Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Purveyor

(29,876 posts)
Thu May 21, 2015, 02:39 PM May 2015

Why A Forceful U.S. Response To China’s Artificial Island-Building Won’t Float

By William Johnson
May 21, 2015

China’s creation of artificial islands on disputed South China Sea reefs — the actual dredging and pumping of sand, ongoing since 2014 — represents Beijing’s latest attempt to extend its territory and exert pressure over the five other countries that claim parts of the Sea. In response to the island-building, members of the U.S. defense community have in recent weeks called for the United States to get tough on China.

Earlier this month, Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter asked for options for sending U.S. aircraft and ships within 12 nautical miles of the construction. In a May 13 testimony before Congress, Assistant Secretary of Defense David Shear said that the United States planned to station surveillance aircraft and long-range bombers in Australia. (He later claimed to have misspoken, after pushback from Australia.) Rear Admiral Harry Harris, Pacific Fleet Commander, plans to station three additional vessels within patrol range of the Spratly Islands — the archipelago that includes the reefs — to respond to Chinese activity there.

This approach is misguided. Neither Carter, Shear, nor PACFLEET Commander Harris appear to be taking seriously the potential for a violent response from the Chinese. The risk in pushing China too far is great, as China has demonstrated on multiple occasions, when U.S. actions led to dangerous confrontations.

American military planners’ real concern is that the Chinese will use the newly constructed islands — which certainly include a runway large enough to handle military aircraft, and may include facilities to dock military vessels — to extend the scope of their Anti-Access Area Denial (A2AD) strategy. Military installations in the South China Sea would provide platforms for land, air and sea-launched weapon systems sufficient to raise the cost of U.S. military actions in the region to prohibitive levels.

The question then becomes how best to deal with this possibility. Today the United States doesn’t have the resources in place for a major effort in the area unless it is willing to take some very great risks. The only naval vessel home-ported within patrol distance of the area is the Fort Worth, a new littoral combat ship. Otherwise, the closest assets are the ships of the U.S. 7th Fleet, based in Japan, which would have to sail through areas within the scope of China’s existing A2AD capability in order to reach the area. Ships from further away could not be used in a short engagement. A military confrontation holds little prospect of success.

more...

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/05/21/why-a-forceful-u-s-response-to-chinas-artificial-island-building-wont-float/

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Editorials & Other Articles»Why A Forceful U.S. Respo...