This Week at War: Let's Talk About China

A new book argues that it's time to have an open conversation about the security challenges posed by the Middle Kingdom's rise, even if Beijing gets offended. 

BY ROBERT HADDICK | SEPTEMBER 23, 2011

 

Upgrading Taiwan's F-16s avoids a problem now but may create another one later

Obama administration officials no doubt knew that their compromise package of arms sales to Taiwan would end up angering everyone involved with the issue. The White House passed on a proposal this week to sell 66 new F-16 C/D fighter-bombers to Taiwan, an aircraft assembled at Lockheed Martin's Fort Worth, Texas plant. Instead, Taiwan's old fleet of 145 F-16 A/B models will get an extensive upgrade including the latest generation radar, and much improved navigation, electronic warfare, and targeting electronics. Senators John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) are leading a congressional push to pass a bill requiring the administration to sell the new airplanes to Taiwan. For its part, China's Foreign Ministry registered a strong protest at the decision and called in Gary Locke, the U.S. ambassador to Beijing, for a dressing down. 

The administration's path was calibrated to avoid the regular ritual of provoking Beijing to cut off military-to-military contacts with the United States. With concerns over China's military buildup rising, U.S. officials have placed a high priority on military exchanges, with the hope of preventing miscalculations. This time around, the gambit may be working with China yet to invoke another suspension. Having left the possibility of an F-16 C/D sale in reserve, Washington gave Beijing an incentive to refrain from blowing up the relationship again. Should Chinese officials opt to escalate, the United States would have little to lose by then approving the sale of the new aircraft.

Lost in the discussion of the F-16s was the decision to supply Taiwan with 96 smart-bomb precision-aiming kits and 64 cluster bomb dispensers. Combined with the navigation, electronic warfare, and bomb-targeting upgrades, this package will significantly improve the offensive strike capability of Taiwan's F-16 fleet.

This offensive strike capability would permit Taiwan to hold at risk important targets in Southeast China. The package thus enhances conventional deterrence and could boost strategic stability across the Taiwan Strait. 

But this would require the F-16s to survive a Chinese missile barrage aimed at Taiwan's airfields and then get into the air. As discussed in the Pentagon's latest report on Chinese military power, China's large and ongoing buildup of land attack ballistic and cruise missiles threatens to shut down Taiwan's Air Force before it can take off.

Without a survivable second-strike capability, Taiwan could find itself in a "use it or lose it" dilemma during a crisis. Rather than wait for a Chinese missile barrage to either destroy or ground its Air Force, in extremis Taiwan might find itself compelled to attack pre-emptively in order to make use of its F-16s and in an attempt to minimize the damage it might think it would inevitably suffer. 

This is obviously an unstable and undesirable situation. In a previous column, I argued that what Taiwan really needs is its own inventory of mobile and concealable land-attack missiles, a force that could deter a Chinese attack.

Alternatively, Taiwan could acquire strike aircraft that don't require fixed air bases for their operations. The United States is developing just such an airplane for the U.S. Marine Corps, the short-takeoff vertical-landing F-35B Joint Strike Fighter. It should thus come as no surprise that a Taiwanese defense official suggested that if Taiwan can't get the F-16 C/D, maybe it should get the stealthy F-35 instead. An Obama administration official scoffed at the idea: "It's like not getting a Prius and asking for a custom-built Ferrari instead." 

Instead of scoffing, White House officials should instead think about what is required to prop up strategic stability in the southwest Pacific. With China's military spending galloping higher and the Pentagon's about to crash, the United States will need all the help from its allies it can get. In addition, simply repeating past practices without taking account of the dramatically changed circumstances over the Taiwan Strait could make things less rather than more stable. Policymakers on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue would benefit from assessing the Taiwan situation with a clean sheet of paper.

STR/AFP/Getty Images

 SUBJECTS:
 

Robert Haddick is managing editor of Small Wars Journal.

DODOBIRD

5:50 PM ET

September 24, 2011

nascent military threat to Middle East peace?

the upper banner caption read, ChangDu military region send Engineering Battalion to Lebanon for assitance;

- presumably under mandate of UN peacekeeping force, or possibly just to ingrate themselves w/ Arabs,

the right & left caption said, faithfully execute the mission, and help to maintain world peace!

Gasp! what affrontry, no shame?

 

EZRA

4:51 AM ET

September 25, 2011

?

"He recommends ... reaffirming U.S. alliances in Asia."

I would have said just the opposite. The US should, as gently as possible, withdraw from its east Asian alliances. Let Japan, S. Korea, Vietnam, et. al., feel the fear of being exposed to a China that could defeat each of them piecemeal. Then they will do one of two things: acquiesce in Chinese hegemony, or band together to fight it. Which one they choose depends on how they judge the likelihood of winning. If they believe they are strong enough together to counterbalance China, they will do so; if they believe even their combined strength will not be sufficient, they will seek individual accommodations. At present, I would say the advantage lies with this hypothetical anti-China alliance, but that advantage is diminishing. The US must therefore implement this policy right away. The same policy pursued ten or twenty years from now may well have the opposite effect.

Having an explicit alliance with any country is really only a matter of convenience, of formalizing a relationship that already exists naturally. In the event of war, Japan et. al. will be forced to seek an American alliance if their own strength is insufficient. The trick is to arrange it so that if/when a general war breaks out, the US is not involved at first. Let China and an anti-Chinese alliance fight it out for a spell; thereafter, the US may become involved, if necessary. This is, of course, exactly the opposite of the current US "tripwire" policy.

Of course, there is little hope for any constructive change as long as a leading contender for the presidency of the US makes foreign policy decisions based on what Zeus says, oh, wait, I mean Jehovah.

 

SAIF UR REHMAN

11:21 AM ET

September 25, 2011

option for taiwan

Rather americans thinking options of strike,counter strike or preemptive strikes for taiwan, why dont Taiwanese people think for themselves that is it not better to combine with mainland rather be divided and give a chance for the foreigners to intervene? Afterall both mainland and taiwan are chinese.

 

XINGLONGNITE

12:24 AM ET

September 26, 2011

China policy is subject the US can't discuss in the open

The long stream of US policies toward china has neither been just nor moral. Had China just disappear like Iraq or Libya everthing would be alright to talk about. But China didn't. The more we discuss about China the more awkward and incoherent our policies toward China will become. So it's better to let everhthing be cloaked in a thick fog of mystry, so that one day it could be gradually undo or changed without raising much a fuss.

 

BIG THINK

2:15 PM ET

September 26, 2011

is Taiwan worth it?

What would be the threat to US interests if we supported the PRC policy of reintegrating Taiwan into the greater (and true) China much the same as how Hong Kong has survived the British giving it back to them?

Why should we risk our relationship with China now that the "cold war" BS of backing "the Peanut" Chiang-kai shek's legacay is over? He didn't help us a bit against fighting the Japanese in WWII. We"ve dumped billions of dollars into Taiwan - for what? Why should we continue to risk the future for idealogical nostalgia? Do Americans support going to war with China over who does or does not control the Formosa straights?

The USA has always had much better relations with the chinese than the Europeans have had. The future is at our doorstep. We need to pull our heads out of where the sun doesn't shine and place much greater importance on forging permanent and long-lasting relations with the PRC.

 

SARAHZ

6:28 PM ET

October 11, 2011

U.S vs. China-A Hidden Rivalry

Friedberg’s analysis does bring the unspoken ugly truth that is lurking in between U.S and China to the surface, in spite of the constant evasion, denial and rubbishing of the same by both these countries. China has slowly risen to be a great power posing a potential threat to the hegemony of U.S in the East Asia. U.S’ sale of Arms to Taiwan has put both these vitalzym countries on the radar of China and it will not be long before it acts vindictively against these nations. U.S should devise new strategies to address this issue.

 

YARINSIZ

6:18 PM ET

October 18, 2011

The same policy pursued ten

The same policy pursued ten or twenty years from now may well have the opposite effect. Having an explicit alliance with any country is really only a matter of convenience, of formalizing a relationship that already exists naturally. In the event of war, Japan et. al. will be forced to seek an American alliance if their own strength is insufficient. seslichatThe trick is to arrange it so that if/when a general war breaks out, the US is not involved at first. Let China and an anti-Chinese alliance fight it out for a spell; thereafter, the US may become involved, if necessary. This is, of course, exactly the opposite of the current US "tripwire" policy