Friday, November 08, 2013

Guam is no longer a viable base for Marines. Australia is our last hope in the region.

Check out this passage from Bill Gertz writing for the Free Beacon (read it all here).
“PLA modernization is on track to alter the security balance in Asia over the next five to 10 years, challenging decades of U.S. military preeminence,” the report concludes.
On the bomber, the People’s Liberation Army in June accepted the first of 15 new Hongzha-6K, or H-6K, bombers. The bomber is based on a late 1950s Soviet design but has an extended range. However, its long-range cruise missile is new.
The report said the H-6K, also known as “Zhan Shen” or God of War, “can carry China’s new long-range land-attack cruise missile (LACM).”
“The bomber/LACM weapon system provides the PLA Air Force with the ability to conduct conventional strikes against regional targets throughout the western Pacific, including U.S. facilities in Guam,” the report said.
Guam is being built up by the U.S. military as a key strategic military hub as part of the new “pivot” strategy of realigning forces toward Asia.
The report said China’s new land-attack missile can be equipped with a nuclear warhead. However, so far there is no confirmation that the new missile is armed with nuclear warheads.
Not only are Chinese politicians smarter than our own (not really saying much) but it also appears that they have better strategist that guide their procurement.  For every move that the US makes the Chinese are quick with a counter move.  We do military partnerships, China makes those same countries economically reliant on trade or exports to China for their survival. We sell our high tech arms to our allies, China is quick to buy whatever good or service that country offers.

We decide to stage Marines on Guam.  China develops a modernized version of the Soviet B-52 analogy and equip it with advanced land attack cruise missiles to pummel the island at distance.

China has taken Guam off the board.

Australia is basically our final redoubt.  We have been pushed to the third chain of islands before the first shot was fired. 

Note:  If you think I'm being too doom and gloom about this then please tell me where I'm wrong.  This is one time where I would love to say "my bad" and that I misread the entire situation.


  1. And Australia buried it's last hope at any stand off defence in 2010 when the F-111s were scrapped and literally put into their graves.

    Putting new long range missiles on the F-111 would have hurt any plans to launch long range LACMs, but no...

    1. No problem.
      Australia ordered the mighty F-35!

    2. I do not think China will start 3rd World War. They have to think 10 times before doing that.U.S. Navy and Air Force have more than that capable of turning China into a waste land. First, the Burke Class Destroyers will rain them with ICBM.Then the Virginia Class Subs will do the same. F-35s and F-18's that can be transformed into a Bomber not forgetting the B-52's, B-2's and F-111's plus a fully loaded Aircraft Carriers with pilot less F-16's that can be converted into a Nuclear Bomber. Plus the ever ready ICBM's in their silos in continental USA. I DON'T THINK SO!!!!

  2. Just as striking mainland China is a no-go, so is striking Guam, it becomes a nuclear issue at that point. Well, not with the current weak National Command Authority.

    1. you're inching to where i'm coming from. its not just about military capability. if the Chinese struck Guam today, we could militarily muster up a defense and hold them at bay.....BUT! how long would it take Obama to actually come to a decision?

      if the Chinese conducted one massive strike. instituted an operational pause of 24 hours to give us time to get our wounded to safety as long as we did not reinforce the island do you think that he would go for that or do the hard and right thing and say fuck you its on? additionally the way things are in the Pacific i'm sure the Chinese have some type of claim on the islands that dates back to 400BC. so add in UN Security Counsel talk and you have a fait accompli.

      Military weakness with political stupidity makes Guam vulnerable.

    2. If the Chinese tried something like that Obama will murder them , I don't know why you people at like he's weak or something stop listening to Fox News

    3. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  3. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  4. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  5. Three reasons China would not attack US:

    1. U.S. trade in goods with China
    2012: US imports $425 billion, exports $110 billion.

    2. China holds US Treasury securities
    Aug 2013: $1.3 trillion

    3. China is doing just fine -- a war would change that.
    --China has the world's largest positive account balance, the US the largest negative balance.
    --China is investing all over the world and maximizing control of natural resources thereby.

    1. This is the "old thinking" and it's dangerous in a new world.

      Points 1 & 2 rely on the full faith and credit of the US government to pay our debts and maintain nominal inflation. I believe we just signed that we will do neither. What does a lein holder after default? Think about that.

      Point 3 is just dead wrong. China is facing a political and economic crisis. Google "ghost cities." The only reason this isn't widely accepted is Bejing keeps a tight lip on the reality on the ground. China is presumed to be a net saver because they buy everything. But they do so at the expense of wages/quality of life and infastructure. How, in history, do nations reset these expectations? How does a Communist nation maintain control?

      Clinton screwed us folks. He created a monster with the old thinking and now we're going to have deal with it.

    2. That sounds reasonable.
      What happens in case your opponent is not as reasonable as someone may think?
      Senkaku Islands, South China Sea, ...?

    3. There was no problem with the disputed Senkakus until PM Abe of Japan nationalized the islands. How reasonable was that? Abe is looking for trouble and he may get it. He expects the US to back him -- but there's no certainty in that. South China Sea -- the locals will work it out. Both of these are not worth one American life, not one.

      Regarding offensive weapons, China does have ICBMs, I'm told. But China (like most countries) have not attacked, invaded and occupied any other country so why would they attack their best customer. WalMart wouldn't allow it.

    4. "China would not attack the US".

      But would they aggressively defend themselves from US interference in "internal Chinese matters"?

      Taiwan is China according to China. If we tried to intercede, they'd put up such a curtain of fire around Taiwan, we couldn't come to their aid without suffering massive losses.

    5. @ Don Bacon

      > PM Abe of Japan nationalized the islands.

      It was done during the DPJ Prime Minister Noda's time. But his hands were forced as the ultra rightwinger Ishihara tried to buy the Diaoyu Islands and turned into a tourist resort as to strengthen Japan's claims, when the islands were off limit to civilians until then. Noda was hoping that his administration purchasing the islands to keep civilians out would appease the Chinese, but the Chinese were looking for whatever the execuse to raise tensions.

      > He expects the US to back him -- but there's no certainty in that.

      Japan will get the full US military intervention per the terms of US-Japan mutual defense treaty, although Japan doesn't anticipate it would need to invoke the US help in repelling two Chinese invasion fleets in a decisive naval battle.

      > But China (like most countries) have not attacked, invaded and occupied any other country

      So you never heard of Tibet, Turkestan, and Mongolia(parts of it)?

  6. There is a danger in putting a traditionally western spin on an eastern strategy. The West, traditionally seeks a decisive engagement, as taught by Clausewitz, while the East advocates the destruction of the enemy strategy. The Chinese strategy is very visible in the following statement: "We do military partnerships, China makes those same countries economically reliant on trade or exports to China for their survival. We sell our high tech arms to our allies, China is quick to buy whatever good or service that country offers."

    China does NOT seek a decisive battle. Its strategy is to patiently accumulate relative strengths and position, which individually are small but cumulatively have a large strategic impact. IMO, their military build up is a distraction designed to lure the US into ignoring their more aggressive political and economic maneuvers.

    1. Excellent.
      Taoism -- the patient Way. And geo-strategically in Asia, China is moving strongly into Central Asia (New Silk Road) with its resources while the US is stuck on old thinking in the relatively unproductive western Pacific while it slinks out of Afghanistan -- the southern key to Central Asia.

    2. Agreed. They'd first be using soft, indirect methods like economic pressure and other means like cyber warfare/ disinformation before they would decide to resort to hard, direct methods.

  7. This just supports the Me-262 analogy from a couple days ago. China won't bother going against US fighters, they'd take out US bases instead. Hundreds of MRBM and air-launched cruise missiles would be taking out Okinawa, Guam, etc. Imagine a scenario where F-22s and F-35s, on their wobbly legs, launch from Okinawa or Phillipines supported by AWACs and tankers.

    While they are mid-way, China launches MRBM strikes against our airbases, taking out runways, underground fuel tanks, hangars. Our tankers and AWACs are targeted by J20s armed with LR AAMs, their air force just waits out until our fighters run low on fuel and turn back, then they launch a second wave of MRBMs and bomber launched cruise missiles to nail whatever they missed the first wave.

    Our fighters, those that can find civilian airports within range, land dispersed and incapable of launching again and are thus combat ineffective.

    We have to develop new cruise missiles, both supersonic and stealthy ones. And then we have to start procuring 747s modified to launch those cruise missiles.

    100 B747s, launching 70 cruise missile each, could plaster Chinese ports and airfields. Hundreds of cruise missiles, launched from container ships, could keep up the attack, then follow it up with successive waves of B747s and submarine launched cruise missiles.

    work out a deal with the Russians to scrap the IMF outside of Europe and bring back the Pershing 2 and updated versions of the GLCM. The Chinese launch their MRBMs, we launch ours.

    1. We no longer posse a healthy industrial base for intermediate ballistic missile, while China now has the most advanced and comprehensive ballistic missile/solid rocket portfolio in the world. Matching their strong point with our weakness is a losing proposition.

    2. A 747 cannot carry 70 cruise missiles. And a cruise missile arsenal ship, at least a semi-submersible one carrying 300 missiles is a better choice. An Ohio class carries 154 tomahawks, but a ship/sub built for this purpose from scratch would double this figure.

  8. The Chinese is applying the boiling frog strategy. They are methodically bleeding us dry by gradually dismantling our manufacturing base and economic vitality. Once their currency replaces US dollar (some experts now predict this can happen as soon as 5 years from now), our last trump card in the global financial system disappears. By then China will make their ambition of lost empire reconquista clear to all players in the region.

    1. China didn't do that. The US government has had an active program to export jobs which involves the Department of Commerce and the ambassadors in many countries, as well as the American (tied to U.S.) Chamber of Commerce which has offices in many countries. USAID funds from the State Department are used to train foreign workers, and also to provide consultants.

      Our friends at Lockheed had a big part too, prodded by the government, with so-called "offset" agreements which provided investment and jobs in various fields -- automotive, electronics, etc. -- in countries purchasing the F-16. LM worked directly with the commerce desks and ambassadors in the countries involved. The USA ambassador to Poland bragged that he and his team had set up jobs worth twice the value of the F-16 purchase in Poland. They may be doing it on the F-35, but all we hear about is co-production which is bad also.

      Here's Robert Reich, Clinton's Labor Secretary, April 22, 2004:
      "Outsourcing isn't to blame for the slow recovery. The jobs recovery has been anemic because there hasn't been enough demand to restart the jobs machine. . .Despite the long-term trend toward outsourcing IT jobs, there will continue to be plenty of IT work in the United States in years to come. In the next five years, outsourcing won't amount to much. At most, we're talking about a few hundred thousand jobs subtracted from an American labor market that is likely to generate 10 million new jobs."

      Why does the US government, both political parties, do this? Because politicians are totally corrupt and so they seek to repay the people who largely fund their campaigns, with cheap labor.

      Let's stop blaming others. "We have met the enemy and it is us." -- Pogo

    2. @ Don Bacon

      Offering "offset" is a standard practice in international arms trading; the US also demands the same when it buys foreign arms under the term "Buy America" that requires foreign arms to contain at least 60% US content or better. Beside, the US offers the worst offset term of all major arms sellers; the other guys are far more generous.

      For example, Sweden was offering Romania "nearly new" Gripens for the price of 20 year old ex-USAF F-16s, while China and Russia include a generous tech transfer and source code for buying their weapons, which was the reason why Turkey picked the HQ-9 missile over the PAC-3.

    3. @SlowMan
      Your comments are totally irrelevant to the thread.

    4. Don Bacon,

      It is relevant to your claims of US defense contractors and Pentagon exporting jobs. Offset is a normal part of all big arms trades.

  9. I believe Japan etc should be responsible for their own defence and develop a2/ad systems.
    As Paralus suggested, long range, stealthy cruise missiles should be America's contribution to defence. Converted merchant ships carrying soft launch cruise missiles could be integrated into carrier battle groups
    (keeping cost down). B52's reworked to also carry these cruise missiles. Perhaps in the future a medium sized transport plane can be produced with the ability to carry these missiles, or troops, or act as aerial refuellers.
    Japan et al are made responsible for developing a2/ad to protect themselves. Far smaller US presence in these countries. A chinese first strike could cause massive American troop casualties resulting in calls for peace in America. Cyber and long range cruise missiles used to keep Americans safer way out in the Pacific.
    The goal of these attacks should be Chinese command, control, communications (civilian as well as military) as well as power plants, power grids, and any other essential utilities that come to mind. This attack should be over-whelming in the first 24 hours (3000+ missles), followed by calls for peace. Hopefully the Chinese infra-structure would have taken enough of a blow that their ability the capture and, more importantly hold onto teritorial gains, is serverly comprimised.

    1. @ Dave P

      Well, it was the US that pressured Japan to scrap its own missile defense system and join the US MD. So why did the US drag Japan into Missile Defense? Because they were planning to intercept the US bound ICBMs from Japan. Turns out the X-band radars deployed in Japan cannot detect North Korean and Chinese ICBMs in time for an interception, so the US is now trying to drag Korea whose radars can detect the ICBMs in seconds into the missile defense but Korea is fiercely resisting, because the US is demanding Korea to send the radar data to Japan whose SM-3 interceptors will then try to shoot the US bound ICBMs down but Korea doesn't want to send its real time radar data to what it perceives as an enemy(Japan).

      Furthermore, the US troop reduction in Asia means a reduced US influences, which is exactly what China wants to see. For example, China promised to essentially hand over North Korea to Seoul by cutting off all supplies and not intervening during the second war, in exchange for Seoul kicking out the US troops from Korea after the war, because China doesn't want to see the F-22 based 400 miles away from Beijing in the Unified Korea, and US carrier battle groups and nuclear subs based 330 miles from Shanghai.

      So keep in mind that the US troop reduction/pullout is exactly what China wants to see.

    2. @SlowMan
      The 1954 Armistice Agreement between the United Nations and China/NorKor was supposed to lead to the withdrawal of all foreign forces from Korea.

      60. In order to insure the peaceful settlement of the Korean question, the military Commanders of both sides hereby recommend to the governments of the countries concerned on both sides that, within three (3) months after the Armistice Agreement is signed and becomes effective, a political conference of a higher level of both sides be held by representatives appointed respectively to settle through negotiation the questions of the withdrawal of all foreign forces from Korea, the peaceful settlement of the Korean question, etc.

    3. Don Bacon,

      Well, the text says "recommended", not "required".

      Anyhow, where the US troop sit today are prime real estates in terms of the access to high value Chinese targets(Beijing, Shanghai), and there is no way the US is giving up on that, and this is why China was making such an offer, just to get rid of US troops next door.

  10. First, the money
    There dollars in assembly, not $$$, $, singular, a couple of them.
    There is $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ in design.

    Its easy to say the US would be better off building it itself than paying china to assemble, and in a two nation world, you would be right.
    But we dont live in a two nation world.

    Lets say Apple stops having its iPods built for $5 a pop, and pays big jims soldering ltd to do it, for $50 a pop.
    TrT (in the UK) logs on to Amazon, does he buy the Apple iPod, safe in the knowledge that its built in the Good Ole USA, or does he buy the similarly spec'ed Ipple aPod for $45 less?

    Bush "saved" US Steel.
    GM and Ford were forced to use expensive steel.
    Toyota wasnt.
    Now, GMs problems went well beyond expensive raw materials, but it sure a shit didnt help!

    Its hard to see how any fixed bases will survive a serious first strike.
    But the US maintains the largest supply of mobile bases, and China does not.

    1. thats a false argument. manufacturing has knock on effects when it comes to generating money. you have cafes that feed workers, you have income that is taxed, schools for the kids of those workers, public facilities and housing for those workers, materials have to be sourced and are taxed, etc....

      we in essence are financing at the expense of our own needs China's rise. its not a matter of savings. if the mythical ipad was produced in the US the wages of the average worker would be higher meaning that a more expensive ipad wouldn't be a issue. besides we all know that the real reason for the increased cost of products has nothing to do with supply and demand or even resources it has to do with stockholders demanding double digit increases in stock value.

    2. Wow. You guys have been playing a lot of BattleField 4. Jokes apart and China rising Rhetoric/Obama bashing devoid, lets all calm down and re-evaluate the situation and come up with alternatives. One must never fight the way the enemy wants us to fight, where the enemy wants us to fight and on predictable lines. The chinese are hell bent on dominating the Naval/Island Hopping Scenario if you please and you guys and your Pacific Allies are also Hell bent on preventing such a scenario. In effect, you have already been put on a defensive stance mentally.

    3. And furthermore, all this talk about the Chinese and not one mention of the country sharing the largest boundry with china and the only country with an Unresolved Boundry issue with the Chinese- India. Also, the only country which has deployed/ in the process of deploying Corps level forces right on the International border. The Indian Govt. recentyl decided to increase the army by another 200,000 troops specifically meant to be deployed on the Sino-Indian front in addition to the troops already deployed. This dwarfes the Naval/Island Hopping Scenario of using 2 at most 3 marine divisions in the south china sea scenario. Right now the Indian Govt. is focussing on having atleast 400,000 troops supported by a tank division+ a tank brigade along with atleast 35 Airforce Squadrons dedicated to the china front. I'll update this figure later when i come across more figures


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.