"How to Have a Big Disastrous War with China" Topic
3 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please be courteous toward your fellow TMP members.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Modern What-If Message Board
Areas of InterestModern
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Recent Link
Featured Ruleset
Featured Showcase ArticleMore photographs of The Brigadier and his men.
Featured Profile ArticleHow do you depict "shattered forest" on the tabletop?
Current Poll
Featured Book Review
|
Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.
Tango01 | 28 Jun 2014 10:49 p.m. PST |
"In their June 10 National Interest article, T. X. Hammes and R. D. Hooker again propose "Offshore Control" as a viable strategy for a conflict with China. Using CSBA's AirSea Battle concept as a contrast to their ideas, Hammes and Hooker claim that Offshore Control can provide the "military component of the U.S. national strategy in Asia," while AirSea Battle cannot. The DOD's Air-Sea Battle operational concept is not the same as CSBA's AirSea Battle concept (note the lack of a hyphen). The DOD concept was finalized in 2011 and is being implemented at present. Both "ASB" concepts have received their fair share of criticism from Hammes and Hooker, among others; meanwhile, the Offshore Control strategy, originally introduced by Hammes in 2012, has received scant scrutiny. This paper exposes the flawed logic of Offshore Control and demonstrates why it would likely fail if tried, and that using it as a part of the U.S. strategy would risk a large, destructive war with China. It is reasonable to assess that China will continue its attempt to exert regional hegemony in the western Pacific through selective intimidation of its neighbors and reinforcement of its resource and territorial claims. It is also generally agreed that America, together with treaty allies and partners in the region, has the only realistic ability to deter or thwart China from achieving its ambitions. Further, it is in America's and other countries' national interests that China not behave as a regional hegemon but rather "peacefully rise" as a responsible nation working within international norms and respectful of the rights of other nations. Since China may be unwilling to behave in accordance with these norms, the U.S. and allies need operational approaches to address the requirements of possible conflict. Hammes and Hooker have assessed that an approach that directly threatens or attacks anything on China's mainland is both unacceptably escalatory and unlikely to succeed. The CSBA AirSea Battle concept discusses and provocatively recommends mainland attacks. While neither CSBA's nor the DOD's concept are strategies or operational plans, Hammes and Hooker assail them as such. Meanwhile, their Offshore Control is rarely studied or discussed outside their own advocacy
" Full article here link Amicalement Armand |
Klebert L Hall | 30 Jun 2014 6:16 a.m. PST |
The way to have a big, relatively non-disastrous (for "our" side) war with the PRC is simply to nuclear first strike the heck out of their military and industrial targets right off the bat. It's actually the only even vaguely sensible way to go about it, since major war with the PRC is pretty much inevitably going to go nuclear at some point anyway. Not very politically sensible to admit it, though. -Kle. |
Tango01 | 30 Jun 2014 3:13 p.m. PST |
Not very
indeed! (smile). Amicalement Armand |
|