I described US arrogant ignorance in my book Space Era Strategy: The Way China Beats The U.S.
In May 2013, U.S. Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan Greenert told Congress that despite deploying a current force of 55 submarines, both diesel and nuclear powered, Chinese navy “is not there yet.” “we own the undersea domain,” he said.
That reminds me of General McArthur’s arrogance in the early year of the Korean War. He believed Chinese troops with inferior arms dared not to fight his well-equipped troops that dominated the air and sea, but forgot such inferior troops would certainly try their best to avoid being detected in order to avoid U.S. air raid. It was unbelievable to him that Chinese troops were able to hide in North Korean mountains in spite of the cold weather, but he forgot that it was natural they had to as U.S. bombs are much worse than cold weather.
His arrogance caused him to lose common sense: Failure to detect something did not mean that the thing did not exist.
Greenert forgot that strategic submarine was made to avoid detection by others; therefore, it was only natural that the U.S. could not detect the strategic submarines China had made and deployed.
China continued to make and deploy strategic submarines to have a submarine fleet of 55, but none of them were able to go to the ocean to carry out vital second strike. Did that make any sense?
If Greenert had not been arrogant, he would have said, “We have never detected any activities of China’s submarines. It seems they have left the entire oceans to us.”
China realized the danger that US ignorance of China’s nuclear second-strike capability may cause the US to attack China with nuclear weapons rashly; therefore, it revealed the existence of its nuclear submarines that the US had been unable to detect through a China-backed Hong Kong magazine The Mirror.
However, arrogant US military regarded Mirror’s report as but boasting. When there was risk of war between China and Japan that might involve the US. For fear of US nuclear retaliation when China had sunk a US submarine (China was confident it was able to do so near its coast), from October 27 to 29, 2013, China’s top official media CCTV displayed in its primetime news footages about China’s strategic submarines.
In February 2014, China showcased its three nuclear submarines at Sanya, Hainan Province.
Reuters report today titled “China submarines outnumber U.S. fleet: U.S. admiral” tells us that US arrogant military has awakened from its arrogant dream. However, compared with what I reveal in my book, US admiral knows less than me about China’s nuclear submarines.
However, it seems to me that US military has not fully awakened.
In a lecture at ifeng TV earlier this month, Chinese Rear Admiral Yang Yi, former director at the Institute for Strategic Studies at China’s National Defense University and currently deputy head of the strategy branch of China’s military society, said he told US officers several times when he met them that the US was wrong in regarding A2/AD (anti-access and area denial) as China’s strategy. It is in fact not China’s strategy. However, US military perhaps just ignored his words and keeps on studying its way to counter what it wrongly regarded as China’s A2/AD strategy.
I point out in my book that China has obtained the capabilities to achieve its strategic goal of wiping out US aircraft carrier battle groups near China’s coast and is developing its integrated space and air capabilities for both attack and defense for its strategic goal of wiping out US navy at high sea in order to defend China’s trade lifelines.
China’s gifted strategist Sun Tze says in his The Art of War, “Know oneself and know one’s enemy, one will never be in peril in war. Know oneself but not one’s enemy, one has a half chance to win and a half chance to lose.” Obviously, the US fails or even refuses to know China.
I doubt whether the US knows itself.
What was US strategic goal in invading Iraq? If its goal was to ensure that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction or to prevent Saddam from supporting Islamic extremists, it should not have overthrown Iraqi Saddam regime since it was found by the invasion that Saddam neither had weapons of mass destruction nor supported Islamic extremists. It had to withdraw its troops after such a goal had been achieved.
If its goal was to bring democracy to Iraq by military invasion, it will lose American people’s support as most of them are peace loving and do not want to change another countries’ political system by US military force. As a result, the US had to withdraw before it was able to set up a stable democracy in Iraq, resulting in helping Islamic extremists grow strong there and arming them with US weapons.
Now, what is US strategic goal in Afghanistan? Can we have any clear idea?
The following is the full text of Reuters report:
China submarines outnumber U.S. fleet: U.S. admiral
China is building some “fairly amazing submarines” and now has more diesel- and nuclear-powered vessels than the United States, a top U.S. Navy admiral told U.S. lawmakers on Wednesday, although he said their quality was inferior.
Vice Admiral Joseph Mulloy, deputy chief of naval operations for capabilities and resources, told the House Armed Services Committee’s seapower subcommittee that China was also expanding the geographic areas of operation for its submarines, and their length of deployment.
For instance, China had carried out three deployments in the Indian Ocean, and had kept vessels out at sea for 95 days, Mulloy said.
“We know they are out experimenting and looking at operating and clearly want to be in this world of advanced submarines,” Mulloy told the committee.
U.S. military officials in recent months have grown increasingly vocal about China’s military buildup and launched a major push to ensure that U.S. military technology stays ahead of rapid advances by China and Russia.
Mulloy said the quality of China’s submarines was lower than those built by the United States, but the size of its undersea fleet had now surpassed that of the U.S. fleet. A spokeswoman said the U.S. Navy had 71 commissioned U.S. submarines.
U.S. submarines are built by Huntington Ingalls Industries Inc. and General Dynamics Corp.
In its last annual report to Congress about China’s military and security developments, the Pentagon said China had 77 principal surface combatant ships, more than 60 submarines, 55 large and medium amphibious ships, and about 85 missile-equipped small combatants.
Mulloy did not provide details about the number of surface ships now operated by China.
He said the U.S. military did not believe China carried nuclear missiles on its submarines, but that it had been producing missiles and testing them.
Note: This shows the admiral is muddleheaded. How can Chinese strategic nuclear submarines conduct nuclear second strike if they do not carry nuclear missiles?
Source: Chan Kai Yee Space Era Strategy: The Way China Beats The U.S.
Source: Reuters “China submarines outnumber U.S. fleet: U.S. admiral”
This is my analysis and prediction of Chinese strategy by applying the art of war, art for being an emperor, etc. that talented Chinese leaders who apply the same arts will adopt.
It has been proved by what Chinese troops did in the past, China is used to surprise attacks in war in accordance with the teachings of Sun Tze, Sun Bin, etc.; therefore, what the inner circle around Chinese leader has decided on its strategy is top secret.
I shall solemnly declare that I have no internal source to reveal such secret. If it turns out later what I describe here is really China’s strategy, it will just be coincidence.
However, there is really the following internal sources:
According to Phoenix Satellite TV, Canadian magazine Kanwa Defense Review does have access to internal documents of China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA).
The magazine said that in PLA internal documents, the US instead Taiwan is now regarded as PLA’s number one imaginary enemy and that the PLA has three ways to fight a war with the US if the US is involved in a war between China and other territorial claimants:
1. Quick actions. As the bases of US navy are far away from the war zone, especially if there is a war in the southern part of the South China Sea. Chinese troops shall take quick actions to destroy the enemy before the US has time to send its navy to the area of battle.
2. US bases shall be destroyed including its logistic and command centers.
3. US military personnel shall be killed so that due to the casualty, US people will oppose fighting a war with China.
Source: Phoenix Satellite TV “PLA internal documents; fighting and win quick decisive battles, the way to deal with US troops” (summary translated from Chinese by Chan Kai Yee)
I believe that PLA internal documents may say so, but those are certainly not Chinese inner circle’s strategy.
Because it is stupid!
The situation in Pacific-Asian Region now is to some extent similar to that three years before the Three Kingdoms in Chinese history.
As soon as we read the famous passage in Chinese history on Zhuge Liang’s longzhong dui (proposal made at Longzhong where Zhuge put forth the proposal), we regarded Zhuge as one of the greatest strategists in China. Why?
Because Zhuge clearly pointed out the kingdom that was Liu Bei’s enemy but Liu Bei should not try to take any area from, the kingdom that Liu Bei should win over as an ally to counter the enemy but should not try to take any area from and which areas Liu Bei could take to establish his kingdom.
For Chinese top strategist, the first question is what country is China’s enemy and what country is China’s ally?
The United States is certainly not China’s enemy because China has no significant conflicts of interest with the US. True, the US has tried to encircle China, but that is because the US is not clear what China may do when it grows into a rival to the US.
The US has made clear that it supports Japan and the Philippines in their territorial disputes with China, but these are only gestures to prevent China from launching a war against any of the two countries. The US will never be so foolish as to fight a war with China for any other country’s tiny islands.
In fact, the US asks both China and Japan to act with restraint while it does not interfere when China drove away the Philippines from Scarborough Shoal.
There is no need for China to fight a war with the US in resolving its disputes with Japan or the Philippines.
Regarding the disputes in the South China Sea, China has always advocated joint exploitation of oil, gas and other resources with other claimants. The recent rapport with Vietnam on the dispute due to cooperation in exploitation of oil and gas resources in fact set an example for resolution of the disputes with other claimants there.
All other claimants have the intention to resolve the disputes that way with the only exception of the Philippines.
China has kept and even enhanced tension in its dispute with the Philippines and will keep on doing so as China will be benefited by such tension. That will be elaborated later.
A war with US, however, will create a long-term powerful enemy for China. First of all China’s trade lifelines will be in great danger. The PLA may be stupid, but China’s new leaders who are of the new generation of talented scholars that emerged during the Cultural Revolution are extremely shrewd.
China will regard Russia as an ally in countering the US. China shall fully support Russia’s efforts in becoming a world number one so that there will be balance of strength in the world. It shall not be afraid that a powerful Russia may be a threat because there is no conflict of interest between Russia and China. On the contrary, both countries will be benefited from cooperation in weapon development and development of Russia’s Siberia.
Even if Russia does become a threat, China can use the US to counter Russia.
China itself shall never try to be world number one. Number one means obligations instead of benefits. For example, the Soviet Union had to give North Korea and Cuba lots of aids to maintain their survival. What did the Soviet Union get in return?
The United States spent a lot of money in defending Japan and the Philippines. What has it got in return?
Certainly, China’s GDP shall surpass the US as it has a much bigger population. In order to enable its people to lead a life comparable to Western developed countries, it shall further substantially develop its economy. However, China shall always keep a low profile. When its GDP has indeed surpassed the US, it shall make clear its intention to refrain from being world number one politically or militarily.
By so doing, China will be able to focus its efforts on reduction of rich-poor gap, fairer distribution of wealth, human rights and democracy. Chinese people will be much better off if China has succeeded in such efforts even if there is no further GDP growth.
There will be two political and military number ones, the United States and Russia, and one economic number one, China, in the Asia-Pacific Region, a stable situation of long-term balance, stability and peaceful coexistence.
Does China have an enemy? Certainly, it has. That is Japan. Unlike Germany, Japan is not repentant for its war crimes during World War II and may try to rebuild its armed force. China shall maintain overwhelming military superiority over Japan. As soon as Japan has revised its peaceful constitution for militarization, China shall launch a thorough lightening attack at Japan and destroy all Japanese military facilities.
China shall learn from the lesson of World War II. When Germany began militarization, Britain and France failed to attack it so as to stop the militarization when German armed force was not strong enough to defend itself. If Britain and France had done so, there would not have been World War II.
In order to prevent concentration of US military near Japan that may help Japan when China attacks Japan, China needs the Philippines’ assistance.
The Philippines was very weak and only occupied eight small shoals that China claim sovereignty of, but China shall maintain great pressure on it and keep tension as high as possible in the disputed waters so that the Philippines and Australia will beg the US and even Japan to deploy their warships and fighter jets in the Philippines. By so doing China will reduce US armed force in the area near Japan.
As the Philippines is a long way away from Japan, when China launches its lightening attack at Japan to stop Japan’s militarization, US and Japanese warships and air force near the Philippines will not have enough time to move back to Japan to resist Chinese attack.
- South China Sea Disputes: Encirclement of China dated July 6
- South China Sea Disputes: Who Is Bullying Who? dated June 26
- South China Sea Disputes: Chinese People’s Obsession dated June 24
- South China Sea Disputes: Lucky China, Unlucky Philippines dated June 21
- China’s Strategy on Recovery of Islands Occupied by the Philippines dated May 28
I write this post due to Mr. Jose Mario Dolor De Vega’s furious response to my post “China boasts of strategy to ‘recover’ islands occupied by Philippines” at China Daily Mail on May 28.
First, I should make clear that the strategy mentioned in the post is neither my strategy nor China’s strategy as proved by Chinese government’s recent words and actions. I sincerely hope that Chinese and Filipino peoples maintain their traditional friendship.
My daughter has a Filipino housekeeping assistant mainly to take care of my granddaughter Piao Piao. The assistant loves Piao Piao so dearly that Piao Piao is very close to her, closer perhaps than to Piao Piao’s mother.
I am always very grateful to her for taking such good care of my granddaughter and we are good friends. Why shall the dispute over some tiny islands, in fact mostly reefs, turn us into enemies?
I do not see anything in the report I translated and posted that may stir up enmity between Chinese and Filipino peoples though I made the mistake in regarding Major General Zhang Zhaozhong’s strategy as China’s strategy because he said that in an interview with CCTV, an authoritative Chinese media. Moreover, it was precisely what China did in dealing with the incident at Scarborough Shoal.
Major General Zhang made me believe that China would drive Filipino troops away from the shipwreck at Ren’ai Shoal (Second Thomas Shoal) by cutting off their supplies of water and food. However, at a routine press conference of China’s Defense Ministry on May 30, to a reporter’s question “a Filipino official said today that the Chinese warships converged at the South China Sea area around the Ren’ai Shoal will cut off Filipino military personnel’s supplies of water and food. Please confirm,” Chinese Defense Ministry spokesman Geng Yansheng said, “It is necessary to make clear that Philippines side’s allegation has no support of fact at all.”
Obviously, Zhang’s strategy is not Chinese government’s strategy.
I posted the news about what Chinese Ministry spokesman said on May 31, but perhaps Mr. De Vego did not see that. Anyway, I owe Mr. De Vega an apology if my post on the “cabbage strategy” made him believe that the strategy is Chinese government’s strategy. I am sorry, Mr. De Vego.
Mr. De Vego’s post obviously will stir up Chinese people’s enmity against Filipino peoples by saying “his country (meaning China) is a mere dirty scavenger, thieves and pirates of the worst kind”.
Territorial dispute is a very complicated issue. No wonder even some Chinese officials are ignorant what is the basis of China’s claim. However, there are certainly sound basis for China’s claim including lots of documents and maps from Yuan Dynasty up to now.
When I studied geography at primary school, Nansha Islands (the Spratly) and the nine-dash line were already in the map we studied. At that time China was the Republic of China before the Communist takeover in 1949.
Taiwan (the Republic of China (ROC))’s claim to the sovereignty of those islands, reefs and sea areas is identical to China’s. The PRC has just inherited ROC’s claim that in 1949. The speculation about the rich oil and gas resources in those sea areas emerged decades later. Therefore, accusing China as “dirty thieves and pirates” who want to grab the islands, reefs and sea areas because of the resources is entirely groundless and will hurt Chinese people’s feeling.
The republic of China has claimed sovereignty since 1911, several Chinese dynasties claimed sovereignty before 1911.
Even if you had better grounds to claim sovereignty than China, you should not use such insulting and abusive language.
Perhaps, such language is common now in Filipino media aiming at stirring up Filipino people’s enmity against Chinese people. However, I do not think such language is suitable for a well-educated university lecturer before he has made himself well informed about the issue.
Perhaps you believe Taiwan is a country other than China. In the Shanghai Communique of the US and China dated February 28, 1972, the US said, “The United States acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China. The United States Government does not challenge that position.” That was in 1972.
What is the situation now? The KMT, the ruling party, in Taiwan and the Chinese Communist Party, the ruling party on the Chinese mainland, both uphold the “consensus of 1992” that there is only one China.
The one China on both sides of the Taiwan Strait has identical claim to the islands, reefs and sea area, i.e. Chinese people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait have claimed sovereignty of the islands, reefs and sea areas since at least 1911.
Major General Zhang’s strategy obviously indicated Chinese people’s unwillingness to fight a war for those islands and reefs, but Mr. De Vego is bellicose. He talks a lot about a war between the Philippines and China in his post.
On January 29 and June 28, 2012, I respectively placed my posts titled “China’s greater Asia co-prosperity sphere” and “China’s dream of a greater Asia co-prosperity sphere” to give my speculation on Chinese leaders’ intention to establish an organization like the EU for prosperity of all the countries in East and Southeast Asia.
As I was for a time close to the new generation of talented intellectuals with moral integrity that emerged during the Cultural Revolution and has seized state power now, I am familiar with their mindset. What the Chinese top leader has recently done proves that I am right.
In early June, Xi Jinping sent Lieutenant General Qi Jianguo to launch a charm offensive at the annual Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore to stress that China wanted peace and was willing to leave the disputes over the islands in East and South China Seas to future generations.
SCMP says in its relevant reports, “On June 19, Chinese President Xi Jinping told his visiting Vietnamese counterpart of Wednesday that maintaining peace and stability in the contested South China Sea was vital for both countries, who should remember their traditional friendship.”
“On June 20, the presidents of China and Vietnam set up a hotline to defuse territorial disputes and expanded a 2006 agreement to jointly explore for oil in the Gulf of Tonkin,” (refer to my posts titled “China tells Vietnam it wants peace in South China Sea” here and “Beijing, Hanoi set up hotline, sign oil deal during visit by Viet president” in my blog tiananmenstremendousachievements.wordpress.com).
As for the disputes between China and the Philippines, I would like to say that China is very lucky while the Philippines is unlucky. Why?
First of all, Chinese people regard as top priority keeping the legacy they have inherit from their ancestors, but such legacy may perhaps be useless or even an expensive burden.
When I studied Chinese geography about Nansha Islands at primary school, I wondered what was the benefit to have those remote uninhabitable islands. They seemed to me expensive burdens that China had to incur lots of expenses to safeguard its sovereignty over them.
However, it turns out that the sea areas around those islands may have rich oil and gas resources and are of strategic importance.
The burdens China inherited have turned out to be treasures.
What good luck!
However China seems unlucky that such treasures have attracted quite a few contenders, especially as China was weak and poor for quite a long time in the past and seemed unable to keep the treasures from being taken away by contenders.
Surprisingly, China has become rich and powerful in a few decades and able to protect those treasures.
What good luck!
On the Philippines side, at the beginning of the 20th century, the United States offered the Philippines the choice to become a state of the United States, but was rejected. If the Philippines had become a part of the US, perhaps the US would have developed those islands and reefs long ago and extracted all the oil and gas in the sea areas there. At that time, China had neither navy nor commercial fleet to counter the United States.
Later, there were US navy and air force bases in the Philippines and the islands, reefs and sea areas were in fact under US control while Mao Zedong neglected development of Chinese navy, but used all Chinese resources for the development of atomic bombs and ICBMs for world hegemony. If the Philippines had seized all the islands, reefs and sea areas in dispute at that time, China would have had great difficulties to recover them.
Luckily, the Philippines drove away the US and took back the bases to deprive the US of the obligations to spend lots of money for the defense of the Philippines. At that time, we were really very happy about that as we were worried that US presence would make it very difficult for China to maintain its sovereignty to the islands, reefs and sea areas given that it took time for China to develop its navy.
When the Philippines began to contend with China for the islands, reefs and sea areas, China had grown relatively rich and was developing its navy quite quickly. Still, the Philippines has occupied some shoals and China and the Philippines both patrolled and fished in the rich fishing area around Scarborough Shoal.
In my opinion, even though China has sovereignty over Scarborough Shoal, the two countries shall maintain the previous status quo. China shall allow Filipino fishermen to fish there as like Chinese fishermen, quite a few Filipino fishermen had been fishing there for generations; therefore, before the standoff there, China did not drive away Filipino fishermen from the sea area though perhaps, China had the intention to do so.
Luckily for China, Filipino navy tried to drive away Chinese fishermen and provided China with the excuse to drive away Filipino fishermen. China is thus very lucky to gain complete control of Scarborough Shoal peacefully.
Luckily again, Filipino coast guards fired at Taiwanese fishermen and killed one of them. As China regards Taiwan as a part of China, it has given China further excuse to drive away Filipino fishermen when China thinks fit.
China was not so lucky with Ren’ai Shoal (Second Thomas Shoal). If the Philippines had sent building materials to stabilize it shipwreck there, China would have had the excuse to drive Filipino troops from the shoal, but the Philippines did not give China such a chance.
By my post “China boasts of strategy to ‘recover’ islands occupied by Philippines”, I provided Filipino and world people with the information on possible Chinese strategy. I believe, if Mr. De Vego had not been so furious as to lose his mind, he would have made calm analysis and known what the Philippines had better do to avoid making China lucky and the Philippines unlucky.