China’s 3-Stage Active Defense Able to Attack US HomelandPosted: August 14, 2017
On July 11, I reblogged US top think tank Jamestown Foundation’s July-6 article “Nuclear Bomber Could Boost PLAAF Strategic Role, Create Credible Triad” which reflects US military’s ignorance of the diametrical difference between US and Chinese military.
The writer of the article Michael S. Chase analyses Chinese air force from US perspective so that he believes that China will develop a nuclear triad like US one.
No, the US has nuclear triad because of the competition between air force, navy and army, each of which wants a share in nuclear capabilities. As a result, the US has to divide its resources among all of them resulting in lack of funds in spite of its huge military budget. Its ICBMs lack funds to upgrade, stealth strategic bombers cannot attack China or Russia as they are not stealth enough in the eyes of state-of-art radar or fast enough to avoid being shot down by potential enemy’s stealth fighter jets and advanced air defense missiles so that it has to develop very expensive B-21 bombers.
It seems that only US SLBMs are powerful enough but the strategic nuclear submarines are very expensive and need frequent overhaul.
In centralized China, the various forces have to provide their information about the strength and cost effectiveness of their suggested nuclear force to be decided by the commander-in-chief which force is the strongest in terms of not only capabilities but also cost effectiveness.
Now China’s ICBMs are most powerful, survivable and cost effective why shall China have a triad nuclear force to dilute its limited financial, material and technological resources?
To be specific, China’s 5,000 km tunnels ensure the best survivability (see my post yesterday “US Ignorance of China’s Much Better Second-Strike Capabilities”), much better than strategic nuclear bomber that need vulnerable airfields to take off and land and SLBMs carried by nuclear submarines with constant threat of potential enemy’s fast growing anti-submarine warfare (ASW) capabilities.
China’s land-based ICBMs can carry much heavier warheads than nuclear bombs and SLBMs so that it can carry more decoys and hypersonic warheads to avoid interception. They are the most powerful and cost the least to deploy. China needs no triad.
Certainly if the navy or air force is able to provide some new capabilities more powerful and cost effective, China has to switch its focus on the new capabilities, but never dilute its resources among competing military officers.
China is developing long-range bombers, but the weapon strategic goal is to deal with other’s powerful navy to ensure that China’s trade lifelines will not be cut by enemy navy.
China is developing super nuclear submarines, but they may be carriers of integrated unmanned underwater and air vehicles capable to attack US homeland. As such drones first sail underwater, it is hard to detect the submarine that launches it. When they leave water and fly very low near their targets there is very little time to detect and intercept them. They will be the best conventional and even nuclear deterrence. If China has such submarines armed with such drones to attack US homeland, the US will never dare to attack Chinese homeland.
The following are China’s three stages of active defense:
First, obtain the capabilities to defend China’s homeland. China’s J-20s ensure China’s air supremacy. Together with lots of other weapons China is entirely capable to prevent Chinese homeland from enemy attack.
Second, to have long-range aerospace bombers to annihilate enemy navy. That will be much better and cost effective than developing a navy with lots of aircraft carriers.
Third, to obtain the capabilities to attack US homeland. That will be conventional deterrence to prevent enemy conventional attack.
Beware of that! China’s long-range bombers and super nuclear submarines are not developed for nuclear triad but to annihilate entire US aircraft carrier battle groups and attack US homeland.
Comment by Chan Kai Yee on Jamestown Foundation’s articles, full text of which have been reblogged by him on July 11 and 24.