 WINTER 2015, Accessed 6/28/16, AJ)

Anti-access and area-denial are fairly recent concepts, referring to attempts to deny an adversary access to, as well as the ability to maneuver near and within, a military theater of operation.' However, these are well established goals in combat, and A2/AD measures in this sense are nothing new.1° What is new are the recent advances in both technology and proliferation that have made A2/AD capabilities much more potent. Developments in missile technology have been particularly important in this regard. They have radically changed the balance between offense and defense in favor of the latter, and will arguably be at the forefront of almost all intricate regional problems facing Washington and Beijing."

China has been emboldened by the development of anti-access forces at an unprecedented rate. Its current A2/ AD capabilities comprise a formidable fusion of a "new generation of cruise, ballistic, air-to-air, and surface-to-air missiles with improved range, accuracy, and lethality."12 This includes the muchtouted anti-ship ballistic missile, nicknamed the "carrier-killer," which China has been integrating into the People's Liberation Army (PLA) doctrine."3 China is coupling these weapons with modernized submarines, fighter jets, and sea mining capabilities. The missiles will be able to accurately attack U.S. forces and forward bases at ranges exceeding 1,000 nautical miles."4 In addition, new developments in anti-satellite and cyber capabilities create other opportunities to hinder U.S. power projection abilities.

In a hypothetical conflict scenario, Chinese capabilities, in combination with the maritime geography of the region (where U.S. power projection is heavily reliant on island bases and bases on allied soil), would create a difficult environment for U.S. forces. China's A2/AD capacity would, at the very outset, create doubt in the ability of the United States to intervene. Furthermore, their capabilities could constrain the scope of an intervention, or push the United States to deploy at more distant locations."5 Such deployment problems would be further exacerbated by the "tyranny of distance," as U.S. forces would have to operate far from home, encountering a range of logistical challenges, while the theater of operations would take place in China's backyard.16

The rapid expansion of Chinas military can thus be seen as a calculated approach to counter the superior strength of the U.S. military, playing on the American weakness of distance, while building on its own technological strengths. The result could be defeat for U.S. forces in the region by preventing them from fulfilling their military goals, while allowing the PRC to successfully expand its influence in the island chain. Alternatively, inaction, or a lack of response on the part of the United States, might inaccurately convince leaders in Beijing that they would be facing an easy or no-war scenario, which, if confronted by a determined Washington, could in fact involve huge losses in blood and treasure. 7


Download 0.84 Mb.

Share with your friends:
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   20



The database is protected by copyright ©ininet.org 2024
send message
    Main page
united states
south china sea
east china sea
permanent court