|
|
克羅普希先生在《傳訊者》雜誌上呼籲：美國政府採取以下五個步驟，來嚇阻中國在西太平洋(台灣海峽和南海)發動戰爭：
1) 確保烏克蘭在俄烏戰爭中取得勝利。
2) 凍結美國海軍老舊艦艇的退役規畫。
3) 增加菲律賓海域內的空軍基地。
4) 擴編美國海、空軍種的後勤支援裝備與機制。
5) 如果戰爭發生，隨時攻擊中國本土目標的宣示。
我不是軍事或國防議題專家，但我認為以上五點痴人說夢的成分遠遠大於紙上談兵的戲論。
1. 烏克蘭 – 取得雙方能接受的和平協議是最有利的結果。中國擔任斡旋和談的角色的動機之一就是力保普丁有個台階下。俗話說：「瘦死的駱駝比馬大」；俄國軍員雖然吃緊，比起烏克蘭應該還有幾十萬到一百萬的砲灰可用。如我說過，中國只要每年供應幾十輛卡車軍火，俄烏戰爭打個十年不是問題。但NATO國家頂多還能撐個三到五年。以美國為例，舉債上限的戲碼年年上演，援烏軍費三年以後必定山窮水盡。
2. 凍結美國海軍老舊艦艇的退役規畫 – 有這個規畫必然有提出它的因素；不提出化解這個或這些因素的方案，光憑「呼籲」豈能終止「規畫」？我推測，「艦艇退役規畫」源自維持這些老舊艦艇在役的支出，不符成本效益。或者說，它們的在役支出將吃掉「汰舊換新」的經費。
3. 增加菲律賓海域內的空軍基地 – 下一個基地的租金至少比最近的一個貴一倍以上；其餘類推。奇貨可居是其一；中國找個藉口出手干擾的風險增加是其二；國內真實的或導演的反對聲浪暴增是其三；具有成為基地資格的地點數量遞減是其四。
4. 擴編美國海、空軍種的後勤支援裝備與機制 – 這大概是唯一成本可以控管，可行性不等於零的策略。
5. 如果戰爭發生，隨時攻擊中國本土目標的宣示 – 沒有一個美國領袖敢再冒發動核子戰爭的風險。這可是絕子絕孫的決定。此外，以中國人在美國的人數、地位、與實力，一旦美軍攻擊中國本土目標，「911遍地開花」的機率應該超過80%。
在以上四點「畫餅充饑」的構想外，克羅普希先生其它在軍事和政治現況以及策略層面的分析，都頗有可參考之處；值得躺椅上的戰略家們一讀。
5 Steps the US Must Take to Deter a War with China
Seth Cropsey, 05/25/23
The United States faces an unveiled threat from China. Beijing has made clear, in its public pronouncements and its strategic doctrine, that it seeks to conquer Taiwan and engorge the whole of the Western Pacific, ultimately bending Asia’s political structures to its will. The U.S., and the world at large, would be far better served by deterring China than by being forced to defeat it.
The issue, however, is the marginal nature of the military balance.
Thus, the U.S. must take five steps immediately to try to prevent a war with China, by improving America’s deterrence credibility and combat capabilities before hostilities threaten to erupt. Those steps are ensuring Ukraine’s victory in its war against Russia, freezing U.S. Navy fleet retirements, marshaling additional aerial basing within the Philippine Sea, expanding air and naval logistics, and being prepared to hit targets in mainland China if war should occur.
Deterrence requires two elements — the military capability to implement a strategy if hostile action occurs, and the political credibility to follow through on such a strategy. The two are as intertwined as the double helix of a DNA molecule. Absent political credibility, even the most powerful state will face questions over its commitments and suffer probing against its periphery. Absent the military capabilities on full display that can counter and drive back an assault — or punish one severely enough to dissuade it — then an enemy’s aggression often is the result.
The Western Pacific military balance is extraordinarily close. China’s navy — and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA) more generally — have greatly improved their capabilities over the past decade.
Still, the PLA faces difficulties: It appears to lack experience with combined-arms and joint warfare of any kind; it has a massive stockpile of missiles but may struggle to push forward its reconnaissance units enough to track U.S. forces; its aerial tanker fleet is insufficient to sustain a fighter screen in the Philippine Sea, and it has only limited airborne-amphibious capabilities that restrict the size, number, and composition of PLA landing forces.
However, the U.S. Navy has deep-seated issues of its own. Basic ship-handling skills have declined, as have damage-control practices, on many Navy ships. U.S. crews are overstretched as the fleet shrinks and demand for combatants grows. U.S. munitions supplies are unclear in a long war, and U.S. reconnaissance and communications rely heavily on space-based assets that are likely to be disrupted in a conflict’s first week.
Most critically, the U.S. has a serious shortfall of logistical ships and aircraft, while all of its major bases today are within Chinese missile range. By contrast, although the First Island Chain restricts Chinese movement into the Pacific Ocean, combat within the First Island Chain would be easier for the PLA because it could generate forces and repair units from Chinese sovereign territory.
This raises two issues. First, the PLA may identify a brief window of opportunity to overturn the strategic balance in a short war — perhaps because of potential political turmoil in the U.S. that could reduce the odds of American intervention, perhaps because of an equipment disaster like the USS Bonhomme Richard fire that would reduce U.S. forces in the region, or perhaps because of a munitions or materiel imbalance in a specific set of weeks or months.
This was precisely the set of circumstances that Russia very probably identified in March 2021 to February 2022. The Kremlin decided that the U.S. and Europe would not respond rapidly enough to a Russian invasion of Ukraine in order to halt that attack and, once it was completed, Western sanctions would be moderate at worst.
A short-war logic is most likely to trigger a PLA invasion. Indeed, conventional militaries, as distinct from insurgencies, generally seek short wars because mobilization and high-end combat are expensive and politically destabilizing. However, the PLA would certainly consider the possibility of a longer war in its strategizing, and it might conclude, depending on perceived U.S. weaknesses, that it can deal with such a war, calling on its ability to repair ships more rapidly, produce weapons in greater quantities, and collapse the U.S. logistical system.
Defeating China — or, more preferrably, deterring it in the first instance — therefore requires the five steps outlined below to restore America’s military posture.
First, the United States must demonstrate its credible political commitment to fighting a long Eurasian rimland war, principally by supporting Ukraine against Russia. This would have a direct effect on Beijing: Proving the U.S.’s ability to manage one Eurasian coalition through a long war would demonstrate America’s diplomatic-strategic ability.
Equally relevant is U.S. allies’ perceptions. The concept of differentiated credibility — the notion that Eurasian actors in different regions are indifferent to U.S. actions throughout Eurasia, considering only their own narrow geographical interests — is prima facie incorrect. The reality is that Japan, Australia, South Korea and Taiwan all see Ukraine as a test-case of America’s Eurasian resolve and strategic skill.
Other allies like the Philippines, and potential allies like Vietnam or even India, hold similar views, albeit privately. While India may be unwilling to intervene in a Pacific War beyond its immediate sphere, Washington’s ability to sustain a major coalition will impress upon Indian strategists that the U.S. can be trusted as a linchpin state in a broader rimland war, the sort of war that could prompt Indian engagement.
Victory in Ukraine may not deter Chinese action against Taiwan, but it will make Taiwan’s defense more politically tenable.
Second, the U.S. Navy should freeze all ship retirements for the next ten years and ensure that it keeps submarines in the fleet.
U.S. submarines would be the Navy’s primary offensive weapon over the first few weeks of a war, when the Chinese reconnaissance-strike network is likely to remain robust. The more submarines the U.S. can muster, the faster it can degrade China’s network, cutting incisions through which other American and allied assets can strike.
More generally, every ship in the fleet must have a role, even those ships like the Littoral Combat Ships (LCSs) that are not optimized for high-end combat, simply to keep numbers high enough to maintain coverage in multiple areas.
Third, the U.S. Air Force and Navy must accelerate the distribution of their basing networks, shifting from the “superbase” system that has defined the U.S. military since the 1990s to a decentralized, survivable model.
Both services have identified the need for a more flexible base network that diminishes reliance on massive installations within Chinese missile range, such as their base at Yokosuka, Japan, while also creating alternatives to traditional logistical nodes such as Guam. The U.S. must accelerate this distribution process, building out airstrips in less vulnerable areas, while emphasizing joint basing agreements with the Philippines and Australia for U.S. warships and submarines.
Fourth, the U.S. should expand its air-naval logistics. The U.S. logistical fleet is too small for a major war; it is optimized for uncontested peacetime sustainment, not an open-ended Eurasian contingency. The U.S. also must increase its merchant marine, expand the number of officers capable of handling large supply ships, and conduct multiple mobilization tests for the Ready Reserve Force of ships that form the steel backbone of a sustained surge.
Moreover, the U.S. must grow its aerial tanker fleet to enable its tactical fighter aircraft to deploy more frequently during a Pacific war, or risk forcing those aircraft to be based within Chinese missile ranges instead.
Fifth, the U.S. must be prepared to hit targets on the Chinese mainland such as ports, airfields, command posts, munitions depots and repair facilities if a general war erupts. Who imagines that China does not plan to strike American targets, both near and far? Those five target sets will be crucial if a Chinese amphibious assault on Taiwan is to be slowed or disrupted for long enough to organize an effective defense.
Moreover, ports, airfields and repair facilities will be key to China’s plan for any sustained conflict. If the PLA can out-build the U.S. Navy, it can also out-repair it, putting ships back into the fight in weeks or months, while it takes the U.S. and its allies months or years to do the same.
The U.S. must actively prepare, and signal its preparation, to strike the Chinese mainland in the event that China unleashes hostilities against us or our allies — even as it should simultaneously take the other measures recommended here in the hope of deterring war in the Western Pacific in the first place.
Seth Cropsey, president of the Yorktown Institute, served as a naval officer and as deputy undersecretary of the Navy and assistant secretary of defense during the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations. He is the author of “Mayday: The Decline of American Naval Supremacy” (2013) and “Seablindness: How Political Neglect Is Choking American Seapower and What to Do About It” (2017).
Read More
Why nearly $40 billion worth of U.S. weapons may not be enough for Taiwan
To Compete With ‘Pax China,’ the US Should Rejoin Pacific Trade Group
How Our Post-Cold War Culture of Complacency Benefits China
Missiles and Microchips: Biden Lands in Japan to Talk Russia, China
China Prepares For New Covid Wave
本文於 修改第 3 次
|
本城市首頁
看回應文章
等級：8
回應給：
