What The DoD Says About China’s Space and Nuclear Capabilities

The first thing that caught my eye in the 2011 report on Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China was the cover, which says that it cost less than $74K to have prepared the report.  About a third of a man year to create a report that’s a 90-plus page annual deliverable to Congress which will be widely circulated?

Get real.

With that out of the way, let’s get down to the report:

In 2010, China conducted a national record 15 space launches. It also expanded its space-based intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, navigation, meteorological, and communications satellite constellations. In parallel, China is developing a multi-dimensional program to improve its capabilities to limit or prevent the use of space-based assets by adversaries during times of crisis or conflict.

China is working to improve its access to space, enhance their space-delivered capabilities, and to limit the adversary’s use of space.  I’m shocked, shocked!  Let’s see what the space peace-cults have to say about that, if anything. 

And how about some information on the nuclear front?

China is modernizing its nuclear forces by adding more survivable delivery systems. In recent years, the road mobile, solid propellant CSS-10 Mod 1 and CSS-10 Mod 2 (DF-31 and DF-31A) intercontinental-range ballistic missiles (ICBMs) have entered service. The CSS-10 Mod 2, with a range in excess of 11,200 km, can reach most locations within the continental United States. China may also be developing a new road-mobile ICBM, possibly capable of carrying a multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicle (MIRV).

(Snip)

China has made steady progress in recent years to develop offensive nuclear, space, and cyber warfare capabilities—the only aspects of China’s armed forces that are currently global in nature. In the case of cyber and space weapons, however, there is little evidence that China’s military and civilian leaders have fully thought through the global and systemic effects that would be associated with the employment of these strategic capabilities. Additionally, China is both qualitatively and quantitatively improving its strategic missile forces.

Wow.  I thought China did that minimum deterrence thing, but I guess the minimum is no longer the minimum (nor is it likely to be in the future).  And I would have thought they would be able to draw down their strategic missile forces given New START.  Oh snap, I forgot that’s a bilateral treaty which really only affects the U.S. anyway…

But let’s shift back to space:

In addition to the direct-ascent ASAT program, China is developing other kinetic and directed-energy (e.g., lasers, high-powered microwave, and particle beam weapons) technologies for ASAT missions. Foreign and indigenous systems give China the capability to jam common satellite communications bands and GPS receivers.

This means space warfare is an area of major concern (and that space weapons, whether space or earth delivered, are a subset of space warfare). 

And why develop those capabilities on your own if you can get someone else to front the research, development, testing, and engineering costs?

The [2008] DSS [Defense Security Service] report described China’s science and technology collection priorities as: guidance and control systems, advanced energy technologies, nanotechnology, space and counterspace systems, nuclear forces, innovative materials, aeronautics and astronautic mechanisms, computer-aided manufacturing and design, and information technologies. The PRC continues to target these technologies.

The U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security and the Department of Justice identified at least 26 major cases since 2006 linking China to the acquisition of technologies and applications cited above, as well as to current and future warship technology, electronic propulsion systems, controlled power amplifiers with military applications, space launch technical data and services, C-17 aircraft, Delta IV rockets, infrared cameras, information related to cruise missile design, and military-grade accelerometers.

If all this sounds a bit alarming, just remember that China doesn’t see it the same way.  In fact, they’ve pulled out that reliable chestnut of comparison (for reference, the World English Dictionary says that ‘chestnut’ when used informally is an old or stale joke), the Cold War:

The report reflects a “Cold War mentality,” said Wang Baodong, a spokesman for the Chinese embassy in Washington. “We hope the U.S. will take practical steps to work with China for stable and healthy military ties by following the spirit of mutual respect, mutual trust, reciprocity and mutual benefit,” he said.

Wang Chung was apparently not available for comment. 

It’s interesting that Wang attempts to put pin the rose for the security success/failure outcomes on the U.S.  And it’s also interesting that Congress doesn’t mandate a similar report every year for Germany.

Oh, and I guess Wang Chung is available after all…

Shovel-ready aircraft (and their associated jobs)

It’s been pointed out the F-35 program (already a defense bill-payer and sure to deliver fewer-than-planned aircraft) and the apparently turned off sale of new F-16s to Taiwan will be important confirmation issues for Ash Carter.

Already, legislation to allow the Taiwanese sale (contra the administration’s position) is being pondered.  Normally such an effort, offered up by a member of the minority party would never make it out of committee.  However given U.S. unemployment, it will be interesting to see how legislation to authorize F-16 sales plays out.

Guv Train

Our President has a bus tour; their dictator has the guv train to Russia.  Possible North Korean – Russian topics of discussion: repressing human rights, enhancing government power, nuclear weapons, and trade.

And while Putin’s kiss may have once been on Kim Jong Il’s list, it’s now Medvedev’s kiss he can’t resist.  And soon, it’ll go back to Putin.

Dictators All Over The World

Join In

Ride The Guv Train

Guv Train

Lessons Not Learned From Libya

Jim Hoagland at the Washington Post may be a classic example of “Where I stand depends on where I sit.”  So just Where does Hoagland sit?  It would appear to be at the feet of France.

We refer to NATO warplanes playing a crucial role in the rebel campaign when we actually mean French warplanes. President Nicolas Sarkozy’s government has borne the brunt of NATO’s third successful direct use of force to protect civilian populations.

“Playing a crucial role” and “borne the brunt” are quite imprecise.  Reconcile Hoagland’s take to what NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said

"The fact is that Europe couldn’t have done this on its own… The lack of defense investments in Europe will make it increasingly difficult for Europe to take on responsibility for international crisis management beyond Europe’s borders."

Yes, Hoagland fails to address the U.S. provided air defense suppression, aerial refueling, and intelligence in the Libyan effort, an unintentional and minor oversight, I’m sure.  Back to the Hoagland article:

Sarkozy is the big winner in the international political sweepstakes surrounding the Libyan campaign… And French companies are likely to benefit in a new Libya oil rush.

So this is about French politics, oil, and French business?!  Where’s a George Clooney movie when you need one?

There’s also Hoagland’s assumption of success:

Gaddafi’s downfall brings us closer to closing a dark chapter in Arab history — an era when dictators spent their vast oil revenue to finance international terrorism against the West as well as to suppress their own people.

Some consider the Shah of Iran to have been a dictator.  How’s that worked out for the United States since 1979?

Hoagland closes with this:

We must not rush past this opportunity to recognize success, even as it revealed shortcomings, and to encourage Europe to take on more responsibility (and burden-sharing) in an alliance the United States still needs.

Excuse me, but how does the United States still need this alliance and how did this conflict demonstrate such a thing?  Does it fulfill some sort of Freudian need to lead from behind in a non-war with Libya that benefits France?

Laugh Your Guts Out

The HuffPo headline Does Climate Drive Warfare? A New Study Suggests There’s No Question is one of those that asks its own question and then…answers it as well.  (Note: writing that sort of lead saves time and thinking.  Brilliant!!)  What’s the article say?

…numerous books and studies have sought to explore the complex connections between the environment and social friction. But the need to do so has gained increased currency — and urgency — not least because many climate scientists believe that the cyclical climate patterns driving weather in many of the world’s less developed regions will become more frequent and more intense as average global temperatures rise.

That notion helped inspire a new study conducted by a team of researchers at Columbia University’s Earth Institute. Indeed, what [Tropic of Chaos author Christian] Parenti hypothesized anecdotally through [the violent death of Kenyan farmer Ekaru] Loruman’s story and profiles of myriad other conflicts brewing across the globe, the researchers attempt to quantify statistically — perhaps for the first time.

“Big oil” is often accused of holding a particular point of view.  Think an “Earth Institute” might have an already drawn conclusion?

The analysis, to be published Wednesday in the journal Nature, reveals a striking connection between global climate and civil conflict…

So how does global warming climate change climate confusion cause war? 

… [rival tribes are in] conflict over resources, but also from a toxic cocktail of poverty, Cold War militarization and climate [change].

Poverty, envy, power, and conflict over resources explain just about everything about wars’ genesis, actually.  However, it would appear the great wars of the last century (to include the roughly 50 million deaths of World War II) actually preceded “Cold War militarization” and “global warming.”  So what explains them?  (Note: crickets)

Question: so what’s the way ahead on this important topic?  Answer: seek more money!

Still, not everyone is convinced. Halvard Buhaug, a senior researcher at the Center for the Study of Civil War in Norway said he was intrigued by the study’s findings, but he said far more research was needed.

From whence might such research money come?  Maybe the Department of Defense:

Last year, the Pentagon noted for the first time in its Quadrennial Defense Review, a congressionally mandated evaluation of the nation’s military doctrine, that climate change might play in global conflict.

Of course, the QDR is a political-military document and not a scientific document.  Similarly, the phrase “might play” is a qualifier of great significance.

Once Bitten Twice Shy

It’s interesting that then-vice president Dick Cheney urged George Bush to bomb the stealthy Syrian nuclear reactor in the summer of 2007.  As it turned out, Cheney was a voice crying in the wilderness and the administration’s course of action turned out to be more diplomacy.

Why was the diplomatic course of action pursued?  It’s because of the loss of credibility the Bush administration, prior administration, Congress, world-in-general, and especially the U.S. intelligence community suffered following the invasion of Iraq.  You remember: the thought-to-be-there WMDs that were a foundational part of the case for action against Iraq turned out to be not George Tenet’s slam dunk, but rather his missed lay-up.

The lack of an accurate intelligence assessment regarding Iraq limited the ‘kinetic decisions’ regarding Syria, but the reality is Cheney had a brilliant idea regarding the use of airpower; that is, get in, kill people and break their stuff as required, and leave.  Boots on ground?  Fuggetaboudit. 

In fact, Cheney’s ideas was so brilliant, it was later perfectly executed by the Israelis, who have a tradition of pulling off this sort of bold and decisive action in the face of developing existential threats.  Could Israel pull it off today?  With greater difficulty, I’d speculate.  And against Iran?  With greater difficulty still.

But the idea (bold and destructive airpower missions designed to destroy the Syria’s emerging nuclear program) was just what the security doctor ordered.  The IAEA, while blocked in most of their efforts to access the bombed site, still has plenty of suggestive forensic evidence (analogous to the DNA of the OJ Simpson criminal case) regarding the illegal Syrian nuclear program (by the way, the Syrians were signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.  I think the NPT has “the full weight of the law” behind it).  Given the revealed nature of Syrian leadership, bombing the site now appears to have been a superior choice.

In the meantime, remember the lesson of Great White: