Oil Companies together with the Bush and Trump administration have kept the global warming debate alive long after most scientists believed that global warming was real and had potentially catastrophic consequences. We need to be aware and to change this policy before we get to the point of no return............Amor Patriae
ECOLOGY AND ENERGY PRODUCTION
Saturday, July 30, 2022
Alaska: America’s Strategic Frontier
CARGO PLANE CARRIES AN ARSENAL OF MISSILES TO DEFEND ALASKA
Increasingly capable long-range air-launched munitions have already granted new life to elder statesmen like the B-52 Stratofortress, but the Air Force's Rapid Dragon program aims to take this concept to the next level. Rather than relying solely on heavy payload bombers and strike fighters to deliver stand-off munitions, Rapid Dragon will allow America's large fleets of cargo aircraft to join the fight as missile-packing arsenal ships. In fact, this system could even turn cargo aircraft into incredibly potent warship hunters if a conflict were ever to break out over the Pacific.
Over the past decade, nations bordering on the Arctic have found themselves with a big new security problem. The melting of the arctic ice has opened up shipping lanes and opportunities for the exploitation for undersea resources, but has also exposed vulnerabilities for countries that have long considered their northern frontier secure.
It’s not surprising that Russia has prepared its military for arctic operations better than any other country. During the Cold War, the Soviet Union prepared to fight across the Arctic, both in the air and at sea. Many of the weapons and much of the expertise from that era have remained, leaving the Kremlin with a lethal set of capabilities. Here are five systems we can expect Russia to use in order to defend its interests in the Arctic Ocean, in case the unthinkable ever occurred.
Icebreakers:
The single most important vessel for access to the arctic is the icebreaker, and Russia retains the most extensive fleet of icebreakers anywhere in the world. Warming does not eliminate arctic ice, but instead makes the movement of ice more fluid and less predictable. As access to the Arctic improves, and as the commercial interest in exploiting the region increases, the movement of ice and increased frequency of military and civilian use will make icebreakers more necessary than ever. Both civilian and military ships will require the support of icebreakers in order to proceed with their regular tasks, and for the foreseeable future, Russia is best equipped to serve as the guarantor of global access to the Arctic.
Under the auspices of its civilian nuclear-power agency, Russia operates four nuclear-powered, ocean-going icebreakers—ships that have sufficient power and range to support military expeditions across the Arctic. Russia also has a wide array of conventionally powered icebreakers at its disposal. By contrast, the United States has access only to a trio of U.S. Coast Guard icebreakers, as well as to a handful of Canadian Coast Guard vessels.
Icebreakers guarantee Russian military access to the Arctic with a certainty that no other country enjoys. This gives Russia great freedom in planning its military and resource access strategy in the polar region.
Sometimes the best way to manage ice is to avoid it altogether. The American, British and Soviet navies tangled extensively under the Arctic Ocean during the Cold War, as boomers and attack subs tracked one another. Russian submariners have extensive experience operating in the Arctic, and an extensive support structure in old Soviet bases along the ocean’s rim.
The premier Russian nuclear attack vessel remains the Akula, a monster of a boat that can carry a vast arsenal of weapons. Although built in the 1980s, the Akula can operate effectively in anti-submarine roles (either under the ice or under open seas), and in anti-shipping roles (where a reduction in surface ice can make cruise missiles somewhat more effective). The Akula isn’t quite as quiet as its Western counterparts, but it makes up for that deficiency in size and weapons load. The Russian Northern Fleet, normally tasked with arctic ops, currently maintains six Akulas, which regularly operate under the icepack.
MiG-31:
Even as the sea ice clears, conditions in the Arctic will make it difficult to conduct carrier operations, increasing the importance of land-based aircraft. Operating from bases along the rim of the Arctic, the MiG-31 Foxhound—a fast, long-legged interceptor developed from the MiG-25 Foxbat, can cover a lot of space.
The MiG-31 and its predecessor were designed to hunt and kill American bombers as they attempted to penetrate Soviet air defenses. Although the MiG-25 performed only adequately when pressed into an air-to-air combat role, the Foxhound has better radars and superior maneuverability, making it a more effective air-superiority platform.
To be sure, the Foxhound would struggle in a tangle against the most advanced generation-4.5 and generation-5 fighters the United States has to offer, but given the lack of bases, they may not be around to fight. The Foxhound can make mach 2.83 at altitude, with a combat radius of about 900 miles. Russia operates around 200 MiG-31s between the Navy and the Air Force, and has taken steps to revive and improve the infrastructure to support its arctic airbases.
Tu-95/Tu-142:
The Tu-95 Bear is one of the oldest combat aircraft still operational. Like the B-52, it flies in a strategic environment far from what its engineers intended in the 1950s. However, like the B-52 the Tu-95, has proven a very flexible airframe, and its variants have long operated in a maritime patrol configuration. The Tu-95 (and its maritime variant, the Tu-142) are particularly at home in the cold, bleak skies of the arctic, where land bases are distant and carrier operations often impractical.
In its classic Tu-95 variant, the Bear can carry anti-ship and anti-surface cruise missiles. Its maritime patrol variant, the Tu-142, can conduct anti-submarine operations. With a combat radius upwards of 3000 miles, the Bear can operate well beyond the reach of land- and carrier-based fighters, which is fortunate, because the Bear can no longer run from enemy interceptors. As with the B-52, Russia expects the Bear to continue in service for several more decades, providing a proven sea-control option.
Special Forces:
The Arctic Ocean lacks large landmasses and significant population centers. The forbidding climate makes even the largest islands virtually uninhabitable. In these conditions, the military has little use for large infantry or armored formations. Instead, formations that emphasize mobility and lethality carry the day.
Russian special forces have long prepared for warfare in the arctic. During the Cold War, Spetsnaz teams trained to attack NATO installations in Norway, the Faroes, Iceland and elsewhere. In recent years, Russia has stepped up training of special-forces formations intended for deployment in the Arctic. Submarines, aircraft and surface ships can deliver these teams, which can take and hold inaccessible areas, conduct reconnaissance and disrupt communications. Special forces can also assist in search and rescue missions of civilian workers and teams in inaccessible regions.
Conclusion:
The legacy systems of the Cold War have left Russia well prepared for competition over the Arctic. Russia’s challenge will be to maintain these systems in service (the Bear and the Foxhound have grown long in the tooth, as have many of the icebreakers) and develop effective replacements. Russia’s current financial problems, associated with the collapse of oil prices and the sanctions imposed by the West, will make it difficult for the military to pursue an effective transformation strategy. However, if climate change continues as many models expect, the responsibilities and opportunities for the Russian military in the Arctic will only increase.
As Russia and China expand their commercial and military activities in the Arctic, airmen should prepare for a corresponding uptick of U.S. and partner activity in that region, according to the Air Force's top general.
During a panel hosted by the Atlantic Council, Chief of Staff Gen. David Goldfein told audiences that the anticipated increase will require airmen to be expeditionary and to become accustomed to Arctic warfare exercises.
With the demand for military activity anticipated to rise, the Air National Guard's LC-130 "Skibird" will likely deploy to the polar region more often, he said. The Air Force has only 10 LC-130 aircraft -- equipped with ski-like landing gear -- which are used for operations in Greenland, as well as Antarctica.
The service is responsible for nearly 80 percent of the Defense Department's Arctic funding, with substantial contribution to two major military bases in Alaska, training ranges, early missile defense warning systems, and satellite command-and-control stations in the region, according to the new strategy. With the service leading these initiatives, airmen have the means through "inherent rapid-response and long-range capabilities" to respond to events, even catastrophic ones, happening in the high north, it adds.
The Air Force is watching its adversaries, Barrett said Tuesday. As Arctic ice continues to melt, Russia has emphasized its push for undersea intelligence gathering -- from submarines to drone operations -- within the Northern Sea route, in addition to its development of air defense and coastal missile systems. Further complicating things, China, which considers itself a "near-Arctic state," plans to create new shipping lanes with its "Polar Silk Road" initiative.
The Air Force's Arctic strategy notes that, while adversaries seek to capitalize on the changing environment, it presents looming hazards for the service. "Reductions in single- and multi-year polar ice are accelerating the rate of coastal erosion, putting Air and Space Forces' already sparse infrastructure at risk," it states..
"When the full complement of planned F-35s arrive at Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska's unparalleled concentration of fifth-generation fighters will project unmistakable influence," she said.
By 2022, Alaska will be home to one of the highest concentrations of stealth aircraft operating in the Pacific theater and near the Arctic Circle. A total of 54 conventional takeoff and landing versions of the Lightning II are scheduled to arrive by December 2021. The base also has KC-135 Stratotankers and F-16 Fighting Falcons, which often serve as aggressor air or "red air" training aircraft to simulate air-to-air battles with jet fighter counterparts.
Adding more U.S. jets to the region also presents an opportunity for allied nations to integrate and learn from American pilots, officials have said. The 354th Fighter Wing at Eielson accepted its first F-35s in April as part of the enhanced build-up.
Despite its progress, the Air Force said it must advocate for future investments to its infrastructure in order to "match future operational needs." Those needs also contribute to homeland defense, according to the new strategy. However, it does not outline how officials have begun planning for these unspecified investments, how much they will cost or how the service will appeal to Congress for additional authorization.
For example, the Pentagon for years has been looking to update its early missile detection systems, many of which are located in the north.
The binational steering group was tasked with analyzing ways "to manage the eventual replacement of the North Warning System, which is our network of surveillance radars across Alaska and northern Canada" to protect against cruise missile threats posed by countries, Robinson said at the time.
The Air Force continues "to work with Canada to identify materiel and non-materiel solutions to the North Warning System," the strategy states, without disclosing more details.
Missile defense depends on communications, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance -- all aided by space operations, added Raymond. "Spacepower is essential to Arctic operations, allowing us to see with clarity, navigate with accuracy, and communicate across vast distances," he said.
The missions must all converge under a comprehensive, cross-domain network, Goldfein added.
China Sent Warships to Alaska and threatened the US. China sent advanced warships to waters near the Aleutian Islands in Alaska, reportedly in retaliation to the U.S. naval presence in the South China Sea. This could also be a display of the new force of the Chinese navy. Four Chinese warships, including one of its most advanced destroyers and a missile cruiser, were spotted sailing in the waters off Alaska in late August.
The China-US conflict has increased sharply in the past few months, with experts saying there is a risk of an all-out war. What is behind this hostility, and what kind of world order is Beijing aiming for? DW analyzes.
At the 19th convention of the Communist Party in October 2017, Chinese President Xi Jinping said that a "new era" had dawned for China and that the People's Republic was "getting closer to the center of the world every day." But how does China imagine a world order in which it is at the center-stage?
"My understanding is that the political forces in Beijing do not know exactly what they want. They're experimenting with Deng Xiaoping," Gu Xuewu, a Bonn-based political scientist, told DW, referring to the Chinese politician who initiated economic reforms in the 1980s. Deng's famous motto was "crossing the river by feeling the stones."
China's indecision is also reflected in complex debates about its role in the world, according to Volker Stanzel, a China expert and former German ambassador to Beijing. The debates deal as much with Beijing's acceptance of the prevailing global order as with the idea that China – chosen by fate – must lead the world.
As varied and complex these discussions appear to be, the Communist Party of China (CPC) has the final say in all matters, which are not necessarily about world order, according to Stanzel. "It is only a question about China being able to function in a way that the ideas of the CPC can be implemented, and which can help it stay in power."
Core elements of the 'Chinese world order'
Despite these ambiguities, Gu says that some key elements of the "Chinese order" can still be identified. "China wants a world order that is politically multipolar, functionally multilateral and ideologically pluralistic."
The expert explained China's ideals as follows:
Multipolar: A world dominated by several power centers – China, the US, Europe, Russia and maybe India.
Multilateral: A world in which no country alone determines the global agenda; it must be negotiated between all power centers.
Pluralistic: The world must accept different forms of governance and not just liberal democracy.
"We already live in a multipolar world," Gu said. Many political scientists agree that the short phase of American hegemony following the collapse of the Soviet Union no longer exists.
In China, multilateralism has been linked to Xi's catchphrase, "the community of common destiny." In 2019, Xi rejected isolationism and positioned China as a supporter of multilateralism in a speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos.
But Stanzel is skeptical.
"Common destiny is empty talk; it needs to be defined. How do you want to organize the world? With more international laws and stronger global institutions? But I don't think that either China or the US are interested in this," Stanzel said.
Both China and the US, however, give little value to international laws, said Gu. "They accept them only if they suit their own interests. They reject them if they conflict with their interests."
Beijing wants to improve its global image, with Confucius institutes promoting Chinese language and culture across the world. At the same time, Chinese investors are buying media companies in an attempt to alter China's global perception.
China is also actively participating in the United Nations. "China chairs four international institutions – twice as many as the US – and uses its position to include its political expression in UN documents," Stanzel said.
However, the success of Chinese measures is uneven in different parts of the world. "The narrative is successful in Africa, more so in states that are economically tied to China," Stanzel added.
In Germany and other industrialized countries, China's image has been dented due to its somewhat aggressive diplomacy. The detention and reeducation of hundreds of thousands of Uighurs in Xinjiang and the massive curbs on the freedom of Hong Kong citizens have further damaged China's reputation in Europe and the US. For now, the U.S. is not flying any reconnaissance missions over the Ukraine, nor able to use aircraft to bring aide to Ukraine. The F-35s will police NATO airspace over the Baltic and Black Sea regions from Estonia’s Amari Air Base, Lithuania’s Siauliai Air Base and Romania’s Fetesti Air Base, the service said in a release.
The new Silk Road (Belt and Road Initiative, BRI), which was initially hailed as the world's largest infrastructure project, has also turned out to be a double-edged sword for many countries. Some critics say the project is making economically weak countries dependent on China. Sri Lanka, for instance, had to lease a deep seaport in Hambantota to a Chinese company for 99 years after failing to pay back loans.
Dominance in Asia
Gu believes that Chinese ambitions are significantly overestimated. "Anyone who wants to lead the world must be able to make general goods available free of charge and have a certain altruistic zeal to implement certain ideas globally," he said, adding that China lacks that. "China actually does not want to replace the US. It is even wary of taking on these tasks."
But even if China does not strive for global hegemony, its supreme status in Asia is beyond any doubt.
President Xi talked about "Asia for the Asians" in a 2014 speech. But what does the "Asia for the Asians" mean in the context of the Chinese order? A 2010 statement to the Association of the Southeast Nations (ASEAN) by then Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi can help us understand the dynamics: "China is a big country and other countries are small. It is simply a fact."
Nowhere in Asia is China's hegemonic claim more obvious than in the South China Sea. China is not only trying to force the US out of the region, it is also bringing key shipping routes and raw materials of the neighboring countries under its control. The consequences for "peripheral states" are instability and the growing pressure to choose between China and the US. There is also an increasing danger of an all-out military confrontation.
The Solomon Islands on Friday defended plans to sign a security deal with Beijing that could allow China to boost its military presence in the South Pacific island nation. A document, leaked on social media, revealed details of the pact, raising alarm bells in Australia, amid concerns China could try to establish a military base on the islands. The document says the Solomon Islands may "request China to send police, armed police, military personnel and other law enforcement and armed forces." It said Beijing could also send ships for stopovers and to replenish supplies. The draft also allows China to have the final say on any public information released about the new pact. The leak is believed to be part of wider security arrangements after the Solomons on Thursday agreed on a policing cooperation pact with China following anti-government protests in November that turned into riots. A Solomon Islands official told Reuters news agency that the agreement would be sent to the cabinet for consideration. Australia and New Zealand have for decades seen the Pacific islands as their "backyard" and any security pact with Beijing is a threat to their position in the region. Washington and Canberra have long been concerned about the potential for China to build a naval base in the South Pacific, allowing its navy to project power far beyond East Asia. Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison said Australia and New Zealand were part of the "Pacific family" and had a history of providing security support and responding to crises. "There are others who may seek to pretend to influence and may seek to get some sort of hold in the region and we are very conscious of that," he told reporters. Former Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd told ABC Radio the proposed pact was "one of the most significant security developments that we have seen in decades and it's one that is adverse to Australia's national security interests." Australian Defense Minister Peter Dutton said any move to establish a Chinese military base in the Solomon Islands would be concerning. "We want peace and stability in the region. We don't want unsettling influences and we don't want pressure and coercion that we are seeing from China," Dutton told Channel Nine TV. New Zealand said Friday it would raise the issue with both the Solomon Islands and China. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin on Friday called on relevant parties to look at the security pact "objectively and calmly and not over-interpret it." About the security arrangement with Beijing, the Solomon Islands government said in a statement it was "diversifying the country's security partnership including with China." It added that "broadening partnerships is needed to improve the quality of lives of our people and address soft and hard security threats facing the country.” The government said the security arrangement with Australia, signed in 2017, would be unaffected.
Thursday, July 28, 2022
Intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) armed with nuclear warheads can be intercepted during the boost phase, midcourse phase and terminal phase. But the complexities around intercepting them is not what you think.
WWIII WILL NOT START OVER A WAR WITH CHINA IN PHILIPPINE WATERS OR TAIWAN BASED ON CHINA'S LIMITED ALLIANCE
With the tremendous political tension both within and between the United States, the European Union, China, and Russia, there's been a lot of speculation around the possibility of a new large-scale global conflict between the world powers in the form of another Great War. Will World War 3 happen? Where will it start? What will spark it? What would it be like? Who will win? And What will change?
In June 2019, a Chinese militia ship sank a Filipino boat in the South China Sea in an act of aggression that left the Philippines looking weak and powerless. The Chinese Navy has boldly sailed its aircraft carrier and escort ships through the Philippines’ Sibutu Passage without prior permission, violating Philippine sovereignty. China is claiming almost all of the territory of the South China Sea that includes the West Philippine Sea within the nine-dash line that it has drawn around the edge of the South China Sea.
The Scarborough Shoal, the Spratlys and Pag-asa groups of islands and other islands are well within the Philippines’ 12-nautical mile territorial sea and the 200-nautical mile exclusive economic zone. In the face of Chinese claims, this right has been upheld by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague. In a historic decision, the court declared “there was no legal basis for China to claim historic rights to resources within the sea areas falling within the ‘nine-dash line.” “Having found that none of the features claimed by China was capable of generating an exclusive economic zone, the tribunal found that it could — without delimiting a boundary — declare that certain sea areas are within the exclusive economic zone of the Philippines, because those areas are not overlapped by any possible entitlement of China.”
China does not recognize the international arbitration decision and did not attend the hearings. Instead, it continued to build up its military power on several islands claimed by the Philippines, installing long-range surface to air missiles and building structures and aircraft runways. In a belated response, the Philippines began in 2020 to build up infrastructure on Pag-asa Island, one of its biggest inhabited islands on the Spratly Islands.
Despite Chinese objections, after two years of delay, the Philippines has built a landing ramp and a wharf for small ships to dock and land equipment to pave the existing 1.2-kilometer dirt runway. Pag-asa Island is just 26 kilometers northeast of the Subi Reef, now a large Chinese military installation (one of several) on a man-made island and armed to the teeth but is within Philippines territorial waters.
Over the course of the last month, tensions have mounted sharply between the Philippines and China over the presence of Chinese vessels anchored in the disputed waters of the South China Sea. The tensions are finding open expression in Philippine politics, where the bourgeois opposition to President Rodrigo Duterte had gathered to form a coalition party, 1Sambayan, whose fundamental concern is to reorient Philippine foreign relations away from Beijing and back into the camp of Washington.
The heightened tensions first emerged over the announcement in late March, in the same week that 1Sambayan was founded, that Chinese vessels were anchored near Whitsun Reef, a feature of the South China Sea claimed by both countries. The Chinese government initially stated that the boats were fishing vessels sheltering in the boomerang shaped atoll from the brunt of a storm. While some vessels departed, others remained anchored in at Whitsun Reef for over a month.
In this Feb. 6, 2020, file photo, Philippine Secretary of Foreign Affairs Teodoro Locsin Jr. gestures during a senate hearing in Manila, Philippines. (AP Photo/Aaron Favila, File)
Tensions sharpened further on April 27, when the Philippine Coast Guard reported that seven Chinese vessels were anchored near the Sabina shoal in the northeastern portion of the Spratly islands. After the Coast Guard confronted the ships, the Chinese vessels departed the area.
Philippine Secretary of Foreign Affairs Teodoro Locsin issued a statement that revealed how far tensions had mounted. He declared that any attack on a Philippine vessel, “however small, as long as it is a government vessel, is an attack on the US, triggering the MDT [Mutual Defense Treaty] and that response is global.”
Locsin was referring to the 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty between the United States and the Philippines that states that an attack on either party was an attack on both. He was stating that if shots were fired in the South China Sea the result would be a global war. Far from urging caution, however, he went on, “We must have the courage to go where probably we cannot go back from.”
On May 3, Locsin escalated further, issuing a vulgar tweet, “China, my friend, how politely can I put it? Let me see... O... GET THE F..K OUT.” He went on to refer to China as “an ugly oaf.”
Locsin belatedly issued a public apology, not to China, but to his counterpart, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, declaring “I just don’t want to lose my friendship with the most elegant mind in diplomacy with manners to match.”
Japan, through its Self-Defense Forces (SDF), announced that it would be providing a $US1.1 million defence aid package to the Philippines, supplying the Philippine military with non-lethal aid, and Japanese troops would be providing Filipino forces with training. The deal marks the first time that the SDF is supplying military equipment as a form of official development assistance.
CHINA IS A COLONIZER, LAND GRABBER AND A PAPER TIGER LET GENERAL AUSTIN CHALLENGE THEIR BLUFF; END CHINA'S THIEVERY AND BULLYING AGAINST THIS WORLD
Gen. Austin’s Strategy for US-China conflict will stop war more likely
The United States needs to prepare for a potential future conflict bearing little resemblance to "the old wars" that have long consumed the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said Friday in his first significant policy speech.
Austin called for harnessing technological advances and better integrating military operations globally to "understand faster, decide faster and act faster."
"The way we fight the next major war is going to look very different from the way we fought the last ones," Austin said during a trip to the Hawaii-based U.S. Pacific Command.
Austin did not explicitly mention rivals like China or Russia. But his remarks came as the United States starts an unconditional withdrawal from Afghanistan, on orders from President Joe Biden, aimed at ending America's longest war and resetting Pentagon priorities.
Austin acknowledged that he has spent "most of the past two decades executing the last of the old wars."
Critics say withdrawing from Afghanistan will not end the Asian country's internal conflict or extinguish the threat of terrorism.
Austin's remarks did not appear to prescribe specific actions or predict any specific conflict. He instead appeared to outline broad, somewhat vague goals to drive the Pentagon under the Biden administration.
"We can't predict the future," Austin said. "So what we need is the right mix of technology, operational concepts and capabilities — all woven together in a networked way that is so credible, so flexible and so formidable that it will give any adversary pause."
Preventing a conflict would mean creating "advantages for us and dilemmas for them," he said.
U.S. responses could be indirect, he said, outlining a scenario in which cyberwarfare could be used "to respond to a maritime security incident hundreds of miles away."
Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin is advocating an approach to national security that he calls integrated deterrence. It is designed to employ the full range of American capabilities, used either punitively or preventively, to persuade potential aggressors not to attack the United States or its core overseas interests.
Having argued for a similar concept — which I call indirect or asymmetric defense in a new book, “The Art of War in an Age of Peace: U.S. Grand Strategy and Resolute Restraint” (with equal emphasis on resoluteness and restraint) — I agree with Secretary Austin. The framework he advocates merits greater discussion and elucidation — and, most of all, action, especially in the non-military realms of national security policy.Part of why the concept of integrated deterrence — including economic instruments of multiple types, as well as cyber, informational and diplomatic capabilities — is so important is this: A classic military invasion or large-scale attack by Russia or China seems far less likely than smaller, more limited and possibly “gray-area” aggression. We need credible responses where the punishment fits the crime, rather than imagining that the world’s greatest military would come quickly to the rescue by, for example, sinking
China’s 350-ship navy in the opening days of battle over islands in the western Pacific, as some have implied we might do. And we need to worry about actions that might fall short of direct assaults on American treaty allies, such as a Chinese attack on Taiwan or an expanded Russian attack on Ukraine, that nonetheless would be unconscionable and impossible to ignore.
Indeed, today, the possibility exists that Washington could be forced to choose between risking war and appeasing Chinese or Russian aggression in ways that ultimately could lead to much graver threats. This is a Catch-22 we need to avoid.
In the event of limited enemy aggression — say, the seizure of a contested island in the Baltic Sea or western Pacific, perhaps a partial Chinese blockade of Taiwan to squeeze the island into strategic submission — a large-scale U.S. and allied response could seem massively disproportionate. Yet a non-response would be unthinkable and potentially inconsistent with American treaty obligations and other commitments. Washington could be faced with two equally senseless, unacceptable options.
Integrated deterrence and asymmetric defense offer alternatives. Without renouncing the possibility of a direct response to liberate allied territory, they could meet China or Russia at whatever level of escalation Beijing or Moscow wanted to consider in a proportionate (though not necessarily identical or symmetric) fashion. This strategy would combine military elements with economic warfare.
The military components could feature redeployments during and after a crisis, strengthened forward defenses, and perhaps limited military attacks against Russian or Chinese assets, quite possibly in other theaters from where the initial attack occurred.
The instruments of economic warfare could include offensive elements, notably various types of sanctions that might evolve and expand with time during a crisis and perhaps beyond. The sanctions could feature targeted penalties against individuals, or more sweeping restrictions against whole sectors of an adversary’s economy, and should be applied in conjunction with as many U.S. allies as possible. Such economic instruments would have to include defensive measures to ensure the resilience of the United States and its allies against possible enemy reprisal.
China joins Russia in warning it will 'not stand idly by' if the US deploys medium range missiles after tearing up arms control treaty
Above all, if the United States military focuses on preparing for the next war, then it may also accomplish what Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin calls the cornerstone of America's defense—ensuring that it never has to fight one. The United States may never see eye-to-eye with China on the sovereignty of the South China Sea or with Russia on European security. By developing credible military options, however, the United States may be able to deter both powers from using force to change the status quo.
No matter what the Biden administration says in its next defense strategy, interstate competition will be a reality. Recognizing this geopolitical backdrop, however, is different than tasking the Defense Department to compete. Combatting the military threat posed by China and Russia will require the Department of Defense's full concentration, especially in an era of more constrained resources. Dropping “competition” from the next defense strategy would be a good place to start.
Raphael S. Cohen, a former active-duty Army officer, is a senior political scientist and the acting director of the Strategy and Doctrine Program, Project AIR FORCE at the nonprofit, nonpartisan RAND Corporation.
This commentary originally appeared on The Hill on May 17, 2021. Commentary gives RAND researchers a platform to convey insights based on their professional expertise and often on their peer-reviewed research and analysis.
China has said it will 'not sit idly by' if the US chooses to deploy intermediate-range missiles to the Asia-Pacific region after walking away from a treaty that banned the weapons (pictured, a retired Chinese missile at a military museum in Beijing)
Beijing was not a signatory to the original Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, and Washington has said it tore up the deal in part to counter threats from China (file)
Trump has said he is keen to sign a new pact that includes both Russia, which was signed up to the previous deal, and China, which was not.
However, fears have been growing of a new arms race after Washington announced its intention to test a new intermediate-range weapon in the coming weeks.
The INF Treaty, signed by the US and the USSR in 1987, banned both countries from using land-based ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and missile launchers with ranges of 500–5,500 kilometres (310 and 3,400 miles, respectively).
The US Navy’s new anti-ship missile scores a hit at RIMPAC, but there’s a twist
Check out old U.S. Navy ships blowing up as part of RIMPAC 2018 exercise
The U.S. surface fleet’s brand-new anti-ship missile was used as part of the barrage of rockets and missiles that put an end to the landing ship tank Racine on July 12 during the Rim of the Pacific exercise, but it wasn’t shot by the Navy.
The U.S. Army shot the Naval Strike Missile from the back of a truck using its Palletized Load System in a demonstration that is likely to raise eyebrows in China. The missile, a joint venture between the Norwegian company Kongsberg and Raytheon, was fired from the Pacific Missile Range Facility in Barking Sands, Hawaii, at the former USS Racine, which was floating 55 nautical miles north of Kauai, Hawaii.
Joining the U.S. Army was the Japanese Ground Self-Defense Force, which fired Mitsubishi’s Type 12 surface-to-ship missile.
The Navy inked a contract with Raytheon to start buying the NSM for its littoral combat ships and likely its future frigate. The Army’s shot successfully detonated on target, according to U.S. Pacific Fleet officials.
The shots dovetails with a concept that the Army and the JGSDF have been developing, known in some circles as “archipelagic defense,” which in essence calls for the use of ground forces to deny Chinese forces free movement through the theater by deploying anti-ship and anti-air missiles throughout the island chains that pepper the Asia-Pacific region.
Ghost Riders in the Sky! Three US Stealth Bombers - each costing $2.1bn and with call-sign 'DEATH' - soar over Dover after leaving RAF base for secret training mission in Europe
Three US B-2 Stealth Bombers have taken to the skies above Britain from an RAF base in Gloucestershire
The planes, valued at $2.1billion each and capable of carrying nuclear weapons, arrived in the UK last night
They have come to the continent to take part in a series of training activities, claimed a US forces spokesman
Three US Stealth bombers, which cost $2.1billion each and $135,000 an hour to operate, have been pictured taking part in a European training mission above the skies of Dover.
The United States Air Force B2 Spirit bombers, designed to be virtually undetectable to radar and carry 20 tonnes of nuclear or conventional bombs, were filmed arriving under cover of darkness on Tuesday night at RAF Fairford, Gloucestershire.
They are in Europe to take part in 'long planned' NATO training missions with their European allies, according to a Royal Air Force spokesman.
Incredible pictures show two of the bombers flying alongside two Royal Air Force F-35B lightning jets from RAF Marham, near the White cliffs of Dover and above a wind farm as they conduct an integrated flying practice.
This is the first time the US bombers have trained with non-US F-35's.
Three US Stealth bombers have been pictured taking part in an integrated flying practice with two Royal Air Force F-35 lightning jets in the skies of Dover (Pictured: One B2 spirit bomber and two RAF F-35's fly over the English channel near Dover)
The B2 spirit bombers, which cost $1.2billion each and an estimated $135,000 an hour to run, have been designed to be virtually invisible to radar and to be capable of evading air defence systems. (Pictured: Two B2 Spirit bombers and two RAF F-35 lightning jets take part in a training flight above the white cliffs of Dover today)
+13
The bombers touched down in RAF Fairford, Gloucestershire, on Tuesday night. The base is used by the bombers as it has a longer runway than other air force bases and climate-controlled B2 aircraft hangars. (Pictured: A B2 Spirit bomber flies through the skies above the UK)
The planes arrived in the UK using the callsigns DEATH 1, DEATH 2 and DEATH 3. Footage shows the planes on the specially-designed long runway shortly after arrival.
With a 172-foot wingspan and a design that allows them to travel 10,000 miles with only one mid-air re-fueling, so that they could bypass Soviet air defence systems, they are one of the most deadly warplane models in the sky.
After the planes failed to materialise at RIAT this year aviation fans were left wondering when they would next come to the UK, following a visit last year and a posting at RAF Fairford the year before.
The base is one of the few places where the distinctive weapons, which have smooth flat wings with sharp angular edges to deflect radar, can land as it has a long runway and specially-built climate-controlled B2 hangers.They touched down in the UK at 1am on Tuesday night.
An airfield spokesman said: 'The United States Air Force are deploying a variety of aircraft and support personnel to RAF Fairford during August and September 2019.'
'While deployed to the UK the aircraft will conduct a series of training activities in Europe, these activities are long planned.'
US stealth bombers arrive at RAF Fairford for training mission
They are capable of carrying nuclear bombs as well as conventional explosives and were designed to be able to deliver a payload to the Soviet Union as they could evade their air defence system due to their ability to fly 10,000 miles and only need to refuel once (Pictured: A B2 Spirit bomber swoops above the Dover shoreline)
The US initially ordered 132 of the mighty 172-foot wingspan warplanes (one is pictured here flying over the windfarms near Dover) before cutting the order to just 20 following the collapse of the Soviet Union
A B2 Spirit fighter flying above the white cliffs of Dover with two RAF F-35 lightning jets. It touched down in the UK with two others at 1am on Tuesday night
Two B2 bombers are shown here flying with two F-35 RAF lightning jets above the white cliffs of Dover. An RAF spokesman confirmed that they had come to the UK to take part in NATO training exercises
The planes have previously been used for combat in Kosovo, where they bombed Serbian forces as NATO countered ethnic cleansing in the region, to take out Taliban targets in Afghanistan, and more recently to hit ISIS positions in Syria. (Pictured: Two Stealth bombers with two F-35 lightning jets flying along the Dover coastline
They are a small part of a US fleet of 20 Stealth Bombers, the country's most technologically advanced aircraft ever made, which are based at Whiteman Air Force Base, Missouri.
First designed under the Carter Administration, originally 132 were ordered by the United States. However, this was quickly scaled back following the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Since then the Stealth bombers have been used in fighting over Kosovo, where they bombed Serbian forces as NATO countered ethnic cleansing in the region, to take out Taliban targets in Afghanistan, and more recently to hit ISIS positions in Syria.
The distinctive planes, which have a smooth surface and sharp edges to deflect radar, were pictured arriving at RAF Fairfold, Gloucestershire, on Tuesday night
They came to the base as it has a specially designed longer runway and two climate-controlled B2 aircraft hangars
B-2 SPIRIT: MOST EXPENSIVE AIRCRAFT EVER, BUILT TO DROP ARMAGEDDON ON THE SOVIETS
The B-2 Spirit is the U.S. Air Force's deadliest and most expensive plane - a Cold Warrior's invention which has since been used to bomb the Taliban and ISIS.
Each of the 20 operational B-2s is valued at $2.1 billion, and putting one in the air costs an estimated $135,000 an hour, and cannot function in the rain.
On board its flight crew of two can stay in the air for 33 hours, at the controls of a plane designed to sneak into Soviet territory unseen to drop nuclear bombs, then return to the U.S. in a single flight.
The B-2s were first designed under the Carter administration, came close to being canceled, and finally took flight for the first time in 1989, just as the Soviet Union they were supposed to fight was collapsing, entering Air Force service in 1997.
They have been used to fight in Kosovo, where they bombed Serbian forces as NATO moved in to counter ethnic cleansing of the Muslim Albanian minority, and in the war on terror, taking out Taliban targets in Afghanistan and most recently ISIS positions in Syria.
All are currently based at Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri, meaning that the one designated to fly over the Mall is flying 1,042miles to D.C. for the spectacle.
If it flies low enough it will be visible from the ground, but it is almost invisible on radar, with its stealth design making it look like a pigeon on radar screens.
SPECIFICATIONS:
Aircrew: 2
Top speed: 628mph
Range: 6,000 nautical miles, and refuels approximately every six hours
Length: 69ft
Wingspan: 172ft
Weight: 158,100lbs
Weapons: B61 and B83 nuclear bombs, MK84 conventional bomb, MK82 and CBU-87 conventional weapons and AGM-129 advanced cruise missile
How many: 20 operational
Costs: $135,000 an hour to operate, making it roughly twice as expensive to operate as the B-52 or B-1
From a range of 6,000 miles to 518 miles and the ability to carry nuclear weapons: How the two warplane types flying above Dover compare
B2 Spirit bomber
Top Speed: 628mph
Range: 6,000 miles without re-fuelling or 10,000 with re-fuelling
Weapons: B61 and B83 nuclear bombs, MK84 conventional bomb, MK82 and CBU-87 conventional weapons and AGM-129 advanced cruise missile
Aircrew: Two
Wingspan: 172ft
Length: 69ft
How many?: 20 currently operational in the US, 0 currently operational in the UK
Costs: As much as $135,000 an hour to operate, making it roughly twice as expensive as the B-52 or B-1
F-35 lightning jet
Top Speed: 1,200mph
Range: More than 518 miles can be covered without re-fuelling
Weapons: Two air-to-air missiles and two bombs. Underwing pylons enable the plane to carry a 15,000lb payload
Aircrew: One
Wingspan: 51.2ft
Length: 35ft
How many?: More than 19 currently operational in the US and nine currently operational in the UK
Cost: $35,000 per flying hour
B2 Spirit bomber (left) pictured flying above Dover and an F-35 lightning jet (right) preparing for take off on the UK's new aircraft carrier, named Queen Elizabeth II
